Obama tackles race anger in major speech

[skylark]

Originally Posted by jon1856

A point he made just does not sit right with me:
He made a comparison between his pastor and his grandmother. He made a connection where I can not see one.

The connection is that they are both people he loves, both shaped who he is, but on certain occasions both have made comments that offend him. Asking him to distance himself from his long-time pastor for a couple remarks that he disagrees with is like asking him to distance himself from his white grandmother who on occasion would make derogatory remarks about certain racial groups. I thought that it was a good illustration of why it would have been wrong for him to have to reject his pastor out of political pressure. I thought the comparison was helpful.

Here is the full 45-minute speech: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords

I highly recommend the speech in full, rather than the 5 minute clip that seems to be on most of the news sites.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Both came up during the same time period in different areas and that is what shaped them to who they are today.

I will be listening to the speech again for more clarity but that is what I gathered.

Originally Posted by skylark

The connection is that they are both people he loves, both shaped who he is, but on certain occasions both have made comments that offend him. Asking him to distance himself from his long-time pastor for a couple remarks that he disagrees with is like asking him to distance himself from his white grandmother who on occasion would make derogatory remarks about certain racial groups. I thought that it was a good illustration of why it would have been wrong for him to have to reject his pastor out of political pressure. I thought the comparison was helpful.

Here is the full 45-minute speech: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords

I highly recommend the speech in full, rather than the 5 minute clip that seems to be on most of the news sites.

Part of me sees and agrees with you both.
Part of me sees "family" vs a more public person.
One is talking one on one. The other to a congregation.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Part of me sees and agrees with you both.
Part of me sees "family" vs a more public person.
One is talking one on one. The other to a congregation.

exactly Jon....and that is what he is doing...he is being forthright about what has happened and telling the public to do 2 things...discuss it and also let it not cloud the election....also find ways that we must move on from it

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

exactly Jon....and that is what he is doing...he is being forthright about what has happened and telling the public to do 2 things...discuss it and also let it not cloud the election....also find ways that we must move on from it

Not 100% true. Just the other day, during an interview he said that he never heard any of this while in church(?!?!?).
Now he is indicating that he did or at least may have. Humm-flip/flop?

However I know of a few people who:
Did not like the direction their house of worship was taking,
Did not like how it was being lead.
Did not like the direction it was taking or going.

So, what did they do? They at least voiced some concern. Tried to change it. And if still uncomfortable with it, they found another house, another congregation.
From what I have seen and heard, Obama did nothing.

Or perhaps he tried to 20 years too late.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Not 100% true. Just the other day, during an interview he said that he never heard any of this while in church(?!?!?).
Now he is indicating that he did or at least may have. Humm-flip/flop?

However I know of a few people who:
Did not like the direction their house of worship was taking,
Did not like how it was being lead.
Did not like the direction it was taking or going.

So, what did they do? They at least voiced some concern. Tried to change it. And if still uncomfortable with it, they found another house, another congregation.
From what I have seen and heard, Obama did nothing.

35 mins worth of wasted words...huh?

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

35 mins worth of wasted words...huh?

35 minutes 20 years too late perhaps?

[skylark]

Originally Posted by jon1856

35 minutes 20 years too late perhaps?

20 years too late? Do you mean Obama should have known by ESP that when he began attending the church that his pastor would make these comments?

And I don't think there are enough churches in a community for a person to think that they can find one where they agree 100% with everything the pastor says. How many people would attend church if that meant you endorsed everything that the head of the church said up there? I don't think that most people want to attend a church where there isn't a dialogue in between its members as to what their religious texts mean. If you go to church only to validate your own beliefs and make sure you don't run into any contrary opinions, then I don't think you're (1) very bright, or (2) a very valuable member to any congregation.

