Today was terribly busy at work, so I’ve just had the opportunity to read the transcript of Obama’s big speech today. I must say, even for someone of Obama’s demonstrated facility with words, that speech was a real stem winder. I’m going to keep this brief out of necessity (for some odd reason, my wife wants to spend a few minutes with me this evening), but I hope all of you will chime in with disagreements if you have them.
We all know I’m immune to Obama’s charms (or, Jedi Mind Tricks, as some would have it) as a speaker, so it will come as no great surprise to you that I’m not entirely convinced Obama doesn’t harbor some of the same racist attitudes and beliefs his mentor, Jeremiah Wright holds. The portion of his speech related to how bad blacks have it in America dwarfs the portion he spent assuring whites that he understands their concerns as well, and his advice to whites about the concessions we need to make to black grievances (whether or not they are justified in this day and age) was far more thorough and demanding in terms of policy prescriptions than his advice for blacks about the need to stop the separatist rhetoric was.
Still, I think out of common decency, I owe it to Obama to take him at his word at this point in time, given the amount of words he’s written and spoken that directly contradict the impression I have of him as bound more tightly to Wright and the black grievance community than he likes to admit. He hasn’t yet struck me as a liar, and he’s no more self-aggrandizing than any other politician, so in the interests of maintaining what I hope to keep a respectable blog here, I intend to wrap up my discussion of Wright and Obama unless and until reliable reporting contradicting what he said in today’s speech comes to light.
In all, it really was a great speech, there’s just no denying it. It’s impressive as hell that he wrote it himself, as well…if part of a president’s job is to convince folks to come around to his way of thinking, I can’t but realize that Obama is, at least in that regard, the best qualified of any of this year’s candidates. Just because he’s not convincing me doesn’t mean I shouldn’t place at least a little trust in the pretty large majority of Democratic voters he is convincing — At least enough trust to give him a fair shake in regards to this matter of his pastor.
Update: Mickey Kaus sees some of the same things I did in the speech:
In general. Obama’s explanations of black anger seem intimate and respectful. His explanations of white anger seem distant and condescending. (”They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away ….”) Unfortunately for him, it’s white votes he needs.
(Mickey via Glenn Reynolds)
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Jeremiah Wright, Politics, Race
Sorry, I guess I was a little hard on him. I’ll tone down my sarcasm, that’s all it was meant as.
I personally didn’t think the speech read as anything special. I was not fully convinced that he does not buy into what he hears in church. Mainly for the same reasons you pointed out above.
At the end of the day, he’s a politician, and IMO will say anything he needs to in order to get elected. Based on that, I don’t tend to give any of them the benefit of the doubt.
Red: No need to apologize, or tone anything down. The front page of the blog is an entirely different entity than the comments section — I hope you guys will be as tough on each others ideas as possible.
The only thing I frown upon in comments is personal attacks on my commenters. You and twc are far too smart and reasonable to take that tack, so I have no worries where you guys are concerned. Fire away!
I’m with you there, Joe. I don’t recall Red ever launching a personal attack, and I appreciate his willingness to pipe up and defend his views, misguided as they sometimes are. His willingness to engage has earned my respect, and he’s not alone in that among posters here. Which, I assume, is why many of us check in here periodically.
As for the speech, you make a good point about the fact that he wrote it himself. I disagree with Red to an extent. Yes, he’s a politician, a presidential candidate running for office. And yet, facing a firestorm of criticism that threatened to consume his candidacy, he sat down and wrote out his thoughts on an important and potentially perilous topic — the intersection of race, religion and politics — and they turn out to be pretty substantive and interesting. This is no ordinary politician. Like him or not, he’s much closer to the sort of guy you might run across in your ordinary life and think to yourself: “now, that guy’s pretty impressive. If somebody like that ever ran for president some day… naaahhh — it’d never happen!”
I honestly don’t care what he said in that speech. The man brought his kids to this man to listen to his hate. No matter how often Barack denies it, in the 20 years or so of participating in this church, Wright had to have gone into his rhetoric and not only he, but his kids heard it from a man in an authoritative position in their lives. This wasn’t just some preacher that he went to once to get support for an election. This was his reverend that influenced his life, titled his book, baptized his kids, married him and his wife, etc. etc. etc. There is no reconciliation for being involved with that angry, hateful man. That relationship was very close and Barack took from it. No amount of pretty words can make that go away. His kids had to have heard what this man preaches. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t take my kids anywhere near a Falwell church. I find this man’s words repulsive, hateful, and divisive. Going to that church is a bad thing but taking your kids? That’s just shameful, embarrassing and irresponsible. Well, irresponsible if you don’t believe the rhetoric like Obama claims he doesn’t anyways. Otherwise… well, I’m sure you can figure out where I’m going from there.
You know, it’s really sad. I am not nor will I ever be an Obama supporter, but… the best thing about him was the fact that he was running his campaign without using race. It wasn’t being shoved in our faces. He was running an inclusive campaign. It was entirely refreshing to see someone finally finally be a “minority” and not make that the focus.
Unfortunately, that has all come tumbling down now. Sadly for Barak, you CAN choose your friends and you CAN choose your church. And everyone knows this. That’s why they aren’t buying the argument that he can’t walk away from the hateful rhetoric. Because… yes, he can. He chose not to.
In my book that makes him a racist. Just as I would be (quite rightly) labeled a racist if I joined a church run by the KKK. For that matter, I was raised a Catholic – I raised my children in the church and attended regularly… until they had the huge blowup with the Priest scandals. I didn’t feel, and still don’t feel, that those issues were properly addressed. So, guess what… I walked away. I only attend mass if it’s for something like a wedding or funeral. I don’t donate to or attend a church I feel has acted wrongly and not done enough to change their ways.
Poor Barak, trying to make me think it’s impossible to walk away from something that is wrong. If that was the case, we’d still have segregation. The reason that changed is because enough white people walked away from it – decided it was wrong and made an effort to make it stop. Of course, his pastor wants segregation – only this time he wants to make “whitey” suffer. *sigh*
Hatred – pure hatred. Yet, Barak is unwilling to cut that off.
I believe this means he should never be President. What else would he be willing to turn a blind eye to in this same way?
More about this at abcnews.com:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4480868&page=1
What’s even better is this gem buried about Rezko and “the house”:
“Obama was initially vague about Rezko’s role in helping him buy a new home on Chicago’s south side. Unable to afford an adjacent vacant lot the seller wanted to sell at the same time as the house, Obama approached Rezko. Rezko’s wife bought the lot on the same day Obama bought the house, and then later, Mrs. Rezko sold the Obamas a strip of the lot which gave the Obamas a larger backyard.
Obama called it a “bone-headed” mistake but never revealed, until he met with Chicago reporters last week, that Rezko had actually toured the house with him and been deeply involved in the transaction.”
Wish I could figure out how to bold. That second paragraph is the whopper.
“I honestly don’t care what he said in that speech.”
Got your mind all closed up good and tight, eh, brogarn?
“if you don’t believe the rhetoric like Obama claims he doesn’t”
So, you think Barack Obama secretlly hates white people? And you can tell this because you saw a video clip on youtube of someone other than Barack Obama saying things that Barack Obama has said he disagrees with? And you don’t care what else he says, because you’ve seen all you need to see to decide how Barack Obama thinks?
Remarkable.
“Wish I could figure out how to bold. That second paragraph is the whopper.”
Make brackets with the “less than” signs, and put a “B” in the middle. Italics uses an “I” and underlines uses a “U”
Grrr…use the “less than” and “greater than” signs.
Thanks, Red!
I’ve seen his actions, twc. They speak louder and more true.
So, brogarn, do you think Barack Obama is a racist?
“Obama called it a “bone-headed” mistake but never revealed, until he met with Chicago reporters last week, that Rezko had actually toured the house with him and been deeply involved in the transaction.””
Is that the parargraph you wanted to bold because it’s “the whopper?”
Breaking news? Evidence of a cover-up. Actually, not so much. I guess ABC News just completely missed the fact that those facts have long been known. Here’s Bloomberg.com from weeks ago, for instance:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_9sOMpy91Js&refer=us
” the best thing about him was the fact that he was running his campaign without using race. It wasn’t being shoved in our faces. He was running an inclusive campaign. It was entirely refreshing to see someone finally finally be a “minority” and not make that the focus.
Unfortunately, that has all come tumbling down now. ”
That all came tumbling down, Teresa, because you saw some videos of someone else saying things that he has denounced? So, despite the way he has run his entire campaign, and the way that he has lived his life in every other respect, this has revealed to you that he is “a racist?”
Wow. Talk about the power of youtube.
twc – no because he has attended this church and called this pastor “friend” for about 20 years. AND – like I said – if I belonged to a church run by the KKK which uses rhetoric just as vile – you would call me a racist even if I stood there saying “but I don’t believe all that crap I just go because the pastor is a friend of mine”. Please don’t try to tell me that would fly – of course it would certainly bring hilarity into the conversation.
If Clinton or McCain belonged to churches, that they attended regularly… where there was vile hate speech such as this – they would be called racist and immediately have to withdraw from the race. There wouldn’t even be a discussion – they wouldn’t get a chance to “make a speech to explain” – it would be over.
So yeah, I’m calling him out in the same way I (and Clinton and McCain) would be called out for similar actions.
Did you actually listen to what was said? I haven’t seen the youtube only heard the audio portion – it was unforgivable. I don’t have another cheek left to turn after all the slapping around in just that one rant.
Rev Wright is, of course, entitled to his opinion. But that does not mean I think it’s rational. Nor do I want to have the person who would be President, even tacitly endorsing such opinions. Until this tape became public – Barak Obama knew how his pastor preached, he knew the rhetoric, yet he still made him the “spiritual advisor” to the campaign. (a tacit endorsement) I think that’s enough to raise huge red flags.
“Did you actually listen to what was said? ”
Yes
“Until this tape became public – Barak Obama knew how his pastor preached, he knew the rhetoric,”
But, in fact, Sen. Obama has said that he had not heard Rev. Wright say these things, such as “God damn America!” You think he’s not telling the truth about that? When he heard it, he condemned it. Isn’t that what you expect him to do?
Aren’t you simply assuming that Sen. Obama *must have* heard other, similarly outrageous statements, and therefore he *must have* failed to act in a way that you expect? But think of how you yourself have seen him act, Teresa. He ran a “campaign without using race,” a “refreshing” campaign, “an inclusive campaign.” He’s lived his life in the public eye for decades without any suggestion that he has acted or spoken in anything like a racially divisive or antagonistic way. He’s been, by all accounts, a model in this respect — which only makes sense, because he is, after all, half white and half black.
And yet because of some things you heard his pastor say, you’re willing to “call him out” as … what? A racist? Do you truly believe, Teresa, that this man hates white people? Hates his own mother? His white grandparents? He hates and despises one-half of himself?
This is crazy. Talk about political correctness gone mad.
“if I belonged to a church run by the KKK which uses rhetoric just as vile – you would call me a racist even if I stood there saying “but I don’t believe all that crap I just go because the pastor is a friend of mine”. Please don’t try to tell me that would fly – of course it would certainly bring hilarity into the conversation.
If Clinton or McCain belonged to churches, that they attended regularly… where there was vile hate speech such as this – they would be called racist and immediately have to withdraw from the race. There wouldn’t even be a discussion – they wouldn’t get a chance to “make a speech to explain” – it would be over.
So yeah, I’m calling him out in the same way I (and Clinton and McCain) would be called out for similar actions.”
Read what you just said there, Teresa. You’re essentially saying that he stands convicted, in your mind, of violating the code of political correctness, by associating with a “known” racist — therefore, he’s guilty of racism by association. It doesn’t matter whether we think he actually is a racist. In fact, it’s pretty obvious from everything we know that he isn’t. But if any other candidate, especially a white candidate, had an association like this, they would be adjudged in the court of public opinion to be a racist by association. We caught him associating with a “known” racist — that’s good enough to convict in a p.c. court!
twc, I think Barack Obama is whatever his current audience wants him to be.
Ok, now I’m back in the Hillary camp. Obama is deader than dead. I think many Americans, including myself, who disagrees with Obama on about everything, were a little excited at the prospect of a black president, kind of “that’ll show ‘em” to the rest of the world. I did truly believe he was above that race hustling mentality.
But the more I read about black churches, and the DEEPLY ingrained sense of victimhood and yes, resentment and hatred of whites that they preach in their CHURCHES for fuck’s sake, it really makes me despair. I truly think SOME blacks, and this includes some very influential and respected ones, have not come far at all in meeting whites halfway on this.
Now I lost the stupid link but there’s a news story today about how a press agency called like 100 black clergy and not ONE thought Wright was out of line, or that he was incorrect in his assertions. Some did say they wouldn’t preach it themselves, but blessed him for having the balls to do it for them.
I think there are MANY whites who weren’t comfortable with a black man already, due to the flim flam demagogery of Jackson and Sharpton types, who will now run away from Obama in droves now that he has been exposed.
I think he’s dead, deader than dead, in the general. It may have come so far that the Dems are forced to give him the nomination and throw away ‘08 in order to save the party, because its evident from the attitude of these preachers that blacks as a whole are going to see nothing wrong with what Obama or Wright said or did and are going to be FURIOUS, I mean rioting in the streets furious, ifhe is denied the nomination,and the Dem party without 90% of the heavily motivated black vote is no national party at all.
President McCain, here we come.
