Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Poll: Which US presidential candidate do you like best?

Yes. Not quite the same, but one of my old best friends, a close personal confidant, is... get this... a republican! And I didn't even know it for years. We talked about a lot of things, but, keeping to that handy rule of friendship, avoided getting too much into politics. Of course, once I found out... we were still friends. She advocates stuff I don't agree with, but she's still a good friend. ... Actually, that happened with more than one good friend. It's weird, I know.

Both Clinton and Obama have had supporters/staffers say things that got them in trouble. And those people have left the campaign. There was a whole trail of them for a while. But, like I said... I don't think it's entirely fair to hold them accountable for what their supporters say.

I haven't had a chance to check the papers since early this morning, so it sounds like there's been a lot of coverage of the Wright thing since then. I was dismayed by the shoddy journalism involved in the coverage of the Ferarro business, and it sounds like I'll find the same thing in this case, too, based on Alcyone's comment. (btw, this was true in the Canadian papers as well) This weekend and this morning, however, most media were giving it a pass, although some did include Obama's press release on the issue.

Paul wrote:
I agree, but imo when those individuals are part of your official campaign team, as Wright was, it's a different matter.

We all have personal confidants who disagree with us, and our lives are richer for that. (for example, my husband and I are more likely to vote differently than not ). But this is different. Obama has said that Wright was his mentor and spiritual advisor, so that makes the relationship a lot more significant - Wright was substantially more than just a supporter, even a very public one like Ben Affleck.

Btw, i do think that Obama will win the Dem nom.

c.

Alcyone said:
Excuse me, but *inflammatory rhetoric*? Like what, exactly?

I've spent my entire life in evangelical churches. Can't remember ever having been encouraged to go do anything violent, or to hate anyone, for that matter.

And if directing a message to a "specific (very narrow) audience" is inherently awful, we'd better all stop posting to these boards. FOLCs are a very very narrow audience, indeed!

Ann asked: Yep. If it's a Christian charity, it would. Our mandate is to love our neighbors, and even our enemies. Love means giving freely.

I find these paragraphs vaguely offensive. They also show a profound misunderstanding of charities -- American charities, anyway. I'd be very offended at a charity asking me which class of person I was willing to help. One thing I don't think is well-known in Europe is that Americans, in general, are very generous in giving to charities. Ordinary Americans raised millions for the tsunami victims -- people who were overwhelmingly Muslim.

Within 24 hours of the levies' breaking in N'Awlins, just through Amazon, people had donated 5 million to the Salvation Army. Which, yes, helped everyone without asking to see their religious ID first.

Catholic Charities are huge, and help millions of people, no matter what they believe.

My own local church (not denomination, mind you, but our one singular church) has raised over a million dollars in one year to help fund an outreach (teaching English & computer skills, a women's center) in Khartoum, Sudan -- a predominantly Muslim area.

Now -- would we like to see these people become Christians? Yeah. We believe that Jesus died for everyone on the planet, and without Him people are doomed, so we want to share that news. But it's not a pre-condition.

PJ

Disclaimer: Evangelical churches are not a monolithic entity so I don't presume to speak about ALL of them. But that comment you quoted was meant as an example, not the general criticism you took it to be. "Inflammatory rhetoric" is implicitly in the eyes of the beholder.

But to illustrate with a more specific example, I've heard a lot against gay rights in Evangelical churches in language I find apalling. Parting from that, *I* find many of the conservative stances against gay rights buttressed by inflammatory rhetoric and homophobia, but my central point is that regardless of how I feel they are not talking to me or for me unless they, the people spouting these views, run for something. Pastor X is talking to a certain group of people and under the free speech banner, he can say whatever he wants. Free speech cuts both ways.

So have I.

Remind me again, when I said this? I don't even know what this is refering to.

It's not awful--its inconsequential in the larger sphere precisely because it's a targeted message. You completely misread my post.

To clarify further, what I was suggesting is that people like John Hagee (whose program is actually watched by people I know and care about--how's that for the whole question of what those close to us believe?) and Jerry Falwell can say things that are inflammatory to those that are not their congregation/sympathizers and we shrug, but Wright says his own version of inflammatory statements (again considered so by those that he's not adressing) and it turns into a big hoopla. When in fact it's the same thing, the only difference is that the group being talked to is another.

Plus, didn't Paul point to Bush's own dalliance with religion? I'm sure at one point one of those people he relies on have participated in "inflammatory rhetoric" to someone or other (Part of the trade in religion, I'm afraid--you can't please everyone). Which is the far scarier scenario because as my president, Bush does speak for me and the church/state boundary is getting a little blurred. (And the fact that Republicans do tend to have chummier relationship with religious groups in general is another to consider in this panic attack over Obama).

Returning to the incident, it doesn't seem to be like the above at all. Wright has been dismissed and Obama has denounced the statements and tried to distance himself. Not to mention the constant footnote of the church/state separation.

So really, it's all moot.

alcyone

But the hoopla is not that Wright's statements are inflammatory, but the closeness of his relationship with a candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

Not sure that 'because Bush did it' is a rationalisation for such a relationship.

c.

But the closeness is scary only because the statements are taken as inflammatory, instead of being taken as remarks directed at a specific audience. Like I said context means everything. If he'd been preaching something like Obama's message this issue wouldn't be in the news. No one would care about the Reverend. It wasn't an issue until this blew up and people began to think that because Wright's statements were racist and anti-American that Obama too, was covertly racist and anti-American.

Do I agree with Wright's remarks? No, not all of them, some are downright ill informed and paranoid at best. Nevertheless, I wouldn't call the logic in them anti-American or racist any more than I call what is being taught in Ethnic Studies departments across the US as anti-American or racist. (Though some might want to Oh no, social critique!). And he is working within a specific tradition, which also matters in how strongly he couches his statements. Personally, I'm not into the hellfire oratory myself.

And for the record I have the same issue with Ferraro's statement--what Ann mentioned above. I know what Ferraro meant to say and it's perfectly valid. The problem is that it came out sounding ill informed and repeating the afirmative action trope that has belittled achievements of minorites all over the place. Then she kept digging the hole further. But that too got taken care of.

It's not a rationalization, I mean to point out the contrasts (and the fact that perhaps the fact that this happens in the Dem party is a big deal for its 'novelty' among other things). The dismissal. The denouncement. And even before all that the constant focus on church/state separation.

alcyone

I understand what you're getting at, Alcyone. Identity politics are pertinent with respect to Wright, and depending on your point of view, identity politics are okay, a logical consequence of the environment in which you were raised etc.

But the point is that Obama has made as the center part of his platform that he is someone who will bring Harmony and that he is against anything that is Divisive. So he must walk the walk (to use a old cliche). He must be Caesar's wife, not play both sides of the road. (and now I'm mixing my metaphors )

At any rate, it's not going to affect the outcome of the Dem.nom race.

c.

Eh, I don't know. It depends how much alienation sets in from this. The platform of Harmony is so ingenious because it neutralizes difference (which is always something that is feared and pushed away), but its always very, very fragile because of it. I mean if just the silly rumor that he was Muslim was panic-inducing in some circles, I can't help but think this is going to snowball. From what I've seen, there is some real alienation going on here.

So the honeymoon seems to be over. I think this will definitely deal a pretty big blow to the campaign. Maybe fatal in the long run, provided Hillary's people don't royally mess up somehow.

alcyone

You know, I'm beginning to think it's impossible to overestimate the Clinton people's knack for the screw up.

but honestly, shouldn't this campaign be about the economy???

c.

It's, like, so much more, like, fun to talk about, like, you know Hilary being a girl and Barack being black, y'know? *smacks gum and goes earnest*

Like it really matters, y'know?



*sigh*
Oh, media.

alcyone

And isn't that such a sad indictment? Yes, a few members of the Muslim faith are extremists. Just like, in Ireland, a few Catholics, a few Protestants at one time were involved in terrorism.

