Obama is scheduled to speak on race starting in a few minutes -- a running summary and some commentary below the fold. What's your reaction?
CNN says the speech might get started a bit later than 10:15. That seems reasonable considering it is now 10:15 and the speech hasn't started yet.
My guesses as to Obama's stance: (1) He clearly condemns the specific controversial statements of Wright (2) He explains the broader context -- ie, race is still a genuine issue for many Americans (3) He states that addressing current concerns over poverty, incarceration, etc are important for all Americans and transcend race (4) He makes a case for people of all races trying to see things from all perspectives and for working together. We shall see...
Other reaction threads from dueling political perspectives: Daily Kos and Redstate
.
CNN has gone back to their guests. Wonder why the speech is delayed?
Apparently there are some technical difficulties with the audio... still waiting. Meanwhile, Charles was kind enough to point to the transcript up on Drudge.
Obama is up! Transcript appears accurate, so I will skip ahead and post some quotes:
On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
[...] Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
[...] 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. ...Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
Huge applause for this: 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. Overall, he's delivering the speech in a firm but muted manner -- deliberately avoiding rhetorical flourishes, I guess.
The speech seems to hit all the right notes. It acknowledges legitimate concerns on all sides while seeking to unite people of all races in working for common goals.
Heh... applause also for Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
And more for: Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy The audience seems to be warming to his somewhat nuanced theme.
I particularly liked this line, which to me describes the motivations (if not always the results) underlying liberalism: In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
__________________________
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Obama's Speech is Up...
You can read it here.
Hopefully this can be put behind us.
__________________________http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Thanks Charles!
Reading it now...
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
How did it leak
to Drudge first? Thanks, Charles.
Damn our Human Nature
for putting it in front of us in the first place.
I find the captivation with this story by our media and most voters to be very telling.
It says a lot (not good) about how we view the office of the president as well as the real vetting process most use when evaluating the candidates. And this process looks all the worse when we really stop and consider the true tasks of the president.
In short, the relevant factors and information are so complicated and boring for most people that it simply comes down to garbage like this to hold our collective attention and influence our choices. Sad.
I just scanned the speech
It's not bad but I cannot excuse Obama's association with that kind of a "pastor". It's not enough. It would be like me going to church with David Duke as pastor, him marry me and baptize my children, and inspire me and my book, yet when the association is raised, me condemning it. It would not be enough and it should not be enough.
God knows what else has been said in that church and what Obama has cheered on over the full 20 years, if this is just a tiny preview of what's been going on there. Racism and anti-american sentiment is too much there.
I was mostly neutral towards Obama (while preferring Hillary as a known quantity). Now I move to the strongly anti-Obama camp. This kind of stuff is scary and disappointing and all the flowery condemnations will not excuse it. Obama has to revoke and condemn the whole decades long association before I would consider him "changed".
[update] From MSNBC:
So every single member of the black community is representative of the black community as a whole and cannot be disowned for that reason? WTF is that supposed mean??? Sorry Obama but no. In this case it's guilt by full known association.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What would it all mean?
Think about it.
you tell me... n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
hard to say, Ender
Politically in terms of voting, it wouldnt tell me very much.
This part pertains
to your comment:
"Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough."
sounds like bullsh*t
yes, his politics were already a nice whammy for me (if he was a pro-Israel Republican Conservative I would support him). But this really takes the prize. His condemnation cannot be enough unless he apologizes for his own part of being there, being inspired by that un-American racist, and disowns that past.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Nothing major
I've never paid any attention to what any preacher says. It's all BS as far as I'm concerned. All religious figures from the Billy Grahams down to your local pastor are either ignorant or con men. Of course, the more popular the figure, the more likely he is to be the latter.
In terms of how much this changes my opinion of Obama, it'd be somewhere near nothing. He's still the least worst candidate of just about all the candidates who are running, major party or otherwise.
In terms of Obama's support for his church, apparently people can compartmentalize their faith in a way I don't understand. If a preacher ever said something on a moral issue I didn't agree with, I'd stand up and walk out. That isn't a standard response as I understand it. There still exist pro-choice Catholics and many are for the death penalty and believe torture is morally permissible.
Church isn't anything more than a get-out-of-jail-free card for most Americans. Give an hour of your week to the Man in the Sky and you can be forgiven for all the crap you pulled since the last time you were in church.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
this
If I was an aspiring politician and was in a church and my preacher said even once that Wright said on a regular basis, I would've walked out and slammed the door on the whole enterprise. The fact that Obama did not, and in fact praised him as inspiration, really stains the man to no end. Maybe if he can show that he slept through every single sermon...
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Meh
I think anyone who believes that they speak to a supernatural being to be very close to being insane. As Maher said, organized religion is sanity by consensus.
I could care less what Mr. Wright said because all of it is bull. I already have to vote for people who in my opinion are borderline crazy, the fact that Obama listens to one who is slightly crazier than the rest doesn't change much.
To be honest, if the worst you can say about Obama is that the preacher at his church is a racist (which isn't something about him -- it's something about the company he keeps), that makes him about as good a person as I've seen running for President in recent memory.
People will use this to confirm their suspicions about Obama. No one who was solidly in his corner is going to turn on him over this. Only people who were looking for a reason to dislike him will let this non-story convince them of what they already felt.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Religion is about society, not god
As an athiest, I've long viewed religion as being about society -- all that talk about "God" is just rhetoric that people use to identify their own group. This is why you can have sects that nominally practice the same religion (i.e. Christianity, Islam, etc) yet hold fundamentally different theologies--each sect defines the religious words to fit their own world view.
(I think this is similar to how social scientists study religion)
Anyway, with that perspective, the words of preachers are very important, because these are words that are used to inspire and organize others.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Religion did used to answer the questions that science
couldn't. In ancient times, it was the local cleric who was most highly educated in the villagers eyes at least. They just wanted to have an answer. They didn't really care so much about how it all started or why. Most folk were more involved in survival. But when times were good, they pondered. Then, they took comfort in what they were led to believe.
In that sense....preachers were about society. They just mixed it with religion to make it more potent. Preachers are still doing that today as we see all the time.
Speech started
and CNN is running it live.
"Scoured the polls for racial polarization"
Sounds like Ender's favorite hobby. :-)
are you implying that I am hoping
for racial polarization because I don't like Obama?
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Notice the happy face
But you are the first to mention (that I've seen) these statistics shortly after a primary. Don't go making me search through comments. ;-)
was I happy that
80-90% of African Americans voted for Obama clearly mostly on the basis of his race? Did I search for those stats excitedly?
It's annoying no matter who does it.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
How do you draw that conclusion
considering that earlier Hillary had a majority of AA support?
Did Obama suddenly turn black?
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
once it was obvious that Obama was a viable
candidate and could beat Hillary the whole thing changed. Since South Carolina Obama drew 80-90% on a constant basis. Did his issues suddenly won every black voter over?
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Maybe some of the former supporters of Hillary
saw something in her campaign that changed their mind about backing her over Obama.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The point is who cares?
Why look at those statistics in the first place? Why put the lens over those figures? Are black American votes different than white votes? I am just saying, you (and the media as he mentioned) seem to focus on those issues while many others do not see it as relevant.
Should I focus on how many white males voted for McCain during the primaries as evidence that he is just a product of racial and gender preference (because I am sure that the results would suggest that)? I don't. Why? Because I don't care and it doesn't prove anything.
I look at all the statistics
and some are disappointing. When you look at teen pregnancy stats, those are disappointing. When you see many people vote on the basis of race, it is also disappointing. Nothing wrong with looking and analyzing stats - it's valid. When most white Dems voted against Obama in MS, it was an issue, but many more blacks have voted for Obama in state after state since SC and it's just glanced over because it's on the issues?
All stats are fair game and open to interpretation. I wish people were colorblind but almost no one is.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
No you don't
Because that is impossible.
I've never seen you focus on age or income to the extent that I've seen you focus on race. And again, you only focus on those things for the Dem race, not the Republican race. Why is that, searcher of all statistics?
when race is the main factor
in the battle between Hillary and Obama (and it is) then why should I focus on age or income? The Republican race does not break down on race, age, or income but on the ideology.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You set the lens my friend.
How you want to frame it is how it will be framed. If you focus on race, then race will be the major attraction in your view. That's all I have to say about this as it is now becoming repetitive.
Re: Black People Voting for Black Candidate
Umm, regarding this:
We've had black people running before against white candidates, and white candidates generally receive an overwhelmingly large percentage (80-90%) of the white vote (up until this election season). Can we then assert that white people are voting for the white candidate because they are white? Or is it considered "normal" for white people to vote this way? Perhaps they are voting for him because they think he is better suited to the presidency on issues they value most.
Latinos vote for overwhelmingly Clinton. So do Catholics. I think we should give people more credit for their voting decisions than color-matching.
__________________________http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
In some cases yes and in some cases no
Of course in some cases it is whites voting based on race. And in others they are not. As I said to Brendan above - when you are first a bit more for Clinton when Barack is at 20% in the polls, and then suddenly 90% for Barack when he pulls even, it ain't the issues that suddenly swayed ya. That's blatant.
And we are only talking about Democrats here, not general electorate.
Latinos are voting based on race as well, apparently even more than whites in this case. Are they blameless? No and I did not try to absolve anyone else who votes based on race.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Three things here:
The first is you're making a causal claim (from statistical evidence) that is almost impossible to prove, i.e. that blacks voted for Obama only because of his skin color (which I find extra funny because he is half white). How could you prove that? Just saying that blacks voted for him in larger numbers does not prove they voted for him only due to his race.
Secondly, you are still ignoring my point below: Should I focus on how many white males voted for McCain during the primaries as evidence that he is just a product of racial and gender preference (because I am sure that the results would suggest that)? Why don't you focus on the percentage of whites that voted for McCain? Why do you have a double-standard when it comes to Obama? (Oh yeah, that implication from above.)
Lastly, even if it were true (which I don't think it is, since Obama may be just representing their views as a candidate more than the other candidates), don't you think a historically down-trodden people would like to see one of their members become a representative within the halls of power? You are completely dismissing the racial past of this country just as he stated.
I am not interested in looking
at America's past as an excuse for the bigoted rants. I guess 2,000 years of anti-jew violence, oppression, and racism should make anything I say equally excusable.
The AA switch from Clinton to Obama happened when his numbers went up (his stances on the issues were the same) and when the media blew up the MLK thing.
Most whites vote Republican because most whites are middle and upper class and GOP is the best answer to those interested in self-reliance and against big taxes and government interference. It's understandable.
I don't feel for the ideology of people who vote for Democrats at all. Sorry. I don't view it as rational. In the context of General Election I can understand most whites vote Republican (not for someone who is white but simply republican, and they do). In the context of the Democratic party that already has 90% of black voters aligned with it, I do not understand 90% of that 90% voting for a candidate that has pretty much the same views as the other candidate with more experience. The only explanation is not some bogus audacity of hope or change.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm not interested in digging through garbage
So I will let someone else respond to this if they wish.
I know plenty of Jews who hold a grudge against Germans
I know plenty of Jewish-Americans who hold a grudge against Germans--and this is even after the Germans have profusely apologized for their actions and fully repudiated Nazi-ism.
Likewise, I know Irish-Americans who hold a grudge against the English--and this is even after they won their independence.
Compare these examples to the way that many Americans grudgengly let go of racism and basically told black Americans "you should feel lucky we're not still holding you as slaves".
Holding a grudge isn't healthy, but I'm not shocked when people do it.
It would be nice if black and white Americans trusted each other, but that lack of trust has very little to do with people like Reverend Wright--in fact, I suspect that one of the biggest obstacles to establishing trust is from white Americans who blithely dismiss the grievances of black Americans.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Growing up several of my tight friends are jewish.
