by publius
First impression – good speech. I wasn’t entirely convinced it was a good idea to do it, but I think it will play well – and certainly better than Romney’s. What I liked about it in particular was not so much the arguments themselves (which were good), but the unwillingness to fold in the face of media pressure.
To back up, I think the relentless multiple-news cycle coverage of Wright has been absurd – and rooted in old stereotypes of the black community as a hotbed of angry nationalists. My fear was that Obama, in opting to give the speech, was giving into the trumped up and bogus frenzy. While I knew this specific controversy would pass, my more general fear was that Obama the candidate and president would be pressured to twist in the Beltway winds.
But he didn’t do that. He forcefully distanced himself from Wright’s words, but spoke movingly – and unapologetically – of his connections to the man. He didn’t run and hide in Kerry/Daschle-esque cowardly fashion. He stood right up and said, “yes, he’s my friend.” He cast him as mired in the old world, to be sure, but he didn’t give into the Russert-style pressure to do some sort of Maoist confessional disavowing all association with the man. (I also thought it was savvy to preemptively ridicule the press if they continue obsessing about this story).
I’m sure we’ll have more to say. But on first listen, that implicit courage not to buckle stood out. And I think that augurs well for both his candidacy and his potential presidency.
Seems to me that’s a model for all of us to emulate in political discourse…
That is how to talk about race in the US.
i thought it was awesome.
of course, people who were never going to vote for him in any case will continue to insist that Obama MUST throw Wright “under the bus”. and, unfortunately, many of those people staff the news media.
I’m alarmed by the insistent questions “What’s the sound-bite?”, “What’s the one-sentence takeaway?” that’s the main tenor of discussion of the speech even at places like Talkingpointsmemo.com
It was a Lincoln-at-Cooper-Union speech not a Mr-Gorbachev-tear-down-this-wall speech, and that’s O.K.
I am very, very glad that our generation, at least, is prepared to elect him president.
The TPM discussion is extremely depressing. They’re falling into the same trap during the primaries that the MSM does during the general election: we don’t want to appear biased, so we’ll just obsess about the horse race, & we won’t discuss anything on the merits.
I thought it was a great, wise speech, but then I’m sitting in the choir, nodding along, whirlpool-eyed.
Whatever anyone says about the man, no one can deny what a brilliant orator Obama is. Of course this is not new news, but I found this to be his best speech yet. Very powerful I thought.
I loved — loved the text. Does anyone know if there’s video?
Based on the text, I thought it was a great, great speech.
msnbc usually gets the video up quickly
and i too think is kurtz (david) is way off on his insta-analysis.
It’s worth checking out The Corner, if you are a conservative, or for that matter a citizen, and want to be depressed. Example:
Did Derb read/see the same speech I did?
Hilzoy, it’s up at crooksandliars
I didn’t take it as blame whitey at all. It looked to me like he was saying essentially: in all races we have misguided and paranoid reactions to real problems. Let’s deal with the real problems.
Thanks; off to watch.
I don’t want to sound pretentious, or totally in the tank for Obama, but if this speech doesn’t put this issue to rest for the majority of Americans, I don’t think its Obama who is indicted, I think its this country.
I thought this was the heart of it:
“I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.”
Exactly what I hoped (and expected) Obama would say yesterday when I heard he was giving a big speech on race & politics & this controversy. And I don’t mean this to dismiss it as predictable–I mean, it’s a very nice change to support a candidate who you entirely expect to go out & give the best, most honest, most decent speech in recent memory on race & America, and to have him go out & do precisely that.
Great speech. I thought it was necessary, well crafted, and well delivered. 9 out of 10.
Anecdotally – bandwidth issues at the office because so many people are trying to watch it on their lunch hour…
hmm… i wonder what The Corner has to say..
It’s hard to imagine how someone who listened to this speech, and who had followed at all the controversy of the last few days, could still view Obama as somehow transcending politics. It’s a speech, and a controversy, that are predictable and dispiriting — that with minor changes one could imagine attributing to Hillary or Jesse. This is not damning, but the problem for Obama is that he had promised more, and now that’s clearly not what he’s going to deliver.
WTF ?
I have been leaning toward Obama and as the Wright controversy has sparked over the past week or so I have been somewhat discouraged as it has seemed that there might be some chance that he could get derailed by what I consider to be a nonsense issue. But I feel differently now.
For sure, there is still some chance that Obama could lose this on the basis of what I consider to be an absurd controversy but it doesn’t matter so much to me anymore. Whatever else happens from here on in, I feel that Obama has taken the opportunity to raise the level of discourse. He has made me believe and truly feel that a real discussion on substantive issues is possible in American politics. We might not be there yet but it is no longer possible for me to believe that we are not capable of getting there.
For me, what that means in the long run is that we actually have a pretty good chance at achieving a lot of the promise of justice and equality that we so often hold out as our ideal.
So even in the unlikely event that Clinton manages to finagle this thing somehow, our national debate has still been moved to a better place. And if Obama loses and goes back to the Senate or whatever he does in his next political career move (I hope like hell he will never even consider a VP stint), we will still have some opportunity to take advantage of this higher discourse. At least that is what I hope and I think this speech solidifies this hope for me.
OCSteve: Great speech. I thought it was necessary, well crafted, and well delivered. 9 out of 10.
One point off for it being given by a Democrat? 😉
SERMON
The Audacity to Hope
Jeremiah Wright
http://tinyurl.com/yp5xqm
READ IT
It’s not hard to find audio and transcripts of entire sermons on of Rev Wright the web. I’ve read and listened to them. They aren’t racist, anti-American at all. Sometimes Wright talks about oppression and pain, usually with reference to the history of racism in this country.
Don’t base your whole assessment of his preaching on the 45 seconds of clips shown on TV, and some vague sense that there are “hours” more.
I’m telling you now, I’m not seeing those other hours, and I’ve looked pretty hard. Everything else I’ve seen or read has been pretty focused on Jesus, and applying the lessons of Jesus to daily life.
I just read the text on the NYT site.
Everything publius says is so, but IMO he went beyond just defending himself effectively. He articulated both what was right, and what was wrong, not only in Wright’s sermons and point of view, but in that of those who are critical of, or threatened by, Wright’s words.
In the end it wasn’t especially about Wright, or even about Obama. It was about finding a *better way* to live together.
I have no idea what Obama’s political future is, or whether he would be a great president should he be elected. He hasn’t been in the national public eye that long. Everyone has their failings, and his are sure to come to light.
But his ability to articulate, in a fair and clear-eyed way, both what is valuable and what is harmful in so many different points of view is a real gift to this nation. His candidacy, I think, is a gift to the nation, whether he wins or not.
I don’t think political rhetoric gets any better than this. And when I say “political rhetoric” I don’t mean spin. Quite the opposite. I mean articulating a vision that respects everyone’s point of view, warts and all, while giving them a way to move on toward something better.
Well done.
Thanks –
It’s up at Obama’s site (donate $$$ while you’re there!) and at YouTube…
And OCSteve: I’m really glad people are watching it. Not because he’s my guy and so on, but because I think that when you see whole speeches, especially the really important ones, it’s so different, and your opinions are so much more informed, than when you just see whatever tiny snippet CNN decides to show. And the idea that a lot of people are doing this is a wonderful thing, for me.
it’s funny (read: sad) that MSNBC has Pat Buchanan on as a commentator. asking Buchanan to comment on an issue of race is like asking…eh, i can’t even think of a good metaphor. its just ridiculous.
i hate that the media keeps making the assumption that Obama being so accepted by african-americans is so threatening to whites. that’s a ridiculous, blinkered argument.
heck, when i saw that Obama got 92% of the black vote in Mississippi, all i could think was “what’s wrong with that 8%?”
