I think one of the hardest things for any candidate under such word by word scrutiny is finding the balance between personal integrity and and what is politically expedient. In that area I admire Obama much more than any of the other candidates. With the media’s encouragement and our unfortunate cooperation we have reduced political contests to some National Enquirer mentality. Obama was dealing with the issue of not being black enough and as a black man raised by Caucasians, searching for connections to black America. The Trinity church and Wright were likely part of that. His reaction to Imus may have been emotional or political or some of both. I tend to agree with you that setting them side by side he might agree he over reacted to Imus. It will be interesting to see if it comes up and how he handles it.
Some of the moderate republicans and independents he wants to win over have already commented about this apparent discrepancy.I don’t think it’s a big deal. We can’t expect our leaders to be super human and be golden under such a microscope.
That’s your opinion. Realistically other voters , especially those on the fence won’t see it that way. To some, including a friend of mine who was seriously looking at Obama it’s a double standard.
Did you listen to Imus’ apology? It was a terrible joke he offered no excuses for but it did not contain malice or serious racial hatred IMO. Listening to more of Wright’s specific sermon’s I see those specific comments quite differently than when I first heard them out of context. The specific defense for Wright was that you shouldn’t judge the man’s entire career and life by a few sound bites wasn’t it? Why doesn’t that same principle apply to Imus’ bad joke considering his many charitable activities and all his positive contributions?
You may think a distasteful joke is ten times worse or more than God Dam America or the US KKK of A but a shitload of people won’t. They’ll see it as a double standard. I think the principle of not judging an individual too harshly from one or two bad choices of words applies to both men.
]
That’s your opinion. Realistically other voters , especially those on the fence won’t see it that way. To some, including a friend of mine who was seriously looking at Obama it’s a double standard.
Did you listen to Imus’ apology? It was a terrible joke he offered no excuses for but it did not contain malice or serious racial hatred IMO. Listening to more of Wright’s specific sermon’s I see those specific comments quite differently than when I first heard them out of context. The specific defense for Wright was that you shouldn’t judge the man’s entire career and life by a few sound bites wasn’t it? Why doesn’t that same principle apply to Imus’ bad joke considering his many charitable activities and all his positive contributions?
You may think a distasteful joke is ten times worse or more than God Dam America or the US KKK of A but a shitload of people won’t. They’ll see it as a double standard. I think the principle of not judging an individual too harshly from one or two bad choices of words applies to both men.
[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I couldn’t care less about his apology. I’m not judging Imus’s entire career over a few sound bites any more than I’m judging Wright’s. I’m simply comparing the specific words they used and the context they used them in.
One has suffered personal, denigrating injustices, and seen the same perpetrated on his people for decades. He speaks out against the policies and the government who he perceives as having committed those atrocities. He speaks of them in colorful language, some of which is racially charged and, some of which is uncalled-for.
The other is just a jackass who used a racial slur to insult a group of young women who’ve never done a goddamn thing to him or any group he associates with.
Name-calling.
UGLY name-calling.
Not in the same universe.
And yeah, I understand that a lot of people won’t get that. That’s their problem.
…and guess who’s manning the phones, fully dressed, with hair perfectly coiffed and gold necklace in place, ready to take on that sudden mortgage crisis that has somehow erupted in the middle of the night.
Man, I’d have thought that would be her April Fool’s joke. Do they really call the president directly at 3:00 AM and get them out of bed to let them know the economy is still poor? Being president must suck.
*Ring!Ring!
“Uhghhhmmmph… .huh? Yeah…?”
“Ms. President, ma’am… gas prices are still high!”
“Wha…? what time is it?”
“3:07 AM ma’am.”
“What?? How could you have let this wait an extra seven minutes??”
The nappy-headed comment was perceived to misogynistic (as well as racist), hence NOW’s involvement in getting him fired. Imus probably would have not gotten fired if there hadn’t been a pattern of offensive things coming out his mouth, so I think you’re viewing the controversy incorrectly.
I see the difference. To describe them in that way you are looking beyond just the words in context aren’t you? You’re making a judgment call about Wright because you have learned something about his background as a person right? Did that require some effort and time on your part? Yet you judge Imus comments harshly enough to not even listen to his apology and judge his intent? So intent doesn’t matter for Imus? It was a very distasteful joke rather than lashing out in malice. In another thread somebody joked about Hillary turning to Obama and saying “Nigga Please!!” Is that just as ugly? Should they be banned for racial hatred? I actually laughed at the joke and repeated it to others. Am I a racist because of that?
Actually it is Obama’s problem as well which is why I brought it up.
No. I only have to look at a picture of Jeremiah Wright, see the color of his skin and know his age to know the personal hardships he’s had to suffer in his lifetime as a result of government sanctioned discrimination. I need not know one single thing about him other than that to make the statement I made above. I can understand his anger and frustration, and therefore his vitriol in his sermons. That doesn’t mean I excuse some of the specific words he used, but he did not direct personal insults at a bunch of young girls he knew nothing about and who did nothing whatsoever to deserve to be spoken of in such nasty, vile terminology.
I can look at a picture of Don Imus, see the color of his skin and know that he has never personally suffered indignities that were sanctioned by his own government towards people of his race, let alone by the girls he was insulting. And I can know he’s a jackass who used a racial slur to insult a group of young women, not based on any history of his, but based only on that one instance. Only a jackass would ever say anything so ugly about a group of young women under any circumstances.
No, sorry, intent doesn’t matter.
I wouldn’t know. Didn’t see the thread, who said it, or the context. But that, too, is entirely different from directing a slimy insult at a specific group of young ladies by calling them names.
Well Obama certainly doesn’t seem to be having any problems today. He just picked up another superdelegate endorsement from former U.S. Senator John Melcher:
I wasn’t comparing the statements. I am comparing the career judgment on a sound bite. Now, I’ve never been a fan of Imus, but I did listen to Howard Stern for years. And I know that Howard doesn’t have a racist bone in his body, but you could pick hours and hours worth of soundbites from his shows over the years that, without context, would sound even worst than the Imus comments. I think the pragmatic decision in the Imus situation would have been to listen to his apology, suspend him, and turn it into a learning experience for everyone. Instead, when the demands were given in to, and he was fired, all it did was dig everyone further in their trenches on each side. Obama handled the Wright issue exactly like I had hoped someone would step in and address the Imus issue. THAT is why I support and contribute to Obama and his campaign - he always seems to take the pragmatic approach as opposed to the kneejerk reaction. But it sounds like he didn’t do that in the Imus situation. But, hey, I realize I’m not going to agree with him 100% of the time. 90% plus is good enough for me.
Missed this before. I think you’re right that we are too quick to take offense without really looking at the intent of the individual. Then again people do have to take responsibility for their words and actions. What bothers me is that it’s seen as terribly offensive to make a joke regrading race or sexual preference or weight or gender, unless of course you are included in the group you’re joking about. That’s how it is but I think it’s a symptom of the problem you speak of and that Obama spoke of so well. We’re not comfortable with honest discussions about race.
I’ve worked with several wonderful black folks who were articulate and motivated. One guy was always annoyed by customers who spoke in “ghetto speak” or eubonics. It bothered him that people wouldn’t make the effort to learn to speak correctly. He’d say that when we found a customer named Shatiqua or something similar you could almost guarantee how she would talk. He’d mock the lingo and we’d die laughing. {Experience has taught me he was wrong} If I had made those same observations and imitations I’d likely have been viewed as a racist ass. Is that in itself a prejudice or just a symptom of our racial issues?
We’re going to see more of this over the next 3 weeks - by places like Rasmussen, Gallup and Quinnipiac. He’s getting a lot of endorsements and upper echleon dems are starting to lean on HRC to chill and get out.
Did Hillary actually think it was a good idea to keep with the 3am things?
The youtube rating on those videos is 1. Practically everything on youtube gets a rating of 4 or 5. Hitler stomping puppies would probably get a 3.
Well… clearly she has campaign staff to evaluate the effect of the previous ad. I guess it drew in a lot of publicity, but is it the kind of publiciity she wants? Did people actually respond positively to the last 3am ad enough to justify another?
Well, I’m not willing to go that far. If you look back at the past 30 or so years of my life I’m sure at one time or another I have said something ugly about a person or group of people that didn’t deserve it. Doesn’t mean I’m a jackass. And it certainly doesn’t mean I should lose my job.
But I am familiar with Imus and I am comfortable saying he is a jackass. I just don’t think that being a jackass is grounds for termination. And I have a feeling that Obama, in his heart of hearts, doesn’t believe that either. But that’s what we have to do as an electorate - we sometimes have to guess what our candidates are really thinking. Mr. Moto will make fun of that statment (Can’t remember if it was in this thread or not - sorry), but we all do it as part of making our judgements of the candidates.
Yes, I did notice that she mentioned McCain rather than Barack. My guess is that it’s a contrived attempt to make it look as though she has the nomination in the bag and that her true opponent is McCain.
I was thinking more of the general election. Once again, I think it’s a minor issue and I’m rooting for the guy. He got my money and he’ll get my vote.
Wow, for a moment I thought it really was gonna be a parody ad. But it looks real. Holy Christ.
“It’s 3AM, and we’re waking up Hillary to let her know that there’s an economic crisis that just broke out in the last few minutes. After 30 minutes of putting on lipstick (as Camille Paglia put it, “full drag”), Hillary’s ready to handle the crisis. That has been brewing for the past few months. That she just found about, just now, at 3AM. She’d never heard of this crisis before, but she’s awake and ready now to take action. In the middle of the night. Because the sub-prime mortgage crisis is one that only began last night at 3AM, and Hillary has to make a snap decision on how to handle the crisis by 3:31, and allowing that half-hour to don the full drag that gives her 1 minute. But Hillary would be up to the challenge. Not like that negro, who’d probably wait until the morning to figure out what to do about the sub-prime crisis.”
Is that really supposed to be a selling point for Hillary, that she’d make a snap decision about what to do about the mortgage crisis in the middle of the night?
Yeah, I know. And I’m sure you’re right, it probably will be. But IMO, the people for whom this will be an indistinguishable problem, probably weren’t going to vote for him anyway. And if they were considering it, but would change to John McCain over it, well, they probably weren’t leaning too hard towards Obama anyway, since this alone doesn’t reflect in any way on what kind of President he’d make. I guess I’m just not all that worried about the people who are the most likely to make a big deal out of this issue.
I still have the original video open on my screen, and it will still play. I just have no way to download it to save it to my own computer, to re-upload it again! Argggh!