Author
|
Topic: Reverend Jeremiah Wright fights back
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 28 April 2008 09:48 PM
Obama's pastor replies to critics quote: Senator Obama rejected Mr Wright's language in a speech last month. ...In a speech to the National Press Club, he said that the criticism of him was "not an attack on Jeremiah Wright - it's an attack on the black church". ... [H]e refused to back down on his assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an example of "America's chickens coming home to roost". "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you," he said. "Those are Biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles." ... In one clip, from a sermon delivered after the attacks of 11 September 2001, Mr Wright suggested that the US had brought the attacks on itself through its own foreign policy. And in a passage from a 2003 sermon, he said black Americans should condemn the US because of continuing racial injustice, saying: "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human." After the remarks resurfaced, Mr Obama denounced them as "incendiary" and "completely inexcusable" and said he had not been present when they were made.
Bravo, Rev. Wright. May you be blessed with more worthy disciples in the future.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 29 April 2008 12:43 AM
Do you think Rev. Wright no longer sees Obama as one of his own?So far we only know that unionist and a bunch of other babblers see Obama as unworthy of Rev. Wright. These recent speeches are a counter-attack on his critics. Did the Rev. say or imply that Obama was one of his critics? [ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 29 April 2008 01:49 AM
Well, Unionists comment is a general one, not directed at any babblers. Yours is obviously a direct attack on "unionist and a bunch babblers".Are you seriously trying to put it over on me that statements made by Obama, that Wrights views are "incendiary" and "completely inexcusable" establish that Obama is not among those "critics" of Wright that Wright is responding too? I was born at night, but not last night. [ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 29 April 2008 03:19 AM
Obama responds: quote: "I have said before and I will repeat again that what some of the comments that Rev. Wright had made offend me, and I understand why they have offended the American people. He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign."
Further: quote: One Obama adviser, who declined to be identified in order to speak candidly, said Wright has become a "huge distraction. At a time when Obama is trying to appeal to blue-collar and working-class voters, Jeremiah Wright is dragging this campaign into a conversation about race . . . and that's not what white voters want to hear."
Gee, I thought it was Obama who wanted to start a dialogue about "race"? Apparently not when it costs votes.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 29 April 2008 03:25 AM
quote: Well, Unionists comment is a general one, not directed at any babblers.
We have an article about some speeches by the Reverend. There is no mention by Wright of Obama, and no indication anyone has posted that he was including Obama among his critics he is condemning. Did unionist say "Bravo, Rev. Wright." and leave it at that? No, he used it as another occassion to take a dig at Obama. And you want me to believe that was not also directed at some babblers? quote: Are you seriously trying to put it over on me that statements made by Obama, that Wrights views are "incendiary" and "completely inexcusable" establish that Obama is not among those "critics" of Wright that Wright is responding too?
Who is putting over what? Where do you see the evidence that in his speech Wright is including Obama as one of his critics. Yes, Obama has criticised the Reverend. But Wright is not talking about everyone who has criticsed him, nor would he. quote: In a speech to the National Press Club, he said that the criticism of him was "not an attack on Jeremiah Wright - it's an attack on the black church."
There has been an absolute TON of virulent criticism of Rev. Wright in the US. This is what he's talking about. Are you suggesting that the Reverend sees Obama as having attacked the black church? For what it's worth- its not likely that he would even include Clinton as one of the critics he is talking about.... and she's been much stronger in her condmnation of Wright's old sermons.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 29 April 2008 03:28 AM
I know, unionist. It's hilarious. Obama wants a real "dialogue" on race, all right.Check this out: quote: After weeks of maintaining a low profile, Wright cheerfully jousted with members of the National Press Club, much to the chagrin of Obama aides, who believe the pastor is scuttling the Democratic presidential candidate's chances of reaching out to blue-collar whites."It isn't helpful," said Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, Monday. "It's unfortunate ... It's a needless distraction."
Aww, poor poopsie! Rev. Wright should of course go out of his way to "be helpful" after Obama trashed him from coast to coast, shouldn't he? A "needless distraction" is it? Yes, an election is certainly no time for a foreign policy discussion. quote: Wright, who says he's embarked on a weeklong media blitz to defend the honor of the "black church," shrugged off Obama's speech in March that criticized the pastor as divisive and out-of-touch. "If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would not ever get elected," said the 66-year-old Philadelphia native. "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls ... I do what pastors do; he does what politicians do.
Yes, he certainly does "do what politicians do". Democratic politicians in particular. quote: Obama, speaking later in Wilmington, N.C., said Wright's views "offend" many people and don't reflect his own.Wright's animated, provocative and sometimes comic 90-minute appearance at the press club is likely to raise more questions than it answered. "I don't know why he's doing this to his friend ... he's seriously hurting Obama," said Stu Rothenberg, an independent political analyst based in Washington.
Haha! Yes, certainly Obama is a great "friend" to Wright. So great that he trashes him publicly in order to suck up to these folks: quote: "I can only assume that Jeremiah Wright's top agenda is helping Jeremiah Wright," he added. "It's already done the damage. It's something for those older white working-class downscale people to latch onto in voting against Obama."
Obama sucks as badly as the rest of the Democrats. I don't care who wins. They're all the same. [ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 29 April 2008 03:34 AM
Michele and unionist: when you are clear that your opinion is your own, as in the most recent posts, I don't have a problem with that.If you want to say that Obama deserves to be included among the critics Wright is talking about, that's your perogative. But since the opening post is about Rev. Wright, I'm going to point out that the Reverend did not say that.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 29 April 2008 03:38 AM
quote: Originally posted by KenS: Michele and unionist: when you are clear that your opinion is your own, as in the most recent posts, I don't have a problem with that.
Oh! Well, thank goodness. Because, you know, I lose sleep at night worrying about whether you have a problem with my posts or not. BTW, I have no idea where you get from unionist's opening post that his comments were "aimed at babblers". It was addressed to babblers, as are all posts on this forum, but he certainly didn't specifically "aim" his comments at any babblers, unlike you, who did with your comments.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 29 April 2008 04:06 AM
quote: REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT: He did not denounce me. He distanced himself from some of my remarks, like most of you, never having heard the sermon.
quote: "He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bites, he responded as a politician. But he did not disown me."
Do you all think he's also talking about Obama in the following comments of his? quote: "This is an attack on the black church," he said. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my momma and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition, you've got another think coming."
quote: Speaking the National Press Club in Washington on Monday, Rev. Wright called the recent criticism surrounding his sermons "an attack on the black church"."This is not about Obama, McCain, Hillary, Bill or Chelsea, this is about the black church," Wright said, speaking before an enthusiastic audience of black church leaders at the onset of a two-day symposium.
quote: "The persons who have heard the entire sermon understand the communication perfectly. What is not the failure to communicate is when something is taken like a sound bite for a political purpose and put constantly over and over again, looped in the face of the public. That's not a failure to communicate. Those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic or as the learned journalist from The New York Times called me, a 'wack-a-doodle.'"
And to be clear, I'm not arguing with the content of people's own comments. I'm taking issue with the appropriation of Wright's voice in making those comments.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 29 April 2008 04:38 AM
Ken, just to be very clear, I don't think Wright was condemning Obama.It was Obama that was condemning Wright. To be even more clear, I don't really care what Wright thinks about Obama. That's their own personal business. What I do care about is their views about the world. Obama is a typical dangerous demagogic politician of the U.S. ruling class, of whom the whole world should be vigilant. Jeremiah Wright is obviously a man of principle and integrity - he is our ally. [ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 29 April 2008 05:18 AM
I saw Wright speech. He was jumping up and down and repeating his lunatic assertions that the CIA created HIV in order to kill of African-Americans and also saying that the US deserved to be attacked on Sept. 11.I'm starting to wonder if this guy is on the GOP payroll and that his mission is to try to act as some demolition derby against Obama - the Democrat the Republicans are most afraid of losing to. BTW: Who exactly ever appointed Wright to speak for "the Black church"? Is he the Pope of it or something? How is it an attack on the so-called Black church to repudiate claims that the CIA created HIV on purpose as an act of genocide??? [ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 29 April 2008 05:28 AM
quote: Originally posted by writer: A black man is now jumping up and down like a wild animal in Stockholmville. Please, mercy, let this end.
Stockholm's instinctive and predictable response - identical to that of the U.S. mainstream media - confirms yet again that Wright, not Obama, is an ally of the U.S. "underclass" and of oppressed people around the world.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 29 April 2008 05:28 AM
No, Stockholm, I think what I'll do is write to [email protected] and [email protected] . Your racist, sexist, regressive, reactionary, apologist crap pollutes this board, in my opinion. I hope others will join me with this complaint.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 29 April 2008 05:30 AM
Apparently a Hillary Clinton supporter was behind getting Wright to do his demolition derby on national televisionhttp://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html quote: The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted.Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds. A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister). It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 29 April 2008 05:36 AM
OK, I withdraw my comments. Human beings are perfectly capable of howling and shrieking. In my opinion, his performance on national television was still utterly disgraceful and undignified and contributed to nothing of any value to any debate on politics or race relations in America. Does anyone seriously think that Americans are going to pay any heed to the words of a man who keeps repeating that he thinks that HIV was concocted in order to kill of non-whites? How does this advance any "dialogue" on race relations? and I ask again. Who appointed this guy head of "the black church"? Who made him the "go-to" person?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 29 April 2008 05:36 AM
At what point does going for good enable disaster?Is the US at that point? Altemeyer isn't kidding when he describes the current situation as dangerous. I don't think either Obama or Hillary is good. McCain is likely to lead to disaster. Disaster in this case is ultimately something like the Third Reich. ETA Excuse me, I cross posted this with the Stockholm shitstorm. I'll just go away now. [ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: jrootham ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 29 April 2008 05:41 AM
quote: Your racist, sexist, regressive, reactionary, apologist crap pollutes this board, in my opinion.
Good grief. I get the impression that if someone said "good morning. Isn't it a beautiful day?" to you - you find some way to let loose a flood of invective full of foul language claiming that this was "racist, sexist, regressive and reactionary" When was the last time you actually smiled or laughed at anything? Has it happened in the last 30 years?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 29 April 2008 05:54 AM
quote: Originally posted by Geneva: it is often true that the more "isms" you are charged with by the Thought Constabulary around here, the closer you are to some uncomfortable insight
You mean, when he talks about Wright the way he talks about Mugabe? Or when he stereotypes writer as being humourless? Uncomfortable, yes. "Insight" - wow.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 29 April 2008 06:21 AM
no, but the only offensive phrase above was written not by Stockholm, but by some other poster paraphrasing and asking him a leading question, fed by his posts in some other, unrelated thread; look it upbut, over all, the Thought Constabulary is flat-out eager for such occurrences - rare as they are here - as this provides for a satisfying moral outburst, misguided as it might be; this accusatory reflex was memorably satirized by Spike Lee in Do the Right Thing, when his character noted wryly that some people he observed would immediately yell the R...! word "every time Darryl Strawberry is tagged out at home" Wright may have been jumping around when he spoke; maybe not. I dunno. In any case, the whole incident and this personalliy are irrelevant to the Obama campaign, which is what is really interesting and important.
