Mr. Obama and Rev. Wright (NYT)

[jefferson_dem]

Mr. Obama and Rev. Wright

It took more time than it should have, but on Tuesday Barack Obama firmly rejected the racism and paranoia of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., and he made it clear that the preacher does not represent him, his politics or his campaign.

Senator Obama has had to struggle to explain this relationship ever since a video surfaced of Mr. Wright damning the United States from his pulpit. Last month, Mr. Obama delivered a speech in which he said he disapproved of Mr. Wright’s racially charged comments but said that the pastor still played an important role in his spiritual life.

It was a distinction we were not sure would sit well with many voters. But what mattered more was the speech’s powerful commentary on the state of race relations in this country. We hoped it would open the door to a serious, healthy and much-needed discussion on race.

Mr. Wright has not let that happen. In the last few days, in a series of shocking appearances, he embraced the Rev. Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. He said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks. He suggested that America was guilty of “terrorism” and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself.

This could not be handled by a speech about the complexities of modern life. It required a powerful, unambiguous denunciation — and Mr. Obama gave it. He said his former pastor’s “rants” were “appalling.” “They offend me,” he said. “They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.”

<SNIP>

Senator John McCain has continued to embrace a prominent white supporter, Pastor John Hagee, whose bigotry matches that of Mr. Wright. Mr. McCain has not tried hard enough to stop a race-baiting commercial — complete with video of Mr. Wright — that is being run against Mr. Obama in North Carolina.

If Mr. Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee, we fear that there will be many more such commercials. And Mr. Obama will have to repudiate Mr. Wright’s outbursts many more times.

This country needs a healthy and open discussion of race. Mr. Obama’s repudiation of Mr. Wright is part of that. His opponents also have a responsibility — to repudiate the race-baiting and make sure it stops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30wed1.html?ref=opinion

[Adelante]

1. "His opponents also have a responsibility — to repudiate the race-baiting and make sure it stops"

:thumbsup:

[casus belli]

32. I hope they're up for the challenege, but deep down we all know they aren't. n/t

[casus belli]

34. self delete, wrong thread

[Hamlette]

42. Hillary Rove Clinton is the worst offender. If she said "Wright doesn't matter" it wouldnt.

I'm SOOOOO sick of her.

[BlueIdaho]

2. Speak of the devil...

What does Shrillary have to say about all this?

[jefferson_dem]

3. If she says anything at all divisive, she'll come across as a petty opportunist.

Good thing, she's not that.

[Cha]

10. She'll have some "this isn't over yet" angle..

..how dare the NYT put an end to her meal ticket?

But, thankfully, they did.

[emilyg]

13. Learn to spell - Hillary.

[cliffordu]

27. Learn to spell yourself - She's the Lion of Tuzla

[babylonsister]

4. There's been a couple of great eds. by the NYTs lately. Thanks for this. nt

[EFerrari]

5. Pigs. n/t

[Double T]

6. obama is a flip flopping fraud that talks out of BOTH SIDES of his mouth.

rev. wright is right about one thing; politicians will say whatever they have to in order to be elected. AND obama is a 100% pure U.S.D.C. politician.

[jefferson_dem]

8. How exactly did he flip-flop?

Here's a sample of some of his previous comments on Wright --

"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy," Obama wrote. "I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/16691156.html

***

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's efforts to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems — two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change — problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88478467

[EFerrari]

11. That's about as much as you could skew Wright's comments

without breaking your neck -- isn't it?

Or, hasn't Israel created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza -- that's just racist spin!

And, white dominant culture doesn't promote endemic racism!

And, most of all, we shouldn't focus on anything as divisive as race relations when there are real problems for Americans to deal with like the economy or health care or environmental crises -- in other words, all the things that minority communities have always dealt with in this country. They are only now problems that "confront us all" because these problems have now been visited on the white middle class.

And, never mind that the last and most important of the three central principles of Wright's philosophy is reconciliation. A philosophy that he has preached to his multi-ethnic congregation (yes, that means white people, too!) for decades.

jefferson_dem, I can fully accept what Obama did today, without any problem. But I will not accept the NYTs falsely calling Wright a paranoid bigot -- especially in view of their own record of negligence and bigotry in our last two stolen federal elections, elections stolen on the backs of people of color.

:nuke:

/correction

[Riktor]

20. Consider the Source

If you want an educated, analytical commentary on white racism, you go to Joe R. Feagin, or Audrey Smedley, Kenneth Neubeck, or Noel Cazenave... all sociologists who have dedicated their life's work to studying and exposing systemic white racism in the United States... all of whom are able to do so without making broad generalizations about white people, Jews, or gays... all of whom are able to do so without invoking the wrath of God... a God who is undoubtedly black, undoubtedly Christian, and undoubted not-gay.

Honestly, can anyone else around here say, with a straight face, they harbor a whole lot of respect in their hearts for all the other "Megachurches" out there? That is to say, a giant, ostentatious building, funded by the donations of believers. Said believers gather in said large, ostentatious building every Sunday and continue to funnel their money down the Holy Drainpipe, which, I guess, dumps its cargo off in God's Most Sanctified and Most Holy Piggy Bank... a far better place than the pockets, or at least mouths, of the needy.

What makes this Wright fellow any different than our late friend "Dr." Falwell? How about his little squirrely friend, Pat "I Totally Concur" Robertson? Oral "What's in a Name?" Roberts? Kent "Taxes? What Taxes?" Hovind? Ted "Theodore" Haggard? Paul "I Have Struggled With Homosexuality Since the Age of Five, but I am Totally Fine With Vicariously Condemning Homosexuals to Hell 'Cause, Heck, God Told Me To" Barnes?

That isn't to say Wright's criticisms aren't in any way accurate. However, you'll have to excuse me for not falling in line and fawning over another snazzily-dressed hypocrite of the First Estate, just because he's a shadowy figure in one of our own's past.


"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
- Denis Diderot

[EFerrari]

21. If you can't tell the difference between Wright and Falwell,

you are in for a pleasant surprise.

Falwell blamed gays for 9/11, Wright blames the Empire. Falwell disfigured human life to fit scripture, Wright argues right back at the text, insisting on the lives of real people. In fact, in his interview with Moyers, he directly addressed the topic of bigoted biblical passages.

Tell me how those two positions are in anyway the same. :)

[Riktor]

25. Gladly

It doesn't matter who the preacher points the finger at, the fact remains the preacher is using the faith of his followers to better his own position, congregation and country be damned. The Evangelical movement is littered with cults of personality, and this Wright, with all his pomp and righteous indignation, is no different than the hundred other snake-oil salesmen who sink their fangs of derision and outrage into the faith of their otherwise well-meaning followers.

How quickly we forget the children of the Enlightenment opposed organized religion for a damn good reason...

[leftynyc]

26. Well said

Extremely well said and thank you.

[Kolesar]

30. It's the people who were not righteously indignant who failed this country

Do you have any idea what has happened in the last seven years? We launched a racist war in an Arab land. The bushies and the neocons destroyed our control of the oil-producing Middle East. Our military is a paper shell. Our dollar has collapsed and so has our empire.

Not to mention that this has been an illegal and immoral war, even if we could have won.

[Riktor]

39. Please, save your sermons

It was the "righteous" who got us into this crap in the first place. If millions of Americans weren't fawning over the polemics of their loudmouthed, ego-centric moral hall monitors, Dubya may never have set foot in the White House to begin with.

You speak of righteousness in a literal manner, the state of being morally upright and true to justice. I spoke of righteousness in a sarcastic tone, to deride those who claim to be God's representatives here on Earth.

Even if the social commentary of a member of the cloth has any factual merit, you cannot overlook the glaring flaw in his delivery: that is, his opinions are validated by God. Such a validation requires no critical thinking on the part of the laity, who are expected to swallow down whatever nonsense their pastor tells them without question. Is this the kind of mentality that breeds freedom, or is this the kind of mentality that makes slaves of men?

[Kolesar]

41. Your contention:"the preacher is using the faith of his followers to better his own position"is shit

And I have no idea what this means:

If millions of Americans weren't fawning over the polemics of their loudmouthed, ego-centric moral hall monitors, Dubya may never have set foot in the White House to begin with.

You probably don't either.

Apparently you are happy with what went down in the Arab land.

[Riktor]

43. Absolutely Brilliant

And I have no idea what this means:
If millions of Americans weren't fawning over the polemics of their loudmouthed, ego-centric moral hall monitors, Dubya may never have set foot in the White House to begin with.

It generally isn't wise to admit you can't read while trying to berate somebody.

You probably don't either.

WOW! Touche! What a veritable treasure chest of witticism you are! How shall I repair my fragile self-esteem after a brutal onslaught such as that?

Apparently you are happy with what went down in the Arab land.

Right, I'm "happy with what went down in the Arab land" (could you be more obtuse, or are you just having a bad day?) because I happen to be privy to the laundry list of abuses perpetrated against mankind by the First Estate, the war in Iraq being inclusive on that list.

If you want to jump in line behind a guy claiming to be God's mouthpiece, by all means knock your socks off. Just try not cry like a baby again when I make fun of you for it.

[Doityourself]

37. This agnostic is with you...all the way!

Abraham Lincoln:

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion."

Albert Einstein:

"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it."

[Riktor]

40. I don't know how you could have missed this one...

Religions, which condemn the pleasures of sense, drive men to seek the pleasures of power. Throughout history power has been the vice of the ascetic.

Bertrand Russell

[jefferson_dem]

22. Point taken.

The whole situation is very sad.

Check out Nichols' editorial in The Nation if you haven't already. It touches on some of the same things you mention.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/316575

[EFerrari]

24. Thank you for the link and please excuse my crabbiness. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

15. I've seen few posts this hate-filled about Hillary for simply responding to a third party's

attacks on her.

That's very odd. Why would you get so angry about an issue involving a candidate you don't support and a third party, when it doesn't even involve your candidate?

This leads me to believe that Obama hit it out of the park today and maybe stopped the bleeding over the WRight issue. Otherwise, why so angry? Interesting.

[Double T]

44. NOT angry a bit. Last thing this election needs ralph obama.

obama is NOT Presidential material regardless of ANY political party's affiliation. Nice try on the reverse spin..

[Window]

7. K/R.

:kick:

[Cha]

9. Oh, were they speaking directly to hilary?

"This country needs a healthy and open discussion of race. Mr. Obama’s repudiation of Mr. Wright is part of that. His opponents also have a responsibility — to repudiate the race-baiting and make sure it stops."

Might as well be speaking to someone who's tone deaf.

[EFerrari]

12. The NYTs is re-making Wright into a cartoon.

The bastards.

And if anyone doesn't believe that this will come back and bite Obama, they are delusional. It's bad for ALL of us.

[Cha]

14. I understand you're upset about this..

but, from reading what Wright has had to say about Obama..how could Obama do anything else?

[EFerrari]

16. Oh, Obama had to do this, no question.

But, the NYTs is continuing the lynching of Wright and in doing so, greasing the skids for this to come up again.

Wright is no bigot and he's not paranoid. What they're doing is setting up the question down the line, "So, tell us again, Senator, about your relationship with this bigot?" -- what they're doing is, just as efficiently as Fox, is promoting the idea that you can't challenge the corporati without being 1) Crazy and 2) Sinister. And that's not good for Obama, nor is it good for any of us who speak up about anything.

[Cha]

17. I see..okay, glad I

asked, thanks,sf. Obama has to know this, too, and figure out how to head it off at the pass.

[EFerrari]

19. I trust Obama and his team. The NYTs, not so much.

They get a pass from a lot of people who expect them to be the liberal media. They're not, really.

[Riktor]

28. They didn't have to try very hard...

Not to defend the NYT, but Wright is a the spitting image of the "Angry Black Man" stereotype that has been propagated by the MSM since the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement. He walked head first into that trap, and as a supposed civil rights leader, he should have known better and prepared himself for such an onslaught.

What Wright doesn't get, or simply doesn't know, is that no amount of calling the skeletons out of our closet is going to bring whites and minorities closer together. It is not as if, all of sudden, white America will become fully aware of its tradition of systemic racism, and then miraculously put an end to it. Generally, white people will fight any allegation of racism tooth and nail, to the point where their avoidance of the label "racism" will overshadow any number of historical facts brought into the argument. Guilt-tripping isn't going to work.

Instead, whites and minorities need to be placed in cooperative situations, where their success is mutually dependent. Only then will both parties have each other's respect, and honest reconciliation can begin. Frankly, putting Obama in the White House may be a step in the right direction. Millions of Whites will have to face the fact their day-to-day lives hinge on the decisions of a black man, and if Obama does a good job we may see an overall improvement in race relations in this country.

Unfortunately, I don't see Wright as a serious player in the civil rights movement. Much like Sharpton, he is often tactless, and far too eager to go for shock-value over academic debate.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. I think he did well; he sounded real

From the clip I heard, the way he phrased it was "he hurt me", first, then that he had hurt the campaign. That rings true and human. Had he taken the standard political tack of feigning to be above it all and merely dismayed for what it had done for the campaign, it would have rung hollow and weasely, but he dealt flat-out with the personal gut reaction to having been stung directly, and that just felt right.

I feel for the guy; what a shitty position to be in. What a mess. Wright's a dick. He may be correct in much of what he says, but he's smug, egocentric, overly combative and just plain trouble. A fine friend he's turned out to be: he puts an extra "tor" in "mentor".

[McCamy Taylor]

23. "Racism and paranoia" says the newspaper that gave us Judy Miller and the Iraq War.

I trust Rev. Wright a hell of a lot more than I trust anything I read in the NYT's which lies as often as it can. Check out Media Matters for how often they have to correct "the journal of record".

[cali]

38. The NYT also gave us Chris Hedges and publishes

Krugman, Herbert and Rich. Yes, it has a big fat stain on it re the Iraq War and the appalling spree of Miller, but they've also run some first rate editorials over the past few years. It's a mixed bag. And I don't trust Wright. I too find some of his statements contemptible. I have no problem with goddamn america, I do have a problem with the Government created AIDS to kill minorites.

[nsd]

29. K & R

[Kolesar]

31. How did Wright (allegedly) embrace the Rev. Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism?

(this topic is killing me)

[anonymous171]

33. Must have been hard for him. Good that he took the stand.

He should do that more often.

[casus belli]

35. Next line of attack: Why didn't he do it sooner

and of course people with question the authenticity of the repudication. Some will chalk it up to a politically calculated move, others will say they're in on it together.

Let's not sell negative politics short - it has a way of bearing fruit even when it looks dried up and past its expiration date.

[Hope And Change]

36. K & R!

:kick: