2008 Presidential Race

[gurlnlifemagazine]

Obama is intelligent enough to have his own agenda about his decision making without the help of outside influences. I think people who aren't supporting Obama are the ones who's taking this to an unnessary level because they need something to tear him down.

There has been nothing in his speeches, writings, or champaign that suggests even the slightest bit of Wright's message, so just because a sound bite pops up we need to doubt him? That's the problem with America and the media. The media guilds to misled and American's often follow.

On the a mass scale this is too big to discuss because there is no point. Obama is smart enough to see that and is moving on. I'm glad the candidates aren't building this up because he's already proved himself on his beliefs and issues and they know Wright's message isn't Obama's.

And as a Obama and Clinton supporter I'm more proud of him as a candidate because he's stayed on his same message his whole champaign and hasn't threw anyone under the bus. He confronts his issues and shuts people up, though critics still choose to cry about things just because they have nothing better to do.

[gogonutz]

Maybe I'm seeing this wrong, but I kinda feel like you both are making a different point.

I do not have enough knowledge about the theological side of this issue. I do however want to point out that there's a religious influence and a personal experience influence that makes a man like Wright say what he said. And personally I don't believe you can see those things apart from each other. Those things together (combined with some other things) shape a person. Not just one of those things.

I think a politician can never (even if his intentions are right, honorable, and legit) be completely consistent and consequent. That's just the way politics works (which I do not like, but I guess that's just the way it is). President is a powerful position, but defacto you don't have too much to say. Things won't even really come on your plate until they are so important or there's been so much damaging that no one else wants to take the fall for it. IF you can correct it, or not make it worse, you will get a lot of credit, being the president, but if you can't, you'll take the fall just as hard. So basically you don't make a lot of decisions, but the ones you do make are important and influence many people. (but then again, you get so many reports and notes, and memos, and whatevers that you can hardly call it your own decision).

I'm with Lisa that politics and religion don't mix, but unfortunately there is no country (Russia probably comes closest, but that's pretty much the worst example you can find) where politics isn't at least partially based on religion. The reason I don't like it mixed, is because it, though often unintentionally, creates a religious bias. I'm all for religion, but it should be open and people should be able to find themselves comfortable with whatever religion they agree with, or if they can't find one, without any religion. In most countries, including the U.S. you are aloud to and able to go with whatever faith you feel like, but politics-wise, there is definitely a bias towards Christianity (as is with almost all Western nations). This is a whole different discussion and I don't really wanna go into that in this thread, so I'll stop about that.

But to get back to the issue. Do I think there are many questions left that Obama should/could answer? Yes, I do think so. Do I think he gave a great speech (both politically and emotionallY)? Yes, without a doubt, and he addressed the Racial Issue very well. I do believe he truly understands that issue and truly wants to work on uniting both 'sides'.

About the religion/church he attends/is a part of, apparently that's how he found his faith. Maybe someone else, instead of Wright, who would be affiliated with another streaming of Christianity might've been able to do the same, but apparently Wright was the man in the right place, on the right time for Obama. And I'm sure Obama doesn't agree with everything his church says, but it's core values are probably the same as other Christian streamings (please correct me if I'm wrong, because I do not know any specifics about the theological side of the issue). And if that's what Obama's beliefs are based on, I don't think there's anything wrong. And if you have a personal history with that church (marriage, children baptized, etc.) you don't just quit and go to another church.

You all probably know I'm atheistic. But I stayed with my church for several years, even though I already knew I didn't believe. Okay, granted, I was young, and I didn't really know better, but the church (and with that I'm not necessarily meaning I went to church every week, but I still went to it and was associated with it to some extend, and with church, I do not mean just the physical place) was a safe place, a place that I knew, something familiar, and once I cut loose, there's the unknown. Eventually I had to, because it just didn't make sense anymore to me, and I was just a kid, so in growing up, it became easier to venture into new grounds. But I can see how it's not easy to cut yourself loose from something you've been a part of for a long time. Even if you don't agree with a lot of it.

If, however, Obama does agree with most of the church ideas, and he speaks out other ideas himself, then that does raise questions. I don't necessarily think it contradicts, but it does present a conflicting image. And I can see how people have trouble believing certain things that he says.

Personally, I think Obama has some interesting ideas, and if he'll be able to deliver them, I think he probably is the right person for the job. I don't agree with everything he says, and pure on the issues I'm probably closer to Clinton, but I think there's more than just the issues, character, trustablity, and accountability/dependablity are very important too, as well as charisma. He gives me the impression that he fits that description. More than either of the other two/three options.

But in essence, it's hard for me to really go one way or another, as I'm not even a US citizen and not aloud to vote, and miss a lot of campaigning and media coverage, so I only get the highlights (or 'downlights') of the race, and have to base my opinions on that. And also, I watch with slightly different eyes, because I don't look solely at what's best for the US, but also what I feel would be best for Europe and the rest of the world, as that influences me more directly.

I tried to stay objective even though I'm not sure I succeeded. I think both of you make good points but I think they are different points. I also think I need to read some more on the theological side to really understand how it all works, but yeah.

[adhara]

The following post may seem very blunt, but I think it's good to have an open discussion.

I do not see the contradiction. I also don't see as a bad thing, that an open-minded person would go to a church that emphasizes African heritage, black empowerment, and social justice issues. To many, it may seem like America is equally opportunity and discrimination-free, but it is not. There are social inequalities of all kinds, and not just due to race, but social class -- poverty and the like. And to many people like Reverend Wright, the easiest way to overcome that is to fight back in that (what we believe) divisive style. But there is nothing wrong with divisive thinking to fight institutions and systems in order to succeed in a society that is supposedly, equal and just. That said, Obama says that Wright's problem is that Wright thinks the world is static, that it cannot change. Obama believes that America can change, and is changing, so there are less divisive ways to fight injustice. I don't think it's contradictory that Obama goes to this church, understands the present, and at the same time, having a VISION for something better.

I am actually glad that Obama has been immersed in this environment, one that enlightens its members about religious and social issues. Obama truly sees social ills for what they are: social problems, and not swept-under-the-rug individual failures. I can't say the same about the majority of current American 'leaders' who think that all is well and that everybody loves everybody else and that American institutions treats everybody the same.

[gogonutz]

julodle said:

The point I'm trying to make about liberation theology is that you cannot separate the radical politics from its essential teaching because radical politics is inherently a part of it. It would be like trying proclaiming oneself a Jew without believing in the Law.

I think that's one of the examples of religious bias I was trying to explain in my post. In certain streamings it's probably more obvious than others, but it's always there to some degree. Whether it is divisive or static, or weak, or agressive, or whatever, it's there.

And Laura, I don't think there is ANY country that is really just and equal, even though it proclaims to be. And I'm sure many countries even intend to be that, but they never are. And if Julie (that was your name, right?) is right about liberation theology, and considering she's the theology expert, I can only assume she knows what she's talking about, it is a way to fight for your own cause on someone else/some other group's expense. So then that other group would do the same thing, and you keep going in a vicious circle, and nothing gets solved. (at least, that's the way I see it).

Obama, in his speech, showed real understanding for the situation when it comes to race and racial bias. And I truly believe that he wants to unify people, no matter what faith, race, gender, etc. they are. But I have to agree with Julie that if his Church has that divisive teaching, then it does paint a conflicting picture with what Obama's been speeching and claiming to want to do. This doesn't make him a bad person or even a bad candidate, but it does raise legitimate questions, in my eyes.

And like I said before, I really don't like the interaction between politics and religion, but it's there, it's something we can't go around. And since it is there, it is an important issue that should be addressed.

But like I said before as well, I don't think it's so wrong for Obama to be with a Church , even if he doesn't agree with them on everything they stand for. Lets say that Obama does not agree with the liberation theology (which seems to be the case when you listen to what he says about unifying and other things), he can still feel a part of that Church cause of the core values and morals, as I don't think they are so different from other learnings. Like (I think it was Lisa) said before, he seems a smart guy, and he can make up his own mind. So it's a bit of taking what you stand for, and letting the rest of it go. The beauty of religion is that it's personal. Only you, yourself, can decide what you do and do not believe in. Others can tell you that you have to believe in something, but you are the one who decides if you actually do. So yeah, I do see the conflicting picture, but I do feel like it might not be as conflicting as it seems at first sight.

[gurlnlifemagazine]

julodle said:

It is not because one sound bite appeared that I am so concerned about Obama. It's because of the ideology behind the sound bite that I am. Obama has no qualms about the divisiveness that his preacher has been preaching from the pulpit? He has no qualms about associating with a church for 20 years that adheres to liberation theology? Or is he not serious about his faith, and whenever he brings it up in a speech it's just political rhetoric?

How do you know what Rev. Wright has been preaching from the pulpit for 20 years if you've only heard one sound bite? Obama has said he doesn't believe everything his preacher says and that's normal. I mean, he's been a member of this church for 20 years, Rev. Wright married him to his wife and baptistized his childern. To denounce him now as his mentor just because he's running for president would make him look like a hypocrite. I don't think you have a full understanding of it and I doubt you will just by discussing this. I don't have a full understanding of it either, but I know I'm not going to start questioning because of that.

Also, this is one of those things that has always been spoke about in the black church so what Wright said isn't really shocking to black people who attend church in the community. I mean, the black community's response to this is mostly "So what?" because we hear it all the time and we know things like that are just said to make us feel prouder of our race. Not so much any of us agree, but the underlining message is understood.

[gogonutz]

Ah, I love how passionate you Americans can get about things, hehe

[gurlnlifemagazine]

julodle said:

Yes, Koen, my name is Julie.

gurlnlifemagazine said:

How do you know what Rev. Wright has been preaching from the pulpit for 20 years if you've only heard one sound bite?

He professes to adhere to liberation theology, which is something I know about as a student of theology. Has the profession of the church changed in the 20 years Obama's been going to it? If not, then I know Wright has been preaching division for the 20 years Obama's been there, because that's what liberation theology is all about. Now, if the belief of the church has changed, then Wright's only been preaching division since that change occurred. I assumed the church has professed belief in liberation theology for the time Obama's been there, though. If not, then I'm mistaken.

Black liberation theology is a little different than what you're probably thinking about. It's the same type of preaching done in the 60's by black preachers like Martin Luther King, Jr and Jesse Jackson. The only difference is the time period. Like everything else it has evolved to fit with the generation. Wright's preaching, like many other black preachers, speaks to uplift the community. To be honest, I don't think anyone outside the black community should be trying to denounce him because you really don't understand. This is just so not an issue that it's just getting ridiculous seeing so many white people talk about it like he's the KKK.

Clinton hit a very bad nerve with me with her comment about this. I think she was way out of line to criticize anyone's preacher. I'm not Christian, nor do I belong to any religion, but I find her response ignorant and tasteless. Just because she'd kick her preacher to the curve if he'd did anything that would make her look bad, doesn't mean he has to stoop that low. Obama has a great respect for Rev. Wright and he's standing by him because he gives his faith strength and I'm more impressed by that.

[adhara]

The newest Obama controversy: "bitter"

I think this election has really illuminated many ideological and class divisions within the United States. As a liberal person living in one of the most liberal places in the U.S, I often do feel out of touch with what the rest of America is thinking. So I'm curious to read about how everybody else feels about Obama's latest statements?

[gogonutz]

for me there's no controversy, but that's just on a personal level

[gurlnlifemagazine]

I don't see the controversy either. I think it's more media bullshit that a problem. I just hate it when Hillary jumps in on it. I swear, that woman is becoming more and more desparate by the week. Obama has always taken the higher road when it comes to crap being put out there by the media about her by staying away from most of it. But this woman tackles at every chance she gets because she has nothing left .

[disarray]

I really thought Obama was a good guy even though I disagreed with his political beliefs. However, I now think he is an elitist and possibly even a racist. I am NOT a typical white person and saying "clings to guns and religion" is belittling and condescending. All 3 of these candidates really suck.

[adhara]

Apr 14, 2008 9:28:06 GMT -5 @disarray said:

I really thought Obama was a good guy even though I disagreed with his political beliefs. However, I now think he is an elitist and possibly even a racist. I am NOT a typical white person and saying "clings to guns and religion" is belittling and condescending. All 3 of these candidates really suck.

Why do you think he is an elitist and a racist? And what does "elitist" mean to you? I'm not trying to be argumentative -- I'm simply curious and trying to elicit and understand different point of views...

I often get frustrated when I see Obama having to go through these hurdles because he thinks a lot like a social scientist -- which apparently is a very dangerous, politically incorrect way to think and especially politically incorrect way to speak. In my opinion (and maybe at the risk of sounding elitist and what not) I don't think he is calling everybody a typical white person and saying that they cling to guns and religion. The reason why I don't see Obama's "typical white person" comment and other generalizations that he makes (regarding small towns, the urban poor, etc) as belittling or condescending is because his "typical" and his generalizations are based on very real statistical averages. The average characteristics and experiences associated with specific population groups are sometimes very apparent. Americans value individualism a lot, but it's inescapable that people's life experiences are often shaped by belonging in particular groups (race/ethnicity, geographic regions, sex, age, etc). So for example, randomly off the top of my head:

-For the same job, the typical female makes less money than a typical man.
-The typical good-looking person is more likely to be hired than the typical average-looking person
-Given the same qualifications, the typical black person is less likely to be given a job interview than a typical white person (there have been research experiments that show this -- they'd mail the EXACT same resume to companies, and people with first names that sound "white" were more likely to get a response)
-The typical Asian adult in America is an immigrant
-The typical white person has a higher income than the typical black person
-The typical conservative believes in low taxes and spending, a small federal government, and traditional moral values.
-the typical teenager is sexually active by age 17
-the typical poor person has worse health than the typical rich person

You can do all kinds of polls/surveys/scientific research, and you will find these kinds of associations. However, none of these generalizations suggest definitively that if somebody is a 20-something white female, she will be guaranteed to make less money than a man, get the job interview over a black person, or be sexually active. But as a whole (when you look at populations), these characteristics apply. I don't know about the demographics of the people living in the small towns of Pennsylvania -- but they could very well be on average: bitter because of lost jobs, mistrustful of government, indifferent about various economic policy issues, gun-owning and religious. Again, that may be the average, that does not mean that you or I or anybody you know are any of the above.

I do think that Obama has a poor choice of words sometimes. He tries to go in depth to explain things like poverty, racism, and voting behavior, and then people go and freely interpret his words whatever way they want. But I know I'm biased because I study population groups and make many of the same generalizations that he does...and I've just been astounded by the reactions that people/media have been having to (what is to me) social data.

Now I just wish Hillary Clinton would just stop pretending to be gun-toting non-elite...

[gogonutz]

the problem with Obama is that you can't really put a label on him, and his political adversories (sp?) and the media keep on trying to do that, which creates a distorted image of the man. Because he is so a-typical for a politician he says things that are politically unwise, and sometimes just plain politically incorrect. I'm not sure if there are any hidden meanings behind that, I don't know the man personally and the picture the media portrays of someone is always wrong to some degree, so I don't know. He is fairly new to me as a public figure, compared to Clinton and McCain, so I think that's also part of his appeal, because we/I haven't grown tired of him (yet).

But he is the only candidate that is truly different/stands out. Not always in a good way, but to me, the majority of the time he stands out in a good way. The thing I am worried about most, concerning Obama, is that I am not sure if he's ready to be a president. Because he keeps talking about fighting lobbyists and bureaucracy, but if you really want to fight it, you will have to be able to 'play the field' quite well, and so far I haven't seen enough of his abilities when it comes to that. Most of the time he is reacting instead of being proactive in that particular department.

[adhara]

Apr 14, 2008 19:34:05 GMT -5 gogonutz said:

The thing I am worried about most, concerning Obama, is that I am not sure if he's ready to be a president. Because he keeps talking about fighting lobbyists and bureaucracy, but if you really want to fight it, you will have to be able to 'play the field' quite well, and so far I haven't seen enough of his abilities when it comes to that. Most of the time he is reacting instead of being proactive in that particular department.

His ability to play the game is definitely something to consider. It's my impression though, that his most powerful way of fighting lobbyists and bureaucracy is to 'play the field' differently, namely, to inspire/empower average Americans to be a part of the political process and be actively involved in their communities. I guess it's part of the community organizing tradition. I think much of the reason why special interests in the U.S. have such a hold over lawmakers is because the average American doesn't care about most policy issues. The average person doesn't even know the names of their local public officials. They don't vote, they don't write letters trying to sway the votes of their public officials one way or the other. That leaves special interests, with lots of resources (e.g., money, media power, voting blocs, paid lobbyists) essentially buying votes. It's like an interest group can donate money to a political campaign and rack up enough votes to get somebody into office -- and then that public official has a debt to pay. The political process can be so much more democratic if average Americans regained the ears of their elected officials. It's worked for senior citizens. They're one of the most powerful voting blocs because they write billions of letters, they spread the word to their friends, they participate in elections more than any other group, and as a result, legislators have to pay attention to them or risk losing their seat in office. I think Obama can (maybe, has?) invigorate the general public to care more about government and policies. So if that's how he's going to be playing the game (and this is just my impression), we may never see him fight lobbyists the way it's traditionally been done.

[gogonutz]

that's only one part of it, if he wants to continue to inspire he will have to back up his words with actions, and do something about it himself too, especially since being the president is considered to be a powerful function (even though it is less powerful than most people think), but he'll be expected of to 'play the field' as well. I don't really care if he'd do it the traditional way or not (traditionally lobbyists aren't even fought of, so I guess it'll be untraditional anyway), but he has to show his own initiatives too, instead of just inspiring others to take initiative.