You have so clearly expressed the feelings I too have about Senator Obama. What does he really think? Do we really know him? I too was distressed about his wife's comments. She's an educated woman, attorney, political wife. I don't believe it was a slip of the tongue, except perhaps that it was a chance expression of her true feelings while other words were scripted. Obama says he's the "change" candidate, but changing to what? My concern is that I have an opportunity to vote for the candidate for president, but not his cabinet or advisors. Who exactly will he be bringing in to the Federal government to handle the day-to-day activities, to interact with officials from other countries, to filter the information for him and decide what is important for the president to hear? I do think we need change, but we need a president that can work with the legislators in Washington, because they are not all being swept from office and replaced. The president is not "all powerful". Will a President Obama achieve little? Will he surround himself with people with feelings similar to his pastor? What change exactly do they all have in mind? Being female, I was so excited about "change" when I thought we'd have a chance to elect a woman for president. Perhaps I want gradual "change", but I saw the chance for a new perspective in the White House. I was comfortable with it, looking forward to it. Now I'm worried.

Carl, I guess I don't see the disconnect (especially the comparison with Spitzer), unless you are saying that Barack Obama agrees with the sentiments of Rev. Wright, but is saying he doesn't for political reasons. Obama's stance during this campaign has always been something like "I do not come with the perspectives, grievances and grudges of the older generation (be it the civil rights battles, Vietnam, gender roles, etc); I don't see the world, or the solutions to our problems, from their perspectives as victims or invested combatants with kneejerk animosity toward old opponents."

It seems to me that it is exactly the kinds of sentiments voiced by Rev. Wright that Obama is talking about, when he says he wants to get beyond old or unproductive racial stereotypes and grievances, including outdated pre-Civil Rights Era resentments or current clinging to victimhood.

I don't think we can ask people to totally disassociate themselves from their Church and the community formed around that Church, because some of the positions on political issues of the church leaders are outrageous. My Catholic friends and family have told me, for example, that their pastors and leaders have preached that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for abortion in America, and that 9/11 was also due to our sexual sins, homosexuality, etc. Should these good Catholics abandon their parish or leave the Church over this?

Monsignor Wallace Harris, the pastor who gave the convocation at Gov. Paterson's swearing in this week, has the following statement prominently on his webpage: "Jesus Essential for Eternal Life: A person can go to heaven without health, wealth, fame, learning, culture, or beauty. But he can't go to heaven without Christ." Should David Paterson disown his pastor for such an exclusivist sentiment?

Obama says he wants to get past the old racial grievances within the Black community. He knows that even otherwise loving, good people (who perform many good deeds as part of their religious role) have those old grudges and accusations -- and he may have himself felt that way in younger days under the influence of those around him, but has wisely grown beyond them. Obama does not have to disown those people to disown their sentiments. Loving the sinner but hating the sentiment is not a disconnect nor hypocrisy. It's what we need to move on to better approaches to solving American's problems.

Carl, On another much more local subject..I would like to voice my concerns regarding today's NYS Canal Corrporation' announcement regarding the new operation times of the Canal Corporation. I have no issue with the fees and was actually surprised that the fees were eliminated for the past two years. However, opening the Canal at 9 AM would be OK if it were a bank, but as a recreation spot for boaters this start time makes no sense. There is a slight issue of closing at 7 PM rather than at least 8 PM (10 PM previously) but this may not be as critical an issue as an earlier opening time.

Given that fishing from power boats is a MAJOR use of the Canal, especially in this area of the Canal (Lock 7-11), the late start severely limits the areas available to fish during the primary fishing time of 6 AM to 10 AM. In addition to the impact on casual fishing, in this area there are several fishing tournaments sponsored by local sports clubs or marinas that may have to be cancelled or the areas of fishing changed or restricted. I can't envision twenty or thirty or more high performance boats fishing between Lock 8 and Lock 9 (approximately a five mile stretch) for two or more hours while they wait for the 9 AM start to move to another section of the Canal.

Another example of this illogical start time is the impact on larger boats traveling across the Canal to points East or West. Having the yachts waste the best traveling time during the early morning could only have been suggested by someone with cement feet who has no understanding of boating!

This is clearly a giant step backward for upstate New York and in advancing the recreational use of the Canal System. Where were our local politicians (both State and County representatives!)while this plan was finalized? If not this year, let's hope this absurd time adjustment will be corrected next year. Or, at the very least, public opinion is solicited in advance of issuing the final press release!
Thanks,
Jim Carangelo

White man! How would you know?

We need to hear some ideas about improving the primaries. How do we encourage participation of better candidates? How do we limit the money that they need to raise? And how can the States be encouraged to hold their primaries later and perhaps all hold them at the same time?

Carl- I am disappointed that you have soured on Barack. He is our only hope of getting out of Iraq within the next eight, perhaps the next hundred years. He is the only one of the remaining three candidates who inspires both young people and many older ones like me. Flags or not, his speech on race was a masterpiece. I look forward to his fireside chats of years to come.
-Ed

Mr. Stock, thank you for your insightful columns on the matter of Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I would only need to hear such hate speech coming forth from any pastor, and I would get up and leave the church. I certainly would not spend twenty-years in the pew supporting this type of liberation theology. Will the REAL Barack Obama please stand up and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about who he is. Stop with the chameleon political expediency!

Barbara DePowel
Gloversville, NY

"I look forward to his fireside chats of years to come."

"Me to" from 713 Hart Senate Office
Just remember this and I qoute - "What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," Obama said. "He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics."

Mr. Strock right on

I appreciate hearing from everyone on this subject. As for Iraq, I agree: Obama is the only candidate with a clear view. What a shame that he turns out to have this (to my mind) unseemly connection to a racial demagogue. No, I guess he doesn't have to agree with everything in order to sit in his pew week after week, but I guess he has to feel SOME level of comfort. And that's discomfiting enough.

Thanks for responding, Carl. I hope the others writing weblogs at the Gazette will start doing the same.

Mr. Strock, I agree with you 95% of the time, and I consider you a most important voice of reason for the region, but I strongly disagree with your take on Obama’s speech.

The Rev. Wright is another religious gasbag, and I’m sorry that Obama was exposed to him, but the situation is not unusual. A young Obama was introduced taken to worship there, and became part of the congregation – part of the community. Now Obama says that he disagrees with Wright, but will not disavow him because Obama says that church experience is part of him. And I understand that, from personal experience.

I spent years as a practicing Catholic, but after much study and thought, realized that I reject nearly all of their theology and policies. Today I have a better understanding of mythology, including Christian mythology, but that Catholic experience, which I now reject, is part of me. And I know many good Catholic people who are doing good things, despite their bad religion. I think it’s the same with Obama.

Further, despite The Rev. Wright being a religious gasbag, some of what he says is true. The US has, in many major ways, been a meddling, imperialistic, obnoxious member of the world community, especially under the Bush-Cheney (or is it Cheney-Bush?) administration.

Re: Obama column in the Daily Gazette: Amen, brother!

Carl,
Please copy this link, paste it in an internet address slot, and take a look: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/th....

The link, for Anderson Cooper 360, describes the entire 9/11 sermon by Pastor Wright, and puts one of the few-second clips we have all seen numerous times into its context. I think that if you read this, you will understand how Barack Obama felt some degree of comfort attending Wright's sermons.

Reading this description in Cooper's blog made me realize once again how sad it is that our society uses sound bites and snippets to define people and ideas and that these snippets serve as our political and social discourse. Surely your experiences covering a couple of legal cases that you have written about extensively have shown you how the depiction of a single statement or action out of context can distort the perception of a person or a situation into a false caricature. While I detest the statements and tone of Pastor Wright in the snippets we have seen and heard, I have no doubt that there are other aspects to him that are positive and admirable (as you can see in Cooper's blog), and that those attributes drew Obama to him and kept him there.

Let me add that I think that Obama's speech last Tuesday was probably the most interesting and thought-provoking major speech from a public figure in at least forty years. I voted for Hillary in the primary, but have since switched my allegiance to Obama. I switched because I have seen how inspiring he is, especially to young people, and because I am so hopeful at the thought of a leader who speaks frankly, is not always looking for the politically expedient sound bite, and who will move us to do things simply because they are right. I am inspired by a leader who urges us to understand all viewpoints, including those with which we disagree.

Last, let me note that, like Obama and many others, I too have had several relatives whom I loved and respected deeply, whom I thought to be wonderful people, but who sometimes made terrible and bigoted statements. While I disagreed greatly with some of the things they said or thought, I never disowned or rejected them as people, and never would. We are all shades of gray, good and bad. I admire Obama for sticking with a pastor he loves and not dumping him because it is the politically expedient thing to do. Obama is right, it is time to stop labeling one another as black or white, good or bad, and time to start trying to understand one another, even though it means talking to and accepting people with prejudices.

I beg you to read the story at the link I provided.

Thanks Mr. Strock!
Now I have no one that I have any confidence in to vote for.
Think it may be possible to get Edwards back into the race?? (pardon the pun)

rtu's post above offers a lot of wisdom. The link given is well worth reading.

I'd like to offer another link that sheds some light on the very complicated issue of race relations in this country.

Officeholders, candidates, parties, press, and public all need to do much more to face up to, discuss, and understand the underlying issues. Without this kind of effort, we shall never have any hope of finding any solutions.

<http://www.democrats.com/node/15993>

Here are the pertinent disclaimers and disclosures:

I used to be an enrolled Democrat. I am now a "blank". I think both major parties and their candidates are not good enough for our country, which I love.

I often agree with Mr. Strock. I respectfully suggest to him that he has not performed up to his usual standard on this admittedly challenging issue.

I am white, not black.

Regarding the context of Rev. Wright's comments, I have read the blog entries of Anderson Cooper's at CNN, and they don't seem to me to improve matters at all. Rev. Wright's stated position, in full context, is that America's past evil deeds, with regard to Native Americans, blacks and others, are coming back at us. The chickens are coming home to roost. Which is another way of saying we had it coming. Serves us right. The fact that he referred to something an ambassador said is hardly relevant. I don't know what the ambassador said. I note that Wright didn't quote him, but just referred to him. I doubt very much that any ambassador would say the things Wright said. In any event it's Wright's views that count. The other sermons quoted at greater length than just the snippets are much the same. They don't make things better but simply show more fully that Wright is a Malcolm X-style and Louis Farrakahn-style anti-white, America-hating militant. I continue to believe this shows us a side of Barack Obama greatly at odds with the public persona he presents.

I am a sad American. We live in a country of 320 million people and the best we can do is Governor Spitzer for the people of New York.

Furthermore, in the United States we have three polarizing and flawed people vying for President of the United States.

McCain: old, frumpy, hot headed. He couldn't beat George Bush in 2000! Says he knows very little about our economy. Yikes!

Clinton: Half the country hates her just by the mention of her name. Other love her and others.....

Obama: Has alienated whites by his refusal to distance himself from Rev. White. Let's remember, Obama is half-white and was an Illinois State Senator when the vote was taken to go to war with Iraq. He may have been opposed to the war from the beginning, but he had didn't have a vote. If he were a U.S Senator at the time, my bet is that he---like everyone else---would have voted FOR the war. Many thought he was a US Senator at the time, and he does nothing to correct the deception. If he's not clear on this, what else will he be unclear about?

Honestly, I have no idea who to vote for in November.

Please the Rev. Wright is no better or worse than most preachers. The sainted Dr. King once stated the US was violent and arrogant. Shall we eliminate the national holiday in his honor? Black America and many whites are fed up with this simple minded view.

Patriotism is not just about blindly following the flag wavers. You can love your country and still disagree with the leadership. In fact it is our duty as citizens to dissent and question our leadership. That is what makes us free. Carl I enjoy your column, but on this issue we disagree.