Good for Barack Obama, a strong statement against the hateful speech of "Reverend" (I put it in quotes because I can't believe he is, in any way shape or form, a man of God) Wright. As Obama said earlier today:
...when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st centuries, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses.They offend me. The rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.
The bottom line is that there is no place in the Democratic Party for the likes of "Reverend" Wright. In fact, here's a suggestion for Wright: go join the Republicans and their crazy right-wing preachers like John Hagee; you'll fit in great over there!
Does Hillary want to beat up Obama so that he can't win the general election in November, assuring McCain of the presidency so that she can have a clear field to run again in 2012?Obviously, if Obama beats McCain, Hillary is out of the picture until 2016, by which time, at 69 years old, she might be too old to run. But if McCain wins, she would have to be considered the presumptive front-runner for the nomination, a status which she might parlay into a nomination more successfully than she has been able to do this year.
Morris also notes that it wouldn't be the first time that the Clintons let another Democrat lose to improve her position:
In 2004, it is pretty obvious that Hillary did nothing to help John Kerry beyond giving a speech at the convention and waging a token campaign on his behalf. Bill did even less. Their goal was obvious: they wanted Kerry to lose to Bush so that Hillary could run in 2008.Is she playing the same game now? Only time will tell.
You can read the entire column at: http://www.newsmax.com/morris/...
Or, how about Rep James Clyburn on MSNBC?
Reynolds handled logistics. Apparently exercised no discretion in the matter.
Lowell, I know you don't approve of Wright. I certainly don't approve of his statements about the AIDS thing and the drug war and all that, either, but there's a place for his voice in this country. He's not a Hagee or a Robertson - that much is evident when one examines the body of his work. No one in his belief system goes to Hell for making the wrong choice about which Jesus to root for, or for not making the choice to go with Jesus at all. Yesterday he replied to a question about whether salvation can be found only in Jesus by quoting his "Other sheep I have that are not of this fold". He was asked about gay rights, and made the very interesting statement that several years ago, after meeting with a group of gay activists, he underwent a conversion on the issue and realized that he'd been wrong on his opposition to gay rights. He established an HIV/AIDS outreach and programs for gays and lesbians in his church. His church accepts gays and lesbians. Again, that's not Hagee or Robertson. He's a committed participant in ecumenical programs which include not only several Catholic and other Christian congregations, but Jews and Muslims. He pointed out that he has a number of whites, Latinos, Asians, and others in his church. He asserted that God does not discriminate between races or ethnic groups. Looking at the people in his community who have encountered him over the years, he seems to have a lot of fans across a lot of diverse ethnic and religious groups.
Do you get this angry at all the 9/11 kooks who keep insisting the government was responsible for 9/11?
Looking at Wright's conversion on the gay issue tells me he might be approachable on some of the other issues near and dear to his heart. His beliefs about AIDS are not terribly logical, but they are understandable when you realize that he's a black man who remembers quite well the Tuskegee experiment which only ended in 1972. Approached logically and with scientific evidence he may be man enough to admit one day that he was wrong. He asserts that when he talks about black liberation theology he is speaking of the differences between people, but that differences should be embraced and there are no superior racial groups. He's speaking of identity. Isn't that what European Americans do? Every Columbus Day and every St. Patrick's Day I revel just a little in my Irish/Italian heritage. You're Jewish. The Jews have struggled to retain their identity for over 2000 years. Wright's saying it's okay to have your own identity and to honor it. Belief in the value of diversity is very much a Democratic virtue. Is Wright wrong about this, too?
I'm suggesting that it's going overboard to lump this man in with all the people who believe that only right-wing fundamentalist whackjobs who believe in their quasi-literal interpretation of the Bible can go to Heaven. I'm suggesting that he doesn't belong among people who think it's their duty to spark the Apocalypse by encouraging war in the Middle East and who believe that the mass murder of innocents is justified as long as it fulfills their bloody prophecy. Wright says he believes in reconciliation among people. That's not a far right-wing value.
I've studied American history and politics all my life. More than one commentator has referred to a Pax Americana, just as the Romans referred to their control of the world as a Pax Romana. We have stationed ourselves throughout the world as the world's traffic cop and protector. It's not a one way street. We expect things in return for our commitments overseas, and not all of our expectations are full of lofty democratic ideals. And the fact is that we know our government has not always performed in the most honorable fashion while enforcing our Pax Americana. We know that our government HAS deposed other governments, that it HAS propped up authoritarian regimes, that it HAS tried to bomb and intimidate our perceived enemies into submission. We know that it HAS arrested perceived enemies and sometimes put them in secret prisons or held them incommunicado in Gitmo. There are plenty in this forum who have criticized our government for doing these things, but we do not denounce them as anti-American or anti-democratic. We accept that they have criticisms, and many times the criticisms may go overboard, but they have a valid core.
Wright also denounces the mentality that says it's okay to bomb civilian populations and kill whole villages for political gain. This isn't at all far from the Catholic Church's denunciations of that very thing. Cardinal Bernadin, who coincidentally was in Chicago and no doubt knew Wright, often spoke of the culture of life. He said that one cannot call oneself pro-life and still approve of the death penalty or high altitude bombing or other things that cause significant "collateral damage." We Americans have come to accept that if it saves American lives to kill substantially more foreign lives it is an acceptable tradeoff. But if you are a Christian and believe that God does not prefer any race or country above any other, how to reconcile the deaths of innocents as a method of preventing the deaths of other innocents? We're being hypocritical, and Wright is pointing that out. I don't consider that unpatriotic. I do consider it Christian.
Wright served six years as a Marine and a Navy corpsman. He has never repudiated his service or suggested that he was a terrorist for being in the military. He spoke yesterday of his goddaughter on her way to Iraq. It angers him that this war's proponents will not send their children to fight in it, but he did not say she was wrong for going. I'm sorry, I just don't agree that he's a leftie Hagee.
I am reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me" about the sanitized version of history we are all taught in schools and while Rev Wright may sound like he's coming from left field on some things many times he's on target.
I saw the NAACP speech and enjoyed it. His reference to learning styles studies and linguistics were OK but the studies were old. Not all White-European kids learn the way he stated and vice-versa w/ Af. American kids. (White kids being left brain and Af. Am kids being right brained.) That's ridiculous. All kids have different learning styles. But some of what he said rang true.
Richard Wolffe ( sp) MSNBC analyst brought up that there may be some underlying jealousy of Obama on the part of Wright. I think that's an angle worth exploring.
He has clearly tried to distinguish between being anti-jewish and anti-zionist; which is a useful distinction in my opinion.
He has actually served his country in the armed forces.
So yes, his diatribe is unwelcome, it stings because it is based on real injury, and it is divisive and against everything Obama stands for... but he is no where near as bad as Hagee, Robertson, Falwell, etc, etc, etc, etc...
MODERATOR: What is your relationship with Louis Farrakhan? Do you agree with and respect his views, including his most racially divisive views?WRIGHT: As I said on the Bill Moyers' show, one of our news channels keeps playing a news clip from 20 years ago when Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion.
And he was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter is being vilified for, and Bishop Tutu is being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago.
In fairness, though, and with the hope of ending this discussion, I may have overreacted to Dana Milbank's description of Wright's National Press Club appearance, as I read this first thing in the morning before I read the transcript:
From the moment he entered the room, Wright seemed to be looking to stir controversy; he was escorted by Jamil Muhammad, a leader of the Nation of Islam, which contributed to the minister's prominent security detail. Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, the New Black Panther Party's Malik Zulu Shabazz and Nation of Islam protocol director Claudette Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his belief that the government created AIDS to extinguish racial minorities, and stood by his suggestion that "God damn America."
