  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Looking Beyond the ‘Racial Divide’Posted on Mar 17, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama’s latest, and possibly greatest, challenge is to overcome a simplistic view that the United States is hopelessly split by a racial divide that could badly damage his candidacy. I’m not arguing against the existence of such a divide. That would be dumb. But voting and polling in this year’s elections, census studies and other surveys show that attitudes are changing. The change strengthens the prospects that Obama will survive this current grim period for his campaign and go on to win the presidency. There’s no doubt that the race issue has buffeted Obama, son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas. Last week, he was forced to deal with the assault of Geraldine Ferraro, a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Ferraro, the 1984 Democratic vice presidential nominee, portrayed Obama as an affirmative action beneficiary—someone who made it only because he was black. Obama has had to condemn the sermonizing of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, who said, “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York, and we never batted an eye.” In a later sermon, Wright declared, “No, no, no, not God bless America—God damn America!” Wright has left the Obama campaign’s spiritual advisory committee. And Obama told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC: “I did not hear such incendiary language myself personally either in conversation with him or when I was in the pew. ... These particular statements that have been gathered are ones that I would have strongly objected to, strongly condemned had I heard them in church. I would have expressed that concern directly to Rev. Wright.” There was a time when association with the Rev. Wright would have been fatal to the Obama candidacy. But the nation is changing, a transformation dramatically reflected in an analysis of the census done by the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, D.C. The analysis, published in the bureau’s June 2005 Population Bulletin, focused on intermarriage. “Interracial marriage has increased across most racial groups, and although they are still the exception to the norm, these interracial marriages are generating a growing population of multi-racial Americans,” the study said. It found that racial intermarriage increased from less than 1 percent of all married couples in 1970 to more than 5 percent in 2000. The number of children living in interracial households rose from 900,000 in 1970 to 3.4 million in 2000. A Gallup poll in 2003 reported that 86 percent of blacks, 79 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of whites would accept a child or grandchild marrying someone of a different race. And a Princeton Research Associates poll the same year said that 77 percent of the respondents agreed it was all right for blacks and whites to date each other. These polls and analyses fit in with the experiences of many Americans who have a son, a daughter, a cousin, a grandchild or another relative or a friend in an interracial marriage. “As intermarriage continues to increase, further blurring racial and ethnic group boundaries, Americans’ notions of race and ethnicity will surely change,” the study concluded. I saw a graphic example of this recently when I moderated a debate between the candidates for a California state Assembly seat in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley. The district itself is an example of racial change. Once heavily white, it is now 42 percent white, 39 percent Hispanic, 12 percent Asian and 5 percent black. I asked the candidates what they thought of the gang warfare now afflicting Los Angeles, exacerbated by battles between African-American and Latino gangs. One of the candidates, Bob Blumenfield, is white, Jewish and chair of the Valley Anti-Defamation League. His wife is African-American. They live across the street from his parents. She was in the audience at the synagogue where the debate was held. Twenty-five years ago, this would have been unimaginable. Blumenfield’s reply to my question about gangs also reflected something new. A quarter of a century ago, a candidate’s reply would have been simple: more cops. Blumenfield’s was complex, reflecting his family’s life. With his wife and their daughter African-American, and knowing the racial aspect of the gang warfare, he said he worries about them both. Primary election exit polls also offer hope to Obama that the racial divide will not cost him the election. In Deep South primaries, he won about 24 percent of the white vote, a trend that was first evident in South Carolina and continued into Mississippi. In Ohio, Clinton beat him among whites 65 percent to 33 percent. But they split the white vote in Maryland. Obama took 52 percent of the white vote in Virginia, compared to Clinton’s 47 percent. And polls show Clinton and Obama running equally well against Sen. John McCain. It could be that race relations in America are taking a new turn, unfamiliar to those of us who see everything through the prism of mid- and late 20th century conflict. Obama talked about that Saturday in Plainfield, Ind. Speaking as “someone who was born into a diverse family, as someone who has little pieces of America within me,” he said, “what I believe is this country wants to move beyond these debates, that this country wants something different.” In the heat of the campaign and in the blur of daily news and commentary, we forget how this contest between a woman and an African-American man shows how far the nation has come in a relatively few years. The rivalry between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be remembered long after 2008 as a turning point in American history. Previous item: Dinner With Ahmed Next item: Ethical Progress at Last Elsewhere: . Comments: 104 Published. Add Yours?Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. |
A Slap in the Face
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By john polifrono, March 19 at 11:22 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Your chances are near hopelss, but don't give
It’s not race that is dividing this country, or this presidential contest, it’s Obama’s lies. With all the highminded talk, in Obama’s speech, and in the desperate efforts of his supporters to continue to conceal, that Obama has repeatedly deceived the American people, the fact remains, that Obama is a fraud. It doesn’t matter how skillfully he delivers speeches, you can lie your way to power, but you cannot lie your way to democracy.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy bert, March 19 at 6:42 pm #
(679 comments total)
Re: Your chances are near hopelss, but don't
nail, meet hammer !!
Reply to this | Report thisBy RdV, March 19 at 4:08 am #
(174 comments total)
The source
How come no asked where these cherry-picked, intentionally provocative blips of the pastor originated from?
Reply to this | Hide 5 replies | Report thisIt reeks of more of the same ongoing Billary opposition research race-baiting (that Mr. Bill continues with his “myth & mugging” reference yesterday. Think about it--someone had to wade through reams of vido footage to target this and saturate the media with it.
The media’s only comment regarding the Clintons has been their “silence”, but not too many speculating about where the trail leads.
By bert, March 19 at 6:40 pm #
(679 comments total)
Reply to RdV
Hon - ABC News’s Brian Ross bought the tapes from the church’s web site where they have been for sale for years. Then he did what any good investigative reporter would do. He watched them. Then he reported on them. This is common knowledge.
Clinton had nothing to do with them.
Reports about Rev. Wright have been around for years. I first saw reports of Wright’s extremist views more than a year ago in various papers, magazines, and blogs.
However, whenever they survaced most of the MSM said, oh no no no no, this is just racist attacking of Obama. Ross is the first to go check them out for himself.
There are some reports/rumors now that FOX News had then even BEFORE Ross got hold of them but FOX was going to wait until Obama got the nomination and then blindside him right out of the starting gate with them. That is why it seems that FOX had clips almost as soon as Ross finished his report.
This is what happens in campaigns all of the time. People run for office. They get vetted so that we can learn about them.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Joe Sixpack, March 19 at 9:30 am #
(258 comments total)
Re: The source
It’s hard to believe that the Clintons would have anything to do with one of the three issues identified by David Axelrod as potential deal-breakers for Obama. They didn’t need to nudge the Write story onto Fox. They’ve had it for over a year. Some suggest, and I am inclined to believe, that Axelrod himself pushed this story onto Fox at this precise moment. Think about the timing. Four weeks to put the story behind them before PA, it’ll be very old news come the general. Who had more to gain than Obama himself to control the release of a story that would have certainly broken at some far worse moment for him. Like say October?
Reply to this | Report thisBy lib in texas, March 19 at 5:27 am #
(293 comments total)
Re: The source
RdV The source is Himself, the church sells these tapes of his sermons. Hannity I believe started playing the first ones.
JEEZ, you need to read more or comprehend what you read.
THE BIG TRAIL LEADS RIGHT BACK TO THE CHURCH!!!!!
Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report thisBy RdV, March 19 at 5:43 am #
(174 comments total)
Re: Re: The source
Really, it was THE CHURCH who went to usual Clinton outlet (when they aren’t leaking to Drudge), FOX news and said, “look we thought you might want to use these little blips to smear Barak Obama and demonize our beloved and highly-respected Pastor”.
Report thisGive me a fucking break.
By Purple Girl, March 19 at 2:50 am #
(193 comments total)
I was not offended by the Rev
The media has assumed once again- incorrectly.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisI am a White Natural Born 44 yr old Female Atheist and for all the clips I heard from the Rev’s sermons- I would have stood and clapped. He was absolutely correct. The Gov’t AND the INC’s have taken the Principles and Morals of this country and trashed them.
I was not proud of the action in Japan during WW2,
I have not been prous of the inexcusible history of the White races actions against ALL minorities, I have not been proud of the CIA, and it’s interference in other countries- intentioanlly starting conflicts for for the Gov’t or Inc’s benefits. I have not beenproud to know black men have been inprisoned and Executed at far higher rates than white men who have committed crimes. I am not Proud that a Bi Racisal Candidate must defend the disgusting Actions of White men through out our history. I ,as a Woman would not have-The Truth Hurts but must be Said.
Let’s be honest with each other and ourselves- the actions throughout our history have NOT held up to the Principles our founding Fathers invisioned,Granted we have been a work in Progress- but we have slipped by not DEMANDING the Gov’t to Aspire to the True values of this country. Let’s also be Clear..The REv said ‘God Damn America’ Not AmericaNs. He was insiting his congregation to hold our Gov’t to the high standards we all like to claim, yet have been complacent when they come to the test.
I would have been standing and chering for his call to Arms to rescue our country from the grips of Imperialism,the Inc’s, and the failure to honor the statment “All men are Created Equal”.
How Rcist the media is being harping on these words instead of th eWhite Evangelicals who spew hate,Fear and blame on others. Ye tfail to recognize or acknowledge the evils of entities such as THE MILITARY INDUSTRAIL COMPLEX (those who placed our citizens in harms way on 9/11 as a result of their ‘business practices and World market Stratedgies’
I’d like to see the Rev in Obama’s cabinet!
