John Kerry on Why Barack Obama Can Bridge the Religious Divide

Kerry says Barack Obama can bridge the divide on religious extremism because of his race.

< Your Police State at Work | PA Poll: Clinton By 16; WV Poll: Clinton By 28 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Does anyone understand the logic of this comment? (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    It is lost on me.

    What's funny is... he tried NOT to do nuance! (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:10:38 PM EST
    He was very clear and succint with his statement:

    "Because he is a black man."  Ugh, Kerry go back to nuance.


    It's not that tricky folks (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:41:09 PM EST
    and its unfortunate that Jeralyn's skills aren't put to better work here. It is obvious that Kerry was cut off mid-sentence in the YouTube clip that everyone is now getting distracted by.

    "Because he's African American. Because he's a black man, who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country. We only broke the back of civil rights, Jim Crow, in the 1960s here. Everybody in the world knows this is a recent journey for America too. And everybody still knows that issues of skin and discrimination still exist."

    He is discussing Obama's connection to another group of people who feel oppression.  That's why the rest of the line is cut off.

    Hell, if it want this sort of blind stupidity, I can go to NoQuarter.


    Still failing to see how this applies to Islam (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:45:30 PM EST
    In the Muslim world, the major victims of opression and repression happen to be women, so by that logic Hillary would be better qualified.

    One one hand you are correct (none / 0) (#62)
    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:59:32 PM EST
    HRC or her supporters could make that claim and it would be reasonable.

    But I think the Shi'a would disagree with you on the oppression and repression debate.


    you're joking, right (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:06:15 PM EST
    about shi'a?  The tiniest minority of muslims are shi'a, but more than 50% are women, so let's stop pretending.

    No I'm not joking (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:11:40 PM EST
    especially about the Shi'a in Iraq.  And I didn't realize we accepted oppression if the numbers of oppressed people were low.

    However, to the point, you are willfully ignoring that fact that Kerry did not say the Obama could build bridges to the Muslim world because he was black, he said he could do so because he had "come from a place of oppression and repression." The YouTube clip is inaccurate and cuts him off mid-sentence. If you believe in this sort of deception in the name of politics, then so be it.


    And... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    He "comes froma place of oppression and repression" because he's black.  As has been pointed out by others, there's really nothing else in his biography that would justify this characterization.

    I'm not accepting (none / 0) (#135)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:36:51 PM EST
    minority oppression of shi'a over the same religion's oppression of women.  I'm simply pointing out your analogy is ridiculous.

    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:59:52 PM EST
    It was obvious that something was cut off in the YouTube clip. Maybe there's something to what he is saying, but it seems just as strong an argument could be made about Clinton being able to speak to half of the world that most of the power structure fails to take notice of: women.

    So, maybe Kerry's right, but I wouldn't see that as a reason to favor Obama over Clinton.


    I agree completely with you. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:14:08 PM EST
    We're not blindly stupid. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:00:14 PM EST
    And no need for cursing. I disagree that Kerry's full statement is factually correct. He also sounds a bit melodramatic which is not unusual for O's supporters.

    My apologies (none / 0) (#78)
    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    Next time I'll say H-E-Double hockey sticks... and I won't use the NQ word again.

    The extra words don't make the (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by tree on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:05:26 PM EST
    quote any less stupid. Just "because he's black", Kerry assumes that he's "come from a place of oppression and repression". Obama was born and grew up in Honolulu and Indonesia, he lived with his white mother or his white grandparents all that time, and went to a ritzy private school in Honolulu. (All the public school kids thought that the Punahou kids were stuck-ups.) Growing up in Honolulu is not the same as growing up in the South or in the poor inner city on the Mainland. Hawaii's got its own racial tensions, but they are much more layered, and black-white tension is not a major factor there.

      Kerry is really just stereotyping Obama. Although he's not doing it in a negative way, he's still stereotyping.


    I don't disagree (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:18:46 PM EST
    There is an assumption (and a moderately offensive one at that) that just because Obama is African-American that "he comes from a place of oppression."  However, even wealthy blacks and private school blacks, are more exposed to oppression/repression that whites. Hardly a great Kerry moment, but far from worthy of all the outrage.  

    It's just another distraction... a big shiny thing.


    so you are backtracking now? (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by tree on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    You were the one who brought up the extended Kerry quote, and implied that the extension made the quote less idiotic. Now, I guess not so much, eh?

     I don't like the whole idea of ranking people's oppression, but I think the idea that every black had it worse then every white, regardless of class or circumstance, is not true and is in itself a faulty stereotype.


    Backtracking.? No. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:43:08 PM EST
    Just discussing Kerry's actual comment, not the truncated one that is on the YouTube clip that Jeralyn embedded here.  The full sentence IS NOT the same as the truncated version.  If it did have the same meaning then the full clip would have been posted. Someone wants to play gotchya with this clip... and I call BS.

    I just happen to expect a little bit of critical thought instead of everyone going viral because Kerry said Obama's skin color makes him a bridge-builder with Islam.  You wanna discuss the issue or critique the statement, then do it with the FULL statement, not some clumsily truncated one.

    And if anyone believes that the clip was not truncated on purpose and then posted that way to YouTube in order to continue the distraction of the race discussion then that person is wildly naive.


    I did discuss the full statement (none / 0) (#97)
    by tree on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    and said the extension was just as idiotic. You said you didn't disagree. Where's the lack of critical thought? Sometimes hearing more of a quote gives it context and helps to understand the meaning intended. This extension does not: it simply amplifies and expands on the truncated quote's meaning; one that can be easily gleaned from the shorter quote.  

    I agreed that the full quote (none / 0) (#110)
    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:19:28 PM EST
    was problematic.  The difference is that this YouTube clip is being peddled here and elsewhere as a Gotchya arguement to counter Obama's recent speech.  It's become a "see, see, Obama is only getting elected because he's Black... Ferraro was right".  That's why this clip is now everywhere and that's why Kerry was cut off mid-sentence. The full quote is less dramatically about Race. This interview is being introduced as a piece of evidence in a stupid war of racial distraction.  As I said when I started on this thread - I expect more from Jeralyn.

    i for one don't like people trying to (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    manipulate me whether it be faux guilt or just buying a certain detergent. i don't like it. why can't obama just come out campaign and win/lose like any other candidate. why does he keep trying to be special? he isn't!

    I'd completely agree with you but for one (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:02:23 PM EST
    thing... the Obama camp seems to want to have it both ways - anyone who acknowledges the sociological significance of Obama has skin color outside their own camp (cough - Ferraro) is villified as racist while their own surrogates go out make very similar statements about the advantages of his skin color.  

    Both Kerry and Ferraro essentially make the claim that Obama's ethnicity is an advantage - one is villified and the other will be a hero.