My reaction was largely based on that description, which seems somewhat erroneous/exaggerated now that I've had a chance to read the transcript myself.
It was the most forthright repudiation of an out-of-control supporter that we can remember. We would like to say that it will finally take the racial charge out of this campaign. We're not that naïve.It is an injustice, a legacy of the racist threads of this nation's history, but prominent African-Americans are regularly called upon to explain or repudiate what other black Americans have to say, while white public figures are rarely, if ever, handed that burden.
Senator John McCain has continued to embrace a prominent white supporter, Pastor John Hagee, whose bigotry matches that of Mr. Wright. Mr. McCain has not tried hard enough to stop a race-baiting commercial - complete with video of Mr. Wright - that is being run against Mr. Obama in North Carolina.
If Mr. Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee, we fear that there will be many more such commercials. And Mr. Obama will have to repudiate Mr. Wright's outbursts many more times.
This country needs a healthy and open discussion of race. Mr. Obama's repudiation of Mr. Wright is part of that. His opponents also have a responsibility - to repudiate the race-baiting and make sure it stops.
We should be aware, however, that Obama does have a problem in the Jewish community. The Jewish community is one of a number of constituencies with whom Senator Obama will need to do some work in the coming months.
From the moment he entered the room, Wright seemed to be looking to stir controversy; he was escorted by Jamil Muhammad, a leader of the Nation of Islam, which contributed to the minister's prominent security detail. Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, the New Black Panther Party's Malik Zulu Shabazz and Nation of Islam protocol director Claudette Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his belief that the government created AIDS to extinguish racial minorities, and stood by his suggestion that "God damn America."
That's what my initial reaction was based on, but having read the transcript now, it's far less clear than Milbank reported.
In the past few days I have surfed from channel to channel and seen a virtually uniform chorus of people claiming to know what Wright stands for, but under scrutiny their statements fail. It turns out they're all relying on each other, on sound bytes, on gossip, on speculation, and on a deliberate misinformation campaign which will probably be easily traced back to the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. They'll listen to anything as long as it's not the boring original source of the information. These journalists are LAZY and instead of independently observing and judging for themselves are allowing others to judge for them.
We should all be outraged at this very subtle campaign of lies and half-truths introduced with loaded words like "anti-Semite" and "anti-American" and "God damn America" lifted out of its context, which was a reference to God's condemnation of bad behavior and to the supremacy of God to man's government.
What we have here was Obama being stampeded into condemning Wright based on what he has been told Wright said. I doubt very much that Obama listened to all three sources of Wright's statements and instead relied on the summations being provided for him in the press along with a few snippets of video from here and there. I'd defy Obama to tell me that he listened to the interview and the two speeches, because in reviewing all three I simply cannot understand where all this supposed hate-spewing racist, anti-Semite invective of Wright's was supposedly originating from. I think there will come a day where, upon reflection, Obama may come to realize that he was indeed stampeded and cornered, that his advisers ill-served him by panicking and urging him, just as Gergen demanded, to condemn Wright in strong, certain language. And for this a friendship and respect of 20 years duration has been destroyed and the credibility of both men damaged. Why the hell are we sitting back and going along with this charade?
Fortunately, most churches usually don't make it a priority to have their own internal security organizations.
The whole idea that somehow the country's existence is dependent on some right conferred by world consensus is absurd.
But surely you can see there's another side to this, no?
President Carter does.
To suggest that the solution to the now 60-year-old Israel/Palestine conflict is to replace those two adversarial entities with a completely secular and democratic, one man one vote nation is to invite being called, at best, naive by proponents of a Jewish Israel. So don't bother, I've already been on the receiving end of that one.
Yes, given the demographic realities and given the generally deplorable state of Muslim Arab culture and values, it's certainly not currently realistic. All I'm asking is that you two highly evolved guys acknowledge that there are two sides to this issue, even though it might not be, understandably, one about which either of you can easily be emotionless and objective.
The Basis of a DealIsrael and Syria's geopolitical interests diverge less than it might appear. By itself, Syria poses no conventional threat to Israel. Syria is dangerous only in the context of a coalition with Egypt. In 1973, fighting on two fronts, the Syrians were a threat. With Egypt neutralized now and behind the buffer in the Sinai, Syria poses no threat. As for unconventional weapons, the Israelis indicated with their bombing of the Syrian research facility in September 2007 that they know full well how - and are perfectly willing unilaterally - to take that option off Damascus' table.
Since neither side wants a war with the other - Israel does not want to replace the Alawites, and the Alawites are not enamored of being replaced - the issue boils down to whether Israel and Syria can coordinate their interests in Lebanon. Israel has no real economic interests in Lebanon. Its primary interest is security - to make certain that forces hostile to Israel cannot use Lebanon as a base for launching attacks. Syria has no real security interests so long its economic primacy is guaranteed. And neither country wants to see an independent Palestinian state.
The issue boils down to Lebanon. In a sense, the Israelis had an accommodation with Syria over Lebanon when Israel withdrew. It ceded economic pre-eminence in Lebanon to the Syrians. In return, the Syrians controlled Hezbollah and in effect took responsibility for Israeli security in return for economic power. It was only after Syria withdrew from Lebanon under U.S. pressure that Hezbollah evolved into a threat to Israel, precipitating the 2006 conflict.
This was a point on which Israel and the United States didn't agree. The United States, fighting in Iraq, wanted an additional lever with which to try to control Syrian support for militants fighting in Iraq. They saw Lebanon as a way to punish Syria for actions in Iraq. But the Israelis saw themselves as having to live with the consequences of that withdrawal. Israel understood that Syria's withdrawal shifted the burden of controlling Hezbollah to Israel - something that could not be achieved without an occupation.
What appears to be under consideration between the supposed archrivals, therefore, is the restoration of the 2005 status quo in Lebanon. The Syrians would reclaim their position in Lebanon, unopposed by Israel. In return, the Syrians would control Hezbollah. For the Syrians, this has the added benefit that by controlling Hezbollah and restraining it in the south, Syria would have both additional strength on the ground in Lebanon, as well as closer economic collaboration - on more favorable terms - with Hezbollah. For Syria, Hezbollah is worth more as a puppet than as a heroic anti-Israeli force.
This is something Israel understands. In the last fight between Israel and Syria in Lebanon, there were different local allies: Israel had the South Lebanese Army. The Syrians were allied with the Christian Franjieh clan. In the end, both countries dumped their allies. Syria and Israel have permanent interests in Lebanon. They do not have permanent allies.
I also like this for how revealing it is about Middle East politics:
...both countries have fundamental geopolitical interests at stake. Israel wants to secure its northern frontier without committing its troops into Lebanon. The Syrians want to guarantee their access to the economic possibilities in Lebanon. Neither care about the Golan Heights. The Israelis don't care what happens in Lebanon so long as it doesn't explode in Israel. The Syrians don't care what happens to the Palestinians so long as it doesn't spread onto their turf.
This is highly revealing as well:
...The Hashemite government of Jordan detests the West Bank Palestinians because more than three-quarters of the population of Jordan is Palestinian, but the Hashemite king rather likes being king. Egypt equally hates the Gaza Palestinians as Hamas' ideological roots lie in the Muslim Brotherhood - a group whose ideology not only contributed to al Qaeda's formation, but also that of groups who have exhibited a nasty habit of assassinating Egyptian presidents.
Without understanding all this - and most people, including John McCain who doesn't know the difference between a Shi'ite and a Sunni, have no clue -- there's no way to understand the Middle East or the Arab-Israeli conflict (which is actually much more complex -- and more interesting -- than that simplistic black/white phrase implies).
This sounds to me like a justification for permanent war.
