I've been reding Jim's posts on Obama and Wright as well as chatter here and elsewhere about Obama's acquaintances with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. The comments to Jim's posts have been quite interesting also (at least to me). So I thought I'd throw another log on the fire.
I have no inside knowledge of any of this, but here's my impression as to what is going on. I think that much of this commentary is quite unfair to Obama and somewhat misplaced. One issue that has arisen, for instance, is whether Obama's criticism of Wright following his news conference is sincere or not. Another is whether Obama should have done more to "distance" himself from Ayers and Dohrn or denounced them more publicly. Based on what I've read, I think these are unfair to Obama.
By all indications, Obama seems like an extremely decent guy. Everyone who I have talked to who has ever known him personally says that he is a decent guy. He seems like the kind of guy who tends to look for the best in people, rather than the worst, and seems like the kind of guy who is quite ready to forgive the foibles and nuttiness of friends and relatives. I have no reason to know for sure whether this is true, but seems consistent with what I have observed.
I suspect that all of us have friends, relatives, and colleagues who are basically good, conscientious, and kind people, but who have some political views that are pretty nutty. I have an uncle who in 1999 liquidated all of his assets and converted them to gold coins then moved to a remote undeveloped part of Hawaii because he was so afraid of Y2K and that martial law was going to be imposed on the United States. I have a friend who is a self-proclaimed anarchist environmentalist anti-globalization activist. I'm sure that Alan Greenspan didn't agree with everything that Ayn Rand believed and I know a lot of friends of Murrary Rothbard didn't agree with a lot of what he wrote. And just recall all the hubbub about Ron Paul's old newsletters.
Moreover, there is the problem that based on my experience it seems like some people just get nuttier as they get older. From all appearances this may describe Jeremiah Wright, but I'm sure many of us have cranky relatives who this describes as well.
So what? So I think that when it comes to dealing with friends with nutty political views we are friends with them despite their nutty opinions not because of them. When I hear someone go into a diatribe about how the income tax is unconstitutional, how civilization is going to be ruined by global warming, or some other such thing, usually all I do is sigh, roll my eyes, and try to change the topic. If someone is 95% normal (or even admirable) and 5% nut, so long as they keep their nuttiness out of my face most of the time I don't go out of my way to argue with them, correct them, or make a big show out of denouncing them. Why argue with a crazy person? This is especially so if someone is an old friend from way back who I knew in a completely different context of our lives. I think that this is what Obama may have been alluding to when he referred to the fact that Sen. Coburn is his friend despite his apparent view that abortionists should be given the death penalty--Obama is friends with Coburn despite his views on that issue, not because of his views on that issue (leaving aside whether that is an accurate description of Coburn's view). It seems obvious to me that that Obama wasn't seriously comparing Coburn to Ayers (as some have suggested) but simply trying to use an analogy to suggest that he respects and works with Coburn despite what many people believe to be a pretty nutty view.
So, if I had to guess, when it comes to Wright's more inflammatory statements it sounds like Obama seems like the sort of guy who probably pulled the "sigh and roll your eyes" approach. I also suspect that the nutty stuff we are hearing about was not the steady diet served up by Wright, but rather occasional statements or sermons here and there sprinkled in among normal church preaching. Perhaps Wright has gotten more radical or frequent with his rants as he has gotten older. So maybe Obama had to roll his eyes more frequently too.
Friendship is not necessarily based on someone's political views, no matter how goofy or even hateful, especially if the person is not sticking their views in your face all of the time. It is also appropriate not to be friends with someone whose political views you abhore, especially if they are flamboyant about it. But whether someone holds mainstream political views is not the basis on which acquaintances are built. If you have a sincere affection for someone built up over many years, you tend to forgive their occasional lunacies. Especially if it is a person who you came to respect, admire, and befriend many years before, perhaps when that person was not nuts. To me, I don't necessarily see it as a flaw in Obama that he hasn't made a big show of denouncing Wright or Ayers until he was forced to. I do think that he probably is fed up with Wright from the standpoint that he has tried to treat Wright with the respect that he sees owed to a longstanding pastor who is now making a public embarrassment of himself. He has tried to be patient with Wright in hopes that Wright would sober up, but instead Wright just keeps pouring it on, at which point Obama says "enough." So it seems reasonable to me that Obama has been largely sincere through this whole process, first in trying to give Wright an opportunity to clean up his act but then to say "enough" when Wright refused to do so.
As I said, Obama seems like quite a decent guy. I'm not going to vote for him because of his policy views but he still seems like a decent guy. He has a lot of tolerance for nutty political views, but anyone who hangs around academia or any political movement will certainly have friend and acquaintances who have nutty political views. If you are a basically decent and compassionate person you try to look for the best in people and work with everyone, not throw aside friends just because you don't agree with their political views. Moreover, if you have a friend who has idiotic political views you don't run around adding to his embarrassment making a public spectacle out of denouncing those views, but instead I would think that you would hope that the guy would wisen up.
Thus, I also don't think it is fair to ascribe much of any of these relationships to Obama because I haven't seen any shred of evidence that he condones or agrees with any of the views expressed by Wright or Ayers (his wife may be a different story). On the other hand, I do find it somewhat implausible for Obama to imply that he didn't know that Wright held and expressed some nutty views or became more of a nut over time.
Obama, I understand, launched his political career (for state Senator?) at a party given by Ayers. The two sit on the same board of an organization. In the recent debates, Obama excused him as simply an English professor who did some radical things 40 years ago when Obama himself was 8 years old.
This, to my mind, highlights a glaring blindspot in Obama's worldview. (One shared, incidentally by much of the left.) Namely, all violence is excused by one of the correct political persuasion.
Imagine the reverse situation. A Republican presidential candidate has close associations with a prominent conservative professor. He launches his political career at the professor's house and sits on the same board as him.
Turns out that 40 years ago, however, the professor was a member of the KKK and was involved in several acts of violence against blacks. And then the professor some 30 years later gave an interview to a prominent newspaper and stated that the only thing he regrets is that he did not bomb more n------s back in the day.
That Republican candidate would be howled out of the race quicker than you could blink an eye.
It would also be fair if Obama and Wright's relationship was just "friends".
But Obama made a point of saying that he found Wright inspiring, as a preacher. Its as a preacher that Wright is nutty.
Wright: His views are nutty, and we're worried that Obama may actually agree with a few of them because Wright was the guy's pastor and spiritual mentor for 20 years. The views are far from the mainstream and the association is too close for Obama to dismiss Wright as a crazy friend. At best, it seems Obama put up with it out of political expediency to stay in good with the Chicago machine, which doesn't fit his campaign image.
Ayers: No one thinks Obama actually agrees with him, but Ayers is so evil in his actions and words that staying anywhere near him shows terrible judgment.
Both attacks, I think, are fair.
He pushed for the firing of a career Justice Department attorney (not a conservative; indeed, the attorney once worked for Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT)) because that attorney pointed out the inarguable, statistical fact that laws (e.g., voter ID laws) that discourage elderly people from voting don't have a racially disparate impact, because blacks die sooner than whites on average, meaning that a smaller fraction of blacks than whites are elderly.
For pointing out this unpleasant truth (which was relevant to Voting Rights Act claims), he was deemed a racist by Obama, who sought his scalp. (Under political pressure, he ultimately transferred to another position in a different branch on the Justice Department).
Moreover, Jeremiah Wright is far from the only Obama associate who harbors crackpot racist beliefs.
For example, the race-baiting San Francisco diversity trainer Glenn Singleton, who was the Seattle Schools' diversity consultant, is an Obama donor. He gave Obama at least $2300. That's confirmed both by Newsmeat and the Huffington Post database.
The Seattle Schools' wacky definitions of racism were criticized in footnotes in the plurality opinion and Justice Thomas's concurrence in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, which struck down the Seattle School's racial quotas (Obama criticized that ruling). The wacky definitions of racism were also discussed back in 2006 in posts at Volokh Conspiracy.
As Vincent Carroll, an editor of the Rocky Mountain News, noted, Glenn Singleton, a wealthy, radical "diversity" trainer hired by many school systems, claims that "white talk" is "intellectual" and "task-oriented," while "color commentary" is "personal" and "emotional."
Singleton believes that racism is ubiquitous among whites and that individualism is a white characteristic. Under his tutelage, the Seattle Schools became increasingly radical and defined individualism as a form of cultural racism, claimed that planning ahead was a racist white characteristic, and attacked colorblindness, all bizarre claims that were criticized in the Supreme Court's decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1.
Singleton's wacky beliefs have made him rich, as guilty white liberals like California School Superintendant Jack O'Connell and the Chapel Hill, Madison, and Arlington Schools hire him to promote his weird racial philosophy that blacks inherently think differently from whites.
If Obama is elected, I suspect he will make appointments to judicial and education related positions will share this weird, racist view that blacks inherently think and learn differently from other people.
I have a multipart series on Glenn Singleton and racist and radical diversity training at www.openmarket.org, such as the following post:
http://www.openmarket.org/2007/12/12/
glenn-singletons-racism-and-the-arlington-public-schools/
Glenn Singleton’s Racism and the Arlington Public Schools
Posted by Hans Bader, December 12, 2007, OpenMarket.org
Earlier, I wrote about the racist “diversity” consultant Glenn Singleton, who is hired by school officials, like the Arlington, Virginia schools, despite his long record of promoting offensive racial stereotypes, such as claiming that minority students are “emotional” and not “intellectual” or “task-oriented.”
What is commonly overlooked about Glenn Singleton’s racist approach is who his real victims are: America’s minority children. The Maoist indoctrination by Singleton that civil-rights historian and professor David Beito recounts here and here is no doubt humiliating and uncomfortable for the white teachers and professors forced to undergo it, especially given Singleton’s claim that racism is “ubiquitous” among whites, and his assertion that white teachers are to blame for minority students’ bad grades.
But the biggest losers in the long run from Singleton’s approach will be minority students, not the white teachers that Singleton scapegoats for poor performance by minority students. Being subjected to Singleton’s “diversity” training won’t cost white teachers their jobs, and if such “diversity” training gets too abusive, they may even be able to sue Glenn Singleton or their school system for it, since a federal court ruled in Hartman v. Pena (1995) that a man could sue for discriminatory harassment after being subjected to a humiliating 3-day diversity training seminar. But Singleton doesn’t just humiliate white teachers. He also promotes stereotypes about minority children that could aggravate the minority achievement gap.
Singleton claims that “white talk” is “verbal,” “intellectual” and “task-oriented,” while “color commentary” is “emotional” and “personal.” See, e.g., Vincent Carroll, “On Point: The Whiteness Trap,” Rocky Mountain News, May 10, 2006, at page 34A. That’s exactly the sort of racist stereotype that contributes to the poor performance of some minority students, who believe that studying is “acting white.”
The fact that Singleton puts a superficially positive spin on this negative stereotype (by claiming that whites’ fous on achievement is coldly “impersonal” and “task-oriented”) makes it all the more seductive to those minority students who already perceive studying as “acting white” and being a “grind” (and who taunt studious classmates of their own race by referring to them as “schoolboy,” “schoolgirl” and “little miss perfect”).
Singleton is hired for big bucks — a “six-figure fee” — to conduct diversity training seminars in order to supposedly remedy the minority achievement gap. But the truth is that his own teachings aggravate and reinforce the minority achievement gap. And America’s minority students will be the losers.
For that reason, I was especially saddened to learn in a November 28 letter from Arlington Schools Superintendent Robert G. Smith that Singleton was supposedly hired to remedy “the disparity in achievement between white students and students of color.” Hiring Singleton to reduce the minority achievement gap is like hiring a flat-earther to teach astronomy and biology.
In his letter, Dr. Robert Smith admitted that Singleton’s bizarre racial theories are “provocative.” Provocative, indeed. Singleton’s racial theories resemble those of the infamous racist Leonard Jeffries, who was belatedly removed from his position as head of the black studies department at the City University of New York, after he decided to go beyond promoting racism to preaching antisemitism. His racial claims, too, were described as “provocative.” But in Jeffries v. Harleston (1995), the federal appeals court upheld his removal from his administrative position because of his bigotry.
Glenn Singleton’s racial theories closely parallel those of Leonard Jeffries. Jeffries taught that whites were cold, individualistic, competitive “ice people,” while minorities are warm, “communal” “sun people.” Similarly, Singleton claims that “white and Asian students are more competitive and individualistic,” while minorities have a “collective,” communal orientation (see Vincent Carroll, “On Point: ‘Culture of Whiteness,’” Rocky Mountain News, October 19, 2005, at page 37A). And he claims that whites are “impersonal,” “verbal,” “intellectual” and “task-oriented,” while minorities are “non-verbal, personal” and “emotional.” (See Vincent Carroll, “On Point: The Whiteness Trap,” Rocky Mountain News, May 10, 2006, at page 34A). Ironically, Asian students end up being classified as as “majority students” in school systems advised by Singleton, because they have the temerity to succeed academically in a predominantly-white society.
Why Singleton continues to be hired by school systems (like the Arlington County schools) is a mystery, given how much public embarrassment he has caused some of them. Perhaps white school officials harbor so much politically-correct racial guilt that they fixate on his anti-white rhetoric and thus lose sight of how damaging his racial stereotypes are to minority children. Anti-white rhetoric is sometimes rewarded, as Leonard Jeffries showed by obtaining tenure and administrative authority at CUNY as a result of his flagrantly racist “scholarship” and writings.
Singleton recently embarrassed California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell. This year, he was hired by the gullible O’Connell to give diversity training. O’Connell then was publicly ridiculed after he repeated an offensive stereotype voiced by Glenn Singleton: that blacks, as a people, are loud, and need to have their loudness accommodated in the schools. (In fact, many minority students express dismay about how loud and disorderly their classes are, finding that to be a major impediment to learning. They want “simple, elusive quiet” so they can study. My Asian, Hispanic, and black relatives are not loud and noisy). The head of San Francisco’s NAACP has demanded an apology from O’Connell for spreading this unfounded racial stereotype. Singleton also embarrassed the Seattle Schools in a landmark Supreme Court case.
But Singleton himself continues to be hired, probably because of his anti-white rhetoric. A case in point is the enthusiastic reception that speakers from the anti-white Nation of Islam receive on campus. At both of my alma maters (Harvard Law School and the University of Virginia), a Nation of Islam speaker, Abdul Alim Muhammad, received an enthusiastic reception from predominantly-black audiences, even though he said things that were antisemitic, not just racist. He got away with his anti-semitism as a reward for his anti-white racism. Anti-white racism apparently excuses all sins.
No student newspaper would even criticize the bigoted Nation of Islam speech at U.Va. on November 15, 1990, which lasted for four hours, featured an enthusiastic audience of 600 students, and was filled with racial hatred and antisemitism. Nor would any individual journalist criticize it (except for me), until a Muslim minority student from Bangladesh (Arshad Rahman) publicly condemned the speech on November 28 as a “heretical expression of race hatred.” That broke the politically-correct taboo among journalists against criticizing anti-white racism, and suddenly, guilty whites began to gingerly criticize the speech, although they focused not on its racism but on its antisemitism and one arguably antigay remark made by the speaker.
4.28.2008 4:15pm
The latter doesn't follow from the former. If, for example, only 10% of blacks are elderly as compared to 15% of whites, it doesn't automatically follow that there is no racially disparate impact on elderly blacks. That requires an assumption that the restriction affects all elderly people equally, which may or may not be the case.
It's not hard to imagine this man, Wright, may have gone through some changes as he was retiring and Obama, being a senator for 4 years and running for president probably did not go to church all that much.
But, no one can live to the standards of the media these days.
We would never have elected Lincoln or FDR or Kennedy today. They would not have been able to pass the limitus test of the press.
However, it is possible to posture and dazzle them with being a bubba and dolt and acting like a cowboy without common sense or intelligence and get elected these days.
The press demands that a candidate be like Larry the Cable Guy to pass muster according to their standards. But, if you show any class, intelligence (one story I saw was "Is Obama too Smart") and dignity, then they are labled this vague tag of elitist and are vilified by the press day in and day out.
They use the person's associations like a pastor to parade for weeks on end to tear the candidate down by making the pastor look too wacky and therefore guilt by association.
We wonder why our country is in the shape it is in.
Because the press tells voters that to need to elect the guy you want to have a beer with over the man who is capable.
And forget it if he defies their beloved conventional wisdom and succeeds with the voters. He will pay a price for that.
What exactly is your objection to Singelton, Mr. Bader?
That he is rich? That he is wrong? That he hoodwinks poor intellectually bereft school superintendents into permitting him a venue?
Those opinions of Singleton, while wacky, are held by, I would wager, a substantial number of faculty in the top-50 undergrad institutions in the USA. He saw a market niche and he filled it--just the thing to warm a libertarian's cockles. Don't blame him if it it offends you that the market niche was there in the first place.
Mr. Zywicki has it right.
BHO is not my cup of tea as far as the race for the White House is concerned. But I understand his appeal, and I do not believe he is a bad person (in fact, as far as his decency, intelligence and integrity are concerned, I prefer him to McCain, but not by a vast margin--and not enough to outweigh my objections to his policy positions.
The problem is that you have framed the relationship to be exactly what it was not. Wright was not a friend who occasionally said things that were weird. Nobody is castigating Obama because of his next door neighbor or golfing buddy. That kind of examination is saved for Republicans.
This was Obama's spiritual advisor and mentor. This was someone he *chose* to be with *because* of his views and guidance, not *in spite of* it. This is a church he was an enthusiastic member of for 20 years that espoused a particular theology and ideology. He did not "roll his eyes" for 20 years over the core beliefs of this church, he adopted and supported them. Would you be saying the same thing if a white supremacist had attended the Aryan Nations church for 20 years -- that theres a lot of good things about White Identity Christianity, and he probably just "rolled his eyes" at the race hatred that was an integral part of the religion? I don't think so.
Certainly one can be a racist and bigot and still be a "pretty nice guy" in most other areas. History is full of such folk, from Martin Luther to Thomas Jefferson. I'm sure David Duke has some very nice qualities, once you get to know him. That does not make these folk any less what they are in those areas, however, and it is not wrong to recognize that they were wrong, particularly when those views will affect their responsibilities. In fact, focusing on such failings is an integral part of Black Theology. It would be profoundly hypocritical to base one's theology on such examinations, yet at the same time demand that they not be applied to you.
You all are either intellectual midgets and cover your little genitals in the face of 'scary' ideas or are simply conservative hacks trying to rationalize these ridiculous attacks for political gain. Just face it, Obama was a half-white Harvard law grad who came to Chicago with no connections. He was told Trinity was a good place to meet people, and he attended, probably infrequently. Isn't the fact that Obama has had various life experiences - with one foot in white America and one in black America - and his willingness to listen to differing views a source of strength? The world is complicated and not everyone sees it the way we do. We can't just 'walk out' everytime someone's viewpoint offends or scares us. Just think if this same logic applied to FDR during WWII - meeting and talking with Stalin - not mention allying with him - would be unacceptable.
I note that Prof. Zywicki does not deny that this uncle is his spiritual and financial advisor.
If you have a memo from Jeremiah Wright to John Yoo showing how we should become a rogue nation, let me know. If you have pictures of Jeremiah Wright voting against the GI Bill, send it to me. If you have evidence of Jeremiah Wright training junior soldiers on the finer aspects of stacking and torturing naked Iraqi captives, pass them on.
Until then, I just can’t seem to get all worked up about the crazy scary black preacher that Obama has to “throw under the bus.”
O'K, kozel?
We can all see that Wright is somewhere near that line. The question is whether he is:
1) Actually a bit nutty, but on the safe side of the line;
2) Not at all nutty, but pretending to be for some reason;
3) On the further, untrustworthy side of the line, but only just recently so that people who knew him years ago are surprised; or
4) On the further, untrustworthy side of the line, and everyone has known it for as long as he's been preaching.
If it is #1 or #3, Obama's earlier defense of the man makes some sense. If it's #2, then he's a huckster and Obama shouldn't have trusted him in the first place. If it's #4, then it's like #2 except that it's tragic that the man is so unhinged.
People's positions on the Obama/Wright connection seem to depend on which of these views of Wright they take. I don't really know which one is correct, myself.
Under Obama donor Singleton's tutelage, the Seattle Schools adopted definitions of racism, such as claiming that individualism and planning ahead are forms of cultural racism. The Supreme Court criticized these bizarre definitions in the footnotes of its decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) (see Chief Justice Roberts' opinion announcing the court's ruling at footnote 14 and Justice Thomas's concurrence at footnote 30).
Databases like Newsmeat show that Singleton made the maximum legal contribution to Obama ($2300).
Below, for example, is a blog post from the Obama web site, touting "Dr. Glenn Singleton," and citing his race-obsessed view that race is the dominant factor in American life ("Dr. Glenn Singleton once said, 'You can't play the race card. Race is the whole deck.'") -- essentially, a claim that our society is inherently racist.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/naomizf/gGBkSg
Post from Going There:
The "race card"
By Naomi - Mar 13th, 2008 at 5:18 pm EDT
Also listed in: 6 groups
---------------------------------------------------------
Tags: Bill Clinton, RACE, racism
First, a warning. In this post, I am going to attempt to "go there" on the issue of race in America and how it is reflected in the current campaign. I mean "go there" as in "let's not go there." We need to go there. We're already there, we just don't acknowledge it. I do not imagine that my perspective is universal, nor that I will not offend anyone. But if we don't go there, how can we ever imagine we're going to get at the heart of what is ailing this society?
Second, a disclaimer. I am a white woman in her 30's. Unnervingly, that may make some people more willing to listen to what I have to say than if I were, say, an African-American male. And yet, who knows more about race and racism in America than a person of color? More on this later.
Two things that have had a lot of play in the press the last couple of days have really stuck with me. The first was a lot of commentary accusing the Obama campaign of "playing the race card" in responding to Ferraro, and saying that Obama supporters are "injecting race" into this campaign.
The second is today's report that Hillary Clinton apologized for Bill Clinton's comments about Jesse Jackson in South Carolina by saying:
"I want to put that in context. You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive. We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama. Anyone who has followed my husband's public life or my public life know very well where we have stood and what we have stood for and who we have stood with." So, let's take these from the top.
I think most of us can see the absurdity of suggesting that, in the Ferraro flack, the Obama campaign introduced the topic of race. This is just factually incorrect, and I'm not going to dwell on it because, frankly, it's too stupid.
However, the issue of "playing the race card" is a real one. It implies that race, like, say, social security, is an issue that one can put on the table and take off in a campaign. But in this country, race is always on the table. It is on the table when we walk down the street and make judgments about whether to hold our valuables close before we even know we're doing it. It is on the table when I can get the attention of the clerk at a motel here in Ann Arbor for assistance when my colleague, an African-American male, better dressed, more distinguished and considerably older than I, cannot.
We liberals like to say we don't see color. But that's baloney. We see it, and we think we can ignore it. But the experience of being a person of color in this society is simply not the same as the experience of caucasians, and to deny that is to deny reality.
Dr. Glenn Singleton once said, "You can't play the race card. Race is the whole deck." He has a point. And in this election, to pretend that race is not a factor unless someone says it is is just absurd. Let's start with the fact that Barack Obama received secret service protection earlier than any presidential candidate in the history of this country except those who already had it before the campaign (like Clinton). I'll give you a hint -- it's not because he's tall that his life is more endangered in this campaign.
To accuse anyone -- anyone -- of playing the race card in this campaign is to deny the simple reality that every voter in America knows that Hillary is white and Barack is a person of color. The fact that we know that indicates that the card has already been played. It is always played in our society. So let's get over ourselves.
Which brings me around to Hillary's "apology."
Apologizing "if anyone was offended" is just about the worst thing you can possibly do if you have offended people. Ditto trying to say that you didn't mean to be offensive. It puts the blame for the offense on the person who was offended rather than on the offender. I can cut Hillary and Bill and every other person in this country a lot of slack for saying offensive things if they're willing to apologize and reflect on how they're going to avoid doing it in the future. But that's not what this was.
The last part of Hillary's apology boggles my mind as well. It is one step removed from "some of my best friends are black." Does she really believe that someone who has done good work on issues of race can't say something racist and have some deep, unconscious racist attitudes? Does this mean that Bill and Hillary can say anything at all, no matter how offensive, and be given a pass? Where does that permission to say stupid things with impunity end? Stereotypes? Epithets?
The judgment of whether a statement is racist and/or offensive lies with the group the statement is made about. If African-American people were offended by the Jesse Jackson comment (or the MLK comment, or Ferraro's comment) then it was offensive. That's the definition of offensive -- that it offends people. White people don't get to decide whether it should be offensive to black people. Who do we think we are?
What Hillary should have said is, "Over the course of this campaign, a number of things have been said that have caused offense to African-Americans and their allies of other races, both by me and by others in my campaign. I deeply regret those statements. As a white woman, I can only begin to understand the hurt that these statements have caused. I appreciate the opportunity to learn from these mistakes, and pledge to make fighting racism a priority, not just in this country, but in my own personal and professional circle."
I'm not holding my breath.
If you're going to assert this, at least do it with a recognizable and easily memorized line:
"Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life"
Obama is a politician. Politicians seek power - the power to run others' lives.
"Pity the poor, diseased politician. Imagine: to spend your days and expend your efforts making rules for others to live by, thinking up ways to run other lives. Actually to strive for the opportunity to do so! What a hideous affliction!" - From The Second Book Of KYFHO (F. Paul Wilson, "An Enemy of the State")
Crazy like a fox! Dude quadrupled his money AND avoided the dot com bust.
I think peripheral issues only become important if there isn't much in the way of main issues.
Obama attended the "Reverend" Wright's ministry for, apparently, MANY years and considered Wright his "spiritual mentor". This indicates an appalling lack of personal judgment and integrity and is inconsistent with even minor levels of leadership (at least any sort of leadership the US or the "free world" should be interested in). The Rev Wright's views/rantings were clearly perfectly acceptable to Obama and he took no leadership initiative to either leave the ministry or attempt to correct the lunatic rantings.
The man does not deserve the votes of sensible citizens.
Nope. I don't have any friends who are even in the same ballpark as Ayers and Wright.
And I'm not running for President. The fact is that standards are different for that job. The standards being applied to Obama are no higher than those applied to any other candidate. If anything, they are lower. It's impossible to imagine a white candidate attending a white supremacist church and getting as far as Obama has.
antonK takes all crap seriously as long as it is coming from wingnut sources
Probably Obama would use the same judgment that allowed him to correctly call the Iraq War a terrible idea as well as that which enabled him to make correct prognostications about the resulting civil war. Who was it who voted for the war and led us into this awful situation, again? Oh right, his two opponents. But they're more "experienced," so they're by definition better.
Accepting the active and visible endorsement and support of an unrepentant terrorist like Ayres (or, alternatively, of an unrepentant racist, whether David Duke or Jeremiah Wright) is certainly relevant to evaluating a candidate's judgment and likely inclinations (although I don't think it should be dispositive). (By contrast, the fact that Glenn Singleton or anyone else contributed money to a candidate's campaign is pretty much irrelevant to me.)
You said this, or variations on it, a great many times. But you never mentioned why you think it. What makes him a decent guy as opposed to, say, any other Senator? What makes a person "indecent"?
Is Hillary Clinton decent? John Kerry? Jeff Sessions? Jon Kyle?
I find it more useful to look at what politicians do rather than what image they project. Obama is a left-wing radical, regardless of whether he smiles and talks in a reassuring voice.
I'm willing to assume that Obama does not drown puppies in vats of toxic waste which he then dumps in the Great Lakes. But my expectations for a POTUS are higher than that.
The voters need to know.
This is the worst part of all this. It looks to me like Sean Hannity wants to talk about nothing but Bill Ayres, Jeremiah Wright, and Michelle Obama's comments all the way to November. It's like the country has no issues with health care, the war on terror, the economy, the deficit, Iraq, etc.
If this were just occupying a small space in the campaign, I probably would say it was fair. Obama certainly seems to have attended the church of a kook, and Obama might have shown better judgment in staying away from Ayres.
But the cynicism of discussing nothing but this, 24-7, for months is just breathtaking. It's almost a concession from Republicans that they don't think they can win on the issues.
Unfortunately my uncle converted all of his gold coins back into other stuff when he came back to the mainland. Otherwise he'd definitely be living large right now.
The more troubling thing about Obama/Wright is that Obama professes to believe in the superstitions and magical thinking that is Christianity. Shouldn't this be more troubling.
I mean, to any rational person actually believing in these things is batsh*t crazy. Sure it's troubling that Wright apparently believes that the US Govt spread AIDS. But I am even more concerned by the fact that he (and Obama) believe that there were these marvellous miracles a couple of thousand years ago that should inform how we live our lives today.
I understand that there isn't any political points in that for the far right (where insane people like Hagee, Robertson, etc.) are revered, but still.
Yes. And the fact that Obama had the stones to try to make that comparision gives the lie to the myth that he is "decent". As does his repulsive treatment of his grandmother. I really don't see that Obama is such a decent guy as people keep saying.
Try this. A Republican Senator with a twenty year long close relationship with a Klansman says that it means nothing, because after all, he has a cordial relationship with a Democratic Senator. (For our purposes, we'll assume the D is not Byrd.)
Does ANYONE in America buy that argument?
If anything, Obama's positions seem more pragmatic and less ideological than either McCain (Iraq War, gas tax holiday pandering) or Clinton (healthcare mandates, and, er, gas tax holiday pandering), and what he's accomplished in his political tenure thus far backs this up.
EKGlen, if the Dems run with your idea, I suspect that you'll discover that there are zero political points in for you as well.
Evidence forthcoming, I'm sure.
Wright is at worst a kook and a publicity pimp.
A Klansman is at worst a murderer.
She took him back though.
Just throwin' that one into the mix.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
I have not seen any rational repudiation of the basic point made by Rev. Wright (once one strips away some of the more incendiary and immaterial conspiracy theories from his rhetoric): one black preacher stirs up a fire storm echoed by the main stream press; but the sound of crickets is blaring in response to similar rants when made by any number of white reverends or fringe groups.
This is only about Obama because he is black. Let's not be fooled.
In all of the articles I have seen written about Rev. Wright one barely reads of his honorable military service. If this was a white man, the concern trolls would be aghast at how you could trash one of our heroic troops. Moreover, he actually does something for the community he lives in. He is not about amassing a mega church and amassing ungodly amounts of money to promote himself or schools named after himself.
This is about race pure and simple.
If anyone can present a reasoned argument why this is not about race, I would love to read it now.
If you want to get technical about it that is actually a left-liberal position, given the stated aims of the war. You know, speading liberal democracy to the world at gun-point. I suppose it's right-wing reactionary if you think its a war for oil. Whatever. I can't stand McCain and I'm not defending him.
Obama has one of the most liberal records of any Democrat in the Senate. Among his plans is one to give drivers licenses to all the illegal aliens in America. The people of New York, not usually noted for being right-wing reactionaries, killed off a similar plan, prompting Obama's idea. Yes, I think it's accuate to describe him as being well left of the Senate, and of even liberal states. Let alone the country as a whole.
I suppose that will all change is he is able to repopulate the country with people more amenable to his views. But for now, he's out there.
Is Wright a nut? Yes. Has Obama denounced him? Yes.
Is John Hagee a nut? I would say that anyone who believes that he and his buddies will soon be raptured from the face of the earth and others (including all those Jews, Hindus, [and probably even Catholics]) will be cast into a fiery pit would qualify as a nut. Would you? If so, do you think that McCain should denounce him for holding these views?
It's pretty amazing how aggressively pro-Obama supporters attack anyone who considers the ethical, character and judgment problems Obama has shown.
The fact that so many of you are rushing, screaming and yelling along the way, to excuse a racist bigoted nutcase like Wright in order to prop up Obama just simply disgusts me.
Yes, Bush has done a bang-up job keeping all the illegal aliens out of the country. Heaven forbid what will happen if Obama gets into office. I'd bet he would allow 10 or 12 million non-citizens to live among us.
1) What did these "white fundamentalists" say? What did Wright say?
2) What is the relationship of these "white fundamentalists" to past or present candidates for President?
If you can point to an instance where a white candidate had a similar relationship with a white preacher of similar views, and it was ignored, then you have a point. If not, you don't.
If anyone can present a reasoned argument why this is not about race, I would love to read it now.
Unless you can provide an answer to my question then it's not about race.
@ eddiehaskel
"Can anyone please explain why Rev. Wright is a "wacko" but why the political rumination of many many white fundamentalists is not. "
Got anymore strawmen you'd like gas on about?
Wright is a whacko because he thinks black brains and white brains are structured differently.
Wright is a whacko because, according to him, blacks "clap on 5" while whites "clap on 7".
As for your not so unusual imputation of some generic abstract and entirely unnamed "many many white fundamentalists" many Republicans have, and are constantly and irritatingly, disavowed them previously.
This idiot nonsense comes up all the time by the left in order to smear Republicans. Yet when it's pointed out that a liberal has close associations to fruitcakes all of a sudden it's anathema, a crime and eternal shouting of "oh horrors!".
Grow up.
No terrorist has ever even asked me to lunch. I guess that I'm just too selective in my acquaintances. (I did get a letter from Fidel when I was elected student body president.)
Are those statements batsh*t crazy or not?
Moreover, Obama is running for PRESIDENT professor. Surely you recognize that when running for such a high office, close relationships like the one between Obama and Wright are going to come under scrutiny. If it's fair to question conservatives on their relationships (anybody remember the Strom Thurmond - Trent Lott fiasco that cost the latter his career?), then Obama should be prepared for similar treatment. If Obama and his supporters (here and elsewhere) can't stand the heat, perhaps they should leave the kitchen.
You have to remember that Obama's political career began as an organizer in urban Chicago. I suspect he gravitated toward his church BECAUSE it was a good leaping off point for starting a grassroots political career, and probably viewed Ayers as someone else who was a useful contact in the retail, grassroots populace in which Obama was looking to start a political career. Obama's problem is that his grassroots milieu was pretty far to the left, and the rest of the country is probably far more critical of Ayers and Wright than urban Chicago is.
If that's all true, it migth very well be that Obama (like Prof. Zywicki surmises) is very different from Ayers and Wright, but found them to be very useful supporters when he was a local politician. That would mean that Obama was being a bit politically expedient in his early political career and is now being burdened by the baggage from that prior expediency. And I don't mean "expedience" as a negative here, because every single politician is expedient in dealing with people who can help their career.
The other possibility, though, is that Obama really is like Ayers and Wright and is being expedient by running away from them now that he is on a national stage.
To me, if Obama is going to be elected, I would hope that he was being expedient before, and more true to himself now. But I do think that it's at least fair for the electorate and pundit class to try to get the answer to that question. And, yes, it would be fair game to have similar inquiries regarding the "crazy uncles" in the other candidates' pasts.
Do folks realize what this relationship is supposed to entail?
We're not talking about the barista who brewed his Americano every morning, or some other peripheral relationship.
Indeed, Sen. Obama has written in detail about the importance of Rev. Wright.
I find the "friendship" argument to be a substantial misunderstanding of the relationship.
Hmm, do terrorists torture people?
I notice that if I point out Obama's failings around here, lots of people jump to the conclusion that I'm a big fan of Bush. I think Bush should have been impeached for his contempt for the borders. If the Dems had shown any interest in that I'd be backing them. I think Bush has been a very poor President in other ways as well. I think he bungled the war, does way too much cronyism, etc.
None of which requires me to turn a blind eye to how bad Obama is. I'm a libertarian, not a shill for either of the two parties.
A minister of the Gospel is to Barack Obama as a Klansman would be to (Hillary Clinton; John McCain.)
Barack Obama is an unfit Presidential candidate based on his association with (An unjustified invasion of a foreign country that has not benefited the US one iota, while costing us 4,000 lives and half a trillion dollars -- enough money to provide universal health care for years; a campaign contribution from a man who believes black children cannot succeed in school unless teaching methods are adapted to their learning style.)
"Are those statements batsh*t crazy or not?"
Sure they are. Now what? Are they running for President? Are they close friends of a candidate for President?
The answer is .... "no".
So what's your point?
2) should a presidential candidate appear at speeches and sit on a podium and hug someone who is batsh*t crazy?
"Barack Obama is an unfit Presidential candidate based on his association with (An unjustified invasion of a foreign country that has not benefited the US one iota, while costing us 4,000 lives and half a trillion dollars -- enough money to provide universal health care for years; a campaign contribution from a man who believes black children cannot succeed in school unless teaching methods are adapted to their learning style.)"
Blah blah Bush blah blah blah blah Bush blah blah blah Bush blah blah blah died! Bush blah blah blah blah Iraq! Blah blah blah blah blah Bush blah blah blah blah nuclkar!!@##
Blah Bush blah blah blah blah blah blah ... etc, etc, etc.
I could go on but that would make me almost as boring as you.
As to a preference in debating "issues", when pols say they want to talk about issues, they actually mean platitudes about issues ("I'm for growth", "I'm for energy independence", "I'm for clean socks"). Thus, the actual issues will never get discussed. I am a contrarian-I want to know a lot more about who a person hangs out with and considers a role model. You can probably figure out the issues from there.
Are you suggesting that Obama and Wright were lovers?
Sure.
Now you are a third of the way there. You just need to tell me which candidate kept this white fundamentalist as his pastor for twenty years, all while he was saying these things.
Then, to finish, you can point to the way the media and blogs ignored all of the above.
Do these things and you'll be spot on. Can you do them?
@ EKGlen
"Thanks ed, now that we have established that Robertson, Falwell and Hagee are batsh*t crazy, let me ask you this: 1) should a presidential candidate seek the endorsement of someone who is batsh*t crazy?"
McCain, who I don't support, disavowed the crazy-ass nonsense spouted by these twits.
The same BS answer that Obama gave. Don't like it? Don't care
"2) should a presidential candidate appear at speeches and sit on a podium and hug someone who is batsh*t crazy?"
No. Obama should not have spent the last 17+ years sitting in the pews while Wright spewed out crazy racist hateful bigoted nonsense.
And he most certainly should not have subjected his **children** to it either.
Obama has denounced the nutty statements of Wright. McCain never said a word about the nutty statments of those guys.
And it is not, as ed. seems to suggest, because Wright and Obama were lovers.
Wrong.
I think the implication is that they are/were close friends. The tip-off is the words "close friends" in the sentence you quoted.
Hmmm, Obama said that he had never heard such statements while attending sermons and that he did not learn of these statements until the controversy and the you-tube clips were posted.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Anything at all?
@ EKGlen
"Are you suggesting that Obama and Wright were lovers?"
What on earth are you talking about??
Wright was Obama's **PASTOR**. You do know what a PASTOR is right? You are aware that it was Wright who brought Obama to Jesus and baptized him right? You do know that it was Wright who officiated at Obama's wedding right?
You do know it was Wright who baptized Obama's children right?
WTF? What the hell do you think I mean when I wrote:
"Are they close friends of a candidate for President?"
Where in that sentence do you see the word "lover"??
What is the matter with you?
What is the realtionship of Obama to Wright?
What is the relationship of McCain to "those guys"?
If "those guys" have been McCains pastors for twenty years, you have a point. Have they been?
Do you mean that he "officiated" at Obama's wedding "night"?
Hmmm. That seems rather far-fetched. Do you have evidence that Obama is not simply lying to cover his butt?
Any evidence at all?
I see. You think the typical Wright sermon was simply the Fox News Wright highlight reel set on autorepeat.
@ EKGlen
"Hmmm, Obama said that he had never heard such statements while attending sermons and that he did not learn of these statements until the controversy and the you-tube clips were posted."
This is why I try to avoid debating lefties.
"Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Anything at all?"
"Dreams of my father", Obama's AUTOBIOGRAPHY. He specifically recounts the sermon given by Wright that convinced Obama to get baptized, join TUCC and provided the title to Obama's *second book*.
In the sermon, the sermon that impressed Obama so very much, Wright rails against all the evil in the world that was caused by "white mens greed".
As an example.
Christ on a crutch! You're a supporter of the man and you don't know a bloody thing about him!
Huh?
Or as you might say, "Huh?"
Sorry, that's not the way it works. If you are going to make dumbass statements that Obama subjected his children to Wright's nuttiness, then you are going to have to show that Obama attended sermons when this nuttiness was said.
Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
In the South you really don't have to look that hard to find a present day politician who has supporters and donors and associates who were on that side of the issue 30 or 40 years ago. Maybe not Klansmen, but you have people that certainly were friendly with andassociated with Klansmen.
It's probably harder now than it was in the 80's and 90's, (due to age) but if you start snooping around in records to find who said and did what in the south in the 60's, you find some pretty interesting things.
and I'll say I really don't care. It's a fact of life that there were people in the south who took pretty downright racist positions in the 60's, not a small number of whom stayed in politics almost up to the present day. I consider it similarly a fact of life that Obama probably became associated with wright because wright could help him politically, and I don't fault him for that.
Obama and Wright are devotees of Black Liberation Theology which is condemned by mainstream black Christian ministers as a racist anti-white religion.
They believe:
1. black people are oppressed by white people.
2. Whites are the sole cause of all problems in the black community.
3. White people are the enemy.
4. Jesus was a black man oppressed by white people.
5. Black people must take control of the racist white government.
Black Liberation Theology is a marriage of Black Power (Nation of Islam) and Christianity, according to Rev James Cone, its main proponent in the USA. James Cone is also Rev Wright's mentor and says that Trinity Church, Obama's Church, is the center of Black Liberation Theology in America.
Is that all you got?
You don't even have a quote. Just that he mentioned "white mens [sic] greed."
That's lame sauce.
@ EKGlen
"Sorry, that's not the way it works. If you are going to make dumbass statements that Obama subjected his children to Wright's nuttiness, then you are going to have to show that Obama attended sermons when this nuttiness was said."
How amazing.
"Otherwise you are just blowing smoke."
Do you know what Black Liberation Theology is?
What the Black Value System entails?
Or is it that you have absolutely no idea what the theological or ethical underpinning of Obama's church is like?
Maybe the whole system is unfair in a larger sense, but it's the game Obama joined, and if he can't handle it, or his supporters think he can't, it's something the voters can decide.
I'd note international relations and Congressional politics aren't fair either. We are electing someone who will be playing in an unfair game from the day he takes office. Sometimes he will have the advantage, and sometimes he won't.
Forget the south. I can look In Washington DC today and see people who are friendly with and associate with former Klansmen. Of couse, the Klansman in question is a Democrat.
And in spite of your general smear, you managed not to answer the question, even though you quoted part of it.
I repeat, show me a white candidate, Rep or Dem, who could get away with a long and close relationship with a virulent white racist without criticism. If you can do that then yes, Obama is being unfairly singled out.
@ EKGlen
"You don't even have a quote. Just that he mentioned "white mens [sic] greed." "
Sorry but you're under the misunderstanding that you get to make outrageous statements with zero evidence attached and then demand complete research quality thesis whenever you damn well like.
It doesn't work like that.
Frankly you're a complete loser and I'm not going to waste my time with you. Show me that you have at least a basic understanding of what Black Liberation Theology is and what TUCC's Black Value System entails.
Otherwise you're simply too ignorant to continue discussing this with. I will offer you this:
Trinity United's webpage detailing the Black Value System
Please note #8.
Oh I know that he is not a hermit. Just turn on the television on a Sunday and you will see tens of thousands of people sitting in neat rows, dressed in khakis and sun dresses, listening to nutbags raving on about the imminent rapture.
You're quite right. It's even more scary that most of these people can hold jobs, and appear normal despite the fact that they believe in such nonsense.
For those of you who don't care to go to TUCC's own webpage, here's a sample.
And keep in mind that this is from Trinity's own server *and* Pastor Wright has referred to Trinity's Black Value System quite often, including the 2007 interview with Sean Hannity on Hannity &Colmes.
This is the value system taught at TUCC.
----------------------------------------------------
#8 "Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.” Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.
Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:
1. Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.
2. Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
3. Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”
4. So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.” If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.
See the issues regarding Obama and everyone in his life is that we don't know who Obama is or what he stands for! For example, did anyone hold it against Al Gore that his father voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? No, because Al Gore had 20 years in public office before he ran for President. Would anyone care if Ted Kennedy belonged to a church that is "Caucasian-centrist"? No, because he, too, has a long history in public office to define his beliefs.
Who is Barack Obama? He says he wants change. OK, what kind of change? Where? Is all change good by definition? He says he wants to transcend party politics, but when Chris Wallace asked him - THREE TIMES - to give one hot button issue where he diverged from the Democrat Party on, he was unable to provide one. He says he wants to "unite" us all. Well, he wants to withdraw from Iraq and I believe we should have a military force there until the government can defend itself "...from all enemies foreign and domestic". So how does Obama plan to unite us?
*IF* Obama had answered these questions over a long course of public debates, legislative votes and proven actions no one would care who his friends are or how nutty his wife is (remember how much the LIBERALS liked Tipper Gore when she wanted to label recordings as explicit?).
The problem is that he has no record, he is not speaking about his actual plans for goals he claims to desire for the nation, and he has these nutty friends and relatives. So, given the situation, the only insight into Obama's character is those he chooses to have in his life, regardless of what he now says about those people. If Senator Obama and his supporters think this is unfair, too bad - *HE* chose to run at this point in his career and this is the vetting process everyone goes through.
Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
EKGlen--Sorry, but I can't walk that far down the road with you. You are right that there is a need for evidence. But the evidence that I would want is simply whether Wright has been speaking about the HIV "conspiracy" and so forth from the pulpit. If so, how frequently and for how long?
I admit that I have no clue what one would find going through the transcripts of his sermons. So I won't pre-judge an answer.
But if he were found to have spoken of this "theory" on a regular basis over the course of some time--say, longer than the Obamas could have conceivably been away from Chicago--then the burden shifts back to Obama's camp. I don't expect anyone can provide time-and-date stamped security camera photos of him sitting in the pew on any given Sunday.
But if this line of preaching was a common occurence, then the argument that one cannot prove Obama was at church on, say, the first, third, and fourth Sundays of June 2006 doesn't carry a lot of weight. Nor that, even if he was there on those dates, no one can prove he didn't get up to use the john when the sermon began. If he was a regular attender, and this vile nuttiness was a regular subject, then I feel safe in assuming he knew of it.
That said, I have not seen Wright's critics producing reams of transcripts from 5 or 6 year old sermons implicating him in bigotry and conspiracy-mongering. So I have to wonder why not. Obama said quite clearly yesterday that he did not recognize the man who spoke in Detroit. I have to assume he did not.
You just don't get it, do you? I freely admit that BLT is nutty. Just apesh*t crazy. Insane. I admit that.
It is just as nutty and deranged as anything spouted by folks who believe that the precious baby jeebus is about to rapture all the righteous onto the streets of heaven paved with gold.
The Black Value System entails hard work, study, and the pursuit of excellence. Also family unity and support for the community.
Continuing the chain of influence: Obama was influenced by Wright who was influenced by Cone who was influenced by Reinhold Niebuhr, who had the nerve to criticize Henry Ford and the Ku Klux Klan.