Jun 04 2008
More On Obama Tape Contents – Johnson Steals Scoop From Fellow Blogger
Hill Buzz has a lot more detail on the content of the Michelle Obama tape with supposed rants about “whitey – and no Larry, it doesn’t have Louis Farrakhan in it as you insinuated:
The Michelle Obama Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th – July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women’s Event.Â
Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks.Â
Bill Clinton spoke during the Conference, as did Bill Cosby and other speakers, but not at the panel Michelle attended.Â
Michelle Obama spoke at the Women’s Event, but referenced Bill Clinton in her rant — his presence at the conference was the impetus for her raving, it seems.Â
For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on “whitey”, and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America.
There’s more at Hillbuzz. Â I guess the irony of who the diatribe is aimed at is why this tape has limited value in some ways. Â Larry Johnson, claiming he wanted to save the blogger Hillbuzz the site traffic, stole the entire post from the Hillbuzz, clearly without permission:
I am not trying to steal thunder from HillBuzz. That blogger is breaking important news. I’m posting the article in full because, having seen what happened to our site, a link to his will kill his server with the flood of traffic. Until Sunday, I was operating on one server. We’re up to four and barely keeping pace.Â
Then he adds types the URL (no clickable link). Â Johnson is such a prima donna – and a thief of Intellectual Property! Â He should have let HillBuzz get credit and simply point to his site. Â Anyway, the DVD was once for sale by Trinity Church – which means lots of people have the video:
The “tape” is a DVD that Trinity United sold on its website, and possibly offered free for download up until March 2008 when Trinity’s site was scrubbed and the DVDs were no longer offered for sale.Â
Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton on a DVD – hell yes lots of people have this, including the news media which is playing games with the American people by sitting on this while we all voted in primaries, apparently willing to only release it once the votes are in and the matter is out of the American people’s hands. Â I have low respect for the news media already. Â I try and remind myself it provides a service. Â But clearly it is doesn’t – it’s a manipulative propaganda outlet too many times, not reporting but framing reality.
Â
Â
Now, ponder who could have this DVD that was being sold at Trinity Church? Â Well the first person that comes to mind is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright! Â Maybe that is why he was smiling so much last month as he went on his Bust-Obama media tour? Maybe the price for his 3 days of fame, provided partially by Clinton supporter Barbara Reynolds, was the DVD of Michelle and Mrs Farrakhan? Â But as I said above, a DVD that was for sale for 4 years with Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton and others of notoriety is in the hands of lots of people. I am just speculating here.
The video will come out sooner or later. But as Kim Priestap at Wizbang notes, the DNC and Dems leaders are forcing Super Delegates to choose their candidates by Friday – thus trying to force Clinton out of the race. That may not be enough time for the video to do its damage.
Macker,
I didn’t impute anything to Kathie or Owl. That is why I asked questions as opposed to make statements. My questions were based on how I perceived their comments, but I provided them an opportunity to clarify or correct my interpretation.
You claim that Michelle Obama is on record as “race baiting”, but you don’t provide any examples. Give us some specific instances to support your claim. I really want to know what you consider to qualify as race baiting.
You summarily dismiss my comparable examples, but don’t explain why they are not comparable. Why aren’t they? If your point is that Obama is assumed to adopt every contraverisal belief/position of his preacher and church because he didn’t quit the church, why doesn’t that apply to every one? Why is Falwell and Robertson’s statements that 9-11 was God’s punuishment for American’s sins not comparable to Rev. Wright’s 9-11 comment about the chickens coming home to roost? If the comparables aren’t even close, then presumably you should be able to easily explain why. Go ahead and do so.
You claim that his church’s bias toward terrorist is reflected in the church bulletins, but provide no examples. Once again, give us some specific instances to support your claim.
conman
That is a lot of twisting of pure bs. I think Michelle is a beautiful smart woman. I think Obama is a very likable, smart young man who has promoted himself into a history making role. He was able to do this because he has the Voice of JFK. They are SMART people. They KNOW their long time associates. Now you can overlook all this ………..if you intentionally choose to be blind and only look at the ‘beautiful people’. Yes, they sure look like the perfect young, smart couple complete with lovely children.
Make a deal with you. If you ever catch me going back to a place a SECOND time, that talks favorably about the KKK, you sure have my permission to label me a racist. Don’t even need to find the third time charm.
Conman,
Michelle openly stated that her husband’s campaign was the first time she was “proud” of our country. And the context was race.
The sex scandals in the Catholic Church had to be weeded out. They were not flaunted weekly at the worshippers. The Falwell “911” comment was not a regular theme. In fact, he retracted it.
O’bama’s church website gives Hezbollah endorsements. Since I am traveling and only have a wi- fi connection, I can’t get you the link. Sorry.
Conman
If you goggle Black Liberation Theology you can read about it. It is a way of thinking, it is the teaching of how blacks in this country and other disenfranchised peoples in other countries can relate to the church. It is a social, intellectual and spiritual theology. I suggest you read about it.
It is not because he is black that I think he buys into the theology, it is because he participated in an organization for 20 years, attending every Sunday at the 11:00 service. Rev. Wright is proud of the fact that he is a student of and preaches Black Liberation Theology, he is a renowned leader in the movement. Obama sat in his church for 20 years. Did Wright touch his heart, did Wright”s relationship to America and it’s evils inform Obama, did Wright’s relationship to Jews inform Obama? I don’t know, at this point I don’t trust what Obama says because of what he has done.
Do all blacks believe in “Black Liberation Theology” no, people have a choice in this country, religious freedom comes to mind. So people of all colors choose churches that suit their emotional, spiritual and social needs.
Other people who sat in other churches are not running for President so I don’t have to evaluate their motives or their thoughts. If Obama had a track record that I could evaluate that was as extensive as his church record I would be happy to put it in context. His record of what he believes, where he stands and what motivates his values is very thin. That is why his church association and person associations are important. My friends are important to me, they say something about who I respect and admire. Is that true for Obama? I wonder. The people who Obama has associated with are troubling.
If a person attends the Catholic church for 20 years, I don’t question this thoughts about the Pope. What the Black Liberation Movement teaches about America and it’s evils in relationship to blacks in this country is contrary to his words, and “words have meaning”. I don’t consider what others say more important then what Obama says. I think that what he does is important, and when it is at variance with what he says it gives me pause.
Conman, please don’t try to make this a racial issue.
Macker,
Wow, I’m overwhelmed by your examples to support your theories.
You think that Michelle is a racist based on a single comment she made that didn’t even address the issue of race. So a person makes one comment and they are forever presummed a racists – I’m sure you apply that same test to others. You cannot even claim that her comment was overtly racist – you are simply implying or reading into it. I like how you criticize me for supposedly imputing beliefs on Katie and Owl but it is okay for you do so with her. If this single comment is what you are basing your belief on, then i think you are looking for a reason to believe she is racists.
Don’t you think the Catholic church scandal has weeded itself out already? The church has acknowledge the scandal and is settling cases throughout the country to minimize liability. It was not a single church or isolated event, it was occuring all over the country. They were not flaunted because the church was trying to cover up this scandal. What else needs to be weeded out at this point? Today, the Catholic church members know for a fact that this wide spread scandal occured and that Church leaders were aware of it and tried to cover it up. Why shouldn’t that obligate them to quit the church or be presummed to condone this activity? Are you saying that making racist or anti-american comments is worse than molesting kids? Boy, your logic is twisted.
I love your logic on Falwell. Falwell and Robertson make a horrible anti-american comment THE DAY AFTER after 9-11. Falwell retracted it after public pressure and now you completely obsolve him? Why doesn’t this same test apply to Obama and others. Obama’s strongly denounced Rev. Wright’s comments, but you dismiss that as purely for PR reasons. Why don’t you apply the same test to Falwell?
Additionally, Falwell’s 9-11 comment is but one example of many contraversial comments he has made. You never addressed Robertson and Hagee, both of whom have made many more contraversial comments than the ones I listed. Why is it that you can so easily dismiss these people’s comments but not Rev. Wright? I think it is because the former are white and conservative, while the later is black and liberal. If you can explain why the different treatment I’m open to a different reason, but so far I haven’t heard it.
Conman,
A different treatment for Robertson and Hagee is justified by the fact that they are not candidates.
Worshippers in the Catholic Church, believe in the Catholic Church. That hardly means that they appreciate the negligence of some of their hierarchy. Don’t forget the abusers were a small percentage of the clergy. Conflating this with beliefs is bogus.
The “911” statements of Fallwell and Robertson were singular comments, not an enduring “hate America” theology.
Michelle O’bama’s comment was clearly in a racial context. Don’t pretend otherwise.
Kathie,
I appreciate your thoughtful response. Please understand that I am not the one making this a racial issue. The comments in this post and many other conservative blogs/post/media are accusing Obama of being a racist based on his affilitations. That is the whole point of focusing adnausium on Rev. Wright’s comments and Michelle’s supposed “whitey” video – they are being used to support the theory that Obama is a racist. I think people are doing it to scare Americans from voting for him. I’m simply questioning that logic and trying to get people to think about the issue in a broader context. How can you do so without at least addressing the race issue?
I’m well aware of the Black Liberation movement. If Obama was a member of this group or professed his belief in this movement, that would be one thing. But that is not the case. He simply was a member of the church that had a preacher that believes in this movement. There is no basis for assuming that Rev. Wright used the church as a front to espouse Black Liberation beliefs. If that was the case, we would have way more than two instances of contraversial comments. If you investigate the Trinity Church, you will actually find that they stand for christian principles and have done a lot of good work in the community that Christ himself would be proud of. I believe that it is because of the political campaign and people’s efforts to smear one of the candidiates that the church has been made to look like a bad, racist, manipulative organization.
As you yourself state, people chose churches for a multitude of reasons. One of the points I’m trying to make is that it is flawed logic to assume that congregation members must believe EVERYTHING their preacher believes. That is rarely, if ever, the case. Every person likes certain aspects of their church and dislikes others. To assume that a person must quit the church if the preacher says something they disagree with or be presummed to accept it is a ridiculous standard. Is it not possible that Obama did not agree with Rev. Wright’s views on the Black Liberation movement, but chose to stay at the church because he believed in its christian principles, community involvement and developed a strong relationship with his fellow members? Think about how difficult the decision would be to leave a church after so many years, with all of the friendships and relationships you made along the way, simply because the preacher made some comments you found offensive. Do you really think it is that easy and cut-and-dry? That is why I point out the Catholic church, Falwell/Robertson/Hagee examples. I’m trying to point out how ridiculous it is to assume that failure to quit a church is tantmount to agreeing with EVERYTHING the church and preacher believe.
As for your comment about Obama’s record being thin, I challenge you to look into his experience and record more thoroughly. He was a state senator for 8 years and a U.S. senator for three years. Are you aware of any legislation or policies he championed that espouse the Black Liberation movement? Wouldn’t you expect him to have something in his record if he truly was a believer? If he was a Black Liberation movement believer, wouldn’t you expect there to be someone from his past that would verify it or claim that he had racist tendencies? There are none, despite the intense scrutiny of his past. Do you believe that for all of these years he has been hiding these tendencies so that he can get elected president and then reveal his true self? It doesn’t make sense. Yet, you will ignore all of this and judge him based solely on the beliefs of his preacher? I don’t understand this thinking.
You made the point that people should be judged based more on their actions, than their words. I agree. If you look at Obama’s actions thoroughout his life, I don’t see evidence of the racist or Black Liberation member that people espouse. What I see is people judging Obama based on the words of people he affiliated with.
Conman,
Consider his earmarks for the racist priest, Pfleger, who is an O’bama supporter.
Macker,
You indicate that “a different treatment for Robertson and Hagee is justified by the fact that they are not candidates.” Apparently you are confused. Rev. Wright is not running for president. Obama is running for president and he is not the one who made the comments in question – it was Rev. Wright. People are attributing Rev. Wright’s comments to Obama based on the fact that he did not quit his church when he heard them, implying that his refusal to quit the church is tantamount to his agreement with these comments. So, the same logic should apply to Falwell/Robertson/Hagee – church members that did not quit the church after hearing these preachers make the racists, anti-american comments noted, must be presummed to agree with those comments? Right?
The same logic you applied to the Catholic church applies to Obama’s situation as well. Trinity Church is an Episcopal church, so let me take your same logic and apply it to this situation:
“Worshippers in the Episcopal Church, believe in the Episcopal Church. That hardly means that they appreciate the negligence of some of their hierarchy (such as Rev. Wright). Don’t forget Rev. Wright is a single member of the clergy. Conflating this with beliefs is bogus.”
Thanks for making my case, I couldn’t have said it better.
Falwell and Robertson’s 9-11 comments were hardly the only contraverisal comments they have made. Do a google search and you will see what i mean. These are not isolated instances. By the way, I need to remind you that there are two instances of Rev. Wright making contraversial comments during services. So is your point that once is fine, but two is unacceptable?
Face it Macker, you have two different standards. This is your third try to justify the different treatment and each time you dig yourself a bigger hole.
Conman
I haven’t even thought about Obama being a racist.
My biggest worry about Obama is his relationship to this country.
If America is bad, if Hamas represents the down trodden, if killers are freedom fighters, if he would meet with Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea without preconditions he is very naive or drawn to dictators and really bad guys and thinks he could have a relationship with them because he understands them so well! Did he say he would meet with those people just to be different then Bush, I don’t know, but if he did he is stupid on international relations. And he is naive thinking that Bush has not told Iran what we want and what we will give in exchange. Because he has, and has never missed an opportunity to tell the Iranian people that we respect them.
The primary job of the President is to be Commander in Chief. Is his loyalty to, Mother Africa or the United States of America. The Commander in Chief has to make very difficult decisions that effect all of us. I want to know in my heart of hearts that Wright did not rub off on him. I don’t know that.
No one has ever asked him if he believes in “Black Liberation Theology”. He can give up Rev. Wright, but what part of the theology lives in his heart. I wonder if it had something to do with why he doesn’t wear the flag pin. Now he wears it because…..why? Why saying God Bless America is almost an after thought.
Black Liberationists believe that America is responsible for the evils of the world, from slavery, raping other countries of natural resources, terrible corporations, bad rich and on and on. What does Obama believe? I don’t know. I heard him say in his acceptance if we elect him, the oceans will recede, jobs will be plentiful and the sick will be taken care of as if that was a brand new concept. Actually he can do none of those things. So I’m thinking he is big on rhetoric and empty otherwise. But also it fits into what the church preaches.
So Conman, can you promise me that Obama loves this country, even though we have faults, respects the men and woman who serve this country, that we are good, that we are a generous, and that we are noble people. That he would put this country up there on par with God and family. Not knowing the answers to these question is what bothers me about Obama. Would I have the same questions for Condi Rice, Colon Powell, no.
Bad news must come in clusters.
Now that the Left’s PlameGate hero, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, has gotten convictions of Obama buddy, Tony Rezko, just how long will it take for the Left to throw Fitz “under the bus” if he plays “Let’s Make a Deal” with Rezko to get him to “tell all” ?
conman.
What you miss is the anti-American, racist (farrahkan supporting) Wright is a mentor of O’bama and his views were not isolated examples. And his views bleed out into the O’bama’s rhetoric. O’bama has said, in the past, that he identified with Wright and Pfleger.
Fallwell Hagee and Robertson were not hate-America racists. And “controversial” hardly qualifies as pro-terrorist or racist.
Kathie,
You may not think of Obama as a racist, but that is the whole purpose for others raising these issues about Rev. Wright and other affiliations. They want people to believe that Obama believes in the Black Liberation movement theories and that therefore he will adopt policies that further this movement’s goals. I think it is pretty obvious that the purpose for this angle is to scare white America into not voting for him.
I won’t try to argue with you on all of the policy stances Obama has taken, that is an entirely different discussion that will take up too much time and space to have here. But don’t confuse his willingness to use more diplomacy as an indication that he loves this country less. It is simply a different view on foreign policy that the country gets to decide based on the contrast between Obama and McCain. All of the Democratic candidates took the position that we need more diplomacy. The majority of the country believes we need a different direction on foreign policy, including more diplomacy. So it is hardly something unique about Obama. Keep in mind, many conservatives accused Reagan of treason when he negotiated with Gorbachev.
Why would you believe that his loyalty could be to Africa, as opposed to the US? He’s lived his whole adult life in the US. He has been actively involved in his community throughout his adult life and has been a public servant for over 10 years. Why would he do all of these things if he wasn’t loyal to the US and thought it was evil? Do you honestly believe that he made all of these scarifices, hiding all of his animosity toward the US, in the hopes that one day he could become president and turn on this country? That is such a far-fetched conspiracy theory I don’t even know where to begin. Again, why do you put so much weight on his affilitations with Rev. Wright and dismiss his entire life accomplishments? Remember what you said, actions speak louder than words.
I agree that he will not be able to accomplish all that he claims to intend to accomplish, but how is that any different from any other presidential candidate? They all make grandiose claims that we know they can’t possibly achieve. We need to sift through these promises to figure out which once can and likely will be accomplished. Why are you singling Obama out on this issue when you know all politicians do it?
I do believe that Obama loves this country and will try to do the right thing. He is hardly perfect and nobody knows for sure how effective he will be, but I do believe his heart is in the right place. I think the same thing about McCain. For me this election is not about which candidate loves the country more, it is about who is right on the critical issues. For once in a long time I’d like the election to actually be about the issues. Not smear campaigns, character assasinations and rumor mongering. That’s why I hate this kind of stuff about Obama. That is why I hated the fact that McCain got caught up in the same smear job in 2000. The next 4 to 8 years are far too important to decide the next president based on who we fear the least.
For a taste of what the racist and genocidal “black liberation theology” is about (as underpinned the sermons of Reverend Wright under the auspices of trinity church) go here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1990117/posts
Macker,
So you don’t think that Falwell and Robertson’s comments the day after 9-11 were anti-american? Here are some excerpts of a 9/14/01 Washington Post article discussing their comments:
“God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve,” said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network’s “700 Club,” hosted by Robertson. “Jerry, that’s my feeling,” Robertson responded.
* * *
Robertson and others on the religious right gave critical backing to Bush last year when he was battling for the GOP presidential nomination. A White House official called the remarks “inappropriate” and added, “The president does not share those views.”
Falwell was unrepentant, saying in an interview that he was “making a theological statement, not a legal statement.”
“I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the terrorist,” he said. But he said America’s “secular and anti-Christian environment left us open to our Lord’s [decision] not to protect. When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture . . . the result is not good.”
Yeah, nothing anti-american here at all. I mean, who doesn’t agree that 9-11 is “probabaly what we deserve”.
What about this gem – “Pat Robertson’s Perspective,” April – May 1992; “The strategy against the American radical left should be the same as General Douglas MacArthur employed against the Japanese in the Pacific . . . bypass their strongholds, then surround them, isolate them bombard them, then blast the individuals out of their power bunkers with hand-to-hand combat. The battle for Iwo Jima was not pleasant, but our troops won it. The battle to regain the soul of America won’t be pleasant either, but we will win it.” Advocating killing off fellow Americans – what is wrong with that?
As for the racists comments, will you accept anti-semitic comments? On the January 5, 2006, on the 700 Club telecast, Robertson said that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s illness was possibly retribution from God for his recent drive to give more land to the Palestinians. He also claimed former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin’s 1995 assassination may have occurred for the same reason. Sounds okay to me – why the hell did Israel freak out, everyone knows that this is true.
I could point out a whole lot more, but I don’t have all day to spend on this. But I think this brief sampling makes my point. Keep in mind, these are religious leaders that have been very influential with the GOP. GOP candidates regularly court their endorsements. McCain has done so himself this election. So while you are worried about the influence of Obama’s preacher, whom he has clearly had a falling out with, I’m worried about the other racist, anti-american and down right crazy preachers whom have had and continue to have a heavy influence on GOP policies and leaders.
Macker,
I found a classic racist comment by Robertson that I just had to add in case you come back with – well they may be anti-american and anti-semetic, but I don’t see any racist comments. Here it is:
Speaking on his “700 Club†program (Thursday, May 11, 2006), Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson attacked Planned Parenthood as “an organization that is trying to set up black genocide,†citing a higher incidence of abortions among African-Americans. * * * Said Robertson, “Planned Parenthood has gotten $100 million, $50 million each from the Ford Foundation and The Rockefeller Foundation. Why do these wealthy, so-called Republican organizations pay for it? Because they were alarmed by the growth of black community and they didn’t want to have to support a bunch of indigent black babies. I mean that is the dirty little secret in there.â€
The “Black Liberation Movement” is scary because a man running for President of this country sat in the pews for 20 years listening to how America was the cause for all the evils that the world has sufferied. He has been a Senator for 3 years, for 3 years he has had to make decisions that affect the people of this country. What have those decisions been? One that I know of is he voted against naming the Quds force as a terrorists organization. His primary job would be National Defense. He has named a gazillian defense programs he would cancel to save money. He panders to every perceived ill of every citizen and every dictator and tells them he will fix it for them. It is utter bull shit and he doesn’t bat an eye. No, every politician doesn’t promise to lower the water levels of the oceans.
The real point Conman is that I don’t know what to believe, because he is so vague I could almost believe anything. It is not a matter of who loves this country more, Mother Africa is the center of liberation theology.
I don’t like character assassination either. We have had enough of it to last a life time in the last 8 years. What I’m asking is WHAT DOES OBAMA BELIEVE IN, WHERE DOES HE STAND, WHAT IS HIS RELATIONSHIP TO BLACK LIBERATION PHILOSOPHY. These are fair questions. There are a bunch of people who he has been friends with that it turns out he says he didn’t really know. What in the hell does he know?
kathie: conman rather devote the issue to Pat Robertson.. because you know, Pat Robertson is on the ballot and is so relevent to what is going.
Why would conman directly address Obama? Why look at anything there… there’s Jerry Fallwell to point to because of a stupid comment about a hurricane. That is much more substantial than the Marxist running for President.
Katie,
Obama has answered those questions. He repudiated Rev. Wrights comments and explained why he does not adhere to them. He specifically addressed the divide between those black leaders whom were part of the civil rights movement and formed their beliefs based on their experiences, and those that are post civil rights leaders (such as Obama) whom have different experiences and beliefs. What more do you want him to do? Keep in mind – there is no evidence, zero, of any statement that Obama himself has made (publically or privately) endorsing the Black Liberation movement or similar theories.
I respect the fact that you can be skeptical of his answers since he is a politician, but I’m just trying to get you to look at the bigger picture. Don’t judge him based exclusively on the statements that others have made whom he has been associated. Don’t assume that because there are two videos of Rev. Wright making improper statements that every Sunday at Trinity Church was filled with anti-american and hate speech. There is no basis for that theory. Look at the whole picture. Look at what he says now and what Obama himself said in the past. Look at what he did with his life and ask yourself – does that sound like someone who hates this country? If you do this and still don’t trust him, that is fine – that is why we all each get a vote. Just don’t fall for all of the smear tactics.
Again, as for your comments about his policies, that is a different topic for another day. But remember also, that part of the smear campaign and character assassination is to label anyone that doesn’t believe in your policies as anti-american. Both the left and right do it a lot more today. Just because you don’t agree with Obama on certain policy issues does not mean he is unamerican. It just means he disagrees with you.
Conman, I’m quite sure that Obama would not put one policy forward that I would agree with. I also know the difference between policy and character. I also know that when the chips and the polls are down, when people are pushing and shoving, and offering up tons of solutions to a problem and you have to pick one, you have to reach deep inside and know who you are, what you believe. That’s why I want to know who Obama is.
There is a basis for the skepticism, because the whole point of the church is “Black Liberation Theology” which accuses America of the ills of the world. That is why Wright could say the things he did in the church. If a person sat in the Catholic church for 20 years would you be amazed to know that person did believe in the Pope.
So you are telling me that Obama went to church but didn’t believe in “Black Liberation Theology”, didn’t know who Wright was or what he was preaching, didn’t know that America caused the ills of the world? Holy Cow Conman, Obama is a bigger phony then I thought.
To ask question about who someone is not a smear campaign, it would not matter to me if the guy were white or blue, if the guy sat in the church for 20 years I would be asking the same questions of any potential Commander in Chief.