So, David!

In the immortal words of St. Ronnie,

“When I was growing up [the 1920s],
we didn’t even know we had a race problem in this country.”

oh cant talk about that stuff,we’re the greatest!

yo mama

Thank you. This is an excellent post. You’ve explained it so clearly and simply. I will forward this to many people.

you can digg this post here

Good thoughtful post.

Don’t forget: children “get” and grownups “give”.

explains a lot about needing a “daddy” for a president.

I doubt there were very many blacks in Dixon, Illinois, in the 20’s. [My mother’s hometown too]

As a child in Ohio I lived right on the edge of the “color line” which seemed a difficult concept to explain to my color-blind children.

Walk a mile in the other guys shoes before you judge him. A concept I was raised with, and a lost art in modern America, apparently. If I was a black man in the 60’s and ’70’s, I’d probably have been killing white people. Placing myself in Wright’s shoes, I felt he was sincere in everything he said, and, except for the AIDS thing, he had historical backup for everything he said. The child molester never likes it when the molested child accuses him, either.

Even the liberal Tony Zirkle agrees that race is not a problem.

There was a lot of weird stuff going on back in the 80’s when AIDS really took off:

http://www.health.org.nz/aids2.html

The more I listen to this man, Jeremiah Wright, the more I must agree with him. Even though I could never be accused of the heinous crime of existing while black (as an Italian-Polish American I get the brunt of all the lightbulb-changing jokes so he doesn’t). He has important things to say that are rather inconvenient at this moment. Perhaps it would be better if shut his beak for a bit, though it must be said eventually; only wait a little. Actually, he needs talking to if he is resentful of his congregant Senator Obama’s distancing himself from the soundbites. Yes, Obama is in fact a politician, but I think he may be more, and it grieves me to think that Wright may be working to bring him down out of spite.

Ask yourself this:

why would a person so concerned about racism, presumably wanting to end it, mock John F. Kenney, sabotage Barack Obama’s chances at becoming president, and betray MLK, Jr.,by defending Louis Farrakhan?

There is a troubling pattern there.

I’m bewildered, but I think I’m working my way up to bitter

I wrote this earlier today on this subject:

Yesterday many shows asked the question repeatedly why Rev. Wright would give the interviews and say the things he’s been saying that are hurting Obama’s campaign for the Presidency. The more I see of the Reverend, the more I’ve been mulling over that question myself, and I am now ready to proffer an answer. While I realize many people have chalked the continuation of these hurtful interviews and speeches up to the Reverend’s ego, his resentment of being rejected from this campaign, his denial of the limelight by Obama, I think it is much more.

I think that Rev. Wright has been preaching throughout his whole career that black folks cannot be elected because white people will never allow it. Now he’s watching his career go down in disbelief as Obama, a half-white man, is proving him wrong. The Reverend never expected this to happen in his lifetime. But he is entirely too intelligent a man to not be aware that his words and his recent speeches and interviews are hurting Obama’s campaign. Therefore, I must conclude that he is deliberately sabotaging the Obama campaign in order to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. It appears to me that the man simply does not want to lose black victimhood as an issue to rail against. He said it’s not about him, nor about Obama, but I think he sees the white man in Obama as his enemy. He said in his speech that he told Obama that he would come after him on the day after he succeeds in getting elected, because then Obama will represent a government that he sees as in need of punishment for past offenses. Yet he has decided to take it on himself to punish Obama for even seeking the office. In my opinion, in the end, this Reverend will not be well received by his own flock once they realize that he has selfishly manipulated circumstances to derail Obama’s race for the Presidency contrary to their best interests.

What is equally sad is the fact that the media itself is amongst the easiest to manipulate. While Wright wants to rail against inequity and talk about reconciliation, Obama is already reconciled and he wants to talk about hope. Obama has said:

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…

We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.”

So the ball is now in the media’s court. Do they want to further Reverend Wrights great plan to prove Obama wrong so that he can be proved right? Do they want to help Reverend Wright to prove that the vast majority of Americans, both black and white, have not overcome the bondages of racism by discussing every word he utters ad nauseum? The alternative is not to allow themselves to be manipulated, not to give every minute of airspace to this man who preaches reconciliation while he openly mocks the way white folks clap or the speech patterns in Massachusetts. It’s not as if we whites don’t deserve it. How many times have we made fun of ebonics and the way many blacks say “axe” for ask or how they use the verb “be.” But two wrongs still do not make a right, and I hate to see the media allow a single black minister to throw the Presidential race off simply so that he can say “I told you so!” in the end.

Oh, David, David, David. Nuance, shades of grey, who has time for that? Read the whole sermon? Wright said “God Damn America” so that proves he hates America.

/s

JFK said (and I paraphrase here) that politics was the best way to effect positive change. I still believe that, but that belief is often tested.

I also believe Obama embodies what JFK saying. Once in a great while, a man (or woman) comes along at the right time and they are that catalyst for change. Obama speaks to us as if we’re adults. I don’t find that with the other candidates.

Obama should have had Wright figured. He just the kind of guy who likes to own you. And any confidences given him by Obama put Obama at risk. So Obama should have figured this guy long ago. It’s a bit disconcerting that Obama was not away from this ego freak a long time ago. Now,in some respects Wright owns Obama.

I like Al Franken’s assessment. For awhile I’ve come to think that R’s view our country & government in a “Father Knows Best” idealized way. No matter that dad may be a vicious alcoholic, mom is popping sedatives & the kids are running wild, all looks pretty & perfect from outside the front door. They have to desperately defend their rosy vision if anyone tries to break through the denial or they would be forced to deal with the flaws.

There’s a tinge of irony in many of the very people who have covertly used symbols of “hatred of America”, perpetual “rememberance of wrongs” past, and defiance of the United States…are the ones that these media barrages are focused upon. I’m speaking, of course, about the folks that still are resentful of the Civil War freeing the slaves, and of their glorifying the symbols of the Confederacy. How, after all, can one love one’s country, when you display the images of the government that sought to bring it down in defense of it’s traditions (slavery)?

Hardly people who have any right to go around and question someone elses “patriotism” and “love of country”. And the Republican Party is replete with “leaders” who continue to hold those images as icons of their identity.

By the way, here’s an interesting quote. Bet one would be surprised at who said it.

Everybody, almost the entire population of Jackson County and Vernon and Cass and Bates counties, all of them were depopulated, and the people had to stay in posts.

They called them posts, but what they were, they were concentration camps. And most of the people were moved in such a hurry that they had to leave all their goods and their chattels in their houses. Then the Federal soldiers came in and took everything that was left and set fire to the houses.

That didn’t go down very well with the people in these parts; putting people in concentration camps in particular didn’t. (pp 78-79)

From: “Plain Speaking: an Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman,” [referring to what happened to his grandmother during the Civil War]

I can’t take this anymore.

Oh, and he mocked LBJ as well.

Wright didn’t mock any of the presidents of the party of the Southern Strategy; he mocked the two who were instrumental in pushing through civil rights legislation!

Why?

I agree with Ann in Az, that Wright sees people who actually want to end racial division as threats to what he’s about.

It makes no sense that he would mock only two presidents and choose the ones responsible for seeing that the Civil Rights Act was passed, NOT mock any borne out of the Southern Strategy, sabotage the first black American’s chance at the presidency, which would have an effect of further eroding the gap between the races, and defend Louis Farrakhan.

Sooner or later public are going to tire of and see through the charade that the media has made of Reverend Wright, IMHO.

Personally, I don’t give a hoot if Wright is right or wrong. I actually don’t give a hoot either if Obama has to disown him. Wright isn’t running for president. Obama is. I happen to think he would bring a breath of fresh air to Washington.

In all of our seemingly endless analysis of the non-event that is Wright, let us not loose sight of the fact that we want the best Democrat in the oval office in January of 2009.

Forest, trees, and all that stuff. This is NOT the time to pile on. The sooner the Rev STFU, the better. The sooner we STFU about it, even better.

I have to say that I can’t quite buy this. For one thing, it buys into the right-wing frame that Black Liberation Theology is all about selling victimization to black people. That’s severely undercut, of course, by the reality of black victimization historically, and the continuing failure to address its institutional consequences.

http://www.csde.state.ct.us/pu…..ist008.htm

Check out the richest state in CT (Joe’s stomping grounds)and my school (100% eat breakfast and lunch in school – free):

Number Percent STUDENT RACE/ETHNICITY
American Indian 3 0.5
Asian American 0 0.0
Black 221 37.1
Total Minority 2006-07 97.3%
Hispanic 356 59.7
Total Minority 2001-02 93.0%
White 16 2.7

I don’t know who the white kids are, but I’ve never seen them.

Right On!

You think the GOP is going to STFU about it?

we’re not getting anywhere…. this narrative doesnt change – i dont know where its going to end but this much i do know – with all the bitterness this will not end well imo its still race and “uppity negroes”!! i am sooo disgusted with all of this!

Forgot to mention – Paul Newman (of Westport) called Bridgeport the “armpit of Connecticut).

We don’t talk about that – but he’s close.

A poll taken sometime ago showed that 90% of Chinese believed
that the CIA planted SARS in their country…but you’ll never hear
that get discussed in our media for fear of offending the Chinese as they hold our debt…

I will take a guess.
He’s been a large fish in a small pond, and now one of his congregants is a large fish in a huge ocean. And he doesn’t like it.
There is probably a lot more to it but that is as much as I’m willing to guess.

David, thanks so much for this post. You said what most of us are feeling!

As I road home from work today, I had to listen to Howie Carr asking the question, “Who in the hell let’s their kids listen to Rev. Wright?”. He was trying to make the point that Rev. Wright is dangerous while all the other Revs & Ministers & Priests of other faiths are okay for our children to listen to.

(Uh, hello Howie…you’re lucky you didn’t ask that question in front of me, because no telling what I would have done. I would have reminded you of the parents who allowed their children to hold these signs or about the parents who sent their kids to Jesus Camp, and would have reminded you that Ted Haggard was renting a gay male prostitute & doing meth with him and according to your analysis, this means all his parishioners are just like him and knew all along he was doing this!)

Spit.

Rev. Wright is preaching to his choir, because the people who did go to his sermons were from all walks of life, but they all have one common thing: America hasn’t always been too good to them, their neighbors, their families, nor their race and they would come together each Sunday to feel whole.

For better or worse, this is the conversation that Obama started with the Philadelphia speech. We couldn’t shut up about it if we tried. The race issue will continue right on through election day.

But if we can frame the debate, then Obama (and to a lesser degree Clinton) will ultimately benefit.

You think the GOP is going to STFU about it?

Of course not, but why feed them talking points? Believe me, the Repubs are not doing near the amount of damage to Dems as we are doing to ourselves.

Sooner or later, I believe Obama will be the Dem nominee. I understand that you support Hilary, but I also hope when the time comes you will throw your support behind whoever is the Democratic nominee for president.

Like I said, forest trees.

Sorry gotta run.

it is also undercut by liberation theology (disclaimer – i’ve only read a little of gutierrez, not any black liberation theology) itself which is not about victimization.

I don’t agree with several of the things Wright has said but I think the outrage like the controversy is manufactured. If you read or listen to more than a few snippets of what he is saying, it becomes very clear where he is coming from. He is deeply angry about injustice in this country and how we choose, or rather do not choose, to deal with it. I agree with almost nothing with regard to Louis Farrakhan but the thing that I see Wright sharing with him is that anger that America has failed to live up to its ideals. With our media degenerated to clownish infotainment, serious issues, serious discussion of them, anger at injustice are things to be avoided or ridiculed.

Yes, Wright could do what is politically expedient for Barack Obama but his whole training has been not to do that. The media want him to play the role of the whipping boy. Can you imagine how deeply offensive that is to someone like Wright whose whole view of the African-American experience over 4 centuries on this continent has been that of the whipping boy? I believe him when he says this isn’t about Obama. It is very much about him Rev. Wright, not in an egotistical kind of way but as one in which he refuses to play the role the media have assigned to him. How dare he not knuckle under to those he has spent his whole life opposing. How dare he not be the good n*gger and play the bad n*gger for us. How dare he.

Plus this is the biggest audience he’s likely ever had, and he’s making the most of it.

Just read the transcript of Obama’s press conference- sounds as if he is throwin Wright out of his life- and he seems pretty pissed.

He says that Wright MAY not have been acting to deliberately fuck up his campaign—so he’s at least considering the possibility that this is all deliberate-.

If you think Obama is being honest- this is more than a minor disagreement. The two men are at war.

for everyone making claims about what hidden wright’s hidden motivation is – could you please provide some evidence to back up your claim? also why you think your explanation is better than the possibility that he cares about the issues he’s talking about and this is his first (and probably last) opportunity to discuss them with a national audience?

That’s fine, David, nobody has to agree with me. And I realize that much of what the Reverend says is not only true, but we’ve said a lot of it right here. I know it’s even worse than what the Rev. actually portrays. For instance, once upon a time it was illegal in many places to educate a slave. Teaching a slave to read was a punishable offense, and I mean harsh punishments. In the Confessions of Nat Turner, one of his earliest crimes was learning how to read. Ultimately, he was killed and they literally tanned his hide and made wallets and things out of it.

However, I also know that this is badly affecting Obama’s chances in his Presidential run. I also know that Wright is doing this just before the Indiana election. Did you know that the Ku Klux Klan was “born” in Vincennes, IN? But I would like to hear your answer to why Rev. Wright has chosen this particular time to be so public when he must know it’s a negative to Obama’s race? I don’t think it’s all just ego, and I think the Rev. is much too intelligent for this not to be deliberate sabotage.

the best is the idea fed to school kids that when the pilgrims came to america there was cooperation between the newcomers and natives when in reality there was a price put on native scalps. I guess intentionally spreading disease and cutting off people’s heads would not make for such a good school play

Has there been any reaction from memebers of Reverend Wright’s congregation to Obama’s statement?

So, I’ve been busy today. Did I miss much?

Nah

Well, other than Cheney resigning…o wait, I was dreaming.

amen.

That’s a very good question. As a followup, I’d ask what the reaction has been among the black churches in North Carolina.

you didnt miss a thing lol

Drive by …

Dave if you’re here?

I could be wrong, but, isn’t that pic from Wounded Knee?

I did a little blog on it here

Except that in the General, we’re talking about the overall electorate, the same one that bought that Bush was a compassionate Christian conservative and who, despite the unbelievable damage Republican rule has done to this country, has McCain basically tied with whomever the Dem nominee may be.

There is no way Dems can feed Repubs talking points. Dems can’t begin to come up with the nefarious, Rovian stuff they do.

It is quite the photo.

However, I also know that this is badly affecting Obama’s chances in his Presidential run.

As I said above Wright is a sideshow creation of the media. If it wasn’t him the media would find something else to beat Obama with. Personally I find Clinton’s staying in the race much more harmful to Obama, the Democratic Party, and its chances in November. If you want to talk about the destructiveness of ego, there you have it, without even Wright’s anger at injustice.

The photo is from Wounded Knee, yes.

Obama’s reaction today was appropriate. Obama said a few weeks ago that even though he didn’t agree with some of the things Rev. Wright had said, he said he still considered him a friend.

We love our friends because of our differences as well as our similarities.

Well…Rev. Wright apparently in Obama’s eyes has gone over the line by making this personal. In other words, Rev. Wright is NOT returning the same kind of friendship as Obama thought they had (not judging your friends about every little thing). It appears he’s now severing the friendship.

To me, it’s kind of sad.

No.

Wright attacks those who try to actually end racism in America and defends those who do not. That’s the pattern there.

I second selise, with a further, ‘AMEN’.

Americans can’t think, let alone talk, about the attrocities done in their name. They believe in the big myth “Americans are always just, fair minded and equitable, anyone that says otherwise is itching for a fight.” Listening to the network news this evening it’s clearly evident that the courtesan class will bury Obama unless he demonstrates his feality to the true powers of America, and that doesn’t mean the “people”, another myth liberals cling to like Charleton Heston clung to his six shooter. Obama made the first step today when he refused to address the media’s hidden agenda and once again tried to distance himself from Rev. Wright. It’s just like Jack Nicholson’s quote, “You want the truth, you can’t handle the truth.” Make sure your traveling papers are in order because on November 10th you just might want to put them to good use. As for me, I’ll be in southern France, perhaps Paris.

Yes.

For many in the black community, the whole “we’re past the whole black vs white” thing doesn’t pass the smell test. Too many families are torn apart by a justice system that appears to treat white and black differently. Too many drivers know all to well the reality of Driving While Black. Too many shoppers know the reality of being shadowed by store security in the stores of well-to-do neighborhoods.

Wrong. Wright attacks those who cry “peace, peace,” when there is no peace.

socali linked to this (long) youtube earlier today – it’s of an interview (on fox!) of a friend of wright’s (white roman catholic priest). thought he did a hell of a job.

recommended.

Wright retired- so he no longer HAS a congregation. Obama said nice things about the new guy.

I’m a bit surprised how some people are so willing to use Wright’ statements to the National Journalism Club as a wedge to eliminate Obama from the Presidential campaign. They are so obsessed with “electability” (the one hope that Hillary has to achieve the nomination) that they are willing to sacrifice any sense of honor and justice.

It would be like throwing out Kerry when he was swiftboated rather than defend him. When you give up the fight for a persons integrity that was the point George Bush won in 2004. If electability because of the effectiveness of a smear was what attracts your vote…well then Bush was your guy!

Obama has utterly disavowed Wright’s statements. I don’t think that he believes any of the outrageous things that Wright professes, the AIDs myth, the bulldada attitudes about whites, Farrakhan, etc. It’s non-sensical. There’s nothing in his 16 years of elective office to suggest otherwise.

Really, the idea of abandoning someone to vote for someone else simply because of a smear is so odious and disgusting to me that I, for one, will not even consider it. It JUSTIFY’s the use of the smear., It makes it effective.

To suggest I do so makes me wonder about the ethical underpinnings of those that suggest we consider it.

Well, I think I understand what you mean, but my problem is that I believe that the Rev. Wright is not just speaking to his own flock. He is not just speaking to his own choir. He’s deliberately trying to take Obama down. Why?

Good question- may have been pissed by what Obama said the first time this came up?

But I would like to hear your answer to why Rev. Wright has chosen this particular time to be so public when he must know it’s a negative to Obama’s race? I don’t think it’s all just ego, and I think the Rev. is much too intelligent for this not to be deliberate sabotage.

Part of the timing is the conference that was the occasion for the National Press Club invitation — an invitation offered to him about two years ago, from what I read earlier. (Can’t recall where) Given that he had agreed to speak there, it would have been ridiculous for him NOT to have said something about all this, and the Q&A format would not have allowed it.

Secondly, he answered this himself yesterday. He’s tired of a month of being bashed by the media which has consistently misrepresented his sermons in particular as well as his ministry and his congregation:

And why am I speaking out now? In our community, we have something called playing the dozens. If you think I’m going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition, and my grandma, you’ve got another thing coming.

In his most recent comments, he mocked JFK and LBJ. He is sabotaging Barack Obama. And he defends a man who advocates violence and the eradication of a group of people.

IMO, that points to a desire on his part to NOT end racism in America.

Did everyone see Chris Matthews & Andrea Mitchell’s reaction to Obama’s speech today? Their attitude was, “Ouch. That wasn’t good enough. Nope, I’m not accepting that kind of speech. If only Obama had been a little more forcefulness there….and maybe if had worn a red tie…I would have loved to have seen some anger too. I’m just not buying anything this man says”.

Howie Carr had the same kind of attitude.

Of course, tomorrow they’ll be asking, “Why is Rev. Wright still in the news? It’s so weird! I mean, really, this is a presidential election and you’d think everyone would want to be talking about Iraq or something, you know, like healthcare? I can’t believe he’s still on the air! Andrea, let’s listen to the clip one more time of the Reverend screaming, “God damn America!”, so our viewers will know we’re not going to talk about it anymore!’.

*shaking head*

Obama should read this post. Rather than apologize for Wright, he should explain how easy it is for blacks to believe Wright’s charges especially when they are (including the AIDs one) possibly true. (I don’t think there was an intent to destroy blacks-but it is not impossible what was intended as a small experiment got out of hand) When Obama apologizes, he permits his opposition to frame the issue. He gets defensive. That’s not a good thing in a president.

That said, there is something in the black psyche that keeps many from getting ahead and brings them to attack those on the verge of leaving the “hood”. Shelby Steele in “The Content of Our Character” opposed segregation on college campuses. He claimed blacks can compete with whites on white terms, but unwarranted inferiority feelings restrain them. Steele was roundly criticized by mainstream black intellectuals for “blaming the victims”. For some reason it seems, from reading newspapers, that blacks attending college get shot by those who don’t. Don’t know the numbers and I have no links, but there have been several stories about good black kids being shot by those who reject white-like social possibilities.

They are so obsessed with “electability” (the one hope that Hillary has to achieve the nomination) that they are willing to sacrifice any sense of honor and justice.

I proudly admit to being obsessed with electability.
If I become convinced Clinton is more electable than Obama, I will jump ship and support her. If you consider that dishonorable or unjust, consider what an honor and justice of living through a third Bush term.

Wright didn’t mock JFK and LBJ. He used their speech patterns to illustrate how some white speech patterns are accepted as different while some black speech patterns are deemed sub-standard.

Angry Black Bitch has noted a concept in the advertising world: “Acceptably Black” — that’s the mentality that Wright was calling out in Detroit.

Given the Bush economy, even the talking heads cannot afford certain risks. They would lose any chance of every working at Fox if they said anything positive about a non Republic. That’s simply too much to risk.

I have a friend who was back from Vietnam right after occupation of Wounded Knee ended. He examined some of the boards from the church that was burned down. Found .50 caliber bullet holes in some of them. THe FBI denied using .50 caliber weapons.

Totally agree- I’m not on anyone’s ship anyway- just don’t want McBush in the White House.

ABB condensed that post into a T-shirt:

Acceptably Black
Clean — Non-Threatening — Speaks Well

Well, REAL friends don’t do that and that’s why Obama’s speech was appropriate today. Had one of my friends acted like Wright did, I too wouldn’t want the friendship to continue.

Fox News broke the Wright story. Who wants to bet they paid Wright from the beginning to go after Obama? Wouldn’t surprise me. On Howie Carr’s show, he said Wright has been selling the video clips that we’ve had to watch for the past few weeks now.

Did Wright approach Fox News first? I don’t know. I don’t know if the selling of the vids is true or not either. But! None of this I hold against Obama, because he has class. I truly believed him today when he said HE MEANT IT that he is sickened by Wright’s performance and needs to wash his hands of him today.

We don’t know people in our lives as well as we think we do. Case in point:

My Uncle Jim died @ 16 years ago and month before his death, he and my Aunt revealed to the family that Uncle Jim when he was a little boy (13 maybe?) went away with the circus. Yep. His parents didn’t know where he was until…well…you’ll see in a sec. What circus you ask? Ringling Brothers and he was IN THE TENT WHEN THE HUGE FIRE BROKE OUT DOWN IN CONNECTICUT. Swear. No one knew this….not even his kids. It’s not an earth shattering revelation, but it makes you think deeply that we just don’t know every life experience of everyone around us and we certainly don’t know their every thought either.

As someone who knows Wright personally, the idea that he would take money from Fox to “go after Obama” is not just laughable but downright offensive.

I prefer to understand Rev. Wright’s continuing defense of his sermons as he himself explains it: he takes the criticism not as personal, but as defamatory of his church, his flock, his people. His congregation is offended by the media attention, and so Rev. Wright is responding much as a parent would, whose child has just been subjected to verbal abuse by an adult: He’s defensive– not of himself, but of his church, i.e., his people, his family. He’s actually acting very pastorally. Obama is only one member (perhaps ex-member), but his care and concern is for his whole flock. So of course he will defend them. And if defending them requires dissing Obama, then he’ll do that, because he takes responsibility for his people.

Bob in HI

No! No! No!

HIV-B is now known to be widespread in wild-chimp populations and causes the same effects in them as in humans. It’s been in those chimp populations for decades before the HIV epidemic in humans, and is the clear genetic source of the virus in humans.

Endogenous HIV is wild East African Chimp Populations

HIV-A is found in sooty mangabeys, and again is widespread, though not lethal.

The most likely source is “bushmeat”….not an experiment. Not a genetic lab.

It was a question, Peterr. I obviously don’t know the answer to it. If you say Wright would never do that and you know him personally, then he wouldn’t do that. Rumors are flying as you know. ;-)

It doesn’t matter what you want. It just matters what the media and their ruling elites want. And believe me brother the way this is playing out the last thing they want is a Democrat in the White House. You are entitled to your wishful thinking, however. It’s the American way.

Oldgold…you are NOT an Obama supporter. So your claims are facetious.

So of all the white people in the world and with all the different dialects, he just happened to choose the two who actually did a lot to move the civil rights act forward.

And that doesn’t raise any eyebrows? It does mine. His mocking how white people clap didn’t help either. And again, he’s sabotaged Obama’s chances. What would Obama getting into the WH do? It would have an inevitable effect of furthering the erosion of the racial divide in America. So why would a man so concerned about race and racism sabotage that AND mock the two Civil Rights presidents, AND defend someone like Farrakhan?

Btw, what happened to Obama saying people should understand from where Wright’s passion/wrath comes from?

Let your conscience be your guide. If you stand for DLC politics and what Ms Clinton has done to subvert the Democratic process, more power to you! What do you think Thomas Paine would say about any of these people?

I think you mean specious, and why does not supporting Obama make a person’s claims inherently specious?

but it’s not outrageous that wright doesn’t know that. his analysis is based on what the gov is capable of morally – he specifically mentioned the tuskegee experiments. not, i think, any special refutation of sequencing data, phylogenetic analyses, evolution or whatever the current understanding is based on.

What has she done to subvert the democratic process? What votes to count?

Revealing photo. Proud white American, as Bush would say, “folks”, just burying their handiwork. Somehow I don’t remember that from my HS history class.

I doubt Obama thinks from now on Rev. Wright has no right to express himself. What he was saying today is Rev. Wright went after him and made this personal. That’s where Obama is drawing the line in their friendship.

That’s how I see it.

Well Rev. Wright is certainly a side light in my life.

I’m closing my book on him as a guy who has probably done a lot of good but has some pretty screwed up opinions and who has not helped Obama to get elected…I’m sure that there’s LOTS more to learn- but that’s about as far as my interest will take me.

I think Obama will survive this-but it’s been a trial

Wow, lots pearl clutching and almost swooning going on..
Everyone is agreed that this country* needs to change.
The only way to change, is to start the change.
Both Barak and Rev Wright have raised and continue to raise valid and important points re, history, racism, poverty, people’s view of their own self-worth/reality etc.
These are issues that need to be talked/learned about. So, why all the panic because it is finally out to be discussed?
Are we* only defined by color, race, religion, sex? OR can we actually have a grown-up conversation?

Blue Texan had a great post earlier today on FDL about Rev. Wright:

http://firedoglake.com/2008/04…..recession/

We’re living in a right wing media nightmare!

I didn’t say anything about Obama saying he has no right to express himself.

The only people I see suggesting Wright be quiet are Obama supporters, btw.

What I was addressing was Obama’s speech in Philadelphia in which he said we must try to understand each other’s experiences, and went on to describe Wright as having residual anger from his own experiences with racism.

I guess that went away when Obama’s campaign became threatened!

I agree with most everything I’ve heard Rev. Wright say. When I saw how hurt Obama was today, it made me sad. Prior to all of this, Obama respected Rev. Wright, considered him a friend, and felt like he knew him. The backstabbing Obama felt was the last straw for him.

Ending a long term friendship/relationship is not easy. It didn’t appear Obama was in good spirits today at all.

Obviously only your opinion of “Electability” is meaningful, that of the majority is meaningless as you have repeated ad nauseum. The stupid electorate knows nothing, but the all knowing Clinton supporters, on the other hand, will save us from ourselves. Thanks for nothing! Your concept of democracy leaves a hell of a lot to be desired…

That’s what leftists in Germany said in 1934. Is it politicaly correct to say leftists on a “liberal” blog?

You point is very good…but how does abandoning Obama or compelling him to stop his campaign do anything other than JUSTIFY racism? For Wright, if you are correct, it would actually PROVE HIS POINT…and it would create the very evidence that he could use to establish that no black man, not even one that is as willing to speak across racial boundaries, to issues of poverty and class, is able to win against the institutional racism in this country.

And by insisting that Obama withdraw and playing to this this issue one also justifies the right-wing campaign that fabricated it.

In my view…toss Obama, especially without the most heated and courageous fight, and you have surrendered to racism…you’ve sacrificed the values of his campaign and some very essential values of the Democratic party.

A parable: A nice girl brought a young, intelligent young man she had met at the University to meet her parents. They were in love and clearly were close to getting engaged. The parents treated the young man with respect and appeared to enjoy his intelligence and sophistication and easy-going grace with their beautiful and intelligent daughter. But when she returned the next week, alone, the mother drew her aside and said. “Dear, we really love Anthony, but the fact is that members of our family and folks around here would never accept you marrying him because you are of different races.”

Their daughter was aghast, “Don’t tell me this…you seemed so nice to him.”

“Oh honey, it’s not your father and I that don’t agree with this…it’s just that ~ what will others think! And imagine what your kids would have to put up with!”

And so it was…no one of those two races ever considered intermarriage, dating, or even associations that might lead to such “problems”. What would OTHERS think.

Wrong. We’re saying the right wing media is harping on Rev. Wright and we’re getting sick of hearing about it every second!

How about focusing on McCain and his friendship with Rev. Hagee who wants us all to die?

There are Reverends out there who are 8,000 times worse than Rev. Wright.

I’m not understanding your point or what you’re asking of me.

Yes, but those Reverends are acceptable to the Republican Party and the media establishment. Your voice of reason is being drowned out in the right wing media nightmare. Does a falling tree make a sound in the woods if no one is their to hear it?

I used facetious…because from my long experience on this site I haven’t heard oldgold ever make a statement in support of Obama. She supports Clinton.

I proudly admit to being obsessed with electability.
If I become convinced Clinton is more electable than Obama, I will jump ship and support her. If you consider that dishonorable or unjust, consider what an honor and justice of living through a third Bush term.

Facetious means that she’s presenting herself as something other than she is, in fact. “Specious” means that it’s an illogical argument without factual support.

(donning tinfoil hat) To me this smacks of a set up. After keeping a really low profile, Wright suddenly goes out and says a bunch of things that can be interpreted to be incindiary, just so Obama can denounce him more strongly in an attempt to prop up his sagging NC polling. (taking off tinfoil hat)

Okay, I get your point now. I agree! ;-)

Sorry, Peterr. Normally I agree with virtually eveything you say. If I understand you right, you think Obama should just go sit down quietly in a corner and let Wright be pastor even as Wrights own chickens are coming home to roost. But I just can’t go along with how fine and upstanding the Rev. is when he is knowingly trying to derail Obama’s chances to become President. Furthermore, what he’s said is likely to buy him a lot more misrepresentation and disrespect. Some of that is likely to come from his own flock who have been very supportive of Obama. Their hopes are pinned on Obama, and here comes Wright acting like Jesus throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. He’s making Obama out to be a Pharisee? If that sets well with you, so be it. It doesn’t set well with me in the middle of so important a campaign.

The point is that in Germany circa 1933-34, progressives, liberals, Social Democrats, and Communists all felt that the media (especially broadcast) was controlled by the NSDP (the Nazis). America is in a similar situation as you indicated.

hugh at 35–
to add-
i don’t think a man like rev. wright should or even could subordinate himself to any man.

but not for just for the reasons you list there, i think some of what you ’list’ may be a part…. ha ha another ’hugh’s list’

i think it is more when someone is capable of having a grasp and understanding of many complicated subjects and can synopsize them into a paragraph, their view of the world is much different than someone who can only grasp three or four……., and the things they choose from that pile pretty much have to be something that can move someone forward from behind, in their thinking……you can’t fix something that is stagnant, and you can’t change anything if the people who need to change it don’t understand it exists in the first place..or can even articulate what it is…you have to choose something malleable, something familiar as a starting point…….

what i’ve noticed, are not the axes-(not the weapon axes, the other meaning) he used, but the other ’parts’ he illustrates to paint his picture are the things that move people….

jimmy carter does the same thing, another man who never could or should subordinate himself to any man.

Oh, I see. Thanks.

I wrote this comment earlier today over at kevin Drum’s in a comment thread about write, and frankly it fits better here, given David’s thoughtful post and deep insights into America’s racial narratives:

I have trouble understanding how any progressive could listen to the substance of Wrights speeches and not conclude that he is thoughtful, educated and incisive in his opinions. But that would requiring actually researching the body of his work, listening to his entire speeches rather than relying on out-of-context sound bites, and relying on original transcripts instead of the distorted media narrative.

The few opinions that stand out as disturbing (farrkan, imperalism/terrorism, aids) are easily understood through the prism of black experience, for those of his generation and the concomitant identification with the oppressed.

The one that keeps getting cited as absolute ‘proof’ of his wackadoodle status is of course the aids issue. I for one, can’t imaging why any African-American would ever think the American government could possibly be involved in infecting black men with venereal diseases. Oh wait, there was that Tuskegee thing – but that happened back before civil rights, when America was still racist…

I have no issues with Wright or anything he says as a reflection of his beliefs and political truths. What he said was NOT offensive to any thinking person… what it was, was impolitic and clearly damaging to Obama’s political prospects. Especially his NPC Q&A, which revealed some personal hurt, animus and ego. But if any of the people bellowing about him had half of his character, courage, accomplishments and cv, then perhaps I would give their opinions equal credence and respect.

Obama did what he had to do because America is a politically shallow and immature culture… both brittle and bellicose, intolerant of dissent, and with a deep vein of veiled racism that survives unabated a century and a half after the end of slavery.

America is racked with cognitive dissonance – its citizens unwilling to face their own historical truth and blind to the horrors unleashed on the world in their name. (That those horrors now come from planes owned by and emblazoned with the flag of the US, does not make the bombs they they drop any less terrifying to their victims than those of hijacked planes that have become the bombs.)

Can one say that in the public square and not be vilified as unpatriotic, whacked-out, crazy, toxic. Of course not, as Obama has understood. I do believe that Obama is trying to elevate the discourse on both sides of the racist divide in America – and thinks that it can’t be done when black men are telling the truth of their experience and history, in the language of the justifiable emotions they feel. Wright thinks it can’t be done unless their witness is validated and the historical injustices explicitly acknowledged.

I don’t know which man is right, but I do know that the man named Wright deserves much more respect than even most supposed liberals afford him.

I must say I have seen a much more balanced range and nuanced expression of opinion here than on other sites. Especially in the willingness to consider both the context and brutal truths of most of Wright’s statements. Maybe there is hope…

Actually, according to my dictionary, facetious means “joking, especially at an inappropriate time.”

I got tired of the media AND Obama supporters harping on the sniper story too.

I also got sick of the media giving a platform for the Swift Boat Liars.

But they did, and Democrats need to be realistic about the damage this story has done to Obama’s chances in November.

He’s still in the lead with delegates and the popular vote. Nice try, though. Are you saying those things to make yourself feel better about your support of Hillary?

Oh yes. Today’s media is controlled by GOP Nazis.

Hillary LIED TO AMERICA THAT SHE WAS UNDER SNIPER FIRE. The media should harp on lying.

So why is it any different to toss Clinton?

Make myself feel better about my support for Clinton????

What does that even mean?

You think I feel badly about supporting Clinton? Or are you saying anyone crazy enough to support her and not Obama should feel badly?

The arrogance that shows up on the Obama camp is breathtaking sometimes.

I actually stated earlier today that what I’d like to see is the Superdelegates tossing both Clinton and Obama aside and forcing Gore to be the nominee.

And anyone who can’t see the risk this Wright thing poses to the Dem’s chance in November if Obama is the nominee isn’t being realistic. I just want the Dem to win. I don’t care who it is, and I don’t treat Obama supporters as thought they’re insane for supporting him.

The irony,it seems to me, is that it’s Obama’s supporters who are the ones who perhaps need to heed what he says a bit more.

Clinton should withdraw for lying about being under sniper fire and for pretending to be a right wing neocon by swilling whiskey, by telling gun stories, and then trying to convince everyone she’s also a duck hunter!

I’m serious. Why are Democrats supporting Hillary the Neocon? Shameful after having eight years of a fake conservative who lied to our nation, who convinced a nation that he served honorably in the military, that he was a REAL cowboy, and was a guy you could have a beer with. I mean really, have the Hillarybots forgotten the last eight years? Both George Bush & Hillary Clinton have no problem saying they’d bomb Iran into oblivion at a moments notice.

You’re the arrogant one. Reread what you’ve said on FDL for the past couple of weeks and then get back to me on it. Thanks.

I am an Obama supporter.

Hillary will bomb Iran. The End.

Oh. my gosh, if we harp on every lie told by every pol,including Obama, we’ll NEVER get anywhere!

I’ll agree with that…he’s ignorant…but apparently willingly so.

These tales have been around the black community since about 1985. Public health authorities have been trying to deal with their impact on treatment and testing since the early 1990’s.

People with some degree of authority in communities seriously impacted by that disease who want to talk about a disease with as much health consequences as HIV should be informed about the disease. Otherwise he becomes a promulgator of false information. These same sorts of tales were proliferated in South Africa, as well as other myths, and this has been utterly deadly and resulted in the capacity of the public health services to reduce the epidemic. In that case it was backed by the political elite.

These claims are bulldada, just as much as it’s a “gay disease”. I suspect that Rev. Wright has been aware of what the health community has said about this issue for some time, he simply doesn’t want to accept the “messenger”. It’s a vicious cycle of distrust. Tuskeegee is a rationale for rejecting ANY information that derives from doctors, scientists, or others who have any sort of education on any subject whatsover. After all, that education or knowledge would derive largely from “those who held me in slavery”.

Obama has lied? List them out.

When will Hillary stuff a loaf of bread down her pants and land on a aircraft carrier to impress the neocons some more? Juno, you know?

I can’t believe the bickering is still going on. It helps nobody except McCain and the republicans.

Awww how cute, Bill Clinton helping George & Barbara Bush do some fundraising:

http://www.chron.com/disp/stor…..34264.html

Interesting, while Hillary is “putting down” (wink,wink) George Bush’s policies to fake out the masses, her husband is behind the scenes helping out the Bush family!

Not surprised.

Juno, your reaction to this?

Right…”fallacious” NOT “facetious” DUH!

Brain fart! “It vass de sniper fire, Mein General!”

My reaction?

1) I’m all for raising money for literacy, no matter who does it;

2) I thought it was Obaman to want people to unite despite their differences.

In the comments last night, oldgold summed it up best (h/t Elliot):

The caucus I attended was very friendly. The comment I heard most often is how proud people were with the strength of our candidates.

I have attended quite a few of these events. I have never seen the party so upbeat.

As Sam Cooke sang: “A Change is Gonna Come.”

This is from Scarecrow’s post the morning after the Iowa caucus where I proudly supoported Obama. Do you think ‘A Change Is Going To Come’ was about a Clinton restoration?

I suspect that Rev. Wright has been aware of what the health community has said about this issue for some time, he simply doesn’t want to accept the “messenger”. It’s a vicious cycle of distrust. Tuskeegee is a rationale for rejecting ANY information that derives from doctors, scientists, or others who have any sort of education on any subject whatsover. After all, that education or knowledge would derive largely from “those who held me in slavery”.

I agree with you on this… both the responsibility of authority and the emotional/psychological frame that causes an otherwise highly educated and informed man to cling to willful ignorance about the provenance of AIDS. I think what can be supported as a stance regarding AIDS/HIV is that Regan did sweet piss-all when it first reared its head, since it only affected ‘f*gs, haitians and other n*****s’ – knid of like how much the Bush admin has cared about the rescue/recovery of black victims of Katrina. I think he can be forgiven his well-placed mistrust… but he needs to lose the ignorance.

Calm down.

Operation Chaos is a success!

I can’t unite with neocons. Can you?

as i wrote above, i have no reason to know that anyone actually sat down with him and went over the data – has it been written up in the lay press? and i don’t mean with quotes from “authorities” – i wouldn’t blame him for distrusting that – i mean actually taking the reader through the evidence to explain why that hypothesis (of gov origin) has been rejected – because the data doesn’t support it, not because it is beyond the pale to consider it.

if he refused to consider that – for example if he rejected genetic concepts of evolution because it’s not of the bible (and he really doesn’t strike me as someone to do that), then i would agree it’s willful ignorance. but at this point, i’m not going to condemn his ignorance on one topic… especially when he is so knowledgeable on so many others.

maybe we should consider writing him?

hmmm…. i think i might just do that.

i wonder if he will condemn me for my willful ignorance of the english language? somehow i don’t think so.

but he needs to lose the ignorance.

perhaps better described as: he needs to stop propagating misinformation.

You’ve been trying to pick a fight all night long and you’re getting it now. If you need me to calm down, stop ATTACKING OBAMA and then saying we are attacking you. Get it?

Hillary is worth $100 million and Obama is worth $4 million. Whose the elitist again?

Hillary loves Operation Chaos…don’t you think she doesn’t either! LOL

At it again, madame provocateur? Slice and dice, get what you want for
days on end and still the drive by pot shots… shades of post CABG
hysteria showing up in Bill Clinton’s behavior, but of course you know
mimicry is the highest form of flattery. Wright degenerated into a
bad Redd Fox characature, overexposed very quickly and was thoroughly
denounced by the candidate you stalk here every day. Get help, you are
the losing side, get help… call Billary, whatever, get help.

He did not mock them, he was imitating the way they spoke to point out that they were never accused of not speaking english correctly while many black kids were/are accused of not speaking english correctly. Really, how did you miss that point? It was one of the points under different buy not deficient, that included linguistics, music, worship, etc.

just. wow.

Is Hillary uniting everyone Juno? Nope. She loved it when Barack was harped on about flag pins for the first 52 minutes of the last debate. That’s the kind of campaign she wants: A NEOCON ONE.

I’m not attacking Obama.

And net worth has nothing to do with being elitist. Besides, Obama is far wealthier at this stage and age than were the Clintons when they were where he is and his age.

Seriously, don’t be so angry just because someone exercises their right to support one candidate over another.

Why do you continue?

looks like we have some wildly differing views. pretending we don’t or not discussing them isn’t, imo, the answer (not saying you are suggesting this – don’t think you are).

i just wish we could discuss our differences without stating opinion as fact and without any disrespect of our fellow commentators.

p.s. this isn’t meant as an accusation against anyone. i wish i could do a better job of it too.

Scroll up. Juno started the fight with others. They left. Now I’m on.

Uh Juno? What is an elitist to you? I tend to think of them as the people who have all the money, power, and control? I bet to you it means going to Harvard on a scholarship.

well said. thank you.

Bush 41 is not a Neocon.

Okay, the bullies have arrived.

Ciao.

Right on.

Really, how did you miss that point?

Because that was her intent. Getting the point doesn’t fit with her unrelenting anti-Wright/proves-Obama-has-bad-judgement-and-can’t-win/pro-hillary narrative.

Well, if one finds they are unable to discuss things in a civil manner, maybe they should take a breather.

Of course he was mocking them.

A civil person and dignified leader wouldn’t select specific individuals and imitate them in a humiliating way. He’d simply say something like, “JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter (and whomever) all had strong dialects, but they were never teased for them (which isn’t even true! They were and still are!).

The suspicion is based upon the “tuskeegee Experiment“

The Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began the study in 1932. Nearly 400 poor black men with syphilis from Macon County, Ala., were enrolled in the study. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for “bad blood,” a local term used to describe several illnesses, including syphilis, anemia and fatigue.

For participating in the study, the men were given free medical exams, free meals and free burial insurance.

At the start of the study, there was no proven treatment for syphilis. But even after penicillin became a standard cure for the disease in 1947, the medicine was withheld from the men. The Tuskegee scientists wanted to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. The experiment lasted four decades, until public health workers leaked the story to the media.

By then, dozens of the men had died, and many wives and children had been infected. In 1973, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a class-action lawsuit. A $9 million settlement was divided among the study’s participants. Free health care was given to the men who were still living, and to infected wives, widows and children.

It is understandable the mistrust of the gov’t and that they would be capable of soomething like that.

Wrong again, do your home work, don’t rely on the “Arkansas Women” for
your line, read some book length text, vetted sources… remember the
futures trading debacle Rodham was involved in nearly 30 years ago, those
people are very clever about making money not shown on financial filings,
plenty of US Attorney and IRS testimony is referenced, get facts and
help yourself to reality, leave boomerland for just a little while, it’s
not so bad, really.

He’s not a neocon? He had nothing to do with the New World Order, you know, the speech he gave on September 11, 1990? He hasn’t done business with the bin Ladens and the Saudi royals for the past 30 years? His father wasn’t giving money to the Nazis during WWII?

Huh?

Wow. You’re brainwashed. All Hillary supporters are. They remember her defense of HER OWN MARRIAGE back in the 1990’s and that’s it! Everything else they don’t want to think about. They’re okay that George H.W. Bush was doing business with America’s enemies over the years (and arming the Middle East during the Reagan Crazy years).

i think i understand your meaning… but just to be clear – i don’t care about civility. i do care about respecting each other (again not finger pointing w/o including myself ).

No guts, no glory.

Let me guess…for the next 4 months you’ll still be talking about this. Have you considered a job in right wing media? They’d love you! You’d fit right in! Maybe next week they’ll talk about Obama’s color choices in his clothes and connect it somehow to Jim Jones? Your first week on the job could be fun if they did! Right?

Well considering that both men held the highest position in this country and spoke ‘funny’ certainly not the king’s english (of which there is no such thing) no one dared tell them that they spoke strange and it fit into the larger narrative he was speaking on. Somehow it has gone completely over your head and into the clouds. I actually feel bad for you because you have missed a pointed remarkable discussion on cultural differences.

Who was, selise, who pointed out that when you point your finger at someone else, you have three fingers pointing back at yourself?

Yes I know… that’s exactly the point I was referencing from my earlier post at 107:

The one that keeps getting cited as absolute ‘proof’ of his wackadoodle status is of course the aids issue. I for one, can’t imaging why any African-American would ever think the American government could possibly be involved in infecting black men with venereal diseases. Oh wait, there was that Tuskegee thing – but that happened back before civil rights, when America was still racist…

That his mind-set of mistrust is well-founded with regards to proven ill-intent on the part of the government towards blacks, but his specific stance on AIDS discredits such an intelligent and educated man.

lol. ok, so i am pointing fingers. but three of them are pointed at me.

good one.

Who was IT, selise, who …

There goes that spellin’ synapse again …

I meant that most respectfully, selise.

Whenever you feel you’ve transgressed, you stop and make it right.

Much respect and appreciation.

I bet Juno was thrilled when Barbara Bush wrote a $30,000 check after Katrina and when she gave it to the charity she told them to pass the check along to her son’s EDUCATIONAL COMPANY. Wow! She laundered money right before our eyes, but according to Juno, that’s okay, because she was giving money for educational purposes, even if it was her son’s company and on the surface it looked like she was doing an ‘honorable thing’.

The case in point:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerrepo…../6941.html

Bill & Hillary could learn a lot from these people. And have.

What you see as missing the point is actually the technique of the
provocateur, see the point, but instead of taking it, pivot off it
back to the script of chaotic attack lines to chop any logical reply
into bits, then complain of tone or rudeness in a predictable way…
this has been going on for a month, every time.

of course. because for wright to be taken seriously on any subject, he must always be correct on all of them?

by that measure our candidates for president ought to have been discredited several times over.

i know you did. did not mean to suggest otherwise – my lame attempts to inject some levity…

oh, for punaise or hugh or someone to make us laugh.

Where is Juno? *looking at watch* It’s 3am for crying out loud!

Now I know what Hillary will do when it gets hahd when the phone rings at 3am.

LOL She’ll run!

Okay, I’m out. I’ve had my fun. ;-)

Gotta say, I’m surprised at that. You haven’t said as much when I was around. And given your acceptance of Clintons attacks on MoveOn, statements about you finding Obama’s “brush off” speech offensive, that Hillary’s money troubles were “not relevant” on Pennsylvania Primary night, and that Florida and Michigan’s delegations should be seated (which would definitely hurt Obama)…I’m surprised.

I guess I misinterpreted these as pro-Hillary statements. Sorry.

Just say the magic words, hocus pocus, maladjusted! Poof, gone.

and when i heard the comments about rev wright and aids//// his voice, his words…..

what i heard was-he said the us was CAPABLE of doing it, not that they did it….listed things u.s. actually did as a point that they are CAPABLE of doing it……..

i think perhaps noone listened to what he actually SAID.

You didn’t! I just wanted ta finger da truf, ya know?

You is consistently among da MOST civil, your protestations to da contrary, but I also find meself in agreesment wid ya most of da time …

Today being a case in ‘point’.

Before I go…

UH OH….

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co…..setup.html

Was Rev. Wright’s speech set up by the Clinton camp? Oh boy! Read the article.

Absolutely… *Sylvester Stallone Rocky Voice*

Well, it could have been a recognition that Obama is going to need most of the Hillary supporters in order to get elected president along with a desire to NOT p*ss them off needlessly.

As I stated on an earlier thread, neither Obama nor Hillary can win the GE without having most of the other’s supporters votes.

A lot of folks seem to miss that point and go out of the way to p*ss off the supporters of the other candidate.

And that IS a two way street.

You misread me. Read my post at 107. I admire and respect Wright and have no problem sifting out his one misinformed opinion (aids) from the rest of his very uncomfortable (for whites) ideas and highly cogent analysis.

My point is that he enables those who want to dismiss all of his opinions by trumpeting one that is so easily dismissed on a factual basis. People need to hear and think about what he says. The fact that it comes from the frame and experience of a black man of his generation means it will be touigh sledding for most whites, but absolutely necessary. With just a small shift of message discipline, he would reach a much larger audience (which maybe he doesn’t care about, but if that is the case why reach for the tall soapbox?) – without giving his critics ammunition to dismiss him as a crackpot. Angry, yes… with good reason. Crazy, not a chance.

Yes, you did. How about my comment earlier today.

I had hoped, and to some degree still do, that the election of Obama as President might move this nation at long last to cleanse away its original sin.

I have said here repeatedly that I consider Obama to be an excellent candidate and Clinton to be a very good candidate.

Yes, I have from time to time criticized Obama. He isn’t perfect. But, I believe he is more electable than Clinton and could do a lot to bridge our racial divide.

Clinton dorks, Obama dorks will argue back and forth on who is to be the righteous Democratic nominee, meanwhile the corporate media and the Republican Party are planning their innaugaration celebrations for McBush. Nothing like a viable opposition party. Can’t help but love the naivete.

Oh, so now you’re gonna try the truth, eh?

LOL,707,LOL ….

Wonder why that is such a difficult notion to grasp?

Guess we’re out of practice … the last almost-eight years in the wasteland of despair …

‘Course if it continues … we’ll also be out of the White House.

But it’s all about being right and having the last word … even if nobody’s listening.

Who does THAT anymore?

My point on the latter being that if one believes in allowing in Florida and Michigan delegations as currently constructed (0 delegates for Obama in Michigan plus 50% to Clinton plus the Clinton delegates surrepiciously seated as “uncommitted”, and in Florida about 25% Obama to 50% Hillary) that would likely allow Hillary to be elected.

That sort of resolution is pro-Clinton. And it certainly would NOT bring Obama supporters over to support her.

thanks for the clarification.

The giant squid is in the Democratic party, the Republicans will by an
easier target… Billary OWN the DLC and OWN most ranking tenured
regional party operators, and are ruthless in pursuit of personal
success, nothing more, nothing less.

Has the Democratic Party determined how many super delegates can dance on the head of a pin yet? They’ll want to know by November.

Then Obama supporters need to stop squeaking about the health of the party. .They obviously are not concerned about the party.

According to recent polls, Clinton is more electable. Common sense says she is as well.

And then there’s the Wright thing…

but the Clintons certainly are…

This article is 100% correct. I have been very upset at most of the comments about Wright the past 2 days.
Yes, yes, before last weekend, most sane people didn’t condemn him. But that all changed. Truth be told, I don’t think he is nuts. A grandstander? Sure. But who on teevee isn’t? McSame? Hillary? Chrissie Matthews? Yeah, right! And to see the grandstanders condemn the grandstander for grandstanding — too funny.

Think hard about his — either “nutty” or “mentally ill” — statements. I have and think he is dead-on about all of them.

OK, he said AIDS was the government’s invention, to rid the world of blacks. Where did AIDS come from? No one seems to know. But it originated in Africa — what does that tell you? Where I think Wright was wrong is saying it was just about Blacks. It’s other minorities, too. Who gets AIDS the most (at least in America)? Gays. You kill 2 birds with 1 stone — get rid of gays AND blacks.

Don’t you find that odd? If, somehow, we could all get in a time machine, zip to the future, when all is known, most would faint. And all those who actually believed what turns out to be true — and were condemned in their day — will seem as ‘genius’ as the person who first said the earth was round. “OMG! He is SO WEIRD! And, quite frankly, probably Satan’s minion.”

Get help… be as sane as Roger Clinton, get help.

Ha ha, I’m back. LOL

What has Hillary done lately that’s been good for the Democratic party? List them out for us.

Following the links in that story back to its source at Politico, they confirm that the suggestion to invite to Wright was first made TWO YEARS AGO.

You have a link to support that argument?

Juno is thrilled to see Hillary going after Obama, but if anyone says one bad word about John McCain, Hillary’s head literally splits in two and then she calls Babs Bush for counseling and comfort!

Right, Juno?

A vote for Hillary or McCain is a vote for Bush’s 3rd term! Woohoo! Juno, you must be coordinating parties at the moment because of this. Let me guess, you have an outfit picked out for the upcoming Iran illegal invasion and war?

Interesting….but yet he did a slam speech of Obama. What was the reason for the National Press Corps to invite Wright to speech when no one knew who he was?

I smell something fishy and it’s coming from the Clinton camp again!

Polls are snapshots. Since the Iowa caucus the polls have indicated that Obama is the stronger candidate. If this one poll you have been tauting becomes the rule over an extended period of time, as I indicated above I am willng to rethink my position.

I should have said, “…what was the reason of the National Press Corps inviting Wright TWO YEARS AGO to speak when no one knew who he was back then?”.

Is Politico protecting someone? Weird that Politico comes on the scene and in a month it’s the most popular place on the Internet! Let me guess…the Clintons helped form it to use it for the upcoming election?

Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they did.

The NPC wants to get speakers from a wide range of fields — that’s part of the appeal. If I look at a list of NPC speakers, there are a bunch of them I don’t know because they come from fields with which I am not familiar. Wright is very well known in religious circles, particularly in the Black church. The woman who proposed inviting Wright is a Divinity School professor who has known Wright for years, and I can easily imagine the Speakers Committee saying “OK, who could we get to come speak about religion?”

That is what Rodham means when she says, “You know, I’ve been working
for 35 years on the issues that concern me, yada, yada, yada” fill in
the blank. Billary have been running since high school.

Alright fine. You have your opinion and I have the LA Times article. LOL

Why did the “wicked nice friend of Obama who supports Hillary & did vote for her” say this then:

Reynolds has not returned e-mails or phone calls seeking comment, but Louis notes the obvious conflict between her political allegiance and her press club arrangements. He quotes a February blog entry of Reynolds saying, “My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you” to Clinton and her husband for his administration’s successes.

In another entry, Reynolds notes critically of Obama, “It is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray, the senator is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement.”

Huh? He spoke about religion? He lambasted Obama and then brought up all the controversial stuff to continue sticking it to him.

Do these people sound like good friends to you? It sounds like a set up.

Two years ago Wright would have given a different speech. Even if the whole thing was set up two years ago, two years went by and the Clinton people used this week’s speech as a way to take Barack down or worsen it for him.

But hey, if you want to believe that everyone in America is white, just, and pure and wouldn’t never think to conspire against another, then so be it. I’ll go on questioning everything that crosses my eyeballs & ears.

I’ll take your word on it. Really. But the statement, especilaly made in the contexts of Juno’s provocations, can be read just the opposite way, unfortunately.

For example, if I said

“I had hoped, and to some degree still do, that the election of Clinton as President might move this nation at long last to cleanse away its historical sexism.”

I could say this in good faith, but at the same time support Obama. In fact, the phrasing I made above would, in fact, suggest that I had considerable ambivalence about whether the historical issue would be resolved by the election of Clinton. It’s almost “condemning with high praise”.

I do feel quite strongly that in order to effect social change against agents of conservatism like we are current facing in our society that one must continue to support and challenge on these issues. This is, and remains, very much the sort of attacks that JFK faced with regard to his church, with the added twist that RACE is also in the mix.

It seems that those in the MSM. and others hardly heard a word of that speech that Obama made in Philadelphia. There must be a special syndrome “Media Attention Deficit Disorder” (MADD)that explains the fact that they can “hear” what Obama says but not “listen”…or maybe Obama looks the same to them as Wright, or something. They don’t seem to be able to tell ‘em apart.

In the end, if Hillary failure wins the nomination I WILL support her because I certainly know that McCain is intolerable. Continued “laissez-faire” economic policies and kickbacks to the wealthy, right-wing Supreme court judges, and vitriolic taunts and sand-kicking into the face of Iran to bully them into a war. And who even knows who he’d have as VEEP ~ a heartstroke away from the Presidency? But Clinton and her campaign keeps pushing the envelope on this issue, and if she is at all involved in further inflaming it…

Wow, step away half and hour to write something and the place turns into hellzapoppin. First, thanks to David for his excellent post. Indeed, an insistence on Mommy America, and for that matter Mommy Church, has truncated too many of us in our thinking, with the potentially ruinous consequences we now confront many times a day. (To repeat, there’s nothing wrong with Mommy, unless you’re clinging to her in middle age.)

We all know the secular side of the argument for church-state separation, but there is a religous side as well. In particular, many church people are of the opinion that for religion, or its officials such as clergy, to tailor their religious messages to accomodate the state is the beginning of the end of true religion. Even when such people take part in political or especially electoral affairs and encourage others to do so, there remains a sense that the practicing clergy should never become comfortable in that role, that it is a hazard better undertaken by those who can dedicate themselves to that kind of service with less fundamental contradiction even while they remain in good standing in their church. All the more so in a pluralistic society in which there are many voices which have to be respected in the political sphere.

It would not surprise me if Rev. Wright thinks something like this. As a result, he would not in the end curb his words even for the sake of his own parishioner’s political campaign, and even knowing that a rift with that parishioner might occur as a consequence. As to whether Rev. Wright should extend his remarks to new, or seemingly new, public venues is perhaps another question. I haven’t come to any conclusion myself, but have the usual two-handed observation from what I can see, that on one hand he might have a right and even a pastoral duty to address misrepresentations of his sermons, and by extension of his church, in public forums, and on the other hand that he has also an obligation not to pursue these opportunities in a selfish manner; the attempt to make distinctions like this is a function of prayer and meditation.

Whether Rev. Wright is acting in a manner that serves all these objectives properly is not a thing I feel at all qualified to address: In light of what I just said above, how could I dare? I just want to suggest, as a lay person who has been involved in a few discussions on such matters, why Rev. Wright might have chosen to speak as he has, and why consideration of helping or hurting Sen. Obama’s campaign might not be uppermost in Rev. Wright’s mind —though I doubt also that he wants to hurt the campaign. Note that the core of his critique of America is what it has made itself —what we have made ourselves— by its still-unaddressed mistreatment now and in history of large groups of people it has encountered. It might be possible to overestimate the weight he would give to the election of one such to a single office against this core critique.

The denomination of Trinity Church, the United Church of Christ (and my denomination, which I am of but not presently in, or something), is a merged body that involves some of the oldest and most important intellectual —not only religious— influences in English-speaking American history and culture. The Wiki article on the Congregational church gives a basic rundown. As you can see there, there’s a tremendous emphasis on education and intellectual development that runs through church history.

I pay less attention to polls than I do to behavior, and the behavior of the general public over the last few years, to me, indicates that Clinton is the stronger candidate in the General, which is the main reason I support her despite being in more agreement with Obama in philosophy.

The Clintons aren’t asking Obama to drop out so she can be handed the nomination.

This much is true, I think more of Clinton than you do. But, I prefer Obama to Clinton for the reasons I setforth above and, like you, I was very disappointed with her Iraq authorization vote.

a link?

No.

It’s in response to someone else’s post.

good grief.

He spoke about religion? He lambasted Obama and then brought up all the controversial stuff to continue sticking it to him.

Yes, he spoke about religion. To borrow from Wright “did you hear the whole speech?”

For the first thirty minutes at the National Press Club, Wright spoke about the “invisible institution” of the Black Church and its history in the US:

It has been right here in our midst and on our shoulders since the 1600s, but it was, has been, and, in far too many instances, still is invisible to the dominant culture, in terms of its rich history, its incredible legacy, and its multiple meanings.

The black religious experience is a tradition that, at one point in American history, was actually called the “invisible institution,” as it was forced underground by the Black Codes.

The Black Codes prohibited the gathering of more than two black people without a white person being present to monitor the conversation, the content, and the mood of any discourse between persons of African descent in this country.

He talked at length about race and the church:

Maybe now, as an honest dialogue about race in this country begins, a dialogue called for by Senator Obama and a dialogue to begin in the United Church of Christ among 5,700 congregations in just a few weeks, maybe now, as that dialogue begins, the religious tradition that has kept hope alive for people struggling to survive in countless hopeless situation, maybe that religious tradition will be understood, celebrated, and even embraced by a nation that seems not to have noticed why 11 o’clock on Sunday morning has been called the most segregated hour in America.

We have known since 1787 that it is the most segregated hour. Maybe now we can begin to understand why it is the most segregated hour.

And maybe now we can begin to take steps to move the black religious tradition from the status of invisible to the status of invaluable, not just for some black people in this country, but for all the people in this country.

He talked about liberation theology:

Now, in the 1960s, the term “liberation theology” began to gain currency with the writings and the teachings of preachers, pastors, priests, and professors from Latin America. Their theology was done from the underside.

Their viewpoint was not from the top down or from a set of teachings which undergirded imperialism. Their viewpoints, rather, were from the bottom up, the thoughts and understandings of God, the faith, religion and the Bible from those whose lives were ground, under, mangled and destroyed by the ruling classes or the oppressors.

Liberation theology started in and started from a different place. It started from the vantage point of the oppressed.

For the first thirty minutes, Wright talked about all manner of important issues related to religion, the Black church, his own congregation, and American culture, mentioning Obama only once (in the quote above). Then we got to the questions from the press.

Did the questions pick up on any of this? No. Wright spoke about religion, but the press didn’t want to hear about that. They asked about Obama.

Go read the whole speech, not just the Q&As.

And that LAT article says their source on the story was Politico. It’s not my opinion — I just followed the links in the story you provided.

Remember the day she said Obama could be her VP when she was losing big time?

I was furious with her and the others over that vote, but I recall very well the climate at the time.

Obama din’t have to make the vote, so to compare them is irrational, and based on the climate, had Obama been in the Senate at the time, he would have voted for it too if he wanted any chance of running for president in the future. He’d have had to. Every Dem candidate this year, except for Kucinich, voted for it, and you can bet it was because of their presidential aspirations in the context of the climate at that time.

Well said.

No, they’re just trying to change the rules mid-game – rules they signed off on when they thought it would be over by Super-Tuesday – because they’re entitled (destined, if her pastor is right) to return to the white house.

Her ONLY path to the nomination is by rending the party in two. (And by the way, I’m not one of those that thinks she should be forced out – let her get beat the hard way). There is no possibility she can take the nomination in a way that makes her electable in the fall.

I understand your position. Clinton is a very good candidate. I simpy prefer Obama.

sure, and that’s all it is about.

I am not comparing them.
What Obama’s position was at that point in time has nothing to do with my disappointment with Clinton’s vote.

So given the fact that Hilliary put her personal aspirations above all else says a lot about her.

They didn’t sign off on any rules, and I find it very weird that Obama supporters are FOR thwarting the will of voters. That’s how Bush got in too.

They all do. It’s naive to think otherwise. And I think her personal ambitions are based on a belief that she can do good things for this country, just as Obama’s are.

I still question Politico and it’s funders & creators. You don’t have to, but I find this site very suspicious. That’s all.

I have defended Rev. Wright since the first time I heard the sound bites the right wing media was playing over and over. I still do. Obama is being torn down because of him now and I’d wish the media would just back off about it. If Rev. Wright was an important subject in a campaign, then Rev. Hagee would be all over the place, don’t you think?

The Hillary camp is losing this race. I’ve only met 3 PEOPLE over the course of a few months here in Maine who are voting for her. That’s it. She’s not popular. But! It would not surprise me in the least if the Hillary camp had something to do with all of this. You can trust her. You can vote for her for all I care, but I do not trust her….and never will. I’ve seen too much of who she and her husband really are at their core and I don’t like what I see. Then again…I’m not a neocon.

Yes he talked about religion, BUT, today was Obama’s reaction to what Rev. Wright said. What Wright said was hurtful to Obama. This only matters to those who care about Obama, of course.

The only people benefiting from Wright being on the front page of every newspaper and every station is Hillary & McCain, you know, the two people who are having a hard time raising money.

Except that that is exactly what Obama has been running on, and it’s a false and disingenuous argument on his part.

Hillary is telling us that she has no rules to go by. When Howard Dean made it perfectly clear what would happen if MI & FL held their primaries/caucuses early, she said to herself, “So what. I like seeing my name on the ballot so I’m going to go along with this! And then I’ll use my name and puff out my lower lip and say, “Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease let my votes & delegates stand”, when I’m told they can’t”.

Juno, it was false for him to protest against the occupation of Iraq before he was a Senator, but okay for Hillary the wife of a former president to trust the drunkard loof in the White House when he said Saddam Hussein was going to speak to us in the form of a mushroom cloud without questioning it?

I’m not naive, and I don’t appreciate being called that.

And you don’t do good for your country by giving authorization to war that is not necessary.

Don’t be flabbergasted, your the person that made that statement as fact. I was just wanted to see what evidence you had to support that assertion unless of course it was just your opinion. If that is the case, it can be easily remedied by stating that it is, your opinion. In that sense, no one will be confused and take your opinion as some fact.

I bet Juno ran to her basement when George Bush & Condi Rice were spouting Saddam Hussein could hit our nation in 45 minutes with a nuke. All neocons did. Hillary did too apparently. LOL

Habitual liar, documented in depositions and agent interviews, group
think now advocated as leadership… brainwashed you poor thing, go
to the window, go to the window, and fly away.

*opening window up*

Had he been in the Senate at the time, I do not know what he would have done. So, I don’t give him much, if any, credit for his 2002 speech. I do know what Clinton did and took it into consideration in deciding who to support.

Try reading the exchange again and see if you can’t understand it better this time.

*gentle reminder*

personal attacks on other commenters are not permitted and will result in your comment being moderated

Hillary can’t stand Moveon.org or those who support Moveon. Why? They’re liberals & progressives. Neocons despise liberals & progressives. The End.

Sorry. I knew as soon as I sent it I would get a spanking. ;-)

For me, it’s not about supporting Obama or Hillary — it’s about understanding Wright as a preacher first, and participant in a political discussion second. Prostratedragon nailed it above at 197 (emphasis added):

We all know the secular side of the argument for church-state separation, but there is a religous side as well. In particular, many church people are of the opinion that for religion, or its officials such as clergy, to tailor their religious messages to accomodate the state is the beginning of the end of true religion. Even when such people take part in political or especially electoral affairs and encourage others to do so, there remains a sense that the practicing clergy should never become comfortable in that role, that it is a hazard better undertaken by those who can dedicate themselves to that kind of service with less fundamental contradiction even while they remain in good standing in their church. All the more so in a pluralistic society in which there are many voices which have to be respected in the political sphere.

It would not surprise me if Rev. Wright thinks something like this. As a result, he would not in the end curb his words even for the sake of his own parishioner’s political campaign, and even knowing that a rift with that parishioner might occur as a consequence.

That’s what Wright meant when he said “I’m still a pastor on Nov 5 and Jan 21.” He’s trying to be honest to his ordination vows, regardless of the effect it has on the presidential race.

As a preacher, I understand that. I don’t necessarily agree with all that he said or the way he said it, but I understand what it means to be a preacher.

You don’t think it’s naive to think that politicians act in large part based on politics???

The dishonesty is with the people who refuse to, in good faith, recall what was going on then. 70% of the pubic supported the resolution. Republicans, with the help of the press, were threatening and intimidating anyone who didn’t vote in favor of it.

The fact is, you can’t do anything if you’re voted out of office, and that was the climate then. Clinton also made clear AT THAT TIME that she was NOT voting FOR war, which Obama and his supporters like to conveniently ignore.

Again, I didn’t agree with her vote, but I understand it, just as I don’t agree in theory with Obama voting to continue funding the war, but I understand why he had to and agree that he had to.

Idealism is nice, but it’s not always based in reality.

But that’s my point. If Obama had been in the Senate at the time and had voted against it, your argument would make sense, but it’s an apples/oranges argument.

Max Cleland, for example, later said he voted against his own beliefs when he voted in favor of the resolution but felt he had no choice at that time because of the coercion and intimidation. obama was not subjected to it. I, for one, have no doubt at all that, had Clinton been president at that time, we would not be in Iraq right now.

I did read what you said and simply ask for a link to support your argument. You have as of yet still not supplied any evidence to bolster your argument. If it is just your opinion, that is another thing altogether and is easily remedied if you will state that it is your opinon. (we all do that at times, we just simply add that it is our opinion we are stating..it keeps the discussion honest)

I appreciate what you’re trying to tell me Peterr and believe me, I like Rev. Wright. I’ve done a few posts on him and one of them contained 30 minutes of his Christmas Day 2007 sermon where he talked about Hillary. I posted it because I wanted my readers to know how badly his words are being taken out of context.

What happened at the National Press was hurtful to Obama personally…enough so….for Obama to tell him publicly he’s no longer a friend and that he might not be able to go back to his church because of it. I think it sucks the media (and the Hillary camp & Fox News & the right wingers all over the place) has torn their friendship apart.

Peterr, I’m an Atheist. I think religion should be COMPLETELY OUT OF POLITICS AND OUR GOVERNMENT. In fact, I’d be happy if our country was 90% Atheist and 10% spiritual/religious, but that’s not the reality. I try to deal with this all the time, so it’s frustrating to be arguing with everyone on here about stuff that shouldn’t even be talked about when someone is running for the presidency. I’m tired of it!!!

******

Juno, Hillary trusted George Bush & Dick Cheney to use war as a last resort (which is what the resolution said). Many did not and did not vote for it. Why did she trust George Bush?

Oh c’mon.

There’s’ no link because my thought was based on what the other person had said!

Get it?

“…had Clinton been president at that time, we would not be in Iraq right now” ~ Juno

Bah hahahahaha! Are you serious? She has no problem right now with the idea of bombing Iran in defense of Israel.

Hillary Clinton and the Bush Family love what Georgie has done in the Middle East. They want more of it.

Honest discussion is not the reason the provocateur drives by, it is
rather to repeat scripted talking points and refuse to engage the logic
of the factual responses. This particular troll has been trashing the
community here in this way for a solid month and is either a professional
or needs the help of one to give up stalking her opponent, ” You can’t
ignore me, Dan.”

Temperatures, folks.
Let’s not let the passions of the meta get the best of us.
Thanks.

Wobbly, let me see if I can explain this for you.

I’m sure you cannot deny that the argument has been made, loudly, by Obama supporters that Clinton should drop out of the race, and the reason stated is for the health of the party.

Cinnamonape stated in the post to which I responded that Clinton is trying to get delegates seated for herself from Michigan and Florida and to do so would benefit her. Cinnamonape then says that, if that were to happen (and Clinton became the nominee), that Obama supporters would NOT support her in the General, thereby negating their claims of caring about the health of the party, which is why I wrote what I wrote. It was confined purely to what Cinnamonape had written.

Do you understand it now?

Waste of time.

So, it was your opinion and not a fact. thanks

Okay, I tried to explain it and clearly failed.

I apologize.

Wobbly:

Some days ago you provided me some rather sage advice …

I think you were absolutely correct.

Kay, if it saves you any writer’s cramp in the future, I’ll help you out by letting you know I don’t read your posts. You’re too abusive. If it helps you vent to be abusive to a total stranger on a blog, vent away.

But I thought Obama was about changing the tone. Oh well.

it’s about understanding Wright as a preacher first, and participant in a political discussion second.

I think that’s right. I for one don’t think that his intent was to torch Obama (even if that was the effect) – but rather to defend his opinions and reputation, and that of his church, from the relentless smearing in the media.

It’s hard to believe that he was unaware of the probable political fallout for Obama – but given the nature of the man, he probably believes it’s more important to bear witness to his own truths than to play the political expediency game.

Having said that I don’t think he did himself or his cause any favors with his Q&A at the NPC. (his speeches were all good) A more sober demeanor would have reflected more personal humility and credit, rather than the showcase of wounded pride that was so obviously on display.

Although a man that has worked as hard and suffered as much to accomplish what he has, probably feels well-entitled to that pride and to the voice that expresses it. Even if it’s inconvenient for Obama’s political aspirations. I think the rift is an honest reflection of two deeply-held, but fundamentally incompatible world views – at least when it comes to race. Maybe neither man realized until recently how far apart they really were.

Regardless of what you were responding to, what you say was either an argument that could be supported by evidence or it is an opinion. I was never questioning why you were saying what you said, only what you were saying.

Hope you understand. thanks

Wow.
I go away for a few days and you’re back to this?
Do.Not.Feed.

I’m very aware of what politicians do and how they do it. Because I may not agree with you it doesn’t mean that I’m naive.

There were a handful of people who stood up to Bush and voted no. Hillary did not. There is nothing idealistic about that fact. She voted to give authorization of war to a maniac, which was kind of known at the time. If you choose to take comfort in that reality, and choose to support it, then so be it.

am I going to give myself a headache trying to remember what I said? *g*

I’m abusive? Why, because I point out facts? Garlic to neocons. LOL

By the way, Hillary’s tone hasn’t changed. Still the same…neocon, neocon, neocon. Rinse. Repeat.

what about her co-sponsorship of the Syria Accountability Act, her vote against banning cluster bombs and her fervent support of the Kyl Lieberman shite?

and please explain her most recent sabre rattling threatening to obliterate Iran…

wow.

don’t think it ever stopped.

welcome back!

Hey there, selise!

You merely suggested that sometimes it is best, after repeated efforts at communication, to realize that some people are simply where they are at, and it is probably best to leave them in their splendid position and hie yourself hither, or yon …

Did not mean to vex.

enough with the name calling

next person to do it will have their comment moderated

And the only one who ran for president this year who voted no was Kucinich, who knew he never had a shot at it.

Which is my point. Anyone who wanted a serious shot at the presidency would have had no choice at that time but to vote for the authorization.

hey newt! since you were gone – did you miss the links to the mp3s of wright’s two sermons?

I did, and would appreciate you spotting them to me any time.
Lots of catching up. But I have the PodCast of Moyers.
Thank you.

Wasn’t it Hillary who didn’t pay her crew their health insurance but says she’d be great for healthcare? And wasn’t Hillary whose campaign was $10 million in the whole but she keeps telling us she’s the only one who can get the economy back on track?

It was my post. I have no obligation to adopt your interpretation of it. Opinion had nothing to do with what I wrote. As I said, I tried to explain it for you and I failed. This has now become an issue of intellectual dishonesty rather than a good faith attempt to understand my post and therefore is moot.

I have said twice now that I did not support her vote.

I’m saying I understand the context in which it was made.

I recall the fury from people when Congress voted to continue funding the war. I don’t want this war to continue at all, but I understood the vote. It wasn’t until it was revealed that Obama had also voted in favor of it that the same people who’d been so angry suddenly understood that there are a lot of factors, including politics, involved.

George Bush was despised by close to 70% of our nation before 9/11, but yet, Hillary and others trusted him to not attack Iraq until all other options had been exhausted, even though he talked about Saddam Hussein during the first 9 months of his presidency and his Cabinet was sick and tired of hearing about Osama bin Laden. Go figure.

I own a housecleaning business and I knew in a second George Bush was lying to the nation. Imagine that. LOL

Congressman Tom Allen of Maine did not vote to use force. How come? What did he know that Hillary, being a former First Lady, did not know? Inquiring minds want to know!

It was never a question of interpretation. it was a question as to whether you were stating your argument as a fact or as an opinion. Again, I was never questioning why you were replying with what you did rahter what your were replying with. that is not an interpretation issue. When arguments or statements are made as fact, either the person making the statement supplies the necessary evidence to back it up or they state that it is their opinion. that is debate 101.

But I willleave you where your at (on this subject ** DW (grin) and will leave it as you stating your opinion

Juno, I enjoy the give and take with you. You are a very fine commenter. You are civil, fair and have courage. Plus, you let me demonstrate my support of Obama. Ha.

There are many other reasons that Kucinich didn’t catch on besides his no vote.

I don’t agree with you about anyone who seriously wanted to contend for the presidential election had to vote yes. It’s that type of thinking that got us to the point that we are at.

I also don’t accept the context of the vote for war. I want better reasons then personal aspirations from my elected officals. I want sound judgement.

And if that’s being naive in your opinion then fine. I know myself, and I really don’t have to prove myself to you.

it was only after listening the moyers podcast that i was motivated to listen to the complete sermons – imo, not even moyer’s longer clips do wright justice. that man can preach!

as i wrote after hearing him (i listened to each several times this weekend), for years i haven’t wanted to go anywhere near a christian church (sorry peterr – nasty baggage), but listening to wright makes me want to go to his – and i don’t even share his religious beliefs.

here are the links from southerndragon, who has had some excellent comments on them. i’ll try to find one for you.

you.are.a.dear.

that is not what I”m saying.

Every serious Democratic candidate for president this year who was in the Senate at the time voted in favor of the resolution, and I’m sure they did so as a result of the climate at the time in conjunction with their belief that, in order to have a shot at the presidency, they would have to have voted – post 9/11 – to give the president that authority.

I vehemently disagreed with all who voted for it. I was a big Dean supporter. But I also am not disregarding the coercion, the public, the manipulation, the press’s role, etc.

I also have gone back and listened to what Clinton said at the time of the vote, and it simply does not correlate with claims that she was for war.

aah, yes. That is actually sage advice that I fail to follow at times and need a more level head to point that out.

thanks *g*

Thank you, Oldgold.

I happen to think that, in a democracy, people can support whomever they choose, and we can make arguments back and forth as to why we think one candidate is better than the other, or even why we think one is worse. I do not think we have to suggest or in any way imply that a person is bonkers or wrong or flawed or faulty because they support one’s opponent.

I do not think we have to suggest or in any way imply that a person is bonkers or wrong or flawed or faulty because they support one’s opponent.
reply

Agreed. And glad to know that you have never engaged in same regarding Obama supporters.

I am convinced.

Irony is NOT dead.

Just, misunderstood ….

I suspect sarcasm, so feel free to illustrate anytime I have indicated that a person is wrong for electing to support Obama.

I haven’t.

The point, at last, being that all the prez aspirants demonstrated their
ambition, not their judgement, in casting the yes vote for war. None
would have survived the Cuban Missile Crisis with that same type of
vote, Kennedy was the lone dissenter and withstood tremendous pressure
of the group think rampant in those ExCom meetings. But, somehow, this
rare point will be elided into another do loop… betcha.

Heh ;-)

People have a lot of personal motivations for doing the things they do, and I think it’s very difficult to surmise what Wright’s motivations are. I’m sure he feels his reputation and that of his congregation has been smeared and he’s ready to take on all comers in their defense, Obama or no Obama. A typical pastor would see that as their ultimate calling.

You seem willing to accept bad information as factual, too. The Klan was not “born” in Vincennes, Indiana. A number of Indiana towns, most often Martinsville, have been similarly tagged. None of it is accurate. The first Klan — the Klan of Nathan Bedford Forrest and the night riders — was born in Pulaski, Tennessee. The second Klan was born in Stone Mountain, Ga., shortly after the Leo Frank lynching. Now, there was in fact a significant Klan presence in Indiana (the state was run by the Klan for a couple of years) and a number of towns, including Vincennes and Martinsville, in fact hosted large Klan rallies.

And finally, you ought to be aware that Steve Sailer has been promoting more or less the same theory.

:Has there been any reaction from memebers of Reverend Wright’s congregation to Obama’s statement?”

You mean Otis Moss’ congregation? None that I’ve heard.

they’re too busy dodging bomb threats to their church and Rev. Moss has been equally busy dodging death threats to him and his family….

I’m reminded of a line in the song by House of Pain, Jump Around:

but I ain’t goin out like no punk bytch…

basically IMO what Sen. Obama did, after having to endure the lunatic rantings from the so called ‘progressive’ left who relish equally w/ the reichwingnuttery the job of telling african americans who/what/how they should believe…. this article by black agenda web more or less says it all….

I look forward to Faux News’ video of the Obamas entering/leaving their new church, w/ its predominantly white congregation…. I’d be surprised if they remain members of Trinity again….

of course, who cares when you’ve successfully rescued your campaign by disassociating yourself from a good segment of your voting bloc… but hey, that bloc has been taken advantage of throughout the HIStory of the party, why change now?