Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Jeremiah Wright: What exactly is wrong with this dude?
I don't get it.
Prior to today, I'd seen a few people say Barack's pastor was "problematic" or whatever, and it seemed to me like it was hushed up, and sort of pushed to the side in the campaign. I never really looked into it, other than to google it briefly and see that some people thought he was an extremist. I was sort of glad Barack had distanced himself a bit.
In a thread at EC earlier today someone posted a couple of video clips that based on their comments seem to be designed to discredit Barack based on excerpts of some of the Rev. Wright's sermons. I clicked to see what the big deal was.
Maybe it's just me. Maybe growing up as a Chicana Catholic in Utah has radicalized me more than I realized, but as far as I can tell this dude is just right. I don't know why this is even an issue (other than the fact that it makes people uncomfortable to hear the truth). If I lived in Chicago, and he hadn't retired, I'd go to his service after Mass, because I think he's saying things that need to be said despite the fact that they are uncomfortable.
Since when is speaking truth to power a bad thing?
What kind of craptastic society have we created where the following two clips can be viewed as damning critiques of a man?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzhl-endvco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA
Two caveats:
First, I'm talking substance here, not reaction. I get that the comments on these alone prove that America is not ready to confront these issues in such a way. I get that. But we here at TPMCafe are ostensibly a rational, throughtful bunch, right? So please try to answer my query with something other than a critique that reads something like "the content is fine, but the delivery is toxic."
Second, I've only viewed these two clips. I'm not fully emeshed in the Jeremiah Wright story yet. If there are other, more inflammatory incidents, please let me know. My position on this is malleable. I just had to get this off my chest before doing some more homework on this, because after listening to these, and having them posted as some form of evidence against Barack, I was sort of appalled, because I'm pretty sure this just makes me like the dude more.
Comments (27)
Yeah, this is being played as some kind of tit-for-tat over the Ferraro debacle, but it's not. I watched them also and what he appears to be saying is that rich, white people run America and that racism isn't dead yet. What's to disagree with here? In light of all the horse-shit country-club racism and sophistic gymnastics I've seen in the last week in an effort the equivocate ("Ferraro's comments aren't racist, they're racially charged."), I'd say this guy has been vindicated.
March 13, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
The most inflammatory thing I can find that he's said is "US-KKK-A" which seems to be rhetorical license aimed at the idea that the United States has many policies that harm racial minorities. Look at prison stats, this seems to be a big "Duh" to me. I guess the "Blowback" style comments that reference Ward Churchill's (Chickens Coming Home to Roost) arguments re: 9/11 could offend some, but again, I'm pretty sure that's just true. Uncomfortable, but true.
I can't believe this guy's been placed in holding for so long. I'm more appalled that at least a portion of the Democratic party seems to agree that that is necessary.
March 13, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus was a black man.
Jesus wasn't racist.
ERGO... black people are not racist!
Simple. And if you disagree, you are a racist and you don't matter.
March 13, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are the Pete Sampras of missing the point.
March 13, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a political campaign in America. Being right has little to do with it.
March 13, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it's obvious why it's a political hot potato for Obama, but objectively I see nothing false about what he's saying.
March 13, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I'm still waiting for someone to point out what exactly he's said that is so wrong?
March 13, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find his comments to be extremely offensive. I've attended some black church services -- I have never heard a black minister say such things -- ex. saying that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its onw "terrorism"
The ministers I heard talked of love, not hate. I do not recall Martin Luther King speaking hateful thoughts.
The Trumpet, Wright's church's magazine, gave an award last year to Louis Farrakkan, well-known for his anti-semitic statements.
The information about the Trumpet was on the church's website until recently.
March 13, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, reality check: Terrorism is the use of violence in order to coerce for political purposes. See: Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. This is to say nothing about Latin America.
Realize that he's only saying what Ron Paul said so bravely and plainly and that objections you're raising are the same as those raised by the likes of Giuliani. No one is saying it is America's "fault." What they are saying is simple truth: As you sow, so shall you reap. Take some time to learn about the history of US foreign policy with respect for the Middle East. Pay particular attention to Afghanistan.
This head-in-the-sand mentality is exactly why patently stupid ideas like "they hate us because we're so good" were and are so widely accepted.
March 13, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. These are the types of comments I was hoping for so I can tease some of this out. I guess my question would be, do you have a problem with the content of what he is saying, or do you have a problem with the fact that a preacher said it? From your comment I gather that ministers are supposed to be all about love/optimism? They aren't supposed to point out the uncomfortable truths? Again, your problem seems to be delivery and not content.
I want to know what makes this man so toxic because of content.
I mean, I think the concept of blowback re: terrorism is pretty well established. I'm not offended by that idea, I find it slightly uncomfortable, but generally true.
The Farrakhan thing I can see as a problem, I admit, but I guess I'd be curious what the award was for? I highly doubt it had "awesome anti-semite" engraved on it, yeah?
March 13, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is pathetic! It is funny to see Obamabots defending a clergyman who hates America. Try this in the General Election. Yes, we still have racism so the good pastor is right to call this country the "US of KKK". How enlightened you are, Obamabots!!!
March 13, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you disagree, I take it? The fact that 12.3% of the population is African American, yet they make up 40% + of the prison population is not people crying foul on racism, it's people whining?
As far as I can tell, this man doesn't hate America, he wants to save it from itself.
March 13, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, you're not allowed to bring up completely legitimate facts like that. It's "playing the race card."
March 13, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I'm worried about. If we can't make that point legitimately to TPMer's what are the odds the rest of the country can take it?
March 13, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, I've been wondering the same thing. I'm honestly surprised at some of the stuff I've seen here of late. And I was sure I'm a cynic.
March 13, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, my perceptions that Clinton's supporters grow more to resemble the Republicans are vindicated. What could be more Republican that equating criticism of American policies with hatred for America? Professional jingoists like Hannity and Coulter couldn't do it any better than you just did.
March 13, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe your comments or even the premise of this entire post. We had a conversation last night about the meaning of racism. Your candidate has come out and said Ferraro's comments are not racist. Yet you, in anger continued to call it racist.
Today you have the gall to come out and defend Wright while claiming that it is the truth. Its not about the truth. Its about what constitutes racism. If you don't think that Wright is spewing racist remarks, I don't know where you are coming from. Not to mention, that Wright is breaking the law by endorsing a candidate in a church. As a non-profit, you can't endorse candidates.
I'm beginning to believe that you are an extreme right mole, trying to insight division. Or you are an extreme left fundamentalist twisting anything to fit your reality. Either way you have lost all credibility!
March 13, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't have to call her racist for me to judge her as such. He isn't my leader, just my favored candidate. You can think of me as angry if it makes you feel better.
What is racist about what he's saying? This country isn't run by rich, white guys? I want to show you something:
http://z.about.com/d/civilliberty/1/0/l/0/-/-/partialbirth.jpg
This is one of my favorite pictures of all time. Do you know what it is? It's nine wealthy, white men beaming over Bush while he signs the "partial-birth" abortion ban. Ten white men determining the rights of women. This is our country, airwon.
I didn't hear him say endorse once. He's giving his view on why he thinks people are down on Obama. He's got First Amendment rights, just like anyone else. I'll take you seriously when you tell me that Regent University and all of Pat Robertson's operations should be shut down for being funded with tax-exempt contributions.
I don't really give a flying you-know-what at a rolling donut what you think I am. I haven't seen you make one comment that isn't totally specious. You never had any credibility with me to lose, so right back you, slugger. I don't really care that small minds like yours don't want to see bigger pictures. If you do, great. If not, oh well.
43 Presidents, airwon. Every single one an affluent, white man. First one to get within spitting distance is only there because he's black and I'm not supposed to take that as racist. Forgive me, but I smell bullshit. Truth is, he barely had a chance because he's black. And he knows he's not supposed to say that. If Ferraro hadn't come around, he never would have, but I'm under no such restrictions.
Telling me I've lost credibility with you is like Clinton offering the VP to the front-runner.
March 13, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see it as a problem on the scale of the Ferraro comments. But Wright could become one of those boogeymen that the right-wing uses to scare voters about Obama, suggesting he's "too black" or too far to the left.
March 13, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. Bogeyman. Hard to deal with. My question is simple:
Is he wrong?
March 13, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
My God, if you people don't have a problem with what this man is saying, how far gone can you be?
What this guy is saying, explicitly, proudly, and publicly, is like what Anne Coulter would write in a parody of a radical liberal.
And of course if she were to imply that there were liberals who hated America, you'd all be outraged to the point of apoplexy at the injustice of the observation. How dare any right wing nut question my patriotism! Have you no decency, sir!
Yet here you are, mostly just agreeing with this lunatic Wright.
You can't even see yourselves. You're simply ridiculous.
March 13, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think it's obvious, I really don't get it. What is wrong with what Rev. Wright is saying. Really? What is so wrong with it?
March 13, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are apparently intellectually incapable, as is Coulter, of separating criticism of American policies and hatred for America. This is the objection to Coulter's characterizations of the left. Now, back to Free Republic with you.
March 13, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The middle-of-the-road Democrats -- the Reagan Democrats -- conservative Democrats -- will not be impressed by the words of Rev. Wright and the fact that he has served as a mentor to Sen. Obama.
This country has come a long way on civil rights since the sixties when so much important legislation was passed. Actually, Brown vs. the Board of Topeka was a major decision for civil rights.
Before those laws were passed in the sixties, black people couldn't even eat in restaurants, they couldn't stay in motels/hotels, there were separate drinking fountains, etc. in southern states.
The northern states weren't perfect either.
All the protests in the fifties and sixties lead by King and his followers conbined with the passage of the laws through the work of President Lyndon Johnson made great change possible.
This country has made great strides in civil rights.
I do not understand why Dr. Wright would need to fill his sermons with hate.
March 13, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The so-called "Reagan Democrats" are the voters who enabled Reagan. They may not like what Rev. Wright has to say, but they are exactly the kind of people who need to hear it.
It is true that this country has made great strides in civil rights, but that is not the only true narrative about race in America. What Rev. Wright is saying is also true. And listening with my ears, it did not sound "hateful" to me -- why did it sound hateful to you? He was simply telling the truth -- that America is run by white elites. Is this not true?
From a tactical standpoint I understand that such a video can be used by Obama's enemies to tar him as an "extremist". But on the other hand, do we really want another President who can't stand to hear the truth told about America?
March 13, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
you may feel Reagan Democrats 'need to hear' the kind of thing Wright is saying, but if you actually care about Obama becoming President, you'd better prefer they hear it after he's been elected. A huge bloc of Americans is still trying to make out what they think of this non-white guy with the funny name, and when they see clips of that candidate's 'spiritual advisor' on TV yelling that they should be singing "G.D. America" and the country should be called "US-KKK-A", some of them are going to pull back in fear. It takes alot to get most people to think outside the box and Obama's done a great job with that. But there will always be those who don't need much to make them run back to the Devil they Know (meaning the Clintons or the Republican Party).
Barely 50 years ago, Americans weren't sure they could trust a white Catholic in the White House. After JFK became President and the Pope didn't move into the White House, that fear vanished. Obama isn't in the White House yet-and unfortunately, Wright is going to hurt the chances of that happening alot more than help them.
March 14, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wright's comment re 9/11 that the 'chickens came home to roost' is what Malcolm X said after the JFK assassination, and it got him suspended as spokesman for the Nation of Islam because Elijah Muhammad recognized the PR problems.
March 14, 2008 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment