Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pangloss

Obama's Pastor -- is Obama a secret radical, or is this just guilt by association?

Recommended Posts

Does anyone seriously think that Obama is a closet America-hating-black-nationalist? Really now? I just want to submit that question for consideration.

 

This is definitely the least problem I have with Barack Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone seriously think that Obama is a closet America-hating-black-nationalist?

you forgot 'anti-christ'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone seriously think that Obama is a closet America-hating-black-nationalist? Really now? I just want to submit that question for consideration.

 

This is definitely the least problem I have with Barack Obama.

 

I would think it plausible to suspect pandering to anti-white psychology, validating that mentallity, giving it merit, which is destructive to any society bent on ridding itself of hate.

 

This is the biggest problem I have, however I'm still watching him deal with it. Not that it matters much since I'm not voting for the dude either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama did an interesting interview with Gwen Ifill (sp?) of PBS on the Lehrer News Hour tonight that I thought was really good. He put off most of it for his speech tomorrow, but he did talk a bit about how he believed in listening to disparate points of view, and how his background coming from a multiracial home had an impact on his ability to see all sides of an issue.

 

I thought it was a pretty astute comment politically, but I have to say I also bought it on a personal level. It just made sense, the way he put it. I suppose I could say that it "resonated" with me (although I kinda dislike that word). It just stands to reason that he could be the kind of person who welcomes dissenting opinions, who doesn't automatically buy-in to sermons and preachings, and who thinks for himself. Exactly the kind of thing we WANT in a president.

 

I hadn't really though about that aspect of it, but I intend to catch his speech today. One thing I've noticed about Obama is that a lot of things he says don't sound all that impressive if you see them in print or read about them in a newspaper, or even catch a sound bite or two. It's different when you hear him speak at length -- he's much more thought-provoking and convincing, and has a level of sincerity and honesty to it that reminds me of John McCain at his best, and lies in stark contrast with the likes of Hillary Clinton or George Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama did an interesting interview with Gwen Ifill (sp?) of PBS on the Lehrer News Hour tonight that I thought was really good.

 

Thanks for the head's up. I'll need to watch out for that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, if I were to defend the man, I would just note his age and tell you that he is from an angry generation. If you have a couple hours, read Soul on Ice for a perspective on that anger.

 

Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that this current generation isn't angry as well. They also seem to act on their anger more than previous generations as well. Many are so concerned about rap songs and hollywood, but I think this guy can be far more dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that this current generation isn't angry as well. They also seem to act on their anger more than previous generations as well. Many are so concerned about rap songs and hollywood, but I think this guy can be far more dangerous.

 

Yes, and all Asian people eat dogs and cats, and cannot pronounce Rs. Come on... this is 2008, not 1008. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and all Asian people eat dogs and cats, and cannot pronounce Rs. Come on... this is 2008, not 1008. :rolleyes:

 

Now how about telling us how he's wrong? I too, haven't seen any evidence that this generation is less pissed off than any previous one. If anything, they're more empowered by it. I would be too if I were them.

 

As an aside, if I were to defend the man, I would just note his age and tell you that he is from an angry generation. If you have a couple hours, read Soul on Ice for a perspective on that anger.

 

It's always good to understand why people feel or think things. And it's never an excuse. Ever. I understand their plight, and how much worse and real racism was in previous generations, which only supports the notion that it is inappropriate today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ParanoiA, I was just having a little fun with John (as indicated in the post title). Nothing serious intended, except perhaps to raise the level of this dialog through the judicious use of some humor.

 

 

Now, we could look at this as an evolutionary thing, and explore why humans tend to be aggressive and angry to begin with... We are, after all, primates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, we could look at this as an evolutionary thing, and explore why humans tend to be aggressive and angry to begin with... We are, after all, primates.

 

Well, at least we're not literally throwing poo at each other. :D

 

I suspect in-group/out-group dynamics creating a partition that goes against our nature to remove. Are there any phsychological studies to support the notion that we compete on a race level as well as by sex? In other words, we know we compete with other males, but is there any evidence to suggest a natural inclination to compete even more intensely with males of other races? Seems like group psychology would explain that, but I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I ask that because it would seem competition escalating into conflict would be a natural progression. And with white dudes outnumbering other dudes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect in-group/out-group dynamics creating a partition that goes against our nature to remove. Are there any phsychological studies to support the notion that we compete on a race level as well as by sex? In other words, we know we compete with other males, but is there any evidence to suggest a natural inclination to compete even more intensely with males of other races? Seems like group psychology would explain that, but I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination.

There are most definitely studies of this nature. I read several when I was in college last time, but that has been a while now. Two people on this site who have been discussing this issue recently are ecoli and paralith. You might watch their posts for some insight.

 

You're spot on with the basic premise though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are most definitely studies of this nature. I read several when I was in college last time, but that has been a while now. Two people on this site who have been discussing this issue recently are ecoli and paralith. You might watch their posts for some insight.

We have? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think John was spot-on with his comments, and so does Barrack Obama. He mentioned in his speech today that the old axiom is true that the Sunday morning hour is the most segregated hour in America, and that much hatred and anger remains, and that it's wrong for it to still exist. iNow, Obama's not just denouncing Wright in order to distance himself from controversy. He's criticizing the man because he is wrong.

 

His speech today was outstanding, directly confronting this issue in a manner that would make most politicians scream and run away in terror.

 

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street....These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love."

 

But he not only maintained that Wright's sermon statements were wrong, but he even goes on to say exactly what was wrong about them.

 

"The profound mistake of Rev. Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society," he said. "It's that he spoke as if our society was static, as if no progress has been made." Instead, he said, "America can change. That is the true genius of this nation."

 

Brilliant. He's not hiding or white-washing anything, nor is he running away from something just because it's unpopular. He's explaining not only why he continued to associate with this man, but also why we can safely believe that this man's point of view is not the same as Obama's. That's exactly what I wanted to hear.

 

The LA Times has a story on today's speech that's worth reading:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign19mar19,1,4641756.story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have? :confused:

In the blogs, no?

 

 

Obama's not just denouncing Wright in order to distance himself from controversy. He's criticizing the man because he is wrong.

 

His speech today was outstanding, directly confronting this issue in a manner that would make most politicians scream and run away in terror.

 

But he not only maintained that Wright's sermon statements were wrong, but he even goes on to say exactly what was wrong about them.

 

Brilliant. He's not hiding or white-washing anything, nor is he running away from something just because it's unpopular. He's explaining not only why he continued to associate with this man, but also why we can safely believe that this man's point of view is not the same as Obama's.

I liked him already, but I, too, was very impressed today. He really is leading by example IMO.

 

 

 

 

"At at 11:00 AM on a Tuesday, a prominent politician spoke to Americans about race as if they were adults."

~Jon Stewart, The Daily Show <today>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now how about telling us how he's wrong? I too, haven't seen any evidence that this generation is less pissed off than any previous one. If anything, they're more empowered by it. I would be too if I were them.

 

 

 

It's always good to understand why people feel or think things. And it's never an excuse. Ever. I understand their plight, and how much worse and real racism was in previous generations, which only supports the notion that it is inappropriate today.

 

I did not make an excuse. I simply offered an explanation. In a similar vein, you might have difficulty explaining to an 80 year old European Jew why Israel should give up land. I've always found it useful to understand where people are coming from. I quite agree racism is inappropriate today and I wish it would stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add a bit more analysis on this, I was disappointed to hear George Stephanopolis commenting tonight on ABC News that Republicans seem to be rallying behind this issue and planning to stir it up some more. Given how well Obama responded to this I think that's a shame, really driving it into swiftboat territory.

 

I passed briefly by three right-of-center discussion boards that I lurk on today and on two of them that seemed to be the case -- lots of people jumping on this anti-Obama bandwagon. The third seemed more mixed.

 

Sometimes these things do take a while to filter through public perception (so few caught the speech live or even in long quotes, and the newsies of course report "both sides"). But I was really hoping for a better reaction. It really was one of the best speeches I've seen from a politician in a while, and perhaps the best speech I've heard on race relations since 4/4/68.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an awesome speech. One of the best I've heard out of any politician in recent history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to add a bit more analysis on this, I was disappointed to hear George Stephanopolis commenting tonight on ABC News that Republicans seem to be rallying behind this issue and planning to stir it up some more. Given how well Obama responded to this I think that's a shame, really driving it into swiftboat territory.

 

I passed briefly by three right-of-center discussion boards that I lurk on today and on two of them that seemed to be the case -- lots of people jumping on this anti-Obama bandwagon. The third seemed more mixed.

 

Sometimes these things do take a while to filter through public perception (so few caught the speech live or even in long quotes, and the newsies of course report "both sides"). But I was really hoping for a better reaction. It really was one of the best speeches I've seen from a politician in a while, and perhaps the best speech I've heard on race relations since 4/4/68.

 

Well, I'm not sure.. i didn't think the speech was that great. It was meaningful and heartfelt, for sure, but it just left me with the impression that Obama's hiding his policy behind his words. If Obama really wanted to help out the black community, he'd talk about ending the 'war on drugs', for starters.

 

I believe the right's attacking Obama because they think McCain has a better chance at beating Hillary. So says Rush Limbaugh, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I respect your opinion ecoli. The ironic thing is that Wright is supposedly known for his speeches on self-motivation and -reliance.

 

Here's what Nicholas Kristof had to say at the New York Times:

 

Barack Obama this week gave the best political speech since John Kennedy talked about his Catholicism in Houston in 1960, and it derived power from something most unusual in modern politics: an acknowledgment of complexity, nuance and legitimate grievances on many sides. It was not a sound bite, but a symphony.

 

Note the part about how it "derives power from" its "acknowledgement of... grievances on many sides". It's like Kristof reads my posts here! ;)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/opinion/20kristof.html?em&ex=1206158400&en=cd02deeeb508e822&ei=5087

 

Unfortunately the story today has been that the speech hasn't put the issue to rest for Democrats either. Clinton took the lead over Obama in one national poll, and Clinton surrogates have begun attacking Obama over the Wright issue. And the Wall Street Journal talks about fence-sitting superdelegates waiting to see if the issue is dead.

 

Yet after a 15-month campaign that largely transcended race, some Democrats say Sen. Obama's association with the Chicago pastor potentially threatens his bid to be the first African-American president.

 

And this quote is from Clinton supporter Lanny Davis in the Huffington Post:

 

But many people, including Obama supporters, may still have two questions that Senator Obama's speech did not sufficiently answer, at least in my opinion. And, for any Democrat whose priority is to win back the White House in 2008, they need to be answered now -- because, if Senator Obama ends up the party's nominee (I am a supporter of Senator Clinton's) -- for sure Senator McCain will insist they be answered in the fall.

 

He goes on to question whether Democrats will continue to support Obama if it is found that Wright used the N word. Hmm, I don't like that, that strikes me as true guilt by association, especially in the sense that he's using a surrogate ("those evil Republicans will just hit him with it in the fall, damn them!"). In fairness, he did praise the speech as "brilliant".

 

I guess this thing's not over yet. That's unfortunate, because it should be, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who may have missed the speech, or who have only had the opportunity to view pre-filtered soundbites, you can watch it in it's entirety here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America can't afford to elect a dark person (who is Muslim by origin and all of a sudden radical-relations appear) or a woman (whose husband's term was one of the worst and whose tears run down her cheeks on television) as presidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
America can't afford to elect a dark person (who is Muslim by origin and all of a sudden radical-relations appear) or a woman (whose husband's term was one of the worst and whose tears run down her cheeks on television) as presidents.

 

America is so broke, it can't even afford to pay attention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, someone with a Muslim background might understand them enough not to do something incredibly stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, if he were Muslim, why does that matter?

Second, he's not Muslim, so clearly Physia is not paying attention to fact, but instead being spoon fed lies and regurgitating them here.

 

Nice quote, bascule. Clever. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.