Friday, May 30, 2008

The Lingering Electability Issue

Ok, so I've fallen a bit out of love with Hillary Clinton, but that doesn't mean I am now in love with Barack Obama. While she's lost me on the character front, I still have issues with him in terms of overall electability come November 4th.

An interesting thing has happened this week. With sort of an "a ha!" giddiness, many Democrats--presumably hard-core Obamakins--have been sending me a link to the Election Projection website which indicates a 293-245 electoral vote lead for the junior Senator from Illinois in a head-to-head against the GOP's presumptive nominee John McCain. Now while the site gets to this prediction by making very broad assumptions about who will win what in the general election, I decided to tally the states Obama won versus those that Hillary won (FL/MI not included) using the site's own red/blue gauge. The results should give super-delegates, and Democrats overall, serious reason for concern. Here's how Obama's past and projected victories in the Democratic primaries stack up in the general election according to the Election Projection website:

IA--weak Dem
DC--solid Dem
NH--mod Dem
NV--weak GOP
SC--strong GOP
AL--strong GOP
ID--solid GOP
ND--solid GOP
Del--strong Dem
UT--solid GOP
Kan--solid GOP
CT--sold Dem
Ala--solid GOP
CO--weak Dem
GA--strong GOP
MN--strong Dem
Ill--solid Dem
NEB--solid GOP
LA--mod GOP
WASH--strong Dem
Maine--strong Dem
MD--solid Dem
VA--weak GOP
HA--solid Dem
Wisc--weak Dem
VT--solid Dem
TX--strong GOP
Miss--strong GOP
MO--weak GOP
NC--mod GOP
Ore--strong Dem
SD--solid GOP
Montana--strong GOP
Wyoming--solid GOP

Only 44% of the above are in any way considered Democratic states. Now take a look at the states Clinton has won:

NM--Mod Dem
OK--solid GOP
Ark--solid GOP
AZ--strong GOP
Tn--mod GOP
Mass--solid Dem
NJ--strong Dem
NY--solid Dem
CA--strong Dem
OH--weak Dem
PA--mod Dem
Ind--strong GOP
WV--mod GOP
RI--solid Dem

Hillary's blue states total 57%. So the inference Election Projection is making is that, in terms of the electoral college, none of this really matters, and that Obama will win the general simply by picking up Clinton's big, key blue states come November despite likely losing half or more of his primary states. That's a pretty big overall leap. Let's just hope they, and the Obama supporters, are correct. Judging from all the latest polling of head-to-heads against McCain, and of the key swing states, I'm not so sure.

On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. We're very pleased to announce that one of last year's grant recipients, Cynthia Wade, just won an Oscar for Best Documentary Short Subject for "Freeheld." We are proud of Cynthia and to have supported this film. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us continue to achieve our very important mission.
Thank you.


Anonymous said...


I thought we weren't supposed to fall in love with any candidate...

The Blogging Caesar isn't simply making an inference that Obama will win the blue states Clinton won in the primaries, the polling data we currently have shows that Obama leads McCain in most of those states and the trends are currently in his favor. Not to mention the fact that he has leads in red states won by George Bush (Iowa, Colorado, etc.).

Frankly, I'm happy that the race seems so close at this point. It'll force us Democrats to work our asses off, which is a long-term positive for the party as I see it.

Anonymous said...

Sure and if we lose that will be even better cause then we will really work hard in 2012....cut the crap! Run Obama and Hillary together and it will be a sure win by a large margin and we can turn the country around. Run him without her and it's a nail biter which I DO NOT NEED AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME and if he goes down ( I can't believe I am reading left wing nonsense about how we can win without either Michagan, Florida, Ohio or Penn due to the missing Mr. Dean's 50 state strategy!!!) the Supreme Court is lost for thirty years and it's bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Anonymous said...


How in the world can you infer from my statement that I believe it will be better if we lose?

If you do not need to lose at this stage of the game, then support the nominee of the party - regardless who that may be and regardless who they pick as the VP.

Anonymous said...

Obama and Hillary must run together or he will lose for sure.

You do not tick off the base of the Democratic Party (women) and then expect them to work hard for your candidate.

The polls in Michigan already show McCain ahead. It may be early, but Obama will not win Michigan. Too many parts of the state will vote against him on race.

So it matters nothing that Obama and his supporters keep saying how things have changed in our country regarding race and old style politics.

All I wanted was for a Democrat to win the White House in November. Without Hillary, it won't happen no matter what Obamakins say.

Think about it: All of Hillary supporters will do nothing to help Obama. Many are going to vote for McCain if he does not put her on the ticket.

Wake up and think about.

Anonymous said...


What is delusional (requiring a wake up call) is the notion that you speak for all Hillary supporters.

Within just the last week, my wife and I, who sport Obama stickers on the backs of our cars, have been approached by no less than a dozen white women at our son's school who want to know what they can do to support Obama. They, as women, supported Hillary's candidacy but are willing to help Obama now that he's the likely nominee. They will not vote for McCain.

Also, the Hillary supporters from my precinct caucus overwhelmingly have stated they will support Obama over McCain. Two of them now regularly join me to volunteer at Obama HQ.

Will YOU support Obama if he is the nominee?

Anonymous said...

Let's settle down a little bit on the catastrophic thinking. Do you remember where Bill Clinton's poll numbers were at this point in the race in 1992--disastrous! There are months to go yet, with several things in our likely nominee's favor--McCain, for instance. Can you picture the effect of an Obama and McCain debate? Maybe I will be wrong, but I'm expecting another Kennedy/Nixon moment. The Obama campaign has another excellent strategy--to organize (and they are very good at organizing) massive voter registration drives from now until November with the goal of registering at least a million new voters. You could help there. Rather than being a nay-saying hand-wringer, girds your loins for battle, and enjoy the challenge.

Anonymous said...

Oh, yes, regarding the need for Hillary to be on the ticket...I'm afraid she herself has made that one impossible. How on earth could there be a ticket where a vice presidential candidate has publicly stated that the presidential nominee doesn't have what it takes? All the Republicans have to do is show those soundbites over and over again in their campaign ads. Not very helpful. In addition, the whole idea behind Obama's campaign has been to change how things have been done in Washington. How can you have someone on the ticket who is the epitome of the Washington insider, tightly bound to lobbyist interests? Can't be done. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

It is delusional to think Obama can win the general election. Just wait until the country sees the tapes of the crap coming out of his church and from former member of his campaign and a long-timefriend. Just because Ostroy didn't include that in his "electability" concern, doesn't mean the Pfleger incident is of no consequence, despite its being wiped off the air with the NY tragedy.

Pfleger nade hateful accusations and offered outrageious remedies for wrongs against blacks, and he was supported unaimously by the congregation. He said whites should give up the retirement plans, their wealth and their "privilege" to be absolved from the crimes of their ancestors who were involved in slavery. The Republicans are going to scream communism - of which Obama has been charged - and that he will institute a redistribution of wealth. (Will Wright give up his ten million dollar house, they will ask.)

Whereas there was no huge racial divide before, there is a chasm now because of the black hatred and racism as exposed through Wright. Pfegher apologized for his remarks -- the thousands gathered who agreed have not apologized.

Obama won't win even if Hillary is his v.p. It is not about personality now - it's about ideology as it will be interpreted by the Repugs.

Anonymous said...


Wait until the country sees it? Man, it ran all day on every show on FOX News yesterday...

You really do need to get past the race bullshit. It's a new day dawning, amigo. Lay to rest your fears of Repuglican fear-mongering and race-baiting. They've tried it all during this campaign and have lost in white districts in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Yes, the Repugs will try to tarnish Obama. They would have tried to tarnish Clinton, too, for her unsavory associations. Ultimately it isn't going to work.

Anonymous said...

Michael == On Ostroy's previous blog, I just read a contributor's thank you for your staying by your computer all day to keep us up-todate on your opinion after each commentary during the entire day. You have replaced Sidney and we are grateful.

It is my opinion that the new "communist slant" really isn't going to play well even with some Obama supporters. And one "smudge" wasn't going to hurt Obama but they are increasing and becoming more offensive. Now we are being blamed for our "greats grands" from three hundred years ago and asked to pay with assets to remedy "their offense" against the black people living today. That's a bit much - and especially when we see thousands in the church in agreement.

The damage has been done and Obama cannot win the general.

Anonymous said...


I have little doubt that you and the other are one and the same. Your writing style is identical as is your argument.

Let me ask you a simple question: if Obama is the nominee, who will you vote for?

Anonymous said...

Look, Obama or Hillary, either way, there will be big Republican smear campaigns. Hillary has plenty of questionable baggage that hasn't been aired yet. Obama didn't want to take that tack but that doesn't mean she isn't just as vulnerable. Do you really think the Republicans were going to be any less successful at smearing her as him? Her negatives have been rising and with new Republican revelations they would have risen further. take where you are and you fight to make it work. Stop with all the whiny nay-saying.

Anonymous said...

All you Obama supporters are
Nanny wannabes. No wonder the Republicans call us the Nanny Party. We Hillary supporters will whine if we want to, so lay off.

(You probably want to take our 401Ks and share them with "the other "children} like Obama's pal, the priest suggested.)

ALL of Hillary's baggage as been pawed through for years and years. They have nothing on her. So stop minding our business and worry about your poor choice for the nomination.

Anonymous said...


Answer the question, please. Will you vote for Obama if he is the nominee?

Anonymous said...

andy's right,Obama will have too fight tooth and nail to win in the fall.And the good thing for Mccain is the stupidity of the govenor of New York.Not only are new yorkers going to be angry about Hillary not being on the ticket,the fool did a end run around the state constitution and is reconizing Gay marriage.Nothing like handing MCCAIN a win.Micheal Moore said months ago watch the dems fuck it up,Boy was he right.With all the new baggae coming to light out of Obama's church,It shows these video's your seeing of the chuch aren't 30 second clips,this is whats taught every minute there.And Obama and michelle sat there 20 years listening to all that hatred,But you know none of it rubed off.YEA RIGHT

Anonymous said...


New Yorkers seem to have pretty quickly gotten over any "anger" about Hillary not being the nominee. Just today Rasmussen reports its findings that New York Democrats say Obama is more electable than Clinton and he's viewed more favorably than she is in her home state.

Anonymous said...

4:36 to michael,rasmussen report doesn't have my vote and I live in upstate new york and I'm telling you,Your full of shit.Almost every dem I've talk to say they will not,repeat will not vote for Obama in the fall,the more they hear of his church problem the more they are saying NOW they'll vote for Mccain.You Obama wing-nuts are in for a great fall in the fall.HOPE YOUR UP TO IT

Anonymous said...


Why am *I* full of shit? The report comes from Rasmussen - a well-respected polling group based in the NY/NJ area.

The real question to ask is of your friends who say they will vote for McCain - are THEY up to it?

Anonymous said...

It's better than voting for an empty suit that sat and listened to hate speach for 20 years and then threw his white grandmother(who helped put him through those ivy-league schools)under the bus in his defence of the rev.Wright.

Anonymous said...

The latest Trinity Church, Pfleger stuff has been all over the news this afternoon and early evening. It is not going away. Even MBNBC the champion of Obama from the beinning expressed doubts and concerns over his getting rid of this. They all agree it will hurt him and probably cost him the election. Not only that, Buchanan was irate over the socialism/communism remarks. Others say that whites are afraid Obama will bring that crowd with him into the White House. Another network pointed out that the entire congregation supported and cheered the remarks. And the underlining complaint is Obama has been a close, supportive member of that church for twenty years and close friends of these preaching racism. He had to know what was being taught and preached there.

BTW When Obama was state senator, he got Pfleger's church millions of dollars for it's Afro-American young people's program. What will he do for "buddies" when he's the President?

Obama's rejection of Pfleger didn't mention Hillary or even allude to her. He regretted the retro remark s that were divisive.

McCain is the one who was offended by the remarks Pfleger made while mocking Hillary.

Anonymous said...


Really? A continuation of Bush policy is better for you, your friends and America?

Ask Obama's grandma if she feels she was thrown under the bus or if she feels that the Ivy League education her grandson received has left him an "empty suit". I think the answer might surprise you.

Do you support the platform of the Democratic Party?

Anonymous said...

michael said...

Will YOU support Obama if he is the nominee?

10:46 AM

Hmmm, just like Michelle Obama said,

"I'm going to have think about that"
For a long...long time.

Michael, you're coming from a younger age-group. (Think about it while taking your kids to school)
You must figure in the 'older Boomers'...they're planning to vote, if need be, on their death beds!
You should be surveying your kids teachers...the older Boomer generation.

Yet, Obama peeps just aren't considering them. What a shame...because Obama can't possibly win without them.

Give us a Clinton VP...and you got a deal.

Anonymous said...


I'm watching Race for the White House right now and not a single person, even Buchanan, said the Father flap will cost Obama the election.

Also, hundreds of thousands is not quite millions.

BTW, are you concerned in any way that the Clinton's coffers have been filled with millions by sweetheart connections with Saudis and some pretty nasty foreign leaders and businesspeople? Do you not think the GOP would run roughshod over her with anything they will dig up on her (and they will...)?

With all these GOP talking points from anons at the Ostroy Report, I'm starting to think it's been infected by the trolls solicited by the McCain campaign...

Anonymous said...

anonymous said...
4:36 to michael,rasmussen report doesn't have my vote and I live in upstate new york and I'm telling you,Your full of shit.Almost every dem I've talk to say they will not,repeat will not vote for Obama in the fall,the more they hear of his church problem the more they are saying NOW they'll vote for Mccain.You Obama wing-nuts are in for a great fall in the fall.HOPE YOUR UP TO IT

The only thing that would change their minds...Hillary on the ticket.

After seeing the recent video...a white Catholic Priest!!!

That hit the *hearts* of many voting Dems and they're saying,

America's problems are so serious right now....
Maybe Obama's baggage and some new-fangled Vice President...
Would bring new problems we just can not afford to deal with at this time.

Anonymous said...


I'll be 41 this summer. My wife, a Latina, is 44 and has never voted for a Democrat for President in her life. She's committed to Obama.

My father and mother, who are white and in their late 60s and have never voted for a Democrat for President in their lives are also voting for Obama.

At least half of the ladies from school who have come up to us and talked about supporting Obama after backing Clinton in the primaries are in their 50s.

Most of the ladies who support Clinton at Dem party HQ here in my city have told me that they will support whomever is the eventual nominee.

I'm not stupid enough to discount that there is resentment and anger. I was FURIOUS with the Dukakis campaign for screwing over Joe Biden in 1988. But when it came time to pull the lever, I am a believer in the principles and platform of the Democratic Party.

It's my hope that supporters of Clinton will feel the same way.

As for Clinton being VP, I think that is going to be difficult. She's going to have a hard time back-tracking on some of the things she's said about Obama's readiness and ability to serve as President.

I'm not saying she cannot do so but I imagine it would be VERY hard.

Anonymous said...

Did you all know that another white Catholic priest at a NY GOP meeting just last night, while giving the prayer invocation, mocked Obama?

Seems like Thomas Jefferson was quite right when he thought of a wall of separation between church and state.

Anonymous said...

For those of you saying Wright/Pfleger will irreparably hurt Obama, you could be right, but as you've put it here, what you really mean is: it is a deal-breaker for YOU, not "the electorate." And in this, you are being absurd. This will have no impact, none whatsoever, on the ACTUAL POLICIES that Obama would advocate or put forth. Why would you punish Obama for errant underlings, why vote for McCain and all but guarantee the end of legal (and safe) abortion but expanded war, etc.? Are you really that frightened of black people? They scare you so badly that you're willing to elect an incompetent, warmongering, social conservative to office?

Secondly, Ostroy:

Although as you note the polling has variances from here on in, the crucial part is this: Obama will probably not win in Florida (where Clinton probably would), and he's running very close in Michigan (where again Clinton looks better). But there's no way he'll lose any of the other traditionally blue states, he is all but certain to pick up IA, CO, and NM (+ 21 electoral votes), and he's likely to win states it appears Clinton might have lost out of the traditional blue states (WA, OR, WI: -29). Then there's VA, NC, MS, TX and NV, where McCain is likely to win but he'll have to work for it (none of those except NC are in play with Clinton on the ticket).

There's also the money issue: Obama is more competitive overall in more states, even if he's weaker in some of the "big blues." The NRCC is really, really strapped for cash. Obama's competitiveness across those states forces them to try to stretch those funds, whereas Obama's demonstrated that he is a fundraising machine (so is Clinton, to a slightly lesser extent). This will not only help Obama because he can outspend the GOP, it will help the down-ticket races for Congress. Therefore even if Obama loses, he'll be better for a larger majority in Congress, which might even be at veto-override strength if we work hard enough.

Parting shot: can people please refrain from asserting that they speak for "the base" of whatever party/faction? It's stupid.

Anonymous said...

Separation of church and state is a pracical cocern because everybody one's upbrining determines how one acts, bhinks and behaves all of his life. That's why Obama is "elite". He had "elite" training. That's why the "bitter" pepole love their religions and their guns. (Aside: a police officer told me the other day how much he loves his grandfather's rifle becuase of the good times he had with him learning to hunt and just being with him..) Church, God and religions is just as important and just as definitive in the esssence of a human.

So it means a church can't politicize or support a party. Obma's church clearly does, it broke the separation barrier and should be taxed. The government can't tell us what church to attend or what to believe. And -- you know the list.

But what a person thinks or believes is always at play in every endeavor he undertakes. And, since we're no longer a "melting pot" it would include those with special interests connected to the specifics of their circumnstances. It all has to be considered when electing a president.

Obama's religion which he has supported has taught him to distrust and hate white peopleand to have little regard for recent practicies of our government. One would have to agree with thier choice for president to vote for him.

If this is not true why is everybody so fearful of the mindset of the next Surpreme Court appointee.

Anonymous said...

if you want to see what type person Obama really is turn on cnn election center right NOW

Anonymous said...

Quite the back stabbing MFer the reason you don't want this a$$-hole as president

Anonymous said...

Buchanan and others are saying that Hillary will show her popular vote and demand the vice presidency. I don't think Obama can win even with Hillary on the ticket as v.p. There is too much upset over the Priest "thing" added to the baggage he had before. If she is the v.p. and he loses she's then "a loser" like Edwards and will not be in a good position in 20012. Things look bad the way I see it.

Anonymous said...

this is all so silly. mccain is having probs raising funds for his campaign...polling shows dems kicking the crap out of repugs in every corner of the nation...the nation and the world are tired of the republican crime syndicate...obama will be the next prez...he will have both a dem senate and house...we will then see if the dems can truly clean up this awful mess....oh, and obama formally left his church today...are you all happy now?

Anonymous said...

Oh -yeah -- boy are we happy. Obama is really "top drawer."

When he wasn't Black Enough he joined the black community and Trinity Chruch twenty years ago to rise as a black advocate in politics. When he wasn't "Black Enough" he dumped his white grandmother or "threw her under the bus" as folks like to say.

Now that's he's TOO BLACK (involved with black hatred and resentment towards whites) he dumps his "Mentor, Uncle, Friend, Preacher, Advisor, Rev. Wright"; the new preacher whom he praised, his friend Pfleger and Trinity Church", He "threw them under the bus." Although he did say he wasn't denouncing the Trinty Church BECAUSE IT WASN'T WORTHY OF DENOUNCEMENT. What does that mean?

So we will get a president who will do whatever it takes to whomever is in the way for him to get what he wants.

Anonymous said...

Obama left the god-damned chuch for political reasons and political reasons only.This is the biggest slease-bag the liberal part of the democratic party has ever tried to force on the american public.This so called man of yours sat in a african-american church for 20 years and just NOW realizes the church has been preaching total hate of the white race(now you know why throwing grandma under the bus was an easy job).GIVE ME A BREAK.This mans first political post was because he purged the voter registration cards of his democratic (AFRICAN_AMERICAN) opponates in the chicago area.Seeing's the democrates are backing this guy to the hilt.It must now be OK to supress vote turnout.This aSSholes baggage is multiply by the minute if not the second

Anonymous said...

When Dead opened the meeting yesterday he started with a story about when hc complained to Al Gore about how badly tne DNC and Democratic Pary was treating him. Gore replied that it was n't about him (Dean) but about his country. If Gore felt that loyalty toward America why didn't he show the spine to fight for the presidency which he had won? No,he "caved" "for the country" and look what we got.

Hillary would not have backed down like Gore and then that "puff" Kerry. And's she doesn't shift every time a new wind of controversy comes her way like another "puff" Obama.

She is a fighter; she believes she would be the best and strongest president and she is not going to give up.

She is fighting for the country

Anonymous said...

" he wasn't denouncing the Trinty Church BECAUSE IT WASN'T WORTHY OF DENOUNCEMENT. What does that mean?"

It means that people have put that church under a microscope, that the church itself has gotten caught up in the crazy, and that Obama is now being held accountable for things that happen there in his absence via the words of a (white) Catholic priest who was invited there to speak. He's severing ties so that he and the church don't weigh each other down, but he's not denouncing it because he loves his church.

The church I grew up in consists almost entirely of Republicans, and as rural white Republicans I've heard things come out of each of their mouths that has left me aghast: racist, xenophobic, and just plain wrong-headed. But they're good people, it's a good church, and they do good work. However if that church came under similar media scrutiny, I have no doubt it would look really bad, and I would look bad by association, even though I don't vouch for things they say/do/think in terms of politics. And like Obama apparently is now, I would have no desire to dump all over them for it.

Now, I don't mean to defend the church or Obama's ties to it. Maybe it really is a bastion of anti-white sentiment (or, anti-white privilege, which isn't precisely the same). But we don't really know, not really, and at any rate, it's at its core a non-issue: how on earth would this affect policy?

Folks, these people are running for POTUS. By definition, this means that in many respects they are craven, arrogant, flawed people. Character? You folks want to talk about character when you're defending Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton. This is your shining example of character? You have got to be kidding me.

I don't need a prez who gives me warm fuzzies, who I want to have a beer with, who I think is "warm" or "nice" or any of that--I will never meet or spend time with that person. I want a good leader who exercises wisdom and caution, and who advocates policies that I support. I think that FOR THE MOST PART, both Clinton and Obama have this in spades. Character would be the icing on the cake, but I'll eat a cake without frosting if I must.

Quit whinging and gnashing your teeth, Clintonistas, it's over. Now unless you WANT a president McCain, we've gotta get Obama elected.

Anonymous said...

I LOVE animals. I LOVE every dog that has expressed unconditional love for me. When MY PASTOR stood in his pulpit and said "forget about PETA and do what you want to do with animals and your pets. You have dominion." I left never to return again. It made my skin crawl and I got sick to my stomach. Such hatred for animals was unbearable to me. It also bothered me that my neighbors who tie their dogs to three foot ropes, leave them there twenty-four hours a day, forget to give the dogs water when it's 90 degres, take their pets to another town and abandonthem there because they were not spayed and are pregnant, and who commit other abuses, were hearing from their spiritual leader that any thing they wanted to do was all right.

Another preacher in another church said that in the old days shepherds broke the legs of their sheep to keep them from straying from the shepherd and Jesus does that to us. He sends hardship and pain and hurts us so we won't stray from the church and Christianity.

The CHURCH and what is taught there is the most intimate meaningful part of our lives. It has to teach Love and the words of, in my case, Jesus.

It matters to me that Obama could stomach the hatred and lies taught in his church.

At another church in sophisticated NYC a preacher said that natives in forgeign lands who had never heard of Christ were doomed to hell anyway because they had not taken Jesus as their Lord and Savior. I walked out of that meeting.

Maybe I'm overly sensitive but as I wouldn't sit in a math class that taught two plus two is five. I can't sit in churches where "God id Love", the basic teaching of Christianity, is not taught.

On another level, Oprah's representative said she left because she knew her TV audience would object to the message. Obama is not as smart as Ophra or anybody else with common sense.

Anonymous said...

Obama said he went to Trinity to worship God. I'd like to know when that part of the service happened. It doesn't seem to be a big priority there. Then on another occasion Obama said he went to Trinity for the church community. So, since that community is very enthisiastic in its support of preachers, did he sit quietly while the rest of the congregation gave standing ovations to Wright and cheered? How did he fit in the community he sought if he didn't participate in the agreement?

As for 11:13 - it doesn't matter so much what comes out of the mouths of the attendees. People go to church to hear the tenets of their religiions (and in my small town they go because it's good for business), to grow in understanding and to learn to live up to the standards of the religion. When they are being taught hatred from the pulpit that church is in big trouble and so are the members if they continue to attend.

I heard in one of the clips. Wright mentioned something about the quality of the churches teaching Christianity during slavery and segregation times. That is a legitimate and serious question. Why didm't the preachers of the day in the white churches point out how unChristian their treatment of other human beings was? Members of a church have a responsibility to be sure the message from the pulpit is the truth of their religion.

I wonder if 11:30 ever said, even to another member, that he didn't agree with their racist views?

Good people have good thoughts. It's as a man thinketh so is he. Remember.

And why it matters is as a man thinketh so he "acteth".

Anonymous said...

Let me be more clear about the analogy:

1. When I say "racist" comments, I'm not saying I ever heard the N-word, not even once. I'm talking about tacit, unconscious racism, comments about affirmative action and the like. Most of the time I did say something.

2. You're right that this isn't the same as hearing it from the pulpit, but that's part of my point: it was (is) a community there, and there was (is) a lot of good people and good work there--despite a bit of cognitive dissonance in other areas. But then what would religion in America be with out that, eh?

3. In addition to going to church for the message, I think it's fair to say people go to church because they feel they should. Or they go to church for the people, or the community organizing, or whatever. When I used to go to church (I'm no longer religious), I only rarely actually listened intently to the sermons. I can't say that this resembles Obama's approach. For all we know he's not very religious himself and went out of intertia and/or for the political connections of that church. We have no idea why he was there, why he stayed, etc.

4. I don't consider anything I've seen from those clips remotely to be "hatred." I think it's over the top, absolutely, and there are a few things that are borderline paranoid (like the AIDS bit). So for me those comments are not dealbreakers. For people who are more easily offended, I think it's fair to question Obama's judgment in staying there. However, we don't know to what extent those sermons (out of thousands over the years) are reflective of what regularly transpires there. But let's say that was the norm: is it off-putting? Yeah. But there hasn't been anything we've seen in Obama's temperament or what he's said that indicates to me that this has much effect on policy or leadership.

At any rate, I ask again: is this enough to make you think "President McCain" has a ring to it?

Anonymous said...

A black columnist said on TV tonight that The Black Liberation Theology was racist and anti-American I then Googled Black Liberation Theology.

Here is part of the first article listed:

"Black liberation theology refuses a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the Black community. 'If God is not for us and against White people, then he is a murderer and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the White Enemy.' " This is a quote of Cone, the founder of Black Liberation Theology.

" 'There is no use for a God who loves White oppressors the same as oppressed Blacks. We have had too much of White love, the love that tells Blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile.' " (Cone, A Black Theology for Liberation. p. 70)

"Like the Black Muslim Movement, The Black Liberation Movement is a militant ideological and political movement. It finds its philosophical roots in Marxist revolutionary thought. Its leaders disguise themselves and their message with Christian terminology and symbols. By deceit it hijacks churches and uses them to accomplish the radical social and political agenda."

Yes, "President McCain" is sounding good.

Anonymous said...

Time to wake up.Time to realize the dems pick for the fall election will have less than 50% of the popular vote.The person cast to the side had more popular vote.This is the reason Obama fans were tearing their Hearts out to get hillary out of the race before the last vote could be counted.When obama is sat as the new massiah for the democratic party.Over the weekend by counting florida and michigan,it gave Obama the win.Even though hillary won both state's,If those states would of been declared as hillary wins in jan.The great massiah Obama would be a lost memory.The right wing media played right along with Obama,because very few of them ever mentioned who won florida or michigan.They were always Quick to add those don't count if someone brought the fact that hillary won them.Now the rules committee say they count(BUT ONLY BECAUSE OBAMA HAS DELAGATES LOCKED UP).The liberal arm of the democratic party has control of the party,They like Bush believe in "IT'S OUR WAY OR NO WAY".I say give them what they want,VOTE democratic for every office except the top office.There bite your lip and pull the lever for Mccain.Inless your willing to vote for someone who has the great forsite to sit in a Racist black church for 20 years,letting his wife and childern be taught it's all the whites fault and it's OK with god if you hate white,their the whole problem with the black community,The only reason Obama quit the church over the weekend,he wants your vote and wants you to forget the rev. WRIGHT,Resko,his land deals and O'yea his purging of the voter rolls for his first elected office he held.Nothing like purging african-american voters from the rolls.And this is the liberal dems. best pick.Now we now why 70% of hillary voters say they'll stay home or vote Mccain in the fall

Anonymous said...

Kennedy, on his way to the hospital for six hours of surgery in an attempt to save his life , SAID "THAT HE WOULD RECOVER AND THEN CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR OBAMA." Obama was the most important thing on his mind when he went for surgery. WHAT'S BEHIND THE FAR LEFT DEMS IN PUSHING SO HARD FOR OBAMA?????

They cheated Hillary by giving Obama MI votes he hadn't received. They have manipulated everything to his advantage. I am thoroughly disgusted with the DNA, the Democratic Party and don't trust it. Have they all become Marxists like Trinity Church and apparently Obama? Does it mean nothing to them that he cannot win after the Republicans play the clips showing what comes out of his church and the entire congretation screaming approval.

What has happened to our Party and, for that matter, our country. I've never seen so much hatred and underhandedness at play.

The Far Right is beginning to look level-headed and mainstream.

McCain is going to win and it's probably for the best. The Dems have "lost it" in more ways than one.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

The tired issue of "electability" again? We're supposed to be grown-ups here, but since silliness cannot go unanswered in these grave times, let's review:

McCain is old.
Clinton is a woman.
Obama is black.

Each of those is an "electability issue" to somebody and the list of these issues can go on ad nauseum for all three of these candidates.

What's funny Ostroy is that despite this post's title, you actually don't mention any specific issue. You do express an unexplainable concern that Obama might lose some solid blue states in November. There is no reason to believe this would happen despite what any of the manic Harriet Christians of America might threaten right now.

Let's look at your list again, this time showing the margin Obama lost to Clinton in the states she won:

NM--Mod Dem - 1%
OK--solid GOP - 24%
Ark--solid GOP - 43%
AZ--strong GOP - 9%
Tn--mod GOP - 12%
Mass--solid Dem - 14%
NJ--strong Dem - 10%
NY--solid Dem - 17%
CA--strong Dem - 9%
OH--weak Dem - 10%
PA--mod Dem - 10%
Ind--strong GOP - 2%
WV--mod GOP - 41%
RI--solid Dem - 17%

The only blowout losses were in three GOP states. 7 of the remaining 11 wins were by 10 points or less. Obama held his own and did well.

There should be no concern that Obama will lose any blue states UNLESS Clintonites decide that vengefulness is more important than our country and do everything they can to sabotage the Democratic Party.

I understand that Democrats who support Clinton are disappointed and/or frustrated that their candidate lost the nomination but they need to realize that Obama is a Democrat and he won the nomination fair and square. To wit, Obama had the votes at the DNC Rules meeting to get a 50-50 split of MI delegates, but he deferred taking that obvious advantage and instead fully supported the 69-59 split that the MI delegation had proposed.

That's pretty remarkable.

Putting a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in Congress is the goal for Democrats in November. We all need to grab an oar and pull.

Question: since the policy positions of Obama and Clinton are virtually identical, why would a Clinton supporter choose McCain over Obama for any reason other than racial prejudice?

Anonymous said...

Answer: Obama's twenty-year friendship with Rev. Wright and twenty-year membership in the Trinity Church where the Black Liberation Theology, which is anti-white and anti-America, is taught. There are other reasons but none so important as this affiliation.

Clinton was "dissed" as were women by the Democratic Party. The Party does not value their contribution or value. It's called the "battered candidate syndrome.

McCain is moderate, experienced, intelligent and not Obama.

Anonymous said...

McCain, not that smart, erratic, hardly inspiring, you are right he is no Obama.

R7 said...

From the very beginning of this campaign the Republican party has made it absolutely clear that the candidate they would most wish to face in November, and in fact the only opponent they are confident they can beat now that their reputation has been so badly tarnished by 8 years of Bush, is Mrs. Clinton and I can see nothing to indicate they are mistaken. As Jerry Falwell put it, "I hope she's the candidate, because nothing will energize my (constituency) like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't." Many thousands of republican voters have switched party affiliation so they could vote for her in the primaries, in effect choosing their own opponent for the general election. They're dying to face her, and why not? She's the single most polarizing political figure in the nation. Better than half of the country hates her, and if she cared anything about the nation emerging from the long republican nightmare, she would never have run.
Anyone thinking that Mrs. Clinton can win national election, but Obama can't, is simply deluded. Further, anyone that won't vote Democratic unless Mrs. Clinton is the nominee is abandoning the nation and we shall all pay for their childishness.

Anonymous said...

Clinton supporters:

You've been "dissed" by some, and you've perceived being dissed when some of us were merely exasperated at the constant bullshit coming from the likes of Ickes and MacAuliffe. And Hillary lost to someone you perceive to be inexperienced, and to whom some of you perceive to be a white-hater (which is absurd, but whatever).

But President McCain is not the answer. Please step away from that cliff. Further, if you think Hillary has a shot in 2012 if Obama loses because you don't come to the polls, you are dead wrong. She will be blamed for not rallying her partisans to the Democratic cause, and she will be persona non grata—you thought Nader supporters had it bad in 2000, just wait. Christ, there's already talk over at Kos of "primarying" her simply because she didn't concede tonight (hey, at least they're not gonna try to vote GOP). In short: she will have gone from being perceived to be the trailblazer and the fighter, to the power-mad wicked witch. And it will not be entirely her fault: it will be yours.

No matter what she does now, she will pull that (D) lever in November. I will be too. So should you be, if you believe in what she stands for, and the issues she's fought for. Not working to get a Dem in office now will doom not only the party and the country, but it will doom Clinton, her legacy and her future chances as well.

Anonymous said...

"Wright/Trinity/Black Liberation/Ayres" is not a perception it is a fact.

"Dissed" came way before Ickes and MacAuliffe. Obama said "when you mention a different opinion the claws come out."; he implied she was having hormonal moods; and they all said "The Bro before the Ho." White racism and sexism abounded. "We are not amused."

You "repentent" sexists offer too little too late. We remember the disgraceful bashing of Hilalry you posted here at Ostroy. Geraldine Ferraro is right -- the way women are treated in this country is more important than this election.

R7 said...

"Geraldine Ferraro is right -- the way women are treated in this country is more important than this election."

Words cannot express just how painfully ignorant that comment is. Run along now and vote for McCain, so he can continue his 100% approval rating from all the lunatic fringe anti-women groups, but as President instead of Senator. Never mind Obama's 100% rating from NARAL, etc.

psst- Voting for a woman isn't the only way to support women.

R7 said...


What I meant to say was- Voting for a "particular" woman isn't the only way to support women.

I would truly love an opportunity to vote for a principled woman for president. Unfortunately, there wasn't one on the ballot.

Enjoy those McCain judges; I'm sure they'll see things your way!

Anonymous said...

Black liberation theology is NOT anti-white or NOT anti-American.

"Black liberation theology is an understanding of the Gospel which sees justice for the poor as the very heart of what the Christian Gospel is about and the very heart of what God is doing in this world. God is taking sides with those who are voiceless and weak and He is empowering them to know that they were not made for slavery, not made for exploitation, but was made for freedom like everybody else in the world."

~Rev. James Cone, founder of black liberation theology, radio interview March 31, 2008

It is anti-WHITE SUPREMACY, but it is NOT anti-white. There is an enormous difference between the two.

Ostroy, why do you not take it upon yourself to correct or at least dispute false, destructive assertions like those of anon7:39pm?

Anonymous said...

George -- you are really stupid. A vote for or against does not equate sexism. If you don't get that you wouldn't understand an explanation. Sexism is about treatment and attitude.

Blkn. you too are dumb. Didn't you read the quotes from COne on this blog.

"Black theology will accept only the love of God which participats in the DESTRUCTION OF THE WHITE ENEMY." (Cone A Black Theology for Liberation.)

What did you expect Cone to say to the public in 2008 when he wanted a member of the Trinity Church to be the nesxt President.

Anonymous said...

Anon150, it's you who are the idiot if that is all you're going to bring to this debate.

CHRISTIANITY is founded on a book that advocates STONING TO DEATH
-disobedient children
-anyone who curses
-a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night
-the list goes on

And this is just one small example of many you can find in the Bible.

Does that make the Bible irrelevant or inhuman? Does that make Christianity something that should be immediately abolished? According to your logic it does.

If you want to start pulling single quotes out of books to make some sweeping judgment about the book or its readers, you're going to find that at best no one (yourself included) has any legitimacy at all and at worst should probably be on death row.

You read this blog. It's full of crass terrible things sometimes. By your twisted logic, you are therefore responsible for EVERYTHING that EVERYONE has said on this blog BECAUSE YOU READ IT, which means that at minimum you should probably be put in jail.

Is this really the kind of logic that you think gets you anywhere?

Anonymous said...


Cone said "DESTRUCTION OF THE WHITE ENEMY". not white supremacy.

When MEN were about to stone a woman Jesus asked who among them was without sin and thus felt he could throw the first stone?

You are mixed up again. You have gotten OLD TESTAMENT mixed up with thr NEW TESTAMENT which brings the healing, loving message of Jesus.

Back to CONE and the Black Liberation Theology; He said:

"There is no use for a God who loves White oppressors the same as oppressed Blacks. We have had too much of Whte love, the love that tells Blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile.? (Cone, A Black Theology for Liberation p. 70.

Jesus said "It was said and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say Love they neighbor as theyself.: He also says turn the other cheeck and a lot of noncombative, healing things. Black L. Teology is not Christianity. A critique I googled said: "They like to use the name of Jesus CHrist and a few selected lines of his teaching, but they twist his message of love for all men, even for one's enemintes. (Matt :43;22:30; 7:12 and Gal. 6:10)

Don't you ever do any research before you sound off?

Anonymous said...


Do you recognize the United Church of Christ as a legitimate Christian denomination?

R7 said...

anon 1:50

"A vote for or against does not equate sexism."

And I'M the "stupid one?

Anonymous said...

How was I to know that your Bible doesn't include the Old Testament?

It's too bad that you're being willfully ignorant of the point I make: cherry picking fiery quotes from a 40 year old book (or a 2000 year old book) doesn't serve any intelligent debate of an issue.

If you read the whole of Cone's book (written when King and Kennedy were assassinated and against a backdrop of hundreds of years of institutional violence against the black race) and don't come away with anything more than "Kill Whitey", that's only from your lack of comprehension skills not because that's what Cone was advocating.

Anonymous said...

Well, I'm convinced. The widsom, knowledge, understanding and concern many of you have shown on thie blog have convinced me that I'm, as you like to say, stupid to have concerns about Obama, Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger and Black Liberation Theology. I submit to my place and will no longer be uppity and I will know that I'm the worthless "White Enemy" Cone mentions. And I'm pleased that our government has given fifteen million dollars to Trinity Church and I agree with Wright that it's partial payback for the horrors I am guilty of for being white. Therefore I'm turning in my 401K as Pfleger urged, and all my other assets and donating myself to helping blacks find equality. Maybe they'll even have a candidate for the presidency. Oops. Stupid me. They're far too repressed and mistreated for that.

Anonymous said...


The only "uppityness" I've seen from you is your unwillingness to open your eyes beyond the snippets of information necessary to feed what are apparently your preconceived notions of Obama and Trinity United.

$15 million in federal grants over a 15-year period of time for low-income housing initiatives, nutrition programs for children, etc. is a friggin' PITTANCE compared to the $14 million (minimum) A YEAR in federal grant money sent to Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing. Remember, Pat Robertson once suggested that a small nuclear device be detonated at Foggy Bottom (home of the US State Department). So do you have a problem with all federal grants to churches or is your concern myopic?

It's fine to have concerns. I support Obama and I have concerns about him. But when it is shown that the concerns are unfounded, why hold on to them?

Unless they weren't legitimate concerns in the first place but simply grist for the mill of deception...

Anonymous said...

I was an "Obama man" after I heard him speak so movingly and stirringly at the last election convention. I wondered who he was and was inspired by every word he said. When this campaign begain I was for Obama and I took my support "to the streets" arguing with everybody in my mostly Republican town.

When I changed was when the Trinity Church and all that goes with it came to light. I didn't make it up and I didn't suspect that such a movement existed.

That's all there is to it for me. Obama is not one I would vote for for president. I don't agree with his theology. I do not find the "
concerns unfounded."

Anonymous said...

The "concern " is that fifteen million went to a church that hates/bites the hand that is feeding it. And, to a church which provides a ten million dollar home for its "star" pastor, Rev. Wright. If they're so into good works, couldn't some of that money gone to the poor oppressed blacks?

Anonymous said...


You still don't get it. You are projecting a false understanding of BLT and the BVS that has come to you via soundbites and a mistaken understanding of the writings of Cone.

I think you might want to watch the following:


If $10 million for a home for Reverend Wright is offensive to you do you share the same offense for the multi-million dollar homes and fortunes of John Hagee, Rod Parsley and more than a hundred other evangelical preachers who almost unanimously line up behind John McCain? Many of whose churches also have been awarded federal grant money for charity work?

BTW, the "good works" of Trinty United Church of Christ are not limited to the African-American community.

Anonymous said...

I think you might want to watch the following:

The video is of a very nice white church lady who attends UCC and is only 3 minutes long.

Here are some other facts available to check about Obama and his former church.

That might take about 10 minutes to read.

Hopefully you won't be afraid to take the combined 15 minutes to get some more information about the Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America.

Anonymous said...

Michael you keep missing the point. The evangelicals of whom you speak do not hate white people or hate America. That they get so much does not please me, but they don't hate me becuase I'm white and my ancestors may or may not have had slaves.

Every clip I've seen on TV and every report I've heard said the money went to the underpriliged black communities. If a few whites were living there I guess they "lucked out."

All I know about BLT is from reading excerpts of Cone's work; and hearing black non BLT preachers and commentators condemn it on TV. Maybe you should get your guys on TV by improving you BLT PR.

Anonymous said...


I'm not missing a point that does not exist.

Your whole argument hinges on the belief that BLT and Jeremiah Wright, and by extension Barack Obama, hate white people and the United States of America. It's simply not the case and demonstrated by facts I have presented to you (did you view the YouTube clip?). Hating the sin of white people (slavery) and the sins of our government do not equate with hating white people or the government itself.

On any given Sunday you can hear big time evangelicals blasting what they consider sins of America. Do they hate America? Did the Biblical prophets hate Israel when they condemned Israel for its sins?

Quite clearly the answer is no. And it seems to me that your issue with Wright and TUCC is more related to style than actual substance.

Anonymous said...


You will have to search your own soul to find the meaning and distinction between the sin and the sinner. I cannot do that for you.

But I will tell you a story. My younger son goes to school with a young lady. Her grandmother was recently murdered in a horrific manner by a neighbor boy who wanted money for drugs. He shot her in the head with a bow and arrow and then burned the house down. She was a beloved restaurant owner in our town and the newspapers covered the event for several days. Instead of hating the young man, the family of the victim offered to pay for his defense and rehabilitation.

For legal reasons they cannot do so but THAT, my friend, is real Christian love and forgiveness.

I did not suggest you made anything up with regard to BLT. What I, and others, suggested is that you have drawn inaccurate conclusions based on snippets of information. Contrast what you keep quoting with the following: "I think the time has come for black theologians and church people to move beyond a mere reaction to white racism in America and begin to extend our vision of a new socially constructed humanity in the whole inhabited world...For humanity is whole, and cannot be isolated into racial and national groups." - James Cone

Like other theologies, BLT has evolved and continues to do so. If your view of BLT was factual, there would be no white members of TUCC - but there are. To take some of the most virulent comments from BLT or Orthodox Jewish or Evangelical Christian or Fundamentalist Islamic theology and ascribe final judgment on the faith is incredibly unfair and very short-sighted.

Anonymous said...

The old adage never argue about religion or politics is true, yet that's what I'm doing.

I want to start by saying I'm sorry for the tragedy you describe. How painful for all.

The family of the victim of course, as hard an admonition as it is for many to accept, followed the Christian teaching to "forgive seventy times seven." That is the opposite of what is taught in the BLT churches. They indulge in hate, anger, and they want vengeance. Cone said he's tired of the Christian "turn the other cheek. And, it's not just the Rev. Wright; the entire congregation cheers in support. As for the whites, they, like Pfleger accept the tenets of BLT.

As we noted before, Cone made the conciliatory comments to help get Obama elected. That was addressed in a recent exchange on this blog.

Are you suggesting that it has evolved since Wright's infamous sermon we've all heard, or that that sermon reflects its current stage of evolution since its start in the sixties? I don't think much has been changed in the purest teachings of Christ. No room for evolution when you're dealing with the Truth.

All I have to say, again, is "as a man thinketh, so is he." That includes what he chooses by virtue of his thinking to ignore, deny, tolerate, or excuse.

Which brings us again to the horrors allowed by the Christian churches, and of course not Christianity itself The congregations permitted other human beings to be enslaved, mistreated and considered to be less than human and merely property. Same thing can be said about the holocaust in Germany. Neither of these horrors should have been tolerated. The churches should have intervened.

I am by no means saying there should be legislation by a state church and that we should ever allow church and state to merge. We should not preach to each other or cram religion down each other's throat. I'm talking human rights as a church and society obligation.

We should constantly watch our church and our government to protect and ensure the purity of both as recorded in the religiou documents and the Constitution.

However, just in passing, if a religion believes in sacrificing young virgins each spring, for example, the state should intervene. The laws of the land must be followed.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for the kind words about the tragedy in our community.

The quote I provided you from James Cone dates back to 1977, about the same time Barack Obama found Christ at Trinity United. It was not something uttered in the heat of a political campaign.

I ask again that you view the YouTube clip I referenced earlier. Better yet would be a visit to the church itself, if you ever happen to be in Chicago.

It's an incredible place.

Anonymous said...

Michael I think we've almost exhausted this. I will Google the Cone speech and perhaps get it in its entirety. My only question at the moment is why didn't Rev. Wright and the Trinity Church follow their leaders plea and become more conciliatory and "move beyond a mere reaction to white racism." Tthe BLT folks stopped listening to him.

My computer is so old that I can no longer get updates nor can I access certain sites UTUBe is one I can't get. I'll do so as soon as I get my new computer.Thanks for that reference.