Obama '08?

Clinton also expressed her support for legislation to offer up to $126 million in reparations to Guam residents for their suffering during World War II at the hands of the Japanese military, which occupied the island.

The U.S. would pay the reparations, since it long ago forgave Japan its war debts.

"I think sometimes it takes unfortunately longer than it should to educate people about the justice of a cause like war reparations, or for the people of Guam that suffered under the Japanese occupation during World War II," Clinton told the Guam TV station. "All these years later we still haven't provided the reparations that the people of Guam were promised. As your president, I will work very hard to remedy this injustice. I am committed to doing so."

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has expressed support for the reparations legislation as well.

FreeDuck wrote:

Here, I think that article was based on this one: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/01/obama_walks_fine_line_in_quest_for_white_votes/?page=2

A little more information there. It's still not clear to me that he actually IS avoiding black communities. They mention blacks in Charlotte a couple of times, but according to the New York Times election guide, Obama was there in the last month.

From page 1 of the article you linked to...

Quote:

Obama has cut back on his campaigning in the African-American community in the months since his highly publicized speech at Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s church in Atlanta - even as black voters in places like Charlotte are mobilizing on his behalf as never before.

May 04, 2008 11:14am
BARACK Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the Guam caucuses in the Democratic White House battle by a mere seven votes, local party officials said today.

After a marathon all-night counting session, Senator Obama won 14 of the 21 districts in the remote US territory and finished with 2264 votes to 2257 for Senator Clinton.

Voter turnout was 25 per cent higher than the 4000 party officials expected yesterday as the tiny Pacific island grasped its one opportunity to influence the presidential outcome.

The island's residents, while US citizens, cannot vote in November's presidential election.

Party officials said many people had registered as Democrats at the caucus sites around the island, prompting the tag "Democrats for a day".

"There are many new Democrats today," the chairman of the Democratic nominating committee Herbie Perez said.

"I am so surprised. I never thought it would be like this."

The outcome rested on Dededo, the island's most populated community and the final village to be counted, and where Senator Clinton had strong support from the predominantly Filipo-American community.

She trailed Senator Obama by 203 votes before counting began in Dededo where officials said several spoiled ballots were rejected.

Although Guam offers only four delegate votes, each is now crucial to the Democratic White House battle, in which Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton by a narrow margin estimated at 1742 delegates to 1599.

Neither senators visited Guam ahead of the vote but both vowed to address local issues, such as the relocation of 8000 Marines from Okinawa in Japan and war reparation claims.

Guam, a US territory since 1898, rarely steps into the limelight of US politics as it lies on the other side of the international dateline. The island has about 48,000 registered voters.

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Here, I think that article was based on this one: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/01/obama_walks_fine_line_in_quest_for_white_votes/?page=2

A little more information there. It's still not clear to me that he actually IS avoiding black communities. They mention blacks in Charlotte a couple of times, but according to the New York Times election guide, Obama was there in the last month.

From page 1 of the article you linked to...

Quote:

Obama has cut back on his campaigning in the African-American community in the months since his highly publicized speech at Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s church in Atlanta - even as black voters in places like Charlotte are mobilizing on his behalf as never before.

Gotta agree with FreeDuck: weird that they'd publish a claim like that without any actual supporting evidence - just going on what this guy said, that guy said. It's pretty easy to find a schedule of Obama's past appearances, so you know, is it actually true? That should be part of a journalist's job, to check it. If FD can find out within a click that Obama has been in Charlotte, for example, then I dunno, but it sounds just like shoddy journalism to me.

Sen. Barack Obama is tied with Clinton at 45 percent, with 10 percent of respondents unsure, according to the Indiana Democratic poll, an average of campaign surveys.

Obama has a significant lead in the polls in North Carolina and is heavily favored to win there.

Obama owes his victories throughout the nomination battle to African-Americans, young voters, upscale whites and independent voters.

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Here, I think that article was based on this one: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/01/obama_walks_fine_line_in_quest_for_white_votes/?page=2

A little more information there. It's still not clear to me that he actually IS avoiding black communities. They mention blacks in Charlotte a couple of times, but according to the New York Times election guide, Obama was there in the last month.

From page 1 of the article you linked to...

Quote:

Obama has cut back on his campaigning in the African-American community in the months since his highly publicized speech at Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s church in Atlanta - even as black voters in places like Charlotte are mobilizing on his behalf as never before.

Gotta agree with FreeDuck: weird that they'd publish a claim like that without any actual supporting evidence - just going on what this guy said, that guy said. It's pretty easy to find a schedule of Obama's past appearances, so you know, is it actually true? That should be part of a journalist's job, to check it. If FD can find out within a click that Obama has been in Charlotte, for example, then I dunno, but it sounds just like shoddy journalism to me.

nimh wrote:

Oh, and:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

In fact when I had the temerity to post that my black friends would never accept him as their spokesman, let alone their spiritual mentor, I was chided by nimh and others as either being a closet rascist with my friends, or lying about having black friends.

BS.

Not so.

Black churches come to terms with Obama-Wright schism
USA Today

In black churches across the country Sunday, pastors and parishioners tried to reconcile their hope to elect Sen. Barack Obama president with their respect for his controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

In Detroit, Nicholas Hood, senior minister at Plymouth United Church of Christ, said Obama made the right move.

He said the controversy is confusing for those who don't understand how some followers can support both men.

"We need the Jeremiah Wrights of the world to remind the world to be fair," Hood said. "One represents the past; the other, the future.

"Deep down inside … we need both," he said.

Walter Fauntroy, who was an aide to Martin Luther King Jr. and serves as pastor at New Bethel in Washington, devoted his sermon to the issue. He said Obama's opponents could not unearth other controversies against him so they focused on his retired pastor. Obama handled it effectively, he said.

Then, last week, "Jeremiah gave (Obama's) opponents the gift that keeps on giving," Fauntroy said.

He said Wright spoke the truth about the struggles of blacks in this country, but, citing the Bible's Book of Ecclesiastes, "there is a time to keep silent and a time to speak."

The congregation erupted in cheers, claps and "Amens." [..]

At the heart of the controversy, said Graylan Hagler, senior minister at Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, are issues about race that the country has yet to solve.

"What we really realize is there is a schism not just between black and white, but between people of color and the dominant culture," Hagler said. "The viewpoints are not the same, and we have to resist trying to homogenize each other. … It also shows white America may consider a black man as president, but it does not want a black president."

Glenn Beck: Obama's odd timing on Wright
By Glenn Beck
CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama is moving away from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright so fast he may claim to be an atheist by next weekend. The ongoing sprint from such a polarizing figure is far from a surprise, it's just the timing of it that is so odd.

A New York Times editorial described the recent developments like this:

"In the last few days, in a series of shocking appearances, he [Wright] embraced the Rev. Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. He said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks. He suggested that America was guilty of "terrorism" and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself."

Shocking? Every one of these opinions of Wright has been part of the public record for months. It's no more shocking than Angelina Jolie coming out in favor of adoption.

Even in the schizophrenic world of politics, it's unclear how to accomplish the mental gymnastics required to make sense of all of this. The media's love affair with Obama makes them ask us to believe that Obama was courageous for defending Wright in his Philadelphia speech on race and also courageous for throwing him under the bus six weeks later for the exact same opinions.

The only plausible realities are that either the speech was naïve and the press conference realistic, or the speech was pandering and the press conference politically expedient. Neither paints a pretty picture of a politician who is supposed to change Washington.

When the tapes surfaced Obama informed us that much of the controversy had been caused not by Wright's views, but by our lack of understanding about the differences in culture. "Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear."

It wasn't Wright's overbearing volume, hilarious comedy, hand movements, or dance quality that made me think he was a dangerous peddler of conspiracy theories. It was his words that did that. I don't want someone like him with access to the president for twenty minutes, let alone twenty years.

Those who were outraged by Wright's divisive and destructive comments that preyed on hate have been called racists by many. But, when Obama said he was "outraged" by the "divisive and destructive" comments that gave "comfort to those who prey on hate," he's called brave.

For anyone believing this is about race for Wright's critics, think of disgraced professor Ward Churchill. He was fired for research misconduct from University of Colorado at Boulder and made famous for saying many of the same things as Wright.

If any presidential candidate from either side -- white or black -- had been using Churchill as a "sounding board" for the last twenty years, we would rightly dismiss them.

Obama's political excommunication of Wright is not only a sudden and stark departure from his vaunted Philadelphia speech on race -- it also appears to be retroactive. In his press conference he said about Wright: "I know that one thing that he said was true, that he was never my "spiritual adviser." He was never my spiritual mentor. He was my pastor. And to some extent how the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, was inaccurate."

Indeed, the press had characterized Wright in that role quite often. For example, the Chicago Sun Times described him as "a close confidant" in an article about people Obama "seeks out for spiritual counsel," and the New York Times described Wright as his "spiritual mentor."

Another source even called Wright the man "who helped introduce" Obama to his "Christian faith," who "counsels" him, is "like family," "a friend," "a great leader" and a "sounding board," who was a member of Obama's spiritual advisory committee and who officiated his wedding and baptized his children.

That source? Barack Obama. I wonder where "the press" got all those crazy ideas.

Do I think for a second that Obama believes the government created the AIDS virus to kill African-Americans? No. But at this point it's rational to wonder whether he is either lying or has an awful sense of judgment. He either knew Wright's views and didn't tell the truth about them, or he somehow missed the core beliefs of the man who was spending his Sunday mornings teaching core beliefs.

I'm glad Obama has come to the same conclusion that Wright's critics came to long ago. I just wonder why it took me two minutes and him two decades.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

nimh wrote:

Oh, and:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

In fact when I had the temerity to post that my black friends would never accept him as their spokesman, let alone their spiritual mentor, I was chided by nimh and others as either being a closet rascist with my friends, or lying about having black friends.

BS.

Not so.

No, it's BS allright. I never said such a thing.

I do know what convo you're referring to, though. I cant find it back through Search, but the subject was how many African-Americans would broadly agree or disagree with Rev. Wright's comments. You claimed that of course, African Americans too were just as furious about his remarks. But you cited no proof, and then I found an opinion poll showing that no such wide-spread anger existed among blacks. You dismissed the poll, saying that well, your black friends sure thought it was all outrageous.

In response, I said two things. A) Considering your strong political opinions and your personal background (social/economic/whatnot), the black friends you would have are probably not exactly representative of the black community as a whole; B) Considering the fierce opinions you hold, do you really think that even if some of them would agree with some of the stuff Wright said, you would hear the full extent of that?

I think there'd be some self-censorship going on. And that's hardly a bold assertion; we all do it. I sure do it. Not on this forum of course, where I'll debate anyone with opposite opinions, but in real life, when it comes to colleagues, acquaintances and even close friends, I will take some reserve in expressing my political opinions if I know that they probably hold contrasting views. Unless you have come to know, over time, that this is the kind of guy who enjoys a good to-and-fro and will not hold anything against you later, people generally will avoid confronting a colleague or acquaintance with opposing political view points (the remnants of the old-fashioned taboo on talking politics or religion at the dining table, so to say).

In the light of that I will take an opinion poll over you references to what your black friends think any day. Fact, I will take it over any anecdotal evidence like that.

To lift all this above the level of personal squabbles, I think the subject of self-censorship is in fact particularly relevant for this thread. While anyone will sometimes shy away from expressing one's full opinions to someone with presumably opposite opinions, I think the black community in America may face this dilemma in particular. There are still very much parallel realities when it comes to race, that mingle but also keep some stuff separate in their own domain. This article is interesting in that regard:

Quote:

Black churches come to terms with Obama-Wright schism
USA Today

In black churches across the country Sunday, pastors and parishioners tried to reconcile their hope to elect Sen. Barack Obama president with their respect for his controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

The story includes the following bits that touch on this subject:

Quote:

In Detroit, Nicholas Hood, senior minister at Plymouth United Church of Christ, said Obama made the right move.

He said the controversy is confusing for those who don't understand how some followers can support both men.

"We need the Jeremiah Wrights of the world to remind the world to be fair," Hood said. "One represents the past; the other, the future.

"Deep down inside … we need both," he said.

Walter Fauntroy, who was an aide to Martin Luther King Jr. and serves as pastor at New Bethel in Washington, devoted his sermon to the issue. He said Obama's opponents could not unearth other controversies against him so they focused on his retired pastor. Obama handled it effectively, he said.

Then, last week, "Jeremiah gave (Obama's) opponents the gift that keeps on giving," Fauntroy said.

He said Wright spoke the truth about the struggles of blacks in this country, but, citing the Bible's Book of Ecclesiastes, "there is a time to keep silent and a time to speak."

The congregation erupted in cheers, claps and "Amens." [..]

At the heart of the controversy, said Graylan Hagler, senior minister at Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, are issues about race that the country has yet to solve.

"What we really realize is there is a schism not just between black and white, but between people of color and the dominant culture," Hagler said. "The viewpoints are not the same, and we have to resist trying to homogenize each other. … It also shows white America may consider a black man as president, but it does not want a black president."

Sen. Barack Obama is moving away from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright so fast he may claim to be an atheist by next weekend.

Glenn Beck wrote:

Sen. Barack Obama is moving away from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright so fast he may claim to be an atheist by next weekend.

If he announces his atheism, he'll get my vote, guaranteed.

For something you deem insignificant, you certainly address it often.

For what its worth to anybody, you all know my politics, but I am now 2/3 through Obama's book, Audacity of Hope, now part of the way through the religion section, and a couple of things pop out. First, Obama is not a dummy, so I am personally now 99.99999% sure he knew what Wright was about and has been preaching for the last 20 years. There is always the shadow of a doubt, but it isn't much. Unless somebody else fed him alot of the ideas for his book, and I would hope not.

Secondly, I don't think he agreed with Wright altogether, but I get the feeling he has had sympathies for what Wright has been preaching all along, how much it is hard to tell, as the book is an artful work of riding the fence and presenting all sides of an issue, not because he believes all sides have merit, but because that is his political strategy or personality.

So, it appears to me that Obama has used the church as a way to gain a political base in Chicago, and also because he sympathizes with its philosophy to some extent, and as I said I don't know the extent exactly. I think one of the things he likes is the political vector of the religion. Bottom line, I see Obama much more as a man that has designed his political identity for a very very long time, and most of what he has been doing is in large part due to his political image and aims, all the while reasoning within himself that he does not wish to be a typical politician.

In his efforts not to be a typical politician and trying to see merit in everybody's experiences while building his political base, he has allowed himself to become identified with the truly despicable character, Wright. I see it as an outgrowth of his reluctance to condemn wrong. He has a tough time drawing a sharp line between right and wrong, and his method of reconciling everyone together is to essentially shy away from condemning anything completely. In so doing, he has found himself identified with the wrong element here, and so now he has the uncomfortable task of distancing himself. He is of course only doing this for political purposes and the distance is proportional to whatever he thinks is necessary to see his poll numbers stabilize and head in the right direction. I think I have seen it evidenced that he and Wright agreed that this may need to happen at some point, so none of this is a surprise to either of them.

P.S. As an interesting aside, in Obama's book, he asserts that our laws have a Judeo - Christian foundation. I would need to look it up to find the exact quote.

okie, as much as I often disagree with you and have sometimes not respected your opinions, I think it says something about you that you are taking the time to read that book, even if you might be doing it with a less than completely open mind.