Did I miss any?
In fact, it's getting to the point that when you hear Hillary accuse Obama of saying something you can pretty much guess that she's already said it herself.
Can we be done now please?
"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons," [politician] said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."
"[Iran's] use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States, which personally I believe would prevent it from happening. And that we would try to help the other countries that might be intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran because they were a nuclear power, avoid that fate by creating this new security umbrella."
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel]." "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,"
<a href="Air'>http://www.airamerica.com/">Air America</a> host <a href="Randi'>http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/">Randi Rhodes</a> has been suspended because, while delivering a "standup routine" off the air at an Air America event for an affiliate, <a href="she'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/air-america-host-randi-rh_n_94863.html">she called Hillary Clinton a "dirty f*king whore". </a>
Over the line a tad? Yeah.
Look, it's one thing to slam a candidate for something they've said or done, but this is pure ad hominem name-calling of the most offensive kind. Even that could be defensible if it were funny, but it's not.
I understand what she was trying to do -be shocking and over the top, but in and of itself that isn't funny -particularly not in this context. Rhodes is noted for her pitt-bull style of political commentary and so a certain amount of aggression is expected, and because it's expected, it's not funny when she goes over the top. If it were unexpected -it would be funny. For example if Mother Theresa called Hillary a "dirty f*cking whore."
This is the same thing Michael Richards was trying to do, and just as when he did it, it wasn't funny. In his case it wasn't funny because he already has a "crazy" type of persona. Crazy and racist isn't a funny juxtoposition because it's not a far enough jump, i.e. you might expect a crazy person to utter racist statements.
The unexpected <strong>is</strong> funny -as an analogy consider the difference between people ignoring a dead body lying on the table at a <em>morgue</em>, and people ignoring a dead body lying on the table at a <em>fancy dress dinner party</em>.
In the latter case -the more outrageously disgusting the dead body is the funnier it is, whereas adding disgusting features to the body in the former scenario doesn't make it any more funny.
Additionally, Air America was completely justified in suspending her. True, this was not on the air, but it was at an Air America sponsored event, and the network can't be seen as sanctioning that kind of behavior -it'd kill them.
Moreover this is not a case of "censorship. The 1st Amendment only protects people from having their speech restricted <em>by the government </em>or by those acting under government authority. Having an FCC license doesn't make them a government entity any more than having a liquor license makes a liquor store into one. Air America is a private entity and is perfectly within its rights to have a policy restricting the behavior of its employees at one of its events. I would think they were incredibly stupid if they <em>didn't </em>suspend her.
So now Rhodes has been suspended and her career is in jeopardy, which is a shame because she has proven herself to be one of the more capable talk-radio voices because of her skill in distilling the issues and presenting them in an "average Joe" format.
Finally, it was horribly myopic of her not to realize that in the YouTube age -anything you say or do in public can be videoed and used to nail you.
Ironically, the person she was slamming (the <a href="Tigress'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4">Tigress of Tuzla</a>) found that out before she did.
crossposted at Diary of an Obssessive Progressive
So much has been made regarding Obama's connection with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright that I don't think I need to restate the controversy here.
What is completely overlooked here -even by Barack Obama himself- is that the criticisms of Obama regarding this issue show not just a fundamental misunderstanding of black vs. white issues, but a fundamental misunderstanding of religion.
Consider the chief argument utilized by Obama bashers: how could he sit in those pews week in week out for 20 years listening to that man and getting his spiritual guidance and yet disagree with his views?
Let's set aside for the moment the flawed assumption that every sermon by Wright was as filled with invective as the moments from the ones depicted in the circulating clips are. Even assuming that the clips were culled from services where the entire sermon was as accusatory (an unlikely premise in and of itself -I mean I assume the man had to take a breather at some point!) these are but 3 or 4 sermons in the entire 26 year career of Reverend Wright.
But for arguments sake let's assume that the above is true and that every Sunday Reverend Wright gave an agressive invective filled accusatory sermon from his pulpit. Why assume that anyone who sat in those pews must have instantly agreed with every word? This is the issue that the controversy brings up for me -that people assume that churchgoers are sponges soaking up religious messages to go out into the world and squeeze them out. It assumes that somehow religion erases intellect and that parishioners do not process sermons or even think about them but merely store them. In other words it assumes that churchgoers are only passive and not active.
As a practicing Christian I find that patronizing if not offensive. The same kind of thinking was what led people to fear that Kennedy would slavishly enforce the Pope's will in Rome. It's ignorant and bigoted.
As any Christian can tell you (and though I speak with only catholic experience I can safely assume is true of most denominations -they do all follow the same text after all) the people are the church. Not the pastors, not the heirarchy, not any one person. The community.
This means, of course that the community is going to be filled with a variety of people -they are as individual as a sub group as is any super-group.
For example, I have about as much in common politically with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League as I do with Rush Limbaugh. Donohue and I are both catholics and yet and I don't assume that the presence of either of us in the pews is a reason for the other to leave the faith or that either of us would be caught dead letting the other be assumed to be speaking for all catholics.
Closer to home there is a priest in my parish who actually proclaims himself to be the "Dr. Laura of the parish". Why this would be cause to brag is a mystery to any sane person, and yet he does a great job as a teacher and catechist for the confirmation classes. I have heard several sermons from him that I have disagreed with and even walked out on one (though truth be told I made an effort not to draw attention to myself in doing so). The point is that his objectionable sermons do not detract from the power of the messages of Jesus because I am able th reflect on both his words and Jesus' on my own and come to my own conclusion.
This is where Obama has missed the mark IMO: in not making plain or clear enough what his experience was in the church. Some might say that that is too personal and they'd be right, but at this time and in his present position he has no choice and cannot keep it private any longer.
Obama's speech on race was brilliant and will be talked about for generations to come, but the other door to be opened from this episode is one that Democrats seem to have even a harder time opening than the one about race -that is, the one about religion. We also need to have a serious discussion in this country between the religious and non-religious on the nature of religion and how it affects and whether it should or shouldn't affect both the religious and non-religious.
Take Obama's painting of the resentment felt by both blacks and whites and you can easily transpose it to religious vs. athiest. Without reciting the entire history of/ litany against the church, Atheists are resentful because they feel that the religious look down on them as somehow inferior, and amoral. While this was true in the past and is probably true in some quarters in the present, it doesn't mean that all religious or even a majority feel this way now. Religious (the majority -who don't view atheists as inferior and amoral) feel that athiests mock their faith as either unintelligent or insane. The resentments by both sides are real and justified, and that's where we are.
Personally, I don't want to convert anyone to my religion. I'm happy if they do, and I'm certainly happy to answer any questions about it, but it honestly doesn't affect my judgment of a person. I want to let my religion affect my life and prefer not to be lumped-in with every one else who claims my religion, my denomination or even my parish. To me that's as offensive as lumping me into some group based on the color of my skin or the sound of my last name.
Senator Obama has summed up his relationship with Reverend wright by saying in essence that the whole of the man should not be judged by the most offensive moments of a few of his sermons and this is undeniably true, but he should also challenge those who would criticize his relationship with the pastor of his church to reflect on their own relationships with their own pastors or conversely on how they think a person in a church is affected by that church and whether it is a fair or reasonable impression to hold him to.