The Next President of the USA will be?

[ledzeppIV]

.

BUMP!

[not the thread,.. Obama's poll ratings. ]

-----------

Gallup Daily: Obama Edges Ahead of Clinton

March 22, 2008

Democratic nomination preference:

Obama 48%

Clinton 45%

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

*source*

----------------

The post-speech/post-Richardson endorsement

bump happened even quicker than I expected.

..and this may just be the beginning of a bigger bump.

Straight from the pastor poll. Are you kidding Hermit? Pennsylvania is not far away. Hillary will hammer his ass there.

[zosodude13]

Straight from the pastor poll. Are you kidding Hermit? Pennsylvania is not far away. Hillary will hammer his ass there.

unless she wins by 65% or more... Barack will have won Pennsylvania...

at this point, its not good enough for hillary to get more delegates then Barack... she needs substantially more delegates then Barack to call Penn a win

[Pb Derigable]

This is not the end for Obama run for presidency, but it does end the honeymoon. Now the race can begin. No matter how good of a speech he gives, he has to have a point behind it. Pres. Bush was not the greatest speaker, but he had better points, then Gore or Kerry. I think Hillary can help him if she jumps on the VP. Shes good with expressing her view and ideas. But still, it comes down which direction does America wants to go. Do they favor the G.O.P ideas better then the Dem's. or the Dem. better then the G.O.P.

[zosodude13]

This is not the end for Obama run for presidency, but it does end the honeymoon. Now the race can begin. No matter how good of a speech he gives, he has to have a point behind it. Pres. Bush was not the greatest speaker, but he had better points, then Gore or Kerry. I think Hillary can help him if she jumps on the VP. Shes good with expressing her view and ideas. But still, it comes down which direction does America wants to go. Do they favor the G.O.P ideas better then the Dem's. or the Dem. better then the G.O.P.

Barack needs to find a different VP then Hillary...

IMO, she is too polarizing and might break off some of the non-hardcore Obama supporters

and, a Sen. from IL and a Sen. from NY would not be a balanced ticket... two very urban states would not win much of middle America

the rumors I heard suggest the Govenor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, has drawn significant interest for Barack's VP

[Electrophile]

cmon. lighten up. its Easter. Am I not allowed to voice my political opinion? does everyone have to want Obama?

Don't pretend you're a stranger -- we know you're not.

[Del Zeppnile]

.

Hey all you righties who are foaming at the mouth (and/or quivering in fear) over the Obama-Reverend Wright non-issue issue.. tell us what you think about John McCain and his relationships with "controversial" pastors Jerry Falwell and John Hagee. I look forward to hearing how you rationalize for McCain whereas you think Obama should throw Wright to the wolves. Do these McCain-Falwell and McCain-Hagee relationship scare you or make you "suspicious" about McCain, Christians, Zionists, and/or the White race in general? -->

John McCain was raised Epsicopalian (very common denomination in military families) but has on occasion attended a Baptist church in Phoenix from what I hear. I think you are really grasping at straws when you compare Obama's ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP in a black radical church as being the same as McCain being endorsed by Hagee and others. First of all, McCain is not overtly religious in the same way that G.W.Bush, Jimmy Carter and others have been. He may be a 'spiritual person' the same way that Reagan was (not attending church on a regular basis), but again, the Obama situation is much different than that isn't it?

No -- many people are going to be very uncomfortable with the 'brand' of religion that Obama has associated himself so closely with. I can see millions of southern white democrats and others in the bible belt not voting for this one.

Yep, this guy ain't no Colin Powell.... he ain't getting elected not no way.

[Hotplant]

His religon, just like Mitts is not an issue to me.

[ledzeppIV]

Don't pretend you're a stranger -- we know you're not.

What is that supposed to mean? Im not surprized this board is far to the left. I am surprized however of the pro Obama support as Im not hearing it in the streets where I live. Most are for the other two. And Im in a very right neck of the woods. Being a Dem and livinng here isnt easy. My own local County is so corrupt it is pitiful. Same cronies re-elected every damn 4 yrs. One time in the last 30 yrs a Dem won the County head. And he made the big mistake of not getting rid of all the rubbish.

[Pb Derigable]

Barack needs to find a different VP then Hillary...

