Barack Obama for President
I supported John Edwards earlier in this campaign. When he dropped out, I became a probable Obama supporter. I liked him enough, I was excited about the… excitement, and I think Hillary Clinton, who would make a decent President, is sort of a war monger.
So, I had this whole post written in my head, where I was going to go through the thought process whereby I was picking Obama. There were his positives, his negatives; Clinton’s positives, Clinton’s negatives. It felt a lot like how I came to weigh all my choices and vote for Mike Nutter last year. Obama would have my vote and I would root hard for him in the primary, but there was not a whole lot of investment from my perspective.
I just watched Obama’s speech about race, and the comments that his pastor, Jeremiah Wright made that have brought Obama under fire from the right-wing media (which then leaked into the mainstream media). For those who missed it, his pastor said things like this:
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
Well, let me first say on those words:
God Damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.
I am a patriotic American. In my ultra-privileged life, I have had the opportunity to wear the American flag on my chest, representing our Country at International races, hearing announcers call “United States of America” and realizing they were referring to me. (It is a crazy moment every time you hear it.) I dream every day of- and put my life on hold- to try to have the honor of representing our Country at the Olympics. And, one of the most emotional times of my life was when I was abroad during the September 11th attacks and stood in a blocks long line at our Embassy, just so I could touch our flag. I love this Country, and have been privileged by so many people and institutions within it...
But, God Damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.
In any case, Obama has come under all kinds of fire for these words of Jeremiah Wright. And so, today he gave what he billed as a major speech on race. I thought it would basically be Obama throwing his preacher under the bus, and asking for unity. Hey, that is politics, baby. We don't get people talking bluntly about these things, at least not until they are out of office.
Instead, I was continually stunned. Yes, he condemned the specific remarks of his pastor, which I suppose is necessary for a major party candidate for President. But, then said something to the effect of (I am paraphrasing) "I can no more disown him than I can disown my church or the entire black community." He said that while the specific tenor of the remarks were wrong, to condemn them without understanding the context in which they were made was ridiculous. And then he talked poetically and bluntly about race, racism, and the legacies of segregation and slavery. It was without question the best speech about race in our Country that I have ever heard a current national leader give.
He said that we all must understand the world in which African-American churches exist in, with segregated, crappy schools that are still segregated and still crappy. He talked about the lack of health care, and jobs. And, echoing the Constitution and Frederick Douglass, he talked about a union that is never perfect, but can be ever more perfected. And he then brought around inequality, and talked about the challenges we all face, of every race: the white woman hitting a glass ceiling, the white man laid off in a search for corporate profits, and an immigrant struggling to feed his family. He talked bluntly about the stain of slavery, but did so in a way imploring us to follow our better angels.
Obama could have gone another way here, because there is almost a 100 percent chance that he will be the Democratic nominee anyway. But he didn’t. From our own City, he challenged our Country to face the legacies of race and inequality.
Today, Barack Obama became a President in my mind, and I am excited to click his name in four weeks.
Although I wish that Obama
and Jerome Wright and a country full of disempowered and disenfranchised black and poor people were free to damn America as insistently as Dan did above, or at all (without a nationally televised apology for black anger)...
...it was so good and important that the speech attempted to force the country and the ridiculously bad media to confront these things.
Ah, but...
... we have an extremely good media from the GOP POV. Remember: one of the two things the GOP learned from Watergate was to control the media, and how better to control it than by owning it. The other thing they learned to was to count the votes themselves, which gave us Shrub.
Lesson learned from Caesar, though,
-Z
Video of the Speech
And the photo is courtesy of
And the photo is courtesy of Seth Williams, who was in the front row.
Buried.
The lie that this historic American somehow lacks substance.
Yep. Bury that lie forever.
"A More Perfect Union"
Words do matter, and I found today's speech powerful, inspirational and most importantly "REAL". Too often when we discuss race relations we speak in terms of statistics, ancient history, or just the macro level. Senator Obama's speech today was very personal. He acknowledged our personal and collective shortcomings while challenging us to live up to the full meaning of the 4,440 word document written in Philly that we know as our constitution.
The speech was very personal, and the words came alive as he shared the tale of his family.
"We cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we
solve them together - unless we perfect our union by
understanding that we may have different stories,
but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the
same and we may not have come from the same place,
but we all want to move in the same direction -
towards a better future for our children and our
grandchildren. This beleif comes from my unyielding
faith in the decency and generosity of the American
people. But it also comes from my own American
story."
He then went on to describe, being the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. How he was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived the depression and fought in patton's Army. How his grandmother worked during WWII on a bomber assembly line at Ft. Leavenworth. How he has gone to the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations (Indonesisa). He spoke of being married to a black american woman who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners. At that point I looked over at Mrs. Obama and she was crying, as was the man sitting next to her.
Dan mentioned Senator Obama denouncing specific remarks made by his former pastor. What I found most powerful was how he described his white grandmother and some of her insensitive actions and words. He said that he knows his grandmother loved him more than anything else in the world. She sacrificed for him, so that he could go to a good school and have his needs taken care of. he also knwe that she was afraid of the black men that often stood with her at the bus stop, and that she on occasion had used racial epithets. But he could no more disavow himself from Rev. Wright than he could disavow himself from his grndmother...because he knew the full measure of each of them...not just their faults.
I was moved. When we get beyond the macro level and really talk about race and racism we can really see how stupid the generalities can be.
I could go on and on and on about how I felt as I listened, and how it made me grapple with my own success
and failures. As I stood and applauded at the end, I was proud to be an American, and energized to make the world better for my daughters and grand-daughter.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
Seth
I was thinking about this more last night
I think another function of the privilege Dan invokes in what he wrote is that people with privilege have the luxury of a basically unconscious knowledge of the fact that those who govern reflect our interests.
We might disagree sharply with government's priorities, be screwed by limited student loans, or not personally benefit from a host of policies aimed to help the very most privileged among the privileged. But government basically serves us and preserves our status.
Hearing a lot of people with less privilege (economic, racial) talk about their emotional response to that speech, I see how radical and rare it is for so many people to hear their needs or experience acknowledged and voiced by those in power. Many people who did not live through the Civil Rights movement, and came of age during the Reagan or post-Reagan years, have never heard it.
So while I have the additional luxury of worrying about "will this translate into concrete actions to bring about racial and economic justice," and "does the unity that is being invoked really push people to confront difference, or does it let them elide it," I don't want to minimize the fact that, sadly, just speaking these things in this election is itself radical.
Obama and Corporate Greed As A Root Issue
"Black anger" and "white resentments," he said, have "distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle-class squeeze: a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed."
Anyone ever read about Penny Pritzker, Obama's Senate and Prez finance chair?
Superior Bank, half-owned by the wealthy Pritzker family, was shut down by the FDIC Friday after a bailout plan by the Pritzkers, who own the Hyatt Hotel chain, and their partner, New York real estate developer Alvin Dworman, fell through. The bank failed because it had lost nearly all of its more than $2 billion of assets on bad loans to high-risk borrowers, federal regulators said.
The FDIC reopened the bank Monday as Superior Federal and is seeking a buyer and a new CEO.
Superior's failure could cost the FDIC $500 million or more--some observers now are pegging the loss at closer to $1 billion, one of the largest bank failures ever.
On September 11, 2001, Ellen Seidman, Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, told the Senate Banking Committee:
Superior, which had assets of $1.8 billion as of June 30, 2001, became critically undercapitalized largely due to incorrect accounting treatment and aggressive assumptions for valuing complicated financial instruments known as residuals. "The risk from a concentration in residuals at Superior was exacerbated by a faulty accounting opinion by the institution’s external auditors that caused capital to be significantly overstated, and by management and board recalcitrance in acting on regulatory recommendations, directives and orders."
http://obamasdeckofcards.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-subprime-problem.ht...
I taught a student this text today
There is something astonishing about Obama's ability to take on a political issue and to fight the concrete fight while also having the capacity to reach for something much larger, even historical. To borrow a Simpsonsism, he consistently embiggens what sometimes seems like a very small-minded election cycle.
I gave my first donation to the Obama campaign today
I gave my first donation to the Obama campaign today. The candidacy of Barack Obama represents an opportunity for this country which I don’t think we can afford to pass up.
I started out as a Hillary supporter and really tried to talk myself into sticking with her, but just could not do it. However, because of my close connections with organizations which support Clinton, I was reluctant to openly support Obama and have my name show up on an Obama fundraising report.
Today, the Obama campaign sent out an appeal directly linked to yesterday’s speech. The campaign would surely like to announce a tremendous fundraising surge after that speech.
And after yesterday’s speech, I've decided this is too important to stand on the sidelines and I should make whatever contributions I can.
Whatever happens in the campaign, Obama has made a major contribution to advancing our understanding of our country's legacy of racial discrimination.
I must have a callous over my soul
I watched the speech last night and, while I'm a Hillary supporter, I can usually do a good job of hearing what's cool about another candidate even if I'm not for them. For example, as crazy liberal as I am, I can sometimes feel what GOP rank-and-filers feel when listening to Republican candidates.
I really really focused on just listening to the guy and not thinking about it within the context of a campaign when I watched it. The result?
This speech did not hit me like it did anyone else. I mean, it was fine. It was personal. It had a story, but it didn't electrify me or really grab me in any particular way. He explained a long relationship with a guy who sometimes says really off-putting stuff. I'm down with that. I often say really off-putting stuff and I'm glad I don't get permanently vilified for it.
But people keep talking about this thing as if it were the LETTER FROM A BIRMINGHAM CITY JAIL, but, I have to say, it didn't do anything special for me. The message I heard was that if we all just thought about things differently then the culture might change. Uh... great.
Maybe I've grown too cynical? Or maybe I watched the wrong speech on YouTube. I don't know.
---
This Too Will Pass, treating grave matters lightly and light matters gravely, since 2001.
Make a little birdhouse in your soul
Come on Brady. Did Obama say something about race and class yesterday, or provide an analysis, that some of us don't already believe/have? No.
But have you ever heard an elected official say anything like that, or come as close to indicting corporate America as he did? Especially in a Presidential race?
No.
Never.
No Way.
It was pretty amazingly cool.
Ray, I leave the nightlight on inside the birdhouse in my soul
OK, I went and hunted down the text and found that I had watched a pretty clipped version of it on YouTube. Curse you, curse you, YouTube. This never would have happened if Google hadn't taken over.
OK, that didn't make any sense.
Anyway.... mea culpa: it's much better than I thought. It's a good speech. I'd missed a lot of it with the version I watched and I should have doublechecked.
Not enough to bring me over, no huge insights, but a good speech. I was wondering where the heck the great rhetoric and charisma was in the version I watched and it turns out the version I saw was all of the plateau in the middle and not the ascensions at the beginning and end. That story at the end was pretty great, too. Not going to lie. But it's an Organizing story so I guess I'm pretty biased.
Very, very glad to see that he seems to describe working on certain tangible problems as key to making progress on a history of discrimination. Still, it's for progress on those very specific and complicated matters (with many vested interests involved) that means I remain for Hillary Clinton, for President, this time around.
---
For Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination for President.
This Too Will Pass, treating grave matters lightly and light matters gravely, since 2001.
Sure, blame Google for your
Sure, blame Google for your heartlessness. Google took over and then uncapped YouTube's 7 minute limit.
I make no sense
It can't be helped. I tried and tried for years but I've given up.
---
For Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination for President.
This Too Will Pass, treating grave matters lightly and light matters gravely
The spirit and the letter
The irony of Obama's race speech is that it doesn't go for the sublime in a rah-rah rally way. It's an exercise in reason from someone who was a lawyer and professor before he became an elected politician. It actually reads better than it plays on video -- although the "not this time" moment is pretty cool.
That's partly why one of the stranger criticisms in the press have been the underestimate-middle-America/horserace analyses: "Does this help Obama put the distance between himself and his preacher? What do white Ohioans think?"
As Jon Stewart said the other day, a politician spoke to America about race as though we were grown-ups.
It seems like at some point this past weekend Obama said to himself: "I might not win this election, or even the nomination. But not this way, not this time. If I win, it will be because I talked to America like a grown-up."
And when the Republican who's supposed to be the most mature and have the most integrity can sing "Bomb Iran" as a joke, and after a President with all the maturity of the spoiled kid from "The Toy," talking like grown-ups sounds pretty good.
Church of the Advocate
this is something of an aside, but thinking about gap in perception behind this controversy over Reverand Wright's statements, it brings to mind the incredibly charged and confrontational images on the walls of the Church of the Advocate, right here on Diamond Street in North Philly.
Joseph, sold into slavery by his brothers.
The lord smote the first-born of Egypt.
Frederick Douglass as Moses, leading the slaves out of Egypt.
The pharoah in pursuit, shown as Bull Connor and the Jim Crow police.
(More YPP book club stuff--you can read about the political-historical context of those paintings in this biography of the church's Father Paul Washington.)
First public reaction
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/gallup_hillary_a...
So far, the public remains hostile to Rev. Wright; right now Clinton is up 7 nationally over Obama according to Gallup
Irony time
I know it's a long time ago- most people put the political memory of US citizens at ~ 2 years- but doesn't anyone recall what people like Pat Robertson + Jerry Falwell - each heroes to the Rebooblcan Right- said right after 9/11? How Falwell said we deserved it?
Compare this to what the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said, and the latter's a sweetheard in comparison. Note the pastor's first name, too: Jeremiah. That was the biblical prophet who lent his name to the 'jeremiad,' defined by Wikipedia as "Jeremiad is a long literary work, usually in prose, but sometimes in poetry, in which the author bitterly laments the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and always contains a prophecy of society's imminent downfall." So, if anything, the Rev. Wright is merely being true to his name when he calls out perceived faults in US society.
Does this mean that he is correct? As they say, a prophet is never heeded in his own time. But one cannot condemn Sen. Obama's connection with a pastor whose words regarding the US' faults are tame next to those used by those paragons of the GOP, the 'Rev.' Jerry Falwell and 'Rev.' Pat Robinson. I put 'Rev.' in quotes b/c 'reverend' is an adjective customarily used by members of the clergy (indeed, British Rabbis are also referred to as being 'Revered'). But in the case of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robison, neither man has come close to earning that privlege.
Obama/Richardson '08,
-Z
When I saw the Rev. Wright
When I saw the Rev. Wright videos, I thought the exact same thing - that his statements are tame compared to what was said by the religious right in the days after 9-11. And that the fact that the MSM runs with this story and not similar stories exposing what is said in ministries patronized by the white men of the Republican party definitely is fertile ground for comment as to the disparate standards that our society as a whole applies to white and black culture.
As an additional comment, I do not doubt that it was not a coincidence that Pat Robertson was among the first to issue statements praising Obama's speech. He knows that if the same light was ever shown on the stuff that was said at sermons attended by those on the religious right, an entire wing of the Republican party would be discredited.
Like I've said repeatedly...
... the MSM is *wonderful* if you're a Rebooblican.
-Z
Poll numbers likely reflect responses before the speech
And should be contextualized with the other numbers from this week that show Obama leading Clinton.
Second glances like Brady's (though not decisive in his case) will likely help Obama.
Gallup's polling was done AFTER
And that's the one where Clinton is ahead by 7
BTW, a nice video of generals endorsing Clinton: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_generals_bolster_clinton.h...
including Wes Clark
And Rasmussen showed the
And Rasmussen showed the opposite.
Clinton has very little chance at winning the nominee.
Is this 100% certain?
Is there any way that the superdelegates could swing the nomination to HRC? Remember: the Democratic Party has shown a remarkable ability to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. * Will Rogers
-Z
Sorry Katmandu, the Gallup poll is dated 3/18
And represents, if you read the fine print,"a rolling three day average."
That means the poll started two days before the speech and ended some time on the day Obama spoke.
And even if the last numbers for the poll were taken after Obama spoke, it wouldn't matter that much because he spoke in the morning...while most people were at work.
The relevant post-speech poll would START after most people got to see and hear the Obama speech, and the media's reaction's to it, on tv. The real post-speech polls started after the news cycle at 11:00 last night, certainly AFTER the present Gallup poll was finished.
Since you're spinning so hard, you might want to avoid Adam Nagourney's piece at the top of the present New York Times' front page. It's called "Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination."
Obama may lose Presidency but we all won -- until we all lose
As someone who has attended Black Churches most of my life, I don't believe that the vast majority of folks who do not attend Black churches are aware about how controversial many of the sermons heard in older Civil Rights oriented churches are. While God D**n America is at the extreme, it is by no means inconsistent with some of the dogma preached at many churches. Consistently, you will hear sermons that are out front in blaming the problems of the African American community on racism, and many will lay the blame at Whites. (Sometimes generally, many times specifically, e.g., President Bush or President Reagan.) As an example I have had heard President Reagan compared with Satan himself on many an occasion. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was called a racial epithet from the pulpit derogatory term by a prominent Black pastor -- who currently supports Hillary Clinton -- on Easter Sunday. Out of context, these comments can seem harsh judgments out of the line of the ministry of Jesus -- to forgive those who have wronged you. But in any event, those kinds of statements prevent many African Americans from inviting White friends to church.
The language is intended to speak truth to power, and in the spirit of those who organized the community for civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws, but it can sound sometimes like more old school Malcolm than Martin. (This is not all Black churches, but it is a lot. I don't have stats, just my experience.)
Of course, there is a movement of primarily younger pastors who are seeking to preach a dogma focused on economic empowerment and another group seeking to apply the Bible's prescriptions to everyday life. The practical implication of that movement is that younger African Americans -- often middle class -- are growing weary of hearing a dogma preached in church that focuses incessantly on negative depictions of others, but rather a positive empowering view of ourselves. I don't mean to suggest that every Sunday in every Black Church you will hear negative comments about Whites generally or Whites in positions of power, but you will hear them in many on some occasions. (Of course there are others where the subject never comes up.)
Knowing all of what I have suggested, Barack Obama did not play the race card. He did not declare that he had been electronically lynched as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did during his nomination hearings. He explained the context behind those comments and urged that we get beyond them. He did not channel a common public perception of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton as race baiters, but rather Dr. Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail.
In so doing, he challenged the African American community to move beyond elements that would seek to stoke the flames perceptions of racial injustice and pride to move towards building bridges again with other groups.
Many African Americans also assume that many Whites who have a different view of the racial inequality than Blacks hold that view because they are racist and that there is some vast White conspiracy (which works out of the same building as Hillary Clinton's vast right wing conspiracy and shares staff and letterhead.)
Rather than pass up the opportunity to explain the view of Whites who feel disenfranchised by shifting economic and political sands, Barack explained their angst. In so doing, he painted a view of America that sought to build bridges rather than fences between the races.
He honestly addressed race. His speech drew comparisons rather than contrasts. He showed how is grandmother and Reverend Wright could both have wrongheaded views on race, but were worthy our our love. (That is the message of the Christian Faith.)
The speech was so uncommon because it was given by a politician. You know that class of folks who say nothing, take no firm positions, lie about little things, lie about big things, take no responsibility for the words coming out of their mouths, fight internecine battles ostensibly about issues, but more about control, read the paper for ideas on legislation, just to get into the paper for doing good work.
You know the types that promise Texas they are for free trade and comprehensive immigration reform, then promise Ohio that they are against NAFTA and all free trade and will tighten the borders and stop employers from hiring illegals taking their jobs, and then promise their contributors that they are for free trade and illegal immigration -- all in the same day.
He gave an intellectually honest speech. It challenged us to get beyond our current position to make the country better, on two of the toughest issues of our time, religion and race in the public sphere.
But it will not matter. By my count, it will be very hard for Barack not to win the Democratic nomination. If he has more votes, won more states and has more pledged delegates, the Democratic Party cannot take from him the nomination. Not after Florida in 2000. There will be a civil war, because Democrats really do believe in enfranchising all voters. It can't go down the way that an open seat in the middle of a term would in Philly -- ward leaders picking a member of the party faithful who could not win in an open election, regardless of the Vote. (Hillary's not Carol Campbell, but you get the point.)
The problem is while I understand Reverend Wright, most of America doesn't know much about Barack Obama other than he has a funny name, a white mom from Kansas, a Black dad from Kenya, went to Harvard, is married to someone who is not proud of America and he is the member of a Black cult that is the Christian version of the Nation of Islam.
The last two are fatal. And that right wing conspiracy that some think is a joke, is just getting cranked up. You will hear more and more sermons. More incendiary than the next. The Media will get spun again. (First in not asking any questions, then believing that they were a bunch of liberal pansies drinking Obamaid.) They'll publish the stories, run some more "Do you think America is ready for a Black man who knows some Angry Black men polls?" Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck will don their self righteous masks and shock at the stupidity of America's liberal left who want to have Americans die in Al Qaeda wars for political correctness sake.
Rush Limbaugh will report that Barack Obama has agreed to make Jesse Jackson Secretary of State, Al Sharpton Attorney General (waiving the requirement of being a lawyer) and Milton Street head of the IRS.
And all of those Reagan Democrats (who live all throughout Pennsylvania and other Rust Belt States), will vote Republican. Suburban Soccer moms will vote Republican. Barack will start to lose to McCain by 20-30 points, and will not keep traditional Blue States on the coast in play. Florida and Ohio go to McCain.
I hope I am wrong. But that's pretty much how I remember Mondale and Ferraro. What's sad, is that picture I have painted will only serve to calcify the exact attitudes Barack spoke against. Some Blacks will believe he was robbed by the same group of people that have always sought to bring down Blacks. Some Whites will believe that most African Americans secretly want a government handout over more qualified whites. And no progress will be made. It'll be 1968 all over again, and we'll all lose.
__________________________________________________________________________
I support Barack Obama
Thanks for cheering me up, truthtold , :-)
Great post. Thanks.
I fear and suspect you are correct in your analysis. I'd like to think that even if you are correct about the outcome of the election, Obama could be a leader going forward in advancing race relations in this country; but there too, I'm not particularly hopeful.
I've already seen much evidence that the right-wing is spinning Obama's speech as justifying "victimization" in the way you describe -- amazing as it is given that largely Obama's intent was to take the concept of victimization head on: balancing deftly on a razor's edge by neither accepting nor demonizing how both "white resentment" and "black anger" create obstacles to progress.
And I fear that the spinning of those right-wingers will only further entrench blacks and liberals in their mistrust and disbelief that conservatives and Republicans even desire to make progress on racial issues.
How difficult will it be, should Obama's potential be maginalized in that way, for another person to assume a leadership role on racial issues? How likely is it that another person would match his potential? Regardless of my precise analysis of where he falls on the left to right political spectrum, I think there is little doubt that has a unique blend of qualities, and an approach, that are not likely to be seen again for a long, long time.
Here is the irony
Well-summarized by Daniel Larison (who like Andrew Sullivan is a smart, idiosyncratic conservative blogger):
In other words, anger at Americans caused by killing of others is unacceptable, but coolly advocating killing of others by Americans is necessarily to be a "mature," "responsible" candidate. (The latter is the trap that Hillary found herself caught in, too, in voting for war in Iraq and aggressive action in Iran -- perhaps compounded by both her party and her gender.)
This is the other reason why this message is so timely, because it isn't only the legacy of race that's distorted our political discourse, but this war, like the Cold War before it. The acceptable platitudes have become so distorted that we need a reboot.
In the end, the election, like the last one, will come down to the war in Iraq. If people believe that McCain at the top will be better than Bush, and that the Democrats can't be trusted to be in charge, they'll vote for McCain. If they think that it's time for the troops to come home, they'll vote for Obama. And in ethnic white and Latino and black blue-collar communities, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, that will be (I hope) the real unifier.
The true hypocrisy of the
The true hypocrisy of the "right wing" is that they embrace the dogma of Evangelical Christianity as lyrics for their rallying cry against the left, and ignore the music of the Christian faith which accompanies those lyrics. Forgiveness of your enemies is at the heart of the faith. However, those same folks who clothe themselves as social conservatives overlook the fact that many communities of faith following the scriptures are anti-war.
It's pretty clear that the Scriptures provide generally that killing is wrong. But neo-cons on the right will blow past that particular scripture. A major tenet of the Christian faith requires believers to abstain from judging others. Of course that is just dictum uttered by Jesus. (I understand the contradiction there.)
I am not suggesting that that view of the Christian faith is the correct one, or that the Christian faith is the only one that should be followed -- as is seemingly assumed in this Church/State debate that takes place in conservative circles. It's just pure hypocrisy to use the banner of Christianity to justify war. The should be honest and say that United States hegemony is good for citizens of the United States -- i.e., might makes right.
For me, the War was a dumb idea from the start. I agree with Obama on that and Hillary's justification seemed odd then. (I knew the issue, she did not want to be painted as soft on terror by the Republicans so she voted for the war and then realized most Americans were/are opposed to it.)
The bigger issue is that I do think that it could be chaos if we pulled out precipitously. I also think that the government spends too much money, and should be cut back, and I think we need a strong defense because these terrorists seem hell bent on doing evil. And taxpayer bailouts of private actors is a bad use of our money. (All which would suggest I would be willing to entertain McCain, if those were my only issues.)
But of course what keeps me from jumping to the Dark Side of the Force is precisely the debate that occurs now. Barack Obama gives that speech and the Republicans wonder if he is lying and is really an anti-semite. (Hannity today asked that question.) Glenn Beck quotes a scholar, who Obama's pastor said he admires who wants to see White people killed. (I am not sure that is an accurate quote.) And I think, "Hmmmm... If the right wing of the Republican party is willing to go to those lengths, maybe we don't share common values."
The fear I have is that the dark room dwellers Democratic Party, concerned that Obama will be creamed by Pastor and vetting issues, will throw their support for Hillary Clinton when Barack has more votes. That will effectively take me and most folks like me out of national politics. Can't vote Republican, too many really crazy people are allowed in that tent. (Supremacists, Anti-Semites, Very Angry people tend to be Republican, even if a very small percentage.) And the Dems are poised nullify the popular vote. Can't support that either.
If that happens, the war won't be enough, because the votes that Dems will need to win will sit on their hands this election. That's my fear, and the ways around that result are not pretty. I'll try to be more cheery tomorrow.
The other side of the Christian message
It's also absolutely in keeping with Christian teaching to judge the secular world and political power harshly. "God damn America for as long as she believes that she is God and that she is supreme." That's pretty much the first of the ten commandments right there. The Catholic church has been extremely critical of the U.S.'s actions in Iraq and elsewhere on just this count.
I more or less agree with you about a "precipitous" pullout (after all, it's impossible to endorse pulling out "too soon"), but I think that's generally a straw man set up by people (usually on the right) who think any withdrawal would be a precipitous one. And I am more of a free-marketer than most people on this blog. I also think the country would have been better off if we had elected McCain in 2000 than Bush, but *much* better off if we had elected Gore.
This time around -- and I can speak only for myself -- I am finally seeing the kind of campaign and the kind of candidate that I've wanted. I don't have any particular interest in destructive purity, but if the U.S. still finds a way to turn this thing over to the Republicans, after everything that's happened over the last eight years, because of trivial soap-opera politics, then I just don't know what to think anymore.
It is so nice when Truthtold writes
There's a hopeful (and poignant, to me) article in the Times today about people using the speech or wanting to use the speech as a catalyst for thought and dialogue.
Before I went to bed last night,
I turned on the radio. Bill O'Reilly talking about racism.
Turned on the radio in the car today. Glen Beck talking about racism. Switched to NPR. A discussion about racism.
Pretty amazing, actually.
Of course, the right wingers were spinning away. Loved it when O'Reilly, after days and days of calling virtually all blacks racist, simply "outraged" at blacks calling him and other prominent conservatives racist. Not to mention that they're trashing Wright when the bulk of his message is to preach self-reliance in the black community - a philosophy very, very compatible with "conservative" dogma.
Which way will it go? Will putting racism back on the agenda lead to progress or just further resentment. You're always right about everything, Jennifer. What's the answer?
That a country that puts Glen Beck on the radio and tv
is deeply sick? I take comfort by the fact that Dan told me his show is the lowest rated on the station.
I don't know. I think a lot of my conflicted feelings have to do with how much I am looking for in this election and in the democratic candidate (and I'm not the only one) and what politicians can really give us. But I have been rethinking some of my early antagonism to the unity rhetoric, if not the 'hope' stuff. Like I said above, I think it is pretty radical to have someone ascending to power who is reflecting and voicing your experience, if you are part of a marginalized group. That that is not just symbolic.
I have (had) been wondering a lot about what the constituency is that is shaping around Obama, because it did not to me seem to reflect a coherency of interests, particularly economically. But I think very simply there is a chance for someone with an acute personal concern with racial justice to be in the highest single position of power, and there is a clear constituency that benefits from that--whatever the other conflicting interests under the unity tent are.
And I share some of Truthtold's deep fears about how the country responds to all this--because to me, though I know it is not this simple, it feels like if this campaign fails then the country has rejected all the justice and transformation that it has invoked and offered. Man, am I finally buying into the symbolic resonance of all this.
It's a shocker
Only slightly less shocking than that I find myself buying into it also.
I guess here is my self-psychoanalysis
I wanted a candidate who spoke to ME--to all the things I am worried and despairing about. And I felt like I deserved it, because things have been SO BAD, and if now is not the time for real radical change, for the confrontation of corrupt and exclusive power, when is? For god's sake, the 'new gilded age' thing was a full-on trope.
And Barack Obama did not speak to me, or at least was not voicing the things I thought needed to be voiced. We don't need unity, that's smoke and mirrors, we need confrontation. Blah blah. So of course Edwards came closest. It was kind of like the Nutter-mania during that election--he was speaking directly to everything all my law school classmates felt was wrong with the city and embodying its brave new efficient tax-cutting prosperous future. But he wasn't speaking to me.
But this isn't about me. And that is what I was missing. I so desperately wanted a candidate that I could be invested in, but it matters more I think that so many other people are invested in Obama. I didn't see why, but it isn't all about me. I realized this before, when I knew I would vote for Obama because, if people believe they are voting for transformative change--even if I think that is not exactly rational--I think that is good. And now I get, emotionally, how profound it is for people to feel like a politician is speaking to their priorities and experiences, even if I don't share in that.
God, this is confessional.
look who's speaking
yea, Jennifer I hear that. On a a tangential note, the "reasoned" white reserve on Obama's speech begins (from the "I'm not a racist, I just hate to see race/class warfare/conflict" camp) began in the WaPO. Despite many disagreements with this piece, all I have to ask now is if this the criticism of Wright came from a space alien:
Maybe I am just a Philadelphian, but we've been talking about some of that stuff on the playground since I was in the 3rd grade. Is any of it that outrageous?
All of that stuff, while not
All of that stuff, while not new, it is out there. And while its wrongheaded in my view, it is not inconsistent with radical thought -- hence, how it made it into the playgrounds everywhere.
Here are the two problems that those statements create.
1. People believe that Barack Obama had to know that guy was way out there. He is not a native to Chicago, but his wife is. There is no suggestion that is the Church she grew up in. (If it was, they could cut him a lot of slack for joining.) But because that guy is way out there, he had to know that in a national campaign for President this would come up. Average people I think are shocked because it cuts against the grain of his candidacy -- a post-racial candidate. But this stuff is standard Black Power fare. Which suggests to them that he is less candid version of what people think of Al Sharpton. And he secretly agrees with those points. Which is not what some people think of a president.
2. Others believe that he is a member of that church to shore up his credentials in the Black community. He is not from Chicago, did not go to school in Chicago, and did not have long ties. Assuming Chicago is like Philly, all of that stuff can be fatal in running for office.
So here's what they think happened, in his first musings about public life, he was up against a candidate with real Chicago credentials. (Think, guy whose parents went to Neumann and Goretti, separately, his dad was a cop, his mom was a teacher, he went to Central and then Temple and Temple Law at night, and has lived on the same street as his grandparents, in the house he grew up in, and is a Mummer) for a political race in South Philly. The African American version is something like mom went to William Penn HS, Dad went to Gratz, mom was a teacher, dad was cop (or worked for the City), son went to Central (that part always seems to be the same), onto Temple and Temple Law and lives in the house he grew up in after his parents moved to Germantown and the family are members of Bright Hope Baptist Church/Sharon Baptist Church/Zion Baptist Church/Thankful Baptist Church.) You get the point.
Barack had to get some credentials and Trinity UCC may have been one of them.
Nothing wrong with that, per se. But it suggests political maneuvering that seems more like the politics of the past than the future.
My thoughts are that both may have been true, but short of shooting the guy, I don't know why we require political leaders to be accountable for their pastors or religion, if we believe them to be independent actors. The reason is that America looks to elect leaders who fit a mold, independent of their compentency. That really didn't do us too well last time....
I got that
yea, I get your meta-analysis. The reason I posed the question was more of a "just us chickens" thing, like don't people wonder about crack and the CIA for real? Etc.
Didn't mean to answer with
Didn't mean to answer with meta-analysis. I don't think Middle America believes that it's government is responsible for hurting people. I am willing to entertain the idea, which apparently makes me (and you perhaps) anarchists to them..
so this is worth a gander
check out the entire Rev. Wright sermon here:
the cat has been let out of the bag in terms of some Americans' racist response to Obama, but the context of the "God Damn" America quotes is important. the sermon is basically a report on comments made by Admiral Peck following Sept. 11. not at all as has been portrayed so far...
Way out there
I did not grow up in Chicago, but I lived there and had some experience with Trinity Church.
One of the things remarkable about Trinity is its high patronage of black professionals and especially intellectuals. A lot has been made of its "anti-middle-class" message, but most of what that is about is an exhortation for black professionals to live in and remain politically engaged in their communities. It's simultaneously heavy on social justice and theology. In other words, the Obamas are pretty much the target audience.
The other thing remarkable about Trinity (and Rev. Wright in particular) is its/his welcoming of the gay and lesbian community, as church members (including a gay and lesbian singles night), since the 1970s. In 1990, Wright was singular in this regard.
What I have also heard is that Wright's sermons became more paranoid and aggressive in this decade, as he neared retirement.
On Wright being "outrageous"
Please. The "outrage" falls into two camps. The first is phony - used as a pretense to pursue a partisan agenda of attacking Obama. The second may be more heartfelt, but is largely an outgrowth of the right-wing echo chamber pursuing a partisan agenda of attacking Obama.
The problem is that we have two main streams in the "MSM": One which is ostensibly "neutral" and has dropped the ball in putting Wright's career and sermons in context. The other which is outwardly partisan to the Republican Party.
Not that I needed to tell you that - but I wanted to vent.
PS: Well, I guess there is a third stream: YPP, baby.
True confessions:
I guess the shift for me was rooted in that simply, in tandem with the specifics of issues and politics, I look for some degree of authenticity in candidates.
My initial distrust in Obama came from his message of "putting religious values back into the Democratic party." It continued as there did seem to me to be a lack of a clear definition as a "progressive." But as he's been conducting his campaign, I have come to have an increasing perception of an integrity in how he is running for the presidency. Either that, or I'm getting increasingly sentimental in my dotage. Either way, his speech on race only solidified that sentiment.
I was not originally an
I was not originally an Obama supporter. I thought to myself this guy does not have near the experience to get elected. Aside from that, other than that very nice speech at the DNC, what qualified him to be president?
I thought very highly of Clinton's presidency. While there were a couple of substantive issues we disagreed on, and I really did not appreciate the Monica Lewinsky thing, because I thought it set the party back, I loved being a Democrat during that time.
So Hillary seemed to me to be an acceptable extension of that.
But as I listened to Barack Obama I realized how jaded I had become about all sorts of American institutions. I viewed the head of virtually every institution as a hypocrit. Pastors who preach chastity and then sleep with boys or every woman in Church. Politicians who rail against special interests and are taking bribes, or rail against prostitution but are johns. Lawyers, Bankers, etc. I had really lost faith.
As a political person, I stopped expecting our elected leaders to do anything. I justified it under the rubric that government is incapable of solving most problems and will create many more by their intervention. So I sought out candidates who were opposed to people I truly disliked. Not for anyone, because I assumed they would find some way to disappoint.
As I listened to Obama, I thought here is a chance to turn the feeling of the Country. A chance to be for something, inspired like the folks during the 60s. Whether it was Civil Rights, Anti War, etc. They were guided by a higher cause, and I wanted/want to be similarly inspired and the Country to have a sense of unified common spirit.
I don't defend Barack's candidacy on his positions. Most of the platform that Presidential candidates discuss can't get done by fiat, the Legislative and Judicial branches of government will see to that. So its not as much about policy but about judgment and a tone to lead the Country.
And Barack seems honest and candid. Not a lot of BS.
But then again, he is a politician, and I have been hoodwinked before. My feeling is the difference is that we will start to expect more from our political discourse than mudslinging and heighten the debate. Less Ann Coulter, more Gwen Ifill.
But I have been wrong before....
REV WRIGHT WAS QUOTING US AMBASSADOR
THE MEDIA IS NOT DOING ITS JOB WORTH A YOU KNOW WHAT!!
LISTEN TO THE SERMON YOURSELF. HE STATES AT ABOUT THE 20 MINUTE MARK THAT HE HEARD US AMBASSADOR EDWARD PECK ON FOX SAYING THIS AFTER 9/11 -- Listen to the sermon yourself.
http://essence.typepad.com/news/2008/03/listen-to-rev-j.html
FURTHER -- THIS LOOKS LIKE WHEN THEY SAT ON THIER HANDS WITH THE LEAD UP TO THE IRAQ WAR!!!
The Clinton’s are named defendants in a Civil Fraud Case connected to Campaign Finance irregularities and have not disclosed the appeal of the case. There will be a trial date set at a hearing on April 25th, just 3 days after the key Pennsylvania Primary for the Fraud Case Paul v. Clinton in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiff says he will call Gov Rendell will be a witness in the case. He probably should not be raising funds for Michigan until he has answered questions about this 2000 Clinton Fundraiser. From what I understand, this case began when prior to Sen. Clinton’s 2000 New York Senate campaign and also raised donations for Pres. Clinton’s Library.
We don’t know the Clinton’s side of the story because they have not disclosed this. But Peter Paul tells his side of the story on Video.
Just Google: “Hillary Uncensored”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019
Los Angeles Superior Court of Appeals: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org
Then click on Civil Case Summaries and enter case number to see case history.
Case Number: BC304174
Los Angeles Superior Court Public Information Office at (213) 974-5227.
The GOP has utilized the services of a 527 Citizen’s United to produce a 90 Minute Movie they are already showing to defeat her in the Fall if she wins the nomination. THEY USE THIS FRAUD CASE IN THEIR MOVIE AS ONE OF MANY REASONS SHE SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT.
This is the Movie that the Citizens United has created for the GOP to for the Fall.
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_PEHskBuQg
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5_SfPvtY-s
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rog6WBL7jog
4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqlYlTxnUdE
5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9hXf5yckbY
6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKftVPA85jI
7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCQOgTKtNhA
8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRHPrjf4h6g
9) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm-5MrOrqPE
I'm confused, Confused
First, thanks for providing the Wright clip. It really is absolutely stunning that the "chickens" line was quoting an American ambassador. Not one time in all the times I've heard that clip played or referenced has anyone explained that aspect of the context. Also interesting that when you listen to the entire sermon, it becomes perfectly clear just how phony is the manufactured "outrage" about Wright.
But here's why I'm confused: One would think that you would object to smear campaigns based on publicizing misleading attacks. I watched about 2 minutes of the first attack-Clinton video you linked - and it is an assemblage of misleading garbage. For example, zooming in on one word in a headline - "GUILTY" - as if it was part of a headline that actually said that Clinton was found guilty of something?
Why would you promote the same baseless attacks that have wrongly been used against Obama? You do a disservice to Obama's campaign. You don't need to link bogus clips on a progressive website to prove that the right wing will do their level best to smear whichever candidate gets the nomination.
RIGHT OF VOTERS TO KNOW & SUPPRESION OF THE MEDIA
Allow me to ask a few questions:
1) were you aware of the fraud case, or the appeal of the fraud case that was granted in January?
2) were you aware that the media has refused to cover an actual case. (I called the court house myself and read the documents online).
3) why would the media not cover the largest campaign finance fraud case in history of a presidential candidate? Obama is not a defendant in the Rezko case, yet he attracted coverage for it.
4) the GOP's 527 has already been shoiwng this movie in theatres. Could it be that tehy would prefer Clinton over Obama.