April 30, 2008
The Wright and the Wrong (A.B. Stoddard)
Barack Obama has had his long-awaited day of reckoning, finally and unequivocally ridding himself of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright once and for all. He said what he had to, yet the question of why he allowed a connection with Wright to linger for nearly two months is a mystery that will endure. Why, when he knew not only of Wright's notorious rants, but of his narcissism, did he trust that a continued relationship was safe in the treacherous waters of presidential politics?
The question Americans will continue to ask about the Wright episode centers on Obama's judgment, a circumstance that threatens to undercut one of his greatest selling points. Judgment is a cornerstone of the Obama candidacy. Obama's Chicago friends have surely informed him over the years of Wright's radical views, should it ever be true that Obama hadn't heard them in church.
But even beyond the positions Wright held and espoused is his bombast, his callousness and, yes, his cruelty. Let's take one small example: I am paid to notice that Wright mocked the accent of John F. Kennedy over the weekend, not on Monday morning at the National Press Club. Kennedy is not only a revered president, but one who was gunned down and killed in service to this country. Was there not an Obama staffer somewhere concerned enough about what this would say to the Catholic voters Hillary Clinton is winning and Obama is losing? Will those voters notice, as I did, how long it took Obama to react?
I think Indiana is lost. And Obama's sorry past with the good pastor will have much to do with it.
***
AFTER INDIANA & NORTH CAROLINA … ASK A.B. returns Thursday, May 8. Please join my weekly Q & A video posts by sending useful, interesting and entertaining questions to askab@thehill.com.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 64 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
A.B., this is one of the reasons why Obama should be president. He gave the man the chance to show the country that he really wasn't like that, but to his dismay, he really was. People have no problem with Hillary having memebers of her campaign as Wright parishoners, but you won't report that. As a matter of fact, Bill and Hillary went to him as their 'spiritual advisor' when he was going through his impeachment. If you want to destroy someone, at least get the facts right. Hillary has the media on her side, what else does she need? If after 4 weeks of her attack ads and her lies in Pennsylvania she still hasn't closed the deal, seems like that should tell you something. He's the newcomer. She's the one with all this experience you people keep talking about. As someone said. There is a reason why the democrats have drawn more voters this year than in anytime in history. That reason is not Hillary Clinton. And sorry but I don't think Indiana is lost to Obama. They are having a good time with him. They know Hillary is a fake.
Comment by Yvonne — April 30, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
AB, can you check in to the Ana Nicole Smith story and see if Obama was there or how it affects the politics of the day? Would you also check and see if Obama ever walked in to one of those catholic churchs with a pedophile priest? Perhaps Obama is somehow involved with that too? Additionally, rumor has it Obama may know something about Teri Schiavo and therefore it needs to be discussed. You "journalists" are doing a heck-uv-a job on this Rev. Wright issue.
Comment by Lester — April 30, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
I'm not a fan of Obama and I won't be voting for him, but it's not fair to judge him on the actions of Jeramiah Wright. Obama has better things to do these days than listen for sound bites of Wright's racist rants. I judge Obama on what he has control over, his experience and his plans for our future.
Comment by John Simmons — April 30, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
You can see how in her desperation Yvonne clings to her discredited values of Obama's goodness and honesty. In her blindness she can't see that having some staffers who attend a church or seeking out it's pastor in a moment of trouble isn't the same as going there for 20 years, having a close spiritual relationship with the pastor, having him marry you and baptize your kids and in the end claiming that you never heard any of his anti-American opinions of importance.
Obama is a much smoother liar than Hillary. He won't claim evading sniper fire in Kenya or being named after Sir Barack, the first Muslim on the moon. Yet he will finagle an explanation for Wright's opinions one day only to dismiss them in false horror the next. All it took was for Wright to turn on Obama, but Wright's opinions on the US government inventing AIDS to kill black people, etc have not changed in the meantime. Of course he couldn't just say that his "friend" betrayed him, he had to invent a new opinion on the reverend's ideas.
There is absolutely no redeeming value in Obama other than he makes idiots feel like a part of a movement. His economic plan is destructive, his military plans are a recipe for strategic and tactical disasters, he has not demonstrated bringing people of different opinions together as he claims. He is a fake and worse: a destructive radical who until recently was trying to sneak under the radar into the most important office in the world. Now his duplicity is there for all to see, and those who are not the real Kool-Aid drinkers will decide accordingly.
Comment by Igor R. — April 30, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
blog #1:
"…but to his dismay, he really was."
after 20 yrs. and $20,000 of contributions Obama is "dismayed" that Wright is who he always has been? if anything Wright is being genuinely himself and Obama is being duplicitous.
OR
obama truly doesn't feel the same way as Wright but has opportunistically exploited Wright and racial tensions to win votes in chicago.
either way, after 21 debates and a year and 1/2 of whistle-stops, people know hillary is fake yet are still considering voting for her because they are unsure of Barack Hussein Obama.
Comment by j — April 30, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Your argument of inadequate Obama reaction time as related to Rev. Wright's taunting is dependent upon the supposition that Obama's Chicago pals would have told him the good Reverend was standing for radical nutcase ideals years ago. From where I sit, it appears Obama knows very little about his ex-Reverend. That the Reverend revealed himself to be an unequivocal pr*ck during a whirlwind press tour last Tuesday seemed to have hit Obama as a genuine surprise.
It appears from my lens that some portions of the news media are most intent on predicting voter outcomes and stirring up the running "controversy" pot (controversy = ratings). Because he doesn't act immediately but uses his reasoning ability to carefully weigh the import of not only his decisions but their aftermath, Obama is portrayed as weak, ineffectual…
…but not tough, not like Sen. Clinton–whose iron-fist toughness was forever archived during the Pennsylvania debate when she threatened to obliterate Iran. If I'm Iran, this sounds like an act of aggression. Especially if juxtaposed with the image of Clinton speaking with her flock of generals poise and ready behind her. Senator Clinton's remark may not have registered on the U.S. psyche but it surely got the notice of the hair-trigger Iranian government. One might've asked if perhaps this debate was not the wisest time or place in which to incite further Middle East tensions. One might ask, but nobody did. With regards to her judgement, her words must be seen as not "just words" but scurtinized by the same spotlight that seeks out Obama's.
Obama seems to lack an anger expression, or any manifestation of knee-jerk anger at least. He has continually spoken out on the importance of taking our country's decades worth of social injustice, of anger on the part of women, and on the part of blacks, of all oppressed people, and not letting it define us, instead moving it into something transformative, pushing our country's dialogue forward.
Or, we can continue to stew in the smoldering wreckage yesterday's injustices.
Comment by Rob — April 30, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
AB seems to share the biases of her former employees at ABC. (Hence her earlier refusal to lambaste them for their shameful debate ambush.)
I hope she enjoys her privileged Washington insider access, and I am beginning to understand why she is so fiercely protective of the status quo. It's what keeps her in business.
Comment by PR — April 30, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
Gee..you sound bitter Igor and your attempt to explain away McCain's ties with his own nutty Pastor fell short.
Here are some questions for Sen. McCain.
Senator McCain, do you believe God destroyed New Orleans because of a gay pride parade?
(This question will not register much with moderates and the right, but heck ask him and see if he bites!)
Senator McCain, do you actually believe that Catholic Church is "the Great Whore"?
(That question will go well with voters in Western PA)
Senator McCain, do you believe God will punish America for supporting a Palestinian state?
(no real issue with the right here, but independents may pause)
Senator McCain do you believe that we should nuke Iran to bring about the second coming of Christ?
(nutty Pastor feels that we should bomb Iran and if it brings WWIII, all will be well)
Senator McCain, what part of John Hagee did you want endorsing you? You seek out his endorsement didnt you?
Was it when he said we should nuke Iran?
Will you reject and renounce his endorsement and if not, do u support his crazy views?
What was that, Senator? You say you've already answered these questions and we need to focus on the issues?
That's wonderful, but your answers are not important nor are they relevant.
JUST THE QUESTIONS. LOUD, REPETITIVE, OBSESSIVE. QUESTIONS.
We'll be back tomorrow and the next day with the SAME EXACT QUESTIONS for SIX MONTHS.
Comment by Theard — April 30, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
simmons-
look no further than obama's 20 yr. membership and $20,000 worth of contributions to Wright's church.
Obama presumably heard all types of ideas coming out of Wright's mouth during that time period.
Comment by j — April 30, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
I'm starting to give up hope that the DC press will ever get over Jeremiah Wright. Ever.
Comment by lowellfield — April 30, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
"j" nd Simmons are scared about this Rev Wright issue. Should we surrender more civil liberties?
Comment by Lester — April 30, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
Theard-
you dutifully highlight the double-standard Libs have for the hate-monger Wright and his famous congregation member, Brack Hussein Obama.
you are all willing to crucify white christians for their beliefs yet cry "not fair" when Wright's and Barack Hussein Obama's beliefs come into question.
Comment by j — April 30, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
Read the Illinois House of Representatives February 10, 2008 Rev. Wright Proclamation sponsored by a representative endorsed by Farrakhan and who contributed maximum to Obama
www.webofdeception.com
Comment by Robert Lewis — April 30, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
Obama's other friend will not be forgotten either.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/04/30/2008-04-30_barack_obama_pal_is_an_enemy_too.html
"Obama was indeed only 8 in early 1970. I was only 9 then, the year Ayers' Weathermen tried to murder me."
Comment by Igor R. — April 30, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Theard, I'm neither bitter no clinging, I personally don't care about some nut endorsing McCain. Go ahead, keep asking, see if it sticks.
I'm not looking for anyone's purity, I just don't want the anti-American Obama in office. If I knew that he was in that Church for 20 years on a dare or something or I could look into his though process and find out that he was just a cynical observer, I wouldn't care either about that part, I would just stick to his military and economic programs.
Comment by Igor R. — April 30, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Too much to react to at once but as for the donations, they were to the Church, not to Rev. Wright. No one has challenged that the Church has done good work. At least the Obama's donated to their church unlike the Clinton's who only donated to their own foundation.
Comment by Linda — April 30, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
The longer this primary goes on, the more we learn about Barack's little deals with shady characters. For what it's worth:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Obama_Donor_state_grant/2008/04/30/92234.html
Comment by Misha F — April 30, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
Republican-controlled Media wants to keep us blindsided by Rev. Wright because it divides us as Americans and does not unite us. They don't want us united, to find our Powerbase, which would be to their demise. We must not let them blindwash us again and take us down a path like the Iraq war… no WMD's, Iraqi oil will pay for the war and yet our gas prices have never been so high, sniper fire, etc. We have a man in Barack who is aunthentic, honest, who truly sees a way for us to be united and to work on our common goals… He is not an elitist, that is another blindside! When Barack first entered the public arena, he said We all pray to an awesome God! That we are not a red state or a blue state but the United States… and that is his simple message and goal. They have tried to skew it by stating he does not even pray to the flag and going forward they will do all they can to confuse us, but if you go back to your first introducion of Barack, you will realize that is who he really is! God Bless America!
Yvonne - you were right on!
Comment by Angellight — May 1, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Lester, what are you blabbering about? My post has nothing to do with civil right. Lay off the drugs, friend.
Comment by John Simmons — May 1, 2008 @ 8:31 am
If you walk into any inner city Black church on a Sunday, you can hear much of the same words you hear from Reverend Wright in those old tapes. These same words are expressed around Sunday dinner, amongst family members. Black people have not had it easy in America. When you look at the comparatively short history of America, the wrongs against Black people are recent and the community as a whole is still healing and still questioning where they fit in American society. Barack knows this and in good conscience, he could not dismiss the Black church and what he knows are the feelings of many Black voters. I think his hope was that Rev. Wright and other pastors like him, would ease up on the fiery rhetoric in the face of the serious possibility of a Black man becoming president. I'm not sure if I will vote for Barack - I voted for Hillary in the Primaries. But I think Barack is a man of substance and that he didn't just "react" to the old footage of Rev. Wright because the media told him to - instead he addressed the elephant in the room. Race. Most white American don't think it's an issue anymore, what with the Economy and Iraq, who has time to worry about people whining about their history. It's not that easy. Since Reverend Wright decided that he would enjoy his time in the limelight, Obama and his historical run for the presidency be damned, the Senator realized his pastor was not the man he thought he was.
I think J and Igor need to stop with all the "Hussein" nonsense (and Igor, the Kool-aid comment, unnecessary) and look at the man. I do not think great and intelligent men always make great presidents (look at Jimmy Carter), but I do not think his candidacy should be affected by an association with his pastor. I think this is a media crusade to find something wrong with a good man. I'm not sure who I'm voting for in November….McCain even interests me on some levels… but I think the media should be ashamed of their focus on Rev. Wright - you are creating the monster he has become.
Comment by Mo — May 1, 2008 @ 8:53 am
Although I am tired of seeing Rev. Wright in the limelight, I am even more tired of people like you suggesting that what Mr. Wright says has anything to do with the campaign or the agenda at hand. It is exactly what Hilary wants, to get the focus off her and her life, lies and pitiful marriage and focus on something that is outside of Obama's realm as a candidate. We can't shut Bill Clinton up, so how in the hell can we shut up Rev. Wright. Obama has denounced him and moved on, its the media that keeps bringing it back and up and giving Rev. Wright the publicity he wants. It's time to get back to the reason for the race–for the people and Obama is doing a damn good job as a neutral party looking out for the people. This chicken has roasted long enough—let it go. Why keep addressing something that has been explained? Why not address the lies Hillary has told during her campaign? Why not address the negative campaign Hillary has ran from the beginning? Why not address Bill and Monica? Why not address their daughter's comments to the media? Why not address the issues at hand? Why not…I could go on for days, but I have work to do.
Comment by Chrea — May 1, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Obama took a bite of the apple, and it devoured him.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 1, 2008 @ 8:59 am
I've said it before. I couldn't care less about Obama's race. I DO care a great deal that he's essentially an empty suit though. An empty suit that opportunistically uses lies, obfuscation, innuendo, and misdirection to "transcend" race & "old politics" - talents, incidentally, referred to by liberals as articulation skills.
He has expressed several times now how utterly "shocked, shocked I tell you" he was to hear that Wright, after 20 years, wasn't the man he thought he was! He tells me volumes when he stereotypically characterizes his grandmother's behavior around blacks as that of "a typical white person", or when he apparently sees little wrong with his relationships with an American terrorist, or black anti-semite. Yes liberals, I probably have taken his words out of context & maybe even created a sound bite or two with them, so go ahead and criticize me. Get it out of the way.
Call me silly, but let's see: one term in the Senate & one speech. Yep, that sure qualifies him to be the leader of the free world!
Let's face it. The guy's a looser - BIG TIME. And I hope with all my heart that he's the Dem nominee!
Comment by Bill — May 1, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Igor, you are so ignorant it is pathetic. And by the way, Clinton staffers are still members of Wright's church. I didn't grow up in your generation that said anybody that's not white is not right. That's why we need to get rid of that 'minset' as Obama put it. You and people like you are the ones that are really afraid of change. Too bad though, because change is coming whether you like it or not. And j, nobody is willing to crucify white christians, it was white christians that crucified Christ.
Comment by Yvonne — May 1, 2008 @ 9:35 am
J, it was also white Christians that conducted the crusades. It was Also white catholic Christians that helped Hitler with the holocaust. It was also white christians that headed the KKK. So fortunately, REAL christian people don't do these things. They love their neighbor, brother, sister, and everybody regardless of their color.. Those are the REAL christians.
Comment by Yvonne — May 1, 2008 @ 9:40 am
As far as Clinton's toughness goes, face it, The DNC wants her out. If she couldn't get her work done in decade she's been in Washington, she won't get it done now.
Comment by Yvonne — May 1, 2008 @ 9:42 am
The comments that Wright made in the past week PALE in comparison to those that he's made since, at least, September 16, 2001.
As such, it's clear that Obama jettisoned Wright for the same reason he joined Trinity in the first place: his own political ambition.
Comment by JoeCHI — May 1, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Barack Hussein Obama is his name. are we not allowed to speak the candidates full name?
Brack Hussein Obama.
Comment by j — May 1, 2008 @ 11:44 am
yvonne,
you're right on wright. he's not a real christian. thanks for pointing that out.
your candidate's spiritual advisor claims to be a "real" christian but is actually a political actor.
that is until Barack Hussein Obama disowned. i guess obama-rama was using him for his own political gain all along, right? if not, Barack Hussein Obama isn't a real christian either. or at least isn't as bright as you'd like to believe…
BTW, Libs are doing everything they can to marginalize christians and their beliefs. Romney or Huckabee couldn't even get thru a Q & A w/out being ribbed about their faith.
Comment by j — May 1, 2008 @ 11:57 am
yvonne-
you're right on wright. he's not a real christian. thanks for pointing that out.
your candidate's spiritual advisor claims to be a "real" christian but is actually a political actor.
that is until Barack Hussein Obama disowned. i guess obama-rama was using him for his own political gain all along, right? if not, Barack Hussein Obama isn't a real christian either. or at least isn't as bright as you'd like to believe…
BTW, Libs are doing everything they can to marginalize christians and their beliefs. Romney or Huckabee couldn't even get thru a Q & A w/out being ribbed about their faith.
Comment by j — May 1, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
yvonne,
you're right on wright. he's not a christian. thanks for pointing that out.
your candidate's spiritual advisor claims to be a "real" christian but is actually a political actor.
that is until Barack Hussein Obama disowned. i guess obama-rama was using him for his own political gain all along, right? if not, Barack Hussein Obama isn't a real christian either. or at least isn't as bright as you'd like to believe…
BTW, Libs are doing everything they can to marginalize christians and their beliefs. Romney or Huckabee couldn't even get thru a Q & A w/out being ribbed about their faith.
Comment by j — May 1, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
yvonne,
you're right on wright. he's not a real christian. thanks for pointing that out.
your candidate's spiritual advisor claims to be a "real" christian but is actually a political actor.
that is until Obama disowned him. i guess obama-rama was using him for his own political gain all along, right? if not, Barack Hussein Obama isn't a real christian either. or at least isn't as bright as you'd like to believe…
BTW, Libs are doing everything they can to marginalize christians and their beliefs. Romney or Huckabee couldn't even get thru a Q & A w/out being ribbed about their faith.
Comment by j — May 1, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
once again censored
Comment by j — May 1, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
yvonne-
i had a reply, but this site keeps censoring me. so much for a free country
Comment by j — May 1, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
The one common thread that one sees on the republican or republican leaning posts is the real evidence of racial fear and bias. It is as though their articles are some sort of stick tearing the top off of a 'cow pie.'
And, of course the poster named Bill who calls Obama, who graduates at the top of his Harvard Law class a loser—it makes one wonder what are his credentials and why he didn't place his own hat in the ring.
Thanks, A.B. it ought to make you proud to know these are the sorts of folks who share so much enlightment on your blogs.
Comment by VinceinATL — May 1, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
J,
Again, I assure you that no one is censoring you. If your posts are still failing to go through, it may be that our automated filter is flagging them as spam for some reason.
In these posts, are you by any chance including lots of links? If so, I can see how the filter would mark them as spam. Other than that, though, I'm at a loss — but we're not censoring you, believe me!
Mike Laws
Editor, The Hill's Pundits Blog
Comment by Mike Laws — May 1, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
A.B., I think Hillary started this race thing to keep everybody divided with her 'coded' messages. I knew it would backfire on her though because we have a candidate from both races. She is guilty of alienating both races. She may have been able to scare and fool the old people, but thank God everyone hasn't been fooled. And Bill Clinton looks desperate. He has saved his speeches for those who will actually listen to him. But you know what? He nor she could ever draw the crowds the Obama does. Like his most recent Endorser said, ( by the way, he left Hillary's camp and was appointed by Bill) A vote for Hillary is a vote for the same and a vote for MCcain. We need to be the best country in the world, and to do that we need someone who can articulate with intelligence and who looks at all sides. Hillary is not like that. It's her way or the highway, and she doesn't care about anybody. And by the way, if 20 or so years in Washington hasn't gained her the support she needed, It tells me the DNC were hoping and praying someone else would enter the race. So much for inevitability argument. She knows how the DNC feels and that's why she is trying to destroy it.
Comment by Yvonne — May 1, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
Mo, if I take your saying that black voters have these fantastic beliefs that are not supported by facts because life had been hard for them, and that Barack can't reject these beliefs because they are common, I say to you that people who believe in falsehood don't have any divine right to elect someone based on falsehoods no matter how justified they may seem to you in believing in them.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Mike Laws, first of all thanks a lot for the opportunity to post on your great site. Second, there are a couple of problems with posts being filtered. Certain links to well established media sources (just one link in the post) sometimes cause the posts to be automatically filtered. There are also other unexplained word-triggered filtering actions that occur. It's like silent death: you post and nothing appears. I don't think it's a big deal, but j isn't imagining it.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
Vincein Atl, this is nothing. you should see her on T.V. She agrees with everyone who hates Obama and she also creates scenarios like the one in this post about Obama losing Indiana. He just got the endorsement of one of the main people in Indiana with a lot of pull in Washington.
Comment by Yvonne — May 1, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
Yvonne, you called me ignorant yet you haven't pointed out how I demonstrated my ignorance. I keep denying that I somehow want to prevent non-white people from succeeding, yet this is being brought up over and over, first by Mike and now by you. Don't you understand that labeling somebody a racist simply for opposing a particular candidate is a despicable tactic? I have not had one person positively respond to me saying that I would much rather see Thomas Sowell of Walter E. Williams as President than McCain whom I despise for many reasons, yet find much more acceptable than the other two candidates. I was labeled a misogynist for opposing Hillary before. But I will tell you this: when I see 90% of black voters supporting Obama, something tells me it's not entirely because they like his tax policies.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Thanks, Igor — I'll pass this info along to our tech people.
I just wanted to post that last comment to let you all know that we are not disallowing certain words or phrases. So while it could be that the spam filter is flagging them, that's only because it "thinks" they're spam, and not because they contain words that we've deemed offensive from on high. We're not that tyrannical here, I assure you.
Comment by Mike Laws — May 1, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
mike- if i believe you, it means there is a problem w/ your server or system.
i'm not adding any links to my posts.
the "lag time theory" doesn't make sense either because all of my other posts go thru right away…unless certain words are triggering a review process…
i tried the same post earlier several times and was given a message on another screen claiming duplicate posts, yet nothing was ever officially posted. it's becoming clear certain posts get re-routed and do not appear on the blog.
it's your site, i respect that.
but i'd just like to know the rules we're all playing by.
Comment by j — May 1, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
is it also a coincidence that the two regular "righties" on the site are the ones who have had problems w/ filtering?
the first couple of times this happened i assumed it was a tech error. but believe me, this has happened to me multiple times w/in the last 2 months.
respectfully,
one libertarian
Comment by j — May 1, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Igor,
Let me correct you on one minor point
"But I will tell you this: when I see 90% of black voters supporting Obama, something tells me it's not entirely because they like his tax policies"
Black voters were initially skeptical of Obama's chances, they took notice when he won Iowa. When Bill Clinton played the race card in SC, most blacks felt insulted and betrayed, so they returned the favor by throwing their support to Sen. Obama
Comment by Theard — May 1, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
j,
I don't know how much more forcefully I can say it: We are not censoring or disallowing your posts because of their content.
If they are not getting through, it's a technical issue — and as I said above, I'm alerting our tech people to it.
Thanks,
Mike
Comment by Mike Laws — May 1, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
J-
Did you say the libertarian party? Bob Barr, will he be your nominee?
That has to be it!!—the Hill central computer filters anyone who is considering nominating Bob Barr…
Comment by Theard — May 1, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Theard, please give me enough credit to know this. I'm a political junkie, so you don't think I'd miss Bill's excellent South Carolina adventure?
Your post was NOT a correction of my point though. I understand the reasons, from slavery to Bill's behavior, yet the point still stands: 90% (at least in Penn) of a certain ethnic block are voting for a candidate of their ethnicity, yet I'm being accused of racism because I oppose the candidate on the grounds that he is a radical Marxism and Islam-influenced left-winger.
If it wasn't for the unintentional pun, I'd bring up the pot and kettle saying at this point.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
Theard, please give me enough credit to know this. I'm a political junkie, so you don't think I'd miss Bill's excellent South Carolina adventure?
Your post was NOT a correction of my point though. I understand the reasons, from slavery to Bill's behavior, yet the point still stands: 90% (at least in Penn) of a certain ethnic block are voting for a candidate of their ethnicity, yet I'm being accused of racism because I oppose the candidate on the grounds that he is a radical Islam-influenced left-winger.
If it wasn't for the unintentional pun, I'd bring up the pot and kettle saying at this point.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Theard, please give me enough credit to know this. I'm a political junkie, so you don't think I'd miss Bill's excellent South Carolina adventure?
Your post was NOT a correction of my point though. I understand the reasons, from slavery to Bill's behavior, yet the point still stands: 90% (at least in Penn) of a certain ethnic block are voting for a candidate of their ethnicity, yet I'm being accused of racism because I oppose the candidate on the grounds that he is a radical left-winger.
If it wasn't for the unintentional pun, I'd bring up the pot and kettle saying at this point.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Theard, please give me enough credit to know this. I'm a political junkie, so you don't think I'd miss Bill's excellent South Carolina adventure?
Your post was NOT a correction of my point though. I understand the reasons, from slavery to Bill's behavior, yet the point still stands: 90% (at least in Penn) of a certain ethnic block are voting for a candidate of their ethnicity, yet I'm being accused of racism because I oppose the candidate on the grounds that he is a radical.
If it wasn't for the unintentional pun, I'd bring up the pot and kettle saying at this point.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Theard, please give me enough credit to know this. I'm a political junkie, so you don't think I'd miss Bill's excellent South Carolina adventure?
Your post was NOT a correction of my point though. I understand the reasons, from slavery to Bill's behavior, yet the point still stands: 90% (at least in Penn) of a certain ethnic block are voting for a candidate of their ethnicity, yet I'm being accused of racism because I oppose the candidate on the grounds that he is a radical.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
By the way, for the purposes of debugging the filtering problem, here's the paragraph I had to delete from my previous post in order for it not to be filtered:
If it wasn't for the unintentional pun, I'd bring up the pot and kettle saying at this point.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Igor-you only make valid arguments when challenged and prompted. There are two Igors–the babbling and ranting bad Igor and the other who makes coherent arguments that I am happy to debate.
We can both agree that most of the regular posters here are political junkies
Comment by Theard — May 1, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Theard, I think you're referring to my master, Dr. Frankenstein who occasionally posts under my name. That's the explanation for the duality you're observing.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
OK, J and Igor, here's what I'm being told:
If you are leaving multiple comments with the same content (you might have done this because you didn't see your comment on the site immediately and tried again), what might happen is this:
When I or another employee goes to approve user comments, we approve the original and delete the duplicates. Now, because we're doing that, the filter gets to thinking that your IP address is responsible for spam and is thus more liable to flag your future comments.
The way around this is not to post duplicate comments. I'm told that the filter should recognize that your comments are being allowed and hence come to regard you as good, non-spamming posters.
Hopefully this makes sense. Of course, it's also possible that the filter is catching comments of yours for some other, less easily explainable reason, in which case we'll do our best to suss it out.
Thanks, guys, and keep up the posting!
Mike Laws
Editor, The Hill's Pundits Blog
Comment by Mike Laws — May 1, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Igor, at least admit that you are racist.If you don't like people of other races just say so. Don't hide under the phrase of them being Anti-American.
Comment by yvonne — May 1, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
j, what about the other 'christians' I mentioned in my post? Got a problem with facing the truth? Can't handle it? Too painful. In case you forgot where to look, it's post #25. And by the way, I don't agree with anything Wright said. He and Rush Limbaugh are in the same category to me.
Comment by yvonne — May 1, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Mike, thanks for investigating and it all makes perfect sense. From now on I'll assume that nothing is being filtered even when it doesn't immediately show up. You must've gotten my multiple comments above from the spam bin. The only thing that I don't understand is why after not showing four or so of my comments the filter eventually decided to show the last one (meaning observable to me immediately after posting) after I shortened it, but I don't have to understand everything.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
Yvonne, well you could set an example by admitting how much you hate the white devils for their crimes against humanity. And you could stop pretending like you're not for Obama mostly because he is black.
Comment by Igor R. — May 1, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
you're off base yvonne. and i'm outta here. bye bye thehill…
Comment by j — May 2, 2008 @ 1:13 am
BTW-libertarian not Libertarian
Comment by j — May 2, 2008 @ 1:15 am
If I hated white people, I would hate my mother because she is white and my father is black. I just happen to be for the one who is for everybody. Something that you would never understand. So you see, I don't have to pretend. I could be for anybody, unlike you who definetely won't vote for him because he is black.
Comment by yvonne — May 3, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
Yvonne, I'm sorry to say I tricked you. I only wanted to make you see what it's like to be accused of racism when you don't believe in it.
I "just said" that you hate white devils, like you just say that I won't vote for him because he is black. I would no more vote for Hillary or John Edwards than for him, and they are white. Your accusations of racism are a tactic, one that is used against many others who opposed him. You will not be able to cite one statement to support your accusations.
Comment by Igor R. — May 3, 2008 @ 9:11 pm