    I have heard numerous Obama surrogates say that supporting Obama puts people "on the right side of history" - an indirect but obvious reference to Obama's ethnicity - but what does that really mean?  Are you on the "wrong" side of history if you support the female candidate?  Clinton's ascendency to the White House would be historically significant too last I checked.  Gender and ethnicity are not factors in my votes, and I understand that they are factors for some, but if we really want to "transcend", it seems to me that highlighting these god-given attributes for either positive or negative is not the way to go.

    I personally just find the Obama campaign's position confusing and I am having a harder and harder time trying to figure out how to follow the rules.  I suspect I am not the only one who is feeling this way.


    A good reason why we should (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:25:21 PM EST
    stop with the faux outrage over the statements of surrogates.  It's all a political game - Hillary's a "monster" (fire her!), Ferraro says Obama's "lucky" to be black (fire her!), blah blah blah.

    These are childish political games.

    The press and the blogosphere pay far too much attention to the words of the surrogates. It is a zero sum game. And the Dems are falling prey to it. We have two candidates that are extremely qualified to be president, but they must now both answer to every single person who may even peripherally connected to their campaign. They have both been set-up to take a hard fall and meet an impossible litmus test... yet our oh so smart progressive, netroots community, marches right along and plays along with this farce.


    The faux outrage is a product (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:50:21 PM EST
    of the ever changing rules and so I would look to the Obama campaign to stop changing them.  He is in the position to do this - Clinton cannot as she has been painted as a "racist" - wrongly.

    I want "The Democrat" to win in November and I look at this question of when and how it is "okay" to raise the subject of Obama's ethnicity as potentially so confusing for voters that if it is not cleared up it could result in voter fatigue on the issue of race and drive the electorate away from the Democratic Party.

    Personally, I'd rather see both sides' surrogates talk about issues like the economic fairness, healthcare, the war, social justice in an effort to reach out to all Americans regardless of race, creed, or gender.   Crazy I know, but that's what I'd like to see.


    I'm sure the surrogates do talk about the issues (none / 0) (#123)
    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    those clips just never make it to YouTube.

    Those clips would make it to (none / 0) (#129)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:11:34 PM EST
    YouTube if the campaigns showed some discipline and gave them nothing else.

    Oh, come on... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:06:59 PM EST
    He was born in Hawaii in 1961.

    He lived there until 1967, when he was 6.

    From 6-10 he lived in Jakarta.

    In 1971, he came here and lived with his grandparents.

    He was not here for the Jim Crow years.

    What repression?  What oppression?  Who are the people he, personally, suffered with?  He went to good schools and good colleges.

    Kerry is a colossal disappointment.

    Oh - and today on a radio interview with a Phila. radio station, Senator Obama explains his grandmother in terms of her being a "typical white person," which is just jaw-dropping.

    Yeah - he should be a real help to us in our relationships in the world.  Really such a shame he couldn't have torn himself away from the important work of campaigning to have even one subcommittee hearing or make one trip to meet with out allies abroad.  Tsk, tsk.

    Yeah, he'll be a real asset.  


    When you watch (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:23:06 PM EST
    the entire interview it is even worse....

    "in some cases go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can't otherwise."

    "He has the ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism,"
    "To maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion."

    And he is credible

    "Because he's African-American. Because he's a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country."

    I fail to follow Sen Kerry's logic.


    It's odd (none / 0) (#88)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    The other weird thing about this is when you consider how up in arms the Obama campaign and its supporters get when anyone implies he is Muslim.  I would not think their reaction would endear Obama to the Muslim community.  

    smile, that's because there is none! (none / 0) (#138)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:54:30 PM EST
    Go around their leaders? (none / 0) (#181)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:53:55 PM EST
    Going around leaders to their people and inspire them? With what? Starbucks and McDonalds? Exelon and Mobil? Free Trade Zones?

    I'm sorry if that sounds trite, but having lived and worked abroad for years, I've come to appreciate how arrogant and chilling scarey that sounds to the ears of even our closest western allies.

    Have you seen the Canadian documentary "The Corporation"? It was widely seen everywhere else to great acclaim, but its all but unknown in the US.


    and now this guy (none / 0) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:46:39 PM EST
    represents American corporate and military interests and that makes him one of the oppressed?  Are you kidding.  Any American president represents American interests.  Political and economic.  

    What do you mean? Obama is descended (none / 0) (#71)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST
    from slaveowners in Kenya.

    Do you have a link for the full Kerry comment (none / 0) (#104)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    on video?

    or transcript?


    Does it seem that Clinton Rules and Obama Rules are operative here? It's not OK for a Clinton supporter to say anything about Obama's race, good or bad. It is OK for an Obama supporer to mention his race as long as it is laudatory (a given from a supporter, perhaps, but maybe not).

    According to Media Matters, Joe Scarborough said Hillary was using "code words" when talking about equality in the voting booth. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. Sheesh.

    OK, can't get the directions for link below to work, so go to Media Matters.


    The legacy of slavery is undeniably (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:38:45 PM EST
    still with us as a society.  And sadly still too close to the descendants of slaves.

    However, Obama is not one of them.  Actually, his connection to slavery is that an ancestor was a slaveholder.  Nor does Obama himself state that it was his personal legacy -- instead, in his book, he makes clear that as an adult, he made a conscious effort (for example, by joining Wright's church) to connect with the African American community in this country.

    Kerry saying this makes about as much sense as if he claimed that he himself came from oppression and repression of the Jewish community.


    Do you believe that anyone with dark skin (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:54:25 PM EST
    is exempt from some prejudice in America? I really find it hard to believe that bigots are so discerning, they did not ever discriminate against Barack Obama because his ancestors were slave owners (as if this information would somehow be known by would be bigots).

    No one is exempt from prejudice. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:23:14 PM EST
    No one.

    Skin color.
    Hair color.
    Language skills/English.
    Height (lack of re men).
    Education (lack of).
    Living condition/location.

    Etc. etc.

    I know my own prejudices and how to guard against them.  I don't think most people do...know them OR guard against them.  That has been my observation, at least...and when I bring it up in conversation, people deny or lie or go silent and change the subject.


    Of course not. Discriimination exists (none / 0) (#152)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    about skin color -- on all sides.  But that is not what Kerry said.  He was speaking of a background shared by most African Americans but not Obama.

    Focus on what Kerry said, not on whatever you mean by what is between your parentheses.


    No, he was speaking truth that (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:28:58 PM EST
    any black person has a different experience than a white person. I am sure you know exactly what I mean in the parentheses, you can make the argument that Obama's background is not slavery, but I assure you that does not insulate him from bigotry and prejudice.

    nor women, older people, asians, latinos (none / 0) (#183)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:09:29 PM EST
    or any other group of americans. the irish, chinese were all looked down on when they came here. today no group should be special, right. i am sure you will agree with that.

    Think it will ever dawn on people (none / 0) (#20)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:32 PM EST
    that the Wright problem isn't all about race?  It's mainly just being anti-American and a hate monger.

    Well its that too (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    but isn't it really a strike at the core of what he says his talent is, to heal the divide, easy to do when in your judgment, on your watch, no one can do any harm that you will see, challenge or resolve until there is a splash back that hits Obama.  His two closest Patrons victimized the people he represented one from the pulpit preaching irrational fears and one alleged in the State and Federal bureaucracies involving millions, he said nothing and he took no responsibility for extending the creditability and trust of his elected office to them through his close association sitting in the Pew he just said not me personally, not my job.

    Only partially about race (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:17:43 PM EST
    I think most people would be more angry if a white guy had made those statements, if possible.  Just because he is black and has endured racism in his life doesn't excuse it either.  Maybe for those with an overdose of liberal white guilt it matters, but I must have missed my guilt injection because it doesn't for me.  The guy is a flat out nutjob with his conspiracy theory about AIDS and hate filled sermons.

    Kerry's been reading over at (none / 0) (#33)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan's blog. He said O will present his brown face to the world and the world will looooove us again(paraphrasing, of course).

    Kerry, Kerrey.. what's the difference. (none / 0) (#69)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:06:16 PM EST
    They're both old white men who are stupid enough to get ideas from Sully.

    OMG that man needs to stay off camera... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:34:07 PM EST
    Wow. (none / 0) (#126)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:08:08 PM EST
     Just makes no sense at all. I guess the Muslims are going to look at him and say, well now we don't have to be afraid of America, the president is black. Huh?

    And since when are Democrats so afraid of radical Muslims that we think the only answer is appeasing them with someone who ? looks like them?


    I've been wondering when Ted Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Of John Kerry would make statements re Obama's relationship w/Wright.  Too bad I can't open the video from this computer.

    just as soon as they give their SD vote to Hillary (none / 0) (#18)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    so try never (none / 0) (#19)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    So Kerry says it'd be "lucky," (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    essentially, for us to have Obama in the White House.  Uh huh.

    Let me be the first to call for Kerry to resign from any connection with Obama's campaign, since Kerry just said something as racist as what Ferraro said.

    (Of course, in both cases, they are saying what Obama has said, but that's okay by the Obama Roolz.)

    What ? (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    Ok, lets get one thing straight.  I was born in Egypt of Lebanese and Greek ancestry.  I go to Europe and the Egypt often.  To the world Americans are Americans.  Except for the French, who think AA who play jazz are cool, Americans of all colors are seen as Americans and representing American interests.

     People over "there" (the middle east) don't get fooled.   Americans in Iraq, the soldiers are white and black, they are Americans.  This is an American construct.  Condoleeza was AA.  Powell was AA, how did they do better with the people of the middle east?   Anyway, he is a Christian American, who did everything in his power to disavow being a Moslem in any way, he even runs away from his middle name.  

    Didn't even think of that (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:21:04 PM EST
    Very good of you to bring up Condoleeza Rice.  I almost forgot about her.  She hasn't been bridging much of anything with anyone.  That is part of the reason I feel so strongly we need an administration who is strong on diplomatic matters.  A Clinton White House would win on this front by far.  Imagine Bill Clinton going around the world with Hillary along with someone like Wesley Clark and Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame... (Obama can come as VP)  Ahh it would be a great way to bring America back on track.

    It's sort of insulting (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:25:11 PM EST
    to think that people in the middle east don't understand that an American President represents American interests and that somehow they will think that the Obama presidency absolves America of Iraq and other issues involving the middle east.  How stupid does he think we are?  

    I get the impression... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:31:06 PM EST
    many BO supporters do seem to think very little of Hillary voters or American electorate in general.  They delight in reminding everyone how Obama gets the "educated" and creative class voters and that only the "low information voters" fail to see the brilliance...  See, if only they would be smarter, they could GET IT.

    Same folks who think that (none / 0) (#156)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:30:13 PM EST
    seat time and a diploma equal intelligence.

    Speaking of Condi, has anyone (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    asked O why he voted to confirm her as SOS? Didn't she have a bigger hand in getting us into Iraq than H's AUMF vote?

    No one could have imagined... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:48:15 PM EST
    that she'd be so ineffective at the job.  Really, even Donald Trump makes fun of her.

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:29:47 PM EST
    But I was really surprized when Oprah announced in an interview that she was an A-A women.... before that I only thought of her as an women.

    I don't refer to myself as a American White-Indian-African Women. I really identify myself as an women who is an American.  


    there is a clip of oprah making fun (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:01:50 PM EST
    of the women who wrote her about not supporting a woman. she mocks them! there is no doubt there. ladies, how does it feel to see the true oprah? i haven't been a fan for awhile. i want to point out this was acutally introuduced by an aa minister from harlem.

    Ahem...Harlen went for Hillary. (none / 0) (#157)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:32:14 PM EST
    Harlem. M. sigh...typos... (none / 0) (#160)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:33:11 PM EST
    good for harlem! i understand that clinton put (none / 0) (#164)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:37:27 PM EST
    some real money into harlem in his last days as president.

    And his post-presidential office (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:11:32 PM EST
    is in Harlem!



    Thanks for the view of one who has ties overseas (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:36:47 PM EST
    That makes sense to me.  I didn't think other countries were as hung up on it as we are. It is just our own projection telling us it makes a huge difference beyond our shores. If there was an impact to be made by having the first African Americans representing the country to the world at the highest levels, it was made with Colin Powell and Condi Rice. The world soon learned, as if they needed to be told, that the color of the envelope is irrelevent if the message is deadly.

    I think they are past caring about the race or gender of our leaders.


    An Egyptian-born and educated (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:34:50 PM EST
    person who now lives in California told me recently Al Jazeera and other Arab media are pushing for Obama.  Is this true?

    Some probably are (none / 0) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:39:34 PM EST
    but people over there also like the Clintons...

    Why would that be a problem for you (none / 0) (#43)
    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    or Why would that be suprising?

    It isn't a problem for me, but it was (4.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:52:17 PM EST
    for the woman I talked with.  

    Did you ask her why she was surprised? (none / 0) (#103)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    I wouldn't characterize her as surprised, (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:46:06 PM EST
    more alarmed.  I think she is a Coptic Christian from Egypt.  She emphasized his entire name, not just middle name, as if that proved he really must be Muslim.  This was b/4 the Rev. Wright flap, so I sd., you know, Obama has been a member of a UCC congregation for 20 years and that is a Christian Protestant denomination, quite liberal.  That was the end of the discussion.

    i have a business client who is coptic (none / 0) (#143)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    christian and formerly from egypt. he told them they were mistreated there.

    i also think there is growing alarm in the israeli government about obama as well.


    Egyptian Coptic Christians have obtained (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:10:34 PM EST
    assylum in the U.S. due to religious persecution (my source on this is a Manhattan cab driver!).

    one of the best sources! smile! (none / 0) (#150)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:13:49 PM EST
    The nuance in Kerry's statement is (none / 0) (#35)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    'he is black and has a moslem background (even if he is a Christian).  Moslem is the only thing that might appeal to the countries in the middle east (except Israel).

    Stellaaa makes a good point of mentioning the irrelevancy of Condoleeza Rice.

    At a time of such race and religious controversy surrounding Obama, Kerry's statement is not helping.  Well, another one that Obama cannot disown.

    I do believe his campaign is imploding.  


    Interesting (none / 0) (#56)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    And this may be off topic, so it can be deleted, but I have also heard that Africans don't like the term "African American" because they don't really see black Americans as "from Africa".  Granted, I think I heard this on a Very Special MTV something, but it sort of goes with what you are saying....  Have you heard anything like this?

    As an African American... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kayla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:23:44 PM EST
    I prefer the term 'black'.  But either one is okay with me and I think it depends on who you ask how strongly they feel about it.

    I wouldn't even say Barack's father is African-American.  He's Kenyan-American.


    wasn't obama's father of arab ancestry also? (none / 0) (#144)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:04:46 PM EST
    i am asking because i read it somewhere.

    LOL (none / 0) (#127)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:09:19 PM EST
    Your comment about AAs playing jazz so they're cool.

    Well...the French (none / 0) (#133)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    Sorry to generalize, they treat African immigrants and North Africans horribly and disparage Americans for racism, but somehow, jazz is ok with them.  I tell you no one has the monopoly on justice or injustice.  We are all soiled.  

    good points! (none / 0) (#139)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    Makes absolutely no sense (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:07:57 PM EST
    People are discussing this over at MYDD.

    Someone remind Kerry that Muslims come from all races and backgrounds...

    What about this: (5.00 / 17) (#12)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    Almost ten percent of all American women will be victims or rape or attempted rape in their lifetimes.  In South Africa, women have rape insurance in case they get infected with HIV.  In some muslim countries, young girls are still castrated with broken Coke bottles.  In other countries (also known as our "allies"), women are being burned alive by their husbands or burned with acid; they are property, chattel.  

    What would it do for the world, where over 50% of the population is female, to have the strongest most influential country in the world headed by a woman?

    In Finland, where women make up half the cabinet and hold 40% of other elected positions, they have one of the lowest crime rates, the fewest number of incarcerated criminals and the lowest number of rapes.

    Maybe someone should ask John Kerry to comment on that--I mean, if he really wants to heal the world.

    great comment (none / 0) (#14)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:12:54 PM EST
    It would be a true sea change for all (none / 0) (#15)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    hear, hear (none / 0) (#25)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:27:17 PM EST
    Well said! (none / 0) (#99)
    by splashy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:01:29 PM EST
    Why on earth people seem to think that women are not discriminated against, haven't dealt with all kinds of abuse, and do not understand how it is to be passed over for things is beyond me.

    They obviously have not looked into the statistics.


    People, people (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:11:25 PM EST
    according to the DNC logic, we can't have a woman president because the Muslims find it offensive to have a woman in public office--as well as the evangelical Christians.  So now we're electing public officials according to the dictates of religious extremists?

    i am thinking about the women leaders (none / 0) (#140)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:59:17 PM EST
    in pakistan and india right now. how come we can't do that?

    Were you aware (none / 0) (#141)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:59:21 PM EST
    that no country has ever elected a member of their minority as President?

    Is that true? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:32:20 PM EST
    You mean ethnic minority, right? Because men get elected all the time and they are actually the minority in most (maybe all?) countries.

    Excuse me, you are absolutely correct! (none / 0) (#172)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:50:50 PM EST
    I misspoke on that.

    Alberto Fujimori (none / 0) (#176)
    by tree on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:18:20 PM EST
    Peru, 1990.

    Kerry starts out by saying (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by tarheel74 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:23:12 PM EST
    that it would be an "affirmation of who we are as a people" if we elected an African American as a president. Then the rest follows. No mention that he is biracial. Anyway the hypocrisy here is think what would have happened if this was said by a Clinton supporter even as a back handed compliment (Bob Kerrey comes to mind).

    Affirmation? (4.50 / 4) (#82)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:22:43 PM EST
    By making someone so inexperienced as President?  When do we ever learn our lesson?Must we endure another four years of an inexperienced president after the last eight years? Just because he says things people want to hear?  

    Anyone else notice that (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by tree on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:30:32 PM EST
    he just validated Geraldine Ferraro's viewpoint?

    Yes (none / 0) (#130)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:12:02 PM EST
    I got that!

    New Obama strategy.... ? surrogates bringing race (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    "Obama surrogates bringing race in talkingpoints"

     McCaskill :

    "He, for the first time, I think, as a black leader in America, has come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader," McCaskill said.


    Being black can help Obama "bridge the divide of religious extremism" due to his roots in "a place of oppression, because he is black"

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by kayla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:10:47 PM EST
    What McCaskill said is extremely offensive.  But it's coming from the Obama camp so it'll go unnoticed.  Sigh...

    It's not true (none / 0) (#131)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    either.  He's totally playing the victim to guilt people into voting for him.  Michelle Obama:  as a black man, Barack can get shot just going to the gas station.

    Of course, in the world most Americans live in, anyone can get shot going to school, to the mall, or walking to their office in the evening.

    The Democrats should be punished severely for introducing race into the election cycle this year.  Obama's candidacy should have been kept until he has more experience and the country is not in such dire condition.


    What About MLK? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    I personally never saw MLK as anything other than as a great black leader. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever picture him as portraying himself as a victim.

    My opinion of Senator McCaskill drops even further down on the favorability scale.


    trying to post the link but failed so here it is (none / 0) (#30)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:33:19 PM EST
    Contradicting Each Other? (none / 0) (#75)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    In a way, but worse is that (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:34:20 PM EST
    Obama's message was to transcend race -- and now Kerry says to vote on race.

    And worst is that Bill Clinton and Gerry Ferraro were treated so terribly by many of the same apologists trying to translate What Kerry and McCaskill Really Meant.

    Thanks, I don't need a translation.  I can see quite clearly what is the strategy of the Obama campaign.


    Ha ha, yeah but.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:37:44 PM EST
    ..with surrogates like these......

    Exactly (none / 0) (#132)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:15:34 PM EST
    I can't believe I gave John Kerry money.

    McCaskill (none / 0) (#47)
    by Manuel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:46:43 PM EST
    Did she just slight Jesse Jackson?

    Does he mean Kenya? (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:47:03 PM EST
    Sound snarky, but I really am asking seriously.

    sorry with these comments the phrase (none / 0) (#146)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:06:28 PM EST
    open mouth and insert foot comes to mind.

    NY Civil Rights Coalion Leader -- Obama blew it (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by jerry on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:35:25 PM EST
    An interesting alternative view:

    Obama blew it - Los Angeles Times

    What the candidate should have said about race.
    By Michael Meyers
    March 20, 2008
    Tim Rutten's column, "Obama's Lincoln moment" and The Times editorial, "Obama on race" both miss the mark.

    In my considered judgment as a race and civil rights specialist, I would say that Barack Obama's "momentous" speech on race settled on merely "explaining" so-called racial differences between blacks and whites -- and in so doing amplified deep-seated racial tensions and divisions. Instead of giving us a polarizing treatise on the "black experience," Obama should have reiterated the theme that has brought so many to his campaign: That race ain't what it used to be in America.

    He should have presented us a pathway out of our racial boxes and a road map for new thinking about race. He should have depicted his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., as a symbol of the dysfunctional angry men who are stuck in the past and who must yield to a new generation of color-blind, hopeful Americans and to a new global economy in which we will look on our neighbors' skin color no differently than how we look on their eye color.

    In fact, I'd say that considering the nation's undivided attention to this all-important speech, which gave him an unrivaled opportunity to lift us out of racial and racist thinking, Obama blew it.

    I waited in vain for our hybrid presidential candidate to speak the simple truth that there is no such thing as "race," that we all belong to the same race -- the human race. I waited for him to mesmerize us with a singular and focused appeal to hold all candidates to the same standards no matter their race or their sex or their age. But instead Obama gave us a full measure of racial rhetoric about how some of us with an "untrained ear" -- meaning whites and Asians and Latinos -- don't understand and can't relate to the so-called black experience.

    Well, I am black, and I can't relate to a "black experience" that shields and explains old-style black ministers who rant and rave about supposed racial differences and about how America ought to be damned. I long ago broke away from all associations and churches that preached the gospel of hate and ethnic divisiveness -- including canceling my membership in 100 Black Men of America Inc., when they refused my motion to admit women and whites. They still don't. I was not going to stay in any group that assigned status or privileges of membership based solely on race or gender.

    We and our leaders -- especially our candidates for the highest office in the land -- must repudiate all forms of racial idiocy and sexism, and be judged by whether we still belong to exclusionary or hateful groups. I don't know any church that respects, much less reflects, my personal beliefs in the absolute equality of all people, so I choose not to belong to any of them. And I would never -- as have some presidential candidates -- accept the endorsement of preachers of the gospel according to the most racist and sexist of doctrines.


    Michael Meyers is executive director of the  New York Civil Rights Coalition  and a former assistant national director of the NAACP.

    (more at the link)

    Great Opinion! Thanks for posting it Jerry (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    It is most enlightened. Based on this civil rights leader's comments, Obama may have lost others in the AA community. The next polling batches will be good indication of the effect of Obama's race speech.  At this juncture, it is plain that the Obama campaign is the one bringing up race as an issue.  I think that it will boomerang on Obama.

    Exactly! (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by kayla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    For a couple of days, I was reluctant to criticize the speech, because I did think it was wonderful.  I actually got a little dewy eyed after hearing it.  But then when all the emotion subsided, I realized that I didn't remember any of it, so I went online to re-read it.  Two lines stood out - the one about how rejecting Wright is like rejecting African Americans as a whole, and the other one about how older blacks who went through the Jim Crowe days carry more anger with them than the younger generation, just like Wright, and that's wrong, so we should just move on.

    But like I said in a previous post, this isn't completely true.  I know black people who have been tortured by racial oppression and many of them are not angry like Wright is.  And many, I would go as far as to say, most black churches don't use that kind of rhetoric from the pew.  I think many African-Americans are in such a position that we understand where Wright is coming from, but at the same time, I don't like being lumped in with him.  All blacks have experienced racism, but we all haven't lived through it and came to the "God D*** America!" conclusion.

    We're all different people and have different experiences and different reactions.  I do understand Wright's frustration, and I think many African-Americans do, but I do not appreciate Obama simplifying the black experience the way he did.

    It felt like he was using the black experience as an excuse to sit in that church for 20 years.  He changed the subject.  He did it beautifully, but he still changed the subject.  And in a way implying that Wright is a representative of the entire black community, felt like a way to kindly threaten critics from holding those videos against him.  As if to say, "If you make me look bad, you'll be hurting all black people!"

    And strangely enough, I think just because he made that speech, he made that threat true.  That's why you have all of these white supporters going on and on about how happy they are that we have a black candidate.  Overcompensating outrageously.

    Barack Obama is brilliant.


    Emotional blackmail? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:53:13 PM EST
    Maybe too strong of term, but is that kind of what you are saying?

    I'm reluctant (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by kayla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    to call it "emotional blackmail".  Because I thought Barack made some great points in that speech.  But I think he has a way of appealing to emotions while not saying anything at all.  I think before he made this speech, the question in many people's minds was, "Why did you go to such a radical, seemingly anti-American church for 20 full years and still want to run for president?  It doesn't make sense to me."

    He didn't answer the question.  Instead, he gave an oversimplified account of racial tension in America while making sure to sprinkle in why he's awesome and why we should vote for him anyway despite his mistake.

    I think the reason why I weeped (just a little) while listening to him speak was because of my own experiences that he reminded me of, but not because of anything specific he said in the speech.  I'm very appreciative of Barack for opening discussion, and I'm actually proud that he didn't reject Wright, but I also feel as though he could have gone further.  It felt like he only said enough about race to make himself look good and get him out of hot water.  Some reviews of the speech talk about how great it is that he opened up discussion.  But what did he say that we don't already know and why do we still seem so confused?  Why is Kerry advocating his candidacy with his race?  Why is McCaskill throwing our great black leaders under the bus?  Because Barack Obama had a great opportunity to give an honest and heartbreaking account of race relations and he blew it.  He used the situation for political gains more than anything.  Like the story of the young white woman who inspired the older black man he told near the end of the speech.  That little story was more about how awesome he is that he can bring all kinds of people together to his campaign, than about race relations in America.  

    I recognize that he was in hot water and needed to get out.  I'm not upset with him for using the opportunity to squash criticism.  It just bothers me that he pretended to stand there, bravely speaking out against racial tensions that he helped to create in this campaign, when he was really making his case as to why he's still the best change agent and uniter in this election.  Upon second review, the speech had a "Vote for me because I'm multi-cultural!" undertone to it.

    And now his surrogates are doing just as he told them to.  Now all of a sudden, it's okay to use Obama's race as a good excuse to vote for him.  



    You called it brilliantly here (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:54:20 PM EST
    and I also was, frankly, shocked that he would suggest that all AA churches would have heard sermons like that.  I've been to a lot them, I've read a lot of black-press church columns for decades, and I've never seen such a thing as at all typical.  Occasional, but not at all typical.

    So I hope that his characterization of AA churches and, as you say, the AA community will not cause problems when so many really are working to bridge divides.


    I agree, plus actually it may (none / 0) (#111)
    by BlueMerlin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:22:51 PM EST
    come as a surprise to Obama, but not to a whole lot of regular black people, that whites love the black cultural tradition.  We may see it from the outside more than the inside, but we love what we see. I've always enjoyed attending black church services and maybe they clammed up when they saw me come in, but I don't think so.  They were full of love and joy, and all that jumping and yelling (that Obama seems to think I am incapable of understanding as a white person) is exactly what is so deeply satisfying.  What a wonderful way to celebrate the joy of life, and the love emanating from the universe.  Instead of sitting stiff as a post like so many whites do in church.  Sadly Obama seems not to have actually experienced racial unity.   Maybe that's why so desperately seeks it.

    Some whites love (none / 0) (#171)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:48:42 PM EST
    the black cultural tradition.  I'm not one of them.  You are.  So what?  There are lots of cultural traditions that are alien to my own and for which I, unlike you, have not developed a fondness...probably never will...

    It's not required, is it?

    (I don't like The Ring or chamber music, either).


    That's a good point too. No one (none / 0) (#182)
    by BlueMerlin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:53:25 PM EST
    should HAVE to love someone else's cultural tradition.   But it's just flabbergasting that Obama could put forth this view that whites are somehow incapable of grokking a black church service.  

    Please check this ... could be BIG (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:42:38 PM EST
    What is a "Typical White Person" -

    In interview on Philadelphia sports radio, in which Obama says his grandmother's reaction to black people reflects her being a "typical white person," a line that's starting to get some attention today.

    The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she's a typical white person

    Great (none / 0) (#44)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:43:24 PM EST

    OMG! (none / 0) (#159)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:33:04 PM EST
    it isn't getting any better... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:42:59 PM EST
    Obama this morning on WIP...and there is audio of this. when asked about his comment regarding his white grandmother he said...

    The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it. ... .." - Senator Barack Obama

    I was insulted when I heard the speech, and I (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    am insulted again.  This explanation is totally inexcusable.  He is not ready to be president.  I wonder what the excuses will be now.

    "typical white person"?! (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:06:21 PM EST
    um, okay.

    Now did he just cancel out the whole point he was trying to make by bringing his Grandmother into it originally?

    As a "typical white person" who happens to be female, I consider any man on a dark street suspect, but I don't see how that is the "nature of race in our society". I think I would consider it the nature of survival instinct.


    "She is a typical white person" (none / 0) (#79)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:15:28 PM EST
    Wow. Obama really blew that one.

    Can someone explain this to me? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:47:01 PM EST
    Are these the words of someone who does or does not buy into racial stereotyping?

    "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it. ... .." - Senator Barack Obama

    as a TYPICAL WHITE PERSON (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:47:32 PM EST
    I am highly offended by this comment.

    No we aren't (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:20:22 PM EST
    I'm getting the impression we are not allowed to be offended.  This is not a good day in the blogosphere.

    Is typical white person an improvement from low knowledge?  I don't think I've ever felt so looked down upon in an election cycle before.


    I have to agree (none / 0) (#100)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:02:01 PM EST
    I never knew I was low info and uneducated until this year. What's frightening is, I actually used to teach at the college level . . .   lol!~  ;)

    He should explain: what is a typical white person? (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:50:48 PM EST
    Seems like that statement has to come out of some stereotype or generalization about whites.

    Imagine, JUST IMAGINE if Hillary Clinton had referred to "typical black people"  Oh, it would have Keith Olbermann breathing out of a paper bag.


    LOL! (none / 0) (#162)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:34:57 PM EST
    There's a sight I'd like to see.  Talk about people who have dropped in your estimation!

    his race his race .... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:52:26 PM EST
    I have seen public figures and bloggers supporting Obama.
    Sometimes they use euphemisms.
    They support him for cultural reasons.
    They support him for his "identity".
    They support him for his "bi-cultural ethnicity".

    And then they accuse the Clinton campaign of making race an issue in this campaign.

    Obama must denounce and reject (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by OxyCon on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:02:23 PM EST
    John Kerry.
    And find a way to blame Hillary, or someone close to her, for Kerry's racially insensitive comments.

    Not that surprised (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST
    I have heard this line of thought from Obama supporters many times in the past - usually not so explicitly stated of course.  But they say things like, "bridge the divide", "transcend past problems" or "heal wounds."  And I respond with, "How?" and then I get back gibberish about his unique history.  Which basically is his race.  Because I'm quite sure attending Harvard Law or being a U.S. Senator isn't that unusual for a presidential candidate.  :)  

    Not entirely related, but this passage of the Tuesday speech bothered me too:

    "The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society.  It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past."

    So proof that we are moving past racism is ... Barack Obama!  What a coincidence!

    Remember 2004? (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by OxyCon on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:24:37 PM EST
    Remember what all of us who worked so hard to try to get Kerry elected had to go through whenever Kerry said some of his long winded, disjointed gibberish?
    How we were always playing "What Kerry Really Meant"? (and getting ridiculed while doing it)
    Well, Obama has that same liability.
    Obama's supporters are taking on a very real and very large liability, because they are the ones who will have to constantly try to defend all of the drivel that comes out of Obama's mouth.
    He may not be as bad as Kerry, but he still has that same liability.
    The only thing good about this for me personally, is that if Obama is the Dem candidate, I will not be bothered with playing "What Obama Really Meant", and when I see people doing it, I'll just chuckle to myself.

    What kills me (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:24:38 PM EST
    is how strongly he said it. As if it was obvious.

    It's interesting to me that Kerry, Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:42:43 PM EST
    and all the powers that be in the party, seeking a candidate to run against Clinton, could not find one who truly did come from a legacy of oppression and repression -- from the legacy of slavery.  

    Are we not ready for that yet?  For an AA candidate who might talk about a great-great-great-grandmother who truly was all too typical of her time and place -- born in slavery.  That would be a discussion for this country.

    It seems to me that such candidates could be found -- not in the Senate now, but a Congressional record is a problem for a prez candidate, anyway, which is why Obama is running now before he establishes one.

    There are and have been governors, lieutenant governors, etc., of color.  Or if more are needed, what are Kerry, Kennedy, et al. -- and Obama -- doing to get more into the political pipeline?


    geraldine ferraro didn't need (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:37:19 PM EST
    john kerry to validate her comments, they stand quite well on their own. facts are horrible little beasts, they just won't STFU!

    it's funny, i've read quite a number of reviews of sen. obama's recent speech, many of them oohing and ahhing over the fact that he broached a subject (race) normally considered taboo in polite company. geraldine ferraro did exactly the same thing (and pointed out an unwelcome truth), and was roundly chastised for it. the hypocrisy is just utterly stunning to contemplate.

    Kerry is walking satire (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:49:02 PM EST
    He has reminded me of Stephen Colbert with his cool black friend. I think he does not know that show is satire on un-hip white guys that act like doofuses.

    throw olberman into that comparison. (none / 0) (#113)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:24:42 PM EST
    John Kerry (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:49:55 PM EST
    should represent his state and vote for Hillary. After all she can bridge the divide on issue of gender because she is a woman.

    I gave you a 5 for the snark (none / 0) (#102)
    by tree on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:03:20 PM EST
    ...assuming it was snark, right?

    Yumping Yiminies, more double speak (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by BlueMerlin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:13:23 PM EST
    So a vote for Obama is a vote for racial harmony but no one is voting for him just because he's black.  Being black is a terrible liability in this election.  Unless of course you are in favor of racial harmony.  And we know therefore, that anyone who does not vote for Obama is by definition not in favor of racial harmony and therefore a racist.  Are you getting this down?  Right, so it would be racist to vote for someone only because he's black but not really because he embodies racial harmony in his very genetic make up.  But it's racist if you SAY you voted for him because he's black.  Well not that either, exactly, but if you say someone else voted for him because he's black then that's definitely racist.  And why is everyone harping on race anyway?  Why can't we just get back to talking about "the issues" like Hope and Change and the U.S. Penny ("e pluribus unum" - from the one, many)?

    This has me laughing so hard (none / 0) (#119)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:48:12 PM EST
    I can hardly type.  Sadly, what you say is true.

    dear senator, it wasn't enough that (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:27:44 PM EST
    you lost 2004 for us now you are busy screwing up 08. may i suggest you take a time out.

    See (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:05:32 PM EST
    they're all pushing the meme that we have to vote for Obama because he's black.  So why did he get upset with Geraldine Ferraro for saying that?

    Why does being black make him the Savior of the Nation?  Makes no sense.

    Of course, I'm always in favor of Obama's endorsees stumping for him.  It makes him lose.

    All this bridge talk (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:08:09 PM EST
    makes me think Bill Clinton overdid it with the 'bridge to the 21st Century.'

    Except, now we know what he was actually talking about.

    It's Hillary.

    Would give you two 5s for that but can't... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:19:14 PM EST
    hypocrisy (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Debbie on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:30:15 PM EST
    1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not ; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
    2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

    What kind of people are we in this country??  Do you honestly beleive that anyone could be a Christian and sit in church for tweny years and listen to a pastor rave on about America and her short comings? This was the comment of Pat Buchanan made last night and so many pundits and also so called journalist who have saturated the media with less than three minutes of comments from Wright.  The Black church, our comfort in times of trouble, our refuge in times of agression, our only soucre of information during long dark periods in this country.  I heard Martin L. King express his views from the pulpit a long time ago and as unwelcomed by the white community of that day, did he lie??  No, of course not.  I heard Senators like Jesse Helms, and Gov. George Wallace and even Richard Nixon speak their minds on people and race in this country.  How funny is it that none of them were denounced or expected to be rejected by White or Black people or to stop going to the country clubs. I know the names of many overtly racist people who associate with a host of your current political figures and are they held to this rediculous standard?  No, I don't think so.  Exactly who does control things in America?  African Americans?  Blue collar Whites who work for hourly wages?  Hispanics at the low end of the economic spectrum?  No, I don't think so.  Regardless of our provacations, did we bomb the countries Pastor Wright said we bombed? Yes, I think we did.  His mistake was God D*** America!!!  Yes, big mistake although I have thought it on occasion.  George Bush is the only person I can say I've seen eating dinner with Bin Laddin and took millions of dollars of investment money from him for oil revenues in this country.  Yet, he was and still is not held to the same standard of scrutiny that Barack Obama has suffered.  The Democratic party can't seem to get out of its own way long enough to elect a smart, capable, man of integrity and character who could honestly bring something new to the political playing field.  The race is ours to lose and if we do, whatever happens in the next four years we deserve every bit of it.

    When did he say this? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    I'm guessing St. Patricks day because of the tie?

    Yes, Monday -- I found the interview (nt) (none / 0) (#8)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    The biggest problem for Kerry is defending the (none / 0) (#10)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    logic of Obama that Hillary voted for Iraq war (remeber what he was saying when he was running for president.. !!) He could not capitalize 2004 and lost !!! what a jerk.. he will lose his senate seat !!!

    He deserves to lose that Senate seat (none / 0) (#16)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:20:21 PM EST
    for being a total jerk.  Just about the last thing I want is for Kerry/Kennedy to have more power in the government.

    He better not support Hillary now.. (none / 0) (#21)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:36 PM EST
    because Obama fanatics will play this clip and call him a racist.. !

    I wonder if the right wing media would play this clip especially the last portion "because he is black" again and again.!!


    he was for Obama before he was against him (none / 0) (#24)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:26:38 PM EST
    hee hee. With friends like these. You know, as soon as we nominated him 4 years ago I said oops, we just lost that one. What a dweeb.

    My party is embarrassing sometimes. Of course I'll still take them over the alternative. Every time I see the conventions and I see all the disorganized crazy dems, I say to myself, ah, that's my party.

    But really, can't we do a bit better than this. Obama will be as [s]electable, even in 2008, as Kerry was last time. Hillary will have a hell of an uphill battle to be sure, but I think she can win. Obama, not so much. Especially if we see Obama, Kerry, and Teddy with arms held high together at the convention. That will be all she wrote. Then we can start the Hillary2012 campaign the next day. Or Edwards2012 (my original candidate).

    Clinton/Edwards? (none / 0) (#36)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:37:36 PM EST
    We can dream.

    Edwards/Clinton (none / 0) (#184)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:46:02 PM EST
    Might as well make it a good dream.

    I was (none / 0) (#165)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:39:46 PM EST
    thinking earlier today, John Edwards' ideas about American society are way more visionary than what Obama said in that Great Speech.  It's really a question of economics and what poverty does to people, not race.  That's a theme the Clintons have had since 1992.

    There's nothing wrong with saying that (none / 0) (#34)
    by frankly0 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:35:39 PM EST
    Obama will be special political leader because he's black, so long as its meant in an entirely loving and admiring way.

    Say it in skepticism, though, and you're a blackguard and a bigot, and may you, and your children, and your children's children, burn forever in the hottest flames of hell.

    I'm confused. I thought he transcended race. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:47:43 PM EST
    But now his surrogates are labeling him as the "black candidate."  They want it both ways.  Also, does anyone really care what John Kerry has to say?  He lost his chance to be relevant in 2004.

    Yes (none / 0) (#166)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:41:07 PM EST
    if you look at the people who crafted his run, they're all failed presidential candidates, except for Durbin who didn't even try.

    who knew the "religious divide" (none / 0) (#54)
    by english teacher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    was such a problem?

    i see the light now.  when obama is elected the "religious divide" will be bridged, and the price of gasoline, groceries, and utilities will magically return to 1998 levels.  how could i have been so blind?

    Give Kerry some credit (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:10:56 PM EST
    He made that case without using Obama's middle name! That takes some skill!

    smile! don't remind kerry, he might just (none / 0) (#147)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:10:10 PM EST
    go back and retape it.

    Kerry has been talking like this for a while (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:54:32 PM EST
    He had an interview on one of the Sunday shows a few weeks ago - right after he endorsed Obama.  All of his reasons for endorsing came down to 'because he's black'.  (He never added the 'and I hate the Clintons')

    Bridge to Nowhere (none / 0) (#98)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:00:20 PM EST
    I'm not seeing where "religious divide" is too high on anyone's list of high priority problems facing the country. If that's what Obama's running on, he's not winning. Not that race and religious issues aren't important, and the bigoted, intolerant whackpack ruining the country is certainly a big, big problem, but these are not issues that are gonna carry the day in November. But harping on a bridge to nowhere is about par for the course for Kerry.

    Oops I meant "from the many we are one" (none / 0) (#107)
    by BlueMerlin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:14:17 PM EST
    oh well ... whatever!

    There isn't much Kerry can say at (none / 0) (#109)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    this point that will persuade me.  I am curious why Massachusetts with both Kerry and Kennedy advocating with the help of Tim Russert, couldn't pull off a win there.  Tim Russert's announcing the passing of the JFK mantle was so over the top and theatrical I almost lol.  Could the problems of Mass be related to the effectiveness of their charismatic governor?

    excuse me mr kerry, there are many (none / 0) (#112)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:23:24 PM EST
    groups of people mistreated in this country. how about the blue collar worker that you and your fellow elites have traded our jobs off for big corporate donations, sir. how about women who received the right to vote last. and don't forget the american indian. also take a look at the largest growing group in the country. how does supporting obama help latinos? i am challenging a premise here the good senator is floating. so let's kick all the white guys out of congress and just appoint people from different mistreated groups and hold a cattle like auction for the wh.

    How is John Kerry (none / 0) (#145)
    by facta non verba on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    still in the Senate? Thanks to the reader DannyinLa who provided the full quote:

    Because he's African American. Because he's a black man, who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country. We only broke the back of civil rights, Jim Crow, in the 1960s here. Everybody in the world knows this is a recent journey for America too. And everybody still knows that issues of skin and discrimination still exist.

    Still I don't see how that makes Obama as this messiah able to heal the rift within Islam or much less the growing rift between the West and Islam. The Dutch, the most tolerant society on Earth, are having increasing problems with Islam and it is leading to a radicalization of Dutch politics. Same in Spain. Immigration from the Islamic world is a huge problem. Kerry is assigning some kind of superpowers on Obama. It is unfair to Obama for starters and it is misleading the voters.

    obl is probably laughting his axx off in a (none / 0) (#149)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:12:57 PM EST
    cave right now saying to himself, "heck i wish kerry had had the votes. that would have been  great." snark!

    Oh John, Go Get A Haircut (none / 0) (#167)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:42:38 PM EST
    What is his IQ agian?

    LOL (none / 0) (#170)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:45:57 PM EST
    Please read carefully -- Obama was born (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:22:23 PM EST
    in the U.S., or he could not run for president.  Please don't promulgate that lie from the rightwing blogs.  And he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, incredibly multicultural places that really don't relate to what you write here.  No question that Obama experienced what you saw, as we have seen as well -- but that's not what Kerry was saying.

    He (none / 0) (#169)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:43:41 PM EST
    said in the video that because Obama is black, it will pacify the Middle Eastern Muslims.  (I guess Kerry thinks Middle Eastern Muslims are black)?

    A week ago, I actually read an Obama supporter who said that we have to have Obama because he's black and he was born Muslim and when the Muslim terrorists see him as head of state they will quit picking on us!  My head reeled.

    They'll quit picking on us until (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:58:32 PM EST
    someone points out to them that as an adult, he rejected the Muslim religion and had himself baptized a Christian.

    Yeah...that should go over big.


    Kerry on Obama (none / 0) (#180)
    by disillusionedbabyboomer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:20:18 PM EST
    Sen. John Kerry (D-Ma) is less able now to understand the wishes of the public or to evaluate the ability of Obama or any candidate to do anything as he was in 2004.  Kerry failed in his 2004 run for the Presidency by not adequately assessing the depth to which the opposition would go, and, worse yet, by not searching his own soul deeply enough to rise up to his own defense as could reasonably have been expected of the war hero he was said to have been. Kerry clearly misunderstands his role now; as an unsuccessful candidate, he does no-one any good by touting one candidate over another during the primary season. He, better than anyone should know just how meaningless politician's endorsements can be - not helpful to the candidates and possibly hurtful to the party. For Kerry to repudiate in 2008 his choice of John Edwards as his personal choice to stand in his shadow ready to assume the mantle of the Presidency in 2004 shows just how superficial Kerry can be. One would think that after his loss and what Bush did to the USA from 2004 - 2008, Kerry would now be focused on who can best win the White House. However, Kerry did not keep his eye on the ball in 2004, and he has already lost concentration now. Worse yet, Kerry displayed a lack of courage and confidence by throwing in the towel in Ohio only minutes after they revealed their flawed election results. For Kerry now to speak out against Clinton and Obama for taking this primary battle all the way is consistent with his cave-in mentality. The Dems need a candidate who will stand up and fight for the job of President and to fight for the people of America later. Let the battle play out, and let the "best man" win. Ironic that at this critical moment in US history, the Dems are battling between a woman and a black. Maybe the social agenda of the Democratic Party should have given way to winning the White House, but that is not the way it is done by Dems; such micro-managing orchestration is the Republican way, and that is what the nation must escape. No more lies; no more redistribution of wealth; no more 2-class society; it is time to restore the glory of the middle class in America, and to do that, Christianity can only serve to help by working to help the poor, elderly, ill, and deprived. The M.O. of the right-wing religious extremists must be defeated as contrary to Christianity and the good of our nation. Religion has its place in America, but it belongs in churches, not halls of government, like it says in the Bill of Rights. Sen. Kerry should work to restore America's greatness, its constitutional rights for its citizens, and to call the Bush leaders to account for their criminal behavior. Sen. Kerry has stood idly by while the Patriot Act was crammed down our throats, and while torture (Aby Gharaib & water-boarding)became acceptable, and while warrantless wiretapping became the order of the day, and while the Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances systems in our federal government were destroyed by the all-powerful president, King George Bush. How could Kerry even consider retroactive immunity? Such a concept couldn't run afoul of our system of government any more. How can John Kerry sit still day after day while our youth are dying in Iraq for nothing? That war had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorism; that war over 9-11 was in Afghanistan, and we turned tail and ran out of there under cover of lie after lie. Doesn't Bush deserve to be indicted for treason? No - Pelosi said on day one, "Impeachment is off the table."  What a foolish thing to do!  And John Kerry has the nerve to endorse Obama, even after doing everything Obama wants to change. Outlandish! John Kerry should devote himself to the work of the Senate and do something valiant; stop yakking and make something important happen. Help save America!