Barack Obama is in a serious bind, but it’s not because he has a "pastor problem." Obama’s problem is that he’s up against religous bigotry, racism and militarism in America, worsened by a corrupt media. But it’s not just his problem; it’s our problem. Bigorty, racism, militarism and media corruption are strangling America, and we have to find a way to beat them.
As best I can tell, Obama has concluded that the only way he can both win the nomination and govern with a sufficient mandate to move the country forward is to seek unity by asking Americans to rise above their own history of biases and hatred. Rather than trying to be a black President focused on the evils of racism, he’s asking Americans to rise above the issues that divide them and that have prevented the country from moving forward. He apparently believes that our nation must simply let go of the anger that has torn the country apart and made it essentially ungovernable.
What this tells us it that it is the redemption and forgiveness messages that Obama has embraced from his Christian pastor, not the anger he’s now found it necessary to renounce. Here is how Obama explained it in a speech in Indiana this weekend, referring to Bobby Kennedy’s speech after Martin Luther King’s assasination:
I think about those words often, especially in the last several weeks – because this campaign started on the basis that we are one America. As I said in my speech at the convention in 2004, there is no black America, or white America, or Asian America, or Latino America. There is the United States of America.
But I noticed over the last several weeks that the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again. And I’m not here to cast blame or point fingers because everybody, you know, senses that there’s been this shift…
We’ve got a lot of pent-up anger and bitterness and misunderstanding. But what I continue to believe in is that this country wants to move beyond these kinds of divisions. That this country wants something different. . . .
I just want to say to everybody here that as somebody who was born into a diverse family, as somebody who has little pieces of America all in me, I will not allow us to lose this moment, where we cannot forget about our past and not ignore the very real forces of racial inequality and gender inequality and the other things that divide us.
We have to come together. That’s what this campaign is about. That’s why you are here. That’s why we’re going to win this election. That’s how we’re going to change the country.
It may be a brilliant strategy or hopelessly naive assessment of American politics. It works for some — his success shows that — but not for others. It is not a message likely to appeal to those who want accountability for past crimes, let alone retribution. And as Jane observed in this post yesterday, it’s also about how Obama views America compared to how those in another generation would view it. It is not about getting even. It’s about moving on and moving ahead.
I don’t know whether his strategy can work; much of what ails American politics is working against it. But it explains why he might have concluded he had to distance himself from his pastor, even if he recognizes the validity of much of what his preacher is saying. Aside from the "inflammatory rhetoric," Obama could believe that Wright is essentially correct in his critique of America, but Obama has to say, "let go, come together, because that is the only way out of this cesspool."
So I come back to a question I’ve raised before. Obama has said he not only wants to end the war in Iraq but also wants to "end the mindset that got us into this war." I hear that, but I want to know how it translates and squares with Obama’s renunciation of Pastor Wright’s statements. Putting aside views about what constitutes "inflammatory rhetoric," in essence, I hear the Pastor saying, "Jesus and the Christian God would condemn the militarism, indifference to the plight of others, America’s own militarism and the religious bigotry that helped lead America into an unjust war in Iraq." How does Senator Obama, then "end the mindset" but reject that underlying message?
And by the way, I think Senator Clinton should answer the same question, because if the media succeeds in destroying Obama’s campaign, as they appear intent on doing, she’ll be stuck with the same dilemma.



115 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Scarecrow!!!!
CNN Political Ticker:
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (CNN) — Far from putting the controversial issue of race behind him, Barack Obama has decided to address the issue head on in a speech Tuesday.
“I am going to be talking not just about Reverend Wright, but the larger issue of race in this campaign — which has ramped up over the last couple of weeks,” Obama told reporters in Monaca, Pennsylvania.
Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod characterized the speech, to be delivered in Philadelphia, as “a discussion on race and politics.”
“Given the events of the last few weeks, Obama felt it was time to address the issue of race and politics directly, and what it means in our country,” Axelrod said.
News of the speech comes days after the Illinois senator formally denounced controversial sermons delivered by his former minister and longtime friend, Jeremiah Wright. The racially-charged remarks came under fire after being the subject of an ABC News report last week.
Axelrod described the Illinois senator as “a force for reconciliation” and said he wants the opportunity “to put this into context.”
Speaking with reporters, Obama said the media is portraying Wright inaccurately.
“I think the caricature that is being painted of him is not accurate, and so part of what I will do tomorrow is to talk about how these issues are perceived from within the black church community for example which I think skews this very differently.”
Hi Scarecrow!
Jackie Robinson broke a barrier. I believe Obama will break another.
today is a scarecrowathon
It’s a hat trick for Scarecrow.
You are on fire today, Scarecrow!
I assume CHS, Jane, Marcy, and Digby are all enroute to Take Back America. I hope someone has the livestream if available.
caw caw !!
I think Obama is deflecting and redirecting the attacks very well.
I used to think Obama’s strategy was hopelessly naive. It may be, but with all the ugly crap spewing everywhere, I dearly want to see this strategy succeed.
The pukes are counting on HRC being their opponent. As much as I want to see a woman in the White House, I would rather see this man with his message drive the all opposition into the ground.
and we are richer for it – doggone, not an extra word anywhere in that post Scarecrow – incredible
Wait until McCain blows his stack when he gets attacked with the truth. Obama is really showing good judgment.
Yeah! Great post Scarecrow!!
Now that’s clever. Yes, 3 posts today. The grownups are trying to Take Back America, so they left the door unlocked. There’s really no excuse for it.
In the meantime, Bernanke is in the process of taking back corporate America, one Wall Street investment firm at a time.
fired o’glake!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com…..6aa4_o.jpg
Hard to argue with his success. I’ve wondered too about the strategy, but he just gained another 10 delegates over the weekend when Iowa had its Convention, and gained another superdelegate today. The train still seems to be full steam ahead!
I have full confidence that Obama can overcome this. I am also sure that the Clinton camp is beginning to panic. They are speaking of boycotting “enemy” blogs and screening out “enemy” posters at MyDD.
Obama’s speech will no doubt answer many of the questions that people have. Although I’m sure his heart is in the right place regarding American militarism and crimes, I don’t know that making this a central focus of his campaign would be a useful strategy.
Trusting Clinton to face down these issues as president seems to me a quite misguided aspiration.
Nice!
i want to know how it translate and squares with obama’s record in the senate (and clinton’s too). i just don’t think that what candidates say when they are running for office has much to do with what they really think (if the last 20 years is any guide).
The two are stark contrast in personalities. Obama makes Mcinsane look like a slobbering idiot he is. I desperately want to see the republics pulverized in November.
Hey, does anyone have the link to the recent interview that Al Franken did with one of the media elites where she asked him about some crazy out-of-context comment and he immediately turned her comments around and flustered her to show how it is done? I saw it the other day, but now can’t find it.
I, for one, am going to embrace the very hopeful (and yes, quite possibly politically naive) message of rising above the hate and coming together as Americans.
And I shall send Obama some Turkee!
Speaking of media corruption, yet again Glenzilla catches Time magazine making shit up:
I think he just has to disassociate himself from th “goddamn America” comments. It was interesting listening to Kerry this morning as he deplored the Reverends “inflammatory” words after basically losing an election after his own were taken out on context and thrown at him. (With a weak ass response that really cost him)
Palast sez both Hillary & Obama aped W on Columbia’s invasion of Ecuador. (It’s near the end of the article.)
http://www.gregpalast.com/300-…..rc-a-fake/
HEADS UP: Our tech experts tell us that this site may go down for a few minutes to allow them to fix something happening on another site. We ask for your patience, and if we go off line, check back in a few. Thanks.
cute!
as it creeps ever close to guiness-thirty here
excellent ! make sure our egregious sees it
It was interesting listening to Kerry this morning as he deplored the Reverends “inflammatory” words after basically losing an election after his own were taken out on context and thrown at him. (With a weak ass response that really cost him)
Kerry has no room to talk. He ran away with his tail between his legs and never defended himself or the American people. Weak doesn’t even come close to the adjective properly describing John Kerry.
The grownups aren’t going to be able to do that without Obama’s youngsters.
You rang?
Right but his statement before the senate hearing in 71, taken out of context or not, was just as damning as the Revs.
why yes dahlin’, did you see 14 above ?
By the way, audio of Bobby Kennedy’s remarks on Martin Luther King’s assassination is available here. Definitely worth listening to, especially if you’ve never heard it.
Others disagree:
Obama?
…..a gona?
Gallup national daily tracking poll now shows Hillary leading 47/45, and a week ago, Obama was ahead by 8 points.
He’s dropping like a rock.
Maybe.
I mean who knew? Who knew the Clinton’s were racists? Sure fooled me….
Sure was-myself, I’ve always thought that Kerry would have done better by not backing down an inch. When he started waffling about “exaggerations”, it made it sound as if he had been lying, even while most perceived that he had been truthful then and was trying to avoid re-starting an old conflict now. Still called his credibility and strength-of-character into account. And the old conflict got torn open anyway, so better to have stood strong.
Full disclosure: I worked like a mad fiend as a Kerry volunteer in ‘04.
Ah, we’re back. I forgot to feed the hampsters. Sorry for the interruption.
Great post, Scarecrow. Lots of questions with no easy answers which, of course, is my fave.
Hi all — Sitting here with Siun, Jane, Emptywheel, Pach, David Neiwert, Dave Johnson, Eric Boehlert, Bill Scher, Kagro X….a LOT of bloggity blogger types at Take Back America. Hope everyone is hanging on to their pension funds today…ouch. Looks really bad.
{{{Take BAck America}}}
Pissed me off too. When I went to a rally in Atlanta in my jungle fatigues some dork said, “you come sit behind him on the stage, you look like a veteran”. Fucking “handlers”, they are the same ones that came up with that “reporting for duty bullshit”.
In all honesty, Obama was never my guy – but there simply has to be a point when decent, honest people recognize smears for what they are and refuse to participate. For a long while, it seemed like there would be something to be proud of on our side of the aisle this time around – and instead we sit here replaying the Elizabeth Cady Stanton – Frederick Douglass schism all over again. It’s fundamentally disheartening.
I believe that the level of indignity that Mr. Obama is being forced to legitimize – by virtue of all the stridency to disavow this or that person or statement or action, ad infinitum – shows the depths of our so-called “American exceptionalism” to be what they surely always have been: racist, quasi-imperial lies.
Yeah, followed by the sloppiest salute ever. I always respected the fact that Bill Clinton took the time and had the respect to learn to salute properly.
What do you expect from a squid officer? :)
Lookkeee her Jane is in the house!
Who’s Coming to Take Back America 2008?
Dozens of progressive leaders are scheduled to appear at Take Back America 2008. They include:
Andrea Batista-Schlesinger
Jared Bernstein
Deepak Bhargava
Chris Bowers
Taylor Branch
Leslie Cagan
Majora Carter
Joseph Cirincione
Chuck Collins
Digby
Leo Gerard
Mark Green
Robert Greenwald
John Halpin
Jane Hamsher
Van Jones
Michael Kieschnick
Naomi Klein
Robert Kuttner
Celinda Lake
Norman Lear
Tom Matzzie
Mary Beth Maxwell
Al Meyerhoff
Eli Pariser
Rick Perlstein
Cecile Richards
Joel Rogers
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Krysten Sinema
David Sirota
Ron Stief
Gloria Totten
Cenk Uygur
Drew Westen
Roger Wilkins
Sorry, but the sloppiest salutes seem to come on movies and TV shows that purport to be about the military. The major exception was the TV show JAG where even the guest stars saluted properly.
Sense enough to know how it would look. Oh wait.
He Redd, ask Webb if he still thinks the Vietnam War was a “noble cause” stolen by the weak-ass press. With all due respect.
that doesn’t seem like a changed mindset to me.
Scarecrow, I agree that ‘bigotry, racism and militarism’, along with ravenous greed, are core problems our nation must address. But, I don’t think Reverend Wright’s critique of America, has much to offer in terms of a solution or even a starting point. The problem is that his ‘inflammatory rhetoric’ is so steeped in bigotry and racism that it exacerbates these problems as opposed to ameliorating them .
Well, if you’re all there, whose minding the store?
Yeah — I’m in the blogger room at the moment. If he stops by, I’ll get right on that. *g*
He’s there this evening
7:00 PM Ends: 8:00 PM
Pizza & Pasta Dinner
Senator James Webb
On second thought, the way he jumped ugly on the Prez when he didn’t like his question maybe you better let me ask him next time I see him. :)
You?
I don’t think that the Clintons are racist. They are committed to winning now at any cost, even if that means McCain wins in November. It is a selfish, not a noble, cause.
hamsters?
We’re going to want to see video, if you please. :)
I’m an old Edwards supporter who is switching to Obama and will still support the Dem nominee, whomever that is. What is attractive about Obama? On a most personal level, he reflects the identity of my family, immigrant white, Congolese black, Hispanic. The joy of the future in the blend….that is what I see in his story and his rhetoric about unity. He talks about how my family lives and loves.
But, I’m also impressed with the way his mind moves, as evidenced in his autobiography. He makes connections, turns things around and looks at them from yet another perspective, then makes a conclusion and takes action.
Still, I hope for more progressive stands once the election is over and he wins.
Jane’s going to have some pictures up in a little bit for everyone, btw. Siun and I are contemplating the joys of having another coffee…
“How does Senator Obama, then “end the mindset” but reject that underlying message?”
I get where he is coming from but also think it’s possible to take the high road while pointing out – very specifically and very forcefully – the myriad practical failings of this adminstration and the very real moral failings of the people who helped to make it happen.
It’s our obligation to do that.
I wish he had kept Wright on board and feel he was placating all the wrong people by dismissing him. Those voices of dissent are so very important to our country.
Totally OT, I just heard the first ice cream truck of the season go by.
Aw, a dumb, dog face remf like me wouldn’t stand a chance with someone who was “born fighting”.
Is that joint more affordable than McCormick Place was this summer?
Not so much, but they do have a lovely media room with beverages. And it’s not a huge stroll from the blogger alley area, so that’s a big plus. *g*
At the moment, Code Pink is singing en masse behind me. But my camera is upstairs so I can’t get a pix…
1,793 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Scarecrow and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
“…Obama has said that he not only wants to ants to end the war in Iraq but also wants to ‘end the mindset that got us into this war’. I hear that but I want to know how it translates and squares with Obama’s renunciation of Pastor Wright’s statements.”
Isn’t that what Obama does every time he articulates a political position that proffers an AFFIRMATIVE position on ending the war, or addresses a class based solution to the injustice of discrimination in college admissions and employment or making health care accessible to everyone (though I think that one ain’t enough)? And why does he have to go beyond denouncing Wright’s negative statements about America anyway…Jesus H. Christ, Scarecrow, what does this guy hafta do for you “liberals” anywayz, strip down to his shorts and do a soft shoe while singin’ “Mammy”? Good grief…
It ain’t Obama who hasta explain how he’s gunna “‘end the mindset’ but reject that underlying message”, he’s already on record opposin’ the actions in the first damned place, it’s Mrs. Clinton who’s on record not only supportin’ Iraq but supportin’ the prospect of bombin’ Iran, for God’s sake!!
What we have here is liberals fallin’ into the Clintonesque rhetorical trap of makin’ the opponent disclaim positions that the Clinton’s are on record advancin’… pretty slick ain’t it, but as dishonest as those who use the technique
Perhaps too much time on my hands, but thanx to all for compliment. (This is always a great place to spend some time.) Wanna see another FDL parody? fired’ohlake http://farm3.static.flickr.com…..6ea9_o.jpg
I passed up a Guinness the other day…. perhaps I’ll engage one later.
Digby had an excellent post about this a week or two ago. Liberals always want to “move on” and “work together in a spirit of bipartisanship” so we can “get things done”. That’s why the same zombies keep coming back, from the Nixon administration to the Reagan administration to the Chimpy administration, to the ….
Wake up and smell the coffee, people!
Just up from your nap huh big fella?
KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T PULL THAT CLINTONESQUE SHIT ON DEMOCRATS!!
Ding. Ding. Ding.
Yeah I agree. The god damn America stuff is so loaded out of context. The perception of inflammatory is the “problem” not to mention Wright’s speaking style which few whites can appreciate. But one can end the mindset of the war using completely different language than that of Wright’s social gospel. Obama will have to find the right language for his middle of the road America. I have no doubt he has the capacity to find such language.
All the good effort CNN may be attempting to build with its issues focus for an hour [Issue #1: Economy] is totally undone by the persistent race-baiting drumbeat–from breathless Blitzer, who seems to have the shame to stumble even more than usual over his titillating teaser for talk about Barack and the pastor.
And the clueless? Don Lemon? Roland Martin tried to convey his points while being piled on by both Lemon and the Rethuglican woman.
There they go again…blaring the videoclip. Blitzer…shame on you.
then i make a lousy liberal. because i’m not ready to overlook the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Norske — as I understand your argument, if a candidate says, ”we need to end a warlike mindset” and I ask, given how prevalent that mindset is and the unwillingness to confront why it is prevalent, ”how will you do that?” — that means:
1. I’m falling for a Clinton mind trick (ie., I’m an idiot).
2. I’m racist.
3. I’m dishonest.
I don’t know why I should pay any attention to such crap.
Cherry picking…….don’t matter whether it’s flawed intelligence or a video of preacher, absent context!
1,793 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ONM AND ON AND..
Citizen Raven and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
“Just up from your nap huh big fella?”
Yeah and it’s my youngest daughter’s 20th birthday and she’s in Panama City, Florida and I’m sittin’ here in the middle of a wet blanket snow squall…so I ain’t takin’ prisoners with full grown adults who should know better. Sorry if it upsets the domestic tranquility but, hey, I’m too old ta pull anymore punches.
KEEP THE FAITH AND LET’S NOT SHOOT OUR OWN TROOPS THERE’RE ENUFF OF THE BASTARDS MASQUARADIN’ AS DEMOCRATS!!
If I understand you, you’re saying that Chimpy and the gang should be tried for war crimes. If that’s what you’re saying then I wouldn’t say that makes you a lousy liberal– quite the contrary.
My only daughter is turning 20 this Friday!
yes. and many people in the clinton administration too.
but they should all get fair trials.
I love what OB is saying on this and I love this analysis.
But I have a sad observation with regard to the MSM as the new assassins.
It seems as if our MSM, as it exists today, would have found a way to savage RFK in the same way as they are savaging OB. They were a different media then, so RFK was savaged in another way. Today, that is not necessary.
Oh you sweet talker with that “fair trial” discussion. *G*
lol.
1,793 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Scarecrow:
“1. I’m fallin’ for a Clinton mindtrick (ie. I’m an idiot)
2. I’m racist
3. I’m dishonest
Big sigh…no dear, but Mrs. Clinton is all of the above and is clever enough to get good folks (like you)to turn the questions that should be asked of her on to those who have already more than answered ‘em.
I’m sorry if I hurt yer feelin’s but I’m not gunna stand for ANYone makin’ the good guys answer for the sins of the bad guys…it’s been pulled on real Democrats for the last 50years and if we don’t protect Obama from those tactics we deserve what we get when we let Clinton-McCain define our politics.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE FUCKIN’ AMMUNITION…IT’S ABOUT TIME WE FIGURED OUT WHO’S ON OUR SIDE HERE!!
Uh Norske, ol’ buddy? You did notice that Scarecrow said she had to answer the same questions didn’t you? Or did you just go immediately into rant mode without actually reading ALL of the damn post?
Unlike Mitt Romney’s religion speech, I suspect Obama’s speech will be worth listening to, and possibly even a speech of historic consequent.
As far as ‘media corruption’ goes, I wouldn’t call it ‘corruption.’ I’d say that the media is wholly corporate and has become a purely propaganda vehicle.
The solution is campaign finance reform. We MUST excise the corporations from the political process.
How would the media spin this Black pastor?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U
I don’t think scarecrow is a she.
Ugh.
My eco-take on both Dem Senators is that their enviro records/policies are sadly inadequate.
My physician’s take on both Dem Senators is that their health “solutions” serve insurers, yet leave patients without coverage.
(and on both issues, McCain is worse).
And my shrink’s take on both candidates reflexive supporters/opponents is that incindiary epithets (”racist” / “misogynist”) serve as channels for said partisans to excrete their unprocessed rage.
Which is a pity: the steaming emotional dumps stink up otherwise useful discussions, driving away the folks who want to discuss ideas, rather than hurl epithets.
OTOH, I’m finding I have more free time for productive work – skipping the partisans’ comments makes reading threads a lot faster.
Keep up the fire, don’t bother me.
I wasn’t calling Scarecrow a she. Please read the end of Scarecrow’s post, Norske’s second rant and my response again.
Got it. thx
Who were the war criminals in the Clinton administration?
Massive Scarecrow— can you ask Obama to revoke through legislation and the FCC every government granted award of licensed spectrum since the Communications Act was passed in 1934. Only one license has been revoked, if am I correct, since 1934. Count up the minutes of actual broadcast time for every one half hour of nightly news, It comes to about 17 to 18 minutes. Then break down the 17-18 minutes and see what you have, literally.
George Tenet and Madeline Albright. Just ask the citizens of Belgrade
When the Jews call us women shicksas, and don’t want their sons to have anything to do with us -that’s OK isn’t it -because they’re white. Does Hillary have to answer for them? Should she? because she’s white and part-Jewish, and a woman?
Or when when Robertson and Falwell and Hagee go after gays and Democrats with horrible demeaning comments and wishing the deaths of Judges- McCain doesn’t have to answer to that does he -why is that considered OK with the media?
NO! It’s only Obama and his BLACKNESS that allow the media and all of the above to go after him.
A CNN host, not a guest – the actual host said “I’m not buying Obama’s story!
MSNBCs’ Chris Matthews, along with Margaret and Tucker Carlson- just got angry with Bill Krystol for admitting he made an error when he accused Obama in a New York Times article of being in the church on the day of one of the videos. They’re pissed!
Matthews even goes on a hysterical St’ Patricks Day rant againt Obama claiming the majority of Catholics are for Clinton?? Illinois Catholics went 48% to Obama. And they were high in Maryland too. And then he shows a clip of Clinton in the PA. parade with Rendell – Rendell is not Cathiolic he’s Jewish.
None of them show Obama one gracious f***ing word now, but just throw everything and anything. They said to stay tuned, “we’re sure to find a clip of Obama in Wright’s church eventuially.
And that Krystol ‘error notice’ can’t be found anywhere in the NYT.
But worse – this FDL article is just as much of a problem as the likes of Chris Mathews”:
“…trying to be a black President…”??
I don’t think I remember him “trying to be everyone’sPresident.
I never cared what color he was
The Kristol correction is at the top of his column online right now.
I am absolutely disgusted by the media coverage on the Wright matter. No Haggee coverage. No Parsley coverage. Just smear, smear, smear. I have been an Obama supporter for some time. Now, I am more committed than ever before. Ironically, I was watching CNN this morning in our bedroom and our bedroom TV popped and caught fire. I take that as a sign that even God has had it with the media.
Listened to Rush Limbaugh this afternoon. He believes he was responsible for Hillary’s wins in Ohio and Texas via cross over Republicans. He was quite proud of himself.
A Pennsylvania Republican (male) phoned in to say he switched party affiliations and could hardly wait to vote for Hillary in the primary. I don’t know how Dems can protect themselves from this sort of thing. Perhaps it might be possible for people in Ohio and Texas to get some sort of number of how many Republicans crossed over. Since their vote was secret, we cannot be sure, but it is a safe assumption that Republicans who crossed over voted for Hillary. She’s liable to win Pennsylvania for the same vile reason.
Scarecrow, thanks for taking point on this issue, again. Even in the midst of a potential economic crisis, I don’t know that there is a more important issue being ignored by the MSM these days. Thanks, and thanks again.
I will take issue with one assertion:
I would agree that Senator Clinton would have to answer the question if she, too, intended to move forward. But I don’t believe that. I believe she wants to be elected and win a second term; and, if running to the middle and holding to the status quo gets that done for her then I believe that’s what she’ll do. That wouldn’t necessarily be bad. We MIGHT actually get a national health care plan out of it. But, other than the fact that there will be a woman at the helm, it will not be a trans formative chapter in the history of America. I believe Barack Obama has the capability to make that transformation…at least…when I buy into his rhetoric, I have hope.
Scarecrow, I love Obama’s thought:
This is the story of America. I feel the same way myself in my bright green tie in honor of my Mother, who is Irish all the way back, while my father is English and German, as far as we can tell. We all think like this about ourselves in our heart of hearts. We have to learn to think like Obama does about all our neighbors, regardless of their ancestry.
I have no wish to get into the Obama vs Clinton debates now — it’s not where I’m focused at the moment. But I simply take at face value that both candidates want the office at least in part because they believe in the causes they’ve worked on and believe they can do more from the Oval Office. I just accept it on faith, even though I understand why others have their doubts.
Given that starting point, I think both candidates confront the same issues. For example, Hillary has proposals for withdrawing troops, based on some plan she will direct the Pentagon and others to develop. But she’ll have to deal with the right wing and Fox news attacks on the “surrender” issue and “abandonment” issue, etc. It will be politically difficult, even if a strong majority agree we should get out. If I’m right about that (I may not be) then Clinton will need to have a rationale, a story, a response to the criticisms, and in developing that response, I think she’ll run into the very question I’m raising.
I give Obama credit for raising the question in the first place. Perhaps it’s just a slogan, but I think he realizes its centrality. But all the candidates will have to answer it.
It is an appealing thought.
Point taken. And in reply, I’ll answer your original question:
He does it with scintillating oratory skills; appeals to ethos, pathos and logos in a manner that reaches more humans than ever before and sends chills up their collective legs. He does it with a brilliant white smile, a twinkle in his eye and level of charisma that has not been present in the Office of the President for nearly fifty years, if ever. He does it with an embrace of the future and respect for the past and a devastating outside jumpshot, of course.
In the meantime I respect and appreciate that you stay focused on the issues at hand. Cheers!
Your question led me to think about Nelson Mandela who following his release from prison in 1990, adopted a policy of reconciliation and negotiation and helped lead the transition to multi-racial democracy in South Africa. Nobody accused him of being naive, inconsistent or boxed in by conflicting demands.
At the best moments of this campaign, I think that kind of vision and leadership is being offered to us if we are smart enough to accept it and not be distracted, deceived or discouraged.
I owe FDL an apology and you too Scarecrow. Thanks for the letter writing on behalf of the Obama/race issue.
I know many good people see the good side of Hillary and want her to win – but I won’t accept her win if it isn’t received honestly and fairly.
Other than on Olbermann’s show, the media glee in airing that tape over and over is breathtaking. I bet it shot the military recruiting numbers up like crazy.
But have your letter writing fingers at the ready and beware of MSNBC/NBC/GE. They have two new shows aiming at the campaigns. After firing Dan Abrahams useless poorly rated gossip flop, they’ve now brought him back and will retitle his show “Verdict with Dan Abrahams” (he’s an attorney), just in time for what? You guessed it -starring the Rezko trial. But let’s see if he focuses on the March 20 hearing by Judicial Watch, where JD wants Clintons’ papers badly. Papers all the way back to Clintons’ secret health care deal.
And, they’ve given David Gregory his own show -someone who follows orders very well.
Both shows have Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carson as fixtures.
So you’re saying we should have let the Serbs continue their ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? “Hey, it’s not our problem, man. I don’t want to get involved.”
As the nominating process draws to a close and the Dems cease talking about racism it’s somewhat likely the press and Republicans will pick up the torch and show their true colors. Maybe then there will be more of the public who begin to recognize the media for their partisan positions and the Republicans for their political tactics.
How are humanitarian issues are used as a political device and to what purpose?
You’re answering a question with a question. Are you saying we should not have intervened in Kosovo?
What is the matter with all of you people? Have you NOT listened to those vidiotapes. Can it be any clearer that Obama has been a phoney with regards to the message that he has spewn? To embrace a 7,000 member church in the heart of his political district in Illinois was a great stepping stone to his political career. To vote “present” in the Illinois Legislature was a great strategy fo his future political moves. It is apparent he is a conventionally opportunistic politician, smart, disciplined, a great campaigner and organizer. But do I believe his words? Not anymore than I will believe his words today as he tries to explain his intimate relationship with his paster of 20 years, who is his MENTOR, who he placed in his campaign as religious paster of the Black America church. This paster who has exemplified and expanded on the meaning of racial diversity, hatred and hostility towards the White America. That ain’t bringing us together and I must question BO closeness with this Kind of individual. In good conscience, I could never vote for Barak Obama in the General Election
Ah, “what is the matter with all you people?” Well, one possibility is that there is another point to be made that doesn’t yet fit in your world view.
I used to sit in church (Methodist) every Sunday, and I listened to the sermons. Virtually all white congregation, but nevertheless, our minister(s) occassionally thought it important to remind us that violence against others, racism, facism, and other extemisms were not compatible with the Christian faith, that it was a moral imperative to see these evils in our own lives and address them. That this might be a phenonmenon in Obama’s church should not surprise or upset anyone, except those who are not comfortable being reminded of these truths.
Do you not see that we are witnessing a despicable effort by our media to argue that liberation theology — part of which is railing/ fighting against injustice — is not an acceptable religious creed? Who are these self appointed high priests — the Broders, Halperins, Russerts and Matthews and Wallaces — who dare to impose their religious views on us?
Do you not see that as we watch millions of Americans lose their homes, their jobs, their health insurance, their chance at higher education — even as the government bails out the most irresponsible crooks on Wall Street — that as we watch 4000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed — that instead of focusing on these real atrocities and asking how we got there and who led us there, our media thinks the most important question of the day is whether Obama was sitting in a pew when his pastor said these things are evil? How perverse, how irresponsible. I sure hope he was.
We need to drag the war mongers and those who veto childrens’ health care into church and force them to listen.
Barack Obama does not have to defend his pastor; his obligation in church was to listen and absord those parts of the sermon he thinks are relevant to his life. He apparently chose the redemption/foregiveness part of his pastor’s message. But our media ignores that; it’s guilt by association with someone who did not commit a crime, but never mind that; they see blood and all the sharks are swirling, looking for attendence sheets on Sunday morning, but they won’t ask the President who signed off on torture or illegal wiretapping.
First of all, the media (and I have listened to all those you name)is in the business of ratings and they go with any story that is sensational — witness Swift Boating Kerry — Yes, precisely, we should be talking about all the issues which are so important — homes lost and homelessness, lost jobs, health insurance for the poor and children, education, THE Unjust WAR in Iraq, and on and on. But people — vote for one person to lead our nation and take us out of all of our problems. So, I cannot take the idiology of Barak Obama and separate it from the messages of his minister who ADVOCates hate between the whites and blacks and is divisive at the very least. As a teenager, I read the book, “Black Like Me” and was uterly amazed at the predicament of the Negro (as they were called back then) race in the deep South. I have never considered myself a racist and have been sympathic to their blights, hardships and hateful prejudices. It is not about that. This campaign for me is to pick the right person who can actually make the changes happen and I don’t believe in BO as that Hope as so many in the liberal Democractic party do.
Scarecrow, I’m going to try again to get an answer from you: If the comments by Pastor Wright is so appropriate and natural and expected in a church espousing black libertion theology, given the history of racism in this country, then how do you feel about Obama denouncing these remarks? If comments like these are so often heard in black churches (integrated in this case), then how likely is it that Obama, in 20 years of attending that church, never heard such rhetoric from Reverend Wright.
Obama has told us that if he had ever heard such language he would have denounced it and quite the church. Do you find this to be a likely scenario? We are not just talking about Obama’s church pastor, we are talking about the man who married the Obamas, baptised their children, and who Obama selected to be his personal spiritual counselor as well as to be a member of his committee of spiritual advisors for his campaign.
On a pragmatic note, you may not think this is fair, but try to picture the fall campaign if Obama is the nominee. Those clips will be everywhere, juxtaposed with clips of Obama extolling this man. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize at hand: we must win this presidency. One more vote on the Supreme Court and you can kiss our rights goodbye. I just do not think Obama will be able to withstand the Republican onslaught, using this ammunition. Hillary can; she has taken everything they had in the last 20 years and withstood it all. She withstood the full might of a federal special prosecutor who had a clear agenda to incriminate her, and he did not lay a glove on her.
Who is more likely to win for us in November? That is the critical question and I believe the answer is Hillary
Scarecrow, Senator Obama’s speech today, a really brilliant speech in many ways, made clear his disagreement with the comments attributed to Reverend Wright (although the Senator also appears to be backtracking on his flat assertion that he had never heard such comments from the Reverend and if he had he would have immediately denounced them and quit the church). So, I’m going to ask you again what you think of the Senator’s denunciation of the remarks at issue. In the Senator’s words:
“*** we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.”
douglas — Read my post. you keep asking me to answer the very question I asked of Obama in the post. Read it again. This is a question our entire political system much confront, as I suggest in my final reference to Clinton.
I don’t have a perfect answer. I frankly don’t know how, in the long run, you reverse the mindset without addressing the merits of Wright’s critique, when stripped of its more inflammatory rhetoric.
But the reality of American politics, and the fundamental corruption of the American media, suggest that it’s almost impossible to address these questions in the middle of a campaign when Fox News, and now the networks and MSNBC, are eager to make the Obama/Wright relationship the major issue of the campaign. We’ve got the media scouring the attendance sheets at Obama’s church, for heaven’s sake, while the war rages on, the economy is risking collapse, millions of American are losing their jobs, their homes, their insurance, their retirements and their hopes for education.
I haven’t read all of Obama’s speech today, but it seems the political reality is that he has no choice in today’s America than to come down hard on Wright. I don’t fault either Wright or Obama for recognizing why this is happening. But we need to recognize what this means.
What appears to be happening is that the media are essentially ruling out of acceptable bounds any campaign position that questions the morality of American foreign policy. This is not about Wright. It’s about whether it’s legitimate to question the underlying attitudes of John McCain, Lieberman, Cheney, et al. If the media can force Obama to denounce his black pastor for his critique of American, then a comparable — though less incendiary — critique of McCain/Lieberman/Cheney is also out of bounds. You can’t question America, so you can’t question America’s self-proclaimed defenders. This is a dangerous argument.
The media is in the process of narrowing the field of legitimate debate, and attacking Obama’s blackness in the process (all Black Churches are anti-American, right?) and we need someone to fight to keep the debate open, to expose the implicit racism and the media’s willingness to foreclose the issue. I see a way for Obama to do that, and I’ll be looking for that in his speech, but I understand how today’s politics limit his ability to do so.
In the meantime, Clinton too has a stake in keeping this debate open, because otherwise her ability to take on the war’s continuing occupation, the funding of the war, and McCain’s views that the war on Islam extremism is the defining issue of our time will be much narrower. In short, the Wright/Obama issue is a proxy for the core issue of this election, and I want to preserve Obama’s/Clinton’s flexibility in addressing that issue.
By some standards here, I’m a pretty moderate guy, but I’ve heard versions of the Wright critique for decades, since my innocent days at Berkeley in the ’60s, where one got a dose of such rhetoric just walking to class. You don’t have to embrace the incendiary elements to absord the underlying argument that America has a racist, militarist history and has much to answer for.
Scarecrow, Thanks for a very thoughtful and insightful response. As one who worked for McGovern before I could even vote, who worked for Harold Washington in Chicago, I share your distress with the limitations that the political process puts on those who have done some critical thinking about America. Of course we need to remember that much of this is reflective of a fundamentally conservative electorate, which is easily misled. I have stated my preference for Hillary, but I have to say that Obama is one who could start to break through that media blanket and form a progressive coalition to really accomplish some things in this country.
The “narrowing” is your truest point. The usual suspects are attempting to draw the traditional battle lines and control the dialog accordingly. Today, Mr. Obama showed that he is a not an average pawn in that game. He plays on a different level, above the board. The folks in traditional power structures will attempt to draw him down into the fray, again, and again. It is only through conscious voices like yours that the space to hold a transcendent debate can remain above the squabble below. Even if you have no stake in the game, your stalwart defense of the ever expanding arena is a very important part of the future. There should be more as clear sighted; oh, so many more, please.