home

Rev. Wright's Speech, Thread II

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:24:31 PM EST
Tags: Jeremiah Wright (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The last ten minutes of Rev. Wright's speech. The theme of the speech: "A change is going to come. We can do it if we try."

He is a powerful speaker, no doubt about it.

You can watch Parts One, Two and Three here.

Update: Comments now closed, new thread on Rev. Wright is here.

< Rev. Wright Fights Back | Obama "Bored" With Campaign >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rev. Wright's Speech, Thread II | 261 comments (261 topical)
    Different, not Deficient. (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by lansing quaker on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:40:21 AM EST
    Unfortunately for me, knowing that this speech will turn the big media eye more heavily toward social/cultural "differences" rather than policy "differences" makes me cringe.

    Must be that "left brain" and object oriented learning.  Oh, how much I have learned!

    Different does not mean deficient when you're talking about cultures.

    But different sure should mean deficient when it comes to certain public policies.  War, economy, healthcare.

    But now we'll get a large focus on the former form of "difference" than the later.

    Oy.  At least Elizabeth Edwards, bless her heart, tried today.

    Total racist BS (none / 0) (#248)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:57:15 AM EST
    Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality

    Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five.

    White people clap differently than black people.

    "Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style," "They have a different way of learning."

    You would think Wright works for the KKK.

    Signature Song
    [ Parent ]

    Wright Soundbites (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by NOBAMA08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:05:37 AM EST
    just sound bad. Most people won't listen to Wright's entire speech. The Republicans are waiting for Wright to slip up in one of these speeches and use that 10 second clip in an Obama attack ad. When Wright said "Barack Hussein Obama" three times I thought to myself that 10 second soundbite would be something FOX would use just for fodder to remind their viewers that Obama's middle name is Hussein. The MSM and the GOP will never air Wright's entire speech. Like his sermons, they will cherry pick the parts that are the most outrageous to air.

    Wright needs to go away. He is not doing Obama or the Democratic Party any favors. He might be redeeming himself but he is speaking to the choir. Everyone in that room is already voting for Obama. Obama is becoming weaker each day in the eyes of White, Hispanic, Jewish, and Asian Americans.

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:06:30 AM EST
    I don't think he could say anything positive right now to make people forget that he said, "G-d America!" or the United States of KKK America."

    [ Parent ]
    the bottom line is this. (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by hellothere on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    who wants to listen to wright besides aa's and the rest who try and pretend to be cool and in on the joke. the rest of americans are worried about paying their bills, getting by and not sinking down further in the mess created by bush. they want answers to their problems. they don't want to see obama's "crazy uncle" on televison insulting their grandparents. they don't want to spend endless hours debating just what this man said. frankly, i think debating wright is a waste of time. we already know he is a flawed troubled man with some speaking skills. so what's to debate here. he is doing obama no good. having this man on television when there are any number of good aa ministers who would shame wright with their goodness and christianity sickens me.

    [ Parent ]
    Attacks the Corporate Media . . . (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by daryl herbert on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:34:35 AM EST
    For reporting his words honestly and directly.

    He won't defend the indefensible, so instead he attacks anyone for mentioning it.

    Did America invent AIDS to murder blacks?

    Is Israel really a "state," or is it something less?

    Are the Jews cooking up a "race bomb" to wipe out blacks and Arabs?

    Did America deserve 9/11 because of our past sins?

    Does "Minister" Farrakhan have good values, despite the fact that he keeps making anti-Semitic remarks?

    Is Israel practicing "state terrorism" against the Palestinians?

    Does preaching these hateful lies to black Americans improve their condition, or worsen it?  Does it make them more or less likely to succeed in life?

    If the media is misreporting his views, he should explain his views, not excoriate anyone who brings it up.  Even Barack Obama told Chris Wallace this was a legitimate issue.

    (Of course, Sen. Obama is a wimp, so take that with a grain of salt.  I'm convinced that Sen. Obama could be McCain's VP, and do a good job to McCain's satisfaction.  He's a chameleon, and he changes politics based on his environment.  If his advisers want to make him more electable, they need to alter the structure around him.  No wonder he's such a Marxist--his identity is completely determined by the situation he's in, so he assumes that's true for everyone else in the world.)

    Wright wants free speech for himself, but anyone else who wants to exercise free speech about him is "crucifying" him.  Boo hoo.  It's a big pity party for him.  It's not my problem, though.  I'm not a supporter of Barack Obama.  Whatever the Rev. Dr. wants to do, that's between him, God, and Barack Obama.

    After having heard the speech carefully (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:23:04 AM EST
    and trying my level best to remain objective my impression of the speech is - A speech which uses science convienently to justify a particular viewpoint delivered by a charismatic demagogue.

    Yes for me Wright is nothing but a demagogue. The way he speaks of the racial past of America is by ignoring the substantial progress made since to bridge the divide. He uses science in a very dangerous and selective way to assert his viewpoint that AA are different genetically and hence need seperate everything. His is not let us celebrate our diversity and our differences speech, his is a we are different lets remain different and do everything differently speech. This is the kind of talk that many divisive figures have used at various times to justify their superiority.

    I may be wrong. But this is the impression I got.  

    Misstating research on learning (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:46:54 AM EST
    is dangerous, as you state -- that's exactly what happened with the research that the Rev. Wright used  in the speech.  Here's one example of how the research was misused.  It's from a long book that really can't be restated so simplistically -- or extrapolated to mean so much more than what it theorized, and only only theorized as a starting point, and several decades ago now.  So it has altered education since, and in many good ways, but this speech wasn't about progress made.

    The study continues to be used, because it was an important book, but only if used in careful context that attempts to go no farther than the author did.

    [ Parent ]

    speech (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by DefenderOfPants on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:31:49 AM EST
    i dunno... i think all marching bands are kind of ridiculous.

    yeah, i wasn't really impressed with the speech. the idea that different does not mean deficient is not really new to me. it may be to some people. people who didn't watch sesame street, probably. i can't even appreciate the alliteration. and i love alliteration.

    and what was the deal with the right-brain left-brain nonsense? i'm pretty certain that's been debunked for years. i couldn't believe he tried to attribute learning and behaviour to race. way to go, rev. perpetuate some more racist myths, why doncha.

    I watched him and I thought (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:20:03 AM EST
    he's an entertainer, not a moral leader. Much of what he said, in this speech and others, that is likely to be offensive to people outside his target audience, was schtick -- a comic gimmick --that, like most ethnic comedy (which we rarely hear nowadays except for the "redneck" comics) relies on, agrees with, fosters the audience's stereotypes, prejudices and world view. Whether it's "God Damn America," "Garlic Noses," or mocking "whites" as lacking in emotion or rhythm, Wright isn't attempting to outrage (which is why he doesn't understand why anyone would find him outrageous) his audience, nor is he attempting to morally uplift it, or to provoke his audience to moral examination. He is merely seeking its amusement and approval.

    For that reason, it should be no surprise that he is doing -- and will continue to do -- everything he can to keep himself in the spotlight.

    Because Rev. Wright, at heart, is, more than anything else, a great big ham.

    Nicely Put. (none / 0) (#219)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:40:06 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This is why the whole (none / 0) (#240)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:47:59 AM EST
    "spiritual leader" thing is shallow.  It's like saying you get your spiritual leadership from Jackie Gleason.

    [ Parent ]
    I just watched the last portion, (5.00 / 2) (#230)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:08:34 AM EST
    so maybe I should keep my mouth shut.  But I liked it.  I am a white southerner (have lived elsewhere), and I also liked MLK speehes even before he became a martyr and 'redeemed' in public opinion.  I have attended a black church (and liked it a bunch better than a fundamentalist church of my own  denomination).

    The part about the Irish was pure humor.  And if it had been said on a TV comedy review in the past, it would have gotten a laugh from the Irish also.  (Yes, we were not PC in the old days. and language has been cleaned up now.  But our careful words sometimes cover up things that need to be said.)

    He said things that needed saying.  He said for black men to change the way they treat black women.  They need to--the men were mostly raised by strong black women.  Black women were important in the community; they often held it all together.  (Ever notice in the cartooms about Curtis how much power is held by the black ladies in the large hats?)

    He said black parents need to change the way they treat their children.  Right on--but we have made progress down here:  When black families started eating out (at the big buffet places mainly), the kids did not stand quietly in line--and they sometimes got cuffed around.  Neither parents nor kids had been around to observe white folks' public manners (which are not always so good, either.)  Now those black children--who might be with either white or black parents, BTW--don't get cuffed in public.  Do you think we could aspire to speech in white homes and black homes that does not denigrate members of either race?

    So--I liked it.  I noted he said he would shorten his closing, but actually he continued reading it.  I am glad he did.  He said a mouthful of truths--even tho he did plug Obama, whom I like less and less.

    Repost from previous thread. (4.85 / 7) (#21)
    by phat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:13:06 AM 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 to other arenas. 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.

    I had the same reaction (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by daria g on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:25:54 AM EST
    Shorter Reverend Wright re music, culture, linguistics - "Different things are different!"  

    Who knew?  It sounded to me like he made a lot of references to make the speech sound like it had a lot more of a point than it actually did.  

    [ Parent ]

    He is missing the Christian Philosophy (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42:02 AM EST
    "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." It seems he has involved himself in politics for quite sometime. The message and the medium are quite confusing to an ordinary Christian.

    [ Parent ]
    Strange Speech (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by santarita on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:56:42 AM EST
    The overall theme is right - different should not be a negative.  We all have differences but we live in one country.  Recognizing that being different is not a negative is an important first step in learning to live in a country where there are so many differences.  If his speech helps people recognize that differences are not bad, then his speech (even with factual misstatements) is good.  But he does seem to elevate African American culture at the expense of European culture, which seems counterproductive to his overall message.  I would like to have seen him get beyond dwelling on the differences and tells us how people of different cultures can communicate. Otherwise we live in kind of a solipsistic world.  

    [ Parent ]
    The trouble is (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:29:58 AM EST
    as right as he may be to criticize the 'corporate media' and as many positive or uplifting things he may have said in his speech, they always play, side by side, his G--d America clip. Just like Obama's 'bitter/cling comment, Rev. Wright's Jeremiad has provided the republicans with many snippets to use against him and Obama. The atmosphere has been poisoned with enough blame to go around.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with your point (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by tree on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:58:34 AM EST
    about much of the theme of the speech being rather old hat. The "different not deficient" idea is nothing new or revolutionary. And he seems to imply that only blacks are seen as deficient which has been amply proved to be wrong lately, what with the very recent "bitter-cling" controversy, and also the  current anti-Muslim hysteria among some people in this country. I'm sure if I thought for a moment I could come up with many other examples.

    I find it sad that anyone would be touting this speech as something important or groundbreaking. But then I didn't get why Obama's "race speech" was seen as some giant step either. They were both rather hackneyed speeches by flawed men, IMHO. I really resent that either one of them have been compared to MLK.  

    [ Parent ]

    He was well read (4.50 / 2) (#48)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:25:48 AM EST
    but not recently, it seems.  I am appalled to hear the Bell Curve theories of the right wing again -- and from the mentor of the man who wants to be president and proclaims he will improve education?  That, plus Ayers' theories that influenced Obama, pluse his stance on Fox against points central to teachers' unions, all ought to be cause for serious pause.

