First of all, to paraphrase Nixon, “this was a great speech”. I don’t quite know if forensics students will be repeating it in a decade, but the guy is an amazing orator.
Two things struck me negatively about the content of the speech.Obama said:
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk – to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
Two percent of the US population died in the Civil War. It seems at best callous of him to slight that very real sacrifice paid in blood by Americans to clean the moral slate of slavery.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
I think the missing piece here is the explanation of how his values intersect those of Rev. Wright. I think that it is legitimate for Obama to state that those values aren’t the same, and that other things that the church brought him made it possible for him to overcome his discomfort with the “…remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church…”
I think he should have talked less about Ashley and more about that. because if people understood that – understood the real values Obama is trying to realize in his life and his policies, I think they would be better able to judge from something other than blind devotion to him or equally blind revulsion.
One of the things I like the most about the speech is the fact that in it, Obama embraces moral ambiguity – and hence embraces the morality of the real world. I am profoundly uncomfortable with people comfortable in the moral certainty of the world that exists in their words or their imaginations.
I’m not sure it’s enough politically, and I’m still a wobbly supporter, but liked what the speech said and who it showed. Now we need to see that that man is really who Obama is.
Conservative parents often raise radical children – and vice versa. I’m not panicked by Obama’s relationship with a radical. Let’s see more of the substance of who he is and what he wants to do with the country.
Let’s be honest, here’s what the Speech said:
1. Black Racism is OK.
2. White Racism is NOT OK. Don Imus had to be fired (as Obama demanded).
3. Geraldine Ferraro is a racist demagogue.
4. His Granny was racist for being afraid of black bum threatening her for money on the bus.
5. White people should STFU and understand Black Racism, while realizing that ALL White people are guilty of Racism and forever tainted.
6. AmeriKKKa was built on racism and therefore is garbage.
7. If White people will STFU, and move to the back of the Bus, Black people MIGHT give them some of the gobs of money they plan to extort painlessly from corporations.
8. All White people are racist.
9. See #8.
10. Everything wrong in the Black Community … is the fault of White Racism.
11. White people must therefore STFU and hand over lots of extra tax money to make Black people less angry with them.
12. God Damn America. The end.
13. PS — all White people are racist. Had to be said … again.
THAT is not a winner for me. Maybe guilty rich white yuppies with too much money may love Obama-the-Messiah, but for the rest of us working for a living and trying to get by it’s garbage.
If Obama could listen to that junk for twenty years I have a suggestion for him. Go to Kenya (which he idolizes). And live there. He doesn’t have to live in the KKK of A. He can leave. I suggest he do so now. He won’t even have to put up with the flag anymore.
I am sick and tired of being called racist by rich Black guys with tons of money. I don’t like it in Barry Bonds. Donovan McNabb (“White QBs like Eli and Rex get a break compared to a Black Man like me!”), or Barack Hussein Obama.
It’s fine that Obama has a relationship with a radical. I had a Marxist girlfriend once, and I’ve never been a Marxist. I have some radical friends today. I’m not going to disown them over politics, and they won’t disown me.
But why didn’t he pick a pastor in the mold of Martin Luther King, Jr? Why didn’t any of them make the cut? That’s the question I want him to answer. I doubt he ever will.
Please be clear with your thoughts friends.Please lets try it out to get more.
Thinking about it over night, one of the criticisms I’ve seen most often is that Obama (again)is all talk and no substance. His speech would have been better if he had also talked about how he has made amends between racial groups on the local level (I would guess that he has) to demonstrate action separate from Wright. He probably should have dealt with specifics as well.
For it’s faults, it may be one of the greatest speeches on a controversial in a long time. I really took it as him trying to acknowledge all sides (and opposing pains) in rhetoric-filled, hyperbolic issue, and trying to find a reasonable center. That’s a lofty goal, and a difficult speech to get through today’s soundbyte media.
This speech certainly won’t be enough to sway voters that his entity is separate from Wright, but to me it’s a good start.
Alchemist hints at one of the larger elephants in the room. Obama is still resisting specifics and likes dealing in platitudes. Are we sure his middle name really isn’t Zelig?
Wow. You aren’t very critical.
The first point is being nitpicky.
The second point is criticizing him for what he didn’t say.
It’s almost like you are trying to set up the idea that all criticism of the speach is based on trivialities.
There is plenty in the speach to criticize simply on the basis of what he did in fact say. Which, in the end, wasn’t all that much, but still.
Once again Obama dazzles with brilliant bullshit. I suppose it’s a little early to tell yet whether the Wright controversy has been put to bed, but given the media coverage and commentary even from conservative talking heads, it sure seems at least to have been given Sominex.
I’m still convinced Obama would be at least as disastrous a president as Jimmy Carter. I was hoping the Wright controversy would hurt him more deeply than it has, but I’m beginning to realize why liberals hated Ronald Reagan so much. He had the teflon factor. Gaffes, scandals, economic downturn, nothing stuck to the guy. And every time liberals got their hopes up that the latest gaffe or whatever would finally derail the policies they considered evil and/or insane, the guy gave a great speech and was right back on track. In a word, AAAARGH.
However, I still have the audacity to hope that McCain’s likeability, war hero, and experience factors will out over Obama’s Ming vase rhetoric(beautiful, but empty).
Remmeber that only about three weeks ago (if that long), Obama said on camera that he had _no idea_ that Wright had ever said anything objectionable. He did not say, then, that he knew about Wright’s inflammatory sermons but was not present on the day. no, he said he _did not know_.
Later, when asked specifically about certain things Wtright had preached, Obama simply replied that he was not in the service when Wright said them. Obama said unambiguously that he had never heard personally any of the things Wright said.
Then yesterday, he said clearly that he had been present when Wright said “controversial” things.
This entire speech was nothing but typical politician’s dodge. Hillary herself could not have done so well.
Sorry, A.L., there was nothing whatever uplifting or affirming about it. He listened to Wright almost every week for 20 years – that’s 1,040 weeks. And only now he seems aware that Wright has said “controversial” things from time to time.
Shelby Steele had it right: Obama used the church for 20 years as a political credential to gain authenticity as a black man in America, but one who shares none of the ancestry of slavery or oppression almost all other black Americans have.
There is nothing at all about Barack Obama that gives me the slightest glimmer of hope that he will be anything but hopelessly out of depth in the White House.
From local newspaper, the State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL):
*Durbin recalls Obama’s closeness to Rev. Wright*
bq. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin on Tuesday recalled Feb. 10, 2007, when his fellow Senate Democrat, Barack Obama, used a Springfield venue to announce his candidcy for president:
bq. “I was in the Old State Capitol with Reverend Wright on the day of Barack’s announcement when a decision was made that Reverend Wright would not speak because of some of the comments that he’d made earlier,” Durbin said.
bq. “It was a painful moment between the two of them, because, as Barack said (in the speech), Reverend Wright married him and Michelle, baptized his children, was repsonbile for his . . . dedication to the Christian faith. So it was a very painful moment when he had to tell him that he couldn’t speak at that announcement.
bq. “There was a quiet prayer ceremony in the basement of the Old State Capitol which I was part of before he (Obama) came on stage.”
bq. Obabam’s speech was delivered from a platform outside the building.
bq. — Bernard Schenburg
Sorry for the long quote, but I couldn’t find a link before and didn’t want to be suggested of taking things out of context. Here it is: “Scroll Down”:http://www.sj-r.com/News/stories/27181.asp
I don’t think Obama is being completely candid about what he knew and when he knew it.
Oh please…
I didn’t like the speech, but I wasn’t an Obama supporter and wasn’t predisposed to. But come to think of it, the speech doesn’t amount to much one way or another in the scheme of things. It’s the man behind the speech that is the problem. His conduct and his policies are too far removed from what he urges the rest of us to be doing to be taken seriously. If you liked the speech the man himself is an object lesson on how empty the words he mouths are. If you didn’t like the speech it is a slick, empty confirmation of what you suspected the man behind it was made of.
Now we need to see that that man is really who Obama is.
I think he’s still working on what he is and hasn’t got it figured out.
Jim Rockford: WoC’s very own crazy uncle.
Isn’t there something missing here? Where is Obama’s reassurance to American blacks? I mean the ones who don’t attend Trinity, and who don’t use “dis on” as a verb?
Here he is telling us that he won’t turn his back on a man whose church is currently trashing any “Uncle Tom preacher” who dares to criticize Wright. Wright, who calls a black supreme court justice “Clarence Colon” and a black Secretary of State “Condamnesia” and “Condoskeeza”, and “even attacks Tiger Woods:”:http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4468664&page=1
Obviously, in the world that Obama has lived in for the last 20 years, there aren’t just two Americas, there are two kinds of black people, and if you’re the wrong kind you’re not even entitled to elementary courtesy – even from an alleged Christian pastor.
Where is their apology? How is Obama planning to reach out to them? Or is this “unity” going to be for Whites and Approved Blacks Only?
Take it from a Chicagoan, the Tony Rezco story is going to eclipse the racist reverend story. This guy was a serious player in the state, not the small time fundraiser he’s been made out to be. Its impossible to tell how far the rabbit hole with Obama goes, but knowing this city, you just don’t get very far without having the right friends- and Rezco and Obama just happened to have overlapping business interests for several years. Obama might have gotten by without too much hassle if our governor wasnt neck deep with Rezco, but fairly or not that scandal will keep the name in the papers and the prosecutors and media digging.
I’m not accusing Obama of anything and i have no knowledge of any unsavory relationships, but just speaking from experience if Obama came out of the Chicago real estate and construction scene squeeky clean, he’ll probably have been the first.
I might have overstated the inconsistency between Obama telling Wright he couldn’t speak at his announcement and Obama’s subsequent explanation:
bq. _The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach *while I sat in the pews of Trinity or* heard him utter *in private conversation.* When these statements first came to my attention, it was *at the beginning of my presidential campaign.*_
“Huffington Post”:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html
That’s not inconsistent with Durban’s recollections. Though the campaign has been “spinning.”:http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGJhMWQ3NjUwYmI4N2E3MGEzNzc2YTI1MGE0MjMyYzM=
Barack Obama thinks that genetic makeup is decisive for the content of his character, or he thinks that his vital base of support believes that:
It’s history – the social sort endlessly recited by men like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and not merely your individual history – that makes you good or evil, a brother or an oppressor.
It’s in the genes. It’s in your blood.
And Barack Obama hasn’t had quite the right genes, or no searing would have been necessary. “Searing” is for when you base your life on a lie about who you are, gaining a crucial political credential.
#8 from Donald Sensing:
That’s right.
_”But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup”_
Somewhere John Kerry is cringing.
So Mark Buehner, when did you stop going to Reverent Wright’s sermons?
Seriously, though I wonder how much of this story is explained by Chicago machine politics — the organization of people by ethnic neighborhoods through which power and favors flow. Not just blacks, but Irish, Poles, Hispanics and did I mention the Irish?
Wow – just wow.
This is why 96% of the time on the internets, hypocrisy rules. I can’t even imagine listening to that speech and not thinking, ‘amazing speech’.
Amazing how people can view things differently.
First of all, this guilt by associations thing, people on the internet, and in the news, seem to operate in a different environment that both the politicians, and regular folks. Any sane person knows that guilt by association is bogus. And yes, this goes for the right-wing preachers as well.
But McCain, Huckabee, Hillary, Romney – even they get it. They all passed on attacking Obama because of who he associated with.
IF, we go down this road – it also would be nice to hold all candidates equal. But of course, we don’t. CNN is 24/7 about Wright and Obama. Pathetic.
Hypocrisy was, of course outraged, when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried introduced a resolution condeming Bush for speaking at Bob Jones University. Outraged that either of them would engage in guilty by association. Outraged I tell you.
Ooops that should be guilt.
So David Blue: do you think out of many, we are less than, or more than, one?
It’s a common slogan. It’s a bedrock statement from just every religion that’s ever existed. If Barack Obama looks at himself and sees parts of different races and affiliations, and thus a dedication to help people of all races and all affiliations, isn’t that a good thing?
ABC News “gets it”:http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4480868&page=1 :
bq. In Speech, Obama Contradicted More Than a Year of Denials About His Knowledge of Rev. Wright’s Sermons
_”So Mark Buehner, when did you stop going to Reverent Wright’s sermons?”_
Who says I stopped?!
_”Seriously, though I wonder how much of this story is explained by Chicago machine politics — the organization of people by ethnic neighborhoods through which power and favors flow. Not just blacks, but Irish, Poles, Hispanics and did I mention the Irish?”_
Its entirely explained by machine politics, but thats not necesarilly going to excuse Obama in the media. Chicago is a dangerous place to pull a national politician from. It’s similar to Louisiana and a few other odds spots where a certain level of corruption is… tolerated is the wrong word, expected is probably closer. We’ve got one former governor in prison and another that may be on his way, a mayor who is constantly being investigated but could undoubtedly be reelected from prison, and a senator running for president that we all know about.
I’d love to think that after all Obama’s years working on the south side and climbing that political ladder that he didnt rub elbows with some unsavory characters (if not worse), but it seems unlikely. There is an interestng vetting problem here. Everybody expected the Clinton spring loaded closet to be the interesting part of this campaign, but I dont think anybody has really taken the flashlight to Obama yet to that level. Im not talking about murder and mayhem here, but business dealings and friendships can be a big deal if they were with the wrong people.
Hypocrisy Rules: guilt by associations
You know, I’m getting a little tired of hearing that.
If I hung around white supremacists every weekend, you would be absolutely correct to smack me around in public for it. And I’m not running for president.
_First of all, this guilt by associations thing, people on the internet, and in the news, seem to operate in a different environment that both the politicians, and regular folks. Any sane person knows that guilt by association is bogus. And yes, this goes for the right-wing preachers as well._
If anything has been established here in the last few days, its that Obama is closer to Wright than one would have assumed. Obama believes he is like family. I think its quite clear that this is a close relationship and this whole process is painful and made more painful because Obama won’t simply throw him under the bus. Does that mean that Obama = Wright? No. On the plus side, it suggests loyalty and tolerance. On the negative side, well ask George W. Bush about the excesses of loyalty and as to tolerance, does anybody believe we should be tolerant of intolerance? Can Obama hope to accomplish any of his high-minded goals without drawing a line in the sand that applies to all races (and tribes) unhypocritically?
The main issue for me though is trying to understand how Obama sees conflict and I think “Stanley Kurz”:http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk5YjE5MjMzMGZjZGE3ZWY0YTNlY2IxNGIyOWE3MDg= gets to a substantive issue here that demands further examination:
bq. _Obama’s relationship to Wright is paradigmatic. Obama’s own views are not precisely Wright’s, but Obama understands and is attracted to Wright’s radicalism and wants to win at least a gruff sort of understanding and even acceptance of it from Americans at large. What’s scary is that this is all-too-similar to the way Obama thinks about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar Asad. Obama may not agree with them either, but he feels as though he understands their grievances well enough to bridge the gap between these leaders and the American people. That is why Obama is willing to speak to Ahmadinejad and Asad without preconditions._
Re: #25 from Donald Sensing: yes, good link. Barack Obama plays to a pattern in these false denials, and Brian Ross and Avni Patel noticed.
_If I hung around white supremacists every weekend_
Well, there’s one of the problems right there – Jeremy Wright isn’t equatable to white supremacists. If you really think that, you haven’t investigated the issue at all. How many white supremacists do you know that offer AIDS counseling, and take their own community to task for being prejudice against homosexuals? Not to mention, in personal interactions reports by whites who interact with Wright, how generous and gracious he is in person. Again, it’s complicated. Obama rejects the statements, without rejecting his church, and the leader thereof.
But yes, absolutely – the double standard is bogus, the guilt by association is bogus – as Huckabee made clear when asked by Scarborough, and as McCain made very clear when asked by Hannity.
How thoroughly predictable. The good reverend had the temerity to speak uncomfortable truths about the Shining City On The Hill and the Barockstar is forced to face the music for… proximity. Oh how dearly we cling to our favorite lies and myths. And after all this country has done for black folks, “such ingratitude.”:http://www.counterpunch.org/wise03182008.html
Coldtype, did the US create aids to kill African Americans? Should America be damned? Did the Administration in the forties know Pearl Harbor was coming? Are African Americans afraid to speak the name of Israel? Please please answer those four questions. I’m interested to see how truthful you believe the Reverend Wright is.
And Hypocrisy, I’d also point out that there were a lot of Southern whites associated with Gene Talmadge and toher governors just like him in the thirties and forties and fities in the South. These proudly racist, some times violent men, were very kind to huge numbers of them. The vast majority of these white people were dirt poor farmers. His administration, he was a Democrat by the way, helped bring electricity and in-door plumbing and schools and hospitals to great swaths of Georgia that had not had these things before. Likewise wiht other reprehenisbly raicst demagogoes in southern states all across the south. You haven’t seemed to him or those like him or their political allies or even southern whites in general as a very complicated figures. But Wright is one now simply becuase you support his candidate? Please help me understand why the two of you aren’t selling out all of your heretofore bedrock principles (and making up arguments so bogus as to induce sad laughter) for the sake of your politics. I want to understand you if I can.
Sorry, meant to write… You haven’t seemed to think of him or those like him or their political allies or even southern whites in general as very complicated figures… I cannot type.
Guilt by association is bogus if Wright supports Obama. It is not bogus if Obama supports Wright.
I don’t care if Wright is a nice guy who helps AIDS victims. That isn’t the issue.
Trent Lott lost his job for a hell of a lot less, and I thought he deserved it. He is also probably nice in person and has done many things to help people in his years of public service. He still needed to go, and he did. He went because conservatives purged him.
You guys on the left have a bad habit of purging your moderates instead of your crazies.
Armed Liberal said:
bq. One of the things I like the most about the speech is the fact that in it, Obama embraces moral ambiguity – and hence embraces the morality of the real world. I am profoundly uncomfortable with people comfortable in the moral certainty of the world that exists in their words or their imaginations.
I say and I quote:
bq. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. — John Stuart Mill
And:
bq. “It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.” – H.L.Mencken
Al- The point I am trying to make is that if you do not have a FIRM moral basis then you are lost or just too ambiguous to be a factor in the world of adults. There is NO ambiguity allowed or so we have been told over and over and over again by the race baiters. If we do have ANY ambiguity about it as whites then we are de facto racists and part of the problem. Talk about a double standard.
Well, enough is enough.
I am 3rd generation off of the boat. My family remembers the “No Irish Need Apply” signs. We have felt the stigma of the idea that us Irish are simply drunks, etc. Here is what I say – WHO GIVES A F-KC? I don’t. I served my country and got an Honorable Discharge during bad times (Viet Nam). I put myself through school with the old GI Bill and loans. At a state school. No Ivy League for a poor Irishman. I am fairly successful. I ain’t rich but I am well off. I save the extra money when I can. I own my home.
Obama and his racist buddies can kiss my a$$. This guy needs to be sent back to where he came from. Now.
MT,
If you want to think I’m wrong, Hillary Clinton’s wrong, Obama’s wrong, McCain’s wrong, Huckabee’s wrong, most of the talking heads are wrong – but you are RIGHT.
Hey, it’s a free country.
Ignore both the _liberals_ and _conservatives_ who don’t think it’s a big issue.
HUCKABEE: [Obama] made the point, and I think it’s a valid one, that you can’t hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can’t. Whether it’s me, whether it’s Obama…anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements.
Now, the second story. It’s interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what Louis Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you’d say “Well, I didn’t mean to say it quite like that.”
JOE SCARBOROUGH: But, but, you never came close to saying five days after September 11th, that America deserved what it got. Or that the American government invented AIDS…
HUCKABEE: Not defending his statements.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Oh, I know you’re not. I know you’re not. I’m just wondering though, for a lot of people…Would you not guess that there are a lot of Independent voters in Arkansas that vote for Democrats sometimes, and vote for Republicans sometimes, that are sitting here wondering how Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor would call the United States the USKKK?
HUCKABEE: I mean, those were outrageous statements, and nobody can defend the content of them.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: But what’s the impact on voters in Arkansas? Swing voters.
HUCKABEE: I don’t think we know. If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it’s not October. It’s March. And I don’t believe that by the time we get to October, this is gonna be the defining issue of the campaign, and the reason that people vote.
And one other thing I think we’ve gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say “That’s a terrible statement!”…I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack — and I’m gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who’s gonna say something like this, but I’m just tellin’ you — we’ve gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told “you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus…” And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
MIKA: I agree with that. I really do.
So Totten, you keep thinking it’s the “left”. But I gotta say, your thinking on this is shallow, inaccurate confused, and incorrect.
Again, guilt by association is not thinking clearly.
#2 from Michael J. Totten at 6:57 am on Mar 19, 2008
Micheal,
Martin Luther King was vilified by a large part of the country, North and South. Called a communist, trailed by the FBI, and ultimately assassinated. I lived in the south and went on Civil rights marches. He was regularly referred to as Martin Lucifer Coon.
Many, many people did not know why anyone would listen to a word he said, much less follow him as a spiritual guide. I am in no way equting Obama’s pastor with MLK. By I will say he is a Marine and that goes a long way with me. I am also quite impressed that Obama did not throw him under a bus.
Here is a Letter, written by King, that speaks volumes to how he was viewed then, even by those who one would think would be his allies.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/letter.html
#35 from Robohobo at 4:43 am on Mar 20, 2008
Our ethnic background and life path are very similar. One thing that struck me in the speech was the idea of not going back into our corners. I am frankly tired of it. This whole incident is an oppurtunity for engagement. As a fellow Irishman, I think you would agree that sometimes getting our backs up is not the best choice. something is being said here and I think we would be foolish not to at least listen.
TOC,
I know MLK was villified a long time ago. But not by me, and not by hardly anyone since I was old enough to know who he was.
What’s your point? Some people are rightly castigated by the majority. In 30 years we will not be celebrating Jeremiah Wright’s hatred and idiotic conspiracy theories. He’s a reactionary, and no one like him will get their own national holiday.
My point is that Wright should listen to MLK more, and I have no doubt whatsoever that Barack Obama agrees.
Hypocrisy Rules,
You wouldn’t give John McCain this kind of slack if his pastor of 20 years was a racist and a conspiracy nut. No one would except other racists. Your Internet handle fits you.
Obama should have chosen a church with a pastor in the mold of MLK. He should raise his children in a place where racism is verboten. Deep down you know I’m right. We celebrate MLK for a reason. Wright is a scandal for a reason.
By the way, quoting Huckabee at me is a waste of your time if you think I look to him to guide my opinion. I’d rather vote for Obama than Huckabee. That isn’t even a close call.
Totten,
Well, one good thing is, you haven’t addressed my points at all. Changing the subject just shows you don’t think you have much of a good response. That’s okay with me.
And no, being psychic on me and counter-factuals, isn’t a response.
Cmon man, you aren’t even trying here. Surely you can do better than this, right? Is your argument that weak?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen so thin an argument from you, just one meaningless assertion after another.
I loved Obama speech. It sounded like a bad imitation of Elmer Gantry and the character from the Flim Flam Man. I especially loved where he threw his granny under the bus, I mean it takes character to do that. It takes courage. I also loved the original sin bit. I guess there was something unique about slavery in the US in 1776, but try as I might I can’t seem to find a nation that outlawed it at that time so I am a bit perplexed. Maybe its that those evil New Englanders underpaid the Africans they bought the slaves from. That must be the sin.
I think we should all understand the rage of people who profess to be victims. Blacks, Palestinians, left handed midget bowlers, failed American Idol contestants. Lets embrace the rage, but never condemn those who hate America or display the vilest forms of bigotry and try to minimalize it by trying to foist that “all churches do this.” Really are all churches in Chicago like this? In fact watching Wright little inetrview on Fox one wonders where Christianity enters into Black liberation theology. Seems like any linkage with Christianity is limited in the extreme since the Sermon on the Mount apparently was also tossed under the bus.
All in all I loved the speech. Elmer Gantry would be proud.
“Obama should have chosen a church with a pastor in the mold of MLK. He should raise his children in a place where racism is verboten. Deep down you know I’m right. We celebrate MLK for a reason. Wright is a scandal for a reason.†-MT
Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble MT but Obama did choose a pastor in the mold of MLK, the real MLK not the Disney character that he has become in mainstream renderings. It’s worth quoting Paul Street’s recent comments at length regarding Obama’s tap-dance vis a vis Wright/King:
_Obama’s comment suggests that one indulges in malevolent / “anti-Americanism†if one dares to acknowledge and criticize any or all of what Dr. King called “the triple evils that are interrelated†(racism, economic inequality/poverty, and militarism-imperialism) in relation to the United States.Â
Â
Does Obama “categorically denounce†Dr. King’s reference (at Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967) to the U.S. as “the leading purveyor of violence in the world†– a description that holds all too much relevance and accuracy more than forty years after King advanced it, in a time when the U.S. has undertaken a five year assault on Iraq “more disastrous than that of the Mongols who sacked Baghdad in the thirteenth century,†as the respected journalist Nir Rosen notes in a December 2007 Current History article titled “The Death of Iraq.â€_
“-the rest.”:http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16918
In the meantime, I still patiently await an argument that undermines Wright’s central theme that America rests on a foundation of genocide, slavery, and white supremacy.
“Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble MT but Obama did choose a pastor in the mold of MLK…”
Ahh, yes. It was only a matter of time.
“In the meantime, I still patiently await an argument that undermines Wright’s central theme that America rests on a foundation of genocide, slavery, and white supremacy.”
So, Obama’s wasn’t good enough for you? Or are you saying that Obama agrees that America rests on a foundation of genocide, slavery, and white supremacy?
HR: The main reason that the candidates running against Obama, whether on the left or the right, aren’t saying much against Obama right now is that whenever your opponent is committing political suicide, the smartest policy is to stay out of the way and not say anything that might seem ungracious, inciteful, or even interesting. Because right now, your career is better served by staying out of the limelight and let the media continue to feast on Obama.
BTW, I’ve heard a couple people say that the Obama incident proves that the media is in the pocket of the right wing afterall. It proves no such thing. This would have never hit the mainstream media if Hillary hadn’t been behind it. I’m sorry to disappoint anyone that thinks otherwise, but the truth is that the Dems aren’t the good guys. The Republicans aren’t the good guys either, but I’ve known that for 15 years now. It was hard for me to take at first too.
The only thing that is surprising me at this point (and maybe it shouldnt) is the tepid by growing support some of the left is starting to show for _Wright._ Granted im not the only one to overlook this, but a good portion of the democratic party believes exactly what the man says, or at least the contraversial bits.
Thanks to Coldtype especially for reminding me that incoherent, kneejerk, conspiratorial antiamericanism still has a welcome home in the democratic party.
I won’t bother to fully expound on how ironic it is that this argument that “America rests on a foundation of genocide, slavery, and white supremacy” has come up in this context. But its still hilarious.
Yes, Celebrim that’s fair. They’re just guys. We’re all ‘just guys’, flawed imperfect, struggling people. (politicians more so). But what I liked about Obama is that he embraced this fact. He embraced us all as flawed, angry human beings (and this time of the election season, aren’t most us angry about something?). He didn’t vilify the opposition (although they’re were some unnecessary jabs) but tried to understand white groups that are also angry over race relations. He didn’t defend his friend, but said “my friend, the flawed human being, made a major mistakes that stands against what I believe.”
It was nice to hear something more nuanced than “Me good , them bad” for a change.
I have no idea if he can still win the white house (or if he gave a strong enough rejection), but it was a refreshingly different race speech.
In the meantime, I still patiently await an argument that undermines Wright’s central theme that America rests on a foundation of genocide, slavery, and white supremacy.
Name a country that isn’t based on a foundation of genocide, slavery and supremacy. Most European countries are based on all those things, plus colonialism. Want to talk about racism? Germans are still uncomfortable having a Turk or an Italian live next door. American Blacks who visit Europe are amazed by the open racism there. If you visit, try the popular confection, the Negerkuss.
Arab/Muslim culture is built of a foundation of slavery that still exists in nations like Mauritania, the Sudan and Saudi Arabia. They just stopped bringing child slaves into the UAE, at least officially. Arab/Muslim supremacism still rules, as does the related ethnic cleansing.
Asia, Russia and Africa, all built on similar foundations. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, similar stuff. The only nations that I can think of that aren’t based on the same foundations are Ireland and Israel. Like they said in The Committments, we’re black and we’re proud.
No wonder they celebrate Martin Luther King day in Israel. They’re the only country that does, outside of America.
_The only thing that is surprising me at this point (and maybe it shouldn’t) is the tepid by growing support some of the left is starting to show for Wright._
Thanks for reemphasizing my worst fear of this entire event Mark. I do not think most democrats believe what Wright said. They’re is a a video on “media curves”:http://www.mediacurves.com/Politics/J6762/ that demonstrates that democrats DO NOT AGREE.
Actually notice independents + democrats on Wrights speech and on Obama’s speeches…. notice how close they are. See? We’re no more a party of america-hating commies than independents are! I feel so relieved…
But the fringe is always the most vocal, and may give the democratic party a black eye over this.
I read the counter-punch article. It seemed sort of weak to me, as do all of the arguments hypocrisy and Coldtype have advanced thus far. Claiming that a) what the man said wasn’t what he in fact said and b) though it wasn’t what he said it was right anyway then c) accusing everyone that notices the well hypocrisy of that position of hypocrisy and, of all things avoiding the point is just…
Well, very simialr to the things Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd and all the rest used to say back in the day. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think most of the Democratic party believes what Wright says. I do fear that they are more than happy to quietly justify it so long as it enhances their politcal power. If you want an analogy for this sort of behaviour think of the old “Republican Strategy” involving race here in the South during the seventies. (Some called it the “Nixon Strategy.”) I guess we can call this the Obama strategy. The difference is, of course, the media is willing to discuss the “Nixon-Strategy.”
Sure, it’s noble to stand by a friend. But simply standing by a friend who has different political and/or religious beliefs is far different thing than joining with a church and a pastor. Much different.
In America, the first probably says nothing about you, as most of us have friends of every different political and religious orientation. In America, the second is a completely voluntary association, and usually signifies deeply felt convictions.
Wright is not just some dude that Obama befriended to work on community projects together. Obama has been a member of the church that Wright leads for 20 years, and has made significant financial contributions towards it’s gospel of black racial theology. This is a much deeper and connected relationship than simple friendship. Hell, Obama was married by this preacher and his kids were baptized by him! Just a friend? Hardly!
So, either Obama is a true believer of Wright’s congregation, or he hypocritically joined for purposes political expediency, or he let his wife pick the church that they’d belong too, all the while disagreeing. If there’s another possibility, I can’t see it. Pretty speeches aside, none of the possible explanations are very comforting when considering Obama as possible presidential timber.
lurker,
“If there’s another possibility, I can’t see it.”
How about this. Possibly, like the vast majority of Americans, Obama goes to a particular church because of that church’s religious beliefs, not because of the political beliefs of one of its pastors, priests, deacon’s, rabbis, or clerics. I doubt most Catholic Americans subscribe to the Pope’s political beliefs, opposition to the Iraq war, e.g.
I’m wondering if you think that John McCain’s switch from Episcopalian to Baptist was free of “political expediency” purposes, and how much you really truly care. In fact, I’d be willing to bet good money that this bizarre concern about the political leanings of Obama’s pastor is not free from partisan political concerns. It offers a nice excuse, doesn’t it, to feel better about doubting his presidential timber.
Wright’s whole church follows Black Liberation Theology. Maybe you are comfortable with that. I am not. Are either of McCain’s two churches based on a fundamentally racist theology?
I think the best retort Obama could make at this point (and I think it is the truth) is that Wright grew up in a time of racism and racebased violence and degradation that the current generation can barely imagine. He’s an imbittered old man that has a good heart but unfortunately cant get passed the conspiracy theories and race baiting, because he grew living some of the worst of it. Obama can say he embraces the goodness in the man and hopes to heal those open wounds, while rejecting and ignoring the demagogery and vitriol as a relic of pain and humiliation.
Like Harrison Ford advising the President in the movie Clear and Present Danger, don’t run from the man, embrace him. Then there is no story.
Just make the differences clear. If I advise Obama, i would have told him to stand up at a press conference with Wright at his side and say this man is a friend and an inspiration and I am running for president to try to heal exactly these wounds that haunt him.
lurker, since Wright’s not running for president, I don’t really care. (Personally, I am no more or less comfortable with Black Liberation Theology than I am for any Christian Theology. I am not at all comfortable with the belief that Jesus Christ was half-God/half-man and that he died for our sins–as though that would help anything.)
As for McCain’s church(es), you made the point about Obama’s chosing a church for political reasons and how that was hypocritical. Regardless of McCain’s church(es) beliefs, if he chose Baptist over his life-long Episcopalianism in order to appear more palatable to evangelicals and conservatives, then he chose for political reasons and is equally hypocritical, according to your standard as expressed in #52. That you are so bent out of shape about the one and don’t seem to care so much about the other, would put you in the same camp, wouldn’t it?
Mark B., that was well-said. Particularly this: “this man is a friend and an inspiration and I am running for president to try to heal exactly these wounds that haunt him.” I didn’t see the speech but from the many snippets I heard, it seems that is what he was saying….or no?
Hypocrisy was only one of the possible reasons that I listed for Obama joining that church. In this case, it would be the least worrisome to me.
It’s not uncommon thing seeing hypocrisy in politicians. It may be more or less tolerable depending on specific circumstances. I can’t think of any circumstances were a candidate’s racism would be preferable than self-interested hypocrisy.
So, if Obama really joined, and elected to raise his children in a racist church; then it will be clear in the fullness of time. Now is not Obama’s time.
*#39 from Michael J. Totten at 5:28 am on Mar 20, 2008
TOC,
I know MLK was vilified a long time ago. But not by me, and not by hardly anyone since I was old enough to know who he was.*
That is the point and that is what every generation has to deal with. every generation is left with both Grand traditions and horrible sins by those that preceded it.
The two pillars of western civilization put that in the center of their philosophies. The Judeo-Christian concept of Original sin and the Greek idea of the sins of the father being passed to the son.
Martin Luther King wasn’t vilified a long time ago. To me it was a moment ago. It is part of a very real living experience for me. 30 years from now, you will carry the experience of Iraq with you.
The majority of the people round you won’t. They will not even care, for he most part about what your experiences were and much of their validity will be buried in revisionism.
My point is this. You are a reporter. I have an enormous amount of respect for you and what you are doing. There is a lot going on here. How it will play out will be very interesting. Reserve judgement. interview black soldiers in Iraq bout their take on Wright and the black Church. It is a golden opportunity.
I do not know if what I am saying is at all clear. A festering wound has been re-opened. Everybody’s life experience, in relation to race relations has been again laid bare. What we all would like to fade into history has not.
A tremendous amount has been done in my lifetime and the country is a lot better off for what has happened. Obviously, a lot more has to be done. Let the dust settle and see what happens. It is always better to confront our problems.
Please forgive the rambling impressionistic tone of this post. It ws the only way I could express myself.
Well, lurker, you are changing your tune a little bit, aren’t you. You said there were TWO possibilities. Either Obama believed everything Wright believes or he is a hypocrite. Then you said, “none of the possible explanations are very comforting when considering Obama as possible presidential timber.” Now you are saying that one of the two is “worrisome to [you].” Look if you don’t like Obama, you don’t like Obama. You’re not under any obligation to hop on his bandwagon. But there’s no need to start making up reasons for your dislike…especially religious ones.
Actually, I listed three possibilities.
In general here’s my ranking of those starting with the most repulsive:
1. True believer of racist theology.
2. Does it because his wife makes him.
3. Self serving hypocrisy.
Unfortunately for Obama, his hypocrisy in this case would include teaching his children that rascism is acceptable.
So, on second thought, I can’t separate Obama’s hypocrisy from racism. So, I stand corrected. There are are only two possible explanations for him to have joined and supported that church:
1. Believes racist theology to the extent that he’s comfortable raising his children with that belief.
2. His wife made him do it.
My greater point stands.
Unless you can demonstrate McCain’s hypocrisy rises to this level of racism, then I’m afraid your point doesn’t.
Alchemist: I would like to quote ‘They Might Be Giants’ at this time.
“This is where the party ends
I can’t stand here listening to you
And your racist friend
I know politics bore you
But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you
And your racist friend
It was the loveliest party that I’ve ever attended
If anything was broken I’m sure it could be mended
My head can’t tolerate this bobbing and pretending
Listen to some bullet-head and the madness that he’s saying
This is where the party ends
I’ll just sit here wondering how you
Can stand by your racist friend
I know politics bore you
But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you
You and your racist friend
This is where the party ends
I can’t stand here listening to you
And your racist friend
I know politics bore you
But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you
And your racist friend
Out from the kitchen to the bedroom to the hallway
Your friend apologizes, he could see it my way
He let the contents of the bottle do the thinking
Can’t shake the devil’s hand and say you’re only kidding
This is where the party ends
I can’t stand here listening to you
And your racist friend
I know politics bore you
But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you
And your racist friend”
At some point, friend or not, if he won’t give up his racist agenda, I’m getting out his church. I’m certainly not going to let my children be raised by my crazy racist uncle and fund his racist ministry, no matter how close of friends we are.
lurker, you are right. I had assumed the part about his wife was a joke.
But notice that you have never responded to my original response. The other possibility that, like most Americans, he choses his church for its religious elements, not the political ones. Also, I dispute your characterization that Black Liberation Theology is racist. I believe that is a slander that you are unable to substantiate with anything remotely resembling evidence.
It is plainly ludicrous to posit that Obama teaches his children that racism is acceptable or that Obama embraces or endorses any belief system that condones racism. This is spectacular nonsense.
mark,
His public record is virtually nil.
So I can only know Obama by the company he keeps.
His children have been baptised in a church that follows Black Liberation Theology. So, if the church is rasist, then Obama is rasing his children as racists. This is simple to understand, right?
You deny that this church is racist. You are wrong. This comes straight from their web site:
…and yet, calling everybody a racist doesn’t really solve anything. Is he a racist? Quite possibly. He’s definitely upset, he definitely feels disrespected or out of touch with a white government.
Race-Based segregation groups primarily work by finding people that no one will listen too. People that are mentally sick, or mentally abused, and then using the opposite group as the substance for that abuse. “They’re the reason why…” “Can’t you see that they avoid everything you say?”. Or course, the more radicalized someone becomes, the more others refuse to listen to them. The more the things they say MUST be true. It’s a feedback loop.
Right now, several minorities in our country are stuck in the feedback loop. Some farther than others. Many african-american populations are stuck at the very bottom.
If you want to avoid inner-city congregations your whole life, you can write them off as racist, give up, go your own way. That’s basically what’s happened the last twenty years. People assume we’ve bridged that gap, the issue is over, no need to discuss it. And tensions have only grown.
OR
You can make an attempt see the gap that exists and find a way to bridge it. Find the people that mean well, or reach out to those struggling to do better. Showing an effort to help (or at least to understand) the other side is a big step in starting the process.
To Add:
What I said works both ways.
My favorite part of the speech is not that he described problems facing the african-american community (although he did it much less divisively than others have) but that he also looked at the other side, and addressed white anger as well.
Can you name any other politician (left or right) who has addressed both sides of this issue in the same speech?
lurker,
“His public record is virtually nil.”
Patently untrue.
“So I can only know Obama by the company he keeps.” Perhaps if you are narrow-minded and unwilling to read his books, examine his career or listen to his speeches. (& of course, you are only measuring him by the company of a single individual as though he keeps no other company, which is ridiculous of course.)
“His children have been baptised in a church that follows Black Liberation Theology. So, if the church is rasist, then Obama is rasing his children as racists.” 1) you are still equating BLT (if I may borrow the acronym) with racism; 2) while I was baptized in the Catholic Church, I was not raised Catholic…so the one does not necessarily follow from the other.
There is nothing racist in the list you provided. Emphasizing black values, black traditions, black history, black pride, or whatever, is no more racist than when emphasizing Greek values, traditions, history, pride, laws, language or Jewish values, etc.. Racism is the noxious belief that one group of people are inherently inferior and/or the denial of equal treatment to one group based upon race, i.e., discrimination. BLT is steeped in awareness of history and culture and how, because of racism, blacks have been treated differently in the US, treated, they would probably say, in a very un-Christian-like manner. I don’t buy it, but it is not racist. It is a response to racism.
mark,
His public record is nil.
He did nothing in the Illinois legislature until his last year, and then only then because the house leader took many, many bills away from their original sponsors of many years and gave them to Obama to beef up his resume.
Look, you can stomp your feet all you want, but I do NOT accept that African Americans can not be racists by definition. Just substitute the word white for the word black in the text of that document, and see what that does for your sensibilities.
Here’s a story about Obama in Chicago. There’s some stuff about his experience in the Illinois legislature in it.
Barack Obama and Me.
BTW the KKK is not racist. It’s just a response to poor economic conditions in the rural south.
[/sarcasm]
Hypocrisy Rules,
My point is simply that Obama picked a bad church, not that he himself is a racist like Wright. It’s obvious that Obama doesn’t share Wright’s view, and I never said that he does. You’re the one who keeps changing the subject.
Would you raise your children in that church? If not, why not?
I wouldn’t take children to a racist church for any reason, and especially not if I were running for president.
I’m not saying Obama should have picked a conservative church. The minister who married my wife and me is a radical leftist, and a slightly famous one locally. He is not as radical as Wright (no “chickens coming home to roost” from him), but he’s radical. I’m telling you this so you can better understand what I’m objecting to.
Lurker: that’s a great story. Interview a bunch of people with an axe to grind, and the story comes out negative. Who would have guessed?
[/sarcasm]
lurker, I’m not stomping my feet and I never said black’s can’t be racist.
substitute the word “european” instead of white and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
I’m very big on european values, traditions, beliefs, culture & experience. I think the world would be a better place if the best european values were adopted. (of course, there’s quite a few european values that i would discard, as well.) and if you want to use white as a synonym in this case for european, that is fine with me. but i don’t think any of these values are inherently white as a result of race….it’s cultural. we all have our cultural preferences. being victims of oppression on the part of europeans for centuries, I can see why blacks might want to reject white culture and build a foundation of their own. why they want to be christians, however, is something i don’t understand. i guess they have the ability to see past the sins of christians and into the heart of the teachings. good for them.
it seems to me you are predisposed to dislike obama and have no compunction about leaning on the half-dozen stories that will support your dislike all the while ignoring anything that would challenge your prejudice against him.
mark,
I understand your point, but you are still wrong. Keep the list of Black Values in mind and then go watch some of those sermons.
Even conceding that this racism might be understandable in view of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation. This is America; and that church can follow whatever creed they want. But to say that it’s not racist is Orwellian.
And Obama shares NONE of that legacy. He chose it. If he wanted to be a uniter, then he shouldn’t have joined a divider church.
America IS ready for a black president. We’re ready for a black president, like the original, but fictional Obama. You know. The one that transcended race.
America is not ready for a black president that raises his own children in a church that perpetuates the same old racist divisions, not transcending anything.
He’s a gifted politician. Let’s see how he actually works in the Senate the next 6-12 years. Let’s see if he can go be a governor. Let’s judge him by his actions instead of having to take him on faith.
We should pass on Obama this time. But maybe not permanently.
Alchemist,
The guy actually writes about verifiable facts, like legislative records. Feel free to refute them with your own facts.
Actually, most of the article is about the guy writing the article. Very few facts, mostly out-of-context opinions in interviews. There are a lot of loose ends with an implied complete picture:
Did obama write bills before, that were rejected by republican leadership?
Did obama contribute anything to the committees he joined?
What did the people he work with think of his abilities?
Did he help these bills come to fruition?
How long did he serve on these new committees?
Or did he just show up and get the bill handed to him?
You know what would have made the article better? If he had done more research (you know, actually talking to committee members) instead of just inferring that Obama did nothing. If he had, say, used actual facts, timelines, some way of demonstrating Obama’s ineptitude, I would take a serious look at it.
But it’s just a poorly written, one-sided article that leaves me with alot of questions, but no actual answers.
He did talk to people. You waved them all off as sour grapes or something. If he talked to more or different ones, would you just wave them off too?
Like I said, the facts are objective. He presented some facts about Obama’s legislative efforts. There still standing there until they are refuted.
The article wrings true, thought it might be because I’ve read similar articles before.
The Illinois legislature is run by the leaders. Obama’s party was out of power six out of seven years he was in office. He was a part-time legislator. These are not circumstances in which anyone is likely to have significant legislative experience that is not tied directly to the support of the Senate Majority Leader.
Look, there are some interesting tidbits in here. But he vaguely punches through stories. Having never lived in Chicago, I know nothing about the events, the campaigns, the issues confronting Obama, and how he (allegedly) avoided challenges and was rewarded for his loyalties. Here are some places where I wanted a better explanations:
_I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:
“He said, ‘Cliff, I’m gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'”
“Oh, you are? Who might that be?”
“Barack Obama.” _
The implication is that Obama has no real substance, but whose aptitude was created by someone else. We have no idea what Obama was doing at this point, and if he was any good at it. We don’t know why this decision was made, if Obama demonstrated aptitude, or if he was showing unique promise for the position. Or, if he was just a mouthpeice with no substance at all. That’s what’s implied, but I have a limited idea of what’s going on.
_I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen,”… “Barack didn’t have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit._
It may be completely accurate, I don’t know. But only interviewing one guy who is obviously peeved, isn’t very helpful. Here, we don’t here what Obama did (if anything) on the committee, all we know is that he was there at the end.
“But, as a state senator, Obama evaded leadership on a host of critical community issues, from historic preservation to the rapid demolition of nearby public-housing projects, according to many South Siders.”
Wait, I thought he was stuck on dead-end committees? How did he evade leadership? What legislation did he pass up and what did he pass it up for? There are actually a few events where Obama is discussed passing up legislation, but we have no idea what the debate around those locations are. Was there any controversy over the local changes? Did some see the changes as improvements? Not being from Chicago, I don’t know anything about the issues, or about Obama’s commitments at the time.
I’ll give you the Tillman corruption thing, especially since I know nothing about the events, or the people surrounding the issue.
_Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets — to appear on the ballot, to knock off all the other Democratic contenders._
This I did find. It is a deliberate gloss over of the events leading up to this. Palmers, his main competition ran for congress and got soundly beat. At the last second, she tried to switch back into the race for her old senate seat. She was unprepared, and didn’t get enough legal signatures. Is it cold? Sure. But it’s not unexpected.
This is followed by a six year blank where he lost one election, and won another when the leader’s campaign exploded. We don’t know much about how he ran these campaigns, what problems he faced? What messages did he run on? How did he demonstrate that he was greater than his rivals? how did he raise money for those campaigns? He had to have done something to eventually win in a “crowded field” of competitors. Again, the article leaves a blank impression.
_A week after my profile of Obama was published, I called some of my contacts in the Illinois Legislature… and was surprised to learn that many resented him and had supported other candidates in the U.S. Senate election._
Why? The only complaint is ‘being snubbed’, which is pretty weak. What made him unqualified for the position? Was it his attitude? Work style? Was he a slacker? Give me a valid, grounded complaint here.
The story closes with an Obama argument that he wave to take the writers word for, since no one was there, and there is no tape. Fantastic.
Again, everything here may be true, but in the end all I get from this article is that Obama is a vague, manipulative mist, with no real shape or form. Lots of manipulative people struggle to even survive state politics, and Obama is probably running the best of the three campaigns on average.
So where did he get these skills from? How does he do it? What skills did he learn, and what events gave him the skill to play the political games?I’m sure some of this could be gleaned in Obama’s books (which I haven’t read yet).
Compare this to an article about the politics of Kerry & Bush in the “Atlantic”:http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200407/fallows\ It has events, dates, explanations, perfect examples of what candidates did well, and did poorly. It has a point and it leads us to understand how the candidates got there, and how they will probably react next.
That’s what I was missing here.
In his great speech, Barack Obama used and degraded his grandmother, who is white, by describing her as an incurable and embarrassing racist, who nevertheless he wouldn’t rid himself of.
He also describes her as a typical white person. (link)
He does this to license the institutionalized, formal and ferocious race hatred of the Black church to which he’s committed himself, which he’s drunk up happily for decades, and in which he has brought up his daughters.
And that is part of the respectable spectrum in Black religion and politics. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t have given Barack Obama the Black credibility and authenticity he wants, and the lop-sided Black voting support he’s gotten, without which he couldn’t be where he is, given his puny record of accomplishments.
A Fox News poll (link) reports:
2%
Personally, I think that mateship ought to be the topmost value, and that it’s universal and inconsistent with racism.
But, if someone else thinks a White pride, White beauty, White power culture and religion and politics is necessary – there are facts to back that. In the context of what we’ve learned now, I have nothing to say against it. I would just want them to stop short of hate – which would be enough by itself, if they did, to show that they were better than Pastor Jeremiah Wright.
And I don’t think anyone who continues to support Barack Obama has a sound basis to say anything against it.
Mel Gibson, Trent Lott and a lot of others are owed apologies too.
alchemist:
I don’t mean to imply that Obama is without skill or aptitude or any of those things. I agree with what Lurker said though, at least as to his years in the Illinois legislature, his record is virtually nil. That is not a knock on Obama; it’s because each Illinois legislative house is an extension of the legislative leader. In Obama’s case it was Emil Jones. And Emil Jones did not merely move assignments around to help Obama; he moved assignments around to help some of the people complaining in that article (i.e, so they could get credit for someone else’s work when election time came around)
OK, folks, time for the even-handedness test.
Whatever your position about Barack Obama and Rev. Wright, are you willing to apply the same standards to John McCain and Rev. Hagee?
From where I sit, the things that Rev. Hagee has said are approximately as far off the wall as the things Rev. Wright has said. Each candidate is now trying to distance himself from the opinions of the respective Reverend. And, while Obama belonged to Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years, McCain actively “solicited Rev. Hagee’s endorsement”:http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003728364.
If you’re going to treat the two cases as different, please clarify. It’s going to take some pretty delicate hair-splitting, which will be pretty revealing about you.
Thanks.
I should also point out that I’m not from Chicago. I had never heard of Obama until he won the Senate primary. IMO he won the primary (and the election) because the more widely known candidates either exploded or their supporters became so angry at other candidates that they coalesced around the sweet-talking senator. It was an ugly and odd election.
But I’m still trying to figure out who Obama is. In this I disagree with alchemist, who earlier said that its about the issues. I think its about character. (I disagree with Republicans and Democrats enough on the issues). What ultimately matters are things like style of governing, how one approaches issues and sees conflict. My greatest fear is that Obama will be a Carter, confident in his ability to heal the wounds of the world with talk and gifts. However, he doesn’t seem to have Carter’s self-righteous streak, and I would like to think that he would moderate any such impulses with guidance (from Clinton’s old foreign policy hands).
Beard, I think that’s always a fair challenge, but in my defense, I think an issue can confront a candidate like Obama in a way that it doesn’t confront McCain. One thing that struck me in a recent clip is that McCain came across as befuddled. Can we really ask if we would feel the same way if Obama were the same age? Who knows?
I don’t think many people believe McCain is likely to be too close to the religious right. BTW/ [upthread] he’s been going to a Baptist church for 15 years; it didn’t stop him from name-calling in 2000.
But I don’t think the comparison is apt. Obama has basically said that Wright is like family; Wright’s words permeate Obama’s writing and sense of identity.
Beard, alchemist, any others that want to play:
What do we know about Obama based upon what we know about him and Wright?
#82 from Beard:
Yes.
#82 from Beard:
Yes.
#82 from Beard:
I didn’t know he actively sought that support.
Which even before I heard that from you, was not enough to make what McCain did right in my books. McCain did the minimum to separate himself from the Rev. Hagee, without losing support, and I think that is shameful. He ought to have denounced him outright for anti-Catholic bigotry.
#82 from Beard:
I think it’s easy to differentiate the cases materially, with no hair-splitting needed. John McCain hasn’t been part of Hagee’s church for decades, like Obama with Wright.
It’s just that even after you differentiate the cases reasonably, in my opinion they make both candidates look like mud. Not equally mud. Obama is worse. But both mud. Neither of them performed to what I think of as a reasonable minimum standard of political decency.
#82 from Beard:
You’re welcome.
“There is nothing racist in the list you provided. Emphasizing black values, black traditions, black history, black pride, or whatever, is no more racist than when emphasizing Greek values, traditions, history, pride, laws, language or Jewish values, etc…”
I see. So the following doesn’t bother you:
“1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Commitment to Traditional Values.
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the
White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.”
Not a problem there. Nope. Move along. Nothing to see.
Beard, let me propose an alternate even-handedness test – stolen from To Kill A Mockingbird…
Edit the materials from the website and from Rev. Wright’s speeches and replace ‘black’ with ‘white’ and ‘white’ with ‘black’.
Now parse your reaction to it, and your reaction to a candidate who attended the church for 20 years and who looked to that pastor as a spiritual and moral leader.
A.L.
“…substitute the word “european” instead of white and you’ll see what I’m talking about.”
Doesn’t even come close. But just for kicks, let’s try it.
“1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the European Community
3. Commitment to the European Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the European Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Commitment to Traditional European Values.
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the
European Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting European Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all European leadership who espouse and embrace the European Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the European Value System.”
This is better than substituting ‘white’, in the same fashion that substituting ‘African’ for ‘black’ would be superior. There are plenty of Africans that aren’t black. I’ve been friends with several African-Americans who aren’t black Americans. It’s far less offensive to assert the superiority of a culture and adherence to a culture than it is to assert the superiority and allegiance to a race.
But even if we substitute European instead of White, it’s still fundamentally a deeply racist doctrine. You could claim to believe in say maybe #6, #8, and #12 and not be a racist. And to the extent that you were European and expressing a purely civic virtue, you could possibly include #2. But noone that believes in #9, #10, and especially #11 would be anything but a racist. Claims like #11 are exclusionary, and are worst sort of racial loyalties. You believe in something like that, then you believe a black man who votes for a white man is a race traitor. You believe in #11, and you are perfectly in accord with the KKK. Heck, the KKK would fully back TUCC’s ‘Black Value System’ with no word substitutions. They believe that it simply expresses the way things ought to be – that a person’s first loyalty ought to be to thier race.
It’s completely disengenious to try to defend TUCC. A church with White Christian Identity would never be excused. If any white politician espoused White Identity politics, they’d be completely (and deservedly) ostracized. If any white politician went to a White Christian Identity Church (say Aryan Nation), they’d be tossed out of either party as soon as it came out.
There seems to be an assumption here that because one does’t like Obama, that one likes McCain.
I don’t. I like McCain as a person, but he’s a horrible politician. He’s the sixth most liberal Republican in Congress. Like Bush, he’s a big government Republican. He hasn’t hardly got a libertarian bone in his body. He’s got a horrible temper, and he’s prone to making poor snap judgements. He doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut, and he’s vulnerable to flattery. He helped pass some of the worst legislation in my lifetime and he’s running for the highest executive office in the land with zero executive experience. He’s not my candidate, so why should I defend him?
Saying, “Oh well, McCain is just as bad.” is no defence, even if it were true.
David Blue [#85],
OK, scratch both John McCain and Barack Obama. I guess that leaves you with Hillary Clinton. 😉
Celebrim [#89],
No implication. It’s an “even-handedness test”, for which there was evidently a need. Plenty of evidence for that in the previous comments in this thread.
#90 from Beard:
I see the ;-), I thank you for your courtesy, and I’ll answer straight anyway.
I’m pro-life. Really, my side is settled in advance in any conflict with a pro-lifer on the one side and a pro-choicer on the other. Millions of lives, supreme value, you know the drill.
But between two pro-choicers, between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton now looks better to me. Not “better” for the Republicans to beat. Genuinely better.
And, because regardless of my own strong beliefs, I can see America is ready to go for a Democrat president in this presidential election…
And because there is some point to Armed Liberal’s argument that the Democrats have to own everything, the Presidency, Senate, Congress, the courts and all, if they are to consider buying in on the war to resist jihad…
Go Hillary Clinton!
Celebrim and A.L. [#86, 87, 88],
I recently heard a persuasive argument that the most comparable substitution for “Black” in that list would be something like “Italian”, or “Irish”, or “Jewish”, or “Greek”.
Now, on that list, #11 is indefensible, with or without substitutions.
Hmmm. . . . Be careful of stating universal generalizations. There’s a little daemon in one’s head (mine anyway), that keeps generating counterexamples. What would you think of a large political organization whose principles included:
bq. Pledge allegiance to all Republican Party leadership who espouse and embrace the Republican Party Value System.
or
That just sounds like political leadership trying to keep the troops voting the party ticket. (And good luck with that, by the way.)
