home
Obama & the Recommitment March absence (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:48:07 PM EST
in Memphis today,and why?  Hmmmm, let's see:
Obama talks the talk of being "Black in America", but he doesn't "do the walk". He has 'declined' to attend the two most important convocations of Black affairs so far this year. The first was The Black State of the Union Conference held in New Orleans a week or so after the Louisiana primary. Here, the most prominent Black leaders of the United States convened and invited all the presidential candidates of both political parties to attend. Not surprisingly, none of the Republican candidates attended; John Edwards and Obama also CHOSE NOT TO ATTEND! HILLARY CLINTON DID.

Senator Clinton could have very well done the same as the other two, especially after how the black voters did a number on her, not recognizing her great efforts to help the people of New Orleans in our most desperate hours, choosing to give their vote to Obama, who for the life of me, I swear, was not heard from, not even seen in one of the many Senators-carrying tourist buses "surveying" or "assessing" the devastation, much less contributing with his time or effort like the Clintons were (in spite of what all the pundit Clinton haters might now say were his or her motives). Some commentators manifested she had done so, attended I mean, because she was behind in the polls (the same ineffective reason they give all the time for anything and everything she does). I saw it as her way of saying "you may have abandoned me, but I haven't abandoned you" in your cause; but I guess that's just me.

Now, two months later, there is this humongous, full of symbolism, important RECOMMITMENT MARCH through Memphis, AND ONCE AGAIN, OBAMA CHOOSES NOT TO ATTEND! There have been other similar decisions on his part to NOT ATTEND APPARENTLY INSIGNIFICANT EVENTS REGARDING BLACK ISSUES, BLACK CONFERENCES, BLACK AFFAIRS. No one notices I guess. He gives the same lame excuse every time: he's campaigning. Ok? does this mean that the other two candidates' campaigns are not as important as his that they can afford to go? Or that they have been intimidated by the specter of what they might be accused, by-we-all-know-who and his flock(read this pundits), of being 'dismissive' about the importance of the Civil Rights movement and its leader MLK; or worse yet, have the R card thrown at them? But the media, that 'typical white' media typically gives him a typical green light, typically without questioning.

So, what do we have here? What kind of person are we dealing with here? By these absences are we to deduce that: He's Black to 'typical whites', but he's too White to associate or show solidarity with those very meritorious and valiant Black men who have really stood against all odds to shout the call of freedom?

Well, (3.00 / 0) (#43)
by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:02:54 PM EST
He said he had already spoke at King's former church a few weeks ago and spent time with the King family.  He also said that he just did a big race speech and that we have to realize that King's work isn't finished yet.

I don't see anything wrong with his decision to skip the march, but there's something about his "tone" that rubs me the wrong way.

[ Parent ]

Rather than celebrate King's death in Memphis... (1.00 / 0) (#41)
by tbetz on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:59:48 PM EST
... thereby exploiting his memory for political gain, Obama chose to honor King's principles, by speaking where RFK spoke the day of King's death, thereby preventing rioting in that city.

[ Parent ]
Why is it that (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:07:52 PM EST
Speaking at a March that honors King's legacy an example of exploitation, but speaking at the location where RFK spoke the night of King's death on the 40th anniversary of King's death not exploitation?

Let's be consistent here.

[ Parent ]

That's right, troll rate me for telling the truth. (none / 0) (#70)
by tbetz on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM EST
Hillary's speech was all about her reaction to King's death.  "I, I, I, me, me."  McCain's speech was full of lies about his own history with the MLK holiday.  Entirely self-serving.

Only Obama's speech was about putting King's principles into action.

An excerpt from his Fort Wayne speech:

In the dark days after Dr. King's death, Coretta Scott King pointed out the stars. She took up her husband's cause and led a march in Memphis. But while those sanitation workers eventually got their union contract, the struggle for economic justice remains an unfinished part of the King legacy. Because the dream is still out of reach for too many Americans. Just this morning, it was announced that more Americans are unemployed now than at any time in years. And all across this country, families are facing rising costs, stagnant wages, and the terrible burden of losing a home.

Part of the problem is that for a long time, we've had a politics that's been too small for the scale of the challenges we face. This is something I spoke about a few weeks ago in a speech I gave in Philadelphia. And what I said was that instead of having a politics that lives up to Dr. King's call for unity, we've had a politics that's used race to drive us apart, when all this does is feed the forces of division and distraction, and stop us from solving our problems.

That is why the great need of this hour is much the same as it was when Dr. King delivered his sermon in Memphis. We have to recognize that while we each have a different past, we all share the same hopes for the future - that we'll be able to find a job that pays a decent wage, that there will be affordable health care when we get sick, that we'll be able to send our kids to college, and that after a lifetime of hard work, we'll be able to retire with security. They're common hopes, modest dreams.  And they're at the heart of the struggle for freedom, dignity, and humanity that Dr. King began, and that it is our task to complete.

You know, Dr. King once said that the arc of the moral universe is long, but that it bends toward justice. But what he also knew was that it doesn't bend on its own. It bends because each of us puts our hands on that arc and bends it in the direction of justice.

So on this day - of all days - let's each do our part to bend that arc.

Let's bend that arc toward justice.

Let's bend that arc toward opportunity.

Let's bend that arc toward prosperity for all.

And if we can do that and march together - as one nation, and one people - then we won't just be keeping faith with what Dr. King lived and died for, we'll be making real the words of Amos that he invoked so often, and "let justice roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream."



[ Parent ]
First of all: (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by kayla on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:51:57 PM EST
Why would somebody troll rate you?  What did you do?

Second of all:  Thank you for posting some of Obama's speech.  I heard this portion and all of Hillary's speech.  Hillary's was good because it acknowledged all that King had accomplished.  I actually thought it was great to hear where she fit in all of it.  King's dream reached out to all different sorts of people and she lived it.  I love when she said that he took her hand and didn't ask who she was or where she was from, but just thanked her for coming.  She also spoke about how King understood that government can expand just as our hearts can and she has faith that the future will further realize his dream.  Barack pretty much said the same thing.  He said that King's work is unfinished while showing that we all connect to it somehow.  Maybe he had a better written speech than her, but that doesn't mean her sole purpose of attending the March was to pander.  I don't understand why location matters at all.

[ Parent ]

Ask the obviously-named NO2WONDERBOY... (none / 0) (#73)
by tbetz on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:17:31 PM EST
... who seems to be here solely for the purpose of downrating other people's comments, while contributing nothing to the conversation.

Obaka's remarks seemed to me to be more in the spirit of Dr. King's approach, because he exhorts people to action, while other politicians emphasize "what I will do" or "what I have done."

While activists have always done this, the last Democratic presidential candidate I recall who exhorted Americans to action was JFK.  Others all echo the theme of "I, I, me, me."  Today, when politics has been so corrupted by big money, the idea of the people taking back the government is a winning message, one that is activated by the way the Obama campaign has managed itself and its fundraising.

Something that movement conservatism learned long ago, and that lefties need to take to heart now, is that every day is a campaign day.  No matter who we elect in November, we need to continue this activism as part of our day-to-day routine long after the election campaigns have endedw

[ Parent ]

Well, I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by kayla on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:46:50 AM EST
100%.  But I just can't get behind the idea that Hillary is completely self-serving.  Hillary did have a call to action in her speech as well.  She said we should stop whining about poverty and do something about it.  She said that King always answered the call to action and it's time we do the same.  She's not a lazy politician who's only end is to win.  She is looking beyond that.  She wants to make a change in Washington too.  Just because her message is different doesn't mean it's disingenuous.  And I actually like a politician to say "What I Have Done".  If they've had a successful and productive political life before running, then I have an easier time trusting them.  I actually prefer hearing the "have done"s over the "will do"s.  Barack is more of a "we will do" and "I am doing" type of candidate.  Which I think is a great part of his appeal.  His language is very different from the norm.

These are just two different campaigns, appealing to two different kinds of people.  They'd both be a vast improvement to what we currently have.  Any Democrat is fine with me.  And even though I'm not the biggest fan of Barack, I know that he's not just any Democrat.  He's intelligent, he's inspiring millions, and he's running a great campaign.

[ Parent ]

Excellent question. (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:56:14 PM EST


[ Parent ]
What do we have here? (none / 0) (#61)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:40:29 AM EST
We have a "black" candidate who goes with the Kennedy connection instead of the MLK connection. No surprise, the Kennedys endorsed him. MLK is dead and not endorsing anyone.

We have a candidate who runs as a black man in America, a constitutional lawyer who has never done any civil rights work.

We have a politician who is a "community organizer" when it comes to getting out the vote, but absent when the community needs help with decent housing and not able to travel a mile from his own home to see the situation for himself.

We have a black man who belongs to a church that is enraged about slavery and its long-term effects on Afro-Americans, and that black man has not one relative of any generation who was ever a slave.

What we have here is a phony.
(That's "phony", not "pony".)


[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft