As a lawyer, i have to reject the suggestion that the people you represent or help somehow indicate a political agenda. Lawyers argue for causes all the time that they don't agree with, however, the consequences of a victory have wide-spread reach. You would be surprised who receives backing from various groups, not because they agree with the cause, rather, they understand the effect that a victory could have. If hillary defended the communist party, that clearly indicates that she is a true believer in civil rights. The lawyers who protect the unpopular groups are usually those who are the greatest defenders of civil rights.

as for her being on the wal mart board, so what? i hate wal mart more than the next guy, however, many board memberships are given to friend of company management, and the favors are returned. The real corporate policy is usually created by the CEO (also usually the chairman of the board). If board members oppose the actions of the CEO, you can count on it that the CEO won't support that members re-election to the board of directors. I could go into a huge thing on corporate governance, however, just know that it is the exception that the board actualy weilds more power than the CEO. While it is true that the board hires the CEO, the CEO usually signs an employment contract that ensures some permanency, while the board members are usually subject to re-election every two years (or something similar). And in the normal course, management usually supports friendly board members to ensure they are re-elected by the shareholders.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Umm, uhh, HEY LOOK, OVER THERE WORKING CLASS FOLK, IS THAT REVEREND WRIGHT?!?!?!

can she get any more desperate?

Last edited by LazFX on May-03-2008 at 22:52

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 As a lawyer, i have to reject the suggestion that the people you represent or help somehow indicate a political agenda. Lawyers argue for causes all the time that they don't agree with, however, the consequences of a victory have wide-spread reach. You would be surprised who receives backing from various groups, not because they agree with the cause, rather, they understand the effect that a victory could have. If hillary defended the communist party, that clearly indicates that she is a true believer in civil rights. The lawyers who protect the unpopular groups are usually those who are the greatest defenders of civil rights. as for her being on the wal mart board, so what? i hate wal mart more than the next guy, however, many board memberships are given to friend of company management, and the favors are returned. The real corporate policy is usually created by the CEO (also usually the chairman of the board). If board members oppose the actions of the CEO, you can count on it that the CEO won't support that members re-election to the board of directors. I could go into a huge thing on corporate governance, however, just know that it is the exception that the board actualy weilds more power than the CEO. While it is true that the board hires the CEO, the CEO usually signs an employment contract that ensures some permanency, while the board members are usually subject to re-election every two years (or something similar). And in the normal course, management usually supports friendly board members to ensure they are re-elected by the shareholders.

Oh, I agree. And I think that Bernstein does too - after all, he is a Clinton supporter. I think the point he was trying to make was that it is strange to see Hillary play the guilt by association card when she herself (not to mention her husband) could be painted with that same brush in even more damaging ways.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Oh, I agree. And I think that Bernstein does too - after all, he is a Clinton supporter. I think the point he was trying to make was that it is strange to see Hillary play the guilt by association card when she herself (not to mention her husband) could be painted with that same brush in even more damaging ways.

ok, i didn't know the full context of the article. yeah, it's probably not the smartest move on her part.

I just feel the need to comment on the rev wright stuff. i'm not surprised to see the rev wright stuff get so blown out of proportion. i can understand why people are questioning obama about wright considering his most recent statements. after hearing all that was said, it certainly didn't look good on obama's part. although, obama is obviously a much more intelligent man than rev wright so there is not way he could share his views. i find it funny that republicans keep bringing up how rev wright married obama and his wife. So, what? my mother has no idea who married her. i didn't know that was an important choice in ones life. I would be surprised if obama was actually present in church more than a few times a year (i have no idea, i'm just speculating). I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason he even mentioned religion was to attract some southerners.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i find it funny that republicans keep bringing up how rev wright married obama and his wife. So, what? my mother has no idea who married her. i didn't know that was an important choice in ones life.

Well, unless you got married in Vegas, you should probably remember since you generally go through several months of preparation and counseling with your pastor (at least in all of the weddings I've been to). I think the real message that GOPers are trying to get past is that Obama went to Wright's church for some 20 odd years, had a close relationship with the guy, referred to him as his spiritual adviser or something, etc, etc. And then Obama has to essentially publicly divorce himself from Wright when the public learns a bit more about the messages he sneds and when it becomes obvious that Wright and the white voters that Obama needs to cater to simply don't coexist.

Anyway, I'm not completely on top of this issue but I think I have enough information to have a clear idea of what's going on here.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well, unless you got married in Vegas, you should probably remember since you generally go through several months of preparation and counseling with your pastor (at least in all of the weddings I've been to). I think the real message that GOPers are trying to get past is that Obama went to Wright's church for some 20 odd years, had a close relationship with the guy, referred to him as his spiritual adviser or something, etc, etc. And then Obama has to essentially publicly divorce himself from Wright when the public learns a bit more about the messages he sneds and when it becomes obvious that Wright and the white voters that Obama needs to cater to simply don't coexist. Anyway, I'm not completely on top of this issue but I think I have enough information to have a clear idea of what's going on here.

pastor? i'm catholic, i think catholics go to a few meeting at the church about the sanctity of marriage and call it a day. you get the priest of the church you attend, i don't think there is much choice on that.

My point was also that, while he may have been a member of his church for 20 years, how many times did he actually go to church? everyone assumes he went every sunday. i am a member of a church i've been to five times in the past ten years. Obama is also a much busier man than i am. He was an associate at a large law firm where he probably worked 60+ hour weeks. he was an adjunct prof at chicago law school on the side. he was a senator for the US and illinois. those aren't exactly 9-5 positions.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Oh, I agree. And I think that Bernstein does too - after all, he is a Clinton supporter. I think the point he was trying to make was that it is strange to see Hillary play the guilt by association card when she herself (not to mention her husband) could be painted with that same brush in even more damaging ways.

Yes you're very correct, I'll give you that one. What I will say, not to defend her but to open up the broader issue of November, is that he better get used to it. He has some long relationships with some unpleasant people that are gunna haunt him in November. All McCain has to do is put a picture of him in the witness box at the Rezko trial and that itself is an effective commercial for Republicans. But yeah, I'm not gunna let my support for Hillary hide the fact that some moves she's made throughout this campaign are pretty dick.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 pastor? i'm catholic, i think catholics go to a few meeting at the church about the sanctity of marriage and call it a day. you get the priest of the church you attend, i don't think there is much choice on that. My point was also that, while he may have been a member of his church for 20 years, how many times did he actually go to church? everyone assumes he went every sunday. i am a member of a church i've been to five times in the past ten years. Obama is also a much busier man than i am. He was an associate at a large law firm where he probably worked 60+ hour weeks. he was an adjunct prof at chicago law school on the side. he was a senator for the US and illinois. those aren't exactly 9-5 positions.

Yes, we don't know how often he went to church, but he did give $27,000 last year as a contribution to the Church, plus he was an advisor to him in the past few months, so it doesn't help his cause.

I was one of a few Clinton supporters that didn't jump on this issue. It didn't phase me and at first I said "who cares?" However, more and more what troubles me is this pattern we see with Obama. He has these long-standing relationships with people that are coming to haunt him. Reverend Wright's one of them. In Obama's latest comments about the issue, he said Wright is not who he thought he was. Then, you have Rezko. A few months ago when that was the issue, he brushed Rezko off as just some random guy (when the facts said otherwise). It's like, he has these 15-20 relationships or, at least, very close acquaintances with these people, and then Election 2008 comes and he's had a big relevation that they were all "not who he thought they were."

Thus, like I said, it wasn't the comments by Wright or the fact that Obama went to his Church for 20 years that troubled me. I was the first person in my household to say "just let it go, it means nothing." It's his quick dissociation with the people who turned out to be "not who he thought they were" once 2008 came along. He had 15-20 years of friendship or relationship with these people, gave tens of thousands of dollars to Wright's Church, and bought the property next to Rezko's, and 2008 was the year he saw a revelation that they were bad apples? That's what disturbed me more than anything.

Although Lebez, you are completely right about Hillary being in the same situation. She shouldn't be throwing shit when she herself's got dirty underpants. I'd be much more satisfied if the media made this an issue and Hillary made it a complete non-issue.

___________________
http://thesoundofeco.com

Last edited by DJ Eco on May-04-2008 at 02:28

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Eco Yes, we don't know how often he went to church, but he did give $27,000 last year as a contribution to the Church, so it doesn't help his cause.

He also made 4.2 million dollars last year, so 27k is a drop in the bucket.

as to the mccain comments, while i agree, McCain also has a long history of saying very stupid things (almost as stupid as bush), taking contradictory positions on a wide array of issues, and having many past associations that will haunt him. He will come out of this election much more harmed than either democrat. Leb can quote some of Mr. McCain's brilliant comments that will get much air time in November. Once american's see McCain for what he truly is, i have no doubt we will win. While McCain is pretty prominent, for some reason he has avoided too much press, so the country doesn't know that much about him.

See this thread, it's pretty funny stuff:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...2&forumid=66&s=

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 He also made 4.2 million dollars last year, so 27k is a drop in the bucket.

First, I was married by the catholic church. We had a priest who practiced at another church perform our rites. While atypical for sure, I'm merely pointing out that it's not as cut and dry and impersonal as you might think in every case. It's presumptuous to assume that.

Secondly, $27K is a drop in the bucket to a multi-millionaire--perhaps (though it is funny that in the video Wright goes on to preach about how Obama is NOT wealthy, but I digress...). Point is that after 20 years and a decent amount of financial charity, I think it's in the least a bit foolish to assume that Obama has anything less than even a passive interest in what is going on in the church, especially if Wright is a personal adviser of any sort.

I have no dog in this fight (And I really don't want Hillary to get the nomination so believe me I am in no rush to put down Obama here). I just think the facts are fairly clear and it may be more of a rationalization to be so dismissive. This is politics. The skeletons come out of the closet. Nobody is beyond reproach here.

In regards to how often Obama goes to church, I don't think it is very often - particularly since he got sent to Washington in 2004. When asked if Obama is not much of a church-goer, Rev. Wright turned it around and asked the questioner what her pastor's Sunday sermon had been about. The questioner couldn't answer, and Rev. Wright said "I'd say he goes to church about as often as you then."

What frustrates me the most about this particular issue, is the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Who here among us has never said something entirely stupid, bigoted, and/or offensive in their entire life? It's easy to pick up on a soundbite and characterize that as the entire life's work and thoughts of an individual, but that seems ridiculous to me. The people that speculate on their relationship actually have no idea what the substance of that relationship was. If Wright helped Obama interpret the Bible... how is that relevant to his comments on race and society?

And furthermore, who here among us doesn't have any friends, family, or professional contacts that say stupid shit all the time? I know I do - so am I supposed to disavow those friendships now in the unlikely event that I someday run for political office? That would make me a pretty shallow friend I would think. I'm actually kind of disappointed that Obama distanced himself from Wright just because people are judgmental and reactionary.

The last point I want to make is this: the primary way in which people defend Hillary's negative campaign ads is that the Republicans will eventually do the same thing. That's great. So instead of the Republicans running 100 ads in North Carolina against Obama in November, the Democrats are going to run 100 now, and the Republicans can reserve all theirs for later. Does anybody else see how retarded it is to use Democratic money to attack the presumptive nominee? You're effectively doubling (or tripling since Clinton actually has more money than McCain + the RNC combined right now) the number of hits on the Democratic nominee... and the majority are being funded with the money of Democratic donors!!! What the hell.

Any Joe with zero political experience will tell you that negative campaigning cuts both ways - it can be effective, but it can also alienate a lot of voters. Why not let McCain bear the brunt of that double-edged sword? McCain is the one who has pledged to run a clean campaign. The Clinton campaign is making it pretty damn easy for him to honor that pledge. If they didn't, and McCain inevitably did turn negative, he'd suffer some blowback for that!

I was all for Hillary staying in the race, but not like this. This is getting ridiculous.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Secondly, $27K is a drop in the bucket to a multi-millionaire--perhaps (though it is funny that in the video Wright goes on to preach about how Obama is NOT wealthy, but I digress...). Point is that after 20 years and a decent amount of financial charity, I think it's in the least a bit foolish to assume that Obama has anything less than even a passive interest in what is going on in the church, especially if Wright is a personal adviser of any sort.

my point is exactly that, i think obama has just a passive interest in the church. nothing more, nothing less. i certainly don't think he's very active in the church. I just don't see how a harvard educated man running for president could hear all the words from Wright and then bring him along as an advisor without thinking it would come back to harm him. The more likely scenario is that Obama didn't know wright had such radical views because while obama was a member of the church he was not actively attending mass.

btw...i'm a hillary supporter.

Leb, whether McCain vows to run a clean campaign you have to expect the republican interest groups will bring out the dirt. His pledge is unimportant because he can run a clean campaign and funnel money into interest groups that he can disassociate himself from publicly, while supporting those groups privately. i certainly understand the concern about hillary throwing out dirt now when it appears she will lose; it's very counter productive.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on May-04-2008 at 17:58