well I can think of one off the top of my head. We have a state funded historically black college in my area with a stated goal to educate people based on race.
Barack Obama attended a church with 6000 members. The preacher happens to be, at times, eccentric. All the good that Wright and Trinity Church have accomplished is forgotten in this dog and pony show dubbed an election.
People join churches for multiple reasons, including fellowship and networking. If the Reverend Wright is going to be the reason people don’t vote for Barack Obama, it only substantiates the Obama campaign’s argument concerning the politics of distraction. People vote on characteristics instead of issues or values instead of policies that will better their lives. When people vote against their own self interests, it can be argued that democracy has failed. Here we go again. The real issues important to people are ignored while the press focuses on a preacher guilty of nothing more than controversial ideas, heated rhetoric, odd behavior, and stage hogging.
Three problems with that.
One - She first pitched Wright two years ago and she was selected, as a close friend of Wright, as the point person on the current invitation.
Two - Your quote states she’s an “enthusiastic” Clinton supporter (cite?), but she’s spoken critically against Clinton as well.
Three - She has written in support of Wright and Obama.
I know the narrative is better if she’s Part Of The Conspiracy, but…come on.
He can no more disown Wright than he can disown the black community. Follow the votes. 80% of black voters are behind him.
The problem with using a black church as a backdrop to launch a political career is that it ties him demographically. IMO he used the church and Reverend Wright as a political tool to gain support for local power. It was politically expedient of him to do so. The dynamics change as he runs for office in a wider demographic.
To say he’s racist is to use a higher litmus test in an attempt to dismiss an argument. But you can make a case that he has defined himself as a hyphenated-American by the church he chose and more importantly, the person he called his mentor. Reverend Wright lives in his own little world of afro-centrism that may not be racist but certainly has an ugly overtone to it. You can dance around terminology all you want but Obama has had to distance himself from his mentor and continues to ratchet up his disdain for his comments.
Cite that he called Wright his “mentor?”
Like affirmative action, that is not a program of “redistribution of wealth,” but a subsidization of opportunity.
“40 Acres and a Mule” would have been an instance of redistribution of wealth if it had survived. And it would have transformed the Southern African-Americans into a class of independent yeoman farmers. Missed opportunities . . .
Three problems with your rebuttals.
Cite #1: Your own cite says her suggestion of Wright 2 years ago was turned down, so she resubmitted his name because he became “far more newsworthy.” Mmhmmm. Nothing fishy about that!
Cite #2: Here’s what you call “critical against Clinton”:
I hardly think that qualifies as “criticism” at all. She merely said she’d have liked to have heard something more forceful, and Clinton doesn’t “feel” the pain of Ferraro’s words. Big Whoop.
Cite #3: You cannot possibly be serious in claiming this:
is “writing in support of Obama”. For reals? Did you even read your own cites?
uh huh. A college exists to educate people based on race and this isn’t a redistribution of wealth based on race? While it may not represent funds taken solely from non-African American’s it is intentionally distributed to African Americans. I’m not going to argue the semantics of this. We’re discussing policies that discriminate based on race.
I realize Rev. Wright is trying to vindicate his recent soundbites, but his efforts are hurting Obama. That’s why I completely support Obama when he denounced his remarks. Wright is hurting Obama’s efforts in trying to be a uniter, in trying not to let his run be about race. It’s not about race. It’s about Obama’s strong leadership abilities and the fact that his is the right leader at the right time. Wright is just holding Obama back… he’s holding Blacks back with his negative rhetoric.
Wright seriously needs to step back and keep quite for a while… like until after the election.
Ah, no it doesn’t. It’s the National Press Club President Sylvia Smith who says that, “and the speakers committee wanted him because he was far more newsworthy than two years earlier.” So, yeah. Nothing fishy about that!
Critical is critical. I don’t see any cites backing up your claims of “huge Clinton supporter.”
“Without the prophetic, bold voices and organizing ability of leaders like Pastor Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago there would be no U.S. Senator Barack Obama with a decent chance at becoming the first black president of the United States.”
Better than you did. You give me one shred of evidence, one and I’ll shut up about it. Otherwise, you’re smearing someone needlessly, which I think it’s funny because you defend like a mother wolf anyone who dares to tarnish the reputation of Obama.
If that’s the sort of thing Martin is scared Obama will do, so much the better for “redistribution of wealth.”
But, frankly, I have my doubts Obama will even flatly support affirmative action – even the kind that consists of hiring and admissions quotas rather than tax-dollar subsidies – as currently constituted. The Civil Rights section of his platform doesn’t mention it; neither does the Poverty section.
Seriously, you’re either being intentionally disingenuous or you don’t read your own cites for comprehension. In chronological order. . .
-
Reynolds submitted Wright to be a speaker 2 years ago. At that time, she was not a part of the Speaker’s Committee, and they didn’t move forward with selecting Wright.
-
Reynolds became a part of the Speaker’s Committee who gets a say in choosing who speaks.
-
“Reynolds pitched Wright again as a speaker, and the speakers committee [on which she now served!] wanted him because he was far more newsworthy than two years earlier. Reynolds became the point person.” That’s a direct quote (save for my bracketed insertion), not my interpretation of it.
I stand by my refutation of your rebuttal argument. You’re simply wrong. Barbara Reynolds has, indeed, been a long-standing friend of Reverend Wright’s, and she initially did invite him out of that friendship. However, she resubmitted his name based on the fact that he is now “far more newsworthy,” which smacks of wanting to use him to some end. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what that could be, given the current climate of his “newsworthiness”.
No, critical is not critical. It is a massive stretch to call her statement “critical” of Clinon in any substantive way.
You really are serious. :eek: That is NOT complimentary of Obama. That’s giving ALL of the credit for Obama’s rise to success at being this close to becoming President to Reverend Wright and others like him. How in the hell is that complimentary to Obama? Not to mention that the very next sentence, which you conveniently cut out of my reply, specifically calls Obama to task for having spoken out against Wright’s statements.
I’m not smearing anybody, I’m posting what’s been reported.
Correct.
Correct.
Correct. The speakers committee wanted him. Not Reynolds. She was part of the committee, yes, but the quote (which both of us quoted) specifically says “the committee.” Why you think this means all Reynolds is beyond me. Are you disputing the fact that Wright isn’t newsworthy? Obama himself said it was fair game in his conversation with Chris Wallace.
IT DOES NOT SAY THAT.
No, just a conspiracy theorist.
Yes it is. Simple as that.
:rolleyes: Whatever. We know what your purpose is here. i don’t know why I even bothered. Lesson learned.
Not true. Still waiting on that evidence. Acutally, don’t bother.
Guess the ruling class (or the elite. Which is it, GB, I read your cites, liked them, but must admit I didn’t take notes) doesn’t want a Black President just yet. Best for them I guess, to sideswipe the real issues – economy/healthcare, on-going bloody military quagmire, trade and a much needed overhaul of US Foreign Policy in general…for starters.
– some of them at it 24/7.
Wow. Barack’s up against some mighty odds. It’s depressingly starting to sink-in.
Too bad non-Americans can’t vote in choosing the Head of the World’s Police. Heck, I doubt there’d be a candidate foolish enough to even run against him…
Anyway, please, enough with the the smoke and mirrors and, most of all, the Tabloid-like 24/7 coverage!
Where is the beef? Come on. You are better than that. Take your nation back.
I mean it.
<off-topic>Fuck! Satellite’s out. All there’s to watch on cable is freaking Lou Dobbs and/or sports/porn!
What shall I do? :dubious: </ot>
Given your range of options, porn’s the only rational choice.
Anything, even punching yourself int he groin, is better than watching Lou Dobbs.
Thanx guys…what with my depressing eye-sight, I got lucky and found the “off” button on the clicker. The Humana “over sixty-five” ad scared the crap out of me.
BTW, the GB in the prior post? It’s just dyslexic for BG. Meaning I read your cites and also ordered the book. Just don’t ask me what thread it was nor the book or author’s name ATM. Being an old fart’s gotta have some privileges – and if not, I am taking some.
If you listen to what Obama said today, he interpreted it the same way I did. Are you going to say he’s wrong, too?
He’s a politician. He has to say what he has to say.
…whether he believes it or not. That’s the point.