March 18, 2008
Obama’s speech on race
My instant reaction to what may have been the most important speech of Obama’s candidacy is that it was excellent. Not, for once, because it was all that well delivered. Especially at the beginning, he seemed not just calm and collected, as usual, but downright subdued. He got more comfortable as he went on, but the whole thing felt more like a statement announced under some duress (which I suppose it was) than a speech he was ever keen to deliver. On the substance, though, my feeling is that he hit every target. Perhaps the association with Wright will still prove to be a net negative. We will find out in due course. But I thought Obama dealt with the issues so well that, at least for me, the whole fuss over Wright might turn out to work to his advantage.
In my previous post on the Wright affair I called Obama’s first line on the matter–”I wasn’t present when he said those things”–a transparent evasion. I was very glad to see no trace of that in the speech:
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
Rather than pretending he was unaware of Wright’s views, he confronted them:
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
That seems to me exactly right. But having criticised his pastor so frontally, Obama then had to explain why he nonetheless has remained a member of his church and evidently holds the man in such high regard. He did this too–first in a very personal way, but then in an explanation that broadened out to touch on the main themes of his campaign.
The personal aspect was partly an appeal to take a broader view of Wright:
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.
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
I found this both intellectually and emotionally convincing. I thought he might wind up at this point–and in fact, as it became clear he had a lot more to say (”Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point…”) I wondered for a moment whether he was about to make a big mistake. No. He bravely extended these personal observations, and located them alongside his main campaign messages.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicia ns, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committ ed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. 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.
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.
This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. 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 – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
Well, as I’ve said before, I think Obama is wrong about “the real culprits of the middle-class squeeze”. I winced briefly at that sop to anti-business populism. But his larger point about race and political misdirection is true. Then came these paragraphs, which I thought were the crux of the speech:
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
Obama is absolutely right about the “profound mistake” of Wright’s sermons. Obama said what was wrong with them, and why he disagreed with them, without repudiating the whole man–indeed, while explaining his affection and regard for him. This was not throwing Wright under a bus, as some of Obama’s critics will say he has; nor was it equivocating over what Wright said, or meant to say, or said in front of Obama. In short, he has dealt with the issue to the satisfaction of any fair-minded person. Much more than that, he has used it both to underline the central themes of his campaign, and to bravely extend those themes to a frontal examination of race and politics in America–and the role he can play in transcending the “racial stalemate”.
As I say, Wright may even have done him a favour. In any event, it was a good morning’s work.
It could very well be that the most important problem in America is not race, but class. Certainly, this is implied by much of what Obama had to say. He was also right to hone in on the use of race as a distraction from the real issues.
Unfortunately, we are not likely to have seen the last of that, as the anti-black focus of the Jeremiah Wright smear campaign is likely to be just a prelude to the anti-Latino fury of the “immigration issue”, about which we will be hearing much more in the months to come from the Republican side, despite McCain’s (more or less) moderate record on this topic to date.
All in all, a great analysis by Clive Crook of an historic speech by Barack Obama on a day that, I predict, will be remembered for many, many years to come, after those of us whose comments are now appearing on this site have long since moved on to bloggers’ heaven, wherever that may be.
Posted by: algasema | March 18th, 2008 at 6:11 pm | Report this commentThis is too long a column. Obama’s apologetics are not worth such minute exegesis. Anyway, why is Israel the first ’stalwart ally’ that he mentions? Is there no NATO? Is not the UK America’s most important strategic partner? It is like that famous line of many an anti-Semite: “my best friends are Jewish”. Similarly, for Obama, “our best ally is Israel”…
For the truth, read the opposite of everything he says. For the type of milieu he mixes with, just watch those videos of Wright again and again, and imagine Obama sitting in the aisle, one of 10,000 adherents of that mega-congregation.
I must say I do not find the dear pastor very religiously inspiring. Is this religion, or some sort of a socio-political movement?
Posted by: RCS | March 18th, 2008 at 8:32 pm | Report this commentSen. Obama equivocates unequivocally not so much over what Rev. Wright said, which is pretty easy to condemn, but over his own 20 year history of supporting Rev. Wright.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 18th, 2008 at 8:48 pm | Report this commentMr.Crook,
It is shocking that an individual as bright as you are, and with whom I agree so much, can be so wrong about this: the Wright association a net advantage for Obama. Are you on crack man?
Know this: regardless of the emotional power of the speech, or even its intellectual cogency, or certainly the potential for some pregnant sound bites/ads - the association with Wright is a net-negative with the one group Obama needed for a comfortable win in November. That group consists mainly of Whites who are neither fervent Democrats of a certain age nor “income-style”(Remember Bobos in Paradise?) laissez-faire based moderates. This group I experience every day. Whites who only vote in the General Election, not well informed who make snap-ish judgments based on DEEP emotional resonance (not speech driven) or the lack thereof. They are neither highly educated nor uneducated, some college, 50K to 60K USD/yr single income. They often depend on slightly more informed individuals to keep them up to date. This group has rejected Obama for good. I encounter them mumbling in the grocery store, at the gas station, and while standing in line at the movies. They were on the fence. They are no longer. They simply don’t care at all what was in the speech. Period. This group is by the way the direct target of the 527 machines. DISCLAIMER: I will still vote for the Prophet in Nov if Hill is out.
The problem I suppose with the Commentariat class - the Punditocratic Intelligentsia to which you belong is this: your intellect dominates your emotion, and you forget that for most people that may NOT be true. That is neither a bad thing nor a good thing but it is a fact. ( cf. Westen, The Political Brain )
Oh well great blog anyway. Truly inter-textual in the spirit of Paul DeMann. I read the speech and will see it eventually, but like most will be confined to sound bites.
Posted by: Jay B | March 18th, 2008 at 9:00 pm | Report this commentEmotion based on intuition is many times a much stronger guide to the truth than hyper-rationality and high intellectualising. Anyway, anyone who allows Obama the appellation ‘Prophet’, can hardly be devoid emotionally-driven judgement.
Posted by: RCS | March 18th, 2008 at 10:06 pm | Report this commentMr Crook–unlike you, Obama’s speech did not answer my main question: How could Obama seek spiritual comfort for over 20 years from a man that preaches hate? That is very poor judgment indeed—so poor, in fact, that I would question his ability to lead the country.
Put the shoe on the other foot. If a Democratic politician were associated with the equivalent of a white Jeremiah Wright, that politician would be run out of the Democratic Party.
Clearly a double standard. I don’t feel comfortable advocating certain standards for blacks and an entirely different set of standards for whites. Call me crazy.
Furthermore, I don’t believe that Obama closed the deal with those that he needed to reach: Reagan Democrats, independents, and moderates (although Obama supporters, including the MSM, just fell all over themselves saying what a great speech it was). But we’ll soon find out as the next round of polls will be out tomorrow.
Posted by: Ann H | March 19th, 2008 at 3:19 am | Report this commentRCS
Posted by: Jay B | March 19th, 2008 at 8:07 am | Report this commentFor Aristotle, risibility is the first property of man defined as a rational animal.
lololololol
the cure for cancer too.
Goodness RCS, you come across bitter, jaded and irrational here. Writing this speech off as apologetics is rather crass. Whether you like the candidate or not, there is content in this speech of import for American society. I can’t remember a more balanced and progressive analysis of the US race by a politician. And the way he contextualises it against the broader backdrop of the perceptions of other groups such as whites, immigrants and so on is deeply perceptive IMHO.
Your questions (”why is Israel the first ’stalwart ally’ that he mentions? Is there no NATO? Is not the UK America’s most important strategic partner?”) totally miss the point of the speech. It’s not a foreign policy speech, and he just mentions Israel and Islam in passing. Not only is there no need to be exhaustive in listing and prioritising the US’ allies, it would be utterly out of place in this speech.
RCS, I’ve enjoyed reading many of your comments to the CC and GR blogs, and have learnt from them. That’s why I find it bizarre that someone as evidently intelligent and well informed as you would make such a ridiculous and irrationally vehement statement such as “For the truth, read the opposite of everything he says.”
My conjecture is that it seems to be linked to the Israel issue, which is so emotive that it often leads people to be blinded by their firmly-held views. In that respect, this post of yours reminds me of Pacifist’s less considered statements when he gets onto the Israel issue too, albeit from the other side of the argument. Of course, my conjecture could be wrong…
Obama is an imperfect candidate (as are they all) and I don’t go in for this prophet thing at all. But credit to the man where it’s due, and criticise him where criticism is due.
Posted by: DKM | March 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am | Report this commentSorry, that should read: “I can’t remember a more balanced and progressive analysis of the US race ISSUE by a politician.”
Just one word missing, but it rather changes the meaning!
Posted by: DKM | March 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am | Report this commentRCS,
“Is this religion, or some sort of a socio-political movement?”
Would it surprise you, given US history, if it was both? Do you agree with everything your pastor says?
Mr Crook,
“corporate culture rife with inside dealing”
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/974
“questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed”
Well, Enron and Worldcom are old news… and these vices surely played their part in the current financial crisis.
“a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests”
And health care reform, improving coverage for more US citizens, is difficult why exactly?
“economic policies that favor the few over the many”
How else to refer to a tax cut for the richest?
When the truth is popular, can it still be dismissed as ‘populist’?
Posted by: David | March 19th, 2008 at 11:32 am | Report this commentWell RCS, in the same vain vein as all your comments on Barack Obama posted in your favourite FT blogs, the previous two are highly prejudiced and unreasonably biassed. Have you read the speech? what part of his speech can be qualified as “apologetics”. “For the truth read the opposite of all he says” such a sweeping statement !!! and as always in your comments regarding the black candidate, lacking in all objectivity and argument. Surprising for someone who doesn’t even live in the US.
Posted by: Marni Sharon | March 19th, 2008 at 12:30 pm | Report this commentAnn H., judging from your comments, it seems clear that you disagree with those who thought that Barack Obama made a “great” speech. Surprisingly, I agree with you. It was not merely a “great” speech. It was, rather, a monumental speach, a watershed speech that may change race relations in America forever, just as Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech (which, as a young law graduate, I was privileged to be able to play a very small role in helping to protect the legal rights of) profoundly changed America’s view about race in the 1960’s and, ultimately, helped lead to the end of racial segregation (as Hillary Clinton has recently ungraciously acknowledged).
True enough, the early polls may not reflect this. In the case of Dr. King as well, the same people who called him a “demagogue”, “agitator” and a “Communist” before the speech continued to do so afterwards. But, if Dr. King’s speech had not been made, America would, arguably, be a very different country today. The same will doubtless be said in the future about Senator Obama’s speech yesterday, no matter who wins this year’s election.
Posted by: algasema | March 19th, 2008 at 1:52 pm | Report this commentSaying one thing, doing another…
“a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests” such as who provided a private jet to Sen. Obama.
“economic policies that favor the few over the many” such as the tariff which puts $$ in revenue into the provider of the private jet.
I would like to see Senator Obama defeated because of his 1970 era Leftism, yet, his constant mangling of his own record to promote his candidacy may yet be his undoing.
Remember, this is the same Sen. Obama who voted for the Bridge to Nowhere, and tried to torpedo immigration reform for the sake of his union backers.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 19th, 2008 at 2:37 pm | Report this commentJohn Powers, even though I am an Obama supporter, I would be interested in knowing more details about exactly how he “torpedoed immigration reform”. Thank you.
Posted by: algasema | March 19th, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Report this commentAlgae,
I was told that by a Teamsters organizer at lunch last week. The Teamsters (and other unions) asked Sen. Obama to attach a set of organized labor authored clauses to the McCain Kennedy bill. Sen. Obama duly obliged. I don’t think it made it to the final copy of the bill.
The Teamster thought it was ironic that Sen. Obama would claim to be somehow above the fray, yet more than willing to foul (he used a different verb) up immigration reform to win a few Union votes.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 19th, 2008 at 3:47 pm | Report this commentJohn Powers, I would like to know more about exactly what provisions the Teamsters tried to put in the bill that caused your contact to say that they were trying to “foul” ( I respect your polite choice of words) up immigration reform.
Since I happen to be an immigration lawyer myself (in my spare time from blogging) I should mention that immigration reform is a multi-edged, not just double-edged, sword. If what you say about Obama is correct, all it means is that no presidential candidate has a monopoly on saying one thing about immigration and doing something else.
Let’s look first at McCain’s stand. Yes, I admire his courage and honesty in standing up for “legalization” for illegal immigrants, and even in comparing the “No amnesty for illegals” Lou Dobbs crowd to the 19th Century anti-Irish Know-Nothings.
However, he accepted a series of amendments to his bill from the Republican right that, while largely eviscerating the “legalization” part, would have drastically curtailed due process and access to the courts for all immigrants, legal as well as illegal. In addition, the amendments would have cut down so far on family immigration quotas, and eliminated employer-sponsored green cards completely, that it would have been much harder for Latino and other minorities to come here legally in the future. What a great prescription for even more illegal immigration.
True, McCain is not the only person who was involved in this devil’s bargain “compromise”. Many Democrats were, too. But to say that someone was against immigration reform merely because of opposition to this deeply flawed bill is a gross oversimplification.
But this is only part of the story. The main strategy that immigration opponents tried to use to defeat immigration reform was to try to amend the bill to provide that the “legalization” and “guest worker” provisions would not go into effect until the “enforcement” part, consisting chiefly but not exclusively of the Mexican border fence, had been “certified” as “effective” in stopping illegal immigration. Certified by whom, Lou Dobbs? And certified when? When McCain’s successors pull out of Iraq a hundred years from now?
To his great discredit, Mccain has now adopted this sell-out strategy, and, on the campaign trail, has agreed to drop his support of immigration reform until the Mexican border is “secure”, i.e, never.
If McCain has a lot of explaining to do about immigration reform, however, Hillary has to do a good deal of explaining, too. While she was in the White House, Bill resorted to the unprecedented step of using the military to blockade Haiti in order to stop refugees from leaving their own dictatorship-ravaged country, because he was afraid they might wind up in the US. True, he later invaded Haiti to try to get rid of the dictatorship, so give him some points for that.
However, in 1996, Bill signed an immigration bill which, among other things, provides for deporting long standing legal residents who might have stolen a tube of toothpaste many years before the law was passed. This is not a joke. I know people who, even now, some 12 years later, are being caught in the meshes of this bill for minor offenses. It is safe to say that the great majority of these people are people of color. Did Hillary ever protest against this injustice from our nation’s first self-proclaimed “black” president?
Posted by: algasema | March 19th, 2008 at 5:11 pm | Report this commentNot only is this Wright controversy hurting Obama, it is hurting the entire Democratic Party as McCain leads Hillary for the first time ever in the Gallup Poll. Nice going, Barack!
“PRINCETON, NJ — New Gallup Poll Daily tracking finds Hillary Clinton with a 49% to 42% lead over Barack Obama in national Democratic voters’ presidential nomination preference. This is the first time Clinton has held a statistically significant lead in over a month.
John McCain may be benefiting in the short-term from the highly charged Democratic race. He holds a statistically significant lead over Obama, 47% to 43%, in registered voters’ preferences for the general presidential election. That is the first time any of the candidates has held a statistically significant lead since Gallup Poll Daily tracking began reporting on the general election race last week. McCain’s 48% to 45% advantage over Clinton is not statistically significant, BUT IT IS THE FIRST TIME HE HAS HAD AN EDGE OVER HER IN GALLUP POLL DAILY TRACKING. — Jeff
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105205/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Moves-Into-Lead-Over-Obama.aspx
Posted by: Ann H | March 19th, 2008 at 6:16 pm | Report this commentIMUS and Obama on the nappy headed comment (a comment that I find truly offensive):
“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that THERE’S NOBODY ON MY STAFF WHO WOULD STILL BE WORKING FOR ME IF THEY MADE A COMMENT LIKE THAT ABOUT ANYBODY OF ANY ETHNIC GROUP. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”—April 11, 2007
Oh, really, Obama. What about Jeremiah Wright?
“We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of TOXIC INFORMATION WE ARE FEEDING OUR KIDS,” he concluded.”
Apparently, however, Obama does NOT worry about his daughters listening to Wright’s rabid sermons ever Sunday.
Posted by: Ann H | March 19th, 2008 at 6:34 pm | Report this commentObama showed a great deal of LEADERSHIP alnog with managing and handling CRISIS.
Posted by: Sid | March 19th, 2008 at 6:45 pm | Report this commentHe showed not only he isn’t a politician (any other person would dump Wright’s ass for the glory of becoming President) but in fact he was caring and above all human with huge capacity of understanding. His speech was very important to every American whether white, black, latino, Asian, Christian, Jews, Muslim, etc.
Well done Barak-
Excuse me, algasema, the whole point is for the Democrats to win the presidency in the November general election, not to cannonize Obama. I think this is something both Obama and Clinton supporters can agree on.
Posted by: Ann H | March 19th, 2008 at 7:18 pm | Report this commentWell, Obama has been the subject of every attack from the the far right or Clinton capms (his middle name, being muslim, being black, etc). I don’t believe Clinton care about a Democrat winning in Novemebr as long as Hillary is part of it.
Posted by: Sid | March 19th, 2008 at 8:40 pm | Report this commentBill Clinton did the most damaging to the democrats in the 90’s (both congress and house lost to republicans) so Clintons only care about themselves and not the democrats.
What is Clinton fighting on when she is behind the popular vote, deligates, AND losing superdelagates as well. Rather than creating problems for Obama, Hillary should quit and support Obama!!!!
Another perspective on Obama’s Race Speech. Excerpts below.
“Conveniently, Obama has taken something that is an absolute and undeniable truth (race relations are a problem in America) and attached it to something that is flawed and wrong (Wright’s hate speech). It’s called a play on logic. His attempt is to confuse people and get them to agree with him on overriding theme (it’s time to be open and honest about race relations) and, therefore, tacitly and inadvertently approve of and forget about the very reason of what brought us all there in the first place (his questionable and close relationship with Wright.) You know what that technique is called? Political spin. You know who uses it? Politicians.
For me, it is disturbing to think that Obama chose such a man to be his mentor. Why would he? And perhaps, most importantly, to what effect? That is the question that Barack Obama is trying so desperately to distract us from asking ourselves.
Why would anyone allow someone so divisive to so totally permeate their lives?
Why would Barack Obama—the candidate of feel good hope—want a man who preaches such hate, anger, and bitterness around him?
Why would Barack Obama—the candidate of change—want a man so allegedly mired and parked in the past to mentor him?
Why would Barack Obama—the candidate of unity—want a man so divisive in nature to work on his presidential campaign?
None of it makes any sense. None of it adds up. All of it makes me uncomfortable—and that lack of comfort has nothing to do with our nation’s flawed race relations and everything to do with Obama’s growing hypocrisy as a politician (something he was not supposed to be).”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/barack-the-politician-wit_b_92363.html
Posted by: Ann H | March 19th, 2008 at 9:24 pm | Report this commentAlga,
Sen Obama was willing to “foul” up immigration reform to collect more donations from the union, per the Teamster. The Teamsters main interest is to collect more dues. If I recall correctly, he said the provisions were to more pro-union than anti-immigrant, but nevertheless had the effect of fouling up (among many other problems with) the bill.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 19th, 2008 at 10:28 pm | Report this commentJohn Powers, there is simply not the slightest evidence that the Teamsters were responsible for the defeat of the “compromise immigration reform” bill sponsored by McCain and Kennedy. I don’t know if the union even wanted this result.
What is clear is that Lou Dobbs, Tom Tancredo, and a host of right wing talk show hosts overwhelmed the public with fears of “100 million” legal immigrants coming in from Latin America if the “amnesty” provisions went through. That was more than enough to kill the bill. No one needed the Teamsters to do that.
Posted by: algasema | March 19th, 2008 at 11:00 pm | Report this commentShould the whole world judge every American as bad as Geroge Bush (want nothing but war and destruction) since he was elected by the American? Well, they should not.
Posted by: Sid | March 19th, 2008 at 11:03 pm | Report this commentShould Obama be judged based on his pastor? After all, Obama made it to Harward, married to another Harvard educator, has been paid his taxes, very productive member of society, and more, should the pastor get the credit too?
Why are we focusing on one negative thing when there are lots of positive things about the Pastor…It shows some people are so narrow minded!!
Algas,
The evidence is that Sen. Obama was carrying water for the Teamsters in exchange for donations, much like other politicians do all the time. He was not advocating for immigration reform within the McCain Kennedy bill; he was advocating for special favors for his union backers.
The Teamster organizer I spoke with said that his Union really didn’t have much of an opinion on immigration, but tried to get some pork out of the deal. They failed, as Obama’s spiking the bill with pork failed.
Sid, has Senator Obama ever worked a single day in his life at an honest job? Not a “community organizer” or politician, but pumping gas, driving a truck, teaching school, running a business etc. There are a lot of productive members of society…they are not politicians.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 20th, 2008 at 1:08 am | Report this commentJBP, I never said others were not productive…my point is Barack’s pastor didn’t have a negative influence on him over the past 20 years. Sen. Obama never ever advocated anti American over the years since he particpated in that Church.
Posted by: Sid | March 20th, 2008 at 1:25 am | Report this commentTo Ann H:
Democrats who want to win at any cost will never will. Republicans win because they passionately believe in their leaders, whatever one might think of them. Democrats keeps losing because they calculate how to get back in power, not inspire people to put them in power. Until the democrats get this through their seemingly inpenetrable skulls, they’ll get what they deserve.
The power of Obama’s speech was precisely that it wasn’t calculating, and he will no doubt get flack for it. But polls and the Iowa futures market indicate that a growing number of people don’t care about political calculations. There’s hope yet!
Posted by: em | March 20th, 2008 at 6:36 am | Report this commentThere is no social-political movement being touted in Black churches across America to hate white Americans but passionate, rhetorical lectures of injustices and inequalities that continue in our society. Black pastors such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright teaches awareness, self-discipline and personal accountablity.
As to why Senator Obama chose to continue a 20 year old relationship with the Rev. Wright? I can only assume it is because the pastor controversial statements raises questions why do he perceive his country, his government the way he do? It opens further dialogue for discussion and discovery. Whether he agrees with his ascertions or not. We can agree to disagree.
Posted by: Darlene Anthony | March 20th, 2008 at 9:51 am | Report this commentSid,
Claiming that politician is a “productive member of society” is a laughable concept.
I suppose one can be a partisan leftist and not be anti-American, but Rev. Wright certainly reinforced Sen. Obama’s partisan left wing view of the world.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 20th, 2008 at 12:12 pm | Report this commentI am a middle class married Catholic and one of the teachings of my faith is not to use contraceptives, or worse, have abortion. How would I cope mentally, emotionally and financially with the multiple products (children) if I adhered to this part of my faith? Yet, I remain devout and devoted to my Catholic faith BUT reject this part for myself as it is not IMHO realistic in modern day world to keep having kids beyond your means. BTW, I have never asked or taken any social benefit claims.
It is in the same vein that I fully accept Obama’s explanations of his relationship with Pastor Wright and recognise and applaud the strentgh of his character not throwing the Pastor to the fishes. As a politician, he has had and will continue to deal with people of different persuasions, so staying away from the likes of Pastor Wright is counter-productive.
IMHO, America will benefit eventually from Obama’s race relation philosophy whether or not he becomes the next president.
Posted by: AOO UK | March 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm | Report this commentYes it was a very good speech but, let’s face it … Jeremiah Wright is God’s gift to Hillary’s campaign — it doesn’t much matter how you slice it, it’s downhill from here for Obama.
Posted by: HNH | March 23rd, 2008 at 9:42 am | Report this comment