Diary

Obama's speech

gerrymander.

Posted to Diary on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:26:19 AM EST. RSS.

The "one strike rule" or the "totality of the man" approach -- which it it?

So, here's what I'm wondering -- how does Obama's recent speech:

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

square with Obama on Imus last year:
"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."
Because from where I sit, it looks like Wright repeatedly did exactly what Obama says he would never accept. Wright did so every time he mentioned "rich white America" disparagingly.

So, which is it? Should Imus get an apology for being unduly chastised for an idiotic statement at the mic which doesn't reflect the whole of his identity? Or should this speech be considered a defense of the indefensible?

Tags: (all tags)

This story: 27 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Re: Obama's speech

thefadd.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:53:24 PM EST

5.00 (astute, astute, astute)

Wright doesn't work for Obama. Obama already let go the person who used to work for him who called Clinton a monster. Obama's already repudiated Wright's comments unequivocally. This is just angling back for a little better black credibility.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

2

^ 1

Re: Obama's speech

gerrymander.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:00:01 PM EST

4.00 (astute)

Obama's already repudiated Wright's comments unequivocally.

But Obama hasn't completely severed his ties to Wright -- far from it, if this speech is accurate. In contrast, Obama publicly stated at the time that he would never appear on Imus' radio program; nor has he (so far). That's a wide gap in treatment between two guys who have basically committed the same type of "open mic, insert foot" offense. If one were unkind, one could claim it looked like race-based discrimination.

4

^ 2

Re: Obama's speech

shane.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:44:46 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

Are you suggesting he should also cut all ties with his grandmother?

8

^ 4

Re: Obama's speech

Steve Urkel.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:50:40 PM EST

1.50 (interesting, funny)

His equating his grandmother's justifiable fear of young black males with his preacher's hate and conspiracy mongering was despicable.

11

^ 8

Holidays must have been awesome

Lou.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:18:55 PM EST

4.00 (funny)

"oh little Barry...I love you as only a grandmother could love her grandson, but I have to say that your being a young black male scares the fuck out of me."

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

17

^ 11

Re: Holidays must have been awesome

Steve Urkel.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:18:00 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

It wasn't holidays. His grandparents raised him, and his grandmother was the main breadwinner, while his mother was in Indonesia working on her PhD (his father had long since run off to Africa, of course).

In his book Dreams of my Father Obama describes a specific incident where his Grandma was afraid of an "agressive" black man on the bus who kept asking her for money even after she gave him a dollar. In his speech that became his grandmother had a general and totally irrational fear of blacks, so he could equate her reasonable worry with the racial paranoia of his hero Wright.

I used to think Obama was merely unqualified, now I think he's a dishonest, manipulative asshole.

18

^ 17

Re: Holidays must have been awesome

Lou.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:39:18 PM EST

2.00 (interesting, obnoxious)

(his father had long since run off to Africa, of course).

I wonder if this was because he was a "nigger" or just a man?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

20

^ 18

Re: Holidays must have been awesome

Steve Urkel.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:44:50 PM EST

none

Good question. Try comparing African family structures and levels of paternal investment with that of black Americans.

19

^ 17

Re: Holidays must have been awesome

Lou.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:48:27 PM EST

none

<II think he's a dishonest, manipulative asshole.</I>

Just like the majority of politicians, including your boy, Bush.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

21

^ 19

Re: Holidays must have been awesome

Steve Urkel.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:49:15 PM EST

none

But Obama is a transformative figure, unlike any politician ever, who transcends mundane politics.

It's negative attitudes like yours that prevents audacious hope from becoming our transformative reality.

25

^ 17

but there goes whitey exploiting the black man

thefadd.

Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:05:30 PM EST

none

In his speech that became his grandmother had a general and totally irrational fear of blacks, so he could equate her reasonable worry with the racial paranoia of his hero Wright.

I just wanna tell this story that happened in the south. Three of us college friends were moving into an apartment after graduating. One had her parents helping and for some reason one of their friends from LA was out, too. So we're moving and our new neighbor starts helping. My other friend and him start talking about grilling and being neighbors, etc. After we're done, the friend from LA is all, you should give the black guy some money. And we're like what, he's just being neighborly. She becomes all insistent that he must only be helping out 'cause he expects to get paid. It took everything for us to hold her back from giving him money on the basis that out of southern hospitality he'd likely be surprised but racially insulted that we'd offer him money. Of course, I'd doubt he'd have turned it down.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

5

^ 4

Re: Obama's speech

thefadd.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:49:12 PM EST

none

And his wife;)

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

6

^ 2

Re: Obama's speech

Lou.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:55:05 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

True, both made racially charged comments. However, Wright's views on racism, 9-11, et all all come from a logical (we can argue right or wrong another time) analysis of events as he sees them.

Imus called a bunch of young women "Nappy headed ho's"

How are these the same?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

10

^ 6

Re: Obama's speech

zyxwvutsr.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:13:18 PM EST

5.00

Wright's views on racism, 9-11, et all all come from a logical (we can argue right or wrong another time) analysis of events as he sees them
Wright's problem is not logic, but wholly in the way he sees the world. How can you separate Wright's racism from whether he was "right or wrong"?

Imus called a bunch of young women "Nappy headed ho's"

How are these the same?

The two are obviously not the same. Imus is a comedian, for one, and his comment was merely rude. Wright is supposedly a man of God and his comments indicate deep-seated antipathy for whites.

9

^ 2

Yes, he has.

logan.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:36:32 PM EST

5.00 (informative, astute, astute)

But Obama hasn't completely severed his ties to Wright

Yes, he has. Several times.

Obama has rescinded his previous invitation to Rev. Wright to give the invocation at Obama's official presidential announcement. he's disavowed Wright and issued this statement:

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Obama has dis-invited Wright from official functions, he's condemned the statements Wright made that have the GOP's panties in a wad and Wright has retired from Obama's church. What more do you want? Does Obama have to go TP the man's house live on Fox News? Spit in his face during a very special episode of 30 Rock?

But then it really doesn't matter how many times Obama disavows and condemns Wright. Obama could kill Rev. Wright by stabbing him through the heart with a giant cross, offer it up as a sacrifice to God, mount Wright's head on the front of the Campaign bus and the GOP would still whine about some sort of "connection": "I heard Obama hooked the head up to a life-support system so Rev. Wright can still give campaign advice on how to kill Whitey. See, 'Wright' really means 'White', so by killing Rev. Wright he's showing how he's going to put all the white people in camps as soon as he's elected."

The GOP has no issues beyond "stay the course", so they're jumping all over the smallest things that can possibly be tied to Obama and just plain lying. Wait until summer: we'll see the triumphant return of "Obama smokes! We can't have a President who smokes! Booze and cocaine, yes, but not tobacco! Think of the children!"

-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.

14

^ 9

Re: No, he hasn't

Steve Urkel.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:06:49 PM EST

3.00

"it really doesn't matter how many times Obama disavows and condemns Wright"

He hasn't disavowed or condemned Wright, only "the statements that have been the subject of this controversy".

"What more do you want?"

Obama should clarify his contradictory statements:

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

Obama did not say what he heard that he considered "controversial," and the campaign has yet to answer repeated requests for dates on which the senator attended Rev. Wright's sermons over the last 20 years.

He should explain specifically where he agrees with the expressed racial philosophy of the church he's been part of for 20 years. If he doesn't agree with any of it, he should explain why it doesn't bother him. He evaded doing this in his speech, as well as implying that people who criticize his church are racist, since "Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety."

Obama should be asked if he was aware Wright preached that AIDS was a government conspiracy. If the answer is yes, since Wright is a close personal friend and has had such a profound influence on his life, Obama should explain why never confronted Wright about propagating such nonsense.

He should explain why he's so much more tolerant of Wright than he is of Imus. Was he merely being an oppoortunist in regards to Imus, or does he have a double standard for whites and blacks, or both?

12

^ 9

Re: Yes, he has.

zyxwvutsr.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:21:43 PM EST

none

But then it really doesn't matter how many times Obama disavows and condemns Wright
Has Wright just recently turn evil? I mean, do you have any evidence that he used to be a normal, calm pastor who didn't spout the sort of racist nonsense that he has been lately?

13

^ 12

Re: Yes, he has.

logan.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:57:56 PM EST

4.00 (funny)

You tell me. I'd never heard of the guy before the GOP started throwing a hissy fit over a Presidential candidate going to church.

-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.

15

^ 13

Re: Yes, he has.

zyxwvutsr.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:10:52 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

I haven't heard that "the GOP" has had much of anything to say about Wright. But considering the crazy shit he's been quoted to have said it's a reasonable question to ask if Obama sat through sermons that were similarly crazy. It's bad enough to have politicians in charge who attend churches that preach anti-scientific doctrines such as creationism; it would seem to be far worse to have politicians in charge who attend churches that preach racism.

7

^ 2

Re: Obama's speech

MayorBob.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:46:43 PM EST

4.00 (astute)

What, other than what he's said, would you have Obama do?  Wright isn't even his pastor anymore; Wright retired from the pulpit.  I think Obama went as far, and then some, as he can logically be expected to go to address the issue.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

22

^ 7

Re: Obama's speech

gerrymander.

Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:25:41 AM EST

none

What, other than what he's said, would you have Obama do?

For starters, Obama could offer to appear on Imus' new radio show, and offer Imus an apology while on the air. Something along the lines of, "although your comment about the girls' basketball team were deeply offensive, I was wrong to boycott you over one remark."

If Obama is truly trying to set a new standard for race relations, he needs to apply it in cases where he might lose support, not just where it serves his own interests.

26

^ 22

Re: Obama's speech

thefadd.

Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:09:24 PM EST

none

C'mon, Michael Richards, maybe but Imus doesn't deserve anybody's apology for anything. The dudes been an unfunny ass for over 30 years and it was about time he got kicked to the curb.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

3

^ 2

Re: Obama's speech

thefadd.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:42:47 PM EST

none

Yes, I'd like to see Obama take a less strident stance against Imus but save members of the press asking questions as intelligent as yours, I don't see a chance for him to revisit that.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

16

totality of the man

JimmyHavok.

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:13:01 PM EST

5.00 (astute, astute)

Imus is a jerk.  It wasn't "one strike you're out," it was "give it up you aren't funny."

27

^ 16

bababooey

thefadd.

Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:11:55 PM EST

none

I bet Howard Stern could have called them nappy headed hoes and suffered no consequences. Man's got skills. And he's got half as much black in him as Obama.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

23

Re: Obama's speech

wetkarma.

Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST

none

I'm going to go with the totality of the man approach. I think its a far stretch to transfer what Wright said to what Obama believes.

I'm not voting for Obama, but it seems clear to me that unlike most other politicians he's making a good faith effort to address the underlying issues that cause problems when people make racially divisive comments.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

24

^ 23

Indeed

uncarved block.

Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:20:04 PM EST

none

    I am fairly content with the Republican choice of McCain for very similar reasons. Yes, he hasn't been the purest when it comes to cleaning up the system, the "Straight Talk Express" is a load of bullshit by now, and he isn't close to being the bipartisan Senator he'd like you to believe (or the conservative flacks, for that matter), but what he has done is enough to let me believe he'll actually let the real world guide policy a lot more than has happened the last seven years.
    Funny thing is, Obama, like Nixon going to China, might (might!) represent the best chance for some readjustment, some fixes, in affirmative action policies at the national level-- and I like to believe these changes would bring the discussion out of the 60s at last. This would please scads of conservative pundits, yet the odds they'll look past Wright are very slim indeed. Hardly the first time they'd put partisanship ahead of progress . . .

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

This story: 27 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment