Obama tells Ebenezer Baptist ‘none of our hands are entirely clean’

A few months ago, the Obama campaign hosted a gospel event in South Carolina featuring a homophobic entertainer — Donnie McClurkin, a Grammy-winning singer, who claims to have been “cured” of homosexuality, and believes other gays can overcome their “curse” by way of prayer.

There were doubts, raised in some circles, about whether the campaign deliberately chose an anti-gay performer for the concert, as a way of scoring points with bigots and exploiting anti-gay animus that may exist in some African-American circles. There was ample evidence to the contrary, but plenty of observers believed Obama deliberately wanted to “throw gays under the bus.”

If there were lingering doubts about Obama’s character, I suspect many of them were put to rest yesterday.

Barack Obama on Sunday called for unity to overcome the country’s problems as he acknowledged that “none of our hands are clean” when it comes to healing divisions.

Heading into the most racially diverse contest yet in the presidential campaign, Obama took to the pulpit at Martin Luther King Jr.’s Ebenezer Baptist Church on the eve of the federal holiday celebrating the civil rights hero’s birth 79 years ago. His speech was based on King’s quote that “Unity is the great need of the hour.”

“The divisions, the stereotypes, the scape-goating, the ease with which we blame the plight of ourselves on others, all of that distracts us from the common challenges we face: war and poverty; inequality and injustice,” Obama said. “We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing each other down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.”

To his credit, Obama wasn’t telling the congregation what they wanted to hear, but what needed to be said.

It took some courage to deliver this message.

“For most of this country’s history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays – on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.

“And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.

“We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.

“Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.”

Pam Spaulding responded to the speech: “These words are so necessary, but you can best believe he is the only candidate delivering speeches in honor of Dr. King who is willing to say it directly to members of the black community. This topic has always been a perceived as a third rail topic for the other leading Dem candidates, Clinton or Edwards — they are, like many whites, particularly if they see themselves as allies, dread being seen as pointing out the evils and hypocrisy of such bigotry in the black faith community, even as wrong and tragic as it is on its face.”

Good for him.

Even as Obama preaches about being against homophobia, he collects the endorsement from Bush’s spiritual advisor, pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell in Texas.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5469706.html

Caldwell heads a ministry, METANOIA, that runs a “de-gayifying” program for youth.

http://www.kingdombuilders.com/templates/cuskingdombuilders/details.asp?id=23260&PID=236324

Once again, Obama is all words, and no action.

  • Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President…

    I don’t remember the precise statistics, but in the Nevada Democratic caucuses…most whites voted for a white…most blacks voted for a black…most hispanics voted against a black…most women voted for a woman.

    Such voting patterns among Republicans would be disappointing . Among Democrats…they’re depressing.

  • I wasn’t aware candidates can control who endorses their candidacy. Thanks for clearing that up Joe… Now can you point to any real instances of Obama discriminating against homosexuals?

  • Obama is all words, and no action.

    What would you have Obama do? Go to the guy’s house and slap him around?

    After receiving this endorsement, Obama stood up in the black church and directly confronted prevailing African-American attitudes toward gays. That IS taking action!

    What approach is likely to bring change? Publicly making a fool out of the guy (Obama didn’t seek the endorsement)? Or politely ignoring the specific endorsement while publicly confronting the behavior directly (i.e. love the sinner…hate the sin)?

  • For generations, the choices we have had on election days have been white men – old white men, middle-aged white men, young white men, rich white men. Oh, sure, there have been women making their way into politics, and there have been people of color making their way, as well – but the overwhelming choice is white men.

    So, for years and years, people have voted for candidates who didn’t look like them, and we had to trust that they would adequately represent our interests as women or people of color. Now, we have two candidates who look like the millions of people who thought their choices would always be white men.

    Is voting for someone just because of their gender or race the right thing to do? Well, of course not. But I think women and people of color are not just facing a decision, they are facing themselves, being forced to think about what lies beneath gender and race, how much it means, forced to test whether they are responding to an historical moment, or choosing the best person. We’re all facing those questions, challenging the conventions we have lived with for decades.

    Obama is right to remind the black community that it is also accountable for its own role in how people are treated and perceived. In that message is another message: that he is the only candidate who can speak that truth to that community– the white man cannot, and neither can the woman. And in saying what he said, he has also sent a message that there will be no special treatment – something that perhaps older, white people have worried about in considering whether they can vote for a black man.

    Okay, before all of your heads explode, take a breath. I do not doubt Obama’s sincerity, nor do I doubt the explicit message. It was a version of the JFK speech on religion – much more so than Romney’s was, even though Romney spoke exclusively about the role of religion – and it was designed to both unite, and put people on notice that no one gets a pass on the basis of race.

    Now, we’ll just have to see if it holds going forward.

  • Anne @ 5 says Obama “is the only candidate who can speak that truth to that community– the white man cannot, and neither can the woman.”

    Very true. The equivalent would be for Clinton to address women this way, or Edwards to address Southerners this way. It’s still brave, and I doubt you will see it from the other two.

  • This speech is a must-watch. Here’s the video –

    My favorite part was the story at the end about the 23-year old white woman and the old black man having a fleeting moment of recognition, that “shook the walls” of Jericho just a little.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris

  • WORM = White Old Republican (or Religious) Male

    Like much in genetics, the components aren’t necessarily neither good nor bad, but the combination can be deadly.

  • Such voting patterns among Republicans would be disappointing . Among Democrats…they’re depressing.

    And those patterns will stop once the presidency is seen as “equal opportunity.” Once we start routinely having credible, major party candidates who are black, female, hispanic, asian, disabled, gay then people will let go of the patterns. But I think it is perfectly understandable that these groups who have (and still do) suffer inquality, discrimination and in some cases outright oppression cling proudly and tightly to the opportunity to make history, to have the example they can show their children that contrary to what may be the evidence on the street where they live, every opportunity really is open to them and wont be denied due to their race/gender/religion/disability/orientation. It may not be the ideal nor most rational basis for a vote, but there are a lot of things that go into human decisions besides mechanistic rationality. I completely understand where the identity votingcomes from in this case, and I don’t begrudge a one of them.

  • He’s the only choice for someone who wants to end the Bush/Clinton game of ping-pong.
    It’s been 20 years of back and forth nonsense.
    The table hasn’t moved forward an inch.
    The net just keeps getting higher.
    The “wee people” are getting smacked from paddle to paddle.
    It has been a fun ride for them.

    The Dems/Repubs have accomplished precious little since FDR and LBJ.
    It’s just been one shit-angry game of ping-pong.
    There hasn’t been a decent meaningful president in my adult lifetime.
    NOT ONE!
    I don’t expect there will be…
    As Hillary is just more of the same old tired game of tit-for-tat.
    Big Dog is sure good at it. That’s for sure.
    He can stand and lie into a Republican face without even flinching.
    Quite a player for the D’s!
    I know what you are thinking: This ain’t beanbag.
    Nope. It sure ain’t. It’s ping-pong…
    And: Whoopee! We are winning again!
    We got Bill telling lies for our side again!

    EIGHT MORE YEARS OF PING-PONG!
    I can hardly wait….

  • With respect to the endorsement mentioned in #1, it is interesting to note that it is not been listed on the Obama campaign website or actually been the subject of a press release. Until there is evidence that Obama (or any Democrat for that matter) was actively seeking this guy’s endorsement, then I’ll give this endorsement most of you would give my own endorsement of Senator Obama.

  • response to joeCHI @ 1… possibly the greatest truth that BHO spoke was “… none of our hands are entirely clean…” everyone makes mistakes. BHO “sharing” the stage with Donnie McClurkin did not honor in any way, and perhaps can be seen as an insult to, the memory of Bayard Rustin (one of MLK’s advisors… an openly gay man). his courage to call the african-american community out on their homophobia does. politics does make strange bedfellows… and while BHO’s campaign may take money from folks like Kirbyjon Caldwell… i will not place BHO in Caldwell’s homophobic camp.

  • It may not be the ideal nor most rational basis for a vote, but there are a lot of things that go into human decisions besides mechanistic rationality. I completely understand where the identity voting comes from in this case, and I don’t begrudge a one of them.

    I agree with most of this — such an approach to voting is neither ideal nor rational. And yes, there are a lot of factors considered when casting one’s ballot. And I also completely understand where identity voting comes from.

    But I do begrudge identity voting. For majorities, it’s a form of bigotry. For minorities, it’s choosing instant gratification over delayed gratification (an example, in the extreme, would be a choice to support confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the supreme court because of his race).

    We have to be smarter than that. We have to be stronger than that. We have to better than that.

  • @ 10: It’s been 20 years of back and forth nonsense.
    The table hasn’t moved forward an inch.
    The net just keeps getting higher.
    The “wee people” are getting smacked from paddle to paddle.
    It has been a fun ride for them.

    i think that the table was in the process of moving forward and the net was getting to a fairer height… the patient was getting better and then our country entered the years that will be known as the “W plague”… the WORST president EVER plague!!! at every turn… when faced with choices… W always went with what would sicken our country more.

    Bush #1 may have been bad… Clinton may not have been perfect… but none can compare with W. as for FDR/JFK/LBJ… heck even Lincoln and Jefferson and all the others thought of so highly… if they were subjected to today’s media… the blogs… the internet… they may have come away a a bit “slimed” by it all.

  • Good one, #10, though I would modify it that Bill Clinton can lie to anyone’s face without flinching. (“I did not have sex with That Woman.” How many of us went out and defended him to the last ditch on that one?) Fool me once, Billy, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

    Ping-pong – that’s exactly what’s it’s been, and that’s exactly what constitutional republics can’t stand. After 7 years of being shown how fragile it is, we’re supposed to turn it over to the next-worst person for straightening things up? Hold up your hands, all you who think Hill and Billary will voluntarily give up the powers that Bush stole from us as President? Bush-Clinton – two sides of the same coin.

  • Apparently it’s ok for O’bama to walk on both sides of the street but Clinton isn’t allowed since she’d be pandering?

  • Sarah (#14): i think that the table was in the process of moving forward and the net was getting to a fairer height…

    Care to show us a specific example, that makes things better?

    8 years of them promoting NAFTA and the rest of the corporate sellouts, which is how all those jobs in Michigan ended up in Mexico and how all those Mexican farmers ended up as gardeners in Los Angles after they were driven from their land by the invasion of subsidized American corporate agriculture? How not fighting to have worker’s rights and environmental rights front and center in all the globalization sellouts made things better for anybody but the piggies who stand in line to finance the Clintons? How “Republican welfare reform” is working really good now for poor people in this recession/depression?

    W may be malign, but Hill and Billary are far from benign.

  • For minorities, it’s choosing instant gratification over delayed gratification

    The problem is that waiting 220 years, 43 presidents is not “instant” for women or blacks or anyone besides old, white, straight, Christian men. I think a member of a minority group could fairly look at your post and ask how much longer that gratification should be delayed.

    I agree that identity has to be as much about the most helpful agenda as the identifying trait (i.e. your Justice Thomas example) but here the choice isn’t nearly as stark. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards will all do positive things for blacks and for women, light-years ahead of what any of the Republican candidates would do. So when I talk about identity voting, I do so from the starting assumption that any of the Dem candidates are acceptable on the issues important to the identity groups (which is a very different from the Thomas example).

    The problem with saying “we have to be smarter and bigger than to identity vote” is that to a community that has always been shut out that sounds a lot like a way to put them off forever – to turn your comment on its head, if there is never identity voting, if identity groups splinter among candidates, including non-minority candidates, the mathematics is such that one may never have Presidents who are outside of the majority class. That is, discouraging minority identity voting may result in de facto bigotry. That is an admittedly extreme take, but a logical one. As I say, I don’t believe identity politics is ideal, and I hope we move past it soon, but I think it is unrealistic – and perhaps not even desirable – to expect the country to “get over” specifically wanting a black or woman president when we’ve never actually had one to get over.

  • Such voting patterns among Republicans would be disappointing . Among Democrats…they’re depressing.

    WTF does this even mean? Give us a break down of Reps voting patterns for minority presidential candidates or take the concern trolling elsewhere.

  • response to tom cleaver #17… i think zeitgest provided a nice list awhile back… zeitgest i hope you don’t mind the reprint.

    you may not agree with everything but i do believe we were heading in the right direction before W was “selected-elected”.

    * Between 1993-2000, real wages up 6.5 percent, after declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years.

    * 15 million additional working families received additional tax relief because of the President’s expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In 1999 alone, the EITC lifted 4.1 million people out of poverty

    * Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, federal funding for child care more than doubled, helping parents pay for the care of about 1.5 million children by 1998. From 1993-2000, the Clinton-Gore Administration increased funding for the Head Start program by 90 percent, and in FY 2000, the program served approximately 880,000 children – over 160,000 more children than in 1993.

    * AmeriCorps allowed 150,000 young people to serve in their communities while earning money for college or skills training.

    * President Clinton proposed and enacted the HOPE Scholarships and Lifetime Learning tax credits, which in 1999 were claimed by an estimated 10 million American families struggling to pay for college. The HOPE Scholarship helps make the first two years of college universally available by providing a tax credit of up to $1,500 for tuition and fees for the first two years of college. The Lifetime Learning Tax Credit provides a 20 percent tax credit on the first $5,000 of tuition and fees for students beyond the first two years of college, or taking classes part-time.

    * In 1999 crime fell for the eighth consecutive year nationwide. Violent crime rate fell 7 percent in 1999 and 27 percent between 1993-2000. From 1993-2000, the murder rate went down more than 25 percent to its lowest point since 1967, and gun violence declined by more than 35 percent.

    * Clinton enacted the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act in 1994

    * Clinton signed into law the toughest child support crackdown in history. Federal and state child support programs broke new records in 1999, collecting nearly $16 billion — double the amount collected in 1992.

    * Expanded coverage and choice under Medicare: New preventive benefits passed include coverage of annual mammograms, coverage of screening tests for both colorectal and cervical cancer, and a diabetes self-management benefit.

    * The S-CHIP program we all enjoy bashing Bush for refusing to expand was started under Clinton.

    * To help eliminate discrimination against individuals with mental illnesses, the President signed into law mental health parity provisions that prohibit health plans from establishing separate lifetime and annual limits for mental health coverage.

    * President Clinton signed into law legislation that requires health plans to allow new mothers to remain in the hospital for at least 48 hours following most normal deliveries and 96 hours after a C-section.

    * The Clinton-Gore Administration implemented a new science-based inspection system — Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points — and reduced the prevalence of salmonella in raw meat and poultry by as much as 50 percent. The President signed the Food Quality Protection Act, which included special safeguards for kids and strengthened laws governing pesticides and food safety. The Administration also issued new rules to prevent foodborne illness caused by pathogens such as E. coli. (The problem here is that post 1994 the “Contract On America” Congress gutted funding for implementation and enforcement).

    * The Clinton-Gore Administration completed clean up at more than 530 Superfund sites, more than three times as many as completed in the prior twelve years.

    * Signed Brady Bill, signed Family & Medical Leave Act

    * Appointed Ruth Ginsberg to the Supreme Court (and Breyer, but that isn’t quite as big of a deal)

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14271.html#comment-368599

  • If there were lingering doubts about Obama’s character, I suspect many of them were put to rest yesterday.

    No, they weren’t. Not for me.

  • Great acronym # 10
    On January 21st, 2008 at 9:49 am, Ed Stephan said:
    “WORM = White Old Republican (or Religious) Male”

    Obama is a good orator and intelligent. Of course he is also a politician in a world of corporate donors.

    My hope is that he will recognize and start combating the corporate runaway express that is taking over our world, our America, our earth. That is the only issue in my mind because that is the issue that fosters all others. It frightens me that he has said (and in his book) that he is for “free trade”.

    Doesn’t “FREE TRADE” = deregulation and corporate rule and thus degradation of earth in the name of the profit?

  • Joe (#1)—I think you dropped something.

    (Hands Joe the “MP” that fell off the back end of his screen name)

    Now Tom, about those “unitary executive powers.” Whoever we put in the WH will need those powers to undo all the damage and criminality that’s taken place under KG43. Surely you’re not suggesting we trust a wholesale revocation of those changes to a House that’s still riddled with Blue(Republi)Dogs and a Senate that’ll still have enough Bushylvanians to thwart every piece of legislation that doesn’t pass muster with the K Street crowd, are you?

    Whoever Dems put into the WH next January will have to be an individual who will use those powers to the utmost, in order to repair what Bu$h and his gang have wrought upon the Republic—and then voluntarily surrender those powers. If those powers are exploited beyond the basic cause of implementing and completing those repairs; if they are further employed to establish and enforce what many will view as a form of “liberal extremism” (and no—I’m not talking about the Reich babble machine here), then all we’ll have accomplished is to re-start the fires under the soup-cauldron of the Right.

    America has, fortunately, survived this “contract with America.” A repeat performance could be fatal.

    So—we need a President who will take up those powers and use them to the good, rather than merely renounce them—and then surrender those powers once the repairs are made, without exploiting them further.

    And we need a President who will take the necessary steps to make certain that these powers are never picked up again—especially by another addle-brained twit like Bu$h.

    I cannot see a “super-mega-mondo” big-plans candidate like Clinton doing such a thing—and I cannot see a “good-ol’-boy” candidate like Edwards doing such a thing. Both are too deeply indebted to the status-quo of Progressivism, and it is why IO can not support either of those campaigns; not in the primaries, and not in the general. this nation does not need another four-year rendition of “Bush-Wah-Zee” political intrigue.

    I can, however, see Obama as doing such a thing—and that is why I support his candidacy….

  • Not for me either. As always, he talks a good game, but doesn’t walk the walk.

    As long as people see him as a latter day MLK, they will be blinded to his essential conservativism. This is a man who sought out Joe Lieberman as his senate mentor and supported Lieberman over Ned Lamont. This is a man who has been friendly to his state’s corporate donors, including mining interests, nuclear energy, pharmaceuticals and Archers-Daniel Midland. This is a man who does not want mandatory single-payer health care because it might disrupt the insurance industry. This is a man who does not gag when he praises Reagan. This is not a progressive but someone encouraging supporters to project their own hopes onto his canvas. People were fooled by George Bush in 2000 because he lied to them. Why cannot people get it through their heads that this man is not what he seems to be? He is not going to implement the major changes needed to combat global warming, fix health care and repair the economy. He likes Republicans and corporations too much to do any of that. He will ride out a safe incumbency making wonderful speeches full of platitudes, explaining why his hands are tied because congress won’t meet him halfway. We cannot elect someone like that.

  • Give us a break down of Reps voting patterns for minority presidential candidates or take the concern trolling elsewhere.

    If you set the bar by comparing yourself to Republicans, then you’re setting the bar too low.

    …if there is never identity voting, if identity groups splinter among candidates, including non-minority candidates, the mathematics is such that one may never have Presidents who are outside of the majority class.

    Actually Zeitgeist, if there is never identity voting (i.e. utopia), the mathematics are such that about 1/2 of our presidents would be women, about 1 out of 8 would be black, and about 1 out of 8 would be latino.

    I do agree that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are light-years ahead of what any of the Republican candidates would do. But I don’t agree with the assertion than any of the Dem candidates are acceptable on the issues important to the identity groups.

    Also, you’re entire argument rests on the Nevada women that voted for a woman and the Nevada blacks that voted for a black–while ignoring the voting patterns of Nevada whites and Latinos in the caucuses on Saturday.

  • White people have had the opportunity to vote for people who looked like them since the first election, so why the uproar over women and people of color having the choice to vote for someone who looks like them?

    What is that all about, fear? Is this like white people not wanting blacks to move into their neighborhoods? Is this like men not wanting women to come in and take their jobs away from them? Is this the fear of people no longer assuming that the white guy had a lock on the presidency?

    I think it’s great that we have choices in this party, in this election. Yes, it may force us to confront things we thought we had moved past, but if we do it right, that should also be a good thing. Look around people – there are women and people of color at all levels of government and business.

