quote:

---

In a sermon on the Sunday after the attacks of 11 September 2001, [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright told his congregation: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards.

"America's chickens are coming home to roost."

In a 2003 sermon, Mr Wright said blacks should condemn the US.

"God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human", he said. [...]

[Barack Obama] said the 2001 comments, which have resurfaced on the web, were "completely inexcusable". [...]

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," he wrote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Obama - my hero - Captain America!

---

quote:

---

Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian

---

Today:

quote:

---

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies."

---

I would respectfully request that progressive people stop treating this asshole as if there is a fundamental difference between him, Rodham, and McCain.

quote:

---

Barack Obama's middle name is not Mohammed.

---

No, my disappointment is with some Canadian progressives that believe, and promote, that an Obama (or Rodham) administration would be less bellicose than a McCain one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
Why the indigence and disappointment?
Whether true or not, can anyone here actually imagine ANY politician would have even the faintest chance of getting elected US president without repudiating that statement?

---

quote:

---

Without weighing in on whether or not the content of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's sermons should be denounced by Barack Obama, I do find one aspect of this story quite troubling. We have now seen more sermons from Barack Obama's minister in 48 hours than we ever did of Mike Huckabee ---- and Mike Huckabee was a presidential candidate for 14 long months. Why is it acceptable to scour every last sermon given by Wright, but only weeks ago we weren't allowed to see or read Mike Huckabee's sermons? In fact, not only was it totally ignored by the traditional media, but the few times the question of Huckabee's sermons was raised, it was brushed aside as inappropriate.

Why the hypocrisy? After all, Mike Huckabee was an evangelical Southern Baptist minister who's entire campaign was based on the fact that he was the Christian candidate. Are we to believe that he didn't rail against the US government over abortion in previous sermons? Or homosexuality? We know what he had to say about AIDS victims. I don't imagine one gets to be the be president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention without passionate fire and brimstone sermons as part of his repertoire.

---

Now he gives it to the chin of his friend and mentor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
unionist please provide a link for your article's source.

---

Sorry mary123, I totally forgot - but martin has retrieved it.

There's a much more detailed account which includes the same material and more here

Rev. Wright's 9/11 remarks are strongly reminiscent of Sunera Thobani, who got trounced on at the time even by some progressives. Here's a more complete quote:

quote:

---

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

---

And here was Obama's reply:

quote:

---

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," Obama said in his blog posting. "I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue."

---

Shame.

ETA: I can't find Prof. Thobani's original speech where she spoke of U.S foreign policy as being "soaked in blood", but Rabble reprinted a speech given Oct. 24, 2001 where she responds to the media frenzy against her original comments. It's well worth re-reading IMO.

[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

[ 15 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
Malcolm X got kicked out of the Black Muslims for saying Kennedy's death was "chickens coming home to roost"
.

---

quote:

---

Writing after his break from the Nation of Islam, Malcolm said in the Autobiography that one reason for the separation was growing tension between him and Elijah Muhammad that arose from Malcolm's dismay at rumors of Muhammad's extramarital affairs with young secretaries. These rumors troubled Malcolm because the Nation of Islam condemns adultery. At first Malcolm brushed these rumors aside. Later, he spoke with Elijah Muhammad's son and the women making the accusations and he came to believe them. According to the Autobiography, in 1963 Elijah Muhammad confirmed the rumors to Malcolm. Muhammad justified his actions by saying they followed a pattern established by Biblical prophets.

When asked for a comment about the assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm said that it was a case of "the chickens coming home to roost." He added that "Chickens coming home to roost never made me sad. It only made me glad." This remark prompted a widespread public outcry. The Nation of Islam publicly censured their former shining star. Although Malcolm retained his post and rank as minister, Elijah Muhammad banned him from public speaking for 90 days.

Malcolm publicly announced his break from the Nation of Islam on March 8, 1964. He founded the Muslim Mosque, Inc. four days later. Malcolm stayed close to some of the teachings of the Nation of Islam but began modifying them. He explicitly advocated political and economic black nationalism, as opposed to the Nation of Islam's religious nationalism. In April, he made a speech titled "The Ballot or the Bullet." Malcolm was in contact with several orthodox Muslims, who encouraged him to learn about orthodox Islam. He soon converted to orthodox Islam, and decided to make his pilgrimage to Mecca.

---

quote:

---

No, my disappointment is with some Canadian progressives that believe, and promote, that an Obama (or Rodham) administration would be less bellicose than a McCain one.

---

And we wouldn't have wanted to dissapoint you unionist.

And those puppet strings we don't see, they are really chains holding all True Progressives back.

It's like contrarianna said. No brainer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
Why the indigence and disappointment?
Whether true or not, can anyone here actually imagine ANY politician would have even the faintest chance of getting elected US president without repudiating that statement?

---

Sad, but true. Wright was right, but the right would kill Obama in the media and in TV ads if h did not distance himself from.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

And we wouldn't have wanted to dissapoint you unionist.

And those puppet strings we don't see, they are really chains holding all True Progressives back.

It's like contrarianna said. No brainer.

[as in stupid, deluded.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Sad, but true. Wright was right, but the right would kill Obama in the media and in TV ads if h did not distance himself from.

Patriotic correctness has now moved from the political and media arenas into the pulpit.

---

How do you think that's going to turn around, josh? Or have you just completely given up any hope that it ever will?

Do you think any Democrat will ever have enough courage to actually speak the truth as they see it? Republicans have no problem with speaking the truth as they see it, no matter how politically incorrect and repugnant. And a lot of Americans at least respect them for being honest about their point of view.

There are a hell of a lot of Americans who DO believe what that pastor said. YOU believe it. That pastor's congregation likely believes it. Millions of Michael Moore fans believe it. A lot of people could be swayed if anyone could show some leadership and just SAY it, and to hell with what the idiots on FOX News say about it.

I would no more support someone who shouts publicly, "I am not and never have been Muslim", than someone who shouts "I am not and never have been a Jew, nor do I have any Jewish blood going back at least three generations"...

Obama speaks vaguely on questions of substance - such as exactly at what date and hour he will withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq after his inauguration (don't hold your breath... he will be like Nancy Pelosi).

But on pandering to the fascists, he is very very very clear.

The assumption by some seems to be that you have to pander in order to get elected, but once in power the pandering is over. Really.

In the context of US presidential campaign hoopla it is likely that many people will take leave of their senses. At least in their public utterances.

Has anybody on this board posted anything that asserts Obama is not squarely ensconced in the American political system? I certainly have not read every post on the subject, so I sit (I'm typing after all) to be corrected.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Has anybody on this board posted anything that asserts Obama is not squarely ensconced in the American political system? I certainly have not read every post on the subject, so I sit (I'm typing after all) to be corrected.

---

I haven't read every word either, but I've seen lots here to indicate illusions about Obama. For example:

quote:

---

Change in healthcare, change in foreign affairs, change in war, change in women and minority and lesbian/gay rights, change in taxing, change in free trade, change in attitude to world, change in patriot act... LOTS of change.

---

quote:

---

But I think that at least offering the change of competence, albeit tepidly progressive competence and sanity is a pretty big difference from what the Republicans have been offering.

---

quote:

---

His lack of explicit clarity could be inexperience, but nonetheless, this tactical error doesn't discount the fact that he's a better candidate, with far more potential to deliver progressive change, than Hillary Clinton.

---

quote:

---

That Obama sounded naive may be a plus since it means that there is still hope for him 8 years from now when he could be a much different President than he would be if elected now.

---

quote:

---

He'll represent an attempt to return to a traditional American foreign policy of self-interested feel-good liberalism. Which one cannot deny is an improvement on what drives US policy now. That being said, I don't know that he could actually change the US's perception in the world.

---

And here:

quote:

---

Obama's transformational potential exists because he allows whites to vote for him without threatening the status quo very much. The Tiger Woods set is comfortable with Obama.

Still, his capacity to alter forever the racial dynamic in the US is an important point in his favour.

---

And here:

quote:

---

Obama, however, is a truly inspirational figure and has the capability of being a transformative figure who can shift public support towards the "left" on some key issues.

---

quote:

---

I don't know how this will all play out, and I have no more faith in Obama to be genuinely progressive than I do in Clinton. But there's a space there that he opens up that is outside of the traditional power centres of American politics. And if he can keep this coalition from fragmenting too badly, he might be able to introduce measures (both left and right) that would have been unthinkably partisan in previous administrations (the current Ideologue-in-Chief excepted, of course).

---

quote:

---

Whether he's more liberal than Clinton or not, he'll have far more latitude to reform the country than Clinton ever would get.

---

jrootham, several of the above are from posters whose views I always respect and often concur with. It shows the incredible power of media propaganda that progressives see distinctions which are largely manufactured.

I guess I should present my own views too - let me repeat what I said in that last thread:

quote:

---

I see very little to choose between Rodham and Barack. I believe either one of them would be really really good. Surely both would see the injustice of the Free Trade Agreement and rectify past sins against Canada. Surely either would instantly cancel the almost half-century embargo against Cuba and normalize relations. They would not only shut down Gitmo tout de suite, but offer their support for an International Criminal Court which could hear charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

And whichever becomes president, we could be assured of four years of peace.

I personally prefer Rodham, because of her solid record of fighting for universal public health care, despite all the odds against her (namely, living in the White House for only 8 years).

But Barack could be good too. He has shown tremendous personal courage by overcoming his humble and oppressed origins to now sympathize with the oppressors of the Palestinian people. Think that's easy? Just try walking a mile in those shoes, bud.

Of course, I think American would be in safe hands with McCain's frozen foods as well, but I'm still with Fraudham Rodham because of that, oh, I dunno, that je ne sais quoi, you know, whatever.

God bless America!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Do you think any Democrat will ever have enough courage to actually speak the truth as they see it?

There are a hell of a lot of Americans who DO believe what that pastor said.

---

Well, it's depressing but I think the Democrats are speaking the truth as they see it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
The "Change .." and "truly inspirational figure" are over the top, but if that's all you have to complain about in this context your expectations are a little out of whack.

---

You're missing my point or I'm not making it well.

Obama and Rodham will be just as likely (if not more so) to invade Pakistan or Iran as McCain would be.

As Kennedy and Johnson were in Southeast Asia or Cuba, for that matter. And it was Nixon, not his predecessors, who relaxed the Cold War with the Soviets and China. Bush Sr. bombed Baghdad. Clinton bombed Belgrade while starving Iraq for 8 years.

Barack and Rodham will not introduce universal health care one instant sooner than a Republican would.

They will be no more "liberal" on human rights issues than McCain either.

When you, jrootham, speak of the "lesser of evils", you are propagating the same mythology. I'm not looking for a socialist Saviour. I'm looking for a mere substantive difference - not one of empty rhetoric.

It's implausible that any media-tolerated presidential candidate would reject the US's long tradition of hegemony, and yet it is also implausible, to me at least, that it makes ZERO difference who that president is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
It's even possible that Gore would have have had a Paul Wolfowitz constitute an Office of Special Plans to go to extraordinary measures to manufacture reasons, evidence and hysteria for invading and occupying Iraq. It's possible, call me naive but I doubt it.

---

You are naive.

I'm not speculating about the future. Check out the actions of presidents since WWII, and tell me which ones were not bellicose. Then try to find me a correlation between Republican-war and Democrat-peace.

And don't ignore what I said about Pelosi and Democratic control of the House, which was supposed to end the war in Iraq.

Are we only allowed to expose and ridicule illusions after the fact??

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You are naive.

I'm not speculating about the future. Check out the actions of presidents since WWII, and tell me which ones were not bellicose. Then try to find me a correlation between Republican-war and Democrat-peace.

And don't ignore what I said about Pelosi and Democratic control of the House, which was supposed to end the war in Iraq.

Are we only allowed to expose and ridicule illusions after the fact??

Have a good look. The past is a predictor of the future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
Did I even mention parties as a determining factor?

---

No, you mentioned Gore, whose administration carried on the embargo of Cuba, bombed Belgrade, bombed Khartoum, bombed Afghanistan, and killed countless Iraqi children through blockade. I'm sure I've forgotten a few of his accomplishments.

What business do you have predicting that he wouldn't have done far more savage things than GWB after 9/11?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Most of those quotes are perfectly reasonable if you assume that a little bit is far greater than almost none.

The "Change .." and "truly inspirational figure" are over the top, but if that's all you have to complain about in this context your expectations are a little out of whack.

---

Thanks for being the voice of reason.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unionist: I haven't read every word either, but I've seen lots here to indicate illusions about Obama. For example:

---

Then you go and list a bunch of quotes, including a few of mine and then say:

quote:

---

jrootham, several of the above are from posters whose views I always respect and often concur with. It shows the incredible power of media propaganda that progressives see distinctions which are largely manufactured.

---

Okay, first off, I don't see how any of those are illusions. I happen to think they're all examples of substantive difference. They're all rather tempered praise. And yeah, I happen to believe that there's a difference between Obama and McCain, and even Clinton and McCain...I for one would be a bit worried with McCain's finger on the button, to start with. But that's a different discussion altogether.

Secondly, my quotes recognize the fact that Obama, like any mainstream politician has to work within the framework of how American politics, as damaged as they may seem to be to the rest of the world.

Thirdly, maybe you don't get it but if you understood your American history better you'd realize that they aren't clamouring for revolutionary statements and actions and never really were either. (I for one don't count 1776, since it was a classical liberal revolution - maybe the civil war counts and the civil rights movement, to an extent, but still they were somewhat albeit more reform liberal as well. Only Malcolm X could be considered radical, and thus worthy of passing your ideological purity test, even though people who followed his ideology never posed a serious threat to the government.) Oh but wait, you didn't say you wanted a socialist alternative, oh so I guess...hmmm

But ahh, what Wright said was somewhat revolutionary - I mean that in the most literal of senses, at least in a philosophical and maybe psychological sense. Americans, the ones with some power anyways (ie: mainstream white ones) - so not the left fringe, not oppressed minorities, so not his parishioners, don't see themselves as the bad guys. Wright was saying that yeah, sorry, you guys are. So the current response where the media and Obama's opponents, and Obama himself, pile on the comments isn't really surprising. And no, I don't attribute them to "fascism" or some other cliched and rather tiresome leftist "analysis" of the response they provoked. Of course you'll just say Obama will say he's white if it would improve his electoral chances, but that's just ridiculous of course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

How do you think that's going to turn around, josh? Or have you just completely given up any hope that it ever will?

Do you think any Democrat will ever have enough courage to actually speak the truth as they see it? Republicans have no problem with speaking the truth as they see it, no matter how politically incorrect and repugnant. And a lot of Americans at least respect them for being honest about their point of view.

There are a hell of a lot of Americans who DO believe what that pastor said. YOU believe it. That pastor's congregation likely believes it. Millions of Michael Moore fans believe it. A lot of people could be swayed if anyone could show some leadership and just SAY it, and to hell with what the idiots on FOX News say about it.

Heaven forbid anyone should be forced to hear a point of view that shows empathy rather than pathologically narcissistic patriotism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
And while obviously I'm boiling all of this down to electoral concerns, that's the business these people are in. Even someone like Obama, who is inspirational to some, is still a "politician" in the sense of the word.

---

I see.

That's why when he shouts that he will re-negotiate NAFTA, but privately lets on that that's a pile of crap just designed to fool the voters.

And that's also why he gets very very very upset when someone reveals his real opinions instead of his manufactured ones.

Your view, VK, appears that it's ok for a politician (especially in candidate mode) to pander to U.S. chauvinism and aggression and racism, because his "job" is to get elected.

Edit:

Sorry, that's a little snarky, but only a little.

Unionist, you have demonstrated an affinity for absolutism in various subjects when posting on this board. To be classically paradoxical absolutism is absolutely bad.

Don't expect much from a presidential campaign. Support the work on the state level and the democratic primaries Like this.

[ 17 March 2008: Message edited by: jrootham ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
And your alternative is?

---

Glad you asked.

In a horrific country like the U.S., the alternative is only to support presidential candidates that you can convincingly argue will be better than the alternative.

It's one thing to say they are "lesser evils". It's another to actually lend credence to such incredible beliefs that Obama is more likely to avoid foreign wars than McCain - without proof, that is.

For the rest, the necessary work is at the base - both in real life movements, and (as you suggest) electorally.

As for my "absolutist" opinions, that's a very relative comment. Some people, for example, accept that U.S. domination of the world is a reality which will be with us for a long time. They situate their comments and actions within that overarching premise. They are not called "absolutist", are they? And yet, not only are they absolutist (in the prejudicial partisan sense in which you misuse the term), but they happen to be wrong, based on historical probabilities.

As for me, I work in relativities every day of my life - compromises, retreats, alliances, partnerships - in the union. I do the same as a voter - not like the countless "absolutists" on this board who confide their vote with a single party, no matter what egregious behaviour that party may engage in, with an uncritical quasi-religious fervour that beggars description.

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
It's certainly possible someone like Obama (who actually voted against the Iraq war during the height of war hystera) could make such a mistake where McCain wouldn't

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Clearly the Democrats support American hegemony. The current administration is spectacularly stupid about how it goes about that. The expectation is that the Democrats will be smarter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

No, you mentioned Gore, whose administration carried on the embargo of Cuba, bombed Belgrade, bombed Khartoum, bombed Afghanistan, and killed countless Iraqi children through blockade. I'm sure I've forgotten a few of his accomplishments.

What business do you have predicting that he wouldn't have done far more savage things than GWB after 9/11?

That's why I deal in history. Is the above recent enough history for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:

As for Gore: Do I have proof Gore wouldn't have brought in Dick Cheney and Wolfowitz to ratchet up an aggressive foreign policy? No I don't, it is just an opinion.

---

You said Obama voted against war in Iraq.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You said Obama voted against war in Iraq.

You also didn't comment on the Clinton-Gore administration activities that I mentioned.

---

1)Obama did vote against funding for the war in 2007, but I, in error, conflated this with his on record opposition to the war
at the beginning when he wasn't even a senator yet.

2) Your comments on the Clinton-Gore administration atrocities are obvious and correct, there is nothing to dispute about them.

Again, this has nothing much to do with party politics.
After the unusually horrendous term of the GW Bush administration, even Chomsky (who is not easily snowed by the tweedle-dee tweedle-dum politics of the US) gave very luke-warm support to the "Bush-lite" Kerry in the last election:

"On the US election
Kerry is sometimes described as Bush-lite, which is not inaccurate, and in general the political spectrum is pretty narrow in the United States, and elections are mostly bought, as the population knows.

But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. And in this system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.

My feeling is pretty much the way it was in the year 2000. I admire Ralph Nader and Denis Kucinich very much, and insofar as they bring up issues and carry out an educational and organisational function - that's important, and fine, and I support it.

However, when it comes to the choice between the two factions of the business party, it does sometimes, in this case as in 2000, make a difference. A fraction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
Obama did vote against funding for the war in 2007...

---

quote:

---

I wasn't kidding in my earlier post. If he thought it would boost his electability, he would announce that he was really white.

---

quote:

---

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas.

---

Note the pandering to all things military.

And then there is this:

quote:

---

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 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.

---

The problem is that America is racist as a whole. The state itself is racist. One can't achieve the highest office, or any office of significance for very long, without embracing that racism. America is a white light upon nations and the brown folk of the world best recognize that fact and hand over our resources before they are dehumanized, demonized, and then ground into the dirt.

Iraq, today, is chock-full of the "perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam". I am sure when water is scarce enough, we will discover what perverse and radical ideologies we embody.

ETA: The Speech in all its exceptionalism and racial glory.

[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

It is simply the best speech written in years by any major north american politician. It was personally written, it covers a lot of ground and substance. It should be judged as a whole.

[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You are naive.

I'm not speculating about the future. Check out the actions of presidents since WWII, and tell me which ones were not bellicose. Then try to find me a correlation between Republican-war and Democrat-peace.

And don't ignore what I said about Pelosi and Democratic control of the House, which was supposed to end the war in Iraq.

Are we only allowed to expose and ridicule illusions after the fact??

Have a good look. The past is a predictor of the future.

---

I think that's a very cynical post, and it's so cynical that it's a good argument for never voting for someone older than 50.

Could you please have an ice cream and think positive?

[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Anyone who bothers to read Obama's speech on race today will see that he both defended his pastor for all the things he did and say he disagreed with on specific points. It's one of the best speeches I've ever read. It's available at salon.com if you scroll a little down.

It is simply the best speech written in years by any major north american politician. It was personally written, it covers a lot of ground and substance. It should be judged as a whole.

---

I agree.

Obviously, this speech wasn't for us. Especially considering how much it boosts America as a beacon of hope, as if America is the only country where a person like him could be born and succeed and the consistent use of Christianity as a point of reference uniting all. But, nationalism in a Presidential campaign is hardly surprising or even automatically bad because nationalism exists in every campaign everywhere. As for the religious thing, well, like it or not American culture is highly religious.

So, if people around here took the time to listen to the entire speech, instead of reading into it what they want (ie: your quote FM that seems to imply he's attacking "the teeming masses of the brown" people), they'd see that it took a lot of courage for him to say such iconoclastic things on racial issues. Let's keep in mind that he actually wrote the speech himself, in the last two days apparently, with no help from campaign aides. I for one think an intellgent, and at least non-evil, President will be a welcome change for the world. I for one think its substantively different for someone to be calling for the people of the USA to actually take responsibility for their politics and get involved in the political process, I don't think Clinton or McCain are doing anything of the sort. And I think that's a basic and substantive difference between him and the other viable candidates still in this race.

[ 18 March 2008: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
Some guy at the Western Standard on Obama's alleged "red-tinged" past and (implied) radical views. If only.

---

His comments on race relations in the U.S. might have been poignant and thought-provoking in... 1950 or so. Today, they are platitudes, except perhaps from the viewpoint of neocons.

As for his being "best speech written in years by any major north american politician" - all I know is that this speech would not have been conceivable prior to the settlement of the Hollywood writers' strike.

quote:

---

So, if people around here took the time to listen to the entire speech, instead of reading into it what they want (ie: your quote FM that seems to imply he's attacking "the teeming masses of the brown" people),

---

He is attacking the teeming masses of brown people. We have one set of people, who include violent ideologues, religious ideologues, involved in an occupation with a history of belligerence, and who are building an Apartheid state right before our very eyes. But these people, who look just like us, have a name. They are Israelis. And they are our allies. But the mass of people who are often darker skinned, and who are defined by many states, they have no name. And they are labelled "perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam" just so we know who we are supposed to hate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

But these people, who look just like us, have a name. They are Israelis. And they are our allies. But the mass of people who are often darker skinned, and who are defined by many states, they have no name.

---

An aside: At least half of Israel's Jews are of colour, perhaps more, depending on your census definition of "of colour". But no definition of colour holds well for that region, and more to the point, skin colour is not what the Israeli military machine utilizes to build its apartheid.

quote:

---

His comments on race relations in the U.S. might have been poignant and thought-provoking in... 1950 or so.

---

Right...So the responses, those can be discounted, they're not thought-provoking at all. So it was pronounced on babble, so it is.

Link.

And of course, the speech itself.

quote:

---

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.

---

You know what, I think I'm going to have to take back what I said about him being just a politician making a political calculation, yeah he did by denouncing Wright's comments, but he stood by the man invoking the role he's played in his life, and how he's like family, inspite of those comments and the damage they've caused to his electoral prospects. So that being considered, and quotes like these, make me think Obama has real courage of his convictions. Quotes like this are aren't guaranteed electoral winners either.

quote:

---

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

---

Complete fluff, no recognition of the media circus surrounding the comments, distracting from real issues. Yep...

quote:

---

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

---

Seriously, maybe 500 Apples is onto something, but I suggest something stronger to start off with though like a few T3's and a joint. I find it hard to believe that some people around here can be so cynical, so consistently, for so long. But then again I've been around here long enough, so maybe I shouldn't be all that surprised.

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

If that is the way he stands by his pastor, his pastor is in deep, deep shit if Obama ever decides to push him away.

I would hope I would do better by my long standing friends than that.

And it occurs to me that this whole sppech is a sop to the US lunatic right such as Fox News and demonstrates just how week Obama's character is.He could have said three sentences that would have ended the discussion for the Americans that matter and improved his own standing immeasurably: "This is America. He can say what he wants. I am campaigning on what I believe."

quote:

---

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 - two wars, a terrorist threat,

---

Yeah because the illegal occupation of Palestine isn't at all connected to the rise of Islamic extremists. Its not only wrong to say so but divisive at a time when we can't have such divisive opinions.

quote:

---

An aside: At least half of Israel's Jews are of colour, perhaps more, depending on your census definition of "of colour". But no definition of colour holds well for that region, and more to the point, skin colour is not what the Israeli military machine utilizes to build its apartheid.

Israeli apartheid is defined by the Jewish-Non Jewish axis. It's not the same race construct we use here.

---

I am not arguing it is a conventional racism but the racism of empire as embodied by so-called Anglo-American empire. It is one that assigns a rule of exceptionalism to one group while relegating all others to roles of service, servitude, or destruction.

So,for example, Israel has a right to defend itself while Iraq is conquered and subject to a genocidal occupation. That is because, Israel, being an exceptional state, is entitled to demand and take rights for itself that are routinely denied to other, unexceptional, peoples.

quote:

---

What B.S. The whole purpose of the speech was to slam the man who married him, and has played such a huge role in his life.

---

try again, Mess:

quote:

---

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

---

quote:

---

His comments on race relations in the U.S. might have been poignant and thought-provoking in... 1950 or so. Today, they are platitudes, except perhaps from the viewpoint of neocons.

---

"Platitudes."

Platitudes!?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Sure, there is nothing new or original in his words. But you have no idea how difficult it is to utter those kind of words in any kind of public space in the US where the audience is not self-selecting... let alone a candidate for the presidency saying it.

If I spoke those kind of words in a US university classroom, I would have to be hyper-aware of how some of the students are going to take those words and what they would do with them.

In fact, I'd be looking for means to engage in converstation the ones who would be rattled and unsettled- let alone chalking up to costs I can do nothing about the ones who will react and it will inflame.

quote:

---

"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."

---

Look how he got jumped on, and backpeddled, when he even acknowledged the Palestinians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
I find it hard to believe that some people around here can be so cynical, so consistently, for so long. But then again I've been around here long enough, so maybe I shouldn't be all that surprised.

---

Its not about your ego and how others here are more naive and stupid than yourself.

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

try again, Mess

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by minkepants:
There are neighborhoods, liquor stores, resturants and beaches EVERYWHERE where blacks cant go.

---

The overt, nasty and ugly racism in the US is something Canadians have some grasp on. You can see it as long as you don't look the other way.

The stunning thing about white Americans who are NOT the nasty overt racists is that they DO look the other way... they literally do not see what is right in front of them. If they have to drive by, they mindlessly put the blinders on.

quote:

---

Yeah, right. He doesn't disown him. He just condemns him. What a hero.

---

I've addressed that immediately above. He does nothing of the kind. He is speaking of the dichotomies and contradictions within ourselves and our society as opposed to the binary values you attempt to pin on him. Defeat him on the content of what he said if you're so inclined.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by minkepants:
There are neighborhoods, liquor stores, resturants and beaches EVERYWHERE where blacks cant go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny, Obama didn't mention those.

---

Incorrect:

quote:

---

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

---

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

James Fallows:

It was a moment that Obama made great through the seriousness, intelligence, eloquence, and courage of what he said. I don't recall another speech about race with as little pandering or posturing or shying from awkward points, and as much honest attempt to explain and connect, as this one.

Andrew Sullivan:

It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history.

---

Since people here think its just garden variety 'platitudes', that would mean that there are many other cases of people speaking this way in a national public space without a self selecting audience. IE, where the speaker is attempting to speak to, not just about and condemning, the prejudices of white people that Obama spoke to last night.

And last I saw progressives don't dump on them all just because they are liberals.

Evidently you think that the content of Obama's speech addressing racism is nothing more than "spanking liberals". And this evidentily would be why it is nothing more than "platitudes".

I have substantively disagreed with you, and said that Obama was taking the difficult step of addressing the 'nuanced' resentments of white America, which you have dismissed and [apperently] 'anwered' with more snide comments.

Its about whether people have any idea about what it takes to address racism on a large and anonymous stage where the audience is not self-selecting.

It is a very different dynamic as to how this unflods in Canada. But the same is true here.

As Maureen Dowd pointed out today- he was talking to the white working class- her people, and mine. The people who vote Dem or might vote Dem but when they see Barack Obama they think of how unfair affirmative action is.

Read the speech. He talks directly to them.

Playing on the heartstrings of easily guilt tripped liberals is a totally different discourse. And it's so easy it doesn't rate even being called platitudes.

Guilt tripping white resentment flat out doesn't work. It just stokes the fire, and the speaker will burn with it if he or she has anything to lose.

What Obama did was risky. He could not possibly know how the people who he needs to reach will react. He went into this knowing he could end up tipping the balance for people who might otherwise have decidied to vote for him.

The risk free strategy would be to have simply condemmed Rev. Wright and leave it at that.

Instead he condemned the words, and explicitly said he supports the man; and furthermore that the racial divide in their country and the resentments white people hold make it hard for so them to see why black people carry feeling such as those that motivated his pastor's words.

Israel is currently defiantly expanding the settlements and I've yet to hear anything from Obama.

This troubles me so much that it is very hard to take any of him seriously.

The speech is all so Oprah like, but with waterboarding and cluster bombs hidden behind the curtain.

Some posters are claiming that the nature of the beast in U.S. politics makes it impossible for true frankness and therefore we ought to cut him some slack.

Absolutely not. This cannot be a leap of faith exercise because we need to know exactly where he stands. No benefit of the doubt allowed when so much is at stake.

True frankness is exactly what is needed because things have gone way, way too far now. If Obama and the U.S. don't understand this now then they will the hard way.

We will all learn the hard way.

Despite it being a lovely speech I'm not being taken in by it. I want to know when the soldiers are coming home. If he is President and Commander-in-Chief he has the power to do this.

If he doesn't know (fair enough) he has the responsibility to tell us.

quote:

---

I just finished watching the speech and I think Hillary is toast.

---

quote:

---

Marvellous. All the U.S. "liberals" lining up to kiss Obama

---

Sullivan couldn't even qualify for that label, I haven't read him in a while but he used to openly self-identify as a conservative. He was a Bush booster and only turned on him when it became blatantly obvious what a flop he was. He is one of the gate keepers in the US for which there can be no debate on Israel/Palestine and its not surprising that this speech has him gushing.

quote:

---

My only real quibble is his unfortunate pandering to AIPAC when he created the false dichotomy between Israel and radical Islamic extremism.

---

I think it should be more than a quibble.

quote:

---

I'm struck at how artful Obama is while at the same time outragiously on the side of Israel and ignorant of Palestine.

Israel is currently defiantly expanding the settlements and I've yet to hear anything from Obama.

This troubles me so much that it is very hard to take any of him seriously.

---

I mostly agree although I think its only feigned ignorance and I do take him seriously. He is openly supporting keeping the US from having a debate which they really desperately need to have. Its a debate which you see more in Israel than in America and Obama has clearly indicated he will use his rhetorical skills to keep it that way. Thats worrying.

American Progressives should be organizing behind either Mckinney or the Nader/Gomez ticket to make sure the next election isn't simply a 'who is the biggest war mongerer' pissing contest between Obama and McCain.

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: melovesproles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
I have substantively disagreed with you, and said that Obama was taking the difficult step of addressing the 'nuanced' resentments of white America, which you have dismissed and [apperently] 'anwered' with more snide comments.

---

You are wrong. Obama addressed nothing. What did he say he would do about race issues in the U.S.? He made some pathetic noises about spending more money on schools.

His pastor exposed the ills of the U.S. both at home and abroad, and you celebrate Obama's speech whose sole purpose was to cover up those ills.

His pastor said the U.S. is run by "rich whites". Not rocket science. But Obama can't associate himself with such truths, can he? Because he needs above all to be elected, and that's not compatible with speaking the truth, is it?

quote:

---

I've addressed that immediately above. He does nothing of the kind.

---

quote:

---

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 - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

---

he just called his pastor and freind divisive, and offering a distorted view, and racially charged, and said, essentially, his experience as a black man in America must be put aside, discounted, due to the challenges America faces directly as a result of the classism, racism, and foreign policy his friend and pastor had the temerity to criticize. And Obama is feted for this? WTF?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
And who thinks this is a great speech? White liberals, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You are wrong. Obama addressed nothing. What did he say he would do about race issues in the U.S.? He made some pathetic noises about spending more money on schools.

His pastor exposed the ills of the U.S. both at home and abroad, and you celebrate Obama's speech whose sole purpose was to cover up those ills.

His pastor said the U.S. is run by "rich whites". Not rocket science. But Obama can't associate himself with such truths, can he? Because he needs above all to be elected, and that's not compatible with speaking the truth, is it?

The only thing that matters about Obama is what policy decisions he would make as President. In that regard, his offhand comment about invading Pakistan, his insistence on being Christian and never Muslim, his pledge of allegiance to Israel, and his cataloguing of all the white blood in his family, speak volumes about his character and his aims. The vapid dime-store feel-good bullshit that so impresses the desperate liberals is just cosmetic. Shame on those who can't see past the lipstick.

---

I recommend his policy platform.

The two campaign killing connections being made are:
1)Wrights criticism of the US self-image as a positive force, including a foreign policy that helped bring on 911.
2)Even though Obama has, like all viable candidates, repeatedly paid fawning tribute to the pro-Israel lobby, he was already, by far, the most suspect of the candidates from this quarter.

On the last point, this recent piece from The Washington Post:

"The Audacity of Chutzpah

By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, March 18, 2008; A02
[Re: United Jewish Communities debate, March 17]

Representing John McCain: former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger. Representing Hillary Clinton: former White House official Ann Lewis. Representing Barack Obama: [Princeton professor Dan Kurtzer, a former ambassador to Israel].
.....
Obama is in trouble because his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was caught on tape preaching such gospel as "God damn America" and accusing Israel of "state terrorism against the Palestinians."

Jews, a small but influential group in Democratic politics, had been worried about Obama even before last week's preacher problem. It seems recent divisions between African Americans and Jews were aggravated by matters such as Obama's sympathy for the Palestinians, and his willingness to take advice from Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former Carter administration official who calls U.S. Middle East policy "morally hypocritical."

According to exit polls, Jews went for Hillary Clinton by margins ranging from 20 to 42 percentage points in Florida, Nevada, New York, New Jersey and Maryland. Obama had a significant edge only in Connecticut.

The videos of Wright's sermons -- in which the pastor also condemned "rich, white people" -- escalated Obama's racial and ethnic problems, and he has scheduled a "major" speech on race for this morning in Philadelphia. If Ambassador TBA's reception at the United Jewish Communities event is any indication, Obama has difficult work ahead.

Security guards with Israeli accents turned away people at the door as the room overflowed. McCain's representative and Clinton's representative struck up a conversation on stage, leaving Obama's man to his own thoughts. As moderator William Daroff introduced Kurtzer "on the far left" of the stage, Eagleburger interrupted.

"Where he belongs!" the former secretary of state announced.

quote:

---

Where is your evidence that white liberals have responded more positively than african americans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The only thing that matters about Obama is what policy decisions he would make as President. In that regard, his offhand comment about invading Pakistan, his insistence on being Christian and never Muslim, his pledge of allegiance to Israel, and his cataloguing of all the white blood in his family, speak volumes about his character and his aims. The vapid dime-store feel-good bullshit that so impresses the desperate liberals is just cosmetic. Shame on those who can't see past the lipstick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

It is utterly fascinating, VK, to read your post, one para at a time, as you cite and then react emotionally to each of Obama's soundbites. It is like watching a video of an otherwise intelligent and informed lab subject, a volunteer in a project on propaganda, getting sucked in by high-priced rhetoric. It's a bit frightening.

---

I think it's utterly fascinating, and not frightening but just entertaining in the sense that this website can be like Jerry Springer, that someone as progressive as you could have such blinders about the prominence of race in America, especially its impact on American politics. The fact that you just don't get it shows that you have a Pavlovian indebtedness to your own biases.

But that's just me; if it helps to change things for the better in Amerika then whatever. I noticed he didn't say "Iman" too, but I thought it was his way of fleeing anything even closely or remotely having to do with Islam.

You see: I'm already giving up on the guy. But then I realized that Obama is going to have the power of life and death over so many people; my own personal freedom will be influenced by his actions. This is no mere exaggeration.

I don't want to trash Obama. I actually found myself getting kinda emotional at his words and I think that speaks to my desperation and to Obama's attempt to manipulate us.

I can't help but think his speech was just so superficial that it is actually quite dangerous; it distracts us from the real issues whereas the person Obama's speech was meant to distance himself from (Wright's sermons) and whose issues ought to be addressed (or at least respected) are not even discussed.

quote:

---

I think it's utterly fascinating, and not frightening but just entertaining in the sense that this website can be like Jerry Springer, that someone as progressive as you could have such blinders about the prominence of race in America, especially its impact on American politics. The fact that you just don't get it shows that you have a Pavlovian indebtedness to your own biases.

---

He adopted the language, the posture, and the politics of his adversaries. Where is the hope in more of the same? Where is the unity in pushing away lifelong friends? Where is the truth in denying the validity of the narrative that has so informed one's political views before arriving at the gates of power?

A smoke and screen show elevated to a degree of seriousness worthy of debate by enlightened progressives, be it here on Babble, in Canada or even in the USA. That, I cannot understand.

What difference does it make whoever is candidate or whoever will be president ? The US 'managers' committment to capitalism, imperialism, militarism and what they entail (racism, sexism, exploitation, environmental desruction) is their "testament of faith".

By Managers I mean the corporate entities and their arsenals of institutions -pubblic as well as private- who keep a self-serving status quo. They would never acquiesce to a change, would never allow anyone who goes counter their interests to even get near prominence as to become presidential candidate, let alone president.

The USA reneging on waging wars in foreign lands? On supporting an aggressive, expansionist, colonialist, racist entity -at its own image-called Israel? On its -literaly and figuratively- cancerous capitalism?

There is a proverb from somewhere in the Middle East that says 'you cannot make a flute out of a donkey's leg.'

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

A smoke and screen show elevated to a degree of seriousness worthy of debate by enlightened progressives, be it here on Babble, in Canada or even in the USA. That, I cannot understand.

---

I use to work closely with this incredible Mohawk single mom on welfare who talked about having voted for Harris and went on to become an incredible Comrade. Capitalists have been so successful because they are absolute masters of manipulation and propaganda, no?

Thank you for this debate. I've never pretended to be an "enlightened progressive" and I depend on discussion and insight to help cut through the crap.

The more I read or analyse Obama's words (past speeches especially) the angrier I get. This is so far from a "cynical" stance. The so-called "cynics" in this thread actually give me hope because it shows that not everyone can be fooled. If I was taken in by Obama's bull it certainly would lay the groundwork for cynicism and bitterness down the road.

As far as I can tell it is Obama who is the cynic, if I'm understanding him correctly. He is pandering to the "game" and not being forthright or loyal in what I think is a masterful, albeit cynical, performance...so I really don't blame people for being taken in.

The cynics are also providing me with intellectual ammunition to carry on after those who are let down by Obama retreat into bitter apathetic shells.

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: Sam ]

quote:

---

Way deep down, despite the layers of cynicism and apathy and antipathy, under the darkness of hope lost, I think many of us leave open the door to the possibility of light.

---

wow. well you could have fooled me. the insulting, self cannibalizing ans simpleminded level of discourse on this board is why it, and, by extension, the NDP (woohoo! 5% of the vote! alright!) is utterly moribund

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

He adopted the language, the posture, and the politics of his adversaries. Where is the hope in more of the same? Where is the unity in pushing away lifelong friends? Where is the truth in denying the validity of the narrative that has so informed one's political views before arriving at the gates of power?

---

One last thing...

He abjectly refused to condemn the man himself he did two things in the speech with regards to Wright himself. He condemned the words he used, but then listed why he wouldn't condemn the man and how important the man has been to him as a friend, someone who is pretty much a family member and a religious mentor (in addition to the substantive points that you and others abjectly refuse to acknowledge). So I guess the next time someone who runs for office has a friend say something they disagree with they shouldn't voice that disagreement because apparently it's like they're Sista Soulja-ing them.

Interestingly enough, of the few Democratic critics of this speech that's presicley their criticism of this speech...that he didn't abandon his friend. They're annoyed Obama didn't run the bus over Wright a few times.

quote:

---

I was disgusted by what Wright said, and didn't mind saying so. I said that Obama needed to throw Wright under the bus and run him over a few times, to move on from this fiasco. But unfortunately, Obama didn't, or couldn't, do it. That's too bad, and will be costly for his chances. But it's even worse that, caught up in a presidential contest in which denouncing Wright has been seen only through the prism of supporting Obama, progressives have been silent about Wright's wrong and divisive words. That's a terrible precedent to have set.

---

Where you see "simple minded" I see integrity and a depth of analysis. Where you see "insulting" I see a frustration, anger and impatience with people like you (Minkepants) who hear words like Israel being a "stalwart" ally and refuse to understand just how hateful that is - in real time.

"Self-cannibalizing"? Yeah, if Obama told the truth then he wouldn't get elected. Truth be told, if Obama really wanted to effect change then maybe his efforts could better be spent throwing away the law books (that are being used to lock-up blacks at disproportionately friggin insane numbers), quit the Senate which is incapable of halting war spending like he promised he would and return to grass roots organizing where he'd very quickly get his anger back.

Seriously, what is the substantive difference between Clinton and Obama? There could be a difference - there ought to be a difference, but by trashing his former pastor he reduces those differences to merely one of style.

Many of us in the activist community sympathize with Rev. Wright's words and the "chicken coming home to roost" analogy. I don't think that is simple minded, but it is pretty tough medicine.

If I'm correct and not just being "simple minded" then the United States simply is not yet ready to deal honestly (own up) with issues of foreign policy or domestic racism.

Where's the "hope" in that? And if Obama's campaign of hope is fluff then his speech ought to be viewed in that context.

Anyhow...

I don't see any integrity in insisting that Obama threw his pastor under the bus, when he did no such thing and that fact has been pointed out multiple times. Denouncing the words of a person and denouncing a person are two separate things.

I don't see a depth of analysis, for declaring ones self judge, jury and executioner by deeming the United States deserving of 9/11 and not recognizing that maybe no Presidential candidate could get more than a handful of votes for adopting that position. I think it's one thing to recognize that American foreign policy "led the chickens home to roost" but to "damn" America is crossing a line.

Where you see frustration, anger and impatience about not recognizing how important Israel/Palestine is, I see selfishness in a willingness to throw the baby out with the bathwater over one issue when there are countless others, that frankly other people think are more important, which need to be given more emphasis. In a political system with three choices, you either make a choice, in spite of the imperfections, or you effectively accept the status quo. Apparently some have accepted the status quo. Though to be fair, in a sense it's sometimes better that that happens, pragmatists and purists don't get along very well anyways.

As for the truth, the truth is that very few people want to be on the fringes and be a member of the activist community and be angry activists forever. And I don't fault them for that. It's one thing to have courage of your convictions, I think it's another all together to refuse to see various viewpoints and use your convictions to decide whether those viewpoints have any merit or not.

As for differences, this is Clinton on Obama's Speech

quote:

---

In her opening remarks, Mrs. Clinton said she was “very glad” Mr. Obama had made his speech, given that she said that race had been a “complicated” issue in America that had been marked by “pitfalls” and “detours.” Asked why she was glad, she said that issues of race and gender are “important” and twice called them “difficult issues.”

---

I think that sort of pablum is a lot different than calling people to talk about for the sake of dealing with this issue. There are many other differences on other issues, some that have been talked about in this thread, others that are out there (ie: Obama having a much higher percentage of small-amount high-number-of-people-giving donations vs. Clinton's high-amount small-number people of giving, initial judgement about the war and approach to campaigning ie: Clinton's a few state strategy vs. Obama's 50 state strategy).

So no, I 'm not going to agree that the context the speech should be viewed in is one where he's only speaking about fluff. If the political purity policy don't like it, well I won't agree but I'll have a beer with you...I don't have any T3's or joints lying around though.

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
He abjectly refused to condemn the man himself

---

Even a secular fundie like me can figure out why he didn't "abjectly" condemn Wright (great Freudian slip there...).

Image a candidate abandoning his own preacher in the U.S. of A. Might as well say you're happy they nailed that Jew to the Cross.

Obama was stuck. He needed to distance himself from Wright's truth. But he couldn't distance himself from God.

[ 20 March 2008: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]