    [ Parent ]
    Support of (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42:21 AM EST
    charter schools also.  He has requested quite a bit of money for private and charter schools, I don't like to think what that will do to the public school system.  He doesn't seem to want to fix it, but move away from it and this message from his pastor cause me more concern.  I'm very disappointed.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't get the hostility (4.83 / 6) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:58:53 PM EST
    towards his speech.  (I only saw the clip I posted above.) It was mostly a call to recognize that different does not mean deficient or inferior. I liked the end where he reminded us we are all immigrants. I liked the part where he pointed out that Arabic is a language. And the part where he spoke against our policies of overincarceration -- particularly when he referred to those who aren't incarcerated,

    He's a pastor, not a politician, and while I don't share his religion or his views on religion and I'm not particularly moved by sermons, I can see why he's regarded as someone who is spiritually uplifting.

    I'm not viewing it through an Obama vs Hillary lens (since he's pretty much removed himself from the political race and is not campaigning for Obama) but as a speech to the NAACP and I the segment I watched was pretty rousing.

    well, he mistates how children learn (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:04:10 AM EST
    saying that white people are "left brained" and black people are "right brained" and that the US school system is based on the European "left brained" way.  I'm pretty offended by that.  I'm also pretty offended by his imitations of white people -- using a comedic "white bland" voice. imo, although he keeps saying "different is not deficient" (which I agree with) he keeps giving backhanded insults to the "white" different way, which can be seen in his demeanor. I think the whole speech is a farce.  

    [ Parent ]
    My doctorate (none / 0) (#249)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:58:06 AM EST
    is in education.  What Wright was saying about "educational research" was state of the art about 40 years ago.  Much more research has been done into learning styles since then, and America's teachers are learning more about how children with those different learning styles learn in today's classrooms every day.  Biological race is not a factor in how children learn, (there are students of all races that show preference for each defined learning style) but culture may play a part.  For example, Barack Obama raised in a white family's culture may show preference for a different learning style than the same Barack Obama raised in a black family.  That's a hard experiment to design unless we separate a lot of twins at birth. I didn't find Rev Wright offensive in his discussion of education - just very out of date.  I'm tempted to mail him some more up to date literature.  However, saying that "all black children are subject-oriented learners" does a disservice to those who aren't.  If what Rev Wright said was actually true, then we would have a good case for "Separate but Equal" schools, and I believe that I also heard him say that he worked hard against Plessy v. Ferguson.

    [ Parent ]
    Not hostility, concern (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:09:06 AM EST
    At least as I watched the whole thing he comes across in a particular light. And  I think it will play badly for Sen Obama and democrats at large.

    Hey, but I could be wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's what I pictured (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:15:00 AM EST
    A miner is busy working in a goldmine (Wright) and he's happily chipping away at the wall with his axe...

    Republican operatives enter the mine and say "Wow, look at all that gold!" as they rush toward the pile of gold nuggets scatter on the ground.  They become giddy like little kids getting candy out of a pinata.

    Even if I were to agree with 99% of what Wright said, I just have to imagine how much ammunition this gives Republicans.  I do want us to stand up for our Democratic principles and not let Republicans frame the issues, but sometimes we have to pick our battles.  So the bottom line for me is this: Yes, Jeremiah Wright deserves to have his say, but I believe he could have waited until his candidate actually became President. Just had to wait a little longer. After he's in the White House come right on out and start changing the world.  But patience kimosabi. He would have 4 glorious years to say and do whatever he wants.  Obama can give him a medal, why not? But right now it's a political problem.  It really is Jeralyn.


    [ Parent ]

    you really have to watch it... (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:16:01 AM EST
    and even if you do, you might not react negatively but problem I saw was the mocking tone and who he mocked. He particularly picked on JFK and LBJ which is really really a bad move in my opinion.

    He mocked media and culture.

    It was great theater for the NAACP audience but it will play really poorly for the bitter people and there is a treasure trove of video that can be clipped and presented in a most negative way - and you can be sure that will happen.

    He basically undid whatever reparations he made in the Moyers interview and solidified the worst fears in white America.

    The biggest problem that I see is that this is after all a preacher that has to know that he is being watched and analyzed...he's not doing Democrats or Obama any favors.

    [ Parent ]

    Watch the entire speech when you have time (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:16:09 AM EST
    Try to hear it from the point of view of a superdelegate that's interested in actually winning in November.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know if (none / 0) (#223)
    by ccpup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:04:50 AM EST
    the Superdelegates are going to want to Nominate a candidate who will have to spend the whole campaign cleaning up after their Reverend who just won't shut up!

    How many times will Obama have to answer yet MORE questions about snippets taken out-of-context?  And each time he does that, he's off-message and on the defensive.  Not the place you want to be in the GE against anyone, let alone McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    This is the safe part (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:16:19 AM EST
    and it's other parts that are problematic for Obama, other Dems, etc., for reasons noted on the previous thread.  It has to be seen in its entirety -- and especially with the introductions, all running again and again on the networks.

    Or you can just see the excerpts being used on Fox -- I just checked.  That is how this will be seen by most viewers, over and over, not in the full context as on CNN.  Not that the context helps much.  But the excerpt you have here will not be the one shown.  

    [ Parent ]

    It's a discomfort with (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:16:47 AM EST
    the language.  There was one section that he did on 'we can do it together' that I liked.  It was positive and uplifting.  The majority?  Nope.  What sticks with me is the confusion over why, why, why he was doing the right/left learning discussion which was just factually wrong.  The language it what is in my mind... I know he is referring to me when he says over and over European American... I'm not, I'm American (and a garlic-nose).  It was just very divisive language and he was sarcastic and mocking.

    I'll watch it again later, but right now.... ?

    [ Parent ]

    Just speaking for myself (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:17:08 AM EST
    I don't think it's running on all the networks just so people can view it through an apolitical lens.

    When was the last time a NAACP keynote address ran in it's entirety on the networks?

    Speaking for myself, I don't think I'm capable of viewing it the way you did.  What he said about the Clintons, he polarized himself and gave up any chance he ever had in my mind to be viewed through an apolitical lens.


    [ Parent ]

    At first, like Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Rainsong on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:13:40 AM EST
    I didn't understand the drama. I didnt see all of it either, simply because I just dont like boring speeches, no matter how inspirational for the personal or national psyche. Those attending the NAACP dinner are welcome to it.

    What bugs me is, as you say Edgar08, its on every network. Since when do such events like this, get lengthy, prolonged national headline coverage? Would normally only get a few minutes in the "other news" section as a short filler.  

    Sheesh, I got the memo, I got it the first time, and all the umpteen times after that. I am a terrible person, a racist and a bigot.

    I'm becoming increasingly paranoid that we might get this sort of thing every week or two for the next 4 years if Obama wins the WH :(

    [ Parent ]

    I approach this in a similar fashion (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by phat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:17:38 AM EST
    I stopped watching at about the point he was discussing music and linguistics.

    I doubt this will have much influence on the Democratic race. It could be used, I suppose. The Republicans are very good at turning this kind of thing into something truly awful. But that's speculation.

    I just find the whole thing quite odd.

    I agree with him in a lot of ways. I find his understanding of genetics and biology almost disturbing, though.

    [ Parent ]

    The prospect of Wright giving more speeches (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:21:01 AM EST
    from now until November... will and should have an impact on the Democratic race.  The superdelegates were discussing the impact of this issue before, and now...

    [ Parent ]
    To be honest (4.00 / 1) (#62)
    by phat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    My local experience with superdelegates tells me something different. The conventional wisdom is that Obama is better for down-ticket races. Superdelegates will likely consider that more than anything else, as they pretty much need to do what they can to help their local candidates.

    This Wright sideshow isn't likely to overturn the conventional wisdom.

    Whether or not the conventional wisdom is correct will be hard to know until November.

    [ Parent ]

    what are they waiting for? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:38:03 AM EST
    If their minds were made up they would have announced for Obama en-masse before Ohio/Texas/Rhode Island and certainly before Pennsylvania.

    From the conventional wisdom point of view, Hillary continuing to win and making the results more murky does not help them in November.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by phat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:47:52 AM EST
    I think being in that position with the two campaigns calling them every day and the pressures involved in that I would expect a certain paralysis to happen.

    This is an important election. Everybody who is a Democrat knows this.

    We don't have much information. Any predictions about who can beat McCain are just predictions. Some of them have to consider their future, too. If they make the wrong pick, they could be sealing their political doom.

    Running for office is not an easy thing. Pleasing your constituents and the people who helped you get there is just that much more difficult.

    Having Dean put pressure on you on top of that doesn't make it any easier.

    Some SDs I know were able to throw in with little thought or fear. They are established, whatever happens, they will be able to draw their paycheck and keep their political positions no matter what. They can max out every cycle.

    Other SDs don't have that luxury. They can't gamble with their future the way other people can.  The personal toll this is taking on some people is not a good thing to watch, I'm afraid.

    [ Parent ]

    So is Obama inevitable or not? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:52:25 AM EST
    I hear that it's mathematically impossible for him to lose, so what exactly are the superdelegates waiting for?  What risk is there?  They can't possible pick the "wrong" candidate because only Obama can win, I hear.

    I'm just a Clinton supporter wondering if she still has a chance.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not mathematically impossible for him to lose (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by phat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:05:46 AM EST
    That's the problem.

    People have been told that if Clinton wins enough superdelegates to gain the nomination that it would be perceived as a "coup". This narrative should have been crushed by the DNC as soon as it reared it's ugly head. They both need superdelegates to win the nomination.

    The strategy used by Obama to win the nomination almost guaranteed this problem. It's a seriously good strategy and it's playing out in his favor, so far. The problem is is that it forces good Democrats, people who have been loyal enough to the party to become superdelegates, to make a choice that they can't easily make.

    It's so very close and Clinton seems to have a reason to keep going. She thinks that she can win the nomination, and that is still true. And she thinks that she has a better chance to beat McCain, that may be true.

    Rock and a hard place.

    I'm very glad I'm not a superdelegate.

    [ Parent ]

    There is no real delegate count yet (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:08:30 AM EST
    nor will there be one for a while.  Caucus states still have to recaucus once or twice more (I lost track -- four times in all, as I recall, ending in June) with reallocations of delegates occurring already for them and maybe again (and again:-).  

    And super-delegates never are "pledged" similarly -- even those who have declared once, or twice, can switch, as those who have declared twice have done.  And they can do so again -- even at the last minute, as well I recall from colorful conventions past.

    All we have are media projections -- guesses -- as to what the counts probably are at this point.  Nothing from the party, nor will there be.  And every media outlet doing these delegate counts comes up with a different one, which proves the point that there is no official count, and no one really knows.

    So -- how much stock do you put in any guesses by media on anything?  There's your answer. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    The guesses (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by phat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:16:42 AM EST
    I think are quite good.

    Switching might be more difficult at this stage.

    Nobody wants to be seen as the person who switched for "partisan" reasons.


    [ Parent ]

    Which guesses, then? (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:49:13 AM EST
    They're all different, and they're all good?  Now, there's really new math. :-)  Have you been to the sites that list half a dozen or more?  All are different.

    I disagree that switching won't happen.  It is happening.  It just doesn't make headlines -- not major ones nationally, unless they're the likes of John Lewis.

    I do agree that there may not be a switch en masse unless there's good reason because some candidate or other has another bad gaffe -- or enough bad gaffes, as it's often the cumulative effect that is the concern.  

    Of course, if ever I saw a campaign in which that could happen, and I've seen many, this is the one.

    [ Parent ]

    Are they living in cloture? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Regency on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:39:11 AM EST
    Haven't they seen what's happening to Childers in North Carolina(?) already. Jeralyn already  has  a post on that. You might want to let them know that Wright is a liability, and he's about to become their liability: Another Republican Ad Against Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    To be Frank, perfectly clear, unconventional (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Boo Radly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:11:06 AM EST
    I wrote my two Dem Gober candidates (NC) last week regarding their endorsement of BHO and explained to them clearly why I, as a registered Dem, would be unable to vote for them - specifically stating that BHO has demonstrated extraordinarily poor judgement(long list of other reasons). Their endorsements told me they too suffer from the same lack of judgement, as well as Kennedy, Kerry, Dubin, TD, etc.

    The Wright "sideshow" shows some with REAL conventional wisdom will truly turn away from it - post haste - they will not even consult a blog to see "which way the wind is blowing" - some how their moral compass or, if you will, conventional wisdom tells them the colorful "spiritual guide" is probably playing for money and his "honor". Wow, that is a dichomy.

    Both my local and national experience with super delegates tell me this Wright sideshow is not a good thing for the Democratic Party in gaining the office of POTUS. Uuum, that is the point of this primary season? We seem to be getting off the issues we need to address for all Americans.

    I have never had such close communication with my Democratic elected officials before. It is certainly the opposite of your opinion.  

    [ Parent ]

    Have you seen the (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:16:39 AM EST
    latest ads in Mississippi for an open Congressional seat?

    Here you go:

    Obama's Coattails

    And then there are the NC ads too. Watch and then tell me Obama is going to help down the ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    just from the clip above, i noticed (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:28:58 AM EST
    him insulting irish descendants in the same breath that he decried similar insults against arabs.  and then he included in his list of faiths the "nation of islam"--which, not to be confused with islam, is a hate group (as i've learned here at TL).  a freudian slip, perhaps?

    is it okay to be racist because you're black?  apparently, two wrongs make a wright.

    [ Parent ]

    Btw, more Americans are of Irish descent (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:50:07 AM EST
    than any other ethnicity -- more than 40 percent.

    [ Parent ]
    WTF? (3.00 / 1) (#65)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:35:44 AM EST
    He was addressing the Nation of Islam particularly to wake up to accepting difference and stop the hate.

    [ Parent ]
    WJRM? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:38:35 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    this is a strain of worm if i ever saw it. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:46:18 AM EST
    here's the part of his speech it was from:
    "we can do it--
    it's gonna take people of all faiths including the nation of islam, but we can do it
    it's gonna take people of all races, but we can do it
    it's gonna take republicans and democrats, but we can do it..."

    yeah.

    [ Parent ]

    WORM Yourself (4.00 / 1) (#171)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:05:39 AM EST
    Nation of Islam is a hate group on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list. Do you think that Rev Wright does not know that this is a hate group? He clearly addressed them specifically because they practice hate and divisiveness. If you missed it, overcoming divisiveness was the main point of his speech. He gave the Nation of Islam notice to get with the program and let go of the hate.

    [ Parent ]
    The Nation of Islam (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:22:05 AM EST
    is seen as a hate group by the ADL (the Jews) and as a heretical sect of Islam (the Middle Eastern Arabs/Muslims).  It emphasizes black superiority over whites/black supremacy, hence all of the references to Farrakhan's "blue eyed devils" rhetoric he spews.

    Speaking of that, BTW, if you read Barack's Dreams from My Father, you will read an entire passage devoted to Obama's meandering thoughts about how "sad" it was to see one of the black women that he was working with re: community organizing suddenly show up with blue contact eye lenses.  He goes off on this big racial rambling about how sad it was that she felt she had to do that, and blathered on about black self-esteem, and how later on he felt bad about having handled the situation badly (by telling her that her eyes looked fine before), BUT the entire passage just seemed to have the subtext to me of Obama's own "blue eyed devils" rhetoric.  All because this poor AA woman, a supposed friend of his, wanted to wear blue eye contacts!  (Starts at the top of page 192, BTW, if you're really curious...but it's best taken in the context of all of the race-ranting before it, so you're better off reading the entire book.)

    Jaaaaysus.  If more people read Obama's book, they'd be seeing just why he's been a member of Wright's NOI-sympathetic church for so long.

    [ Parent ]

    I viewed all 4 segments (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by tree on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:32:22 AM EST
    and i think that segments two and three are the ones that most posters here who saw the speech were upset with.

      Personally I wasn't appalled by the speech, but I think he is glaringly wrong about some of the things he said, particularly about racial differences in learning, and we will all suffer if many people take his words as gospel on racial learning differences. And he is mocking of Europeans to some extent, which rather plays against his theme of "different not deficient".

    My impression overall is that Wright was personally hurt by the criticism that he has faced and he was using the speech as a way to get back at that criticism. Its not something that a great man would do, but its a sadly typical human failing. I do think that he still carries a lot of hate, and you can't lead anyone out of hate if you carry it yourself.

    Will this speech hurt Obama? I don't see it, but on the other hand I don't see it helping either, and Wright will still be an issue in the GE if Obama is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:38:08 AM EST
    I think you nailed it.

    [ Parent ]
    Perception (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by formerhoosier on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:55:49 AM EST
    You have it.  He is doing what a lot of us would feel like doing.  Human emotion being what it is.  Age is not an antidote to this (as a boomer can assert).

    He is not a Gandhi or Martin Luther King, he is a man who feels he has been wrongfully accused and is trying to vindicate himself and validate his many years of service.

    I can understand that, and still think he is not an asset for Obama the politician.  If Senator Obama was not a public figure, this would not be an issue.  He is, and this is the political reality supporters and Democrats have to acknowledge.

    [ Parent ]

    That's where some of the frustration stems from (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:02:48 AM EST
    Many Democrats seem to be conflicted between their idealism and the need for pragmatist.

    Yes, this shouldn't hurt Obama... We get what Jeremiah Wright is trying to say.

    But is that reality or wishful thinking?

    We can always hope it's the latter.

    [ Parent ]

    Arabic is a language (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:33:03 AM EST
    I found that part rather interesting. Having lived for several years in Saudi as an ex-pat while my husband worked for Bechtel, I was confused by that comment. Many languages are spoken in the middle east, but we aren't referring to the language when we refer to Arabs or Arab countries. Those include everything from Iran, to Egypt, etc.  So, Arabic would also refer to a nationality, an object, and possibly a person? Arabic scrolls. He is of Arabic origin? Or, is that just my bad english?

    Admittedly, I couldn't listen to much of his speech. But, that particular passage he went through suggested the audience was possibly being manipulated.

    Rev Wright seems to have a new celebrity status and no one is asking him to apologize or account for what he said.  


    [ Parent ]

    He used the Arabic is a language (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:57:46 AM EST
    statement to say that Obama's name which he kept repeating as Barrack Hussein Obama is from Arabic language and not muslim.

    [ Parent ]
    Geez (none / 0) (#226)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:22:39 AM EST
    Iranians are NOT Arabs, they are Persians.  I'm amazed you managed to live in the Middle East without learning that.


    [ Parent ]
    I agree with you in part. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by lansing quaker on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:48:01 AM EST
    But, Jeralyn, this speech will be tied to a political filter, like it or lump.  The NAACP is a political organization, and Rev. Wright is the subject of political controversy.

    "Different does not mean deficient."  Some may consider this relativist to a fault, but I understand his message with regard to cultural differences.

    But it detracts from policy differences.  The dialogue (if you can label it as one) coming from this will focus on cultural/ethnic differences.  Social differences.  

    While I'm not saying that discussion should not happen, it drags the discussion down and away from those darned "issues" whereby differences sure can be deficiencies.

    That's my beef.  Not so much the social commentary, but rather how it will derail the discussion of public policy even further.

    And should Obama be the nominee, it will probably be nigh insurmountable to discuss anything outside of this social/identity/cultural framework.

    My two (probably more than, actually) cents.

    [ Parent ]

    "smooth bore muskets... (none / 0) (#241)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:49:37 AM EST
    ...are not deficient when compared to breench laoding rifles."  Duke of Wellington , some time before the Crimean war.

    That's where judgment rears it's ugly head.

    [ Parent ]

    Great comment (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:54:01 AM EST
    You answered where the hostility comes from. You are viewing it through a non-Hillary v Obama lens. Most commenters are chosing to still view it from that perspective.

    [ Parent ]
    It's because he's a weapon to be weilded (4.75 / 4) (#155)
    by Skex on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:34:39 AM EST
    against Obama.

    I'm fully convinced that if he were backing Hillary people currently decrying him and criticizing him would be singing his praises.

    You don't get it because you are honestly open minded and a liberal left thinking humanist. Which makes your support for Clinton and opposition to Obama so strange to me.

    I've caught no small amount of grief on this site for being a minority Obama supporter. People asked me why I bother coming here, I've been chastised for linking a socialist website, I've been accused of misogyny and being insulting and being a cultists.

    The reason I come here is that I see no point in going to KOS what's the point I agree with the majority of the people there on most matters, there is nothing to gain nothing to learn. While preaching to the choir can be comforting it doesn't accomplish jack.  

    I know I'm further left than the majority of the American public, I also have the advantage when talking to right wingers of 5 years in the Marine's as a grunt that I can always toss in their face when they start talking that big tough man smack. I'm a white guy who keeps his medium reg hair cut and wears polos so I look like a typical conservative white guy so I get to hear all their crap when they think they aren't in mixed company.

    My family is in the panhandle of Texas and save for my grandfather (the last of his generation) all are republican. Hell until such time as I joined Marine's and met my best friend who changed my entire political outlook with one sentence I was a conservative I defended Reagan on Iran Contra in high school debates.

    The sentence that changed my political outlook was one instruction from someone who I respected enough to listen too. A black man who is to this date the closest friend I have he told me "don't listen to what they(the republicans) say, watch what they do" so I did.

    It was an enlightening experience. I went from thinking Iran Contra was a justified exercise to defeat communism to the firm belief that Reagan should have been impeached and Oliver North should have been stripped of all rank and honors and should be rotting in Leavenworth for treason.

    I written many times here about how you have to read between the lines on Obama's policies and rhetoric to get to the nitty gritty.

    Obama is a hard core leftist simple as that. He's supported by the old guard left in the party (Kennedy) because his policies and plans most coincide with traditional leftist Democratic new deal/great society type of ideology.

    Now his rhetoric in the election is far more centrist sounding but what people have to remember is that most people in this country hold left political views. Even most of the self described conservatives. These people like my uncle who really believe (as I did in my youth) that the GOP is about individual freedom and small government.

    And believe me I go round and round with these people at family gatherings since I don't hold cotton to this idea that you shouldn't discuss politics and religion geezus they're the two most important subjects in our society why the hell would we want to avoid them.

    The vast majority of these blue collar rural folks aren't really all that racist to most the of them racism is a theoretical thing just do to the fact that they don't really know any black people and most the ones they do know they get along with fine.

    The problem is that the right has done a better job of reaching out to these folks. They've done this through manipulating their fears and provincialism.

    At a recent family gathering I cornered my right wing uncle (his favorite professor at A&M was Phil Graham) on OSHA my uncle at the time worked as a chemists at a plant in the panhandle and he was bitching about all the OSHA regulations. And I looked at him and pointed to my grandfather his father and pointed out that he had black lung as a result of piss poor environmental health regulations at these plants and I asked him point blank if he really though things would be better if his brain dead bosses didn't have to answer to OSHA. He had to admit that that would not be a good thing.

    That's how you address these people. You don't pander to them by shooting shots of whiskey or going out duck hunting or any other garbage you gotta get up in their face and point out real world examples of why they would be better served with left liberal policies.

    I want Obama to win if no other reason that he puts Texas into play. there is no damned reason this state should be as red as it is. And if Obama is the nominee I can get in my car and drive up the panhandle and start working on those people and after the way the economy has gone they are for the first time in 60 years are ready to hear it.

    With Obama as a nominee I can get into peoples face and talk about what a piss poor decision going into Iraq is I can rant and rave about what bull shit it is to have our reservists on active duty rather as doing what they are supposed to be doing which is being a reserve in case of a real friggin emergency.

    And believe me I can get damn righteous on this and I can talk to other vets in no uncertain terms about what a loser Bush and by extension McCain is. Even better it is my experience that most these right wingers never served a day in their lives anyway so I can blast their heads away with the perspective of a real veteran rather than of some chicken shit chicken hawk.
    Hell I what I most enjoy is hearing some guy talking tough and then asking them what branch they served in again?

    I'm not Obama I don't got no qualms calling people out on BS and I've walked the walk and can talk the talk.

    I opposed this war from day one. If you go look for skex_relbore@yahoo.com on deja news you can find where I was not only vocally against the Iraq war but I opposed the Afghani invasion too.

    Because they were both bad idea's and where Obama only supported one of those bad idea's Clinton supported both and that makes it damned hard to work with.

    Didn't we learn with Kerry that we can't win against a Republican on the war if we run a candidate that voted for it?

    Obama isn't a perfect candidate no doubt. I was disappointed with him almost from the moment he swore into the Senate. But Clinton is beyond worthless. Obama at least is on record of opposing this military disaster we call Iraq you can say "he only has a speech" but frankly that is more than Clinton has.

    And I don't buy the argument that she just believed the president that simply shows me that she is incapable of rational thought.

    You know why I KNEW THAT IRAQ HAD NO WMDS.. because Bush was willing to invade. If Saddam really had access to NBC weaponry (Nuclear,Biological,Chemical) we would have never invaded because Bush wouldn't have wanted to be the president that lost an entire division of troops to a single attack. Also notice that we never attacked North Korea who really had a nuclear weapon program that they swore up and down was successful.

    Clinton failed on that. She completely and utterly failed to comprehend something that millions of us knew at the time and that is simply unforgivable in my book.

    I see people who say they can't vote for Obama because of some assinine comment or another that resulted in a net nothing in the bigger scheme of things. Hillary supported a war that resulting in several thousand American soldiers losing their lives. As well as tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's.

    And every time I see a picture of some poor child in Iraq missing their friggin limbs I am reminded of why I voted for Obama over Clinton.

    Because I imagine how I would feel if it were my son or my daughter who was mangled by a foreign bomb.

    Hillary's political sin is unforgivable in my eyes. Yeah Obama ain't perfect but at least he didn't sanction wholesale murder for political gain.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by otherlisa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:22:19 AM EST
    how you can characterize Obama as a "hard core leftist" when he doesn't favor universal healthcare, when he is a p*ss-poor environmentalist, when his advisors favor privatizing social security, and when he goes on Fox News and claims that Republicans "have better ideas" about government regulation.

    Yeah, he made ONE SPEECH decrying the war - a war which I vigorously opposed. But one speech to me does not tilt the balance in favor of his being some kind of radical lefty. Would that he were! I'd be supporting him.

    [ Parent ]

    I respect your statement . . . (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Benjamin3 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:59:36 AM EST
    But seriously:  Obama puts Texas into play?  I've seen no evidence that he can connect with Latino voters - at all.  Recent polling within the Latino community has Obama losing the Latino vote to McCain by about 14 points, and the same poll has Hillary winning that vote versus McCain 76-24%

    [ Parent ]
    If Rev. Wright were a supporter (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:17:27 AM EST
    of Hillary, we wouldn't be talking the way he has been talking; calling people names; therefore there won't be any reason to criticize him.  It is because he doesn't like Hillary (perhaps even hate her or what she represents) that he is talking the way he has been talking.

    Obama was not in a position to vote against or for the resolution because he was not in the Senate yet;  which Bush used to go to war, even if the intent of the resolution was to make war the LAST RESORT.  But Obama VOTE FOR funding the continuation of the war every time it came up for a vote.

    Fortunately, people do consider other major issues confronting the country, including ending the war in Iraq.  And I am confident, especially with all the information being revealed that fleshes out the real Barack Obama, Clinton will come out the nominee of the party and go on to win the general election.  And Rev. Wright would have contributed in making that possible.

    [ Parent ]

    Edit: HE wouldn't be talking (none / 0) (#195)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:19:33 AM EST
    sorry for the typo.

    [ Parent ]
    coulda had some respect (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:19:50 AM EST
    for your reasons for your support of your candidate. But you are not content with supporting your candidate, you insist on demonizing mine!

    You said:

    Hillary's political sin is unforgivable in my eyes. Yeah Obama ain't perfect but at least he didn't sanction wholesale murder for political gain.

    And thus I don't care what else you have to say. And do you actually think you accomplish anything by coming here? You learn? I don't see you listening to anything anyone here says or believes. I see you coming here and trying to thrust YOUR opinions and thoughts down the throats of people that don't agree with you. If you truly want to help your candidate you would stop making statements like the one quoted above. You just make people angrier with Obama supporters than they all ready are and thus make them dislike Obama more than they all ready do.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:35:24 AM EST

    And people who come here to "learn" don't see an election as a single-issue thing.  The poster's rantage about the War Vote is all justified enough (and I sure hope that the rantage was equally fervent against Kerry in '04 for this poster), but then you have to factor in that Obama voted to fund the war once he was in the Senate.  No powerful trademark speeches about how funding the war is wrong or how we should get out immediately...he just voted with the status quo.

    If Obama was really the leftist (which he just might be, and is playing Republican in order to appeal to the people he keeps denigrating), then he very surely is NOT electable.  This country does not elect leftists.  They elect who they believe is moderate (on either side, whether it's Dem or Repub).

    [ Parent ]

    You say that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:11:44 AM EST
    didn't sanction wholesale murder for political gain. He wasn't in the Senate for the vote on the war, so it is easy for him to claim non-support since he was never asked to support it. And he has consistently voted to keep funding it. And don't tell me that was for the troops. If you are as bright as you seem to be, and aware of how the military works, then you know that the funding he voted on has nothing to do with maintaining the troops. It funds corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater.

    Obama has some good ideas, but he doesn't have the personal discipline and work ethic to get them realized. He is well known among his colleagues for taking credit for bills he never worked on, he has never held a meeting of his committee which oversees NATO, he has stated that he finds the Senate work boring. If he finds the Senate work boring, how is he going to handle the massive work load that comes with being President? Delegate it to someone?? His judgment in that department is questionable to say the least.

    Some people have said that Obama is surprised to be this far along in the race, that he just announced for publicity purposes and that the tide of adoration just carried him away. I disagree. I think he is ambitious to the point that he doesn't think he needs to actually prepare himself for the job. He thinks he can learn as he goes. So far he isn't doing very well as a Senator. It is hard to respond to your constituents' concerns when you are out of Washington campaigning for most of your term. And he didn't do much as a legislator either. The majority of the bills with his name on them aren't actually his, others did the work, he took the credit.

    Obama talks the talk, but can't walk the walk. And as for being left of center, well he is when it's convenient for him. Otherwise he is pretty much Republican-lite. Not what the Democratic Party needs right now. We need someone who is a glutton for work, not someone who avoids it whenever possible. That is Hillary, not Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't watch this now (4.80 / 5) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:39:14 PM EST
    but I see that this is generating new media coverage. Great. I'm sure the downticket dems are just thrilled about that.

    I can't either (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:42:44 PM EST
    I shut him off at 1:17. Just his voice makes me cringe.

    [ Parent ]
    Making fun of accents? (4.80 / 5) (#33)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:18:09 AM EST
    He sounded odd and trying very hard to sound Latino on Moyers' interview Friday night.  He should talk about accents!

    Oh and O/T...I just cruised HuffPo and DKos and not ONE mention of Wright's speech tonight.

    Crickets chirping.

    We Bostonians (5.00 / 1) (#261)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:27:37 AM EST
    take making fun of the way we talk with a grain of salt.  Just don't tax our tea, and we'll be OK.  

    [ Parent ]
    He is a powerful speaker Jeralyn (4.75 / 4) (#1)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:34:02 PM EST
    That means his message is magnified for better or worse.

    How long before we see the Jeremiah Wright show on daytime TV?  Right after Dr. Phil perhaps?

    The Party will NEVER (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:35:58 PM EST
    And I mean never unite behind Barack Obama until Barack Obama addresses that issue directly.

    None of this "I didn't hear it and disagree" stuff.

    This:  "My former pastor made fun of a great Democratic Party president in a way that I found despicable and disgusting.  I talked to him about it.  And he'll be on next to apologize."

    If he wants he can even add on "But I think I'll be an even better president" cause I know he's still running against brand Clinton.

    But something needs to be done there.

    We've all seen it.


    [ Parent ]

    Remember his anti-Hillary rant also (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:38:39 PM EST
    That has never been addressed either.

    [ Parent ]
    agreed (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:31:39 AM EST
    Ministers, like public servants, have to worry about their image in the media and whether or not they are seen as biased because they have cultural capital and power that helps them get things done in the community and get volunteers involved.  His comment about Hillary (the full clip is actually worse) put him squarely in the political realm and hurt the larger UCC because it was not a critique on an issue of policy, it was not a critique on an issue of justice, but it was an instead a blunt statement that hillary isn't black enough and that obama is black and held back just like jesus was by white people.

    A change is gonna come when people are judged not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their policies.  The NAACP judged hillary on the content of her policies and gave her a 95  

    So Wright's statement, about Hillary, was clearly mocking and wrong in its implications (which are connected to policy).  And it shows the limits of Wright's ideology, the limits of his vision of coalitions, the theatrics he likes to do, and the gaping cracks in his "reformed" rhetoric/"different is not deficient" speech.  

    Wright is a movement politician of a very specific type: the divisive pandering type.  All movements/cliques have them, folks that disown outsiders and disown allies based on the audience involved.

    [ Parent ]

    he also said (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42:22 AM EST
    that she has never had to work twice as hard to make it in this society. I found that an odd thing to say about Hillary Clinton of all people.

    [ Parent ]
    Because (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Foxx on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:48:53 AM EST
    there is NO feminist awareness anywhere in the Obama campaign that I have ever seen or heard.

    She's been called things just as bad as nigger. Anyone seen an Obama nutcracker lately?

    [ Parent ]

    agreed, and speaking of blind spots (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:21:35 AM EST
    Why are multiple commenters saying they can't handle wright because his voice grates?  It hearkens back to "shrill" hillary and to the actual speech they're commenting on.

    Brilliant trolls?  

    If anything, for all the oddness of the speech (and lack of a point) these threads and the passionate arguments back and forth have struck me as at least as odd, if not more, than the wright speech.  Otherwise insightful commenters have become enraged, dismissive, and trolled other comments.  To me all this says wright's speech, though problematic politically, is a much needed  (and amusing) eye-opener to how easily we can all be drawn into deficient characterizations of others.

    [ Parent ]

    Consider this (none / 0) (#235)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:16:54 AM EST
    his message fails cause what he has said in the past and what he says now and how he says it, mocking, ridiculing, etc, creates a feeling to some  of us, that he does not believe what he says.  By mocking the "others" to celebrate diversity, he diminishes his arguments.  He actually enrages the arguments.  

    [ Parent ]
    you hit his problem perfectly! (none / 0) (#238)
    by kimsaw on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:36:52 AM EST


    [