home
Tomorrow's View Today: Obama on Wright | 199 comments (199 topical)
Obama is simply not credible (5.00 / 7) (#5)
by kenosharick on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:59:23 PM EST
He knew NOTHING of this crap for TWENTY YEARS???? Anyone who believes him now is terribly gullible. Are the superdelegates going o allow the party to go down the tubes just to placate his supporters at the expense of our country?

And what about Farrakhan? (4.66 / 3) (#89)
by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:13:39 PM EST
The church bulletin routinely mentioned him, they sold Nation of Islam books in the church book store, Rev. Wright traveled with Farrakhan to Syria and Libya, and, too top it all off, the church magazine gave Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award.  How is the close association and promotion of a hatemonger like Farrakhan not, in itself, reason enough to leave this church?

[ Parent ]
Obama has repudiated (none / 0) (#108)
by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:32:39 PM EST
Farrakhan in language stronger than any white dem has had the courage to use.

[ Parent ]
And (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by nell on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:35:56 PM EST
I believe it was Hillary who encouraged him/coached him through this during the debate. People hated her for it, but the fact is she gets how this kind of association will be used in a general election and she actually helped him nip that one in the bud.

[ Parent ]
Wrong (none / 0) (#118)
by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:39:15 PM EST
As usual Hillary was trying to score cheap politcal points by arguing over silly semantics. She did not coach Obama through anything.

Farrakhan has a following. Hillary, Bill, and most other dems being political animals don't want to risk losing votes by renouncing him (name one white dem who has done so; or black dem for that matter). Obama is the only one with the courage to renounce, reject and denouce Farrakhan.

[ Parent ]

Actually.. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:00:35 PM EST
Obama was asked if he rejected Farrakhan's support and he said that he had no power to reject someone's support. And then Hillary said that it was important to reject his support and the Obama said he "I reject and denounce" Farrakhan. But, it was only after being pressed by Clinton. Even then, he seemed to be parsing his words and saying that he rejected Farrakhans words, but not Farrakhan himself.

As for your other comment regarding Obama denouncing Farrakhan or whatever he's said, that's not the issue here. The issue is that he is taking his children and his family to a church that has bulletins praising Farrakhan, Nation of Islam books, and a minister that is praising and promoting Farrakhan and regularly colloraborating with him.

If Hillary was going to a church that was colloborating with and promoting a white supremacist like David Duke, there would be hell to raise and she would probably have to drop out of the race. At the very least, she would quit the fricking church!

 

[ Parent ]

Wrong (none / 0) (#165)
by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:12:12 PM EST
You may as well never go to church or synagogue or mosque if you're going to be associated with everything that goes on there. This is a fairly large church. If I belonged to a prayer group consisting of only 3 people I wouldh't want people to associate me with everything that happens in the group.

[ Parent ]
Absurd and Intelectually Dishonest (none / 0) (#193)
by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:37:06 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Has Farrakhan endorsed the others? (none / 0) (#146)
by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:59:16 PM EST
I think that's where all the renounce/repudiate/reject came from.

[ Parent ]
Farrakhan (none / 0) (#160)
by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:08:06 PM EST
did not endorse Obama. This was the crux of Obama's reasoning. Reject has the implication of rejecting an endorsement. There was no endorsement or offer of help from Farrakhan to reject. Therefore Obama felt the proper way to proceed was to renounce the ideology of Farrakhan in total, as opposed to rejecting a non-existent endorsement. It may be a fine point, but apparently Hillary wasn't sharp enough to get it and neither did Tim Russert. Seeing that his argument was going over their heads Obama conceded the point and agreed he would use language they preferred to denounce Farrakhan.

[ Parent ]
Obama's fault (5.00 / 1) (#181)
by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:21:25 PM EST
that Farakahn is an issue again.  If he was not running this would not be an issue.  He needed a few years away from Chicago politics, but no, he had to run.  Egomania.  

[ Parent ]
sorry, I thought the praise/support was (none / 0) (#204)
by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:49:57 PM EST
along with an endorsement. Didn't realize it stopped short of that.

I think she got it (Russert is a toss up, he was in gotcha mode). I think she had a different motivation than Russert.

[ Parent ]

Actually.. (none / 0) (#149)
by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:00:55 PM EST
Obama was asked if he rejected Farrakhan's support and he said that he had no power to reject someone's support. And then Hillary said that it was important to reject his support and the Obama said he "I reject and denounce" Farrakhan. But, it was only after being pressed by Clinton. Even then, he seemed to be parsing his words and saying that he rejected Farrakhans words, but not Farrakhan himself.

As for your other comment regarding Obama denouncing Farrakhan or whatever he's said, that's not the issue here. The issue is that he is taking his children and his family to a church that has bulletins praising Farrakhan, Nation of Islam books, and a minister that is praising and promoting Farrakhan and regularly colloraborating with him.

If Hillary was going to a church that was colloborating with and promoting a white supremacist like David Duke, there would be hell to raise and she would probably have to drop out of the race. At the very least, she would quit the fricking church!

 

[ Parent ]

Farrakhan and NOI (none / 0) (#171)
by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:15:42 PM EST
are not pyriahs in the black community. He is considered a genuine and authentic leader, unlike the likes of Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. People don't judge him only by the questionable comments he's made about jews. There are other things, very positive things which they use to take measure of the man and NOI. Even many white politicians (including Bill Clinton) have had good things to say about Farrakhan.

[ Parent ]
Farrakhan is a Racist NOI is Hate Group (none / 0) (#192)
by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:35:59 PM EST
Nation of Islam is on the list of hate groups of the Southern Poverty Center for it wide variety of very, very ugly and bizarre views, including that an evil black scientist created the "blue-eyed devil" white man in a lab accident 6,600 years ago.  NOI is more a racist cult than a religion.

As for Farrakhan, not only does he lead this crazy group, he's preached that whites are less evolved than blacks, praised Hitler, called white man the "anti-christ, ect, ect, but here's the kicker: he believes that the NOI founder Elijah Mohamed is still alive and in a spaceship circling the Earth ANNND, best of all, Farrakhan has ridden in this spaceship and spoken to Mohamed after he "died". I'm not making this stuff up.

Obama is smart, Harvard educated intelectual. He knews better and it shows a gross error in judgement that this went on for over 20 years and, even today, he refuses to quit the church!

[ Parent ]

Provide a link to NOI being delared a (none / 0) (#202)
by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:49:04 PM EST
hate group. They're not going out and assaulting people physically or even advocating that. You could argue that they are a defensive organization just like the JDL (though JDL seems more prone to violence and the advocacy of violence). But a reasonable person would cut the JDL some slack given the persecution of jews throught the centuries.

NOI is is mostly concerned with self-determination and self-help among blacks. These are conservative values and it is in the interest of society generally for blacks to improve themselves from within. NOI is anti-drug and alcohol abuse. They work for strong black family units, education, impeccable hygiene, healthy diets, self-respect and respect for society at large. They want to build up black communities by circulating money within the black community just like Jews, Iranians, Armenians and the other successful minorities do.

Therefore, Farrkhan and NOI are good for America. Black America getting itself together is good for everybody.

By the way, what have you said about Billy Graham who was caught on tape trying to poison Nixon's mind against Jews?

[ Parent ]

Here's the link... (none / 0) (#213)
by Exeter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:00:02 AM EST
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp

[ Parent ]
Thanks. From your link, this is how they (none / 0) (#220)
by Seth90212 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:18:46 AM EST
describe them:

Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for blacks. Most forms of black separatism are strongly anti-white and anti-Semitic, and a number of religious versions assert that blacks -- not Jews -- are the Biblical "chosen people" of God.

Although the Southern Poverty Law Center recognizes that much black racism in America is, at least in part, a response to centuries of white racism, it believes racism must be exposed in all its forms. White groups espousing beliefs similar to Black Separatists would be considered clearly racist. The same criterion should be applied to all groups regardless of their color.

This is relatively benign compared to real violent and viscious hate groups. Still, I think NOI would take great exception even to this characterization. I think Southern Poverty Law Center is bending over backwards to appear evenhanded. In any event, I don't believe that even the most wild-eyed Hillary supporter believes that Obama opposes integration or intermarriage.

[ Parent ]

Do black women have equal rights in the NOI? (none / 0) (#221)
by criticalthinker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:23:50 AM EST
Per Wikipedia, the official platform also states that "Belief in the respect (but in Muslim tradition, not the equality) of Black women" is one of the beliefs of the NOI.

I find that very troubling. Please enlighten.

[ Parent ]

Support Hillary, but don't embarrass (1.00 / 1) (#115)
by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:36:01 PM EST
yourself with fishing expeditions and guilt by association. Yes, he didn't hear this crap for 20 years. There is no proof that he did. Wright held at least 3 sermons a week for 30 years. Yet those seeking to damage Obama have found only a few instances in which he made these type of remarks. And even the offensive remarks were taken out of context. For example, when he says God damn America he was quoting the former embassador to Iraq, who happpened to be white.

[ Parent ]
Question . . . (5.00 / 1) (#155)
by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04:16 PM EST
On the tapes, DVDs and bulletins, was there a warning not to listen/read because the good Rev was using profanity, making racist, anti-(insert choice here) remarks or slurring the Clintons? because if not, it's hard to believe Obama never saw/read/heard any of this.

THAT is a credibility problem.

[ Parent ]

I am so angry. (5.00 / 1) (#224)
by faithandhope97 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:32:29 AM EST
DNC, Republicans, new that there was this stuff floating around on the internet. And they watched our campaigns go into attack mode. Now that were look like idiots,the republicans are going to go after Obama and it will make us look weaker. Have we been duped!! And this is why when Hillary was getting pounce so hard (blue dress, Lewinsky which I found EXTREMLY distasteful, etc.)the news channels block us out.  Oboma thought he had a free ride to the nomination, and he still might win that.  But did he really think that nothing else was going to be dug up? True or false, it doesn't matter the repubs will take it as far as they can.  Geez, now we have meeks, who have upset Italians.
When will the madness stop.  And this is Obama's fault. Quite naive to say the least that running for the POTUS, that he was going to get a free ride.  

[ Parent ]
Sorry (none / 0) (#121)
by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:41:56 PM EST
it was the chickens coming home to roost comment that was an attempt by Wright to convey the embassador's feelings on the issue. Ironically enough, Wright heard the embassador make these comments on Fox News.

[ Parent ]
I thought "chickens coming home" (none / 0) (#161)
by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:08:58 PM EST
was Malcolm X?

And you sure it wasn't one of the far-right religious that Wright heard after 9/11?

[ Parent ]

Malcolm X said this in reference (none / 0) (#170)
by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:14:52 PM EST
 to JFK assassination.

[ Parent ]
Yes it was Malcolm X (none / 0) (#174)
by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:18:41 PM EST
Wright was paraphrasing the ambassador by using Malcolm X's terminology. And I do recall this interview with the ambassador after 9/11. Frankly I was stunned. He ripped this country apart. Wright's sermon on this subject was much more neutral and moderate than the ambassador's comments.

[ Parent ]
I missed the ambassador's comments (none / 0) (#184)
by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:25:07 PM EST
as I did Falwell's. Those didn't filter through until later. I didn't have cable at the time, so info was spotty. I think we had one very fuzzy channel.

Do you have a link connecting this?

[ Parent ]

Ed Peck, former embassador to Iraq (none / 0) (#194)
by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:37:14 PM EST
I did not find this particular segment on Youtube. But I remember watching it as it happened. Not so much because of the unyielding anti-American content, but because it came out of the mouth of a former ambassador on a major news network just a few days after 9/11. This was Wright's point, he too was stunned by Peck's commentary. Wright agreed with Peck's sentiment but his sermon was much more contextual and nuanced than the angry anti-Americanism of Peck.

Here is the actual sermon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqPUXjFYh38

He starts on Peck at 3:20.

[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0) (#211)
by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:58:43 PM EST
yeah, major news networks weren't working too well for some time here. Some stuff from that day I didn't see until the 1yr anniversary.

I'll watch the sermon vid. appreciate a whole sermon one. you wouldn't have a link to the second sermon that he uses 9/11 in would you? he seperates it out with Twin Towers, The Pentagon, The field in PA etc and mixes them in with other events. I've seen it 2x's on Fox, but it was always late and I can never remember the gist of it.

[ Parent ]

Trinity created a channel on youtube (none / 0) (#216)
by Seth90212 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:03:47 AM EST
http://www.youtube.com/user/TRINITYCHGO.

I haven't seen the second sermon you're referring to or even bits of it. But it may be on their channel.

[ Parent ]

Tomorrow's View Today: Obama on Wright | 199 comments (199 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft