March 21, 2008
A Little on Obama's SpeechPolitics
I disagree with Manish’s assessment; I actually thought Obama gave a very good speech on Tuesday. I do see the limitations: the tone and delivery was much more restrained than Obama’s earlier big speeches, so it’s not likely to bring him a new wave of supporters where he could use them most (i.e., here in Pennsylvania). But a soft and dispassionate tone was probably essential, as his primary goal was to distance himself from the unrestrained, over-the-top anger of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
In contrast to Manish, I do feel that Obama did address the segments of American society who are not black or white, when he mentioned immigrants:
That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.
But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.
Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. (link)
The rhetorical move here is intriguing — he starts by acknowledging the resentment of working- and middle-class whites (which is itself significant; it’s perhaps the first time I’ve seen a Democrat say anything like this). But in the final paragraph, he moves to include immigrants, and in some sense suggests that the resentment of whites might also overlap with the resentment of immigrants about things like affirmative action. (Certainly, I know many South Asians — and Asians, more generally — who are deeply opposed to Affirmative Action, so this rings true.)
A second reference to immigrants comes later in the speech:
But I have asserted a firm conviction — a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people — that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life.
But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans, the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.
This time, the reference is more purely sentimental: he’s talking about our shared experience of striving and struggle. But his choice of examples here is really telling as it reveals who he’s trying to reach: middle-class whites and immigrants.
In short, while this is primarily a speech about relations between blacks and whites, Obama does inject a “third” position into the mix, which might refer to Latinos, Asians, or other immigrants.
amardeep on March 21, 2008 09:49 AM in Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
This was a brilliant speech but one remark of his was not alright with me...
This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
As Amit from India Uncut rightly put...http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/globalization-and-barack-obama/
He also used it well to put to bed any concerns that he might harbor any secret love for Islam.
Ah, but the story continues. Have you listed to this interview - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/20/obama-grandmother-was-a-_n_92587.html.
If I was a working class white person who lived in a mixed neighborhood, I'd be pretty insulted by this remark. Actually, if I was most of the white people I knew, I'd be insulted by this remark! I have a general sense of Obama and his principles, and I doubt this was his intension, but to say "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know (pause) there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way..." is ANOTHER STEREOTYPE.
In other news, the Richardson endorsement may take away from the heat he'll get for this.
What is the relevance of Richardson except for the Dem insiders? He polled lower than Colbert when he was running for the presidency, and was not even able to carry New Mexico for Kerry despite being the governor.
His ads were good though.
This is the primary season - not the general election, so the more esoteric activity has a greater impact on the actual primary result. One step at a time ;).
Richardson's decision to endorse Barack, despite the fact that he was a friggin member of Bill Clinton's cabinet is significant, and it will probably have some influence with the superdelegates, etc.
Well, it sure isn't the first time a Democrat has said this. Especially because the last time someone said something like this, that person wasn't speaking out of political expediency or defensiveness. And this person talked about white fears and black pain, and included Hispanic Americans in his speech, and not just because they were a potential vote bank.
link
Yes, this was Bill Clinton, thirteen years ago.
Yeah, that I buy. I thought you were alluding to the aam aadmi, for example, the NY Times seemed to indicate that this might swing Latino vote his way (I don't have a sense of Richardson's influence in that community, except for his general lack of public traction).
Hillary's prospects are probably dead and buried at this point (she's down on delegates, and Florida and Michigan seem to be out of the reckoning except in Wolfson's math which gives her scant hope of making up the popular vote deficit), unless extremely serious concerns about Obama's viability as a candidate crop up (the Wright thing doesn't seem to be dying down yet, despite that really well-crafted speech).
Exactly. Which is why Muslims and Islam were marginalized, and worse in the Tuesday speech.
I agree that I don’t think much of the Richardson endorsement, I think most endorsements at this point for party seniors are opportunist. That being said, I like the speech but like I think it opens more questions than it provides answers, I agree with Rahul that it put the secret love for Islam bit to rest but I am not sure if actually appealed to working class whites. I also don’t make too much of his comments on immigrants as I think they related to Hispanics than Asians.
8 · Rahul said
Huh?
Sorry, you either just doubled-back on your sarcasm and therefore lost me, or you're being straight-up: I'm confused, which one is it?
You see, we Obama non-supporters are usually less educated (and therefore, more stupid) :-)
Slim pickings, innit? Look at the meat, not offhand references. It's outdated that race in America is framed as black and white. A historic, MLK-type address today would include Latinos at a very minimum.
I was being straight-up, #2 was sarcastic. You can count me among the stupid, uneducated bunch (Obama non-fan describes my position much more accurately than Clinton supporter).
Rahul you can count on me, to always follow your rabbit trails. However Muslims , according to this make up 0.5% of the US population.
linkAre muslim prehaps a numerically marginal percent of the US? People typically see your race before your religion.
I totally understand that desi's are not white or black but as it has been hashed out on some the great conversations here- your lock on Investment Banking and medicine, in the historical dialectic of America,- has firmly made you "white". America is not mono racial or cultural but if we are looking for precision here none of Mr. Wrights** outrage was directed at any other group but "whites". That was the primary reason for the speech.
(**which I reject and denouce)
On the bright side- [Rahul] you and others can be happy now that he's not "rising above" but keeping it dirty the way apparently you like politics to be.
dilettante, I want to respond to you in detail but am very busy and will get to it later. Very quickly though - he not only didn't mention Islam, he also laid all the problems of the middle east at the doorstep of radical Islam, while giving unstinted praise to Israel. And both the non-mention and this mention happened in a context.
Since we commonly use black as a substitute (See President Clintons speech linked at #6)for high crime areas etc- which I deplore but understand. To be consistent, to observe that a white person having a "typical" reaction to this truism, is not a stereotype but reality. I think Obama was brave to address this topic in such a 'real way"
So does Charles Murrray
Good speech on race.
Bad judgement on Wright.
Good work in the community
Does not excuse the repeating
Of conspiracy theories involving
HIV-AIDS
I do concede that, Camille, and in no way do I want to start an oppression Olympics discussion. IMV race trumps gender in the US context. I think most Americans are sophisticated enough to distinguish between a Somalian/Sudanese woman and a black woman whose family has been in the US for a longer period. Whereas as a [black] woman from the latter group is where the BULK of the Muslim population (85%) in the US originates.
Well he did say "Im not running for vice president. Im running for president of the United States of America." Link
One American taboo at a time, besides Wright was strongly against Israel (and by association US FP) for its support of apartheid South Africa. The point of the speech, remember, was to draw a distinction between himself and Mr. Wright.
Oh come on now Rahul don't be so modest, you are much more than that, you have consistently been derisive and ever so sarcastic of Obama and his positions calling him Hoperah, and worse.
Seriously, you are better than Wolfson and company at casting doubts about Obama, Hillary should offer you a job in her campaign as a spokesperson.
Thank you for the encouragement, Yogi. Yes, I can!
17 · MD said
Hey if you're gonna get mad at Obama and/or Wright about conspiracy theories involving HIV-AIDS (or about 9/11) then damn it, get mad at Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson for also their views and saying same crude remarks about so-called conspirators of AIDS and
9/11.
Paraphrasing Orwell: some pastors are more equal than the others
Okay, I'm mad at both, then.
Good comeback, though.
Or more importantly, McCain for embracing these haters as well as Hagee.
Okay, I didn't finish.
Seriously, what kind of comeback is that? Two dumbasses make a Wright?
I'm sure those kind of conspiracy theories don't hurt poor communities at all. Way to stand tall, Sen. Community Organizer.
*BTW, I don't really have a dog in this race.
Clinton: Okay, good luck with that health care plan and all that detailed policy wonkery. It takes a village.
Obama: Okay, good luck with that diplomacy. I'm sure they'll all roll over for your pretty speechifying.
McCain: Okay, good luck with that convincing India and China to join in on your super duper environmental plan. I'm sure they'll take a 0.5% hit to their GDP to cap things. Sounds like reality to me.
Ugh. I am writing my own name in, I swear.
Thanks for the compliment!
Okay, I don't have a dog in this race but I can't stand how it's wrong to have Hagee endorse McCain, but it's okay for Obama to choose, of his own free will, Wright has his long-time spiritual advisor. Hagee didn't marry McCain, baptize his kids, or give him the title of his book, The Audacity of Hype, or whatever.
Also, if Hagee is a jerk, then Wright must be too, huh? So, you'd have to be disappointed in both McCain and Obama, huh?
Look, it's human nature: You excuse your own guys stuff and hate the other guys stuff. That's fine. We all do it. Just see it for what it is.
#1 As Amit from India Uncut rightly put:
LOL...
MD, I don't know whom your last comment was addressed to, but it is obvious there is an asymmetry in public expectations. McCain can embrace all these crazies whose primary planks seem to be preaching of hate against assorted groups, and nobody bats an eyelid, he is not required to explain himself, and somehow, mind-bogglingly to me, retains his reputation as a maverick and straight-talker.
Obama, despite his fairly obvious sanity, is required to deny allegations that he secretly believes or endorses these conspiracy theories - of a man who also advocates black self-help as a primary ideology - and has to dissociate himself from them. This is a patent and obvious double standard in American society today.
(That said, I do think there are issues with the Wright-Obama link, I will write a more detailed comment later, but I really should attend to my work, so I will refrain from this thread)
All this is OK but how are his brackets doing?
Rahul.
One more time so you can understand.
One is a standard campaign endorsment. One is a long time pastor and associate of a candidate. Do you see the difference between seeking out a campaign endorsement and sitting in a pew for over twenty years while taking spiritual advice from a person? And taking your kids to sermons by that person.
How are they the same? And if they are, why is it okay for Obama to be with Wright, but wrong for McCain to be with Haggee? You can't have it both ways.
In other words, you don't really care about Wright and what he said, but you care about Hagee and Falwell and what they said. Fine, that's your business. I can't respect Obama after this, though. That's my business. As for McCain? Eh, like I said, I'm not excited about any of these three.
29 · Xyzz said
"LOL..."
Heh, I was thinking the same. It's amazing how people manage to think about the history and modern operation of American capitalism as being entirely distinct from social issues like racism!
30 · Rahul said
I am in agreement here. If anything, it is Obama who has been forced to go to ridiculous lengths to distance himself from Wright, while McCain seems to be riding free. While I am not in agreement with Wright's HIV comment, everything else he said was absolutely reasonable (and true, IMO), making this double standard even more of a travesty. As a person, Wright is not nearly as much of a "crazy" as those conservative preachers.
Your other words, maybe. I don't think I ever said that Obama-Wright is ok. I was pointing out the double standard in the other direction.
And I never was.
Backatcha.
You didn't even answer me, Rahul!
Is an endorsement of McCain by Hagee the same as an endorsement of Wright by Obama?
McCain didn't attend Hagees church for 20 years. Obama attended Wright's for 20 years. is that the same or is it different? I think it's different, that's why it's not a double standard.
Anyway, this conspiracy stuff hurts the very community that is meant to be helped. That's why I can't respect Obama after this.
I think Obama has taken a few knocks down the pedestal and stumbled to gain his former status. His chief adviser/strategist, David Axelrod is the same nimrod that got Deval Patrick into the Governer's office in Mass. After Mitt, all we could see was hope. Who is he really after the "hope" message translates into real life? Someone who has major problems building consensus (even with a democratic house and senate) and has instituted no major initiatives in the 1+ years since he came into office. He just tried to push through the idea of casinos in MA, but it failed miserably. As a former employee of the state of mass, I saw this inaction first hand. Rock star candidates are always a let down.
This stupidly prolonged dem primary is going to screw them over and Mr John 'I don't care a rats a$$ about economics' McCain is going to go to the white house. Obama and Clinton's populist rhetoric does not help much either to feel to good about any of these candidates.
There's other stuff that will come out about Obama that will keep this story alive. His relationship with radical state senator in Illinois, and the relationship of his church with the pardoned (by Clinton Administration) Puerto Rican Separatist. Obama may win the Democratic Primary, but I don't see him beating McCain. Like Obama said about whites...'Most white' are wary of blacks.
The controversy over Obama's pastor and his response to it in this historical race speech has accomplished a number of objectives for his campaign:
1. It has pulled the rug from under the Republican dirty tactics brigade which was planning to destroy him with innuendo of being a closet muslim Trojan Horse.
2. It should now compel the media to give equal opportunity to offensive soundbites from the loony white christian pastors and preachers who are such close allies of the Republican Party. Hagee, Robertson and the recently departed Falwell have made far more indefensible remarks than what Wright is being raked over the coals for. Wright's rant that 9-11 was America's foreign policy chickens coming home to roost is actually shared by many others including Republicans like Pat Buchanan. Scholarly books (example "Blowback") have been written that connect the rise of Al-Qaeda to american foreign policy. On the other hand Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell made the utterly indefensible claim that 9-11 was God's punishment for the evils in american culture; in other words these Republican nutjobs claimed that God hates and damns American culture. How is that OK but Wright's condemnation of America for treating blacks as less than human is not? Clearly a double standard here.
3. Obama's calm, balanced, thoughtful response to this lynch mob baying for his blood should settle the question of who is best qualified to answer that 3 AM call. Who should America trust to do the right and intelligent thing in a crisis? A cool headed, intelligent, emotionally balanced leader like Obama or a weepy Hillary or an angry McCain?
Question from the UK. Will John McCain's age count against him in the election? 71 or 72 is very very old. Presumably he'd aspire to be President until he was 80. Healthwise, and otherwise, is this an issue for voters?
Anyone looking for some more context for Reverend Wright's comments than what is broadcasted by most of the mainstream media can take a look at some larger parts of the speeches he made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw
I think these prove (not that more proof is necessary) that he is a far more reasonable individual than certain networks (Fox, for example) and speakers have suggested.
The question is not if Wright is as bad as he was potrayed. The church promotes black separatist ideologist. They honor Puerto Rican separatist who were imprisoned for having bombed and maimed a police officer in NY City. How would the media react if a candidate's church had this their web site.
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. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
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.
When did Obama "endorse" Wright?
McCain on the other hand actively sought Hagee's endorsement. His close associate Senator Lieberman compares Hagee to Moses! Coming from a practicing jew thats the highest compliment possible. Now this "christian" pastor Hagee is indeed a crazy and hateful person. He openly hates Catholics and Muslims (evangelical hatred of hindus, buddhists etc is of course a given). He preaches treachery to his flock: their first loyalty should be to Israel, not America he thunders (no wonder Liebermann thinks he is the new Moses). Fairness demands that McCain also be forced to explain why he was so eager to get this insane hatemonger's blessing; and why he has such close ties with a Senator who thinks this evil lunatic is God's prophet.
I thought his speech on race was nuanced, sharp and honest. However, I still find Wright's comments unacceptable and completely tactless. There is a part of me that is rubbed the wrong way by all of this, knowing that Obama went to that guy for twenty years and still defended him.
42 · Vic said
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. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
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.
No offense, but you sound like you're getting talking points directly from Fox News itself... In the case you've suggested above, the vast majority of the media would probably ignore and downplay the racism of such a Church, as they do all the time. If you are Desi, or of any other minority group, I suggest replacing the racial/ethnic terms above with ones that fit you, then see how you feel about it.
While it is not perfect, there is nothing "separatist" or "racist" about Trinity. Like many other "black" churches, it promotes the perfectly legitimate desire for community, solidarity, and achievement on the part of a historically and systemically disadvantaged minority group. White people aren't disadvantaged in the same ways as black people are, nor are they a minority, which is it could easily be racist to promote a white church like the one you suggest above.
The only thing that suggests marginal amounts of "separatism" is #8, which is only "separatist" insofar as it rejects the heavily politicized, racialized, and otherwise constructed notion of success in mainstream America (get a good job, marry, settle down, have a family, become a homeowner in a nice neighborhood, enjoy the "freedoms" of American Capitalism) and the flawed ideals and illusions in which that notion is based. I support that 100%. Read the church's Mission statement for further clarification.
Bobby - it's an issue that's discussed quite a bit - although John McCain's mother is still kicking and she's actually quite youthful looking...so maybe it runs in the genes. And besides, this is the same nation that voted for a ticket with Cheney...lol.
If you ask me, the biggest concern is that he supports this war. He's also not necessarily aligned with his party's base and their thinking on other issues.
Vic, I'm not sure how much American history you have been exposed to. Black people in America are defined by their race, which for historical reasons, doubles as an ethnicity. "Real" African nationals being a somewhat new phenomena. That's why many of us prefer the term "African American" - its not precise, but there you have it. I view myself as American /w an American culture. Oddly enough its white Americans [I live in England] who usually find a need to remind me of my blackness.
You are right. No "white" church would proclaim points 2, and 3, but they could very well claim allegiance to their Irish,Polish,Lithuanian ,Greek "roots" with out being considered anti American/racist.
Ironically, this quintessentially American -- and yes, conservative -- notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change. BHO "The speech"
As Mr. Obama stated in a debate I watched between himself and Mr. Alan Keyes for Illinois senate- he's was not running to be the Pastor of Illinois. I'm going to extend that to his campaign for POTUS. I have problems with Mr. Wright, and the liberal Theology of all UCC- but I am not looking to Obama, or any other political leader for spiritual guidance.
"No offense, but you sound like you're getting talking points directly from Fox News itself"
This is so used and stale. Anytime a Democrat is criticized, you can almost guarantee to hear that one. What about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, AP, New York Times, Washingtom Post, LA TImes etc etc. that do a lot more for Democrats. Are you getting your talking point from them?
In any case, its not Obama's church that bothers me as much as his socialist agenda and a blank resume for a presidential candidate (and what little he has is flawed).
48 · Vic said
This is so used and stale. Anytime a Democrat is criticized, you can
almost guarantee to hear that one. What about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS,
NBC, AP, New York Times, Washingtom Post, LA TImes etc etc. that do a
lot more for Democrats. Are you getting your talking point from them?
In any case, its not Obama's church that bothers me as much as his
socialist agenda and a blank resume for a presidential candidate (and
what little he has is flawed).
Alright, if it so offends, then I apologize for my remark, which was intended more at the analysis of soundbyte-esque fragments over contextualized substance, rather than at your character or intellectual integrity. For the record, I'm not a democrat or an avowed Obama supporter of any kind.
Its amusing to see Obama apologist defend issues that would damn any Republican candidate from political life. First the guy clearly lies about having no knowledge of the church's separatist ideology. He actively gains support of State Senator Meeks, who makes Jesse jackson look like Clarence Thomas. The only thing going for him is he seem to speak well, which seems to be a bigger qualification than it really is after hearing other black politicians like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the current President. I don't think Presidency of United States qualifies as an affirmative action experiment.
Thanks Sona. It's definitely fascinating to watch this presidential campaign from here. I don't think any British politician would be elected Prime Minister at John McCain's age. Almost 72 years old is incredibly old.
His speech was good, but white people in small towns won't accept this. Obama has too much baggage coming in with him. His minister may not be aiding him in the white house (if he wins the election, which I doubt), but his wife will be at his side. His wife will be the major problem come in October. Remember this lady is a very privileged lady who grew up on the south side of Chicago, and going to Princeton & Harvard Law School. And what has she said lately? She NOW feels proud to be an American after Obama has been winning elections. Oh yea, I forgot, she's been telling people in the inner city that they should stay in their hoodlums. They shouldn't be going to college, and rising up in society (she said this during the Ohio and Texas Primaries). I can't see how middle class people in this country is asking for when they will vote for Obama. He can speak well, but he has too many skeletons in his closet. Plus, who really wants to see Michelle representing the U.S. I'd rather see Clinton.
And after that 'wonderfully nuanced' speech, he says the 'typical white person' is racist.
Oh well, it's nice to have him self-destruct, but I wish he'd done this earlier so the more competent person would've won in time and we could all turn off the political news and go home.
His minister may not be aiding him in the white house (if he wins the election, which I doubt), but his wife will be at his side. His wife will be the major problem come in October. Remember this lady is a very privileged lady who grew up on the south side of Chicago, and going to Princeton & Harvard Law School. And what has she said lately? She NOW feels proud to be an American after Obama has been winning elections.
I think if 'problematic spouses' is amongt the criteria for selection, Hillary gets eliminated without a doubt. Michelle Obama might be 'privileged' but she's still a black woman who's faced discrimination. I dont understand why white people shriek in horror at any kind of insinuation that other races might experience different realities than their own, and make more nuanced statements than "I love America, YAHOO!"
As for the reverend wright comments. The gist of nearly everything he says is completely true. Even MLK has said "America is the greatest purveyor of violence" again, this doesn't make the 3rd grade understanding of him that most white (and even non-white) adults in this country have. There's no disputing that, the question is the delivery. I think Obama repudiates him or condemns the absolutist nature of what he says, but makes an effort to let people understand where such fiery delivery and incendiary speech comes from. Wright isn't running for president, or any kind of political office. He has no need to balance, and choose positions and words careful so as to not offend certain sections of the demographics.
Honestly, id rather have Obama as the nominee, and if he wins, great, the country is better off, if he gets blown out by McCain, just reaffirms the role of white supremacy/privilege in this country.
54 · HMF said
Questioning or even discussing the subjectivity of white people (something that the media and white people do on a daily basis to others) does cause them great distress. Generalizations about minority communities are made on a daily basis by the news and others, but questions about a "white community" are almost always met with offense and claims of racism.
It appears my arguments have fallen on deaf ears... Wright's comments were inspired by the arguments of a white man, former ambassador Edward Peck.
It amazes me how people can just be so ignorant about the difference experiences an African American goes through compared to almost every other group in America.
Michelle Obama's statement.
"What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html
Then people talk about, she went to an Ivy League school, etc etc. Like that makes life completley smooth for an African American.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/123024
Then there's the anger over Wright's statements. Nevermind that the full context has now surfaced on youtube. But even within those snippets, what was so completely incorrect about the clips played? "The gov't invented HIV" is probably the only one. Yet the media pundits act like they don't understand why an eighty year old man could possibly say something like that. After Tuskegee and Reagan's attitude about Aids. It's wrong but, please understand somewhat.
For that I give Huckabee credit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ
Also. Unless I heard Obama's statements wrong. Or he said something different on Fox and CNN. Obama didn't say last Friday that he NEVER heard ANY controversial comments from Wright. He said he hadn't heard THOSE particular speeches/comments that are aired non stop on a loop--at the time they were given.
Because my URLs weren't hyperlinked.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/123024
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ
Well, you don't have to reject or denounce after watching this new youtube video
i think it was a wonderful speech. it is not obligatory that every speech include the sprinkling of laotians, dominicans, innuits and others. the overall message was black/white tensions, and i think he nailed it there.
why? if you are a dbd, substitute caste for race and how i wish some indian politician said what he did! the same themes occur in india---on the one hand is a group that has been genuinely victimized, and on the other there is a group which legitimately believes that they are paying for something they never did in the first place. of course, throw in the usual dose of real racists and real casteists on the two sides and you have a pretty accurate picture of the whole story. And if someone wants to treat this malaise inclusively rather than pander to one side or another, that someone is a step ahead of everyone else.
Successful Repub candidates have been known to talk about "state's rights" and we all know what that's about. Wright's views may be off, but I can understand how his life experiences would lead him to think that way. What traumas did Pat Robertson & Falwell suffer that lead them to blame 9/11 on secularists & libertines ? This is a view that is shared by a large number of white evangelical conservatives, I'm not sure how controversial Obama's association with Wright should be given this metric. I say this as an occassional Republican voter
So, what would damn a Republican candidate from political life?
Soliciting gay sex while voting against gay rights?
Cheating on your wife with hookers while advocating abstinence-only education and sanctity of marriage?
Pandering to anti-semite/anti-catholic/anti-homosexual/anti-liberal evangelicals?
Violating all manner of laws while funding an illegal war while peddling crack cocaine in the US, and then claiming amnesia to defend oneself?
Lying to the country and leading it into a disastrous war? (take your picks here)
Surprisingly, bribery scandals seem to have worked in the most recent past, but I am more in the market for slander and generally drumming people out using the kangaroo court of public perception.
I am genuinely interested, so your helpful suggestions are very welcome.
Not really. He is as curmudgeonly and confused (yes, the foreign policy expert!) as somebody thrice his age and he managed to secure the nom, so he can't go much further downhill from here.
If he does get elected president, I look forward to JohnnyMac yelling at foreign dignitaries visiting the White House to get orffa his lawn.
A pair of feminists weigh in on why Hillary Clinton cannot give the same speech on gender as Sen Obama was able to about race.
Also, a Republican southern governor and presidential candidate makes far more nuanced sense of Obama and Reverend Wright than we in our comfortable immigrant experience ever will. Mind you, this is not coming from a wishy washy feel goody, liberal.
How many here have talked to their African American friends and colleagues about what goes on in their churches on Sunday and how they view Wright's sermons and Obama's speech? It may be worth trying to have that conversation rather than automatically buying into the sound bites about sedition and treachery.
as you might gather from my name, I don't think much of what's running for the greatest office in the world, so now for something entirely different--I really shouldn't but I just can't help it.....
Hillary's gay and Obama's gay--well, bi. McCain is straight but hey, he's 72 so who cares. The press is giving it all a pass for now, till we see who THEY decide should win: ex-pres Clinton's better half (gasp); the empty-suit (come on, imagine him non-black) with the whiny Ivy Leaguer wife with the 6 digit income talkin' about her discrimination woes; or the psycho reptilian from Tucson. I think it's been decided. Michelle Obama is wearing her hair like Jackie and Obama has been endowed with a JFK aura that hardly goes skin deep, so to speak. I just wish he could crack jokes like Jack, lighten up a bit. He may be dreamin' of dad, but he also comes from a long line of white loonies stretching back to colonial Massachusetts; but maybe this drama queen knows what he's doing--I think this whole campaign is a sitcom nightmare.
While this creepy quartet whine and dine and pick their noxious scabs, thousands of americans and Iraquis and god knows who else are being torn to smithereens by wars none of us really voted for.
State's right is a completely different argument than having enclaves of black or White nation state. To give moral equivalence to the two argument is laughable. I also notice a tired theme of justifying one wrong by pointing out another wrong, and in this case its not even analogous as what Wright did on pulpit was three days after the tragedy. That's not the extent of his 'loonines.' He also blames the US government of AID virus, and distributing drugs to blacks in black neighborhoods.
Obama built his platform on being a unifier of races and that platform sounds hollow with the utterings of those closest to him.. His time as a state senator and US senate have been essentially accomplishment free. As far as analyzing his speech, this Op-Ed piece in Washington times does it better than I could.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003017.html?nav=hcmodule
41 · NYC Akshay said
Here is an interesting profile of Wright's controversial Trinity church in a recent Newsweek article - Trying Times for Trinity
65 · Vic said
Black and white enclaves? Oh, man...
That article was completely devoid of substance, and based on the same misinterpretations that most frightened conservatives attach to his speech. For example, the author suggests that "Wright claim[s] that America was morally responsible for Sept. 11 -- "chickens coming home to roost", when if you actually watch the entire video clip, he never states that America was "morally responsible" for 9/11.
What Wright did was suggest that 9/11 was not a random attack, but was connected to past foreign policy and operations (of an unjustified variety), which, shockingly enough, isn't at all illogical. Hence, Wright is angry with the government (not the America as a nation, as the author spins it).
The author also claims that "This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is" an attempt to instill white guilt. Obviously, there is no evidence whatsoever for this aside from the author's opinion, since Obama also addressed the fears and anger of white communities in his speech. Additionally, the author pretends it has nothing to do with actual history! A black man who grew up in a racist, legally segregated, pre-civil rights America cannot trace his perceived anger over race issues to that background? Yet the author lets Harry Truman off the hook for expressing prejudices "of his time", "in private"....The author essentially says that racism is less immoral if you keep it private, which, to be blunt, is moronic.
The author was someone who obviously did not view the longer video clips, but relied on the soundbytes like most easily-satisfied individuals who found exactly what they were looking for in those 15 seconds, rather than doing some real investigation. Ultimately, he's another white person incapable of understanding the vast rift between his experience and that of an elderly black man, not to mention the nuances of racial dynamics in modern America.
"His time as a state senator and US senate have been essentially accomplishment free." -- Have you bothered looking at legislation he sponsored in Illinois and in the Senate? Off the top of my head, they include ethics reform, and health care initatives in Illinois, the Coburn-Obama transparency act in the Senate, and the Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Act (an eminently sensible, and important thing for the US to be working on as far as threat reduction goes) on the foreign-policy front.
Obama's platform was and is, far more than unifying on race, it's about unifying across the various fractures in contemporary society towards the common good. Well, that's the feel-good part of it. On a more down-to-earth level it's about more transparency in government (see his career and related acts in this regard), a less monarchical view of the presidency (he taught constitutional law, and has delivered remarks on this), a more sensible foreign policy and then the standard bread and butter democrat issues.
It was, I must say, fascinating to watch the reaction of many conservatives right after the speech -- it was positive! Even Gingrich and Buchanan! And then, suddenly, within a few hours and days they realized they'd strayed from the party line, and are now not acknowledging it for what it is: pretty honest. He's a politician, but he said things in that speech that were incredibly risky politically, but speak to at least a significant part of the contemporary experience of race in America; he ain't no saint, but he's decent, and seems, (perhaps foolishly? I hope not), to think he can be fortright and still win. That's not something to denigrate.
It's not illogical, but hopelessly reductionist. What about all the Islamic terrorist attacks that happen outside of the united states? What about all the other motivating factors? What about their underlying philosophy? I suppose after Waco and Ruby Ridge we could say that the chickens came home to roost in Oklahoma City. But what would be missing from that argument?
I'm sure Amit Varma is more than aware of how racism intersects with protectionism, anti-globalization, an anti-capitalism. But we know Barack and Hillary don't really mean it, its just their version of a visit to Bob Jones University.
Rahul, this one is for you. I hope it grates. Service, ace in my book. I await your let, which is an apt metaphor for Hillary.
I would say vote for Huckabee ! It doesn't get loonier than that !
Discussions on politics, whether it is amongst family or a forum have a same ending... People shouting at each other. Minds are made up. The majority of undecided are uninvolved to the extent that they do not visit political forums. Pat Buchanan's blog has an interesting view.
http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=969
It's not illogical, but hopelessly reductionist. What about all the Islamic terrorist attacks that happen outside of the united states?
No one is saying it's exclusive. however the US doesn't have to make it so stinkin' easy for radical islamists to convert moderates in their own country.
It is interesting that Vic #65 provided the link to neo-con Charles Krauthammer's article in which he hammers Obama and his hateful, angry pastor.
MJ Rosenberg of the Israeli Policy Forum, writing in the TPM Cafe sheds some light on the nature of Krauthammer's own conservative Jewish congregation. There is plenty of hate flying around there too - occasionally from Krauthammer himself. But that "hate" is in lock step with our own foreign policy, hence not an eyebrow is raised.
So, it is not hate speech itself by religious figures which is the problem (happens all the time) but rather, whether they are spewing "state sanctioned" hate.
69 · Manju said
I am not defending the depth of the political analysis, merely arguing against the misinterpretation that has been imposed on that soundbyte; the ones that see Reverend Wright as claiming 9/11 was justified, or that America was completely "morally responsible" for it.
That being said, did you watch the longer videos? He did mention that it was a footnote to his sermon, and that he was paraphrasing that former ambassador the whole time. While he did not address the specifics of the politics behind 9/11 (you mention terror attacks abroad, but I think that's not necessary to the scope of his discussion and main point), I think his point was clearly that violence begets more violence. I do not believe, as has been suggested, that he was arguing that Hiroshima or Nagasaki have anything to do with 9/11, as his speech did not indicate that, despite its other problems, and I have seen Wright speak in other contexts (in no way is he so simplistic and ignorant a thinker.)
76 · NYC Akshay said
I am not defending the depth of the political analysis, merely arguing against the misinterpretation that has been imposed on that soundbyte; the ones that see Reverend Wright as claiming 9/11 was justified, or that America was completely "morally responsible" for it.
That being said, did you watch the longer videos? He did mention that it was a footnote to his sermon, and that he was paraphrasing that former ambassador the whole time. While he did not address the specifics of the politics behind 9/11 (you mention terror attacks abroad, but I think that's not necessary to the scope of his discussion and main point), I think his point was clearly that violence begets more violence. I do not believe, as has been suggested, that he was arguing that Hiroshima or Nagasaki have anything to do with 9/11, as his speech did not indicate that, despite its other problems, and I have seen Wright speak in other contexts (in no way is he so simplistic and ignorant a thinker.)
You do realize that anything that's said will be taken out of context. This guy said that the government invented AIDS to plague the black community, praised Farrakhan, and visited Muammar el-Qaddafi (the radical leader from Libya). The fact that this priest has said wacked up things, and supported radical ideology, Obama is screwed. Yes, some of the things I agree are taken out of context, but a lot of white people won't accept that. A man of great intellect should have known to leave that congregation (especially a guy who was running for politics). He should have known better.
77 · Rahul S said
I'm not particularly interested in Obama's relation to this Reverend. Still, it will be interesting to see just how this continues to affect him.
I agree that Wright has espoused some less backed opinions, such as those on the origin of HIV. Most everything else, however, is gross misinterpretation. For example, you mention him "praising Farrakhan" and meeting with Gaddafi. He travelled to Libya and Syria with Farrakhan as part of a peace mission, and in doing so, helped free an American prisoner. His church did give an award to Farrakhan, but his own involvement in that is questionable. Regardless, the Rev. has also made it clear in the past that he does not endorse Farrakhan's more extreme and militant views, and that he does not endorse Gaddafi.
Ultimately, the HIV comment is the only truly unreasonable thing that can be attached to him, which is why I am so adamantly defending him here. It's a real shame to see the predatory media and politicians defame him in such a manner, especially when many of those politicians hold far more objectionable views themselves. It is also somewhat saddening (though obviously predictable) to see Obama condemn some of those misinterpreted comments, thus making them seem all the more real.
Rahul S #52 is the same Rahul S #77?
79 · dilettante said
Yes.
79 · dilettante said
Yes.
79 · dilettante said
Actually the last paragraph is mine. I didn't know how to use the quote function then.
78 · NYC Akshay said
I agree that Wright has espoused some less backed opinions, such as those on the origin of HIV. Most everything else, however, is gross misinterpretation. For example, you mention him "praising Farrakhan" and meeting with Gaddafi. He travelled to Libya and Syria with Farrakhan as part of a peace mission, and in doing so, helped free an American prisoner. His church did give an award to Farrakhan, but his own involvement in that is questionable. Regardless, the Rev. has also made it clear in the past that he does not endorse Farrakhan's more extreme and militant views, and that he does not endorse Gaddafi.
Ultimately, the HIV comment is the only truly unreasonable thing that can be attached to him, which is why I am so adamantly defending him here. It's a real shame to see the predatory media and politicians defame him in such a manner, especially when many of those politicians hold far more objectionable views themselves. It is also somewhat saddening (though obviously predictable) to see Obama condemn some of those misinterpreted comments, thus making them seem all the more real.
Okay. But let's look at it realistically. Conservative democrats and ignorant white people watch FOX news and read conservative blogs. The media is going to continue to eat up Obama, just as it had done this week. Plus, the media is going to eat up Michelle Obama who told black people a few weeks back (during the Texas & Ohio primaries) to stay in the ghetto and not go to college. I mean, do we want a first lady to tell black people this kind of garbage? Plus, look at Obama's foreign policy resume. Absolutely nothing. Clinton has Bill at her side, while McCain has been around forever. Do we need Obama? Yes, but right now isn't the time. He should come back to Chi town, fix my state up, and then run in 2012 or 2016 against our brown buddy Jindal.
Rahul S= Rahul #30 and #34?
.Got a link?
Ok I found this at #71's favorite site link
from your friend at#83
I feel a bit let down if this is what you are referring to as garbage. All is fair...
laters
85 · dilettante said
Wait, wait. Telling blacks that corporate America is wrong to go into? What about the aspiring black entrepreneur who wants to bring jobs to the black community? The salaries respond by going into the public sector? Last time I checked, salaries in the public sector are quite low (only 5-10% make money like the Obamas).
Vic, That was a good piece by Buchanan, that says it well about black America. I doubt that anyone else here will read it since Buchanan is hated on this blog.
He did say, understanding the roots of anger is important. Or else we have the widening of the chasm of misunderstanding between races. He could have said a widening of the chasm of misunderstanding between "blacks and whites." It's left to an individual's interpretation as to whether "races" included only blacks and whites, or also Hispanics, Asians, etc. Anyway, this speech was to distance himself from his pastor's ideology and not to include or exclude a particular race. Laju K. http://lajuk.blogspot.com
The Ludwig von Mises Insitute, in the link gives some of the background demo's of the group she was speaking to.[Ohio] "There's not a lot of money in Zanesville. Nearly a quarter of the Ohio town's population, 22.4 percent, is living below the poverty line, including 32.3 percent of those under 18 years of age....That's nearly double the national poverty rate, officially reported by the Census Bureau last August as 12.3 percent overall, nationwide, and 17.4 percent for those under 18"
You know Rahul, as I like to point out at times, race does equate to class in America. However black people are able to see the differences amongst ourselves and others. Maybe she would have said the same thing to a chapter of "jack and jill", maybe she would have adjusted her message to their different reality. Maybe she, was patronizing the Ohio audience and should have told them all to aim for Ivy leagues schools and jobs with Goldman Sachs, just not on a structured products desk at the moment. I don't know.
What I do know is that telling someone to work for their community, is not the equivalent of your words; they should stay in their hoodlums.
Prehaps something about their Church's 'self help' ideology was evident in her words; black flight,running away from "our hoodlums" in imitation of white flight has compounded the problem in the inner city.
The "aspiring black entrepreneur" is probably able to decide what is applicable to him/her and what isn't- no matter if a black person is advising them or not.von Mises, the hard core Libertarian site,comes out in supportof Clinton,on this piece, Interesting times.
At any rate she's not running for office,I just don't see her comments on this as "garbage"- that's me being rational. You ought to try it ;-)
Rajesh, Vic and Mr. Wright "should get on your knees and thank God that you are an American!"