Well, at least people who hear about this incident may be less likely to believe the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim. My own sense is that most Christians are used to the idea of a slightly crazy pastor and certainly well aware that most people don't agree with everything they hear in church.

If by "enough" you mean satisfactory to people who were never going to support him anyway, then no. But if you mean enough to explain the situation to reasonable people, then yes, emphatically. Meanwhile, we haven't talked issues in over a week. And, contrary to popular belief, avoidance of the issues benefits Clinton, not Obama, since the more people get to hear him speak, the more they realize he has at least as much substance as she has.

Does anyone else think that this came out at the best possible for Obama? 6 weeks before another primary, so it won't immediately shock anyone into voting against him, he has lots of time to go out and explain things. And the Clinton team is not going to go out and bash him over the head with this, especially after the racial sensitivity that Ferraro helped raise again. It might be the exact right window for it to be thought of as old news by the time people start looking at the general election.

Yeah Ezra,

Hillary + Geraldine = Evil

Barak + Wright = Classy

Obama + Left Bloggers [in general]

You...and many others have lost your way.

Put it another way, what are you and many others going to do if;

Barak wins the nomination and loses the general?

Blame Hillary? Blame the Democratic party? Blame...yourself?

Barak wins the nomination, wins the general and goes Lieberman?

Blame Hillary? Blame the Democratic party? Blame...yourself?

Will you look for a shiny new toy or will you stick with your loser?

If Barak had gone into the Senate and fought against the war, FISA, ect. he'd get my support, but he didn't.

The creep may get my vote in November, but I see him and Hillary as Liebermans, except I see Hillary as having more practice at turning around an economy.

So what exactly would Wright have to say for Obama to repudiate him?

We are not talking religious beliefs, the guy can believe there's a Mother Ship carrying people away to see God for all I care, but this isn't about his religion, its about the politics this guy's been spouting from the pulpit.

Saying God D-mn America and America gave black people AIDS, etc. is not religious in any way, shape or form.

Wrights', and probably Obama, believes in Liberation Theoogy, which explains at least Wrights views of the world.

That is why he believes Whites are conspiring to kill black people, and Jews are conspiring to kill Palestinians,,,it is only logical that he also believes that Al Queda isn't evil, it is simply oppresed peoples attacking back at the mean terrible United States. that's why he claims Sept 11th was the chickens coming home to roost.

This is a perversion of theology and I simply do not believe this guy wasn't preaching this stuff week in and week out for decades to the Obamas.

"I simply do not believe this guy wasn't preaching this stuff week in and week out for decades to the Obamas."

I'm sure that you also believe a lot of other wingnut bullshit because you choose to. I've heard numerous of Wright's sermons on cable and he's a great preacher who is no "angrier" or "unpatriotic" than Jesus Christ himself. The guy has a style and penchant for hyperbole that I don't share, but his core message is totally biblical and consistent with committed Christianity. He has his own focus and context, he's fiery - yes and arguably goes over the top but he's not even remotely in the "hate message" territory of the Hagees and Falwells. Incidentally, Wright's 9/11 comments were not in the same territory as Falwell's and Robertson's blaming sexual minorities or America's women. They were essentially echoing what guys like Michael Scheuer, the CIA agent tasked with targeting bin Laden, have said about why al Qaeda arose and attacked - we're over there and have specific policies and allies. This is common sense - as opposed to the theological gibberish of George W. Bush, making our problems in the middle east somehow the embodiment of manichaen Good vs. Evil. Not that's totally crazy...

Completely agree with your first line. Thank you for that post. I don't come here generally but I will read you more regularly from now on.

What happened to separation of church and state? oh yeah, presidential primary.

How many right wing gas bag "preachers" have said worse. Most, or all?

I don't understand the people who say that Obama is lying because Wright's been saying this stuff for years. Assume that he has. Did Obama ever say otherwise? He said that he disagrees with the man on a number of issues but still respects and loves him. If you think that's not harsh enough of a reaction, OK, but that has nothing to do with how recently Wright started making his controversial comments. Unless, of course, you think that hearing a preacher say things for a while brainwashes you into holding the same beliefs, which is obviously absurd.

a) This is politics. The fall out won't be know until the next primary.

b) It was a mole hill of an issue to me, but I am not the general primary electorate.

c) Please give it a rest pretending, as one poster does above, that Obama is anymore interested in the "issues" than Clinton. Neither have run issues focused campaigns, and indeed, before Edwards dropped out had to be scolded at one debate for engaging in exactly the kind of personality driven politics that we are seeing now. To pretend that this is about Clinton, and not about both candidates may make you feel better, but it simply don't reflect even his stump speech much less behavior in the campaign.

You want to change the subject now that the personality driven politics is hurting your guy. But that's the problem with living by this particular sword that many of us were trying to scold you about before. Namely, that it can turn on you, and what do you have left? No pun intended.

I just reread my comment, and don't see where I said Obama was "more interested" in the issues than Clinton. I said that I think avoidance of the issues helps Clinton more than it does Obama. That's because, unlike those Obama supporters you don't tire of criticizing, I voted for him for stances on the issues, not just because I kind of thought he was awesome. I voted for him because he opposed Iraq and is less hawkish than HRC on Iran. I voted for his support for slightly relaxing the embargo on travel to Cuba. I voted for him because I like Samantha Power more than Richard Holbrooke. In short, I consider the domestic policy comparison a wash, but prefer Obama for foreign policy. Surely you can concede that there are at least a few substantive differences between the candidates, and that it is at least possible that some of Obama's support is based on those differences.

a) We weren't talking about why you voted for Obama. That's a red herring under the context of what we were discussing. We were talking about the type of campaign Obama has run. It was implied that at some point he was running an issues based campaign when this isn't true. His campaign isn't based upon issues. It's based on process (post partisanship) and personality ("yes he can", Obama girls, etc).

It was Edwards that pushed an issues agenda into the race. See the multiple articles that made this exact point over the primary/caucus season.

What we are seeing now is the natural consequence of the campaign that both Obama and Clinton have been running without any moderating force to push them to talk substantively about the issues. This is why, again, Edwards had to scold them because, then, as now, they preferred to snip at each other by making personality based arguments. This is why, even after I knew edwards was going to lose, I wanted him to stay in the race. To keep the remaining real contenders honest. Without that honest broker between the two personalities, we are getting the results we are getting.

By the way, it's irrelevant whether you mentioned Clinton or not. That's a fallacious argument. Arguments are not simply what you type, but also what is implict with in the context. To argue, I didn't say X, is a little like talking about the forrest, and saying the trees are not a part of it.

b) You really don't want to go to issues either by the way:

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html

It's not good for either candidate, but especially for Obama because he's not been scrutized about his actual versus percieved record. Most of you post for example was perceived record, and not what he's actually done.

This has as much resonance as it does because this minister is from Chicago, and a lot of what he says dovetails with the ideas put forth by the Nation of Islam, also a Chicago phenomenon. All these things are conflated in the public mind. If Jeremiah Wright were some kind of firebrand from , say Georgia, this would be less powerful. Obama has dealt with this mess as well as he could, for the moment. Not repudiating this guy is a good touch, and makes him seem less panicked and more credible. Time will tell if it has legs, or, worse, if there's more to it than is now known. It better be true, as he said, that he wasn't in that church the Sunday after 9/11.

on the subject of Wright-- like I said- I think this is a mole hill being turned into a mountain by the right. But, Obama hopefully will handle this well.

alex,Obama has been avoiding "issues" since Iowa; he's been running on a generalized sense of change and hopefulness and positivism that appeals to particular groups of voters and not to others. He's fallen down - in the states where Clinton won, and recently, because he has not been prepared to delve into specifics, and because his positive message was thrown off by a series of yes, attacks that brought various aspects of his preparedness and his politics into question. Talk issues? I think Clinton would love to; and she has, in detail, at every debate. But faced with "vote for me, or you're not for hope and you're not really in favor of change"... that's not issues. That's something else.

Now, finally, I can disagree with akaison - what a relief, I think, for us both :) - I don't think Wright is a molehill; I think it goes to the heart of something Obama's been trying to get around, which is this notion of "ending a divisiveness" in this country without really discussing what that divisiveness is, its history or its effect on our society today. Rev, Wright speaks for those divisions, for that sense that what has been done to the black community in this country is a considerable injustice. It's fair to ask, I think, if that's what Barack Obama blieves as well. And f it isn't, I think it's incumbent on him to say why. And if he does, I think he needs to explain how that fits his sense of us coming together, and leaving those divisions behind...especially when we can't even admit to what they are. It's not a small thing, I don't think. And I don't think Obama's statements, however graceful, have yet addressed those questions.

brucds,

Wright said "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye....We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

I've read Micheal Scheuer, I don't believe he's ever said such a thing, I await your cite of a similar Scheuer quote.

But it is amazing, on the morning of 9/11, as I watched the towers fall, I said to myself, yep, damn Japanese paying us back for Nagasaki.....

My point brucds, is that the Great, Right Reverend Wright that you say is such a wonderful preacher was spouting complete and utter nonsense. He was saying, in a nutshell, that 9/11 was Americas fault because we were stupid enough to defend ourselves against the Japanese and have supported engagment with Isreal and South Africa. Thus if 9/11 was Americas fault, then their was no reason to pursue Osama Bin Laden or Al Queda.

Nuttier then squirrel poop comes to mind....

And if these radical statements were ABNORMAL for the preacher - why didn't Obama know about them? Noone said, guess what wacko nutty thing Rev Wright said this weekend??

I don't think we can make an attribution regarding Rev. Wright to Obama. No more than I would want my friendships (some of them close) to people with whom I disagree to be attributed to me. The fair point is to ask him what he thinks of it, and to qustion his political judgement for not responding to this issue sooner.

However, I do agree that this more fundamentally reflects one of the flaws of the Obama campaign. This is a direct reflection, by the way, of not only post partisanship, but also post racial politics. To many of his supporters he has been the "magic negro" We've discussed this before. The primary voters have been willing to delude themselves into believing he could be above the fray, but of course the concern as I 've said for a while is a) what happens when he isn't allowed ot be and b) is this really a long term strategy that has any value in politics which is about define or be defined. He's a black man who was involved in the black community- what did people think? This is why I called it 'the magic negro" syndrome.

Let me paste something that I think perfectly reflects the faux outrage

"Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him"

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

My problem from the start is that I felt like he was being set up (probably by his own hubris in part) for a fall. We are in America. Race is a part of this country. No matter how many time his voters wanted to ignore it. I knew eventually, somewhere, somehow, his realness would show up in terms of being a person of color, and that would be a problem.

Well, he's won the nephews-of-cranky-uncles vote!

Race is a part of this country. No matter how many time his voters wanted to ignore it.

It's stunning to me how many people have a problem with the fact that Obama attends an African-American church... it's as though they simply can't process the simple fact that to be African American gives someone his own ethnic identity, and they're shocked when African Americans acknowledge that about themselves.

Okay akaison, I tried... but if you continue to insist on writing things I agree with... I can't help ya. :)

In all seriousness, my own uncle was my spiritual mentor in a lot of ways, and he could say a lot of things about politics and history that would be considered off the rails by a lot of people. I never had the (mis)fortune to run for political office and be asked to "reject and denounce" every last thing he said, however.

I think that, ultimately, what we're dealing with is the fact that it's very difficult for national candidates to come from anything other than a few "standard" backgrounds. It means being white and/or not being in touch with any kind of ethnic identity, it means not attending any sort of church different than the sort that would appear on television, and it means a few fixed career paths. Once candidates start to deviate from that, everyone seems to get agitated.

So I take it Rev Wright opposed abortion and believed women seeking abortion should be jailed and waterboarded, and he believed gays should recieve the death penalty and that jews need to be deported; we would all be saying, ohh their goes nutty Obamas' entire adulthood mentor again, spouting off, silly him...

And if Obama said sure I don't agree with him, but look he's my mentor, my good friend, I learned about life from him for the past 20 years, ...we wouldn't question him about the sincereity of his positions?

This is a true test of leadership for Obama and of the determination of his supporters to turn the page.
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/barack-obama-condemns-reverend-jeremiah.html

" It means being white and/or not being in touch with any kind of ethnic identity, it means not attending any sort of church different than the sort that would appear on television..."

and, of course, church attendance of some sort MUST be adhered to; atheists need not apply

So I take it [if] Rev Wright opposed abortion and believed women seeking abortion should be jailed...we wouldn't question him about the sincereity of his positions?

When someone questions the pro-choice bonafides of practicing Catholic Nancy Pelosi, let me know.

Seriously, Anonymous, your predictable anti-Obama wankery under the guise of not even being able to choose an identifiable pseudonym is getting tiresome.

Anonymous, Do me a favor and just change your name to coward or Tony Perkins...MMMkay...thanks..Does anybody else find it ammusing that it is just assumed that Wright has a history of making similar comments? I have seen no evidence that he has..and ive got news for the gleeful Hillary supporters out there;this isnt going to help her one bit..In the unlikely event that this bullshit,denies Obama the nomination, Hillary will not be the beneficiary.Hillary is now unacceptable to a significant portion of the Democratic electorate.Her campaign, since Iowa, has consistently tried to marginalize Obama as a "black" candidate, so it will be assumed by many,fairly or unfairly, that she is behind the release of the video. Hillary no longer has a legitimate path to the nomination,at least in the eyes of many democrats. so if Obama is denied the nomination , i hazzard to say that it will go to someone other than Hillary.She bought this on herself.

Actually, yes, Anymous, that's exactly what we are saying. It's funny how you think you are going to trip us up or something. We live in the real world. We are going to have people around us who support us even as we don't agree with them. My mentor for example says a lot of things,b ecause he is elitist, that I don't agree with, but he's always been there for me. I am sorry you want to few progressives in simple minded terms. Its probably the reason so many can't handle the fact that neither Obama or Clinton are evil because they support one or the other.

Tyro, I think you hit the nail of the head. At base, that's what the 'magic negro" commentary is about. It's about the fact that everyone is okay with Obama so long as he doesn't remind them that he's black. There are "safe blacks" and not "safe ones." His race depended on being considered the safe one. I've measure his candidacy, perhaps unfairly, by what his supporters would allow him to talk about. I am not justifying Wright here, but I am using this as a teaching moment about how easy is it is to change the dynamics of the situation by reminding people that Obama's skin color may not be just food coloring. Here, if you will notice, the mere knowing of someone who doesn't hold a particular savory idea of white America is grounds for claims that Obama's campaign is in a tailspin. As I have said, I am neither against him or for him. I just think (to steal a line from one of my comic books) predicting voter behavior with regard to race (including liberal voters) is like predicting the weather when it's already raining. This is why I didn't trust the Obama (Oprahification of politics) phenomenon. To suceed, he had to be and must continue to be the most none threatening black guy in America or else he's got a chip on his shoulder, he's controversial, he's blah, blah, blah. All of which is to say "he's maybe different." Not really different mind you, just the hint of any difference is grounds to raise the fear.

By the way- can we not make this about Clinton versus Obama?

Akaison, I have a better quote, and this was from an interview Bill Moyers conducted with James Cone a few months ago on the Journal about black theology:

BILL MOYERS: Speaking of race, guess it's like - all the talk in politics today about blackness. I mean, you've got people arguing, blacks arguing, is Barack Obama black enough or not? You got people talking about Condoleezza Rice. Since she's gotten to power, is she aware of her black-- should she be aware of her blackness? What's your take on all this?

JAMES CONE: Well, I think everybody should be aware of their heritage. See, blackness is a powerful, powerful symbol in America. Because we were taught to be ashamed of being black. And in a society in which you are taught to be ashamed of it, then to overcome that, you have to affirm it. So, you shouldn't be bashful about talking about it. Because to be bashful about talking about it is to, in some sense, to be ashamed of it, at least from the perspective of those who are black and who don't have the kind of position that Condoleezza Rice or Barack Obama would have. So, all they want is to say, you know, express some identity with our history and our culture. It's okay to identify with the larger culture. Because we are one community. But that should not entitle one to just forget about one's own particular culture of blackness.

BILL MOYERS: So, is Obama black enough?

JAMES CONE: Well, you know, I'm not sure I'm black enough. I'm not sure that that is the right ques-- I'm sure I'm not black enough for a lotta people. I-- what I think is relevant here is that people are reaching out to Barack Obama, wanting him to address some of the issues that are particularly important to them. And he has addressed one or two, but is not, you know, from the perspective of the people who are asking the question at least, not enough in order to affirm the fact that he really is as much for black people as he is for the state of America. See, and the problem here is, is that whites make it difficult for black people to be black and also for them to support him.

BILL MOYERS: How's that?

JAMES CONE: Because the more you express identity with the community from which you come from if you're black, the more fear white people have. Now, that's not true for Italians. That's not true for Germans. That's not true for any other group, hardly, except us. Because there-- it's because we haven't been talking about that lynching tree. We haven't been talking about slavery, the ugly side of that. So, if Barack Obama comes out and says, "I'm black and I'm proud of it," well, whites would get nervous. And they would be careful about whether they would vote for him. So, he has a narrow, a narrow-- road in which to walk. Because he won't be elected if he doesn't get the white vote. It's hard to get the white vote if you express a kind of affirmative identity with black people. So, you get caught between a rock and a hard place. And that's where he's caught.

By the way, I often visit this blog a lot and read the comments here, and it's rare when I disagree with you or Weboy about topics like race and the campaign of Barack Obama. I guess it's because like you two, I'm a gay black man and we tend to see a lot of things the same way regarding this issue.

Tommy

Obama is a black candidate. When you say that, you are marginalizing him. It's not either/or except that you refuse to talk about it and when you do, it's only to deny the black part. Hence, why you have as much a problem with race as those you try to excoriate. If you were okay with race, you wouldn't feel the need to try to make Obama the "good black" guy. Because, that of course raises the question about which one is the bad one.

I think it doesn't really matter what we say....its what SNL says that counts.

Think will see Rev Wright ?

I think Barack has the nomination already unless it is stolen by Hillary. But this all better come out now rather then in October.
Have we seen all of the Revs videos? Does her ever say anything about Obama on tape? If so, what does he say? Was he interviewed during Obamas' Senate campaign? What did he say?

What happens if a tape pops up as an October surprise of Wright?

Thank you Preston for the post. This is my position in a nutshell. The teaching moment is exactly what James Cone describes. I've tried to have it with Obama supporters, but its frustrating amongst those who want to wash race under the rug. This frustration grows both out of my concerns over the American race issue, and the reality that no matter how much they want to recreate race in America, there was always the up coming general that would make the battle a hard if not impossible one to win. As my pessimistic friend , like me a black professional , has said- if they think they are going to let a black man become President as a black man, they are fooling themselves. I don't know if I complete agree, but each time I read or hear someone talk about race who supports him,- their analysis concerns me because of its shallowness and whitewashing (pardon the pun) of the discussion. There are questions I asked that they should be trying to learn to answer now "would you have picke dhim if he were white?" "how is he going to be three times better than the next white candidate?" This last one comes from my mother who used to say that to me- I can't just be good. I have to be better than all others. Race in america requires that we understand that, and I don't understand why anyone thought it would different for him.

What happens if anything happens Anon? How about this- rather than you trying to use this to help Clinton out, which by the way I find offensive, why not think about this as an issue that we need to figure out how to address now and innoculate ourselves against come the GE. Clinton faces a similar attempt to manipulate her chance. maybe she is already innoculated, and maybe not. You really aren't helping either way by trying to use this. It just turns me, a neutral party, off to you.

Here's another part of the interview. I advise those to go to pbs.org and check out the interview since it's highly educational, even to those who aren't Christians or believers. It will give many a better insight into how Christianity influenced the black liberation movement, and that during Slavery and Reconstruction, blacks took the teachings of Christianity, paralleled their persecution and struggle to that of Jews in Biblical times, to give them a sense of understanding and meaning to why they're suffering. I think it's important to watch the interview since James Cone hugely influenced Rev Wright.

---

JAMES CONE: Because the more you express identity with the community from which you come from if you're black, the more fear white people have. Now, that's not true for Italians. That's not true for Germans. That's not true for any other group, hardly, except us. Because there-- it's because we haven't been talking about that lynching tree. We haven't been talking about slavery, the ugly side of that. So, if Barack Obama comes out and says, "I'm black and I'm proud of it," well, whites would get nervous. And they would be careful about whether they would vote for him. So, he has a narrow, a narrow-- road in which to walk. Because he won't be elected if he doesn't get the white vote. It's hard to get the white vote if you express a kind of affirmative identity with black people. So, you get caught between a rock and a hard place. And that's where he's caught.

BILL MOYERS: And I have sympathy on this score-- for Condoleezza Rice. Her policies are another thing. But part of what the civil rights movement-- was all about. We thought a black man or a black woman should get to be Secretary of State or President of the United States and not have to-- be anything but a powerful person doing what that person needs to do.

JAMES CONE: No. I think that's a little off there. I-- now-- see, I-- how I would put it is, a black person should be Secretary of State without having to deny their racial heritage and actually put it up front.

BILL MOYERS: Up front?

JAMES CONE: Yes, up front. Because we are a part of America.

BILL MOYERS: But that would make her the black Secretary of State.

JAMES CONE: No, no.

BILL MOYERS: And you don't talk about--

JAMES CONE: That's-- no, no.

BILL MOYERS: --Henry Kissinger--

JAMES CONE: No, no, no.

BILL MOYERS: --as the Jewish--

JAMES CONE: No.

BILL MOYERS: --Secretary of State.

JAMES CONE: No. They wouldn't make her the black Secretary of State anymore--

BILL MOYERS: Had she talked about it?

JAMES CONE: --no, no. It would not necessarily. It would mean that she is proud of her cultural history the same way-- white people are proud of theirs. When you talk about Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, well, you're talking about slaveholders. But you don't say that. But you are. And I--

BILL MOYERS: Why don't we say that?

JAMES CONE: Because America likes to be innocent. It likes to be the exception.

BILL MOYERS: But we're not.

JAMES CONE: We are not. That's why it's hard for Barack Obama or Condoleezza Rice to talk about blackness; 'cause it's-- if they talked about blackness in the real, true sense, it would be uncomfortable. But America can't be what America ought to be until-- America can look at itself, the good, the bad, so that we can work on making ourselves what we oughta be.

I am not using this to help Clinton. Didn't I say the Clintons are unparalleled in corruption? Haven't I called for the release of her taxes, and no, not just this year's. Didn't I point out that her brother made half a million selling a pardon to convicted drug lord Vignali? Nothing so far in Obama's background rivals this sleaze. But Obama still has to publicly reject explicitly anti-American rhetoric if he wants the job.

Obama's pitch is perfect here. It is a classy, reality-based response, and one wildly - most thankfully - at odds with the wacky race-baiting narrative we've been hearing for decades. And here it is again being spewed by the establishment darlings who inhabit our mainstream media and political culture. Its the Mickey Mouse Club turned dark and viscious, and its about time we finally took that show permanently off the air.
Obama is an evolution beyond all this nonsense, and I for one continue to be impressed by his fresh generational perspective and political instincts. My feeling is he seeks to heal.
I continue to believe that with Obama's approach in power the citizenry of this country will have the chance to begin in earnest the hard work of rebuilding after the incredible devolution of our national institutions and identity, and political discourse, over the last 40 years.

Thank you Preston. I will check it out. Can I just thank you for posting that. It's a supreme source of frustration for me that deeper understanding of race in our country still can not be discussed at the depths to which Cone describes. It's wrong that in order to lead one must deny parts of themselves. Ironically, to me, it's at a detriment to this country that it doesn't take full advantage, and not just in a superficial way, of what growing up with different experiences can add to improving the situation for all of us in this country. Maybe the solutions aren't going to come from people who happen to look like and act like the majority.

I've tried to have it with Obama supporters, but its frustrating amongst those who want to wash race under the rug. This frustration grows both out of my concerns over the American race issue, and the reality that no matter how much they want to recreate race in America, there was always the up coming general that would make the battle a hard if not impossible one to win.

That’s exactly how I feel about Obama. It’s the fact that he approaches his campaign as if we live in a colorblind America that I found troubling. I know he run this way as a political strategy, but I find it to be a new form of Clintonian triangulation that would backfire on him because you can’t ignore the strong racial divide in this country and think the way to bridge the divide is by speaking in platitudes and slogans, giving signals to black and white voters that a support for means a victory, a symbolic one, for black struggle. Perhaps if Obama was a candidate in 2050 this would have worked since THAT America would be more racially mixed and less divide than today—but in terms of racial healing, particularly economic disparities rooted in systemic inequality, it’s going to take more than just tip-toeing around this issue when solving the problem. This is why I supported John Edwards, because while some commentators said that he often spoken in grim terms regarding our domestic problems, he spoke the TRUTH about “Two Americas,” while Obama spoke about “One America” as if we’re already there. (Remember in his speech in Selma he said to the congregation that black people are already 90% of the way, basically giving the signal that a vote for him would make us equal to whites in terms of income and status? This is his slick way of using identity politics without being forthright about his agenda.)

I get so frustrated talking to Obama supporters at times because, you’re right, they often whitewashes race discourse as if there’s no room of that in the Obama campaign. I have heard numerous white liberals and conservatives state that an Obama presidency means that racism is not an issue in America anymore. How can America be racist when we have a black president?, they say. If Obama can do it, why can’t Tyrone get off crack and get a job to better himself?, one conservative told me. Angela Davis sums it up for me: "Obama is being consumed as the embodiment of color blindness… It's the notion that we have moved beyond racism by not taking race into account. That's what makes him conceivable as a presidential candidate. He's become the model of diversity in this period...a model of diversity as the difference that makes no difference. The change that brings no change."

The black supporters I talk to vote for him solely because an image of a black man as president gives many of them pride, something they can tell their children to believe in and strive for. They take it as a given that an Obama presidency will initiate polices to address the institutionalized racism that plagues many communities. All this, they expect, without a single statement or goal made by Obama that he’ll do anything to address the economic disparities. And so far, the polices that I have read are pretty much in line of the same neoliberalism of Bill Clinton. We’ve all know how that “bipartisanship” helped the black communities in the 90s, right? The white Obama supporters pretty much sound like Republicans to me. Nothing excites them more than to have Obama as president so it can shut those loudmouths -- Jackson and Sharpton -- up from agitating over black grievance and inequality. An Obama presidency means all blacks have to do is pull themselves up by the bootstraps, work hard, stop playing the “victim” and whining about racism, and they too can achieve the success as Obama! No need to address the grievance of black people: their problem is in their “victimhood” and “laziness” of not pushing themselves to achieve the American Dream. I try not to generalize and stereotype Obama supporters in these classifications, but each time I come across one they fit this mold.

In a way, I kind of feel validated that this has happened to Obama. I’ve been chastised too many times by his supporters that he can’t raise the issue of race or address it head on—from a black perspective and not from his victim-blaming, y’all-need-to-get-your-shit-together-and-stop-being-homophobic-xenophobic-antisemetic viewpoint he displayed at Ebenezer Baptist Church—because it will alienate white voters. That he has to run as a Black Republican with a vague liberal agenda because that’s the only way for him, a black man, to win the presidency. Either that orI’m chastised by the folks like Silva that Obama represents a better, NEW America and people such as myself — grouped in with entertainers such as Sharpton and Jackson — represent the old politics that are divisive, despite me being in my mid 20s. I'm far from a representation of the 60s counterculture. Though I’m no radical, I’m considered as such by his supporters because I dare question and challenge the gist of his platform.

So there’s a part of me that has mix feelings over this. The one hand I don’t like how he’s being ripped apart because of something Wright preached about; but on the other hand, I feel he had it coming to him for playing with identity politics in such a vague and opportunistic way.

Thank you Preston.

No problem, Akaison, I should thank you because I often come to this blog just to read your opinion on the topics raised by Ezra. I think this blog contains some of the most diverse group of readers than other political blogs on the web. I'm just happy I'm not the only one alone in my views of Obama and his campaign. It satisfies me to see that others of similar backgrounds share the same opinion about this.

Identity politics played by both Obama (with race) and Clinton (with gender) has been about raising up one individual rather than the group. Because of this dynamic, it's not been something that will change racism or sexism in America. I don't feel any joy in what's happening. I just understood the dynamic all too well. Like, I said, it was like predicting the weather in the middle of a storm.

"Angela Davis sums it up for me"

I'm from that generation, worked with groups like the Soledad Brothers Defense Committee, etc. and I think you younger guys need to give it a rest if Angela-fucking-Davis is "summing it up" for you. (Among other things, this is a woman who was too dense to recognize that East Germany was a police state and thought an guy sitting in a cell in San Quentin preaching armed struggle was a brilliant theorist of black liberation. Ran as Gus Hall's Vice Presidential candidate and now teaches "HIstory of Consciousness" at Santa Cruz - pretty much the last person on the planet any sane person in 2008 would go to for insight into much of anything. Her specific comments on Obama, incidentally, are utterly banal and predictable. As is Eherenstein's flaky "magic Negro" essay. James Cone is a serious theologian and I think his encounter with Moyers is valuable though hardly the last word on these issues.)

Your perspective on Obama supporters is bound too closely into your own specific issues. What I'm looking for is a President who doesn't have folks like either Richard Holbrooke or Henry Kissinger giving him advice on foreign policy and who'll push for an achievable, moderate social reform agenda - which is all any President can do. Somebody forgot to tell John Edwards that it's sheer demagogy to rant about how you won't negotiate with corporate interests once you're in the White House. At least Obama isn't bullshitting me about that. Puts it back on us and says, "You folks are going to have to engage - I'm not the answer." Probably the most "radical" note any Presidential candidate who has a shot at getting elected has ever hit.

Yeah, Obama's race is complicated and will hold a lot of different meanings for different people, but the fact is that more than anything else, he's met that standard put forward by somebody's mother above - he's three times better than the rest. And whoever put forward the notion that he's running as a Black Republican with a vaguely liberal agenda essentially has their head up their ass. The political naivete about presidential political, regardless of race or gender, strikes me as overwhelming any other arguments. Most folks who support Obama support him because he's a pragmatic liberal who's obviously a quick study, generally has his heart in the right place and has the ability to use the office as a bully pulpit in the interest of BOTH reform and unifying the broadest possible group of disparate folks and interests into a viable political coalition. Identity politics is tired. Very tired once you leave the sandbox.

That should have been "And whoever put forward the notion that he's running as a Black Republican with a vaguely liberal agenda essentially has their head up their ass. The political naivete about presidential political possibilities, regardless of race or gender, strikes me as overwhelming any other arguments."

I don't remember Preston or myself making Rev Wright an issue, but according to brucds' tirade it's about us.

The whole blame the messenger thing that's now become the Obama supporters stock and trade online is getting old. It won't help you in the GE against a likeable candidate like McCain. It only works against a candidate like Clinton.

I also tire of you confuse your traits with mine and that of other dissenters.

Cutting your post down- that's about all you did.

You are the ones taking a Rorshach candidate to fill up whatever issues you have.

Talk about projection- you go on a tirade about his views of issues that once again don't reflect reality as to what he's actually done. Again , I provide this one link because it's succintly describe who Obama is versus what his supporters say:

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html

I don't think he will make a bad President. He may even make a good one. But you people sure as hell aren't going to help him become that. Oh sure, you may have him get into the GE, and he may even win the Presidency, but your kind of approach to politics guarantees a failed presidency. Ask George Bush what sychophants did for him.

Finally, you can learn something from everyone. I don't give a shit about what you think of who Davis was. Just like I can understand how Obama would see Wright as a mentor, although Wright has some radical views. It's ironic you talk about complexity, and then display none of it in your own arguments.

Wow - Matt Gonzalez....devastating. Are you trying to parody yourself.

I get exactly zero from your response that has anyting to do with what I think or why I support Obama. What I found annoying about the earlier discourse was that it was mostly self-referential bullshit. Which, of course, is what you accuse others of.

Incidentally, my biggest problem with the Davis quote is that it's gibberish. Not even remotely insightful, except as a window into the shadow world of academic "radicalism."

"you go on a tirade about his views of issues that once again don't reflect reality as to what he's actually done"

Where exactly ???

I have to say that your response is worse - i.e. less coherent - than I anticipated, because a lot of the earlier comments were pretty good. Sounds like ruffled feathers.

"you are the ones taking a rorshach candidate to fill up whatever issues you have."

akaison

i have reread all of the comments here and have been reading your comments for weeks.
with all due respect, sometimes i feel that i am in a no win situation when i read your comments.
i really respect barack obama as a human being.
i dont feel that by supporting him, it is going to change the history or shame of the past. i dont think that it is going to wave a wand over the terrible problems that we have today....or, make me feel better or worse about myself.
since the fifties,i have had a number of deep and complex friendships with african-american women and men, with white women and men, and gay women and men....some have been friends and others have been family, and those are the relationships that have helped me to work out my personal issues and rorshach tests....not barack obama.
......i respect barack obama tremendously for trying to walk this difficult walk. he knows what the dialogue will be like and G-d bless him for having the courage and fortitude and forgiveness to even take it on. i think it takes courage for him everyday to do what he has to do.
i think he is an extraordinary, young man and i think he will make a fine president. i think he has rare qualities,and they transcend race and religion.
......i have tried hard to understand the comments here.
sometimes, i feel perhaps i cant.
as an almost sixty year old, white woman, i know it is not possible to know what a young, african-american gay man experiences in his life.
but i can try.
and that is all that we can do.
any of us.
........i do find it hard to understand though, why you seem to condone some of the actions of the clinton campaign, when some of their tactics seem inhumane. you hardly ever find fault with them. i dont understand that.
......but i continue to read your comments, and i try to understand what i can.the dialogue is very helpful.

brucds

It's not a surprise that you got nothing from what I said. It would be a mild victory if one of you actually did bother to understand something other than what you think. Like with discussions about race, the response of Obama supporters is as predictable as predicting rain in the middle of a storm. Her quote, which is similar to Cone's comments (Another person cited extensively by Preston above), are only gibberish to the self involved. Ironically, of course, they also comments if you had an extensive conversation with Obama I imagine with which he would conceptually agree. The link calls into question your rather long and inaccurate selective description of Obama's record. Like I said, he may make a good progressive President, but it won't be because of the thought processes of many of those who support him. You have no idea who he is, and nor, it seems do you really want to know.

Thanks for injecting some common sense. This "rorshach" bullshit is so tired. I can go to Paul Krugman if I want to hear banalities about the Obama campaign masquerading as "political sophistication."

That last comment was, of course, directed to jacqueline.

aikason - you're not quite the sage you imagine yourself. I'll leave it at that.

Jac

Not every conversation or post I write is about or for you.

I am not worrying about your understanding. If you don't get it by reading my post, you should go out and read the link that Preston provided. I am not talking rocket science here.

Please link to where I've ever endorse Clinton or her actions. Just one link will do.

Finally, stop personalizing this. This is politics. Yes, it's personal, but also not. I am discussing race here in a broader sense, and by personalizing it, you deny the big picture of what I (and quite frankly others such as Angela Davis, Wright, Cone and I suspect others who talk bout race) are saying.

I don't get what the fuss is about. Obama issued a strong statement on this days ago. His comments are too long to reprint in full here, but I've got them up here:

http://www.theleftanchor.com/2008/03/obama-on-the-wr.html

In a nutshell he says he is saddened and angered by the Reverend's comments, and that he disagrees and vehemently condemns them. Is he supposed to shoot the guy in the face with a shotgun or something. Seems to me he handled this just the way he should've. The only reason it's a story is because we're so far out from the next primary.

Move on.

Bruc

Again, with the projection, I don't think of myself as a sage or wise. I don't want to be wise or a sage. That's your shit. What I am writing about here are things people have been talking about for years. Indeed, that's why Cone, again cited above, talks bout it. That's why others talk about it. It's why Wright talks about it. This reminds me of another Obama supporter who thought I was "racist" for using the term "magic negro" because they have never heard the term before. He assumed I just made up the term and started specially calling Obama the phrase. He was wrong,and so are you. I 'm giving you views that are out there, an d that are well understood, again, except for with you.

I am headed to bed, but here's an excellent diary on the subject:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4576

It provides a great non-superficial analysis.

"""What I'm looking for is a President who doesn't have folks like either Richard Holbrooke or Henry Kissinger giving him advice on foreign policy """

I don't think Jeremiah Wright is an acceptable alternative.
Having him as a 20 year father-figure, mentor and teacher seems to show much more about Obamas' judgement then his main claim to fame of claiming he would have voted against auhtorization for use of force in Iraq had he actually been in a position of responsibility.

Mind you, he is claiming therefore he has better judgement then the majority of Democrat Senators many of whom were privy to far more information on Iraq then he.

People always forget that Obama actually did have a policy on Iraq, his position was that we simply continue to commit genocide against the innocent Iraqi population as a way of containing Saddam Hussein. He was happy to continue this genocide until Saddam Hussein or his sons finally died in office, decades from now.

To condemn an entire countries population to starvation, malnutrition, disease, death, lack of clean water, lack of medicine, crumbling of their infrastruction to the point that two UN overseeers resigned and proclaimed the policy of Bill Clinton GENOCIDE is also an unacceptable policy as far as I am concerned.

Noone seems to notice that MORE Iraqis actually died under the policy Obama was espousing.

I don't think it is a good message to send to countries that violate the UN, and their own treaty obligations that we will committ genocide against their innocent populations while giving the actual bad guys a pass.

Obama would have done to Iraq what the Sudanese government has done to Darfur..why is that an acceptable alternative???

In addition, Obama assures us that if his intelligence people come to him with information on Al Queda in Pakistan he will send in troops and destroy them....well how is that different then George Tenet coming in and telling him Iraq and WMD is a slam dunk.

All the intelligence, from every intelligence agency said Iraq was pursuing WMD and ties to terrroist groups, why should we believe that in the Iraq case he would reject the intelligence of the entire world, but rely on the intelligence on a roaming small group of terrorists.

And why would we believe that if we leave Iraq, it would not become a better place for Al Queda to operate from then Pakistan?
I think it is pretty clear that if Osama Bin Laden had his way, he would much rather be hiding in a terrorist/Al Queda run Iraq then the tribal areas of Pakistan.

And just how does Obama work with the Iraqi government...since he proclaimed he had no problem Saddam remaining in control of Iraq until he died of old age...when Iraq convicted Hussein of crimes against humanity and executed him.

Kind of like saying, its fine with you if Hitler stays in charge....

This guy will provide the McCain campaign with ammunition to turn Obama into a closet Malcolm X.

When you look at this jerk, and people like Hagee, it is hard not to conclude that religion is a calling for dirtbags.

Having reviewed Baracks Iraq policy, I find it incoherent and people don't seem to know what he has said.

He's not for complete withdrawal from Iraq. he says he would remove half the troops to put pressure on the Iraqi government, but then says the troops would stay if the Iraqi government makes progress.
He also says they will stay if the military says it would endanger the troops remaining in Iraq for them to leave. Then he throws in a redeployment of troops to Northern Iraq.

His policy seems to be we will keep trops in Iraq as long as they aren't actually fighting anyone.

The bigger inconsistency is he claims our troops being in Iraq is a huge plus for Al Qieda in recruiting new terrorists, etc. and thus we need to remove them, but tehn says we should increase the troops in Afghanistan.

But isn't that also a great recruiting tool for Al Queda? I thought he believed Afghanistan was Obamas main conern not Iraq.

Ooops, I guess I forgot that Osama actually declared war on us, over Clintons policy of genocide in Iraq.....did
Obama forget that too??

"I 'm giving you views that are out there, an d that are well understood, again, except for with you."

What an arrogant little twit - beiieve me buddy, I understand "these views." I've read Cone long ago, etc. etc. I don't need you or some Kos diarist to introduce me to Ralph Ellison nor the plight of black America. (I happen to see it every day in my neighborhood and have my own strong views which I don't need Sigmund Freud to sort out. William Julius Wilson works for me.) I fully understand the term "magic Negro" and had long ago read Ehrensteins pissy little show-off column for the white folks dragging it up re: Obama, then heard Rush Limbaugh quoting him, ad nauseum. Ehrenstein is a cynical, irrelevant ass who can now move on to other important - nay, Fabulous! - issues like what Anderson Cooper does with his dick.

My suggestion is that you actually spend some time with the Obama campaign, working your ass off with other folks - as I have in Oakland - and then come back and tell me what a bunch of deluded types we tend to be. Again, your response is just a bunch of ruffled feathers and recyled, second-hand rhetoric.

"Anonymous" - give it a goddam rest. It becomes clearer with each comment that you're not analytically competent, to say the least.

"My suggestion is that you actually spend some time with the Obama campaign, working your ass off with other folks - as I have in Oakland - and then come back and tell me what a bunch of deluded types we tend to be."

i.e. It's not Obama's fault he's not inspired you; it's yours

I don't think that's going to sell any better in a general election than it has in the primary.

Akaison, when I read comments by Obama supporters such as brucds I hesitate to jump on the bandwagon. No matter how astute the analysis towards Obama’s candidacy and platform, especially regarding race and systemic discrimination, it will be quickly dismissed as “divisive,” marginalizing his critics to a fringe group of radicals comparable to Sharpton, Jackson, the Panthers and NOI. Brucds says that Obama leaves it up to his “movement” to push a progressive agenda, and that’s a “radical” concept for a presidential candidate. But most of the people I talk to who are apart of this “movement” give me vague and shallow reasons why they’re supporting him. I had one conservative tell me, “I feel that an Obama presidency can heal many of the racial wounds in America.” I ask him to give me an example where Obama puts forth a plan to do this, after muttering the usual catchphrases and slogans one expects from Obama supporters—i.e. “He’s a fresh face that will bring CHANGE to Washington!” “He’s a uniter not a divider!”—he finally said, “Well, he will give a positive image to black kids in the inner cities to strive for achievement and success.” (If all inner city kids need is a black bourgeois image to motivate them, then all they need is television shows such as “The Cosby Show,” “Family Matters,” “Fresh Prince of Bell Air,” “That’s So Raven,” etc., if that’s the case.) But here was the best line he gave me after he uttered that vapid response, “He’ll TEACH them how to be Americans again!” Yes, TEACH them how to be Americans! This is nothing but pure tokenism wrapped in a faux progressive, symbolic package. I lose all hope that his “movement” will hold his feet to the fire if he somehow turns out to be another Bill Clinton. Most of his supporters are too bewitched with his oratory skills and handsome, matinee idol features to scrutinize his purpose or agenda.

I say that because just look at how Brucds easily accept things without any push or demands with statements such as “achievable, moderate social reform agenda - which is all any President can do.” This reminds me of something Adolph Reed, Jr. once said about liberals in the 90s cowing into the Clinton Administration, refusing to challenge Clinton when he pushed the Democratic Party further to the right because it was the “pragmatic” thing to do. Here’s what Reed said in ’93 that paints a clear picture of how Obama’s supporters will be if he becomes president and refuses to govern as a liberal: “I recall a dinner party during the primaries at the home of a colleague, an economist and upper-level operative in the poverty-research industry. She and others automatically defended and excused every blemish on Clinton's record, dismissing objections as naive about what a Democrat must do now to win. Exasperated and somewhat emotional, I raised the case of Rickey Ray Rector (admittedly a pet peeve of mine--see the April 1993 issue), the brain-damaged black convict whose execution Clinton went home to oversee during the campaign to prove that he's not soft on crime. Our host, a white, tenured professor with solid liberal credentials, responded blithely, with a tuttutting wave of the hand, that of course any Democrat who can win will have to support the death penalty and we must simply accept that. I thought then, but in a fit of graciousness refrained from saying, that's easy for you to do, isn't it? I wondered as well where this reasoning would end. Picture it: "Now, now, you must understand, any Democrat who can win must support ... (forced sterilization, repeal of the 1964 civil-rights law and Reconstruction amendments, sending the niggers back to Africa)."

I guess to Brucd an “achievable, moderate social reform agenda” is stuff like Welfare Reform, Telecommunication Act, DOMA, two hideous crime bills, NAFTA, etc. That’s a way a pragmatic “reformer” governs and wins elections!

