IMO, this is a bad idea for the Obama campaign. This is a recognition that the church is/was as bad as all the people criticizing it have said.

It is an acknowledgement that there is/was a serious problem... and forces the question, "Why did you resign now? Why not earlier?"

Additionally, I'm sure it will offend those supporters of Wright, that particular church, and those who defended Obama and the church. Remember many of them said it was a racial issue, and it wasn't the church that was the problem, but it was white people who didn't understand the "black church," they were the problem. This contradicts that defense directly, and could really upset some of those supporters.

A strange decision, and a strange time for this decision, in my opinion.

I guess it depends on the real reason he resigned.
If he truly felt it wasn't the place for him anymore, well ok. Tho the timing could certainly have been better.
If he did it for his campaign, well shame on him. A crappy way to manage your life.

So, it depends.

He already totally and unequivocally denounced Wright recently due to one of his outlandish rants. He has already said he doesn't agree with Wright's beliefs and was disgusted by them.

Resigning from the church isn't really much of an issue after that.

It doesn't matter does it? He's going to be criticized no matter what the decision. Some will say he's caving, some will say too little too late, some will say it's disingenuous.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

It really shouldn't have been Obama having to back out of that church. It should have been the church shutting down any pastor who makes political commentary (and they should lose their tax free status until they do exactly that) and apologizing to Obama for (at very least) the words of Pflegler who recently made divisive and idiotic comments which could only serve to hurt Obama and create a bigger chasm in an already tumultuous circumstance.

So maybe Obama just really does believe the church is not what it should be or has become something far different than he used to know.

It doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with whether he'd be a suitable president. All it might influence is his "image," which is the stupidest thing for the press to spend their time covering. Yet they do it doggedly.

The younger you are when you start participating in a particular religion, the more you become let down in what you know versus what you knew, especially if you are a person who questions almost everything they have learned. I believe you are such a person.

Not good or bad, just a shame he feels the need to acquiesce to the main stream media or the voting nobodies. Whichever.

Good thread though!

You are very insightful.

Who cares? (Dolly is a smarty pants, though)

Feh, it was to be expected. I'm positive this move isn't even remotely based on conviction -- he went there for 20 years and never had a problem with it until recently? Please. This, my friends, is pure politics.

. . . or it would be, if "pure politics" wasn't an oxymoron.

You care .. yes, I know that also, and you're right, she's a smarty pants.

I think he was damned right to leave the church.

I was actually moved by the way he handled the first incident with the church. It wasn't just diplomatic, it was heartfelt and loyal.

Since then though, Wright has completely flown off the handle. And oh -- lookie lookie -- Rev. Wright has a book coming out as quoted by him back in April, IMO, Wright's just been getting more and more inflammatory to push his own agenda. I think Obama's just hit the tipping point with him.

I think the most disappointing part of all this is not that Obama has *apparently* flip-flopped, but that Wright is leveraging Obama's campaign for personal profit.

Absolutely right.

Resigning from the church was a no-brainer. He denounced Wright's idiotic rants and now he was faced with another idiot, Pfleger, ranting from the same alter.

If anything he shows he meant what he said when he distanced himself from the source. This can't harm him at all nor should it.

But the right wing will do what they can with it.

In the quest for power people will dump just about any obstacles they have to obtain that power. Why would his church suddenly just now become something that is wrong for him? Because it may hurt him in the polls?


JMHO

P.S. I don't favor any of the candidates at this time so this opinion is completely unbiased.

I'm going with a giant.... Why the hell does it matter?

Your economy is falling to pieces, and the biggest issue out there is who belongs to which church? I guess it doesn't matter that the Middle East essentially has you by the balls and that your unidirectional trade agreement with China is abruptly coming to an end.... the only issues pressing enough to be covered by your future leaders is what kind of god they like.

As I've said earlier, I'm glad we only have to tolerate a month or so of our campaigning and bulls**t before election time.

I don't wanna say too much about your post, because it’s your opinion.

However... the issue in this case isn't really a "what kind of god they like" issue. That would be if we were talking about different religions (like Kennedy being Catholic)... but we're not. Rather, the Obama/Trinity Church situation centers around the "people with which you (he, she, they, etc.) associate" issue.

The Church has been home to some pretty inflammatory comments, made by the people who lead the place. And since Obama (who is still a fairly unknown politician... he has only been a senator for 2 years) talked fondly of his 20 years at the church prior to his campaign, the question of "the company he keeps" has come up. The real issue being, "what does Obama believe?" And if he could tolerate this stuff back then, what does that say about his belief system and character? It’s all part of the “Who is this guy?” puzzle.

In short, I just wanted to make sure you understand it's not a religious dispute... religion is just the forum for which these events happened. It would be the same if this was some sort of lodge, private group, or social action committee, with an outspoken leader who made some very controversial comments, that reflected poorly on the candidate in question. Religion itself, in this situation, isn’t really the problem.

"I guess it doesn't matter that the Middle East essentially has you by the balls"

I would have to disagree with that statement, sorry. If the U.S. was a power similar to Rome they would have simply turned the Middle East into a wasteland with a few nuclear warheads and taken all the resources they wanted.

Please tell me Chinook that the U.S. couldn't do that and get away with it? The only reason the middle east has the U.S. "by the balls" is because the U.S. is allowing it.

The US could not bomb the s**t out of the Middle East and get away with it. If you think the rest of the planet would quietly stand back and watch, you're sadly mistaken.

You are not the world's only nuclear power. If your nation decided to blast apart the Middle East, the retaliation from other nations would be the same. You nuke the middle east, the rest of the planet nukes you.... and then we're all f**ked.

Please tell me you don't think your nation will happily go around the planet, destroying other nations and plundering at will without facing any consequences.

I understand this, it's just that in our political system, religious leaders are generally kept out of it. I understand that some people really take religious leaders seriously.... it didn't cross my mind that someone who was looking to lead a nation would be so influenced by his or her religious leader.

To me, it seems like a waste of time to discuss things like this when there are bigger issues to talk about.

I personally would prefer to get a sense of one's character through several (you guys have the time for many) debates about serious issues. For me, watching someone react to tough questions regarding the future of my city/province/nation and his/her subsequent answer provide more insight towards his/her character than someone with whom s/he is affiliated.

Ummm, they already have basically haven't they? Everybody else has basically stood around quietly already haven't they?


I would venture to say that you can get a more accurate portrayal of a persons character by examining their associations than you could from that persons answers to questions posed in public places.

The point here is that suddenly during election time he is resigning a 20-year membership with the church. What, he just now suddenly decided the church was bad for him? He sat their every week in the church for 20 years and now, he doesn't agree with the church? Please.

Yes, obviously there are bigger issues to talk about. That is why this election is being picked apart so much. A lot of people are very concerned and they are picking apart every little detail.