While they despised the Nazi's, they didn't hate the Germans as they were german themselves often times. But one of the things that frequently got thrown about for illicit fun was derogatory comments about arabs. Illicit because we were good little products of a liberal Westchester upbringing. They weren't Mizrahi Jews, they were Ashkenazi. But they did believe that they, particularly their Middle Eastern offshoots were cousins with the arabs. As such, I guess part of the fun was being derogatory in a round about way to themselves. Good freinds though. Now days, most of them are comfortably republican. Full circle.
20 years of listening to that un-American a**hole...
Wow. Is this the man we'll elect president? Is this the new hope that will unite America?
I am sorry but I am incensed.
And of course it's all excused because of America's past. Let's go back and revisit slavery and then absolve every racist and anti-American utterance into the future in perpetuity.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That is nothing like what he's saying
I'm not sure you're really looking at this objectively.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
of course he is not putting it like that
It was me saying that Obama sat there and listened and no doubt cheered this a-hole for 20 years. You can't excuse that.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Let him stew
Obama never said anything un-American. He is a model American, and Ender and those like him must grasp at straws instead of listening to and understanding the man in order to try to stain him. Will it work? Perhaps, but I hope there are more moderates out there like John who can see through the BS instead of jumping to ridiculous association connections. Time will tell.
if I was a member of KKK
for 20 years yet spouted nice unifying platitudes like Obama, would I be a model American as well?
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ok, let's play this game
Who belonged to the equivalent of the KKK for twenty years? Yes, I am calling you on a false analogy and hyperbole.
I am calling that church
a racist organization. It ain't hyperbole. Anti-American and racist. When everyone stands up and cheers for this:
it is wrong. I don't go for the double standard of it's only wrong when a white guy does it. Democrats apparently do.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
If you gave similar weight and coverage to right wing preachers
rants, then maybe what you say might actually count for something.
You don't.
Like Hagee calling all catholics cultists belonging to a whore religion. McCain still hugged the guy publicly and actively sought his support.
Like Robertson. He said the US is doomed, hurricanes and tidal waves will be leashed against the US by God because Disney allows homosexuals to openly visit their parks. McCain still covets his continued support.
Get a grip Ender. You rail against a black preacher but say not a word about the white evangelical nut cases out there. Maybe that is why your argument doesn't have much weight.
Hagee and Robertson are morons
and if McCain got Hagee's support and then said that he strongly disagreed and condemned the statement about catholics, it would be a lot more believable than saying that after listening and supporting Hagee for 20 years. Frankly same with Robertson, and the fact that McCain cares for their support is unfortunate but not on the same level as claiming to being inspired by those blowhards.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
After further review...
I missed the part where he's a racist. His critique was pretty bland, but I can't see where he's a racist unless you're using a very liberal definition of racism. At no point does he urge those in attendance to discriminate against whites in any way. At no point does he even hint that whites are inferior to blacks.
His thesis was that white people don't understand what it's like to grow up as a poor black man. I don't. I do know what it's like to grow up poor white man, though, so I've got 50% of it right there.
He also mentioned that the country is run by rich white men, which is also true. I feel that culture is a more amorphous phenomenon and isn't run by any particular group, but does have it's trend setters. I'd be so bold as to say that black people affect popular culture disproportionate to their numbers. So on that, I think he's wrong.
I'll withdraw my comment that he was a racist preacher until I'm confronted with better evidence.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
here are some nice choice quotes
From here
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm still waiting
His comments on the Israeli-Palestinian situation could have been worded better (it has little to do with racism), but otherwise I don't have a problem with them. Even the ADL has said it can't find anything he said to be anti-semitic. That's saying a lot since if you don't support the policies of the Israeli government, you're branded an anti-semite by them.
His charge that racism is how the country is still run is a stretch.
I don't see how any of this is racist, though.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
yeah I guess this
meaning 9/11 was a noble non-white strike against evil White America so they will remember that non-whites are still there does not show him as racist anti-America ass that he is...