IMO, she is too polarizing and might break off some of the non-hardcore Obama supporters

and, a Sen. from IL and a Sen. from NY would not be a balanced ticket... two very urban states would not win much of middle America

the rumors I heard suggest the Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, has drawn significant interest for Barack's VP

You're right, she would be too polarizing in some cases, but i think she will help more then she would hurt. But i think she only worth a few votes, but maybe she could get Obama to explain how he is going to get things done. I think Richardson maybe the first pick, you don't normally see people with that much pulling power pull for a candidate in the primary without a job offer of some kind.

[The Rover]

I had to dig for this earlier today, as it certainly was not coming up at the top the "Obama" search list.... But, I found it anyway....by searching "Obama and Virgin Islands"....

Obama is not spending Easter at this Church in Chicago, in fact, it is assumed that he and his family have jetted (in a private jet...I do not know...) off to the US Virgin Islands this Sunday. So it looks like Obama and his family have attended no Easter services, but that I do not know.

Don't know what Hillary did today....

Edited March 24, 2008 by The Rover

[Hermit]

John McCain was raised Epsicopalian (very common denomination in military families) but has on occasion attended a Baptist church in Phoenix from what I hear. I think you are really grasping at straws when you compare Obama's ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP in a black radical church as being the same as McCain being endorsed by Hagee and others. First of all, McCain is not overtly religious in the same way that G.W.Bush, Jimmy Carter and others have been. He may be a 'spiritual person' the same way that Reagan was (not attending church on a regular basis), but again, the Obama situation is much different than that isn't it?

No -- many people are going to be very uncomfortable with the 'brand' of religion that Obama has associated himself so closely with. I can see millions of southern white democrats and others in the bible belt not voting for this one.

Yep, this guy ain't no Colin Powell.... he ain't getting elected not no way.

I've not said anything about McCain's religion, Del. I've pointed out his political pandering to minister's who we all know preach intolerance and hatred. I find that to be as telling about him as Obama's standing by his minister and religious community is telling about him. McCain's actions tell me he's a man of no principles; whereas Obama's actions tell me he is a man of principles. That's the comparison I'm making between Obama and McCain, Del,.. and I don't think its grasping at straws at all. I think denying the comparison requires a willful suspension of reality.

The 'brand' of religion Obama has associated himself with is.. plain and simply.. Christianity. Is it radical? Perhaps. It certainly speaks truth to power, and that's usually perceived as being pretty radical. But it is harmful and hateful? Nah,.. I don't think so.

If people wanna get upset about the religious community Barack Obama associates with, thats their prerogative and I don't begrudge them their judgment or condemnation of Obama over it. But there are those among those who will use "I'm not very uncomfortable with the 'brand' of religion that Obama has associated himself so closely with" as an excuse to further oppose a man they already opposed to begin with. Those are people who feel personally threatened and offended by the race-related social injustice and inequality truths that Rev Wright angrily preaches about. They feel personally offended by Rev Wright's angry sermons in which he tells the truth about the American government and it's past and present reprehensible actions and policies. The truth of the matter is.. those people can't handle the truth.

Barack Obama disavowed Rev Wright's divisive, angry rhetoric (Wright certainly does go over-the-top at times, that's for sure), but he stood by the man and he stood by his religious community.. political ramifications be damned. He stood on his principles. He took the courageous and politically risky high road. For that he's earned my respect.. even more than he already had it.

What I find more disturbing is John McCain's blatant McPandering to minister's who consistently preach hatred of gays and Muslims. He previously disavowed ministers like Hagee and Falwell and Rod Parsely as 'merchants of intolerance' when disavowing them is what he thought would serve him politically (he ended up losing that race to George Bush despite his taking the high road and telling the truth about these ministers). Now that he needs their votes, and the votes of those in their congregations, he's embracing those same 'merchants intolerance' and is now saying he no longer considers them to be 'merchants of intolerance'. McPanderer is showing that he has no principles; he's showing that he'll cozy up to whomever he has to win some votes.

I'm still waiting for one of you repubs to acknowledge this point about McCain.

You claim McCain has merely been "endorsed by" Hagee and others. But they are merchants of intolerance, are they not? (please do tell me whether or not you consider Falwell, Hagee, and Parsley 'merchants of intolerance', ok? I wanna know where you stand on them. Thanks.). I've no doubt you would have jumped all over Obama had he accepted 'merchant of intolerance' Louis Farakhan's endorsement (an endorsement Obama ended up both "renouncing and rejecting", btw),.. wouldn't you have? So why the double standard? Why are you making excuses for McCain?

[edited to add]..

btw..

Happy Easter, bud. I hope you've had a wonderful day

of celebrating the resurrection of your Lord, Jesus Christ.

[edited again to add a few more comments]

Edited March 24, 2008 by Hermit

[ledzeppIV]

The 'brand' of religion has associated himself with is.. plain and simply.. Christianity.

If people wanna get upset about the religious community Barack Obama associates with, thats their prerogative and I don't begrudge them their judgment or condemnation of Obama over it. But there are those among those who will use "I'm not very uncomfortable with the 'brand' of religion that Obama has associated himself so closely with" as an excuse to further oppose a man they already opposed to begin with. Those are people who feel personally threatened and offended by the race-related social injustice and inequality truths that Rev Wright angrily preaches about. They feel personally offended by Rev Wright's angry sermons in which he tells the truth about the American government and it's past and present reprehensible actions and policies. The truth of the matter is.. those people can't handle the truth.

Barack Obama disavowed Rev Wright's divisive, angry rhetoric (Wright certainly does go over-the-top at times, that's for sure), but he stood by the man and he stood by his religious community.. political ramifications be damned. He stood on his principles. He took the courageous and politically risky high road. For that he's earned my respect.. even more than he already had it.

What I find revealing is John McCain's blatant McPandering to minister's who consistently preach hatred of gays and Muslims. He previously disavowed ministers like Hagee and Falwell and Rod Parsely as 'merchants of intolerance' when disavowing them is what he thought would serve him politically (he ended up losing that race to George Bush despite his taking the high road and telling the truth about these ministers). Now that he needs their votes, and the votes of those in their congregations, he's embracing those same 'merchants intolerance' and is now saying he longer considers them 'merchants of intolerance'. McPanderer is showing that he has no principles; he's showing that he'll cozy up to whomever he has to win some votes.

I'm still waiting for one of you repubs to acknowledge this point about McCain.

You claim McCain has merely been "endorsed by" Hagee and others. But they are merchants of intolerance, are they not? (please do tell me whether or not you consider Falwell, Hagee, and Parsley 'merchants of intolerance', ok? I wanna know where you stand on them. Thanks.). I've no doubt you would have jumped all over Obama had he accepted 'merchant of intolerance' Louis Farakhan's endorsement (an endorsement Obama ended up both "renouncing and rejecting", btw),.. wouldn't you have? So why the double standard? Why are you making excuses for McCain?

[edited to add]..

btw..

Happy Easter, bud. I hope you've had a wonderful day

of celebrating the resurrection of your Lord, Jesus Christ.

Hermit my man. I went to an Easter party with relatives and got into ANOTHER political fight. Man. My mother was a long time Dem, now brainwashed by the rights. My Aunt wants Hillary. Others wont say so that probably means Obama. Politics cause so many fights. Is it worth it? Haapy Easter

[Hermit]

Hermit my man. I went to an Easter party with relatives and got into ANOTHER political fight. Man. My mother was a long time Dem, now brainwashed by the rights. My Aunt wants Hillary. Others wont say so that probably means Obama. Politics cause so many fights. Is it worth it? Haapy Easter

I'm not Christian, but thank you for the sentiments.

Happy Easter to you, bud.

..family political bickering notwithstanding.

I just went thrugh that with my family (my parents are both

repubs) at a family reunion a few weeks ago. Fun stuff, huh?!

[zosodude13]

You're right, she would be too polarizing in some cases, but i think she will help more then she would hurt. But i think she only worth a few votes, but maybe she could get Obama to explain how he is going to get things done. I think Richardson maybe the first pick, you don't normally see people with that much pulling power pull for a candidate in the primary without a job offer of some kind.

Bill Richardson could be choice... however, the fact that Sebelius was choose as the dems' response to GWB's last State of the Union and she endorsed Barack Obama right before super tuesday... suggest she will be involved with the democratic candidate, in some way

after hearing her words and looking at her overall record.. she would be a balance for the people who see Obama as wishfull or just saying words... she is well grounded and a figure of stability

IMO, a great opposite to be Barack Obama's VP

Edited March 24, 2008 by zosodude13

[Pb Derigable]

after hearing her words and looking at her overall record.. she would be a balance for the people who see Obama as wishfull or just saying words... she is well grounded and a figure of stability

IMO, a great opposite to be Barack Obama's VP

Yes, they seem to do that sort of thing. Obama was picked to be the keynote speaker at the last Dem convention or the one before that. If he's going to pick a women, which probably won't be his call, he might as well pick Hillary.

Another thing, those response to the state of the union, which I'm sure Republicans did it also with Clinton, is the biggest FU to a president. Thats his spotlight, he doesn't need a fucking response. He shouldn't be questioned, just on that night only. His idea for America's future should not come down to Dem's and G.O.P.ers. I wish who ever gets into office next, the losing party stops that shit. i remember listening to Nancy Polesi after Pre. Bush first state of the union address, the first one after 9/11, and remembering. Is this bitch serious? but thats politics, cutting down ideas before they even get a chance to start.

[Hermit]

^^

I think the SOTU follow-up/response from the opposition party is a good thing.

President Bush has used the SOTUA to.. quite frankly.. disseminate lies.

Responses to his SOTUA's have been a necessary calling of him on his bs.

The post-SOTU response serve as a check-and-balance

to a POTUS like GWB abusing the bully pulpit of the SOTU.

..imho.

[zosodude13]

Yes, they seem to do that sort of thing. Obama was picked to be the keynote speaker at the last Dem convention or the one before that. If he's going to pick a women, which probably won't be his call, he might as well pick Hillary.

Another thing, those response to the state of the union, which I'm sure Republicans did it also with Clinton, is the biggest FU to a president. Thats his spotlight, he doesn't need a fucking response. He shouldn't be questioned, just on that night only. His idea for America's future should not come down to Dem's and G.O.P.ers. I wish who ever gets into office next, the losing party stops that shit. i remember listening to Nancy Polesi after Pre. Bush first state of the union address, the first one after 9/11, and remembering. Is this bitch serious? but thats politics, cutting down ideas before they even get a chance to start.

imo, the state of the union is a forum for the president to talk about what he expects for the next year... and due to the divison and paritanism of political parties, its only natural for the other side to respond to what has been said and try to depict their stance on next year...

I really hate partisanism and political parties... but its a part of the system thats not going anywhere anytime soon

[zepyep]

Hi all,

^^

I think the SOTU follow-up/response from the opposition party is a good thing.

President Bush has used the SOTUA to.. quite frankly.. disseminate lies.

Responses to his SOTUA's have been a necessary calling of him on his bs.

The post-SOTU response serve as a check-and-balance

to a POTUS like GWB abusing the bully pulpit of the SOTU. ..imho.

After Jan 9, 2009,you won't have to concern yourself with that,will you?

Then the rest of congress will tell us the truth,...right?

KB

[Pb Derigable]

^^

The post-SOTU response serve as a check-and-balance

to a POTUS like GWB abusing the bully pulpit of the SOTU.

..imho.

Well thats why we have the congress and the Judaical system. Even though it's your opinion that Pres. Bush uses that speech to feed lies to the American people, there are some people who just wants to undermined the presidency and spread there falsehoods for there own political gain.

[Hermit]

Hi all,

After Jan 9, 2009,you won't have to concern yourself with that,will you?

Then the rest of congress will tell us the truth,...right?

Congress.. tell the truth?

I'm not suggesting presidents never use the SOTU to spin their ideas, I'm saying

Bush abused the bully pulpit of the SOTU; he flat out lied to the American public.

Other presidents have used the SOTU to give a meaningful accounting of the state

of the union.. while also outlining their agenda and sharing their VISION for America.

Bush has used the SOTU to disseminate lies. He's been neither visionary nor honest.

As such, the post-SOTU response for the opposition party has been all the more necessary.

Thats all I'm saying, bud.

[Hermit]

Ok,.. I've changed my mind.

I'm voting for John McCain for POTUS.

"One of the first things I would talk about if I were president of the United States today is what's going on in Tibet," McCain told reporters in Paris following talks with President Nicolas Sarkozy."

Why didn't ya say so earlier, John? I'd have been behind ya from the outset, buddy!

-------------

McCain slams Chinese 'mistreatment' of Tibetans

PARIS (AFP) — US Republican presidential hopeful John McCain warned on Friday that Chinese "mistreatments" of Tibetan protestors were inacceptable conduct for a world power. "One of the first things I would talk about if I were president of the United States today is what's going on in Tibet," McCain told reporters in Paris following talks with President Nicolas Sarkozy.

"It's not correct. The people there are being subjected to mistreatment. That is not acceptable in the conduct of a world power -- which China is." McCain added: "There must be respect for human rights -- whether it be in Tibet or whether it be in any place else in the world."

"And I would hope that the Chinese would announce that they are actively seeking a peaceful resolution to the situation that exists, which harms not only the human rights of the people there, but also the image of China in the world." McCain said he had dicussed the situation in Tibet with Sarkozy.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called on all sides to exercise "restraint" in Tibet, where Chinese security forces have cracked down on a wave of anti-Chinese protests that erupted nearly two weeks ago.

*source*

------------------

Of course I'm not really gonna vote for McCain,.. but I am

glad to see him speaking up on behalf of the Tibetan cause.

And yes, I'm aware that he said he'd "talk about" what's

going on in Tibet; he didn't say he'd actually do anything.

And I'm also aware that he's a man of no principles,..

so I figure he's probably just pandering to get my vote.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Hermit

[Del Zeppnile]

I've not said anything about McCain's religion, Del. I've pointed out his political pandering to minister's who we all know preach intolerance and hatred. I find that to be as telling about him as Obama's standing by his minister and religious community is telling about him. McCain's actions tell me he's a man of no principles; whereas Obama's actions tell me he is a man of principles. That's the comparison I'm making between Obama and McCain, Del,.. and I don't think its grasping at straws at all. I think denying the comparison requires a willful suspension of reality.

Well first of all, I can happily say that I am not going at this from the position of being a "McCain supporter"... I for one am not going to vote for him. So I guess you could say my critique of the situation this time is from one who doesn't really have a dog in this race. No doubt that McCain is pandering for votes from the Christian right (although I would never welcome Hagee into that group in my Christian right opinion). But McCain probably feels he needs to do some pandering/fence mending since he has for years been a critic of the Christian right's influence in the GOP. Although, I don't think he needs to pander too much because most are going to just vote 'against' the democrat this time around anyway. But as for "principals" -- I don't for one moment claim that McCain has any moral high ground over Obama.... Hillary yeah probably... but not Obama. But let's face it, if Obama is the Dem's choice, many people are going to vote for McCain as being the less radical in terms of change. McCain has a lot of appeal to independents and 'traditional' democrats already.

The 'brand' of religion Obama has associated himself with is.. plain and simply.. Christianity. Is it radical? Perhaps. It certainly speaks truth to power, and that's usually perceived as being pretty radical. But it is harmful and hateful? Nah,.. I don't think so.

But that is from your non Chrisitan perspective in all due respect. I think you have to consider just how "radical" it is going to be to your average flag waving Bible Belt working class white guy before you play down how important his brand of christianity is. It's them who will need to be convinced not you or I. Just look at the subtle way John Kerry was thrown off track in Ohio last time around over Kerry's weak response to the issue of gay marriage with traditional democrats in that region. It ended up costing Kerry the election. And I am almost certain that Obama's "brand" is not going to be plus on election day either.

If people wanna get upset about the religious community Barack Obama associates with, thats their prerogative and I don't begrudge them their judgment or condemnation of Obama over it. But there are those among those who will use "I'm not very uncomfortable with the 'brand' of religion that Obama has associated himself so closely with" as an excuse to further oppose a man they already opposed to begin with. Those are people who feel personally threatened and offended by the race-related social injustice and inequality truths that Rev Wright angrily preaches about. They feel personally offended by Rev Wright's angry sermons in which he tells the truth about the American government and it's past and present reprehensible actions and policies. The truth of the matter is.. those people can't handle the truth.

But again I think your assesment of that is based on a 'coastal liberal perspective' on what constitutes the past wrongs in race relations and percieved injustice. Wright probably gets lots of people in New York, New Jersey, San Francisco and Hollywood jumping up and down saying "amen!" But I still don't see the same reaction to that in the middle of the country. Obama needs to play down that "black oppression" stuff as much as possible. In fact, that was his policy for a long time until this little "swift boat" came into port. Now he is in a postition of having to give an answer for something that I'm sure he doesn't want to. And I'm also convinced that this 'race' thing is coming from the Clinton camp anyway... obviously.

Barack Obama disavowed Rev Wright's divisive, angry rhetoric (Wright certainly does go over-the-top at times, that's for sure), but he stood by the man and he stood by his religious community.. political ramifications be damned. He stood on his principles. He took the courageous and politically risky high road. For that he's earned my respect.. even more than he already had it.

