Or perhaps we all we find out just how far Right John really is:):D;)
Just as many questions can be asked about John as can of Barack.;)
So, as I said in my prior posting, I can only hope that the "punches" stay well north of the belt line.
If not, Shiner would you be able to help me with a new TV set??;):p:D
Or two.

I went out looking for clips that were specifically intended to "reveal" something negative about Rev. Wright. I found the following clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2FC...eature=related

The person who posted the clip was clearly bothered by the comments. However, after listening to it more than once, I haven't been able to find a statement that was inaccurate/racist.

In the following clip, Rev. Wright helps to clarify where he's coming from (i.e. black liberation theology).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTGR...eature=related

The comment "I think as a Christian, you should not separate by race in this day and age...we're all supposed to be united under Christ, aren't we?" is a lovely ideal but it is naive.

At 5:50, they really get down to the heart of the matter.

Whoa, SEC! Yes, I'm a liberal but please don't make associations that imply my agreement.

For what it's worth, I entirely disagree with preciousjeni on the subject of Jeremiah Wright. I find his words both hateful and offensive. I don't know how much of those beliefs are shared by Barack and Michelle Obama...my guess would be that it's more than they would like us to believe.

HOWEVER, if you really think about it, for the last 200 years whites in America haven't had any problem with having racist white presidents. I'm actually finding the righteous indignation of white conservatives sadly amusing and ironic. What I'm curious about is what exactly would The Obama's racist beliefs (if they had them) mean in concrete political terms?

If some mysterious tape of Michelle Obama does happen appear it will change some minds, but not all. If Obama is the Democratic candidate I will still vote for him. I'm far more concerned with other matters.

His speech was straight forward to me and many people. :)

"Colorful language" is just another excuse.

Nothing (and I don't believe in the existence of substantive and systemic "black racism," anyway) whereas overtly racist white Presidents have been able to push that agenda in the past, shaping much of AmeriKKKa's history.

First, I think grouping all white conservatives in together is pretty absurd.

Obama's racism (if it exists, I don't personally feel strongly about it) doesn't bother me because I think he's going to punish white people. It actually isn't a matter of race, as much as it is a matter of class. For a party that constantly preaches against divisiveness, they're doing an excellent job of trying to rally the country against the wealthy. For example, accusing the oil industry of being at fault for gas woes.

Rather, as I just indicated, I'm concerned about the class struggle Barack seems intent on facilitating. This is a very common theme among the socialist-leaning far left, and that is what concerns me.

Please explain further this "class struggle," because I don't see it. It seems more like his opponents are painting him as an elitist.

They are. And he is (my opinion, of course).

But yes, a class struggle. Pitting the lower and middle classes against the upper class and corporations. You'll see it in energy sentiments. You'll certainly see it in tax policy statements. This is very common among academics and other far-left individuals who want to see systemic economic shifts.

Now, if I thought Barack was simply using a political tactic to win an election, I probably wouldn't be overly concerned. Pitting one group against another is part of the game. However, I think this will extend deep into his potential presidency, because as I've stated many times on here, I think Obama is a true ideologue. I firmly believe he envisions a much more interventionist government, and this is his way of getting it.

No, I absolutely agree that he is. But, I've never thought that elitism was such a bad thing...;)

I do see what you're getting at. But, poor people have always pitted themselves against the rich (hell, even the upper-middle classes)--and they've never needed politicians to do it for them.

I agree that he is doing it, but I think he's doing this as a political tactic, and he'll show his true colors as someone who benefits from his connections with corporations and the super-rich.

Fair enough, I think it is simply him showing his true colors of being someone who loathes modern capitalism and favors massive government intervention. Of course, I don't think he'll say this is in the general, so we'll have to say it for him.

You think he even has that much substance? I think he may kind of identify that way because of his background, but what I keep coming back to is the sense that he doesn't really actually believe much of anything or anything that he could be 100% certain that he'd act on. He seems just kind of assembled of platitudes.

I'm one conservative who thinks the inexperience and lack-of-substance cards are the wrong ones to play. I don't think he's dangerous because he's green, I think he's dangerous because his agenda is too fringe to put on display at this point.

I wasn't thinking so much in terms of arguments to make to persuade others which is what I think you are saying with "cards to play"; I'm just constantly reminded about how little is actually there with him.

I don't think Obama and I share a sense of what the government's role ought to be, and that's primarily why I won't vote for him, but when I contrast him with Hillary, who I also wouldn't ever vote for, I'm struck by the contrast. I think she has specific ideas about what government should do and would somewhat ruthlessly get things done, and I'm not even sure if he has the first idea about how to translate the rhetoric and image into actually doing anything.

And while I think Obama's sense of foreign policy is a little delusional in terms of the power of negotiation, the only area where I think his presidency would be truly dangerous is in judicial appointments, which isn't something that fires that many people up these days as far as I know.

I agree mostly, but I do think Obama has the depth many think he lacks. I just think he is too smart to put it on display.

What are you going on? Is it something I could read or is it more from talking to people who aren't really going to go on record?