And yet a whole religion and culture gets tarred with the same brush in certain circles? Isn't that so very, very sad and depressing?

I meet many Muslims in the course of my job. Many of them are among the most peace-loving, gentle and ethical people you could ever meet. One of them opens up his home to members of all faiths, and is well-known in the community for strenuous efforts to promote understanding between Muslims, Jews, Christians and many more. He does it, not through preaching, but through warmth and friendship and love of dialogue and peaceable existence.

And so if Barack Obama really had been a Muslim he would never have come even close to being elected - purely on the basis of a stereotype and not from any examination of his credentials. That's every bit as bad as saying that Hillary shouldn't be president because she's a woman - worse, probably, because of the reason: that Muslims are considered the enemy


Wendy

Well, you said "inflammatory." That's generally associated with violent crowds Glad to hear I misunderstood.

I don't really want to get into this, Wendy, other than to say, there's more logic there than you'd like to admit. No, not all Muslims are terrorists. The majority of them aren't. But some days it sure seems like all terrorists are Muslims. And then there are the public opinion surveys among Muslims, who say they don't think terror tactics are all that wrong. Moderate Muslims really need to stand up and take a firm stand against terrorism, and for some reason they've been very hesitant to do so.

Exactly. Again, this isn't a casual friend or a business acquaintance. Obama's described him as a mentor. And that "Oh, I must have missed the time he said that" excuse seems thin to me, since it was apparently not rare, and in my experience, church members generally agree with their pastor. At any rate, they didn't strenuously object, or Rev Wright wouldn't have been there so long. And Obama surely would have heard about a church-wide controversy. Add to that certain remarks made by his wife -- "for the first time in my life, I'm proud to be an American" -- and one has to wonder.

I'd just like to know if a presidential candidate hates America or not. I think that's a legitimate subject for discussion.

Not that anyone's asking me right at the moment since I don't vote in Democratic primaries. But he's got a good shot at being the nominee.

Have people said that? I've heard any number of reasons why Hillary shouldn't be president <g> but so far none of them have been because she's a girl.

Would you prefer "civilizational competitors"?

PJ

But this is a grossly oversimplified view of these statements. Like I said Wright's statements are considered "racist" and "anti-American" because they are taken largely out of context. He's not talking to white America and more importantly it's not HIM that anyone would be voting for.

Can you say that his remarks are awkwardly phrased? Definitely. Paranoid? Yeah. Alienating to non-minorities? Sure, but no more alienating than the reality that minorities live with every day to which the rest of the population is largely ignorant of (otherwise we'd be talking about his phrasing not his "anti-Americanism"). The fact that their realities give more room to critique doesn't mean they "hate" America. That's some paranoid, rightist b.s. meant to silence criticism that more often than not hits the mark.

And about the mentor thing--it's unrealistic to ask that Obama's message be the message of everyone around him regardless of where or who they're speaking to. That works by the assumption that all communities have the same needs, which is again, a largely misguided view. That Wright should deliver a Afro-centric sermon to HIS church, is not the business of anyone but his audience. Could he not have been a mentor in helping Chicago's African American community? Does the phrasing of his sermon diminish all the good his church has done to a community that needs it? Please. This is media frenzy plain and simple. Ever heard of "safe spaces"?

The Obama campaign had positioned itself to "transcend" race and I agree that this is where the issue hits hard. His platform does in some way depend on pushing off anything that would mark him as different (and what has appeared as difference has been demonized--like the Somalian garb, the whole Muslim thing). Of course it increases his generic appeal, but it ignores the fact that race does matter and that communities often have different realities. His platform works on the old colorblindness myth that hides the privilege of the majority. We'll see what happens to that myth as we move further and see if the larger public realizes that it's okay to be different. Based on what I've seen thus far, I'm not entirely hopeful.

Wow. And judging from remarks like this. I'm even less hopeful.

alcyone

You don't run for president without a healthy sense of patriotism. But just because you love your country doesn't mean you have to be proud of everything it does, or blind to its faults.

Instead, you're going to give in to the smear campaigns and jump to the conclusion that he hates America? That's... pretty strong.

I don't feel that I know enough to really comment further on Wright. I haven't listened to his sermons. I'm not privy to the details of his relationship with Obama. What kind of advice was asked and given.

I do know that Obama has publicly spoken out against the remarks in question. Which takes a lot when you're talking about your pastor and friend/adviser.

And, as I've said, you don't have to agree with your friends and advisers about everything. They can be good people, give good advice on some subjects, but say things you really don't agree with on others.

As for terrorists... Come now. It hasn't been that long since the IRA disbanded. And there are plenty of examples in Latin America. And Africa. And... I'm sorry. Were you only talking about people who attack us? They do tend to get in the news more. Like the Oklahoma City bomber, or the Unibomber, or the Beltway Sniper. Or how about those devout Christians who bomb abortion clinics and attack doctors?

Or that guy... what's his name? Sang a cheerful little song about bombing Iran? Well, I guess that's not actually terrorism, per se. But imagine if it'd been an Iranian talking about another country...

And you do realize that Muslims make up about 1/5 of the world population, right? There are well over a billion of them. How many of those do you think are terrorists? Or at least support terrorism? And how many do you think are ordinary peaceful people, mostly just trying to get on with their own lives?

And... opinion polls? Really. You're going to base your views on opinion polls. I mean, they can tell you some useful information, but isn't that kind of like using Wikipedia as a primary source?

What about the fact that a good portion of those chanting mobs you see on TV are kids paid to be there to fill out the crowd, like Hollywood extras? When your most visible supporters are actors, that's got to say something about the actual strength of your cause...

Respectfully, Paul, I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that anyone in this campaign doesn't love his or her country. Also, all candidates have been very critical of some aspect of America - I don't think any is blind to its faults. I think you run because you hope that you can improve your country in some way. The ultimate patriotism.

Have to say I'm finding this a bit of an insult, Paul, although I do understand your deep commitment to Obama. I hope that I have presented rational arguments about my concern with respect to what Obama's connection signifies.

As I implied above, in themselves Wright's beliefs and rhetoric are part of the diverse culture of America. And Obama wouldn't be the first politician in history to play identity politics. Just look at the old ward bosses in new York City or Chicago or wherever.

But here's the issue - Obama is basing his campaign on the idea of being for Change in the way politics are done and against Divisiveness. Wright doesn't represent those ideals - he's old style identity politics.

Now that wouldn't matter if Wright were not part of the campaign, but just another supporter of Obama. But he *is* member of the campaign team (until this weekend). As such his views bear scrutiny. (as have the views of campaign team members of the other candidates)

As well Obama has said that he had no idea about some of the things which Wright had said. This perhaps is a tad difficult to believe given that such information has been far from private.

Obama is an attractive candidate in may ways, so was Edwards and so is Clinton. None are perfect.

Please give us some credit for being able to distinguish between a smear and a vaild concern. A candidate who engages in the rhetoric of inclusiveness cannot afford advisors who are not themselves inconclusive.

Obama has argued that words and rhetoric matter. Yes, they do.

c. (who still thinks it's the economy, guys!)

Carol, I was specifically responding to something from Pam's post:

I may be misunderstanding, but it looks to me like she is, in fact, questioning Obama's patriotism and wondering if he "hates America."

My remarks were not meant to imply that anyone else necessarily shared that view or that questioning his ties to a controversial pastor and his inflammatory remarks meant that you were questioning Obama's patriotism.

Sorry I didn't make that clearer. I apologize for any unintentional insult.

Exactly. You see what's wrong, and you work to make it better. Because you care. That, to me, is the mark of true patriotism.

And I do agree that Obama isn't perfect and that the ties to his pastor raise legitimate questions. I do think, though, that a lot of what's being said on the issue is one-sided and being blown out of proportion. It's an issue/concern, but I don't think it's as big a one as some (here and in general) are making it out to be.

Meantime, I forgot to mention...

Not necessarily. I don't know how things work in his church, but I do know the rabbi from the temple I used to go to. He's... very political. Has been involved in some very shady doings, including misappropriating funds from the attached elementary school. But he's made powerful friends and built up a close base amongst key people. Managed to get the board to give him an ironclad lifetime contract. And then ousted the cantor who'd tried to blow the whistle on him. And he's still got a large congregation. It's an isolated case, with different circumstances, but I think it's a good example of how internal politics, community inertia, and other factors can take precedence over actual words and deeds when it comes to the ousting (or not) of a religious (or other organization's) leader.

Posting again because I just came across this article , which seems quite relevant. A few excerpts:

Thank you so much for posting that, Paul.

The fact that Obama had this advisor does not necessarily mean he's playing identity politics. If he were running as a "black" president then I would agree. But he is not (at least no more than any of the other candidates). Sure the sermons display identity politics but they are the Rev's not Obama's. I would trust Obama to display more judgement than to use them (and he does), but that doesn't mean he needs to repudiate where they come from--which is the cross that most people want to nail him on (oh no Rev Wright is Divisive, Obama too must be Divisive! Let's forget the points where they agree about helping the black community!).

This call for him to cut off any indication of roots (aka Divisive talk) just because it leads to a more complicated take of what's happening is not right. Race shouldn't be the issue that it is, I agree, it'd be better to learn about policy--that said, to deny it's there only makes it worse.

It continues to be unfair to take the words of someone in a specific space out of context to judge someone else, even if there is a personal connection. Especially, if the offensive content of the words has been repudiated and dismissed.

Oh and I wanted to add:

Right. That's the logic of "because women score less in science, that means they're just not as smart as men."

Beware of "facts."

alcyone

Alcyone wrote:
I don't thing anyone here has called for Obama "to cut off any indication of roots". Let alone to imply that such a call is caused by a fear of complexity. Why would you say that?

Alcyone, as I see it, the issue is *not* what Wright believes (I keep saying this!) but that Obama had placed the man in an *advisory* position on his campaign team. That appointment suggests that Obama was not uncomfortable with the arguments and ideas that Wright has. Were Wright on the team as a poll taker or a local organizer or the web guy, say, his politics would be irrelevant. But he was not.

Please, don't suggest that to question Obama's choices is racist or shows a failure to grasp the historical and cultural experiences of African-Americans. It does not. Obama should be no more immune from scrutiny than any other candidate and he should be just as vulnerable to being evaluated in terms of the platform principles which he advocates as any other candidate.

I agree with what you said about the importance of context, however. That failure to place comments in context has been common in this campaign, from both the Obama and Clinton camp. And by the press, too.

Obama has now said that he does not support all of Wright's statements and that he does find some of them to be divisive (see Paul's post). That should be the end of it -he's acknowledged the inconsistency.

As Paul says, there are now more important issues to be dealt with.

c.

I'm not going to get into the debate that's developed after this post; I just want to note that this kind of thing has been said many times since September 11 2001, and Muslim groups have responded each time saying that they have stood up and condemned terrorism, in all sorts of environments and in all sorts of ways: in their mosques, in community meetings, in public fora, on television and in newspapers and so many different ways - see here and here and here , here , and this page on a website dedicated to the understanding of world religions (including Christianity); also this page , which is produced through the cooperation of over 50 professors of Islamic Studies and Middle Eastern Studies from the US and Canada; and finally, one example of condemnation picked up by the media - in this case, the BBC - for many examples. There are plenty of them out there. They just have rarely found their way into the media.

After all, what makes a better story? Muslim extremist calls for jihad on president, or moderate Muslim leader says terrorism is wrong? Seems to me that, for the most part, the media concludes the latter isn't all that newsworthy.

Oh, and ETA: Pam, you also questioned my observation that holding religion against a candidate would be - I actually meant that as a hypothetical comparison. I have no idea whether her gender's being used against her or not, and I'm inclined to agree with you that it isn't.


Wendy