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 29 April 2008 06:48 AM
Geneva, Stockholm (finally) edited his offensive post once he realized the moderators might not be impressed. My initial reaction was no distortion. In fact, I didn't include all that was offensive when I responded. On what basis can you claim I unfairly represented him?
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853
|
posted 29 April 2008 07:04 AM
Maybe we could start a Stockholm thread...I'm finding I like Obama the more I see of Wright. Anyone who went to this church has something going on. That noted, if I start liking Obama odds are good that he's alienating middle America. The Republicans want to make the ballot question to be: "Sure we've driven the economy to ruin, sent our youth to die in a pointless war, and basically looted the country to benefit our friends... but who would you rather have a beer with?" If that's true than a lot of working class people in the so-called swing states will vote McCain. Democrats, Obama in particular, need a ballot question that asks: "Who can change America's awful status quo?" Every time Wright appears the media changes the debate to the one Republicans want.
From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130
|
posted 29 April 2008 07:18 AM
Actually I suspended his account a couple of minutes after his last post. As I was typing a response for here something popped up at work I had to deal with right away, and I'm only just getting back. Michelle, that's why it was already locked when you went to suspend his account.ETA: Mercy's right, lets get back on topic now. [ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 29 April 2008 07:33 AM
quote: Originally posted by Geneva: In any case, the whole incident and this personalliy are irrelevant to the Obama campaign, which is what is really interesting and important.
The incident is irrelevant and unfortunate. Am I allowed to disagree with your last statement though? I think the Jeremiah Wright phenomenon (which is what this thread is about, by the way) is far more important than the Obama campaign. Obama bores me, quite frankly, and provides a distressing example of the lengths a person has to go to in order to "prove" himself to the ruling class and the mainstream media: the loyalty oaths to America the Beautiful and the Not Really Racist At All, the War On Terror, the I Love Israel, and all the rest of the utter tripe that issues from his mouth, once the packaging is torn off and discarded. By contrast, we have Jeremiah Wright, who irrespective of whether or not he is an exhibitionist and a limelight-seeker, irrespective of how well he comes across in front of cameras (which, incredibly, is the superficial level of commentary heard from some babblers), irrespective of what he thinks about Obama (I don't care), irrespective of whether one shares his religious beliefs or not (I don't share any religious beliefs), fearlessly speaks the truth about the ugly society in which he lives. This makes him a hero, and it gives true hope (not Obama-packaged-and-plastified "Hope") to people in the U.S. and around the world who are wondering whether or not there is any sentiment at all for change within the heartland of the Beast. Indeed there is, and maybe it's not Wright personally, but he reflects it and he speaks directly to it. I imagine that huge numbers of U.S. residents must be thrilled to hear him speak, but most of them don't have the right amount of income, live in the right neighbourhoods, or have the right colour of skin.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 29 April 2008 08:26 AM
OK, we are discussing Wright. Most of what he says is pretty obvious to many on this board.There is, however, one statement that is contentious. “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.” Because of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and other medical interventions against black people by the US government it is not surprising the Wright is suspicious of the government. Given this background, how much damage does this statement make to Wright's credibility?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 29 April 2008 08:36 AM
quote: Originally posted by jrootham: Given this background, how much damage does this statement make to Wright's credibility?
Quite frankly, if Wright says it and repeats it, I'm prepared to withhold judgment until I've seen the evidence. Some people even say we wiped out the Indigenous population in the Americas using smallpox and measles. Imagine that.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921
|
posted 29 April 2008 08:58 AM
quote: Originally posted by jrootham:
Given this background, how much damage does this statement make to Wright's credibility?
I don't know anyone who doesn't have at least one peculiar belief, assuming that this is one of Wright's beliefs and that it's "peculiar". As to his credibility, the emergence (in the media) of Jeremiah Wright indicates a existence of a subculture in that country that will shout "Amen" when a preacher says, "God damn America!" I don't imagine his credibility will be damaged in that subculture! But most people will think as they're told to think.
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 29 April 2008 09:45 AM
The timing of Wright's repeated media events just before the upcoming crucial primaries are likely revenge, designed to kill Obama's run. (I know some here might say, "so what, good for him, Obama would be no different from McCain" and the following is not meant to convince anyone otherwise.)The following excerpts are typical of the MSM treatment of the recent imbroglio (milder than most): ... "I don't think that race is going to be a barrier in the general election," Obama said. But analyst Clay Richards, of Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said race was having an impact in 2008, as a Newsweek poll Monday showed that 41 percent of Americans had lowered their opinion of Obama amid the Wright row. .... Wright on Monday once again waded into controversial waters, insisting that aggressive US foreign policy will ultimately hurt Americans. "Jesus said 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You can not do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you," he said. And Republican presumptive nominee, John McCain, also weighed in Sunday, saying he "can understand why -- that Americans, when viewing these kinds of comments, are angry and ... But Wright insisted Obama has been forced to denounce his comments in order to pursue his White House bid in his speech just days before the next make-or-break primaries in the states of Indiana and North Carolina on May 6. ... "Wright, who at age 66 is retiring from the pulpit, stressed he was "not a politician," but he quipped: "I would offer myself for candidacy for vice president."" ... Wright's comment that Obama was "forced to denounce his comments in order to pursue his White House bid" imply that Obama is a) a sly dissembler b) much more "radical" and in concord with Wright's views than he is letting on to the US public. At the very least Wright's comments show a total unconcern about the negative effect on Obama's campaign--but quite possibly a deliberate blow against it. Obama Edited to Add: last paragraphs of yesterdays counterpunch piece on Wright: ".... America has blood on its hands. America, as Martin Luther King said, "is the greatest perpetrator of violence in the world today." So what else is new? The media use every soapbox in the country to preach uber-nationalism and vilify America's critics as unpatriotic. That's why the wrath of the media has descended on Obama like a Texas hailstorm; they're afraid he doesn't understand who really runs things in America. Wright means nothing to the media or to the men behind the curtain. If he didn't provide an avenue for denigrating Obama, he'd be treated with the same indifference as the thousands of other blacks who were herded at gunpoint into the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina. Better buckle up. Obama has entered the crosshairs of America's criminal oligarchy and things are bound to get nasty. ..." Wright [ 29 April 2008: Message edited by: contrarianna ]
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 29 April 2008 11:36 AM
quote: Sen. Barack Obama said he is "outraged" by comments his former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made Monday at the National Press Club and "saddened by the spectacle." 1 of 2 "I have been a member of Trinity Church since 1992. I have known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years," he said at a news conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago."
Obama said he is outraged by Wright's remarks that seemed to suggest the U.S. government might be responsible for the spread of AIDS in the black community, and his equation of some American wartime efforts with terrorism. "What particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing," said Obama, who added that Wright had shown "little regard for me" and seemed more concerned with "taking center stage." Obama said Wright's comments were not only "divisive and destructive," but they also "end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/29/obama.wright/index.htmlThe more conspiratorial minded will wonder whether this whole thing was choreographed. In any event, I saw Wright on Moyers and thought he was impressive. The AIDS business is the only thing I really disagree with. I find it amusing how the media is measuring this guy by political standards. He's a religious leader; aren't they supposed to be politically incorrect? Aren't they supposed to act as a conscience to the community? Aren't they supposed to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted? The media knows not which they speak. The more disturbing thing is the rampant guilt by association being promulgated the right and the media, and the fact that Obama is not calling them out on it. What's going on is nothing short of McCarthyism and imposition of patriotic correctness. And it's not just regarding Wright: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/much-ado/
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 29 April 2008 12:29 PM
quote: Reverend Jeremiah Wright appeared on PBS Bill Moyers Journal on Friday night and delivered a knockout punch to the bully-boys in the corporate media. Wright showed that he is neither a fanatic nor an “America hater”; just an extremely well-read and principled man with an unshakable commitment to justice. Wright has also paid his dues; he's an ex-Marine who served as a medic in Vietnam when most of his critics were either hiding behind their student deferments or languishing in the "Champagne Unit" of the Texas National Guard. Rev. Jeremiah Wright: "And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into position of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America? No, no, no. Not God bless America; God damn America!” No one disputes Wright's summary of US history. His comments have simply been lifted, just to beat up on Barak Obama; everyone knows that. Just like everyone knows that the corporate media destroy political enemies, which means anyone who poses a challenge to America's unelected corporate oligarchy. That's why it is so frustrating to hear people say, "The media is not doing its job." That's just plain wrong; the media IS doing its job. It's cheerleading the country to war, it is diverting attention from the main political and economic issues of the day, and it is destroying the system’s political enemies, actual or potential.
Source
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4645
|
posted 29 April 2008 01:01 PM
Joy to the WorldJeremiah was a bull frog Was a good friend of mine I never understood a single word he said But I helped him a-drink his wine And he always had some mighty fine wine Singin' {Refrain} Joy to the world All the boys and girls, now Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea Joy to you and me If I were the King of the world Tell you what I'd do I'd throw away the cars and the bars and the wars And make sweet love to you Sing it now {Refrain} You know I love the ladies Love to have my fun I'm a high night flier and a rainbow rider And a straight-shooting son of a gun I said a straight shootin son of a gun
From: Belleville | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407
|
posted 29 April 2008 03:09 PM
Yet another weird twist on the Wright story: quote: The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted.Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds. A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister). It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.
Press Club appearance organized by Clinton supporter
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 30 April 2008 05:33 PM
quote: Things fall apart; some things, like an ill-tied shoelace, sooner than others. Barack Obama's strategy to win the White House was to run a "race-neutral" campaign in a society that is anything but neutral on race. The very premise - that race neutrality is possible in a nation built on white supremacy - demanded the systematic practice of the most profound race-factual denial, which is ultimately indistinguishable from rank dishonesty. From the moment Obama told the 2004 Democratic National Convention that "there is no white America, there is no Black America," it was inevitable that the candidate would one day declare the vast body of Black opinion illegitimate. That day came on Tuesday, April 29, when a battered and (truly) bitter Barack Obama made his final, irrevocable break with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose televised Black Liberation Theology tour de force the preceding Friday, Sunday and Monday had laid bare the contradictions of Obama's hopeless racial "neutrality." It was the masterful preacher and seasoned political creature Wright - not the racists who had endlessly looped chopped snippets of the reverend's past sermons together in an attempt to make him appear crazed - who forced Obama to choose in the push and pull of Black and white American worldviews. Obama was made to register his preference for the white racist version of truth over Rev. Wright's, whose rejection of Euro-American mythology reflects prevailing African American perceptions, past and present.
Black Agenda Report[ 30 April 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535
|
posted 30 April 2008 05:45 PM
why do so many white people in mainstream media keep on insisting that rev Jeremiah Wright explain himself? Every channel, every news agency wants a black man to account for his experiences? this man has seen more, done more and experienced more than I can even imagine or perceive
He is communicating his outlook on life in America from his experience as a person of colour. Obama doesn't need to apologise or explain rev Jeremiah's perspectives and experiences. Obama can only be expected to explain his own outlooks; Obama does not need to apologise for his own experiences either [ 30 April 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]
From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 30 April 2008 06:20 PM
quote: 'Truth' can be used as a facile label of convenience.
Usually by apologists for those disowning the truth.Here is the transcript of Wright's interview with Bill Moyers: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/transcript1.html quote: When you start confusing God and government, your allegiances to government -a particular government and not to God, that you're in serious trouble because governments fail people. And governments change. And governments lie. And those three points of the sermon. And that is the context in which I was illustrating how the governments biblically and the governments since biblical times, up to our time, changed, how they failed, and how they lie. And when we start talking about my government right or wrong, I don't think that goes. That is consistent with what the will of God says or the word of God says that governments don't say right or wrong. That governments that wanna kill innocents are not consistent with the will of God. And that you are made in the image of God, you're not made in the image of any particular government. We have the freedom here in this country to talk about that publicly, whereas some other places, you're dead if say the wrong thing about your government.BILL MOYERS: Well, you can be almost crucified for saying what you've said here in this country. REVEREND WRIGHT: That's true. That's true. But you can be crucified, you can be crucified publicly, you can be crucified by corporate-owned media. But I mean, what I just meant was, you can be killed in other countries by the government for saying that. Dr. King, of course, was vilified. And most of us forget that after he was assassinated, but the year before he was assassinated, April 4th, 1967 at the Riverside Church, he talked about racism, militarism and capitalism. He became vilified. He got ostracized not only by the majority of Americans in the press; he got vilified by his own community. They thought he had overstepped his bounds. He was no longer talking about civil rights and being able to sit down at lunch counters that he should not talk about things like the war in Vietnam. He preached-- BILL MOYERS: Lyndon Johnson was furious at that. As you know- REVEREND WRIGHT: I'm sure he was. BILL MOYERS: That's where they broke. REVEREND WRIGHT: And that's where a lot of the African-American community broke with him, too. He was vilified by Roger Wilkins' daddy, Roy Wilkins. Jackie Robinson. He was vilified by all of the Negro leaders who felt he'd overstepped his bounds talking about an unjust war. And that part of King is not lifted up every year on January 15th. 1963, "I have a dream," was lifted up, and passages from that - sound bites if you will - from that march on Washington speech. But the King who preached the end of- "I've been to the mountaintop, I've looked over and I've seen the Promised Land, I might not get there with you,"- that part of the speech is talked about, not the fact that he was in Memphis siding with garbage collectors. Nothing about Resurrection City, nothing about the poor--
What part of that truth do you want to contest as "facile"?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 30 April 2008 06:22 PM
quote: Originally posted by RevolutionPlease: I still don't get why Wright is submarining Obama???
I don't get what you don't get. Rev. Wright repeated what he has always been saying. He repeated what he has always believed. He repeated what he must have thought Obama always used to believe. He has said not one bad word against Obama. I think he was giving Obama the choice between the path of righteousness (which Obama once pretended to follow) and the path of evil. Obama, spitting venom against Rev. Wright, chose evil. So what was Wright supposed to do? Adopt hypocrisy and silence, so that the hyprocrite Obama could sneak into the presidency? Wright is a true hero. The people of the U.S. are fortunate indeed to have a (very) few fearless role models.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Sam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4645
|
posted 30 April 2008 06:40 PM
I watched the Moyer's interview and the wonderful Press Club event...and I agree with Unionist, except that Rev. Wright did attack Obasma harshly; measured, proportional and appropriate, in my view. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "'Truth' can be used as a facile label of convenience." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, the above quote seems pretty silly and bitter. I'm not surprised that we have not heard of Rev. Wright before because mainstream corporate media is always so far behind what is actually occuring on the ground. I had never heard of Rev. Wright before either, although the substance and tone of his perspective certainly dominates indy media, the activist community and church basements, in Philly anyways... I think that this is why I was frustrated by Obama's Philadelphia speech; the Senator has glossed over what he ought to know to be the truth and Rev. Wright called him on it.
From: Belleville | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 01 May 2008 03:52 AM
What is frustrating about Obama's home-run speech is that it undermines the real truth that Wright is attempting to reveal, not the other way around. Wright is not "submarining" a progressive candidate. Wright is the progressive here. When Obama delivers an eloquent, articulate speech that does not purpose to solve the American trauma of racism but to cure a wound caused by Wright's assertion of naked truth, he is committing the same kind of vomit-inducing grandstanding of Hollywood films like Paul Haggis's Crash that make middle America feel good about racism.If racism is an "issue" we can "work through" if we only "believe", "hope", etc., then holy shit we are missing the point. The gaping sore of American racism, based on a legacy of slavery, genocide and nativism, is not going anywhere, and a pretty speech only serves as a temporary diversion. Luckily for us, allies like Reverend Wright aren't going anywhere either.
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 01 May 2008 04:57 AM
quote: If racism is an "issue" we can "work through" if we only "believe", "hope", etc.,
That's a complete misrepresentation of Obama's speech. In fact, people of colour in the US expected and saw that white America wasn't going to like what they heard and would at best "not get it"... let alone what would become of it on right wing talk shows. That was discussed in this thread: "Negro President by the year 2000"
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 01 May 2008 05:02 AM
I called the whole thing a sad spectacle for a number of reasons:-watching Rev Wright being villified in the court of the media -watching how Wright deals with it.. irregardless of how much I don't really blame him -watching the spectacle of Obama trapped -watching the spectacle of the giddy glee of Canadians on the sidelines and their pathetic so-called commentaries that are nothing more than the expression of their facile ignorance and self-congratulation The latter leading to the crypic comment: quote: 'Truth' can be used as a facile label of convenience.
I'll change that to: The conceit of "truth" no more than a facile label of convenience. There's no point explaining, I've said it all before in: Obama condemns his own pastor for... speaking the truth Preacher Wright and the Truth "Negro President by the year 2000" [ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 01 May 2008 05:15 AM
I wasn't talking about your post in particular. It's pretty clear that it is a generalizing comment. Observations made as watching the river flow by.You can include yourself, or not, in the generalization. But as to what I did address to you: you might try reading that thread I linked in my response to you, and then compare what you read to your comments on Obama's speech. The comment's from US persons of colour came in when bigcitygal linked to them, and then I summarized [maybe halfway into thread?]. [ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 01 May 2008 06:01 AM
quote: Incidentally, I like how you called your two-post contribution to that long thread about something else entirely what was "discussed."
That's an interesting interpretation. quote: If you are actually referring to the racialicious discussion that bcg cited, I see people saying that they will vote for a politician because of aesthetics.
No surprise that is what you see. I'll repost the excerpts below for people to judge.
quote: "I will vote for him because of this speech," etc. I don't know about you, but I would prefer to choose a leader based on voting and decision making. And Obama's record is disturbing.Hence, my comparison to Crash which masquerades as racial healing when in fact it is soma for the racist soul.
They don't say they will vote for him because of the speech. In fact, virtually everyone states they were or were not going to vote for him, give accolades to the speech, and those not voting for him say it probably won't change. They DO say they liked the speech. Nothing to do with the campaign itself. They liked it for the same reasons I referr to in the intro of the racialious excerpts below... which I covered exhaustively in the 2 predecesor threads referred to and linked above, and touched on in this re-post below. ================================================================== REPOST: In the two earlier threads about Obama’s speech I tried fairly exhaustively to make the point that Obama’s attempt to broach racism was by no means easily done in the US. The only comments I got were dismissals. Not a single one of them attempting to address the content of what I said. No discussion of what it’s like to address racism in the US outside ‘safe places’ [or Canada for that matter]- just dismissals: “he didn’t say anything.” That included a couple people saying that because it was pap that would appeal to people, it was going to win things for him. Which I knew to be absurd. And that’s one of the narratives that runs through the comments in the discussion BCG linked to: that they are afraid the [white] people it was intended for are not getting it. Worse, that the not surprising spin on Obama’s speech was being used against him. Many who made those comments affirmed the importance of Obama’s effort, and some expected it would have a helpful impact even if that is not visible. So much for the content of the speech being ‘trivial’. I’ve excerpted some comments from the discussion thread. These are representative of what is very much the dominant narrative. I’ll put this one first not because it’s the best, but because its one I want to expand a bit on: quote: A quote from a Republican strategist on Fox News that I heard just a couple of minutes ago: “It’s offensive to Americans who are descendents of earlier generations of immigrants, like me, a fourth-generation American. My family came here four generations ago and played by the rules and made something of themselves” Paraphrases, of course, but it really really angered me that she’d say something like this when there is a specific part in the speech in which Obama urges the white community to acknowledge that past and current barriers to blacks’ success are real and exist, and are not just figments of their imagination. It just makes me wonder how much of the speech she actually listened to, or if she just subconsciously tuned that part of the speech out.
That isn’t by any means just Fox News and its ideology speaking. As soon as I read Obama’s seech I KNEW this one was coming. And it comes also from the lips of young liberal white’s- laden with a lot of freight that the word ‘resentment’ hardly does justice. As I’ve said before- stick me in front of a mainstream audience of 50 people and task me with broaching what I know to be white people’s ‘problematic’ and emblematic attitudes about race... and this one and it’s close relatives are going to run in a tape in a number of peoples’ heads. And that tape is so loud that they probably aren’t going to hear anything else I said. In most cases I’ll not get a chance to talk to those people. And that’s talking to fifty people, let alone the dynamic of talking to a nation. And I’ll get those predictable reactions with me being careful, let alone if I had just marched in there and ‘told truth to power’ or followed any number of other facile recommendations people here offered as what Obama should have done.
quote: quote: i am so impressed by obama right now. i feel like i cant even perceive the difficulty of his task - to speak to the american public about racism in a way that is complex and meaningful and looks hard truths in the eye, and at the same time can be received and appreciated by people coming from suuuch different places. from other comments, it makes me think maybe this latter part [whether people did in fact appreciate what Obama said] isnt even happening as much as i first imagined, but still, obama does such an incredible job i think. ............His ability to state that we ALL discuss race in our “safe groups” was key. ............ BUT, I do believe that people see and hear what they choose to. I went over to the comments on CNN, and many were essentially saying that Obama was showing his true (i.e., racist) colors by “defending” Jeremiah Wright. And honestly, my heart grieved at their ignorance. My heart broke for their inability to hear what this man was saying–to hear and try to recognize that no one of us is the product of only our own generation in this country; to hear him talk of reconciliation. This was a great, honest and unifying speech. But I agree with the sentiment expressed in many comments that people will only hear in it what they want to hear. I’m disappointed that some seemingly otherwise intelligent people just devolve when the issue of race arises and, for all of their attitudes and activism, just die inside/get hostile outside when their white-skin advantage is questioned, if not challenged, for the fallacy that it is. Kudos to Senator Obama for standing up for himself and offering a nuanced–well, nuanced for a leading US presidential candidate–speech about the race in America. But it just feels like, once again, Black people are in the position of “explaining racism/explaining us” to white America. ........
...but if he’s willing to walk away from Obama just because Obama wouldn’t tie himself with every viewpoint of his pastor….that’s weak. ................... ....refer to who will see what they want to, i would guess that this speech was not directed at them. this is for the people who want to listen and think and then decide. and for that audience, i think this speech was well done. ................
How anyone could not get the heart of Obama’s speech is beyond me. I was exceptionally moved. ..................... Look, I don’t care if Obama wins anymore, this speech was enough. To have somebody with his profile speak in detail about race on national television was outstanding. I don’t care about the people questioning his motives, or scoffing at his sincerity. I do not care. This speech was empowering, even if it’s the only thing that survives this cutthroat political process. This was a man asked to navigate a path so unique that failure seemed inevitable, yet he rose to the occasion and prospered. That makes me happy as a black man in America. It makes me very happy.
[ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 01 May 2008 06:39 AM
It might be useful, non-inflamatory, for me to say that my obvious contempt is for a set of ideas.I don't apologize for that. I first exhaustively gave substantive reasons for my disagreements. I didn't expect that to persuade protagonists in the discussions. But nobody even bothered with counter-argument. That said, my acquired contempt is for the ideas expressed. I hop I have in other threads demonstrated a continuing respect for the protaganists as persons. [You can't expect it to come out there when you are expressing your caustic opinion about what they have just said.] I've already said there is plenty of sadness and bitterness in what I say. But there are certainly much worse dissapointments in decades of activism and politics.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173
|
posted 01 May 2008 08:20 AM
What a difficult situation for both. That the United States is loaded with racism has been exposed- others can debate whether that makes it easier to heal or just makes it worse.Obama is trying to become president-- I still believe to make a difference. For his purpose he is making choices that are forced on him - trying to explain things that cannot be explained in a soundbite while trying to win enough support to be put in a position to make a difference. It may well be true that he cannot back up Wright and still become president. And that cause is a significant one that cannot be put down so easily. He carries with him the hopes of millions- true he asked for that burden but now he has to deliver. Wright has by proximity been turned into a weapon against Obama. His words are taken out of context and he has said things that are over the top perhaps but certainly designed to make people think and to make the change he can from where he is. That is his purpose. He has said things that are offensive to some as they were presented- who knows how offensive they were in the context they were spoken. He has also said profound truths that needed to be said. Each of these two persons are imperfect as we all are and they are being faced with a test caused by racism in a context where perhaps neither can win completely. I can't help but wonder if they are not both right and both doing the best thing they could do to make a difference. I can't help but watch this spectacle with some sympathy for both sides all the while hoping that this will not end the Obama campaign because there is still so much hope in that. Interestingly I have also long felt that the long battle between Clinton- seen in a simplistic way- is better for the Democrats than a shorter one would be. In an ideal world the first woman candidate should not have to go through the first African American and visa versa- would have been better if this had been two campaigns with both the woman and the Black man beating the white male status quo on the way. That it is so hard to choose in many respects could look good on the Democrats. Would it really be better if one had drop-kicked the other out of the race easily? Can you not argue that in this case healing may be easier because it was close than if it had not been? I am glad I live here. I would ahve had my own difficulties in this -- even while I don't particularly like Clinton, it would have been hard to turn away from the first female candidate with a real shot at that position.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 01 May 2008 09:11 AM
I have never said that Obama is courageous.When his speech was discussed, I did argue why it is a difficult topic for anyone who wants to reach a regular 'mixed audience'... meaning one with any old white people off the street, or any old white Democrat off the street for that matter. And it's difficult whether or not you have any political ambitions. I explained what it is difficult- aomething that is understood in all the speakers of that thread exerpted above. That was simply dismissed here. Not argued with. Dismissed as of no consequence. I have attempted to prick the assumption here that Reverend Wright is courageous. No one has explained what is so courageous about his original words or what he is doing now.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173
|
posted 01 May 2008 09:25 AM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: Oh, the agonies of the white liberal soul!
Much easier to snipe, snip and be sarcastic than to say anything even remotely on topic or constructive. There, now I feel better.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152
|
posted 01 May 2008 09:37 AM
Sean: quote: I am glad I live here.
Is that because the choice is clearer here? or because we are not asked to chose our Prime Minister directly? Or because of Kim Campbell setting a "precedent"? I am just a little confused as to whether you are suggesting we have better political options or worse, or what. Thanks.
From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 01 May 2008 09:49 AM
Is calling Dedrick Muhammad's Counter Punch piece "Another point of view from an African American" supposed to be some kind of antidote to the pride expressed about Obama in the excerpts above?There's LOTS of criticism of Obama from African Americans. But Dedrick Muhammad's critism definitely does not extend to they kind of things tossed off here many times over: that Obama has nothing meaningful to say about racism, that there is nothing involved except him posturing for votes. There are also many black voices who are as rejectionist of Obama and what he says as are folks here. Such as Glen Ford in the Black Agenda Report linked much earlier in the thread. It’s a long essay and I’d take issue with a lot of it. It touches on Obama’s lauded speech: “a widely applauded piece of oratory that was at root an exercise in moral equivalence that equated white and Black grievances in the U.S.” No mention of the fact that no national figure, let alone a black one, has ever to a national audience brought up the subject that a lot of white folks carry a chip on their shoulder about how THEY are hard done by. In Glen Ford’s case, he’s aware of that- it’s just way too little because it doesn’t give primacy to the effects of racism. Obama’s speech does indeed have the effect of creating the kind of moral equivalency he is talking about. There is a fundamental small ‘p’ political difference in there that is much more general than presidential campaign. On one side of the divide you are trying to make sure that people are listening: you want to challenge them, but you can’t do that if they just shut you out. On the other side, you don’t concern yourself with whether white people are listening or ever will. I see wisdom in the latter. And that’s not a statement of deference [as white Canadian]. Its because there is an explicit or implicit strategic calculation of what is entailed in blunt talk, or in eschewing blunt talk. But I see literally no wisdom whatsoever in the babble comments on Wright and Obama that trumpet the superiority of “speaking truth to power”. Here I see nothing more than the facile expressions of ideologically invested prejudices by people not exhibiting any understanding of the practicalities of working on racism.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173
|
posted 01 May 2008 10:09 AM
quote: Originally posted by It's Me D: Sean: Is that because the choice is clearer here? or because we are not asked to chose our Prime Minister directly? Or because of Kim Campbell setting a "precedent"? I am just a little confused as to whether you are suggesting we have better political options or worse, or what. Thanks.
Simply put, because I do not have to make what would be a difficult choice. I was not comparing our system with theirs in that comment. While in theory you choose the best Candidate in practice I think representation is also important- having a house 75% male is not good for the country. If we were faced choosing between say a First Nations candidate or a POC and a female candidate- it would be a difficult choice. I had not thought about Kim Campbell at all- I would hardly credit her with counterweighting all the male pms singlehandedly. Nor do I think that we can be complacent- oh now, we had one so business as usual. It would take several female pms before I would think of an individual female candidate as not being special. Otherwise, I was not getting at that but I could observe that since we do not pick pms directly and the role of PM is not the same as a US President, in some ways it is not as loaded. Here, for example the PM is not elected directly, we have a governor general we have a cabinet that also is elected (although not to that position). If our cabinet was 50-50 male/female then I would not care about the gender of the pm as much. But all this is far beyond what I meant when I wrote that-- I was just commenting on how I would find it difficult if I was an American to vote against their first real serious female bid for the presidency and I would find it hard to vote against the first non-white serious bid (I guess Jackson was serious but not given much of a hope)- and I would have to vote against one of them. I added that in my case, I prefer Obama for other reasons but I admit I would not be able to vote for a middle-aged white male candidate against her almost regardless.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4645
|
posted 01 May 2008 10:25 AM
quote: I have attempted to prick the assumption here that Reverend Wright is courageous. No one has explained what is so courageous about his original words or what he is doing now.
Please don't read a snarky attitude here because I'm assuming you really do want to understand... I'm so sure that others can do a much better job, but I'll give it a go... The U.S. was founded on a lie; it is based on genocide and slavery. It is the greatest perpetrator of terror in the world and it has absolutely no right Iraqi oil. If you dish out terror don't be surprised if it comes home to roost... Wright has basically said this and much more, like talking about "capitalism" and "corporate media"... This is all standard talk in my circles so if we disagree about this then let me know. To me these are basic truths of history and the present. The practical implications of which means that brown skinned little boys and girls are sitting in hospitals as we write with their bodies torn to pieces with all the srceaming pain and tears this represents. Somalia as we speak... Now, Obama and Clinton do not even begin to scratch the surface of dealing with this snowballing reality. Wright at least begins to. The "courage", I think, can be found not in Obama or Clinton, or even Wright for that matter, but in those who are homeless, hungry and maimed - on the sharpe end of the American bombs, arrogance and myth... Now with regard to: quote: Here I see nothing more than the facile expressions of ideologically invested prejudices by people not exhibiting any understanding of the practicalities of working on racism.
Now, in my view, it is far from "practical" to demonize, denounce and distance oneself from the only speaker NOT being "facile" - and that speaker is Wright. This whole dismissing "truth to power" stuff... It is also called intellectual honesty and there is absolutely nothing "facile" about it. Now, where this brings us is to is solutions. The idea being that if we honestly confront the past and our present then we have a fighting chance of finding a way out. I have absolutely no doubt that Obama is way out of his depth in thinking that he can talk down to people and manipulate the media. Now he may get elected by doing this, but then his campaign is a lie...and if you are saying that progress must come from lies then that's manipulation and dishonest. Nobody I know is saying it is going to be easy. To me it would be so easy to be democrat or Green or NDP... But that would be, for me, dishonest and shallow. My fear is that unless we deal with this in a meanningful and honest way then more and more people are going to get hurt and killed. I think this all shows the practical impossibility of our political system(s) to deal practically with the truth and so it is now time to find alternatives.
From: Belleville | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258
|
posted 01 May 2008 10:41 AM
quote: I have attempted to prick the assumption here that Reverend Wright is courageous. No one has explained what is so courageous about his original words or what he is doing now.
A life time of anti-racist and anti-poverty activism and organizing is not courageous? The ability to speak the truth concerning the historical brutality of American domestic and foreign policy is not courageous? The ability to stand up and express the veracity of black experience within the context of a virulent white supremist nation does not take courage? Maybe you might examine your own assumptions about what constitutes courage before being critical of anothers. [ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152
|
posted 01 May 2008 10:55 AM
Sam:Great and principled post; thanks Sean:
Thank you for replying to my question. I agree that the US election presents a somewhat difficult decision (certainly more so than in recent years anyway) and I totally agree with you regarding Kim Campbell. I don't agree that I'd rather not have to make that difficult decision though; I view it as an opportunity and would like the chance to participate (for all the difference it would make!).
From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999
|
posted 01 May 2008 11:11 AM
quote: Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
A life time of anti-racist and anti-poverty activism and organizing is not courageous? The ability to speak the truth concerning the historical brutality of American domestic and foreign policy is not courageous? The ability to stand up and express the veracity of black experience within the context of a virulent white supremist nation does not take courage? Maybe you might examine your own assumptions about what constitutes courage before being critical of anothers. [ 01 May 2008: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Remember we are talking about only the current discussion. Reverend Wright is saying exactly what his audience wants to hear.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 01 May 2008 11:36 AM
quote: Originally posted by Sam: How do you know?
quote: Originally posted by It's Me D: Are you suggesting Wright's audience wants to hear the truth and Obama's audience wants lies and that both men are just giving their audiences what they want?
These, and other questions will be answered in the part two thread, if anyone starts it. Closing for length.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|