don't worry, I don't happen to believe that Sen. Obama☼ believes the kind of nasty stuff his preacher has been busy sermonizing about
As you pointed out, it doesn't matter what you believe. It's how it reflects on Obama in the eyes of many Americans that matters. And frankly, it does matter who you surround yourself with and who you are close to, and Obama's pastor is a bit disturbing. I was also disturbed by Obama's references to "Minister Farrakahn" during the last debate. He won't refer to Bush by his title of president (he almost always says "George Bush"), which would seem to give Bush more respect than he deserves, but he'll give Farrakahn the respect of his title. It bothers me. I don't think Obama agrees with any of these people, but I know that I have had "friends" who held views I strongly disagreed with and over a fairly short period of time, I found myself backing off from these people because I just couldn't deal with the things they said. I didn't want to be friends with someone I thought was so wrong and intolerant. So it's a little disturbing that Obama still wants to be friendly and understanding with people like this--oh, he's like a crazy old racist uncle who says embarrassing things that I don't agree with. Just ignore him. Let him sit in the corner and drool and pay him no attention. It does bother me.
not listening completely to rev. wright's comments, (disclaimer) but have any of your readers attended an all black church on a regular basis? have you actually listened to a complete sermon??? have you heard all of what he said america should be damned for??? sadly, sundays are the MOST segregated day in our country. heaven, i think is pretty much de-segregated. so, before judging what the man said, get out of your comfort zones one sunday and find a black church. no, we are not separatist, as some may claim. and yes, i've attended predominantly white churches. belive it or not, morals and values are strikingly similar. i've heard disparaging remarks from both black and white pastors. however, it should not preclude you from attending a church you went to for twenty years. when you go to your closet, you pray for forgiveness and understanding. most of the time, you have to go through a season or two before you get there.
one last thing about the ferarro incident. i was offended because of what she said. i was told i got where i was because of my skin color. it hurts. that's why i think hilary had her meeting with black journalists to explain her case. good thing, but too little (too late?) as what went on in her campaign was beyond the pale to african americans. she was ahead before the scenario in sc, and she's spun backwards ever since.
before you attack his preacher or discount what is and what isn't racist, go to a black church this sunday, talk to black people outside of your social circles, you may just learn something...
Posted by anthony at March 14, 2008 07:13 AMOne is known by the company one keeps.
(Reverse) Racism. Hatred. Anti-US sentiments (these aren't mere comments of dissent--dissent not only points out the problems, but also says we must change the wrongs. Even suggest ways to rectify things. This preacher Obama is associated with doesn't even bother to do that.) Distortions of the Historical record, and to top that off, this preacher Obama has been attending the services of for at least two decades, if my recollection of the news reports is correct.
Bill Clinton did to the Blacks as Monica Lewisnkiy did to Bill? That's one of the statements of this preacher during one of his "homilies" (if one can call it that).
To undo some of this damage, Obama has to repudiate this asshole today. Unequivocably. Completely. Forcefully. And separate himself from this asshole today. Not going back.
Barack Obama, like I have stated numerous times, is a Republican. (Yet he hides on the Democratic Ticket.) He behaves in the finest traditions of the rat-poison purveyor from Texas, Tom Delay. And all Rethuglicans. Get that goddamn wedge issue--which apparently for Obama is race--and shove it to the hilt.
And you Obama-anians thought I am just some person who really doesn't like Obama. Like for some personal reason ("he doesn't like his well-spokeness"; or "he doesn't like people with short haircuts"; or "he doesn't like people from Illinois").
Well...the proof of the pudding is the data points accumulated on the candidates, and their behavioral patterns. I look at those. And solely at those. The rest is just political noise. (As in polls, as in the discussions about the delegate counts.)
But this preacher is not noise. It goes to the very heart of one's belief system, and also to the heart of ones actual attitudes towards a large number of issues. Judgement calls, for instance. One can truthfully step up here and make the comment that if Obama's judgement is so impaired that he can't see poisonous vitriol standing right next to him, and attempt to pass off this Racism as something inconsequential, then he can't be the "healer" and the "saint" that many Obama-anians think that he is (of course, these viewpoints on him are most certainly being done in an information vacuum). Obama's charisma (or alleged charisma) I am well-vaccinated against.
Apparently a significant proportion of the electorate hasn't bothered to look closely at this candidate (or perhaps, any candidate).
I hope now your eyes are opened.
I am now musing about this: Does Obama have ties to Karl Rove? Could Obama be the Rovian Trojan Horse in the Democratic Party?
Uninformed Electorate voting == Totalitarianism
Josh Marshall is a disgrace.
Posted by Kazeon at March 14, 2008 07:15 AMDoes Taylor Marsh have snazzy boots too?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 14, 2008 07:34 AManthony,
one last thing about the ferarro incident. i was offended because of what she said. i was told i got where i was because of my skin color. it hurts.
Two things;
I find the comment of yours that I copied here very incongruous with what you wrote in the proceeding paragraph. Have you taken the time to understand the entirely of Geraldine Ferraro's experience as you suggest others do ala visiting a black church?
It would appear not. Which brings me to my second reaction to your comments. She did not "tell you that you got where you are because of your skin color". She said nothing of the sort. Her comments were about Barack Obama. No one else.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 07:35 AMAnthony, I don't really understand what you're saying. I've never attended a black church, or any church for that matter (I'm Jewish.)
i've heard disparaging remarks from both black and white pastors. however, it should not preclude you from attending a church you went to for twenty years.
When you choose a house of worship, one thing many people base that choice on, at least partly, is the clergy. If the clergy are consistently and vehemently preaching things you disagree with, don't you think you might find a new church, or at least not be close friends with the clergy who says those things? I really don't think Obama agrees with his pastor, but it does bother me that he's so close to him.
before you attack his preacher or discount what is and what isn't racist, go to a black church this sunday, talk to black people outside of your social circles, you may just learn something...
I think the comments from the preacher are clearly "anti-American" (we deserved 9/11) and while there are plenty of people on the left that agree with him, it doesn't play well in a political campaign and will hurt Obama. And "God damn America"? I don't consider myself to be super-patriotic or anything, and I think the whole "God Bless America" thing is overdone and I don't see the need for it, but I can't say that hearing God damn America warms the heart.
So, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but seeing as I'm not going to go to any church, maybe you could clarify what you're saying and enlighten me a bit (no sarcasm).
Also, Ferraro's comments--I don't know if they were racist or not, but they certainly made no sense. It made her sound a little nuts and yeah, I think they were very offensive. Even if it were true that it was advantageous to be a black man when you're running for president (and why would anyone think that?) it completely dismisses the talent that has gotten him this far. It was extremely condescending.
Posted by CG at March 14, 2008 07:45 AMi was told i got where i was because of my skin color. it hurts.
I was told I got where I was because I'm female. I was outraged since I had more education and experience than the oh-so-deserving-male who said it. When promotion time came, a man with half my experience was tapped, so I left. Now I'm studying for employment in a female-dominated field so that's stuff I won't have to worry about (though funny, I've noticed most school principals and superintendents are male, hmmmmmmmm)
So Rev. Wright's opinions are relevant because Obama said he doesn't agree with him. Okay. Perfect reason to bring him up.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 14, 2008 07:48 AMsnark:
i am trying to supply perspective to how ferraro's words are considered racist by the african american community. i cannot and will not equate my struggles with that of women. a woman in america is dubbly fcuked, no pun intended.
no she did not tell me i got to where i am due to my skin color. however a particular jackass, who happens to be white, did.
different circumstances, same words, same affect, no?
btw, the "one last thing," statement, should be taken literally, she said something stupid, and offensive to a particular part of our population, and was unapologetic about it. it is her right to speak her mind, just as it is my right to say what she said was dumb. i'm done talking about it...
it is troubling, as far as we've come as a country, we have so much farther to go.
Posted by anthony at March 14, 2008 07:57 AMagain, all hillary, all the time. I'd love to know the position of the left coasters who are anti obama regarding the promise Ms. Clinton signed to not campaign, and remove her name from the ballot in michigan.
I was not an Obama person until i heard Hillary Clinton appear to endorse John McCain over a democrat. She has made it a mantra, and it is quite irritating. She can't win on delegates, nor on the popular vote, so now she is busy campaigning for the republicans so she has a clear shot next time. That is how it looks to me.
For the record, I preferred Richardson or Edwards.
Posted by ltgesq at March 14, 2008 08:05 AMcg:
again, i didn't hear the entire sermon, and i should. but, what i did hear is that he made his statement due to america's turning its back on the poor, the sick, the continued racism, etc. i would not choose his words, and i truly do not agree with what he said.
i will try to explain the church attendance as best i can... before i got married, i attended the same church for several years. its just what we did. when we agreed or disagreed with the pastor, we continued to go. we just did. community, family, friends, its were we went, where we were comfortable, regardless. forgive me this, but it kinda just is that way.
Posted by anthony at March 14, 2008 08:06 AMYes, let's pretend Rev. Wright has no connection to Obama and didn't make those comments about "God damn America" and that we "deserved 911." Let's not bring it up. Let's wait for the Republicans to bring it up so we can lose again in November. It'll look great alongside the "I've never been proud of America until now" footage. They can run them together 24/7, and ALL of America, Bob, will find it absoluteeeeeee irrelevant!
Wright married Michelle and Barack Obama, baptized his children, is part of Obama's campaign, and has received large sums of money from him. But there is no connection. It's not relevant.
Wasn't Josh Marshall just last week screaming for McCain to distance himself from some preacher on the front page of TPM? Aren't they still screaming for Ferraro's head, even after she resigned?
But this is irrelevant. Doesn't matter. Has nothing to do with Obama. Stop talking about it.
Snazzy shoes you've got there, Bob. Too bad they're covered in bullsh**
This video ALONE keeps him out of the White House.
Obama says he should be the nominee because he holds ultra-super-fantismo judgment that ordinary mortals don't possess.
Well, I'll tell you that if this mortal ever walked into a Church where they accused White people of being responsible for Black people doing drugs and committing crimes; that 911 happened because White people are evil and that God should Damn America because of White people, I'd have the good judgment to get up and walk out the door.
I would not continue to go there for over twenty years.
I would not give them tens of thousands of dollars.
I would not request to be married by a hate mongering bigot.
I would not request that my daughters be baptized by a hate mongering bigot.
I would not get the title of my book from a hate mongering bigot.
I would not appoint a hate mongering bigot to be an spiritual advisor on my campaign.
What Wright has said and how Obama has embraced that mockery of a man for 20 years matters to me. And if you think it doesn't matter to the majority of Americans, you are fooling yourselves. This is the end of Obama's campaign. He has zero chance of ever being President, solely because of this issue. There's no way he will sweet talk his way out of this.
no she did not tell me i got to where i am due to my skin color. however a particular jackass, who happens to be white, did.
different circumstances, same words, same affect, no?
Different circumstances. A rather important distinction.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 08:17 AM
Thanks for the link; here's the update: the audacity of election theft.
Nice data point on Obama and MoDo's boots. All I want to know is one thing:
Did he lick them?
Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA at March 14, 2008 09:06 AMThe comments here have sunk to the lowest levels they can amongst democrats with differing views on Hillary & Barack. One thing is for certain the game of race and religion is "on".
Who would have thought it?
I love photoshop. Feel free to pass this on if you like. I'm such a whore.
And no, Lambert, I'm not following you around. You're following me around, in reverse.
Posted by blogtopus at March 14, 2008 09:25 AMDid he lick them?
It's one thing to oppose Obama, it's another to dehumanize him. I like you, Lambert, but I think that was icky.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 09:34 AM"These reporters say that Obama is unusually solicitous of Times columnist Maureen Dowd when she materializes on the campaign trail. They recall how he recently sidled up to her on the plane and remarked on her snazzy pair of boots."
Smart man. Dear Leader "won" in 2000 partly because he pampered the Kool Kidz in the korporate media.
Posted by at March 14, 2008 09:36 AMDear Clinton supporters...I beg you, please, please do not look at todays Rasmussen polls.
Posted by T2 at March 14, 2008 09:38 AMA. That Wright sermon is a repellent piece of hateful bigotry.
B. It is the height of hypocrisy for Obama to claim "distance" from Wright - the Obama's have been long-time members of that church, given the church thousands of dollars, and so on. They clearly have supported Wright for a long time, and he has been a raving lunatic for a long time.
C. I have no respect for apologists who defend this kind of hatemongering, under the guise of how different black preaching is or anything else.
D. Cue the Obama supporters who will now defend this disgusting display and then find a way to blame Hillary for spreading it.
E. Oh wait - Josh Marshall has already begun this. Josh Marshall's post is reprehensible for trying to make this video somehow about Hillary. He has truly devolved into a tabloid writer.
F. This primary season has become a joke in so many ways - never have I seem so many appalling, intellectually dishonest people in the blogs or the MSM.
Thanks eriposte and all at TLC.
Why? Because it shows Obama leading heavily in the nomination poll?
It also shows both Clinton and Obama losing to McCain and it shows Clinton with a hugh lead in Pennsylvania.
What's the big whoop?
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 09:59 AMDon't follow the polls, so no biggie.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 10:14 AMF. This primary season has become a joke in so many ways - never have I seem so many appalling, intellectually dishonest people in the blogs or the MSM.
And that's why I can't even sign my name to my statements... ttpph!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 14, 2008 10:33 AMUm, OK, does this make you feel better? As if blog names mean anything...
Posted by Named For You at March 14, 2008 10:39 AMfor some reason i don't regard the rev wright's comments as particularly troublesome.
at least they don't trouble me.
lots of folks say lots of things in the context of their communities that weren't said with national media exposure in mind,
and thus don't look good in that light.
nor does obama strike me as the kind of naive person who would be attracted to or stick by a flake. he obviously trusts wright and i trust his judgment of his preacher.
with respect to bob somerby who along with scott horton is one of my weblog heroes
(horton's weblog with its in-the-bulleye political commentary, its poetry and its pictures,
is as beautiful and satisfying a weblog experience as one can have).
somerby:
[Let’s take the first fragment which got discussed. Standing alone, the statement is unfortunate—indeed, tragic: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.”
Standing alone, that strikes us as a very unfortunate statement (to the extent that we understand what was meant). Standing alone, that statement seems to reduce a brilliant person to his “race”—a tragic part of this nation’s history. Meanwhile, depending on how you take the statement, we’d have to say that we have no way to know if it’s actually true. Would Obama be where he is except for race—for his remarkable personal history, which he has described in two brilliant books? We have no earthly idea. For all we know, if Barack Obama had come of age in a society which wasn't’t still captive to obsessions about “race,” then Barack Obama, a brilliant person, might have found the cure for cancer by now. Or he might have achieved some other great thing, something which would have made him an even larger public phenomenon than he already is. Unfortunately, this brilliant person came of age in a society which was still captive to race—and so, as he has described in his books, he devoted a great deal of his obvious brilliance to untangling that subject’s painful mysteries]
though the rest of somerby's post makes a lot of sense to me, especially the part about the central role of loyalty in human political activity - "shirts vs skins"
and his insistence on putting ferraro's "red" comments in the context of some of her other words,
the paragraph above misses a crucial point re ferraro's comments and her possible intentions.
ferraro's comment about obama being where he is because he is black can be taken as a derogation of the man.
but it can also be taken, more reasonably i would argue, as a comment about the democratic politicians who made the crucial support and funding decisions that put obama forward as a presidential candidate.
in short, ferraro's comment could be summarized: obama is where he is because some group of politicians thought he represented a great "package" to present to the american people.
politicians, unless i am greatly mistaken, think precisely like this of potential candidates.
and ferraro is a life-long politician; she would have known exactly how obama was evaluated by those who decided to put him forward.
these politician, i am confident, weighted his race in the balance, including his black/white parentage, and they concluded that that was a very good thing for a candidate in this country at this time.
given this interpretation, i am annoyed that ferraro was hammered like she was.
the attacks on her smacked of media mobbery.
her persona is outspoken and combative; it always has been. but her persona has always been articulately in opposition to discrimination (as has clinton's), particularly with regard to women. should that surprise us.?
is it really reasonable to suspect geraldine ferraro of being a racist? does this make any sense at all?
is it really acceptable media behavior to hammer ferraro into the ground because she is a feisty, no bull-shit woman who fights back in public?
there is much about the way clinton and her supporters have been repeatedly stoned in the media, for what i regard as minor sins at best,
that can only be interpreted as mobbery,
a very nasty fundamental of human behavior
that public commentators would do good to trim against, rather than participate in.
Posted by orionATL at March 14, 2008 10:45 AMNamed for you,
For a guy complaining about apalling and intellectually dishonest people and comments one would think that you'd grasp the fact that having a consistant "name" attached to comments helps people develop an understanding of who the commenter is based on his/her previous comments. Helps connect current comments to past ones. Can you appreciate the usefulness of that?
Of course, it's much easier to be intellectually dishonest if people can't follow a "comment trail" to coin a phrase. Why is it that you don't just pick a "name" and use it?
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 10:45 AMSnark,
Sure, OK, I'll do that. I'm off to think up a clever name...
Seriously -- it didn't occur to me that it was that important to leave a 'comment trail' or for people to understand me in that sense. I'd assumed people could just take comments at face value and respond or not without needing to develop 'an understanding of me'.
But I shall take your advice.
...lots of folks say lots of things in the context of their communities that weren't said with national media exposure in mind,...
That doesn't real smell very good to me. Forget about the Wright comments. Look at it in these terms;
To accept that you'd have to excuse any "hate speech" if it was spoken in a community of "haters" with no intention of wider distribution? Regardless of what the intent of those engaging in the "hate speech" was. For instance, if someone engages in "hate speech" within their community of "haters" with the intent that those "haters" then go out and engage the larger community with a "hateful" mind set is that ok with you?
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 10:59 AMI'd assumed people could just take comments at face value and respond or not without needing to develop 'an understanding of me'.
Yet here you were complaining about the rampant intellectual dishonesty. If you're gonna take comments at face value it seems odd that you're concerned with intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 11:02 AMWell, Named for You, it's not only for continuity's sake, but it's also for community building. And it's not against you, personally, I don't think, but we have had our share of trolls that come in using several names that talk to each other, which fills a thread with garbage. Also, if you just took each comment at face value, you would think SoS, T2, and snark and I were mortal enemies, but we've actually been blogmates and pals for quite a while - which means we can get away with poking each other just a little bit more 'cos we know we'll be back on the same side soon.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 11:03 AMSnark:
"Yet here you were complaining about the rampant intellectual dishonesty. If you're gonna take comments at face value it seems odd that you're concerned with intellectual dishonesty."
Again - I didn't (and still don't) see the connection between intellectual dishonesty and not leaving a blog name - at least not in the context of what I originally was referring to when I mentioned intellectual dishonest. To me, intellectual dishonesty refers to making specious arguments using lies and distortions. This latter one can certainly assess without knowing someone's name. Nevertheless, and again, I shall take your advice hasta pronto.
Iamcoyote:
I hear you. Good points.
Posted by Named For You at March 14, 2008 11:23 AMTo me, intellectual dishonesty refers to making specious arguments using lies and distortions. This latter one can certainly assess without knowing someone's name.
True, but when the same commenter returns over and over making the same of similiar claims/comments that have been previously knocked down it saves everyone a lot of time realizing there's no need to bother addressing it.
snark
for me the issue is where to put one's attention.
what should i focus on.
and also what should the media focus on.
i don't think for a minute that obama's thoughts coincide with those of his pastor.
they might, but i'd put the odds for that as very very long.
so why should i trouble myself about why the rev said?
we considering electing obama, not wright.
from my point of view, all this tit-for-tat among the two democratic candidates is getting increasingly annoying
very, very annoying.
we have lot of things going on in this country, many of them not good at all.
and what do these two "leaders" and their associates do?
see who can go before the teevee cameras and try to make a mendacious, dishonest, incompetent, racist, sly, sleazy fool of the other.
that's leadership?
the southern poverty law center and others like it do a good job of keeping tabs on racists crackpots,
it's unlikely either obama or clinton would even consider that category of ideas
so let's talk about what the larger issues that matter to the nation, rather than who has or has not
had an affair,
commended lewis Farrakhan,
praised the palestinian cause
played the race card
or has a good friend who was photographed eating grass for supper last night.
Posted by orionATL at March 14, 2008 11:37 AMorionATL,
I agree that subjects like this are just unnecessary and divisive. That's why I addressed just your comment about excusing speech that can be offenive to some by saying it was not intended for a wider audience. I disagree with that. It has nothing to do with Wright's comments as I mentioned. I have no interest in discussing the specifics of what he preaches to his congregation and I don't care if Obama associates with him or disassociates from him. Just disagree that offensive speech is ok if it's only intended for a select community.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 11:56 AMhate speech is hate speech regardless if it is in a black or white community (church).
(aside) left work, cooked, and now can chat a bit...
i pointed out earlier the need to attend a black church not to illuminate a sermon but to encourage an understanding. we preach different. we worship differently. we praise differently. that is the way it is. in the context of the entire sermon, i am sure he justified his comments, condeming america for its ills, for its consistent patterns of leaving the unfortunate behind, for its racism, sexism, and homophobia. i would not choose his words, and don't agree with them; however, on any given sunday in any given black church, you will hear the same message, not in those words, not with those 'offensive,' tones, but the premise is the same, we have to uplift and take care of one another. we have to care for our brothers, and we have to atone for the mistakes made in the past. also, we have to do for ourselves. i'm sure you all know the first book many african americans learned to read was the bible. the black church is the cornerstone of the black community. i will not apologize or tokenize myself for the sake of you to understand. i tried to challenge the naysayers to attend a sermon, any sermon, to get a gist of what is going on. it seems those not of color continue to throw out obama's using the race card, and those of color continue to believe it was the clinton's who started this whole mess. we EMBRACED bill. we loved bill, we don't like him now for what he said, we don't like hilary for what she tacitly approved of (the african americans not in her campaign not withstanding).
i would not and cannot equate the struggles women have to reference/ answer snark's above post once again, so in the same vein, i ask you not to dismiss my belief that the "race card," was initiated and/or perpertuated, by the clinton campaign.
Posted by anthony at March 14, 2008 12:55 PMAnthony,
I agree with a lot of what you've had to say, mostly. I grew up in an all Black Church and the Church is the centerpiece for the community. The problem I have with Rev. Wright is not his attempt to lift up the Black community, it's the methods he chooses to do it. When I was in HS, a preacher much like Rev. Wright was assigned to the Church I grew up in after our pastor became ill and the Church Board had him removed. Why? Because his words were divisive. You don't need to tear everyone else down to lift your people up. My church is very African centric with prominent members from Africa and with many members traveling to Africa on a regular basis. You can be African centric without being hateful in your message.
As for the race card issue, go back in time and revisit when Obama's race really became an issue in the media. Revisit footage of Michael Eric Dyson and Jesse Jackson Jr making the rounds on cable news programs accusing Bill Clinton of using "code words" when he said Barack Obama's POSITION ON THE IRAQ WAR was a fairytale. They didn't do this until THE NIGHT of the New Hampshire primary after Obama lost. If they believed it was racist, why didn't they accuse him of it when Bill Clinton said it originally?They also pushed the idea which played on TV and in newspapers for a week that Obama lost because New Hampshire is a very white state.
Have people in the Clinton campaign said things that could have been perceived as racist? Yes, and honestly the ONLY ones that I agree can legitimately be perceived that way are the random campaign worker who sent out the muslim e-mail early in the campaign, Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment and Geraldine Ferraro's comments (although everyone forgets that Jesse Jackson himself said he didn't think the comments were racist and wasn't offended since he himself had made similar comments).
It's also ridiculous to suggest that the Obama campaign isn't using race baiting and the media's fear of being perceived as racist to their advantage. There was a memo to that effect back in January, and based on what I've seen from his surrogates, it's obvious that they realize the advantage of doing it. Each time something can be perceived as "racist" they flood the media with e-mails detailing why it's racist. They've even called SNL racist for using a white man to portray Obama. But somehow SNL wasn't racist when Billy Crystal played Sammy Davis Jr. ?
Most Black people believe media distortions of what the Clinton campaign has said. I had my mom poll her church and over 80% of them believed the distortions. But when they watched video of what was actually said in its entirety, they were confused because it didn't match what they had seen on TV and read in papers.
People also ignore the overt sexism, some from Obama himself, and specifically from his campaign and pretend as if they're not as important. It's not fair to compare racism and sexism. As a Black woman I experience both and they're equally damaging to me. I've experienced racism from outside of the Black community and experienced massive sexism EVERYWHERE.
Posted by kacey at March 14, 2008 02:58 PMI want to thank everyone for this fantastic discussion - it's been enlightening on all sides, and for the most part, everyone's making an effort to overcome the rancor. Yay!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 03:20 PMWEll apparently SEnator Obama has written a response over at Huffpo on the Wright controversy as well. Also I've read he will be going on the major networks or cable shows this evening including Faux News and KO.
I do think he needs to respond to this because this was his longtime family pastor and I saw reported his spiritual advisor...this needs to be nipped in the bud now as what his pastor said won't fly with the electorate that was also responsible for putting Junyah into the WH for a second term.
And that link to Josh's site was just so sad to see. He's made his opinion be a part of the narrative on Wright and is even blaming Clinton for the Wright controversy and any future problems should Obama win the nomination. I've always known he was an Obama supporter (just wish he was more honest and upfront about it), but I thought he was smarter than this. So he exposes himself in that post to being a hack and by doing so trashes his reputation as an effective objective journalist when he does something like that...why? for what? He'd earn more respect from people if he applied his standards more uniformly regardless of the candidate. Respect must not be something he wants anymore. I just don't get it. No candidate we have is worth it.
Posted by emal at March 14, 2008 03:22 PMkacey,
i do not condone what rev wright had to say. in a previous post, i wrote to snark, i said it was counterproductive. my point is to get others to get out of comfort zones and look to how we can feel that way about comments in which much of white america feel are legit. and to shed some light onto the importance of the church in the black community, that is all. what he said, his premise, can't really be argued against. his words, well they were just stupid...
however, why does he have to justify his "refutation and denunciation," of both wright and louis f. when she got away with "i disagree with what she said?" "i disagree with," what bob johnson said, or i am sorry for my husband's sc comments. how come it isn't good enough for him to say the same as she? don't get me started on mc cain and hagee. the blatant double standard is what i disagree with.
obama called ferraro's statements ridiculous i do not think he used the race card in this one. i may be mistaken, but i think the media by and large promoted that meme.
hilary used and continues to use the gender card. both use and will continue using what they can to get elected. it diminishes both candidates. i happen to disagree with obama's continued acceptance of donnie mc clurken (sp?) donnie is just wrong on so many fronts, and hides behind the mantle of being saved. i didn't like him before he associated with obama.
i happen to like m. e. dyson. did you know his wife supports hilary?
we could sit down and share horror stories about our community. until we but more value on education than on jail time, we will continue to eat our young, but it is our community, just the same.
i wonder how much traction this gets?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/14/bills-excounsel-hillar_n_91582.html
Posted by anthony at March 14, 2008 04:11 PMBarack is done. It is over and he knows it. It will be surprising if he is still in for Pennsylvania.
Write it down. There is more to come.
Posted by jj at March 14, 2008 04:43 PMAnthony,
First I must say that the fact that Michael Eric Dyson's wife supports Sen. Clinton isn't important. Would you tell me that information if his brother were supporting Sen. Clinton? I haven't seen his wife on TV race baiting, but her husband has. His wife could support McCain, it's not really relevant to the discussion. Lots of spouses in this campaign are split. After all, Jesse Jackson supports Obama and his wife supports Clinton.
Also, the problem I have with Obama's repudiation of Rev. Wright is that it is almost done with a wink and a smile. What most media outlets seem to not recognize or overlook is that Rev. Wright has been the leader of the Obama Campaign's Spiritual Advisory Committee (at least until late today when he resigned or more likely forced to because of the controversy). A year ago, the Obama campaign admitted that Wright's inflamatory comments could be a problem. If you're distancing yourself from someone's inflamatory remarks, why is he a part of your campaign? I guarantee if this story didn't have a life of its own, he would still be leading the Spiritual Advisory Committee for Sen. Obama. That's the problem that I have. As I stated before, you can uplift without tearing others down.
Posted by kacey at March 14, 2008 05:40 PMOh and about Clinton's comments regarding Ferraro
Clinton said, "I do not agree with that," and later added, "It's regrettable that any of our supporters — on both sides, because we both have this experience — say things that kind of veer off into the personal."
"We ought to keep this on the issues. there are differences between us" on approaches to health care, energy, experience.
I have said before, I'm not all for firing everyone in a campaign that says something stupid. Samantha Power shouldn't have been fired and instead of just branding Ferraro a racist, she isn't (naive and ignorant definitely), I honestly wish there had been an open discussion and perhaps some education on the subject. She should have left the campaign because she just wouldn't shut up, but again I don't believe she's a racist and simply labeling her as one oversimplifies things.
But Susan Rice especially brands everyone a racist. Eugene Robinson, who pretends not to be 100% in the Obama camp but clearly is said that Ferraro isn't a racist but her statements are. That's like saying someone isn't a rapist, but their actions are those of a rapist. It's ridiculous and in the long run, pointing the finger, and shouting, 'racist, racist, racist' doesn't help anyone who doesn't understand the Black experience in America.
As for the gender card, Clinton has used it occasionally yes I agree, although it's a lot more rare than the race card being played. However, in the long run it doesn't matter because when the media ignores Obama refer to her time as First Lady as "sippin tea in the white house," refer to her "crying" as an indication of weakness, talk about her laugh, ignore that the top general who supports Obama just a few days ago in Chigago gave the most misogynistically riddled endorsement of Obama, call her a "scolding mother," it's obvious that they're not really listening anyway.
Posted by kacey at March 14, 2008 06:02 PMwhy does he have to justify his "refutation and denunciation," of both wright and louis f. when she got away with "i disagree with what she said?" "i disagree with," what bob johnson said, or i am sorry for my husband's sc comments.
Well, maybe it's because her repudiation didn't get much play.
Of Ferraro's comment, Hillary Clinton told her audience: "I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn't speak for the campaign, she doesn't speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee."
If you offer a repudiation, and, studiously, no one listens, does it still count? The first part of the article deals with SC. Make of it what you will.
As for the gender card, Clinton has used it occasionally yes I agree,
How has she used it? By "crying" before NH? By acknowledging that she could be the first woman to be the Dem presidential candidate? By spurring bands of angry feminists to start, like, talking about, like, women's issues and shit? Bitch!
Seriously, though. In what way do you think she's played the "gender card?" She's been accused of it from the beginning, but I'm not quite sure how it's even played. Gimme some examples!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 07:14 PMdon't hold your breath, iamcoyote
Posted by Sharon at March 14, 2008 09:08 PM