“a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. ”
Barf.
A good speech in some ways, though. About as good as could be expected.
Can someone please explain why Obama never lives up to the words he throws around. The man can give a great speech. But that is about all there is to him.
Case in point: If Obama really believed any of what he said about healing the racial divide then why did his campaign use racial smears against Hillary Clinton? Why didn’t he immediately fire Jesse Jackson Jr?
Unlike the pointy headed liberals I am a working class liberal who does in fact resent being called a racist by black people. I have for decades defended affirmative action hiring, preferential admission policies and other liberal policies designed to give minorities a boost up the economic ladder. It is not enough for me for Obama to just give a speech condemning the words used by Wright but to demonstrate in action that he does not tolerate them. He could have started by getting rid of Jackson. That he didn’t speaks far louder to me than all the pretty words that he so convincingly delivers.
Obama lost my respect long ago and this speech just cements my distain for him.
Further good news: two weeks, much less two months, from now, even the Obama haters will be tired of flogging this thing. In October it’ll be the oldest possible news.
Hi All: I think you’ve said it all really. Brilliant in its nuance. Who says a politician has to talk down to us in simplistic sentences like “tear down the wall.” Yes, he threw a bone to white folks when he dismissed white racism as endemic and structural, and focuses more on its ideological dimensions. But, I can live with that for statement since the rest of what he said actually counters that caricaturing of how racism operates in this society.
This just came across my desk; check out page 10 of the bulletin. Where it all began…
http://www.tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_mar18.pdf
For those of you who are concerned about the corporate media’s inablity to deal with integrity (example: MSNBC’s headline is “Obama: racial anger is real”), please get on the email and start complaining.
I wrote to MSNBC at headlines@msnbc,com to complaing about and suggest a correctin for their stupid headline.
Most people won’t read or watch the whole speech. the soundbite issue is important. The corporate media has a need to get the soundbite wrong. They can’t tolerate the idea of reconcilliation or respectful communication. must have controversy!
I only read the speech and found it quite good. Seemed well grounded in history to me.
And you know was good when Weekly Standard and Clinton Fans are reading off the same talking points to bash it.
And now, your surreal moment of the day:
— Charles Murray.
Jes: One point off for it being given by a Democrat?
Nah. Just because it was great but not the new greatest of all time. Insert your “greatest of all time” speech here and then compare. Hmm, based on that I may have to lower it to 8/10.
NRO – its not all bad:
Charles Murray:
I read the various posts here on “The Corner,” mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama’s speech. Then I figured I’d better read the text (I tried to find a video of it, but couldn’t). I’ve just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I’m concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we’re used to from our pols…. But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie.
This from the author of The Bell Curve…
Great minds, etc?
Charles Murray always prides himself on being able to say uncomfortable truths. (Whether or not the things he believes are ACTUAL truths is a totally different topic). But his statement is well in line with that self-concept. He sees (IMO correctly) that Obama made a great speech. He sees (IMO correctly) that his compatriots resist its greatness for reasons that have nothing to with the speech. And he calls them on it.
I think he is absolutely right that the speech captures a lot of nuance about race in America and the counter-productive directions that the discussions about them often take. And if he can do even a small amount to change that, he will have done the country a great service.
Hah. Darn it Jes, I would have been first by a minute if you hadn’t distracted me with that crack about Democrats. 😉
I’ve said I think this is a winning issue for Obama, and I believe this will do. Much as they would like to they won’t be able to lie effectively about his speach.
However, the media will continue to endeavor and intensify their efforts to destroy him. I expect them to have raised their game since Clinton impeachment days.
I would have been first by a minute if you hadn’t distracted me with that crack about Democrats. 😉
Hey. I am Hilzoy’s sockpuppy. 😉
Nah. Just because it was great but not the new greatest of all time. Insert your “greatest of all time” speech here and then compare.
😀 I was actually interested to know, when you said “9 out of 10” if you were taking points off a possible perfect score or adding points to get a score of 9. All of this would be a good open thread topic.
(I have not actually listened to the speech, figuring Americans should get priority and the bandwidth is not infinite. Someone link me to a transcript? I’ll listen later.)
a lot of the secondary debate regarding obama on blogs or elsewhere seems to be not “this is why you should vote for obama” but “yeah he’s great isn’t he”. Problem with that is that if your heading for a minor loss to McCain in the head to heads you do actually still have to convince few more of the population if you want to win.
In the meantime the counter argument “he’s a Demagog” or “he talks so good no one realises his plan to kill our first borns” or something like that does present an argument not to vote for him. Anyway its a bad balance if you want Obama to win.
First solution is to finish off Clinton (or Obama but I think Clinton is far behind) and get hard onto the attack against McCain. Demand every other sentance that she should get out of the way. And then get hard onto democratic talking points – strong policy differences that exist in a dem/repub debate but may not in a obama/hillary one.
Transcript and video both available on Barack Obama’s web site.
I don’t think there can be any talk about “finishing off Clinton” until Pennsylvania. Which she is likely to win. The question is “by how much.”
Obama took a hit in PA this past weekend, in the polls, but this might turn it around.
If Clinton does “worse than expected” (less than 10 points) in the last big state, the argument can and will be made that the superdelegates should exercise their discretion and ratify the popular choice.
If Clinton blows Obama away, the argument can and will be made that Obama’s momentum is ephemeral and the superdelegates should go with a proven ‘closer’ like Clinton.
Clinton has to convince the superdelegates in the next five weeks that Obama won’t close the deal and that she has the grit and guts to see this through. It’s a hard needle for her to thread.
I made up my mind today to vote for Obama in PA. So if there’s a shift from undecideds to Obama over the next week, I’m part of that wave.
As a side note, a Filter reference? Really? Man, publius, I thought you were too young for your pop culture references to be quite that stale… 🙂
Yglesias had a whole post on Filter, last week.
As far as the impact of the speech is concerned, straws in the wind: Intrade has Obama’s chance at the nomination up three points since this morning – and his chance at the Presidency up by 3.6.
tgirsch – the allegations of my youth are increasingly greatly exaggerated (sadly)
For me, the most impressive part of Obama’s speech wasn’t the fine words (although it is, IMO, a stellar example of modern political rhetoric); or the man’s excellent delivery – being able to stave off boredom in a 37-minute address is no mean feat – but the fact that Sen. Obama wrote it all himself. That a politician can address an issue articulately is one thing; that a politician can deliver a good speech is another; doing both these days is a rarity: and doing both well is little short of astonishing.
This is the sort of stuff, IMO, that makes Barack Obama look Presidential: now all that’s needed is for him to reduce it all to a nifty soundbite, and hell be set.
Pub, did you know that Filter song was an homage to Budd Dwyer?
Um…duh. I didn’t check tgirsch’s link, which already goes into that.
Regarding my earlier barf comment–I read through the speech again. Most of it is very good–I don’t need to tell people that. But I am disgusted that he chose to insert that cynically one-sided comment about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict into this speech. The speech was about race relations in America. Wright said a number of controversial things and if Obama wanted to go into a point-by-point discussion about what was right or wrong about them, which he clearly did not, why choose that comment and respond with something that kicks the Palestinians in the teeth? And Muslims too, to the extent that moderate Muslims care about that issue.
Obama’s a politician. Possibly one with great potential, but this just reinforces my basic understanding of politics–no one gets to the Presidency without showing an aptitude for kicking people when they are down.
Donald,
I noticed that too…my guess is that since Wright did mention IP issues in a way that is totally unacceptable in public discourse (i.e., he refused to accept that Palestinians bear 110% of the blame for the entire IP conflict), Obama felt the need to preemptively defend himself against the upcoming Likudnik attacks.
After all, if he effectively defused the public’s discontent with the racial component of Wright’s speeches, the GOP or Clinton would no doubt use Wright’s IP comment to push their “and he’s still trying to kill the Jews!” attack in the media. I doubt those attacks would gain traction, but I do think that Obama doesn’t want to be on the defensive over this issue in the next media cycle. If the media reaction focused on “that was nice, but what about the fact that you want to destroy Israel?”, Obama won’t be able to capitalize on the media moment. So in that sense, I can see it as necessary to head off a forthcoming attack, to play the game a few moves ahead of his adversaries.
Or maybe not.
Parish: Give it time to sink in. When people make speeches like this they tend to signal a change in strategy, tone, and agenda going forward.
It’s certainly the most significant political speech I can remember in my adult lifetime (which has not been that long, truth be told).
Even my mother, who voted for HRC, wrote me an e-mail to say that she was touched.
I don’t think you can do the nuanced, honest, thorough race speech & the nuanced, thorough, honest Middle East speech in the same day. Speaking of nuanced, I have very little patience for a simplistic, blinkered, “they’re all alike” view of politicians. They are all disappointing, yes. But it’s not because only bad people go into politics; it’s because there are a lot of very powerful people who benefit from the way things work in Washington right now, & they exert constant, powerful pressure on politicians. It’s necessary for people who want things to be different to exert equally constant pressure in the opposite direction, rather than kidding ourselves that we only have to elect a good person president and he or she will fix it for us. But that doesn’t mean that everyone running for president is a bad person, and it certainly doesn’t make them all equally good or bad. I didn’t like that line either, but he needed to reassure Jewish voters, & there wasn’t time to deliver the 40 minute honest, nuanced, brave speech on the Middle East the same day as the 40 minute speech on race in America.
Obama has shown less “aptitude for kicking people while they’re down” than any potential president I can remember in my lifetime. And to take away “Obama, like every other politician, kicks people while they’re down” as the primary lesson it teaches requires you to zero in on the worst sentence in a 40 minute speech the same way the press has been doing to Wright’s sermons for the last 5 days.
It is posts like this one that made Legal Fiction my very favorite blog.
It’s nice to read someone who expresses those things that you know implicitly, but haven’t found the words to express.
Hey man, nice post
Hear, hear.
And that goes for whoever is office…
Katherine, I don’t feel an obligation to be considerate to politicians, not even the best ones. Yes, Obama might in fact be the greatest politician in the US in 50 years or more–I’ll be thrilled if that is the case. (Yes, really.) He might be the next FDR, and I’ll love having the opportunity to complain solely about certain problems, while taking for granted that Obama is working hard to solve others.. But all politicians, even the better ones, have to be pressured to do the right thing on some issues and I think that when someone tells a blatantly one-sided whopper in an otherwise good speech, he should be called on it. He could have left that line out entirely. It was gratuitous, having nothing to do with the rest of the speech. He did it in a calculated way, the same way he’s spoken on this issue before.
Actually, on rereading your post, Katherine, I agree with most of it and just restated it in my own words. If I could reword my post in a way that wouldn’t get under your skin unnecessarily, I’d do it. But how is one supposed to pressure a Presidential candidate one supports if he (or she) says something disgusting on a specific issue? I think one starts by saying “That’s disgusting”. I haven’t really gotten past that stage yet, other than giving money to certain human rights groups and writing the occasional letter.
I don’t object to saying “that line sucks” but I think your overall portrayal of this speech & Obama in general are inaccurate and unfair.
Here’s the good way to pressure a candidate. Schakowsky is a strong Obama supporter from way back, & Scahill seems to prefer him, but they’ll pressure him on a specific, important issue, & if Clinton decides get to his left & sign on as a co-sponsor, they’ll take it. I’m pretty sure Schakowsky will NOT start talking about how Obama is just like everyone else & doesn’t care about mercenaries & she can’t support him, because that would actually be false–he’s still probably the best candidate on the race on that issue.
(His record on Israel is less impressive, but it’s if anything clearer that he’s the best candidate left in the race on that issue.)
I don’t object to saying “that line sucks” but I think your overall portrayal of this speech & Obama in general are inaccurate and unfair.
Here’s the good way to pressure a candidate. Schakowsky is a strong Obama supporter from way back, & Scahill seems to prefer him, but they’ll pressure him on a specific, important issue, & if Clinton decides get to his left & sign on as a co-sponsor, they’ll take it. I’m pretty sure Schakowsky will NOT start talking about how Obama is just like everyone else & doesn’t care about mercenaries & she can’t support him, because that would actually be false–he’s still probably the best candidate on the race on that issue.
(His record on Israel is less impressive, but it’s if anything clearer that he’s the best candidate left in the race on that issue.)
Did someone in here really say that Obama had used racial slurs against Clinton? Wow.
Seriously, though, what a speech.
I’ve seen people, not here, but in all seriousness, claim that Clinton has done more for the black community than Obama has.
But I said the rest of the speech was good (on rereading it, when I got over the Mideast line and looked at it more calmly). And you’re putting words in my mouth* when you say I say he’s just like anyone else–if I thought he was precisely like everyone else I wouldn’t much prefer him to the alternatives (including my previous and now defunct favorite among the serious candidates, John Edwards). I just don’t get wildly enthusiastic over him. Maybe I will, if he wins, which I hope he does.
Anyway, I’ll read your link.
*Not that it much matters if you put words in my mouth. You’re just exaggerating a tendency I show, not totally making it up.
Turbulence–I forgot to respond to you. I think you’re probably right about the motivation. A fair number of progressives I read seem to think Obama is more fairminded in secret on the I/P conflict than he lets on during the campaign. I hope so, though I would think he’s painted himself into something of a corner if he wins and then wants to be fairminded. If he wants to try for something like a solution along the lines of the Geneva Accords and put pressure on both sides , he’d have to act either long before 2012 or in his second term.
Its amazining how effecting mocking the press is to make them love you. Almost as effective as making them your BBQ buddies.
I’ve seen people, not here, but in all seriousness, claim that Clinton has done more for the black community than Obama has.
Sure. That’s why Bill is the “first black President” whereas Obama may not be black “enough”. Dick Gregory **NAILS** it!
In terms of effectiveness – if you can gauge that by how batsh*t the right-o-sphere is going over it then I’d say it was very effective.
In a short stroll around:
-He is now caught in a lie because he admitted to being present for some controversial remarks after previously denying that.
-He continued to expose his young daughters to those remarks. (I have some sympathy for this one).
-He didn’t distance himself far enough from Wright but he made his dear old white grandmother sound like a racist bigot.
-He said black America = Trinity.
-He called for Ferraro’s scalp for less.
-He called for Imus to be fired for less.
-He realized his lack of patriotism was a problem because he said “God bless America” yesterday and he had 8 count them 8 flags up there today.
Anyway you get the idea. Some of that I can take seriously but a lot of it seems to be foaming at the mouth frustration that he seems to have done a good job recovering from something that should have brought him down.
I’ve watched it twice now and read the transcript once – I have to say that you really have to watch it and not rely on the transcript. Great speech.
That is how to talk about race in the US.
—
“Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one?
The speech was very good and inspiring. I can’t believe it will not have a good effect for Obama and I hope it will stop most people from attributing Obama with some of Wrights ideas (some fanatics will never stop of course).
But this one wasn’t bad either:
He continued to expose his young daughters to those remarks. (I have some sympathy for this one).
There’s more I’d like to say about this but a thread on HoCB might be a better place…
Thanks to Donald Johnson and to Katherine, two of my favorite commenters anywhere, for a civil and instructive exchange.
I have the same reaction that Donald did to the quoted sentence, and it stings all the more for being gratuitous in a speech that accomplishes so much else that needs to be accomplished.
My expectations of what either Democratic candidate can and will be able to do in office are extremely (and, I believe, appropriately) low; they’re based on long experience. But I don’t have a moment’s hesitation in saying that, given this reality, the country needs someone who can do what Barack Obama did in this speech.
Neither his primary or potential general election opponent is playing in the same league. I hope that came across to the country. I am old and defeated/cynical enough to doubt it.
He continued to expose his young daughters to those remarks. (I have some sympathy for this one).
Yeah, god forbid two black children should be brought up thinking badly of Americans who treat other Americans badly on the grounds of race. Black kids ought to know their place and respect white Americans.
But aside from that:
Children who are brought up by parents who encourage them to think, to be active, to inquire, to read, to argue, to have ideas, may when they’re 7 and 10 have a bunch of half-baked ideas picked up from both parents and preachers, if they go to church regularly. By the time they’re 18, they will have challenged, sorted, sifted, rejected, accepted, according to their own moral values – which are unlikely to be identical to their parents, and very unlikely to bear any resemblance to those of a preacher in their parents’ church.
From all I’ve heard of Barack and Michelle Obama, they’re bringing up their two girls splendidly, and it’s pretty stupidly patronizing for all those right-wing bloggers to display faux-concern over whether Obama can bring up his kids right when the same bloggers, I don’t doubt, displayed zero concern over the Cheneys or the Bushes.
Completely OT, but there’s not an open thread anyone’s reading: Both Anthony Minghella and Arthur C. Clarke died today. The world of arts & letters is the worse off for the loss of both.
It wasn’t gratuitous in the sense of unrelated. Wright is very, very harshly anti-Israel.
Donald, I did exagerrate your reaction a bit; sorry.
Katherine,
What specific things did Wright say that are anti-Israel? I’ve found a few of his statements regarding Israel and none of them strike me as problematic. Could you explain in more detail please?
gwangung: I’ve seen people, not here, but in all seriousness, claim that Clinton has done more for the black community than Obama has.
For example…
What I liked about it in particular was not so much the arguments themselves (which were good), but the unwillingness to fold in the face of media pressure.
What I liked about it was that it was true, and that it expressed something far too seldom said plainly.
matttbastard: I had to click through to see that that was an actual column in an actual newspaper. I am speechless.
I loved DnA’s response.
I mean, Central Florida is a lot more like the south than one might suppose. Rosewood is not that far away from Tampa/St. Pete. But still.
Hil: I think it’s supposed to be an example of the Charlotte Allen school of op-ed fragging, minus the B.S. re: ‘tongue-in-cheek’.
Turb: Done
Well, yes.
I am reminded of my college years (long ago as they were). I lived in an Asian American theme dorm, devoted to…Asian American culture. There was one night that a local Asian American comedy group came down and did a short show, riffing on American imperialism, institutionalized racism and the like (One typical joke started with the white casting director, talking to an Asian American: “Why are you here? This part called for a lawyer, not an Oriental”*).
After the show, the white members of the audience were mortally offended. How DARE they say that? How could they be so RACIST? (And every single bit was aimed at institutions, not individuals). How could they be so THOUGHTLESS to present such offensive material? And, of course, the Asian folks in the audience were just sittin’ back and nodding all the time, thinking, “Yeah, that’s how it is.”
That night, it struck me just how pervasive white privilege was, when white audience members thought thought it was incumbent upon the Asian American group to take the WHITE audience members’ sensibilities in mind, while presenting in a dorm devoted to Asian American culture.**
*this joke became progressively less funny over the years as I heard it in real life for the next three decades…
**though, thankfully, this sort of reaction has gone down through the years as more white people seemed to have gotten clues….
Ah. Hadn’t gotten that far.
I’ve read the other linked columns, looking for something that would illuminate the question: could he possibly have been kidding?
I hadn’t read Too Sense before. Thanks.
I also liked this, which I found via a link there. Wright on Obama going to an annual Congressional Black Caucus meeting:
For some reason, I found that totally endearing.
My last comment was to matttbastard, which I should have actually, you know, said.
There’s a full transcript here. (Plus a link to Youtube: I’ll leave bandwidth to Americans for a day.)
But that is a damn impressive speech, even in transcript.
Jes,
Based on what I know about youtube’s (i.e., Google’s) bandwidth, I think I can assure you that watching the speech right now won’t deprive any Americans. I’d guess that we’re far more likely to run out of bandwidth on the transatlantic links than we are between youtube and the internet core.
I had somehow missed Jerome Armstrong’s reaction: “I believe the campaign has reached a new low.”
Impressive speech? Right, like Americans needed to be scolded by Obama about the wrongs committed by whitey.
I can honestly say that I never disliked Obama until this speech.
Obama thinks:
I need to acknowledge what ails the African-American…
I’m required to realize that my dreams do not have to come at the expense of his…
I neeed to back up my words with more deeds.
Thanks Obama, now let me tell you what you need to do. Go jump in a lake. Fix your own house before you start trying to fix mine.
Armstrong had to find something to pick on. Others at other sites have picked on the same thing. Ir is too bad that their reading or listening comprehension is that bad. At least Armstrong did say it was a great speech other than that.
I first read the transcript at work (can’t get video or audio on my computer) and then read a lot of comments. Although I have not had the opportunity to see the speech in its entirety, I have seen some rather extended segments and I noticed something I have not heard anybody comment on and I think it is important.
In his normal campaign speeches, Obama has a certain inflection, tone and delivery. There is a jauntiness to him.
This was not that. It was a very sober dleiberate presentation. It did not come off as a campaign type of speech. There was no reaching for votes. It wasn’t Obama against Clinton or McCain. This transcended the campaign. You got a sense that Obama wanted to make a point and the campaign didn’t matter at that point in time. (Not saying that is true, but there was that sense).
To Donald’s point above, I do think it was in rsponse to what some people have called anti Israeli comments by Wright and the reason I tend to think it may have come across as gratuitous is that it almost seemed like a throwaway line. It would have been better if he haad made a comment about attacking our staunch ally without looking at all sides of the equation, whatever.
Finally, this will not stop a lot of people who say that he needed to throw Wright under the bus. Nothing short of presenting Wright’s head on a silver platter would have done that. And even then there would have been complaints.
But the comment I have mad eot some is to remind them of Enron and how all of a sudden Ken Lay was no longer a good buddy of George Bush and people were saying that for Bush loyalty goes only one way.
What we are seeing from Obama is a two-way kind of loyalty which is very rare in the world of politics.
Seems like a great speech. We know the blogosphere likes it, now let’s see how it plays with working class whites – that’s the demographic that matters most, both now, in the general election, and in the overall dialogue about race relations in America.
Thanks Obama, now let me tell you what you need to do. Go jump in a lake. Fix your own house before you start trying to fix mine.
are you sure you heard/read his speech ? ’cause… well…
We know the blogosphere likes it,
Well, only for certain values of “the blogosphere.”
Well, as with a lot of things with race, a lot people see what they want to see….
Hil: Too Sense is one of my fav political blogs (and I’m not just saying that ’cause I’m on the blogroll ;-)). dnA also posts @ Jack and Jill Politics and guests @ Steve Benen’s place on occasion.
This post on the Wright controversy is one of (one of ;-))the best takes on the subject that I’ve come across.
I had somehow missed Jerome Armstrong’s reaction: “I believe the campaign has reached a new low.”
[Insert astrology snark here.]
Cleek,
Here’s the full quote:
He’s not asking, he’s telling.
gwa,
More moral superiority… why am I not surprised. First Obama, now you.
So, is it a bad thing? Because enforcing laws on the books and saying that achieving your dreams does not have to come at the expense of others does not seem to be a bad thing at all.
Well, since you’re seeing things that a lot of other people aren’t…
Grey, he also said:
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs – to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
So where is the moral superiority?
Do you have a different solution to the problem, because your very response does indicate the problem exists.
This was a decent honest and courageous speech, and showed a lot of character. I think it was impressive as much for the fact that it was easy and politically expedient for him to throw his pastor under the bus, but instead he did not back down and showed his basic decency. Given the behavior of most politicians and the stakes for Mr. Obama, this is pretty impressive. I was not much of a supporter of his candidacy because I thought that while he was great at giving speeches, I did not think he was very different from his opponents in that he was also more willing to do what was politically expedient than what he thought was the right course of action. I think this speech removes such doubt, and shows his character as a person, and puts him in a slightly different class from his immediate opponents. It augurs well for his presidency , which I think he will have without too much difficulty.
Well, I find it interesting that grey immediately zeroes in on the part that he thinks applies to him and ignores other parts.
I noticed an interesting comment over at The Field. Soemone who grew up in central PA said the most significant thing, at least there, about the speech may not be anything he said as much as what the speech didn’t do. He says the fact that he didn’t throw Wright under the bus despite pressure to do so will resonate with many middle and upper-lower income people in that area because they can appreciate the loyalty factor.
There’s something familiar about that grey character…
Matttbastard: checked, but no evidence (though s/he has used at least one other name.) His appearance so soon after I banned the person whose name I can’t type because then this message would be blocked, who turned out to be the much more notorious person whose name I can’t type for the same reason, is somewhat suspicious, but not more than that.
Very well said. I felt the same way.
Thank you.
“Impressive speech? Right, like Americans needed to be scolded by Obama about the wrongs committed by whitey.”
Guess that conversation about race isn’t going too well on your end, grey.
There’s probably a depressing large number of people who think like the banned and unmentionable one. Hell, I grew up around people like that–they had chips on their shoulders whenever the subject of racism came up and had to prove that that most of the real racists were, of course, black.
But not too speechless to post the Rosewood link, about a black massacres in 1923, and add comments that make it seem there’s a racial bias to the article and/or the columnist who wrote it.
I hope I’m mistaken, and you had another intention.
Because if you’re suggesting there’s some kind of white racial distortion in the article, you didn’t make the ‘minimal effort’ to ‘fact-check’ who wrote it: an African American columnist named Bill Maxwell, whose photo was just a mouse click away.
Hil: Ah. That would explain why my preceding comment initially got caught in the filter. 😉 Regardless, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb to suggest that DNFTT is apropos in this instance (and others *looks directly above*).
Back on topic: more good stuff from Pam Spaulding and Melissa McEwan.
john,
The moral superiority comment was primarily directed at gwa. He believes he’s capable of seeing the truth, but I on the other hand only see what I want to see. That’s ironic given the echo chamber here.
My issue with Obama’s is that he assumes I am not doing enough to set right the racial wrongs of the past with which I had nothing to do.
I understand that many in the black community and Obama feel the sins of the father pass on to the son. I however reject that philosophy. Especially, considering my father and his father and so on are innocent of any crimes against blacks.
He wasn’t encouraging me he was criticizing me for not doing enough. That may be okay with you, but I find it insulting.
If he was only speaking to the Obamamaniacs then mabye that would have been okay. It seems they feel and share in the guilt I do not. But he was addressing all Americans. That’s not my definition of reaching out across the aisle. The more I hear him the less I like him.
He wouldn’t have them on his staff, just as a spritual leader.
Think he’ll show the same kind of loyalty to his ‘good friend’ Tony Rezko?
I just looked at the Maxwell column Jay Jerome links to–it ends with this–
“in or lose, Hillary Clinton has earned the right to never trust the word of another black person. Somewhere between the Bible and the pseudo-wisdom of the barbershop, many blacks abandoned any sense of loyalty and betrayed a woman who has been a friend.”
I suppose the fact that Maxwell is black means he’s not an anti-black racist, but that first sentence is the most idiotically racist remark I’ve seen anyone make in quite a while. Clinton would be very wise not to let this jerk anywhere near her campaign.
The last sentence is also moronic, but as noted above in a different context, I’m not real fond of the notion that voters owe politicians loyalty. If someone you honestly think is better comes along, it’s your civic duty to vote for the better candidate.
Grover,
It’s true I don’t feel the need for a conversation about race.
Based on my life experiences I feel 110% confident that I am in touch with black America. Physically and spiritually.
I would bet that I am the only posting here that has dined at the original Pascals after attending church at Ebenezer Baptist.
I dated a black woman for 1 1/2 years. Granted she wasn’t a black American so maybe she doesn’t count. I personally don’t know the ruling on that one. Everyone thought she was a black American so maybe that would give me credibilty.
Jay: yep, I leapt to conclusions. I was wrong.
Ah. “Some of my best friends are black” type of argument.
*sigh*
What Katherine said at 5:23 PM.
Donald, is it your view that the most important thing to say about I/P in a single sentence is that it is “primarily” responsible for all the conflicts in the Mideast, or
what do you consider the worse offense in “a view that sees the conflict in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam”?
I agree that it’s not an either/or, certainly, and neither are those the only two important factors, remotely, or at least that’s what I think, regardless of whether you agree or disagree.
Not that I’m trying to be argumentative. Just curious.
“And you’re putting words in my mouth* when you say I say he’s just like anyone else”
You wrote:
“No one” were your precise words. It isn’t logically possible to be unlike no one, and not be like everyone else. It is what you wrote, regardless of what you meant, I’m afraid. Katherine didn’t put words in your mouth, or on your keyboard.
You’re free to clarify that you didn’t mean what you wrote, of course.
Gary: what do you consider the worse offense in “a view that sees the conflict in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam”?
I agree that it’s not an either/or, certainly, and neither are those the only two important factors
You’ve pretty much answered your own question, there, Gary. Or at the very least, you’ve undercut the “which is the worse offense” false choice your question tries to pose.
Still, for the moment accepting the terms of the question, I’d have to say that the worse half of the sentence is the second half, in which Obama seems to be asserting that the conflict over Israel and Palestine emanates from “the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam”.
That is to say, it’s one hell of a lot easier to make a factually-based case that the primary source of the conflict is the actions of the state of Israel than to do the same with the main cause being the “ideologies of radical Islam”. It would not be a full, fair, or adequate assessment of the source of the conflict, but it would have some contact with reality. The second “explanation” is ahistorical garbage.
I’m also struck by the rather stark difference between this taking of sides and the way in which Obama’s speech treats black and white racial resentments in the United States.
Since Katherine may not have returned to the thread to see Turbulence’s question, I hope you would be willing to answer it, if you are in a position to do so:
What specific things did Wright say that are [very, very harshly] anti-Israel?
A Few Words About THE SPEECH –before I go have a victory drink over the Lakers win over Dallas:
I thought it was a very good speech, one that dramatically summed up his perceptions about racial issues. I watched it live, then on video; and read the transcript too. Like many of you, I believe he was sincere in most of what he said (which doesn’t mean I agree with his assumptions or conclusions on everything). And even though the speech was salted with occasional buck-shot aimed at Hillary that had little or nothing to do with the overriding racial component of the speech, it was still a tour-de-force, an elegant confection of words and ideas — like an appetizing verbal lemon meringue pie,with swirls of turrets, and airy and imaginative turns of speech– and if we can devise a U.S. Office Of Oratory, I think he’d be a natural to run it.
But still, talk is talk, and lemon meringue though enticing to the eye, is insubstantial and quickly dissolves on the tongue. Actions speak louder than wishful thinking. As president, what’s he going to do to change the situation of blacks in the U.S.? Give weekly uplifting radio speeches, telling everybody to love one another, right now, right now?
Speechifying isn’t governing. And if you look at the polls to see what voters are concerned about, race doesn’t make the chart. It’s the economy-war-gas-prices, stupid.
Obama may have appropriated the race-issue as his own, but it’s a tar-baby trophy. The majority of Americans, Democrat-Republican-Independent, don’t want to hear about it. No matter how sonorous his words about race may be, the more Obama becomes associated with it in the minds of voters, the lower his appeal as a national candidate will be.
This week’s polls are starting to reflect that.
According to a new USA-Today/Gallup survey out today,
Clinton holds a 51 percent to 46 percent edge over McCain. Obama and McCain are just about even. This is the first time Hillary’s been the heads-up leader against McCain, and if the trend holds until Pennsylvania, she’s going to come out of that primary with even more ‘electability’ momentum, which will further increase her edge over McCain.
If that happens, and Obama has only a slight lead in delegates, and Hillary is close in the popular vote, but 8 to 10 percent ahead of McCain in the polls — she gets the nomination; and Obama will be convinced (for the good of the party) to be V.P. — where he will be positioned to run for president in the next election cycle.
With that ticket, the Democrats slaughter the Republicans across the board. And all will be right with the party.
“For example…”
Senator Clinton was black before it was cool.
“What specific things did Wright say that are [very, very harshly] anti-Israel?”
No, I’m afraid I’ve not paid attention, and am rather occupied at present, sorry.
“I’m also struck by the rather stark difference between this taking of sides and the way in which Obama’s speech treats black and white racial resentments in the United States.”
As Katherine says, it hardly seems unreasonable to me to take on one third rail at a time.
I got a little choked up watching the speech and reflecting on it after, but basically remained composed.
However, a couple hours later, I read this and cried.
I suggest you all do too.
Thanks for all the insightful comments, btw.
I’d note that my link above is just an anecdote, but one that directly contradicts Jay Jerome’s contention that voters would be turned off by this speech and issue in the long run.
In fact, I think the opposite is true: this is the type of campaign event that has a short-term hit followed by a long-term gain. Reacting negatively to the video’s of Wright is natural, but the shelf-life on that anger/repulsion is probably no more than a week.
Conversely, there is no shelf-life on the amount of respect Obama gained today in the eyes of many an undecided or soft “other” supporter. And I think in the end we’ll see that he gained a lot of respect for this speech.
We’ve seen this in other instances of hard political hits on him, btw.
I expect this will be looked back on as an historic speech.
it hardly seems unreasonable … to take on one third rail at a time
Fine with me; better not to bring the subject up at all. People who think that something Rev. Wright said was so incendiary that the I/P conflict had to be addressed need to cite it.
Because the sentence goes well beyond “not taking on a third rail.” It panders.
I’d also add that while I think Jay is wrong on the politics, I’d much rather discuss the speech on the merits than the politics (which seems like it’s cheapening this wonderful address). Unfortunately, I don’t think I can articulate what I’m feeling about the substance of the speech, and I’m a little taken aback with myself that my response has been more emotional than anything else (which is not like me…)
Everyone thought she was a black American so maybe that would give me credibilty
Nope.
Nell: not familiar with Wright’s comments, but we do have two varieties of complaints about Wright that can be linked directly to I/P issues:
1)Obama’s judgment (in life, in politics) in having this guy as his pastor
and
2)Does Obama share his pastor’s view?!?!?!
You take either of these criticisms and Wright’s Farrakhan issues and draw a straight line through the them to I/P issues.
See, for example, the first sentence here
I’ve always felt that nothing fuels separatism more than to deny other people’s feelings of anger or resent. Telling them “to get over it” has the opposite effect; telling them their problems don’t exist or aren’t important actually intensifies them. In a lot of ways, it subconsciously reinforces that separatism by saying “I don’t see anything; you have to suck it up.”
Conversely, legitimizing the other person’s feelings can paradoxicaly lessen the other-ness by saying “I see what you mean. What can we do about it?” and emphsizing the group.
Or maybe not. But it doesn’t seem to me that denying the other person’s anger or frustration is a good way of dealing with it.
and Obama will be convinced (for the good of the party) to be V.P. — where he will be positioned to run for president in the next election cycle.
Whatever “convincing” anyone does that gets Obama to take a Vp spot would have to involve a whole lot more threat than enticement. Obama has very little, I would argue nothing, to gain from taking a VP slot and a whole lot to lose. He would either win as VP and basically take the next 8 years off from politics or he would be the bottom half of a Democratic ticket that lost in the context of the most favorable environments for Democrats in a long time. Either way, he is much better off taking advantage of the coalition he has built to do almost anything else in the political world. Even remaining in the Senate where he is would be much better for him.
He knows that as well as anybody and so the only way Democrats could get him on the bottom of the ticket is to basically threaten to hurt him politically if he does not. But I think they realize he is far too valuable to the Party to try and force him into that position. They need him out there mobilizing and raising money not sitting around the White House hoping he gets a chance to break a tie in the Senate some day. Really its a pretty ridiculous idea that doesn’t serve Clinton or Obama very well.
I think talking about this speech in horse race terms–was it good, was it bad, will it make people vote for him, what was my reaction to it–is like having the american idol judges compare the star spangled banner to Oops I Did It Again.
Like many here, I feel like Obama’s speech was on a different playing field from the usual stuff we have to hash over.
The internal logic and nuance are the fruit of a lifetime of directed thought–the caliber of which you generally only find in ivory towers; and experience–the type of which you only find in Hollywood screenplays.
Heck, who cares how the mythical ‘voters’ react to this–people have different ways of weighing things, I’m pretty confident Obama’s words will reach Americans in their own way and at the right time. The media’s only a vessel, a message this powerful is bigger than the chattering class.
We’re just amazingly lucky that we, as intelligent, thoughtful people with time on our hands, get to listen to/read something like this in our lifetime as it happened, rather than in the history books. And have the chance to think about it, discuss it, and have it affect and in some cases even change our lives directly.
The specific quotation I remember is a reference to “state terrorism against the Palestianians.” I also think he’s made analogies to apartheid & called Zionism racist. Frankly, I’m having trouble finding cites quickly amid all the “Obama’s a bigot and an anti-semite!!##” crap out there right now. I am not really interested in hashing out the merits–I understand why someone who was involved as Wright in the struggle against apartheid would not think very highly of Israel, & don’t think this makes Wright anti-semitic or makes it wrong for Obama to attend Trinity. But I would certainly call those statements “anti-Israel” & they are certainly extremely controversial among Jewish voters.
Shorter Jay:
I hate Obama, and everything he says just makes me hate him more. I don’t need a good reason, either.
I mean, good grief, Ronnie Rayguns was nothing but platitudes, and he’s revered as a saint. If all you got from this speech was that Obama is “eloquent”, then you missed the speech, too.
====================
But it doesn’t seem to me that denying the other person’s anger or frustration is a good way of dealing with it.
My favorite part of the speech is the part that acknowledged and deals with white anger **and** black anger.
[snip]
[snip]
At the risk of stepping in a big, steaming pile of troll shit, Ken, do you care to cite or document whatever this “racist smear” of Clinton you are posting about all over the web? Having shared a beer or two with Jesse Jackson, Jr, I find it almost impossible to believe he would do such a thing.
Regarding the line about Israel that seems to be causing concern, “a view that sees the conflict in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam” — are those who are troubled by this inserting “I/P” for “Middle East”?
I may be disagreeing with a shadow, but I don’t think it’s controversial to suggest that Israel is not at greatest fault for *everything* that’s wrong with the Middle East. I don’t see this as being a specific comment on the narrower I/P issue.
I might also point out, since I don’t see it mentioned above, that some, possibly many, American Jews are deeply mistrustful of Obama’s intentions toward Israel. (I don’t know how many, but it is common currency with my Jewish family members and their friends.) If the Senator is aware of this, he might find a reason to make a strong statement here for that audience which others are not sure why he included.
farmgirl: I don’t see this as being a specific comment on the narrower I/P issue.
If it’s not, then it’s an assemblage of strawmen that seems almost designed to tick off everyone concerned about Middle East conflict by misrepresenting their positions. Again, the very opposite of the approach taken in the rest of the speech.
The failure to use the inflammatory words ‘Israel’ or ‘Palestinians’, not to mention ‘Palestine’, provides a thin veneer of deniability.
But when you read the sentence, do you honestly think he’s talking about Lebanon? The U.S. occupation of Iraq? Shia-Sunni tensions?
No, ‘Middle East’ in that sentence is bland code for Israel/Palestine.
National elections are not going to be the setting for any Democrat to speak plainly about or allow the hint of any change in U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine; I know that.
So I should continue to expect to be nauseated by just about any statement that’s made. That’s just U.S. politics.
The job of those of us who are less concerned with elections than with what’s happening with the human beings on the ground in Palestine and Israel is to open that space by not silencing ourselves.
This is not the thread for me to go further, however.
The specific quotation I remember is a reference to “state terrorism against the Palestianians.” I also think he’s made analogies to apartheid & called Zionism racist.
Um, I believe that Israel has employed state terrorism against Palestinians. Surely collective punishment falls into that category? I also can easily imagine analogies between apartheid and various components of Israel’s behavior, but it all depends on the details. And to be honest, I think all ideologies that specify ethnicity as a base for nationalism are flawed and to some extent racist; does anyone really think its a good idea to constitute nations as exclusive homes for single ethnicities in the general case? I think you might be able to make a case for Israel as a special case, but you’d have to actually, you know, make a case for Israel on the merits before I accept the notion of a state where non-Jews are second class citizens as a good idea.
Frankly, I’m having trouble finding cites quickly amid all the “Obama’s a bigot and an anti-semite!!##” crap out there right now. I am not really interested in hashing out the merits–I understand why someone who was involved as Wright in the struggle against apartheid would not think very highly of Israel, & don’t think this makes Wright anti-semitic or makes it wrong for Obama to attend Trinity.
Well that’s good of you. Just to clarify though, I think that everyone who thinks poorly of Apartheid should think poorly of Israel, just like they should think poorly of Dick Cheney. They both supported Apartheid unapologetically and as far as I know have shown no indication in later years that their behavior was, you know, wrong. If they don’t think it was wrong, that’s their call, but I think all people of conscience, not just Wright and other folks closely involved in the struggle, should call them on it.
Turbulence: I also can easily imagine analogies between apartheid and various components of Israel’s behavior
You know what other radical black pastor made analogies between apartheid and various components of Israel’s behavior? He said, in April 2002:
and in July 2002:
If Desmond Tutu can say this, why not Wright?
“I dated a black woman for 1 1/2 years.
Ah. “Some of my best friends are black” type of argument.
*sigh*”
Sorry if this seems unnecessary, but you stepped into one of my pet peeves. This is a misuse of the dismissal of the “some of my best friends are black” comment.
In the segregation years you would have white aristocrats say “some of my best friends are black” but on inspection it meant their caddy, their butler, or their maid. Which is to say that they weren’t “friends” in the normal sense, but rather servants.
If your ACTUAL friends are black or your lover is black, you have at a much stronger argument than the people who were dismissed for saying that they have a little knowledge about black people because they hired them as servants. It may not be dispositive, but it doesn’t deserve the cultural freight that comes with dismissing someone’s experiences with the “Ah. ‘Some of my best friends are black’ type of argument,” dismissal.
The speech Obama should have given:
The black community faces many challenges today. I am working within the black community in order to achieve the same things all Americans want. Black Americans want a good community in which to live, a strong family, a decent home, a job and a good education for our children. We are willing to do the hard work that it takes to achieve those goals.
The black community greatly appreciates all that America has accomplished during my life time. We could not have come this far without your support. We look forward to working together in the future.
Thank you… God Bless America.
To a certain extent this is true, but my experience is that even when a person’s actual friends are black/Asian/whatever, it lends them insight, but not necessarily credibility, because their experience is, by necessity, incomplete. (For example, you don’t get the experience of having all eyes follow you in a upscale part of town; even when you know why it happens, it engenders feeling of paranoia). A lot more of the understanding is intellectual than emotional.
Then, too, I have bad experiences with some guys insisting on LEADING an Asian American group when their sole experience was that their girlfriend was Asian. I’m afraid my brush with that sort of arrogance (on multiple occasion) is coloring my reactions.
Jes: If Desmond Tutu can say this, why not Wright?
Because the limits of discussion on the subject considered within the pale are much narrower inside the U.S., particularly in national electoral political discussion, than just about anywhere else in the world. Including Israel.
This is a misuse of the dismissal of the “some of my best friends are black” comment.
Generally speaking, I’d say you have a point.
In this particular case, we have a guy who is 110% sure that he is physically and spiritually in touch with black America because:
1. He attended at least one service at Ebenezer Baptist
2. He ate at a (presumably) black restaurant
3. He dated a black woman who, although not an American black, was taken to be one by ‘everyone’
I once dated a Jamaican girl, and have been to Caribbean dance clubs.
I once went to a Cajun shrimp boil in Rhode Island, have actually been to NOLA, and can find Cut Off, LA on a map.
I have a good friend from Limerick, and have had Sunday Irish breakfast more than once at a local bar that is actually owned by a real Irishman.
If you ever catch me claiming that I’m physically and spiritually in touch with Rastafarians, Cajuns, or the immigrant Irish, please feel free to load your dismissal of me with all available cultural freight.
Thanks –
Great thread.
I’m with Donald and Nell and the Archbishop.
I speak of Obama virtually without reservation, but this in fact remains a nagging point, because it’s a nagging point in North American political discourse.
Which Obama wants to change, and has changed, but not here.My ameliorating take is that he’s placing himself to draw the AIPAC contingent into a more forthright, less overwrought place from which to continue the conversation.
My hope.
Good one, NYC.
Always thanks to russell.
And so much and many thanks to hilzoy.
Special thanks to Michael for the lovely link. Forwarded it to my daughters.