Back to the list. #10 is essentially equivalent to churches that expect you to tithe. (Not a bad idea, incidentally, although giving it to the church seems optional IMHO.)
And #9 is really saying, if you succeed in acquiring skills that help you escape from a poor economic situation, remember that you have a responsibility to give back to the community you came from. Hard to object to that, either.
The rest seem pretty uncontroversial.
And remember, this is a set of principles being set out by a church. Following them may (or may not) be a good idea for a person, but the church is in no position to enforce them on anyone. (Thanks to the Framers!) The Pastor of a church considers himself lucky if his parishioners even know what the principles are, much less actually follow them.
Now, I’m certainly not going to defend Rev. Wright’s sermons. But I don’t this this list is much for a critic to stand on. Yes, with “Black” in all those positions, some parts of it raise my hackles, and doubtless yours. But there’s plenty parts of the Bible that sound pretty bad too, when taken out of context.
So, my advice is: Lighten up on this one.
Beard:
“I recently heard a persuasive argument that the most comparable substitution for “Black” in that list would be something like “Italian”, or “Irish”, or “Jewish”, or “Greek”.”
I don’t have to believe that Italians, Irish, Jews, or Greeks are immune to racism. RSince I don’t, I don’t think that an argument that it wouldn’t be racist for someone to substitute for another racial identity for ‘black’. I don’t find it acceptable period. The above identies confuse the issue solely because they are racial and political identities, and in the case of ‘Jewish’ racial, political, and religious. But, in every case, someone espousing such a line in America would be completely out of line. It represents the worst of Old World ethnic identity being inseparable from national identity (for, you can’t be Japanese no matter how long you’ve lived in Japan unless you are Japanese. And we could substitute about any national identity in that statement and be correct.)
Purely cultural and religious preferences don’t bother me, provided that the culture or religion prosletyze new members. You can legitimately believe in cultural or religious superiority without hating anyone. There is nothing wrong with wanting everyone to share the opinion you have, provided you are willing to be tolerant when they don’t.
But ‘black identity’ politics and theology is every bit as destructive and hateful as ‘white identity’ politics and theology. It is not to be tolerated, excused away, or winked at.
“Back to the list. #10 is essentially equivalent to churches that expect you to tithe.”
No it isn’t. It’s the equivalent of saying, “Be only charitable to members of your own kin and kith.” A church that made sure to earmark its funds such that they only went to other white people would be no church that I could attend. That would not be displaying brotherly love, and it would be totally missing the point of parables like ‘the good samaritan’. (See Matthew 5:47)
“And #9 is really saying, if you succeed in acquiring skills that help you escape from a poor economic situation, remember that you have a responsibility to give back to the community you came from. Hard to object to that, either.”
Again, see Matthew 5:47. The statement isn’t based on sound teachings. You have a moral obligation to use your talents to further the work of the kingdom. The work of the kingdom isn’t “help people like yourself” or “give back to your neighbors and brothers”. It is a call to universal brotherhood, not support of a racial or tribal or regional identity. In the Church, there is no white or black, no greek or jew, no rich or poor. The whole basis of ‘Black liberation theology’ is a rejection of Christianity. It makes the claim that because they are persecuted, that they may adobt the methods of the persecuters and overcome evil with evil. It’s wrong, and its fundamentally the opposite of the approach taken by someone like MLK who sought to out Christian his opposers and thereby shame them and/or win thier respect by doing what was right in the face of injustice. That’s the Christian approach, and its the one Wright abandons utterly.
“Now, I’m certainly not going to defend Rev. Wright’s sermons. But I don’t this this list is much for a critic to stand on. Yes, with “Black” in all those positions, some parts of it raise my hackles, and doubtless yours.”
I’m not shocked or outraged. I’ve encountered this sort of thing first hand. If I wasn’t shocked, angry, or outraged when someone told me to my face that white people couldn’t get into heaven, then I’m certainly not going to be shocked or angry over the same sort of views held by a complete stranger.
“But there’s plenty parts of the Bible that sound pretty bad too, when taken out of context.”
Whether that’s true or not, the important thing is that the above black manifesto is even more shocking and more divisive in the context. It isn’t something that makes you uncomfortable until you understand the context. It’s the context that makes me uncomfortable, because I do know what the context is. Wright is fond of saying that you can’t judge him until you go and study the context of his theology. Well, the more I study it the less I find that’s edifying and sound teaching.
Celebrim,
Matthew 5:47 is a good verse. But even more important is Matthew 7:1-5.
bq. _1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye._
It seems to me that the brilliance in Obama’s speech is that he recognized both the racism in Rev. Wright’s sermons, and the racism in our broader society. That’s a level of courage that we haven’t seen in any major politician, of any stripe.
And, instead of saying, “We’re doing fine”, he said, “We’re making progress.” He rejected both the people who say that there is no problem, and the people who say that the problem is unsolvable.
I’m impressed.
I’m not even sure how Matthew 7:1-5 is relevant to your point, unless your point is that Obama opened himself up to the charge of racism – and I doubt that that is it.
Since Obama was able to ‘recognize racism’, clearly he was able to judge something. Good for him. Very well, I am recognizing racism in the man who is able to recognize racism. And then what?
As for recognizing the “racism in our broader society”, that takes no particular degree of courage. We are steeped in acknowledging racism in our larger society. It’s practically all we do. A politician that says, “We are doing fine.” is committing political suicide. Every politician is required to supplicate at the idol of our national racism, lest they become an outcast. Failure to acknowledge the racism in our larger society is a venial sin in politics. I can’t say I have the slightest idea what you are thinking.
Obama’s speach was ultimately very trite and very safe. He paints no new or unconventional picture of America or of a path forward, and you are seemingly unable to question why he even needs to paint a picture of America when the basic question is “Why have you been attending a racist church for 20 years?” That question he gives no satisfying answers on whatsoever. Instead we get lots of flowery sophistry, which when is sifted proves to contain the very core of the Black Liberation Theology he’s very pointedly not denouncing. The only thing that he claims Wright is guilty of is not having the power of imagination to see how America can change and thus being ‘divisive’. Obama tells us that Wright is not wrong in his substance, or to the extent that he is it is forgivable do to the centuries of oppression suffered by the black people.
This is hardly a new model of race politics.
PD shaw: What we know isn’t exactly clear, that’s part of the problem. People here have postulated a number of things, including that he used Wright as a politician (although that doesn’t quite fit defending him later, unless he is still keeping black politics in his pocket) or that he is a closet african-supremacist, or that he was just naive to what was going on around him. That’s the problem with this episode, I still don’t know what happened when, and to what extend Wright went off the rails while Obama was present. I think that makes a big difference.
While this does trouble me somewhat, everything Obama has said in public (at least since 2004) has seemed opposite to Wright’s soudbytes. I want to know what makes the non-Wright side of him Tick, and how he can seperate those parts of himself. That’s what frustrated me about the article. The point that he has limited experience tackling issues is important, but it doesn’t help me understand how he rose to this point: his strengths and weaknesses, or the quality of his character, any better. A number of politicians have failed on the same trajectory as Obama. Why has he succeded (thus far) where they didn’t. I don’t think ‘lucky elections’, or that he’s “black” explains the whole story.
I guess I should try reading the books by all three candidates (or at least skimming them) to see if I can glean more information. I don’t really have that kindof time at the moment though…
I’ll be out of town for the weekend, so I guess I’m done posting.
bq. _Very well, I am recognizing racism in the man who is able to recognize racism. And then what?_
Then you go to journalism school and become a columnist, and eventually get called a political hack by 1/2 the blogosphere who supports this month’s Great Candidate of Change and Hope. (Wait, wasn’t that John Edwards a scant few months ago? What ever happened to that Typical White Person with the great hair?)
My last word on this horrible and divisive speech from a divisive personality. From Victor Davis Hanson, “The Speech – Did Obama give us a dream or a nightmare?”:http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson032008.html
The money quote, I think:
bq. The message? Wright’s motives for espousing hatred are complex and misunderstood; your motives for worrying about Obama and his Pastor are simple and suspect.
This is the reason that we cannot have a real dialog as long as this kind of situation exists, we are suspect, they are above suspicion.
Mheh….