And if you do think that church is about being with a group of people that don't disagree on anything, then that's great.. but open your mind up to the possibility that other people do things differently and maybe in Obama's church, people aren't pressured to have a uniform, carbon copy, litmus test of beliefs. Sure, it is okay to expect that certain central tenants of a belief system are shared, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. This is a pastor sharing his opinion on how his faith translates into politics. I don't think that we have the right to expect (or should expect) that a politician is going to listen to his or her religious leader in making religious decisions. If that's what we wanted it, why not skip the middle man and just put the religious figure in office? There's a reason we don't and for that reason we need to give politicians a little slack if they don't agree 100% with every political opinion that their religious beliefs or chosen religious advisers express.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Not 100% true. Just the other day, during an interview he said that he never heard any of this while in church(?!?!?).
Now he is indicating that he did or at least may have. Humm-flip/flop?

However I know of a few people who:
Did not like the direction their house of worship was taking,
Did not like how it was being lead.
Did not like the direction it was taking or going.

So, what did they do? They at least voiced some concern. Tried to change it. And if still uncomfortable with it, they found another house, another congregation.
From what I have seen and heard, Obama did nothing.

This is my feeling.

Anyone- like me and many of us here- who has ever spent a significant period of time affiliated with a church knows full well that you become intimately familiar with the preacher's general position and tone.

This is Obama's "Swift Boat".

And he is part of the reason it is so effective. The Swift Boat ads against John Kerrey were largely effective because Kerrey decided to portray himself as a Vietnam war hero when his actions after he came home were far from honorable (in many eyes at least- including mine.)

Obama has made this worse for himself by promoting himself as very, very close to this church and Wright. When you add in the fact he STILL has yet to offer much substance in his speeches- Wright's rhetoric is all the more damaging because it is something people can understand real fast and associate with a candidate who has yet to really lay out his general philosophy in a realistic and pragmatic way.

I have never liked Obama because of his reliance on happy sounding rhetoric instead of substance- but I do not think he shares Wright's views. I really don't think Obama is an anti-white militant. He is far too intelligent for that.

But this mess has cost him any chance of winning the general election- more because this all came up without the country having a real understanding of how Obama planned to handle the most powerful job in the world.

Obama is not responsible for the racist lunacy of Rev. Wright- but today's speech sounded a few decades out of place. And all the pundits on the news comparing Obama to Dr. King are being terribly disrespectful to the very REAL courage Dr. King had and the very REAL danger he and his followers faced daily. People like me look at that and are turned off because we feel Obama is being shoved down our throats even more than before. Noone is talking about what he can actually accomplish- but are rather making excuses for him.

Obama is responsible for not having started off his campaign being more open, pragmatic and substantive in his presentation to the voters. And this is what will cost him the election- as well it should.

The real nightmare now is for Democrats on two fronts.

First- mathematically Obama is almost certain to win the nomination, but now he is unelectable (at least I think so.) I do not envy the Super Delegates.

Second- Obama is caught between appeasing the African-America power structure who feel you defend your own at all times and at all costs (NOT the African-American community at large since I still believe most African-Americans are just as appalled at Wright as I am), and the rest of the party. And a big new demographic in this party is the Hispanic vote who are not going to be sympathetic to Wright or the association with Obama.

Rev. Sharpton himself in the last election made a big issue of how Democrats have taken the black vote for granted and worked to court Hispanics and swing voters.

We are now at a point where many issues, immigration the big one, create an enormous conflict between major voting groups within the Democratic Party- and this spells disaster as long as the CBC and other African-American power structure groups continue to play the game of "give us what we want all the time or we will turn on you in a heartbeat".

That may have worked 10-20 years ago, but the demographics of the US have changed and it won't play anymore.

And that is a shame for everyone since it creates division that is totally unnecessary.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Anyone- like me and many of us here- who has ever spent a significant period of time affiliated with a church knows full well that you become intimately familiar with the preacher's general position and tone.

This is Obama's "Swift Boat".

Obama has made this worse for himself by promoting himself as very, very close to this church and Wright. When you add in the fact he STILL has yet to offer much substance in his speeches- Wright's rhetoric is all the more damaging because it is something people can understand real fast and associate with a candidate who has yet to really lay out his general philosophy in a realistic and pragmatic way.

I am breaking up your discussion to handle my thoughts on the matter. Any quote not included means I have no comment.

IMO, this is not a "swift boat" of Obama. Yes, I can concede that he attempted to portray himself as a religious Christian person, but knew his Reverend was a loose cannon. However would Rev. Wright be outed like he was by the media.

Most African Americans shrug when they hear Rev. Wrights comments. Pretty much "And, your point is what--how is that going to get me paid?" Those Af Ams that are shocked and appalled by Rev Wright's comments are very few...

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Obama is not responsible for the racist lunacy of Rev. Wright- but today's speech sounded a few decades out of place. And all the pundits on the news comparing Obama to Dr. King are being terribly disrespectful to the very REAL courage Dr. King had and the very REAL danger he and his followers faced daily. People like me look at that and are turned off because we feel Obama is being shoved down our throats even more than before. Noone is talking about what he can actually accomplish- but are rather making excuses for him.

Obama is responsible for not having started off his campaign being more open, pragmatic and substantive in his presentation to the voters. And this is what will cost him the election- as well it should.

I think that is another hurdle placed in front of someone like Obama that he has consistently shown to surpass. This man is not a dummy, he graduated from the Ivy League. He will have strong counselors when it comes to how to handle a particular position. The United States has NEVER gotten this far in politicized race relations before and notably everyone is scared, because where will it put us? That is what causing people to be so enamored with Obama at this time. Can I hate Black people when they rob my house (like they are doing right now) but still be confident in voting for Obama to I don't seem like a racist pig? I that is a simpleton's mind on a very complex issue...

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Obama is caught between appeasing the African-America power structure who feel you defend your own at all times and at all costs (NOT the African-American community at large since I still believe most African-Americans are just as appalled at Wright as I am), and the rest of the party. And a big new demographic in this party is the Hispanic vote who are not going to be sympathetic to Wright or the association with Obama.

Rev. Sharpton himself in the last election made a big issue of how Democrats have taken the black vote for granted and worked to court Hispanics and swing voters.

We are now at a point where many issues, immigration the big one, create an enormous conflict between major voting groups within the Democratic Party- and this spells disaster as long as the CBC and other African-American power structure groups continue to play the game of "give us what we want all the time or we will turn on you in a heartbeat".

That may have worked 10-20 years ago, but the demographics of the US have changed and it won't play anymore.

And that is a shame for everyone since it creates division that is totally unnecessary.

The irony of the African American "power structure"--there is no structure... If you want to put one out there, then hey, it's the Crips and the Bloods--or with some level of Bracketology... There are African Americans INVOLVED in several levels of a power structure that is a part of the American structure--but one person of the "Head Kneegrows In Charge" No--that is just in Blaxplotation films and rap music videos. Hayle, the Bourgeousie does not respect BET anymore and they have let money than Puffy Diddy or whatever he's calling himself these days...

If anyone wants anything to go down in the 'Hood--you have to go to the state pen for that...

Demographics have changed, but not THAT much... And there are a LARGE contingent of folks totally overlooked on their opinions that are realizing their voting rights and power and it is NOT Blacks nor Hispanics--but various ethnic groups of Asia... They wield ALOT of leverage that their vote once not considered... NO ONE is really catering to them to the level that I think they ought to...

The other issue an ethnic group that use to taunt African Americans until 9-11 has realized the blind bigotry that American wields. And that is of folks who are of Middle Eastern descent. Some are American citizens who can vote. Most are not. But I cannot tell you how many Middle Easterners, some Muslims, who have told me the pains they have suffered to ignorance and bigotry.

What I want to know is do we WANT racism and bigotry to be directly placed where it ought to be, in psychiatric care? Or do we want to fight these things politically and legislate out hatred based on looks? Is it that simple?

Personally, I think this place is the ONLY place where we can have a discussion, sometimes not being civil, but for the most part being instructive.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

The irony of the African American "power structure"--there is no structure...

This is a fair point and gets to perhaps another common disconnect between racial groups.

Maybe it is the media's doing- but I and many others who are white get the sense that the CBC and a handful of leaders like Sharpton and Jackson frame the national discussion on African-American issues.

In real life and in person I know it does not work like that (I have yet to meet one African-American who I have known well enough to talk politics who had anything nice to say about Jesse Jackson), but there is definitely a sense that there is a leadership there which will make all judgement calls about how a person is to be treated based on their political orientation and not by some objective moral criteria- using the race card when in fact it is politics and not race that is in question.

But again, maybe the media is creating that to stir people up. I have to admit I do not know the answer.

[Marie]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

This is my feeling.

Anyone- like me and many of us here- who has ever spent a significant period of time affiliated with a church knows full well that you become intimately familiar with the preacher's general position and tone.



NOT the African-American community at large since I still believe most African-Americans are just as appalled at Wright as I am

Just quickly chiming in on the two points above...

#1 As a Chicago native who is very familiar with Trinity United Church of Christ (this church has been a pillar in the community for many many years), I am positive that the general position and tone of Pastor Wright are not what people have assumed them to be based upon these few clips. Sunday services focus on spiritual issues and spiritual issues alone for what I would say is nearly 95% of the time. People have assumed that nearly every other sermon are fire and brimstone race lectures, which is simply not the case. For the most part the pastor does a wonderful job of educating his members on how to walk in the footsteps of Christ. I think that it is very possible for someone to attend his church and still feel that it is the best place to make your spiritual home, even if you were turned off by a political sermon that is given once a year (and I would say that is a high number). I have visited the church several times over the 25 years that I have lived in the city, and I have never heard him talk politics from the pulpit.

#2 What people tend to forget is that all of the racial wounds, which mar our country's history are not that long ago. There are people alive today who knew slaves ( I just recently had a conversation with an elderly gentleman who's grandmother was a slave). There are people alive today who grew up in the Jim Crow south, struggled for equal rights, fought for integration, and have seen the many injustices that our nation tend to want to believe were oh so long ago. I'm saying that b/c many ppl in the black community (Rev. Wright included) have heard these individuals stories (or lived them), and still feel all of the pain and emotion that you can imagine must be attached. Many of us see the effects of these injustices, which we are still living with today. That's not to say that Rev. Wright's comments weren't inappropriate (esp. in the Pulpit), but to say that he was expressing a frustration and inner turmoil that many African American's feel. I don't know that many of us were, in fact, appalled, but rather eager for 'the other half' to acknowledge these deep wounds so that we can finally discuss ways to make things better. Instead ppl seem to prefer living in a world where no one truly talks about these hurts, but rather continue to ignore and pretend that everyone has moved along.

What is mostly interesting to me is that ppl do not realize just how different Obama is from many members of the African American community. He didn't grow up in a Black household, and he wasn't really raised with much of that deep hurt (and general awareness of race issues) with which many Blacks were raised. If there is anyone who I could believe disagrees w/Rev. Wright's comment, then it would be him b/c his upbringing and experiences are very different.

[AKA_Monet]

Obama's Passport was breached...

State fires 2 for looking at Obama file

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Correspondent1 hour, 14 minutes ago

Two contract employees for the State Department have been fired and a third disciplined for inappropriately looking at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's passport file, and the department is investigating whether political or other motives were involved, senior officials said Thursday.

Spokesman Sean McCormack said that for now it appears that nothing other than "imprudent curiosity" was involved in three separate breaches of the Illinois senator's personal information. It is not clear whether the employees saw anything other than the basic personal data such as name, citizenship, age and place of birth that is required when a person fills out a passport application.

The breaches occurred on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14, and were detected by internal State Department computer checks, McCormack said. The department's top management officer, Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy, said certain records, including those of high-profile people, are "flagged" with a computer tag that tips off supervisors when someone tries to view the records without a proper reason.

Wow!!!

Is this identity theft?