Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Obama disowns preacher in bid to get back on track

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 April 2008
DEMOCRATIC presidential candidate Barack Obama was today trying to get his campaign for the party's nomination back on track after declaring his controversial former pastor "was not the person that I met 20 years ago".
The Illinois senator said he was "outraged and saddened" by the Rev Jeremiah Wright's latest "divisive and destructive" remarks on race.

Mr Wright made a series of speeches earlier this week in which he said the US government was responsible for terrorist attacks on America and that it invented Aids to kill black people.

Mr Obama confronted the issue head-on in North Carolina yesterday, ahead of the state's primary next Tuesday.

Mr Obama, who is locked in battle with Hillary Clinton for the nomination, said he understood the pressures Mr Wright faced but would not excuse his comments.

He said: "What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for."





The full article contains 169 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 April 2008 10:48 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Barack Obama , US elections
 
1

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 30/04/2008 13:09:38
candidate obama is finding out what it is like to be persecuted by those with power. Obama used to say on his web site that we should reduce the number of troops in Iraq, but leave enough to protect the government and to be able to stage attacks on other countries from the 15 permanent bases we have in Iraq. Then a month ago or so he changed his web site. Now he says we should withdraw the troops within 16 months, but he says we should leave enough troops to protect the embassies. It seems that Mr. Obama has been 'found wanting'. Is it really going to occur that Obama will lose the nomination?
2

Wally,

By The Rivers Of babylon (USA) 30/04/2008 13:15:34
Reverend Wright does pretty well in the media when he's allowed to speak for himself. I think he would defeat either McCain, Clinton or Obama if he were in the race. People would see Wright as an outsider who will speak the truth and do what is right regardless of what the powerful evil ones want him to do. The Americans would love to have a candidate like that. Obama has pretended to be such a candidate. Hilary clinton, Mccain or Obama, all 3 work for the powerful evil ones that rule. Wright does not.
3

,

30/04/2008 14:52:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Kelvino,

NY 30/04/2008 15:46:27
Wally. . . .

I agree that hearing many of Rev. Wright's observations
is a refreshing break from the usual political spin. Too bad he goes off-track at times, as with the HIV-Aids theory. I have long held the belief that few people, we Americans in particular, really want an objective view of ourselves and our place in the world. Unfortunately, our "entitlement" to most of the world's riches and resources is quickly being seized by our free-market trading partners and we are left to re-define ourselves. . . . downwards ! In this context, much of what Rev. Wright refers to as being the black experience will be visiting white Americans
at all levels. So much for our "empire," stretched to the breaking point by inept leaders like Bush & Co., whose historical references extend as far back in time as Yale toga parties ! Zeus save us !

5

John Blackley,

Florida 30/04/2008 16:35:56
I think this is a pre-emptive distancing from Barack Obama.

As the Rev. Wright seems intent on providing the Republican party with ammunition - should Obama win the Democratic primary - now may even be a little too late for Obama to put distance between himself and the Rev. Wright.
6

mike - across the pond,

blackley.... 30/04/2008 18:05:08
pre-emptive?

pre-emptive would have been if he did it a year ago.... before any of this came to the fore...

that cow is out of the barn, pal....

this is endemic of a man who lacks the moral fibre to make a potentially unpopular decision...

he tried to do the minimum to get away with staying with Wright... when that failed he went a baby step further... that failed he went a bit further...

now he has been forced to revisit it a FOURTH time... that would NOT be "pre-emptive"

by all evidence obama will rule by the polls... not a man we want in the whitehouse... as much as we hear that McCain will be W-3 (which I dont believe).... BO will be WJC-3 (by all evidence clintons decisions were fueled by what was popular on any given day)....
7

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

, Newington 30/04/2008 18:55:03
All this nonsense just detracts from real politics and the real issues that concern real people.

For example I'd like to know where the candidates stand on the question of abolishing the semicolon.
8

John Blackley,

Florida 30/04/2008 19:17:59
#6, mike - across the pond, thank you for responding to my comment.

I appreciate that the timing of 'pre-emptive' depends on what one is trying to pre-empt. In my case, I was refering to the inevitable 'Swift-boating' that will come from the Republican party should Obama win the Democratic nomination.

While I appreciate the offer, I am not your pal - nor, given your expressed political opinions do I believe I ever will be.

Mr. Obama's actions may be indicative of a man lacking moral fibre (or not) but I doubt very much if they are "endemic of".

Finally, I admire your use of the 'royal' "we" (as in "not a man we want in the White House") - imagining, as I do, that you would not have the effrontery to seek to speak for you and I as a group or for the people of the United States as a whole.
9

Mensa George,

Washington, DC 30/04/2008 19:25:01
"Disowns" seems a poor choice of words with this touchy group.
10

airmick,

laughing in delaware 30/04/2008 19:33:00
If I may, just substitute white for Black every time the good revenerd goes into one of his rants. ie. the black church, the black community, the black family, the black work ethic...ect. a white politician trying to defend that would be run out of town on a rail,and rightfully so. A christian minister using these divisive terms is just sick. My question is why has senator obama remained so committed to this lunatic.
apart from making serious accusations without proof, he is in my view a hipporcrite of the first order. he tells his congregation not to be lured into the white mans economics, yet he preparing to move into a 10,000 sq. ft. mansion complete with elevator, indoor pool, golf course, and secuity. not to mention the 10,000,000 he going to have access to.This home is Located in one of the most prestigious private communities near Chicago. No hangin' with the home boys here. All this at the flocks expense. The politcs of racial divisiveness seems to pay very well eh Reverend?
11

,

30/04/2008 19:47:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

,

30/04/2008 19:48:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

airmick,

delaware usa 30/04/2008 20:03:19
Judging a man by the company he keeps says alot about the man. Especially if that man is running for one of the most powerful positions on earth. So far, Rev. Wright and Mr. Ayers ( a self-proclaimed terrorist) does not speak very well of senator Obama's choices.
14

mike - across the pond,

ah blackley 30/04/2008 21:28:41
so you want a guy who only makes "popular" decisions

what IS your concept of the roll of government?

so in YOUR world a GOOD leader only makes "popular" decisions?

where would be the "popular" place to put an airport, a highway, a sewage treatment plant, a prison, or to fight a war?

were it only that easy, some times a leader must make a TOUGH decision.... one that may not be "popular"... but indeed one that MUST be made...

Carter made "popular" decisions... deregulated the airlines, cozying up to China, Iran Hostages... and all turned out to be major disasters.....

Clinton made "popular" decisions... lying to a grand jury... turning his back on Afghanistan.... deferring actions in Iraq..... launching cruise missiles at tents.... only making token efforts in Africa... which of these were "good" decisions?
15

mike - across the pond,

Mr Blackley 30/04/2008 21:42:44
folks like YOU are the reason our political process is in friggin shambles...

see in MY world I could buy you a beverage... we could talk about our differences... and who knows maybe even one of us would get the other one to at least understand and respect our point of view

apparently in your world... "NOPE no way... I'm not your friend YOU sir, are a conservative... that means you are my mortal enemy...." and that makes you john, hopelessly ignorant...

oh and John please point out where the word "endemic" does not characterize the description of BOs long history of questionable associations....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endemic

try real hard to avoid being sophomoric and not quibble
16

John Blackley,

Florida 30/04/2008 21:55:44
#15 mike - across the pond and #16 mike across the pond, thank you for responding to (I think) my comment.

I'll confess you have me completely at a loss with your comment #15. I have no idea how your comment relates to my last (nevertheless I can tell you what my concept of one role of government is to teach its citizens correct grammar, spelling and punctuation.)

As for comment #16 the only civil part of the entire sorry mess is your comment on the use of the word 'endemic'. I generally use 'endemic to' and not 'endemic of' as you originally did - hence my response.
17

SouthernGent,

30/04/2008 22:24:24
Makes one wonder what the good Reverand is really up to. I would conclude that he is solely out for the good reverand.

He preaches for the "good" of the black community, yet now that a "black" candidate is running, he can't keep his mouth shut when he needs to.

Funny how Obama is "black" solely because of his skin color. If he was a lighter shade, would he be called "white".
18

57Nomad,

california 01/05/2008 01:59:59
#7 friend of fernando

FoF said:

"For example I'd like to know where the candidates stand on the question of abolishing the semicolon."

Just like his type to focus on his little piece of turf and leaving out the rest of us.

Nomad

Commander of the Asterisks Liberation Front.

DEATH TO THE HYPHENITES!!!
19

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 01/05/2008 02:48:30
quite frankly I think the Jeremiah Wright controversy is McCarthyite.

But I would like to know how all 3 of these candidates feels about this HR-1955 that is going to curb freedom of speech & thought.

http://www.takebackwashington.com/

All of 3 of these candidates has voted for nazi-esque legislation. what good are any of them? They're all 3 US Senators, don't accuse me of hate-speech, but it is true.
20

57Nomad,

california 01/05/2008 05:50:30
#19 Wally

Wally, I just read HR 1955. As far as I could tell it authorizes the creation of a study group that would examine the problem of home-grown terrorism and report their findings back to congress in eighteen months. It neither creates, alters, or voids any current law. It's a study. Will you please take a look at the bill an let me know which of its elements you find offensive. I'm not taking a shot at you. You are alarmed at the bill and I'm interested in which component you feel is malignant.
21

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 01/05/2008 14:05:24
King Nimrod. that proposed legislation I showed you is a plan to limit freedom of speech. That legislation is assuming that political speech will inspire terrorism and so they wish to limit some political speech.

My point is that all 3 of these candidates are US Senators. They have a track record on voting. The media should be helping us to see that voting record of all 3 rather than engaging in this Reverend Wright witch-hunt.
22

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 01/05/2008 15:05:18
also it occurs to me King Nimrod:

that our country would be a lot better off if President Bush had been the one who had Reverend Wright as a spiritual advisor rather than Senator Obama. Wright opposed both the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq based on scriptural reasons, he said 'thou shalt not take a human life' in a speech referring to these issues. If Reverend Wright had been the one influencing Bush rather than the nutty christian zionists who advocate war with muslims, then we wouldn't be dealing with these wars and our nation would be a lot better off.

The 6 corporations that own the mass media are all working together in concert orchestrating this Wright witch-hunt, the whole effort on their part does not serve us.
23

mike - across the pond,

ah my confused blackley... 01/05/2008 15:53:52
I'm sorry, I took your objection to the "royal we"... to be an endorsement of BO & the DNC 'ruling by the polls'... instead of ruling by their convictions, or gut feelings.

see I personally have this basic contempt for "the polls"... the media rarely conducts a "fair and balanced" poll, either from the right OR from the left, and honestly from the executive branch, we (yes again I use the "royal we") dont have the time, data sources, nor resources to become educated (in a timely manner) on even the significant issues that must be governed, so what hope is there that we could have an "informed opinion" from which to answer polls from?

Most people dont know enough about the issues on the ballots they see once or twice a year to make an intelligent decision. so electing a leader that "governs by the polls" is utter folly.
24

,

01/05/2008 15:59:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

57Nomad,

california 01/05/2008 16:15:29
#21 Wally

Wally said:

"King Nimrod. that proposed legislation I showed you is a plan to limit freedom of speech."

Wally, you already said that. That is why I looked at the bill. If anyone is interested in this legislative arcana you will find the text of the entire bill here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

You are saying that this a piece of legislation that flies in the face of our constitutional liberties. Please indicate which section of the bill supports your contention. Since you are passionately certain of your view on this, that shouldn't be hard for you.

Wally, as you well know, no thoughtful citizen forms an opinion of an important issue based on someone else's opinion and I am sure you don't want anyone forming their opinion of HR-1955 solely on your opinion of it. Consequently, it is your duty as a concerned citizen to point to those portions of HR-1955 that is, as you say, a danger to our liberties. It is a short bill and can be read in a few minutes. Please re-read the bill and let us know where those offending passages may be found.

I suppose you know that this bill is not for the purpose of making new law. It is a bill authorizing the creation of a study group that will examine the phenomena of home grown terrorism and then to write a report on what is found and then to submit those findings to congress for their review in 18 months. This bill will not, can not, make law. If you are going to sound an alarm please indicate where the fire is.

26

mike - across the pond,

wally 01/05/2008 16:17:56
is it a witch hunt?

really? in the Salem Massechutesetts kind of witch hunt kind of way?

where trumped up charges were levelled, folks were tried and convicted, sentenced, and punished based solely upon spurious accusations of questionable "witnesses"....? really?

its a matter of record that BO was a member of this church for TWENTY YEARS... by his own admission...

it is a matter of record that Wright was a vital part of this church that BO attented with regularity... a virulent part of a church whose tennants included "the black value system"... somebody's GOT to explain what THAT is in a non racist context... a man who consistenly preached that 9/11, drugs, and AIDS were attributable to the government... do YOU buy into all of that???

by BOs own words, he found nothing wrong (up until monday) with what Wright was preaching....

for a LONG time, BO "could no more disown" Wright "than he could his own grandmother" who was a "typical white person"... his own words

oppressed americans "cling to guns and religion" really oppressed americans like the ones who attend his church? is HE an oppressed american? does HE "cling" to his religion?

or is he just a duplicitous bald faced liar (or as Mr Wright said, "just a politicain" who will say what is expedient for the benefit of his current audience)

I'm sorry... this isnt a witch hunt... these are his own words... his own feelings... his own actions.... his own sentiments... exceedingly well documented.... no spurious accusations here... nothing "trumped up" here...

these are FACTS.... well documented facts... facts that dont sit very comfortably on mr BO's shoulders.... no matter HOW many times he brushes them....
27

57Nomad,

california 01/05/2008 16:42:50
#22 Wally

Wally said:

"the nutty christian zionists who advocate war with muslims, then we wouldn't be dealing with these wars and our nation would be a lot better off."

Wally, the Islamofascists attacked the World Trade Towers for the first time in 1993. In 1996 Khobar Towers housing complex in Dahranh, Saudi Arabia, was bombed killing 19 American servicemen. In 1988 there were attacks on our Embassies in Dar es Salam in Tanzania and in Nairobi, Kenya where hundreds of people were murdered. In October of 2000, the USS Cole was bombed while refueling in Aden killing 17 American sailors.

Do you understand that your contention that 'nutty christian zionists who advocate war with the muslims is an anachronism? The war had already started 15 years ago. Your timeline requires the year 2000 to come before the year 1993. That is a particularly hard sell. The war was started by the Islamofacists and had nothing whatsoever to do with 'nutty christian zionists, and even less to do with George W. Bush who was busy running the Texas Rangers baseball team at the time.
28

,

01/05/2008 17:52:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

57Nomad,

california 01/05/2008 19:58:06
#28 the inmates of the laughing academy.

That's what you think. I don't care what you think.
30

,

01/05/2008 20:26:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
31

John Blackley,

Florida 01/05/2008 21:07:58
#30 Fraudulent and corrupt EU, what is "a leading globalist luminary"?
32

CombatVet68,

13/05/2008 09:13:51
#2 Wally

It is difficult for me to understand how you can shame the Christian community by singing the praises of a racial bigot who uses the pulpit to spread his own brand of racial poison. He blatantly corrupts the gospel of Jesus Christ to further his own personal agenda.

My views are not rooted in racial prejudice, but in the Word of God, for I could care less what color a mans skin might be. For God does not esteem one man above another, but looks at the heart of a man. Sadly, Wrights successor is not any better. He has been quoted as declaring that some of our rap artists are prophets! How uttely bias and ignorant can any alleged preacher of the gospel be?

As far as I am concerned, Jesus warned us about such men! They are wolves in sheeps clothing, seducing people with lying tongues.
33

CombatVet68,

13/05/2008 09:52:38
#22 Wally

The Commandment you are referencing is "Thou shalt not kill" and the popular theological interpretation is "Thou shalt not commit murder"...not...'thou shalt not take a human life'


God established the government of men. In that government of men, they have power over the masses and maintain a military arm for their preservation. This was all ordained by God. If we had not maintained an army prior to and during World War II, we would doubtless be speaking more Japanese and German, and there is less of a chance that you or I would be here now. It is most unlikely that you would have any of the liberties or freedom you enjoy now.

By your statement, 'thou shalt not take a human life' may I presume that all men who go to war (remember what Jesus said...render unto Caesar that which is Caesars) do so in defiance of Gods Commandment?

Therefore, if a young man is compelled to enter the military and is forced to fight, then may we presume that your position is that he should just let the other guy shoot him or his pals instead of fighting to stay alive? Or perhaps he should throw his weapon down and run for cover, subject to being shot for cowardice. Paul wrote...Obey the laws of the land."

You wrote...."Wright opposed both the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq based on scriptural reasons,.."

I find nothing in my Bible that supports your view here. Study Revelations, which speaks of the times in which you now live! All eyes are focused upon the middle east. These events must occur, for these conflicts are merely a preamble to the battle of Gog and Magog (see Ezekiel 38 and 39)! I have already made my views clear concerning ("Rev"???) Wright.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More International

More International >>

More Barack Obama

More Barack Obama >>

Features

Free financial brochures & guides Dionami
Paperboy Paperboy Customised news
Scottish Business Briefing Scottish Business Briefing ...Sign up today

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.