A talk show host has a much deeper understanding of the consequences of public opinion. Oprah deals with the national level rumor mill, whilst up til now, Obama did not. So how this plays out to a local audience versus a national one would be a bigger red flag to her.

No, sorry, that is wrong. Politicians live, breathe, eat, and drink on public opinion. No one has a greater understanding of public opinion than a politician.

The whole Rev. Wright issue is getting tiresome... When it comes to questioning Obama, it seems that broken record will never die down...

its documented in the Newsweek post that if you were involved in an active African American church in Chicago then you were in Trinity... that was THE church to be active in... due mainly to it pro-active attitude towards the community, outreach programs and fellowship... then comes Rev. Wright...

Oprah leaving doesn't surprise me... especially in the early 90s when she was starting to skyrocket... while its doubtful that anyone higher than The Enquirer would CARE about her pastor, she didn't agree with his hate-filled rhetoric about whites (especially since it was mostly white middle-class Americans who were her followers at that time)

Who can explain why Obama chose to stay longer... it could be that he needed to stay pro-active in the community to maintain his constituency... it could be that he thought that the Rev would mellow... it could just be because that was HIS church, the one he found himself in and refused to leave because of the ranting... hoping, again, that things would calm down. I know personally I have sat thru many, MANY sermons from the preachers in MY church that I completely disagree with .... just because I listened doesn't mean that I agreed...

It’s a moot argument regardless...

Obama has denounced the hate-filled rhetoric of this man... not once, but TWICE he has called press meetings to make it clear that he does NOT agree with the stances of the Rev. Wright... in fact... the Trinity church has a new pastor, so it seems the entire congregation has moved on to what will hopefully be a more positive religious experience.

The unending focus of the "issue" of the Rev. Wright by Obama's opponents (whether they are left or right) shows me that they have little or NO other ammo to use against him... There is an excellent response to these attacks to be read here



Perhaps we can actually listen to what the man says instead of focusing on what someone else said while he was in the room...

Obama did many interviews BEFORE all this came out about Wright, about how proud he was of his pastor, how close they were, and how he believed in his 'spiritual mentor.'

And as recent as last Sunday, in an interview on FOX News Sunday, he told Chris Wallace that he thought the Rev. Wright story was "legitimate."

So even Obama, himself, knows the story is important! I don't think we're anywhere near the end of this one.

The difference is not one of disagreement/agreement, the issue is one of that his pastor said some very hate-filled rants about how America deserved 9/11. It's not minor disagreements. It's a major issue.

If you sit through your pastor ranting about how awful America is week after week, then you either agree with his statements or don't mind that he said it. Either way, it's bad.

You mean that children are a punishment? How about when he says he'd go and invade Pakistan? What about when he said he'd raise taxes to bring in LESS revenue to pay for universal health care?

If you look at his voting record, you'll see that he's really not against the Iraq War, because he continues to vote to fund it. If you look at his voting record, you'll see he doesn't care about your privacy as he voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

Actions speak louder than words.

[quote}You mean that children are a punishment? [/quote]You have given the "children are punishment" line again and again... and I've YET to see you site a source for that...

yeah... beeen a lot of war talk from every candidate... Hilary says she would nuke Iran, McCain has stated the whole "100 years in Iraq" spiel... do you have a full quote on this or just the snippets that support your stance?

I would be keenly interested in checking where you look up his voting record as well before commenting... The last site you gave (what... was it... factcheck.org?) actually made me think I was backing the right man instead of the devil you seem to think he is...

You mean the video that I've posted at least 3 times? Here, I'll post it again.

VIDEO OF OBAMA SAYING BABIES ARE A PUNISHMENT.

Gah, I'm freaking tired of you condoning Obama's positions just because the other two say related things. ALL THOSE STATEMENTS ARE BAD, but I point out Obama because no one seems to think Obama is wrong on anything, but he's actually worse than the other two.

Seriously? Do you not pay attention to anything I post? I've posted the voting records of the Patriot Act many times.

Patriot Act Voting Record

I'm starting to get really tired of the "100 years" bull$h!t that people keep passing around. I even saw a commercials (sponsored by the Democratic National Convention) that said it... so I suppose the lie is here to stay.

Once again, McCain was asked at a town hall meeting about a Bush statement that said troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years. Here is the full response:

"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

This quote has been obviously distorted, taken out of context, and twisted by those who are attempting to smear McCain, by any means necessary. If you argue we should listen to the "context" or any other candidate, you must argue the same here. To not do so would be hypocritical, insulting, and grossly inappropriate

And here is a source for all this:

I agree, but at the time, Obama was a local politician, in a small arena. Much different than the scrutiny put on a candidate for national office.

Hrmmm... probably about as tired as I am about the Obama/Wright "controversy".... except... the 100 years is a direct quote... not "guilt by association"... Which of course... hasn't been twisted or overplayed ...

Regardless of whether Americans are dieing... that is an occupation.... So long as we stay in Iraq, there will NEVER be hope for peace there... you can mark my words on that...

I cited NO difference between the war rhetoric of Obama/Hillary OR McCain, but of COURSE i'm smearing McCain by doing that aren't I?

Well, as I've proved... the "100 years" is NOT a direct quote. It's an 'out of context' quote.

The Obama/Wright has been twisted, however when even Obama himself recognizes that it's a "legitimate issue," I find it hard to understand how you're arguing that it isn't.



Okay, I don't know where that came from... or what that has to do with this thread... so I'm going to ignore it.

Huh? What are you talking about? Attempting to attribute a false quote, with false meaning, to John McCain (or any politician) IS an attempt to smear them. As for "war rhetoric" or whatever, I'm not sure where you were driving at... and thusly can't really figure out if you were smearing anyone. Sorry.

Spin, spin spin... the man said we would stay in Iraq for 100 years if necessary... regardless of the clauses he attaches to it... its still a statement made by McCain... thats all you have "proven".

I can concede that this may be a legitimate issue, however... when its all you hear about it becomes a definitive issue... THAT is what I take exception to...

If you comment on it friend, its not ignoring it... this is direct response to the quote you posted from McCain...

Even if American's aren't dieing... its still an occupation, and he has no qualms about letting that go on for... well... forever from the sound of it...

Really? you were very quick to jump in there and defend McCain to not understand the statement...
It isn't a false quote, perhaps a partial one, but not false, nor does it have false meaning... the quote YOU POSTED states he has no issue with an American presence in Iraq for an indeterminate amount of time... and I find this unacceptable... regardless of the schematics...

(Sorry for responding so late, I haven't checked recently)

Well, it is a false quote, because it implies false meaning.

McCain clearly said he wants to have people there, but only if violence has stopped. This is similar to the bases we have all over the world (Germany, Japan, Korea, etc). Even the Democratic candidates don't really want a full pull out from the region, just redistribution of troops to other areas.

The implication of the "100 years" quote, is that McCain wants to keep actively fighting for 100 years... and that's false.

It's not spin... it's context. There's a difference.