The Syrians withdrew from Lebanon. They are not going back no matter what some think tank suggests. The idea that they would re-occupy Lebanon is ridiculous. Hezbollah is embedded there now as some hybrid of outside and native force. Iran has influence, Syria not so much.
Lets try this: Embarass (if necessary) all sides into showing some good faith and have a peace agreement that creates a Palestinian state roughly along the Green Line with Arab Jerusalem as the capital. I hate to spoil the balance of power with some hope, but that is the solution to the problem. Prolonging Palestinian suffering prolongs the conflict.
It's just that "anti-semite" gets thrown around a little too facilely whenever the discourse touches on Israel.
This particular subthread begins with you suggesting Rev. Wright is an anti-semite. For the sake of argument, Farrakhan is, indisputably. But as to Rev. Wright ... ?
As to my own objective subjectivity, let's just say I wouldn't disagree with Berlusconi's assessment on 9/12/01 that Islam is a retarded culture.
I do suspect that the chink in their armor is repressed Muslim women. That's where we should be leveraging the cultural jujitsu.
That and getting off the fossil fuel jones.
It's apparently impossible to transcend race in this country.
We're in an endless, catastrophic war, setting records for trade deficits, the price of oil, the dollar, wage disparity, America's reputation and moral standing is in tatters, the housing market and banking sectors are being crushed, health care is in crisis, we're coming out from under the worst presidential administration in American history ... and the big issue is Senator Obama's black power preacher.
It is challenging stuff, and I am generally as prone as the next guy to writing off certain neo-cons as simply bad... though part of me knows that somewhere there are redeeming human qualities to even those I classify as the worst of them.
It's tough seeing good in those who attack you personally, I understand that.
Wright's vilification of white people is the flip-side of continuing to be a victim. It is not until African Americans stop being victims and start taking responsibility for their own happiness that real progress can be made.
I don't pretend to know what works for everyone, but understanding that African Americans have reason to be angry helps us begin to build a better relationship.
And just to make sure I know of what I speak, I decided to read his interview with Bill Moyers. This man certainly does not sound like 'Pastor' Hagee to me.
I don't know what's in his heart in terms of what he really feels or believes about Jews, but the thoughtful man I read there certainly doesn't strike me as someone that would hold backwards bigotries based on religion or race.
Wasn't this site (rightly) earlier mocking the 'reject vs denounce' controversy that Hillary Clinton sprung on Barack vis-a-vis Farrakhan in a debate some weeks/months back? But now we automatically attribute all of Farrakhan's beliefs to Wright just because Wright recognizes the positive things that Farrakhan has done in the black community? Catzmaw again captures all of this better than I could hope to.
Now, the man appeared flippant and bombastic and almost taunting in his National Press Club Q&A, which was a very un-humble performance. Had he simply acted with the decorum and dignity that he did while talking to Bill Moyers, then he would have done himself and his community much better. But then, he wasn't exactly treated with the same respect that he was while with Bill Moyers while at that Press Club.
The whole thing is a gross spectacle, and it saddens me profoundly. The man certainly has his flaws and his illogical beliefs and his blind spots, but what has he done to deserve such a public flogging? I would stipulate, earnestly, nothing.
And again, back to the issue at hand, why should Barack be held responsible for one or two lines, taken out of context, over 40 years of sermons from a man that has positively served his community? This whole thing is a sham, a set up, a game, so that we can avoid talking about the real issues that face this country.
Now, I don't happen to believe either Wright or Hagee or frankly any preacher as to what God's role in any of this is or isn't. I didn't see the work of any God involved in 9/11, and I don't think awful happenings in the real world are some cosmic payback for previous atrocities, real (many mentioned by Wright in his sermon) or imagined (Hagee's medieval prejudices and bigotries). But I certainly don't have the answers either, so I would never tell anyone that their truth is wrong.
I had hoped that Barack's eloquent address on race would have ended this, but that would be expecting too much of our disgusting political and media establishment. Instead, we had to go through this ritual humiliation ceremony. Barack should have, from the beginning, made a forceful statement that he would not, under any circumstance, be held responsible for the preachings or oratory or thoughts of others. The worst part is, Barack's press conference today finally denouncing his preacher may be the best thing he ever could have done. Some country.
White America appears unwilling to understand the black experience, and the many differences in black Christian churches. What a remarkable job most of those churches have done in leading African Americans peacefully from slavery into our American community in the face of unremitting violence from racist whites (lynching, Jim Crow, voter suppression)... Reverend Martin Luther King preached non-violence, remember, but he showed anger, too. If white blue collar workers feel "bitter" at how they have been treated, how much more bitter must black workers feel? American society owes a debt to the black churches, and carping criticism, nitpicking gotchas of one black preacher are, to say the least, inappropriate---- especially in the context of Obama's campaign and our desperate need as a nation to grow past the lingering diviciveness of the 20th century.
Wright is Wrong, his time is past.
Guilt by association is classic racial pandering.
If you think its ugly folks, you aint seen nuttin yet
I really don't care about his comments, but I mean come on, does he just want to cause more problems for a campaign that hasn't been catching a lot of breaks lately?
Senator Clinton is doing her best to make sure NO democrat will be elected this year, and Wright's got her back.
Maybe this was a scripted event?
But Wright didn't exactly thrust himself into the spotlight in early March. He was pretty much dragged into it.
At this stage, who knows. Maybe the press club appearance was a slip-up -- he got caught up in the attention and forgot himself for a moment. This is not exactly a minister who sought out the national spotlight during his 30 years of ministry. He was respected by his peers. He was respected by his peers -- black and white; protestant, Muslim, and Catholic.
Clinton's own minister from her days in Arkansas said he knew and respected Rev. Wright -- that he thought Wright had gotten a raw deal in the press (this was back in mid-March and early-April).
The Clintons should have known better than to open this particular can of worms. The former pastor at Foundry, Philip Wogaman, was attacked by Cal Thomas and others when the Clintons attended that church. It appears those attacks are reigniting.
I don't recall weeks of press coverage over this non-issue. It never really caught on. The common sense view seemed to be that the Clintons weren't responsible for answering for the words of another person, even their sometimes-pastor. More to the point, Christian preachers say controversial stuff all the time. I have talked to one African-American preacher who seems mystified by the current reaction, since Rev. Wright is squarely in the mainstream and even somewhat conservative.
Why is Obama being held to a double standard? Is it because he's a black man who is married to a black woman and has black children and, surprise, attends a black church pastored by a black preacher? It's the job of the Republicans to make that sound dangerous, not the Democrats.
The people pushing this one are exploiting racial divisions, but the reason for the exploitation probably has a lot more to do with protecting the financial interests of the GOP mega donors and corporate lobbying interests (e.g. favorable regulatory policies -- especially in reference to media consolidation; tax loop-holes; etc.).
Second, I don't think the media, John McCain, or Hillary Clinton fully understands just how sensitive this who subject is. In attempts to report a sensationalized story and win an election, the media along with McCain and Clinton may be causing irreparable harm to race relations. A lot of this controversy stems from a genuine cultural misunderstanding. This subject should not be used a political tool or a way achieve high ratings. In my opinion, the politicians and media pundits that push this story in an attempt to trigger racial divisions are no better than the political strategist who came up with the Southern Strategy. I wrote it in the past and will write it again: I will not support any candidate, regardless of party, who uses race to divide the nation.
Third, I find the double standard in reporting this story appalling. When Bill Cosby made some controversial comments by pointing out all the flaws in black culture, he was applauded as a courageous leader who was finally saying what needed to be said. Rev. Wright made some comments that I too find offensive, but I would prefer some consistency rather than selective outrage.