The Hot Blog

I cannot imagine attending/supporting a church/pastor (for 20 years!) who had repeatedly made such inflammatory statements that I strongly disagree with and condemn. I would simply switch churches. People do it all of the time. Is equating twenty years of family attendance, financial support, a campaign advisory appointment, etc., with tacit approval of these statements/sentiments an unreasonable position? Is it unreasonable to ask whether Obama actually embraces some of these militant views in his heart? Why not? Because he hasn't admitted as much in his books or campaign speeches? Is it possible that this pastor's statements put Michelle Obama's repeated "for the first time in my life, I'm proud of my country" statements into context?

And I'm tired of the "out-of-context" defense. No one I've seen who's made that claim has even attempted to explain the "real" context. Saying something good 5 minutes before or after the hideous statements is NOT context. Show me where he qualifies/mollifies the specific statements in question in these sermons.

Obama's close association with this man ISN'T irrelevant. He COULD have disassociated himself with Wright (unlike one can/would with family). What did Obama say in this speech that wasn't politically expedient?

Obama could cure cancer and you'd find a way to criticize him for it. Nothing the man does is good enough for you. If his explanation isn't good enough for you, fine, go vote for McCain (who has no shortage of crazy pastor support).

I'm lukewarm-to-warm on Obama, but admired his speech greatly yesterday. If it's between him and McCain, of course he's getting my vote.

Indeed, he could cure cancer and there are those who'd still find a way to criticize him for it. Isn't the case for ANY politician? That's definitely how it is for Hillary Clinton.

But with Obama there's an opposite current that makes it all the harder for someone who isn't a big fan to get onboard his train - and that's the smugness, condescension and seemingly-irrational loyalty/fandom the guy has. You see it everywhere. IOIOI's rants here are an admittedly hyper-extreme version of it, but you also see it in far more subdued ways. People who have just gone completely batsh*t nuts for this guy and believe he can walk on water. I hardly ever see a strong supporter of Obama say anything, anything at all that is less that is less than a total genuflection to the man. That kind of uncritical zeal worries me. To me, it seems like it is built more on feeling than on reason and sound judgment. The result is an unflinching loyalty and total defense that views anything negative as an unfair and vicious attack from someone WHO IS AN EBEMY. Jeff Well's recent banning binge at hollywood-elsewhere is emblematic of this.

Put another way, sometimes I feel like an atheist at Bob Jones University, or a human being at a Bush rally...

sorry for the typo's, including EBEMY (enemy of course) - i really need to start writing in Word and paste into here.

I realize that Obama has his share of zealous supporters, but I'm sure McCain does as well. I just don't quite understand how the Wright issue suddenly makes the man unqualified to be president.

Considering the utter bile that is spewed from hillaryis44.org (which was outed as being connected to her campaign), I'm sorry if I don't see Obama supporters as having a monopoly on terrible supporters. The Obama supporters I have personally met at rallies have joined on because of policy, and not negativity such what you would find on that site.

The speech? Historical. Win or lose.

I agree the speech was a historical one. But here again, you have some people comparing it to MLK's "I have a dream". C'mon, get real. I'm pretty sure Obama himself would candidly reject that comparison.

And it's that kind of hyperbole that makes me reflexingly pull back just a little from someone I like and respect so much. I hate mania of any sort, and that's the vibe I get from so many Obama supporters I know and see around. And in making a decision between Obama and Clinto, this was a factor.

"Obama could cure cancer and you'd find a way to criticize him for it. Nothing the man does is good enough for you. If his explanation isn't good enough for you, fine, go vote for McCain (who has no shortage of crazy pastor support)."

What the hell are you talking about? Again with the hysterics.

Speaking of crazy pastors, I wouldn't stand for what a person like Rev. James David Manning has said about Obama. Its vile.

I don't think it's hysterics mystery. It just seems to me that in your view Obama does nothing right. What could he have said yesterday that would have pleased you?

OddDuck, thank you for your rational posts in this thread. You've pretty much summed up my feelings about the Obama campaign way better than I've been able to put into words.

The thing that gets me is why any criticism of Obama, which is usally intended to remind that Obama is of this earth, is taken as a claim that Hillary is better or a suggestion of support for anyone else. Obama is probably the strongest candidate, but he is not without question marks. I think this is a fair venue to ask those questions without being told to go vote for McCain.

Stella,

"I realize that Obama has his share of zealous supporters, but I'm sure McCain does as well."

McCain is happy to have - any - supporters. Conservatives loathe him. No one is over the moon for him. The Obamamania is really a funtion of Obama. That does not mean that everyone who likes Obama is "delirious", but a good enough proportion of them are. They take even mild criticism as attack and can see nothing but the second coming. That religious like fervour frightens and turns off a lot of people.

For me, I began to question him the moment I saw Scarlett Johanson wait for her cue on beat in the Will.i.am video.

But that's me. I hate that contrived music video performance shit.

Odd duck,

"I agree the speech was a historical one."

If he becomes the next president it is historic. If he loses it goes into the dust bin of history as one of many a stump speech to a losing campaign. That's politics.

"No set of sound bites pulled out of this speech can represent the power and insight of the whole."

Dave, you gotta calm down on the whole Obama plugging thing. It's getting annoying. This is a movie blog.

I have not seen that music video Nicol. Doesn't interest me.

If this is the same Nicol D who used to post frequently at hollywood-elsewhere, then, uh, wow. I shudder to say this, and am throwing up a little in my mouth as I do, but I completely agree with everything you wrote (in that one post, in this one thread). The end of the world must be upon us :)

And yeah, that Will I Am video was horrendous. Forget Scarlett Johansen. If I remember right, it starts off with Jessica Alba!!! Don't get me wrong, I know they're aiming that commercial at college kids and getting it on MTV, it's probably not playing during the evening news in Oklahoma, it's actually pretty savvy marketing. But still, Jessica Alba?!?!

I second Nicol. McCain would love--LOVE--to have any supporters as fervent, even as fervid, as some of Obama's are. The one's on his side of the political spectrum that worked up are the ones that loathe him. That may not be a problem, though, given that the latest Reuters/Zogby poll has him up by 6-7% over both Dems.

You guys claim that McCain has no fervent supporters, but I personally know of three: my father-in-law, my uncle and one of my grad school professors (every class was like a McCain campaign rally). I know more fervent McCain supporters than I do Obama or Clinton. And that's just the small circle of people I know.

This just in, OddDuck:

Jessica Alba and Scarlett Johansson OWN YOUR ASS.

I don't care AT ALL about this election and I usually don't vote, but if ALBA and JOHANSSON like this guy, maybe he's OK.

HOT CELEBRITY WOMEN ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PRESIDENT.

Fallacy of composition, Stella.

Maybe Blackcloud. And maybe I'll just have to disagree with you about McCain lacking fervent supporters.

"I don't think it's hysterics mystery. It just seems to me that in your view Obama does nothing right."

It is an irrational conclusion to draw based on my statements in this blog.

"What could he have said yesterday that would have pleased you?"

I thought that many of the general sentiments that bookend his comments addressing the Wright controversy were good, including his assesment of the current landscape of racial attitudes.

But...I reject the equation of his grandma's private confession of race-based fear to the public proclamations of racial hatred (among other things) from a pulpit. Obama correctly condemns Wright's statements, but then implicitly defends such behavior as 'par for the course'-- in other words, as endemic of the black church experience. No, Obama, I will not take the bad with the good. These vile statements were premeditated, declarative statements, not momentary emotional outbursts of a fallable human being.

I've been going to my church for over 20 years, and the pastor(s) have never said anything so inflammatory. Point being, if next Sunday my pastor behaved similarly to Wright, my attendance would become probationary at the least. Another incident and I'd be gone. And I'm not a public representative who has to carefully vet my associations. Good judgement, imo, requires that Obama part ways with that church.

I also feel that several times he used the tactic of "I'm not excusing X," but it proceeds or follows an excuse (one instance was his characterization of the black church and his focus on Wright's good deeds, the other was justification of the anger/resentment from which Wright's comments stem). Also, at times I felt that Obama was putting himself in the same boat as us, that we were just finding out about Wright's statements together, as if these statements were recent ones. These statements occurred over many years, and I feel that the few we've heard, despite whatever good Wright was responsible for, were enough to justify a severing of ties.

But that's just it, your opinion. Doesn't he know best whether or not he should leave his own church? Just because you would choose differently, does that make his choice wrong? And does not leaving the church really make him unfit to be president?

"HOT CELEBRITY WOMEN ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PRESIDENT."

Maybe in LexG World, but I suspect things are different in that portion of the universe known as reality.

Stella, he may have fervent supporters, but not nearly as many, or to the extent, that Obama does. There is almost a cult surrounding Obama (which does not encompass the totality of his backers), and there is no way anyone can make that claim about McCain. Obama's support is fervent in a way McCain's simply is not.

Blackcloud, I was merely disagreeing with the assessment that McCain does not have any fervent supporters. Frankly, I have not attended an Obama campaign rally or seen firsthand the so-called cult-like behavior of his supporters that you claim is so common. Have you witnessed it up close and personal?

Stella, have you not been reading the other entries on this blog lately (esp. the comments by certain readers)? Or seen the videos about him (Obama Girl, Will.I.Am)? Or reports of people swooning at his rallies, which rallies have been described as akin to what happened when the Beatles arrived in 1964? Just Google "cult of Obama" and you will see that I am far from the only one who thinks it exists. Unlike others on this blog, I have not claimed to be offended or bothered by it. I am merely repeating that the phenomenon of the enthusiasm for his candidacy has been described as such by many people.

Like I said, I have not seen those videos. Not my cup of tea. I also was not suggesting that you are making anything up regarding a "cult of Obama." Just saying that I have not personally witnessed it and wondered if you had.

I know several enthusiastic Obama supporters, including one who volunteered on his campaign. But I have not witnessed any "cultish" behavior first-hand as I have not attended any of his campaign events, nor have I the time to do so. Unless, of course, one considers IO's rants first-hand experience of the cult. I'm not sure if I do.

"But that's just it, your opinion. Doesn't he know best whether or not he should leave his own church? Just because you would choose differently, does that make his choice wrong?"

This entire election is based on people's opinions. The opinions of many Obama supporters is that what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in sound judgement. Closely associating oneself with a bigot is not exhibiting sound judgement.

"And does not leaving the church really make him unfit to be president?"

No. Neither do I believe that this incident will convince people that Obama is a bigot or a closet militant. What it may do is shake the foundation of the ivory tower many of Obama's supporters have placed him in. They may ask themselves if they know him as well as they thought they did. This may plant seeds of doubt. I'm still convinced that at this point, Obama's support is a thousand miles wide and an inch deep.

And this is why experience counts. Be it good experience or bad, the more time spent in the public eye as a public servant, the more of a known quantity one becomes. Some people may decide that they ultimately prefer Hilary and her baggage over Barack and whatever's behind Door #2. After all, we can probably all agree that if not now, still someday, Obama will probably be president. Perhaps we should make him wait?

A canuck posted; "If he becomes the next president it is historic. If he loses it goes into the dust bin of history as one of many a stump speech to a losing campaign. That's politics."

Mr. Luthor, could you say it for me? "Sure. WROOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG!!!!" Great speeches live on for the duration. Especially great speeches from political figures, that seem to linger and become touchstones about our past. Speeches endure. They always have, and always will.

Carry on with your she-nay-nay-gins now.

I"m curious, mysteryperfecta. Do you attend an inner city African-American megachurch? Is your pastor of comparable age and experience as Pastor Wright?

Time will tell if Obama's speech endures, not you or me or anyone else here.

Blackcloud; that speech was taught or will be taught in history, rhetoric, and public speaking classes around this country over the next week and coming months. This means that it's taught to people, who will share it with people, and eventually it will become a part of the speech enduring.

Hell; Obama's 2004 speech still resonates with speech writers and people into politics. If you do not get how this works maybe you need to get caught up with a few newscycles because that speech will be around. It's one of the better speeches ever about race. Those sort of statements do not get cast aside. They linger.

I just find the level of cynicism on this forum rather comical. It also represents what's wrong with an entire generation, but that's a horse of a different colour.

"Blackcloud; that speech was taught or will be taught in history, rhetoric, and public speaking classes around this country over the next week and coming months. This means that it's taught to people, who will share it with people, and eventually it will become a part of the speech enduring."

IO, it's only a day old, so obviously it's unlikely to have been taught already anywhere. Will it be in the future? Probably, but neither I nor you know that for sure. When I say that only time will tell whether it is remembered, I am not being cynical. I am offering my professional opinion. I am a historian; it's what I do for a living (meager as it is). A lot of what I do is study stuff that seemed big at the time yet hasn't been heard from in two centuries. Another thing historians do is examine predictions of the future to see just how wrong they turned out to be. Usually: quite wrong.

Obama's speech could be remembered. Or it could turn out to be the equivalent of Edward Everett's speech at Gettysburg. Everett was the main speaker that day. His speech lasted 2 hours. He got the most media attention, since he was America's greatest rhetorician in 1863. If you dig around the dust heap of history long enough you might find his remains and those of his Gettysburg address. I am not suggesting Obama will wind up there. I don't know he will. But you don't know either that he won't. For his speech to be regarded so highly for its eloquence and cogency is quite an accomplishment. But it could be fleeting. Rhetoric in general has lost its centrality to Western culture. Speeches matter still, but not nearly as much as they used to.

BTW, time is much longer than the next week and coming months. Much, much longer.

Blackcloud; you are simply giving the standard HB CYNICAL post. You simply refuse to see the possibility that this speech can endure because you can. The fact that you are a historian that wants to the deny this possibility, makes me glad that I love history as much as you do. So I can have my own view on histor. History is fun that way. Nevertheless; there was some teacher who taught that speech or handed it out yesterday. This is what teachers should do to demonstrate to their students that history is fluid. You of all people should know this.

Not yesterday... but today... roll with it people. Roll with it. It's a hell of a speech. One of those speeches that makes me proud to be a part of a country with such a rich rhetorical history.

OK, is it possible that IOIOIO's rants are actually some sort of Colbert-esque performance art?

In any event, I think he loves the english language more than it loves him...

"Blackcloud; you are simply giving the standard HB CYNICAL post. You simply refuse to see the possibility that this speech can endure because you can."

IO, dismissing as cynical anyone who disagrees with your perspective is an excellent strategy for winning converts to your cause. All such ad hominem attacks do is reveal your profund lack of maturity and sophistication. And your lack of reading comprehension, since my point was not that the speech would not endure, but that we don't know whether or not it will. I do not once say that it won't endure. I say that you have no more idea than I do whether or not it will.

"Nevertheless; there was some teacher who taught that speech or handed it out yesterday." And that is determinative of the future how, exactly? Just because some teacher (one, two, five, fifty?) discussed the speech yesterday, and again today, that has no effect no how it will be regarded tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, or next month, or next year, or in five years, or in ten. You do not know how things will turn out. I don't, either.

"This is what teachers should do to demonstrate to their students that history is fluid. You of all people should know this."

I do, which you would realize if you knew how to read. At any rate, it is clear from your posts that you yourself do not believe this. Your insistence that the speech's immediate impact will determine, that is, fix, its subsequent reception belies your claim that history is fluid. If it were, you would have to concede that it is possible that the speech will fade and become a historical footnote. Because I do believe the future is open, I can state that the speech may be as important as you believe--and it is belief, since you have zero positive knowledge about it, the future not having happened yet--it will be with the same equanimity with which I also state it is possible that it will turn out not to have been significant at all. But since you have pre-ordained the outcome, like any grade-school historical determinist, you can see things happening only one way: the way you dream and desire them to happen.

"The fact that you are a historian that wants to the deny this possibility, makes me glad that I love history as much as you do."

Yours, IO, is not at all the attitude of one who loves history. It is about as anti-historical as one can be. But given your statements, that comes as no surprise at all.

i was surprised to see soundbites of obama's speech and wright's sermons as one of the headline stories on our nightly national news, pretty unusual. it looks like it's become a bit of a storm in a teacup, but it worries me because it's just the sort of thing that could damage obama (and to blame hillary for it coming out is just silly; obama's a clever dude, he MUST have known wright's sermons would be made public at some point, otherwise he's one silly bugger); racisim is still alive and well in america, the 'white man scared of the black man', and obama being linked with anyone militant would hurt his chances with white america, no matter how silly or unfounded

"I"m curious, mysteryperfecta. Do you attend an inner city African-American megachurch? Is your pastor of comparable age and experience as Pastor Wright?"

Are you suggesting that unless I meet those specific criteria, I have zero latitude to make observations and draw conclusions? Careful-- you undoubtably fail to hold yourself to the same standard. Would you like me to follow you around this blog to make certain you do?

Also, you forgot to ask me if I was black.

I was really enjoying this discussion, until IO came around. mystery, I was thinking about this some more and it relates in a way to my parents. They are both Catholics. In recent years, like many Catholics, they have had serious problems with the church. They also have issues with their own parish and disagree with many things their priest mentions during mass. However, they have not left the church. They have been going there their entire adult lives, some 30+ years. Why don't they just leave? It means something to them. It's been an important part of their lives for a very long time. All their children were baptized there. We all had our first communions and confirmations there. I think people develop a complex relationship with their church, and suddenly leaving it isn't quite as simple as it sounds. Good thing neither of my parents will ever run for office.

Stella's Boy- I understand and appreciate the situation you're describing. I hope I haven't inferred that leaving one's long-time church is like flipping a switch. I suppose its a subjective matter of what one would consider "too far". If your parent's priest went so far as, say, defended pedophile priests, or if your parish played a part in concealing a pedophile priest, would that have been enough?

From what I've heard, Obama joined this particular church, in some part, for political reasons. I'm sure that as time passed, those reasons became less important. Still, in my judgement, if not from moral outrage, then out of political prudence, Obama should have at least squelched his public relationship with Wright. But he did the opposite. He appointed Wright to one of his campaign committees. Bad call.

"Are you suggesting that unless I meet those specific criteria, I have zero latitude to make observations and draw conclusions? Careful-- you undoubtably fail to hold yourself to the same standard. Would you like me to follow you around this blog to make certain you do?"

Easy there, tiger. Since you said "I've been going to my church for over 20 years, and the pastor(s) have never said anything so inflammatory" I wondered whether you come from the same faith tradition as Obama. Chill, friend.

"Obama could cure cancer and you'd find a way to criticize him for it."

Obama could cause cancer and you'd find a way to celebrate him for it.

That is a load of shit Josh. I assume you don't visit every day. I am far from Obama's most vocal supporter around here. But way to add your useless and false two cents.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: