Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
So White People Can Freely Talk About Black Problems Angrily...and Blacks Can't?
In a presidential debate in the summer of 2007 in front of a black audience, Hillary Clinton addressed angrily the AIDS problem saying:
"Let me put this in perspective...if HIV AIDS was the leading cause of death of white women..there would be an outrage, outcry in this country!!".Now... If a black preacher, or even Obama, said that with that much anger and enthusiasm...why is it "militant", "racist", "ungrateful", "un-american" "anti-white", "over-hyped black grievance" which are the words I hear being used on the morning talk shows, radio, newspapers and blogs.
By the way, I was originally for Edwards and I am now equally for Clinton and Obama and what Clinton says is the truth and it is something to be angry about. John Edwards expressed the same rage throughout his campaign. But the reception is only acceptable to the majority of the white demographic of America only if it is said by a white person.
On related note:
Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" but When my Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero
by Frank Schaeffer
When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.
Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.
Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American.
Consider a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies.
Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:
If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.And this:
In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union....Then this:
There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop).
Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements.
Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance."
We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did.
My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany.
The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that (in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed.
The far right Republicans are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point. There is plenty to yell about these days.
Advertisement
Comments (48)
I agree.
This is a GOP/Foxnews/Rightwing smear and fear attack. McCarthyism mixed with Racism at its best.
The MSM tone about Wright is fundamentally prejudiced. We have white pundits gets all huffy and scared because a popwerful black preacher is angry at American arrogance and racism. I note that the MSM doesn't invite any black commentators to give THEIR view. It's only the white perspective. (And of course, conveniently, white fire-and-brimstone preachers get a pass -- why? because of the white comfort level) The response to this is totally irrational. Wright is proudly black and indignant about Americas failings. BO aside, I think the MSM is, to borrow a phrase, truly engaging in a "high tech lynching" here.
As an aside, the WaPo columnist Colby King, a black man, said he has heard preachers like Wright many times before. He said it is a way for the black community to vent their frustrations. And he pointed out that the most segregated day of the week is Sunday morning. Apart from him, I haven't seen anyone ask a black person for their perspective on this. Just whites talking about white's feelings.
--------------
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bOOL3BYaIEQ
"Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America "you are too arrogant, and if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God. Men will beat their swords into plowshafts and their spears into pruning hooks, and nations shall not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore." I don't know about you, I ain't going to study war anymore."
Martin Luther King Jr.
Address to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (1967-08-16)
March 16, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
American King James Version
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume
all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
ALL These Kingdoms
Now if the Preacher Wright, had said: One of these Kingdoms to be destroyed, is the Anglo-American World Power, he would have antagonized the religious right.
Much like when the Scribes and Pharisee class objected to hearing, the temple would be destroyed, and the leaders called it blaspheme. Invoking the right to crucify the messenger.
March 16, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have given the Verse, to give it the credit. Daniel 2:44
March 16, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's with your "white demographic," Chris?
Years ago my sister asked my father living in a small town in eastern Oregon if it would be all right if she brought a black boyfriend home from San Francisco.
Dad always wanted to be understanding about such things.
Dad said it would be all right with him but you know how the neighbors talk. The way the neighbors talk is very important to the Irish.
My sister then asked if it would be all right if she brought an English boyfriend home.
"Bring the black guy," Dad ordered.
Maybe you are talking about "anglos" for real?
You sure ain't talking about the O'bamas.
Best, Terry
March 16, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
problem with coherency,,,
March 17, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes it takes a few readings to understand Terry! :-D
His point (as it often is when he comments on posts regarding race) is that attitudes are more complex than some of us realize. These conversations are full of generalizations we sometimes take for granted. He just challenges some of those, I guess.
March 17, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so damn right, and great piece by Frank Schaeffer! Kudos!!! Can you please cross-post this to MJ Rosenberg's piece on the relevance of Wright?
March 16, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is hypocrisy about far right people criticizing Obama for his spiritual associations, given that so many on the far right have worshiped with and under the influence of, far worse.
But people on the secular left are free to raise an eyebrow at Obama without answering that charge. It's Wright's irrational and acerbic opinions that are at issue here, and Obama's financial and emotional (but likely not intellectual) support of them that are at issue. Any secular thinker would be able to say that Obama is wrong to be associated with this religious thinker without having hypocrisy raised as an issue. Secular leftists don't share the far right's history of supporting the insane just because they believe in a god.
Indeed, the most apt equivalence in Obama and McCain here. Both have made their political careers as secular (by American standards) politicians and yet both have associated themselves with religious extremists.
March 17, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor23,
Irrational? Really?
When we visited the African-American museum on Beacon Hill in Boston, housed in the very first public school for the children of freed slaves, I mentioned to the volunteers their rather shabby offerings were hardly comparable to the opulence of the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, VA, where they celebrate the glorious fight for slavery with elan.
Our guide in Richmond, and a most fascinating and knowledgeable fellow he was, was - an African-American. Hey, we are talking history.
For some it is not yet history but I loved the touch akin to the armed Mexican guard preventing us from disturbing the Alamo before its opening.
No doubt Wright's anger led him down some ugly dead-ends. No one engineered AIDS to wipe out "blacks," for instance. Even the theory that it was an unintended consequence of development of the Salk vaccine has been refuted.
But shouldn't you be angry too about the past history of slavery and segregation and discrimination that is kept alive by Hillary and her surrogates?
It is a fine thing to bury the dead but not such a fine thing to desecrate their struggles against oppression. It is the latter which keeps evil from the past from staying buried.
Erin go bragh. Down with the bloody British. Vote O'bama. LOL!
JMO.
Best, Terry
March 17, 2008 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terry: "But shouldn't you be angry too about the past history of slavery and segregation and discrimination that is kept alive by Hillary"
Such an idiotic statement on so many levels.
Moving on though - I'm not American, and I'm not an ethnic minority, so it's hard to understand the slavery issue and how it affects black mentality. I can understand being aggrieved at any racism that still lingers in society today, but I don't understand why the fact that your ancestors were slaves is a cause for anger. We all got here one way or another - some of our ancestors undoubtedly behaved immorally, whether they knew it at the time or not, and others who suffered as a consequence of such actions. Slavery was rife in Africa long before white people arrived, as it was in Europe within white ethnicities.
So, all I'm really saying is that discrimination based on race, sex, class, age, accent and any other identifier is a part of all our histories. We should learn about it to inform our opinions today, but getting angry about the past simply isn't helpful.
And neither are stupid, uninformed statements from people like you, Terry. Bandying around the term racist inappropriately merely weakens it.
March 17, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Foreigner,
You really should not talk with such authority about things you know nothing about. You stated yourself that you know very little about slavery or its' affects but you still choose to advance conclusions based on that ignorance.
March 17, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, do point out the errors in my thinking; that's how we learn, and I want to learn.
Don't tell me not to put forward my thoughts because I'm ignorant, however. That'd be like me saying you shouldn't write just because your grammar ("its'") and spelling ("affects") is severely flawed.
March 17, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Racism is far from over in this country.
A few years ago, I lived upstairs from a black family. He was medical technician and she was a teacher. They have two lovely daughters and are respectable member of society.
When we would go run errands together, I was ashamed of the way people behaved. At the CVS, they were clearly watching her with suspicion. There was *always* an employee in the aisle with her. Every time we went. I am white, and have never experienced such a thing.
This is just a small example of the constant bombardment of degradradation and disrespect launched at a person of color in the United States. People of color are arrested for crimes at much higher rates than white people who commit the same crimes. They are denied services based on the color of their skin. They are assumed to have less intelligence. They are beat up or even killed. They are denied promotions and equal pay checks. It is a daily abuse that eats away the soul of anyone who doesn't have a way to express the effects of this inhumanity. Like Pavlov's dog, you come to accept or even seek the abuses because they have been meted out along with the means of your survival.
The miracle is that that there any people of color who do not harbor deep, bitter, suspicion of the institutions of this country. If there is any truth at all to Ferraro's comments of last week - which I found deplorable - it is that we have every reason to have even *more* respect and admiration for someone of color who has managed to rise above and make positive contributions to our society and offer us a vision for a way forward.
March 17, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Racism is far from over in this country."
Indeed. If Jim Crow was as dead as they say, Harold Ford Jr. would be in congress.
March 17, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foreigner,
Sigh. I wish it could be as simple as you describe. If you haven't lived in this country, it may be harder to understand how the vestiges of black oppression can survive (and even thrive) for so long. "Slavery's over. The problem has been fixed, already," you may hear some right-wing American voices complain. Unfortunately, oppression of blacks (and all other oppressed groups) didn't end. As horrific as slavery was, the period of Jim Crow, when black Americans had no guarantees of legal or political protection in this country, wasn't an improvement. We probably all know how post-slavery blacks were kept from voting and fully participating in white society. But Jim Crow was much, much worse than even that. It was a period of true terrorism. When whites wanted to get revenge on blacks, they frequently had blacks brought up on bogus criminal charges--conviction waseasily achieved by all-white, black-hating juries. Or, if whites didn't want to go to the time and trouble of manufacturing a bogus trial and conviction, they simply lynched blacks. And these lynchings were never seriously investigated. They were tolerated and accepted. White outrage was virtually non-existent.
These actions were the prevailing accepted social standard, especially in the American South, until they started to receive national attention and growing denunciation during the 1960s and 1970s.
Deeply entrenched anger and distrust takes a long time to fade. We have to understand this. Attitudes and social conditions don't automatically change just because laws do. Fear, anger, and distrust will gradually fade, but it will take generations.
March 17, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, well Hillary didn't say "God damn America", did she? Wright has a point with black incarceration over drugs, and only there do I find his invective somewhat justified.
But women also suffer sexism at every turn. Should they run around being so angry about everything too? Or try to balance anger with positive action and simply living?
March 17, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't really mean to say that women haven't been angry and polemic? That women haven't cursed the Old White Boys Club of power?
I think you better get off this horse before it runs you over a cliff.
March 17, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said balance. Do you see balance in Rev. Wright?
March 17, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of Obama's "selling proposition" is that although black, he is not angry. A sort of political Will Smith. Reverend Wright damages that.
March 17, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, but you dont see a poll saying Hagee & Parsley did any damage to his electability. you see 56% of people now saying they are less committed to obama because of Wright.
March 17, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how Wright being angry makes Obama angry. This is a false logic.
Many Catholics support the right to abortion. The fact that their priests vehemently speak against this right doesn't make them less committed to it.
March 17, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
See folks, Seaton just showed you how concern trolling is supposed to be done. You're supposed to sound all thoughtful and sorrowful-like.
Of course, some of us have a clue about the real world and are aware that ANY Dem presidential candidate will be smeared by the Mighty Wurlitzer as an America-hating wacko.
March 17, 2008 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is totally true!
This is one of the best known truths of American politics.
If the "Mighty Wurlitze" can do that to a veteran, hero of Vietnam with a Silver Star on his chest like John Kerry, imagine what they can do to somebody who was "brought to Jesus", by a spiritual advisor who "Goddamns" America.
That is why I don't understand how somebody as smart, disciplined and on message as senator Barack Obama hadn't put a country mile between himself Jeremiah Wright years ago.
Go figure.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com ">http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
March 17, 2008 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That is why I don't understand how somebody as smart, disciplined and on message as senator Barack Obama hadn't put a country mile between himself Jeremiah Wright years ago."
I don't either, but let me guess. Because no one was asking Obama about Wright, years ago? Because Obama wasn't planning on running for President, years ago? Because no one outside Wright's church was interested in what Wright had to say, years ago?
Because Obama has put a country mile between his beliefs and Wright's statements but not Wright himself, that's not good enough for you? Because there's some timeline of milestones you keep that Obama must have attained in order to gain your approval?
March 17, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Good response, Aaron.
March 17, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as a secular leftist, Obama doesn't have to explain to me his association with Trinity UCC any more than he has in his books and his statements. Wright's anger over injustices suffered by black Americans and other people of color in the world, and even the extent to which conspiracy theories are invoked to explain how these injustices are perpetuated, is common currency in the discourse among many blacks. That this is shocking or surprising to many whites just illustrates the isolation of whites from black experience.
Obama's political philosophy and campaign have been about not the repudiation of this experience or sense of injustice or anger, but to describe a path toward transcendence and progress. And there is no inconsistency to his membership in the church and the political path he would have us all take. The path toward transcendence has to be rooted in what you seek to transcend -- the experience of injustice, the anger toward the injustice -- otherwise, the words are empty platitudes with no connection to the lives of people.
March 17, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, thank you so much!
March 17, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.theroot.com/id/45301
March 17, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Foreigner,
Most of my Saami ancestors have been exterminated so there is no need to be angry fir them at all. :-)
Segregation in this country was quite alive in the lifetime of many of us. It is not ancient history at all. Segregation laws are now gone but segregation remains through the customary means. African-Americans are shown rentals and houses for sale according to their perceived race so that they have their choice of such things as the worst schools and most crime-ridden neighborhoods. Loans carry higher interest, insurance is higher, penalties are more severe for any violations of the law, the list goes on and on.
Fine by you, foreigner?
Isn't by me.
Tough if that seems idiocy to you. Guess you will just have to learn to live with such idiocy. Life is full of hardship.
Best, Terry
March 17, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fine by me? What a ridiculous question, of course not. Discrimination is alive everywhere - and not solely racism, women on average earn far less for doing the same job - and I unquestionably think it's worth getting angry about, and that we need to fix it. Calling Hillary racist, is simply wrong, and won't help matters.
I was asking a question about people who do get angry over the way their ancestors were treated, and the value of it - nothing more.
Off-topic, but I've got quite a few Swedish friends, and often take them to task over the Sami. In fact I was up close to Lapland a few years ago; they make a mean reindeer stew!
"Guess you will just have to learn to live with such idiocy"
*sigh* I know. It isn't easy, though! :-)
March 17, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pay no mind to Terry. He likes to move the goal posts.
March 17, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may not be all bad after all even though you have Swedish friends. I did worse. I married one.
I only call Hillary a racist because she is one. I grant you it won't help matters. Truthfulness can be very hurtful.
Best, Terry
March 17, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we should discount whatever the far right thinks. McCain is polling abotu 40-45% on headtohead polls against either Dem. You have to assume tyhat sexists, bigots and other rightwings are already accounted for.
The mainstream media should not play into the rightwing noise machine's hands.
Remember Kerry's "botched joke"??? Typical example of a GOP hitjob.
The GOP smear foodchain:
GOP/Rove > Talk radio & blogs > FoxNews > Networks > Mainstream newspapers
The sooner we recongize that whenever Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh are opening their mouths they are lying, the better.
Stop the madness!
March 17, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
So White People Can Freely Talk About Black Problems Angrily...and Blacks Can't?
Thems ain't no Black problems, thems White problems.
March 17, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the real issue making slavery of Africans so painful is that it hasn't gone away yet.......IN AFRICA!
March 17, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an HRC supporter but I also believe the preacher was right about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all the 500 pound bombs in Iraq and 100,000's of Iraqi lives. I believe HRC shares much of the same philosophies with black churches in America she just would never say "God damn America" . Don't b;lame HRC for this story. Faux has been playing it forever. Obama knew about it from the beginning.
side comment notice the Friday night document dump. I don't say this to dump on Obama, just to illustrate that he is a politician, not the second coming. I welcome the humanity of it all. Including Bill's sexuality.
March 17, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
...i didnt blame hillary.
March 17, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re; the sexuality comment. I keep hearing how much everyone doesn't want Bill "lurking around the White House'. People who make Bill's sexuality a topic are the lurkers. We really shouldn't care who Bill is doing or where. It is private and should be protected.
don't mean to go off topic, just gonna go to work now and didn't want to leave my last comment hanging.
March 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem as I see it is that the Wright story makes Obama seem more distant to most whites. In some ways it is similar to Romney's Mormanism "problem". Both the black church and the morman church are hard for the majority of americans to understand. They seem foreign. I suppose jewish politicians would face a similar issue. I think a big part of Obama's appeal is his accessibility. It is easy to feel like you know him, but his relationship with Wright makes one question this assumption. This is sad. And sad for the United Church of Christ that I always felt was one of the most open and friendly faced churches out there.
JFK faced this problem with his Catholicism and overcame it to the benefit of catholic inclusion. Let's hope Obama is as successful in his speech.
March 17, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
chris,
For the sake of simplicity, remove Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Frank Schaeffer's 1970s and '80s references from the argument, and keep the focus tightly on Obama in 2008.
Question: So White People Can Freely Talk About Black Problems Angrily . . . and Blacks Can't?
Answer: Blacks might be able to if Barack Obama didn't "vehemently disagree and strongly condemn" Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "inflammatory and appalling . . . remarks about our country, our politics" (his words).
In his politically correct video response to his supporters ("I need all of your help in the coming weeks and months to please forward this video on and get this message out to everyone you can"), Obama refuses to utter "the statements," as he calls them, or what he thinks in contrast to those "statements." We are simply left to fill in the big fat blank with what we think he thinks.
I say "politically correct" because Obama focuses on his love of country ("I categorically denounce any statement that disparages this great country or serves to divide us from our allies") and his love of Jesus ("Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, the gospel on which I base my life"). By focusing strictly on a palatable and nonthreatening (to whites) version of himself, Obama throws Wright and the entire church under the bus. He reassures his white base about a "diverse congregation" that undertakes "housing the homeless" and "reaching out to those with HIV AIDS," and works "on behalf of the poor" to "seek justice at every turn."
To that I say, "BFD!" Many predominantly white ministries do the same work in their own communities.
Obama's deliberate vagueness ("In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue") by way of avoidance is not helpful to people who do not know very much about Obama or Wright's dogma. To coddle his confused white base, Obama never mentions the value of black experience, the problem of discrimination and racism in America, the burden of the legacy of slavery, etc. Obama's disconnect from Rev. Wright does a disservice to Wright, Wright's congregation, and African Americans in general.
chris says:
I would argue that the bigger issue here is that Obama just stifled the justifiably angry voices of African Americans for another generation. Do you find that acceptable? I don't.
March 17, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
the last quote you quoted from my post, well...im only reading the statistics which say 56% are less likely to vote for obama because of wright.
and if you read what i said regarding Hillary's AIDS statement, her anger IS justifiable. But my point was not to argue whether they were justifiable, but that only white people can get away with telling such truths emphatically and not have that irrational fear that her loyalties lie to 'black america' more than 'white america'.
i mean... obama's appeal to whites has been that image that he is the anti-al sharpton/jesse jackson. he's not about grievance, but instead, common ground.
March 17, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
chris,
There are lots of things we can read into the 56% figure, none of them definitive.
I think the 56% might have been lower if Obama had responded in more detail to specific statements that were aired over the weekend (and I mean put-this-thing-to-rest detail). I haven't seen where he has done that, and of course he doesn't want to get into interpreting everything Wright has ever said.
But while you know enough about Obama to say "obama's appeal to whites has been that image that he is the anti-al sharpton/jesse jackson. he's not about grievance, but instead, common ground," the rest of the people in the country don't necessarily know this. Those people got a glimpse of the church Obama attends, where it's all about grievance, at least in the clips. And as stand-alone sermons, those clips are pretty extreme for the mainstream.
With that in mind, I think Obama's vague and generalized response is a blunder. I know Obama supporters think it's a great response, but Obama supporters are the choir. We'll see whether this episode had any lasting bearing on people in PA in a few weeks. But I don't think we're done talking about it.
March 17, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much! I am starting to feel sick about all this spin and hypocrisy. To tell you the truth, I think that the media does give a pass to hillary and assails Obama.
March 17, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
kinda i guess. the media seems to be harsher on hillary in terms of personality and irrelevant things like her fashion sense, and nicer to obama. but they're tougher on obama in regards to transparency and his senate record. Im just confused as to why the media continues to assail hillary on her unlikability instead of doing a thorough examination of her senate record.
March 17, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's because the media assumes we're not interested enough in anything but the most superficial junk. Hillary's appearance and "likeability" (give me a f*ckin break). Obama's race and the fear that he's a muslim or *gasp* an angry black man.
Hide yer wimmin from Obama, fellers! And hide yer crotch from Hillary, fellers!
Blecchhh.
March 17, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
hmmm...
Why are there Black churches..and white churches?
It certainly could not be because white Christians did not want black Christians in their congregations? The most important voice not only regarding civil rights but opposition to an illegal war, in 20th century America was a black pastor.
How would Fox spin this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U
March 17, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sunday is the most racist day in America. White churches, black churches, everybody get in your corner, find your proper place.
March 17, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris,
This is an excellent post. I missed the point earlier but get it now.
March 17, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment