http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEMZHQsQJ6Y&feat ure=related

The rev. and his HIV comments.

I agree with you about the handgun issue but I don’t see that as a determining factor. I’m not trying to cheapen the issue believe me. But I believe the greatest determining factor is Bush himself. He may well go down in history as the greatest uniter of them all. Regardless of the color of the skin, religion or culture, the majority of the working class are getting screwed and they know by whom. They also seem to be getting behind the candidate they believe has the best chance to beat McCain, who as you know is only another link in the corporatist-MIC, “stay the course” chain of mentality.

Like you I supported Kucinich and believe in fact it will ultimately take someone like him(lack of charisma or not) to get us out of this deep mess we’re falling into. That said and just as you said, time will tell. Regardless of what does happen or whomever eventually does get elected, I think people will collectively echo a sigh of great relief once the neocongameartists are out the door.

Paolo and all who may be interested,

I’ve just finished an excellent piece by a familiar author that would appear serendipitous to the discussion here. While it is useful to my own broader studies, as well as that of some of my colleagues who teach or study constitutional law, it is also germane to our discussion here. (Actually, that is the purpose of the article…to evaluate the foundation of the remarks from Jeremiah Wright).

Anyway, in the piece, (to which I’ve included a link and a few excerpts) the author also addresses this alleged comment about the AIDS, and he goes on to address the real incident of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, so he and I were apparently on the same brain wave in that interpretation. 

Anyway, it is a somewhat lengthy piece, (5 pages) that may or may not be of interest to you, particularly at the onset, because he does do an excellent evaluation of the legal foundation (based in the Constitution) for slavery and the history that developed from it to form the social conditions that exist today.

The point is to put into context, (based on the truths of the foundation of the U.S) the statements by Rev. Wright.

So, here are just a few excerpts, and you can read the entire thing if you like. I think it is very informative.

“.. Most of the discussion and commentary about Dr. Wright’s sermons have come from a predominantly white media. The points of discussion have centered on what they consider to be the “vile, racist and un-American things” said by Dr. Wright. Very few, if any, of the discussions have focused on the historical basis and accuracy of what Dr. Wright actually said..”

“…The major problem with the discussions is they have been largely one-sided. The media have used the imagery of Dr. Wright, clad in African garb, shouting in the cadence of an old-time fire and brimstone minister and playing to the camera as a scare tactic.. The reporting and commentary on Dr. Wright’s words have been presented from the perspective of people who either have no appreciation for the African-American historical experience or a personal agenda when it comes to presenting these issues.”

Then he gives an excellent breakdown, to finish up with this:

“I can understand people being uncomfortable with the comments made by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. White Americans have also been lied to, miseducated and desensitized about the plight of African-Americans. With the help of the social conservative agenda, many have developed a “deaf ear” when it comes to issues regarding race. The truth, especially an ugly truth that forces Americans to examine the precepts of America, “with liberty and justice for all,” and compare them with the hypocrisy of the American reality can be troubling. For far too long, Americans have been lulled into a false sense of security. Americans have believed history as told by the oppressor and failed to understand the reality of the oppressed.”

“Dr. Wright is not un-American. He embodies what America was founded upon, the free exchange of ideas in the public space, speaking truth to power, challenging America to be the best that it can be. The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s views might not reconcile with many Americans’ PERCEPTIONS of America, but they must not be discarded as the ranting of an angry man. His statements were founded in the historical truths that African-Americans have and continue to live through.”

(my emphasis on the perceptions, since that is the crux of the discussion, at least IMHO).

Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III:
The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright
and the Audacity of Truth

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032208F.shtml

Change the subject? My goodness, Joe in Maine—perhaps you should give someone a chance to RESPOND to you before you talk about “changing the subject.” Just a suggestion. Do try to be reasonable.

In fact, it is YOU who “changed the subject” by bringing up Hitler in a really poor analogy.

Your comment on Hitler’s final solution is a great example why poor analogy is the weakest form of argument. Reverend Wright has not called for the extermination of white people. Reverend Wright, as I pointed out, often states the facts correctly, and often draws the right conclusion. The alleged comment about AIDS (see Cyrena’s comment also regarding this) is best characterized as “loopy” if in fact he ever said it. In the context of Tuskeegee and other blatantly racist practices in the USA in the 20th century, I can understand his context, though I would disagree.

In like manner, if a Jewish person said, “God Damn Germany” I would understand his point of view, though I would disagree. If that person is open to rational discussion, he would probably take back the remark after discussing many of Germany’s great accomplishments.

It’s called building a bridge to someone else’s context. I would not be surprised to find that Reverend Wright might modify some of his viewpoints if he were to engage in a friendly, reasonable discussion about these issues.

Thanks for filling in the blanks.  Choosing for the best of the worst is something I am getting tired of.

For me Obama provides a different face, only because I really do not want to see the haggard old Clintons on TV, and I do not even watch TV.

Has McCain or Hillary filled in on the “Heller v. DC”?

Let’s face it, look what happened to Kucinich, special interests made sure he and Gravel and John Paul did not even make the early rounds.  We both know why.

We the people are serfs to the eliete, just of a slightly different time from the dark ages, we are still cannon fodder and used to enhance the wealth of the wealthy.

As an atheist, I find Wrights comments enlightening,  not unifying. Of course the separation of state and Church is important to protect some of us who do not feel obligated to that line of reason.

Thanks, J.F. Refreshing comments.

Cyrena,

You may well be right. I haven’t heard any audio cut in which Wright actually says AIDS was created by the government. I probably heard it from the right-wing echo chamber.

Paolo,

Thanks for this excellent essay. It is much appreciated when any American, (and specifically an anglo-American) makes it a point to view any situation from the position of ‘the other’.

Now I have a question, (and it is only a question – because I’m uniformed on this) regarding this statement specifically:

•  “A few of his claims are a bit loopy, such as the idea that the US government created AIDS in order to kill black people.”

I ask because I’ve never heard the part(s) of any of Wright’s sermon’s that specifically made this claim in reference to AIDS (or HIV is what we should probably call it, since it is the virus that creates the disease/disorder AIDS) and blacks. That’s not to say that he did not, but only that I didn’t hear or read this specifically.

I mention this because, as we know, things do ‘change’ in a pass-the-word sort of a way. I specifically remember claims of the US government being responsible for the creation of this disease, as FAR BACK AS 1985, which is a good way back. It was back when AIDS was just coming to the attention of Americans, and at the time, the claim was that it’s victims were primarily homosexuals, IV drug users, and people with already compromised blood disorders. Remember, we’re talking about over 2 decades ago, not long after the first celebrity death attributed to the disease. At or around the same time, there was also a movie produced, (based on a book maybe?) that made the same suggestions…that this virus had either been produced by the US government, or had been allowed to infiltrate. There was also the claim that the virus had been allowed into the US by a monkey from somewhere in Africa. Again…this all dates way back, and from my own memories, nothing was ever more than conspiracy stuff. On the other hand, the same could be said of many things.

That said, this connection between the US gov. and the AIDS virus, is not a new thing, and it’s made other connections to other groups in the past. I know of nothing myself, that would substantiate this story about the US creating the virus.

HOWEVER, there was an ‘experiment’ conducted by the US government (PHS) on black men who had contracted syphilis. They were not DELIBERATELY infected with the thing, but they were deliberately left untreated for the purposes of experimentation.

I believe, (though I cannot be certain) that it is THIS EVENT, to which Rev Right was speaking, and NOT to any claims of HIVAIDS, as having been designed to use on black people. That’s why it’s worth re-examining what it was that Wright actually said, because there is a huge difference. There is a link below, to the actual experiment that DID take place, to which I believe he was speaking.

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

“The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.”

—President Clinton’s apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997

For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html

And, thanks for the essay.

Any candidate who argues gun control is doomed to lose.  Gun control would be a good thing, but seems may never happen.  Death is a minor player in politics, we have seen that from the War comments.

As the political picture unfolds, I am seeing more in common between the contenders then differences.

When you say so many issues dropped by Obama, what others are you addressing besides the ones you talk about?

“Meantime, maybe you should grow a thicker skin. If you perceive attacks as ‘personal’ maybe you should check the tone of your own posts, to consider if others might perceive yours in the same vein.”

While the tone of Obama supporters on Truthdig may be somewhat more civil, that is definately not the case elsewhere in the blogosphere. If you haven’t been to dailykos in a while, I encourage you to take a sample of the hateful vile. I was a poster there until a couple of weeks ago when someone suggested strongly that they had obtained (or at least tried) to find me through my ip address. I guess the intent was to ‘mess me up’ and that’s thuggary. Not unlinke my personal experience at the Maine caucus which the Obama precinct captain took over our caucus and bullied my neiighbors into supporting Obama. It’s not so bad here, which is why I enjoy being here. Hope you understand I have a family to consider. Politics is not as personal for me as it seems to be to others.

“most thinking people”

Since when do a majority of voters fall into the above catagory?

You Obamabots are elitist and flat out wrong.

So in your estimation Hitler’s final solution should be considered, “A hair anti-social” to further your personal political beliefs?

Should Obama be allowed to pass off this pastor’s incredibly divisive language and strong beliefs that he supported financially for 20 years as being the same thing as an old woman’s private fears that would have remained private if Obama hadn’t informed the world of it?

Go ahead and try to change the subject.

Although I think Obama is less likely to harm the country than war-hawks Clinton or McCain, I am hardly an ardent supporter. Nonetheless, I think he has taken the right position regarding Reverend Wright.

First of all, Wright is often right, even if he expresses himself in a way that makes some people uncomfortable. In the audio cut I’ve heard the most, he states that the US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is true; we did in fact nuke those two cities.

He states that many more were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, than were killed in 9-11. This is also undeniably true.

He states that the US has given uncritical, unquestioning support to Israel. This is also definitely true.

He stated that, on 9-11, many of our foreign policy “chickens” came home to roost. This is also true, unless you buy the line that people commit suicide and mass murder because they “hate freedom.”

A few of his claims are a bit loopy, such as the idea that the US government created AIDS in order to kill black people. However, given the context of black people, who have had to endure racism on the part of the government since the Civil War, I can understand his point of view, while I disagree with him.

His other remark, calling the USA the “US KKK of A,” is incendiary, but certainly arguable from a black person’s perspective. Certainly, many local government officials cooperated with or winked at the Klan during lynchings.

Finally, there is the “God Damn America” remark. Again, try to understand the other person’s perspective. Would you condemn a Jewish person who said, “God Damn Germany” after the Nazis killed his family? Or a Native American who might say “God Damn America” after General Sherman conducted a raid on his tribe, killing women and children? How about a Chinese person who might mutter “God Damn Japan” after the Rape of Nanking?

Actually, I think Reverend Wright might be an interesting fellow to have a conversation with. I would bet that, if you gently suggested that there are some things America can be proud of, he would agree (as would be the case with Japan and Germany).

Frank, herein lies your incorrect interpretation, which most thinking people fortunately do not share.

”...His rationalizing the racism of Wright is going to hurt him..”

It’s in the language Frank. First of all, Wright is NOT displaying RACISM. There is nothing RACIST about Wright’s comments, so that’s a huge blunder right there.

Since that alone is a totally incorrect perception, it follows that Obama wasn’t RATIONALIZING anything!!

If Obama had chosen to distance himself from this man for the simple reason that he was TELLING THE TRUTH about social injustices in America, (as if we don’t already know they exist) then THAT would reflect very poorly on Barack Obama.

Actually, if Barack Obama HAD indeed distanced himself, or otherwise chosen to ‘disown’ Rev. Wright as a result of his speaking the SAME TRUTHS that have been addressed by other brilliant humanists before him, (Martin Luther King Jr comes to mind) then I would have needed to revamp my own approval of his (Obama’s integrity and strength of character).

So, you don’t get it, and it is really not from voters like you, that Obama needs support.

At the end of the day, you and others like you will end up benefitting as well, from the leadership of someone with actual integrity. Just because..that’s the way it works.

Doesn’t seem fair, but…that’s life.

Nice speech. Too bad that a man as obviously intelligent as Obama didn’t have the common sense to realize that 1) Running for President in an environment where every person you have ever known is going to be under the scope 24/7 on 20 channels of round the clock news TV shows; and 2) That racism is a two-way, zero tolerance street so cut and run from everyone, no matter how close a friend the minute any whiff of impropriety is in the wind (in Wright’s case that would have been at least a year or two ago).
What is really unfortunate is that by acting too late and not strongly enough, he is going to give this thing back to Bubba’s unelectable proxy candidate. His eloquence in the speech was unquestionable, his charisma is probably unmatched by any candidate to hit the national stage since the Kennedys. His rationalizing the racism of Wright is going to hurt him no matter how well-reasoned, and once again the Democrats find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as both Obama and Billary now are behind the bumbling fool McCain in polls despite his inability to figure out why he wants to start a war with Iran. Nice speech, though.

I’d like to add that I see the so called term of “fair and balanced” as a fancy storefront to censorship. When news reporters aren’t allowed to tell the story as they see it and must doctor it up to make it fair and balanced, then they are not reporting the news.

Frankly I see no real significant difference in the context between what Wright said and what Imus said beyond the fact that Imus was making a national broadcast and Wright was talking to his congregation. His speech became a national broadcast thanks to media and no doubt some behind the scenes political motivations. Also Imus wasn’t arrested for speaking his mind so his civil rights were not violated. Yes he was fired but anyone in the workplace anywhere could easily be fired for the same reasons. People have a right to say what they wish, but as I’ve been saying here, there are sometimes consequences. Especially in the workplace where racial slurs are generally not tolerated.

Leefeller, I agree with you. One thing that does worry me is how he’ll be able to handle the Washington boys club once he’s elected. Look what they did to Carter! He was an outsider too just as Obama is. I think it should also be interesting to see how he deals with the MIC. Hopefully he won’t be a yes man like most of his predecessors.

Although he is an outsider, he has some big military contract money behind him and some energy corporations too. I still believe he is the best and most significant candidate but I must confess I’d have felt a whole lot better had Kucinich won the nomination.

I used Wright as an example of all divisions, not just race.  All the problems we see as people will never be addressed by the powers that be, unless we get someone who sees the problems and will unify us to address them.

And how does the scrutiny of Obama differ from the scrutiny (or lack thereof) of every man, woman, or villiage idiot that’s ever run for the highest office in the land. This is not a city council election. The winner of this race will be hired for the most powerful job in the world at a critical moment for this country and all of the nations of this earth. I think you have to put this race crap in the proper context. There are larger and more important questions than race in this election. Yet we’ve become terribly distracted by hate, race and division. Do you see any of that changing if we’re forced to confront our worst racial problems at the same time we have to solve so many other critical issues at thesame time?

Obamas most unifying speech, places him so far ahead of his competitors.  He has shown a higher degree of enlightenment and reason, he blows the others out of the water.  Sincerity by his actions and what he says and how quickly he says it make the unifying quality of a great leader very scary to those opposed to change.

Status quo Washington crowd, are comfortable in their standard mundane protocols and pecking orders.  Lobbies have undue influence on our representatives, to the point our become their representatives, lackeys of special interests. 

Corporate interests direct and promote most of the lobbies,  corporate agendas have extraordinary control over decisions that direct our nation.  Hand writing on the wall, is the reestablishing of monopolies by the constant buy outs competition becoming less and less.  Capitalism with out competition.

Giving Corporations the same rights as individuals has established a very uncomfortable program for the people of the nation, but a very comfortable one for the corporate interests.  Establishment of NAFTA was lobbied for by the same interests that destroyed our jobs here at home in the USA. 

Dividing the people is in the important for the special interests, for the elite and the wealthy, it makes for easy control over the people.  This manipulation of the laws to give perks to the wealthy is and has been an ongoing program of dividing and separating the people so they can never unify. A necessary plan of control, especially with the Bush Administration.  Fear is a great tool used to scare simple folks into believing anything and expect the government to help protect them.  How about War on Terror?

We have seen how this protection works, after Ktraina, how it was mishandled by the three ringed circus in Washington, especially the ring leaders.  Our National Guard is fighting a war of Terror,  they are helping fight terror. 

This classic ignoring and dividing of the people is beneficial to the status quo, the established clones in the Washington.  Few people in Washington,  people who want to do something about this tying of hands by special interests are without any support and outnumbered by the greedy and supported by ignorance.

Hammering on Obama for his real or imagined problems, is what will be done ruthlessly, wright or wrong,  truth or lies it does not matter, this constant harping, making the shit stick on the wall, in the minds of the small people every where.  Needed division to keep the status quo.  For, we cannot have Obama,  this potential unifier in Washington, for the disruption will never do.

People seem to forget the fact that Imus is a comedian radio host. He was trying to be FUNNY! He missed at his attempt rather badly in my mind, but the fact remains he is a comedian. He wasn’t the first person to ever use a racial slur in an attempt to be funny, but he may be the last white man to try. what’s the difference between Imus and Wright? Both were trying to impact the racial sensitivities of their audience. Only the motives were different.

Sue, you don’t think that what Wright said in his sermon is true?

“…..but I am so turned off by the hate of the Obamabots and I know I’m not alone. I get attacked personally for my political support of a woman I’ve met and admire. Why do Obama supporters feel the need attack with such venom? It’s really vile. … I hear from lots of folks getting really put off by the tone on the blogs. I’m not alone.”

Joe in Maine…

Reposting the above from you, I’d like to address these statements, and I’m hoping that would be most efficiently accomplished by asking you to just re-think what you’ve stated, or at least point out some specifics that would maybe substantiate these claims/statements.

First, if you feel that you’ve been ‘personally attacked’ (and that may or may not be true, but if that’s how you perceive it, than that’s how we’ll look at it) do you believe that it’s BECAUSE OF your ‘political support’ of a woman that you’ve met and admire?

I ask because it might be worth another examination on your part. I don’t honestly believe (or interpret) the somewhat negative responses to your posts are ONLY because of your support of Hillary Clinton. As a matter of fact, if you read through these and other comments, there isn’t that much in the “attack category” of Hillary Clinton herself.  So, if people are not, (overall) attacking Hillary, why would they be attacking YOU, BECAUSE OF YOUR POLITICAL SUPPORT for her?

Actually Joe, I didn’t realize until just this post, (and one before it) that you even WERE in support of Hillary, or even a democrat. Now I realize that I may not have read ALL of your posts, but of those that I have read, it has not been immediately evident that you’ve actually been a ‘supporter of Hillary’. So, why are you suspecting that others have ‘attacked you’ because of your support for her?

I think, in all sincerity, that MANY of the comments on this and other threads of late, (including yours) are actually very negative comments about Barack Obama, and it is for THAT reason that you and many others may come under attack.

The REALITY is that while there may in fact be some vile or venom directed at Hillary Clinton, that is relatively new, and it is…for the most part, a REACTION to developments in what has turned into a very nasty campaign of mudslinging and gutter-play, FROM THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMP!

Admittedly, while there has been a measure (very limited) of negativity directed at her, it was initially from those handful of folks that could also be identified as those who have hated her from well over a decade ago, with or without any real legitimate reason.
Setting aside that handful of original ‘haters of Hillary’ there has been little defamation of her from Obama supporters, that has NOT come as a result of the nastiness that has been directed at HIM!

For many of us now supporting Barack Obama, he was not necessarily our very first choice. (I always liked Kucinich myself, and I would have been OK with Edwards as well). Again, my point is that what you are calling attacks from the Obamabots, are very likely to be a reaction to exactly that…your reference to his supporters as…OBAMABOTS.

Since you’re just tuning in, THESE kinds of ‘hate attacks’ (toward those who have supported him) have been on-going for months. Supporters have been called a ‘cult’ or ‘Obamamaniacs’ in addition to similar and/or worse. And, that was BEFORE the kitchen sink of the Hillary camp began to be hurled at him.

So, if you think that you’re somehow ‘turned off’ by what YOU perceive as hate from Obama supporters, I’d first ask you to re-check your perception. I don’t know that it’s hate at all. I will acknowledge that there has definitely been a defensive reaction by many supporters of Barack Obama, to the obvious (and sometimes not so obvious) hate that has been directed at him.

Meantime, maybe you should grow a thicker skin. If you perceive attacks as ‘personal’ maybe you should check the tone of your own posts, to consider if others might perceive yours in the same vein.

Well, how do ya like that? The YouTube videos on Barack Obama’s statement about Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as “...a passage that is so radical that it is doubtful whether our own Defense Department would survive its application” have been withdrawn.

What does that mean? It is something which should be investigated along with a number of other strange anomalies which have obviously been influenced by The Ring and Obama supporters coercing or otherwise inducing people to shut up about his errors and shortcomings, uhh!

Here is ANOTHER video link to the same speech from BO’s own website hypocritically purporting to “reconcile faith with our modern society” - 10 Questions: Religion in America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35sGJrWKcmY&eurl=ht tp://prezvid.com/index.php?tag=religion

“Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy…?” Perhaps Obama should have considered telling us how the Rev. Wright’s version has guided him? Or perhaps he should have explained what he is going to do about implementing Jesus’ “sermon on the mount” regardless of the impact it must have on the war-mongering society known as the USA?

Well Doug, thanks for reminding me why I find your inane superficial comments supported by your classic nasal sound so annoying.

Didn’t go much on the sermon by Rev. Wright attacking Hillary Clinton for being white. What was worse, he went out of his way to smear her despite Obama having a white mother.

If the Rev. Wright is reading this, I would like to hear his homily about Barack Obama’s white mother or white grandmother, eh! Did she ever have to “miss being picked up by a taxi” because she wasn’t white enough?

It IS true that some of Wrights words WERE racist. Unfortunately, they were not the statements Obama was excusing in his speech. If every white person has to be made guilty, then there is a smear campaign going on…....

That has already been happening for some years with some members of the Jewish community and particularly with respect to the Israeli Zionists supporting AIPAC. Now, we have almost the same kind of movement within the African-American community.

Just like our Truthdig blogger, Mike Mid-City, the Rev. Wright is a bigoted and biased ex-marine who has developed some kind of personality disorder. One wonders then why Obama went along with that for the last 20 years if it didn’t accomodate his own personal agenda?

Jeremiah Wright - Hillary Clinton ain’t never been called… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM

The again, we also know that Obama is NOT a genuine Christian anyway, uhh. He refers to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as “...a passage that is so radical that it is doubtful whether our own Defense Department would survive its application” !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPUe6T8RVXs

You can add that to “I don’t oppose all wars” and “the crucible of the sword” from his so-called anti-war speech of 2002 to make your own conclusions about how duplicitous this person really is….....

Well Joe, my argument to that would be that FOX News has always given equal bashing time to liberals. In fact to all liberal while they constantly praise their conservative compatriots. That isn’t fair and balanced. It is overwhelmingly askew.

I didn’t see the two teleprompters Obama used for the speech before he took the stage and I was looking for them specifically. I tuned in at 10AM to hear the run up to his schedulled start time of 10:15 AM. There was a technical issue that delyed the speech by nearly 30 minutes. It was reported by Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC that it was a “microphone issue” and so I watched the camera operators fix focus over and over as stand ins took the stage to test the mics and provide a subect for focus and white balance. The whole time I never saw the tell tale angled glass screens on which the text is displayed. It wasn’t until nearly half way through the speech, that CNN pulled very wide to show an oblique of the side of the stage did I see them. The teleprompters were positioned left and right and at least twice as far away from the podium as you normally see them.

I wanted to know if he was using a prompter because I believe this speech has been planned for quite a long time. He may have polished it, as reported and freshened it to include all of the details needed, but I believe the language and theme of this speech has been in the can certainly since Iowa when it was clear that the Wright thing would eventually come out. There is no doubt it was a great speech delivered by a terrific orator. If you believe he went out there and winged it, fine. I happen to believe that the themes and specific language of the speech were written long ago, tested on focus groups, refined, tested again, refined some more and then put on the shelf when it was ready. This issue is one of the three big potential dealbreakers for Obama. Not to have researched the best way to explain it would have been irresponsible for a professional political campaign. It needed to be perfect and it was. Good job done.

I agree Michael. Not even close to enough Americans are paying attention, and it’s because of course, of the MSM.

Now I admit that I have frequently thought back to the much more complete coverage of these atrocities as they occurred in Viet Nam. Americans were pretty much FORCED to confront those realities, whether they wanted to or not. Needless-to-say, that isn’t happening now, and we all know that.

On the other hand, I’m wondering now, if it would make any difference? Back then, this brought protesters to the streets in droves..on campuses, and everywhere we looked.

And NOW? Well, it’s done the same thing I would say. I mean, it isn’t so much that Americans aren’t paying attention, and Lord knows we’re out their in protest mode, doing demonstrations and the like. But, as you pointed out in another post, we’re getting hit with wooden bullets, tased, subjected to spying and blacklisting, etc, etc, etc…But when IF EVER, is any of this being made available to the greater American ‘audience’ via the MSM?

The anti-war demonstrations that occurred WORLD WIDE, BEFORE the Iraq war was launched, were the largest ever, in the history of the world or the US. And yet, there was next to NO coverage of those events in the US main steam media. And now, searching through multiple archives from that day, (Feb. 15th, 2003) there is next to nothing to give any indication that those demonstrations ever even occurred.

So, it would appear that our media has been state controlled since the beginning of the gangster regime, and we know of course, that any dissent since, has been treated the same as it is in all states that are controlled by an authoritarian tyranny.
Dissent becomes treason, (because the thugs in power can call it anything they want) and the media is one of the first things hit. Such as it’s been here, since the coup took place in December, 2000.

So, while there are many of us who are paying attention, I’m willing to accept that for many, being ‘aware’ isn’t necessarily an easy thing. One can purchase a home that they can’t afford far easier than they can get an accurate view of our political state, (including the atrocities taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Alternative media has certainly helped to bridge that gap. I don’t really know where we’d be without it. Still, it’s come at major risk to many.

Great response Michael Shaw…

Thanks..

They have right-wing agenda no doubt about it. She’s right though. At least Fox is evenhanded in criticism of both Obama and Hillary.

Ahh my friend, in response.

Paragraph 1,  Freedom of speech?  All this happened because of racial overtones.  It was the core subject!

Paragraph 2,  An advocate of free speech?  And you justify the firing of Imus?  That’s a huge contradiction if I’ve ever heard one!

Paragraph 3,  (last sentence), And Rev. Wright’s statements?  (rantings?)

Paragraph 4,  No comparrison.  We’re talking race speeches here.

Paragraph 5,  The point of my post was to bring my views of Obama not separating himself and his family from the likes of Rev. Wright knowing of his rantings purely and surely with huge racial overtones about them, not because he only denounced what he said.  Case in point; your last sentence about Obama;  “A uniter who is opposed to drawing race lines”.

Obama preaches being a “uniter” wanna be, but when he stays married to someone who clearly preaches the racial divider sermon, that my friend is a hypocrite!

“They bash Obama and Hillary equally.” When do they bash McCain?

I’d like to point out Sue that what got Imus fired had nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech as much as it had to do with a massive boycott of sponsors and a loss of revenue for NBC. The credibility(and the bottom line) of the company was at hand.

That said and as an advocate of free speech, I believe the firing of Imus was justified. Companies have rights too(though clearly their actions had little to do with racial commentary as they did money). Obama could have played it safe and taken no stance on the matter. Instead he chose to address the issue and speak up about it at his own peril. I would call that courageous.

The real bottom line is, we are all ultimately responsible for our actions. If Imus wishes to yell the N word publicly, I am in no position to stop him, nor would I even try to stop him though by doing so he could be endangering himself and others. We can’t yell fire in a movie house either unless there really is one. Imus’ statements were uncalled for, counter productive and unnecessary.

Now some might call Obama hypocritical because of this. I know that’s what Rush Limbaugh and FOX News are calling him. But look at the source and then ask yourself, “Who truly are the real hypocrites?” These are the same people (along with Ann Coulter) telling republicans to vote for Hillary.

Just ask yourself if Imus’ comments were directed at Jews, Asians or Hispanics would the reactions be or should they have been any different? Then ask yourself if Obama’s denouncing of Imus was any different than his denouncing Reverend Wright? I don’t think it was. Nor do I consider him a hypocrite. A uniter who is opposed to drawing race lines is more like it!

You make a solid arguement. To underestimate McCain is a huge mistake. I never took W seriously even when I could see the election being stolen from us. I never quite got the idea that Americans would be so collectively stupid. That’s why I am so interested in the political leanings of the good ol boys, you know, the guys who vote for who they’d prefer to play hoops with or have a beer with.

Of all the news media, Fox is pretty much what they boast, “fair and balanced” I find.  They bash both Hillary and Obama equally.

MSNBC is all anti Hillary, CNN too, but not quite as bad.

What I find fascinating Tommit are the neocon right who call the liberals, Vets Against the War in Iraq and anti war activists in general wimps, defeatists, cowards and traitors. We are the folks getting arrested and shot at with wooden bullets and being spied upon and blacklisted while our counterparts relax safely unscathed in their posh offices. This same deferred(or AWOL in wartime) group of warmongering vagabonds are telling us we need to spend more money on the military then the rest of the entire world to keep us safe. What a joke! And beyond the obvious agenda in feeding the MIC monster with our tax dollars, to me what that really boils down to is hysteria and paranoia and it makes them the wimps and cowards, not us. Also by their inept handling of our economy and their purposeful destruction in The Bill of Rights, it is they who have defeated us, not the brave folks who oppose them and risk far more then they ever would.

Many nations have adequate defense and enjoy relatively peaceful and economically sound existences. We could be(and should be) doing the same, even if we cut military spending by 30 percent. When pigs fly as they say.

You are right about Florida and Ohio. I would add we should be worrying about more then the corrupt elections process in those two states. Let’s not forget the Supreme Court either who handed Bush the 2000 election. Now that they are stacked with federalist society stooges, a close election will give McCain the presidency(and dictatorship) on a silver platter.

I think you’re right about Obama as far as that goes. I only hope this preacher’s commentary doesn’t hurt his chances and close the playing field.

The day after his race speech much more attention was given to the story of Clinton’s records being released than the story of Obama losing nearly all of his support among Reagan dems and indies. They want to, “...wait a week or two to see if there really has been an drop” Please! I watched two networks, CNN and MSNBC spend entire 20 minute segments openly trying to guess the worst things that MIGHT be contained in Hillary’s public records. What might be found? What’s the juiciest tidbit likely to emerge? What terrible fact will emerge to discredit this bitch and make her get out is what they were really asking. Fair? Balanced? Not to me. That’s way beyond argumentum ad personam. That’s pushing an agenda. Too many media outlets are in Obama’s tank, especially MSNBC. Even CNN is at least trying to acknowlege the Obama bias of MSNBC promoting it’s own programming as being “unbiased”. Saying it and doing it are two different things. I have to say that MSNBC has done an amazing thing this month. Chris, Keith and Mika have moved me, hater of all things Fox, over to at least glance at (gasp!) Bill O’Reily to see, dare I say, a more honest, fair accounting of the post Wright conditions of this race. The MSM has by and large been satisfied with Obama’s speech, most of them openly gushing again. O’Reily at least is still asking some questions that white males might still have and that might play a role in deciding PA and Indiana.
I find it really interesting to see the MSM come off a week of honest reporting on Wright and putting Obama on the hot seat to the post-speech, pre-Wright fawning that seems to totally dismiss the idea that Obama hasn’t had a bit of momentum since TX and Ohio. He’s losing support big time according to several national polls and yet the MSM is content to go back on the Hillary attack. I’ll never look at the media the same way again after this race. The same media outlet that would demand Hillary leave the race if she was a member of an all-white country club faster than you can say “Nah Nah Nah!!!” have given a free pass to Obama after first denying hearing the hatred in church then admitting it less than a day later. The press that was calling for Bill’s head because he dared to question Obama’s war voting record is refusing to question what is in the heart of one of three people who could be elected president. That’s astounding to me.

There’s a reason they sell it in 30-packs.

Sure. I was really pissed about what happened in FL and Ohio. I think it was an organized mugging of the the elections. My point in saying that shouting “voter fraud!” from the highest rooftops never seems to make any difference, does it? Coaches often say after a game, and I must agree, that the game should never have been that close for one bad call or in the case of Ohio and Florida a few thousand votes to be the difference in the game. That’s all I meant. I wanted Gore to blow it out by three touchdowns not lose it by allowing a field goal. It’s likely a flawed analogy, but it’s all I could think of.

On John McCain. Do you really think he’ll be that easy to beat? Really? Sure he has vulnerabilities like any candidate. I was trying to suggest he shouldn’t be taken so lightly. Maybe not so much pointing at anything you’ve written Outragged, but a general theme I see in plenty of posts. I don’t think McCain would be nearly the disaster Bush has been. He doesn’t think global warming is a myth, that’s a start, right? He can put three sentances together, right? Sure he’s too old and made a mistake the other day in Iraq. I can’t really see myself voting for him at this point, but I am so turned off by the hate of the Obamabots and I know I’m not alone. I get attacked personally for my political support of a woman I’ve met and admire. You don’t like my ideas? Fine. Don’t read them. Why do Obama supporters feel the need attack with such venom? It’s really vile. Please keep in mind you Dems might be fine without my vote, but I hear from lots of folks getting really put off by the tone on the blogs. I’m not alone.

I try to see things from the ground up. The average income here in Maine is very low. Most of the people here are far from the intellectual elite of the democratic party.

I’m not a drunk, nor do I appreciate the accusation from you or cyrena. I’ve been very civil when I don’t agree with what’s been posted. I don’t default to name-calling or using profanity to attack those that I disagree with. What’s your problem? I bet you love getting right in the faces of people you disagree with. Does that make you feel a little something special in your shorts?

Ya know, Obama made a masterful speach… again!

It’s almost like he uses his gift of gab whenever he feels the need to feed the unsettled flock, to help calm them down.

He knows he has this entrancing eloquent speaking gift that has helped bring him to where he is today.

It works!, he’s no dummy.

The “speach”, though agreeably supurb, lacked Obama’s need to explain himself on where he truly stands with this guy?  Why was he not as angry as the controversy itself brought about?

I’m sorry, but it makes me wonder where this man’s true allegiance lies.  I don’t think he needed to make a speach on race in general as much as he needed to explain himself on where his emotions took hold (if at all) on what Rev. Wright said.

Just denouncing his remarks, but remaining buds with him just don’t cut it with me.  Just like he agreed with the firing of Imus and the “knappy headed hoe” debacle.  Sounds hypocritical to me on his part.

He may have doomed his candidacy, polls are already showing so.

He still hasn’t learned that pretty speach alone don’t amount to substance too.

Well Cyrena I’m glad you are paying attention and realize others are too but my comment was based upon the fact that since the major media is not giving us a peep about it, most Americans are not hearing this valuable testimony, just as they failed to hear much of the original Winter Soldier testimony until John Kerry finally got national attention when he debated swift boat dweeb John O’Neill on the Dick Cavett Show. Sadly they had forgotten that testimony in the last presidential election, where swift boaters got all of the media, making Kerry and the other winter soldiers look like a bunch of traitors.

Where else will you hear about who the real enemy is? It isn’t the Iraqi’s or Afghans, it’s the CEO’s who lay us off for profit and give our jobs to slave labor overseas. It’s the bankers who profit on mortgage foreclosures, the people who make us homeless and helpless and destroy our civil liberties. The same folks who have created this current economic mess and who have lied us into war.

As heartbreaking as it is to hear this, it must be heard by all. Seeing children in Baghdad with their arms and legs blown off is heartbreaking too. No small wonder the media didn’t bother showing us that and chose to broadcast the fireworks of shock n awe instead.

As one lance corporal put it, “We should be patrolling the beltway, not Baghdad!” I would have added Wall Street as well!

You might even say he’s lucky to have gotten where he is today, right? I’m sure I’ve heard that somewhere. Wait. It’s OK when YOU say it, right? Because you’re a long time supporter and all.

Experience is over rated, in Washington experience usually means good old boys. Status Quo.  It has been listed before the better presidents we have had in the past were the ones from out of the Beltway.  Corruption and indifference to the people is usually a given for many on the inside.  Sort of like an elite prison.

Maani writes:

“…he did make a telepromptered speech sound very sincere and heartfelt, as it obviously was when he wrote it.  (And although he does have speechwriters, this is one speech that I understand he did write completely by himself.)”…

Maani, this is such an excellent example, (without being as horrific as so many of the same) of what we can nearly ALWAYS find in your posts…the negative innuendo at best, and the downright falsehoods at worst…and they basically run the spectrum. In this case we’d call these (politely at least,) “backhanded compliments”.

But, they really aren’t at all. You ‘infer’ that the delivery of Obama’s speech was by ‘teleprompter’. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Well Maani, you DON’T. I watched him deliver the speech Maani, and he DID, on occasion, like anyone else would do in delivering some a lengthy address, OCCASIONALLY refer to his notes. There would have been NO NEED for somebody like Barack Obama, who has been doing public speaking and has been a lecturer and professor of law, to need a fucking teleprompter.

So I’m very curious why you would suggest that.

Same with you making sure that we know that he DOES have speechwriters. OF COURSE he would. On the other hand, he has said, himself, that HE WRITES MOST OF HIS OWN!!! There is NO reason for us not to believe that Maani, since most people who have done public speaking, or been involved in instructing at the Law School level, (or any academic level for that matter) DO prepare their own lecture material.

So, why would you feel the need to somehow try to suggest that while he did write this particular speech himself, it was somehow an anomaly?

And again, any person who routinely prepares course/lecture material, or public speaking material, doesn’t really need to reference their own notes that frequently, if they wrote the stuff THEMSELVES. And they DAMN sure don’t need a teleprompter.

This is the kind of stuff I’m talking about Maani. It’s a constant with you. And, while it may be subtle enough to escape the notice of many, I definitely pick it up every time.

It’s ugly. Nothing can make it anything other than ugly, because of the inherent deceit.

Teleprompted speech my ass. You are really a slug Maani.

Pacrat,

Who would you (among the candidates) compare his legislative history to? And, have you actually checked on any of the bills or other legislature that he’s worked on since his election to the US Senate?

And, are you running together his legislative actions in Illinois with this US Senate action? And which important subcommittee are you referencing when you suggest that it’s been OVER TWO YEARS?

I think that you might be speaking of his membership on the European Affairs Subcommittee, which he has only been on since the beginning of 2007, so NOT over 2 years. I think you may also be unaware of the fact that most of the hearings and business related to Afghanistan (since that’s the criticism about him not convening any meetings) have been held in FULL committee hearings, (of the same committee) and procedure doesn’t allow for any sub-committee to leapfrog the full committee.

So, it’s important to know what you’re talking about, before you repeat rumors.

That’s not to say that he couldn’t or shouldn’t have held these, but it is incorrect to say that he has only rhetoric and no legislative action, because he has sponsored and co-sponsored several bills that have become law, since his time in the US senate.

You can check the library of Congress for his as well as any other elected representative, and make the relevant comparisons.

Ah Outraged,

You’ve provided my heartiest chuckle of the day.

SO THAT’S how they remember their names…Joe in Maine, or Joe Sixpack once he’s had a few. (six-packs that is).

Speaking of which, (and this is just a casual observation on my part)..I’ve always wondered how or why it is that white folks can get drunk off of beer so easily..

Is that just some sort of personal observation without much support, or does it seem that way to anybody else?

I mean, I expect hard liquor drinkers to get drunk after a hefty consumption, b