home

Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Speak at NAACP Dinner

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:21:37 PM EST
Tags: Jeremiah Wright (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The LA Times says the good news for Barack Obama is the speech will take place five days after the PA primary. Via the AP:

The Detroit branch of the NAACP said Thursday it has selected the embattled former minister of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama as the keynote speaker at its 53rd Annual Fight for Freedom Fund dinner.

"Reverend Wright has challenged the nation, challenged our comfort zone and stimulated nationwide discussion on the issue of how we should move forward together as both a nation and a people," the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People branch said in a statement Thursday.

The dinner has been attended in years past by 10,000 people. Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have also been keynote speakers at the dinner.

< Senate Passes Bill Extending Immigration Laws to Mariana Islands | Obama's Wealthy Donors and Bundlers >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Speak at NAACP Dinner | 205 comments (205 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Problem (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Athena on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:26:46 PM EST
    I don't see how more visibility for Wright helps Obama.

    They have to rehabilitate Wright (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:43:34 PM EST
    Wright is Obama's achilles heel. The "establishment" has to give his views a sheen of credibility, so that Obama doesn't look weak and cowardly for not standing up to him. Nothing must be allowed to stand in the way of Obama winning the general election. If that means promoting ideas that are repugnant, so be it... the end justifies the means. They've already destroyed the reputations of several people who worked hard for civil rights, what does it matter if they go a little further.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sorry (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Deadalus on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:46:37 PM EST
    But what exactly is so repugnant about the views of Jeremiah Wright?  If you look at his statements in context, most of them are not out of the mainstream of liberal progressive thought.  (With the obvious exception of the HIV conspiracy theory).

    [ Parent ]
    If what he said (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:03:08 PM EST
    About the Clintons is in the mainstream of Progressive thought, then count me out.

    I'll self-identify conservative going forward.

    My opinions on taxes, economy, civil rights, schools, guns, foriegn policy, etc. will remain the same.

    I just won't call those opinions progressive opinions anymore.

    [ Parent ]

    What he said about the Clintons (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Deadalus on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:05:04 PM EST
    What exactly was so awful?  He was passionate and over the top, but are you going to deny that the African-Americans face far greater institutional discrimination than white Americans?  Is that so outrageous?

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:23:54 PM EST
    I will repeat.

    7 million americans were raised out of poverty during his administration.

    If poverty is a concern for the black community then, here, Rev. Wright's comment is more stupid than anything else.

    [ Parent ]

    You are not serious, right? (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:26:26 PM EST
    I am not going to repeat some of thing he said, but you can't be asking this question with a straight face. Unless you are just used to discourse in which people denigrate and put down others and their work on a daily basis.

    What has happened to progressives? When did we start justifying things that would have sent us over the ledge before?

    [ Parent ]

    His comments about Bill (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by shoephone on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:04:06 PM EST
    "doing America the same way he did Lewinsky" (while humping the pulpit) were totally repugnant.

    His comments about Hillary not ever having to work twice as hard were just plain stupid.

    Wright + McClurkin + Meeks = Bad Judgment on Obama's part.

    [ Parent ]

    I have trouble finding "context" (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:06:28 PM EST
    ...for his views about the "privileged white women" who have never had to work for anything and are given equality as their birthright. If the anti-Clinton campaign has shown us anything, it has to be that white woman are not going to be given a damn thing in America unless we decide to take it by force. I've experienced prejudice firsthand, and if Wright had a single ounce of empathy he would see his words for the bigoted lies they are.

    I have trouble finding "context" for Wright's utter disregard for the work of the millions of white people who have fought for equality for all races, his dismissal of all whites are .

    I have trouble finding "context" for Wright's complete disrespect for the nation that gave him his education, his pulpit. For the nation that gave him the right to say the hateful words he said about it. We may not be perfect, but for a religious man to say "God Damn America"... after everything this nation has done to try to right the wrongs of the past.

    You could argue that Wright was just getting angry  and lost his temper a few times because of the terrible things he has seen, but if you start to excuse his behavior then you're going to have to start excusing the hate speech of white men who are angry because they lost their jobs due to affirmative action or who are angry because they lost their jobs to immigrants, or women. Everybody feels "wronged" at some point or another. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they aren't. But feeling angry is never an excuse for bigoted speech. A man of Wright's accomplishments should be better able to express himself.

    [ Parent ]

    Distorted (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Athena on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:18:01 PM EST
    Wright's grievanaces are anchored in male privilege, as he does not consider how women are treated differently in this culture, regardless of race.  As often pointed out, black men were given the vote before any women.  Wright's mockery of Hillary reeked of male contempt for women.

    Why Obama has not had to account for his mentor's derision of Hillary - well, that's the protective bubble that the media has built for him.

    [ Parent ]

    Black men could not exercise (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:02:52 AM EST
    their right to vote until well after white women had been exercising that right for decades....

    I wish people would stop saying this saying about people getting the right to vote ahead of others....It really  goes nowhere....

    [ Parent ]

    Some black men (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:27:53 AM EST
    and I wish I would not have to keep seeing sweeping generalizations that ignore geographical difference.

    It is important to not accept that laws in the books were laws implemented in the land -- but it also is important to recognize that laws on the books have impact.  And the Constitution to this day includes the word "male" in two amendments, and only one has been countered by another amendment.  So women could not serve on juries in many states, for example, even after all men, of color or otherwise, and in every region of the country, could vote.

    [ Parent ]

    I am sorry, but regardless of what happened to (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by MMW on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:28:04 AM EST
    Black men here in the US, it is not Hillary or Bill Clinton who did it. The Clinton's have shown nothing but respect and responsibility to African Americans. To throw them under the bus because you favor Obama is inexcusable. This is my problem with Obama supporters (a lot of them) you think the Clinton's are the enemy. You have succeeded where the Republicans have failed. Bush is no longer villified, only Bill and Hillary Clinton. In fact to lift Obama you have or are attempting to destroy two people unfairly, calculatedly and without thought to the future or the issues facing this country. You have shown irresponsibility.

    [ Parent ]
    MLK's next speech (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:59:58 PM EST
    was supposed to contain a line that "white America can go to Hell!..."  

    It was a speech that was in his suit jacket when he was shot, according to Prof. Dyson.

    [ Parent ]

    he's the tv pundit (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:02:49 AM EST
    and professor and author who the networks half the time fail to disclose is an Obama supporter.

    [ Parent ]
    That's him (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:04:51 AM EST
    and his wife is an ardent Hillary supporter.

    He has written a book about MLK's last day, and so I have no reason to disbelieve him on the point about MLK's next speech.....

    [ Parent ]

    I found the reference (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:17:27 AM EST
    The speech was supposed to be titled "Why America May Go To Hell", not "America Can Go to Hell".  A rather distinct difference. I can't find the text. It's possible that it wasn't released, since it may not have reflected his true feelings. He didn't give that speech, and there is no way to know if he would have.

    [ Parent ]
    See above article (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:35:00 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Are you people serious? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:03:13 AM EST
    It was in his suit jacket?  So effing what.  That is just simply deplorable that you repeat this stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    Why deplorable? (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:06:10 AM EST
    If it is accurate what's the problem?  

    [ Parent ]
    It was in his pocket (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:15:56 AM EST
    The allegation is that MLK had a piece of paper in his pocket that said XYZ, Wright actually said XYZ, therefore XYZ is ok cause some professor said it was in MLKs pocket.  

    Does that make sense as something that should be repeated?  Wright said those things.  MLK had a piece of paper where this professor thinks he would actually would have said those things.  MLK is dead, no one has a right to presume what his intentions were, it's disgraceful to the man's memory.  

    [ Parent ]

    It was the title of the speech (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    It has been confirmed, as shown by this 2004 article on Slate (so it is not a recent concoction of Dyson's):

    When Martin Luther King Jr. died, he was working on a speech titled, "America May Go to Hell." Kurlansky shows how close we came--with the civil rights movement splintering into violence, and the political system breaking down during an exhausting slog to the White House.

    That he was contemplating giving this speech does not make me think less of Dr. King.  Perhaps he would not have given the speech but he had come out against the Vietnam War and was becoming more controversial. At the very least, it shows how even he could become frustrated....Black America has had a different view of America....it does not make me angry or feel offended--it saddens me.  


    [ Parent ]

    What you said that I find deplorable (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:41:46 AM EST
    MLKs next speech was supposed to contain a line that "white America can go to Hell!..."  

    Of course he was frustrated, but you used it like the prof on tv to absolve what Wright said.  That is a leap. That is deplorable.  You nor the Prof, nor Slate have a right to equate Wright's words with what MLK was writing, or intending to say.  Do you not get why that is unethical?  

    [ Parent ]

    Slate was reviewing (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:48:43 AM EST
    a book about 1968 in an article written in 2004--it had nothing to do with Wright or Obama...

    I do not think shying away from uncomfortable facts is all that helpful in understanding others' point of view....I think it is perfectly ethical to view all the facts....

    Perhaps if the King family had a problem with it, but I don't think they do.....This has been out there for quite some time.....

       

    [ Parent ]

    You used it in the Wright issue (none / 0) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:52:10 AM EST
    You used it to absolve Wright.  You still don't get it and never will.  I don't care that the speech was in his pocket, it was how you used it in your post.  

    [ Parent ]
    Having read much of his work... (none / 0) (#78)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:07:45 AM EST
    ...I find that hard to believe. He spoke of justice and unity, not hatred and divisiveness. He encouraged people to protest peacefully and forthrightly, to practice civil disobedience with the goal of shaming white Americans into providing equal rights for minorities. A statement like that would have set back his movement... it might have derailed his movement entirely.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps the problem is that we must accept your q (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:51:54 AM EST
    definition of "unity" Now, if unity means we has African Americans don't have to bite our tongues so as to make many of you feel comfortable in our opression. Then, sure, that's unity of a certain kind, but it's not one that reflects our lives.

    [ Parent ]
    "oppression", "bite tongues"? (none / 0) (#181)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    If "bite tongues" means NOT saying things that are deeply insulting to another race, or to American's in general, then, yes, I expect everybody in America to "bite their tongues" when speaking of racial issues. Tolerance works both ways, and empathy cannot be exclusive to one racial or ethnic group.

    As for oppression... I see plenty of people of all races at all levels of society, in every field. The days of no lunch counters and separate drinking fountains are long gone. Poverty is endemic in certain areas, and effects some racial groups more than others, but it crosses racial lines and there are many programs to help poor people of all races - and many poor people have used them to escape poverty. If you want to see oppression, go to any underdeveloped nation and watch what happens to women. Heck - look at the lives of women in a lot of areas right here in the U.S., where women's only option is to marry and have babies because that is the way it's done. Look at the "cult" that was just broken up in Texas, where girls were forced to "marry" older men and start producing babies at puberty. And then realize that in many parts of the nation girls just a bit older are in the same situation, although they often don't marry the men who get them pregnant. They are still forced to bear babies when they are far too young, as punishment for the sin of having sex. Abortion is out of the question. And many of these women proceed to live in poverty.  This crosses racial lines.

    There are many issues that need to be dealth with in the U.S.. Insults and racial hatred will not move us forward in dealing with them. Bigotry should be denounced, regardless of it's source.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:09:38 AM EST
    But it would show the frustration that even a MLK would feel and how it he would express it.  

    [ Parent ]
    It was in his pocket (none / 0) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:18:32 AM EST
    you and now one else can presume his intent.  The man is dead.  Of course he could have thought it.  But his legacy is in his work.  You cannot make up things for your current political purposes.  

    [ Parent ]
    2004 article (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:34:22 AM EST
    This has been discussed way before this election.

    [ Parent ]
    Who cares... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:43:28 AM EST
    you are using lightly to make a political argument now.  I stop now, cause this is something that is just making me angry.

    [ Parent ]
    Who is making the political (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:50:24 AM EST
    argument about Wright?....I think it is important in the context of a dicusssion about race....

    [ Parent ]
    He was frustrated (none / 0) (#86)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:19:22 AM EST
    It was a difficult period in his life. He had been pushing hard. But the title was not what was presented here. "Why America Might Go To Hell" sounds more like a warning sermon than an angry one.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:23:59 AM EST
    It sounds different coming from MLK who had already established that hate speech should not be a pathway to reconciliation.

    There has been no recognition of this from Rev. Wright or any of the people trying that there was nothing wrong with what he said.

    One gets the feeling MLK was profoundly conflicted about such statements.

    In or out of context, the impression of Rev. Wright is he's being religiously manipulative and that there's no real conflictedness within himself about the statements he made.

    [ Parent ]

    that's exactly what it was, (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:15:01 AM EST
    MKS's veiled assertions notwithstanding.

    "Why America Might Go To Hell" sounds more like a warning sermon than an angry one.

    it was the polar opposite of the rev. wright's angry screeds, from the segments of it that i've read. MLK used ghandi as his model, the speech was more a sad reflection on the then current state of affairs in america, and how it basically needed to get its act together, with respect to its treatment of minorities.

    please don't insult the rev. dr. king's memory by equating his work, to bring us all together, with the rev. wright's racist and anti-american rants.

    actually, as i think about it, racism is anti-american, as it flies in the face of our ideal.


    [ Parent ]

    I think the "why" (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:37:52 AM EST
    is really "white".....

    [ Parent ]
    This comments goes to the one below (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:40:49 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I can find no referece that this is true (none / 0) (#183)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:40:42 AM EST
    Everything I found says the sermon was titled "Why Americans Might Go To Hell", which sounds like a sermon about how Americans need to be cautious about following biblical principles, not an attack on white American's. I could be an inflammatory topic, but it is certainly not "White Americans Can Go To Hell", which is what you seem to be implying that King titled his sermon.

    [ Parent ]
    It was also 40 years ago (none / 0) (#175)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:34:07 AM EST
    Conditions in 1968 are not really the same as conditions in 2001.  

    Even if he was going to give that speech in 1968 (no proof of that), it was a really different climate.  It does not absolve Wright.

    Nor would it change the political impact TODAY of Wright's words.  

    [ Parent ]

    context (none / 0) (#164)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:47:53 AM EST
    was it "America may go to hell if we do not pull ourselves back from this breach" or "America may go to hell and I want no part of it"?


    [ Parent ]
    Why would it be different (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:19:04 AM EST
    Coming from MLK and not Rev. Wright?

    Would there have been cheering and shouts of "Amen" when and if MLK had actually said that?

    [ Parent ]

    You really don't see the difference (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:03:46 AM EST
    between Wright and King?  Really?  I've heard all of Wright's God Damn America sermon and I've heard all of King's America is Too Arrogant speech.  There is a huge difference.

    Wright speeks out of hopless paranoia.  King speeks out of relentless hope that we can do better.  And that we should do better.  King knew that he needed allies in both the press and the white house.  He didn't act like he was pissed off at those white people, but that he needed to work with them in order to get the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act signed.  

    Another thing - King was speaking out against an unpopular war.  He said that it's arrogant for us to think that it's okay for our black young men to fight for freedom in Vietnam and not be allowed it here.  If King was alive today and said those things about the Iraq war, I think a lot of people would be behind him.  Reverend Wright is in this little box where white people have screwed blacks over and that's the end of it.  That ain't King.  I know a lot of people are so hungry for a brilliant, fearless, forward thinking black leader that they're trying to force Obama and Wright into that box.  But if you have to make such a stretch that a note in King's pocket was critical of white America and he might have said it in his next speech if only he hadn't been assassinated and therefore Wright is a lot like King... then maybe the comparison is unwarranted.

    [ Parent ]

    King would not have said that (none / 0) (#87)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:20:09 AM EST
    No cheering would be necessary.

    [ Parent ]
    And so MLK was (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:39:47 AM EST
    a better man than Wright....But the sentiment exists.....or existed in both (at least to some degree).

    I do not find it a knock on Dr. King.

    [ Parent ]

    Let me ask (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:50:55 AM EST
    Has Rev. Wright ever said anything like this:

    But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.

    If he has, someone should provide it.

    And it's something that needed to have been said before it imperiled Obama's run for president.

    I definitely see MLK as someone trying to find pathways towards reconciliation.

    So that's why his more controversial statements later on in life are not seen the same way as Wright's.

    [ Parent ]

    Rev. Wright (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:56:24 AM EST
    may have said something like that--or even quoted it....He gave many, many sermons over three decades....The G-D sermon is just one sermon....There are I think two others that have really drawn condemnation.

    If your point is that MLK was a better man than Wright, I would agree, and I suspect Wright would too.

    [ Parent ]

    It would go a long way (none / 0) (#125)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:13:46 AM EST
    Towards rehabilitating his image, so perhaps he can add such a statement to his DVD.

    The statements about Clinton are politically driven and I'll never get over them.

    But I am one person.  And not everyone cares about that.

    What they care about is a church and a movement that has not yet taken any accountability in this issue.

    Indeed, as I have stated repeatedly.

    Wright is not wrong to have said what he said.

    Anyone in America offended by the statements, ir or out of context, is wrong to be offended.

    In the end, hasn't Obama himself condemned the statements (if not the man), why now the campaign to rehabilitate those statements?

    [ Parent ]

    No campaign (none / 0) (#135)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:23:06 AM EST
    I am not with the Obama campaign....

    This discussion has occured on the anniversary of his death....Given the heightened sensitivity to race and the Wright issue, I think it just came out....Dyson was the one who published it this year but it is apparenlty part of established MLK scholarship.

    When I heard the G-D America comment, I felt a little like the mornings when I would turn on the t.v. and see our brothers and sisters in the Superdome, day after day....I do not think God was too pleased with America on those days....

    And the Black Liberation Theology that so many find offensive, I view in the same light--a cry of injustice and for help.....I can only rely on Obama that such feelings may be anachronistic....But Katrina?

    I am open to the discussion.....

    [ Parent ]

    So maybe your issue is with Obama then (none / 0) (#143)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:32:57 AM EST
    For he condemns statements that you think are cries of injustice.


    [ Parent ]
    So, the entire congregation (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:53:54 AM EST
    is to be blamed?

    I do not blame African Americans for feeling that God would be disappointed in their country.....I would not express it that way......It is one aspect of what is real out there....It would be good to address it with some sense of compassion--even Huckabee could muster this type of response.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#111)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:56:18 AM EST
    The flock is not to be blamed.

    They are only following.


    [ Parent ]

    There is plenty of context. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:55:03 AM EST

    I have no trouble with the God Damn America speech whatsoever. First of all it's completely defendable from a theological standpoint. If people are going to attack that particular sermon then they might as well go all out on Christianity ( a valid thing to do as well in my opinion) but pretending that Christianity doesn't have damnation interwoven in every aspect of it's theology just shows how watered down it is in it's mainstream incarnations.

    That's one thing both the right and the left Christians agree on, they just think America is morally bankrupt for different reasons. In the case of the "Value Voters" Republican debate the song sung was "Why should God Bless America." I may not have been as firey a message but certainly not more than a hop skip and a jump away. Maybe that's why Huckabee defended Wright.

    You write:

    I have trouble finding "context" for Wright's complete disrespect for the nation that gave him his education, his pulpit. For the nation that gave him the right to say the hateful words he said about it. We may not be perfect, but for a religious man to say "God Damn America"... after everything this nation has done to try to right the wrongs of the past.

    You mean the education it gave him after he fought in its military as a marine? I suppose we should all be so grateful for all the things that America gives us that we should sit down and shut up when the constitution gets the guts ripped out of it. Politicians gave us the constitution so they can take it away!

    We have done a lot to right the wrongs of the past and we were dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way. I'm sure the Native Americans whose cultures we annihilated and land we stole feel totally awesome about how we've given them gambling casinos.

    And let's not forget our sins in the present. As a massive global super power we are implicated in incredible global injustice. America tortures people and imprisons them without trial. How many innocents have died as a result of our incredibly ill conceived Middle East experiment in Iraq? Abu Ghraib anyone?

    So yeah when a leftist prophetic preacher looks at all that and sees the American government treating people as "less than human" then he calls for God to damn America until that activity ceases. Wow. I am SO SHOCKED.

    Some of his comments are moronic, insulting or paranoid, where by "comments" I mean the 6 or so phrases or concepts that have been suggested to represent a completely coherent philosophy with which he motivates his devil congregation. Presumably it is this philosophy of divisive hate that causes them to practice their vile mission of helping people in their local community.

    It is indeed about context. What if instead of looping the 6 most inflammatory things he ever said they looped his 6 best sermons on Christian love? Would THAT provide a complete picture of the man? No it wouldn't. 6 phrases cherry picked from 20 years of preaching don't give an accurate picture of anything.

    I leave you with the words of Dr. King on Vietnamn:

    God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place...And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power.

    Make sure you condemn him too.

    [ Parent ]

    The same question for you (none / 0) (#147)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:57:53 AM EST
    If there's nothing wrong with what Wright said, why did Obama condemn what Wright said (if not the man)?

    [ Parent ]
    This is why I think Obama (none / 0) (#160)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:15:13 AM EST
    isn't telling the truth about this.  I agree with much of what Wright said.  I don't like the way he says it... he's not being all that inciteful and I don't get how it's supposed to be effective in moving forward, but the actual sermons make sense if you listen to them.  So why is Obama saying that he condemns his statements?  I feel bad for Rev. Wright that these 5 second clips are being played and instead of Obama explaining them in their full context he decides to make a grand race speech, condemning Rev. Wright's statements, letting him go from the campaign, disinviting him from speaking when Obama's run for president was announced.  Politics.

    [ Parent ]
    Two reasons. (none / 0) (#188)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:19:45 AM EST
    First: I beleive that he really was condemning some of his statements. As I said I think that some of his comments were either stupid, paranoid, or needlesly inflamatory (or all of the above).

    Second: I belive that he probably doesn't personally disagree with some of the statements. I doubt he has a huge problem with the chicken comming home to roost sermon. From my own perspective I think the "damn America" and "chickens comming home to roost" sermons are completely defensible, and would be willing to do so at length.

    However, he pretty much has to condemn them as a matter of pure practicality. He's a politician and he's going to say a lot of stuff that he needs to say in order to placate people. It's pretty much that simple.

    Since the MSM, the wingnuts and camp Clinton have all decided that Rev Wright is a crazed hate monger that has been preaching to his church of hate for 20 years, it would hardly behoove Obama to try and give a nuanced discussion of each statment and the degree to which he finds them to be things he can or can't agree with.

    My problem in the main is the leap from 6 statements, each of which can be evaluated and judged seperately, and them lumping them all together in a big mess, stamping it with a label of "coherent philosophy of hate," and then suggesting that said coherent philosophy was promulgated every Sunday for the last 20 years.

    It's a claim for which I have not seen a shred of evidence other than the phrases in question which are taken and rearranged in various configurations to create the illusion of analyis.

    Let me make clear what I am not saying:

    I am not saying that Wright is not a problem for Obama. He clearly is. In politics perception is everything and the defensiblity of Wright is in some sense irrelevant--especially to those who have a vested interest in framing him in the worst possible light. At present we see a complete unity in the meme set being pushed by the right wing and the Clinton camp. A sad state of affairs.

    [ Parent ]

    Some? (none / 0) (#191)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:35:44 AM EST
    I'd like to know which of the statements Obama wasn't condemning?


    [ Parent ]
    Sigh. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:52:32 PM EST
    I was responding to your question:

    If there's nothing wrong with what Wright said, why did Obama condemn what Wright said (if not the man)?

    The argument that there is nothing wrong with SOME of what Wright said is MY PERSONAL argument.

    Obama has clearly condemned all of them repeatedly.

    I was offering some speculation that he may disagree with some of the statements more than others. But that is speculation on my part.

    His public position on the statements is quite clear and has been repeated over and over and over and over again. However, since it is critical for anti Obama forces to make sure that the following meme syllogism is pushed:

    Wright is a vicious irredeemable hate monger.
    Obama believes and supports everything Wright says.
    Therefore Obama is a vicious irredeemable hade monger.

    We proceed with this nonsense.


    [ Parent ]

    Hang on there, Faust... (none / 0) (#209)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:53:53 PM EST
    I appreciate your comments.

    First, can we agree that if we are to give Sen. Obama the benefit of nuance, we do the same for Sen. Clinton?

    Second, Sen. Obama's dissembling set off alarm bells for me. This doesn't appear to be an issue for you. As you say, he's a poltician, he has to placate people. Just the same old politics. That Sen. Obama did not come out with a clear and consistent message, is, for me, not a good sign of his political acumen.

    Third, "At present we see a complete unity in the meme set being pushed by the right wing and the Clinton camp. A sad state of affairs."

    Yes, it is sad how right-wing talking points have been taken up by Democrats. I assume you also condemn the "Hillary is evil" and "Hillary will do anything to get elected" right-wing memes spread by Camp Obama? Now, where exactly have you done that? I'd like to support you in this fight for fair play. We may never get fairness, but that doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for.

    Regardless, challenging Sen. Obama's electbility because of this issue is appropriate. Even you admit that this is a political problem for him. But combining the right-wing hate machine and the electability argument is specious. The two are not the same.

    [ Parent ]

    Reducing a great record of civil rights activism (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:17:03 PM EST
    ... to ""Bill did us like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty," with dry humping -- riding "dirty" dry humping, at that.

    In what way does the NAACP think this challenges a nation in troubled times except not to throw up in revulsion?

    To find that objectionable is lynching, huh?

    Good luck running on that.

    [ Parent ]

    The word (none / 0) (#58)
    by Emma on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:27:08 PM EST
    "lynch" was used by Kwame Kilpatrick to describe what he felt was being done to him, Kilpatrick, by the Detroit and Michigan press.  It was totally unrelated to Wright.  Just in case that's what you were referring to when you used the word lynching.  I apologize if my comments were unclear.


    [ Parent ]
    You were clear; I was trying to wrap my mind ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:39:13 PM EST
    ... around the position of the NAACP challenge to the nation by embracing Wright.

    THAT's what's nuts.

    [ Parent ]

    Otis Moss, the new pastor (none / 0) (#189)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:29:54 AM EST
    of Trinity Church said in his Easter sermon ""No one should start a ministry with lynching, no one should end their ministry with lynching." He refers to the controversy as a lynching several more times.

    [ Parent ]
    Clarence Thomas used the "lynching" (none / 0) (#69)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:59:05 PM EST
    metaphor too.

    Lynching in the context of racism is the hanging (and often mutilation) of a black man by a mob.

    I find it offensive when used in the context of Rev. Wright.

    [ Parent ]

    His statements don't bother me... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:48:37 PM EST
    ...nearly as much as his promotion and collaboration with Farrakhan and his organizaiton.

    [ Parent ]
    If you want to get elected in this country (none / 0) (#13)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:52:26 PM EST
    you shouldn't hang out with people who say things like "God damn America," and "U.S of KKK A."

    You may not think it is right or fair, but it is reality, especially for Democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, I absolutely agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by Deadalus on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:59:52 PM EST
    I'm not arguing it's efficacious.  I believe I said it was not repugnant.  Those are two different things entirely.  Please try to address poster's claims in the future.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps I wasn't clear (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:09:32 PM EST
    I find those things repugnant.

    [ Parent ]
    Well make a case for that (none / 0) (#176)
    by Deadalus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:34:33 AM EST
    instead of making a case for their ineffectiveness.  One cannot have a discussion when the argument is shifted from one conclusion to another without any additional supporting evidence.

    [ Parent ]
    What's repugnant? (none / 0) (#61)
    by LHinSeattle on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:36:27 PM EST
    The hatred for those of different color, ethnicity, or religion is repugnant.  Hate is not a liberal progressive value (or so I used to think).    

    I'm not so bothered by the "goddamn America" part -- but the Repubs love this weapon handed to them; fits right in with the "Dems are traitors" meme.

    Wright considers himself a Christian preacher. What about "you without sin, cast the first stone"? And "love thy brother...." and "turn the other cheek" and ...     "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" ????  I am not a Christian anymore, but I remember those sayings drummed into my little head in Sunday School.

    I thought it was only the Xian fundy rightwingers who quote Biblical damnation and hellfire, and forget about the love and forgiveness of the Jesus in the New Testament.   Hey, what about all that Unity?

    [ Parent ]

    Please, he's a bigoted, hateful, (none / 0) (#170)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:18:54 AM EST
    ignorant man. You talk about elevating discourse? Many of your comments are excellent; please don't ruin your record by defending Wright. He doesn't deserve it.

    [ Parent ]
    Dang... YOU'RE RIGHT! (none / 0) (#52)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:19:18 PM EST
    They are definitely trying to reframe it into Wright was unfairly attacked, things taken out of context, MLK said the same thing!, ect.

    [ Parent ]
    We better talk about it now (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:07:38 PM EST
    before he's the nominee.

    Because we'll be talking about it later.

    Do we really want to wait until next fall to talk about it?

    Let's get it out there and discuss it.  Let's get Rev. Wright on the talk shows to explain himself.  If there's nothing wrong with what he said, then why are they hiding him?

    I'm guessing that Rev. Wright will explain himself and issue an semi-apology at the dinner.

    Kind of like "I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but here's why I said it, I love this country and so does Barack Obama."

    [ Parent ]

    Political Liability (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Athena on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:24:19 PM EST
    Let's be clear - in a year where most things are breaking for Democrats, Obama has given us the infamous Rev. Wright as a deadweight companion for the Democrats in November.  Thanks, Barack.  Your selfish behavior in failing to distance yourself from such inflammatory remarks has created a severe political liability.

    Hopefully the party will not be so self-destructive as to nominate a candidate of such naivete and self-absorption.  Fortunately, Hillary is still available.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#173)
    by Claw on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:31:02 AM EST
    Obama gave us Wright?  It's his fault?  He co-wrote the sermon?  Give me a break. Wright gave us Wright.  Obama attended his Church and then distanced himself from Wright by completely rejecting Wright's comments and the philosophy behind them.

    [ Parent ]
    Distanced? (none / 0) (#177)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:43:21 AM EST
    Yeah, after he was in political peril, he distanced himself.  What a principled position!

    Look, I don't think Obama believes this stuff.  In fact, I think he was a member of the church for largely political reasons (roots to the community and all that).  But it's just politics again and again with this guy.  He joined because it would help him run for office in a largely AA, urban community.  He never said a thing about it at the time that he was upset by any of the comments or anything.

    Then when it became a liability, he dropped it.  Politics again.

    And it is his fault for not acting on this sooner since it was abundantly clear that this would be an issue.  Or for not running this time and giving himself some real "distance" from Wright.  

    [ Parent ]

    Of Course! (none / 0) (#221)
    by Claw on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    Of course it's politics.  Obama is running for POTUS.  We need him to be politically savvy, don't we?  Look, no one really believes in all this Obama-as-the-second-coming of a Kennedy who never existed (save for a few blog commenters), but some do think he's a better politician than Clinton.  I know I do.
    My point is that people on both sides of this debate are getting increasingly shrill and hysterical.  It's this hysteria that leads some of us to blame Obama for having a nutty preacher, and others to obsess over Tuzla and Monica Lewinsky.

    [ Parent ]
    but that's the thing (none / 0) (#222)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:56:06 PM EST
    It wasn't even good politics.  You don't distance yourself from someone under the glare of the cameras.  You do it quietly way before.   You anticipate the problem and act before anyone else even knows there's an issue.

    Obama was pretty ham-handed in politically distancing himself because everyone could tell it was politically motivated.  If he were a better politician it would have looked principled.

    [ Parent ]

    Frankly (none / 0) (#59)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:28:59 PM EST
    I doubt Rev. Wright is going to do anything of the kind. He's probably going to say whatever the heck he wants, which will certainly not be politically correct.

    Hope you're right though.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not holding my breath (none / 0) (#64)
    by LHinSeattle on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:41:46 PM EST
    Rev. Wright will explain himself and issue an semi-apology at the dinner.

    Kind of like "I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but here's why I said it, I love this country and so does Barack Obama."

    "So just forget that he sat & listened to me weekly for 20 years" .....  right.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not saying it will work (none / 0) (#74)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:03:55 AM EST
    But if Obama has any hope of winning both the nomination and in November, he's got to fix this problem.

    It's not just gonna go away.

    [ Parent ]

    Not only does it not help (none / 0) (#219)
    by Talktruth on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:06:47 PM EST
    Obama, it makes the NAACP look bad.  Doy!  You think they'd figure that out.

    [ Parent ]
    Salt on the wound (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:34:34 PM EST
    After what Wright said about America, Clinton, and white Americans... this is astonishingly insulting. I think it's shameful that the NAACP wants to put it's stamp of approval on his kind of hatred.  It makes me see the NAACP in an entirely new light. I always thought that advancing "colored people" was a good thing. It never occurred to me that they were so focused on their mission that they would promote "colored" bigots. I always thought that the NAACP was about racial equality - not black superiority.

    Wow - the keynote speaker? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:36:22 PM EST
    I don't know - it may be scheduled for five days after the PA primary, but the announcement, and the opportunity for negative reaction is coming 12 days before that same primary, and not too long before the next set of contests.

    I have a feeling this is not going to go over well, and Obama may find himself caught between two blocs of supporters: he loses with one group if he embraces this, and he loses with another if he rejects it.  And if he tries to stay neutral and placate everyone, he just comes off looking weak.

    I would love to be a fly on the wall in Obama HQ right about now...

    Unwelcome Attention (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Athena on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:04:39 PM EST
    I'm guessing that this is not an engineered campaign stunt.  More press for Wright is not what they need.  And I think it's too late to mainstream Wright - if he is "muzzled" - it will be seen as a naked attempt to rehab him to help Obama.  But it won't work.  The damage to Obama is done.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama was hoping that Wright... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:36:59 PM EST
    ...wouldn't cash in on his 15 minutes, he is probably quite disappointed. Can Geraldine Ferraro come out to play now too?

    I don't think he's looking for fame. (none / 0) (#62)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:38:43 PM EST
    On dKos I saw that a diarist was worried about the security at Trinity so they sent a small donation and a note of concern to Wright/Trinity.  In return the diarist received a thank you note supposedly signed by Wright.  The thank you note was from someone feeling besieged, not someone looking for fame.

    [ Parent ]
    He already has fame, and notoriety. (none / 0) (#169)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:16:07 AM EST
    and he also seems to be a bit distant from reality..
    The media is out to destroy Obama's candidacy and is using me as the bludgeon.

    He apparently hasn't tumbled to the fact that Obama is a media darling, and can do no wrong. And if his church doesn't want to be in the media, they shouldn't release hate speech in the guise of sermons. Wright seems to overlook the fact that  HIS sermons are what inflame the public, and he said them, so why is he whining now??

    And someone from the NAACP should ask Obama if he has helped any black people up the ladder behind him. Or has he just used them to get where he is today. My guess is the latter.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not keeping it on the down-low (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:40:01 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure there won't be any controversial statements, but it will give the media the excuse to recycle the whole thing over again.

    This will be interesting.

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#15)
    by Emma on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:54:18 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure there won't be any controversial statements,

    A couple of weeks ago, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick gave his State of the City address.  At the end of it, he departed from his prepared remarks to talk about how all his troubles were due to a "lynch mob mentality".  

    And finally tonight, and this may be the most talked about part of the speech after laying out all of that. But I feel that I cannot leave this auditorium with my wife and my sons sitting there without addressing this issue.

    In the past 30 days, I've been called a n----- more than any time in my entire life. In the past three days I have received more death threats than I have in my entire administration. I've heard these words before, but I've never heard people say them about my wife and children.

    I don't believe that a Nielsen rating is worth the life of my children or your children.

    This unethical, illegal lynch-mob mentality has to stop.

    Link.

    The topic and atmosphere in Detroit is ripe for all sorts of controversial statements.

    [ Parent ]

    If Rev. Wright starts making (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:57:48 PM EST
    more controversial statements at the dinner, Obama's in deep doo-doo.

    What ever he says will get massive coverage.

    [ Parent ]

    Wright and Kilpatrick (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Emma on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:07:08 PM EST
    Will Rev. Wright reach out to Mayor Kilpatrick?  That's what I'm wondering.  And if it happens, what does that mean for Obama, if anything?  Detroit is very divided about Kilpatrick.  Most of the City Council wouldn't sit on the dais with Kilpatrick when he gave his State of the City Address.  The Council has passed a resolution for him to resign.  Eight of the nine Council members are African American.  Kilpatrick has cost the City many millions of dollars, all due to his trying to cover up his affair with his Chief of Staff.  And now he's been charged with crimes including perjury and abuse of office.  It's a hot issue in Detroit.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe he'll speak about how hard Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:41:14 PM EST
    has to work . . .

    "Hillary ain't had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folk who run everything, or to get a passing grade, when you know you are smarter than that C-student sittin' in the white house."

    How nice for Obama it prob won't effect his Pa votes . . .

    Gosh (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:59:39 PM EST
    At the end of the day, if the black community wants to vote for Obama, OK, that's great.

    That's democracy.

    But if a celebration of Rev. Wright is a part of that community, and Obama is part of that community, AND Obama becomes the face of the Democratic party, then, no, it does no good to just repeat it over and over again, but the real consequences of that remain the same.

    Just to chime in with dianem above.  This changes my opinion of the NAACP.

    The faux outrage is alarming. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Deadalus on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:03:22 PM EST
    And it's self-serving.  Rev. Wright's statements in context are not nearly as distressing as the right-wing propaganda that has ruined this country.  As a member of Rev. Wright's community myself, I find it disheartening that he has been publicly excoriated for statements that scholars and intellectuals have made, quite rightly, behind closed doors in every reputable university across this country.

    [ Parent ]
    Hate Is Hate (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:13:53 PM EST
    It doesn't matter what political direction it comes from, or what the skin shade is of the person spreading it, or whether the person is male or female. Hate speech is no more right when it comes from a black minister than it is when it comes from a white Republican. I don't know what scholars and intellectuals you know, but I've known a few in my time and they don't talk like that. They don't even think like that.

    [ Parent ]
    Your Hate, or Rev Wright's? (none / 0) (#202)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:27:38 PM EST
    The SPLC does not consider Rev Wright a proponent of Hate speech. In fact the gatekeepeer of Hate speech, the SPLC supports Rev Wright:

    Support for anti-gay causes, of course, is far from universal among black church leaders. For instance, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago whose congregation includes Sen. Barack Obama, has come out strongly against allowing anti-gay prejudice to become gospel in black churches. His church is one of the few that has a "Same Gender Loving" ministry for congregants. One of Wright's close associates, black theologian and public intellectual Michael Eric Dyson, also has publicly supported the gay community.

    Wonder why the SPLC has not chimed about Rev Wright, like the outraged right wing hate groups have.

    [ Parent ]

    Just because the right-wing is worse (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:14:36 PM EST
    doesn't make what Rev. Wright said okay.

    You don't claim the moral high ground by arguing "They're worse than we are."

    [ Parent ]

    there you go again (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:02:22 AM EST
    "faux outrage" belies your prejudices.

    What you fail to understand is that our outrage is not false.  I'm very glad for you that this rolls like water off a duck's back for you, but racism and hate from any race toward any race is still racism.

    I don't care if Wright is angry.  I don't care about his history.  I don't care about his future.  What matters to me is these horrible, racist and vulgar statements that he made.  They are disgusting and unacceptable to me.  If Clinton's preacher called out Obama from the pulpit, if he humped the podium to illustrate Obama having sex with Michelle, if he said G-D America...well, you know what?  Clinton would have walked out, so that's really a strawman.

    And taking this completely out of the realm of the emotional, it's bad politics for Obama not to have walked out.  It indicates a pattern of behavior where he'd rather just sit there with his thumb up his butt and listen to that racist crap being spewed instead of getting up and taking a stand because that church was filled with voters.

    Guess what?  Wright is no longer preaching to the choir.

    [ Parent ]

    Last I checked (none / 0) (#172)
    by Deadalus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:30:21 AM EST
    Speaking ill of white people is not racism, nor is pointing out that black people suffer discrimination at the hands of white people.  Again, that's not racism.  

    [ Parent ]
    Depends on the specifics now, doesn't it? (none / 0) (