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not by my definition
He says nothing about it being noble. He didn't even say that whites were evil. He simply said that "White America" got a wake-up call that other people are still there and still have their problems no matter if "White America" caters to them or not. I don't agree with the whole of his sentiment, but it isn't a racist quotation any more than Trent Lott's infamous words about Strom Thurmond were.
You're being uncharacteristically unreasonable regarding this guy. You're reading context into his speeches that isn't there. I think that says more about you than what it says about him.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
I generally dislike those
who dislike me and have a pretty good radar on who falls into that category. I despise people like this Wright person.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Who is more stuck in their ideology
You or Pastor Wright.
It could be a toss up, but the fierce disgust you have against Pastor Wright, sounds like it is coming from the same place.
Both of you want to hold onto your prejudices and what you perceive as injustice, from your side as a Jew with a long history of suffering and prejudice, from Wrights side as a black with a history of suffering and prejudice..!
The point of Obama's speech is, yeah we have all suffered at one another's hands, but how does whining about that suffering, no matter how justified, help rebuild crumbling schools.
You have a choice to move on, but you chose to hold onto your grudges.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
How dare Rev. Wright utter that ugly statement
....about a True Democrat like Bill Clinton! "Riding dirty"??
I mean I can forgive the racism, anti-semitism, and the "we derserved 9/11" nonsense, but when you start badmouthing Democratic icons, I get a little hot under the collar!
It would depend. Check with
It would depend. Check with Sen. Byrd.
I fail to see the parallel though. Obama was never a member of a racist organization.
The proper parallel to draw would be if you associated yourself with a known KKK member, would you be a model American? I'll point out that David Duke is a Republican, and last I checked, you are too. I'll also point out that Byron "Low Tax" Looper won office as a Republican as well.
I'm not low enough to play the guilt by association card.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
you do know that
GOP condemned Duke when he ran as he Republican, and that anyone can register and run as a Republican? Neither Republicans nor I drew our inspiration from that racist ass. You don't see a difference? Just because Duke was a republican doesn't mean we all cheered him on for 20 years.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Re:
How your party decides to run it's membership is up to your party, but if you're going to play guilt by association, it's only fair that it runs both ways.
All I see is a racist preacher preaching a lot of nonsense. While not every preacher is a racist, all of them preach nonsense. The fact that Barack Obama sat in front of him and listened to him doesn't make a bit of difference to me because I know Barack Obama isn't a racist. It'd be pretty hard for him to hate white people since he's just as white as he is black.
Wright doesn't speak for Obama and could not reasonably be assumed to do so absent any sort of denunciation from Obama. You can't know what Obama agreed with and disagreed with. You don't know what he cheered for and didn't cheer for. Until you find me a clip with Obama explicitly endorsing these remarks, I'll take his rejection at face value.
I'd be interested in hearing what you'd expect our leaders to do if any of their spiritual advisors said in church/temple/mosque/etc. that they disagreed with. Catholic priests regularly denounce the death penalty, the Iraqi war, and abortion as being part of a culture of death. Would you expect any politician in attendance to walk out the door if those comments offended them?
I don't know how often you've went to temple (or church). I'm not expert on church only having been to Mass a few dozen times in my life, but preachers say outrageous things quite regularly, things that their "flock" don't necessarily agree with.
I'm not surprised at what Mr. Wright said nor did I expect Obama to stop going to his church because those remarks. A simple "I don't agree with his views" does it for me.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
As an unenlightened insane Church Attendee..
..I would say this is par for the course in many of the churches I've attended, and I'm a regular church-goer. I've been to mostly black churches, but I've also attended many mixed-race churches (by the way, Obama's church is mixed race as well). Preachers often venture into politics and race because its heavily intertwined into our culture and our past and to ignore it would be to ignore reality--like those who say they "don't see race." (I've often noted that this phrase is mostly mentioned when a minority is present, lol).
Anyway, I disagree with what the pastor says on certain issues and suggestions. however, ultimately, he gets it right. He criticizes white people for ignoring racial issues and for police brutality, but at the same time he criticizes black folks for not being on time and looking for handouts. You're not going to agree with the language all the time, but its the spirit of the message that counts, and not the letter.
I think Obama has addressed this issue far more than McCain had to. The transitive property may work well in math class, but it cannot work in politics (or shouldn't).
Obama denounced his old pastor's words. The pastor has retired. He has left Obama's campaign. I don't think there is much more that has to be done. Any other demands I think is just conservative anger looking for some way to slime the candidate. Hagee hung in the news for a few minutes--this story is being blasted on CNN and Fox every hour at least once.
__________________________http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Bubbles
Thanks for the reality check, Charles.
This type of talk does happen frequently, in churches, community centers, bars, and break rooms. There are unhappy people in this nation. There are unreasonable people in this nation. There are racists and misogynists and idiots. To avoid all association with such people is to live in isolation from community. Sure you can pick your friends and avoid these things, but community is a larger thing and, kinda like family, we do not always get to choose its exact makeup.
A church with sinners in it. Who would have ever thought? ;}
Having said that, it's also Ender's (and others') prerogative to have higher expectations of Obama's associations. Might be a tad unrealistic and partisan at heart, though.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
consider the context
Wright is an old man -- he retired this year. His opinions were shaped by his experience. The further we move from the injustices that shaped Rev. Wright, the more absurd that his opinions will seem.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
here is a good comment from RedState
Exactly.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
For those that don't want to give Drudge the traffic, here's the
speech from TPM.
Good speech. Do I really care that some don't/won't buy it? No. I don't.
+1
I think of him more highly than I previously did. He made the same points that I did independent of me. :-)
It's exactly what he needed to say and exactly what needs to be said to convince anyone who was having doubts about the matter. Those who don't see this for what it is fail themselves by buying into the idea that attending a church demands complete and utter submission to the man at the lectern. Unless you're Catholic and are listening to the Pope, that man is not infallible.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
But we all understand that this was the perfect Rovian spot
to drag Barack through the mud for something he never did or said. I gotta give Karl credit. He's still the same guy who got McCain to lose South Carolina because he fathered an black baby out of wedlock. (note - he and his wife ADOPTED an asian baby, he didn't father a baby out of wedlock)
Not everyone loved today's speech.
SadlyNo says:
"I was rather disappointed. For instance, I thought that Hussein X could have spent far more time detailing his plans to truck all white people off to reparations camps where we’ll be forced to do lawn work for Mexican Reconquistadores and global caliphate. But alas, he’s still trying to trick white people into thinking he’s not conspiring with the Mexicans and the Muslims to destroy us all. I guess this will have to wait until after he’s elected..."
<:p
Has it been established yet that Barack
is a Christian?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
How the speech went over at RedState:
Just for fun (boy am I twisted) I thought I'd see what our conservative bretheren of the blog thought about Barack's speech. Here's what they have up so far today:
Erick wrote 4,881 words of Bull
. It has 5 comments.
Confederate Yankee wrote Wright is Wrong and so is Obama
. It has zero comments (way to go CY.)
Kevin Holtsberry(?) wrote Why I want to believe Obama-and why it would be foolish to do so
. It has 3 comments.
My real observation on all this? RedState has now become the Bear Stearns
of the rightwing internet.
well now
there is also this
with 124 comments :)
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Are you trying to say that your site
is therefore worse than Bear Stearns?
jesus, I can't make you happy no matter what.
hehe
it's just redstate is not that bad :)
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Here's a "double standard"
Here's a "double standard" question I haven't seen raised. Why is it that Obama simply "rejected and denounced" not only statements by Farrakhan, but rejected and denounced the man himself, and offered no excuses or pleas for understanding, nor cited his positive contributions to the black community as something to be weighed against HIS outrageous statements, yet has done the opposite of each for Wright? Is it because Farrakhan showed bigotry and hatred not only toward whites, but also toward Jews and the Jewish religion, whereas Wright's statements (as far as I know) attacked only whites? Is it because there are more Christian black voters than voters who belong to the Nation of Islam? Why? And why haven't I seen this question asked in the media, let alone asked of Obama by the media?