In recent weeks we are seeing actions, words, and misdeeds unraveling what should be an easy presidential win for the Democratic Party. With presidential approval at an all time low and public distrust of the whole party [republicans] just as low, the democrats are self destructing with this race for the party nomination. You have one upstart senator from Illinois who’s taking America by storm with ‘rock star’ like receptions everywhere he goes. Then you have the senator from New York who feels the road to the white house is a birthright, and presents herself in a manner that dictates such.
I recently read an article where Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying that the primaries in Michigan and Florida were fair and should be counted. SHOCKER!!!! Especially considering the fact that she [technically] “won” both of those primaries and was the only one on the ballot in Michigan; what had me at a loss for words was the fact that she was actually trying to justify her position in saying these two contests were fair. She then went on the say that if they don't count them as is, they need to do a revote. Hmmm...could that be because she's behind and both of these areas are rich with her voting base? Could it be because she's attempting to get a leg up on the popular vote so that she can have a reason to argue at convention that she should be the nominee for president rather than VP? I'm just speculating. I am one of those who has researched these two candidates in order to decide which I would support. Strangely enough, I really didn’t make my mind up until a week or so before the primaries. What I found was, essentially they are clones of one another with almost identical platforms (substantive exceptions being education and healthcare). In recent weeks, because they really can’t attack one another’s platforms without attacking their own, the personal attacks and underhanded dealings have begun. We have the tale of two candidates:
From the Clinton camp, you hear references to Obama's middle name as if to associate him with Islamic extremists; a staffer [who was later released from the campaign] circulating emails directly [inaccurately] linking him with Islam; releasing photos of him in traditional African garb [including turban]; making a huge commotion of Farrakhan speaking well of Obama [not even endorsing him] to the point of forcing Barack to 'reject and denounce the man; then simply stating that what Geraldine Ferraro said was 'regrettable'. I have a question for the Clinton Campaign...Was it regrettable that she said it? Or was it regrettable that someone heard her say it [for the 2nd time] in public? What we're seeing from the Clinton campaign is plain and simple. I want it and I'll do all that I can to get it - even destroying the Democratic Party’s unity. It's a classic case of simple selfishness - nothing matters, but what I want. This is apparent when she offers the vice presidency to him and he's ahead in all categories. What kind of pompous, egotistical idiot would do something like this? While I don’t like to play the race card [how Ferraroesque of me], I wonder if she would have done this had he not been black? Mathematically, she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in the Sahara of gaining more popular votes or delegate votes than Obama by the June deadline, but she refuses to concede and continues to berate someone who’s not fit to be commander in chief, but fit to be my vice president [btw-who is second in line to be commander in chief? Makes you think doesn't it?] Keith Olbermann said it best, “Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice before it is too late. Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth...”
On the other hand, we have Barack Obama who’s ties to the Rev Dr Jeremiah Wright are being questioned in recent days. Some think that this is an unfair examination, but I don’t. My pastor and my faith have a profound effect on how I view life, the world and those in it. Most who are devout in what they believe would agree. Others draw a correlation between the Hagee and Parsely endorsements of McCain, there’s no comparison. In McCain's case you have a couple of televangelist who have chosen a candidate that they think can lead the country in the way they think it ought to go; in the case of Obama and Wright, Obama has Wright on his African American Religious Leadership Committee and calls him a spiritual mentor. Barack has been a member of the church pastored by Wright for 2 decades, was married by this man and had his children baptized by him. This situation is totally different, and the characterization of Wright, may not take into account his total body of work as a preacher, teacher, and Biblical scholar, but what's being examined shines a poor light on him, Obama, and the ‘black church’ [that’s a horse of a different color] as a whole, especially when some Obama supporters write this off as a typical sermon in the ‘black church’ [Michael Eric Dyson].
I recently read an article where Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying that the primaries in Michigan and Florida were fair and should be counted. SHOCKER!!!! Especially considering the fact that she [technically] “won” both of those primaries and was the only one on the ballot in Michigan; what had me at a loss for words was the fact that she was actually trying to justify her position in saying these two contests were fair. She then went on the say that if they don't count them as is, they need to do a revote. Hmmm...could that be because she's behind and both of these areas are rich with her voting base? Could it be because she's attempting to get a leg up on the popular vote so that she can have a reason to argue at convention that she should be the nominee for president rather than VP? I'm just speculating. I am one of those who has researched these two candidates in order to decide which I would support. Strangely enough, I really didn’t make my mind up until a week or so before the primaries. What I found was, essentially they are clones of one another with almost identical platforms (substantive exceptions being education and healthcare). In recent weeks, because they really can’t attack one another’s platforms without attacking their own, the personal attacks and underhanded dealings have begun. We have the tale of two candidates:
From the Clinton camp, you hear references to Obama's middle name as if to associate him with Islamic extremists; a staffer [who was later released from the campaign] circulating emails directly [inaccurately] linking him with Islam; releasing photos of him in traditional African garb [including turban]; making a huge commotion of Farrakhan speaking well of Obama [not even endorsing him] to the point of forcing Barack to 'reject and denounce the man; then simply stating that what Geraldine Ferraro said was 'regrettable'. I have a question for the Clinton Campaign...Was it regrettable that she said it? Or was it regrettable that someone heard her say it [for the 2nd time] in public? What we're seeing from the Clinton campaign is plain and simple. I want it and I'll do all that I can to get it - even destroying the Democratic Party’s unity. It's a classic case of simple selfishness - nothing matters, but what I want. This is apparent when she offers the vice presidency to him and he's ahead in all categories. What kind of pompous, egotistical idiot would do something like this? While I don’t like to play the race card [how Ferraroesque of me], I wonder if she would have done this had he not been black? Mathematically, she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in the Sahara of gaining more popular votes or delegate votes than Obama by the June deadline, but she refuses to concede and continues to berate someone who’s not fit to be commander in chief, but fit to be my vice president [btw-who is second in line to be commander in chief? Makes you think doesn't it?] Keith Olbermann said it best, “Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice before it is too late. Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth...”
On the other hand, we have Barack Obama who’s ties to the Rev Dr Jeremiah Wright are being questioned in recent days. Some think that this is an unfair examination, but I don’t. My pastor and my faith have a profound effect on how I view life, the world and those in it. Most who are devout in what they believe would agree. Others draw a correlation between the Hagee and Parsely endorsements of McCain, there’s no comparison. In McCain's case you have a couple of televangelist who have chosen a candidate that they think can lead the country in the way they think it ought to go; in the case of Obama and Wright, Obama has Wright on his African American Religious Leadership Committee and calls him a spiritual mentor. Barack has been a member of the church pastored by Wright for 2 decades, was married by this man and had his children baptized by him. This situation is totally different, and the characterization of Wright, may not take into account his total body of work as a preacher, teacher, and Biblical scholar, but what's being examined shines a poor light on him, Obama, and the ‘black church’ [that’s a horse of a different color] as a whole, especially when some Obama supporters write this off as a typical sermon in the ‘black church’ [Michael Eric Dyson].
Each of us has a number of variables that aide us in shaping our personal views, morality and global outlook, but for those of us who love and serve God in a house of worship where we are tuly fed, the lessons learned from across the pulpit play a significant role. Having been a member of this church for 20 years, I find it difficult to swallow that Barack had no knowledge of at least some of his pastor’s inflammatory statements from the pulpit, yet I’ll take him at his word; taking into account that his travels throughout his senate tenures (state and federal) spanned much of that 20 year period, as well as the fact that even the ‘best’ members don’t make it every Sunday.
I do, however, place blame squarely at the feet of Wright. What He failed to recall when he made statements that are being played as a “greatest hits” of incendiary comments is that he can't always preach the word of God and have people receive it in the manner it was meant to be received. What was he thinking? It's as if he believes that his role, while in the pulpit, is to spew the word of God. He should scour each sermon to ensure that nothing he says can be misinterpreted as divisive statements of hate and ignorance. When he answered his call to preach, his directive was to spread the Word of God in season and out of season, from the hilltops to the valleys’ in the streets and in homes. As long as he is led, directed and guided by the Lord God Almighty, he needs to keep saying whatever it is that God puts on his heart. The editing work done by FOX, NBC, CBS, and the other news conduits really made him look poorly in the light of a presidential parishioner.
What the edited releases of this man’s tirades have done is effectively caused many of Obama's supporters to think twice about him and his ability to bring America together. If he’s sitting in the pews listening to sermons of this nature, what does he really think about America and the people in it who are not the same hue as he? I don't agree, but I can see the reason for the question that some might have...if they only heard a portion of the sermons. Especially some of those that, regardless of context were totally offensive.
Obama will weather this particular storm and those that he'll face in the future on his way to the white house. Due to the nature of the statements and the manner in which they are being dissiminated, Barack needs to get a tad more forceful on his repudiation of Wright's statements, be they exemplative [new word for you] of Wright’s personal feelings and life experiences or not. Obama has won over a great many people by being able to deflect attacks, setbacks, etc. in the past several months, but this is something that he needs to get passionate and forceful about. He needs to face this one head on and not try to deflect it. This type of tom-foolery in the pulpit of ANY church should not take place and if it is, it should not be condoned, regardless of congregational makeup. Scripture dictates that there’s a time and a place for all things. The TIME for him to share his personal views [which we are all entitled to] is NOT when he is representing God almighty as a purveyor of the Word, or when he is formally representing the church. The place for his personal views [which we are all entitled to] is NOT the pulpit. His personal agenda against 'white America' has put a dent in the campaign of a man who not only aspires to be its first black president, but has a great chance of accomplishing this goal [no thanks to the tyrades of Wright].
It’s just my opinion, but I’m not wrong!
No comments:
Post a Comment