I'm pretty cynical, in general, about all politics. I find them interesting, certainly, but I believe nearly none of what I hear, tending instead to see how what the party or person is saying fits into the picture we don't see. I am surely not alone in this.
Last night, my 18-year-old daughter -- a huge Obama fan who will be voting in her first presidential primary this month -- and I visited my 72-year-old father, in his new condo here in Portland. I was hooking up his internet for him, she was showing him how to retrieve his cell phone messages, while on the flat-screen TV my husband had set up, came Obama, giving his victory speech on North Carolina. One by one -- my daughter first, then my father, then me -- stopped what we were doing to watch the speech, and damn if at one point I did not have tears in my eyes, which shocks me but does not shame me. I think what it was, besides his real gift as an orator, was his grace, and his talk about how politics plays on fear, plays on division, and sure, this seems expedient to those who perpetrate it, but it's bullshit. I've heard a lot of speeches, but I have never heard one quite like this.
Oh my, you look much too young on your picture to have a 18 y.o daughter.
Posted by: Kelly Pierce | May 07, 2008 at 09:05 AM
I am as inspired by Obama as I am repulsed by the current Stooge in Chief.
What is with the "flag draped over my father's coffin" bit? I was under the impression Obama's father split and and went back to Kenya when he was young.
After some investigation...
Answer: He was referring to his grandfather (Stanley Dunham) who served in the army during WWII, he simply misspoke.
Watch- this will be the next thing his critics will pounce upon.
Posted by: eric | May 07, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Obama's all expediency, which is to be expected from a politician. What's unexpected is the way intelligent people refuse to recognize the fact, and go all ga-ga over the most blatant BS.
Posted by: Zev | May 07, 2008 at 05:42 PM
William Shakespeare said it best centuries ago: “It is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.”
McCain will win this election in a walk.
Posted by: Mike LaRoche | May 07, 2008 at 08:08 PM
I hope for all our sakes, McCain does not. Maybe it's just me, but I'm just not all that pro on an authoritarian liar. But don't take my word for it; hear our my buddy Matt Welch, who's spent the better part of several years dissecting McCain:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/118937.html
http://www.amazon.com/McCain-Myth-Maverick-Matt-Welch/dp/0230603963
Posted by: nancy | May 07, 2008 at 09:34 PM
Eric- Obama was raised by his grandfather and grandmother for quite a bit of his life(re: Time magazine article about his mother) so it wouldn't surprise me if he really did think of his grandfather as his father. Of course the media and the opposition still might pounce on it because that's what they do.
Posted by: Michelle | May 07, 2008 at 11:56 PM
I was 15 when I was riveted by jfk's nomination acceptance speech. Its eloquence and passion spoke to me and really set an example that influenced me for years. Last night my 15 year old son got the same hit. You could feel the chills as he recited the jfk-like riffs... Rich/poor. Black/white. Young/old. Etc.
wow... How long has it been?
Posted by: loren | May 08, 2008 at 12:22 AM
"I hope for all our sakes, McCain does not."
My comment shouldn't be taken as an unqualified endorsement of McCain, but I do believe he would be a better president on matters of foreign policy.
Posted by: Mike LaRoche | May 08, 2008 at 01:21 AM
"an authoritarian liar"
And Obama hasn't lied on what he knew about Jeremiah Wright? Of course he has.
Posted by: Zev | May 08, 2008 at 07:07 AM
I think McCain would certainly know more in matters of foreign policy, but I don't know enough to know whether he'd know -- or rather, do -- the right things. Maybe there are no right things; maybe it's a matter of where we stand on what. It's funny; I was just watching the news, saying how, the Myanmar government is not allowing in certain foreign aid for the cyclone victims, and you think, how disgusting; and then you see, some of it is coming on the US warships, and military helicopters, and how one aid organization is refusing to deliver unless they themselves get to distribute, and you think, criminy, nobody trusts anybody, and there are reasons beneath all of it.
I'd like to commend those who've commented for not immediately whipping out the long knives. It does make me miss Cathy, though.
Posted by: nancy | May 08, 2008 at 07:37 AM
Jeremiah Wright, the former US Marine who was exercising his Freedom of Speech to speak as an individual?
Muhammad Ali said some pretty interesting things about white people and not going to war during his lifetime. In retrospect, would the world be better off if he were like today's athletes, silent?
Look at McCain/Clinton's gas tax "holiday". It's popular, but only Obama called "bullshit". Roads and bridges still have to be paid for.
I'll bet you one of Nancy's poundcakes, Mike, that you are wrong, and Obama beats Mccain.
Posted by: eric | May 08, 2008 at 07:54 AM
"Jeremiah Wright, the former US Marine who was exercising his Freedom of Speech to speak as an individual?"
Wright can speak to his racist heart's content. The issue is not Wright, but Obama. Specifically, his pretense that he knew nothing of the offensive bilge that Wright was spewing, and his failure to speak out or at least walk away from what he was hearing. For 20 years!
Posted by: Zev | May 08, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Which racist remarks are you specifically referring to?
Referring to "offensive remarks", most of my friends are very offended by the "God Damn America" remark, or the manufactered AIDS virus remarks. I think the AIDS remark is ridiculous, and the "God Damn America" remark, taken in it's full context as being quoted from Ambassador Peck (a white man, btw), was not only not offensive but correct in the religious context of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "Vengence is Mine, Sayeth the Lord."
Now, I don't go in for the sermons myself, but that does not mean it is my (or Obama's)responsibility to denounce a very distinguished man (retired Marine, BA & MA from Howard University, MA from U of Chicago, Doctorate from United Theological Seminary) because his beliefs are different than mine.
When confronted with ISSUES, such as the manufactured AIDS virus, Obama has promptly and clearly rebuked such thoughts.
The bottom line is Obama, if he is going to be President, must straddle the fence between not being seen as "too white" by the black population while not being seen as "too black and scary" by the white population.
Posted by: eric | May 08, 2008 at 11:25 AM
"I'll bet you one of Nancy's poundcakes, Mike, that you are wrong, and Obama beats Mccain."
You're on.
Posted by: Mike LaRoche | May 08, 2008 at 11:48 AM
"I'll bet you one of Nancy's poundcakes, Mike, that you are wrong, and Obama beats Mccain."
You're on.
Posted by: Mike LaRoche | May 08, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Oops, double-post.
Posted by: Mike LaRoche | May 08, 2008 at 11:50 AM
"but that does not mean it is my (or Obama's)responsibility"
Yours not, Obama's yes, considering that the man was his pastor for 20 years and he is running for President. (And please, the comparison was ridiculous, as though there's no difference between Obama and a private citizen.)
"Which racist remarks are you specifically referring to?"
Derogatory remarks regarding white people, of which there were many. Close association with anti-Semitic racist Louis Farrakhan.
Posted by: Zev | May 08, 2008 at 12:56 PM
"The bottom line is Obama, if he is going to be President, must straddle the fence between not being seen as "too white" by the black population while not being seen as "too black and scary" by the white population."
If "straddling the fence" means acceptance of such racists as Wright and Farrakhan, then, in my opinion, he is not fit to be President.
Posted by: Zev | May 08, 2008 at 12:59 PM
What racist remarks? You didn't supply any examples, other than to group him with Farrakhan.
Posted by: eric | May 08, 2008 at 03:04 PM
On the clips they played when the story was big, I heard him putting down whites. I'm not about to listen to them all again to find the references. And it is not I who grouped him with Farrakhan, it is he who chose Farrakhan as his friend, just as Obama chose and retained Wright as his pastor.
Posted by: Zev | May 08, 2008 at 03:26 PM
As I said, I cannot be bothered to listen to the clips again, but I googled some articles that quote some of the statements:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/03/barack-obamas-jeremiah-wright.html
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/racist-jeremiah-wright-on-white-supremacy
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/racist-jeremiah-wright-on-white-supremacy
Furthermore, Trinity Church's website states:
"Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology."
The website is here: http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm
Here is a quote from Dr. Cone's book:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
This is Wright's admitted inspiration and theology. How exactly is this not racist?
Posted by: Zev | May 08, 2008 at 03:45 PM
"A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life." Muhammad Ali
You reference a book written during the same time period (1967) that the United States Supreme Court overturned anti-miscegenation laws forbidding white people to marry black people. Can you provide a single example where Jeremiah Wright says white people should be treated less than black people? That is what racism is.
Recognizing institutionalized racism and confronting it as a black man is not being racist.
The (fox news) video (soundbite) example you provide is not racist. It is a statement of simple fact. Hillary can not identify with what life is like as a black person. please, everyone, watch it for yourself. Better yet, see the entire sermon in it's entirety at youtube.
The sweetness-light example is not racist. (Now, the opening video at www.sweetness-light.com, showing Hillary as Adolph Hitler... http://sweetness-light.com/)
Recognizing that the government of the United States, and the agencies that support it, has been and still is predominantly controlled by wealthy white people should not come as a suprise.
You still have not provided a single example where Rev Wright has provided racist views, let alone why Obama should be penalized for anything this man has said.
And for all those who still wonder about the "God Damn America" sermon, see the whole 10 minute thing, not the soundbite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
Perhaps it would be helpful if one of our blogmates viewed your two provided examples and commented so it isn't Zev-said \ Eric-said.
Posted by: eric | May 08, 2008 at 04:49 PM
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillarys-downfall-a-funny-vulgar-video
Posted by: eric | May 08, 2008 at 05:11 PM
I think I may vote for Obama. I've never voted Democrat before, but I find Obama surprisingly likeable and strongly dislike McCain.
Posted by: David N. Scott | May 08, 2008 at 05:55 PM
I don't have time to watch all the clips, but did watch the first one Zev posted (also, the last one Eric did, which --may I not be struck down -- is genius), and have to say, I'm with Eric on this one. I believe Wright believes what he's saying, because this is what he sees. Yes, yes, he's probably looking for it, but it's also what he sees. He sees racism against the black man. Look, are all blacks saints? Come on, no. Are we/they in many ways responsible for our/their own troubles? Yes. But you cannot deny the ripples of history are still with us. The institutionalized racism he talks about, much of it is still there, the being pulled over; the having to work twice as hard; the being called nigger. It happens, and I'm wagering Wright has seen it happen a lot more than I have, and I -- a white, privileged woman -- have seen it a lot.
I am not in favor of affirmative action but see why people would be; I am not in favor of calling people names because they called us names, but I can see the temptation, and understand the frustration, and the rage. Do I think Wright has the "answers"? No. Does he have appeal? Yes. Should Obama be made to atone for what some people see as Wright's flagrant racism? No. Why should he? Also, I think citing a 40-year-old "Black Power" quote that influenced Wright as the reason Obama should be made to atone is a bit of a stretch.
Okay, carry on.
Posted by: nancy | May 08, 2008 at 06:06 PM
Nancy, I don't think Obama has to atone for Wright; he's not responsible for what Wright says. What he is responsible for is his own inaction in the face of Wright's statements, as well as his untruthfulness in denying knowledge of what was said. For those reasons alone I would never vote for him.
Also, I don't see why the age of the quote matters if Wright's church is today citing that very book as its inspiration.
Eric, I wasn't referencing the video at sweetness-and-light; just the quotes they pulled.
Posted by: Zev | May 08, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Okay, I took the time to check out a few clips. Tell me this doesn't promote hatred of whites among blacks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc&feature=related
If any white preacher were to make equivalent statements about blacks, he would be branded as racist, and rightfully so. Wright's no different.
Again, my problem with Obama is not what Wright said, but Obama's failure to condemn it, or at least to switch churches at some point during those 20 years.
Posted by: Zev | May 08, 2008 at 10:28 PM
I hate them all (no surprise there), but simply on the matter of healthcare, we'd better hope like hell that neither of the Democratic candidates is elected. If they are, we can kiss goodbye the prospect of any real progress in that department. McCain's policies would not be GREAT, but they'd be less evil enough to make a difference. (I still won't be voting for him or anyone else, though.)
Posted by: Jackie Danicki | May 09, 2008 at 01:23 AM
Not voting for anyone is pointless. There's never going to be a perfect world, or a perfect candidate, so best to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: Zev | May 09, 2008 at 07:53 AM
I can't stand any of the three either. That's why I'll be voting for Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party.
Posted by: loot | May 10, 2008 at 03:00 PM
I can't stand any of the three either. That's why I'll be voting for Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party.
Posted by: loot | May 10, 2008 at 03:57 PM