Rev. Wright's Speech, Thread II

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Different, not Deficient. (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    Attacks the Corporate Media . . . (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    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.

    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.


    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 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%

    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."

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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).


    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
    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.

    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.

    I just watched the last portion, (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.

    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.

    He was well read (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    Support of (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    I had the same reaction (5.00 / 2) (#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.  


    He is missing the Christian Philosophy (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.  


    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 / 2) (#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.  

    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.

    Not hostility, concern (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.


    you really have to watch it... (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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.... ?


    Just speaking for myself (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    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 :(


    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.


    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...

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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. :-)


    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.


    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.


    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.

    To be Frank, perfectly clear, unconventional (5.00 / 1) (#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.  


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

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



    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.

    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.


    I viewed all 4 segments (5.00 / 4) (#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.


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

    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.


    That's where some of the frustration stems from (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    Arabic is a language (5.00 / 1) (#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.  


    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.

    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.

    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.


    "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.


    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.

    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.


    Remember his anti-Hillary rant also (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:38:39 PM EST
    That has never been addressed either.

    agreed (5.00 / 5) (#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.


    he also said (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    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.


    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.  

    you hit his problem perfectly! (none / 0) (#238)
    by kimsaw on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:36:52 AM EST
    I won't let go of (5.00 / 6) (#187)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:10:43 AM EST
    that sermon from Jan 13 2008. It was right after Iowa and NH. Obama surely must have had someone tell him what was being said that day.

    Wright's comments were inherently sexist. "Hillary ain't ever been called a n-, Hillary ain't ever had to work twice as hard just to get noticed, Hillary ain't ever had her people been classified as non-persons."

    Well perhaps not the n- word. How about the c- word or the b- word? The second comment is pure misogny. Women earn 68% of men. But Rev Wright has a $10 million dollar home in a gated community. And that comment is so dismissive of her accomplishments. And while Hillary's race may not have been non-persons, what about her gender?

    Female slavery still exists in this world, in KAS, in India, in SE Asia, in the Sudan. Every so often we get stories of women here in the US like the one in LA where 20 Thai, Laotian and Cambodian women were chained and locked up 24/7 forced to work in a garment sweat shop. The Reverend Wright also suffers from a poor grasp of history. FDR allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor? Truman didn't bat an eyelash in dropping the atomic bomb? He's wrong.


    about that "former pastor" thing (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:42:12 PM EST
    In the intro, Rev. Anthony (the head of the Detroit NAACP chapter) made a big point of stating that Wright is the current paster of Trinity and will be retiring in May.  I know this point has gotten lost in the farce of this speech, but it was said.

    I caught it too (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by kimsaw on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:22:07 AM EST
    another "what gives moment" from the Obama camp. He will be retiring in May, I had thought him to be already retired. Some how I don't think Wright is going anywhere, especially with a book promotion tour. Just think Wright through November. I watched as much as I could, sometimes I will admit yelling at the TV especially when it came to his right brain, left brain, ADHD comments. It was like watching a train wreck knowing it can't be avoided from the introduction right into Wrights speech. Your eyes get riveted and you just can't quite make out the why you're still standing there watching the destruction. I couldn't believe some of what I was hearing. It certainly had a mocking cadence that didn't bring me to appreciate his tone or tenor.

     I was particularly curious with the shout outs from the pulpit to O'Brien and Martin, the CNN journalist or commentators, I define them as his fans here. When the two appeared on CNN with Sanchez, they seemed a little uncomfortable with the shout out and try to explain it away. They did profess their mutual admiration for the Rev.'s words at this event. They reminded everyone that we shouldn't take things out of context and that snippets deserve context. I laughed out loud. Clarification through context,it seemed like an epiphany to them.  Obama's in trouble so the media owes it to the public to make sure the context is understood. The Obama rules are working fine, its hard to say whether or not they will be successful this time.


    To be fair, I believe Wright is on leave (none / 0) (#239)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:47:48 AM EST
    until the official retirement date, a common practice after many years in a post -- often because of carried-over vacation time or the like, but also often just as an extra sign of gratitude for long service, if it works best for the congregation to have the outgoing minister begin sooner for all sorts of reasons.  And it often is necessary for the longtime minister to leave town, too, to make the congregation turn to the new one and not cause problems in transition.  But the official retirement date may be for reasons of completing years of service for the pension (from the national UCC, say), benefits, etc.

    And in such cases, it's common for a congregation to refer to the senior pastor as "former," even if it's not reality yet.  Also, this arrangement seems to have been set up before the stories broke, and a lot of advance time usually would be required to set up such benefits, transitions, etc.


    I don't think Harpo (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:39:58 PM EST
    Productions would have anything to do with it.

    BTW:  Where's Oprah?  She disappeared after CA.


    very true (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:18:25 AM EST
    there must be an undisclosed location somewhere where they clean severe cases of egg-on-face.

    I can't watch this now (4.75 / 4) (#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.

    4:31, in the clip on the post (4.75 / 4) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:09:59 AM EST
    when he says about the Irish, "they thought you were diseased" then under his breath, he says,: they may have been right about that.".    This is supposed to unify?  This is a man of god?  

    That was a dig at Bill O'Reilly (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by bumblebums on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:11:49 AM EST
    so that makes it ok? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:15:10 AM EST
    how, in what world, is it ok for someone to say that it might be true that all Irish people are diseased in order to get a dig in at O'Reily? You need to come up with a better defense then that.

    It was specific to O'Reilly (4.00 / 2) (#45)
    by bumblebums on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:24:26 AM EST
    Not defending nor supporting. Just sayin'.

    He didn't "say that it might be true that all Irish people are diseased".


    Of course he didn't say that (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:11:05 AM EST
    nor did the commenter this claims to quote.

    Then talk about O'Reilly (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:18:38 AM EST
    Don't talk about the Irish.

    Exaclty... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:30:35 AM EST
    Once again another alleged good speaker that I find flawed.  This is trash talk.  sorry.  

    That was a dig at my ancestors (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:21:10 AM EST
    on the famine ships, who were not allowed into this country because they were so ill from treatment by the Brits who took their land, put them in poverty, then forced them onto the ships.  Those who survived, anyway.  

    Thank heavens for the fine people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, who save those who survived the famine and the famine ships.  The Reverend Wright, however, gets no thanks from me for his ahistoricity on this and several other points.


    It was not a dig at your ancestors and mine (4.00 / 2) (#83)
    by bumblebums on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42:22 AM EST
    He directed it specifically to Bill O'Reilly.

    Nope. Not what he said. (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:10:14 AM EST
    He used a string of Irish surnames, no first names.  You hear what you want to hear, bless your heart.

    His audience had no trouble (4.00 / 2) (#127)
    by bumblebums on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:14:14 AM EST
    knowing who he was talking about.

    Bless your heart and cheers to you too.


    How do you know (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:17:04 AM EST
    they did not hear it our way?  What makes you think they assumed it was specific to Bill?  Maybe some thought it was Bill and maybe some were applying it to the other O's listed.  

    "Our way"? (3.00 / 1) (#141)
    by bumblebums on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:24:51 AM EST
    How telling.

    Look, if you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on, you shouldn't be weighing in on it. It was a glaringly obvious reference to Bill O'Reilly, which you would have no trouble divining if you knew the history. But you're wedded to perceiving him as bigoted against Irish people, so I can't help you.


    Obviously you (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:37:33 AM EST
    have a special hearing and reading capacity that us low information voters do not and cannot comprehend.  

    They didn't take your land! (none / 0) (#243)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:51:52 AM EST
    There was a famine and a series of revolutions all across Europe in those two or three years.



    Guess He Was Right On That One (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:16:12 AM EST
    I caught that also. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:14:46 AM EST

    The man may actually think (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:16:53 AM EST
    he was being inclusive by tossing in all these ethnic names and doing bad brogues and accents.  I had a relative like that, a well-meaning and good-hearted guy of that generation, who did this sort of thing and never got how offensive it was, no matter how many times we tried to tell him.  Fortunately, he never got on national tv, nor did he have influence on national elections and the direction of the country.  

    The Inanity (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:28:33 AM EST
    is in the "allegedly critical people" who will twist and gyrate to make Wright's words acceptable and justifiable to me and others.  People who are not willing to apply the same standards of criticism that they apply to other public figures.

    I find the apologist gyrations to be patronizing.  Listing excuses and making up justifications to make him acceptable is exactly what Wright is talking about..  The man should be held accountable for what he says.  I don't like it.  Fine, don't try to tell me it's justified what he says.  Wright obviously stands for what he believes and how he speaks.  It does not appeal to me and let him be different.  I can judge him, but you cannot forcefully make his style, logic and language acceptable.  He is one individual, do not conflate him to represent all AA ministers.  Wright has a right to speak any way he wants in his church, but don't push him down my throat by making up excuses for him.  


    You Mean Twist And Gyrate (2.00 / 1) (#160)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:43:11 AM EST
    Jeralyn stated her personal reactions only (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by cymro on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:02:14 AM EST
    Read the comments comment carefully.

    Jeralyn said she did not understand the reactions. She was not trying to persuade anyone that their reactions were wrong or not justified.

    Stellaaa, OTOH, was objecting to other people telling her how she should perceive Wright, not to other people having their own reactions.

    Attempting to use Jeralyn's comment as a response to Stellaaa's suggests to me that either you did not read those comments very carefully, or you do not grasp what this discussion is about, and the point that stellaaa was making.


    I Understand (3.00 / 1) (#142)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:25:19 AM EST
    That you have been an expert on AA and their difference since the 70's so I can understand why his examples bored you. For me his different accents really worked well to make it clear that some accents sound quaint and some accents sound inferior, for lack of a better word, as opposed to just different.

    You understand nothing (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:52:32 AM EST
    and that's not at all what I said.

    I certainly didn't find him boring.  Not in the least.  You, though, I do.


    Just a thought (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by ding7777 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:55:52 AM EST
    both a New England and a Texan dialect is limited to a specific geographaical area.

    If Wright wanted to compare the  AA dialect to something similar it would be Yiddish, which is non-geographical.


    I've watched parts 2 and 3 so far... (4.75 / 4) (#25)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:15:51 AM EST
    ... that might be enough for me.

    He's certainly a powerful speaker, and very charismatic. I found myself enjoying the experience.

    Perhaps I'm a little numb because of the oversaturated coverage of those parts of his sermons earlier, but I didn't find the speech that extreme. Maybe that's only in comparison to his previous remarks.

    There's certainly plenty that's cringe-inducing, most notably the comparison between allegedly different learning styles among blacks and whites. More mild was the mocking of the way JFK, LBJ, and current-day Bostonians speak, and the mocking of white religious behavior and marching band behavior. The stereotyping is unfortunate, but the way it was delivered, with a certain amount of humor, wasn't too bad. Had his purpose been entirely humorous instead of serious, it would even have been a decent standup routine.

    Overall, I guess, the part that bothers me (apart from the supposedly different learning styles) is the repeated emphasis on how blacks and whites are different, from music to religion to speech to everything. I don't tend to see our various ethnic groups as so separated as that. Perhaps it's because I live in a very ethnically diverse area, where blacks and whites combined are probably no more than two-thirds of the population. But it strikes me as a description of our society that is rooted too much in division rather than unity.

    You know (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by phat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:19:20 AM EST
    This is almost a really good stand-up routine.

    It's almost like... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:25:56 AM EST
    ... Russell Peters or Sarah Silverman. Esp. Peters.

    I'm trying to sort out what makes them funny and Wright not so much. Is it because the comedians are self-aware, know that they're saying things that are wrong and inviting us to take part in a guilty pleasure? Or because they make fun of everyone equally, and do their best to avoid harmful stereotypes? I guess in their case there's an understanding that all of this is just for fun and everyone understands the idea of equality among all people.


    Wright's humor is not (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:31:04 AM EST
    self-deprecating, which is what makes a smart a** funny a lot of the time. His humor is condescending and mean, even though I don't think that is what he neccesarily trying to be

    In comedy (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by phat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:21:58 AM EST
    somebody usually has to suffer.

    The joke is always on somebody.

    The butt of the joke can be the person telling the joke or it could be somebody else.

    Most comedians pick the wrong person to mock. That's why good comedians stand out as being funny years after they do their best stuff.


    Oh my Lord, I think (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:46:08 AM EST

    Sarah Silverman is the definition of dry, self-deprecating humor, then.  And according to her, G-d is black and really, really likes sleeping with her.

    Unifying? (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:06:44 AM EST
    How can he say that he wants to unify the country, when he gives such a divisive speech?  Does he not hear what he's saying?  

    Imagine if a white man had said these things about blacks, if someone made fun of the way they talk, their bands,  and the way they clap.  Sheeze.  Why does racism only work ONE way?  Why are Blacks allowed to be so racist?  

    Wright was insulting to blacks and whites on education.  That was horrible, implying that Blacks can't do math, but can only be intuitive and creative.  Made me want to throw up.  

    The media will be talking about this right through the primaries on May 6th.  Sigh.................I so hate this.  It seems we will never, ever, get away from constant talk about race.  


    Makes me ill too. (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by janarchy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:22:13 AM EST
    Wright was insulting to blacks and whites on education.  That was horrible, implying that Blacks can't do math, but can only be intuitive and creative.  Made me want to throw up.

    What an insult to AA mathematicians and scientists for a start. I wonder what Neil deGrasse Tyson or Derek Pitts or or anyone else on this page would have to say about that?


    I'd tend to think (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:53:46 AM EST
    this is a mess

    Making fun of accents? (4.75 / 4) (#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 / 0) (#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.  

    What is most aggravating (4.75 / 4) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:28:32 AM EST
    is that he is talking about stuff that most Americans either in work or other places have had to deal with some kind of diversity training.  I just find his tone insulting when he is trying to praise the difference in people, he puts down the European aspects by the way he mocks.  

    Well, I never understood why everyone gets offended with Obama's middle name and why he, Obama, never had the courage to take that on face to face.  

    i strongly disagree (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:39:23 AM EST
    only though my own interest have I ever had any sort of diversity training or awareness.  There was none while living in NC, none working in NC, none at any company I worked at in san francisco, south francisco, or daly city.

    Nada, zip, zilch. and considering the sexist things said in various software companies and that they were run by top tier MBAs i have to think that it would be very surprising if even 30 percent of americans had diversity training--even the crappy kind that you have had to deal with.


    It's safe to assume (none / 0) (#263)
    by 1jpb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:47:00 AM EST
    that you find his tone deficient when compared to your sensibilities.

    Enough said.


    His voice grates (4.66 / 3) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:41:47 PM EST
    gives me a headache.  However, I see through it an intelligent man...an intelligent man who really scares me.

    He makes me cringe, but doesn't scare me (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:45:52 PM EST
    because his following is small.  Now if he got a big following, like lets say, BO thought like him, and he went to the WH, that's scary.  And here is the thing, many HRC supporters are willing to send the man there if he's the nominee.  I would be sad for this country if the choice between BO and McCain.  That will be the election I don't vote.

    He spews the facile (4.66 / 3) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:59:26 PM EST
    jingoistic history about Immigrants etc, yet, he talked about Italians and their garlic noses.  Do we have to be subjected to this man now as a national figure.  Jessie Jackson was not offensive, yet a comparison to him was racist.  I will never figure out that insanity.  

    Wait (none / 0) (#208)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:36:53 AM EST

    are you saying "hymietown" wasn't offensive?  ?_?

    Oh, nm (none / 0) (#210)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:38:27 AM EST

    I wasn't thinking in terms of this election cycle.  I was just thinking in general, and the history of elections and Jesse Jackson's major gaffe.

    Though one could say that the whole "clinging to guns and religion" might be Obama's "hymietown".


    Apparently the Kossacks (4.66 / 3) (#16)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:00:23 AM EST
    are drooling all over the speech and hailing it as the most insightful and honest ever.

    Is there still hope for the kossacks or have they truly lost all semblance of thought process.

    Jeralyn seems to like it, too... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:19:14 AM EST
    Of course she did, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Regency on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:22:14 AM EST
    She didn't actually see the thing, how hard is it to like something you haven't seen?

    I watched the clip above (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:32:35 AM EST
    It was the end. I knew I didn't have time to watch the whole thing and figured the end would be the fiery part.

    Can any of you point me to the clip segment and time of the right/left brain comments? That's always been a topic of interest to me.


    right brain / left (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by bigbay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:46:55 AM EST
    It's sort of a simplistic way to view learning or the brain...it's common sense that kids learn in different ways. But it's damaging, if somewhat trendy, to view learning styles through an ethnic prism. Not all whites learn the same, and same goes for Chinese, Mexicans, etc. It's very damaging for a child when a teacher assumes that their ethnicity determines how and what they should learn.

    I'm a music teacher who has about 25 different ethnic groups in my classes every day. The idea that blacks can't play 'white' music , or that whites can't play 'black' or Arabic music is false, and really just leads to a balkanized society that can't function.


    I think its in the second segment (none / 0) (#85)
    by tree on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:44:43 AM EST
    Can't pinpoint the time for you. AS I said below the second and third segments are the ones  with all the bad science.

    I really don't know what is (4.66 / 3) (#39)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:19:53 AM EST
    the truth anymore.

    I come here and a couple of sites I like and I get a version of wright's speech and Obama's interview which is more in tune with what I felt.

    Then I go to HuffPo and other sites and the reality as perceived by them is the exact opposite. Most of them including the commenters have hailed the speech as another example of why Wright is the greatest and Obama's interview as the most daring and intelligent interview ever. In the same breat they also justify that Obama didn't pander to fox like Hillary did and that with this Obama must have won over the fox news anchors.

    I am really confused. Are we objective or are they objective. Are we partisans or are they partisans. More importantly what is the truth.

    I think they are trying really hard to (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:27:46 AM EST
    focus on his message, which I think is fundamentally a good one.  But a lot of us see and hear the hypocrisy in how he is delivering the message.  So maybe at KOS and Huffpost they are focusing on his underlying theme and not his delivery. His delivery is tainted with his own ego, a lack of humility, and some really bad attempts to speak with a MASS. and Texas accent, he just destroyed that.  If he could have really sounded like Kennedy or LBJ it might have worked, but because he didn't even come close it does seem a little condescending. But again, his supporters are focused on his point, which is only Black people were thought to talk funny, even though a lot of folks pronounce things differently. For me, it fell apart in his delivery.

    we're all partisans... (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:31:17 AM EST
    if we weren't, we would be checking out porn instead of political blogs.

    rule 34 (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:54:11 AM EST
    well, almost.  Here's your political porn:

    Obama n Hillary get it on.

    I'm waiting for the McCain/Hillary fan fic to come out about their vodka-shot-induced activities.  And don't forget the enquirer or some such ran with the hillary is a lesbian theme this week.


    doesn't it sometimes make you wonder (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:39:26 AM EST
    If B Obama were to read some of the HuffPo posts defending him....would he agree, or would he see how over-the-top they are?  Moreso, the really vile anti-Hillary ones...would he be happy to see how combative his supporters can be?

    Truth (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by formerhoosier on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42:00 AM EST
    Unfortunately (or fortunately) have been around long enough to know that truth is not an absolute.

    That is a philosophical discussion.

    When we ask for truth, we are usually looking to determine what is factual.  These are data points or objective measures.  That is why something like a debate performance or a politicians invterview are so hard to quantify.  Our reference points (our cultural environment and experience) and bias (preferences and views) inform our opinion.  Sorry if this sounds pedantic or trite.  Just hard to reconcile individual opinion that seems counter-intuitive.  

    We already had one candidate who ran on a characteristic 'compassionate conservative'.  Not ready to embrace one who runs on 'Hope and Change'


    This is a blog about politics (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:43:59 AM EST
    so think about how this will play politically for a particular candidate associated with his pastor.

    It's not about truth -- Wright spoke many truths, although he also made many other sorts of statements.  This is politics; it's about perception.  Then judge for yourself -- or just wait and watch and see.  Will the perception be as favorable as it was for Obama's speech on race?  If not, why not?  Were there differences in delivery, in style, in discussion of differences among us?


    I have only watched 6 minutes of what was (4.50 / 2) (#10)
    by bjorn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:55:57 PM EST
    posted above but I did not find anything offensive in this part.  He does take several jabs at Fox "stuck on stupid" which contradicts the message he was trying to make, we can change the way we treat people who are different or think different.  Why not just ignore Fox?  I think the only reason is his ego, he can't not mention them even though it is counterproductive to his message.  I will have to watch the rest, but I don't see anything wrong with the substance so far in this part.

    watch the whole thing (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:59:33 PM EST
    you'll find plenty that is offensive. For example, he keeps saying that "different is not deficient" and then mocks the white "different" way of praising God -- and I say it is mocking because he puts on the comedian "white voice" to demonstrate it. And really, that is one of the least offensive examples I can think of.

    I see your point (4.75 / 4) (#42)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:21:38 AM EST
    I don't find the content of what he is trying to say offensive, but I do find him offensive.  His ego is busting out all over the place.  As in my earlier post on the first 6 minutes, he undercuts his own point by making it seem like he knows everything, he is better than somehow....maybe if he would just apologize for saying the govt gave AIDS to the Black community, and for humping the pulpit he would make more progress with his message.  There is no humility in his speaking style.  Arrogance might be the thing that connects the Rev and Obama, although the Rev has him beat big time.  He is the wrong messenger for this message, if that makes sense.

    Serene1: Vision (4.50 / 2) (#38)
    by formerhoosier on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:19:29 AM EST
    Who would have thought you could run a person for president who:

    Was a New England dilletante
    Had been a cheerleader in college
    With a long history of alcohol abuse
    Failed at every business venture
    Had an interest in a baseball with little investment
    Became the figurehead governor of the state
    And got elected two terms as president

    As a Texas resident it just boggles the mind he will serve two terms.  Knew he would be bad, from what he did here.

    Back on topic: people will see what they want to see
    and they will either overlook his jabs at others as theatrical license or disregard entirely

    he also said o'malley and o'shaughnessy. (4.50 / 2) (#60)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:32:27 AM EST
    the hypocrisy reeks.

    They were just a lead in (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by bumblebums on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:37:41 AM EST
    He was dissing those who claimed the Irish were diseased, and called out a couple names for effect - "do you hear me?" And then segued into the O'Reilly dig, with a pivot.

    Seems it whooshed over your head.


    your tone is very (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:40:25 AM EST
    similar to Wright's, condescending.  You can't preach love and then mock people.  He should not have stooped to use his time to nail Fox news or anyone else in a speech about acceptance of others.

    No... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:40:53 AM EST
    He was listing Irish names as they thought you were diseased.  The name was part of a list of Irish names, it was a generic classification of names--it whoshed over your head.  If that was his intent it was lame.  

    Wrong (3.00 / 1) (#93)
    by bumblebums on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:48:35 AM EST
    We can quibble about whether jabbing at O'Reilly was in keeping with his message, but that's what he did. The first two names followed logically from the earlier part of that phrase, which was a jab at those who considered Irish people diseased.

    and O"Riely was part of it (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:52:46 AM EST
    "did you hear me O"Mally, O'Shaunessy, O'Rielly...they may have been right.  "

    To me this applies to "O'Rilleys, not the specific O'Reily".  

    You are hearing it wrong.  


    Imagine Hispanic surnames (4.66 / 3) (#108)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:59:04 AM EST
    Did you hear me Sanchez, Martinez, Lopez, Rivera?

    "Oh, he meant Geraldo! Not other Latinos as a whole...."

    By the way, I wonder how Soledad O'Brien felt about that part of the speech :)


    Diplomatic... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:01:22 AM EST

    Thanks, on that note... goodnight all! (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:04:41 AM EST
    Let's see what tommorrow brings...

    There was a pause and a change (3.00 / 1) (#103)
    by bumblebums on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:56:36 AM EST
    in his expression before he said "O'Reilly".

    O'Reilly has been hammering him for weeks. It's an obvious reference.


    I disagree adamantly. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:00:26 AM EST
    If that was his intent it did not work, cause in the flow, I was hearing Irish names, not the specific human being known as Bill O'Reilly.  He thinks it's clever, but it did not work.  So, if this is how I heard it, I am sure many others will hear it this way.  

    Everyone in that audience knew (3.00 / 1) (#119)
    by bumblebums on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:06:18 AM EST
    exactly what he was talking about. O'Reilly's been on a vendetta against him for many weeks. It may not have "worked" for you, but it was obvious to everyone in that room and most people elsewhere who've been following this donnybrook.

    So dis the Irish to pick a bone (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:08:38 AM EST
    with one in a nationally televised speech?

    Bumble (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:07:26 AM EST
    Sure.  But he doesn't make it clear.

    He could have said.  "O'Malley, O'Shaughnessy, O'Reilly, .... [pause]  well in the case of a certain Bill O'Reilly on a certain network, they might have been right.  Chuckle chuckle."

    I know it's clear for you.  I can see how it's clear for you.

    For me it's always been clear that Imus himself is a provacateur, and he himself is not a racist, but that he said something horribly racist and that's why he had to go.

    You know I'm not trying to say it's the same thing.

    I'm saying we now live in a world where clarity is paramount.  He's in love with his own voice.  The pivot is artful.  It's also too clever by half.  And if he wants to talk about how the Irish were received on the shores of America, that's great.

    If he wants to talk about Bill O'Reilly being a potentially diseased human being, that's fine too.

    To put the two phrases so close together because it's a neato speechifying trick is dumb.

    When you combine that with his cavalier attitude towards other ethnic groups ("garlic noses"), it's a problem.


    yep--and it's juvenile (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by kempis on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:54:10 AM EST
    It's indulging in the same sort of meanspirited behavior that Wright is attacking O'Reilly for. And that's Wright's problem: profound and jarring hypocrisy. You cannot preach "come together" and attack others in the same breath. You can't preach transcendent love while pettily acting out a vendetta, justified or not, without harming your message--unless you're preaching to the choir.

    Wright'ss dig to O'Reilly (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ding7777 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42:07 AM EST
    was right smack in the middle being "commited to change"

    I wonder how FOX news will react (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:46:12 AM EST
    I can't imagine they could cover Jeremiah Wright any more than they have been.  And we all know O'reilly loves to talk about himself.

    He's the Culture Warrior, afterall. ugh.


    I checked Fox. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:24:03 AM EST
    It was bad -- the worst soundbytes, of course, and the loudest parts, worst body language, etc.  It was Hannity, and he was in high dudgeon.  Ran them over and over, even in the minutes I saw before I just had to switch.  I can take only so much monitoring of that guy on that media outlet for the team. :-)  And he was getting to Ayers next.

    Btw, Fox ran the whole thing earlier today, from what I saw in surfing around then.  Live.


    Where can I apply to get that 10 minutes back (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by AlSmith on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:17:18 AM EST
    He starts the clip by saying "I am out of time so I'll just give you the outline instead of the speech". Then he give 7 minutes of speech that means nothing.

    Here is the outline:
       - I believe changing is coming
       - Some people are committed to changing some things, therefore everyone is changing everything.
       - therefor change is coming.

    In the middle of saying how people are committed to changing how they see other people he has to take time out for a personal attack. Nice. Real WWJD.

    Here is his problem- one he is a good speaker and good speakers get the feeling that they can get away with anything. Rather than holding their tongue they wade in confident that their rhetorical skills can carry them. But like any confidence man their glibness eventually runs out.

    Two- He is not used to any criticism. He has 40 years of people telling him great he is but not taking clips of his rants and asking what is up, so he feels the need to blast back. His riffs on  O'Reilly  and the 100 journalists who where there were ad libs, because he just cant let it go.

    So he provides more clips of his gravelly voice shouting to them. Good choice.

    And whats with the Lamarckism again? O'Reilly is not first generation and I dont think his parents were either. Another implicit assumption about the inheritability of traits.


    Seemed Pretty Good To Me (4.33 / 3) (#46)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:25:31 AM EST
    I particularly loved the music part where he nailed the difference between rhythmic emphasis, and his dancing when he compared eurocentric marching bands to afrocentric ones.

    Not sure why anyone would have a problem with this. Afrocentric culture in America is very different from eurocentric culture. During american afrocentric theater people talk back to the actors, while in eurocentric theater we don't talk back during a performance.

    I had never seen anyone articulate these differences so clearly. And he hit the nail on the head by pointing out that mainstream eurocentric america sees these differences as deficient, not just different.

    Sorry to insult but where have you been (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:32:18 AM EST
    hiding?  I have had high school teachers in the 70's, college professors, and many others speak about these differences with great eloquence and without the hateful tone and without diminishing when making the comparison.  

    Lucky You (2.00 / 2) (#71)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:38:58 AM EST
    Must be nice to know so much about difference. Doesn't seem to have had much practical value, judging from your comments.

    So do tell me about (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:46:14 AM EST
    my comments?  I find him hateful. He is a man with power and he perpetuates ignorance and bad information.  In one of his sermons he kept saying how Christ was an African and the Romans who he kept calling the Italians  persecuted him.  This is just plain ignorant.  

    I don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:36:12 AM EST
    Let me take jazz, one example with which I'm (only) passingly familiar. I listen to a fair amount of it, but don't know its history too well. Still, I think it's usually understood as having its origins in the African American community, right?

    And yet even in the early days, there were lots of people of other races who became part of it--Artie Shaw, Django Reinhardt, Benny Goodman, Gene Krupa, Glenn Miller, etc. What started as African American music quickly permeated and inspired others as well.   It doesn't seem to divide as neatly as Wright implied.


    jazz (3.00 / 2) (#102)
    by bigbay on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:55:56 AM EST
    Jazz represents a cross pollination of cultures. The idea of harmony and the instruments used are European for the most part. The emphasis on improvisation, synchopation and poly-rhythm are more African. Blacks were the leading force in 'creating' jazz but there have always been whites in the scene. Miles Davis , as much a black nationalist who ever played, worked extensively with Bill Evans. And the saxophone is French invention for goodness sakes.
    Jazz could only have happened in the USA.

    Jazz (3.00 / 1) (#120)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:06:46 AM EST
    Was an AA expression. Cross pollination all you want that does not change the fact that black americans invented and developed jazz. It was originally seen as degrading, vile and disgusting, not so different from the way many see hip hop today.

    Contrarian (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by formerhoosier on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:18:10 AM EST
    What is your problem?  Can you not make a point without insulting everyone?  Can you at least contribute without constantly chattering?  This is not slashdot, it is a moderated blog.  You have freqeuntly done this, I take the RSS feeds and read them offline and frankly am getting tired of you hijacking the threads.  Jeralyn, you are free to delete my post, but please delete theirs as well.
    Recently they have been hijacking the threads without contributing any viewpoint.  Do not mind different views but do not like people who just chatter.  Final note, my areas of interest are Anthropology and Sociology and you have no idea what you are talking about.

    OK Professor (none / 0) (#148)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:28:16 AM EST
    I will ignore your insults and get to the point. What is it exactly is it that I have no idea about?  

    Pretty sure he means jazz. (none / 0) (#215)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:58:01 AM EST
    So are you (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by janarchy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:45:33 AM EST
    of the belief, as is a now ex-friend of mine, that white people should not be allowed (her term, not mine) to play jazz, listen to jazz or otherwise connect with jazz in any way, shape or form because it's yet another way European Americans (particularly those peskey Jews) stole the culture from African Americans? That it's solely a AA art form that should be theirs and theirs alone?



    Then there would be no jazz (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Munibond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:49:42 AM EST
    Jazz has been largely abandoned by young AA's.  My children went to a 75% AA high school that had an awesome jazz program, and the percentage of AA students in any given jazz ensemble was never more than 10%.

    Oh believe me, (none / 0) (#201)
    by janarchy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:13:30 AM EST
    I think it's ridiculous thinking. It's just what I've seen/heard in places like Debunking White and other blogs, and there are people who take it seriously. Jazz originated with black musicians but there were also other ethnic minorities who helped evolve it. There's a very large element of klezmer in it for a start.

    Instead of making it something positive that can bridge the gap (i.e. music being seen as a universal language that can bring people of many backgrounds together), it gets turned into a negative (white people can't appreciate jazz! they stole it from us! they shouldn't be allowed to listen to it or play it!). It just saddens me. And what's sadder still is supposedly liberal white people who buy into that sort of thinking and wallow in guilt over it.


    No (2.00 / 1) (#86)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:45:11 AM EST
    Nice revisionist history, rose colored. Black jazz musicians were treated as inferior to the white musicians who copied their style. The history of Jazz fits right into Rev Wrights sermon.

    Please... (3.66 / 3) (#95)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:48:55 AM EST
    ... you don't have to insult people to make your point. The comments about revisionism and rose-colored glasses weren't necessary or appropriate.

    I know perfectly well that white musicians had it easier than black musicians. Did I ever say the opposite? No.

    What I did say was that an originally black form of music quickly transcended race and ethnicity and was quickly embraced by many Americans of other races as well. This appears to put some doubt on the idea of immutably black music and white music, as Wright suggested.

    Do you disagree with that?


    Yes (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:57:05 AM EST
    You are making things up. I am not sure what else to call it but revisionist history.

    What did I make up? (none / 0) (#112)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:02:33 AM EST

    This (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:14:46 AM EST
    What I did say was that an originally black form of music quickly transcended race and ethnicity and was quickly embraced by many Americans of other races as well.

    Which part isn't true? (none / 0) (#145)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:26:42 AM EST
    That it originated in the African American community?

    Or that people outside of that community quickly embraced it?


    Sorry I Meant This (1.00 / 1) (#157)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:38:09 AM EST
    Or that people outside of that community quickly embraced it?

    The point is not to split hairs here but AA's own jazz and gave it to America. The juice is from African tradition, not western. Any attempt to minimize that fact, I see as revisionist.


    People outside the AA Community (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by ding7777 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:23:31 AM EST
    did embrace Jazz - Europeans and white musicians for instance.

    No one is trying to take the genius of Jazz away from the AA's - but white American musicans did play Jazz to white audiences in segregated clubs -
    IOW, the American white culture embraced Jazz as the commenter stated.


    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by otherlisa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:26:24 AM EST
    Of course jazz came from African traditions. But it also came from European traditions as well. Were they playing jazz in Africa in the early 20th century? Um, no.

    African Americans clearly created the original art form of jazz, but they did so by combining African traditions with European and American ones.



    You are wrong (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Munibond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:52:42 AM EST
    There is very little interest in jazz among young AA's.  By young, I mean under 50.  It is a dying art form, currently supported mainly by whites.

    Talk about revisionist history. (none / 0) (#217)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:02:17 AM EST

    What, do you not consider Wikipedia your friend?  Because if anyone's the revisionist here, it's you.

    Of course, the cultures are different (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:39:18 AM EST
    but it's not because the brains are different.  And cultural influences do not change people from left brain to right brain usage.  That was horrifying to hear, if you know the history of how that has been used against many groups, especially but not only AAs.  It arose again in the '80s in books funded by the right wing and caused a lot of problems before it was debunked again.

    That and other portions were from decades ago, when I was in college.  Okay, so not everyone has to keep up after they graduate -- but then they better not be making speeches based on outdated studies to nationwide audiences.


    Details (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:50:02 AM EST
    Nice to pick apart meaningless details. Rev Wright was not delivering a science talk. He was using right brain left brain as an analogy to explain difference. Sorry that it was lost on you. Must be because Black people explain things differently, when they are talking amongst themselves. Not as literal as you are, perhaps.

    Oh, brother... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by otherlisa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:58:33 AM EST
    You really are condescending.

    Your comments here suggest (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:01:17 AM EST
    that you would do well to unplug your keyboard.  I am not even going to begin to get in a discussion with you, with what I have seen from you already.  You are not interested in discussing this seriously but only in useless badgering and chattering.  

    Really? (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:12:05 AM EST
    I feel sorry that you only get hate, or nonsense from Rev Wrights words. All those NAACP people sure must be dumb to have given him such a long standing ovation. I do not see how what he said takes away from Hillary or your love for her, because if that is not the reason Wright seems like such a fool to you, I have no idea where you are coming from.

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#209)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:37:06 AM EST
    This thread is surprisingly ignorant.  the speech is right there for all to listen.  How are people coming off from it so negatively?  I don't get it.

    Kayla, (2.00 / 1) (#231)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:09:30 AM EST
    people are finding the speech negative because they desparately want it to be negative.  Some people have let the protracted primary distort all sense of rationality.  This is going on in both camps. I know you are a Clinton supporter. Maybe you can talk some sense into these people.

    You believe that brains (none / 0) (#251)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:11:10 AM EST
    are different, changed by culture?  With all the problems such debunked theories have meant for attempting to improve education of all children?

    I appreciated the parts of the speech that upheld the central message that different is not deficient.  
    If the Rev. Wright had stayed on the inspiring part of his message, no problem.  But I deplore the parts of the message that not only may cause political repercussions for a presidential candidate, and other Dems downticket, but even worse may set back educational improvements -- and the very conversation about race for which the candidate called.

    Contrast the content and style of Obama's speech on race with Wright's speech on race.  One was primarily positive, upholding its central message.  One was hypocritical, contradicting its central message.  Which one would do more good?


    More Details (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Ed on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:15:13 AM EST
    He wasn't using left brain / right brain as an analogy.  In the second clip beginning around 2:30 he cites "Black Children, Their Roots, Culture, And Learning Styles" by Dr. Janice Hale and says that
    she discovered that European and European American children have a left brain cognitive object oriented learning style.
     He's clearly trying to make his argument scientific.

    OK (2.00 / 1) (#173)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:11:57 AM EST
    For me it was a way of explaining what he meant by difference. Whether or not her research is correct, AA culture is america is different.

    review the second 10 minute video (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ding7777 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:28:18 AM EST
     Wright is absolutely "delivering a science talk" based on Dr. Hale's research

    Not To Me (1.00 / 1) (#168)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:55:13 AM EST
    But I do not know Dr Hales research, so I heard it in a broader context.

    Wright praises Dr Hale and references her (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by ding7777 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:02:17 AM EST
    research multiple times in that 10 minute clip

    Yes I Heard It (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:13:42 AM EST
    But I did not understand the speech as a science lesson. For me it used various examples to explain how different is not deficient.

    Blacks learn differently? (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:17:52 AM EST
    Baloney.  Any black child can grow up to be a scientist or mathematician, they certainly are not all right brained, certainly not all are creative and intuitive and not math inclined.  No race is like that.  Sheeze.  Individual people have varing cognitive strengths,  but those differences are NOT based on race.  What's he going to say next?  That Blacks are good at sports but not academics?   He almost said that today.  It was very offensive.   This man is a loon, insulted Blacks and everyone else.  

    I just cannot believe that Obama set in that church for 20 years, hearing all this anti white, anti European, anti Irish, talk.  Worse, he let his little girls be raised in this church, thinking that this is normal to have all of these awful prejudices.  Shame on Obama for doing that to them.  

    And Obama is going to bring us together?! HAHAHAHAHA................


    And with a speech like this (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:38:13 AM EST
    he is only going to open the floodgates to other equally divisive figures who have long been arguing that genetic makeup varies from race to race and hence it shows that some races are superior to the others.

    Do we really want that kind of talk when the world at large is moving towards respecting, understanding and appreciating diversity.

    Also all very well to praise the nation of Islam but maybe some harsh words can also be directed to those proponents of Islam who justify their horrible behaviour towards women as something being part of their scriptures.


    That's Wright's biggest (none / 0) (#236)
    by magisterludi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:33:20 AM EST
    sin, IMO.

    How many young black kids believe the CIA invented AIDS to kill them? It's out there now. Tell me how that lie will help bring unity and trust? Will he ever explain that comment?

    His comments immediately after 9/11 were cold and disrespectful of all the grieving families and a stunned nation, no matter the truth about our disastrous FP. Not at all pastoral, shunting empathy aside to indulge in one's own anger.

    Now Wright is a psychologist, anthropologist and sociologist, too (please apply the qualifier "pseudo-" to  all "-ologists). We've got enough bad science filling our kids' heads already. Sheesh!

    I see little difference between Wright, another caricature preacher ala Elmer Gantry, and the opportunistic corporate media he rails against. Both are toxic for America


    Here we go again.... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:49:35 AM EST
    [he hit the nail on the head by pointing out that mainstream eurocentric america sees these differences as deficient.]

    I think you are pointing to exactly what some are going to find offense at, again... namely that they are being called bigots one more time.

    Yeah, that's the ticket, keep telling European American's that they find African American's deficient.  Unity, aaahhhhh....


    You Missed The Point (3.00 / 1) (#100)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:55:00 AM EST
    I am not surprised. Did you feel like he was calling you a bigot? Sad if that is what you got from his speech.

    Your interpretation (5.00 / 0) (#246)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:55:01 AM EST
    Your interpretation of Wright's comments were that he is correct and the eurocentric US finds others deficient.  I'm sure you were referring to whites versus blacks because he and you are referring to European Americans and he was speaking at the NAACP (which last I heard was an organization focusing on issues of African American concern.)

    I was uncomfortable with Wright's language.  I was uncomfortable with his constant reference to divisive language of Euro versus African Americans (not even mentioning his factual inaccuracies.)

    And you aren't surprised that everyone doesn't see things your way?  Well that is not surprising nor sad, it is laughable since you are constantly condescending to others and have been called out on it numerous times by several people.  Don't ask that someone prove it to you yet again. I already did.  Go look it up in my comments.


    I thought that was funny also (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by santarita on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:04:47 AM EST
    The part about the different styles of marching bands.  The music discussion of the cultural differences was good because he wasn't really being judgmental.  He was just being descriptive.  But I still wonder how he thinks we all bridge the cultural divide and communicate with one another.  

    Lets just break it down for what it is, your (4.00 / 1) (#137)
    by 2008democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:21:41 AM EST
    point of view on today's speach is determined by your political agenda.  Obama supporters feel it was a good speach and the GOP and Clinton supporters will try to rip it apart.  The speach was good it's a shame we are so partisan that we all can not truley discuss it or what it means.

    Speaking of partisanship... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:32:54 AM EST
    ... why did I get a 1 rating from you up above?

    isn't that a bit telling? (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:47:25 AM EST
    You can only identify Obama supporters as ones that would find it a good speech?

    There are parts that I think he says ok stuff [in this speech and others], but it doesn't balance out with some of the other stuff he says. No point in dissin' the Irish if your issue is with one person with an Irish name. Why refer to Italians as garlic noses, etc? Mocking and poking fun at others that are different doesn't do much for promoting understanding of differences, imo.

    Why make fun of JFK and LBJ? This crap is now playing on snippets on the news. What good is it? How is it a positive teaching tool? It's not like he didn't know this would happen, so, what's his game?


    He wasn't making fun of LBJ and JFK (none / 0) (#200)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:08:07 AM EST
    Did you hear his speech?  Seriously.  What do you think "Not deficient... DIFFERENT" means?  He's talking about how this country is so racially divided that when a black urban or southern kid speaks with a certain twang or accent, it is unacceptable, yet Bostonian or Irish accents are totally acceptable, but in actuallity, everybody's the same.  Not deficient, but different!

    Different is not deficient (none / 0) (#206)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:24:20 AM EST
    is a topic that has been already addressed by the world at large.

    Times have changed. Today in most circles especially progressive circles diversity is encouraged and appreciated.

    As a woman I can still keep harping on how being a woman people keep assuming that the best job for me is that of being a housewife. And in some circles that would be true, but in most circles that statement does not carry much water since it is not so anymore.

    According to me Wright does not acknowledge the progress that has been made towards achieving racial equality. Instead he is content in bringing out the same old inequalities of the past and using that to define the current circumstances.


    Trying to Turn this into a race war?? (3.66 / 3) (#114)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:03:35 AM EST
    Are you trying to say that Rev. Wright was attacking the Irish?  You are looking for fights and digs.  That was simply not implied.  I repeat you are mining for controversy, and trying to turn this into an issue of racism, and thus smear Obama.  Shame on you.

    You seem to be practicing the art of division.  The message was beautiful- WE can come together and make change.

    How do we dome together? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by santarita on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:15:06 AM EST
    Rev. Wright did well to make the point that being different isn't a negative but he never went beyond that to say how we can come together.  In fact he drove home the point that African Americans and European Americans seem to dwell in very different universes when it comes to education learning styles, speech, music and religion. So how do we bridge the cultural gap?

    Hey actually did lead into the first step (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by 2008democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:27:34 AM EST
    the first step is identifying that we are different but that we are equal.  Once you can identify that something that is different is not inferior you can then begin discussions and communication.

    Gosh, no. It wasn't just the Irish (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:25:46 AM EST
    and heck, at least he didn't use the term paddywagon.

    Hi Sam (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by tree on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:46:47 AM EST
    Looks like this is your first day posting here, so welcome.

    In response to your post, let me ask you something. Do you think that its a good thing to listen to a black person's perspective on whether a statement could be considered racist against blacks? Do you likewise think its good to listen to a Hispanic persons perspective on whether a statement could be considered racist against Hispanics? Maybe you get where I'm going on this, but if not, then I'd like you to consider that perhaps in this case it would help to listen to a white person's perspective on whether Wright's statements were mocking or demeaning of whites.

     Obviously, there are people of all persuasions who are too sensitive and overreactive and see bias where it doesn't exist, but likewise, there are those who are tone-deaf when the demeaning is directed at someone else. Many of us here found Wright's remarks to be tinged with hatred and mocking of whites. Most of us here consider ourselves liberal and are well aware of the results and repercussions of white bigotry, so if we sense something I think its safe to say that we all aren't just super sensitive, or trying to be divisive. The over all message was good but Wright did the message a disservice by failing to really heed his own message that different is not deficient.  


    here's the problem--walking the walk (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by kempis on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:41:46 AM EST
    The message that we can come together and change the way we relate is beautiful. No argument.

    But while Wright says that on the one hand, with the other he gets in digs on his "enemies." While Wright talks about how we're all God's children and differences don't mean one is better than the other--a wonderful message--he demonstrates as he's saying the words that he cannot live up to them. He just had to get in a meanspirited jab at O'Reilly. Not that I mind jabbing at O'Reilly, but doing so in the midst of lecturing us about how we need to be transcendent is jarring to me.

    Obama does the same damned thing. "Let us put behind us the politics of division--as practiced by my evil, knee-capping, amoral opponent and her racist husband."

    When I left the Southern Baptist church when I was 15, my rule assessing for religious leaders became "show me, don't tell me." Wright repeatedly flunks the test by peppering his inspiring message with hatefulness. And that hatefulness, sadly, seems to produce some of the best applause lines.

    Confront him and his followers with it and the response is "but look here. He said [insert something inspiring and uplifting.]" And somehow that negates the doody-flinging.


    Even if so (3.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:21:12 AM EST
    And it's not.  But even if so, we would be such novices practicing the art of division.

    Do you want to hear a statement made by someone who is truly a master of all his faculties, and can orchestrate a symphony, or paint a sistine chapel of division.

    "Hillary.  Hillary ain't ever been called a ni**er."

    Now there's a real artist!  Maybe they'll hang that in the Louvre "divisive politics wing" one day.


    Why don't we hear this more about (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by 2008democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:24:33 AM EST
    "how do we beat that b?tch" comments.  I mean McCain was their in the room and didn't even denounce the comments.

    Because we expect it from McCain (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:26:32 AM EST
    and his followers.



    Its crazy how low expectations have become in our (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by 2008democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:29:08 AM EST
    party over the last few months.

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:41:49 AM EST
    If you'd have told me three months ago we'd be a witness to Obama's pastor saying Bill rode black people dirty like he rode Monica, I'd have told you you were crazy.  

    And I would have (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:19:30 AM EST
    told you that Obama would have admonsished his pastor for the same if it had happened.

    Sigh! how expectations Change.


    Don't worry, a lot of us (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:27:07 AM EST
    have not and never will forget that bit from McCain.

    He's next.  We have a primary first.  


    Why'd you troll rate (none / 0) (#213)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:50:22 AM EST

    Edgar, when it seems like you're agreeing with him?  A 1 is a bad rating, a 5 is a good one...I did notice that you seem new here, maybe (or maybe I'm just not looking in the right places for how long someone's been here).

    That's for 2008Democrat (none / 0) (#250)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:03:13 AM EST
    I presume.  Good on you to do the explanation.

    4 comments by 08Dem (5.00 / 0) (#258)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:22:19 AM EST
    08Dem is brand new.  I have a feeling some supporters will be starting new accounts to argue this latest issue for Obama.  Does anyone but me wonder if these are some of the paid bloggers for a particular candidate?

    Ha!Ha! so off topic but birds are mating outside my office window.  Spring is here!


    I'm a Hillary supporter (3.00 / 1) (#199)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:03:54 AM EST
    And I thought this was a GREAT speech.  It was brilliant.  I think his message has gone waaaaaay over some of you guys' heads.

    did Wright apologize to Hillary? (5.00 / 0) (#224)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:11:28 AM EST
    "Hillary ain't never been called a N****r!"

    Apparently, Obama liked it too - chirp, chirp.


    I think you underestimate us (none / 0) (#254)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:15:59 AM EST
    as we have acknowledged that parts of the speech were fine.  I don't understand how other parts can be fine with anyone who supports Clinton's platform.

    Oops (none / 0) (#11)
    by phat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:56:35 PM EST
    My post on the previous thread was being written as Jeralyn moved to this thread.

    Would it be bad form to repost it here?

    go right ahead (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:59:28 PM EST
    repost if you'd like.

    I liked Wright (none / 0) (#44)
    by nellre on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:24:08 AM EST
    But I think this will hurt Obama.

    not deficient, sounds alot like separate but equal (none / 0) (#216)
    by Terry M on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:01:42 AM EST
    Wright is interested in blame and ridicule; he stokes anger.  Not a healthy diet for American political discourse, IMO. I think the "gov't invented AIDS to kill black people" comment is unforgivable, and for a member the U.S Senate (one of the highest officers of this gov't- yeah you BO) not to break immediately and completely with the speaker of such sentiment is indefensible.

    Ugly, ugly stuff. (none / 0) (#220)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:52:11 AM EST
    Two oppposing feelings (none / 0) (#227)
    by Coral on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:28:15 AM EST
    1. Wright's speech about changing our attitudes toward differences strikes me as an important addition to our national discourse. Many non-African Americans are not familiar with this style of preaching and speaking, and maybe it's a good thing that it is getting such wide coverage. Entering the mainstream as it were.

    While it is "racial", in that it comes in a clearly identifiable African-American style and mode, I do not find it offensive or racist. Just honest. When it comes to race, honesty can make us all uncomfortable.

    2. This will probably not help Obama's candidacy in the General Election, but I'm not sure what the immediate effect in the Democratic primary will be.

    If the Obama campaign against Clinton had not had so much underlying misogyny, I'd be less disposed to see this speech and the entire Wright issue in a negative light.

    If Obama had been more gracious towards Clinton, I'd be more willing to embrace him as the Democratic nominee regardless of Rev. Wright.

    Wright isn't about change (none / 0) (#247)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:55:23 AM EST
    My mother was born on July 4th, in Philadelphia, in 1921. But, she was the daughter of Italian immigrants -- which meant that all her life others considered her "Italian" not American. That is, when they didn't dismiss her as a wop, dago or, like Rev. Wright, "garlic nose." As a child growing up in a small town in South Jersey she experienced the terror of KKK cross burnings in her neighborhood, the harassment of Evangelicals rolling through the neighborhood with bull horns demanding that she and her Catholic neighbors renounce their religion and repent, and the horror and humiliation of being locked in a dark closet for most of a school day because a teacher caught her speaking Italian with a cousin on the playground.

    Experiences like this didn't turn her into someone who was happy to shower disdain on others. They turned her into a human and civil rights activist who would NEVER allow the derogatory and stereotyped  comments that Wright at times amuses himself with -- toward ANY person or group -- in her home. Or in her presence without immediate rebuke.

    Wright isn't about change. He is a throwback.


    Throw-back (none / 0) (#255)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:18:47 AM EST
    is how it hits my own gut.  I don't like this business of fear-mongering.  It perpetuates the use of fear and resentment to manipulate others.

    I watched (none / 0) (#228)
    by sas on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:04:13 AM EST
    it and thought.."I am being played for a fool, here."

    It really warms the soul to know... (none / 0) (#229)
    by Universal on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:07:05 AM EST
    ...that Kwame Kilpatrick and Jeremiah Wright had some levity at Wright's speaking engagement:


    I'm sure Barack is looking forward to Wright's press availability today.

    A Wright Christmas in April! (none / 0) (#233)
    by JoeCHI on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:12:49 AM EST
    It's beginning to look a lot like Wright-mas,
    Everywhere you post!

    Dean calls for dropout (none / 0) (#234)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:13:42 AM EST
    In June....Why is it when something has an impact on Obama, the party elders come out and call for swift action.  This weekend, one of Dean's 25 was on saying he had changed his mind, and was open to going to the convention as he was told about the importance of getting to know all 3 candidates and he now agreed.  Today Dean is on calling for a dropout in June.  The party needs the 3 months to come together.  Why make rules that the nominee will be picked in August and then back off?

    Expect the drumbeat for Clinton to drop out start ramping up.  sigh.


    By definition (none / 0) (#242)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:51:30 AM EST
    The roolz are defined:  "Anything that helps Obama win the nomination."

    Dean is turning himself into a joke.

    Screaming would be an improvement, with or without taking the audio from the soundboard.


    I said above (none / 0) (#244)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    that Wright "scares" me.  My reasoning is that he has become an icon of divisiveness.  And he really does nothing in the speech to redeem himself.  Rather, just his presence brings out emotion in people.

    And I get the impression that he doesn't care what damage he does, he just likes to stir the pot.

    Teevee: Wright should come out against (none / 0) (#252)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:14:19 AM EST
    Obama.  Talking head, he doesn't want Obama to be president and the best thing for Obama would be if he just came out against Obama.

    Teevee still on Dean this morning. He was asked if the supers would override the pledged delegates.  He said no, and teevee stating DNC moving to Obama as they have a fundraising agreement with Obama not Clinton.

    Obama gets a hit and media result?  It's over, she can't win and it needs to end before Obama gets picked on again.  pfffft.


    Wright (none / 0) (#253)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:15:05 AM EST
    is most definitely a colorful speaker in the great tradition of African American preachers.  I have no doubt that his mixing of religion and current politics is not at all foreign to his congregation's ears since that is a time-honored tradition within that community.

    It still does not explain to me the extreme ideas he expressed.  It absolutely doesn't not convince me he is not, in fact, anti-semitic.  I remain horrified by the bully pulpit to further the fear-mongering that the government seeks to kill people because of race.

    The ideas, not the style, were what bothered me.

    I am right with his world view up to that fine line, and at that point, I balk.

    Choosing a mentor who is at ease with such fear-mongering gives me information about Obama.  I see now why he could play the race card in SC without a guilty conscience.  I wondered how he could stand to do that to his AA community at the time.

    Now, I see why.  He's been a part of this group that regularly employs that tactic.

    Frankly, I think it's wrong to do so.  However, adults get to choose their churches and spiritual paths, so it isn't my business to judge.

    It's only my business, as a voter, to discern how this influenced someone asking to be president.                          

    New compliation of Wright craziness (none / 0) (#257)
    by AlSmith on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:21:45 AM EST

    I found this link on this mornings National Review "the Corner" blog. You probably should just skip ahead to 7:30 or so to avoid the Grover Norquist ad tacked onto the beginning of these audio clips of Rev Wright.

    Here is a great one for an updated NC GOP ad. In this
    Clip Wright equates the US Military with Al Qaeda and accuses them of killing innocent people on purpose. This ought to go over very well in Fayetteville.

    We cannot see what how what we are doing is the same thing Al Qaeda is doing under a different color flag. Calling on the name of a different god to sanction our murder and our mayhem!

    As a bonus so it can be turned into an effective campaign ad, Wright screams the lines so as to make Dean in Iowa look like he was asking to pass the Grey Poupon.

    In listening to these clips I come away with two impressions. First I dont want Wright anywhere near anyone in government. Two, I feel sorry for little black kids who are trapped between gangs on one side and on the other side the Rev Wrights of the world who shout inaccurate, poorly reasoned, race baiting victimology at them so as to set themselves up as tin pot dictators and millionaires.

    Does anyone seriously believe that there are no more clips of Wright saying crazy, hateful things out there, just waiting for the right moment to be dropped? Rev Wright is a August, September, October and November Surprise rolled into one.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#260)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:27:17 AM EST
    New thread is here.

    Hurry up and get it over (none / 0) (#262)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29:11 AM EST
    Every time an Obama hit comes, the party is annoyed.  It's like voters are a petty little nuisance they have to bother with so they can just get on with their short work week and pretending to represent the people.  Hurry up and vote already, you're bugging us.  No wonder I have no loyalty left for the democratic party.