Obama was not my first choice candidate, but luckily the fraudulant Election process has left him standing (Grass roots (US) are putting these entities back in their place- Servants to mankind , not the masters’!)
By Ted Swart, March 19 at 6:41 am #
(109 comments total)
Re: I was not offended by the Rev
Hi “White Natural Born 44 yr old Female Atheist”.
Reply to this | Report thisOf course you are correct that the fundamentalist evangeical white churches are every bit as extremist and racist as Rev Wright and, if anything, less commendable.
I note that Obama is not your “first choice” candidate but suggest that the “fraudulent electoral process” has at least managed to give us an Obama.
The truth is that he is a really smart guy who has surrounded himself with really outstanding advisers and actually listens to their advice. This has allowed him to use an obscenely complex and ridiculous primary system to his advantage.
But I don’t know and I’m sure you don’t know how he will behave if and wnen he actually becomes president.
Someone else pointed out that THE truly major problem is not Iraq (which is indeed a ghastly problem) but the economic shambles (due to greed and the obscenely large gap between the rich and poor) and neither Obama nor McCain seems to shine in that arena
By TheRealFish, March 19 at 12:05 am #
(33 comments total)
Joe in Maine comment: “Who would you rather have answer the phone at 3am when something is happening in the world. Sorry to have to remind you that the world CAN be a scary place to live. To deny this fact is just your Obama Kool-Aid buzz talking.”
Okee dokee. Glad you asked.
I would far rather have someone who can respond to what amounts to his biggest challenge to-date (Obama’s guilt by association with the commentary of Rev. Wright) by delivering what even one of his *Republican* critics suggested might be the single most important speech on race relations in the last 40-45 years. He was faced with a negative situation and turned it positive. He did not lose his composure and, instead of taking a safe or self-defensive approach, he made what most saw as a quick and politically gutsy move.
On the other hand, we can see, time and again, Ms. Clinton react to fliers in circulation for weeks in Ohio that she treats as something new and eloquently preaches “Shame, shame on you!” (sub-text: I am a victim). Or “I’m interested that I always seem to be asked questions first...” (implying she is a victim). Or “the media is giving Barak a free pass while the media—just look at Saturday Night Live—always casts me in the most negative light” (victim).
Who do *you* want answering that mysterious phone call? One who maintains composure and reacts with a meaningful, measured and positive response, or one who, at least as has demonstrated throughout the campaign, might just say either “don’t pick on me!” or needs to get out of bed, find out where the heck Bill is at 3 a.m. and ask him what she should do?
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy Maani, March 19 at 5:40 am #
(1254 comments total)
Re:
RealFish:
You make a mistake to suggest that words and actions undertaken during a political campaign necessarily indicate how that person would perform as president. Even Obama has said as much on more than one occasion.
I have no doubt that either one of them would handle that 3am call appropriately. To suggest otherwise is to give in to MSM propaganda and spin.
Peace.
Reply to this | Report thisBy TheRealFish, March 18 at 11:37 pm #
(33 comments total)
Joe in Main: Experience Counts...
Arguably the two most experienced presidential candidates in U.S. history were James A. Buchanan and Richard Nixon. Four presidents all found themselves labeled as too “inexperienced,” “wet behind the ears,” or some other vernacular expression demonstrating their failing the test of having been embedded and/or entrenched in the Washington scene and processes to be effective presidents during times of crisis (economic or of defense):
Abraham Lincoln
Franklin Roosevelt
John Kennedy
William Clinton
While each were certainly more or less effective as presidents than each other, those arguments against their relative lack of experience neither kept them from office, nor did the allegations prevent them from making some level of historic impact while in office.
Does anyone need to explain the benefits derived from those two most-experienced candidates’ terms in office? Maybe. But a relatively cursory bit of historical research on them should cast a little light on exactly how flawed and ill-founded is the whole argument claiming experience counts or is in some way a needed, necessary quality.
Personally, I feel we can look at better and very direct measures of whether one of the current candidates rises above the others to be chief executive: Who has the tightest control over their campaign staff? Who has proven greater effectiveness as raising and managing the massive “econonomies” of their own campaign? Who has proven a demonstrated ability to rally and effectively control the street-to-street ground campaigns all across the country? Who has the extremely necessary quality as chief executive of being able to motivate and coordinate large masses of people?
Answer those questions and the answers lead inexorably to one conclusion.
“Game over” indeed.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy lib in texas, March 19 at 5:39 am #
(293 comments total)
Re: Game Over
In deed the game is over for Obama just to many lies he thought he could fool everyone and by the looks of these posts he still is fooling a few.
I resent him throwing his white Grandmother under the bus. He didn’t say Rev Wright (2yrs in the Marine Corp)made him cringe but his own Grandmother who sacrificed much for him by his own words (if you can believe his words)made him cringe. Very disrepectful just to save his lying ass.
Reply to this | Report thisBy G.Anderson, March 18 at 10:11 pm #
(245 comments total)
The fastest way to do this....
The fastest way to do this ...
Is to shift from Race consciousness to class consciousness....
Nothing could be more threatening to those that have divided us, than becoming aware that we have self interests based on class that trancend our differences.
can’t wait till the race card gets dropped in favor of the class card.
Reply to this | Report thisBy bert, March 18 at 10:01 pm #
(679 comments total)
Yet Another Reply to Aegrus
You write: “Not you, Maani, Lib, Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol, Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan or Tucker Carlson will be able to stop a damn thing.”
Thank you, Aegrus for not including me in this list. I hope that wasn’t just an over sight. Maybe you will include me next time after my next comment.
You write: “You’re thinking is skewed to an old axiom….. The two campaigns, people, life experiences and political abilities are leaps apart. You haven’t been paying attention to what has been happening in the context in which it has occurred. If you have been, you’d see how your argument is flawed. “
Unfortunately, what Obama “got happening” has been derailed by the Wright controversy. I don’t see it going back to what it was before.
You write: “….however, I would not underestimate Obama’s ability to deflect these arguments in his favor….”
Maybe so. I will wait to see what happens. But I have to be honest. I don’t see that happening on Main Street, USA and with Joe Q. Public. I may be wrong.
I agree with Joe in Main in his March 18 at 12:47 pm post when he says none of us knows for sure what the #1 issue will be in the fall, but right now it is the economy.
And yes, Americans hate to hear the word, “surrender.” This will be how McCain spins the war. And it will resonate deep in the heart of many Americans.
Reply to this | Report thisBy KYJurisDoctor, March 18 at 7:43 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Obama's speech.
“Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. ...
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper.”
That says it ALL, folks.
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/03/heres-obamas-sp eech-on-race-religion.html#links
Reply to this | Report thisBy Maani, March 18 at 6:36 pm #
(1254 comments total)
All:
Others may have seen this before. I do not know its origin (it was sent to me by a friend in an email), and thus cannot speak to its authenticity, although I believe it to be real. It is a letter from Rev. Wright to New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor, sent in March 2007. [N.B. Possible misdating, and really 2008? Not sure.] Note that I have not found an article in the NYT by Ms. Kantor around the time of the letter (thus my questioning of the date). Finally, I make no judgment here, except to say that it is a powerful letter, and all the more so if everything that Rev. Wright claims is true.
Peace.
---
March 11, 2007
Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959
Dear Jodi:
Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a “Spiritual Biography” of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.
For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run.
I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn’t I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family? I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.
I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just “in word only.” I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.
Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack’s spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, “What is that in your hand?,” that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it “in his hand.” Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that. [Part II to come]
Reply to this | Report thisBy Maani, March 18 at 6:34 pm #
(1254 comments total)
[Part II]
As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack’s taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed “sound byte” and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.
I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not […word(s) missing…] reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation’s first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.
Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama’s “Spiritual Biography.” Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of “Hannity and Colmes” is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.
The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth. I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or “spin” because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.
Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party’s national “blog.” The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior.
Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!
Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. ,
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisSenior Pastor
Trinity United Church of Christ
By Ted Swart, March 18 at 9:55 pm #
(109 comments total)
Re: Wright's letter to Jodi Kantor (courtesy of
Thank you so much for sharing this letter Maani. I certainly had not seen it before.
Reply to this | Report thisWright’s level of adulation with respect to Obama is nothing short of staggering.
The letter rings true and does seem to be genuine.
It is hard to know quite what to make of it.
You speak of it as being a “powerful” letter and there is a sense in which it is also a “scary” letter.
It is precisely the messianic fervour surrounding Obama which worries me. But realism tells me that he is likely to win the nomination for the Dems and go on to become president.
By Blackspeare, March 18 at 6:27 pm #
(175 comments total)
The problem with Reverend Wright’s comments, endlessly played on TV, is not so much what he said per se, but rather it’s effect upon those with latent anti-black sentiment looking for a reason not to vote for BHO should he be the nominee.
Reply to this | Report thisBy benza, March 18 at 3:46 pm #
(8 comments total)
Concentration of Thought
America why not open out a little of your myopic vision and look around you?
Reply to this | Report thisYou who enjoy 25 per cent of the world’s resources.
We do not grudge your hard work and quality leadership that brought you to this high standard of living.
But, just as you saw an inhuman, cruel dictator with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq . . . why not do something about that relentless dictator who has achieved many firsts for his nation, besides mass murders ?
The world’s highest inflation in the range of 100,000% ...
The world’s lowest life expectancy: 45 years ...
The world’s highest paid Army and Police 1 Billion Dollars a month ...
The world’s costliest cotton shirt 2 million dollars ...
The world’s first queueless petrol filling stations ... for they have nothing to fill with.
Does it prick your conscience America?
No, it wouldn’t, after the way you are reacting to Katrina !!!
By jbart, March 18 at 2:24 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Just responding to the theme of the article
Does the American public, at large, see Tiger Woods as a great Afro-American golfer, or just a great Golfer who is American? I see the latter. Nuff said.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy Margaret Currey, March 18 at 2:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Obama or Clinton
As a woman I would want Hillary she is smart as a tack I liked her expression that Wall is in the soup or something like that, of course I also like Obama and if he wins the nomination I will vote for him, he has a smart wife also.
This Wright thing is blown out of porportion, won’t people remember that what he said happened five years ago, and how many imflamatory speeches did he make is this the whole of the man, I think people should think how would I feel if I were in this man Wright’s shoes, the man fought for his country and I am sure that as a black in the Marines life was not always a picnic, I am not making apology for the man just asking people how would feel if you were in his shoes and in his skin?
I am for Hilliary if she wins the nomination, I am for Obama if he wins the nomination.
The man stands for his black brothers and sisters, and he also stands for his white brothers and sisters, people must remember he was raised in a time very different from his pastor, but the spin makers will play this for all its worth, and they will play it and play it and play it, and then when they are tired of that then they will go after his name, a name that was picked for him.
How in the world would he be a Muslim just because of his father’s name.
Kind of like the song a Boy Names Sue,
And another thought there is not one perfect candidate. But I will want change in the next administration.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Joe Sixpack, March 18 at 1:03 pm #
(258 comments total)
“Undoubtedbly, some of these views will get me in trouble, I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripe project their own views. As such I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them.”
Who said the above? Was it the amorphous John McCain or the deceptive Barak Obama?
You know, I’m sure that it was Obama. So let me ask you this. What do you see when you look at the blank screen? No matter what that might be, thanks to his love for his pastor, a growing number of people see a more elequent and socially acceptable version of Jessie Jackson at best and Louis Farrakhan at worst. He has become the black candidate. It is a mortal wound in this day and age, I am afraid. A more serious problem for Obama is his growing credibility issue. He’s playing loose with the truth on a regular basis. People have a strong sense of BS when they hear it.
Reply to this | Hide 5 replies | Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, March 18 at 3:03 pm #
(544 comments total)
Re:
Joe in Maine, weren’t you absolutely moved by his speech? I’m not a supporter of his but he sure caught my attention.
How can one man walk the DC tight wire and still harbor beliefs in an ideal America. I always said Kucinich should lie his way to the presidency--tell them what they want to hear--then, once elected, get on with his agenda. If Obama’s agenda in even close to what he spoke about, he’s the man.
I can’t begin to imagine any other candidate thinking or speaking in his terms.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy Joe Sixpack, March 19 at 9:23 am #
(258 comments total)
Re: Re:
I was moved, yes. I got a chill when he began the speech with the Lincoln line. I agree with much of what he spoke. I am only commenting on the speech because I believed it was critical moment for him. I am afraid that the elequence and poetry will be lost on the most important voting blocks in November. The speech was brillant but only pales when played back to back with “Nah Nah Nah God Damn America” in the mind of Joe Sixpack when he goes into the booth in November.
Report thisBy lib in texas, March 18 at 1:54 pm #
(293 comments total)
Re: Joe in Maine
thank you for you comment. I was beginning to wonder if no one cared about honesty. Its pretty important to me.
Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report thisBy lib in texas, March 19 at 5:55 am #
(293 comments total)
Re: Re: Joe in Maine
Cyrena there you go with your magical powers. You have NO idea about anything. Go back down in your favorite rabbit hole.
Report thisBy cyrena, March 18 at 2:06 pm #
(4023 comments total)
Re: Re: Joe in Maine
If you all cared about honesty, we would know it by now. You’ve proved otherwise.
Report thisBy brewerstroupe, March 18 at 11:18 am #
(68 comments total)
Blind test
A little off-topic but bear with me.
I have long suspected that the dumbing down of Americans may be due to an additive commonly found in Coca Cola which my studies have implicated in premature softening of the brain. I wonder if posters would kindly add a number to the bottom of their posts. This number should correspond to the amount, in litres, of Coca Cola they consume per day. I would then like to compare the result with posts made which ignore the following facts.
1. Voters who are likely to be influenced by Obama’s name are not part of his constituency, never have been and never will be.
2. Voters who are likely to be influenced by something his pastor said five years ago and ignore McCain’s links to fundaloonie Hagee are not part of his constituency, never have been and never will be.
3. Voters, already aware of Obama’s name and pastor, comprise a constituency far greater than Hillary’s or McCain’s.
4. Whoever gets the nomination will be “swiftboated” fiercely by the opposing side given the parlous state of American politics (possibly resulting from the “soft-brain/Coca Cola syndrome). Obama has already demonstrated his superior ability to deal with this type of attack.
(Those posters who stump for Hillary because of the likelihood that she will lose to McCain need not participate. The inability to recognise a McCain Presidency as four more disastrous years of Bushism indicates a degree of brain softness that might distort the statistical curve and is most likely congenital).
Appreciate your cooperation.
Reply to this | Hide 4 replies | Report thisBy cyrena, March 18 at 3:03 pm #
(4023 comments total)
Re: Blind test
Brewerstroupe..
I agree 1000% with your statements here, 1-4, having reached the very same conclusions myself.
Now, on my Coca-Cola usage…
For the first 40 years of my life, I simply didn’t much drink soda of any kind. (didn’t like the carbonation).
But then, just under a decade or so ago, I started drinking Coca-Cola. Not on a daily basis mind you, and not even more than maybe once or twice a week.
Still...based on the reaction from the ‘youngsters’ in the family, you would have thought they’d caught me ‘shooting up’ or something.
When I ordered a Coke with my popcorn at the movie theater, my nephew very solemnly advised me that if I was going to indulge in something so unhealthy, I should at least be very careful upon ordering, and to make sure that I specifically indicated that it was COCA-COLA that I was asking for, and NOT ‘coke’. He said: “ya know Auntie Cyrena, ya just never know what you’ll get!”
And I responded, “Well Mr. Nephew, I have $1.17 cents here, to pay for my ‘coke’. If they (whomever ‘they’ are) give me something other than ‘coca-cola’, I’m damn sure taking it!” However, I really didn’t expect such an error to occur.
That said, I DO still ‘indulge’ in the occasional Coca-Cola, (especially when I need a jolt of caffeine, and it’s cheaper than coffee) but only occasionally.
So, I think my brain is probably still OK, though, if it wasn’t, I probably wouldn’t know it, eh?
Reply to this | Report thisBy Maani, March 18 at 1:47 pm #
(1254 comments total)
Re: Blind test
BT:
Since I drink no Coca-Cola at all, I guess that makes me “tough-brained.” If so, that must, in turn, make my opinions less “dumbed down” than those of Obama supporters who DO drink Coke, particulary those who drink alot of it.
And this would be especialy true of my comments to Aegrus re the Obama supporters here who are foolish enough to believe that Hillary and McCain are “the same” - without question the most “soft-brained” comment I have heard yet.
Peace.
Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report thisBy Maani, March 18 at 6:10 pm #
(1254 comments total)
Re: Re: Blind test
Leefeller:
“Has to do with the war, Hillary seems to like the concept of the war, she has not shown otherwise.”
Even if I agreed with this, you are getting as obsessive and myopic as MMC. There are dozens of issues facing the country and the world - economic, environmental, judicial, etc. - not just a single one. Maybe Hillary IS “the same” as McCain re war (though I disagree). But that does not mean she is the same IN EVERY OTHER REGARD. Indeed, her ideas and positions on almost everything else are so clearly better than McCain’s that it is almost laughable.
If you are truly going to sit it out or vote for McCain SOLELY because of her vote for the war, you are truly cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Peace.
Report thisBy Leefeller, March 18 at 4:17 pm #
(1215 comments total)
Re: Re: Blind test
Has to do with the war, Hillary seems to like the concept of the war, she has not shown otherwise.
Report thisBy Malcolm Martin, March 18 at 10:00 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The writing is on the wall. In order to be elected President of the United States Barak Obama must do a magic trick. He must become a white man.
First Obama was ambushed in a nationally televised debate and challenged to reject and condemn Minister Louis Farrakhan. Minister Farrakhan had dared to say about Barak Obama, “This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better.” The demand that the intellectual author and leader of the redemptive Million Man March be denounced came from the minds of men who would see Obama dead before they would see him president but “this young man” went to his knees and separated himself from a father who loves him.
The lynch party then moved closer. Rush Limbaugh, one of the most vicious and dangerous racists in human history, ranted that Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., the minister who married Obama and his wife Michelle, the iconic leader of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago since 1972, is a “race-baiter and a hatemonger.” A national Limbaugh-led mob howled that this holy man must be denounced and renounced, and again for the sake of his chances to be president, Obama knelt before them and called Rev. Wright’s profound truth telling “inflammatory and appalling.”
As he answers the hounds questions about his pastor Barak Obama must be heartsick. In that heart he knows where this is going. The racists will not stop at Minister Farrakhan or Rev. Wright. The mouths of their blood-red faces will screech at Obama to deny his Kenyan father and his African name, especially his middle name. Then the test will become to reject the support of Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and the others who prepared the ground for him. Then Michelle Obama will have to be muzzled if she continues acting as a strong outspoken Black woman. Then a calming excuse will have to found for his people’s growing pride and excitement in his candidacy. The admiration and support of the African-American people and 91% of the Black vote in a Mississippi primary victory will never do. Why, that’s not the way America elects its president!
Have no illusions about Barak Obama. He is auditioning with the ruling class in this campaign for president. He is desperately trying to convince them an Obama Administration would be business as usual, his empty rhetoric about change notwithstanding. That’s why he is willing to throw his pastor of 20 years and spiritual mentor over the side on command.
But this goes beyond Obama the Black man and candidate for president. Something the ruling class can never permit must happen before Obama can be elected. In all future primaries and in the general election, if he gets that far, Obama will win 90-plus% of the Black vote and his people will turn out in record numbers. But he will win the nomination and then the presidency only with a substantial number of white working class votes. Oh, the unity!
Such unity would shake this county’s ever constricting capitalist bourgeois democracy to its foundation. One of the main engines of that capitalist economy is racism. For the sake of profits racial divisions and the super exploitation of workers of color must be kept intact—at all costs.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Joe Sixpack, March 18 at 9:56 am #
(258 comments total)
I am a Democrat that has watched my party nominate Kerry and get Bush. Before that we nominated Gore and got Bush. Before Clinton we nominated Dukakis and got Bush, nominated Mondale and got Reagan. We nominated McGovern and got Nixon. We nominated Humphry and got Nixon.
I am a Democrat and I want to WIN!
Do I believe that Obama would be a great President? Yes I do. Do I believe he can get elected? No way. He is a fatally-flawed candidate. It doesn’t even pass the quickest of smell tests. Let me illustrate what I mean.
Katie Couric: Senator Obama, Senator McCain, thank you both for participating in tonight’s first debate for the presidency. First question to you Senator McCain. You’ve made speeches that suggest your opponent isn’t ready to be POTUS. Can you explain whay you believe this to be the case.
McCain. Thank you Katie it’s great to be here tonight. My friends, I want to assure you that Barak Obama is a good and decent man. It’s an honor to share the debate stage with him tonight. You have inspired millions to get involved in the political process and I commend you for that. I say to you senator Obama that I respect your story and your life’s journey that has brought you to this stage tonight. I have joked many times on the campaign trail that I will try my best not to hold your youth and inexperience against you but like any good joke, there is a small truth buried in the humor. I feel strongly that this must be said. Let me be very clear on my experience. I was educated at the Naval Acadamy. I flew an A-4 in Vietnam and saw many of my shipmates die in a ill-concieved foreign conflict. I was a POW and fought to keep my fellow prisoners safe. I was elected to congress in 1982 as part of the Reagan Revolution. I have served in the senate for over 20 years and always served and loved this great country to the best of my ability for over 50 years. I have to say that the American people, in this time of war and uncertainty, have to be sure of the qualifications of it’s next leader. When the American people are given the choice between a one-third of one term freshman senator, a man who has seemingly been running for president since his speech at the democratic national convention and has never served a day in public life when he was not running for a higher office, and myself, I feel very confident that my life experiences will prevail.
Katie Couric: Senator Obama, your reaction?
Obama: Ahhhhhhh. Yeah. What he said. Oh wait.
GAME OVER
Reply to this | Hide 14 replies | Report thisBy August West, March 18 at 5:05 pm #
(23 comments total)
Re: Joe in Maine
Katie Couric: Senator Obama, your reaction?
Obama:Thank you Katie and I thank my esteemed colleague who has served his nation well in public service. The Constitution of the United States requires the President to be a natural born citizen at least thirty-five years of age and who has resided in the United States for at least fourteen years. Both Senator McCain and I meet the consitutional qualifications. But when you cast your ballot you will be determining the critical question of this generation: whether we continue with the policies of misguided, interminable wars that are bankrupting our nation, whether under the guise of free trade we continue to move millions of good-paying jobs overseas, you are not simply voting for the candidate who has spent the larger number of years in the political establishment. You are voting for diplomacy instead of aggression; you are voting for jobs in this country, not abroad. You are voting for fiscal responsibility, not throwing trillions of dollars into never-ending wars that do not make us more secure but which secure more money for war profiteers. The question is not experience, but the ability to lead this country away from the failed policies of George W. Bush. I am the only candidate on this stage who pledged to do just that.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy bert, March 19 at 7:00 pm #
(679 comments total)
August West
And in less than one hour after that response Republicans make a $5,000,000 ad buy in the swing states and run nearly non-stop ads of Rev. Wright’s speeches. See Joe of Maine’s excellent post of a possible ad in this vein on some thread here in Truth Dig.
Report thisBy bert, March 18 at 11:28 am #
(679 comments total)
Another Reply To Aegrus
You write: “Just like these folks who say Wright will damn Obama’s campaign are living in a fantasy land. The speech today is just the beginning.”
We said that back in the 60’s and 70’s too. The Age of Aquarius and all that.
I am a pragmatic and like Joe in Maine have seen to many of my hopes and dreams dashed on McGovern, Carter(second campaign) Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.
I want to win in 2008 and unfortunately I think Obama may be too damaged now. You are right. No one has a crystal ball and can see into the future. Only time will tell.
But we don’t have much time left to choose a nominee that can win, or has to MOST and the BEST chance of beating McCain.
We will have to see what polls say in the next few weeks. I know a lot of you don’t like polls, and I know I have railed her in the past that they are not predictive. They are only a snapshot in time. But if Obama is not able to get past these negatives it is a bad omen for Denocratic chances in Nov.
Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report thisBy lib in texas, March 18 at 2:02 pm #
(293 comments total)
Re: CNN for Obama
Cafferty file tonight thinks Hillary should drop out so Obama can win. Things like this just floor me. Obama doesn’t have a chance in hell. These Obamoites are just making sure McCain wins. 600,000
Report thisAmericans have moved to Canada in the last couple of years. If McCain wins I may join them.
By Aegrus, March 18 at 11:33 am #
(685 comments total)
Re: Another Reply To Aegrus
You’re not pragmatic, you’re skeptical. That skepticism is perfectly valid, and I applaud you for reserving your judgment. Still, the practical point of the matter is that Barack is winning and has more than a chance to trump everyone who comes along.
This is not the 60s or 70s. Yes, looking to the past is a great indicator of the future, YET this is a campaign not precedented before. The climate is different. There are other variables, and you’re only looking at half the details.
Read my text. John McCain is NOT going to win! Anyone who thinks his candidacy has a chance is lying to themselves. He is well-liked, but is completely amorphous. The man is an illusion, and there isn’t any person who will run with him who can help his campaign.
Report thisBy Tom Semioli, March 18 at 11:27 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: Joe In Maine
What would be the victory if Hillary is elected?
Reply to this | Report thisBy bert, March 18 at 11:16 am #
(679 comments total)
Reply to Aegrus
You write: “We can sit here and debate, discuss, argue and vent for days, but there is NO WAY John McCain can handle ANY economic question.”
McCain won’t have to in the eyes of a msjority of voters in a general election. G. Bush could barely get theough a debate. He could not debate economics either. Many times he just babbled. He was terrible.
But Bush won the election. Twice !!!!
The MAJORITY of voters often, maybe most times, seldom vote on particular issues and know a lot less about them than we on this blog know.
Most voters vote on gut instinct - do I like this guy or not. And many Americans love a war hero. Even I have deep respect for McCain and what he went through as a POW. Not enough to vote for him. But he is a true war hero.
That will appeal to a lot of voters and will trump anything he says on the economy and a whole host of other issues.
Reply to this | Hide 4 replies | Report thisBy Maani, March 18 at 1:40 pm #
(1254 comments total)
Re: Reply to Aegrus
Aegrus:
Thank you for bringing up the SC. This is yet ANOTHER EXTREME difference between Hillary and McCain: there is no question that Hillary’s choices would be WAY to the left of McCain’s, even if they are only centrist, since we KNOW that McCain would pick more Scalias and Thomases.
So if Hillary does happen to win the nomination, and Obama supporters vote for McCain, they will have no one but themselves to blame when McCain nominates Bill Kristol to the SC. LOL.
Peace.
Report thisBy Aegrus, March 18 at 12:38 pm #
(685 comments total)
Re: Reply to Aegrus
It was not meant to associate you with them so much as it is a view I have that all of you have some inherent skepticism and anti-Obama sentiments. They serve only to try and derail the steadfast.
I’ll say right now, unequivocally, that anyone voting for McCain is not a progressive and is voting against American interests. The SUPREME COURT is more important than Hillary or Barack winning the Democratic Nomination. John McCain has no plan for the economy, getting us out of Iraq and will support neo-conservative supreme court and attorney generals. IT IS NOT IN OUR INTEREST TO VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN!
Report thisBy Maani, March 18 at 12:16 pm #
(1254 comments total)
Re: Reply to Aegrus
Aegrus:
“Not you, Maani, Lib, Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol, Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan or Tucker Carlson will be able to stop a damn thing.”
First, I resent being put in the same company as Limbaugh, Kristol, Hannity and Buchanan. I am FAR smarter than ALL of them. LOL.
Second, you assume I am trying to “stop” something. I am not. Yes, I support Hillary and would like to see her win the nomination. Because I continue to believe that she will be the more effective candidate and the more effective president. That is my opinion; you have yours.
But I am full ready to support Obama if he becomes the Dem nominee, while you and other Obama supporters here are NOT ready to support Hillary if SHE becomes the Dem nominee. This is significant. Because the foolishness about Hillary being “the same” as McCain is the same as Nader’s bluster in 2000 about Gore and Bush being “Tweedledum and Tweedledee”; i.e., “the same.” Anyone who believ