Rev. Wright Fights Back

Rev. Jeremiah Wright attacks the coporate media today in a speech to the NAACP. The audience of 10,000 gave him a standing ovation.

You can watch the entire speech here.

Update: Comments closing, a new thread on the speech is here.

< Another Republican Attack Ad Airs Against Obama | Rev. Wright's Speech, Thread II >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It finally fully dawned on me... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:35:02 PM EST
    That even is Sen Obama is not the nominee these kinds of events have already deeply hurt the democratic party. I may be just off the deep end, but I don't see how this in way plays well for the people who are not already in the tank. Mocking dead presidents (specially democratic ones) is always a crowd pleaser.

    I am truly and deeply depressed now.

    racial politics (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:03:52 PM EST
    Agree.  All of this constant, racial, divisiveness is not helpful to our party.  We cannot win this way.  

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:34:04 PM EST
    I am concerned that race relations... (5.00 / 6) (#132)
    by Shainzona on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:01:49 PM EST
    have been set back 50 years as a result of this primary.

    You Can Thank The Obama Camp For That (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:11:10 PM EST
    When will it Matter (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by hiphop on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:48:08 PM EST
    It is time to talk about reparations to the African American people. It has only been 40 yrs since the jim crow laws and about 100 on slavery. What about what he said doesn't make sense??how can you not see that its not about "party" its about people

    Get In Line, Native Americans First (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:10:19 PM EST
    this is a joke right? (none / 0) (#130)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:00:32 PM EST
    "Descriptive?" (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:39:13 PM EST
    Only if you mean as in describing how to lose an election.

    I saw the speech (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:40:20 PM EST
    and the tongue bath from CNN after. Not watching that trainwreck again.

    Not sure how people feel and too angry to share my own thoughts. I just know that it sure didn't help Obama with the people he is trying to reach.

    It was broadcast live on CNN and FOx.

    The less attention this man is (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by bjorn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:46:57 PM EST
    given the better.  I understand why the media is fascinated but Elizabeth Edwards was right, this is just another distraction.  I am more interested in the fact that Obama does not seem at all committed to universal health care. After his appearance on Fox it seems more clear that he is more interested in appeasing republicans than fighting for democratic ideals.

    Pleasing republicans? (4.00 / 1) (#24)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:09:08 PM EST
    I am from a family of republicans, and I work with lots of moderates who rarely vote, except for President.  Believe me when I say that Obama is NOT appealing to them.  The more they hear about Rev. Wright, and Obama, the more they think he's a loony (if not racist) lefty.  I don't know who Obama is trying to appeal to, but it's not regular democrats like me, and republicans seem to think he's nuts.  

    the only liberals that will agree with that (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by athyrio on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:48:23 PM EST
    speech, are the very extreme, IMO....Most democrats are a bit more to the middle of the spectrum and will probably find that offensive and will feel that he is making fun of white people as well as mocking them...As a civil rights activist from years ago, I find it highly offensive....Jeralyn, what did you think?

    Fights back (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:48:59 PM EST

    Fights back against those that repaly his sermons.  What an odd notion.

    He can say whatever he likes, but (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:50:00 PM EST
    frankly, hasn't he done enough damage already?

    I don't understand your comment. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Faust on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:23:42 PM EST
    You think HE did this damage?

    I think his original words were damaging (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:42:57 PM EST
    whether he intended them to be so or not. So too for this latest string of media opportunities.

    The right time to repair Wright's image... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:21:16 PM EST
    would be after Barack Obama is inaugurated President.  Patience is a virtue.

    Trying to do so now only hurts the cause of his candidate.

    Nothing would rehabilitate the pastor's image more than being a frequent visitor and speaker at the White House.  But by following the current approach...that opportunity may never come.


    I watched Wright's interview... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:50:30 PM EST
    ... with Bill Moyers on PBS on Friday. Moyers was an extremely sympathetic interviewer, and I did feel, after watching it, that I had a better context for Wrights comments. But even given that, his comments were still incendiary, and I don't see any way around the fact that he told his congregation, in the immediate wake of 9/11, that America deserved it, and that his congregation (which may or may not have included Barak Obama, but certainly included the people he normally went to church with) applauded that sentiment. It's hard for me to figure how that isn't a problem.

    Jeremiah Wright (5.00 / 6) (#165)
    by coolit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:15:54 PM EST
     said something the other night on PBS that confirmed my worries about Barack Obama.  It makes me very  nervous about his presidency.  What I have been wary of about is his willingness to speak with grace and eloquence out of one side of his mouth and then do something very worrisome when it comes to his true reality.

    Wright said that Obama will say what he has to say because he is a politician.  What this tells me is that Obama does not believe these things he says, but he will say them to get elected.   He says them because his running for president and that's what people want to hear. He isn't necessarily a different type of candidate, but he will say that to get elected.  He will make something a racial issue that he knows is not true.... if it will get him elected.   He does not believe in his message per se, but as a politician, he will say what he has to say to get elected.

    He can do this.  It is fine.  But if he chooses to do this, the American people should be aware of it.

    Hillary admits her faults.  She admits her style, She admits that you may not love her.  But she puts it on the table.  She is honest and will tell the truth to the American people.  She is not a closet racist (like the front page of the WaPost today claims). Obama hides his true nature.  He will not tell you the truth.  He will tell you what you want to hear and then do something else behind the scene.  He is the perfect (deceitful) politician.

    The media and his followers have so bought in to his political message that they will never open their eyes to this hypocrisy.  To me, this is scary, and it reminds me that I am not on the same page as most Americans.  What seems obvious to me is usually overlooked by most of the electorate.  It has been that way for the past 8 years and it seems that not much has changed.


    Just more video clips (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:51:16 PM EST
    for media and right wing to roast him.

    I can't understand why he is so tone deaf not to recognize that mocking well known people and respected dead people isn't entirely stupid.

    This was a disaster tonight...unlike his interview with Moyers.

    You know how alot of people can't stand (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by tigercourse on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:54:49 PM EST
    ann Coulter and the ridiculous things she says? Yet she keeps saying them. Because it makes her rich. And that's why Wright says what he does. He's rich as well. I'm sure he will have a series of books coming out soon.

    He does (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by miriam on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:38:21 PM EST
    have a book coming out in the fall.  He mentioned it tonight, although it nearly got lost amongst all the other entertainment.  I'm now assuming that the upcoming book is the reason for all this Wright we're getting.  Someone will be making a movie about this campaign very soon.  But a generation from now no one will believe it's for real and not a fictional comedy.

    wait for it (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:03:47 PM EST
    someone on the Clinton side will do a split screen showing Obama doing his Annie Oakley making fun of Clinton and Wright doing his stand-up routine making fun of everyone else.

    What makes you think he is tone deaf?? (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:05:35 PM EST
    Looks to me like he is returning the favor, and throwing Obama and his presidential ambitions under the bus. He must have been very hurt when Obama told him not to come after inviting him to the announcement of his candidacy, and then disowning him in that speech and several times since then. I think the Rev. got mad and is now going to take down Obama. And he is doing a very good job of it. He preached two sermons in Texas this morning before flying to Detroit to give this speech. He is really getting around these days. I think Obama's candidacy is just about over. With friends like Rev. Wright, he doesn't need any enemies. Of course, I am a total cynic and rarely attribute good things to people unless I see proof.

    It sounds like Wright could help out (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:51:21 PM EST
    Ayers with his theories of education.

    Why I can't support Barry... (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by ClownBaby on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:52:42 PM EST
    The problem with this whole thing is that Rev Wright speaks a truth that even Obama runs from for the sake of political expediency. That is why I will not support Obama-he knows the truth but is too much of a wimp to stand up for it. He is a tortured man desparately searching for identity. He wants the "black authenticity" of Wright but also runs from it when it threatens his standing in the white community. And he has repeatedly shown he is more than willing to throw the black community under the bus to assuage the whites whom he knows can give him the prize he covets most. While I sympathize with his internal struggles, the oval office shouldn't be a place for a man to work through his personal identity issues. Get therapy, Barry, and come back in a few years when you get yourself sorted.

    There is some truth ... (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:13:47 PM EST
    to what you say.  Obama does seem to a man who seeks solace for his internal struggles in votes and the adulation of crowds.

    I wonder if that's why he has such difficult in one-on-one situations. Hemming and hawing and blundering through one ill-conceived sentence after another.

    As if, when he's brought down to the personal dimension, he cannot hide the uncomfortable truth behind his ambitions.

    But, frankly, the White House has been a mental health facility for the last seven years, I think a return to its original purpose might be in order.


    Do not insult (3.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:18:09 PM EST
    Barack Obama by referring to him as "Barry." Future comments doing so will be deleted.

    Jeralyn...Not to be disrespectful in anyway, (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:23:31 PM EST
    but Barack Obama used to be Barry Soetoro.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:25:38 PM EST
    but that's not what he calls himself now.

    (I'm a Hillary supporter).


    to his friends (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:45:59 PM EST
    and you aren't speaking as one. I may not be a supporter of his yet, but I am not going to allow him to be personally denigrated here.

    i hate to say it (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    and i mean i really hate to say it, but this guy was just given enough rope, so he hung himself.  what a gullible fool this jeremiah wright is. the corporate media gave him a forum which he used... to bash the corporate media.  hey sucker, here's some attention you crave.  now go do your thing.  thanks.  

    CNN just now (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:02:38 PM EST
    started airing the speech again, in it's entirety, for the 3rd time!!!

    Rick Sanchez said it was because they wanted us to see it.

    This is just bizarre.. it's like the (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:04:01 PM EST
    Dean Scream, in slo-mo.

    Rick Sanchez (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:06:19 PM EST
    said CNN is getting lots of feedback calling them courageous for showing it.

    I don't know from who. Republicans and Kossacks I guess.


    surely, they know this is hurting Obama (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:08:07 PM EST
    Their blindness otherwise is alarming.  Of course, these are the guys who sold us Mission Accomplished, but still...

    Do you think it had a National (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:21:49 PM EST
    Geographic feel to it---the coverage, that is.

    Courageous? (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by miriam on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:18:03 PM EST
    What an odd choice of word.  Courageous because we will all think exactly what we are thinking, that Obama and his pastor are pretty far out?   Or courageous because it's so blatantly anti-white, no matter what spin he or CNN tries to give us?  Or courageous because CNN sponsors are wondering who will buy their products now?  Or courageous because....I give up.

    Do they really think this helps Obama? (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:13:44 PM EST
    The commentators after the speech were talking about how drop on the floor HILARIOUS the speech was, how it "softened" Wright, etc. and I was thinking -- are they insane or am I? Yeah, it was hilarious all right -- how factually inaccurate he was and how he mocked JFK & LBJ, European people in general and Irish people in particular. Is this going to make people forget that he humped a podium in Church? That he said USKKKA and G** D*** America? That he said the government invented AIDS to kill black people? I don't think so. And stop yelling about "context" -- I don't need "context" for any of that garbage.  And don't even get me started on the intro from Rev. Anthony -- Wright is MLK, Mandela & Jesus all rolled into one. I think it is very sad that this man gets a standing ovation and a hero's reception -- yes, his church has done a lot of good, but so has the Nation of Islam -- that doesn't mean Farrakhan isn't divisive.

    This is a definite signal (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:03:59 PM EST
    of a radical shift in the MSM.  I think that Obama has lost his "media darling" status.  Donna Brazille must be gnashing her teeth.  Why else would they keep showing this speech that is so harmful to Obama and the democratic party?  I believe the McCain segment will follow full steam in a few days.  As we all helplessly watch.  

    Wright's comments about the military (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:26:41 PM EST
    already, even before this speech, were targeted by McCain today.  So he will benefit by having that covered more along with Wright's speech.

    If Obama had plans to say anything significant tomorrow, forget it.  Wright will be speaking again at the National Press Club, major media coverage.  Obama -- and other Dems -- may not get a chance to be heard for the rest of the week, at this rate.  But McCain, jumping in even before the speech, will be getting air time.


    Right.. and they'll keep on saying how (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:05:33 PM EST
    Wright was Obama's "spiritual mentor".

    And his moral compass. (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by miriam on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:19:24 PM EST
    Dean Scream (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:14:04 PM EST
    Yes, the Dean Scream, over and over, in slow motion.  This is horrible............make it STOP!!!!!  

    Does Rev. Wright want Obama, and all democrats to lose?  Does the NCAAP want that too?  And CNN?  If so, they are certainly doing their part to make it happen.  

    Yeah, they're changing things.  At this rate they will change ALL government to republican!  


    But that (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by miriam on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:23:51 PM EST
    is what CNN wants. Republicans to win.  Has anyone with a more rational state of mind weighed in on CNN's "panel of experts?"  Or don't they have anyone rational there?

    uuhhhhhhh (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:19:07 PM EST
    It's very uncomfortable isn't it.  It's hard to watch yet hard to look away.  I think every minute of Wright on tape is an opportunity to have language to match up to Obama on tape.  It was like the clip of Obama-reading from his book and discussing Wright's sermon on Hiroshima, and then shifting to Wright going off about Hiroshima. Not good.  Not good at all.

    Cliff Notes Version (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:10:58 PM EST
    Jeremiah Wright in his speech:

    1) Mocked Massachussetts/Boston accents
    (specifically mentioning the Kennedys and not in a flattering way)  He followed that up by speaking in a "goofy white person voice" (my term) that some black comedians have employed in the past.  example: Imagine Dave Chappelle saying... "Why, hello there mister.  It sure is a golly good night for a dance.  Let's jam."

    1. Stereotyped African American brains and learning/behavior "differences"

    2. Spoke Arabic, several times (more material for Republican ads)

    3. Gave a shout out to the Nation of Islam. (followed by some more arabic speaking...just reporting the facts, folks)

    4. Gave a shout out to Roland Martin of CNN.
    (after the speech Roland Martin and Soledad O'brien went WAAYYYYYYYYY out of their way to defend, excuse, sugarcoat, and spin what we had just head.  A little panicky overcompensation if you ask me)

    6) Mentioned that "change is coming" about a million times.  He used a wide range of emotions depending on the instance.

    What else did people find noteworthy?

    Good summary (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:17:35 PM EST
    I am watching it again, and it's just as shocking.  Is there ANY part of this rant that republican candidates will NOT use in ads this year?  This is a train wreck.  The more he talks, the more ALL democrats will be hurt this fall.  

    Can't Obama make this STOP?!!!  PLEASE, make it STOP NOW.  Someone, put a sock in his mouth and drag him off stage.  

    We're so screwed.  I am so bummed.  


    #2 Stereotype question (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by katiebird on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:18:06 PM EST
    really bothered me.  Is he calling for parallel school systems or classes.  If right & left brained people (and are people completely right or left brained?) require such different learning environments, how do you teach them together?

    And that seems like a really bad thing for both sides.  Speaking as the child of an artist & mathematician, I'm very familiar with the differences in the way they think.  But while it was a lot of work, they did figure out how to communicate.


    right brain/left brain (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:34:11 PM EST
    has been disproved soundly.  It's from the sixties and is oftentimes called phrenology because it's so bogus.  The theory opines right is creative and left is logical.

    We have MRIs now.  Neurologic studies have shown us that the brain is far more complicated than this.

    Hey, Mark, Obama is left handed, so he must be right brained!  Hahahahaha!


    Let's see (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:19:27 PM EST
    1. He completely rewrote all music theory and music history,
    2. He took us back to Lamarckian version of genetic development,
    3. Directly quoted the Obama campaign slogan,
    4. Sang a bit of Opera (yes, i am serious)

    Marvin, thanks for making me laugh! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:24:07 PM EST
    Your summary is so funny. Hey, are you a biologist too by any chance? I noticed your Lamarck vs. Darwin comment on another thread.

    Only by training (none / 0) (#64)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:32:04 PM EST
    Not by profession. I have a biology and a physics degree that I use for absolutely nothing! :)

    I assume by your title that you are a practicing biologist?


    Yup (none / 0) (#76)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:36:15 PM EST
    Evolutionary biologist.

    Anyway, thanks for the laugh. I'm going to refrain from any more commentary here on this because, to be fair, I haven't watched the speech yet myself. I don't want to get all worked up when I haven't seen it for myself.

    Night all.


    Don't have anything to throw (none / 0) (#125)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:56:26 PM EST
    Nearby when you watch the speech, friendly advice. Good night.

    5. Watch for the dancing. It's coming. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:31:55 PM EST
    Just mocked Irish brogue (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:33:20 PM EST
    and called it a British accent.  My Gaelic forebears are not amused.

    Now mocking Kennedy's Boston accent.  Badly.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:44:30 PM EST
    The Fenians, Michael Collins, James Connally, the IRB, and others.



    OMG (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:26:30 PM EST
    If your summary is accurate, it bodes very badly for the democrats. I couldn't stand to watch it, as I have no patience for wackery. But it sounds like it could have been worse than I anticipated.

    Spoke Arabic several times and gave a shout out to the Nation of Islam? Um, why?

    I feel bad for Barack Obama now, I really do.


    Seriously. I do too. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Marco21 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:41:31 PM EST
    On Real Time Friday, Bill Maher called Wright a dick for saying Barack is a politician. I disagreed  because Barack is just that.

    But wow. The good Reverend is looking to kneecap Obama with this stuff and for good. Talk about vengeful.


    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by miriam on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:47:04 PM EST
    Why on earth would you feel bad for Obama?  He must love this or he wouldn't have spent 20 years listening to it.  How he did, I don't know. I had to take two Motrin tonight after CNN and my head is still quivering like a mass of Jello.

    Because I don't have the stomach for anyone (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:54:10 PM EST
    having to go through the media attacks, etc. - whether it is Obama or Clinton. It has all gotten so ugly. I'm not being an apologist for Wright (can't stand the guy), but I guess I just don't want to see either Dem candidate get raked over the coals.

    I feel the same. (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Marco21 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:15:35 PM EST
    This speech is only going to keep being sliced and diced for at least a week or more. It's not good for Obama to have this much exposure on Wright. It keeps the wound open, no matter if you agree or disagree with the messages or hoopla.

    Personally, I didn't think twice about Wright's speeches when the controversy reared. I was surprised by the firestorm. But Wright knows this isn't going to help Obama. He, as mentioned, called Barack  a politician last week - the very word Obama has said he's not. Now this speech will be all over every network show and all context will be shredded from it.

    Stupid move and I really do think Wright is exacting his revenge on Obama.

     I guess he didn't like the coincidentally-timed cruise he took after the media's first spin regarding the Reverend's comments.


    No, he's trying to help Obama (4.50 / 2) (#176)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:19:59 PM EST
    by playing chicken with the voters and the press on the subject of race. He knows that the media knows that criticism of his speeches will be denounced as racist.  Paradoxically, he wants to stop people from talking about him and Obama by shoving himself in their faces (in my idiosyncratic opinion).
    Obama's idiotic speech on race was another example of this topic. In fact, race relations were NOT the reason he needed to give a speech, but he talked about race because he knew that would  make people uncomfortable, so they wouldn't want to analyze his relationship with Wright any more closely.

    I just disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Marco21 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:27:58 PM EST
    Nothing this guy can do will help Obama, sans taking another cruise.

    that ship has sailed (none / 0) (#146)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:06:19 PM EST
    If the Democrats would get in the habit of standing up to the media for this kind of coverage on behalf of ALL their candidates, then maybe things will start to change.  But it did not happen in 2004 with Kerry and it has not happened with the treatment of Clinton, and it will not happen with Obama.

    There is no spine.  The silence from our so-called "leadership" has been DEAFENING when it comes to standing up to the media agenda.


    That's right! (none / 0) (#186)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:23:18 PM EST
    The way I see it, because the democratic leadership had already early on decided on Barack Obama (because they don't like Clinton) they were happy to stand by as the MSM hyped Barack and dumped on Clinton.  Clinton did not wilt under the attacks and now the leadership's carefully laid plans are in disarray.  Now they really must consider the ELECTABILITY ISSUE which is the main argument of the Clinton campaign.

    OMG (4.33 / 6) (#74)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:35:22 PM EST
    Is so right.  I can honestly say that this is WAY worse than I could ever have imagined.  Wright has managed to mock whites and insult Blacks.  He's horrible, just horrible.  

    He's saying that Kennedy's grammar was worse than Blacks.  Now he's insulting LBJ!  He's mocking New England accents and southern accents.  

    Is there NO end to this outrage?!  

    Can anyone explain how Obama set and listened to this idiot for 20 years?  I couldn't listen to 20 minutes without wanting to throttle the man.  What a pompous ass.  


    how did he insult kennedy's grammar? (3.00 / 1) (#168)
    by boredmpa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:17:41 PM EST
    how did he say kennedy's grammar was worse than blacks? insult LBJ? Mock boston accents by delivering a direct impression of pronunciation of park and fort?

    There are plenty of issues with the brain/analysis section of his speech, but the music and speaking comments were not insulting LBJ or kennedy or bostonians.

    And I listened to that section three times to see what everyone here is riled up about.  I'm not AA and I find the response here, the outrage, highly disturbing.  


    great summary, I'll only add (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:26:36 PM EST
    that the pretense of the speech was that "different does not mean deficient" (which I agree with) but the point of the speech seemed to be to mock and demean "Europeans."

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:29:35 PM EST
    he talked about how he is supported by all repligions, hence the shout out to judiasm and islam, and how different is not deficient and then went on to use research and theory that was debunked years ago to show how we are basically biologically different in our brains and use that to make fun of what people.

    I don't get it. The intro was over the top so CNN has cut that part of of it's replays. Interesting.

    I wonder what Teddy Kennedy is thinking tonight. since Wright made fun of JFK's speech patterns as well as FDR I believe.


    Ted Is Rueing the Day He Met Obama (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:37:58 PM EST
    I am sure the pro-Obama crowds will keep up the mantra that he cannot be defined by the company he keeps, but in their eyes, Hillary certainly can.

    Ted Kennedy (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:54:43 PM EST
    and he gave the JFK mantle over to Obama.  I would very much like to know what he thinks now.  He has been awfully quiet lately.  We'll find out soon enough.

    That's simply not true (3.16 / 6) (#62)
    by bumblebums on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:30:56 PM EST
    He wasn't mocking Whites, he wasn't mocking Europeans! He was describing differences, to make his point that "different does not mean deficient". He said it over and over again. Why would he be mocking anyone at all, when that was his theme?

    I despair sometimes at what political agendas can do to people.


    Look up the debate over the Bell Curve (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:37:03 PM EST
    book, right wing-funded (Bradley Foundation), which took much effort on the part of educators and others to debunk for the sake of not having black children further deprived of appropriate education.  

    You apparently are well-meaning but really must not realize how far behind Wright is on all this and how much damage it could do in the schools to children again.  


    He wasn't mocking? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:41:27 PM EST
    I saw that particular section of the speech...heard the laughter in response...and saw his grin as he did it again.

    If he wasn't mocking, then what was he doing? And are you quite certain that your interpretation actually matches his intent?

    I too despair at what political agendas do to people.


    No, that isn't correct. (4.28 / 7) (#129)
    by miriam on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:00:02 PM EST
    I saw the whole thing live on CNN and the man's entire body and facial expressions were in mocking mode.  If you want to mimic someone's dialect you can do it straight, but Wright used an actor's embellishments.  You can rationalize away his performance as long as your right brain wants to, but please stop telling us that what we heard and saw (interpreted by our left brains) is not what we heard and saw.  It has nothing to do with politics--it has everything to do with racism.  I wonder if it's beginning to dawn on the Obama supporters that he and his pastor fervently dislike white people.      

    The pastor (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:23:07 PM EST
    My initial reaction was the Pastor comes across as disliking whites but not Obama and then I pull up and pause.... and wonder why he spent 20 years with a man I would have left.  I just don't get it.

    i agree (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by boredmpa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:07:38 PM EST
    The response here is amazing.  Yes the brain stuff was poorly delivered and questionable, but the language section and especially the music section was certainly important and well illustrated.  
    He successfully highlighted obvious and "non-threatening" differences.  The music section/Holy Holy halleluia you are clapping on beats 3 and 4 was well done.

    I can't understand why people would consider it mocking unless they didn't watch it at all, are turned off by the style, or (heh) they're left brain learners.  I do agree with others that soundbites are destroying what he said.  

    However, I still don't agree with his original and less nuanced style which he clearly seems to be trying to rewrite by making this speech.  


    And wrong (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:09:53 PM EST
    Sorry, it a pet peeve of mine, his musical examples and implications were wrong. He does not know music theory nor does he know Ethnomusicology. He was just making it up.

    you've said this in multiple places (3.00 / 1) (#202)
    by boredmpa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:55:29 PM EST
    and you haven't explained.  It's obvious that you were offended by his speech, but please don't give me a response with zero support.  You seem to be blanket-denouncing all aspects of the speech (both you and cream city posting 10+ times)  So I have to ask, does your blanket denouncement include the aspect of defining Classical as one thing and everything else as Ethno related?  Literature vs Women's lit, colonial lit, world lit, etc.

    There are aspects at the high level that are inarguably correct when it comes to double standards and othering in our society and I think it is essential that people understand that.  So call out specific details that are wrong and correct them if you wish, but we'll have to disagree at the high-level if you think the implications of what he said about standards/norms were totally wrong.


    "change is coming" (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:30:13 PM EST
    How many politicians have now dropped "change" from all their speeches going forward this year?

    I think Romney ruined it (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:41:45 PM EST
    Once he started co-opting the "change" mantra, it started to become a subject of ridicule in some quarters.

    Maybe some of those (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:43:46 PM EST
    gay arabic speakers we spent tax dollar money on booting out of the military will translate what Wright said for us bitter gun clingers?

    I only saw an exerpt (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by janarchy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:44:08 PM EST
    but he started talking about educational theory and something about how there were claims that only African American students were said to speak badly back in the 1960s (1961 he said specifically).

    I know this isn't true -- my mom was a public school teacher in Harlem in 1961 and then later in a low income school district on Long Island (from 1965 on) where there were white, black, and hispanic kids. She was watching this and started screaming at Wright about his lies because none of this was EVER brought up -- poor children of any kind did have lower test scores in language, reading, math etc. It was because they weren't getting proper education at home or in school districts. It's still the case. It has everything to do with economics and nothing to do with race.

    (FWIW, this is one of the reasons "Sesame Street" was devised in the mid-to-late 60s -- to help lower income kids of all sorts learn reading, math and language skills earlier via tv since they were not able to go to pre-school and were behind kids of higher income brackets of the same ages.

    NBC turned it down because their VP who sadly was a former media professor of mine wrote it off as giving poor parents a parlor trick "to have their kids reciting the alphabet and numbers in their local pool hall or bar" - his words, not mine. He was a complete jerk. Luckily, PBS saw the potential for the show!)


    Noteworthy: everything was said sarcastically (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by feet on earth on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:52:37 PM EST
    It was an annunciation (as opposed to a defense) of himself as a definer and not as a divider.  Used the entire speech to state that AAs and Black people do things differently, that they are not divisive, hateful, etc., just different.  Every example of how differently they do everything was mocking everything that Europeans (read Americans) do, like, how they speak, the music they like,  etc.

    I am Italian (first generation), he called us Garlic Noses who lynched Jesus, remember?   This man is frightening and it is not just Obama that he is destroying, he is attacking the fabric and the  very foundation of our very diverse North American society.  


    Melting pot vs. multiculturalism (3.66 / 3) (#157)
    by davnee on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:11:34 PM EST
    This strikes right at the problem of the melting pot vs. multiculturalism.  The former presupposes that we blend together becoming a greater whole, one mixed culture.  The latter presupposes that we remain different, all special, but never together, disparate parallel cultures.  The problem with the melting pot is that the process of assimilation can be painful and imperfect and frankly frightening to those who do not wish to lose their culture to an amalgam.  The problem with multiculturalism is that it  keeps us as separate tribes, and as separate tribes we can focus on tribal politics, which will of course favor the dominant tribe.  Neither is a perfect vision of America.  Diversity is much harder in practice than it is in theory.

    Wright may be mocking the European tribe and pointing out how unfair it is that white tribalists excuse their kin what they won't excuse of black tribalists, but implicit in his remarks, heck explicit, is that we are divided into tribes, separated by biological and cultural divides that cannot be bridged.  And he wants justice for the black tribe.  Not the justice of an accepting embrace, but the justice of their own fair piece of the pie.  This is pure separatist thinking.  This is the antithesis of the Obama message.  And there is no room in the White House for someone who travels in separatist circles.  At least not in my humble opinion.  But I'm a European so what do I know.  Maybe I need to spend the next 4 years being reeducated.


    I only saw the singing part. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:12:23 PM EST
    But I heard there was a bit of dancing, and something about how blacks and whites use different sides of the brain.

    If the point of showing this was to provide context, it's going to fail.  This is a catastrophe for Barack Obama.

    The silliest parts will be snipped and played as more evidence of Wright's crazy-man persona.  The argument that they're taken out of context will be neutralized because the whole thing was shown, and people can see it if they want to.

    Obama's glowing introduction of his friend and mentor will be up on a split screen next to these clips again and again, just for the fun of it all . . .

    Saw the dancing earlier, several minutes (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:20:20 PM EST
    that just dropped my jaw.  Just heard the opera stuff now.  I can't follow his gist, I have no idea what the Rev. Wright is saying or doing . . . other than doing in Dems.  

    Is He Doing In All Dems, Or Just Obama? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:24:56 PM EST
    Obama and those Dems who endorsed him (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:28:51 PM EST
    I really don't think, as others do here, that Wright will hurt Hillary -- unless, of course, the unity ticket is forced on her (and yes, I know, that VPs aren't usually attacked, but Obama is just too much of a treasure trove for the GOP to let slide, even if he is in the VP slot).

    They will only force the Unity ticket on her (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:33:57 PM EST
    if they want President McCain.

    Look at her demographics. No way in heck will they go for it. Clark anyone? Rendell? [he cracks me up :) ]


    Rendell would be great (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:44:38 PM EST
    Rendell cracks me up too and he's one hell of a politician.  If Rendell was on the ticket, he would carry PA and Ohio, easily.  

    I even more worried about Obama being our nominee now.  He'll go down in flames.  I am scared he will effect all the down ballot candidates too.  I even more worried that race will be an bigger issue than ever before.  I just do not see how this brings us together.  Wright's whole speech is about how Blacks are different from whites.  How is that helpful to unifying America?  He's encouraging racism!  


    All. GOP will run ads everywhere. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:29:10 PM EST
    And he's giving them new material by the minute.  I just caught the incredibly (he said incredulously) bad misreading of right brain-left brain studies.  I read about this, I doubted it, but he really did say  . . . I can't repeat it, it's so bad, you'll hear about it.  He seems to believe the Bell Curve crap.

    having seen the speech (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:16:42 PM EST
    I'm not sure what part you might have thought was important and deserving of a wider audience.

    besides CNN is running it on a loop tonight so it is getting plenty wide play.

    I wonder what the superdelegates think (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:18:53 PM EST
    And here's the rub: it's not over yet

    Tommorrow there's another speech in front of the Press Club.

    It looks like Wright would be out there giving speeches all the way from now until November if Obama is the nominee.  How many more controversial statements or offensive things will come out of this by the time McCain gets elected?

    Hillary save us.


    National Press Club can be a tough crowd (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:24:25 PM EST
    and is a very influential venue -- an influence that will not be good for Dems, if Wright does tomorrow what he did today and is on tv right now.  Every major media outlet will be there tomorrow.  There probably will be q and a.  With what he did on script today, I don't want to see him improv.

    National Press (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:40:07 PM EST
    will be listening to that crap and asking, "if I want to walk out during this man's bullsh*t, how did Obama sit through it for 20 years?"

    My thought exactly (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:54:01 PM EST
    Obama and his family listened to this for 20 years and thought it was just fine?  Obama wants his daughters to believe that their brains are different from white people's brains?  Does he want them to think that it is ok to mock and make fun of people from New England?  And the accents of JFK and LBJ?  Is that what Obama has taught his children?   So it would appear.  

    It's like a car wreck, I don't want to look, but can't stop looking.  It's horrible.  Obama will spend the rest of his campaign trying to defend, or deny, this racist garbage.  


    you assume he will deign to talk (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:02:13 PM EST
    to the press -- he will not have to defend anything -- like everything else "bad" about him, Obama will just pretend it doesn't exist and/or get all insulted for even being asked about.

    Actually, I am too (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:33:51 PM EST
    of the opinion that divisive speech is essential to a healthy democracy.  However, divisive and factually inaccurate hate speech are two different things -- I would not give the time of day to someone who said the holocaust didn't happen, and I will not give the time of day to a person who slanders the former President and First Lady from the pulpit, says such things as the government invented AIDS to kill black people, or says that whites are "left-brain learners" and blacks are "right-brained learners." This guy has no credibility imo.

    Right: The press needs to aggresively (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:35:05 PM EST
    point out how wrong Wright is on a whole host of issues, as long as they see fit to give him a forum.

    They won't do that (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:57:09 PM EST
    Because the press knows that will be like criticizing Obama and Blacks.  

    How can Wright say that we need to change how we treat each other while he's making fun of dead Presidents because of their accents?  And Irish people?  And Europeans?  He's not committed to changing anything in a positive way.  


    I bet down-ticket Democrats ... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Alvord on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:20:48 PM EST
    ... who endorsed Obama are just loving Reverend Wright about now. These Democrats better get used to it because they will be seeing a lot more of the Reverend. He will be showing up in TV ads run their Republican opponents.

    Local news went like this (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:20:51 PM EST
    snippet from this AM's church appearance [dancey, preachy] snippet from NAACP speech of Wright mocking JFK, snippet of Dean saying the race is virtually tied snippet Obama saying he distanced himself from the stuff he didn't hear [old clip I believe] reporter voice over of how Wright still supports Obama for the Presidency. *

    Sorry, I just do not see how this can help Obama in any way. Wright knew he was going to be in the spotlight, and these are the choices he made. But I guess it will be Hillary's [and everyone else's] fault in the end.

    * these newscasters are pretty low key. And have at times seemed to lean a tad towards Obama, but generally seem fairly even. Why I concentrate on local news these days . . .

    I watched Wright on with Moyers on (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:23:46 PM EST
    Friday, and was disappointed that Moyers really did not challenge Wright, nor did he bring up what I consider to be the most indefensible parts of his sermons, and that was the "ridin' dirty," humping-the-pulpit clips.

    Listening to Wright with Moyers, I was struck by the realization that this is a man who did not appreciate being sacrificed for Barack Obama's political ambitions, whose feelings may truly have been hurt, even as he tried to make clear that he understood that politicians have to be politicians.  Unfortunately, by branding Obama a politician, with all that term connotes, he further weakened Obama's not-the-same-old-politician message.

    Where is Obama coming to the defense of these Democrats who have supported him and are now being attacked for it, their own political futures threatened as a result?


    Listen, I am no fan of Reverend Wright; I think when you constantly deliver the kinds of sermons he does, you are fostering racial divisions, you aren't healing them.  And I have to consider that whatever good Trinity UCC was doing in the neighborhood, which I applaud, I still cannot reconcile Obama's claim that he can unite the country and be the post-racial candidate with his 20-year membership in a church led by someone who does not seem to me to be all that interested in taking his flock to a post-racial place.

    Well I agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Faust on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:29:36 PM EST
    I was disappointed that Moyers really did not challenge Wright, nor did he bring up what I consider to be the most indefensible parts of his sermons, and that was the "ridin' dirty," humping-the-pulpit clips.

    I can agree with that. That's one of the two least defensible things he said of the now cannonized "incendiary comments."


    He's daring whites to drop their guilt (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by davnee on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:29:18 PM EST
    Provocateur.  That's what he is.  He knows the Dems will choke on their white liberal guilt and just take it.  He also knows that many working class whites (and many R's) will release their inner David Dukes in response to his mocking and taunting.  That will only redouble the guilttrippers' resolve to give Obama the nom in order to make nice with AA's and prove themselves worthy of absolution.  This is so sad.  This is taking us backwards.  This is a finger in the eye of anyone who has ever fought for racial reconciliation.  Wright does not believe in racial reconciliation.  And he is in full gloat because he knows white people can't condemn him without breaking out of their own pc-induced paralysis.  So will the Dems cave or will they stand up to this?  I think they're screwed either way.

    Inside the ballot box (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:02:55 PM EST
    people vote their beliefs.

    This is definitely bad for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:30:08 PM EST
    It hurts the democratic party also right now and more so if the party gives the nomination to Obama. Then the harm is magnified all throughout the campaign and might even cause the house and senate control to revert to the republicans.  Then if McCain gets elected president . . . . There's the scenario for you.  The republicans are confident that Obama will be the nominee, considering the implied support of the party leadership.  This is the reason they have started the campaign on the down elements of the ticket.  It will be a disaster for the democratic party.  Sad, but they did it to themselves.  I can always wear a T-shirt that says, "don't blame me . . I supported Hillary."

    One of the perks of being a Democrat (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:37:31 PM EST
    lots of witty T-shirts commemorating our defeats.

    The Clintons are winners and know how to (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:09:09 PM EST
    run the government, but the Democratic elite wants to keep their record straight and lose again.  From Humphrey to Kerry, I've seen a parade of losers.  Bill Clinton, with all his warts, is liked by most Democrats. BO has attracted a universe of losers to his camp, e.g., Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Kerry.  

    Check out this comment from Orangistan: (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:34:15 PM EST

      The more I see of this "spiritual mentor," the (0+ / 0-)

    more creeped out I get.  I just don't get a great feeling when a politician is that in bed with a church leader.  I didn't like it when the Repugs did it, and I don't like it with Obama.

    There are still some sensible people over there.

    catch it while it lasts (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:36:53 PM EST
    hiddensville in 3.2.1...

    Needless to say (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:39:30 PM EST
    Kossites disagree that this is bad for Obama.  To them, the speech is a teaching moment, etc.  

    Just saying... ;-)

    A teaching moment for (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:43:58 PM EST
    right-brained, left-brained, or no-brained children?

    They also think CNN is helping them (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:45:51 PM EST
    CNN and the media have thought they were helping Obama many times during this campaign, only to be proved wrong time and time again.

    So CNN decided to play the Wright speech 3 times in a row tonight.  Let's just see how that flies.


    Like mustard gas. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:47:15 PM EST
    that's my hunch as well (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:51:53 PM EST
    Maybe not this week, but later... a delayed reaction will take place.  Too much material for Republican ads now.  Before they just made stuff up, but now they don't even have to!

    To quote The Police: (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by janarchy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:06:08 PM EST
    Let's just see how that flies.

    Like a canary in a coal mine?


    CNN has not thought they've been helping him... (3.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Addison on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:54:25 PM EST
    ...what are you talking about? CNN has been one of the only equal-opportunity slimeball networks out there. They haplessly (they aren't really even good at it) try to sensationalize "news" about all the candidates. Obviously MSNBC is just sort of ridiculously anti-Clinton, and FoxNews is a tad more anti-Obama than anti-Clinton (recently), but that difference is completely overshadowed by how generally anti-Democrat they are.

    You must have missed Roland and Soledad (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:03:39 PM EST
    I mean you really must have missed that post-speech analysis by Rick Sanchez, Roland Martin, and Soledad O'Brien.

    If there's a Youtube clip of it later, I do hope you watch it.  Believe me I am not exaggerating how biased it was.

    Aside from that, I would say that the gist of my comment was that the Daily Kos people generally seemed to think CNN was being "courageous" or "putting things in context" and showing the world the true greatness of the pastor.

    When Huffington Post decided to publish those comments of Obama from San Francisco about bitter people clinging to guns an religion, they did not seem to think it would hurt him.  Many of the comments in response to the article were saying "Right on!  That's the truth!"  The sycophants in the media ran with that spin and for the first day or two were mostly explaining away the comments as being the "truth" as well.

    So it's perfectly fair for anyone to agree or disagree and perceive as they have to.  I encourage everyone to just have their say and post about it on Talk Left.  (yeah, more traffic for Jeralyn!)


    Well.. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Addison on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:11:33 PM EST
    ...no, I didn't see this particular night of coverage. I thought you were speaking more generally when you said CNN thought they were helping Obama. If you're talking specifically about tonight I'll try to see it and see how it played out.

    He is the ONE. (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:46:13 PM EST
    We are the ones we've been waiting for.

    Yeah, that's the ticket.


    sooo.. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Rainsong on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:47:58 PM EST
    does that mean if we elect him pres, we will get regular "teaching moments" for the next 4 years?

    Obama or Wright? (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:50:10 PM EST
    See that's the problem for Obama.  You just conflated the two.  The speech was given by Jeremiah Wright and the longer he stays on the airwaves giving speeches, the more that the rest of America will see him as synonymous with Obama for better or worse.

    For my part, I find myself angrier and more resentful toward the media's unprofessionalism and the blogosphere hypocrisy than I do at the candidates themselves.  I just want fairness to prevail and I do not think that Clinton or her voters have received a fair hearing in this process.


    great & useful insight (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:53:46 PM EST
    considering you admit you haven't seen the speech.

    I neither support nor oppose Obama (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:03:06 PM EST
    But I saw a small chunk of the Wright speech.

    Although I'm familiar with the discussions behind left-brain and right-brain thinking, I have never seen the discussions broken down along racial lines before. Generally they tend to break down along creative v. analytical thinking...and ultimately still squishy when it comes to definitive evidence. I think that we use our right brain for some things and our left for others.

    Some people may trend more one way or another, but there are a lot of factors that come into play...

    Ultimately...the bell curve (something he appears to use as a form of support) has been debunked as pseudo-science...and not good pseudo-science at that. That Wright's re-introducing this right wing dreck is creeping me out a bit.


    I think you should go watch (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:36:31 PM EST
    the speech so you can comment on it directly.

    Insulting people on TalkLeft is really kind of a waste of time, isn't it?


    No need to be prematurely insulting (4.57 / 7) (#112)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:49:04 PM EST
    Try watching it yourself first, then come insult us. That is a better sequence of how to influence people and win friends.



    We know what this site is about (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:14:06 PM EST
    Sure most of us are HRC, and as such we are in agreement why we don't support BO.  We are aware it's an echo chamber.  Who want to hear that Wright is defensible? No I.

    don't worry you still have kos (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:20:37 PM EST
    I know why I don't like BO (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:22:10 PM EST
    My reasons are valid.  One of them is that I don't like him for pretending to be something he is not, e.g. "I don't take money from lobbyists".  Yeah, but he doesn't say that he took money from them until he decided that it would be good for his presidential candidacy.  Then he turns around gets money from special interests, but hides them.  Another is the race baiting.  This one is deadly for me.  I'm Hispanic and I understand the problems with racism, but don't use it to divide the way Clyburn (BO's surrogate) has done.
    The list goes on and on.
    I didn't feel about him that way.  He worked to turn me against him.

    Not thin skin, insulting comments (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:17:59 PM EST
    Like: "What does surprise me is how much this "left" website reads like a right wing echo chamber"

    If you hurl insults it will be taken as such. You can choose to make your points, argue, etc, and not be insulting, but obviously you prefer to be insulting. So don't proclaim we have thin skins.

    I tend to find insults are the refuge of people who don't have strong arguments.


    I agree it's an echo chamber (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:26:11 PM EST
    Although I don't know about what a right wing site is like because I've never been to one.

    Why are you posting this (5.00 / 5) (#185)
    by bjorn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:23:12 PM EST
    or do you go to DailyKos and Huffpost and tell them how many anti-Hillary screeds that are posted each day compared to the PROObama stuff?  Seriously, did you read all the comments in the blogs you mentioned?  Your self-righteousness is really over the top.  What is your real problem?  Because why waste your time here if it is so horrible?

    Wright is noxious (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:44:30 PM EST
    I think that BO made a deadly mistake when he did not throw Wright under the bus.  I'm as liberal as they come, but I'm not impressed with BO's friends. Birds of a feather flock together.  My view is that we attract people who have similar values and thinking.  I'm here and not at DKos.  This place is more representative of how I like to discuss issues.   I like people who support their statements with facts and do not get emotional about their candidates.  Heck, I don't care for emotional people because they are out of control.

    I am just glad BTD took the night off (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:48:56 PM EST
    and I'm taking his cue as well.  This is all just too depressing.  What a fracking mess.

    "Wright Digs In" (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:55:35 PM EST
    another way to put it.  Emphasis on digging in, not out.

    Um, so do you want to the Democratic (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:56:30 PM EST
    Party to be defined by loyalty to all of Obama's weird friends? Do you think that is healthy?
    Why is Wright on TV in the first place? This is a disturbing development.

    Nope, not strange at all (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:59:29 PM EST
    just like W has his hardcore 28%, Obama has his hardcore supporters too who will blindly WORM for him & defend him (usually with examples of how bad Hillary is and/or how it is all her fault and/or how Obama has already won the election so why doesn't she just quit already).

    Huh? (2.00 / 5) (#151)
    by Addison on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:09:49 PM EST
    Have you seen his favorability ratings? You're acting like they're at Bush's 28% Well, if he's got a "hardcore" base of support over 50% that sounds good to me. This blind attempt to forget about the actual numbers and merely attempt to link Bush and Obama (and use all-caps perjoratives like "WORM") on this issue is unpersuasive when confronted with reality.

    And did you even read my comment? If so, what about Clinton? Where's her hardcore base? Is it smaller than Obama's? Either way, why is her number lower, even after what is noted by commenter after commenter above as the sheer DISASTER of Wright? Is Wright not that bad, after all? Or is Clinton's baggage really bad? Which is it?

    You're still just trying to take Obama down a peg instead of promoting Clinton, or explaining her lagging favorability ratings even post-Wright.


    Negative ratings (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by DJ on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:18:19 PM EST
    I don't understand all the talk about negatives.  I don't like my doctor because he tells me I need to exercise more often.  I like my neighbor because she is fun to be with and our kids get along.  I don't want my neighbor to be my doctor.  

    Well... (3.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Addison on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:25:30 PM EST
    ...theoretically Wright, Ayers, et al, are damaging  Obama mortally. That's the context we -- well, really just me, everyone else is either 1-rating me or going off about other things -- are discussing negative ratings in.

    I agree, to a certain extent, with you. Note my comment to diplomatic: instead of pretending Obama is getting killed by these faux-scandals -- he's not -- it would be better for Clinton supporters to point out she occasionally wins despite being more disliked than liked in most polls. I mean, that's sort of a positive for her.

    But instead of that it's just as much, if not more, of a 24/7 All About Obama Show over here as it is at Dailykos.


    favorability rating does not (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by facta non verba on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:22:37 PM EST
    translate in support necessarily nor does unfavorability translate into a lack of support. For the most part I think favorability ratings worthless.

    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by DJ on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:27:06 PM EST
    the point I was trying to make.

    Right... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Addison on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:27:19 PM EST
    ...I've noted that Clinton wins despite her terrible fav ratings. And I noted that this is a plus for her.

    But the bulk of the comments, and therefore what I chose to talk about in order to stay germane and on-topic, were about how this was damaging Barack's image and the image of the party's favorability. So. That's the context.


    it can't be an accident... (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:26:12 PM EST
    that every *new* Obama supporter that comes to this site posts about Obama's edge in favorable/unfavorable ratings as if they don't realize that there is like only 2 or 3 points separating Hillary and Obama on these scores - and Obama hasn't spent the last 16 years fending off the right wing attacks.

    By the way, if Obama has a 'hardcore' base support of 50%, how come 5% (or more) of them were missing in OH, TX and PA (and NY, NJ, FL, MA ...)?


    NAACP is always on television (none / 0) (#144)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:05:44 PM EST
    The kickoff speech is always televised.  Nothing unusual about the speech being televised.  It's Sunday night, there is little else to put on.  

    Surely you aren't saying that the NAACP meeting shouldn't be covered by the press.  That would certainly not be a good thing.  


    It is not only (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Serene1 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:18:50 PM EST
    Blacks who talk english differently, it is also Indian Americans' asian americans et all. Each ethnic group is different. I really don't understand why Wright is doing this unless this is his idea of asserting Black supremacy like the jerry fallwells and pat robertson who were also equally keen on establishing their sect's superiority.

    There is no excuse whatsoever for Wright. By excusing his behaviour, liberals run the risk of excusing every extremist's behaviour.

    At this moment, I believe Wright could care less about obama and his campaign. Now Wright is more interested in spreading his message and promoting himself. As for Obama all I can say I hope with this Obama understands that there is a reason people are v.careful in choosing the company they keep.

    I didn't watch (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by facta non verba on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:20:11 PM EST
    the whole thing but I caught a good ten minutes of it on CNN. At times I thought well this isn't so bad but then came some not so savory moments and my thoughts were well this can't help Obama. After ten minutes, I was turned off more. I don't think this was as positive for Wright as the Bill Moyers interview and certainly this issue is not going to go away and to a certain extent it risks deepening racial tensions rather than healing them.

    newsweek... (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:28:45 PM EST
    had him dropping big but Newsweek hasn't demonstrated much credibility.

    Gallup has had them even for days.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by phat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:54:47 PM EST
    I'm really not sure what the point of this speech is. I mean, I know the point of the speech. But it seems not especially different than speeches that have been spoken for decades. I'm 37 years old and this message has been drummed into my head my entire life. "A change is going to come!"

    Some changes have occurred. Some things are better, in some ways, than they were. Some things are worse, in some ways, than they were.

    The obviousness of this speech is just astounding to me, though. Maybe it's because I've studied, written and performed music my whole life and I've studied linguistics my whole life. I've studied politics (and work in politics). I studied history, Etc. And nothing he is saying is especially informative. Yes, African music is different than European music. Asian music is different, too. French music is different than British music. I don't know too many musicians who claim that any beat is deficient to another beat. That's been pretty much decided for quite some time. Most of the musicians I know accept these differences as fact and generally appreciate the fact that this kind of diversity in music is wonderful. I don't even know anyone in "the academy"

    I can't quite figure, though, what his point about this differences is. (Bad English, I know)

    Is he implying that their are genetic differences? That would be a pretty radical assertion. I'm no biologist, but from what I understand, that kind of assertion has been debunked for years. Left brain v right brain? Creative v logical? I'm pretty sure that kind of theory isn't commonly believed by most biologists.

    What is going on with this speech? He's obviously very well read and very, very smart. But I can't help but think that he's missing something.

    I can only assume that he's using this as a way to maybe take these lessons that a lot of people already know and get that message out. It's not new to me. Certainly that message should be sent out. Unfortunately, his reasoning and understanding of biology seems pretty awful.

    This whole thing is just very odd to me.

    wright (4.80 / 5) (#4)
    by snucky on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:45:31 PM EST
    as a hillary supporter i think the more wright is out there the worse off obama is. this is my first post on talk left. hello everybody!! GO HILLARY!

    Correction (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:47:41 PM EST
    The more Wright is out there the worse for the democratic party.

    That may be true, but Wright will hurt (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:48:33 PM EST
    other Democrats besides Obama---those who endorsed him---and that is not good.
    I have a lurid fantasy that the press will find the person who gave Obama "candy" when he was a teen, and Obama will defend the man's character on TV, saying what a great guy he is. He will make speeches; the Kossacks will applaud, as will President McCain.

    Then those who endorsed Obama (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:40:11 PM EST
    and may suffer the consequences of that endorsement, better start thinking about their own self interest and that of the party.  There is nothing anyone of us can do about that if they themselves do not accept the consequences of their actions.  They endorsed too soon, without knowing much about the candidate except superficial impressions.

    NC will tell the tale (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:46:18 PM EST
    of Obama endorsers.  Both democratic gubernatorial candidates endorsed him.  Canaries in the coal mine.

    won't matter in a dem. primary (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:02:10 PM EST
    but the general election is another story

    The targeted candidates would know (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:10:31 PM EST
    before the GE what effect those ads are having on them.  Hopefully it will be before it's too late for them to have the antidote.

    large AA population in the primary (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:16:00 PM EST
    is really the only reason I can see for the endorsement.

    Howdy Snucky.....welcome (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:34:13 PM EST
    Hope Wright doesn't do irreparable harm to the party in general....don't care about Obama particularly.

    Hi and welcome home :-) (none / 0) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:12:11 PM EST
    Sad commentary (1.83 / 6) (#111)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:48:59 PM EST
    This is my first post here. I am an Obama suppoter. I read huffington post a lot, and as many of the people who participate over there are Obama suppoters, I wanted to get a different, but still "progressive" view on this election.

    I have to say, that when reading this blog the only thing I come away with is a clearer view of why there is such mistrust among so many Black women of "white feminism".  The comments here are just absurd.  Take away Obama from this discussion, and if you were really progressive, you would be saying, "how can the media be taking this stuff out of context? How can corporate media paint someone so educated, informed about his community, and done so much good for his community, as a monster?"  

    I understand this example helps your candidate, but in the long term it hurts the progressive movement.  That is, conservatives and the main stream media have taking sound bites and painting progressives as crazies for a long time.  Just last week Fox and others were taking small sound bites, probably of some young uninformed volunteer, to attack Planned parenthood.   The EXACT SAME THING THAT is having to REv. wright.  If we as progressives would stop dividing ourselves over things like this we would get so much farther.  

    It saddens me that this site, an obviously  respected place of modern day feminism, has so much devisive comments.  Reading through the many quotes here, I am left with a notion that there is not much of a place for a colored perspective.  This is not because one supports Clinton over Obama (I personally think Senator Clinton, if nominated will be a great candidate), but because this progressive sight is willing to throw a brother under the buss.

    Unfair (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:53:27 PM EST
    I think a lot of people here have stated that the snippets were out of context. What has been said is that the snippets will be harmful, and they have proven to be.

    But tonight's speech was not out of context. It was very purposeful. And was shown in its entirety. And honestly, it was a disaster for democrats.

    I support Sen Clinton, but let me be clear: this has been damaging to all democrats, and by extension to progressive/liberal causes.

    So whether it helps my candidate or not is irrelevant, the fact that it hurts all of us is not.


    Just shows how different the Black and White Ear (4.00 / 2) (#131)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:01:40 PM EST
    I watched the debate with a handful of other Black medical students here in Detroit, and we thought it was wonderful.  

    This is not a condomening note at all.  It is so interesting how as a society 2 different messages can come out loud and clear.


    To this admittedly white ear (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:03:46 PM EST
    It came across at times mocking and insulting. But I was more taken aback by the inaccurate information used to make an argument. I don't have any comment about whether the argument is a good or bad one, I just couldn't get past the discredited theories used.

    Whaaa? We are not talking about a debate (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:23:03 PM EST
    but a speech by the Rev. Wright tonight.

    And I really don't understand how you see any of this discussion as relevant to feminism.  That is not the topic, either.  Please stay on topic.


    Out of context? (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:03:12 PM EST
    How is it out of context when we're watching the speech?  We're watching the whole speech, everything in context.  

    thanks for your perspective... (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:17:22 PM EST
    Yes, I would agree that this is a progressive site and though I don't recall anything specifically about feminism as a stated mission for TalkLeft, I would probably agree that there is a lot of support for feminism as it is loosely defined.

    I wouldn't know about black women distrusting white feminism and it seems that once you've drawn a distinction between black women and white women, you're probably knowing that some division exists.

    I do think you are seeing some seething that is an outgrowth of the perception that Obama has purposely divided the party by playing the Clinton's off as racists - purposely. If you really are interested in this topic, you should probably read this link from the Democratic Underground titled Putting All the Cards on the Table - The Race Memo...

    I think Oliver Willis presents the AA perspective and he probably links a whole lot of other AA sites as well.

    Also...for some perspective, I think that many of the 'partisans' here were not originally for Hillary but just didn't find Obama to their liking and many have been thoroughly repulsed by DailyKos, HuffingtonPost, MSNBC and others who castigated them for not being on the Obama bandwagon and have become Hillary supporters - c'est la vie


    Comments closing (none / 0) (#194)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:27:31 PM EST
    new thread on speech is here.

    Reminder (none / 0) (#198)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:31:36 PM EST
    Do not give comments a "1" rating just because you disagree with them. If you do, all of your comment ratings will be deleted if I become aware of it as I can't undo them individually.

    It's about the popular vote (none / 0) (#203)
    by oh puhleeze on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:31:37 AM EST
    I can't swallow the theory that Wright's sudden massive full court reappearance was his idea. It's clearly a coordinated campaign, with  Rep. Clyburn playing bad cop.    Why?  To energize the AA vote in NC.  With perhaps 500,000 AA's in NC, a huge turnout could tip the pop vote balance so far that Hillary won't be able to make her argument even counting Michigan and Florida.  He's won the delegate match.  He needs to shut her down on the pop vote unequivocally.  NC, the 10th most populous state, is the venue to accomplish that.