Obama '08?

Roxxxanne wrote:

The last word on the Wright silliness

Hardly the last word. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright's videos will be played and replayed ad infinitum until Obama's candidacy is no longer viable.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

I've spent some time reading other boards (similar to this one) in states that have upcoming primaries. A lot of people are starting to think Obama does - from his actions - share those insane ideas.

I'm pessimistic enough to believe that you are right. And yet nobody has yet told me what "actions" of Obama's would show that he does in fact share "those insane ideas".

Is it still the argument that, if Obama went to that church, he must have shared every one of his pastor's views? Even the ones that run directly counter to everything he's written and said throughout his work?

What other "actions" are there that show that Obama shares those ideas of Wright's that are generally considered insane? Foxfyre hasnt gotten further than that he doesnt wear a flag pin, and didnt hold his hand at his heart at the playing of the national hymn. That's a joke, right?

So what actions are you talking about?

0 Replies

From Power Line:

Quote:

Think about it: can you imagine any Presidential candidate, in any context, describing anyone as a "typical black person?" Or a "typical Asian person?" Worse, what Obama said was that the "typical white person" views others of different races with fear and suspicion. Obama appears to be digging himself in deeper and deeper.

Link ... with audio

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Finn, I think the Democratic Party and the press have already carried this guy too far and have invested their entire movement in this guy now. It appears too late for them to disavow him no matter how bizarre and how bad of a candidate or president he could be. So I fully expect them to circle the wagons now, as what choice do they have.

It is sad that a party is so blind and so devoted to their own party, more than intellectual honesty, to ever admit their leader is a dud, a total disaster. We saw that with Clinton as dysfunctional as he was and is, and to this day they have continued to promote the Clintons to an extent, although the polish is off the Clintons enough that a goodly portion of the party was looking for another saviour, and so out pops the phenom, Obama. They blithely ignore what he might be really about, because hey, he supposedly gave a great speech, thats it. I still puzzle over that, because it wasn't all that great in my opinion.

This is going to be interesting to say the least.

What is troubling, to me, is not the Party or the Media...the former should pump up its candidates, and the latter has been pumping up Democratic candidates for as long as I can remember (Witness the advance reporting of Obama's speech on race as though it were the Sermon on The Mount), that it's tough to generate a whole lot of fury about their boot lickin ways.

What's troubling to me is how powerful rhetorical skills can be.

I like a good speech as much as anyone else. I love language and understand why the ancients believed there was actual magic in words, but I don't think the reins of temporal power should ever have been turned over to WB Yeats, Dylan Thomas, James Joyce, or Oscar Wilde --- and these were people who actually wrote the words!

I don't think the Obama plaigery flap had much substance, but then I never had much faith that he actually authored any of his "inspiring" speeches, and if he doesn't, is he much more than the human equivalent of a Stradivarias violin? OK, give him more credit than that, he's a violin virtuoso --- but he ain't Bach, Paganini, Verdi, or Mendelssohn.

I also don't think Yehudi Menuhin, Itzhak Perlman, or Stefan Grapelli should ever have run the world.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence that Obama is anything more than a vessel.

With a thread that runs through 100 pages in less than a week, it's tough to stay on top of all the posts, but I don't believe anyone has offered a reasonable response to the charge that while Obama speaks of unification and crossing the aisle in the mode of New Politics, his personal political history has been one of strict partisanship and ideological purity. (His own spokesman couldn't think of an example of his New Politics Unity when asked face to face!)

He certainly knows how to push buttons, and his attempt to attract white voters by acknowledging, without damnation, what might be their take, as white people, on the issue of race was extremely clever. However, examine Obama's positions on racial issues and one finds that in practice he offers nothing more than the classic Liberal dogma: Affirmative Action, dependency on the government through entitlement programs, and an overall affirmation that African-Americans should look outwards for the solution to their problems.

The guy talks a damned mean game, but unless he intends to transform himself once in the Oval Office, there is no reason to believe he actually offers anything new.

Now if the Old Politics of The Left are your cup of tea, then you have no problem reconciling the rhetoric with the experience: "Go you silver-tongued devil and win these red-neck crackers and tight assed reactionaries to your cause by rhetorically stroking them. No worries of course because once you win, we can count on you to be the ideological leftist we all hoped for and wanted!"

You true-believers are not Legion - if you were, the Democratic nomination would have long ago been wrapped up for your guy.

So what happens when, as it seems likely, he wins? All the Clinton supporters you've pissed off will let bygones be bygones and jump on the Obama Train? Even if they do, there are not enough of you to get him into the White House. You will need moderates and independents and even some Republicans. I doubt this group will be as susceptible to Obamamania as you have been. As facts and fancy chip away at his glamour, your rock solid certainty about the guy will mean nothing.

The more we come to know about Obama the worse it is for his chances, not because he's really this horrible guy, but because he has reached this juncture by convincing a whole lot of people that all they need to know about him is that he talks real pretty.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

From Power Line:

Quote:
Think about it: can you imagine any Presidential candidate, in any context, describing anyone as a "typical black person?" Or a "typical Asian person?" Worse, what Obama said was that the "typical white person" views others of different races with fear and suspicion. Obama appears to be digging himself in deeper and deeper.

Again, it might help to go back to what he actually said in that interview (with thanks to Infra for the transcript):

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person. Who. . . If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away, and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it. And what makes me optimistic is seeing each generation feeling a little bit less like that."
Does anybody honestly consider this observation controversial?

Not: do you think it could be used as fodder against him, but: do you honestly consider this a controversial observation?

I guess we know what this year's swiftboating will focus on...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
From Power Line:

Quote:
Think about it: can you imagine any Presidential candidate, in any context, describing anyone as a "typical black person?" Or a "typical Asian person?" Worse, what Obama said was that the "typical white person" views others of different races with fear and suspicion. Obama appears to be digging himself in deeper and deeper.

Again, it might help to go back to what he actually said in that interview (with thanks to Infra for the transcript):

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person. Who. . . If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away, and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it. And what makes me optimistic is seeing each generation feeling a little bit less like that."

Does anybody honestly consider this observation controversial?

Yes, I think many people do.

Quote:

Not: do you think it could be used as fodder against him, but: do you honestly consider this a controversial observation?

I certainly consider it a controversial observation to be made by a candidate for the Office of President of the United States. And it is a bit repugnant in its sweeping generalization.

You have to admit, when he's off script, he's not the polished Rockstar you'd like him to be. When he works without a net, we've now seen him stumble a few times.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Obama says that the "typical white person" is like his grandmother, spouting racial comments that make him cringe.

maporsche wrote:
I didn't misquote him. [..] What I did was apply his comment about his typical grandmother with the comments he said about her during his speech. During his speech he referred to her making racial statements that made him cringe.

Regarding the ongoing references to Obama's words about his grandmother, this is what he actually said about his grandmother in that speech:

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. [..] I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible. [..] I can no more disown [Rev. Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

This is what many conservatives, and some Clinton supporters too, are now labelling as "Obama throwing his grandmother under the train".

Can anyone explain me how people can arrive at that interpretation of the above quotes?

Americans? Interpret?? Laughing

They watch the news to find out what they are supposed to think next.

All you need is some good make up, some bright lighting, add some bells and whistles and BAM! You got'em.

0 Replies

"This Wright thing will die!"

Perhaps; perhaps not, but it need not live on for another hour or day. It has already done its damage.

It forced Obama to give his Race speech, much the way Romney was forced to give his Mormon speech.

The fact that the racially transcendent candidate has felt compelled to make a "major" speech on race, is not a sign that his campaign is driving, full steam ahead.

My sense is that The Speech, overall, helped him, but it helped him from a point of weakness that was new to his campaign. It didn't help the Obama juggernaut, it helped the slip-sliding Obama.

Not all positives are all that positive.

Obama's perceived racial transcendence was quite appealing to me. He's much too liberal for me to ever vote for him, but I liked to think he might be the harbinger of things to come. But no, we find the racial neuter (in a good sense) has actually been long linked to a church where the pastor is quite the opposite.

Again...does this mean his membership was politically expedient (Old Politics) or that he bought into Wright's outrageous notions? The mid-ground he has tried to occupy just doesn't exist. A man you acknowledge as your spiritual mentor is not your "Nutty Uncle." Only the most zealous Obamaniac believes he missed every service where Wright went "nutty."

Trying to compare this controversy with the issue around McCain alleging Iran is supporting al-Qaida is simply idiotic, but is to be expected. Diversion is a tried and true political weapon.

The silly assed notion that Shiites would never, under any circumstances, assist Sunnis is just incredibly disingenuous or blatantly moronic. Fascists joined with Communists when it suited their interests. Native Americans joined with the Great White Father's government when it suited their interests. Muslims have joined with Christians and Jews when it has suited their interests. That they have does not necessarily imply venality, but it does demonstrate the power of political expediency over orthodoxy.

Agree or disagree with McCain, his comment or gaffe (however you wish to view it) doesn't strike at the fiber of his image. Obama's association with Wright, does.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Yes, I think many people do. [..] I certainly consider it a controversial observation to be made by a candidate for the Office of President of the United States.

OK. I'm a bit mystified, obviously. But yeah, I mean, I dont live there.

Gotta say that this seems, to me, like maybe a question of lacking honest/critical self-reflection, then.

Ticomaya wrote:

You have to admit, when he's off script, he's not the polished Rockstar you'd like him to be. When he works without a net, we've now seen him stumble a few times.

I dont want a "polished rockstar"; that was actually a part of his image that put me off.

I just concluded that he wasnt, in fact, a polished rockstar, but that this part of his image was mostly just the product of media hype and overzealous supporters. And realising that actually helped me to come round to him and appreciate him better for the substance and sincerity he brings.

So I have no problem with the "oh dear he's not a rockstar after all" kind of stumble.

0 Replies

Watch Wright's 9/11 speech in a larger clip. He calls the event an "unthinkable act" and was actually paraphrasing Ambassador Peck in the "Chickens Come Home to Roost" comment.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
I've spent some time reading other boards (similar to this one) in states that have upcoming primaries. A lot of people are starting to think Obama does - from his actions - share those insane ideas.

I'm pessimistic enough to believe that you are right. And yet nobody has yet told me what "actions" of Obama's would show that he does in fact share "those insane ideas".

Is it still the argument that, if Obama went to that church, he must have shared every one of his pastor's views? Even the ones that run directly counter to everything he's written and said throughout his work?

What other "actions" are there that show that Obama shares those ideas of Wright's that are generally considered insane? Foxfyre hasnt gotten further than that he doesnt wear a flag pin, and didnt hold his hand at his heart at the playing of the national hymn. That's a joke, right?

So what actions are you talking about?

The main question seems to be how could he be that close to someone - a mentor, a spiritual guide, a 'member' of his family - and go to that church and listen to the hate being preached and even subject his family to it and not do anything about it. He is, afterall, making his ability to unify and heal a cornerstone of his campaign. Yet he could not even start in his own church.

He tells us the words of Wright are devisive, yet was willing to listen to them off and on for 20 years, in silence. If he ever approached his pastor to voice his concerns on how those devisive remarks might be harming the congregation, he hasn't told us about it. Instead, in a speech to save his candidacy, he tells us that we all hear those things in our churches and it's no big deal. Except a lot of us don't hear those things in our churches and if we did, we'd walk out. He's trying to tell us that we're all a little like his pastor and he's wrong.

He was either unwilling or unable to achieve any amount of unity or healing in his own church of 20 years - a congregation nowhere near the population of this country - so why should we believe him in his promises of the same for our nation? Some will conclude that if he truly feels the pastor included racist, devisive and hate-filled speech in his sermons but chose to ignore the impact of it, perhaps he harbors some of those same prejudices.

Personally, I don't think he should resign from his church. At this point I think it would be a hollow act. I guess if I had a chance to chat with him over a cup of coffee, the one question I would ask him is why, if he thought his pastor's comments were harmful or wrong, promoting even further divide, he endured it in silence. He had a great opportunity to right a wrong and he ignored it.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Watch Wright's 9/11 speech in a larger clip. He calls the event an "unthinkable act" and was actually paraphrasing Ambassador Peck in the "Chickens Come Home to Roost" comment.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

Indeed ... he approvingly paraphrased Peck paraphrasing Malcolm X. Ward Churchill did the same thing.

0 Replies

I would suggest that any of his comments about his grandmother and "typical whites" should not be contraversial, but they, obviously, are.

He is, to some extent, a victim of his own party's intense political correctness. My friends and I may sit around drinking beers and talk about "typical" blacks, hispanics, and white trash. Are we racists? Knowing our intent and our character, I would argue not, but let's face it, there are very many who would argue otherwise simply because we used the term "typical."

What many of us have difficulty with is the apparent double standard of the Left.

"Hey cmon, sure he used "typical" but its his grandmother he was talking about, He loves her, and he didn't mean anything offensive by the comment. Let's not get carried away."

"Hey Finn; hey Tico! Your comments about "typical" blacks is abhorently racist!"

I don't think his comments were all that bad, but then I don't think my comments and those of my friends are either.

Consistency is required though --- isn't it?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
The last word on the Wright silliness

Hardly the last word. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright's videos will be played and replayed ad infinitum until Obama's candidacy is no longer viable.

She can hope (with audacity) can't she?

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Again...does this mean his membership was politically expedient (Old Politics) or that he bought into Wright's outrageous notions? The mid-ground he has tried to occupy just doesn't exist.

Well to be honest you're never very big on the existence of a middle ground tho; it's usually either black or white...

I dont know, I can easily see a range of mid-grounds here. And I'm just talking from my observer seat here, obviously I cant look into Obama's heart either. Some of this is speculation. But when you say, "the mid-ground just doesnt exist here", I immediately think of any number of the following things.

He didnt agree with all of the sermons and everything that was said in them. He starkly disagreed with some of it, in fact. (And I'm going to pass by the whole 'was he there was he not there' question, which I think was a blunder for Obama to enter into the equation, and is a bit of a red herring).

But he was inspired by other things he heard in the sermons -- in the overwhelming share of the sermons that was actually about religion.

This was the church - and the man - that led him to a much closer discovery of his Christian religion, and of the truths in the Bible. That invests you with a big emotional loyalty to it.

The church was a central locus of the community work he had devoted years to and was personally invested in. Whether Wright veered off into the occasional rant or not, the church simply did a lot of good community-based charity work there.

Not just handout charity, either; as a very socially engaged church, it really focused on promoting the social cohesion of a tough neighbourhood, in a way that fitted with Obama's communitarian/grassroots/bottom-up outlook on political change.

I'm sure there were personal elements - say, all his friends went there, his colleagues, loved ones. But also, many good and worthy local people went to church there, and going to the same congregation gave him a chance of bonding with them.

With people he wanted to work with, yes. He felt that, whatever Wright's flaws, this was a place where important things happened, things that were at the heart of the community that he came to represent as politician as well. And as a member of which, it was also easier to get things done as politician that were important to him.

Again, I'm going partly on Obama's words and partly I'm just speculating; all I'm just saying is, I can see plenty of mid-ground here. A pinch of political expediency, mixed with a bit of friends and acquaintances going there, mixed with some admiration for the church's works, mixed with a trailing loyalty to the place where he had become closer to his Christianity, mixed with some inspiration that Wright was also capable of, in Bible-focused sermons that were much more frequent than the occasional rant, mixed with a bit of the role the church filled in the community he represented as well as in the community-based work he believed in, mixed with... etc.

In your day-to-day choices about where you send your kids to school, where you buy a house and what church you go to, there's usually very little that's one-dimensional, clear-cut and black and white involved.

0 Replies

The Origin of Obama's Pastor Problem

0 Replies

Quote:

In his speech, he said he disagreed with Wright strongly, and yet he didn't leave the church (or even criticize his pastor until Wright's sermons became a campaign issue).

I understand him not leaving his church, but he's got a problem in not explaining the rest.

0 Replies

Quote:

"The whole generation that Rev. Wright represents is expressing what they call a righteous anger, the anger from the failed promises of America," said Dwight Hopkins

And what about the "failed promises" of many, many others who couldn't gain admission to Harvard U, the Police dept or Fire dept, for instance because AFFIRMATIVE ACTION was not applicable to whites?

I'd call that white sorrow "righteous anger"...

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know