I'm sure you did your best. If you're satisfied with your answer, so am I.

I'll refrain from noting that your comment connected to dots so that chris is calling Shaun Mullen a fool….;-)

Yeah, you're right, chris. I'm glad that no one on moderate blogs bought into the nonsense that McCain accepting the Hagee endorsement was a big deal or anything.

CStanley, Chris didn't say that. He didn't say “no one bought into the nonsense”. He said people who bought it are fools.

Now, I think Chris is being naive about what is going on. Still, he could be right–maybe I'm a fool for thinking McCain's embrace of Hagee matters. These points are arguable.

But his comment is on the exact same screen as your misrepresentation of it.

Do you think we don't know how to read?

http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blo...

It's a trumped up controversy, just like the one over Pastor Hagee & McCain (even though that got almost zero news coverage). If you want to decide who to vote for based on petty garbage like this, by all means do so, but don't fool yourself into believing you're making an informed decision because of it.

I don't think of either of us should have the temerity to say Obama can't associate with Wright given what little we can know about Wright, outside of the media caricature, and their relationship. If there was any indication that Obama consults Wright or follows the line of thinking you say is so damning, then I'd agree you have a point. But there isn't.

Sorry, I don't pretend to be a mind reader. Michael said what he said, and he can choose to either defend it or deal with the fact that you're going to criticize him for not defending it. I think it's a bit bizarre that you're complaining that I'm not being drawn into some sort of game here; if I didn't know better, I'd feel as though I was being baited into a blog flame war.

You see, my whole argument against Pete's initial post which quoted MVDG, and your arguments about it, Justin, is that I understand disagreeing with Michael's take on the speech but I think it's wrong to impugn his motives. So no, I will not do what I have already said that I don't think you should do. My answer to whether or not Michael is wrong is that I think he got it partly right- he's right to say that one interpretation of that statement is that all blacks are racist, but he's not right to imply that this is the only possible interpretation. But there's a big difference between getting something wrong (or partially wrong as I think it is in this case) and deliberately getting it wrong.

As for guessing about whether or not to believe Obama- are you not guessing when you give him the benefit of the doubt? And to me, if I'm going to try to determine whether or not I believe that response, I'm again going to fall back on looking at the whole of the man's life and actions. I'll probably have to read his books so that I'm not relying on second hand accounts- but from what I've been told, in one of his books he talked about experiences with black nationalists and the initial pull toward that and then rejection of it. So, given that, I just really have a hard time believing that he didn't know more about Wright's beliefs than he's letting on.

Obama didn't have to toss aside the familial type of relationship he had, but he did (IMO) have an obligation to toss aside the spiritual mentorship part of the relationship, and the political connection (making Wright the head of his campaign's religious outreach.) He also, IMO, had the obligation to remove his daughters from the influence of a philosophy that he says he rejects, but that part goes to the more personal rather than a public obligation.

That's a pretty amazing thing to say given that you've probably never even listened to an entire sermon by Pastor Wright, or met him in person. You've got what, 2 soundbites to by?

Plus, how did her comment that appeared 3 hours ago get pushed to the bottom here? There's no way you can follow this thread in any logical manner.

This is screwy…

However, I put out an olive branch, and I appreciate the fact that you'd ask Obama to clarify instead of what Michael was claiming. Again, I find his remarks particularly indefensible because they're so pointed, and I'd still like to hear if he'd actually ask Obama exactly those words to his face if he had the chance. And if he would, we both know he would never actually get the chance to ask Obama that, so he needs to say that as the title of a post, not buried in the comments section. Because people needs to know he believes that. They need to see a title of a post that asks, “Obama says all blacks hate America, hate whites and hate Jews?” At that point, he's being intellectually honest because he's actively asking the question in open forum, not just playing the “he called me a racist” card.

Concerning what Obama DID sit through in Wright's church, Wash Post columnist Eugene Robinson followed up with him after the speech and he clarified that what he meant is that Wright used salty language when referring to members of his own race and specificially how they treat women, their kids, etc. Basically, Obama was suggesting that Wright was pulling a Bill Cosby of sorts, using the N word, etc. So if you don't believe Obama, that's your business. But at that point, it's simply guessing on your part, and that's not a very moderate way of approaching an issue.

However, you're still just addressing your thoughts, not Michael's, and I've asked you specifically what you think about what he said. We both know full well that he EXPLICITLY claimed that Obama admitted to being in the church when Wright made the YouTube Sermons. Either concede that Michael is wrong or defend him. I understand what you think about it, but now I'm asking for something very specific about what Michael said. What's your answer?

And if he'd clarify it the way I'd want him to- he'd also have to admit he was wrong to not do so all along. And that really is the basis for my interpretation of the speech in this way. It's not that the correct words weren't there- but that his actions haven't matched up with his words, and a personal relationship with Wright isn't a good enough reason for that if he really believes (as he's saying now) that Wright's beliefs are harmful.

I just don't understand how anyone can read Obam's very clear, very direct words and come away claiming they say something they don't say.

Amen.

The words are direct and clear. No hidden meanings or vaguely suggestive allusions. Obama condemns Wright's hateful comments, but he can't condemn the whole man, because the whole man is more love than hate in Obama's eyes; which is Obama's same view of/approach to society; his same view of/approach to his church. More love than hate. More right than wrong.

I just don't understand how anyone can read Obam's very clear, very direct words and come away claiming they say something they don't say. If your claim is the words don't say enough, OK, maybe they don't. But to claim the words aren't clear and direct — well, I have to be honest and say I agree with Justin here: I find that reaction intellectually dishonest. I don't find you intellectually dishonest, just this particular reaction. I'm sorry.

If you swim with sharks your either really stupid or your a shark.

His faith is extremely important to him. He says so. His church is extremely important to him. He says so. His congregation is extremely important to him. He says so.

I don't. He does.

Therefore if all that is true and the facts are that the church preaches this kind of rhetoric then one must bring into question just how honest he is being in those really flowery and uniting speeches.