I probably said this a few pages ago but just to repeat: how is Rev. Wright's comments any different from what people have been saying about racism in America for DECADES?
The blow-out over this is mostly a reminder of how ahistorical American society (or at least, its pundits) are - or pretend to be.
But whatever - it's presidential electoral politics and any small issue can get amplified in the media echo chamber for the sake of filling a news cycle.
I get the sense pundits were just drooling over the possibility to tag a racial issue on Obama after months of him being touted as the "post-race" candidate and Wright - however tenuously - gave people the opening to paint Obama as some modern day Black Panther.
I think Barack very wisely stated that these views, that are apparently shared and preached by more than just Rev. Wright, do more to hinder racial progress than promote it.
I'm not arguing against that - and I'm certainly not the intended target for the speech (having never really been offended in the first place).
I'm just saying that these views are relatively commonplace. One conservative columnist took offense at Obama's explanation, by implying that his offense was merely a biproduct of his lack of familiarity with and knowledge of the Black community. It was very much a "I'm not a racist!" argument. But it's true that you can't reconcile anything without understanding the other's viewpoint.
A lot of the better points Wright made are being glossed over - the US government was responsible for abetting the crack cocaine trade; it is complicit in flooding the inner cities with guns; it was responsible for ignoring the AIDS crisis until it had already savaged the G/L/B community, Blacks and Latinos as well; our foreign policy is partially responsible for turning what was once our own proxy army - Al Qaeda - against us. These things are significant and worthy of discussion but because of the way the message was delivered, they're written off.
The idea that big business is screwing us all - and they are - is tossed aside and called "socialist" and "marxist".
John Stewart nailed it last night - "angry Black folks! Lock the car doors!"
I agree with that...but here is where we probably disagree.
The Government is mostly white but certainly isn't all "white people".
The average white person would agree that the government is fucked up but when Rev. Wright doesn't distinguish the difference between the Government and "White People" it offends all those non-Governmental whites.
Big Business is mostly white but they don't represent "white people".
The average white person would agree that the Big Business is fucked up but when Rev. Wright doesn't distinguish the difference between Big Business and "White People" it offends all those working class/poor whites.
I see what you are saying, but I would argue that Wright probably gives people credit for drawing what I would consider OBVIOUS distinctions.
Didn't George Carlin have a line, "The first rule I live by: DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING THE GOVERNMENT TELLS ME."
George Carlin could have written a line like that and still run for office. Black people, escpecially older Black people feel the same way, but can't express it, because then they are "angry". White dudes are just "indignant". Shameful shit.
Kucinich could have written a line like that and run for office too....like Carlin, he would just never have a prayer to win.
Why would any self-respecting person, Black or White, Male or Female, want to be President? Look at the last few Presidents: A horny dude, an actor, some old guy and his idiot son. There's no integrity left in that office. I find it vaugely insulting that a Black man or a Woman could only become President after the office of the President has been so debased. It's like sloppy seconds.
Oh...I see...so instead, we're just supposed to drop out and let the status quo conduct business as usual?
That's been just WONDERFUL the last eight years, no?
The average white person would agree that the Big Business is fucked up but when Rev. Wright doesn't distinguish the difference between Big Business and "White People" it offends all those working class/poor whites.
Those poor/workin class Caucasoids still get "White Privlege" benefits before others though.
The reality is Oliver that no president - even a Black man - is going to change the overarching disparities in this country. A lot of folks couldn't give a shit if Obama gets elected. It's not going to change much.
I probably said this a few pages ago but just to repeat: how is Rev. Wright's comments any different from what people have been saying about racism in America for DECADES?
Isn't the main point of Barack's speech that while we shouldn't ignore the past, at some point we have to move forward and not dwell on the past?
Do you think he said it because he believes it, or because that's what the voting public wanted to hear?
The reality is Oliver that no president - even a Black man - is going to change the overarching disparities in this country. A lot of folks couldn't give a shit if Obama gets elected. It's not going to change much.
"I AM HERE BECAUSE OF ASHLEY."
I'm of the mind that if a president can fuck up the country, one can do an eensie-weensie bit to helping fix it. I don't presume, at all, that an Obama election would suddenly fix racism. But I do think it creates the *possibility* (assuming what the composition of Congress will look like) that his administration could institute some better public policy than we've seen in a minute.
The average white person would agree that the Big Business is fucked up but when Rev. Wright doesn't distinguish the difference between Big Business and "White People" it offends all those working class/poor whites.
Those poor/workin class Caucasoids still get "White Privlege" benefits before others though.
Why would any self-respecting person, Black or White, Male or Female, want to be President? Look at the last few Presidents: A horny dude, an actor, some old guy and his idiot son. There's no integrity left in that office. I find it vaugely insulting that a Black man or a Woman could only become President after the office of the President has been so debased. It's like sloppy seconds.
Oh...I see...so instead, we're just supposed to drop out and let the status quo conduct business as usual?
That's been just WONDERFUL the last eight years, no?
This wasn't an endorsement of the status quo.
"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple." John 2:15
The average white person would agree that the Big Business is fucked up but when Rev. Wright doesn't distinguish the difference between Big Business and "White People" it offends all those working class/poor whites.
Those poor/workin class Caucasoids still get "White Privlege" benefits before others though.
This reminds me of an Eddie Murphy SNL skit.
"That Silly Negro...."
Hatred/Schmatred on the Pastor's comments. Despite our progress theyre still Brothers and Sisters who think way more extreme than this Pastor.
Would the media have drummed this shit up if Geraldine didnt make her comments?
Would the media have drummed this shit up if Geraldine didnt make her comments?
That old (ageist) hag(sexist) did what she did on purpose. I would love to believe that this will backfire on Hillary, but being a White woman(racist), she will endure while Obama gets cast as "The Spook Who sat By the Door". Gotta love the Democrats, they sure know how to cut to the chase and throw an election.
I probably said this a few pages ago but just to repeat: how is Rev. Wright's comments any different from what people have been saying about racism in America for DECADES?
Isn't the main point of Barack's speech that while we shouldn't ignore the past, at some point we have to move forward and not dwell on the past?
It's also that the issues of the past have been kept behind closed doors for far too long and we can't truly move forward together as a nation until we begin to actually address them.
I probably said this a few pages ago but just to repeat: how is Rev. Wright's comments any different from what people have been saying about racism in America for DECADES?
Isn't the main point of Barack's speech that while we shouldn't ignore the past, at some point we have to move forward and not dwell on the past?
It's also that the issues of the past have been kept behind closed doors for far too long and we can't truly move forward together as a nation until we begin to actually address them.
I probably said this a few pages ago but just to repeat: how is Rev. Wright's comments any different from what people have been saying about racism in America for DECADES?
Isn't the main point of Barack's speech that while we shouldn't ignore the past, at some point we have to move forward and not dwell on the past?
It's also that the issues of the past have been kept behind closed doors for far too long and we can't truly move forward together as a nation until we begin to actually address them.
What's the best method, Evolution or Revolution?
I don't know the solution, but I do know that there has been more (informative) discourse on race in the last 24 hours than I can remember in my 27 years. I hope this just the beginning.
I probably said this a few pages ago but just to repeat: how is Rev. Wright's comments any different from what people have been saying about racism in America for DECADES?
Isn't the main point of Barack's speech that while we shouldn't ignore the past, at some point we have to move forward and not dwell on the past?
It's also that the issues of the past have been kept behind closed doors for far too long and we can't truly move forward together as a nation until we begin to actually address them.
I dont agree with this. Maybe the shit that Wright is espousing has been going on behind closed doors, but if you ask me, thats where it belongs. I think its preseumptuous for Obama to assume that Wright speaks for a majority of black people in this country (maybe its presumptuous of me to think that). I think the American public is willing to talk about race, but why do we have to do it on Wrights terms? Especially if he is a relic of a bygone age? Obama shows poor judgment in framing the issue of race around such a character. How can you be a uniter if the person you focus your race discussion around is so divisive.
I probably said this a few pages ago but just to repeat: how is Rev. Wright's comments any different from what people have been saying about racism in America for DECADES?
Isn't the main point of Barack's speech that while we shouldn't ignore the past, at some point we have to move forward and not dwell on the past?
It's also that the issues of the past have been kept behind closed doors for far too long and we can't truly move forward together as a nation until we begin to actually address them.
I dont agree with this. Maybe the shit that Wright is espousing has been going on behind closed doors, but if you ask me, thats where it belongs. I think its preseumptuous for Obama to assume that Wright speaks for a majority of black people in this country (maybe its presumptuous of me to think that). I think the American public is willing to talk about race, but why do we have to do it on Wrights terms? Especially if he is a relic of a bygone age? Obama shows poor judgment in framing the issue of race around such a character. How can you be a uniter if the person you focus your race discussion around is so divisive.
It sounds like you've forgotten that Obama is responding to people's criticisms of Wright...not bringing him to the forefront in the first place. Obama has gone virtually this entire campaign not focusing on race, at the risk of pigeonholing his bid for the presidency, but he was backed into a corner and had to speak the truth on it and from his experience.
I think the majority of Black people in American DO feel disenfranchised from the social, economic, and political processes in this country. It's unfortunate that Wright's comments are the entry point to this discussion, because they distort a very real feeling of the people he represents. Don???t let that point escape you.
Obama had no choice but to use this opportunity to show that his life has been about unifying people. I think he did that effectively yesterday.
obama was free to walk out of that church any time he wanted, and im sure there are any number of other churches doing meaningful social work that don't espound that kind of vitriol and that would have been glad to have him in the congregation.
I probably said this a few pages ago but just to repeat: how is Rev. Wright's comments any different from what people have been saying about racism in America for DECADES?
Isn't the main point of Barack's speech that while we shouldn't ignore the past, at some point we have to move forward and not dwell on the past?
It's also that the issues of the past have been kept behind closed doors for far too long and we can't truly move forward together as a nation until we begin to actually address them.
I dont agree with this. Maybe the shit that Wright is espousing has been going on behind closed doors, but if you ask me, thats where it belongs. I think its preseumptuous for Obama to assume that Wright speaks for a majority of black people in this country (maybe its presumptuous of me to think that). I think the American public is willing to talk about race, but why do we have to do it on Wrights terms? Especially if he is a relic of a bygone age? Obama shows poor judgment in framing the issue of race around such a character. How can you be a uniter if the person you focus your race discussion around is so divisive.
I would argue that his VIEWS are not as divisive as Obama and you and Rock seem to think they are, but rather the presentation is cynical and intentionally divisive. Obama can't win this fight, because the entire thing is a trap. He disowns his pastor, he's a disloyal, self-hating sell out. He stands TOO tall with the guy, he is "Angry", and his views "dangerous". Instead of feeling ashamed that he should have to play 3 levels over every other serious contender for a nomination, people insist he has been soft-peddled and coddled. SHAMEFUL SHIT. Tired, shameful, same old song and dance. We deserve what we get come November.
obama was free to walk out of that church any time he wanted, and im sure there are any number of other churches doing meaningful social work that don't espound that kind of vitriol and that would have been glad to have him in the congregation.
Boy, I hope every law firm and individual lawyer you have worked for has done nothing but good for the betterment of society just in case you ever want to move in certain circles. This is just more bullshit behind a bullshit lie in the first place, and you know it is. This scenario DEFINES the phrase "tempest in a teapot".
obama was free to walk out of that church any time he wanted, and im sure there are any number of other churches doing meaningful social work that don't espound that kind of vitriol and that would have been glad to have him in the congregation.
If everyone who diagreed with something their religious leader had to say left their church's congregation, it would be like a neighborhood game musical chairs.
So, Wright speaks his mind to his congregation that's Obama is a part of. It's his right to disagree and take what he wants from Wright's sermons without removing himself (given their 20 year relationship). I don't see how that's necessarily excercising bad judgement.
obama was free to walk out of that church any time he wanted, and im sure there are any number of other churches doing meaningful social work that don't espound that kind of vitriol and that would have been glad to have him in the congregation.
You know - I think what you're saying is probably what a lot of other people think to. But I also think many folks understand that preachers are given to saying some crazy ass shit sometimes and they live with it. I'm surprised there hasn't been more focus on who McCain and Clinton's "spiritual leaders" are. Or hell, "long time friends and the crazy shit they say." There's likely a lot of crazy shit to go around.
Back to the topic on hand: the question that's more important is which of those two groups are more likely to vote.
he cant win this fight because his opportunity to do the right thing has passed. that is the result of his poor judgment. Rather than try to justify Wright, why not say "hey, I know that what he says is wrong and inexcusable, but he aslo does good things too, I am trying to show him that he is wrong, and he is a friend that I am not prepared to give up on yet." Its that easy. Instead he first tried to say he was unaware of what was going on, then he tried to justify it because his grandmother crossed the street when she saw young black people.
I probably said this a few pages ago but just to repeat: how is Rev. Wright's comments any different from what people have been saying about racism in America for DECADES?
Isn't the main point of Barack's speech that while we shouldn't ignore the past, at some point we have to move forward and not dwell on the past?
It's also that the issues of the past have been kept behind closed doors for far too long and we can't truly move forward together as a nation until we begin to actually address them.
I dont agree with this. Maybe the shit that Wright is espousing has been going on behind closed doors, but if you ask me, thats where it belongs. I think its preseumptuous for Obama to assume that Wright speaks for a majority of black people in this country (maybe its presumptuous of me to think that). I think the American public is willing to talk about race, but why do we have to do it on Wrights terms? Especially if he is a relic of a bygone age? Obama shows poor judgment in framing the issue of race around such a character. How can you be a uniter if the person you focus your race discussion around is so divisive.
It sounds like you've forgotten that Obama is responding to people's criticisms of Wright...not bringing him to the forefront in the first place.
Actually, it sounds like he didn't bother to read/listen to the speech.
obama was free to walk out of that church any time he wanted, and im sure there are any number of other churches doing meaningful social work that don't espound that kind of vitriol and that would have been glad to have him in the congregation.
If everyone who diagreed with something their religious leader had to say left their church's congregation, it would be like a neighborhood game musical chairs.
So, Wright speaks his mind to his congregation that's Obama is a part of. It's his right to disagree and take what he wants from Wright's sermons without removing himself (given their 20 year relationship). I don't see how that's necessarily excercising bad judgement.
I probably said this a few pages ago but just to repeat: how is Rev. Wright's comments any different from what people have been saying about racism in America for DECADES?
Isn't the main point of Barack's speech that while we shouldn't ignore the past, at some point we have to move forward and not dwell on the past?
It's also that the issues of the past have been kept behind closed doors for far too long and we can't truly move forward together as a nation until we begin to actually address them.
I dont agree with this. Maybe the shit that Wright is espousing has been going on behind closed doors, but if you ask me, thats where it belongs. I think its preseumptuous for Obama to assume that Wright speaks for a majority of black people in this country (maybe its presumptuous of me to think that). I think the American public is willing to talk about race, but why do we have to do it on Wrights terms? Especially if he is a relic of a bygone age? Obama shows poor judgment in framing the issue of race around such a character. How can you be a uniter if the person you focus your race discussion around is so divisive.
It sounds like you've forgotten that Obama is responding to people's criticisms of Wright...not bringing him to the forefront in the first place.
Actually, it sounds like he didn't bother to read/listen to the speech.
Media coverage of the presidential campaign has lately been dominated by discussions of videotaped comments made by Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Pundits and reporters are questioning to what lengths Obama must go to distance himself from some of Wright's more controversial remarks. This is not the first time that the press has devoted significant time to raising questions about Obama's associations or connections with various public figures, but it is something the press seems far less interested in doing with John McCain.
One example is Chicago real-estate developer Tony Rezko, now on trial for bribery charges. Referring to Rezko, conservative columnist Robert Novak reported on March 3 that "Sen. Hillary Clinton's operatives have tried frantically, but not effectively, to interest U.S. news media outside Chicago in Obama's possible connection with his home state's latest major scandal." But if media aren't interested in Senator Obama's relationship to Rezko, one would hate to see what interest would look like.
A search of U.S. newspapers and wires in the Nexis news database turned up 946 stories containing "Obama" and "Rezko" between January 1 and March 14, 2008. This in a matter where, as blogger Glenn Greenwald pointed out (Salon, 3/5/08), not only is there "no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama...there aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all."With Obama, simply being connected to a person with what Time columnist Joe Klein called (3/6/08) a "suspicious visage" (is that code for "Syrian-born"?) merits being mentioned over and over again.
By contrast, when Republican presidential candidate John McCain was accused of doing political favors for a lobbyist, Vicki Iseman (New York Times, 2/21/08), the controversy generated only 352 stories in the same Nexis file over the same time period--and many of these stories focused on criticism of the New York Times for invading McCain's private life.
Likewise, both Obama and McCain have been endorsed by religious figures with a history of intolerant statements--Obama by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who called Judaism a "gutter religion," and McCain by John Hagee, who has called Roman Catholicism a "false cult system," an "apostate church" and a "great whore." Hagee has also stated (NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06) that the Quran mandates Muslims to kill Christians and Jews, and has blamed Hurricane Katrina on a New Orleans gay pride parade. So far this year, U.S. media have found Farrakhan's Obama endorsement much more interesting than Hagee's McCain endorsement: The Nexis file had 478 stories on Obama and Farrakhan, 123 on McCain and Hagee.
Obama was grilled over the issue by MSNBC moderator Tim Russert at the February 26 Democratic debate, even after the senator stated that he denounced Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments as "unacceptable and reprehensible," "did not solicit this support" and gave assurances that his campaign was "not doing anything, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan." In response to Obama's clear denunciation of Farrakhan, Russert nevertheless pressed on, reiterating Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments and asking whether Obama was "in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness." Only after Obama declared "if the word 'reject'... is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce," did Russert drop the issue. Even then, MSNBC either aired or discussed the exchange at least nine different times occasions the day after the debate (Media Matters, 2/28/08).
Other media pundits showed great interest in exactly how Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan. The distinction between "denunciation" and "rejection" was taken up that weekend in the New York Times (3/2/08). The L.A. Times (2/27/08) referred to Obama as having "hedged about whether he would reject his support." The exchange was dubbed Obama's "worst moment" of the February 26 debate (Newsday, 3/3/08). And according to Joe Klein (Time, 3/6/08), Obama's repeated denunciations of Farrakhan's anti-Semitism constituted unacceptable "political word games" the candidate allegedly "played before rejecting the support of the bigot Louis Farrakhan."
On the other hand, McCain actively solicited Hagee's support, and did not initially repudiate Hagee's intolerant remarks. On February 29, McCain stated that Hagee "supports what I stand for and believe in." He added that he was "proud" of Hagee's spiritual leadership. Yet the media response to McCain's enthusiastic embrace of Hagee's endorsement was considerably more favorable than it had been in the case of Obama's repudiation of Farrakhan's endorsement. A brief Washington Post news article (2/28/08) about the endorsement failed to note that Hagee was even a controversial figure, merely noting that "Hagee's endorsement could be of particular help to McCain in Texas, where the Arizona senator will face former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on Tuesday."
The comparability of the two controversial endorsements was acknowledged in some media reports. CNN host Wolf Blitzer (3/2/08) asked the obvious question when he stated, "Should John McCain repudiate and reject the comments, the support from John Hagee, just as Barack Obama has done that with the Rev. Louis Farrakhan?" Yet for most of the media, the answer seemed to be no.
In contrast to Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama's campaign, the endorsement of McCain by a religious figure with a history of intolerant statements was framed as a matter of complex political strategy, rather than a moral outrage. As NPR's Scott Horsley put it (Morning Edition, 3/1/08), the endorsement was a "mixed blessing": "The episode underscores the fine line McCain is walking as he tries to reach out to social conservatives without losing the moderates and independent voters who fueled his campaign so far."
CNN news correspondent Brian Todd introduced a segment (3/1/08) about the Hagee endorsement by saying, "On the surface, it seemed like a much-needed conservative endorsement for John McCain." Commenting on McCain's initial failure to reject Hagee's endorsement, Todd continued, "Analysts say that may not move the ball far enough with Catholic voters in key states like Pennsylvania and Ohio." CNN's Bill Schneider commented that "if John McCain is saying or accepting an endorsement that is offensive to Catholics and doesn't repudiate it, he risks alienating a crucial swing group."
Meanwhile, CNN commentator Bill Bennett (3/3/08) urged McCain to "denounce the statements that deserve denunciation. But, understand, the guy's career and his work and his ministry has done a lot of good." This is not an approach pundits urged Obama to take with respect to Farrakhan.
When McCain finally responded (3/7/08) to the pressure from Catholic groups by saying (Boston Globe, 3/8/08) that he "categorically reject[ed] and repudiate[d] any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic"--without saying that he regretted soliciting Hagee's support--the issue of Hagee's endorsement was more or less dropped by the media, in a way that Obama's alleged initial "equivocation" was not. Unlike Obama, McCain was allowed to denounce his endorser's comments and not reject his support.
As Deborah Douglas wrote (Chicago Sun Times, 2/29/08), this double standard is part of a long-standing pattern that posits "the renunciation of Farrakhan as a litmus test for black leaders." Indeed, the media's calls for Obama to dissociate himself from Farrakhan began even before the controversial minister endorsed the candidate. In a January 15 column headlined "Obama's Farrakhan Test," Washington Post columnist Richard
Cohen was already talking about Obama's "obligation to speak out" on Farrakhan.
But media's inclination to hold Obama to a different standard from McCain seems to cut across many issue areas. Obama was criticized for supposedly going back on a pledge to accept public financing for his campaign, even though what he had actually promised to do if he became the nominee (which he so far is not) was negotiate an agreement to accept public financing with his Republican opponent--an agreement that would take into account the possibility of outside spending on the race. The L.A. Times inaccurately reported (2/27/08) that Obama "agreed last year to accept public financing--and the attendant spending limits," but now "seem[ed] to be waffling."
In contrast, McCain, who actually had accepted public financing for his primary campaign before deciding that he would be better off with unlimited fundraising, has gotten little criticism for this questionably legal maneuver (Washington Wire, 2/26/08). A New York Times story (2/28/08) seemed to acknowledge that Obama was getting more criticism on this issue than McCain was. In an attempt at an explanation, reporter David D. Kirkpatrick explained, "The issue may be more sensitive for Mr. Obama, though, because [he] has run in part on his record as an advocate of stricter government integrity rules, including the public financing system."
It would surely be difficult for the New York Times to explain why it feels that John McCain is not running in part on his reputation as a campaign-finance reformer. But perhaps it would be harder to admit that the corporate media just has a bias for McCain.
Comments
The blow-out over this is mostly a reminder of how ahistorical American society (or at least, its pundits) are - or pretend to be.
But whatever - it's presidential electoral politics and any small issue can get amplified in the media echo chamber for the sake of filling a news cycle.
I get the sense pundits were just drooling over the possibility to tag a racial issue on Obama after months of him being touted as the "post-race" candidate and Wright - however tenuously - gave people the opening to paint Obama as some modern day Black Panther.
Kucinich could have written a line like that and run for office too....like Carlin, he would just never have a prayer to win.
Oh...I see...so instead, we're just supposed to drop out and let the status quo conduct business as usual?
That's been just WONDERFUL the last eight years, no?
Those poor/workin class Caucasoids still get "White Privlege" benefits before others though.
"I AM HERE BECAUSE OF ASHLEY."
Isn't the main point of Barack's speech that while we shouldn't ignore the past, at some point we have to move forward and not dwell on the past?
Do you think he said it because he believes it, or because that's what the voting public wanted to hear?
I hope it's not the latter.
I'm of the mind that if a president can fuck up the country, one can do an eensie-weensie bit to helping fix it. I don't presume, at all, that an Obama election would suddenly fix racism. But I do think it creates the *possibility* (assuming what the composition of Congress will look like) that his administration could institute some better public policy than we've seen in a minute.
This reminds me of an Eddie Murphy SNL skit.
Oh, no doubt, no doubt.
This wasn't an endorsement of the status quo.
"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple." John 2:15
Shout out to Jeremiah Wright.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
"That Silly Negro...."
Hatred/Schmatred on the Pastor's comments. Despite our progress theyre still Brothers and Sisters who think way more extreme than this Pastor.
Would the media have drummed this shit up if Geraldine didnt make her comments?
Shit is mad old.
That old (ageist) hag(sexist) did what she did on purpose. I would love to believe that this will backfire on Hillary, but being a White woman(racist), she will endure while Obama gets cast as "The Spook Who sat By the Door". Gotta love the Democrats, they sure know how to cut to the chase and throw an election.
It's also that the issues of the past have been kept behind closed doors for far too long and we can't truly move forward together as a nation until we begin to actually address them.
What's the best method, Evolution or Revolution?
I don't know the solution, but I do know that there has been more (informative) discourse on race in the last 24 hours than I can remember in my 27 years. I hope this just the beginning.
I dont agree with this. Maybe the shit that Wright is espousing has been going on behind closed doors, but if you ask me, thats where it belongs. I think its preseumptuous for Obama to assume that Wright speaks for a majority of black people in this country (maybe its presumptuous of me to think that). I think the American public is willing to talk about race, but why do we have to do it on Wrights terms? Especially if he is a relic of a bygone age? Obama shows poor judgment in framing the issue of race around such a character. How can you be a uniter if the person you focus your race discussion around is so divisive.
It sounds like you've forgotten that Obama is responding to people's criticisms of Wright...not bringing him to the forefront in the first place. Obama has gone virtually this entire campaign not focusing on race, at the risk of pigeonholing his bid for the presidency, but he was backed into a corner and had to speak the truth on it and from his experience.
I think the majority of Black people in American DO feel disenfranchised from the social, economic, and political processes in this country. It's unfortunate that Wright's comments are the entry point to this discussion, because they distort a very real feeling of the people he represents. Don???t let that point escape you.
Obama had no choice but to use this opportunity to show that his life has been about unifying people. I think he did that effectively yesterday.
I would argue that his VIEWS are not as divisive as Obama and you and Rock seem to think they are, but rather the presentation is cynical and intentionally divisive. Obama can't win this fight, because the entire thing is a trap. He disowns his pastor, he's a disloyal, self-hating sell out. He stands TOO tall with the guy, he is "Angry", and his views "dangerous". Instead of feeling ashamed that he should have to play 3 levels over every other serious contender for a nomination, people insist he has been soft-peddled and coddled. SHAMEFUL SHIT. Tired, shameful, same old song and dance. We deserve what we get come November.
Boy, I hope every law firm and individual lawyer you have worked for has done nothing but good for the betterment of society just in case you ever want to move in certain circles. This is just more bullshit behind a bullshit lie in the first place, and you know it is. This scenario DEFINES the phrase "tempest in a teapot".
If everyone who diagreed with something their religious leader had to say left their church's congregation, it would be like a neighborhood game musical chairs.
So, Wright speaks his mind to his congregation that's Obama is a part of. It's his right to disagree and take what he wants from Wright's sermons without removing himself (given their 20 year relationship). I don't see how that's necessarily excercising bad judgement.
You know - I think what you're saying is probably what a lot of other people think to. But I also think many folks understand that preachers are given to saying some crazy ass shit sometimes and they live with it. I'm surprised there hasn't been more focus on who McCain and Clinton's "spiritual leaders" are. Or hell, "long time friends and the crazy shit they say." There's likely a lot of crazy shit to go around.
Back to the topic on hand: the question that's more important is which of those two groups are more likely to vote.
Actually, it sounds like he didn't bother to read/listen to the speech.
Howard Dean left his church over a bike path.
i did both.
Media Advisory
Media Hold McCain, Obama to Different Standards
3/14/08
Media coverage of the presidential campaign has lately been dominated by discussions of videotaped comments made by Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Pundits and reporters are questioning to what lengths Obama must go to distance himself from some of Wright's more controversial remarks. This is not the first time that the press has devoted significant time to raising questions about Obama's associations or connections with various public figures, but it is something the press seems far less interested in doing with John McCain.
One example is Chicago real-estate developer Tony Rezko, now on trial for bribery charges. Referring to Rezko, conservative columnist Robert Novak reported on March 3 that "Sen. Hillary Clinton's operatives have tried frantically, but not effectively, to interest U.S. news media outside Chicago in Obama's possible connection with his home state's latest major scandal." But if media aren't interested in Senator Obama's relationship to Rezko, one would hate to see what interest would look like.
A search of U.S. newspapers and wires in the Nexis news database turned up 946 stories containing "Obama" and "Rezko" between January 1 and March 14, 2008. This in a matter where, as blogger Glenn Greenwald pointed out (Salon, 3/5/08), not only is there "no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama...there aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all."With Obama, simply being connected to a person with what Time columnist Joe Klein called (3/6/08) a "suspicious visage" (is that code for "Syrian-born"?) merits being mentioned over and over again.
By contrast, when Republican presidential candidate John McCain was accused of doing political favors for a lobbyist, Vicki Iseman (New York Times, 2/21/08), the controversy generated only 352 stories in the same Nexis file over the same time period--and many of these stories focused on criticism of the New York Times for invading McCain's private life.
Likewise, both Obama and McCain have been endorsed by religious figures with a history of intolerant statements--Obama by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who called Judaism a "gutter religion," and McCain by John Hagee, who has called Roman Catholicism a "false cult system," an "apostate church" and a "great whore." Hagee has also stated (NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06) that the Quran mandates Muslims to kill Christians and Jews, and has blamed Hurricane Katrina on a New Orleans gay pride parade. So far this year, U.S. media have found Farrakhan's Obama endorsement much more interesting than Hagee's McCain endorsement: The Nexis file had 478 stories on Obama and Farrakhan, 123 on McCain and Hagee.
Obama was grilled over the issue by MSNBC moderator Tim Russert at the February 26 Democratic debate, even after the senator stated that he denounced Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments as "unacceptable and reprehensible," "did not solicit this support" and gave assurances that his campaign was "not doing anything, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan." In response to Obama's clear denunciation of Farrakhan, Russert nevertheless pressed on, reiterating Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments and asking whether Obama was "in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness." Only after Obama declared "if the word 'reject'... is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce," did Russert drop the issue. Even then, MSNBC either aired or discussed the exchange at least nine different times occasions the day after the debate (Media Matters, 2/28/08).
Other media pundits showed great interest in exactly how Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan. The distinction between "denunciation" and "rejection" was taken up that weekend in the New York Times (3/2/08). The L.A. Times (2/27/08) referred to Obama as having "hedged about whether he would reject his support." The exchange was dubbed Obama's "worst moment" of the February 26 debate (Newsday, 3/3/08). And according to Joe Klein (Time, 3/6/08), Obama's repeated denunciations of Farrakhan's anti-Semitism constituted unacceptable "political word games" the candidate allegedly "played before rejecting the support of the bigot Louis Farrakhan."
On the other hand, McCain actively solicited Hagee's support, and did not initially repudiate Hagee's intolerant remarks. On February 29, McCain stated that Hagee "supports what I stand for and believe in." He added that he was "proud" of Hagee's spiritual leadership. Yet the media response to McCain's enthusiastic embrace of Hagee's endorsement was considerably more favorable than it had been in the case of Obama's repudiation of Farrakhan's endorsement. A brief Washington Post news article (2/28/08) about the endorsement failed to note that Hagee was even a controversial figure, merely noting that "Hagee's endorsement could be of particular help to McCain in Texas, where the Arizona senator will face former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on Tuesday."
The comparability of the two controversial endorsements was acknowledged in some media reports. CNN host Wolf Blitzer (3/2/08) asked the obvious question when he stated, "Should John McCain repudiate and reject the comments, the support from John Hagee, just as Barack Obama has done that with the Rev. Louis Farrakhan?" Yet for most of the media, the answer seemed to be no.
In contrast to Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama's campaign, the endorsement of McCain by a religious figure with a history of intolerant statements was framed as a matter of complex political strategy, rather than a moral outrage. As NPR's Scott Horsley put it (Morning Edition, 3/1/08), the endorsement was a "mixed blessing": "The episode underscores the fine line McCain is walking as he tries to reach out to social conservatives without losing the moderates and independent voters who fueled his campaign so far."
CNN news correspondent Brian Todd introduced a segment (3/1/08) about the Hagee endorsement by saying, "On the surface, it seemed like a much-needed conservative endorsement for John McCain." Commenting on McCain's initial failure to reject Hagee's endorsement, Todd continued, "Analysts say that may not move the ball far enough with Catholic voters in key states like Pennsylvania and Ohio." CNN's Bill Schneider commented that "if John McCain is saying or accepting an endorsement that is offensive to Catholics and doesn't repudiate it, he risks alienating a crucial swing group."
Meanwhile, CNN commentator Bill Bennett (3/3/08) urged McCain to "denounce the statements that deserve denunciation. But, understand, the guy's career and his work and his ministry has done a lot of good." This is not an approach pundits urged Obama to take with respect to Farrakhan.
When McCain finally responded (3/7/08) to the pressure from Catholic groups by saying (Boston Globe, 3/8/08) that he "categorically reject[ed] and repudiate[d] any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic"--without saying that he regretted soliciting Hagee's support--the issue of Hagee's endorsement was more or less dropped by the media, in a way that Obama's alleged initial "equivocation" was not. Unlike Obama, McCain was allowed to denounce his endorser's comments and not reject his support.
As Deborah Douglas wrote (Chicago Sun Times, 2/29/08), this double standard is part of a long-standing pattern that posits "the renunciation of Farrakhan as a litmus test for black leaders." Indeed, the media's calls for Obama to dissociate himself from Farrakhan began even before the controversial minister endorsed the candidate. In a January 15 column headlined "Obama's Farrakhan Test," Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen was already talking about Obama's "obligation to speak out" on Farrakhan.
But media's inclination to hold Obama to a different standard from McCain seems to cut across many issue areas. Obama was criticized for supposedly going back on a pledge to accept public financing for his campaign, even though what he had actually promised to do if he became the nominee (which he so far is not) was negotiate an agreement to accept public financing with his Republican opponent--an agreement that would take into account the possibility of outside spending on the race. The L.A. Times inaccurately reported (2/27/08) that Obama "agreed last year to accept public financing--and the attendant spending limits," but now "seem[ed] to be waffling."
In contrast, McCain, who actually had accepted public financing for his primary campaign before deciding that he would be better off with unlimited fundraising, has gotten little criticism for this questionably legal maneuver (Washington Wire, 2/26/08). A New York Times story (2/28/08) seemed to acknowledge that Obama was getting more criticism on this issue than McCain was. In an attempt at an explanation, reporter David D. Kirkpatrick explained, "The issue may be more sensitive for Mr. Obama, though, because [he] has run in part on his record as an advocate of stricter government integrity rules, including the public financing system."
It would surely be difficult for the New York Times to explain why it feels that John McCain is not running in part on his reputation as a campaign-finance reformer. But perhaps it would be harder to admit that the corporate media just has a bias for McCain.