Pat Buchanan is ornery. When it looked like Hillary would be the nominee, he was praising Obama to the skies. I wouldn't take him too seriously.

what I saw was not "ornery" it was a man who realizes that his us and them mentality is a thing of the past. Frankly i thought it was hilarious when Chris kept going at him about it.

Jade,
I had just finished a letter to the editors at MSNBC

Here it is:
To whom it may concern:

I'd like to commend Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell tonight on their interchange
with Pat Buchanan. After tonight's endorsement from Edwards, Buchanaan seems to be afraid that Barack Obama will indeed be the next President and was unfairly accusing Matthews of using racist or unseemly language to describe the results of
the WV primary. Buchanan was so out of line in defending the Ferraro comments. It was horrid.

It was a true low moment during the campaign came when Geraldine Ferraro made her comments claiming that Obama’s race was a benefit to him in this campaign. And Buchanan felt it necessary to repeat them and defend them tonight.

History will not look kindly on this remark. Every time a woman or a black man in this society has “benefited” from sex or race, they do so after decades of being marginalized, debased, diminished, and trivialized.

Thanks again especially to Matthews for consistently speaking so eloquently against
overt and covert racist thought.

Thank you.

I'm just waiting for him to put his foot all the way in his mouth, where he'll need surgery to get it out. I emailed MSNBC after he made the comments about slavery. Remember this:
QUOTED FROM E.POLITICS.COM… REGARDING REMARKS OF PAT BUCHANAN

“America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. “

Why does MSNBC continue to let this bigot on the show with his racist comments. They are always trying to take up for him, i.e. "he doesn't know any better, he's from a different time, he doesn't mean it, etc.

I stopped watching Abrams because he is always on there and I'm ready to turn the channel on Chris Matthews, if he continues to have him on his show.

Why be coy? Buchanan is a racist, and has never been in the closet about it.

And, yes: just because we know Buchanan is a racist bigot is not an excuse to give him a platform in the media from which to spew his anti-Christian hate-mongering. We don't really need to hear the "point of view" of white supremacists as "balance" against the Constitutional requirement that everyone be equal before the law.

"Every time a woman . . . has “benefited” from sex . . . they do so after decades of being marginalized, debased, diminished, and trivialized."

Yeah, that's true: being male, I'm constantly being tossed wads of cash to do TV spots and magazine spreads in order to show off my gorgeous legs.

But, because male, and thus modest, I don't get as much of the dough as I would if I were willing to show more than my legs. Alas, curiously, I'm not asked to show more, and consequently not paid as much, apparently because the competition from "oppressed" women is just too steep.

Let's be a bit more balanced about the "sexism" crap, okay? Want to know what oppression FEELS like? Try being eligible for the draft during war time -- an "advantage" imposed only on males.

Try being a black woman, instead of white.

Try being a black male, instead of being a white female.

If one of the latter three, you wouldn't have the privilege of claiming to be "oppressed" without being laughed at.

I have no idea why MSNBC keeps Buchanan on the payroll? Freedom of speech is one thing, but the blatant racism Buchanan exhibits is unacceptable.
I'm not quite as forgiving of Chris Matthews either. While he doesn't seem to be as overtly racist as PB, he is a best an oaf when he attempts to discuss racial or gender issues.

Good post Jade:

Wright is not a racist - he is angry about the way that the US government has treated all powerless groups, particularly his own African-American brethren. The sound-bite editing eliminated the end of the sentence in which Rev. Wright said, "G- D- America FOR THE WAY IT [meaning its government] HAS TREATED" poor and oppressed African Americans, or words to that effect.

Would any respectable person today call Martin Luther King, Jr. a racist? I think not. Rev. Wright's theology, as he laid it out at the National Press Club breakfast, shared a key pillar with King's theology: Reconcilitation!

It's ironic that a man of God who expressly preaches Reconciliation of black, white, and every other color in a Just human society is condemned as a racist.

"Racialist" is a better description, in my view, for white folks like Pat Buchanan. "Racialists" think about African-Americans primarily in terms of their race, think of them as "Other," and usually think of African Americans as seeking objectives that are hostile to white folks like "us."

Buchanan is an excellent example of why Obama has lost the white Catholic vote to Clinton in just about every primary election - and why neither Obama or Clinton could beat McCain among white Catholics in the general election. Nor could any national Democrat beat McCain among working class white males (and probably not among married working class white females) in the general election. Too many whites (expecially those over age 60) that Democratic presidential candidates are going to discriminate against whites like "us" in favor of blacks like "them."

But the Democratic candidate does not need to beat the Republican among whites or among any sub-category of white voters - the Democrat just needs to win 40-45% of white voters, and that objective can readily be reached by Obama.

But back to your post:

I hope we all can "unlearn" the habit of labeling anyone a racist. Rev. Wright is not a racist, he is a sincere Christian who believes that people of all colors are brothers and sisters in Christ, all equal in the eyes of God and who should all be equal in the eyes of all men and women.

I prefer to press the pundits and the rest of the media to correct the wilfully misleading "line" they have attached to Rev. Wright. But even if folks like me cannot correct the "black racist" label that was attached to Rev. Wright by the tone-deaf media (through a process of terrible journalism in relying on fragments of Wright's statements that had obviously been edited by hostile sources, combined with racist stereotyping), I don't think we win any points for Obama by labeling his white critics as racist - even when they are!

I prefer to describe specific mistakes that are driven by racial stereotypes as just that - stupid mistakes that the reporter or pundit would not make about a white candidate, but that the reporter has made because s/he is stuck (I'll assume unconsciously) in a stereotyped way of thinking about African Americans.

Barack Obama is calling for a new political dialogue, a dialogue that is much more civil than any campaign and/or political dialogue in human history. I think he can either shame his opponents and critics into behaving like he does, or to persuade voters "in the middle" to punish the Republicans for not joining him in raising the quality of political discourse, in lieu of abusive references to "Hussein" and false implications that because Obama attended services at the church led by Rev. Wright for 15 years, Obama is just as angry and confrontational as Rev. Wright has chosen to be occasionally.

I think raising the quality of political discourse is worth trying. I hope that virtually all Obama supporters agree and will do their best to help Obama advance the ball toward more civil discourse.

Rev. Wright does NOT qualify as a racist. He seems a man resentful for not being treated as an equal to his white fellow citizens. Not superior. Equal. Remember his; different is not deficient?

Pat Buchanan does qualify as a racist. He seems a man resentful that blacks want to be treated as equals to whites. Which would explain his otherwise inexplicable rants against Obama. His philosophy seems to be; different IS deficient.

The key distinction between these two men should be also kept in mind whenever, so called, black racism is discussed. Much of black anger stems from long alienation by whites. Blacks just want to be fully accepted. This is not the same as racism.

Sorry hardheaded liberal,

My thanks and associated comments re: the 'racialist' definition were actually directed to you!

Thanks again!

woodly1