Racing To The Future (Wizbang)

With Barack Obama's speech recently on his former pastor (the bigoted, race-baiting, paranoid Jeremiah Wright) that he used to bring up the issue of race in America. A lot of people (me included) took the opportunity to note how he really didn't do very much to address his long-term relationship with Wright, but he did have some very important things to say about the state of race relations in America.

This is what I consider the most important part of Obama's speech:

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

I'm going to take up the good Senator and put forth my opinions on this "national dialogue on race." As I happen to have a race (Caucasian -- European mutt, with English, French, and Scandanavian ancestry, in other words "typical white person"), I think I have something to contribute.

And my contribution is this: I want a dialogue. And I want all that that entails -- meaning, two (or more) people talking and listening.

The first thing I want to say is what I do not want to talk about. And that is the past.

America is a great nation. It has been from the beginning. And there is a price for that greatness -- both our triumphs and our failings tend to be on a grand scale, and our proudest feats tend to get blurred into history while our most shameful take on a historic prominence.

Our history on racial matters is spotty at best. We kept slavery as a legal institution than most of our peers. And the full repudiation of that shameful legacy took about a century -- and a lot of good people's lives. People of all races and sexes and national origins, it must be noted.

But I say this with an absolute firm conviction and sincerest, most heart-felt belief: in the last 40 years or so, the most destructive policies and actions and systems against black Americans -- and race relations in general -- have almost all come in the guise of "helping" blacks and "making amends" for the injustices.

Welfare, affirmative action, set-asides, quotas, preferences -- all these have, at their core, the message that "you can't succeed on your own, so we'll help you." Sometimes it's blatantly saying "you are inferior, and need help;" mostly it's "the system/society/nation is against you, so we'll balance that out." And that "soft bigotry of low expectations" has inculcated a culture where it has become natural to look to -- and depend upon -- the government to take care of things.

And that works just fine for the people pushing that message, because they believe in big government. It takes a big government, and all that entails, to ram these beliefs down the throats of the American people. It needs power, it needs money, and it needs a steady stream of people who have grown comfortable on what the government gives them and will keep re-electing (when they can be troubled to vote) those who promise them everything.

But as I said, that is the past. I don't want to talk about that. The only reason I even say it is because I believe most fervently in the South African model.

When South Africa's despicable apartheid government fell, there was a tremendous fear of a backlash against the minority whites who had held power. After all, we'd seen it many times before in Africa, and several times since. (I certainly thought it was pretty much inevitable.) But they found a way to get past it.

Their "Truth And Reconciliation Commission" system was a stroke of genius -- Gerald Ford's pardoning of Richard Nixon would be the closest we've ever come to in this nation, and even that is nowhere near as bold. People who had committed atrocities under the apartheid system could win full amnesty if -- and only if -- they appeared before the commission and made a full confession. This allowed a lot of inconvenient and ugly truths to come out, in a way that was most likely to get full stories -- and avoid the bloodbaths that, prior, had seemed inevitable in such circumstances.

I don't believe we need a similar body -- very few of those people who set up and carried out the most heinous racist deeds and policies are still in any position of power, and the vast majority of them are dead. (Relax, Senator Byrd. You're safe.) But I think we need a "national amnesty" where we, as a nation, acknowledge that over the centuries, we have done horribly destructive things to our countrymen and countrywomen -- with both the best and worst intentions -- and we need to fix things.

That is the crux of the matter: not what has come before, but where things stand today and where we wish to take them in the future.

I think it is long past time that we actually start to bring about Dr. Martin Luther King's vision -- one that a lot of us share. On August 23, 1963, he declared that "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Let's take a look at those four little children he referred to:

Yolanda Denise King was seven at the time. She died last year, at the age of 51.

Martin Luther King III was five at the time. He's now 50.

Dexter Scott King was two. He is 47 today.

Bernice Albertine King was not even four months old that day. She'll be 45 in a week or so.

One of Dr. King's children did not live to see his wish come true. In all honesty, I doubt that any of them will survive to see it. (Then again, they might. Their mother lived into her 70s, and Dr. King's parents lived to 69 and 84.)

But they very well might see us take some serious steps towards that goal, when we can push as a society to bring that to fruition.

But we shouldn't do it because we owe it to Dr. King and his memory. We owe him a great deal, but we should not be doing such major things simply because we wish to honor him.

We should do it because we owe it to ourselves. The legacy of racial divisiveness -- whether it's the centuries of bigotry or the decades of paternalistic condescension and misguided "help" -- is a corrosive on our national soul, and we owe it to all Americans -- past, present, and future -- to correct this and move towards a truly just and unbigoted society.

I don't think we can ever fully achieve it; I think it's innate in human nature, and stronger in some than in others. But we can beat the hell out of it, make it as unacceptable to publicly air (and privately practice) like we did drunk driving.

After all, "a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

Thank you, Senator Obama, for your contribution to the national discussion on race. I still won't vote for you, based on your other policies (economic, social, and foreign, just to name three), but you did our nation a great service when you were challenged on your long-standing support and alliance with Reverend Wright. I just wish you would realize that he's even more of an obstacle to progress than a dozen Mel Gibsons or Michael Richards or Don Imuses.

Comments (49)

Jay;Nice piece....... (Below threshold)

1. Posted by JFO | March 21, 2008 2:49 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)

JFO:

Jay;

Nice piece....pretty thoughtful and straight forward. I agree with much of what you wrote. In particular, I like the idea of moving forward, reconciling the past and letting it go. It'd s very healing, though sometimes extremely difficult, letting go. I'm a recovering alcoholic and making amends (reconciliation) and letting go are some of the tools we use in our recovery.

I very much disagree with that part of your last paragraph minimizing Gibson et al as compared to Wright as obstacles to progress. None of those people causes any less harm than the others.

Posted on March 21, 2008 14:49

Jay it is good of you to to... (Below threshold)

2. Posted by Steve Crickmore | March 21, 2008 3:15 PM | Score: -4 (6 votes cast)

Steve Crickmore:

Jay it is good of you to to behind the cardboard cut outs..Obama wrote the speech by himself in a day. It was a speech addressed for adults that touched on the ambiguity of race in the US. He is the probably the only politician in the US who could or would do that. He really listens and understands the anger or angst on both sides of the race issue as well as most issues. I have been repeatably saying could you could imagine having an eloquent president who is ferociously intelligent in the Oval Office for once? Maybe not...There is no empty suit quality about Obama.

Now many white Americans don't understand how anyone could sit in pew and listen to Wright, but I don't think they understand the tradition of Christian Churches or Afrocentric churches in the ghettoes of America, and the south side of Chicago is perhaps the biggest ghetto in the US and Obama was always criticized by blacks as not being black enough..so I think this was one of the reasons he put up with some of the infammatory language, much as one puts one with so much of it in the comments of the blogs. It comes with the territory. At the same time, it is hard to disown your own pastor as it might be to disown someone in your family. The fire and brimstone imprecations of white fundamentalist ministers bring down far worse things on America that Wright could conjure up, and occur so often in sermons, that it escapes our notice.

Bill O'Reilly, Wizbangblue, guess which moderator, highlight naturally that Obama 'threw his grandmother under the bus', by implying she may have had racist fears. I will speaking about this issue later in a post on wizbangblue. We aren't electing Obama's former minister we are electing Obama, just we didn't elect Billy Graham, we elected Nixon or Reagan..And Obama, as former constitutional law professor and very good one according his students' reviews, is the only candidate unlike McCain or Clinton, who believe in strong constitutional safeguards for atheists or agnostics.

Posted on March 21, 2008 15:15

I'm glad he actually recogn... (Below threshold)

3. Posted by Oyster | March 21, 2008 3:46 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)

Oyster:

I'm glad he actually recognized the nature of "legitimate" complaints from both sides of the divide. Now, the question is; does he actually have a plan to address this issue, or is he simply recognizing what reasonable people have been trying to say all along?

JFO:
Gibson apologized for his words and publicly admitted he needed to look deep inside himself for the origins of his actions and learn to address them. Michael Richards apologized for his outburst and committed himself to addressing his own issues. Don Imus apologized and his apology was accepted by those he slurred. Wright has made no apologies to my recollection. So yeah, I'll take a dozen Imus', Richards' and Gibsons who will admit their prejudices and attempt to overcome them over one Wright.

Posted on March 21, 2008 15:46

Bill O'Reilly, Wizbangb... (Below threshold)

4. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | March 21, 2008 3:50 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)

LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Is this another effort of moral equivalency to compare Billy Graham to Jeremy Wright? Is this what some commentators call the enabling of Obama 's despicable moral equivalency (comparing Wright to his grandmother)? In general, the generalization to save his own career is so despicable, but he may not know it because Obama has been living in a cocoon of liberal virtual reality: (1) Wright 's view is typical of black community (it is pretty sad if that is the case), (2) His grandmother 's racial prejudice if not animosity (implicit moral equivalency to Wright 's hatred of America) is typical of white community. BTW, more here
Trinity United for Hamas

Aaron Klein reports that Barack Obama's Chicago church reprinted the Los Angeles Times column by Hamas leader Mousa abu Marzook. The column spouts the usual Hamas propaganda defending terrorism as legitimate resistance. The column was published on the "pastor's page" of the Trinity Church bulletin on July 22, 2007 and posted online here by Bizzyblog yesterday. Perhaps most revealing is the church bulletin's own subhead over the column: "An official of the movement describes its goals for all of Palestine." You know, "all of Palestine," including Israel, whose right to exist Hamas denies and which it seeks to "liberate" for Islam.

And Obama, as former constitutional law professor and very good one according his students' reviews, is the only candidate unlike McCain or Clinton, who believe in strong constitutional safeguards for atheists or agnostics.

This is another example of Obama 's words do not match his actions. Obama 's slogan should be: "I am intelligent and can swoon liberals. Do what I say, not what I do". He is not honest about his ties to Wright, Rezko and try to swoon people with cheap rhetoric. Why should we trust his cheap rhetoric again? BTW, Obama doesn't have respect for the first amendment at all (he signed on the fairness doctrine, the infamous letter to silence Rush Limbaugh). Yup Obama believes in strong constitutional safeguards for atheists/agnostics like making sure that surviving aborted babies do not get medical care while terrorists will get the maximum protection of the law!

Posted on March 21, 2008 15:50

Oyster, Wright does... (Below threshold)

5. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | March 21, 2008 3:52 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)

Oyster,
Wright doesn't need to apologize, liberals like Obama and his supporters will provide the context to excuse it. Just like we see all the stories about the silliness of monogamous relationship after spitzer and patterson.

Posted on March 21, 2008 15:52

We have plenty of exemplary... (Below threshold)

6. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | March 21, 2008 3:55 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)

We have plenty of exemplary prominent blacks who have gotten past the racial divide: Thomas Sewell, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Condi Rice etc... On the liberal side, we have people like Cosby and Juan Williams etc... Obama isn't the person this time.

Posted on March 21, 2008 15:55

<a href="http://article.nat... (Below threshold)

7. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | March 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)

The Politics of Friendship - Obama and me

Obama wants us to believe that he did not turn his back on Wright, leave Wright's church or "disown" him because for the past 20 years, Wright has been "like family" to him. But Obama wants us simultaneously to believe that he was not aware that his close friend held such a "profoundly distorted view of this country" -- a view that encompassed Wright's beliefs that the U.S. government created the AIDS virus, introduced crack to the ghettos, invited the 9/11 attacks through acts of wanton violence throughout the world and therefore ought to be damned.

I don't believe it. Obama's friendship with Wright is probably genuine, and I do not blame Obama for refusing to abandon his friend over what amounts to a political disagreement. But it's highly unlikely that Obama did not know about his close friend's very public and "profoundly distorted" beliefs about America.

What bothers me is that we don't have any evidence -- either an old letter or a statement from the campaign -- that Obama ever confronted his friend and tried to change his mind. Such confrontations can grate on friendships, if they happen frequently enough, and especially if they concern trivial matters. But here we have a situation where a friend of Obama's was spreading poisonous beliefs to a congregation that included Obama's own daughters. Obama was in a unique position to lead by asking his friend to reconsider some of his hateful and paranoid ideas.

Evidently, he didn't, and what might have been silent disagreement now looks like passive acceptance. No one should ask Obama to turn his back on his friend. But we have a right to ask those who wish to lead us: If they can't confront their friends, how will they confront our enemies?

Posted on March 21, 2008 16:06

Jay, Obama doesn't w... (Below threshold)

8. Posted by Anthro03 | March 21, 2008 4:07 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)

Anthro03:

Jay,
Obama doesn't want a conversation, just as Steve above doesn't want a conversation, He wants to lecture you, to preach to you, for you to admit the sins of your race and your fathers actions and for you to do penance by jumping on his train and voting for him, only then can you absolve yourself of the original sin of being "a typical white person"

Obama's lip service to "segments of the white community" who "experience is the immigrant experience" comes with the statement that "anger"... "helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends."
"these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits" Rich White people!

There is no conversation here, it's a lecture, a sermon, You are a sinner, the fact that you don't believe you are just makes you an unrepentant sinner. And only through the Faith and Dogma of the Church of St. Obama (PBOM). Can you be saved.

The Conversation is; "We will not get past race as an issue in America until we take these demagogues and tell them to shut up."

It is said that "Friends are God's way of apologizing for your Family". I have walked away from friends who could not put their bigotry towards blacks, gays and Hispanics aside. And when I called them on it was told, "You've never had to live with them so you don't know. "

I refuse to poison my soul by hanging with such hatred. I walked away. Obama could walk away any time he wanted to, He could have said "No, this is the way of the past and I refuse to be apart of it." Instead he sent over $20,000 to this church, in effect supporting the spreading of this Hate.

Instead he CHOSE to associate with this hater, he CHOSE to sit in front of him and trust this man as his Spiritual advisor, and CHOSE to Follow him.

And I CHOOSE to say. "Screw you Obama, Let him without sin cast the first stone"

Posted on March 21, 2008 16:07

This is a good summary of S... (Below threshold)

9. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | March 21, 2008 4:39 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)

This is a good summary of Shelby Steele 's insightful book and article, A bargain becomes a challenge

Here is my summary of Obama 's conversation so far:

(a) Bargainer: I assume that you are not racists until you act like racist. By loving me and voting for me you affirm that you are not racists.

(b) Challenger: Now you have brought up Wright, so I assume that you are racists. To prove you innocence, you have to vote for me.

Posted on March 21, 2008 16:39

Atypical white guy here ...... (Below threshold)

10. Posted by Jeff | March 21, 2008 4:40 PM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)

Jeff:

Atypical white guy here ... in other words I DONT fear someone because they look different ... gee, I thought I was actually pretty typical for a white guy ... I guess in Obama's view of the world I'm atypical ...
Thanks Obama for making me feel so good ...

You are a rotten, nasty, ungrateful grandson ... you can't tell me that in all your years you couldn't have come up with a different well meaning racist white person story other than your grandmother to compare to your racist preacher ? Anyone that treats their grandmother like that doesn't deserve to be the President of a chess club much less the USA ...

How about you work on healing that racist pastor you pal around with before you lecture me on my god damn racial sins you f*ing con man ...

Posted on March 21, 2008 16:40

Nice post Jay. I never tho... (Below threshold)

11. Posted by Larkin | March 21, 2008 4:48 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Larkin:

Nice post Jay. I never thought I would see the day when the posts over here make more sense to me than the ones on Wizbang Blue (excepting Steve and Paul).

Welfare, affirmative action, set-asides, quotas, preferences -- all these have, at their core, the message that "you can't succeed on your own, so we'll help you."

I would agree with this, but there's also an aspect to African-American resentment over government policies that can't be ignored. We have spent half a trillion dollars on a five-year long nationbuilding effort in Iraq that seems very remote from the concerns of inner city blacks who see their schools and infrastructure crumbling while there are not enough cops on the beat to take the streets back from the gangs.

So it's not just a matter of being enamored with big government. Government isn't even doing the things that virtually everyone across the political spectrum agrees it should be doing (such as fixing the infrastructure and providing adequate police protection).

Posted on March 21, 2008 16:48

"you can't tell me that in ... (Below threshold)

12. Posted by BarneyG2000 | March 21, 2008 4:50 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)

BarneyG2000:

"you can't tell me that in all your years you couldn't have come up with a different well meaning racist white person.."

You mean like Nixon?

Posted on March 21, 2008 16:50

OysterOn reflectio... (Below threshold)

13. Posted by JFO | March 21, 2008 4:52 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)

Oyster

On reflection I would have to agree that you're right about Gibson et al seeking redemption and for that they should be commended.

Posted on March 21, 2008 16:52

is it OK if I feel that Oba... (Below threshold)

14. Posted by GianiD | March 21, 2008 5:04 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)

GianiD:

is it OK if I feel that Obama is a

typical black guy?
typical liberal?
typical Democrat?

Posted on March 21, 2008 17:04

I think that whether or not... (Below threshold)

15. Posted by matthew | March 21, 2008 5:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

matthew:

I think that whether or not those descriptions are fair depends greatly on what you consider to be a "typical black guy", Giani.

Posted on March 21, 2008 17:32

What did Obama mean when he... (Below threshold)

16. Posted by GianiD | March 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

What did Obama mean when he said typical white person?

Thats what I meant.

Posted on March 21, 2008 17:37

SteveHe is t... (Below threshold)

17. Posted by HughS | March 21, 2008 5:38 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)

HughS:

Steve

He is the probably the only politician in the US who could or would do that.

Obama had no choice but to give that speech. I've read your many posts and comments over the last several days and it is apparent that you will not grasp one central point that has been made repeatedly here and at Blue. The Wright affair speaks to Obama's judgement.

You are simply wrong on this point, Steve. Thousands upon thousands of Americans leave their churches every Sunday to find another church for the simple reason that they don't agree with what they hear from the pulpit. They leave for reasons of doctrine, interpretation, personality, or feeling unwelcome. That Obama felt, as you suggest, that he wasn't black enough and therefore "put up with some of the inflammatory language" is to say bluntly that he is morally compromised and has no judgement.

The fire and brimstone imprecations of white fundamentalist ministers bring down far worse things on America that Wright could conjure up, and occur so often in sermons, that it escapes our notice.

No, it doesn't escape our notice. It escapes your notice because you are not paying attention. I have lived all over this country, have atteded little churches and mega churches. I have experienced nothing that is remotely similar to your statement about "white fundamentalist ministers" which, BTW, is a bigoted remark.

Steve, I think your difficulty in understanding this matter is that you don't know much about what goes on on Sunday mornings all across America.

Posted on March 21, 2008 17:38

Excellent post Jay.... (Below threshold)

18. Posted by HughS | March 21, 2008 5:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Excellent post Jay.

Posted on March 21, 2008 17:43

I may be misremembering thi... (Below threshold)

19. Posted by John Irving | March 21, 2008 6:25 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

John Irving:

I may be misremembering this, but I think it's correct. Didn't Howard Dean leave his church over a dispute concerning a bike path?

I still like Obama, but this episode has called into question his judgement and capability to discern differences between a bad belief held by a friend and a good belief held by an opponent.

One of the complaints the Left, and Democrats in general have had against George W. Bush is that he is too loyal to his friends, even when they are wrong. The quote "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie" comes to mind. Can they really say they want someone with a similar, yet far larger blind spot occupying the Oval Office for the next four years?

The statements heard from Rev. Wright, including the very pertinent fact that he knew Obama would have to disown him during the campaign, call into question Obama's ability in this area.

And yet, I still think he's a better choice than Hillary.

Posted on March 21, 2008 18:25

Criticize how he distanced ... (Below threshold)

20. Posted by matthew | March 21, 2008 6:42 PM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)

For those of you who oppose affirmative action for mostly good reasons, I wonder how you would seek to address substantive racial inequalities. I don't think it's racist, but I think it's wrong to say that it falls solely upon the shoulders of black America to level the playing field. "The soft bigotry of low expectations" is a nice way of rebranding white resentment as deep respect for the potential of black America; I'm sure some people even use the expression earnestly. What, though, is to be done to address systematic inequalities? If Wright and other black leaders can't be counted on, is it wrong to assert a role for the government in addressing the sociological underpinnings? To simply say "Suck it up and try harder" (or to imply it while saying something with more intelligent packaging) doesn't take into account socioeconomic context and the psychographics of have-not communities. Do conservatives consider any proactive move by the government to address systemic racism to be "reverse racism"? If so, then this discussion isn't likely to get off the ground.

Overall a very good post, Jay Tea.

Posted on March 21, 2008 18:42

Observation of a 'typical w... (Below threshold)

21. Posted by GarandFan | March 21, 2008 6:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

GarandFan

Observation of a 'typical white person'. Obama has set himself up as a bridge of the racial divide. He "understands" but wants to heal the hatred of the past. Part of his practice in that healing is to expose his children to the racist rants of a crazy man (to be charitable) under the guise of Christian teachings. He's had a lot of support from liberals for his race speech. Pardon the term, but his speach was bullshit! Mr Hope and Change was like any other politican caught with his pants down. He's trying to save his political ass! What he says and what he's been found to practice have been called into question. Yet if you question him, you're racist! Well I've been sitting in pew the past 20 years on Sunday, never heard the pastor utter anything even close to the blatherings of the Reverend Hate. Obama can try and lay his guilt trip somewhere else. To me, this most recent event has shown even more that he's just an empty suit.

Posted on March 21, 2008 18:43

Oh, and LAI, you might want... (Below threshold)

22. Posted by matthew | March 21, 2008 6:46 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Oh, and LAI, you might want to be more careful with HTML tags when quoting blocks of text; else it might appear that you not only plagiarized, but plagiarized a hack like Stephen Spruiell.

Posted on March 21, 2008 18:46

23. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | March 21, 2008 6:56 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Oh, and LAI, you might want to be more careful with HTML tags when quoting blocks of text; else it might appear that you not only plagiarized, but plagiarized a hack like Stephen Spruiell.
------------------------------------
Matthew, you should be careful with spouting your ignorance and uninformed opinion here. You are writing like a cheap hack trying to make excuse for racism and anti-American hate.

You should go back and do your homework. You don't even understand your own metaphysics enough. So please do more homework.

Posted on March 21, 2008 18:56

matthewCriticiz... (Below threshold)

24. Posted by HughS | March 21, 2008 7:02 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

matthew

Criticize how he distanced himself from Wright, and whether he went far enough denouncing the guy, but don't worry too much about whether that clown's nutty beliefs will inform Obama's pending presidency.

It's the tense of the verb, matthew, that has some concerned.
Average Americans are concerned as to whether Wright's nutty beliefs already have informed Obama's beiefs.

Posted on March 21, 2008 19:02

25. Posted by LoveAmerica, Immigrant | March 21, 2008 7:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Criticize how he distanced himself from Wright, and whether he went far enough denouncing the guy, but don't worry too much about whether that clown's nutty beliefs will inform Obama's pending presidency. I don't see him being appointed Secretary of State, or even Undersecretary of Keeping It Real.
-------------------------------------
Imagine McCain goes to a church with someone like David Duke for 20 years. Had his kids baptized there and consider that pastor as a mentor. In all honesty, can we imagine Matthew will spout the garbage that he won't have to worry about McCain appointing David Duke as secretary of state.

BTW, let 's look at what Obama did wrt this controversy. He "threw his grandma under the bus" to justify his relationship with pastor Wright. All is for own his political career. He showed an ignorance about the white people in general or trying to intimidate them when he tried to generalize his grandma as a "typical white person".

If we want to have an honest conversation about race, first we need to stop the excuse for racism that has been put out on this thread. Obama doesn't have the experience and judgement to be the president. Acknowledge that before we can have an honest conversation about race.

Posted on March 21, 2008 19:11

Sheesh, dude, I was only te... (Below threshold)

26. Posted by matthew | March 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Sheesh, dude, I was only teasing you for your misuse of HTML tags (and, I suppose, your tacit endorsement of Spruiell's writing). Your technique of frantically jotting down big words that other people use for later use in your own hackneyed screeds is hilarious, by the way. I also remember asking you to do some homework--glad you're splicing that bit in, too. Flattered, even.

Anyway, I don't know what you mean by anti-American hate. Disagreeing with you from a liberal perspective isn't anti-American. It's anti-your opinion.

Posted on March 21, 2008 19:13

Do you think Wright's moral... (Below threshold)

27. Posted by matthew | March 21, 2008 7:15 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)

Do you think Wright's morals have informed Obama's, Hugh? If so, how? Guilt by association is an annoying non-argument used too frequently by both liberals and conservatives.

Posted on March 21, 2008 19:15

28. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | March 21, 2008 7:20 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Sheesh, dude, I was only teasing you for your misuse of HTML tags (and, I suppose, your tacit endorsement of Spruiell's writing).
-------------------------------------
I will not be dishonest by using "teasing" to weasel out an arg. Maybe other people have more patience than I do. But I have seen enough liberals pretending to be sophisticated while spouting their ignorance.

I am honest when I said that you need to to do your homework. I didn't try to play games as you did. You don't know what pastor Wright said is anti-American hate, then go back and listen to it again (ie do your homework).

Posted on March 21, 2008 19:20

29. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | March 21, 2008 7:22 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)

Do you think Wright's morals have informed Obama's, Hugh? If so, how? Guilt by association is an annoying non-argument used too frequently by both liberals and conservatives.
-------------------------------------
Another cheap talking point. Not guilt by association but responsibility by association. So you don't think people are responsibile for people they choose to associate with? You made a big deal of Romney and the Mormon church. You even claimed that Romney was not qualified to be president for his association with the Mormon church. That 's why you need to go back and do your homework. Try to be intellectually consistent and honest, please.

Posted on March 21, 2008 19:22

To talk about race, first w... (Below threshold)

30. Posted by matthew | March 21, 2008 7:22 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)

To talk about race, first we must acknowledge that Obama is not fit to be POTUS? That's where you stand, LAI? Well, when he becomes POTUS, does that mean we have to shut up about race forever?

Do you seriously think Wright is as bad as David Duke? Wright is a reactionary idiot, but his idiocy stems from the victimization of his people (as Obama explained). Duke's idiocy is of a considerably different and more awful nature.

Alright, I'm off to eat ribs and drink beer with some friends, which is an infinitely more productive use of my time than reading your gibberish. Kudos, though, for once again managing somehow to get at least one person to pay attention to you.

30. Posted by matthew | March 21, 2008 7:22 PM |

Racing To The Future

TrackBack

Comments (49)