However, I don’t count out Hillary still grabbing the nomination. Obama, at this point, would be glad for a VP slot, I’m sure he realizes by now the enormity of this reversal.
However, Clinton would be mad to give it to him. He can only damage her now.
The Dems are in a dilly of a pickle, and I’m sure loving it, as a McCain supporter.
I’m still wistful for a Guiliani presidency though, I think the man could have been a great one.
I doubt Obama is worried much at all, Doc — I think your initial read is correct. Democrats are Democrats after all, and much of our party is still chained to pushing racial issues in order to keep the minority vote sewed up. Obama’s got the nomination in his pocket, and he’s doomed in the general. The alternative, however, is unthinkable for the superdelegates and the party.
Dean is screwed as well. The Michigan / Florida fiasco is his last bray as an authoritarian donkey, and his unwillingness to budge in order to find an equitable resolution is typical Dean. He’s gone as DNC head come November.
And let me guarantee you this: It’s going to be my fault, and your fault that Obama flames out in the general. The accusations of racism and prejudice are going to fly so thickly against whites that the backdrop of Jeremiah Wright, who started this whole thing, will be drowned out. And we’ll all have taken a step backwards in racial relations, rather than forward, in service to a far left agenda that somehow continues to enthrall the national party.
Exactly. America is still too racist to elect a black man. That has been bandied about for some time, and liberal reporters were flummuxed over whether it was misogamy or racism that made voters either pick Hillary or Obama: either you hated blacks or women, that was what drove your vote.
I’ve been saying for some time that if 90% of whites voted en bloc like 90% of blacks, Obama wouldn’t have had a candidacy at all. However, since he’s only half-black, he’d have gotten half the white votes he has garnered, on a strictly melanin based voting pattern.
Its the politics, not the color of his skin, that has damned him. That GOD DAMN AMERIKKKA thing is just too resonant for white voters to ignore. I read all these lib blogs saying how great the speech was, greater than Lincoln. Bull. I don’t care how great it was. Politicians are always giving speeches, you think the average voter gives a fart in a stiff wind? They might have heard he GAVE a speech, that’s about it.
Nope, the soundbites are too rich, they feed in to fears that Jacksons and Sharptons have fed to whites for generations, and its doomed Obama. Even his staunch supporters are shaken and pissed off over the whole thing, and mostly pissed off how racist whitey won’t accept its our fault Obama’s minister is so angry. That was the subtext of Obama’s speech, and he may actually believe it.
I think he couldn’t say anything else, he was boxed in. Either lose whites or be called an Uncle Tom.
This is why the first black president will be conservative, unafilliated with the old school civil rights demagogue circuit.
Today I weep for the state of race relation in the US. I truly did not know how bad they were, I was under the mistaken impression things had come a long way. They have not, at least on the black side.
I have no idea if whites are to blame for this or not, but one side feeds the other. I guarantee, whites, finding out how blacks really feel, are not moved to sympathy or empathy, but to further isolation and separatism. And its a sad, sad day for us all.
Here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html
read the first piece and weep for our country.
[...] Joe Tobacco adds: I doubt Obama is worried much at all, Doc — I think your initial read is correct. Democrats are Democrats after all, and much of our party is still chained to pushing racial issues in order to keep the minority vote sewed up. Obama’s got the nomination in his pocket, and he’s doomed in the general. The alternative, however, is unthinkable for the superdelegates and the party. [...]
“MANY whites who weren’t comfortable with a black man already . . . will now run away from Obama in droves now that he has been exposed.”
Exposed as what, doc?
Joe: “I’m not entirely convinced Obama doesn’t harbor some of the same racist attitudes and beliefs his mentor, Jeremiah Wright holds”
Joe, you think Barack Obama may, in fact, be a racist? Do you think he hates white people?
I think Obama attempted to explain away black racism as excusable, if not acceptable in that speech, twc. It’s pretty obvious to anyone who’s not an Obama supporter, to tell you the truth. Imagine, say, Trent Lott running for president, and trying to explain that the Ku Klux Klan was racist, yes, but imagine their fear and the circumstances following the end of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Weren’t they, perhaps, justified in their rhetoric given the extraordinary hardships they were forced to endure?
You wouldn’t accept that, yet you expect those of us who don’t support Obama to take everything the man says at face value. As I wrote here:
I haven’t written that Obama hates white people, nor do I think he does. I think he either holds some of Wright’s racist attitudes and beliefs, or he leaves the possibility of his holding them ambiguous enough that blacks with the persistent victim syndrome (which demagogues like Wright foist on them) can easily believe he does. Obama’s wife, certainly, is a constant victim, as evidenced by her campaign appearances to date, and I think it would be difficult for her to live with a man who didn’t sympathize with her views.
In any case, I’ve resolved not to write about this anymore on the front page, unless new information comes to light. I don’t believe Obama, I wasn’t floored by the speech, and I’m convinced he’s going to be destroyed by McCain in the general, but I understand political parties and the trade offs involved in reaching one’s goals, so he’ll get my vote. I’m certainly not obligated to like the guy, trust the guy, or believe the guy when I have a hinky feeling in my gut, though.
I’m trying to get a handle on what people here think Obama’s offense is, and I’m finding it extremely elusive. Maybe the place to start is what people find so offensive about Rev. Wright’s remarks.
With all due respect, Joe, I don’t think your KKK analogy is really apt, because the KKK advocated white supremacy and violence against blacks. I don’t think Wright has ever advocated black supremacy or violence against whites.
But Wright clearly does say things that people find deeply offensive: not God bless America but God damn America, 9/11 being chickens coming home to roost, Ameri-KKK-a, Hillary ain’t never been called a n—–, crack and/or AIDS might be government plots, etc.
If I understand you correctly, you object to these as fostering a victim mentality and a perpetual grievance mindset. (Please tell me if I’m mangling it).
And you think that Obama may either actually share that mindset or, by belonging to this church, may be somewhat cynically permitting people who do share that mindset to think of him as one of them?
This is interesting.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Jeremiah_Wright_was_White_House_guest.html
Here is the real interesting part:
It’s getting ugly out there!
“I think Obama attempted to explain away black racism as excusable, if not acceptable in that speech, twc. It’s pretty obvious to anyone who’s not an Obama supporter, to tell you the truth”
I think a lot of people who are not Obama supporters did not hear that. Focusing just on the speech, and understanding that many may choose not to trust his sincerity, I did not hear him saying “black racism is o.k.” I understood him to be saying that race is a complex and difficult subject in our country, starting from before our country even existed and embedded in our founding document, and rather than each “side” hurling charges of “racism” at each other, we’d make more progress if we tried to understand that each side has some legitimate grievances and some genuine anger. That can sometimes make us act in ways that may seem bizarre. But that anger is real, on both sides, and we can’t just pretend it doesn’t exist — that doesn’t help. Instead, we’ve got to assume good will and be willing to extend a hand to work together to move forward. It’s what has moved us so far already, and if we’re willing to continue to make that assumption and extend that hand there is still plenty more that needs to be done.
Here, for example, is some of what he said about Wright’s comments:
“we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike. I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. . . . But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems”
And on Trinity:
“The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.”
And on the responsibilities of each “side:”
“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 is 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. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
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.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination – and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past – are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.”
I just do not read that to be excusing racism or extremism on anyone’s part.
twc: read this
http://pundita.blogspot.com/2008/03/barack-obamas-race-speech-is-knowledge.html
it partly explains it
the problem is, the church is not racist. Its black supremacist. Its Afro centric. It puts being black over being American. It puts “black values” over Christian values, over american values, over anything.
Obama is exposed as another race hustler, as someone who feels like he has been victimized by America and its racist white population. He said as much in his speech. All whites are guilty of it. He said it again today, that his gramma, like “any typical white person” was afraid of a black person they dont know, simply because they are black
Can you imagine a church that pushed “white values” above everything else?
I dont appreciate being assumed a racist and have to prove Im not. I dont want a president who puts his race, and the resentments and feelings of being owed before the problems and issues that are in all citizen’s interest. I don’t like his and his wife’s attitude of privilege and entitlement. If not, we’re all racists for not voting for him. We have to get past race, and to do it, we have to elect Obama.
I dont like him equating Wright’s insane conspiracy theories with his grandmother’s very rational fear of black men harassing her in her neighborhood. It also shows a lack of class that he would equate the private conversation of his grandmother with the public ravings of a loony.
Also, I dont like the wacko conspiracy theories or the fact Wright was happy America got its “come uppance” on 9-11, and I question the judgement of someone who would allow his young daughters to be exposed to that kind of hate, week in and week out.
I could go on with this. I think Obama has been exposed as being from the same school as Sharpton and Jackson.
Powerline has a nice take on it here:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/020089.php
Oh and Joe, please delete my first trackback. I renamed the post and it tracked you again. I thought the first one was a bit over the top and inflammatory so I changed it, and it tracked again- that post doesnt even exist now.