Of course Brucd will dismiss my criticism of Obama as “too personal” since my specific issues are minor stuff—who cares what those blacks want—i.e., a robust economy and strong manufacturing base where free trade agreements aren’t destroying one’s neighborhoods—Iraq is the most gripping issue to focus on! The fact that black folks vote in record numbers, giving Obama 90 % of their votes, without demanding a DAMN thing in return bothers me. Of course I’m not expecting him to come out and say he’ll give blacks reparations—anyone with sense knows that’s not going to happen, and most of us are against such an idea anyway. But we would like a president that has an urban agenda, a plan to invest in our crumbling, forgotten neighborhoods, a plan to invest in our poor infrastructures. I’m tired of the Democratic Party taken the black vote for granted and refusing to offer anything in return, especially since investing in our poor neighborhoods is not only good for black folks but America overall. I went to Obama’s website and read his proposals; most are tepid, vague at best. Now some black folks think Obama’s going to somehow create another New Deal/Great Society, addressing economic disparities. This is very naïve on their part; based on his speeches and the outlines I’ve read on his website, he has no intentions of pushing something that ambitious—something that would FINALLY ease the wounds of racism since it’s economic disparities (along with criminal justice) that black people are stressing about. So, Brucd may be right, if elected, he may put forth an “achievable, moderate social reform agenda,” but is that enough to help those who have put so much faith in him, those who are hit the hardest during recession, particularly minorities? Especially when Obama and Clinton are for more off-shoring and free trade, NAFTA-style agreements?

By the way, Brucd, ditch William Julius Wilson, he’s a typical Clintonista and his sociological work has been thoroughly analyzed and discredited by the likes of Adolph Reed, Jr. and Stephen Steinberg.

Jeremiah Wright, 5 days after Sept 11th, when the whole country came together and was mourning the loss of thousands of peope decided to stand up, stick his finger in Americas eye and blame us for the terrorists actions. Barack's claim that he had no idea such comments were made is beyond my ability to believe him.

Most preachers took that time to bring people together, Jeremiah saw it as an opportunity to hit American when she was down.
You can't tell me that wasn't a life long philophy and not an immediate change of heart that he was just anouncing.

If he taught Barack for 20 years, I don't want him as President.

It might be different if Barack has actually done something as an executive, and proven to us he is a different man.

Hillary's Healthcare plan failed but at least she did something and failed. So far all Barack has done is talk, and he's in his late forties. We have no idea how he would react as an executive who has to make the decision.

akaison: We get it.

You
Don't
Like
Obama.

Nothing he can say, and nothing he can do, is going to change that. I'd be more moved by your arguments if the alternative wasn't Clinton. I don't trust her on the war. I can see that she fully intends to rerun the Kerry campaign and the cautious, in-the-pocket-of-big-business, liberal-baiting, and all-about-Clinton presidency.

Those are the alternatives. Not the candidates that we imagine in our dreams but the candidates that we actually have. I trust Obama's instincts far more than those of Clinton.

And this so-called issue with his pastor is simply garbage. I *don't* think it will matter at all, because people who actually go to church know full well that their ministers sometimes say things that they disagree with. And they know that they have emotional, not political, bonds with their clergy. We'll see of course; I'm tired of the permanent cowards crouch on the progressive side that assumes that we're DOOMED whenever the winger throw their meat to the wolves.

brucds,

I have listened to Obama, and he insisted WORDS MATTER, now I am listening to his pastor and mentors' words and every one is insisting they don't matter...

Funny Barack didn't think his mentors words mattered enough to worry about them for the last 7 years...

Preston - you really demolished those straw men. As for what you "guess" about my own agenda, you guessed wrong. Didn't read past that because I don't have time for the retread rhetoric.

Incidentally, Preston - if we're going to a reformist agenda enacted, it's going to take electing an authentically liberal - "progressive" in current parlance - Congress, not simply electing a President. This is elementary. And why I don't invest a lot of false hopes in an Obama presidency. We're not even close, although I believe Obama has longer coattails than Clinton, so that's one reason I support him. Most of the executive powers that he could make a difference with upon assuming office have to do with foriegn policy. That's a fact.

You guys are the ones who have fantastic notions that you project onto political possibility at the Presidential level IMHO. There's a rather remarkable lack of sophistication, joined to the assumption that everybody else is some sort of imbecile. It's, among other things, pretty boring.

"I don't think that's going to sell any better in a general election than it has in the primary."

You mean the primary he's winning.

Contra Krugman - there's no personality cult in the Democratic Party quite as lacking in self-awareness and steeped in bullshit as the Clinton Cult. It's like a fucking Stockholm Syndrome. The sooner we're done with this duo, the better.

brucds

at a certain point, i turn off the computer and head down to the local headquarters, and put my feet back into the world.
hope = action
:-)

brucds & jacqueline,

This thread got more or less hijacked by a few people who went to the Hillary Clnton school of argument. They're the masters of tilting at windmills, and not especially good listeners. Recently, Ezra was driven to enter the thread and call out some of their arrant bullshit for what it was. There's nothing you can do with such people except let them talk and hope they run out breath. Since they show about as much respect for the rules as the candidate they defend, you can't really have a reasonable conversation with them.

Words matter.

Alex and Marc

I can tell that neither of you read the diaries that I linked you to. In the Open Left diaries, the people who wrote them defend what Wright said. Guess what- so do I , although I don't agree with exactly what he says, I understand from where it comes. You apparently are so candidate focused you don't get that. And as for hijackign the conversation is about Obama and Wright- I am challenging the assumptions that you make about race. Apparently you are so blind to your own assumptions that you assume that this was an attack on Obama rather than on a tactic that wold later a llow his "blackness" to be used against him as it is now and will increasingly be used.

if you bothered to get the point. But because you so simple minded, you assumed I was "against Obama" for pointing out the problem with his strategy thus far. You assume because I question YOUR interpretation of Obama that means I am against him. I am against your ignorance. I am very much okay with an Obama as our nominee and as our President. The difference is I don't enter the process with any need to deny anything.

It's this either eyou are "for us" or "against us' that makes Obama supporters impossible to talk to. You absolutely could not have read any of the links or data provided to come to the conclusion you did. Indeed, you couldn't have read above where I defend Wright from other attackers above. It's really sad that you are so far gone that you can't even read what people write.

I feel the need to go down the list- because like said- many of yo uare silly shills. For instance- the commentary about Iraq- please give me a break with that. Obama's plan is no more coherence or incoherence than Clinton. Both are much more lets stay in Iraq for a few years than I suspect most Americans understand if you were to ask them. The idea that there is a lot of light between their plans is silly, and is easily understood just by reading their actual plans:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iraq

The plans are essentially tweaks of each other that depends on what you mean by removing the troops and definitional parsings.

The most radiacal plan for bringing home the troops was in first place Bill Richards, second probably Dennis Kuccinich's plan and third Edwards. Of the two choice we have left, there isn't much daylight between their plans. If you say it's about personality and who yo uthink will do what they say they will do,t hat'd different. But the actual plan- none of you have any real leg to stand on.

Jeremiah Wright wrote in 2005 in his churchs publication:

"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared,' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

Of course the pastor showed how much he cares for parents with missing children and white women:

"" One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and 'gives it up' while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months!"

So it appears he believes WHUITE AMERICA is at war with people of color...

Words Matter...

akaison - what you don't get is that a lot of people have considerable experience dealing with race and class issues but don't feel a need to invoke Sigmund Freud or to obsess on the pitfalls Obama faces. The pitfalls are pretty obvious - but it's also obvious he's done an excellent job of traversing them. Nobody runs for the presidency without surrendering parts of their individual person and even their soul. None of this is a big shock - what I focus on is my respect for Obama in his ability to deal with this bizarre - and in his case even more burdensome - juggling act and my "hope" that enough American's can see their way through their own version of these issues that we get somebody who's got talent and a fresh approach as president. All of this talk about "magic Negroes" and the "false hopes" invested in Obama is masturbatory and ultimately pretty goddam boring. Go do some work to get the guy elected because he has an excellent shot. He's done more than his share of heavy lifting to bring us to this possibility - and it's a very circumscribed possibility at the level of presidential politics - so don't make it even harder by over-analysing to the point of paralysis. It is what it is. We're not idiots and racism will not be "transcended" if the Obamas move into the White House. But it will be a "new day" and we'll do our best to move forward on that note. As you said, this isn't rocket science. It's a long march and Obama gives us a little more juice and has brought some new folks into the mix. You guys are too self-absorbed IMHO.

shorter jac:

I don't want to hear anything that makes me think about what I am supporting.

Yes , jac, I got that from you up thread, we really didn't need you to post ia second time. Yes, go to the local chapter, sit with people with whom you all agree Obama is the best, and totally ignore anything that complicates that view. That's exactly what we need for the next President. No one to question or challenge their own thinking or his. by the way, ironically, again, if you read the links, many of the people, on the subject of this diary, at open left are obama supporters, and they agree with my interpretation of what's going on here about race. That you are going to go to that campaign site and not give a shit about these pesky racial issues says a lot. Maybe while you are there you might actually want to speak with some of the black volunteers who are there about what they think of what Wright said and ask them about whether or not they understood from where Wright's derive. Us v them makes your life easier- but it doesn't help out a single black person.

Also for what it's worth, I love Jeremiah Wright and watch him on cable all the time.

If it's obvious he's done such an excelelnt job then a) explain why this incident is being called a firestorm of controversy (if everyone understood this going in that seems like an unlikely description) especially amongst your fellow supporters who actually ironidcally disagree with you-- here's yet another diary that proves the falsity of your claim:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4573

Look believe personally what you want-b ut please stop attributing that to everyone around you.

My first choice was Gore, who unfortunately did not run. My second was Edwards, who spoke to the realities of class issues in America. But he didn't catch fire, unfortunately. So Obama is my third choice, and I have to compare him with Clinton. And he comes across better to me. I've read your posts before, and your mind is clearly closed on this candidate. I can only compare him to the alternative.

I think that Clinton is very likely to blow it on tactics in the campaign; she'll give us Ohioans 40 calls per household instead of bothering to try to win in a dozen other winnable states. Her primary campaign makes that clear enough.

If she wins we'll see lots of finger-in-the-wind policies with Clinton. Flag-burning amendments; video game violence; saber-rattling to prove her toughness on foreign affairs. She'll be lousy on civil liberties.

When I listen to Obama I like the nature of his responses. I like that he stands up, rhetorically, to the wingers. I like his instincts. Yes, they're going to run a race-based campaign against him. No, I don't think that will doom him. He has the potential to win by a huge margin. That's the basis for my optimism here. It's not "for or against"; it's a matter of viewing politics as the art of the possible rather than one where I attempt to measure each candidate against some platonic ideal.

b) this isn't about being freudian. This is about knowing how Obama will govern. BUt you don't care about that because like a good supporter you are worried about getting him elected. Because I am neither a supporter nor not a supporter, I worry about what he will do once he's there. This is yet another moment for me and those of us who aren't behind him to understand both the nature of who he is and his supporters are. Both matter- as Bush has taught us. But hey- go ahead with Jac- its what y'all do best. Put your head in the sand. Go call up people and convince them Obama is the best.

akaison.....

i just went to some of the suggested links you offered, and read some of the diaries. they were really insightful and i was very glad to have found them.
.....interestingly, when i was listening to ruth marcus this morning, on the stephanopoulos show, speaking about the containment of emotion in the campaign, it gave me a clearer understanding of what you have been talking about...about the withholding of the powerful dialogue that we need to have and have not been addressing.
...i came here to post a comment to you about that with appreciation, and discovered your above post.
....akaison, i dont go to the headquarters to bury my head in the sand and i have not been trying to escape the things you racial issues. actually, i take the time to read the things that you, preston and weboy write so that i can understand them better.
i go to the headquarters so that i can feel energized and hopeful, because of the weight of the issues and discussions. i go to the headquarters to help the candidate....and also when my morale sinks because of anger, sadness or misunderstanding.
......i dont try to escape sorrow or anger in other people....i really try to understand. just be a little more patient. i know that is hard.
one of the things i greatly admire about barack obama, is how immensely patient he is as a human being to try to encompass all sides of these issues...and create a yoke that will fit so many oxen.
a mythological task.

Preston, pretty much except for some minor points, I agree with you. You should realize given the responses- their main goal isn't to help blacks, it's to get Obama elected. In their mindset Obama=help blacks just as Obama=progressives.

To a larger degree it's a hopeless cause to convince them that this is just some narrative they have made up. The easy example is of course Jac, but bruc is certainly one too. She pretty has no idea what we are talking about even as Bruc says they all understand this issue of race.

The way he both argues race has been addressed, and then ignores how here we are talking about a controversy surrounding Obama that shows amongst white voters it's not addressed is certainly fascinating to read to say the least.

It's basically pretzel twisting logic to justify narrative. I don't expect to change a single mind here, but I keep engaging because there is always the hope that they will hold him accountable enough to actually help black people. However unlikely that is.

It's like talking to one supporter versus another about what Obama is being elected to achieve. For Bruc it's what he describes here, but then, for other supporters- several of them major columnists- its a major progressive agenda, and that this campaign stance is just a trojan horse to get him elected.

Their thoughts not mind. But I am engaging in "Freudian" language to point all of this out. Heaven forbid I bring up the "m" word "mandate."

Annymous- your post are increasingly over the top. No one disagrees that some of Wright's rhectoric is over the top and provative, BUT, the idea that its as simple minded as you say is exactly why racial issues won't be addressed. At the very least white middle America is indifferent to the realities of black men and women- that's his point. I don't agree with how he says it, bt I understand what he is saying. You can take comfort that the psychology fo this country is such that your interpretation willb e accepted and mines will not.

"their main goal isn't to help blacks, it's to get Obama elected. In their mindset Obama=help blacks just as Obama=progressives"

Screw you and your reductionist assumptions. You're increasingly idiotic. The hubris is bizarre.

"I am neither a supporter nor not a supporter, I worry about what he will do once he's there."

I'm worrying about "what all talk - no walk" bullshitters like you won't be doing - now or ever. Get off your ass...

I don't support either of these candidates. I will wait to see who is the nomiee, donate money, and vote for who ever is the Democratic nominee. My only goal at this point is to beat McCain because although I don't see much substantive difference between Obama and Clinton, they are 100 times better than McCain.

Second, call me what you want and claim its reducing if you feel that's true, but frankly, your own commentary along this thread is what damns many of you as what I describe. I was trying to have a substantive conversation about the deeper concerns over race, and provided links, and yet you continued to simply dismiss it.

Its passing irony that Jac finally read some of what I was linking and came to a different conclusion as to the nature of the conversation, and yet, you who claims to understand the racial issues here being discussed, and indeed dismiss us for talking about them- apparently still have not. Like I said, I am not here to convince you at this point. Just trying to hopefully push accountability into the mix- to ask hard questions- maybe get people to think about the issues that will affect real people's lives , etc. The rest is up to you. Hence why I don't expect you to simply listen to me, and provide links and other data etc.

akaison......

if my head is in the sand, i am trying to pull it out.
perhaps i am incapable of understanding the world with your lens.
i am trying though. and for that, i dont think it is fair to insult me.
i would like to help elect barack obama because i think the other two candidates are unnacceptable to me and because i think he is a truly extraordinary man.
i dont know why he doesnt sit down and weep each day, after all that has gone on. i certainly would.

....i would like to understand the things you say, because i think they are important....but you need to be more patient with those people who are genuinely trying to understand the things you say.
.....i take classes, and i am grateful that my instructors are more patient with me when i am trying to learn things. it is not easy to teach or learn new things, akaison. be more patient in the dialogue. i know it is frustrating for you.

I linked and got a bunch of stuff I've long understood, filtered through references to Sigmund Freud. Spare me the puerile talk show.

I am not the best person to understand these things from jac. Some of the sources Preston mentions, and the links I provide below are a start- but by no means an end. These are complicated questions, that aren't reducible to you hate Obama, or I am a big supporter of Obama, the way its being framed above.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4573

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4576

These two even barely touches on the subject, but it gives a frame to understand at least much better than I am able to write the nature of some of what people are talking about here even if those things have gone unsaid.

Bruc

Not all conversations lead to bruc. The analysis was for everyone, and you happened to be here while it was going on. Based on your behavior here I also increasingly don't believe you understand it. Your dismissal of Preston suggests you didn't understand why he mentioned what he did. Ironically, the links are to fellow Obama supporters who disagree with you. I am more than willing to accept that my writing isn't very clear. Hence the links, and hence why I cite Preston. You , however, keep claiming this superior knowledge of the subject, and yet you can't seem to admit there is even this controvery going on for the Obama campaign over this. I mean -- as I said- your argument would make more sense if I had caused this controversey with Wright.

thanks....
here is a link for you.

http://www.rense.com/general170/drift.htm

beautiful horses out of driftwood.
i know you like driftwood.
:-)

akaison - you really don't get who the fuck you're talking to or what I do and don't understand. The stuff on the black church isn't even remotely new to me and I fully comprehend the bubble most white folks live in - how culturally segregated they are. I've spent plenty of time in black churches - totally familiar territory, rhetorically and spiritually. My point is that your obsessions are just diggiing some of these holes deeper in a context in which they can't be played out to your satisfaction. This is a fucking presidential election. Some twit like Ehrenstein writing "magic Negro" columns for the LA Times is an exercise in self-regard, not "black liberation" or any other form of progressive motion forward where it actually matters. This stuff is a circle jerk. Get over it and do what is possible to elect the best guy to the White House. Not choosing between Barack and Hillary is an act of cowardice and myopia. Major. I'm not impressed. So when you guys dredge up stuff by Angela Davis, my first impulse is to laugh. My second is to tell you you're not even close to dealing with real shit in the real world.

akaison

maybe the link doesnt work
but look under "driftwood horses"
they are very interesting.

"with all the sham, drudgery and brokennheartedness, it is still a beautiful world."
:-)

Also for what it's worth, I've been predicting for close to a year that Jeremiah Wright would be a big blowup at some point. I was talking to my sister in the Midwest about this a couple of weeks ago - he happens to be a minister in the denomination we grew up in. Again, no big surprise. But I don't need to psychoanalyze white America over this. I've been pretty clear on how myopic and limited they can be. But to criticize the Obama campaign as being somehow clueless is pretty goddam hubristic - especially from somebody who can't even bring themselves to do more than wait out the primaries. You deserve Hillary and Bill...

oh well, bruc, I've been told. I mean since you are such an important fellow, and this is ultimately about bruc. I should just shut up and sit at the feet of bruc. This couldn't be possibly about something more than bruc? everyone is an idiotic except bruc. bruc knows all, sees all, and is the shit when it comes to racial issues. we are all stupid and dumb except bruc. Does that about sum up your analysis? At this point, sarcasm is about all I have to offer to someone with as much hubris as you have.

brucds
thanks for your great posts.

Its a good world,b ut it can still stand for improvement is my motto.

aikason - you could use a mirror...

ah, sweet unity

i keep a stromatolite and a dire wolf tooth next to my computer.

the stromatolite is the oldest fossil on earth....and the dire wolf became extinct ten thousand years ago.

it puts everything into perspective.
and so do the trees filled with new, green leaves out my window.
:-)
it is all a sweet unity.

Bruc:

Ah, yes, the standard, "You are describing yourself, not me" argument. I've provided links to multiple other people. So did Preston. This came up last night on the nightly news. Multiple A list bloggers are discussing it. Obama felt the need to write an op ed on Huffingston to address it. He just threw Wright's coments under the bus. So there apparently is some controversy over race besides what I am saying here. What did you do- dismiss it because it wasn't what bruc thinks. Bruc's what important.

By the way, your logic just doesn't add up.

The controversy itself is proof of my argument, and ore than that its proof of the argument you are dismissing by others. If people were comfortable with Obama's race, this would not be a controversey. If they were comfortable with his backgrond, this wouldn't even be a blip.

The response of Obama supporters other than some here is also proof of that. What proof have you offered that its about me being self involved like yourself? Because you say so.

What have you provided? You've provided commentary about what bruc thinks and bruc is right because bruc says so. Hubris. But, right, it me who is self involved.

akaison - Could you point to one comment here at EK where you praised Obama or said something good about his campaign?

brucds and jacqueline - Would you do the same to a comment where you criticized Obama or had a negative take on his campaign?

I agree with Obama that no one should turn their back on their family but this deft comparison is essentially false. No one gets to choose their family, whereas adults can decide if, when and where they will attend church and who will be their spiritual advisor.

skeptic

I say above that he could pontentially become an okay, and even good to great President, but it will depend on what forces bring him into office. Right now, those forces aren't the best because they tend toward a lack of accountability, contextualization, personal reference, projection, etc. I am in agreement mostly with the argument that I would have prefered that he run in 2012 or 2016 when he would have been tested more on a national level and the upcoming battles will have already been fought. He's at the wrong point in history in terms of the struggle we face. When Edwards was in the race, I used to say, and still feel that Obama is my second choice. It makes sense if we had already fought the battles we need to face in the next 4 to 8 years, and a more concillatory voice would have been the next step once we had proven to the GOP that we are their equals. I actually trust him more than I trust Clinton, but ultimately politics isn't about whom I trust. Its about the dynamics of whom we can hold accountable, definitions and what we can get done.

As I told a friend, my analysis of him is complicated because I believe he's sincere, but it doesn't matter. It's a simply matter of from where you start a negotiation.

My fear is that no one will hold him accountable, especially when I read arguments that he is saying something superior to what Clinton is saying, but in fact, he's saying the same thing in a different way.

Implicit in everything in total that I am saying is the belief that I think he has potential and is a compliment about him. I don't say that about a lot of people, but my support of him is qualified on the mandate that he has. Is his manadate for all of to get along or to accomplish the hard task of change. Those aren't the same thing, and they lead to different strategies. I look for historical analogies to what Obama is saying, comparing it to where we are in our history, and I don't see it.

Brucds kind of makes the point. He says that he has been talking about Jeremiah Wrights rantings for more then a year and wondering when they were going to blow up.

Brucds I gather does not go to the church, nor live in the churches community and I understand Wright is not a 20 year friend and mentor of Brucds.

Yet how did Brucds know all about Wright.... and Obama claims he is just now hearing about this stuff??

Can we believe Obama when he says this is new to him and that when he's in church the old Rev only speaks about the Gospel??

If Brucds knew all about it, what does that tell us about Obamas' claimed lack of knowledge

"The world is a fine place and well worth fighting for."

--Hemingway

Of course, there was the business of the double-barreled shotgun....

The culture of corruption?

Detroit's Democrat mayor Kwame Kilpatrick lies under oath about an affair, uses public funds to try to cover up affair, fires police investigating the affair, uses race to try and rally his constuents and then refuses to step down.

NY Democrat governor Spitzer is found to have been buying hookers ($80,000) for maybe ten years after prosecuting prostitution rings.

Hillary Clinton's campaign repeatedly injecting her opponents race into the campaign causing one campaign member to resign and another (Bill) to be put on a short leash.

And Barack Obama's pastor of 20 yrs is anti American and a racist, yet Obama claims to have not known about his pastor's extreme rhetoric. The man who was his spiritual advisor, married him and his wife, baptized his children and came up with the title to his book. Obama did not know of his views or his rhetoric.

Culture of corruption indeed.

Oh, and Democrats in the senate vote overwelmingly to keep earmarks, yet they ran on the promise they would get rid of earmarks.

Skeptical:

I forgot to mention, but a friend, who supports Obama reminded me, one of the reasons why support for him may make sense over Clinton is that with Obama, he's a roll of the dice. Even if I am suspcious as to what we would get with an Obama presidency, this might actually be a good thing. With Clinton, she's a known quantity, and that quantity as I said isn't necessarily trust worthy. But then, i see the flip side as well- what if he's worse? And because Clinton is a known quantity doesn't that mean we know how to hold her accountable better? I really don't have an clear answer here, just can talk to specifics arguemtns and strategies, but overall, I find they are both flawed and potential good candidates.

Getting yourself pastored by a radical hater shows bad judgment. Lying about it when asked by the media shows dishonesty. Request for presidency denied.

--klqtzz

Last word for the wingnuts...

http://www.beautifulhorizons.net/weblog/2008/03/reverend-wright.html

abg-- let me know how your party is dealing with the embezzlement of the NRCC and indictment of its former majority leader, will you? And the Bob Ney/Abramoff nexus.

Plus, those violations from the hatch act under incompetent staffer Monica Goodling. Hilarious, if you ask me.

now that's a culture of corruption we can believe in. Seriously, you're bringing up the mayor of detroit to tar the democrats with? Don't make me laugh. Now crawl back into your hole and don't come out before you've stopped you immoral republican-loving behavior and repented.

You k now whatever disagreements we Democrats have they pales in comparison to shit the GOP has pulled over the last 15 years. So yeah, let me ditto that 'fuck off.'

For the record, I would like to have my agreement with Tyro's last comment noted.

akaison, are you arguing that Obama voters are ignorant of the implications of their preferred candidate's race on the election? And one of the consequences is that they understate the influence Wright's statements may have?

If that is correct, then what is your purpose? It would appear that one could reduce your argument to the fact Obama is Black, has an incendiary Black pastor, and therefore cannot win in the Fall. Or simplify it farther: Obama cannot win because he's Black.

Do you really want to make that argument? It's tantamount to saying that racism may cost the Democrats an election, therefore the Black candidate should capitulate. That's an awfully cynical stance to be associated with.

Do they teach the strawman technique at the Obama campaign's net advocacy class or do his supporters just naturally gravitate toward that technique?

Andrew, I will give you the courtesy of saying I have no interest in having this conversation with you. I've provide multiple links to other commentors, some of them Obama supporters, who discussed race in America and how people perceive of it. Preston gave multiple excerpts and quotes from others who talked about the issue. Yet, in your mind, this is about Akaison. That's the sad part, and I don't think you are going to change. So, I don't want to continue to go back and forth with you. It just gets really old. I have no idea what's going to happen in the fall. That's your fear.

Obama has now been caught lying. Reporter attended church with Obama when racist statements were made.
Just another lying politician....

Obama Attended Hate America Sermon

Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:14 PM

By: Ronald Kessler

Obama claims he was completely unaware that the Reverend Wright’s trademark preaching style at the Trinity United Church of Christ targeted “white” America.

Contrary to Senator Barack Obama’s claim that he never heard his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the “white arrogance” of America’s Caucasian majority for the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.

Obama shown to be a fake...his campaigns a fraud, it was simply a campaign tactic, not real.

Actually William Kristol and Newsmax have been caugh lying - Obama was out campaigning on that datea and records prove it. But what else is new when right-wing scumbags do what they do.

akaison, you personalize this far too much. There's a difference between the person and their arguments. You are the one making the arguments I wanted clarified, so I asked you for the clarification.

The links you provided do not manifestly provide an explanation for why you provided them or why you are arguing as you do.