    I don’t hear Hillary Clinton urging voters to pick her because she’s a woman – in fact, I would say that until she choked up in NH, she did as much as she could to keep her gender off the radar screen (although maybe, given Romney’s penchant for actual tears, we should be questioning whether he’s too feminine).

    But she is a woman, and she has a woman’s perspective on things that men just cannot have. It’s the same with Obama – he may not be running as “the black man,” but blacks understand that he knows things about race that white people do not, cannot.

    So, race and gender should not be THE factor in why someone votes for – or against – a particular candidate, but when you look at the reasons why people voted for George Bush or why people want to vote for Giuliani or Huckabee or Romney or McCain, you realize that, as reasons go, it isn’t so terrible.

  • A thought for MLK day:

    IF it’s true that what we hate most in others is what we see of ourselves in them…

    Does that help to explain the vicious anti-Obama reaction by die-hard Clinton supporters at any evidence of Obama ‘triangulating’ to try to win broad support?

  • If Pam Spaulding’s comment is meant to criticize the other candidates, it’s hardly fair. If we all acknowledge that anybody can be racist, and individual blacks can be hypocrites, or not totally think things through, in their approach to racism or people’s rights, then being able to say something like this to them is still something that a black person is just going to be more free to do than any white person.

    I agree with Barack Obama on all the points he made. I do think it was a helpful speech and that it’s a message that needs to be repeated more often (while we do need to continue to handle the problems on the white and powerful ends of society’s spectrum at the same time, however).

    But if Clinton and Edwards are expected to show up before liberal black audiences, to invoke Dr. Martin Luther King, and then criticize those audiences, they are facing the wrong expectations. They will be charged with racism all too easily. Maybe even a humbler white person can talk about problems with the black community’s confronting racism- like, for instance, people like us- but with Hillary and Edwards each thinking (as all candidates presumably do) they’re the “best” candidate, they have too much to lose by recklessly risking their reputations. Coming from a white person, the remarks would be too easy to misconstrue, and once they were misconstrued, it would be too hard to stop the rumor that Hill or Edwards said racist remarks.

  • So Obama regals us with fine rhetoric and we are just supposed to ignore his actual actions?

    Sorry. No dice Steve. It’s nice that he’s throwing around decent rhetoric but he’s already blown the dog whistle.

  • Anne asks, “…why the uproar over women and people of color having the choice to vote for someone who looks like them?

    As far as I can tell, there is no uproar, at least among Democrats, about people “having the choice to vote for someone who looks like them”. To the contrary — Democrats celebrate such opportunities and possibilities. And, all else being equal (as Zeitgeist essentially asserts), making the choice for someone who looks like “them” would be understandable…even laudable.

    But if we focus on the issues….if we focus on the records…if we focus on the proposals…if you focus on the ability to lead the electorate in a progressive direction…if you focus on integrity…if we focus on the long-term…then we find that all else is not equal. So, making making the wrong choice, based primarily on identity voting, could set all of us back.

  • Chris, I think a lot of people are assuming that the “only” reason a woman would vote for Clinton or a black person would vote for Obama is because of the race/gender thing, and while it may be a factor, I think a lot of people are considering the totality of a number of factors.

    The thing is that we don’t all weight the various factors the same way – it’s the thing that makes us all go “huh?” when someone says that they are voting for someone on the basis of his or her position on one issue, in spite of the fact that on all the other issues, it would be a vote against that person’s overall best interests.

    I think there is some uproar – accusations that women are only voting for Clinton because she’s a woman and blacks are only voting for Obama because he’s black. And some questions that women who are not voting Clinton and blacks not voting Obama are “betraying” women and/or blacks. How does someone “prove” that his or her vote is an objective one and not a knee-jerk one?

    Beats me.

  • ROTFLMAO @ 10
    Carter brokered the ONLY Middle East Peace deal.
    Carter started nuclear reduction with teh SALT talks. Talks so successful Republican champ REAGAN picked up where Carter left off.
    Carter killed a grand total of 8 marines and got every hostage home safe (if very very homesick.)
    Carter called for energy conservation and alternative fuel 30 years before anyone took it seriously.
    He did this in half the time 3 presidents got.

    It isn’t a great president’s fault if the public ignores his wise proposals.

  • JoeCHI – how does being endorsed by somebody constitute an “action”? How is Obama supposed to prevent that? Just curious.

  • How does someone “prove” that his or her vote is an objective one and not a knee-jerk one? Beats me.

    “Someone” doesn’t have to prove anything about his or her vote.

    Thankfully, we have numbers —

    http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080119/NEWS19/80119044

    “Two-thirds of [Nevada] caucus-goers were white and Clinton won them by 52 percent to 34 percent for Obama…

    Fifteen percent were black and Obama won 83 percent of them…

    A similar proportion were Hispanic and they went more than 2-to-1 for Clinton…

    Women comprised 59 percent of caucus-goers and they went 51-38 for Clinton”

    Coincidences?

  • Oh come on Chris, you know better – that the numbers went the way they did in no way means it was “knee jerk.” For all you know, every one of those voters agonized about the mix of substance, style, identity, electability, etc. (I grant you it is unlikely that “every one” did that; your assertion, essentially, that no one did is equally unlikely).

    In fact the entrance/exit polls also showed that a large percentage said the Las Vegas debate was important to their decision. That seems inconsistent with your knee-jerk identity voting claim, unless you believe that until they saw the candidates on local television no one realized Hillary was a woman and Obama was black.

  • Chris,

    Obama is having Rev. Caldwell campaign for him. He’s not just merely endorsing him, but working officially on his behalf. Big difference.

    Read the Houston Chronicle article that was linked in the first comment.

  • From the Houston Chronicle:

    The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, longtime spiritual adviser to President George W. Bush and senior pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church, plans to campaign on behalf of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

    snip

    “I have been in contact with the Obama campaign team,” he said. “I will be making visits on his behalf.”

  • Don’t forget ‘Only Nixon could go to China’ or ‘Only Clinton could pass Nafta, gut welfare, …’

  • Zeitgeist — I never said or implied that any votes were “knee-jerk” (nor would I). But numbers don’t lie. There’s only one way to interpret these numbers and that is that that many votes, in the final analysis, came down to identity.

    Peters– I read the clip and what Caldwell has to say? What does Obama has to say, if anything? If anything, this is evidence of Obama’s ability to persuade and go after the independent and Republican vote — a necessary skill in our Democratic candidate. As was pointed out previously, Obama went to a black church and criticized the African-American community’s prevailing attitudes toward gays (after Caldwell endorsed him). So, did Caldwell change or cloud Obama’s views? Clearly not. Did Obama change Caldwell’s views? Who knows? But as we can see, he’s trying. (For the record, I don’t think any of the three major candidates support gay marriage…I’m sorry to say.)

    If you’re trying to compare this to the guy from BET, that clown campaigned with Hillary and made disparaging comments about Obama’s drug use while she was standing there smiling (and then claimed he wasn’t refering to his drug use). On the other hand, there’s no evidence that the Obama campaign sought Caldwell out or will have him campaign in any official capacity, despite what he says (I’m sure they’ll send him a yard sign if he requests one). Let me know if you have more info.


  • A similar proportion were Hispanic and they went more than 2-to-1 for Clinton…

    So hispanics must think Clinton is one of them, according to Chris’ line of reasoning?

  • OBAMA IS A CHRISTIAN
    HE LIVED WITH HIS MUSLIM STEP FATHER
    THAT MAKES HIM A PEACEFUL AMBASSADOR OF
    BOTH PEACEFUL RELEGIONS

  • For the record, I don’t think any of the three major candidates support gay marriage… — Chris, @40

    Neither do I; I support civil unions for everyone — straight or gay. As far as I’m concerned, marriage is a church business and, whether a particular church gives — or doesn’t give — a blessing to such a union, is a matter between its pastor and the congregants. I’d like to see bread-and-butter matters — such as inheritance, hospital visits, adoption — settled, legally, first. The health of one’s soul… I’m an atheist; I couldn’t care less about my (possibly existing) soul 🙂

  • Comments are closed.