Can’t put it any clearer than Charles Krauthammer said at the Post:
http://tinyurl.com/2ycqhl
Read the whole thing to get the full view. But I’d like to point out the following:
“But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright’s rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?”
doc: I think you’re off the deep end here. You’re saying that Trinity United Church of Christ — the largest church in an overwhelmingly white denomination, a church with many white members who have said unanimously (as far as I’ve seen) that they feel exceptionally welcome and comfortable there — is actually not just a racist church, but a “black supremacist” church?
And, therefore, because of his membership in this church, Barack Obama — a man who is himself the son of a white mother and was raised for a time by his white grandparents, a man who has built a career in public service and has won many elections, who has run a campaign built on the need for unity and overcoming our divisions — has now been “exposed as another race hustler, as someone who feels like he has been victimized by America and its racist white population?” Doc, that just makes no sense.
“He said as much in his speech.”
No, he didn’t. He said the opposite of that in his speech.
“I think Obama has been exposed as being from the same school as Sharpton and Jackson.”
But he has neither acted nor spoken nor campaigned like Sharpton or Jackson. His campaign could not be more different from the campaigns of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, doc.
Doc: here’s expression of gratitude from the white, southern, President of the United States to the U.S. Marine veteran and Navy Corpsman who is supposedly a black supremacist and hater who despised America:
http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/2008/03/my-pastor-received-commendation-for.html
Well, I would tell you to read their own words on their own website, but as the post I linked above notes, they have removed most of the language. Read the first post I linked, it tells every bit of the really revolting language formerly posted on their website. It bashes whites, slanders Jews and whites, talks about the evilness of white values and superiority of black values.
If a church took their entire opening statement and changed the word “black” to “white” I think people would be outraged, and rightly so.
“a man who has built a career in public service and has won many elections”
twc: Even though he is going to win the Democratic primary, I don’t think his prior election victories offer much in the way of bragging rights.
Obama election victories
Red: my point wasn’t about bragging rights, it was about the very public nature of Sen. Obama’s life for decades before this. People are claiming to see suddenly revealed, in the statements of his former pastor, certain fundamental and very significant but previously-hidden truths about Barack Obama: that he is either (1) himself secretly a racist, maybe even a “black supremacist,” or at the very least (2) he tolerates and even participates openly in a racist and/or black supremacist ideology through his church and his pastor.
I find this utterlyy unbelievable, and one reason is that this is a man who has run in six prior elections, winning five of them, without any hint of these startling beliefs surfacing before now.
And, as your link reminded me, one of those races was against none other than Alan Keyes — a fierce and nationally-known opponent of precisely such thinking. Surely Mr. Keyes was in position to sniff out this sort of flaw in his opponent for a U.S. Senate seat, hidden in plain sight and on display every Sunday? Don’t you find it odd, Red, that Alan Keyes, of all people, didn’t use trumpet this little-known and highly-damaging “fact” about Obama during their race for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois, a state that is the fifth-largest in the country and 71% white? Alan Keyes is a colorful and well-known conservative figure, a former graduate-school roommate of William Kristol, a talk-radio host, author of a book on politics and black Americans, and a very effective public speaker. Don’t you think that Alan Keyes would have been all over national and local television and radio loudly proclaiming to the (85% non-black) voters of Illinois that they ought to think twice before electing a racist or a black supremacist to the United States Senate?
This is essentially a manufactured controversy. Fundamentally, when you unwrap it, there’s no “there” there.
doc: I did read the information at the link you provided, but the only quote from the Church’s website was a short one that didn’t itself express any sort of racism or “black supremacist” ideology. I did click on the link that was provided in that material to the church’s website, and found the following points (recognizing that you say that the church has changed their website):
“• We [African Americans] were always seen as objects. When we started defining ourselves, it scared those who try to control others by naming them and defining them for them; Oppressors do not like “others” defining themselves.
• To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.
• African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.
• There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience.” It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks.”
Whatever this displays, it expressly disavows black supremacy.
” African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.”
This is a tricky one. While it says that Black liberation theology does not “look at everyone else as being inferior,” it compares itself to Eurocentrists, and places its morality above theirs. That is certainly an attitude of superiority.
And who do you think they are talking about with the word “Eurocentric?”
As for Alan Keyes, I don’t see where his failure to “sniff out” this controversy has any bearing today. Furthermore, when you insinuate that this is a non-issue, you are dismissing the very valid concerns of many Americans. As far as many of us are concerned, that is exactly what his speech did.
This would never be accepted if the tables were turned. If a white candidate had gone to a church for 20 years that was shown to preach in the fashion of Jeremiah Wright, we’d be seeing Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson camped out on his doorstep until he withdrew from the race.
But we are supposed to understand black racism because we have kept African-Americans down for so long. This is what many of us get from Barack Obama’s speech. And it doesn’t sit well.
I will also point out that almost every point you listed above goes to the heart of “seperate but equal.”
“Defining ourselves.” “African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism….” “Difference does not mean deficience.”
True, they don’t promote supremacy, but they do promote difference. Isn’t that a step backward from a movement that has worked so hard to try and integrate our society?
“True, they don’t promote supremacy, but they do promote difference. Isn’t that a step backward from a movement that has worked so hard to try and integrate our society?”
I tend to believe it is, Red. But I don’t doubt that this church supports integration in our society. It belongs to a white denomination and welcomes white members, after all. I take those points to express a support for black conciousness — i.e., being aware of and appreciating the “difference” of black people, what it is that distinguishes blacks from the broader society.
Whether that’s a step forward or backward is for its members to decide. Myself, I wouldn’t focus on that. But I don’t think it is the same thing as a church focusing on white consciousness — for the simple reason that the history of our country is not one of a black majority enslaving and oppressing a white minority.
“Whether that’s a step forward or backward is for its members to decide. Myself, I wouldn’t focus on that. But I don’t think it is the same thing as a church focusing on white consciousness — for the simple reason that the history of our country is not one of a black majority enslaving and oppressing a white minority.”
That is exactly what Obama’s speech said, and the exact reason many have issue with it. It promotes a doube-standard. “It’s OK for me (or my pastor), but not for thee.”
We are supposed to condemn (as we should) white racism, while at the same time understand and accept black racism.
And I still find it ironic that we are expected to remember all the terrible things done to the black people of America, but forget who was largely responsible for it—Southern Democrats and the Democratic Party. How many times has Wright condemned Democrats for the Mississippi Plan?
Instead, he lumps all of white America into the same racist trash-heap. And we’re expected to take it as part of our repairations.
An interesting take, particularly his thought-provoking analogies to some of the actions of Ronald Reagan:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/chi-oped0323chapmanmar23,0,1829615.column
“he lumps all of white America into the same racist trash-heap.”
Wright does. Obama does not.
Obama is running. Wright is not.
“That is exactly what Obama’s speech said, and the exact reason many have issue with it. It promotes a doube-standard. . . . We are supposed to condemn (as we should) white racism, while at the same time understand and accept black racism.”
That’s a very fair point, Red. But it’s just not as simple as “o.k., now let’s all be color-blind from here on.” After 400 years of slavery, lynching, segregation, discrimination and oppression? If black folks express consciousness of their race that’s “racism” equivalent to all of that? Segregation, discrimination, superiority are wrong. But completely ignoring race and just pretending it doesn’t exist as a social factor in American society won’t work, either. It’s complicated, and difficult. I think Rev. Wright has displayed, on multiple occasions, an unhealthy focus on the grievances and the wrongs and the harm rather than the healing and the progress. But Sen. Obama has never displayed that emphasis.
Ok, here are the sources:
http://docweasel.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/clintons-strategy-on-the-wright-wrongs-never-get-in-the-way-of-your-opponent-destroying-himself/
and here is a paragraph to consider. I forgot I posted almost all these sources on our blog on the 17th. You can read the entire post for much, much more, but read this one paragraph:
In a set of “talking points” on the church’s Web site, Wright proclaims himself an exponent of “black liberation theology.” He cites James Cone, a distinguished professor at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, whom he credits for having “systematized” this strain of Christianity.
Here is a quote from Cone, explaining black liberation theology:
“destruction of the white enemy”…
“the power of the black people to destroy their oppressors (white people) here and now by any means at their disposal”, with God’s help of course (or they gotta kill him for being a traitor to the black race).
Can we please agree that THIS is racist cant? If its not, there’s really no convincing you. I don’t know what kind of speech you would consider racist hate speech, if killing members of a specific race just because of their color is not racist in your mind, I don’t know what is.
Doc: yes, that’s certainly a racist sentiment. I do notice that it was not expressed by Barack Obama, nor by his pastor, nor by a member of the church.
well, you’re splitting hairs. Its part of the “Black Liberation Theology” which Wright espouses. That’s the core of it. If you have a BLT church, you believe what that paragraph says.
We’ll just have to leave it I guess, you seem unconvinced Wright is a racist. I think he hates white people, and he is very open about it, and accuses them of all number of heinous crimes as a RACE. That’s the very definition of racist.
Mmm…. BLT….
Sorry. Couldn’t be helped.
Yet another “race hustler” unmasked. in the pages of the Washington Times: Condoleeza Rice.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/FOREIGN/746301768/1001
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the United States still has trouble dealing with race because of a national ‘birth defect’ that denied black Americans the opportunities given to whites at the country’s very founding.
‘Black Americans were a founding population,’ she said. ‘Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That’s not a very pretty reality of our founding.’
As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, ‘descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that.’
‘That particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today,’ she said.
‘America doesn’t have an easy time dealing with race,’ Miss Rice said, adding that members of her family have ‘endured terrible humiliations.’
‘What I would like understood as a black American is that black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn’t love and have faith in them — and that’s our legacy,’ she said.”
You’re kidding, right, twc? Dr. Rice is race hustling to what purpose? She doesn’t need anyone’s votes, as she’s not running for any office, and she certainly isn’t drumming up huge amounts of support in the black community, if Reverend Wright’s designation of her as “Condamnesia” and his congregation’s thunderous applause is any indication of her standing there.
In order to race hustle (or anything hustle, for that matter), you have to stand to gain something from it. Dr. Rice certainly won’t benefit from statements like these.
Not to mention, Dr. Rice grew up in the racially segregated South. Barack Obama? Jeremiah Wright? Not so much.
Yes, Joe, I was kidding — gently spoofing those who criticize as militant advocacy (or worse) any discussion of race in America that is not completely consistent and even-handed in its treatment of the concerns and treatment of both blacks and whites.
You’re right that Dr. Rice is not hunting for votes or running for office. She is no liberal firebrand. Nor, as far as I know, is she closely aligned with Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. Yet when speaking publicly on the topic of race in American society, she does not avoid acknowledging that 400 years of slavery, oppression, segregation and discrimination still have “continuing relevance for who we are today.”
Of course, her own experience is different from that of Barack Obama’s, and Rev. Wright’s. But to certain cabbies deciding at a glance whether to pick up a fare those distinctions won’t factor in.
Identity politics are so damaging to this country. We can never be a community if we constantly separate ourselves into groups or categories. African-American. Irish-American. Italian-American. What happened to just being American? Whatever the racial identity, it all boils down to segregation, which we all know is bad. Lets get back to the melting pot. Stop with the racial rhetoric already.
How far have we come since the ’50’s? Pretty damn far by what I see. But that didn’t happen overnight and it didn’t happen by harping on identity. It happened due to the melting pot and equal opportunity. Put the hyphenations down and start being an American.
You sound like an Obama voter to me, bro!
Sen. Obama, on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” last May, when asked whether his own daughters should someday receive preferences in college admissions:
“I think that my daughters should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged. … I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed.”
Prof. Obama, to his Univ. of Chicago Law School students, on the first day of his Current Issues in Racism and the Law class:
“I hope that this course makes you at least a little uncomfortable about affirmative action.”
The conservative case:
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html
Fine. I’ll grant you all that is not an invalid position for a black person to take. But if Obama does, then he’s manifestly NOT a post-racial candidate, he’s still a candidate of resentment, victimhood, indentity etc
The main thing that irked me aobut the great Obama speech is how he lectured all of US, particularly whites, when HE is exposed as the one nursing racial resentments and pandering to them and in fact FINANCING them to be preached to others. I have no problems with black people in my everyday life. I dont go to a church that demonizes them nor accuses them of dastardly crimes nor stereotypes them or their behaviour nor accuses them of being bigots with no reason. He does. So all that claptrap you’re posting, sorry, it might justify blacks in America feeling resentment, I dont begrudge them that, but it doesn’t make Obama a ‘post-racial’ president if he buys that crap. And if he doesn’t, he’s a hypocrite and the worst kind of demagogue. If he does, then he’s not suited to be commander in chief and president of all Americans..
Just for the record, here is Colin Powell, interviewed by Dianne Sawyer for ABC’s Good Morning America, April 9, 2008:
Returning to presidential politics, Powell condemned controversial remarks by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor of 20 years, as “deplorable” but complimented the Democratic candidate for his speech on race that followed in the aftermath.
“Rev. Wright is also somebody who has made enormous contributions in his community and has turned a lot of lives around,” Powell said, “And so, I have to put that in context with these very offensive comments that he made, which I reject out of hand.” Powell added that he does not know Wright, and praised Obama’s response.
“I think that Sen. Obama handled the issue well . . . he didn’t look the other way. He didn’t wait for the, for the, you know, for the storm to go over. He went on television, and I thought, gave a very, very thoughtful, direct speech. And he didn’t abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith,” Powell told Sawyer.
Powell, who has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate in almost every election since he retired from military service and public life, expressed admiration for Obama. “It was a good (speech),” Powell said. “I admired him for giving it. And I agreed with much of what he said.”