Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

No..it's the other way around,McCain was not endorsing Hagee..Hagee was endorsing McCain!

Please provide a link to McCain specifically "seeking" only Hagee's endorsement.While he and almost every politician courts the endorsement of Christians,it is a stretch to suggest that McCain wanted "Hagee's" specific endorsement more than any other member of clergy.That said..Obama's story is far different,Obama was an active member of that church and it's pastor was the Rev Wright.

The "difference" is apparent to most of us.

It is interesting to note that when Obama was the "darling" of the media..people "complained" about it. Now that the media has focused on Obama's association with Wright,the media becomes unfair..

One cannot hold a candidate "accountable" when someone decides to endorse said candidate.However..when a candidate belongs to a racist anti-American church for 20 years,the concern is valid and Obama has said this himself!

I am very aware that politicians sometimes use a church for more than celebrating their faith. Politicians also use the church for social networking,this is especially true in the early years.I have stated this fact in other posts.However..they also "know" that this can be risky business.

For Obama..the chickens have come home to roost. He knows his association with Wright is a valid concern for voters and he knew that years ago.Politicians use people and organizations until they become libilities.Obama knows that Wright is now a liability and thus he has no more use for him.

Obama also knows that being the first "viable" black candidate,he cannot afford to bleed Independents. I prdict Obama will get the nomination but McCain will win the election. Hillary..with all of her baggage.. is the D's most viable candidate but they will run with Obama and lose the election due to defections from Hillary's former supporters.They will find out too late that they made the "wrong" move!

When Obama finally secures the nomination,the R's will run Wright's comments in loop mode,that you can depend on! No..it won't alienate the Democratic voters but it will alienate Independents and that will cripple Obama.We can argue as to whether this is "fair" for decades to come but for Obama..the chickens have indeed come home to roost.

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

I think the biggest part of this whole affair, to me anyway, is that Wright has explicitly stated that if Obama remains in the spotlight, so will he. He said that he will be coming after Obama if he wins the presidency. Call me what you will, but I don't think the office of president should come pre-saddled with it's own, personal Al Sharpton.

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

I think the biggest part of this whole affair, to me anyway, is that Wright has explicitly stated that if Obama remains in the spotlight, so will he. He said that he will be coming after Obama if he wins the presidency. Call me what you will, but I don't think the office of president should come pre-saddled with it's own, personal Al Sharpton.

Originally Posted by cnredd

I disagree...99%...

You know damn well there are partisans on both sides that have aleardy lit their torches and grabbed their pitchforks if the "other candidate" gets elected....

Hillary will come with her own card carrying enemies...so will McCain...

I don't see why Obama would be any different...A bit more personal than the others?...Yes (hence, the 1%)...

But it's still expected...

You know Ron Paulites will hate whoever gets in...You know Militia-types will hate whoever gets in...You know Kucinichites will hate whoever gets in...Wright has that right, too...

Stupid and/or absurd...sure...

But that comment that "the office of president should come pre-saddled with it's own personal Al Sharpton"?...EVERY president has had their version in the last 50 years...And if it wasn't race, it was something else...

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

I find race baiters particularly distasteful and destructive. I also haven't seen any of the other candidates' detractors making such public spectacles of themselve.

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

The way Wright has carried on and Obama has lent legitimacy to his crapola for 20 years, I see nothing but trouble if Obama gets elected now. Sure the other candidates have detractors. But there is a difference between a detractor and a single, polarizing personality taking the stage along with the president. It smacks of a reverse in the progress we have made in race relations in this country.

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

And you can call me a racist if you want to but I am going to say it anyway: if it had been a white candidate in a similar situation, they would be done by now because the outcry would have been fierce.

Originally Posted by foundit66

In reading through all these grand standards, I can't help but wonder how evenly they are ACTUALLY applied.

For years upon years, the public realized that some Catholic priests were molesting children, and others were using CHURCH MONEY to cover it up.

By the standards applied here to Obama and "Wright", shouldn't we also be holding the feet of Catholics to the fire?
People who donated money into the coffers that ended up paying BILLIONS in settlements and hush money, aiding and abetting child molesting criminals by shipping them off to a new parish with fresh victims?
(And how many priests were actually convicted for aiding and abetting child molestors?)

And how much discussion did it take for the Catholic church to get some standard on child molesting priests in the ranks of the clergy?
The decisions on what to do with gays came quicker and more easily, which should scare people.

Me personally? I find a lot of the attempts to place responsibility to Obama for "Rev Wright" as malarkey.
Likewise for Catholics.

But for those who DO try to blame Obama for Wright, shouldn't the same standard hold true for an issue that lasted longer, was more pervasive, and involved oh $$$ much money donated to the cause?

Originally Posted by cnredd

It seems YOUR standards aren't evenly applied...

Originally Posted by cnredd

You're equating an individual (Wright) to a whole friggin' religion (THEE whole of Catholism), which is unfair to those within the church that have nothing to do with the crimes you've shown...And an attempt to throw guilt on them because of their donations is pathetic...

Originally Posted by cnredd

I assume you also not sleep at night and spend multiple days in therapy with hand wringing because your taxpayer dollars go to a cop who stole from the evidence locker...

Originally Posted by cnredd

PS - I like the way you first say "People who donated money into the coffers that ended up paying BILLIONS in settlements and hush money, aiding and abetting child molesting criminals by shipping them off to a new parish with fresh victims?" and then follow it with a personal absolvtion of "...malarkey.
Likewise for Catholics"...
Nice little trick...