Example #1: Obama is, "sort of a blank page at this point". These are words you just typed a few minutes ago. With limited time spent in the Senate, we can't say that we know that much about Obama and how he is going to run this country. What we do know is that the title of a book he wrote was inspired by a preacher that has been an integral part of his religous life. Given that we don't know much about Obama, and that he has now been linked (by his own admission) to a radical, racist group, we can assume he shares some of those viewpoints. You CAN NOT be a premier member of church like he was and claim to not know the politcal philosophy, especially when people like Farrakahn are given Lifetime achievement awards.Originally posted by: Arkaign
Unless you can point to some example that Obama is using poor/unfair judgment as a result of this 'relationship', I really don't see what the issue is. I am not afraid to rip any politician to shreds when there are valid reasons to, you should hear me go on about LBJ, Clinton, Bush, etc, but as of yet, I don't see much of Obama's history that warrants concern. He's sort of a blank page at this point. Pretty much all politicians earn my ire, so I fully expect him to follow suit, but you can bet it won't have anything to do with trifle such as this.Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Much easier to attack Hannity than to address the issue this relationship brings up. Much easier to point the finger at buffoons like Pat Robertson while ignoring the questions brought up in the this thread.Originally posted by: Arkaign
Because Hannity is the peak of sanity and anything he has to say about a (D) front-running candidate is to be looked at as purely non-partisan. :roll:Originally posted by: RY62
The story was and always has been pushed by Sean Hannity on his radio show and on his FOX news tv show.Originally posted by: sirjonk
Link? or cut and paste where it says that?Originally posted by: SViscusi
According to Politico it was the Hillary camp pushing this angle.Originally posted by: scott
(I didn't slog through the whole threaqd)
So who probably surfaced this dirt, hoping it sticks on Obama . . .slime-dripping stinking Hillary or the Republicans?
Obama's campaign has been accused of finding the G. Ferraro statement in some local paper and pushed it nationwide. AFAIK I haven't seen anyone given credit for publicizing the pastor videos, although if it were a Clinton surrogate I'd hardly be surprised. But this is both campaigns playing the same game. Does that make Obama's people slime-dripping or are they just speaking truth? Nice double standard.
Since the vids surfaced the Clinton campaign has been Very Mum about it and I haven't seen them make one comment other than "a candidate cannot be responsible for what all his/her supporters say." I'd hardly call that jumping on the crucifiction bandwagon.
Hannity is a hack. Listening to him on a (D) candidate is about as relevant and useful as listening to Olbermann on a (R) candidate. If you want honest assessment, look towards independents.
Obama is playing both sides of the table, acting like a unitor to garner a broad spectrum of votes, while dealing with underhanded racists that have a HUGE chip on their shoulders. If that is something that does not concern you then thats OK, but in a general election Obama is going to get CREAMED.
Hillary is the safe choice for the Democratic party and I fully support any move to give her the necessary votes to gain the nomination. This is a story that will not go away, and trust me more stuff will come out about this "special" relationship.