Kerry says Barack Obama can bridge the divide on religious extremism because of his race.
Make a new
"Because he is a black man." Ugh, Kerry go back to nuance.
"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.
But I think the Shi'a would disagree with you on the oppression and repression debate.
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.
So, maybe Kerry's right, but I wouldn't see that as a reason to favor Obama over Clinton.
Kerry is really just stereotyping Obama. Although he's not doing it in a negative way, he's still stereotyping.
It's just another distraction... a big shiny thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Height (lack of re men).
Education (lack of).
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.
Focus on what Kerry said, not on whatever you mean by what is between your parentheses.
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?
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.)
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.
I don't refer to myself as a American White-Indian-African Women. I really identify myself as an women who is an American.
I think they are past caring about the race or gender of our leaders.
i also think there is growing alarm in the israeli government about obama as well.
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.
I wouldn't even say Barack's father is African-American. He's Kenyan-American.
Someone remind Kerry that Muslims come from all races and backgrounds...
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.
They obviously have not looked into the statistics.
"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"
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.
My opinion of Senator McCaskill drops even further down on the favorability scale.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
It's not required, is it?
(I don't like The Ring or chamber music, either).
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
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
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.
"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
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.
Imagine, JUST IMAGINE if Hillary Clinton had referred to "typical black people" Oh, it would have Keith Olbermann breathing out of a paper bag.
And then they accuse the Clinton campaign of making race an issue in this campaign.
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!
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?
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.
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.
Except, now we know what he was actually talking about.
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.
I wonder if the right wing media would play this clip especially the last portion "because he is black" again and again.!!
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).
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 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?
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.
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.
Yeah...that should go over big.