On March 18th, 2008 at 10:02 AM, redstatewannabe said:
This Obama preacher thing really seems to have struck a nerve with some folks - Obama's speech today is looking pretty big.
Do we know exactly who brought this story and footage forward?
On March 18th, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Do we know exactly who brought this story and footage forward?
Hillary.
On March 18th, 2008 at 10:16 AM, redstatewannabe said:
The Obama speech is on WLS right now.
On March 18th, 2008 at 10:37 AM, IlliniPundit said:
"Hillary."
Somehow, the Republicans will be blamed by the legacy media, just as has happened for most the other race-based attacks on Obama.
On March 18th, 2008 at 10:38 AM, redstatewannabe said:
If you listen to Obama for more than 10 minutes, you cannot help but be inspired. He talks so eloquently, and speaks of such uplifting stories and themes - I am amazed Hillary has rec'd any votes at all.
I disagree with about all the guys policies, but can't help but think he would at the very least bring some class and dignity to the office of President.
That said, from what i just heard, he gave his preacher some justification for his anger - in a very empathetic way. But I am not sure he repudiated the statements sufficiently.
On March 18th, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Glock21 said:
That was Obama's best job to date of explaining the situation in a way that, while leaving some questions, thoroughly explained what he disagreed with and why as well as giving a rationale for the continued relationship in a context that people may be able to relate to. Throughout this controversy I've been regularly reminded of the progression of Malcolm X's life from his earlier dark days, to the seduction into what can only be considered a hate group, to an enlightenment against the ways of division. What bugged me with the Obama situation was there seemed to be a clear point where he got sucked up into this particular group... but no clear point where he broke away from it. He's now assuring us that he sees the race issue in America very differently than Wright and probably many at the Trinity church there in Chicago... and the reason there was never a clear break is similar to the reason he would never break away from his white grandmother who had her own issues with race. He understands them, and cherishes their relationship for other reasons... but rejects the divisive views and prejudices that he feels can and must change (he did a great job of bringing it back to his message with that.)
It still leaves some things unanswered, probably because this should have been his first response, and it somewhat contradicted his prior brief explanations. The biggest question seems to be why didn't he qualify his relationship with him earlier? How much of this was just rhetoric versus saving his political hide? We all know he can speak passionately and convincingly, but we also know he's a politician who may just be saying what he thinks is necessary. His prior responses came off more like that to me, this one seemed to be the one where he resigned himself to lay it on the line. The gaps I think will still bug many people, the unanswered questions. But overall I think he might a giant leap towards diffusing this situation as long as he doesn't blow it later.
On March 18th, 2008 at 12:36 PM, SEB (not verified) said:
It has always been my opinion that Barack Obama needs more experience. My advice to him would be to finish his term as U.S. Senator, return to Illinois, challenge Blagojevitch for the Democratic gubenatorial nomination (which I think he would easily win, along with the election), and serve a couple of terms as Governor. That would give him experience actually being the person in charge, or in other words, the buck stopper.
On March 18th, 2008 at 12:50 PM, redstatewannabe said:
But if he did that he would have to run on a record, not rhetoric.
On March 18th, 2008 at 01:00 PM, Glock21 said:
The Heller oral arguments (DC gun ban) are being played on c-span right now for anyone interested. C-Span is good with their web archives if you missed it, it'll probably be there later.
On March 18th, 2008 at 01:37 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"The biggest question seems to be why didn't he qualify his relationship with him earlier?"
I think he did. He talked about him in his books, one of which came out over a decade ago. He talked publicly about this specific concern a year ago. He talked about it again this past weekend, when Fox and (later) other media outlets began running tiny clips in a continuous loop in an effort, as one commentator put it, to reduce a 30 year career to a 30 second sound bite. Both a year ago and this past week, Obama made clear that he disagreed strongly with specific statements, but still had a close personal relationship with the man.
I understood his position throughout, and tried to communicate on this forum some of the complexities of it as I had heard Obama himself express them. I have to wonder if perhaps part of the problem you've faced has been not fully understanding the relationship between church members and pastors. I don't say that to be demeaning or derogatory, but rather as an attempt at a rational explanation. Perhaps Obama's (and my) biggest omission has been mistakenly assuming that everyone automatically understood the role that a pastor plays in the life of a church member.
On March 18th, 2008 at 01:52 PM, Glock21 said:
Kevin... this was the first time I've heard him really get into his specific rationale/reasons/etc. Merely saying we don't agree on everything didn't really tell us anything. Sure we could have assumed a great deal... but we could have assumed in his favor or against him pretty easily. If it was merely his pastor and a typical church member/pastor relationship I'd see what you mean on the rest. But that's obviously not the case here. It went way beyond that.
On March 18th, 2008 at 02:09 PM, Old Elephant (not verified) said:
Barack Obama gave a good speech on race relations.
If race was the central issue in America today, it might have worked. Unfortunately, for Mr. Obama, that’s not the case.
Woven within the speech, and throughout his campaign, is the standard, simplistic subtext of economic class warfare that has come to embody the Democratic party in the fist quarter of the 21st century.
Obama bemoans how “black anger” and “white resentments” have “distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze…” he then turns quickly to the standard boogeyman of liberalism: corporate America.
We are told that the “real problem” facing America is that “the corporation you work for will ship it (your job) overseas for nothing more than a profit.”
Well, really now…how would Mr. Obama suggest companies remain in America without making a profit?
Maybe an intelligent, honest discussion of how excessive regulation, high taxes, protectionism and a ludicrous litigation system have made it difficult for American companies to compete on the world market is in order.
Don’t hold your breath.
On March 18th, 2008 at 02:15 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"If it was merely his pastor and a typical church member/pastor relationship I'd see what you mean on the rest. But that's obviously not the case here. It went way beyond that."
I'm not at all sure what you mean by that. It obviously is the case here. How exactly do you think it goes beyond that?
On March 18th, 2008 at 02:22 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"Maybe an intelligent, honest discussion of how excessive regulation, high taxes, protectionism and a ludicrous litigation system have made it difficult for American companies to compete on the world market is in order."
You left out labor unions, social security, and public welfare programs. How can you possibly compose such a laundry list and forget to mention how the greed of the proletariat has inhibited the greed of American corporations? ;-)
On March 18th, 2008 at 02:24 PM, IlliniPundit said:
"You left out labor unions, social security, and public welfare programs. How can you possibly compose such a laundry list and forget to mention how the greed of the proletariat has inhibited the greed of American corporations? ;-)"
I would have lumped them in with "excessive regulation" and "high taxes."
;-)
On March 18th, 2008 at 02:25 PM, redstatewannabe said:
most folks I know would not stay at the church of a pastor with whom they had substantial philosophical disagreements.
On March 18th, 2008 at 02:52 PM, Glock21 said:
RSW... or bringing them on board with one's *political* campaign when what they're most well known for are controversial *political* views with whom the *political* candidate disagrees with so substantially *politically*. I have close friends whom I disagree with substantially on all sorts of political issues, but I wouldn't have them act as part of my campaign and I certainly would distance myself from their views as adamantly as possible at the first mention of their views and our association. And I sure as heck wouldn't leave people thinking they're somehow my mentor of any sort.
On March 18th, 2008 at 02:57 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"most folks I know would not stay at the church of a pastor with whom they had substantial philosophical disagreements."
I guess at that point you have to decide how many disagreements, and how substantial, and how relevant. The media has deliberately made it seem like Wright's worst comments are all the pastor ever says. My understanding is that they are actually the exceptions rather than the rule, and are not the core of his ministry.
Coming at it from a different angle, another commentator pointed out that Obama had called Wright his spiritual advisor, not his political one. I think that it is entirely plausible to agree with someone about the nature of God and man, while still recognizing the differences in background that inevitably lead to differences in politics.
The viewpoint you express seems to logically lead to churches that would be exclusively segregated between Democrats and Republicans. While that certainly exists to some extent, I don't see how it could be considered a requirement chiseled in stone. The Baptist church I was raised in had a broad spectrum of political and philosophical thought, and a pastor who encouraged that. Seemed to work pretty good, as far as I could tell.
On March 18th, 2008 at 03:14 PM, Glock21 said:
I'd expect a hate monger like Wright to be admonished by a candidate from either political party. It's unfortunate that the GOP is let off the hook with some vile figures, not by Democrats, but by many others. Falwell being the prime example in my mind. Falwell was a horrible association to have and it disgusts me that McCain reneged on his criticisms of him. If Falwell was on the religious committee or some other part of his campaign I'd be even more upset. Wright's statements are as bad and often worse than I ever heard come out of Falwell's vile trap. Dems especially know that these religious affiliations can be pretty ugly and bring into question what a candidate may truly believe, how much they share in common with these yahoos. There's only one reason I can think of that they let one of their own off the hook so quickly for worse... politics. Pure and simple.
On March 18th, 2008 at 03:50 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"Only if political views are expressed from the pulpit."
Political views are always expressed from every pulpit, every week. They may not be overtly partisan, i.e., naming candidates and/or parties by name, but they are political viewpoints just the same.
Some churches are more open and direct about it than others. I've been in a fair number of black churches over the years, and they are very different from most of the white churches I have been in. I don't claim to be an authority, or to have any particular statistical data, but I can honestly say that my experience has been that views like some of those expressed by Wright are hardly a rarity in black churches.
That doesn't make them right, nor does it make them wrong. It comes as no surprise that many, both white and black, find these views to be hateful and divisive. Words spoken in anger or frustration are nearly always counterproductive.
It is equally counterproductive to dismiss a man's entire life's work because of them. There is much of value in Wright as a person and pastor, and in his church even after he has retired. And I think that while Obama has repeatedly and correctly condemned the statements, it is unreasonable to expect him to renounce his friendship.
It is obvious to me that there is a concerted effort in some quarters to use Wright as an excuse to turn Obama into just another angry black man. There is no denying the glee with which some national commentators have pounced on this, as though we are just now learning the true nature of Obama, and he is everything that white America fears most.
I applaud the fact that Obama steadfastly refuses to play that game. Maybe he ultimately will fail as a result. Maybe "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is just too complicated for sound bites or easy explanations in a world that hasn't the time or inclination to acknowledge that life is messy. That would be a real shame.
On March 18th, 2008 at 04:02 PM, redstatewannabe said:
Political views are always expressed from every pulpit, every week. They may not be overtly partisan, i.e., naming candidates and/or parties by name, but they are political viewpoints just the same.
Some churches are more open and direct about it than others.
That has not been my experience - and I, as a conservative, have been very watchful of my liberal clergy. Preachers don't want to drive off "paying customers" - and if you have membership with mixed political ideology, then talking politics is a no-win situation for any preacher/pastor/priest/
On March 18th, 2008 at 04:09 PM, Glock21 said:
"It is equally counterproductive to dismiss a man's entire life's work because of them. There is much of value in Wright as a person and pastor, and in his church even after he has retired."
Nonsense. Wright himself is who is responsible for being remembered for these moments of hate, racism, and divisiveness instead of his other works. You can be certain that many people who have long and distinguished careers otherwise will be remembered for some of their biggest blunders. In this case you keep describing these sermons as if they were flukes. I haven't seen any evidence they were not representative of many of his sermons, and given the reaction by many of the parishioners interviewed it doesn't sound like they were all that off the usual message, but perhaps just the more extreme examples.
I have no doubt that if there were no political power to be gained or lost as a result of this speech that almost every American would stand up and cheer what Obama said today. A man in his position who did not shy away from tough road, who attempted to take a petty political fight and turn it into a moment for America to reflect on what it will take for us to start to solve some of our most deeply rooted problems.
Amazing. Simply amazing. I understand the folks on the other side who want to nit-pick it back down into "reality". And I understand that Clinton will continue to talk about substance over rhetoric. So be it, I guess. There were those who hated Lincoln's words at Gettysburg, and those who despised King for all of his life. No doubt eyes were rolling when Kennedy asked America to "ask not what your country can do for you ...". That is the way the game is played.
But for those of us with ears to hear, it was a very, very important moment. And for a politician who may have been on the ropes, it was a brilliant turn of events that confirms why so many of us have believed in Obama for so long.
And if he can take this near-disaster and turn it into something immaculate and beautiful, can you imagine what he could do with the Presidency?
On March 18th, 2008 at 04:46 PM, IlliniPundit said:
"I have no doubt that if there were no political power to be gained or lost as a result of this speech that almost every American would stand up and cheer what Obama said today."
Actually, I thought it was a transparent and insincere bit of gamesmanship from Sen. Obama. Are you saying that I only think that because I care about political power?
In fact, I think that Obama's political ambition is the only reason he gave the speech, and that it contained what it did.
I also don't think it will "work." I don't think this will address his rising negatives and I don't think this will compel working-class white Democrats to vote for him in significantly larger number. I think it will do the opposite.
However, I do think that those who were already inclined to support Obama will think that those unmoved by such naked pandering are somehow racist or unwilling to discuss race and America's racial problems throughout our history. It's starting already, to further promote a "post-racial" candidate. And that will hurt Obama's candidacy even more.
On March 18th, 2008 at 04:53 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"In this case you keep describing these sermons as if they were flukes. I haven't seen any evidence they were not representative of many of his sermons, and given the reaction by many of the parishioners interviewed it doesn't sound like they were all that off the usual message, but perhaps just the more extreme examples."
You say the glass is half empty. I say it is half full. The evidence that the particular statements were in some ways exceptional lies partly in the fact that we keep seeing the same three clips over and over and over. If there were other statements that rose to this level or crossed the line the way these do, they would probably have been found in the same places these were, and we would be seeing them, as well.
I have no doubt that Wright has spoken often of racial issues or tensions. What a surprise for a black minister to talk about race in white America (not). In that sense, they can certainly be considered one of his "usual messages." I have tried to explain that in several comments, perhaps to no avail.
There is a fundamental cultural difference between black churches and white churches. It is a difference so profound as to frequently make white church goers uncomfortable. There is also a fair amount of historic frustration and rage in the black community. Often, in the heat of a sermon, it can cross a line. Some pastors are more animated than others. I have heard sermons and sentiments similar to the notable Wright examples more than once.
Wright is probably animated fairly regularly, and probably expresses his frustration and rage in the course of his sermons fairly often. I have no sense that he crosses the line every time out as he did in the clips in question. As I said, there have probably been scores of eyes reviewing all of the archives, and so far we've got just a handful of objectionable clips.
Obama himself talks about the sources of Wright's animus, and how it sometimes takes Wright to unhealthy places. My point was never to excuse this, or apologize for it or diminish it. Rather, I was simply trying to explain why Obama might rightly condemn the statements, but be reluctant to condemn his friend as a person.
On March 18th, 2008 at 05:01 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
Gordy: I'm sorry that you view the speech today so cynically. I don't think it makes you a racist, but to be honest, I'm not sure what your cynicism means in this context.
On a purely practical level, of course he gave the speech because he is running for President. In that respect, the motivation of every speech by a candidate for office stems ultimately from their candidacy. That by itself doesn't make it pandering, and I found nothing in it to suggest that he was. In fact, rereading the text just now, I was moved to tears. Guess I'm just a bleeding heart.
On March 18th, 2008 at 05:22 PM, Champaign Dweller said:
I'm with Gordy on this one. I understand that Obama first said he wasn't present when the infamous sermon was delivered; then it changed to, why yes, I was there, but I disavow the message, but he's still my mentor, with a lecture on why we need to understand this anger. I understand his anger, and I also understand that other people, making similar statements, would no doubt be run out of town on the proverbial rail. I don't understand how anyone can sit in a church for 20 years, listening to vile stuff like this, and then act like it's news to him that this is unacceptable. Sorry, but I think Obama is yet another politician just saying whatever will get him elected.
On March 18th, 2008 at 05:23 PM, IlliniPundit said:
"Gordy: I'm sorry that you view the speech today so cynically. I don't think it makes you a racist, but to be honest, I'm not sure what your cynicism means in this context."
My cynicism is because of the transparent way in which he is manipulating racial politics when its convenient to him to do so.
And I agree that the way the Clintons are pummeling him on race is dispicable. It's just as dispicable how Obama is "post-racial" and refutes the whole notion of such a thing in the same speech. Essentially, Obama is saying that race can be a topic in this campaign (and in America) only when it's convenient for his candidacy. If anyone else wants to discuss race, especially in the context of his record, his biography, his candidacy, then they're attacked by Obama's campaign for being racist.
I clearly have no love for the Republican nominee. And I've said before that I find Obama personally appealing. This speech made me dislike him for the first time. The part about his white grandmother is just dispicable, as just one example.
And, as I've said, I don't think it will "work." Those who were already inclined to think that Obama can do no wrong will see this as transcendant (see D.Boon and Kevin above). Those who aren't already committed to him (and, despite media reports to the contrary, a lot of Americans are not committed to him) will cringe if they read this or really listen to what he's saying.
On March 18th, 2008 at 05:30 PM, Narc said:
I understand that Obama first said he wasn't present when the infamous sermon was delivered; then it changed to, why yes, I was there...
When did he say he was present? I thought it was the right-wing news outlets that were saying he was present, until it was pointed out he was in Florida that day.
I haven't really been paying attention, but I think it's interesting that this whole incident seems to be seen from a perspective that reinforces the viewer's pre-existing opinion about Obama. If you liked him before, this just strengthened that; if you didn't, it's being seen as shameless racial pandering.
On March 18th, 2008 at 05:35 PM, IlliniPundit said:
"I haven't really been paying attention, but I think it's interesting that this whole incident seems to be seen from a perspective that reinforces the viewer's pre-existing opinion about Obama. If you liked him before, this just strengthened that; if you didn't, it's being seen as shameless racial pandering."
Yes. And if you really had no strong feelings, you're going to wonder why "post-racial" Obama gave this speech.
And that's why I don't think it will "work" for him politically.
On March 18th, 2008 at 06:57 PM, prairie biker (not verified) said:
Champaign Dweller said, " Sorry, but I think Obama is yet another politician just saying whatever will get him elected."
To which I add: well, duh.
Let's not forget that Barack Obama is the man who unequivocally promised Illinois he would NOT quit his term early to run for President. That right there is the measure of the man. He is only as good as his word and right now it doesn't mean sh*t.
On March 18th, 2008 at 07:01 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"And if you really had no strong feelings, you're going to wonder why "post-racial" Obama gave this speech."
He gave this speech because racism has been front and center for the past four days. The media has been running the Wright clips over and over and over, in spite of Obama's condemnations. I suppose that he could just pretend that no one was trying to tie him to them, but I don't think that Kerry/Dukakis-esque strategy is still in favor. The dialogue was taking place with or without him. Might as well acknowledge it and own it.
"When did he say he was present?"
He didn't. Here's what he actually said today: "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."
The reference to "remarks that could be considered controversial" is very different from the remarks which have been played over and over, and which Obama was demonstrably not present for. In his general statements on Countdown last Friday, my recollection is that he further denied hearing any extreme expressions of hate for or bias against any race.
On March 18th, 2008 at 07:20 PM, Glock21 said:
It's still pretty unbelievable to almost everyone that he never heard about these statements, especially the post-9/11 speech, by his close associate. His denials got a raised eyebrow from everyone he talked to after ABC broke the DVD clips. How is that something you just don't hear about unless that kind of hatred is commonplace there. Either way it makes him look bad. If these kind of sermons weren't commonplace how on earth did he not hear about them? If they were commonplace, how on earth did he not realize he was helping finance a hate group?
The whole mess could have been avoided by distancing himself from a controversial figure (he at least recognizes that) long ago... not when the political pressure finally made it necessary.
I still don't understand the point of the entire thing. Here we have an economy on the brink of disaster, the 2nd amendment being tried in front of SCOTUS, a HUGE taxpayer bailout of the largest money lenders in America, the fed slashing interest rates again, and we are talking about a black pastor's words on a Sunday morning six years ago?
Was Obama there? Did he hear about the speech later? Did he applaud during a controversial sermon given 13 years ago in August? Has Obama ever said he hates America? Does he damn America? Is there any way to damn America and not really mean damn America?
Does Obama HATE America?
This. Is. Ridiculous.
Obama's problem is that he may be giving the American public too much credit. Reading this thread, it seems to me that half of what he said went right over most of the listener's heads. He may believe that Americans understand that it is possible to be President and not think America is absolutely, positively the most perfect country ever placed on earth. He may think that it is possible to have a genuine, authentic discussion about race in America. That Americans will tolerate someone somewhere mentioning that maybe America has been kind of shitty to different racial groups in the past, and (gasp!) maybe some of that shittiness is still happening.
He may assume that it is possible to have that kind of mature, focused, and important discussion in America. Judging from the comments in this thread, he may be REALLY overestimating the American people. As a cynic myself, I tend to think he has blown it by trying to have a mature campaign - trying to discuss the real, foundational problems at America's core. After all, this is a country that placed "Support Our Troops" on the back of their SUVs for about a year until the fad faded. A country that willingly swallowed the lies fed to them by the Bush team in the months before Iraq. Who can't be bothered to protest a war that is costing trillions in dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. A country that turns out more people to vote for the American Idol than for the mid-term elections. Perhaps America just sucks. Too lazy to care. Can't be bothered to address the real issues. Much more interested in making political points than progress.
It is easy to believe that. And I admit sometimes I do. Obama seems to disagree. He seems to think America is better than that, and he seems to be gambling his entire campaign on the notion that America wants to grow up and try to overcome some of these core issues. I guess he'd rather lose attempting to make the country better, rather than win and just perpetuate the problems.
It'd be nice if some of our conservative friends could can the cynicism for a year or two, but that may be too much to ask.
On March 18th, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Michael (not verified) said:
I understand that Obama first said he wasn't present when the infamous sermon was delivered; then it changed to, why yes, I was there, but I disavow the message, but he's still my mentor, with a lecture on why we need to understand this anger.
He was not there. That is a lie perpetuated Newsmax and William Kristol; they've both retracted it, after significant pressure.
On March 18th, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Narc said:
He was not there. That is a lie perpetuated Newsmax and William Kristol; they've both retracted it, after significant pressure.
Newsmax hasn't retracted the story. When the Obama campaign showed that it couldn't have been true because Obama was in Florida on that day, Newsmax placed a correction saying it still happened, but on a different, unspecified day. The part I find amusing is that the Newsmax author was caught editing his own Wikipedia biography to expunge the information. Ah, your "liberal media" at work.
On March 19th, 2008 at 02:09 AM, Glock21 said:
D Boon... your gift at strawman is just amazing. Not only did you reword something that wasn't said into a totally indefensible argument nobody was making... you ripped your imaginary foe a new one and pointed out how absurd their non-existant criticisms were! Good show!
A prime example of what I was talking about. Bravo!
Meanwhile back in reality people are still concerned about the pastor and the 20 year relationship with that pastor and what that might mean as far as the real Obama, who didn't just say the US wasn't perfect but accused it of being an evil rivaled only by the most vile of nations in history and actively involved in plots of genocide against blacks... a conspiracy on par with the organ harvesting of anti-Semetic nutjobs. Or as you would put it "not thinking America was perfect." Lay.. off.. the crack.
Criminey.
Can't imagine why people from the entire spectrum of the media, from the furthest left to the furthest right are talking about this... it must be a conservative conspiracy! Why would ANYBODY be interested in the post-racial candidate being closely tied to someone who is absolutely neck deep in racial division and propogating the most divisive and hateful of rhetoric in the racial arena outside of the Ku Klux friggin' Klan? It just doesn't make sense. Move on already. Isn't there a white girl in trouble somewhere? Nothing to see here, move along...
On March 19th, 2008 at 08:31 AM, IlliniPundit said:
"He may think that it is possible to have a genuine, authentic discussion about race in America."
He may think that it is possible, but he acts as if such a discussion can occur only on his terms. And that's not genuine or authentic.
"He seems to think America is better than that, and he seems to be gambling his entire campaign on the notion that America wants to grow up and try to overcome some of these core issues."
No. He seems to think that, if he wins the election, that America is better than that. If not, then we're not.
"It'd be nice if some of our conservative friends could can the cynicism for a year or two, but that may be too much to ask."
Please try to remember where these race-based attacks on Obama are coming from.
It's reflexive for you to blame Republicans for everything bad that happens in politics, but in reality almost every race-based attack on Obama has come from Democrats whom, just a few short years ago, most of you were supporting just as devotedly as you now support Obama.
On March 19th, 2008 at 09:07 AM, Bruce Byrd (not verified) said:
D. Boon, I have to agree with you, I just read the entire text of the speech in the Sun Times,,,then went back and read it again,,,,this man is going to be the next President of the United States,,,,and for my money it has been too long in coming,,,Kevin if anyone can turn this country around it will be him,,Hillary be damned,,,,,and as for the GOP nominee,,,,,,,he is lost in the bogs,,,,,,,,
On March 19th, 2008 at 09:30 AM, Champaign Dweller said:
I can't respect someone who accepts that there is a basis for speech like this. I know he said that he rejects it, but then he said something along the lines of how we have to understand the anger in the black churches, or maybe his downtrodden wife said that from her million dollar mansion. The point is that he aligned himself with this stuff when he needed to get elected in the STate, and now it's inconvenient. And regardless of what kind of speech he can give, where is the substance of his change? I can shout I'm for change all day long, but that doesn't make me qualified to run for anything unless I have something to back it up.
On March 19th, 2008 at 09:38 AM, redstatewannabe said:
I still don't understand the point of the entire thing. Here we have an economy on the brink of disaster, the 2nd amendment being tried in front of SCOTUS, a HUGE taxpayer bailout of the largest money lenders in America, the fed slashing interest rates again, and we are talking about a black pastor's words on a Sunday morning six years ago?
The reason this is a big deal is because of the Obama campaign. People don't get fired up about his tax plan, his gun plan, or his plan for the economy. They get fired up about his talk of change and unity and hope. And then they hear words from his pastor of 20 years that are 180 degrees different. Is Obama really new and different, or is he just talking the talk?
On March 19th, 2008 at 09:41 AM, D. Boon said:
Just to be clear (again): Republicans are not responsible for everything bad that happens in politics. And no, you are not a racist if you don't support Obama.
I also didn't hear Obama saying that race can only be dealt with on his terms. I took away the opposite impression: mentioning the "legitimate" resentment that many white folks feel about busing and affirmative action was a way to acknowledge that yes, there are problems with the way that America has tried to "fix" the racial problems. He also mentioned (although briefly) that welfare had caused a lot of problems in the black community, and he repeatedly called upon black Americans to "be fathers" and acknowledge their own culpability in the problems in the black community.
So I didn't get the feeling that he was saying "I'm right, you're wrong and here's what we are going to do about it". But I could have missed that, for sure. Can you explain, with some specifics, where you think Obama is trying to define the terms?
On March 19th, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Bruce Byrd (not verified) said:
But ,dweller,that is the perception of many of the black folks in this country,,,,,,,Being white myself,,,my black friends have always spoken freely in front of me , and I them,,,,Obama is right,,,,why not admit the feelings and deal with them,instead of knowing they exist and pretend they do not,,,,
On March 19th, 2008 at 10:37 AM, IlliniPundit said:
"I also didn't hear Obama saying that race can only be dealt with on his terms."
Yet almost every time race has been discussed by anybody else during this campaign, Obama's campaign has responded with charges of divisiveness or some such.
That's my cynicism about him and this speech. He's trying to be post-racial, yet has been completely willing to use his race as a defense and as an attack whenever it's brought up by anyone else. He's post-racial, yet hoping to capture the hateful anti-white and anti-Jewish sentiment represented by Wright.
Another example: it's OK for him to win primaries and claim victories based on overwhelming majorities of black voters and while losing among white voters, but divisive/unacceptable/racist for the Clinton campaign and its surrogates to question whether his losing white Democratic voters in those same states is a liability in a general election. It's even divisive/unacceptable/racist for Obama to be compared to other past African-American candidates.
I've said before that I think he's going to morph from some sort of Messiah in to Just Another Politician. His duality on race and who's allowed to talk about it and why is just further evidence of that.
On March 19th, 2008 at 11:02 AM, mjerryfuerst said:
From IP, Mar 19 7:31 am: "He may think that it is possible to have a genuine, authentic discussion about race in America."
He may think that it is possible, but he acts as if such a discussion can occur only on his terms. And that's not genuine or authentic.
Obama's speech reflected how he hopes/intends to redefine the terms on which we speak about race. You may disagree with the terms Obama seeks, (and thus not want to vote for him), but his ability to make a a speech that provokes thoughtful discussion on a national level suggests leadership and consensus building skills that many voters consider desirable in a president. Obama's communication skills are as strong as Reagan's, although the two certainly would disagree on many issues.
Also from IP, Mar 19 7:31 am: "He seems to think America is better than that, and he seems to be gambling his entire campaign on the notion that America wants to grow up and try to overcome some of these core issues."
No. He seems to think that, if he wins the election, that America is better than that. If not, then we're not.
Convincing others that voting for him/her reflects the best in the nation can win an election. Again, Reagan provides a good example.
Michael Fuerst
On March 19th, 2008 at 12:46 PM, D. Boon said:
That's my cynicism about him and this speech. He's trying to be post-racial, yet has been completely willing to use his race as a defense and as an attack whenever it's brought up by anyone else. He's post-racial, yet hoping to capture the hateful anti-white and anti-Jewish sentiment represented by Wright.
I just don't see it this way. His speech yesterday was far from an attempt to capture hateful anti-white/Jewish vote. On the contrary, I thought one of the most important parts of the speech was where he defend Israel as a "stalwart ally". I am also not clear where he has used his race as a defense or an attack. Can you give specific examples?
it's OK for him to win primaries and claim victories based on overwhelming majorities of black voters and while losing among white voters, but divisive/unacceptable/racist for the Clinton campaign and its surrogates to question whether his losing white Democratic voters in those same states is a liability in a general election. It's even divisive/unacceptable/racist for Obama to be compared to other past African-American candidates.
I am not sure what victories he has won based solely on overwhelming majorities of black voters. On the contrary, his most impressive victories have been coalitions of black and white voters. South Carolina comes to mind, as does Texas. He has won in Minnesota and Iowa. He carried the white vote by wide majorities in many of the states he has won. It seems to me that claiming Obama can only win with black votes is not just a cheap political technique, it is also factually inaccurate.
And comparing Obama to someone like Rev. Jackson would be akin to comparing George W. Bush to Pat Robertson because they are both evangelical Christians. If a Republican in the primaries attempted to imply that W's campaign wasn't serious because remember Pat Robertson once won Iowa, I think we would all object.
My take here is that a lot of people are struggling with how to handle a black male as a legitimate presidential candidate. Which is a good thing for America. But conservativism, as I read it, is based on the idea of equality: that race should not matter in any regard. That all are equal and race is almost completely irrelevant. If that is what folks believe, and a black candidate challenges that notion by pointing out that race is still a big, important factor in American society, then that is going to get the undies in a bunch, as it were. Again, nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think it is a good thing.
On March 19th, 2008 at 01:03 PM, redstatewannabe said:
Finally, Obama suggested that if Wright is occasionally angry, he has a right to be, as does the community he serves. And if white Americans are startled to witness that anger, they haven’t been paying attention.
That was a risky message, but one that counted on a reliable well of white guilt. Then Obama took another preemptive gamble and implored Americans to look at Wright’s anger, rather than avert their gaze, and to embrace that anger as a prompt to change.
In other words, he artfully shifted focus from his still-perplexing relationship with Wright to our own dark hearts. The choice is ours, he said: We can focus on one ol’ crazy uncle who sometimes gets a little carried away — and in so doing, destroy the audacity of hope. Or, we can keep our nation’s date with destiny, fulfill the dream imagined 221 years ago to form a more perfect union.
And elect Barack Obama.
Anyone who fails to embrace the only appealing option — eschewing cheap spectacle for a dance with destiny to the tune of hope — begins to feel a little woozy and, oddly, un-American.
Abracadabra.
On March 19th, 2008 at 01:29 PM, Glock21 said:
An Australian tourist got some video through the media black out during the Tibet riots:
The path to the Smogolympics in Beijing should be pretty interesting.
On March 19th, 2008 at 01:36 PM, IlliniPundit said:
"I am also not clear where he has used his race as a defense or an attack. Can you give specific examples?"
Sure. Michelle Obama's "I'm finally proud to be an American" speech. He/his campaign used his race as a defense for the remarks, and attacked those who criticized the remarks. He used his race as both a defense and an attack.
Other examples: the Jesse Jackson comparison. Farrakhan. His speech yesterday.
In his speech yesterday, to those of us who don't worship him, one of his messages was, "If you don't support me, you're not hoping for the best that America can be." He makes it sound great, as he's a great orator and has a fantastic echo chamber, but what kind of inclusive, post-racial, post-partisan message is that anyway?
"I am not sure what victories he has won based solely on overwhelming majorities of black voters."
I didn't say "based solely on overwhelming majorities of black voters." I said that he won black voters overwhelmingly, and lost among white voters.
These are exit polls of states with significant populations of African-Americans. (I grabbed them from Fox because I couldn't find them on CNN) Mississippi. Texas. Maryland. Missouri. In Ohio Obama lost among whites 2-1.
"But conservativism, as I read it, is based on the idea of equality: that race should not matter in any regard. That all are equal and race is almost completely irrelevant. If that is what folks believe, and a black candidate challenges that notion by pointing out that race is still a big, important factor in American society, then that is going to get the undies in a bunch, as it were. Again, nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think it is a good thing."
I think it's a good thing, too. Race is still a huge, big, important factor in American society. It shouldn't be, but we have a long way to go. I don't mind Obama pointing such things out. I don't care for his hypocrisy in doing so, and I don't care for this new message of his that only those who support Obama are hoping for "a more perfect union." And neither will very many other people who aren't already supporting him.
On March 19th, 2008 at 01:57 PM, Kevin Sandefur said:
Mike Huckabee discussed Obama and Wright today on Morning Joe:
On March 19th, 2008 at 02:37 PM, Glock21 said:
Huck's reaction here makes a great deal of sense. I'm not sure if anybody had been in bed longer with Jerry Falwell, and now Jerry Jr. Huck's political future depends on people forgetting a similarly controversial yahoo.
On March 19th, 2008 at 04:27 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
What media blackout are you talking about, Cluck? The yawning gaps in your information base dont constitute a "media blackout". You can see it all on CCTV-4 if you have a satellite dish.
On March 19th, 2008 at 04:45 PM, Glock21 said:
Anon... some videos are getting out and some media getting in... but that's against the Chinese attempts to block all foreign media from the areas involved. Perhaps "attempted media blackout" would have been more accurate wording?
In his speech yesterday, to those of us who don't worship him, one of his messages was, "If you don't support me, you're not hoping for the best that America can be."
Yeah, I think you missed the point. But you've been missing the point of Obama from the beginning. Just like a lot of people miss the point about why people Xian, Kevin and myself hang out over here. There are a lot of people in this country who would like to find consensus between these two camps that seem to have arisen in our political culture. I don't honestly believe that Obama wants consensus to be built around a progressive agenda. As he mentioned in that speech, there are a lot of legitimate conservative issues that need to be addressed. And I think a leader who speaks as fluently and inspirationally as Obama may be the one chance we have right now to raise ourselves about the divisiveness that has characterized so much of the Bush Presidency. It doesn't mean conservatives need to shut up and go along for the ride, it means that there are right answers to our nation's problems on both sides of the political spectrum, and someone like Obama wants to try to be that bridge builder.
I find it very exciting. And you seem to find it nauseating. Which is fine, of course. I just hope that at some point, if Obama continues on his path to power, you will at least give him a chance. Drop that cynicism for a week maybe and see what can happen?
Have a good night.
On March 19th, 2008 at 08:38 PM, IlliniPundit said:
"I don't honestly believe that Obama wants consensus to be built around a progressive agenda."
The central message of the speech was that everyone else needs to stop these distracting discussions about race so that we can focus on implementing progressive, anti-corporate policies. He even mentioned accounting scandals.
"And I think a leader who speaks as fluently and inspirationally as Obama may be the one chance we have right now to raise ourselves about the divisiveness that has characterized so much of the Bush Presidency."
That's the thing - he's just as divisive as Bush, maybe more so. He has yet to unite his entire Party, let alone the entire county. Look at the exit polling data.
"I find it very exciting. And you seem to find it nauseating. Which is fine, of course. I just hope that at some point, if Obama continues on his path to power, you will at least give him a chance. Drop that cynicism for a week maybe and see what can happen?"
I gave him a chance. I don't care for the GOP nominee, and Obama's an empty vessel.
Then he gave this hypocritical, hubristic speech. He's just another politician, and at some point those of you who think the rest of us are just misunderstanding him (perhaps we have "untrained ears?") will realize it too.
On March 20th, 2008 at 09:14 AM, D. Boon said:
Well, this cause is hopeless. You remind me of a woman who has been beaten, telling all of her friends that it is no use, all men are worthless.
You might be right, but some of us refused to marry ourselves to the Titanic that has been George W. Bush. Some day you'll get over it, I hope.
On March 20th, 2008 at 10:28 AM, IlliniPundit said:
"Well, this cause is hopeless. You remind me of a woman who has been beaten, telling all of her friends that it is no use, all men are worthless."
Boggle.
I have no idea why you think this has anything to do with George W. Bush. You brought him up (twice!); I didn't. I am quite capable of judging candidates independently from each other.
Have a great day.
On March 20th, 2008 at 02:09 PM, D. Boon said:
Gordy - not trying to insult you, nor prolong this discussion further than it needs to go. My last ditch effort to get you to kind of understand what happened is this column by Roger Cohen:
On March 20th, 2008 at 02:27 PM, IlliniPundit said:
Thanks. I just read it.
Was there something in there with which I am supposedly disagreeing?
I don't think it addresses my main complaint about Obama and this speech - that he's trying to have it both ways on race; that only his campaign is allowed to discuss race as it affect his campaign or American politics. When others try to do so, he both defends himself using his race, and attacks the others for not being black/not understanding/being divisive/having an "untrained ear." Obama is the one maniuplating race for political advantage and the one who is being cynical about it.
I appreciate your willingness to continue the discussion. I just don't see anyone addressing that point.
On March 20th, 2008 at 05:13 PM, akibare said:
FWIW it seems to me that he didn't want to talk about race, but the other candidates keep bringing it up. What can he do, he has to respond to them. The idea that he's supposed to remain above all that and never mention his blackness when it's CLEAR that it's the elephant in the room, so to speak, is silly. "Race race race!!" "Okay, here's my view on that, now let's get to other topics" "No! Race race race!!" "Okay, Race! Now can't we talk about something else?" "Haha! You're mentioning race when you said you didn't wanna! What a hypocrite!!"
Same thing a while back when people flamed Hillary for supposedly using her being female to advantage. Well, yeah, if someone is going to talk about her being a woman and therefore crying or being too bitchy or whatever it is, she had to respond to them, and that response is necessarily ALSO going to reference her sex. Duh.
Personally I'm impressed that he's not taking the bait and mudslinging it up. I think he's at least trying to stick to a positive message, to respond to whatever complaints people bring up and then leave it there, not cross that line into "oh yeah? Well look at this dirt I got on YOU" territory. If nothing else, THAT is refreshing, whether you support his campaign or not.
Reading various foamy blogs on this incident it seems that his failure to get down and dirty is pissing a lot of his detractors off. They want to troll him, and he's not biting. (Mind you, I don't think they're all Republicans, either.)
I still think it will be interesting if it's Obama vs. McCain in the general election.
On March 20th, 2008 at 05:52 PM, Glock21 said:
Well in this case it was "other candidates bringing it up," it was someone who played a role in his campaign and who admittedly played a very large role in shaping his worldview, though the he says strictily in a religious way not due to the political views. The story broke on ABC news, not out of some campaign release. The other candidates have been mostly avoiding it with a 10 foot poll because it is a self-destruct issue on a very sensitive subject and it's better to stear clear of those in many situations. About the only folks that Obama inspired to unify with this mess has been some extreme Christian Coalition folks who have their own "crazy uncles."
Well, Gordy I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Fwiw - usually I can understand the logic of your positions (believe it or not) and generally understand your point, even if I disagree. This time I am just not seeing this Obama person who is trying to have it both ways. The only thing I can think to ask at this point is: what would you have him do differently?
Personally, I am really proud of the man. He took a very minor topic that was being pounded by the worst of the worst in punditland and turned it into something positive for the country. He took a potentially fatal wound and turned it into one of his most appealing moments of the campaign. For that alone, regardless of whether he is playing some race game (which, again, I don't think he is) you've gotta give the man credit. If nothing else, it was political genius.
Akibare - I agree that he seemed to be backed into a corner on this one, and had to take on the topic or risk losing the entire campaign. It is a shame so many in this country are so quick to imply over and over again that Obama is not a true patriot, or "real" American. He doesn't wear the right pin, he doesn't put his hand in the right place, and his pastor is kind of a nutjob. Forget about all the good things Obama stands for, all his policies and his unifying message. Forget all of the work he has done for this state, the City of Chicago and our country. None of it matters because he isn't wearing that pin, moving that hand, or throwing his pastor under a bus.
What a bunch of sleazebags.
On March 20th, 2008 at 08:04 PM, one who hopes t... said:
My dearest Glock:
On the 5:30 world news tonight on channel 15, Hillary Clinton was quoted as admitting that her camp has been the one stirring up all this stuff about Pastor Wright in an attempt to sway any uncommitted superdelegates her way and steal the nomination. I would argue that's not "avoiding it with a ten-foot pole", that's deliberately playing dirty pool and dirty politics.
Hey, she's a Clinton, you (and others) shrug. What did you expect?
Well, I would expect others (especially those on the opposite side of the aisle/political spectrum) to give a little more thought to the source of this dust-up, and to not be so willing to accept about one minute's worth of sound bites from approximately 200,000+ minutes of sermons over 36 years.
But maybe I'm expecting too much, even though I live in a town that boasts a high number of college-educated/college graduate/ Ph.D holding citizens.
And why didn't Obama disassociate himself from Wright earlier? Well, let me tell a little about my church. We have a bishop who is controversial in our denomination (he's about 3 -4 years away from mandatory retirement age), and a minister who may be approximately 3-4 years away from retirement with a church pension. There have been issues with the minister over the last 3-5 years. At least one church board has looked into firing said minister. The bishop allegedly told them if they wanted to do that, he would support them. Why, you ask, haven't we done this? Well, at one point, the minister was a very good minister and brought a lot of vitality and growth to our church. He initiated some good programs (and some very bad ones). The minister has some health issues that are well-managed by medical personnel in our community, but these issues may impact his employability in another church, and definitely would affect employability if the minister sought private-sector employment. If we fired him, he would lose his house and his car, not to mention his income, and the impact on his health care while he searched for another job. His pension might be impacted by our actions. SO, we tolerate him, and grind our teeth through selected sermons, and count the months/weeks/days until this situation resolves itself with a resignation letter.
Reverend Wright resigned from his pulpit just a few weeks ago. Isn't it possible that the good folks at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago were in a similar situation, and their response was the same one my church is currently using? Not a member there, so I can't say that's what happened, just speculating...
And from the little I saw of the Obama speech (haven't had a chance to read the complete text yet), I thought it was an awesome speech.
On March 20th, 2008 at 08:27 PM, IlliniPundit said:
"If nothing else, it was political genius."
I disagree. I think, looking back, people will see this whole Wright-saga as the beginning of the end. But we'll see.
"Forget about all the good things Obama stands for, all his policies and his unifying message."
He doesn't have a unifying message. Can we please stop pretending that because he constantly talks about unity that somehow the majority of America is buying it?
He's only got the support of somewhere around half of Democrats, and his negatives are now equal to his positives. He's not unifying, no matter how much his campaign wants to pretend otherwise. The only voters he has unified are African-Americans, Illinoisans (and to some degree younger voters). Every other demographic is very much divided on Obama.
Thanks for the discussion. I know you (and Kevin) really have high hopes for him.
On March 21st, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Kevin Sandefur said:
"On the 5:30 world news tonight on channel 15, Hillary Clinton was quoted as admitting that her camp has been the one stirring up all this stuff about Pastor Wright in an attempt to sway any uncommitted superdelegates her way and steal the nomination. I would argue that's not "avoiding it with a ten-foot pole", that's deliberately playing dirty pool and dirty politics."
I heard about some of this this morning, but none of it really conflicts with what I said yesterday. Which was "mostly avoiding it with a 10 foot pole." The behind-the-scenes conversations aren't something I'm privy to, so I'm mostly going off on public statements.
As CNN is reporting: "The Clinton campaign has largely steered clear of public criticism of Obama over the incident, though some current and former campaign surrogates have suggested the fact that the senator did not dissociate himself sooner might raise questions about his judgment."
And from Obama's recent statement ripping on Hillary's honesty, he only went as far as mentioning the non-public superdelegate convos that I, of course, hadn't heard: "Reverend Wright. Even though it has been reported yesterday that Clinton is pushing Senator Obama’s association with Reverend Wright in attempt to rattle superdelegates, Clinton refused to give a straight answer. She would only say that their campaign “has been making the case that I am the most electable” before shrugging and prompting the next question."
My point was that it wasn't the other candidates who released the info, the media dug it up. It wasn't the other candidates keeping it in the media focus, it was the public interest, and the ever-digging pundits. And in the public eye even Hillary's PR minions have been mostly fielding questions from the media about it, not bringing it up themselves, and their responses have been overwhelmingly along the lines of how it could hurt him, and how he may have wanted to dissociate himself earlier to avoid that. Behind the scenese they're fighting dirty I'm sure. But in the public eye, they fought far more dirty on the radical muslim rumors.
You'll never catch me arguing that Hillary isn't a dirty/dishonest politician. Obama recent memo on her honesty issues was an extremely accurate list of just her more recent unfounded claims and dirty pool tactics. With the Wright issue, however, they seem to only be using it mainly behind the scenes. No real need to push it publically as it is an issue that pushes itself. That's all on Obama's missteps. A better example of Hillary fighting dirty on an issue with the public it would be the radical muslim rumors, imo.
Disgusting. That many would allow the greatest candidate in at least a century pass us by simply because he doesn't hold an exclusively mainstream white American perspective is a real blow to my faith in our society. Well, I guess it hasn't happened yet, and a nearly majority of people (a majority the second time) did vote for the extreme polar opposite--President Bush.
I agree with very little of the preacher's quoted statements, but I like Obama, am interested in understanding where they come from rather than vilifying a large sector of the African American population of the country for reacted to insidious, persistent racism in the best way they know how (albeit often misguided).
If you cannot understand why that is necessary, nor why it is not easy for a minority person in the country to "simply find another preacher", I will not vilify you, but I do fear for you and your privilege.
I am in my third year of searching for a pastor I can connect my considerable faith in Christ to, and it's a long and grueling, yet righteous journey. It would be nice to see some thankfulness for one's own position rather than shallow self-righteousness and hypocracy.
On March 21st, 2008 at 03:41 PM, Glock21 said:
"Disgusting. That many would allow the greatest candidate in at least a century pass us by simply because he doesn't hold an exclusively mainstream white American perspective is a real blow to my faith in our society."
I think quite a few folks, even democrats would dispute the "greatest candidate in at least a century" bit. The only candidate he rivals is Dan Quayle in having the least relevant experience. And nobody is ridiculing him for not having a "mainstream white American perspective" that I've seen. His pastor is being ridiculed for having a political viewpoint that is extremist even for anyone, white, black, brown, christian, jewish, muslim, etc. Some of his comments and actions rivaled that of the Nation of Islam, a hate group who he has also associated with.
Obama's problem here is having such a long association with this yahoo when his whole message has been anything but. He can change the nation but he can't even get a 20 year old friend to stop the divisive racist nonsense he preaches? He can't end the divisiveness of his own spiritual community that cheers this nonsense?
The problem with Barack isn't that he share's Wrights views, it's that he's exploited that divisiveness for his political gain in direct contrast to what he's selling himself as. I don' tthink the Wright thing does much else other than hurting his image, especially when it comes to his political judgement. What's truly awful about the Wright situation is that Obama and many others are coming out and essentially implying that whites are ignorant and/or racist if they don't tolerate this kind of crap. Obama went as far as calling white's being racist as typical. While he and perhaps even you may believe that, to most white's that's pretty insulting. You might as well paint all white's with the southern racist-redneck brush. It's insulting and doesn't help him here.
Wright's message is easy to understand. Blacks got screwed over time and time again in our history, and he thinks it justifies his racism. It doesn't justify it, legitimize, make it an acceptable viewpoint, one that we can "understand" and tolerate any more than we can tolerate a racist white who justifies his own racism based on conspiracy theories and perceived unfairness, or those rich all-powerful Jews! It's racism and it is wrong. Understanding it is great, but is it really that hard to understand? Obama was a fool for not keeping this guy as far away as possible from his campaign, let alone adding him to it. He was an even bigger fool to try to blow this off by insinuating that whites are typically racist too. Two wrongs don't make a right, but they certainly make this Wright thing even messier.
It's hard to imagine you'd so easily dismiss such nonsense by a white candidate dismissing associations with an anti-black/anti-Jew pastor who had it rough growing up in a black neighborhood where he only noticed the Jews owning the shops. We might be able to "understand" why he's a racist scumbag, but that doesn't really change what he is and make it acceptable for a candidate to associate with the yahoo.
On March 21st, 2008 at 03:52 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
The only candidate he rivals is Dan Quayle in having the least relevant experience.
Good comparison, but I think you need to add John Edwards to that list Glock.
On March 21st, 2008 at 04:48 PM, xian said:
What you say above Glock is only true because in mainstream discourse we define "racism" as "conscious intentional discrimination on the basis of race".
That's useful to some insecure person trying to feel good about themselves or someone who doesn't have to deal with the bulk of the effects of aversive, unintentional racism--the kind of person who will quote the Webster's definition of the word smugly like they've won some debate trophy--but it's not useful to a lot of the folks in the country of various ethnic backgrounds.
Mainstream America can screw over hard-working, loving, anti-racist poor whites and people of color more than well enough under the noses of those of us who draw some mystic line in the sand just on the other side of racial slurs and "I hate black/white/yellow whatever people" without offending the majority of the population.
I just spent the week in a city in which they bussed white folks through the city while predominantly minority American citizens were interned against their will in an environment without basic human necessities--deprived of facilities, food and any legitimate shelter.
Was that because some racist pastors hated black people? No. It was because all of us, myself included didn't give enough care to stop it from happening.
But hey, at least I know I am responsibie. At least I'm doing something now because hey--a lot of New Orleans folk STILL haven't gotten their homes back and it's been very clear who is being encouraged to return.
So, no, it's nothing at all like the analogy you made from my perspective. And you know full well that the majority of the country agrees with me, right or wrong (you may be right, I may be wrong, but that doesn't change this fact). The question is whether that majority will come out and vote on election day or for that matter even be eligible to vote.
Sorry if I'm cranky, but it's been a long week, and I'm sick of being lectured to about how I don't understand race.
On March 21st, 2008 at 04:57 PM, Glock21 said:
"Sorry if I'm cranky, but it's been a long week, and I'm sick of being lectured to about how I don't understand race."
Obama's problem here is that he is running for President and his opponents, mainly conservatives, are doing anything they can to derail his candidacy. He is probably the greatest political leader in half a century, and experience has nothing to do with it. Abe Lincoln was pretty damned inexperienced, as was Woodrow Wilson. Richard Nixon might have been the most qualified person to ever hold the office of President, and look how that turned out.
One of the most important things a President can do is unite the country behind a cause. The Iraq War is a prime example of what happens when a President doesn't have what it takes to sell his ideas to the American People. Lying, cheating, anger, division are the result. A man who can appeal to such a wide variety of Americans (see the effusive reactions to Tuesday's speech on all sides of America's spectrum) has more than enough of the qualifications to be President. In fact, that appeal is probably much more important than anything else.
No, what happened here this week didn't have a whole lot to do with qualifications for the Presidency. What happened here was a shallow, cynical attempt to smear a candidate. It is rather disgraceful, in my opinion, that this site was a part of that smear campaign. That instead of sticking to issues of political importance, the comments were derailed into discussions of holding one's hand over the heart during the national anthem, or what a pastor said years ago when Obama may or may not have been in earshot.
The crux of this issue is the misunderstanding between the black and white communities. White people on this site and elsewhere appeared shocked that a black pastor was so "filled with hate" and that (obviously!) that means Obama must be filled with hate too. In this very thread, not five hours ago, someone writes a complaint that Obama implied all white people are little racist too. The irony, of course, is that the guy who wrote that line spent most of his week trying to tear down Obama because of his association with an angry pastor. How dare he say I am a racist! Now let's get pack to talking about how hateful his pastor is.
White folks have mysteriously always had a hard time figuring out why black people are so angry. What's with the yelling in church? What's with the rap music? etc. etc. etc. Take a ride through the south side of Chicago sometime, or down to the delta south of Memphis. Next time you are in LA park the car and take a walk through South Central. Go visit Xian's classrooms on the west side of Chicago, or visit the worst hoods in Detroit. If you don't walk away angry, I'd humbly suggest that your are either blind or too cynical to be taken seriously.
Have a great weekend.
On March 21st, 2008 at 08:48 PM, Glock21 said:
"Obama's problem here is that he is running for President and his opponents, mainly conservatives, are doing anything they can to derail his candidacy. He is probably the greatest political leader in half a century, and experience has nothing to do with it. Abe Lincoln was pretty damned inexperienced, as was Woodrow Wilson. Richard Nixon might have been the most qualified person to ever hold the office of President, and look how that turned out."
Obama has never led anything. How is he the greatest political leader in 50 years? How is he a leader period? If experience has nothing to do with it, then what? Are you trying to imply all of his detractors are racist?
"One of the most important things a President can do is unite the country behind a cause. The Iraq War is a prime example of what happens when a President doesn't have what it takes to sell his ideas to the American People. Lying, cheating, anger, division are the result. A man who can appeal to such a wide variety of Americans (see the effusive reactions to Tuesday's speech on all sides of America's spectrum) has more than enough of the qualifications to be President. In fact, that appeal is probably much more important than anything else."
I known no better way to unite the country than by implying whites are ignorant and racist so it's okay to associate with black racists. That's very uniting and guaranteeed to make everybody happy!
"No, what happened here this week didn't have a whole lot to do with qualifications for the Presidency. What happened here was a shallow, cynical attempt to smear a candidate. It is rather disgraceful, in my opinion, that this site was a part of that smear campaign. That instead of sticking to issues of political importance, the comments were derailed into discussions of holding one's hand over the heart during the national anthem, or what a pastor said years ago when Obama may or may not have been in earshot."
A) He has no qualifications for the presidency.
B) His pastor is the one that smeared his image. Obama didn't help by only partially distancing himself from the man and trying to rationalize his racist views.
C) Once again you blame everybody for talking about this when every news outlet is talking about it, left, right, neutral, etc. It's not a smear campaign to talk about it.
D) Discussion about how this incident may add to or confirm the doubts of others on how prior incidents came off is not "smearing" anybody. Criminey.
"The crux of this issue is the misunderstanding between the black and white communities. White people on this site and elsewhere appeared shocked that a black pastor was so "filled with hate" and that (obviously!) that means Obama must be filled with hate too. In this very thread, not five hours ago, someone writes a complaint that Obama implied all white people are little racist too. The irony, of course, is that the guy who wrote that line spent most of his week trying to tear down Obama because of his association with an angry pastor. How dare he say I am a racist! Now let's get pack to talking about how hateful his pastor is."
Ah, the Obama technique. Imply that whites are ignorant and racist too, so that makes it okay to be associated with a racist yahoo. End with a demand that we stick to the issues, but not experience, because only racists would bring that up... not that we weren't discussing the issues just fine before he started flailing wildly in front of the cameras about his two decade long association with a racist yahoo in one of the biggest political blunders since Kerry voted for it before he voted against it. Move along, nothing to see here... yeah yeah, we get it.
"White folks have mysteriously always had a hard time figuring out why black people are so angry. What's with the yelling in church? What's with the rap music? etc. etc. etc. Take a ride through the south side of Chicago sometime, or down to the delta south of Memphis. Next time you are in LA park the car and take a walk through South Central. Go visit Xian's classrooms on the west side of Chicago, or visit the worst hoods in Detroit. If you don't walk away angry, I'd humbly suggest that your are either blind or too cynical to be taken seriously."
More racist stereotyping! Obama has taught you well. How very not divisive of you! Whites aren't just ignorant and racist, they're also stupid and their skin pigment prevents them from interacting with blacks. Nifty. And on top of that white people aren't upset and heartbroken about poverty, especially black poverty! Wonderful.
"Have a great weekend."
For a McCain supporter it would be difficult to see things getting any better than this. As someone who liked Obama quite a bit until this week, I think it's a bit sad to see him and his supporters resort to this level of absurdity to get over his current campaign hurdle. I oppose and still oppose Obama on the issues though. So have fun trying to convince me and others they oppose him because they're ignorant racists. That'll sure change our mind... at least about his and your character. :-)
On March 21st, 2008 at 09:24 PM, IlliniPundit said:
"He is probably the greatest political leader in half a century, and experience has nothing to do with it."
D.Boon, both you and xian have said something along these lines. Just curious on what you (and/or he) are basing this statement.
On March 21st, 2008 at 10:01 PM, JRR said:
The only candidate he rivals is Dan Quayle in having the least relevant experience.
While we're at it, let's add the name George W. Bush to that list as well.
On March 22nd, 2008 at 01:30 PM, xian said:
More racist stereotyping! Obama has taught you well. How very not divisive of you! Whites aren't just ignorant and racist, they're also stupid and their skin pigment prevents them from interacting with blacks. Nifty. And on top of that white people aren't upset and heartbroken about poverty, especially black poverty! Wonderful.
Look Glock, this is a complete fabrication of what was said. Segregation is a fact, and despite ridiculous attempts to label it as "self-segregation", there aren't hoards of whites being prevented from enrolling in my school or moving into these neighborhoods that Boon describes.
There are plenty of potential reasons for this dynamic which must be discussed and identified. The fact that you would attempt to shut down this discussion by saying that any discussion of the rampant segregation is equivalent to saying that "skin pigment prevents them from interacting with blacks" and then using it to slur the African American candidate in the race is baffling.
I've lost a lot of respect for you in this thread. I'm happy to hear you explain what I hope is a misunderstanding, but you appear to be simply attempting to shut down any legitimate discussion of race at all by labeling it as race-baiting.
I can't expect every single one of you to drive up and observe my school, but what's your guess on how many people on this site have any real experience with these segregated environments they claim to know so well? And how many white visitors do you think my school has had AT ALL over the last two years?
Look I'm sorry, I'm hostile, and maybe coming from a place of extreme educational privilege, I shouldn't be. But my students certainly have a right to be hostile. They are trying extreme hard and accomplishing great things, and they are being told that if they go to their neighborhood church, which happens to be black and occasionally bitter (remember this is a few minutes of soundbites from 30 years of work), they are to be disqualified from being worthy of what has always been the white presidency.
What about Vineyard? I was told there that when I love gay people I am abusing God's amazing gift that has given me a greater capacity to love and empathize than most. That's far worse than anything Wright said for myriad reasons.
What about Bush visiting Bob Jones? Certainly institutionally banning IR dating is far worse than some powerless posturing on 9/11. What about commenters who are now dismissing the atrocities in Central America or becoming apologists for Aparthied in knee-jerk reaction to Wright's comments.
To answer IP's question: Obama is what most in the ethnic minority communities see as the first president in the history of the nation who actually has a decent chance of truly integrating our diverse and non-homogenous perspectives into his decision-making as president. For many of us, that has nothing to do with his ethnicity. I certainly don't think he'll be more empathetic to Asian Americans because he is black--that would go against all research. I think that he as an individual is the first potential president with multi-dimensional understanding of race in America. Will that piss off aversive, unintentional racists? Sure. But he will respect and integrate their perspectives too.
What we are seeing is a whiny crybaby fit on the part of the groups (not all whites, and not just whites) who have historically had the complete and utter attention of the presidency that they might have to share their toys. No one but the craziest of the crazy are suggesting that Obama somehow hates white people or will neglect the needs of white Americans.
The vast majority of the previous presidents, democratic or republican, have neglected the needs of many poor and ethnic minority Americans.
I remember on 9/11 when I heard what had happened. My first reaction was horror and then, "Our dumbass president better get on the horn and say, 'Listen up idiots! Don't kill other Americans because some terrorists who look remotely like them killed Americans!"
That might seem weird to those who have the fortune to not have to worry every time a Chinese scientist is questioned by the government, or there is a incident involving someone of a specific ethnicity, but beyond all this posturing and BS, that's the one thing that would have prevented further American deaths.
It took him ten days and by that time, more Americans were hurt or dead.
I knew in that minute that I would have been a far superior President that who we had.
Obama has demonstrated to me that he could handle that situation and he understands everyone--the black nationalists to the white supremacists and everyone in between. I believe that he will hear our cries the next time some idiots try to blame Asian Americans for China's unrelated actions or Muslim Americans for terrorism.
He will make a far safer America for EVERY citizen.
If you think other things are more important and don't like his economic policy or his health care plan, or his war stances--so be it. We are likely to disagree on such things. Hell, I disagree agree with him on such things.
But Hillary Clinton or John McCain will not care about me in the situation that matters most--when we have a crisis and all hell is breaking loose.
If you think that Obama is bad specifically because he will understand my perspective, then we have nothing further to discuss. As Americans, it is the most beautiful thing that we can respectfully disagree on myraid issues. However, you cannot be a friend or fellow American to me if you have no care for my welfare or perspective.
Peace out.
Edit: changed one instance of hyperbole
On March 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 PM, D. Boon said:
If you think that Obama is bad specifically because he will understand my perspective, then we have nothing further to discuss. As Americans, it is the most beautiful thing that we can respectfully disagree on myraid issues. However, you cannot be a friend or fellow American to me if you have no care for my welfare or perspective.
Thank you.
On March 22nd, 2008 at 04:08 PM, Glock21 said:
"Look Glock, this is a complete fabrication of what was said. Segregation is a fact, and despite ridiculous attempts to label it as "self-segregation", there aren't hoards of whites being prevented from enrolling in my school or moving into these neighborhoods that Boon describes."
I didn't really make it clear, probably my own fault there. I was trying to point out the subtle implications in these statement/arguments and how they're coming off to a lot of non-Obama supporters. As generalizing, stereotyping, and insulting people based on the color of their skin. And while you accuse me of trying to "shut down this discussion" it seems that people are upset because people are still discussing it, if not outright saying so. From what it seems the whole Obama speech and most of his supporters defending it are trying to tell the rest of us that if we still consider the situation worth talking about that we are somehow bigots or just too ignorant to get it... while at the same time generalizing people by race. The irony is biting.
"Look I'm sorry, I'm hostile, and maybe coming from a place of extreme educational privilege, I shouldn't be. But my students certainly have a right to be hostile. They are trying extreme hard and accomplishing great things, and they are being told that if they go to their neighborhood church, which happens to be black and occasionally bitter (remember this is a few minutes of soundbites from 30 years of work), they are to be disqualified from being worthy of what has always been the white presidency."
Belonging to a church isn't disqualifying anybody from anything. Belonging to a church that is extremely divisive when you want to run as a presidential candidate who can unite us could make some skeptical. Being close friends with the pastor who is controversial figure, specifically because o
This Obama preacher thing really seems to have struck a nerve with some folks - Obama's speech today is looking pretty big.
Do we know exactly who brought this story and footage forward?
Do we know exactly who brought this story and footage forward?
Hillary.
The Obama speech is on WLS right now.
"Hillary."
Somehow, the Republicans will be blamed by the legacy media, just as has happened for most the other race-based attacks on Obama.
If you listen to Obama for more than 10 minutes, you cannot help but be inspired. He talks so eloquently, and speaks of such uplifting stories and themes - I am amazed Hillary has rec'd any votes at all.
I disagree with about all the guys policies, but can't help but think he would at the very least bring some class and dignity to the office of President.
That said, from what i just heard, he gave his preacher some justification for his anger - in a very empathetic way. But I am not sure he repudiated the statements sufficiently.
That was Obama's best job to date of explaining the situation in a way that, while leaving some questions, thoroughly explained what he disagreed with and why as well as giving a rationale for the continued relationship in a context that people may be able to relate to. Throughout this controversy I've been regularly reminded of the progression of Malcolm X's life from his earlier dark days, to the seduction into what can only be considered a hate group, to an enlightenment against the ways of division. What bugged me with the Obama situation was there seemed to be a clear point where he got sucked up into this particular group... but no clear point where he broke away from it. He's now assuring us that he sees the race issue in America very differently than Wright and probably many at the Trinity church there in Chicago... and the reason there was never a clear break is similar to the reason he would never break away from his white grandmother who had her own issues with race. He understands them, and cherishes their relationship for other reasons... but rejects the divisive views and prejudices that he feels can and must change (he did a great job of bringing it back to his message with that.)
It still leaves some things unanswered, probably because this should have been his first response, and it somewhat contradicted his prior brief explanations. The biggest question seems to be why didn't he qualify his relationship with him earlier? How much of this was just rhetoric versus saving his political hide? We all know he can speak passionately and convincingly, but we also know he's a politician who may just be saying what he thinks is necessary. His prior responses came off more like that to me, this one seemed to be the one where he resigned himself to lay it on the line. The gaps I think will still bug many people, the unanswered questions. But overall I think he might a giant leap towards diffusing this situation as long as he doesn't blow it later.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Here's the text of the speech online:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/The_speech.html
It has always been my opinion that Barack Obama needs more experience. My advice to him would be to finish his term as U.S. Senator, return to Illinois, challenge Blagojevitch for the Democratic gubenatorial nomination (which I think he would easily win, along with the election), and serve a couple of terms as Governor. That would give him experience actually being the person in charge, or in other words, the buck stopper.
But if he did that he would have to run on a record, not rhetoric.
The Heller oral arguments (DC gun ban) are being played on c-span right now for anyone interested. C-Span is good with their web archives if you missed it, it'll probably be there later.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
They have the link up already to the audio feed: rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc031808_2amendment.rm. If the rtsp link doesn't work with your browser they also have it linked off their main page.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"The biggest question seems to be why didn't he qualify his relationship with him earlier?"
I think he did. He talked about him in his books, one of which came out over a decade ago. He talked publicly about this specific concern a year ago. He talked about it again this past weekend, when Fox and (later) other media outlets began running tiny clips in a continuous loop in an effort, as one commentator put it, to reduce a 30 year career to a 30 second sound bite. Both a year ago and this past week, Obama made clear that he disagreed strongly with specific statements, but still had a close personal relationship with the man.
I understood his position throughout, and tried to communicate on this forum some of the complexities of it as I had heard Obama himself express them. I have to wonder if perhaps part of the problem you've faced has been not fully understanding the relationship between church members and pastors. I don't say that to be demeaning or derogatory, but rather as an attempt at a rational explanation. Perhaps Obama's (and my) biggest omission has been mistakenly assuming that everyone automatically understood the role that a pastor plays in the life of a church member.
Kevin... this was the first time I've heard him really get into his specific rationale/reasons/etc. Merely saying we don't agree on everything didn't really tell us anything. Sure we could have assumed a great deal... but we could have assumed in his favor or against him pretty easily. If it was merely his pastor and a typical church member/pastor relationship I'd see what you mean on the rest. But that's obviously not the case here. It went way beyond that.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Barack Obama gave a good speech on race relations.
If race was the central issue in America today, it might have worked. Unfortunately, for Mr. Obama, that’s not the case.
Woven within the speech, and throughout his campaign, is the standard, simplistic subtext of economic class warfare that has come to embody the Democratic party in the fist quarter of the 21st century.
Obama bemoans how “black anger” and “white resentments” have “distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze…” he then turns quickly to the standard boogeyman of liberalism: corporate America.
We are told that the “real problem” facing America is that “the corporation you work for will ship it (your job) overseas for nothing more than a profit.”
Well, really now…how would Mr. Obama suggest companies remain in America without making a profit?
Maybe an intelligent, honest discussion of how excessive regulation, high taxes, protectionism and a ludicrous litigation system have made it difficult for American companies to compete on the world market is in order.
Don’t hold your breath.
"If it was merely his pastor and a typical church member/pastor relationship I'd see what you mean on the rest. But that's obviously not the case here. It went way beyond that."
I'm not at all sure what you mean by that. It obviously is the case here. How exactly do you think it goes beyond that?
"Maybe an intelligent, honest discussion of how excessive regulation, high taxes, protectionism and a ludicrous litigation system have made it difficult for American companies to compete on the world market is in order."
You left out labor unions, social security, and public welfare programs. How can you possibly compose such a laundry list and forget to mention how the greed of the proletariat has inhibited the greed of American corporations? ;-)
"You left out labor unions, social security, and public welfare programs. How can you possibly compose such a laundry list and forget to mention how the greed of the proletariat has inhibited the greed of American corporations? ;-)"
I would have lumped them in with "excessive regulation" and "high taxes."
;-)
most folks I know would not stay at the church of a pastor with whom they had substantial philosophical disagreements.
RSW... or bringing them on board with one's *political* campaign when what they're most well known for are controversial *political* views with whom the *political* candidate disagrees with so substantially *politically*. I have close friends whom I disagree with substantially on all sorts of political issues, but I wouldn't have them act as part of my campaign and I certainly would distance myself from their views as adamantly as possible at the first mention of their views and our association. And I sure as heck wouldn't leave people thinking they're somehow my mentor of any sort.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"most folks I know would not stay at the church of a pastor with whom they had substantial philosophical disagreements."
I guess at that point you have to decide how many disagreements, and how substantial, and how relevant. The media has deliberately made it seem like Wright's worst comments are all the pastor ever says. My understanding is that they are actually the exceptions rather than the rule, and are not the core of his ministry.
Coming at it from a different angle, another commentator pointed out that Obama had called Wright his spiritual advisor, not his political one. I think that it is entirely plausible to agree with someone about the nature of God and man, while still recognizing the differences in background that inevitably lead to differences in politics.
The viewpoint you express seems to logically lead to churches that would be exclusively segregated between Democrats and Republicans. While that certainly exists to some extent, I don't see how it could be considered a requirement chiseled in stone. The Baptist church I was raised in had a broad spectrum of political and philosophical thought, and a pastor who encouraged that. Seemed to work pretty good, as far as I could tell.
I'd expect a hate monger like Wright to be admonished by a candidate from either political party. It's unfortunate that the GOP is let off the hook with some vile figures, not by Democrats, but by many others. Falwell being the prime example in my mind. Falwell was a horrible association to have and it disgusts me that McCain reneged on his criticisms of him. If Falwell was on the religious committee or some other part of his campaign I'd be even more upset. Wright's statements are as bad and often worse than I ever heard come out of Falwell's vile trap. Dems especially know that these religious affiliations can be pretty ugly and bring into question what a candidate may truly believe, how much they share in common with these yahoos. There's only one reason I can think of that they let one of their own off the hook so quickly for worse... politics. Pure and simple.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
The viewpoint you express seems to logically lead to churches that would be exclusively segregated between Democrats and Republicans.
Only if political views are expressed from the pulpit.
"There's only one reason I can think of that they let one of their own off the hook so quickly for worse... politics. Pure and simple."
Who let Wright off the hook?
Heh... wasn't talking about Wright.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Only if political views are expressed from the pulpit."
Political views are always expressed from every pulpit, every week. They may not be overtly partisan, i.e., naming candidates and/or parties by name, but they are political viewpoints just the same.
Some churches are more open and direct about it than others. I've been in a fair number of black churches over the years, and they are very different from most of the white churches I have been in. I don't claim to be an authority, or to have any particular statistical data, but I can honestly say that my experience has been that views like some of those expressed by Wright are hardly a rarity in black churches.
That doesn't make them right, nor does it make them wrong. It comes as no surprise that many, both white and black, find these views to be hateful and divisive. Words spoken in anger or frustration are nearly always counterproductive.
It is equally counterproductive to dismiss a man's entire life's work because of them. There is much of value in Wright as a person and pastor, and in his church even after he has retired. And I think that while Obama has repeatedly and correctly condemned the statements, it is unreasonable to expect him to renounce his friendship.
It is obvious to me that there is a concerted effort in some quarters to use Wright as an excuse to turn Obama into just another angry black man. There is no denying the glee with which some national commentators have pounced on this, as though we are just now learning the true nature of Obama, and he is everything that white America fears most.
I applaud the fact that Obama steadfastly refuses to play that game. Maybe he ultimately will fail as a result. Maybe "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is just too complicated for sound bites or easy explanations in a world that hasn't the time or inclination to acknowledge that life is messy. That would be a real shame.
Political views are always expressed from every pulpit, every week. They may not be overtly partisan, i.e., naming candidates and/or parties by name, but they are political viewpoints just the same.
Some churches are more open and direct about it than others.
That has not been my experience - and I, as a conservative, have been very watchful of my liberal clergy. Preachers don't want to drive off "paying customers" - and if you have membership with mixed political ideology, then talking politics is a no-win situation for any preacher/pastor/priest/
"It is equally counterproductive to dismiss a man's entire life's work because of them. There is much of value in Wright as a person and pastor, and in his church even after he has retired."
Nonsense. Wright himself is who is responsible for being remembered for these moments of hate, racism, and divisiveness instead of his other works. You can be certain that many people who have long and distinguished careers otherwise will be remembered for some of their biggest blunders. In this case you keep describing these sermons as if they were flukes. I haven't seen any evidence they were not representative of many of his sermons, and given the reaction by many of the parishioners interviewed it doesn't sound like they were all that off the usual message, but perhaps just the more extreme examples.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I have no doubt that if there were no political power to be gained or lost as a result of this speech that almost every American would stand up and cheer what Obama said today. A man in his position who did not shy away from tough road, who attempted to take a petty political fight and turn it into a moment for America to reflect on what it will take for us to start to solve some of our most deeply rooted problems.
Amazing. Simply amazing. I understand the folks on the other side who want to nit-pick it back down into "reality". And I understand that Clinton will continue to talk about substance over rhetoric. So be it, I guess. There were those who hated Lincoln's words at Gettysburg, and those who despised King for all of his life. No doubt eyes were rolling when Kennedy asked America to "ask not what your country can do for you ...". That is the way the game is played.
But for those of us with ears to hear, it was a very, very important moment. And for a politician who may have been on the ropes, it was a brilliant turn of events that confirms why so many of us have believed in Obama for so long.
And if he can take this near-disaster and turn it into something immaculate and beautiful, can you imagine what he could do with the Presidency?
"I have no doubt that if there were no political power to be gained or lost as a result of this speech that almost every American would stand up and cheer what Obama said today."
Actually, I thought it was a transparent and insincere bit of gamesmanship from Sen. Obama. Are you saying that I only think that because I care about political power?
In fact, I think that Obama's political ambition is the only reason he gave the speech, and that it contained what it did.
I also don't think it will "work." I don't think this will address his rising negatives and I don't think this will compel working-class white Democrats to vote for him in significantly larger number. I think it will do the opposite.
However, I do think that those who were already inclined to support Obama will think that those unmoved by such naked pandering are somehow racist or unwilling to discuss race and America's racial problems throughout our history. It's starting already, to further promote a "post-racial" candidate. And that will hurt Obama's candidacy even more.
"In this case you keep describing these sermons as if they were flukes. I haven't seen any evidence they were not representative of many of his sermons, and given the reaction by many of the parishioners interviewed it doesn't sound like they were all that off the usual message, but perhaps just the more extreme examples."
You say the glass is half empty. I say it is half full. The evidence that the particular statements were in some ways exceptional lies partly in the fact that we keep seeing the same three clips over and over and over. If there were other statements that rose to this level or crossed the line the way these do, they would probably have been found in the same places these were, and we would be seeing them, as well.
I have no doubt that Wright has spoken often of racial issues or tensions. What a surprise for a black minister to talk about race in white America (not). In that sense, they can certainly be considered one of his "usual messages." I have tried to explain that in several comments, perhaps to no avail.
There is a fundamental cultural difference between black churches and white churches. It is a difference so profound as to frequently make white church goers uncomfortable. There is also a fair amount of historic frustration and rage in the black community. Often, in the heat of a sermon, it can cross a line. Some pastors are more animated than others. I have heard sermons and sentiments similar to the notable Wright examples more than once.
Wright is probably animated fairly regularly, and probably expresses his frustration and rage in the course of his sermons fairly often. I have no sense that he crosses the line every time out as he did in the clips in question. As I said, there have probably been scores of eyes reviewing all of the archives, and so far we've got just a handful of objectionable clips.
Obama himself talks about the sources of Wright's animus, and how it sometimes takes Wright to unhealthy places. My point was never to excuse this, or apologize for it or diminish it. Rather, I was simply trying to explain why Obama might rightly condemn the statements, but be reluctant to condemn his friend as a person.
Gordy: I'm sorry that you view the speech today so cynically. I don't think it makes you a racist, but to be honest, I'm not sure what your cynicism means in this context.
On a purely practical level, of course he gave the speech because he is running for President. In that respect, the motivation of every speech by a candidate for office stems ultimately from their candidacy. That by itself doesn't make it pandering, and I found nothing in it to suggest that he was. In fact, rereading the text just now, I was moved to tears. Guess I'm just a bleeding heart.
I'm with Gordy on this one. I understand that Obama first said he wasn't present when the infamous sermon was delivered; then it changed to, why yes, I was there, but I disavow the message, but he's still my mentor, with a lecture on why we need to understand this anger. I understand his anger, and I also understand that other people, making similar statements, would no doubt be run out of town on the proverbial rail. I don't understand how anyone can sit in a church for 20 years, listening to vile stuff like this, and then act like it's news to him that this is unacceptable. Sorry, but I think Obama is yet another politician just saying whatever will get him elected.
"Gordy: I'm sorry that you view the speech today so cynically. I don't think it makes you a racist, but to be honest, I'm not sure what your cynicism means in this context."
My cynicism is because of the transparent way in which he is manipulating racial politics when its convenient to him to do so.
And I agree that the way the Clintons are pummeling him on race is dispicable. It's just as dispicable how Obama is "post-racial" and refutes the whole notion of such a thing in the same speech. Essentially, Obama is saying that race can be a topic in this campaign (and in America) only when it's convenient for his candidacy. If anyone else wants to discuss race, especially in the context of his record, his biography, his candidacy, then they're attacked by Obama's campaign for being racist.
I clearly have no love for the Republican nominee. And I've said before that I find Obama personally appealing. This speech made me dislike him for the first time. The part about his white grandmother is just dispicable, as just one example.
And, as I've said, I don't think it will "work." Those who were already inclined to think that Obama can do no wrong will see this as transcendant (see D.Boon and Kevin above). Those who aren't already committed to him (and, despite media reports to the contrary, a lot of Americans are not committed to him) will cringe if they read this or really listen to what he's saying.
When did he say he was present? I thought it was the right-wing news outlets that were saying he was present, until it was pointed out he was in Florida that day.
I haven't really been paying attention, but I think it's interesting that this whole incident seems to be seen from a perspective that reinforces the viewer's pre-existing opinion about Obama. If you liked him before, this just strengthened that; if you didn't, it's being seen as shameless racial pandering.
"I haven't really been paying attention, but I think it's interesting that this whole incident seems to be seen from a perspective that reinforces the viewer's pre-existing opinion about Obama. If you liked him before, this just strengthened that; if you didn't, it's being seen as shameless racial pandering."
Yes. And if you really had no strong feelings, you're going to wonder why "post-racial" Obama gave this speech.
And that's why I don't think it will "work" for him politically.
Champaign Dweller said, " Sorry, but I think Obama is yet another politician just saying whatever will get him elected."
To which I add: well, duh.
Let's not forget that Barack Obama is the man who unequivocally promised Illinois he would NOT quit his term early to run for President. That right there is the measure of the man. He is only as good as his word and right now it doesn't mean sh*t.
"And if you really had no strong feelings, you're going to wonder why "post-racial" Obama gave this speech."
He gave this speech because racism has been front and center for the past four days. The media has been running the Wright clips over and over and over, in spite of Obama's condemnations. I suppose that he could just pretend that no one was trying to tie him to them, but I don't think that Kerry/Dukakis-esque strategy is still in favor. The dialogue was taking place with or without him. Might as well acknowledge it and own it.
"When did he say he was present?"
He didn't. Here's what he actually said today: "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."
The reference to "remarks that could be considered controversial" is very different from the remarks which have been played over and over, and which Obama was demonstrably not present for. In his general statements on Countdown last Friday, my recollection is that he further denied hearing any extreme expressions of hate for or bias against any race.
It's still pretty unbelievable to almost everyone that he never heard about these statements, especially the post-9/11 speech, by his close associate. His denials got a raised eyebrow from everyone he talked to after ABC broke the DVD clips. How is that something you just don't hear about unless that kind of hatred is commonplace there. Either way it makes him look bad. If these kind of sermons weren't commonplace how on earth did he not hear about them? If they were commonplace, how on earth did he not realize he was helping finance a hate group?
The whole mess could have been avoided by distancing himself from a controversial figure (he at least recognizes that) long ago... not when the political pressure finally made it necessary.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I still don't understand the point of the entire thing. Here we have an economy on the brink of disaster, the 2nd amendment being tried in front of SCOTUS, a HUGE taxpayer bailout of the largest money lenders in America, the fed slashing interest rates again, and we are talking about a black pastor's words on a Sunday morning six years ago?
Was Obama there? Did he hear about the speech later? Did he applaud during a controversial sermon given 13 years ago in August? Has Obama ever said he hates America? Does he damn America? Is there any way to damn America and not really mean damn America?
Does Obama HATE America?
This. Is. Ridiculous.
Obama's problem is that he may be giving the American public too much credit. Reading this thread, it seems to me that half of what he said went right over most of the listener's heads. He may believe that Americans understand that it is possible to be President and not think America is absolutely, positively the most perfect country ever placed on earth. He may think that it is possible to have a genuine, authentic discussion about race in America. That Americans will tolerate someone somewhere mentioning that maybe America has been kind of shitty to different racial groups in the past, and (gasp!) maybe some of that shittiness is still happening.
He may assume that it is possible to have that kind of mature, focused, and important discussion in America. Judging from the comments in this thread, he may be REALLY overestimating the American people. As a cynic myself, I tend to think he has blown it by trying to have a mature campaign - trying to discuss the real, foundational problems at America's core. After all, this is a country that placed "Support Our Troops" on the back of their SUVs for about a year until the fad faded. A country that willingly swallowed the lies fed to them by the Bush team in the months before Iraq. Who can't be bothered to protest a war that is costing trillions in dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. A country that turns out more people to vote for the American Idol than for the mid-term elections. Perhaps America just sucks. Too lazy to care. Can't be bothered to address the real issues. Much more interested in making political points than progress.
It is easy to believe that. And I admit sometimes I do. Obama seems to disagree. He seems to think America is better than that, and he seems to be gambling his entire campaign on the notion that America wants to grow up and try to overcome some of these core issues. I guess he'd rather lose attempting to make the country better, rather than win and just perpetuate the problems.
It'd be nice if some of our conservative friends could can the cynicism for a year or two, but that may be too much to ask.
I understand that Obama first said he wasn't present when the infamous sermon was delivered; then it changed to, why yes, I was there, but I disavow the message, but he's still my mentor, with a lecture on why we need to understand this anger.
He was not there. That is a lie perpetuated Newsmax and William Kristol; they've both retracted it, after significant pressure.
Newsmax hasn't retracted the story. When the Obama campaign showed that it couldn't have been true because Obama was in Florida on that day, Newsmax placed a correction saying it still happened, but on a different, unspecified day. The part I find amusing is that the Newsmax author was caught editing his own Wikipedia biography to expunge the information. Ah, your "liberal media" at work.
D Boon... your gift at strawman is just amazing. Not only did you reword something that wasn't said into a totally indefensible argument nobody was making... you ripped your imaginary foe a new one and pointed out how absurd their non-existant criticisms were! Good show!
A prime example of what I was talking about. Bravo!
Meanwhile back in reality people are still concerned about the pastor and the 20 year relationship with that pastor and what that might mean as far as the real Obama, who didn't just say the US wasn't perfect but accused it of being an evil rivaled only by the most vile of nations in history and actively involved in plots of genocide against blacks... a conspiracy on par with the organ harvesting of anti-Semetic nutjobs. Or as you would put it "not thinking America was perfect." Lay.. off.. the crack.
Criminey.
Can't imagine why people from the entire spectrum of the media, from the furthest left to the furthest right are talking about this... it must be a conservative conspiracy! Why would ANYBODY be interested in the post-racial candidate being closely tied to someone who is absolutely neck deep in racial division and propogating the most divisive and hateful of rhetoric in the racial arena outside of the Ku Klux friggin' Klan? It just doesn't make sense. Move on already. Isn't there a white girl in trouble somewhere? Nothing to see here, move along...
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"He may think that it is possible to have a genuine, authentic discussion about race in America."
He may think that it is possible, but he acts as if such a discussion can occur only on his terms. And that's not genuine or authentic.
"He seems to think America is better than that, and he seems to be gambling his entire campaign on the notion that America wants to grow up and try to overcome some of these core issues."
No. He seems to think that, if he wins the election, that America is better than that. If not, then we're not.
"It'd be nice if some of our conservative friends could can the cynicism for a year or two, but that may be too much to ask."
Please try to remember where these race-based attacks on Obama are coming from.
It's reflexive for you to blame Republicans for everything bad that happens in politics, but in reality almost every race-based attack on Obama has come from Democrats whom, just a few short years ago, most of you were supporting just as devotedly as you now support Obama.
D. Boon, I have to agree with you, I just read the entire text of the speech in the Sun Times,,,then went back and read it again,,,,this man is going to be the next President of the United States,,,,and for my money it has been too long in coming,,,Kevin if anyone can turn this country around it will be him,,Hillary be damned,,,,,and as for the GOP nominee,,,,,,,he is lost in the bogs,,,,,,,,
I can't respect someone who accepts that there is a basis for speech like this. I know he said that he rejects it, but then he said something along the lines of how we have to understand the anger in the black churches, or maybe his downtrodden wife said that from her million dollar mansion. The point is that he aligned himself with this stuff when he needed to get elected in the STate, and now it's inconvenient. And regardless of what kind of speech he can give, where is the substance of his change? I can shout I'm for change all day long, but that doesn't make me qualified to run for anything unless I have something to back it up.
I still don't understand the point of the entire thing. Here we have an economy on the brink of disaster, the 2nd amendment being tried in front of SCOTUS, a HUGE taxpayer bailout of the largest money lenders in America, the fed slashing interest rates again, and we are talking about a black pastor's words on a Sunday morning six years ago?
The reason this is a big deal is because of the Obama campaign. People don't get fired up about his tax plan, his gun plan, or his plan for the economy. They get fired up about his talk of change and unity and hope. And then they hear words from his pastor of 20 years that are 180 degrees different. Is Obama really new and different, or is he just talking the talk?
Just to be clear (again): Republicans are not responsible for everything bad that happens in politics. And no, you are not a racist if you don't support Obama.
I also didn't hear Obama saying that race can only be dealt with on his terms. I took away the opposite impression: mentioning the "legitimate" resentment that many white folks feel about busing and affirmative action was a way to acknowledge that yes, there are problems with the way that America has tried to "fix" the racial problems. He also mentioned (although briefly) that welfare had caused a lot of problems in the black community, and he repeatedly called upon black Americans to "be fathers" and acknowledge their own culpability in the problems in the black community.
So I didn't get the feeling that he was saying "I'm right, you're wrong and here's what we are going to do about it". But I could have missed that, for sure. Can you explain, with some specifics, where you think Obama is trying to define the terms?
But ,dweller,that is the perception of many of the black folks in this country,,,,,,,Being white myself,,,my black friends have always spoken freely in front of me , and I them,,,,Obama is right,,,,why not admit the feelings and deal with them,instead of knowing they exist and pretend they do not,,,,
"I also didn't hear Obama saying that race can only be dealt with on his terms."
Yet almost every time race has been discussed by anybody else during this campaign, Obama's campaign has responded with charges of divisiveness or some such.
That's my cynicism about him and this speech. He's trying to be post-racial, yet has been completely willing to use his race as a defense and as an attack whenever it's brought up by anyone else. He's post-racial, yet hoping to capture the hateful anti-white and anti-Jewish sentiment represented by Wright.
Another example: it's OK for him to win primaries and claim victories based on overwhelming majorities of black voters and while losing among white voters, but divisive/unacceptable/racist for the Clinton campaign and its surrogates to question whether his losing white Democratic voters in those same states is a liability in a general election. It's even divisive/unacceptable/racist for Obama to be compared to other past African-American candidates.
I've said before that I think he's going to morph from some sort of Messiah in to Just Another Politician. His duality on race and who's allowed to talk about it and why is just further evidence of that.
From IP, Mar 19 7:31 am:
"He may think that it is possible to have a genuine, authentic discussion about race in America."
He may think that it is possible, but he acts as if such a discussion can occur only on his terms. And that's not genuine or authentic.
Obama's speech reflected how he hopes/intends to redefine the terms on which we speak about race. You may disagree with the terms Obama seeks, (and thus not want to vote for him), but his ability to make a a speech that provokes thoughtful discussion on a national level suggests leadership and consensus building skills that many voters consider desirable in a president. Obama's communication skills are as strong as Reagan's, although the two certainly would disagree on many issues.
Also from IP, Mar 19 7:31 am:
"He seems to think America is better than that, and he seems to be gambling his entire campaign on the notion that America wants to grow up and try to overcome some of these core issues."
No. He seems to think that, if he wins the election, that America is better than that. If not, then we're not.
Convincing others that voting for him/her reflects the best in the nation can win an election. Again, Reagan provides a good example.
Michael Fuerst
That's my cynicism about him and this speech. He's trying to be post-racial, yet has been completely willing to use his race as a defense and as an attack whenever it's brought up by anyone else. He's post-racial, yet hoping to capture the hateful anti-white and anti-Jewish sentiment represented by Wright.
I just don't see it this way. His speech yesterday was far from an attempt to capture hateful anti-white/Jewish vote. On the contrary, I thought one of the most important parts of the speech was where he defend Israel as a "stalwart ally". I am also not clear where he has used his race as a defense or an attack. Can you give specific examples?
it's OK for him to win primaries and claim victories based on overwhelming majorities of black voters and while losing among white voters, but divisive/unacceptable/racist for the Clinton campaign and its surrogates to question whether his losing white Democratic voters in those same states is a liability in a general election. It's even divisive/unacceptable/racist for Obama to be compared to other past African-American candidates.
I am not sure what victories he has won based solely on overwhelming majorities of black voters. On the contrary, his most impressive victories have been coalitions of black and white voters. South Carolina comes to mind, as does Texas. He has won in Minnesota and Iowa. He carried the white vote by wide majorities in many of the states he has won. It seems to me that claiming Obama can only win with black votes is not just a cheap political technique, it is also factually inaccurate.
And comparing Obama to someone like Rev. Jackson would be akin to comparing George W. Bush to Pat Robertson because they are both evangelical Christians. If a Republican in the primaries attempted to imply that W's campaign wasn't serious because remember Pat Robertson once won Iowa, I think we would all object.
My take here is that a lot of people are struggling with how to handle a black male as a legitimate presidential candidate. Which is a good thing for America. But conservativism, as I read it, is based on the idea of equality: that race should not matter in any regard. That all are equal and race is almost completely irrelevant. If that is what folks believe, and a black candidate challenges that notion by pointing out that race is still a big, important factor in American society, then that is going to get the undies in a bunch, as it were. Again, nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think it is a good thing.
Kathleen Parker today:
An Australian tourist got some video through the media black out during the Tibet riots:
The path to the Smogolympics in Beijing should be pretty interesting.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"I am also not clear where he has used his race as a defense or an attack. Can you give specific examples?"
Sure. Michelle Obama's "I'm finally proud to be an American" speech. He/his campaign used his race as a defense for the remarks, and attacked those who criticized the remarks. He used his race as both a defense and an attack.
Other examples: the Jesse Jackson comparison. Farrakhan. His speech yesterday.
In his speech yesterday, to those of us who don't worship him, one of his messages was, "If you don't support me, you're not hoping for the best that America can be." He makes it sound great, as he's a great orator and has a fantastic echo chamber, but what kind of inclusive, post-racial, post-partisan message is that anyway?
"I am not sure what victories he has won based solely on overwhelming majorities of black voters."
I didn't say "based solely on overwhelming majorities of black voters." I said that he won black voters overwhelmingly, and lost among white voters.
These are exit polls of states with significant populations of African-Americans. (I grabbed them from Fox because I couldn't find them on CNN) Mississippi. Texas. Maryland. Missouri. In Ohio Obama lost among whites 2-1.
"But conservativism, as I read it, is based on the idea of equality: that race should not matter in any regard. That all are equal and race is almost completely irrelevant. If that is what folks believe, and a black candidate challenges that notion by pointing out that race is still a big, important factor in American society, then that is going to get the undies in a bunch, as it were. Again, nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think it is a good thing."
I think it's a good thing, too. Race is still a huge, big, important factor in American society. It shouldn't be, but we have a long way to go. I don't mind Obama pointing such things out. I don't care for his hypocrisy in doing so, and I don't care for this new message of his that only those who support Obama are hoping for "a more perfect union." And neither will very many other people who aren't already supporting him.
Mike Huckabee discussed Obama and Wright today on Morning Joe:
Huck's reaction here makes a great deal of sense. I'm not sure if anybody had been in bed longer with Jerry Falwell, and now Jerry Jr. Huck's political future depends on people forgetting a similarly controversial yahoo.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
What media blackout are you talking about, Cluck? The yawning gaps in your information base dont constitute a "media blackout". You can see it all on CCTV-4 if you have a satellite dish.
Anon... some videos are getting out and some media getting in... but that's against the Chinese attempts to block all foreign media from the areas involved. Perhaps "attempted media blackout" would have been more accurate wording?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
In his speech yesterday, to those of us who don't worship him, one of his messages was, "If you don't support me, you're not hoping for the best that America can be."
Yeah, I think you missed the point. But you've been missing the point of Obama from the beginning. Just like a lot of people miss the point about why people Xian, Kevin and myself hang out over here. There are a lot of people in this country who would like to find consensus between these two camps that seem to have arisen in our political culture. I don't honestly believe that Obama wants consensus to be built around a progressive agenda. As he mentioned in that speech, there are a lot of legitimate conservative issues that need to be addressed. And I think a leader who speaks as fluently and inspirationally as Obama may be the one chance we have right now to raise ourselves about the divisiveness that has characterized so much of the Bush Presidency. It doesn't mean conservatives need to shut up and go along for the ride, it means that there are right answers to our nation's problems on both sides of the political spectrum, and someone like Obama wants to try to be that bridge builder.
I find it very exciting. And you seem to find it nauseating. Which is fine, of course. I just hope that at some point, if Obama continues on his path to power, you will at least give him a chance. Drop that cynicism for a week maybe and see what can happen?
Have a good night.
"I don't honestly believe that Obama wants consensus to be built around a progressive agenda."
The central message of the speech was that everyone else needs to stop these distracting discussions about race so that we can focus on implementing progressive, anti-corporate policies. He even mentioned accounting scandals.
"And I think a leader who speaks as fluently and inspirationally as Obama may be the one chance we have right now to raise ourselves about the divisiveness that has characterized so much of the Bush Presidency."
That's the thing - he's just as divisive as Bush, maybe more so. He has yet to unite his entire Party, let alone the entire county. Look at the exit polling data.
"I find it very exciting. And you seem to find it nauseating. Which is fine, of course. I just hope that at some point, if Obama continues on his path to power, you will at least give him a chance. Drop that cynicism for a week maybe and see what can happen?"
I gave him a chance. I don't care for the GOP nominee, and Obama's an empty vessel.
Then he gave this hypocritical, hubristic speech. He's just another politician, and at some point those of you who think the rest of us are just misunderstanding him (perhaps we have "untrained ears?") will realize it too.
Well, this cause is hopeless. You remind me of a woman who has been beaten, telling all of her friends that it is no use, all men are worthless.
You might be right, but some of us refused to marry ourselves to the Titanic that has been George W. Bush. Some day you'll get over it, I hope.
"Well, this cause is hopeless. You remind me of a woman who has been beaten, telling all of her friends that it is no use, all men are worthless."
Boggle.
I have no idea why you think this has anything to do with George W. Bush. You brought him up (twice!); I didn't. I am quite capable of judging candidates independently from each other.
Have a great day.
Gordy - not trying to insult you, nor prolong this discussion further than it needs to go. My last ditch effort to get you to kind of understand what happened is this column by Roger Cohen:
Beyond America's Original Sin
If you get a chance you should read it.
Thanks. I just read it.
Was there something in there with which I am supposedly disagreeing?
I don't think it addresses my main complaint about Obama and this speech - that he's trying to have it both ways on race; that only his campaign is allowed to discuss race as it affect his campaign or American politics. When others try to do so, he both defends himself using his race, and attacks the others for not being black/not understanding/being divisive/having an "untrained ear." Obama is the one maniuplating race for political advantage and the one who is being cynical about it.
I appreciate your willingness to continue the discussion. I just don't see anyone addressing that point.
FWIW it seems to me that he didn't want to talk about race, but the other candidates keep bringing it up. What can he do, he has to respond to them. The idea that he's supposed to remain above all that and never mention his blackness when it's CLEAR that it's the elephant in the room, so to speak, is silly. "Race race race!!" "Okay, here's my view on that, now let's get to other topics" "No! Race race race!!" "Okay, Race! Now can't we talk about something else?" "Haha! You're mentioning race when you said you didn't wanna! What a hypocrite!!"
Same thing a while back when people flamed Hillary for supposedly using her being female to advantage. Well, yeah, if someone is going to talk about her being a woman and therefore crying or being too bitchy or whatever it is, she had to respond to them, and that response is necessarily ALSO going to reference her sex. Duh.
Personally I'm impressed that he's not taking the bait and mudslinging it up. I think he's at least trying to stick to a positive message, to respond to whatever complaints people bring up and then leave it there, not cross that line into "oh yeah? Well look at this dirt I got on YOU" territory. If nothing else, THAT is refreshing, whether you support his campaign or not.
Reading various foamy blogs on this incident it seems that his failure to get down and dirty is pissing a lot of his detractors off. They want to troll him, and he's not biting. (Mind you, I don't think they're all Republicans, either.)
I still think it will be interesting if it's Obama vs. McCain in the general election.
Well in this case it was "other candidates bringing it up," it was someone who played a role in his campaign and who admittedly played a very large role in shaping his worldview, though the he says strictily in a religious way not due to the political views. The story broke on ABC news, not out of some campaign release. The other candidates have been mostly avoiding it with a 10 foot poll because it is a self-destruct issue on a very sensitive subject and it's better to stear clear of those in many situations. About the only folks that Obama inspired to unify with this mess has been some extreme Christian Coalition folks who have their own "crazy uncles."
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Well, Gordy I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Fwiw - usually I can understand the logic of your positions (believe it or not) and generally understand your point, even if I disagree. This time I am just not seeing this Obama person who is trying to have it both ways. The only thing I can think to ask at this point is: what would you have him do differently?
Personally, I am really proud of the man. He took a very minor topic that was being pounded by the worst of the worst in punditland and turned it into something positive for the country. He took a potentially fatal wound and turned it into one of his most appealing moments of the campaign. For that alone, regardless of whether he is playing some race game (which, again, I don't think he is) you've gotta give the man credit. If nothing else, it was political genius.
Akibare - I agree that he seemed to be backed into a corner on this one, and had to take on the topic or risk losing the entire campaign. It is a shame so many in this country are so quick to imply over and over again that Obama is not a true patriot, or "real" American. He doesn't wear the right pin, he doesn't put his hand in the right place, and his pastor is kind of a nutjob. Forget about all the good things Obama stands for, all his policies and his unifying message. Forget all of the work he has done for this state, the City of Chicago and our country. None of it matters because he isn't wearing that pin, moving that hand, or throwing his pastor under a bus.
What a bunch of sleazebags.
My dearest Glock:
On the 5:30 world news tonight on channel 15, Hillary Clinton was quoted as admitting that her camp has been the one stirring up all this stuff about Pastor Wright in an attempt to sway any uncommitted superdelegates her way and steal the nomination. I would argue that's not "avoiding it with a ten-foot pole", that's deliberately playing dirty pool and dirty politics.
Hey, she's a Clinton, you (and others) shrug. What did you expect?
Well, I would expect others (especially those on the opposite side of the aisle/political spectrum) to give a little more thought to the source of this dust-up, and to not be so willing to accept about one minute's worth of sound bites from approximately 200,000+ minutes of sermons over 36 years.
But maybe I'm expecting too much, even though I live in a town that boasts a high number of college-educated/college graduate/ Ph.D holding citizens.
And why didn't Obama disassociate himself from Wright earlier? Well, let me tell a little about my church. We have a bishop who is controversial in our denomination (he's about 3 -4 years away from mandatory retirement age), and a minister who may be approximately 3-4 years away from retirement with a church pension. There have been issues with the minister over the last 3-5 years. At least one church board has looked into firing said minister. The bishop allegedly told them if they wanted to do that, he would support them. Why, you ask, haven't we done this? Well, at one point, the minister was a very good minister and brought a lot of vitality and growth to our church. He initiated some good programs (and some very bad ones). The minister has some health issues that are well-managed by medical personnel in our community, but these issues may impact his employability in another church, and definitely would affect employability if the minister sought private-sector employment. If we fired him, he would lose his house and his car, not to mention his income, and the impact on his health care while he searched for another job. His pension might be impacted by our actions. SO, we tolerate him, and grind our teeth through selected sermons, and count the months/weeks/days until this situation resolves itself with a resignation letter.
Reverend Wright resigned from his pulpit just a few weeks ago. Isn't it possible that the good folks at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago were in a similar situation, and their response was the same one my church is currently using? Not a member there, so I can't say that's what happened, just speculating...
And from the little I saw of the Obama speech (haven't had a chance to read the complete text yet), I thought it was an awesome speech.
"If nothing else, it was political genius."
I disagree. I think, looking back, people will see this whole Wright-saga as the beginning of the end. But we'll see.
"Forget about all the good things Obama stands for, all his policies and his unifying message."
He doesn't have a unifying message. Can we please stop pretending that because he constantly talks about unity that somehow the majority of America is buying it?
He's only got the support of somewhere around half of Democrats, and his negatives are now equal to his positives. He's not unifying, no matter how much his campaign wants to pretend otherwise. The only voters he has unified are African-Americans, Illinoisans (and to some degree younger voters). Every other demographic is very much divided on Obama.
Thanks for the discussion. I know you (and Kevin) really have high hopes for him.
Peggy Noonan discussed Obama's speech today at WSJO: "A Thinking Man's Speech"
"On the 5:30 world news tonight on channel 15, Hillary Clinton was quoted as admitting that her camp has been the one stirring up all this stuff about Pastor Wright in an attempt to sway any uncommitted superdelegates her way and steal the nomination. I would argue that's not "avoiding it with a ten-foot pole", that's deliberately playing dirty pool and dirty politics."
I heard about some of this this morning, but none of it really conflicts with what I said yesterday. Which was "mostly avoiding it with a 10 foot pole." The behind-the-scenes conversations aren't something I'm privy to, so I'm mostly going off on public statements.
As CNN is reporting: "The Clinton campaign has largely steered clear of public criticism of Obama over the incident, though some current and former campaign surrogates have suggested the fact that the senator did not dissociate himself sooner might raise questions about his judgment."
And from Obama's recent statement ripping on Hillary's honesty, he only went as far as mentioning the non-public superdelegate convos that I, of course, hadn't heard: "Reverend Wright. Even though it has been reported yesterday that Clinton is pushing Senator Obama’s association with Reverend Wright in attempt to rattle superdelegates, Clinton refused to give a straight answer. She would only say that their campaign “has been making the case that I am the most electable” before shrugging and prompting the next question."
My point was that it wasn't the other candidates who released the info, the media dug it up. It wasn't the other candidates keeping it in the media focus, it was the public interest, and the ever-digging pundits. And in the public eye even Hillary's PR minions have been mostly fielding questions from the media about it, not bringing it up themselves, and their responses have been overwhelmingly along the lines of how it could hurt him, and how he may have wanted to dissociate himself earlier to avoid that. Behind the scenese they're fighting dirty I'm sure. But in the public eye, they fought far more dirty on the radical muslim rumors.
You'll never catch me arguing that Hillary isn't a dirty/dishonest politician. Obama recent memo on her honesty issues was an extremely accurate list of just her more recent unfounded claims and dirty pool tactics. With the Wright issue, however, they seem to only be using it mainly behind the scenes. No real need to push it publically as it is an issue that pushes itself. That's all on Obama's missteps. A better example of Hillary fighting dirty on an issue with the public it would be the radical muslim rumors, imo.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Disgusting. That many would allow the greatest candidate in at least a century pass us by simply because he doesn't hold an exclusively mainstream white American perspective is a real blow to my faith in our society. Well, I guess it hasn't happened yet, and a nearly majority of people (a majority the second time) did vote for the extreme polar opposite--President Bush.
I agree with very little of the preacher's quoted statements, but I like Obama, am interested in understanding where they come from rather than vilifying a large sector of the African American population of the country for reacted to insidious, persistent racism in the best way they know how (albeit often misguided).
If you cannot understand why that is necessary, nor why it is not easy for a minority person in the country to "simply find another preacher", I will not vilify you, but I do fear for you and your privilege.
I am in my third year of searching for a pastor I can connect my considerable faith in Christ to, and it's a long and grueling, yet righteous journey. It would be nice to see some thankfulness for one's own position rather than shallow self-righteousness and hypocracy.
"Disgusting. That many would allow the greatest candidate in at least a century pass us by simply because he doesn't hold an exclusively mainstream white American perspective is a real blow to my faith in our society."
I think quite a few folks, even democrats would dispute the "greatest candidate in at least a century" bit. The only candidate he rivals is Dan Quayle in having the least relevant experience. And nobody is ridiculing him for not having a "mainstream white American perspective" that I've seen. His pastor is being ridiculed for having a political viewpoint that is extremist even for anyone, white, black, brown, christian, jewish, muslim, etc. Some of his comments and actions rivaled that of the Nation of Islam, a hate group who he has also associated with.
Obama's problem here is having such a long association with this yahoo when his whole message has been anything but. He can change the nation but he can't even get a 20 year old friend to stop the divisive racist nonsense he preaches? He can't end the divisiveness of his own spiritual community that cheers this nonsense?
The problem with Barack isn't that he share's Wrights views, it's that he's exploited that divisiveness for his political gain in direct contrast to what he's selling himself as. I don' tthink the Wright thing does much else other than hurting his image, especially when it comes to his political judgement. What's truly awful about the Wright situation is that Obama and many others are coming out and essentially implying that whites are ignorant and/or racist if they don't tolerate this kind of crap. Obama went as far as calling white's being racist as typical. While he and perhaps even you may believe that, to most white's that's pretty insulting. You might as well paint all white's with the southern racist-redneck brush. It's insulting and doesn't help him here.
Wright's message is easy to understand. Blacks got screwed over time and time again in our history, and he thinks it justifies his racism. It doesn't justify it, legitimize, make it an acceptable viewpoint, one that we can "understand" and tolerate any more than we can tolerate a racist white who justifies his own racism based on conspiracy theories and perceived unfairness, or those rich all-powerful Jews! It's racism and it is wrong. Understanding it is great, but is it really that hard to understand? Obama was a fool for not keeping this guy as far away as possible from his campaign, let alone adding him to it. He was an even bigger fool to try to blow this off by insinuating that whites are typically racist too. Two wrongs don't make a right, but they certainly make this Wright thing even messier.
It's hard to imagine you'd so easily dismiss such nonsense by a white candidate dismissing associations with an anti-black/anti-Jew pastor who had it rough growing up in a black neighborhood where he only noticed the Jews owning the shops. We might be able to "understand" why he's a racist scumbag, but that doesn't really change what he is and make it acceptable for a candidate to associate with the yahoo.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
The only candidate he rivals is Dan Quayle in having the least relevant experience.
Good comparison, but I think you need to add John Edwards to that list Glock.
What you say above Glock is only true because in mainstream discourse we define "racism" as "conscious intentional discrimination on the basis of race".
That's useful to some insecure person trying to feel good about themselves or someone who doesn't have to deal with the bulk of the effects of aversive, unintentional racism--the kind of person who will quote the Webster's definition of the word smugly like they've won some debate trophy--but it's not useful to a lot of the folks in the country of various ethnic backgrounds.
Mainstream America can screw over hard-working, loving, anti-racist poor whites and people of color more than well enough under the noses of those of us who draw some mystic line in the sand just on the other side of racial slurs and "I hate black/white/yellow whatever people" without offending the majority of the population.
I just spent the week in a city in which they bussed white folks through the city while predominantly minority American citizens were interned against their will in an environment without basic human necessities--deprived of facilities, food and any legitimate shelter.
Was that because some racist pastors hated black people? No. It was because all of us, myself included didn't give enough care to stop it from happening.
But hey, at least I know I am responsibie. At least I'm doing something now because hey--a lot of New Orleans folk STILL haven't gotten their homes back and it's been very clear who is being encouraged to return.
So, no, it's nothing at all like the analogy you made from my perspective. And you know full well that the majority of the country agrees with me, right or wrong (you may be right, I may be wrong, but that doesn't change this fact). The question is whether that majority will come out and vote on election day or for that matter even be eligible to vote.
Sorry if I'm cranky, but it's been a long week, and I'm sick of being lectured to about how I don't understand race.
"Sorry if I'm cranky, but it's been a long week, and I'm sick of being lectured to about how I don't understand race."
Well at least we have that in common this week.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Obama's problem here is that he is running for President and his opponents, mainly conservatives, are doing anything they can to derail his candidacy. He is probably the greatest political leader in half a century, and experience has nothing to do with it. Abe Lincoln was pretty damned inexperienced, as was Woodrow Wilson. Richard Nixon might have been the most qualified person to ever hold the office of President, and look how that turned out.
One of the most important things a President can do is unite the country behind a cause. The Iraq War is a prime example of what happens when a President doesn't have what it takes to sell his ideas to the American People. Lying, cheating, anger, division are the result. A man who can appeal to such a wide variety of Americans (see the effusive reactions to Tuesday's speech on all sides of America's spectrum) has more than enough of the qualifications to be President. In fact, that appeal is probably much more important than anything else.
No, what happened here this week didn't have a whole lot to do with qualifications for the Presidency. What happened here was a shallow, cynical attempt to smear a candidate. It is rather disgraceful, in my opinion, that this site was a part of that smear campaign. That instead of sticking to issues of political importance, the comments were derailed into discussions of holding one's hand over the heart during the national anthem, or what a pastor said years ago when Obama may or may not have been in earshot.
The crux of this issue is the misunderstanding between the black and white communities. White people on this site and elsewhere appeared shocked that a black pastor was so "filled with hate" and that (obviously!) that means Obama must be filled with hate too. In this very thread, not five hours ago, someone writes a complaint that Obama implied all white people are little racist too. The irony, of course, is that the guy who wrote that line spent most of his week trying to tear down Obama because of his association with an angry pastor. How dare he say I am a racist! Now let's get pack to talking about how hateful his pastor is.
White folks have mysteriously always had a hard time figuring out why black people are so angry. What's with the yelling in church? What's with the rap music? etc. etc. etc. Take a ride through the south side of Chicago sometime, or down to the delta south of Memphis. Next time you are in LA park the car and take a walk through South Central. Go visit Xian's classrooms on the west side of Chicago, or visit the worst hoods in Detroit. If you don't walk away angry, I'd humbly suggest that your are either blind or too cynical to be taken seriously.
Have a great weekend.
"Obama's problem here is that he is running for President and his opponents, mainly conservatives, are doing anything they can to derail his candidacy. He is probably the greatest political leader in half a century, and experience has nothing to do with it. Abe Lincoln was pretty damned inexperienced, as was Woodrow Wilson. Richard Nixon might have been the most qualified person to ever hold the office of President, and look how that turned out."
Obama has never led anything. How is he the greatest political leader in 50 years? How is he a leader period? If experience has nothing to do with it, then what? Are you trying to imply all of his detractors are racist?
"One of the most important things a President can do is unite the country behind a cause. The Iraq War is a prime example of what happens when a President doesn't have what it takes to sell his ideas to the American People. Lying, cheating, anger, division are the result. A man who can appeal to such a wide variety of Americans (see the effusive reactions to Tuesday's speech on all sides of America's spectrum) has more than enough of the qualifications to be President. In fact, that appeal is probably much more important than anything else."
I known no better way to unite the country than by implying whites are ignorant and racist so it's okay to associate with black racists. That's very uniting and guaranteeed to make everybody happy!
"No, what happened here this week didn't have a whole lot to do with qualifications for the Presidency. What happened here was a shallow, cynical attempt to smear a candidate. It is rather disgraceful, in my opinion, that this site was a part of that smear campaign. That instead of sticking to issues of political importance, the comments were derailed into discussions of holding one's hand over the heart during the national anthem, or what a pastor said years ago when Obama may or may not have been in earshot."
A) He has no qualifications for the presidency.
B) His pastor is the one that smeared his image. Obama didn't help by only partially distancing himself from the man and trying to rationalize his racist views.
C) Once again you blame everybody for talking about this when every news outlet is talking about it, left, right, neutral, etc. It's not a smear campaign to talk about it.
D) Discussion about how this incident may add to or confirm the doubts of others on how prior incidents came off is not "smearing" anybody. Criminey.
"The crux of this issue is the misunderstanding between the black and white communities. White people on this site and elsewhere appeared shocked that a black pastor was so "filled with hate" and that (obviously!) that means Obama must be filled with hate too. In this very thread, not five hours ago, someone writes a complaint that Obama implied all white people are little racist too. The irony, of course, is that the guy who wrote that line spent most of his week trying to tear down Obama because of his association with an angry pastor. How dare he say I am a racist! Now let's get pack to talking about how hateful his pastor is."
Ah, the Obama technique. Imply that whites are ignorant and racist too, so that makes it okay to be associated with a racist yahoo. End with a demand that we stick to the issues, but not experience, because only racists would bring that up... not that we weren't discussing the issues just fine before he started flailing wildly in front of the cameras about his two decade long association with a racist yahoo in one of the biggest political blunders since Kerry voted for it before he voted against it. Move along, nothing to see here... yeah yeah, we get it.
"White folks have mysteriously always had a hard time figuring out why black people are so angry. What's with the yelling in church? What's with the rap music? etc. etc. etc. Take a ride through the south side of Chicago sometime, or down to the delta south of Memphis. Next time you are in LA park the car and take a walk through South Central. Go visit Xian's classrooms on the west side of Chicago, or visit the worst hoods in Detroit. If you don't walk away angry, I'd humbly suggest that your are either blind or too cynical to be taken seriously."
More racist stereotyping! Obama has taught you well. How very not divisive of you! Whites aren't just ignorant and racist, they're also stupid and their skin pigment prevents them from interacting with blacks. Nifty. And on top of that white people aren't upset and heartbroken about poverty, especially black poverty! Wonderful.
"Have a great weekend."
For a McCain supporter it would be difficult to see things getting any better than this. As someone who liked Obama quite a bit until this week, I think it's a bit sad to see him and his supporters resort to this level of absurdity to get over his current campaign hurdle. I oppose and still oppose Obama on the issues though. So have fun trying to convince me and others they oppose him because they're ignorant racists. That'll sure change our mind... at least about his and your character. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"He is probably the greatest political leader in half a century, and experience has nothing to do with it."
D.Boon, both you and xian have said something along these lines. Just curious on what you (and/or he) are basing this statement.
The only candidate he rivals is Dan Quayle in having the least relevant experience.
While we're at it, let's add the name George W. Bush to that list as well.
More racist stereotyping! Obama has taught you well. How very not divisive of you! Whites aren't just ignorant and racist, they're also stupid and their skin pigment prevents them from interacting with blacks. Nifty. And on top of that white people aren't upset and heartbroken about poverty, especially black poverty! Wonderful.
Look Glock, this is a complete fabrication of what was said. Segregation is a fact, and despite ridiculous attempts to label it as "self-segregation", there aren't hoards of whites being prevented from enrolling in my school or moving into these neighborhoods that Boon describes.
There are plenty of potential reasons for this dynamic which must be discussed and identified. The fact that you would attempt to shut down this discussion by saying that any discussion of the rampant segregation is equivalent to saying that "skin pigment prevents them from interacting with blacks" and then using it to slur the African American candidate in the race is baffling.
I've lost a lot of respect for you in this thread. I'm happy to hear you explain what I hope is a misunderstanding, but you appear to be simply attempting to shut down any legitimate discussion of race at all by labeling it as race-baiting.
I can't expect every single one of you to drive up and observe my school, but what's your guess on how many people on this site have any real experience with these segregated environments they claim to know so well? And how many white visitors do you think my school has had AT ALL over the last two years?
Look I'm sorry, I'm hostile, and maybe coming from a place of extreme educational privilege, I shouldn't be. But my students certainly have a right to be hostile. They are trying extreme hard and accomplishing great things, and they are being told that if they go to their neighborhood church, which happens to be black and occasionally bitter (remember this is a few minutes of soundbites from 30 years of work), they are to be disqualified from being worthy of what has always been the white presidency.
What about Vineyard? I was told there that when I love gay people I am abusing God's amazing gift that has given me a greater capacity to love and empathize than most. That's far worse than anything Wright said for myriad reasons.
What about Bush visiting Bob Jones? Certainly institutionally banning IR dating is far worse than some powerless posturing on 9/11. What about commenters who are now dismissing the atrocities in Central America or becoming apologists for Aparthied in knee-jerk reaction to Wright's comments.
To answer IP's question: Obama is what most in the ethnic minority communities see as the first president in the history of the nation who actually has a decent chance of truly integrating our diverse and non-homogenous perspectives into his decision-making as president. For many of us, that has nothing to do with his ethnicity. I certainly don't think he'll be more empathetic to Asian Americans because he is black--that would go against all research. I think that he as an individual is the first potential president with multi-dimensional understanding of race in America. Will that piss off aversive, unintentional racists? Sure. But he will respect and integrate their perspectives too.
What we are seeing is a whiny crybaby fit on the part of the groups (not all whites, and not just whites) who have historically had the complete and utter attention of the presidency that they might have to share their toys. No one but the craziest of the crazy are suggesting that Obama somehow hates white people or will neglect the needs of white Americans.
The vast majority of the previous presidents, democratic or republican, have neglected the needs of many poor and ethnic minority Americans.
I remember on 9/11 when I heard what had happened. My first reaction was horror and then, "Our dumbass president better get on the horn and say, 'Listen up idiots! Don't kill other Americans because some terrorists who look remotely like them killed Americans!"
That might seem weird to those who have the fortune to not have to worry every time a Chinese scientist is questioned by the government, or there is a incident involving someone of a specific ethnicity, but beyond all this posturing and BS, that's the one thing that would have prevented further American deaths.
It took him ten days and by that time, more Americans were hurt or dead.
I knew in that minute that I would have been a far superior President that who we had.
Obama has demonstrated to me that he could handle that situation and he understands everyone--the black nationalists to the white supremacists and everyone in between. I believe that he will hear our cries the next time some idiots try to blame Asian Americans for China's unrelated actions or Muslim Americans for terrorism.
He will make a far safer America for EVERY citizen.
If you think other things are more important and don't like his economic policy or his health care plan, or his war stances--so be it. We are likely to disagree on such things. Hell, I disagree agree with him on such things.
But Hillary Clinton or John McCain will not care about me in the situation that matters most--when we have a crisis and all hell is breaking loose.
If you think that Obama is bad specifically because he will understand my perspective, then we have nothing further to discuss. As Americans, it is the most beautiful thing that we can respectfully disagree on myraid issues. However, you cannot be a friend or fellow American to me if you have no care for my welfare or perspective.
Peace out.
Edit: changed one instance of hyperbole
If you think that Obama is bad specifically because he will understand my perspective, then we have nothing further to discuss. As Americans, it is the most beautiful thing that we can respectfully disagree on myraid issues. However, you cannot be a friend or fellow American to me if you have no care for my welfare or perspective.
Thank you.
"Look Glock, this is a complete fabrication of what was said. Segregation is a fact, and despite ridiculous attempts to label it as "self-segregation", there aren't hoards of whites being prevented from enrolling in my school or moving into these neighborhoods that Boon describes."
I didn't really make it clear, probably my own fault there. I was trying to point out the subtle implications in these statement/arguments and how they're coming off to a lot of non-Obama supporters. As generalizing, stereotyping, and insulting people based on the color of their skin. And while you accuse me of trying to "shut down this discussion" it seems that people are upset because people are still discussing it, if not outright saying so. From what it seems the whole Obama speech and most of his supporters defending it are trying to tell the rest of us that if we still consider the situation worth talking about that we are somehow bigots or just too ignorant to get it... while at the same time generalizing people by race. The irony is biting.
"Look I'm sorry, I'm hostile, and maybe coming from a place of extreme educational privilege, I shouldn't be. But my students certainly have a right to be hostile. They are trying extreme hard and accomplishing great things, and they are being told that if they go to their neighborhood church, which happens to be black and occasionally bitter (remember this is a few minutes of soundbites from 30 years of work), they are to be disqualified from being worthy of what has always been the white presidency."
Belonging to a church isn't disqualifying anybody from anything. Belonging to a church that is extremely divisive when you want to run as a presidential candidate who can unite us could make some skeptical. Being close friends with the pastor who is controversial figure, specifically because o