A Speech That Fell Short

[Tarc]

RCP has been cited frequently around here lately, usually in support of an Obama position. So if you're here to just make an "OMG THE SOURCE" stink about it, then go find the exit door and tell it to someone who cares, please.

It generally praises it as a significant and important speech, but then a few paragraphs down goes on to focus on a particular point;

The problem with Obama's argument is that Wright is not a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses of the African-American community. He is a political extremist, holding views that are shocking to many Americans who wonder how any presidential candidate could be so closely associated with an adviser who refers to the "U.S. of KKK-A" and urges God to "damn" our country.

Obama's excellent and important speech on race in America did little to address his strange tolerance for the anti-Americanism of his spiritual mentor.

Take an issue that Obama did not specifically confront in Philadelphia. In a 2003 sermon, Wright claimed, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."

This accusation does not make Wright, as Obama would have it, an "occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy." It makes Wright a dangerous man. He has casually accused America of one of the most monstrous crimes in history, perpetrated by a conspiracy of medical Mengeles. If Wright believes his charge is correct, he should urge the overthrow of the American government, which he views as guilty of unspeakable evil. If I believed Wright were correct, I would join him in that cause.

But Wright's accusation is batty, reflecting a sputtering, incoherent hatred for America. And his pastoral teaching may put lives at risk, because the HIV virus spreads more readily in an atmosphere of denial, quack science and conspiracy theories.

- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/new_wright.html

The author nails it here; Rev. Wright is not a "occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy". Making accusations such as the HIV one are an indicator that he is on the fringe of the fringe. Unless this is a mainstream point of view in the African-American community, and I'd have a very hard time ever believing that, then Obama's Great Speech fell woefully short in not cutting this vile nutcase out completely. Describing him as an "occasionally fierce critic" is a cop-out.

[YOY]

1. So it "fell flat" now...

That's an interesting opinion.

I have a feeling the speech could have held the cure for cancer and some folks would have said it "fell flat" due to ulterior motives.

[virtualobserver]

to the last desperate dying gasp of her campaign....

surely there is one more straw to grasp.

[YOY]

4. The question is just how much collateral damage is she willing to risk upon the party

Apparently there is no limit to the amount...esepcially when I see the senseless vitrol of her supporters her.

My favorite is the "race card" folks when it is pretty damn obvious that he is NOT about playing the race card. If it seems to be being played it is because it is playing itself in people's minds. BO isn't doing a thing to push or negate it.

Now the "gender card" on the opposite side? It as well as her "experience" seems to be the primary motivator to cover up her legacy status. It's being pushed FULL force.

[virtualobserver]

7. she thought that she was the anointed one......

she has wanted this for a long time. But I think that it is good.
Obama has proven to me that this kind of situation is nothing more than an opportunity to show how astonishing he really is.
It is such a refreshing break to have a leader speaking honestly and openly in difficult situations.

[YOY]

8. I consider him a leader and not a politician

A politician does what will get them the most votes.

A leader takes his own course of action and gets you on board to make it popular.

One takes charisma and the other takes maneuvering.

[WVRevy]

21. EXACTLY!!!!!!!

That can not be stated enough, in my opinion. Barack Obama isn't a typical politician. A typical politician goes up on that stage and throws Wright under the bus from the first sentence. He sure as hell doesn't get up there and critique the most sacred of sacred cows...the founding fathers themselves. He sure as hell doesn't get up there and call Wright a member of his family, while still not excusing his outlandish comments. He doesn't get up there and speak to Americans as if they were ADULTS, not children with too short attention spans.

That's the quality in him that made him my choice for president. When this all got started, I said that I thought Hillary would make a good president (I no longer feel that way)...but Barack has the potential to be a GREAT one.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

63. The GOP and their Hillary are trying their best

trying to drag it out.

Well they've firmly established he's a Christian....

[virtualobserver]

2. to the last desperate dying gasp of her campaign....

surely there is one more straw to grasp.

[Dawgs]

3. So, you didn't listen to the speech then?

Either that or you couldn't comprehend what he was saying.

[Nitrogenica]

5. I'm sorry I disagree entirely.

The whole controversy over Wright is a desparate "guilt by association" attack, period.

Considering the actions and statements of the religious right that are not being played over and over and over again, this is obviously a conversation for those who are against Obama.

Obama supporters get it, non-supporters try to spin it.

There's one historical fact that's not getting much media attention right now, compared to Obama's minister, and that's Hillary's vote for the war.

If the Democrats in power at that time would have put up more of a fight on that and a number of other issues, perhaps we would all be in a better place in America right now.

Rewarding those of us who encouraged the war in Iraq to move forward, when it was obvious to me and many other Progressives that war in Iraq would be a huge mistake, is not what I want my vote to do.

I will only Vote for Hillary if I have to, she is still light years ahead of McCain.

[scheming daemons]

6. Watch. it. yourself. . . . unfiltered.

Quit worrying about what others are saying.... watch it yourself. Start to finish.


It's important that you do it.... your grandkids will be reading about it in their history books.

[Tarc]

11. You are one seriously delusional individual

The only history book chapter this will be filed under is the one titled Primary Political Implosions as a small footnote to the "The Reverend Wright Controversy" section. Right up there alongside George Romney, Ed Muskie, and Gary Hart.

Obama coddled a man who thinks the US government invented HIV to use on the black community, and failed to even address it in the Great Speech That Wasn't. That is all people can and will take out of this nonsense.

[scheming daemons]

15. As usual, you're wrong...... but I can't prove it to you until November.....

...

Tuesday was the day Obama became the 44th President.


All I can say to you is.... you'll see.

[Tarc]

16. Thank you, Miss Cleo!

:eyes:

[1corona4u]

47. No, Tuesday is the day he handed it to McCain.

The "speech" didn't go over so well with a lot of people. That's the word on the street anyway. It was too much about what he wants to do about "black America" with the cursory white/Hispanic comments laced in for perceived equality.

If Obama thinks he will change the racial division in this country, he first needs to know it's not about color. Not for most people anyway. People don't hate blacks because they are black. People hate them because they always act like someone OWES them something, and they act continue to make issues out of shit because they *think* it's a racial issue.

Nope, the bottom line is, there will continue to be racial issues until the generation who are now children, grow up. They don't care about race at all.

100 years from now, everyone will be a mix of black and Hispanic, with a few whites sprinkled in. That's the reality. Racism will be a non issue.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. You are lacking in information and context

I'm not an Obama supporter, I support the Democratic nominee. I have had major issues with Obama around McClurkin and such, but let me be very clear to you. Tinity UCC, and Rev Wright, always did the right thing when the AIDS cirsis hit. They were correct. They were righteous. And they did what they did long before it was popular, when in fact there was a stigma attached to even the speaking of the word 'AIDS'.
The US government? Thousands were dying and the Republican President Ronald Reagan refused to even acknowlege that fact. Years went by before any government official so much as uttered the word. Gay activists started saying Silence=Death, because it did. Those in communities with high infection rates feared that there would be quarantines and camps. Houses of sick children were burned. And the government said and did nothing. The highest infection rates over history are in the African American community, as teh highest and fastest death rates are as well. Fastest? Yes, back then people had no treatment options and fell fast. The insurance industry, they did nothing but refuse and deny.
Churches like Trinity UCC came early to the fight, came willingly and without judgement, and did what others would not. Like so many of my friends, gay and straight, they were angels and heros and they were a walking testamony for their faith. This was a terrible time and the work was difficult and utterly depressing most of the time. To be of service meant to face death, and these people at Trinity, they rose to that occasion and set the example for others to follow. The government did nothing.
The stuff Rev Wright said about AIDS I have heard from hundreds of people of all races and identities, who lived with open eyes through that time of plauge. For those who were there, his words are in fact the words of a person who shared in that time and the fear. Many chruches did the wrong things. Many ministers blamed the sick not just for their own illness, but for all the troubles of the world.
So sorry there, but when the house is on fire and the man with the key is in a daze, those who love life will scream and yell and do what it takes to wake that fool the fuck up. And those lovers of life at times like that, do not care for your sensitivities, offending those who are also complicit through silence is not even a bad thing. It is a good thing. If Wright's words made one person act for those who could not, there is no wrong in that. There is no such thing as blasphemy that saves a life, or a community. In a time of plauge and ignorance, if someone hears such speech and thinks it is not true, what Wright and I wanted out of them was that they would stand up, take action, and prove that they were not part of the death wish culture of the GOP. Frankly, when I was going to a funeral a week and spending like mad to make up for a lack of services from the government, I would have called your Mama names if it would have gotten you to donate a dime or visit a sick bed. I said many things to many people. Those who also did so, those people are my Brothers and Sisters, my Mothers and Fathers. They are me. I am them.
Those who would take up the place of the discarded, of the very least among us, these are people who get from me great leeway in methodology and choice of words. They saved lives and brought love and quality to lives ending swiftly and tragically. Often ending alone due to family from one of those 'other chruches', one of the polite and silent and culpable churches. If this offends some people, you know what? That is good. They need to be offended.
Did the government actually do it on porpose? Don't know. But if saying that made for one freaking meals on wheels delivery, it was worth pissing off all the silent healthy people on the planet Earth.

[dionysus]

30. he's lacking in functional brains cells too

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Once again citing conservatives for criticisms of your opponent.

Let's look at some of Gerson's other words of, um... wisdom.

Few American presidents have been more reviled in Europe than Ronald Reagan, who responded to the Soviet deployment of SS-20 nuclear missiles by deploying Pershing II nuclear missiles. In West Germany, millions of people marched in protest. American soldiers were surrounded by hostile demonstrators shouting, "We don't want you in our country." But Reagan's unpopular "cowboy" determination helped end the Cold War and lift the nuclear threat from Europe.

So a guy who thinks of Reagan as a "cowboy" doesn't like Obama. Big surprise.

And we have seen a good example in our time. The January 2007 decision to surge American troops in Iraq was clearly at odds with world opinion. But retreating from Iraq in failure would have earned global contempt for American weakness instead of global popularity. And the turnaround in Iraq has restored at least some of our standing and leverage in the Middle East.

The surge is working! Bush is a cowboy, too!

In spite of these gains, Democratic presidential candidates still insist on reckless timetables for withdrawal -- the surest way to rescue defeat from the jaws of victory. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- who declared that the surge "failed" even before it was fully implemented -- now contends that "the surge hasn't accomplished its goals."



No no. He REALLY likes the surge. Loves it, even. Go Cowboy Bush!

A few liberal global health advocates want to revisit the abortion issue in PEPFAR on the theory that aggressive family planning is necessary to AIDS prevention. It is true that abortion prevents the transmission of AIDS -- as it prevents the transmission of cleft lip and clubfoot and bed-wetting. It is a miracle treatment -- except for the fact that the patient dies. It is always possible to "solve" the problems of poverty and disease by eliminating the poor and sick -- but it is hardly a consensus approach to development.

But don't you DARE fuck with a fetus!

So yeah, I WILL take issue with your source when your source is a FUCKING ASSHOLE who fellates Reagan and Dubya and thinks that family planning information isn't necessary for AIDS prevention.

[Tarc]

20. Welcome to Logic 101

X holds an opinion Y.
X holds an opinion Z.
Y is an absurd opinion.
Therefore, X believes in absurd opinions.
Conclusion, Z is an absurd opinion.

Someday you'll learn why arguments such as this don't work in real life.

[olkaz]

33. Perhaps this requires a bit more nuance.

X holds an opinion A.
X holds an opinion B.
X holds an opinion C.
X holds an opinion D.
X holds an opinion E.
X holds an opinion F.
X holds an opinion G.
X holds an opinion H.
X holds an opinion I.
X holds an opinion J.
X holds an opinion K.
X holds an opinion L.
X holds an opinion M.
X holds an opinion N.
X holds an opinion O.
X holds an opinion P.

Opinions A-O are absurd opinions.
Therefore P is an absurd opinion.

Bad logic, right? I know. Any specific trial doesn't lend any credence to the subsequent trial.

However, "in real life" as you put it, when people give that many absurd opinions, their opinion is worth less.

I know, I know, I'm juxtaposing bad statistics and bad formal logic here, but if you're going to allude to "real life", this is how it is.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

35. I'm pointing out that the author has an obvious agenda.

Which is perfectly clear if you look at the list of all of his publications, many of which are critical of Hillary, and none of which are critical of Republicans in the same way.

[graywarrior]

10. Your post sort of fell short.

With me, anyhow. That's my opinion.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

12. help me, bubble, gurgle, gurgle, bubble, I can't swim in all this hope, gurgle, bubble....

[ellacott]

13. It's interesting that Wright is considered a dangerous man

I'm wondering why people are afraid of him.

Just like you have people who have been mariginalized because they think 9/11 was an inside job you also have those that believe that HIV was a man made disease. Just you many view it as whacky does change how some feel about it. Many people who frequent Rense have seen this theory for years. A simple google search would show that this is not an isolated theory.

[TomBall Democrat]

14. What I like about DUers who journal

is that I can check that out.

See their prior posts. Often, I'll learn that someone who purports in a new post to bring new information - in a completely open way - has a HUGE BIAS against a candidate.

Thanks for journalling, Tarc.

[Tarc]

17. You're welcome

My disdain of this empty suit of a candidate is something I have no qualms about showing and (hopefully) enlightening others. This will be the weakest candidate we send up since Mondale, if he makes it through, and I want people to know about his many drawbacks.

[Terran]

18. Interestingly, you are missing one point

Rev. Wright is not a "occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy". Making accusations such as the HIV one are an indicator that he is on the fringe of the fringe. Unless this is a mainstream point of view in the African-American community, and I'd have a very hard time ever believing that...

What you probably don't know is that ideas such as HIV being invented by the government tend to be a little *more* mainstream among many African-Americans then they are among the general populace. I'm not saying all black Americans feel this way, but when you live with the effects of oppression and racism, even the most bland and passive sort of racism that is so common in America, it's easy for some people to feel that there's a conspiracy around every corner to keep your people down (Eddie Murphy's memorable skit on SNL about how "white people give each other things" is a good satire on this concept). And when you intersect that with what I assume is Rev. Wright's very very liberal world view, the whole HIV conspiracy thing isn't as finge as you portray it. I mean it's not like you've never heard of this idea--everyone at DU has at least heard the idea, and I bet a significant percentage of people here also believe it, the way they believe in MIHOP. The media want to portray him an absolute raving crackpot, but his ideas are not all that uncommon.

Ultimately, I feel that Obama explained his continuing affiliation with his church more than adequately. I mean, it's his *church*--it's not something you just up and quit easily. It's your community. I don't think that's difficult to understand. Obama's church is not just Rev. Wright, it's the UCC itself and it's everyone in the church. People don't just discard their personal and spiritual communities merely because they might disagree with one or two ideas expounded by one person in that community.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Not just among African Americans

But also among gay people old enough to have been there at the start. At the time, with a government pretending it was not even happening and a populace ready to quarantine, no knowlege of the virus or prevention at first...the main victims being that top list of beloved humanity, Blacks, Gays and IV drug useres, the idea that it was a targeted illness was not unusual but frankly looked like logic.
Trinity UCC was in the right at that time, and few were.

[slor]

19. Perhaps the intelligence of Obama's critics...

is what has fallen short. No, not perhaps, I am sure that is what has occurred.

[Barack_America]

23. Has RCP ever been to his church? Watched any of his sermons?

No. So how then are they able to decide what Wright "often" or "occasionally" says? They've seen 3 cherry-picked snippets and now make the assumption that this is something that happens 100% of the time.

And they seem to forget that Obama was NOT in the pews for Wright's most vicious sermons. Newsmax's lie and the LATimes' correction has proven this for at least one of them.

[Sean Stuart]

24. You forgot the parts where Obama said that many of Wright's statements are wrong.

He actually said that a few times. I know, like the right-wing MSM, that you are doing your best to make Obama own everything Wright has ever said. But a little more intellectual exercise but benefit you.

[Chulanowa]

25. It only took two days for the Bumper Sticker Patriots to crawl out of their double-wides, I see

I can hear 'em loud and clear:
"Amurika! Amurika! Woooo, ain't no neegray gunna talk bad 'bout mah 'murika! *Waves the $0.75 flag-on-a-stick from China* WOOOOO!"

'Course, option B belongs to a worship group that backed mass murderers and torturers in Latin America and Asia.

[Iceburg]

26. The speech was terrific by any standard; That said, it did open the door to claims of hypocrisy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioYrNYsNUfY

The above clip is Obama's response to the "Don Imus racist comment" discussion with reporter David Gregory.

As you well know, Imus was a very popular radio/TV personality amongst blue collar workers. What Imus said was wrong and Obama called him on it -- rightfully so. Problem is, Obama doesn't seem to have applied the same standard to Rev Wright.

Most people have a very gutteral response to hypocrisy...it sticks.

[npincus]

27. ever heard of the Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment conductiond on 400 black men?

I'm white, and the HIV "tale" sounds wild and radical to my ears, but I don't have the legacy of blacks being used as laboratory rats ingrained in my pysche.... so do not judge those who may have ideas white people find "paranoid". Of course, whit misunderstanding will rule the day, that's the world we live in. I am witnessing the destruction of Obama's candidacy and feel quie sick.

[Justitia]

41. Conservatives know nothing of history. Otherwise, we wouldn't be in Iraq. -eom

[WinkyDink]

50. Sure, they do. That's why Cheney had a shopping list for the Baghdad Museum.

Where else did those treasures go?

[yodermon]

28. Given Tuskegee, Northwoods, and the "Dark Alliance" (among others)

I can understand why there would be some tendency to believe such claims in the African American Community.

If *you* were a black man who was given Syphilis by your government, might *You* not be inclined to say "God Damn America"?

[frazzled]

29. Susan Sontag: a dangerous woman

I'm sure you all remember the controversy over Susan Sontag's remarks, written in the New Yorker, after 9/11. Sontag--now, sadly passed away--was probably our most famous public intellectual: art critic, novelist, essayist, filmmaker. She was reviled for ar few paragraphs she wrote in the New Yorker, rather than remembered as "the indispensible voice of moral responsibility, perceptual clarity, passionate (and passionately reasonable) advocacy: for aesthetic pleasure, for social justice, for unembarrassed hedonism, for life against death."

Here is part of what she wrote after 9/11 that made her, in the words of the OP's writer "a dangerous person":

The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed super-power, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards.

Many of us defended her words at the time, even as we lamented the terrible tragedy and horrific unforgiveableness of the act.

As for the HIV/AIDS thing, I can't believe we are so naive or hypocritical to pretend we don't know where this urban myth, prevalent in the black community came from: it comes from the very real 40-year Tuskegee syphillis experiment, for which the U.S. had to issue an apology. That, combined with the fact that AIDS indeed did have its genesis in black Africa, where other such unethical medical studies, done with neither the consent nor knowledge of the subjects, have been undertaken by drug companies. It is not an entirely irrational belief for this segment of the community. It is also not unknown that it is a widely held belief in the black community. No thanks, of course, to Rev. Wright. But he is a symptom, not a cause, of such belief. Again, the history of what the U.S. did to black people in this country--including the shocking Tuskegee experiment--is as responsible for these beliefs as one preacher.

It is very sad to me to hear people on the left championing the vilification of speech as "dangerous." Speech is never dangerous. It may be misguided, hateful, and a lot of things. But we were always told, 'words can never hurt me.' I wish Susan Sontag were still here to write about this incident.

[SeaLyons]

32. This goes to the heart of why

this problem continues for Obama. It is why his speech did not put it behind him. This is why the problem will continue to fester and why Obama is unelectable. Agree or disagree, it's reality. America cannot accept Wright or Obama's reasons for remaining connected.

[Raffi Ella]

34. I have friends of all different color and creeds

and not one belongs to a Church like Wrights or grew up going to a Church like Wrights.Obama and members here would have you believe that this is the norm in Black Church's,it's not.

I think this extremist point of view may be widely know within some black communities but because it is so out there it's not often repeated in "polite society" as Obama called it.Whites and blacks (and browns and yellows and reds etc) have every right to be horrified that a supposed Man of God is preaching such crap from the pulpit.

Wright is an extremist as sure as Jerry Falwell was.The fact that he is an educated man makes this story even more unbelievable,he should know better.

His kind of preaching hurts,perpetuates anger and separatism.After viewing Wright in action I now understand why he thinks Farrakhan is the epitome of greatness...

The Obama's stood by for 20 yrs,with daughters in tow,and didn't say a word.Bad Judgment.

Thanks for posting Tarc.

[SeaLyons]

45. ...

:applause:

[kwassa]

48. Do you have black friends? What kind of churches do they specifically belong to?

and how do you think you know Wright's church from two short video clips?

[GoldieAZ49]

36. Obama just played the race card in the most eloquent way ever

but did not answer the question of judgement and character raised by his close association to Wright.

Which is why that question persists and will follow him.

[Political Heretic]

43. What "card?" What does that phrase even mean?

[GoldieAZ49]

51. It means

diminishing the question at hand by making race the issue.

Race relations are a highly charged issue and diverts the attention from the question at hand.

Playing the race card is a way of changing the subject to dodge the question at hand.

[Political Heretic]

56. The question at hand was race.

[GoldieAZ49]

60. No the question was his judgement of 20 years with Wright and his views as his mentor

and not doubt Obama knew it antagonized racial reconciliation

From his speech

"On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation and that rightly offend white and black alike."

[Political Heretic]

61. Right. And it would be disingenuous (if not impossible) to discuss that without discussing

race.

[DURHAM D]

58. You are spot on.

In addition, if you want to shine a light on race issues, as a leading presidential candidate why didn't he discuss the way forward? He could have borrowed material from at least a dozen Bill Clinton speeches on race and culture but he didn't. His speech lacked a plan for the future.

[Political Heretic]

62. I disagree.

I felt his speech articulated a very plain vision for the future. So I guess its open to subjective interpretation.

[DURHAM D]

65. What is it? eom

[Political Heretic]

66. here:

If you don't feel that he articulated a vision for the future, I accept your opinion. Obviously, I disagree.

But you're every bit as capable of reading as I am, and we're both entitled to different opinions about what we read.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/18/text-of-obamas-speech-a-more-perfect-union/?mod=googlenews_wsj

[DURHAM D]

67. I want to hear it in your words. eom

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

37. Okay, well that's three: you, the author, and David Duke.

[GumboYaYa]

38. Fant the flames of racism a little more...the Clinton supporters disgust me!

[GoldieAZ49]

40. Wright is the one that has been fanning the flames of racism

trying to twist that doesn't cut it

[Political Heretic]

44. yes, by telling the truth. Usally something unacceptable to the privilged and powerful

...in this culture, that would be white people.

[GoldieAZ49]

52. The 'truth' is that Wright has been preaching and teaching racial tension, fear and anger

He is part of the problem, not the solution.

[Political Heretic]

55. The truth, is that there is racial tention, fear and anger

and the problem is trying to suppress truth calling truth "not the solution."

Burying the problem isn't the solution.

[GoldieAZ49]

59. Wright adds to it - Obama's words - from his speech

"On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation and that rightly offend white and black alike."

[Political Heretic]

64. 1) I don't agree with Obama's characterization. 2) It needs to be "added to" because its true.

[GumboYaYa]

68. Give me a break....the Clintons and their supporters have been trying to tie

Obama to Wright so they can play on white folks' fear of the bad black man.

The supporters who keep pushing this are disgusting racists in my book.

[Blue_Roses]

39. I can understand why Rev. Wright would feel these by this:

CDC

Doctor examining patients

Nearly 65 years after the U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee began, President Clinton apologized for the U.S. government's role in the research study, which was carried out in Macon County, Alabama, from 1932 to 1972.

The United States Public Health Service, in trying to learn more about syphilis and justify treatment programs for blacks, withheld adequate treatment from a group of poor black men who had the disease, causing needless pain and suffering for the men and their loved ones.

more...


http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee /

[Political Heretic]

42. Who defines extremist?

Does that mean, "out of the mainstream?"

What about the mainstream is right or worth praising?

As long as we're clear that the criticism is that Wright offends the "meanstream" and not anything to do with whether he was right or not.

The problem isn't that he was wrong or maybe a mixture of right and wrong but with some valid points worth thinking about -- no, the problem is just that he said something unpopular. And that's enough to create a controversy for someone else entirely because someone running for president heard him say it.

Free speech.... kind empty words when the "right" to it isn't backed up by a cultural climate that tolerates and encourages a plurality of views. In our society, free speech is pretty much an empty phrase. Oh, we're free to speak - most of the time. But our culture imposes its own enforcement of speech suppression by damning anyone who dares to speak unfavored truths and damning anyone who happens to listen.

[kwassa]

46. So, now you are quoting Bush's chief speech writer as an expert on Obama?

You do like those Republicans, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gerson

Michael John Gerson (born May 15, 1964, New Jersey) is an Evangelical Christian<1> op-ed columnist for The Washington Post and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.<2> He served as President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, and as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006.

[BurtWorm]

49. You are a member of DU, where supporters of Obama post.

By association, you are guilty of what you say Obama is guilty of. And you're also, by association, guilty of every freakish opinion the most freakish DUers spout. By association, since Hillary is supported by members of this community with its more than occasionally freakish opinions, Hillary is guilty of what you, me, Obama and Wright are guilty of.

Why do we all hate America?

:crazy:

[Drachasor]

53. That position on HIV is not so outrageous in the Black Community

They are wrong, but it is certainly representative of some of the worst parts of the AA community. I believe 30% of AA's believe it is possible that the U.S. government invented HIV (according to polls).

[PassingFair]

54. You know, for someone who flies the icon of an unpopular religion....

you surprise me.

Surely you can't condemn a person for
what a PASTOR says.

I am completely irreligious myself, but I
didn't condemn Kerry because the Pope is
anti-gay!

I didn't think Romney's religion was any
more ridiculous than Hillary's.
(OK, a TAD more ridiculous)

[Lucinda]

57. The tqalking head consensus seems to be that it played great to his base

and was not too successful elsewhere.

IMO, for a large number of people, the speech will not counteract the damage done, especially for those who question why he would bring up his young daughters in that environment.

Time will tell.