Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Speak at NAACP Dinner

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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).

    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.


    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?

    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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....


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.....


    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.

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

    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?  

    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.  


    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.  


    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?  


    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.....



    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.  

    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.

    Perhaps the problem is that we must accept your q (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    "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.


    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.  

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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....

    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.

    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.


    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.


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

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

    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.  


    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"?

    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.....


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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)?

    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.

    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.


    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.

    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.

    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."


    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.


    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


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


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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."


    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.


    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.  

    Depends on the specifics now, doesn't it? (none / 0) (#182)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:40:33 AM EST
    Wright is clearly a virulent racist. Why you insist on defending him is mystifying.

    Clearly a virulent racist? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Deadalus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:45:35 AM EST
    Can you prove this?  Everyone who knows him disagrees with this--as do the white members of his congregation and denomination.

    Personally i'm most offended by his (none / 0) (#185)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:51:57 AM EST
    remarks on HIV---charging that the US government was behind the disease in order to genocide blacks.
    His loathsome sermon on Bill Clinton, Monica and the blacks is something Obama has never even mentioned.
    His sexism is more clear than his racism; however, I would say the  comment about garlic-nosed Italians was florid racism.
    So maybe he's a florid racist but not a virulent one.
    He is, however, a repulsive figure, and I wish Obama would not hitch his horse to him. Wright is one of many problems which, taken singly, are enough to render him unelectable. Unfortunately there are other problems. The worst his his incredible, self-parodying inflation of his credentials. No other candidate, having less to offer (that he has proven), has claimed to offer more---not even Bush.

    My response (none / 0) (#186)
    by Deadalus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:07:06 AM EST
    1.  I believe he is wrong about this, but after the Tuskegee experiments, it's not as wild a claim as you make it out to be.  Nor is it racist.

    2.  He never gave a sermon on Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and the "blacks".  He made some comments about this, but did not make a "sermon" on the subject.  These statements, while inarttful, were not racist.  I'd also like to point out that you haven't rebutted his assertion that Bill Clinton "screwed" over black people by gutting welfare reform and increasing the number of black men in jail.  It is easier to call him a racist than addressing this claim, because it's true.

    As far as his Obama's credentials, it would behoove you to compare them to historical presidents.  Some have had more "experience" and had terrible records as president while others have had less "experience" but done a fantastic job.  You're argument is not very thoughtful, nor is it factually correct.

    Preposterous (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:17:58 PM EST
    1.  I believe he is wrong about this, but after the Tuskegee experiments, it's not as wild a claim as you make it out to be.  Nor is it racist.

    Yes, it is a wild claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please cite your evidence.

    Citing the Tuskegee crime as evidence that the U.S. government developed and spread AIDS to kill people of color is ludicrous. What happened to the men used as guinea pigs at Tuskegee was a crime. It happened. It is historical fact.

    "The United States government did something that was wrong--deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens... clearly racist."

    --President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997

    An apology doesn't even come close to rectifying the injury done to these men. This is a crime against these men, society, and humanity.

    That the U.S. government developed and spread HIV/AIDS to kill people of color did not happen.

    To claim one as proof of the other is irrational and unethical. To state that "it's not as wild a claim as you make it out to be" is also irrational and unethical.

    One happened. It is tragic. It is wrong. It was cruel and callous and racist.

    One did not happen. It is fiction.


    Really? Because the Rev MLK's demonstrations (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:54:34 PM EST
    ... came up frequently in the history and comparative theology I studied and none of those demonstrations were of humping.

    Fulani, Marcus Garvey, X -- nope, not there either nor as part of academic discussions behind "closed doors".

    This pretense isn't going to fly.


    Maybe you need to look at that history without (none / 0) (#108)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:54:13 AM EST
    rose colored glasses

    Hey, if you have MLK's humping demonstration (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:04:17 AM EST
    ... post it. Or any text or visuals from the others mentioned.

    The color of my glasses (or skin) doesn't affect basic reading comprehension by the way.


    My point is that all of these men were human (none / 0) (#140)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:29:00 AM EST
    and we can go back and find things about them that don't reflect the saintly description you give to history. Did he do precisely what Wright did? No, but that's not the point I am making. He didn't need to do what Wright did. He was his own man who made his own sucesses and mistakes. Much of what MLK did at the time was controversial at the time. It's also been discussed at length by historians that MLK was becoming more radical as time went on. There was an evolution that you gloss over in favor of the staintly MLK rather than the complicated historical figure. I get why. It's easier to use the saintly version rather than the more complicated. The other part of this is that you are discussing soemthing that has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with partisanship. Wright's statement was dumb but overall, it's tone and point wasn't about race. It was about Wright's partisanship. If we are going to toss every major supporter who makes dumb coments, then both Clinton and Obama would be tossing a lot of supporters under a bus.

    Bruhrabbit3... (none / 0) (#198)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:58:41 PM EST
    I agree that if everyone who said bigoted and dumb things was tossed under the bus during this primary race, we all better hope the bus has 4-wheel drive.

    One thing that does bother me, though, is the double-standard between Sen. Obama's and Sen. Clinton's campaigns. I could go into a whole thing here to prove my point, but I'll stick to one:

    Re: Sen. Obama's speech on race. I've said I found some of it to be quite good, some of it lame. One speech and one election are not going to even begin to solve the problems we have in the United States regarding all the bigotry and hatin going on. (And white people didn't give Indians casinos. The nations used treaty law to get 'em and more power to 'em for it.) There's a lot of work to be done here. I know this. But please bear with me for a moment as I explore something else.

    But one of the things that bothered me was how Sen. Obama used his grandmother.

    Rev. Wright has the support of his 9,000+ church, the UCC, many Obama supporters, and countless others.

    Sen. Obama's grandmother has shied away from all press. She just wants to be left alone. So why would Sen. Obama put his grandmother into the spotlight, a spotlight she has shunned?

    Why use her to further his political goals?

    Surely Sen. Obama could have used a better example. He must know someone with a few more resources to withstand the onslaught of public attention. Or at least, talked about someone dead---I mean, dead people usually don't care if you call them bigots.

    At minimum, he could have admitted his own bigotry. I would have admired that. A lot. It takes a strong and humble human being to publicly admit their own stupidity.

    Anyway, I don't think he meant to chuck her under the bus---I don't think Sen. Obama is that callous. But I think he showed a lack of judgment regarding the affect his comments would have on her life.

    And it is his judgment that he offers as why he should be president.

    Then again, maybe he is that callous. There are people who will say that one old white woman's pain is nothing compared to the historical wrongs of racism. Maybe Sen. Obama agrees with this.

    Or even more callously, maybe Sen. Obama is willing to hold up to public ridicule one of the people who loved and cared for him for the sake of grabbing power. I don't want to believe this is so and I don't think I would argue it.

    It's one thing to challenge racism and other bigotry as part of the structural inequality of American society. It's another thing to call people out on their bigotry, no matter how uncomfortable it makes them or you. But it's something else to pick on the defenseless.

    Especially when the defenseless one is someone you profess to love.

    (And BTW, I see Martin Luther King, Jr. as no saint---sainthood does no one any good. Please don't assume that admiration equals canonization.)


    Uhhh (none / 0) (#205)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:37:41 PM EST
    It may be that MLK was more like WJC in his "demonstration" than the Rev Wright... just saying...

    Remove the log in your eye before helping with the speck in your brother's eye!

    MLK was not about to point out others failings in the area of humping.


    Hateful (none / 0) (#162)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:39:43 AM EST
    What did Rev. Wright say that was hateful?  I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm actually curious.  Maybe I'm ignorant.  He said some stuff that I think was insensitive and kind of stupid.  But hateful?

    So, if you're critical of white America you're being hateful?  Really?  And leave Malcolm X alone.  I love that guy.  He was a brilliant man that made a hell of a lot of sense... and he was enlightened before his murder and knew that blacks and whites shouldn't remain separate.  

    I find it perfectly okay to be critical of the way this country is being run.  I don't understand why it's so unacceptable.  Maybe it's the way these men have put all white people in this box, as if they're all evil, that's so bad?  Well, I agree with that.  And that's what I didn't like about Wright.  He's a bit simpleminded and backward.  But hateful is a strong word.


    It may come after Pennsylvania... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by stefystef on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:04:16 PM EST
    but it's before Indiana and North Carolina.
    The news will be all over it and it will bring Rev Wright back to the forefront.  Although Obama gave a pretty speech about race, it think it still bothers many people.

    Can't Rev Wright shut up until after the convention?

    Hillary '08- The right choice for real change.

    I'm the one who said it... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:16:47 PM EST
    ...so I'll defend it. I said I see the NAACP differently now. The NAACP is not "black people". It is an organization composed of people of various races, theoretically to promote racial equality. Apparently, some people in that group feel that it is also appropriate to promote racial divisiveness. I had always respected their mission. But if their mission includes promoting disrespect between races, then I won't stand behind it. Nobody should.

    Just to make it obvious that Wright (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by frankly0 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:29:03 PM EST
    considered 9/11 to be deserved morally, look at all the examples of America's purported evil doing that lead up to his claim that "America's chickens are coming home to roost". Every single example is one in which America is allegedly engaged in some morally unconscionable act. The unquestionable message that Wright is trying to convey is that America deserved what it got on 9/11, as justice, in this world, for the evils it supposedly has perpetrated.

    Now, maybe that's "liberalism" to some. But I suppose I had thought it was only Anne Coulter who thought liberals detested America that much. Looks like "Daedalus" would be another.

    He was discussing blowback (none / 0) (#129)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:16:17 AM EST
    Yes, he used hyperbole, but how is blowback as a concept alien to liberal circles? For that matter, military circles? It maybe alien only if one is avoiding the reality of what happened in the lead up to 9/11. Not just with Bush. That's the easy part. But American foreign policy that funded these organizations, if indirectly, due to the Soviet threat and other issues. And, yeah, to the extent that we helped create the forces that later came back to attack us, we need to look at ourselves in the mirror to make sure it doesn't happen again. Your position to me is a little like arguing that American troops in Iraq didn't lead to the incursion of terrorist operatives after the fall of Saddam.  The fact is- the fact is our actions have concequences.  That's reality. Not our morals. Farrel would argue that its because we lack morals. We could be completely moral, and still having done what we did there have lead to 9/11. After the monumental failures of the last few years, the least you would think people would want to do is to have a bit of introspection. This, afterall, isn't the first war with no end that we've gotten into. Why? Me, personally, I think its relates to the fact that we are unable to have a more mature conversation about the impact of our polcies abroad, in which we can own up to our screw ups. It doesn't mean the terrorists were right. It just means we understand how we got here.

    Actually (none / 0) (#166)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:03:42 AM EST
    Wright's G-D America fits perfectly with Obama's "I told you so" approach to FP.

    Oh please (none / 0) (#174)
    by Deadalus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:32:05 AM EST
    Get off this horse.  "Morally Deserved"?  In the same sermon he condemned the acts as evil.  He expressed outrage and dismay at them.  He was simply pointing out, as most scholars liberal and conservative have pointed out to no avail, that 9/11 was a direct result of larger, more complex international worldview in which American Imperialism has generated animosity among extremist Muslims.

    Wright has a right (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:50:49 PM EST
    to believe and say what he wants in his church.  Obama does not have a right to make us think that he did not know of those opinions, or that we should accept what Wright says because of Americas history of racism.  I know many people who practice liberation theology and it is not steeped in the language of hatred.  So, lets not twist things.  If Obama used him, he owns him.  He cannot cleanse his hands now.  Twenty years of calling him a mentor.  Using his words in his book title, Obama now cannot claim that these are the words of an old guy fighting old battles.  

    One more time... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:44:49 AM EST
    Wright was paraphrasing the former white U.S. ambassador to Iraq. I'm not even altogether sure that Wright agreed with the entire God Damn America sentiment; he was simply repeating what this ambassador said on Fox News.

    It amazes me that people can spend hundreds of hours chiming in this subject yet refuse to invest 8 minutes to listen to the actual sermon, which is just a few mouse clicks away

    Wright can say whatever (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:05:40 AM EST
    But Obama cannot say he has transcended  race  and  the culture wars.  That we are one America and then go to a church that spews that stuff.    We do not have to believe Obama's lies.  Or take Wright's vulgarity about Bill and Hillary--this is just disgusting political stuff, so he opens himself to criticism.  Or believe that this is not any better than right wing evangelical spewing.

    So, twist and gyrate and defend Wright and Obama all you want, it will not work.  


    They mined 30 years of (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:14:18 AM EST
    sermons and only came up with that stuff. That tells me that this is the extreme exception, rather than the rule. Therefore it is very unlikely that Obama was exposed to sermons like that while in the church. But anyone who is anti-Obama will try to milk this for all it's worth. It's not hurting him, and may in fact have helped him.

    if that is the delusion (none / 0) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:15:58 AM EST
    you choose, go ahead.  

    Do your homework (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:26:33 AM EST
    The man did several sermons a week for 30 years. Many were recorded. Go ahead, find more damning material other than the few 30 second sound bites. I dare you. Let's see who's delusional.

    Look, you (none / 0) (#142)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:32:04 AM EST
    go watch all of them and prepare a book report.  Like I said.  I don't care what he says.  He is free to say whatever he wants.  

    Like it matters (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Regency on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:04:19 AM EST
    Y'know what's funny? A lot of Obama supporters act like it matters what else Rev. Wright has said in the rest of his sermonds. Like context matters that much.  Once you've said something hateful and inflammatory, it doesn't matter if you preach about hugs, kittens, and redemption everyday for the next 30 years, you've still gone off the reservation and made a mess. Also known as fodder for the Right-Wing 527s.



    In the YouTube video of the (none / 0) (#180)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    "riding dirty" sermon, Obama is in the audience, he is in close-up in the last two frames. It looks like they tried to edit him out, but missed a couple of frames. He was there for that sermon, so why is it likely he missed all the others?

    did he paraphrase all his remarks (none / 0) (#110)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:56:17 AM EST
    like the ones about the Clintons?

    I utterly agree with (none / 0) (#124)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:09:51 AM EST
    his Bill Clinton statement, though his choice of words were crude. Many African Americans are of the same opinion. The notion that Bill Clinton was somehow good for black America is, in my opinion, one of the great frauds in American history. What Wright said about Hillary was wrong, and again, crude. But it is essentially true. She has never been called that word. She's never has a cab not stop for her due to the color of her skin. Her race has never been treated as less than human.

    If that was the case (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:17:11 AM EST
    Why did we only start hearing about how horrible Bill was for black people during this primary?

    Those statements alone will crush Obama in the General Election.

    No Clinton supporter can ever vote for him without endorsing that opinion.


    Each election is a new organism (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:24:19 AM EST
    You don't speak for Clinto supporters. They don't know who you are and don't care. The overwhelming majority of Clinton supports will vote for Obama, regardless of what some bloggers say.

    And I notice that you keep tarring Obama with words that are coming out of someone else's mouth.


    Obama chooses his mentors (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Regency on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:00:27 AM EST
    and mentors do tend to hold the beliefs that guide us in life.  Barack chose Wright--kept choosing him. He chose a lot of friends that make him unelectable.

    And by the way, s/he does speak for me. I will never vote for that fraud. It will not happen. I will not endorse the blatant opportunism and manipulation and villification of a President and First Lady I revere.


    So don't vote for Obama (none / 0) (#201)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:24:07 PM EST
    and tell everyone you know not to vote for Obama. Campaign, canvas, donate money against Obama. He's not going to get every vote; no one ever does. But no one here speaks for Clinton supporters, the vast majority of whom don't even know what a blog is.

    Even a majority (none / 0) (#138)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:27:56 AM EST
    Might not be enough.

    7 million people were raised out of poverty during the Clinton administration.

    It's been suggested that for me to point out that many of those people were black is somehow race baiting.

    Oh well.


    How did he raise people out of poverty? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:31:01 AM EST
    Oh, you mean the inevitable recovery after the Bush recession? Well, he wasn't responsible. You or I sitting in the oval office would have "raised" the same 7 million people.

    Well hey (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:40:24 AM EST
    At least he didn't keep it from happening.

    So why did Rev. Wright go shake Bill's hand?

    Why has the NAACP had Bill deliver speeches for them?

    Why was Bill asked to deliver a speech commemorating the Million Man March?

    Seems that if one thing is true, that he was horrible for black people, then there must have a hell of a lot of gullible people duped for a very long time.

    Under the spell of his charisma, I'm sure.

    It was the saxophone, wasn't it?


    I never said he was horrible for black people (none / 0) (#148)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:03:54 AM EST
    neutral maybe. Certainly not an activist.  Clinton was a centrist DLC politician. Some would say a triangulator. Clinton was never really identified with any core value. That was by design. He was terrified of being identified as liberal or as too accommodating to African Americans. He would never mention "inner city" without also mentioning "rural" as a counterbalance. In practical terms, a lot of bad things happened to black people on his watch. The black male incarceration crises exploded with Clinton. Systemic racism did not abate. He failed to act in Rwanda even though action there would have been at minimal cost. Whether it was welfare reform or NAFTA, many of Clinton's policies were essentially ideologically Republican. The point is I don't believe he actively sought to specifically improve the lives of black people. Therefore any credit given to him in that regard is grossly unearned. .

    You're backtracking (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:18:21 AM EST
    You said you agreed with Wright.  Wright said he was bad for black people.

    Now you're saying he was just "neutral" at best.

    Gee. I wonder how duped you must think Maya Angelou or Nelson Mandela is.

    I wonder what they think of Rev. Wright's subtle little dig on the Clinton administration.  I wonder what Rev. Wright thinks of Maya Angelou.

    I now know what Spike Lee now thinks of black people who still support Clinton.

    So just so we can sum up.

    Rev. Wright believe Clinton was bad for black people.

    You think he was neutral.

    In a way I agree.  The people who prospered during the 90s were of every race.


    Neutrality can be very negative and harmful (none / 0) (#150)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:29:18 AM EST
    Bill Clinton did not actively seek to hurt black people. Even Wright isn't saying that. But Clinton was often neutral, passive or failed to act, which can be just as damaging as taking action. Now some of Clinton's policies may have hurt African Americans, but I doubt he pursued those policies with that as the objective.

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:45:04 AM EST
    You're all tied up in knots.

    If his passivity was unintentionally hurting black people, why was he invited to give a speech commemorating the million man march?

    Were the organizers so duped?


    Strange questions you ask (none / 0) (#152)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:02:10 AM EST
    such as why did Obama condemn Wright's statements if they weren't all that bad? Duh ... maybe he genuinely disagrees with the content of Wright's soundbites. Or maybe he recognizes the most politically expedient thing to do.

    Now this latest strange question. Why shouldn't Clinton be invited to black events? Don't Republican candidates and presidents get invited to NAACP conventions every year? Of course they usually decline. What does a politician speaking at an event have to do with anything?


    Why would he disagree (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:09:09 AM EST
    With ..... No.  Surely it was political expedience.

    And any discerning individual would have to conclude Obama actually agrees with Wright's sermons.  Inclusive of the soundbites.

    Not just invited to an event.

    Invited to give keynote addresses.  

    If Bush was invited as such, and just declined perhaps I never heard of it.

    Any other info there you'd like to provide?


    Whenever I hear this - (none / 0) (#163)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:05:18 AM EST
    She's never has a cab not stop for her due to the color of her skin. - I think of the time I caught a cab and got in and the cab driver had a naked Barbie doll hanging from the rear view mirror.  He pointed at the little plastic boobs and looked at me with this crewed, sleazy expression and then chuckled at me.  It was so creepy and uncomfortable, I had to ask him to drop me off way earlier than I was supposed to, I was afraid he was going to try something.

    Women go through a lot too.  Just because it's behind closed doors (bedroom doors, boardroom doors, cab doors) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Honestly, I never realized how much I've been discriminated against or mistreated because of my sex until this election.  This whole thing has got me thinking.  I hope there are really good writers out there who are paying attention.  I want to read a book about the role of gender in this election as well as the role of race.


    The taxi thing (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:23:56 AM EST
    reminded me of the last time I was in New York, and I had the cab driver drop me almost a mile from my place because the whole ride, he kept telling me how beautiful I was and how he wanted to make real love to me.

    If Jeralyn were as base as me, she would put up a quick poll to see how many women here have ever been flashed, how many have been raped, how many have been threatened with sexual assault, how many have been harassed.

    I'll go out on a limb here and guess that pretty much every woman I know has experienced at least one or all.


    We don't even need a poll (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:12:59 PM EST
    Every woman has been harassed, and then some. I'm sure we could fill a thousand blog threads recounting those experiences, but it wouldn't matter.

    The men who throw around the word "c*nt" with regularity will always tell us we're being "too sensitive" and that the only word that's verbotten is the "n" word.

    It's what we've come to expect. We've learned the rules.


    Well, if a female preacher were to (none / 0) (#204)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    talk about these things I would not label her a hate preacher. I would say there is a great deal of truth in what she says. I would look at the context in terms of her personal experiences; I would not rely on a few inflammatory sound bites.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#178)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:50:12 AM EST
    Her race has never been treated as less than human.

    That's funny.  I would suggest you change the word "race" to "gender" and then check out some family laws from the first 150 years of this country.  



    So wrong. Read up on treatment (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:33:16 AM EST
    of many immigrant groups here, treated as suhuman, you bet.  There are books on this, especially the treatment of the Irish, Bill Clinton's heritage.  But also see treatment of French Canadians, Hillary  Clinton's heritage.  

    I'm of both Irish and French Canadian descent, so I know not only from studies but also from family stories.  And I'm now married into a Jewish family, and I hope you don't have to be told about treatment of them -- and a lot more recently than slavery.  

    (Of course, Obama is not himself from a heritage of slavery, I know, but he claims it as his own in speaking for others.)


    No comparison (none / 0) (#206)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    and Obama not being descended from African slaves is irrelevant. I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't matter one way or the other.

    Wrong again. Your own phrase was (none / 0) (#208)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:42:56 PM EST
    that no other group has been treated as less than human.  And that is exactly the description used for many groups.

    Now, if you want to say that no group has been treated exactly as AAs have, that is different -- the different form of slavery here than in Africa, the attempt to eradicate a culture (also attempted with Native Americans, though), etc.

    As to descent from slavery being no different, though, that is not at all what I read in many works in Africology.  It is a distinct heritage and experience which differentiates some in the African diaspora from others.  What are you reading?


    Why do you misquote me (none / 0) (#213)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:13:09 PM EST
    when it's right in front of your eyes? That is not my phrase. I quoted Wright as stating that Hillary's (white) race has never been treated as less than human. Do you understand what less than human means? Throughout much of the last century there were serious scholars arguing that black people were not fully human. A great deal of the brutalization visited on black people was based on the theory that they weren't fully human. Please cite real (and not anecdotal or fringe) opinion that ethnic whites were ever regarded as less than human. Please cite corresponding evidence of mistreatment on this basis.

    Yes, there is a historical continuum and a historical memory that traditional African Americans have that someone like Obama will never have. He may hear stories and it may make him angry. Surely he has experienced racism. But he may not have some of the rage that is passed on and is endemic in the black community. That said, the way he is treated; how the world sees him is not made any more or less severe because he didn't descend from slaves. I don't have to find this in books, I say this as a black person also not descended from slaves.


    Nope, you didn't attribute it (none / 0) (#218)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:28:44 PM EST
    and your last several sentences stand alone.  No quote marks.  Can't read your mind, you know.

    And really don't want to, as the more I read, I see how little you have done so.  See Noel Ignatiev's How the Irish Became White, for one of the best studies -- and see also the term "white n****r" used by the British to describe the Irish, etc.


    There's a book written on every (none / 0) (#223)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:38:01 PM EST
    conceivable subject. Speaking of AIDS, I can actually cite writers who, similar to Wright, contend that the U.S. govt. created the virus. Does that make it factual or even historically accurate?

    Did the Irish and Italians have it rougher in this country their waspier cousins? Yes. Did they have it anywhere near as rough as blacks? Now this question is a joke, and not even worthy of a response.


    Be the change you want to see in the thread ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:00:23 AM EST
    ... if you'd taken a few moments to read the thread, you'd have seen references to a variety of ways in which Wright has been insulting, offensive and egregiously bigoted.

    No, those weren't parsed or inferred but quite blatant.


    Sorry, Seth, (none / 0) (#193)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:43:58 AM EST
    but you don't know what you're talking about. Wright invoked Peck's name, but if you look at the transcript of Peck's interview, he said almost nothing that relates to Wright's comments. Peck argued that the embargo against Iraq, and the 11 years of bombing them, gave Iraqis cause to hate us, which is certainly an arguable point. He didn't say anything about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or bombing Kaddafi, like Wright did. To be charitable, Wright was extremely sloppy when he invoked Peck's name and said he was quoting him. Please check what you say before you write it, and stop just repeating the stuff you see on blogs.

    You ought to follow your own advise (none / 0) (#199)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:16:44 PM EST
    I never said Wright quoted Peck verbatim. But the entire sermon was a reaction to Peck's post 9/11 commentary, which stunned Wright. Wright, in fact, was much more conflicted about the event than Peck. Wright describes 9/11 as a "grievous" and "unspeakable" act. Peck, however, seemed to be gloating over it (I watched the actual interview at the time and was stunned myself). The point is, Wright sought to give a sermon on a shocking interview he saw on Fox. He wove in many of his own thoughts and characterizations but more broadly, the sermon was a description of the Peck interview with Wright's own interpretation and exposition

    the short answer: no (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:03:34 AM EST
    Have Wright apologists simply no shame?

    the man's certainly entitled to his own opinions, i'm entitled to my own opinion of them, which is that they have no place in civilized discourse. why the NAACP would choose him as their keynote speaker is a mystery; maybe bill was too busy dry humping a dais somewhere?

    there is no need to look at the "context" his words were spoken in, the meaning is self-evident.

    that was but one issue:

    the issue with Churchill
    was one of academic freedom. Very different.

    the primary issue, for most people, was the self-serving arrogance of his comments, and at least the appearance of him hating america.

    frankly, if i were sen. obama, i'd be begging and pleading with the NAACP to strongly consider changing their minds, and invite someone else as the keynote speaker.

    this is just another republican/right-wingnut smear machine 527 GE commercial in the making.

    Language (none / 0) (#144)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:34:00 AM EST
    Since when is there no need to look at the context of words? If the goal is to understand them, that's the bare minimum you have to do. Otherwise, it allows either side to spin them.

    Context is exactly what is talked of here (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:40:07 AM EST
    and that's the context of a political campaign.

    Other contexts are useful to discuss as you do -- but they do not matter in the context that matters to Obama, to Dems, to voters now.  That is the context of a political campaign.  Period.


    Several days before (none / 0) (#2)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:31:05 PM EST
    Indiana and North Carolina so if anything happens it would have time to settle.  I would bet money he does nothing controversial.  It wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't campaign on behalf of Obama.  It'll get the NAACP some attention.

    Michigan (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Athena on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:50:31 PM EST
    Will the Detroit NAACP and Rev. Wright be calling for the votes in Michigan to be counted?

    I have no (none / 0) (#27)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:04:18 PM EST
    idea what happens at this event.  I have never seen it.  It will get attention because of Wright that it never would have done. So it will be interesting to see what the tone of the evening is and Wright's tone.

    It seems to me discussing the vote of MI/FL before Obama has had a chance to speak out on the issue would be throwing him under the bus?


    Danger (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Athena on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:06:30 PM EST
    Yes, I guess that calling for democracy would be seen as an affront to Obama.  Clearance would be required.

    I bet that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:14:47 PM EST
    wouldn't mention Clinton in his race speech.  I imagine I am just trying not to imagine what I think is going to happen.  I have watched the tapes too many times and then I read some of the transcripts from the Tavis Smiley event.  I don't want what I am imagining to happen.

    Challenged our comfort zone... (none / 0) (#10)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:47:00 PM EST
    A bit of a euphemism there, I think.

    Thread cleaned (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:23:22 PM EST
    of insults, off-topic comments and race-baiting. Edgar '08 and Exeter, stop with the race-baiting.

    It implies (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:11:35 AM EST
    I'm sitting here thinking "What can I say to stir up the most racial hatred."

    That's not the case.  

    It's your blog and you can decide what's race baiting and what's not.

    But I think that's your opinion of what's race baiting and what's not.

    I just don't know if I'm supposed to be accused of race baiting and just stay quiet about that and not defend myself.

    I stepped away from the computer for 15 minutes, took 10 deep breaths and decided I could not let that go.

    That's all I'll have to say about that.


    Here's the question that got me banned from mydd (none / 0) (#113)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:57:02 AM EST
    Ask people to clearly explain what is offensive about Wright other than one or two statements- one a conspiracy theory about AIDs and the other about him being partisan against Clinton (the later being about politics not race and the former while being a conspiracy theory isn't all that big of a deal in the politics of what people are really bothered by). So, as I asked Armstrong who banned me- can someone explain what exactly is offensive here?

    I find the premise (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:11:48 AM EST
    that the White American Establishment concocted AIDS to kill black people highly revolting. (And insulting, as, dang it, we accidentally killed a bunch of white gay men in the process).  How many whites died for civil rights?  How many whites risked their lives for freedom for all?

    I find it objectionable that a man who calls Judaism a "gutter religion" was honored by Wright's church.  How many Jews were killed fighting for civil rights?  How many Jews marched and protested alongside blacks?

    And, lastly, I find it most objectionable that Wright's church is tax exempt, meaning that my tax dollars have gone toward subsidizing his speech wherein he dry humped a podium to simulate Bill Clinton performing a sex act.


    A few points (none / 0) (#196)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:39:22 PM EST
    a) This is not just a conspiracy theory found in the black community. Some radical gay activist (I am gay and Black so you kind of stepped in with that comment about gay white men) used to make similar statements. Look up the history and statements of some of the early gay activists.

    b) Its a conspiracy theory,b ut its borne out of a lot of things- several of which includes actual experimentations on African Americans- and right now for example we have one Senator (a Republican) who actively engaged in sterilization of black women.  Wright statements are conspiracy theories borne out of the frustration of indiffrence. I can quote a lot from the various medical journals bout the average life expectancy for AAs, the issues regarding how doctors treat AAs, the indifference shown toward the AIDs crisis in the AA community, etc . But really, it's irrelevant. Because its just a conspiracy based on frustration over real issues. Does that mean the conspiracy is true? No. Does it mean we need to accept the theory? No. Do I think people are using bits and pieces of this man's life for political gain with low information white voters - yes.

    c) So, now we are broadening it to Christians who don't believe in Judaism? in that case when you get beyond the PC language you will find most people of other faiths objectionable because they each believe their religion is the one true religion. i don't agree with that since I am not religious, not even Christian anymore, but that's not exactly anything new either.

    d) And your final point is a bit bizzare-- he is now objectionable because he said one thing political in the context of a 20 plus year career. See you can certainly keep pointing to a few incidents, but ultimately I am looking at the entirety. No one has shown a career in which this guy has consistently done anything other than being a community activist. A frustrated one who says over the top things- sure. But now to question his exempt status? See, this is why I don't take blogs seriously anymore. No balance whatsoever.


    But Bruhrabbit3... (none / 0) (#200)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:23:58 PM EST
    The AIDS/HIV conspiracy garbage simply is crap. That people believe it doesn't make it true. You say it yourself. You pointed out things that are facts and should be addressed and argued and changed.

    So why make up conspiracy when the truth is even more disturbing and wrong?

    I heard the same conspiracy argument from gay men as you did---and I challenged it. I understand why people reached for it and feel the same frustration: Only people bent on evil could make such evil happen. But that simply isn't so.

    Not caring results in evil. Rwanda is one. AIDS in Africa. Child murder in China. The list is...endless. Fiction does not solve any of these problems. And apathy is really hard to fight.

    But giving into the cruelty of others by indulging in conspiracy does not alleviate the pain that reality has caused. I am not dismissing the rage or frustration. Not at all. But facing reality allows for a rational response. And a rational response allows for at least the beginning of real change for the good.

    I sound so optimistic. I am not.


    I am not justifying the conspiracy theories (none / 0) (#225)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:40:49 PM EST
    Humans tend to do illogical things. I don't know why he would say something stupid when the reality is bad enough. But, i don't throw people away just because they say occasionally silly things if their overall value on a whole is greater than that. I imagine that's Obama's point. I don't even support Obama or clinton for that matter. I just find this discussion higly manipulative. But this is politics, we are suppose to pretend that perfection is o ur only choice.  Humans aren't allowed. so he must be the devil. Has it not occur to you that this is why we end up with the crappy leadership we get?

    Patronizing Racism... (none / 0) (#210)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    ...It's not that Farrakhan does not believe in Judaism. Farrakhan leads an organization that has been defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center and other watchdog groups as a hate group not only their position on Jews, but also Whites. I'm not going to give you the laundry list, but Farrakhan is very racist and his organization is just as bad as any white supremacist group.

    Ok (none / 0) (#224)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:37:18 PM EST
    I think that's a silly question (none / 0) (#117)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:03:06 AM EST
    You first have to accept the premise of subjectivity.

    You can ask me what I find objectionable.  


    I don't understand your comment (none / 0) (#133)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:21:23 AM EST
    Can you rephrase.

    Oh my... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:26:20 PM EST
    Hopefully this won't be a total disaster.

    Another point (none / 0) (#65)
    by frankly0 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:45:44 PM EST
    Does anybody even remember any more how, back in the days after 9/11, when Ward Churchill made his outrageous comments about 9/11, in which he basically claimed that we deserved what we got (in a paper entitled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens"), the right wing claimed that he was merely spouting liberal thought? Remember how liberals protested mightily that it was simply an outrage to make that claim, that liberals loved America every bit as much as conservatives, and were every bit as much as revolted by 9/11 as conservatives, and it was an unforgivable smear of liberal thought to assert otherwise, and to treat an absurdly marginal figure like Ward Churchill as representing liberal sentiment?

    Well, how the tide has seemed to turn. Now, suddenly, we are supposed to embrace Churchill's spiritual brother, Jeremiah Wright, as one of our own, as no different from the mainstream of who we are.

    Have Wright apologists simply no shame?

    And it's worthwhile to remember: Ward Churchill had the same "excuse" for his disgusting comments as Wright had for his: the oppression of a race -- in Churchill's case, that of Native Americans. Somehow that "historical context" justified his outrageous remarks.

    But if Churchill's remarks were then regarded as morally unconscionable nonetheless, why should any of us excuse Wright's remarks?

    the issue with Churchill (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:04:41 AM EST
    was one of academic freedom. Very different.

    Academic freedom was just (none / 0) (#80)
    by frankly0 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:10:53 AM EST
    one issue.

    Many liberals rightly defended Churchill on the grounds of academic freedom, while simultaneously acknowledging that his expressed beliefs were repugnant to them.

    The vast majority of liberals involved in politics were insistent that his views were far out of the mainstream of liberal thinking, and were outraged that people on the right wing argued that he was a fairly typical liberal.


    Ingrate (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:30:25 AM EST
    Hard to believe that any African American would ever say something like God Damn America. Hey it only took 2 centuries to pass the Voting Rights act, cough cough.....

    I am not sure why the fainting couches are getting such a workout, but dissent is as American as apple pie. And to suggest that Rev Wright is not patriotic is absurd. It seems odd that progressives would be condemning him as if he were some sort of right wing zealot, for criticizing American policies in harsh terms.

    Quite the double standard to say the least.

    Gratitude isn't the issue here ... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:51:40 AM EST
    ... nor should anyone have to be extra thankful for full franchise and inalienable human rights.

    I take issue with Wright's ugly charges conjured out of whole cloth, his racism, sexism and bigotry, and his lies about people's actual records records of service.

    In Obama's case, he's been a lying sack through this escapade, a poor leader and a worse Uniter. His campaign has been fomenting and encouraging the gratuitous smears at every opportunity he, personally, has had to diffuse it.

    But noooooooo ... anytime he could capitalize on division based on the ugliest invented smears, he has.

    If he wants to show his skill as a Uniter, the time to do it is first thing tomorrow, at sunrise. If he hides from this and doesn't apologize -- or tell his prominent character assassins to do it -- his entire campaign to sell change is a total con job.

    I was equally behind him or HRC, whichever the primary process selected, (apparently that made me a racist), but there's no way in hell I can support another "Uniter" that's just as bad, possibly worse than the one that's been wreaking havoc around the world for eight years.


    An Expert On Rev Wright? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:14:16 AM EST
    From a relative few soundbites?
    I take issue with Wright's ugly charges conjured out of whole cloth, his racism, sexism and bigotry, and his lies about people's actual records records of service.

    You are not required to attend his sermons. And you are free to faint as much as you like.


    He's not an activist (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:42:29 AM EST
    At a Political Protest.

    He's a religious leader providing spiritual guidance to a very large group of worshippers.

    And he has every right to say whatever he wants within that context.


    If you are so concerned about religious (none / 0) (#109)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:54:24 AM EST
    figures and you are a democract why not focus on the hateful utterances of right wing preachers? A few of these preachers were courted and embraced by McCain. Yes, there is some context to what Wright said. But how do you explain Falwall, Robertson, Hagee, Parsley, Graham, etc?

    I focus on them too (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:58:08 AM EST
    And have condemned them my whole life.

    It won't be comforting to you to know my impression of Trinity is no different than my impression of the megachurch scenes in the movie "Borat."


    Well, (none / 0) (#118)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:03:25 AM EST
    Falwell and Robertson essentially said God Damn America right in the aftermath of 9/11. And these were their own words, they weren't paraphrasing anyone. Where were you? And why are you fixated on Wright and not on them?

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:07:57 AM EST
    That's not the topic.

    Again.  I am not impressed by them either.  I think they do a great disservice to America.


    But you and others like you (none / 0) (#131)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:17:50 AM EST
    haven't said a single word. That's troubling and deeply hypocritical. There are other adjectives.

    Yes we have (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:21:51 AM EST
    When the topic is Conservative religious hate speech we say more than a single word.

    I suggest you start saying those words soon (none / 0) (#139)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:28:30 AM EST
    if you want a shred of credibility.

    I suggest you stay on topic here (none / 0) (#158)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:44:10 AM EST
    where the topic is Wright.  Then bring up your topic on an open thread.

    Who Are You To Proscribe (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:02:17 AM EST
    His context judge what he has a right to say?

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:05:32 AM EST
    I have a right to say "I object" and then you have a right to make fun of my objection to Wright.

    It appears everyone is within their rights here.


    Agreed. I think Wright is a patriotic as any (none / 0) (#102)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:50:45 AM EST
    the man enlisted in the marines in a time of war. He assisted with Lyndon Johnson's surgery. It's a joke that a bunch of chickenhawks would describe him as un-patriotic.

    You'll notice the chatter now that Obama may lack patriotism because he wants to "change" America. And what politician running for president doesn't want to change America? Didn't Reagan want to fundamentally change America? Even W came into office as a "change agent."


    Hey, thanks for the queer slur... (none / 0) (#203)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:33:12 PM EST
    It's a joke that a bunch of chickenhawks would describe him as un-patriotic.

    Three cheers for the unity.


    WTF? (none / 0) (#207)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    Queer slur? Chickenhawk? Are you out of your mind or just into really kinky sex, and oversensitive about it beinfg discussed?

    Chickenhawk (none / 0) (#212)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:04:13 PM EST
    Is a term for an older man who prefers young men and very young as sexual partners.

    How Idiotic (none / 0) (#215)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:25:41 PM EST
    You are obviously trolling. It is clear to everyone here what Chickenhawk refers to in the comment above, and it has nothing to do with sex, gay or straight.

    Chickenhawk is a term (none / 0) (#214)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:24:28 PM EST
    used to describe older men who prefer young men as sexual partners. It's also been used against pedophiles, but the most common usage I've heard has been to talk specifically of gay men who seek out guys who are barely legal drinking age.

    Wiki here.

    And Urban Dictionary.

    It's been used for years, long before it's current political designation.

    Gee, I wonder if it's related? You know, call someone a cowardly f@ggot for supporting a war they won't fight?

    I mean, there ain't any really good names to call people who are so hypocritcal about war. Except, of course, "hypocrite." But that's just not as snappy.


    How Stupid (none / 0) (#216)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:31:45 PM EST
    In all my years here not even the wingnuts trolls here have made such a idiotic stretch, and that is saying a lot.

    Wow, thanks for the namecalling (none / 0) (#217)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:22:00 PM EST

    Let's see, "chickenhawk" is a derogatory term for gay men. The term is then used to slur people who support a war they are not willing to fight. Even a nutbar like Christopher Hitchens knows that the term hadn't lost its "sissy" connotations.

    That you are ignorant of the derivation of the term means I'm a troll.

    Interesting and logical in that it is neither.

    But please continue with the ad homs. I'm enjoying the Hope and Change and Unity I've heard so much about.


    Hope And Change (none / 0) (#220)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:09:46 PM EST
    I supported Clinton. As far as sissys go, what makes you think that they most of them are gay? Besides chickenhawk describes  cowardice not "feminine" behavior in males. Are you suggesting that people that show feminine behavior are cowards?

    Once again your comment is idiotic.

    And I said nothing about you, so drop the ad hominem BS.


    How long did it take to pass the ERA? (none / 0) (#168)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:13:07 AM EST
    You got it. We're at 84 years and counting (none / 0) (#192)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    since the official introduction of the ERA (longer since it first was a focus of the movement).

    And, of course, the fight for woman suffrage was and is called the "century of struggle" -- dating from its genesis in general discussion.  It took "only" half a century to win only one amendment to counter the two amendments that put gender, the word "male" into the Constitution for the first time -- when women were told by abolitionist leaders, including AA men, that "this is the Negro's hour."  By which, of course, they meant only AA men.

    Anyone who wants to get into a comparative discussion of race and gender in this country is doomed to find it a futile debate.  But, y'know, bring it on, boyz.