In Philadelphia yesterday Barack Obama (D-IL) gave the speech about his core religious beliefs that presidential aspirant Mitt Romney (R-MA) should have given back in December. He unequivocally acknowledged that his some of his "former pastor's" (more on that later) comments were racially divisive and hurtful, and do not represent his feelings about the only country on earth in which "my story is even possible."
After thanking former Sen. Harris Wofford (D-PA) for his introductory remarks (which were a tad over the top for The Stiletto's taste, likening Obama to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln), Obama continued the historical riff ("Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy") before getting down to brass tacks:
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least 20 more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations. ...
What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience, and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this presidential campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. ...
What was notable about Obama's speech was that – unlike Romney - he gave voice to the persistent concerns many voters had about him, his beliefs and the extent of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's influence over him, and dealt with them forcefully one by one:
I've gone to some of the best schools in America and I've lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners, an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.
I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins of every race and every hue scattered across three continents. And for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on earth is my story even possible. It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional of candidates.
But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one. ...
On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wild- and wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.
On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation and that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy, and in some cases, pain. ...
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country, a view that sees white racism as endemic and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive ...
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress had been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino, Asian, rich, poor, young and old - is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. ...
America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
Obama also took the $64,000 question head on: "Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place? Why not join another church?":
Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. ...
The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and, yes, the bitterness and biases that make up the black experience in America. ...
Now, some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. ...
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through, a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect. ...
She takes a while to make it completely clear, but if you read on down far enough, you find out that she's a right-wing Republican. More intelligent than most of them, but still...
Whatever difficulties Obama may face, he (fortunately) does not need the votes of people like her.
by
Michael Lubin (12 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 41 comments)
on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 1:12:35 PM
'It remains to be seen whether Obama's speech allays the concerns of Americans who wonder whether he is really what he presents himself to be. Is he a biracial, multi-ethnic man who transcends race and embodies the hopes and promise of America? Or is he a closet racist (AKA "black separatist") who believes that Jesus was a black man; that the U.S. government purposefully infected blacks with the AIDS virus to wipe them out; and that America should be damned for its treatment of blacks from its inception onward?
One doesn't have to be an anti-black racist not to want to vote for an anti-white racist.'
*************************
No, surely one does not have to be .... One does not have to be anything to write the above paragraph which its essence is racist, provocational and utterly bizarre. What kind of 'hope' is that? Why does he have to prove anything to you: that he is this and he is that.. Hey, good ole US is full of whities, mad as hatters and they are all senators, presidents, congresspeople and no one hopes them to be all those things above. So what if he believes Jesus was black? In the Republic of Georgia Jesus looks like Georgian and in Germany he is very much German. And US govt did conduct experiments on the black men here ( Tuskagee experiment) and surely abroad on the Africans. Still we do that now: our wars are experiments.
Not to sound ad hominem, Stiletto, you broke your blade on this one.
by
Mark Sashine (50 articles, 19 quicklinks, 242 diaries, 3434 comments)
on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 1:53:50 PM
"The only country on earth in which my story is even possible"? He obviously hasn't spoken to Michelle Jean, the Governor General of Canada. A black woman who is at the peak of society and politics in that country. As Governor General she is the Queen's representative in Canada. All authority rests in her (the Prime minister wields the power but not the authority). As the queen's representative she is the first lady of the country and takes precedence over all others including the Prime Minister. So nice sentiment on Obama's part but certainly open to question.
by
Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1087 comments)
on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 3:46:38 PM
BUT, If you had been a Democrat those entire 20 years and were running for President, had inspired hundreds of thousand of new voters to get involved in their gov't, had won 2/3 of the primary contests so far and had the most delegate and most support of the voters in the Party, THEN we found out a relative or associate of yours had been a Republican? I wouldn't care.
Unless you were a different color than me. Then you would be dangerous.
by
TomMikesell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 6:50:17 PM
As some of you astutely noted, The Stiletto is right of center in her political orientation. But she is willing to bet that none of you who visited her blog bothered to read the brief bio in the sidebar that makes it clear she comes from a family at least as diverse as Barack Obama's. In fact half of her family voted for him in the primaries held in their states, and half of her family voted for John McCain. Yes, we are also politically diverse. For this reason, The Stiletto disapproves of racism whether the racist is black, brown or white - and is amazed at the racism exhibited by those who put her into a racial category based on nothing but her point of view. (Oh, and BTW, The Stiletto is not "self hating" either.)
by
The Stiletto (37 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 30 comments)
on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 12:47:05 AM
I read it and called you and your rant "hateful", not racist. YOU used that term to describe Obama's Pastor. If you had read or listened to Wright's words past the headlines you would not have been able to write this post. (unless you are a liar too)
Your headline and your story are hateful rants trying to incite others who need to see this knid of tripe in print to justify their own hate.
You throw in a few out of context quotes to 'prove' your points but they fail.
And I'm sure your relatives are proud that you are so comfortable using their skin color as justification for your spew.
by
TomMikesell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 1:13:13 PM
Unlike other artices in the MSM, The Stiletto took pains to quote huge swaths of Obama's speech - something like 900 words in all - and did not select snippets to distort his meaning. If you consider her analysis - and the objective observation that Rev. Wright has caused some to question whether Obama is who he says he is - a hateful rant, then I suppose you consider this from Dan Balz of The Washington Post a hateful rant as well:
But, at heart, this was a speech designed for a political purpose, and Obama may have received more credit than he deserves for taking up the subject. Sitting in the small auditorium on Tuesday, watching Obama speak in what seemed like deliberately flat and unemotional tones, there was no way to think about the address as other than a political rescue mission. And on that there is no simple verdict, only lingering questions. ...
Obama obviously knew better than to pretend that the ugly controversy would somehow disappear. Wright, in fact, had created the most serious crisis Obama has faced in this campaign, and no amount of wishing would change that fact. The candidate rightly understood the threat to his candidacy and immediately told his advisers that he wanted to deliver a major speech on the subject. By enlarging the discussion, he hoped to defuse what was most dangerous to his political aspirations: his long association with a prominent figure who has said things that many Americans -- white and black -- find repulsive. ...
What cannot be known at this point is how the episode is resonating around the country among independents or those who were once called Reagan Democrats. Has Obama reached them in a way that inspires their confidence that he is perhaps uniquely equipped not just to start a conversation but to lead the country to a new, if still imperfect, place in racial relations? Or has he simply raised doubts among them about who he is?
I disagree with the premise of Balz article but, Balz did not, at least in this piece, call Wright a racist. YOU DID.
Shameful, inflammatory and yes, Hateful.
You might want to look beyond Fox News sound bites for material before you write your next post to OpEdNews, we tend to pay attention and have the B.S.Deflectors up.
I notice you have written 0 articles. Before you give The Stiletto advice on how to research her articles, why don't you write a couple of dozen articles or posts on breaking news topics? Or maybe 1,000+ as The Stiletto has.
by
The Stiletto (37 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 30 comments)
on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 2:31:18 PM
Yup, The Stiletto will not deign to dignify ad hominem invective by elevating it to a thoughtful response that merits reasoned debate.
BTW, here's what uber-Dem and one-time veep candidate Geraldine Ferraro said about Rev. Wright:
"To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable. [Obama] gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred."
So it's not just reforned liberal Dems like The Stiletto who think Wright is racist - Americans across the political spectrum think so too. Why are you blinded to racism when the racist is non-white?
by
The Stiletto (37 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 30 comments)
on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 3:59:21 PM
1 - Did you listen to the whole sermon or just the short clip pulled for you by Fox?
Apparently, the "Chickens..." comment was Wright paraphrasing the views of Ambassador Edward Peck, while Wright himself believed something else - as in "hatred begets hatred", a much more calming, anti-hatred message. Decide for yourself HERE
2 - Which of the three viable candidates do you think would be most helpful to progressing race relations in the U.S. and the world?
3 - Can you share any evidence that Obama echoes the "racist" views expressed in any of the video clips?
4 - If we are going to focus for more then one week on people Obama has known in the past, should we also spend some time on Rev. Hagee, Denise Rich and others known by all three candidates, even if the candidate doesn't echo the same views?
5 - If you had a right wing radio show, which of the three topics would you say was most worth a week of coverags?
a: The intrusion of the American government on free markets, handing over $200 billion in taxpayer cash to corporate welfare recipient Bear Stearns - (late on a Friday, just as the Wright "scandal" was being engineered).
b: The Adm. Fallon fall-out over Bush' Iran policy
c: A custom-clipped collection of speeches by Rev. Wright, seen now as being largely taken out of context.
In conclusion, the whole Wright debate is a smokescreen: worry about the economy, stupid, because the Bush family just pulled off another S&L ripoff right under your nose, thanks to their media shills. Don't see it yet?
by
Gustav Wynn (58 articles, 38 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 275 comments)
on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 1:09:46 PM
There is definitely something very wrong in this country and it's not necessarily an issue of race. It's more of a learned process to avoid discussion of peoples true feelings no matter how beneficial the outcome of such conversations may be.
One thing that the establishment endorses, silently but emphatically, is divisiveness. The last thing that is needed by a corporate government whose goal is to eliminate an entire class of society, which, by the way, is made up of white, black, Asian, Hispanic, etc., is for those races to realize that they themselves comprise that class. If middle class could break through the hate perpetuated by the very people who are trying to destroy us and understand the dynamics of the situation, that it's us, many different races and people, all working class, trying to attain the same goals which are being slowly eroded by a government who is servitor to the collective corporate entity, we just might grow up and unionize against them.
Imagine if we all took the lead from a man who is intelligent enough to recognize this situation and took a typical racial incident and used it to open an intelligent dialogue which may possibly lead to people of different races who, despite the efforts of a right wing media, have grown in the past forty years to a point where, through time and several new generations, we could finally break through the fear and the animosity imposed by our divisive leaders and resolve a good many of our issues.
Obviously we can't fix everything at once but if we don't tear down the wall built by the establishment we'll never know, will we? Just as the Reverend expressed his feelings with emotions filled with anger and frustration, so do many whites who feel the same way. I believe though that the anger and frustration is more directed towards those in control of the inequities, that being the government whose tactics cycle down to citizens who have to live with the results of their actions and portrayal by the media which naturally create animosity directed at each other rather than the source of the problem.
If we for once, took the high road, acting like the intelligent, insightful society we are and followed Obama's lead we would find that where our hatred lies is not at an entire race of people but at an attitude that's been deliberately perpetuated by those who would not benefit by a unified multicultural working middle class. When we meet a black, or white person one on one, whether in a social setting or a disaster scenario we meet as one, reaching out without animosity or even the recognition of our differences. Somehow, through all of this hatred we manage to interact by the millions on a daily basis without killing each other or even an argument. Yet, when portrayed by the media we are shown nothing but the few encounters which are meant to enrage, to fester those deeply buried feelings and keep us at arms length. For once we must ignore these tactics, recognizing them as actions of the establishment. We must redirect our anger and frustrations at the establishment who is using literal propaganda to divide and destroy us.
Obama recognizes this. He is truly a product of us, he's black and white. He has lived, first hand, in both worlds and recognizes the differences and has learned to accept them as we all must.
Everything that we are at odds over, from slavery to affirmative action, are the products of our government, not of our society. Do not let the government continue this deadly charade. Break loose and unite. When we've all found that common ground, that ground where the establishment would literally bury us, this is where we take our stand and fight. Fight against feelings which we've been brainwashed to believe by an enemy who would take all we have. Fight against leaders who don't represent us but the corporate entity which would have us fight their money wars, leading our future generations to death and servitude. Think of where your children will be under this rule and don't confuse republicans and democrats with good and bad. There are those in both parties who belong to the ranks of corporate government, learn to recognize them. They are the ones who voted for Bush's war, his policies and ignored his deceitful tactics. Learn that the issues presented as platforms for an election are pertinent but that they are not pertinent to this election. Those issues will resolve in time under the proper government. A corporate government will never resolve health care, immigration or war. Those are their tools. They are what keep us divided and distracted. They are what keep us fighting each other rather than them.
Wake up, grow up, recognize who we are and recognize the real enemy.
by PeterJ on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 12:56:08 PM
by
PeterJ (11 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 128 comments)
on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 1:12:03 PM
16 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
