March Madness
March has three perenial milestones for me: St. Patrick’s Day, March Madness and Spring. I like St. Patrick’s Day best because on that day “everyone is Irish”. In my case, I’m a wee bit Irish and my wife’s two grandfathers were Irish cops in Al Capone’s Chicago and both of their parents came from County Mayo. The other thing I like about the Irish is that they are mostly of one religion. They also have a national drink.
I’m not much of a basketball fan, since I didn’t play it growing up, but I like the basketball classic because unknown little teams get to knock off the big boys and in so doing they are called names, a girl’s name, Cinderella, for added oomph. But being a boy Cinderalla team is a good thing. There are some metaphors here for Obama who is a serious basketball player.
This year it seems like this March is also about madness in politics, from Detroit and Albany, to Texas and Ohio. However, unlike the basketball tournament, Obama’s and Clinton’s game is not refereed by any set of rules and most fouls go unpunished. Elbows fly. And there are no slam dunks. Clinton “won” Texas’ popular vote with a lot of help from mischief Pugs dancing the Limbaugh jig and she won Ohio, reminding everyone that no one has won the presidency without winning Ohio in the primaries, but she has a net loss of seven delegates since this triage because Obama won the most delegates in Texas. Then over the weekend Obama picked up nine more delegates in Iowa from those pledged to Edwards. For all of Clinton’s “winning”, she is still losing.
Today Obama plans to address, more directly, the Wrights and wrongs of his church. The Democrats finally have a church goer running for president and he is being crucified, so to speak, for every word that his pastor, spiritual leader, and friend has said over 20 years. Well not every word, just a few sentences here and there. Inflamatory sentences to the pious. The Clinton’s Baptist and Methodist doctrines and theology would not hold up to this same kind of scrutiny. There is an exclusionary clause in all protestant religions, and unless you sign on to their creed, you are going to hell which is bad enought, but damnation is added as well. This theology is preached most Sundays in every Baptish church that I know of: my father was a Baptish preacher. Methodist fudge a little, but there is not much wiggle room when it comes to the “unbeliever”. Our current president believes that Jews and Arabs are going to hell, plus liberal bloggers.
Now I’m not bothered by what Rev. Wright has said. I am troubled that Obama didn’t manage this one better: his first major hiccup. But we’ll see how his speech goes today and how this plays out in the pews and gutters of public discourse. What I am troubled about is that every candidate is now responsible for everything that everyone in their circle of advisors and friends has said now and in the past. I can understand this standard for the present and for officials of a campaign, but I think the net has been cast too widely and too deeply.
In reading some of the posts and comments over the past few days, I don’t believe that Obama is going to be swift-boated on his pastor’s comments. I’m sure there will be a Dan Rather moment with some YouTube-edited video, courtesy Drudge, that will run for a few days until proven fake, but I don’t think Obama is going to face an inquisition. I’m sure the Clinton campaign would like to see this happen, if not aid and abet it. If so, McBush, who doesn’t do the church or religion thing will be painted as a heathen or an atheist. The Christian Right will then have a problem: voting for a tainted Christian or an agnostic. I think Obama wins this round. With this brewing, there is no way Morman Mitt makes it on the ticket: it would be nice, but no way this happens.
So I have an Irish fantacy from time to time, especially when listening to The Smoky Chimney or Beginish, that the United States had one religion and a national drink other than Bud Lite: then there wouldn’t be all this March Madness in American pubs, pulpits, and politics.
Spring is just around the corner. So as Obama is likely to say today, about race and religion, it’s time to move on. Update: As he did say, in one hell or heaven of a speech or political sermon.
Posted: March 18th, 2008 under Uncategorized.
Comments: 10
Comments
Comment from Amos N. Handy
Time: March 18, 2008, 10:28 am
Today Obama plans to address, more directly, the Wrights and wrongs of his church. The Democrats finally have a church goer running for president and he is being crucified, so to speak, for every word that his pastor, spiritual leader, and friend has said over 20 years.
Now I’m not bothered by what Rev. Wright has said. I am troubled that Obama didn’t manage this one better: his first major hiccup. But we’ll see how his speech goes today and how this plays out in the pews and gutters of public discourse.
”What I am troubled about is that every candidate is now responsible for everything that everyone in their circle of advisers and friends has said now and in the past.”
……. Please be kind enough to explain, that when these same words were used in rebuttal to racial accusations against the Clinton advisers, you demand that Hillary take responsibility for her staffers verbiage, but this is merely a hiccup for Obama ?
Surely Sasha, this isn’t the double standard of which you spoke earlier ?
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 18, 2008, 10:48 am
Amos, Wright’s comments were not made recently and he did not make them in an official or unofficial capacity. Obama wasn’t even a candidate when he said them. That’s the difference.
Comment from Amos N. Handy
Time: March 18, 2008, 12:28 pm
My understanding is that Wright filled the capacity of pastor in a triunity church in Chicago, of which Obama has been a member for twenty years. Obama by his own words, stated he has been inspired and influenced by Wrights work and lessons for the enhancement of blacks and their community. Wright has been and is today, divisive, both in word and deed and for that to have been embraced by any candidate, is wrong and should not be overlooked, when scrutinizing a future representative, even though as you stated, his inspirations may not have been received recently. However Obama’s welcoming of Wright into the fold, at this juncture implies something other, than the unity we are all hoping for.
Comment from Anonymous
Time: March 18, 2008, 1:02 pm
Â
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: March 18, 2008, 1:06 pm
Amos, you just said, “However Obama’s welcoming of Wright into the fold, at this juncture implies something other, than the unity we are all hoping for.” I wouldn’t call it “welcoming”. And exactly what unity are YOU hoping for?
Comment from Sasha
Time: March 18, 2008, 2:52 pm
ANH, no, this isn’t the double standard. The Obama flap is about thought crimes. The Clinton thing is about people speaking in her name. What Josh said.
Comment from Amos N. Handy
Time: March 18, 2008, 4:58 pm
Thought crimes ? Jesus, Mary and Joseph, what are thought crimes ?
If unity has to be explained, there isn’t any hope for further intelligent conversation, you obviously don’t feel this nation is divided and has been for a good long time. Fughedaboutit !
Comment from Sasha
Time: March 18, 2008, 6:19 pm
Weeeeelll yeppers, if I don’t agree with you dismiss me. That’s the ticket!
Comment from Amos N. Handy
Time: March 20, 2008, 7:14 am
Sasha … this was the question, now read very carefully …
Thought crimes ? Jesus, Mary and Joseph, what are thought crimes ?
You understand of course it was extracted from this ….
Comment from Sasha
Time: March 18, 2008, 2:52 pm
ANH, no, this isn’t the double standard. The Obama flap is about thought crimes. The Clinton thing is about people speaking in her name. What Josh said.
…..
The ” Fughedaboutit ” was directed at someone other than you …
… but you keep that chip on your shoulder girl and that way folks like me will think they’re dealing with “double” edged cynicism.
Comment from Sasha
Time: March 20, 2008, 8:23 am
Thank you for your demeaning and condescending post ANH. Yes, you telling me to “read carefully” and calling me a girl — well I am the one with a chip on my shoulder. Yes, all of the animosity is my fault because this here girl doesn’t take being treated as subhuman as an amusing little quirk of yours.
Get used to it. We can vote now.









Write a comment