But at least admit that he only stood on this principle after being forced to do so. You know initially Obama stated that he never heard Wright say some of the things that were being played in those video clips. But that stand only lasted a day of so because many right wing pundits and bloggers were already searching for the video clips of Obama in the church at the times those comments were being made by his preacher (apperently that church videotapes nearly all of the services and packages them for DVD's). So with that Obama had no choice but to reverse himself and admit that he had in fact been present while some of those remarks had been made.

No -- Obama is pretty much in a pickle on this deal.

What I find more disturbing is John McCain's blatant McPandering to minister's who consistently preach hatred of gays and Muslims. He previously disavowed ministers like Hagee and Falwell and Rod Parsely as 'merchants of intolerance' when disavowing them is what he thought would serve him politically (he ended up losing that race to George Bush despite his taking the high road and telling the truth about these ministers). Now that he needs their votes, and the votes of those in their congregations, he's embracing those same 'merchants intolerance' and is now saying he no longer considers them to be 'merchants of intolerance'. McPanderer is showing that he has no principles; he's showing that he'll cozy up to whomever he has to win some votes.

It's called politics. Calculated and without much to be too happy about. But it's hardly anything that we should not expect.... from either side right now. Besides, I'm sure the McCain camp has "crunched the numbers" and found that accepting support from people who are critical of muslims and gays probably earns him MORE votes than not.

I'm still waiting for one of you repubs to acknowledge this point about McCain.

You claim McCain has merely been "endorsed by" Hagee and others. But they are merchants of intolerance, are they not? (please do tell me whether or not you consider Falwell, Hagee, and Parsley 'merchants of intolerance', ok? I wanna know where you stand on them. Thanks.). I've no doubt you would have jumped all over Obama had he accepted 'merchant of intolerance' Louis Farakhan's endorsement (an endorsement Obama ended up both "renouncing and rejecting", btw),.. wouldn't you have? So why the double standard? Why are you making excuses for McCain?

Okay, I'll try to give an anwser to these questions to the best of my ability.

John Hagge -

My problems with Hagee are based on his unsound theology. It's sort of complicated but Hagee is one of those "Faith movement" evangelists which are far too common on TBN (Trinitiy Broadcast Network). Hagee also has a belief in a "two covenant" or "dual covenant" theology as some call it. Where it is believed that Jews don't need to be converted to Christianity like other non-believers as has been the traditional belief among Catholics and Protestants alike from pretty much since the begginning. Hagee has been challenged on this many times by mainstream Christians over the years, but Hagee insists that he is correct despite not having sound scripture to back up his theory. ( I know this sounds like a in house debate probably to you Hermit, but it is a big thing in terms of what constitutes sound theology in many Christain's view point).

Rod Parsley -

I don't know that much about him, but have seen him as being another one of the "faith movement" cheerleaders constantly on TBN as well. For what it's worth TBN in my opinion has become a platform for far too many unsound doctrines and complete religous hacks over the last 15 to 20 years. TBN probably started out okay, but as happens many times in Televangelism, the need for more and more money to pay for sattellite time and other expenses just breeds these "faith for faith" types who are very good at getting people to send more and more money. Benny Hinn is another of these false teachers in my opinion.

Jerry Falwell -

I used to listen to many of his sermons, and I have never heard him say anything which I thought was theologically unsouond in all fairness.... Although I am not a Baptist or a fundamentalist so I don't need to be an apologist for him. But Fawell is pretty much correct in his views on homosexuality from a scriptural sense anyway, even if I do have some small differences with his theology (but of course my wife is also a Baptist and we disagree on many smaller points of theology as well). But views on homosexuality are not where we would disagree... in all candor and honesty since you are asking.

Now hold on, you are probably going to say! Isn't that being intolerant? But I would say no -- not necessarily. Falwell's outspoken beliefs against homosexuality are not outside of what nearly all Christians have believed to be true for a long time. But to put this in perspective, these beliefs are no more slanted against homosexuality as being sinful than they are against adultery or murder from this common set of beliefs.

If I had a critisism of Falwell, it wasn't with what he believed as much as the way he chose to deliver the message. By constantly placing homosexuality and pornography at the top of his list of sermons I believe Falwell was doing pretty a similar thing that this Rev. Wright is doing when he fashions his sermons to be sort of like a 'political rally around the flag/leader' type of message. (Which if you think about it really detracts from the core of the gospel message). And not that either should not be free to choose which messages they want to preach. But a lot of this (especially with the case of Falwell) is pretty much true to most of us Evangelical Christians without having to say it so much over and over.

So then the question has to remain as to what Falwell's motiviations may have been? I personally think it was to be edgy, and in that way gain more attention to his message and his political viewpoints... and of course that equals membership. Not that there is anything wrong with that either unless it means membership for the purpose of personal financial gains... which Falwell was not guilty of like others were.

So bottom line with Falwell: He was not a bad guy... just a political guy. I guess sort of like this Wright character is. But it will remain to be seen if Wright's brand of Christianty helps Obama the same way that Falwell's helped Ronald Reagan. And like I said, I am not a member of any of these guy's denominations so I'm not really in a position to be an apologist for them even if they call themselves "conservatives and Christian" at the same time. Mitt Romney calls himself the same thing, and I can assure that he is not maintream either.

Hope that answers your questions? If not just let me know what I might explain better.

Del

btw..

Happy Easter, bud. I hope you've had a wonderful day

of celebrating the resurrection of your Lord, Jesus Christ.

The wife and kid went to Church around 10AM and I slept in and then worked in the garage and in the yard. It was a beautiful day here in SoCal.

Although I tend to find my own way of being 'having Church' and considering the meaning of Easter Sunday. For me going to Church on Easter and Christmas is like taking the wife to dinner on Mother's Day or Valentines Day.... nothing but crowds and flowers for those who probably don't give those celebrations another thought through out the rest of the year.

thanks

[StringBender]

So the Rev.Wright didn't hurt Obama?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ter-tough-week/

Poll of polls: Obama's lead narrows after tough week

WASHINGTON (CNN) — After tapes of inflammatory statements made by Sen. Barack Obama's pastor came out last weekend, it appears to have had some negative impact on the Illinois senator.

Nationally, Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton narrowed in a poll of polls — which included CBS News, USA Today and Gallup.

The polls, taken between March 14-18, show Obama with 49 percent to Clinton's 43 percent.

"I don't think there is any doubt that the [Rev.] Jeremiah Wright controversy played a role in the 10-point drop in his favorable ratings," said pollster Terry Madonna.

[ledzeppIV]

So the Rev.Wright didn't hurt Obama?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ter-tough-week/

Poll of polls: Obama's lead narrows after tough week

WASHINGTON (CNN) — After tapes of inflammatory statements made by Sen. Barack Obama's pastor came out last weekend, it appears to have had some negative impact on the Illinois senator.

Nationally, Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton narrowed in a poll of polls — which included CBS News, USA Today and Gallup.

The polls, taken between March 14-18, show Obama with 49 percent to Clinton's 43 percent.

"I don't think there is any doubt that the [Rev.] Jeremiah Wright controversy played a role in the 10-point drop in his favorable ratings," said pollster Terry Madonna.

Hmmm. I wonder why all the Obama supporters arent jumping on you? Could it be because they know you are CORRECT!!! She is going to stomp his butt in Penn.

[Hermit]

So the Rev.Wright didn't hurt Obama?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ter-tough-week/

Poll of polls: Obama's lead narrows after tough week

WASHINGTON (CNN) — After tapes of inflammatory statements made by Sen. Barack Obama's pastor came out last weekend, it appears to have had some negative impact on the Illinois senator.

Nationally, Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton narrowed in a poll of polls — which included CBS News, USA Today and Gallup.

The polls, taken between March 14-18, show Obama with 49 percent to Clinton's 43 percent.

"I don't think there is any doubt that the [Rev.] Jeremiah Wright controversy played a role in the 10-point drop in his favorable ratings," said pollster Terry Madonna.

Yeah,..the Rev Wright thing did hurt Barack..a little.

But he's already bounced back, bud.

-->

BUMP!

[not the thread,.. Obama's poll ratings. ]

-----------

Gallup Daily: Obama Edges Ahead of Clinton

March 22, 2008

Democratic nomination preference:

Obama 48%

Clinton 45%

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

*source*

----------------

The post-speech/post-Richardson endorsement

bump happened even quicker than I expected.

..and this may just be the beginning of a bigger bump.

[edited to add]

Thanks for the thorough reply, Del. I hear where you're coming from.

I gotta run now (work), but I'll get back to you with other comments.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Hermit