Not true. You are trying to take what I specifically addressed to Grover and trying to make it more than what I meant in order to discount my experience.
And that’s not true. My experience with race is that it is going quite well. Now some people I may have issues with, but not their race.
Due to my life experiences I have had to have the “conversation about race” my whole life and I’m pretty happy with it despite what Grover would infer.
So what you claim I am claiming, I am not.
However I will make this claim; Physically, I am 110% in touch because I grew up and currently live in a black neighborhood.
Spiritually I am in touch because the churches I have attended my entire life have always been very mixed.
I am not black. Please spare me the nitpicking over the 110% comment and the trying to read more into it than I meant.
I could not be more in touch than a black person, not being black. So imagine your next post will admonish me for not putting in the special qualifier that when I said 110% I was not including the black American experience but only the white American experience. And if I we are going to nitpick I guess white Americans who live in the same home with black Americans are 120% in touch.
I hope we can both clearly see now, that I do not mean to imply that I am more or any less qualified than anyone else when it comes to race, but that unlike Grover implied my “conversation about race” has gone well for me.
Frankly grey, I don’t have the slightest idea of what exactly it is that you are trying to say. Your criticism of Obama’s speech seems mostly incoherent and based upon some very personal idiosyncracies. Your idea for the speech he should have given is just flat out terrible and seems designed to avoid addressing the issue of race at all except to try and elide the idea that racism is a factor in our country’s race relations. Why you think that would be helpful in any way except that it would somehow make you personally feel better is pretty much a mystery to me. Honestly it seems to me that your criticism boils down to the fact that Obama did not do enough to address your apparent blamelessness for our country’s race relations.
I don’t know what to tell you. I would apologize for him if I could. What I will also suggest is that despite the fact that you dated a black woman once, your view on both the topic of race and of what Obama is saying about it seems pretty absurd and simpleminded. I can also tell you as one black person that your idea for a speech doesn’t go over very well with me.
You are trying to take what I specifically addressed to Grover and trying to make it more than what I meant in order to discount my experience
No, I’m not trying to discount your experience. I just don’t think it qualifies you to speak for American blacks.
That may not be where you intended to go with it, but that sure wasn’t clear, at least to me. I was just laying out what you, yourself, said.
It’s great that you’ve had a lot of experience living with folks who aren’t the same as you. Too bad more folks don’t have that.
You might consider that you aren’t really in the sweet spot of Obama’s intended audience(s). Just a thought.
Thanks –
Right now, the Democratic Party is like Humpty Dumpty — ready for a fall. And if both candidates are not on the ticket, all the King’s Spin Merchants aren’t going to be able to glue the pieces back together in time to unite for the general election.
If you add up both constituencies — Obama’s and Clinton’s — you have a juggernaut of voters and donators. But if the contest steams into the convention (like the Titanic making a bee-line at an immovable ice burg) no matter how the super delegates decide, half the party is going to be really pissed-off. Which means no matter who wins, chunks of the democratic voting block are going to chip off, and there won’t be enough time to repair the damage. I estimate at least 20% of potential Democratic voters either switch allegiance, or sit out entirely, fractured Humpty-Dumpty goes down with the ship, and President McCain is sworn into office.
With that scenerio in mind, if Obama’s offered the VP and refuses, it becomes a lose-lose situation for him: if the Democrats are defeated in the general election, he’ll be blamed for petulantly placing his own personal agenda ahead of the party and the nation; if Hill-Bill wins without him on the ticket that will marginalize his importance to the party, and the other-than-Obama VP will, Gore-like, become the next in line heir-apparent.
Jay Jerome: …if Hill-Bill wins…
There’s the nub, isn’t it? Even if you’re right that there are many Democratic voters who will “chip off” if their first choice isn’t the nominee, what makes you so sure that they’ll refrain from chipping off if their 1st choice becomes the VP candidate?
I favor Obama, and the more I see of him the more I favor him. His accepting the VP slot would be such evidence of bad decision-making that I would have to rethink my whole assessment of him. (It would only reinforce my assessment of Hillary if she tried to get him into the VP slot.)
“Hill-Bill” is the key. Why anyone with Obama’s talents would want to be Hillary’s VP with Bill in the picture is beyond my comprehension. In fact, why anyone of any substance would take that role is incomprehensible to me.
Janie: In fact, why anyone of any substance would take that role is incomprehensible to me.
Because being VP to a popular and successful President is the clearest route to being President in your turn. This has got confused in recent US political history because Cheney has no intention of becoming President – it suits him better to claim nebulous and unConstitutional powers as VP – and because there’s a lack of public acknowledgemnt in the US that Al Gore, VP to a popular and successful President, did in fact actually win the 2000 election – even if Republican shenanigans put Bush into the White House.
I don’t think Obama and Clinton would pull together all that well, but people said that of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and that proved to be one of the most successful political “marriages” in UK recent history.
Well, if you don’t have the slightest idea what’s he’s trying to say, how can you then comment on what he’s saying?
“Then time will tell just who fell
And who’s been left behind,
When you go your way and I go mine.”
And by the way, Costco has a sale on tissues this week, which may be useful for dabbing all those tears away:
Kleenex Facial Tissue
Convenience Case
12 Boxes
$16.57.
With that scenerio in mind, if Obama’s offered the VP and refuses, it becomes a lose-lose situation for him: if the Democrats are defeated in the general election, he’ll be blamed for petulantly placing his own personal agenda ahead of the party and the nation; if Hill-Bill wins without him on the ticket that will marginalize his importance to the party, and the other-than-Obama VP will, Gore-like, become the next in line heir-apparent.
I get your point. Not a bad argument but I still disagree. If, through some strange set of events, Clinton gets the nomination Obama can do a lot to support her without sacrificing himself by taking a VP slot. He can raise funds for her. He can reach out for her especially by trying to rehabilitate her standing among Southern blacks. I am not even convinced that this is particularly necessary but he can be seen out there helping her and that perception is what matters here. If Clinton loses, it won’t be because Obama didn’t try to help her. The perception, I imagine, will be that her negatives, which she has never been able to drive down, is what ended up killing her.
This is really all guesswork. None of us knows how this is going to play out but I have a pretty good feeling that Obama will be able to make a convincing case, in the unlikely event that he loses, that he should not be on the ticket and that the Party should respect his influence enough not to try to force the issue. I don’t think a shotgun wedding would be particularly helpful to Democratic prospects in November.
But maybe I am just hoping after all. I think it would be a terrible shame to basically sacrifice someone of Obama’s talents to be a useless bureaucratic functionary in what is sure to be an embattled White House. More than that, the advantages of running from a VP slot, in general, are really overestimated and especially so in a Clinton White House, as Al Gore well knows. He has a much better shot at running again from almost anywhere else in the political landscape.
Well, if you don’t have the slightest idea what’s he’s trying to say, how can you then comment on what he’s saying?
I didn’t. Read my comment again if it helps.
I agree. It’s beyond your comprehension. Keeping the party unified instead of splintered is beyond your comprehension. Keeping troops in Iraq for a 100 years is beyond your comprehension. Two or three more uber-conservative justices appointed to the supreme court in the next 8 years is beyond your comprehension. Placing the national good over personal self-interest is beyond… I’m sure you get my point by now, or is it also… you know…
More than that, the advantages of running from a VP slot, in general, are really overestimated and especially so in a Clinton White House, as Al Gore well knows.
Yes, but Gore won. His disadvantage wasn’t that he was closely linked to a popular President: his disadvantage was that he was running against George W. Bush, who had the Governor of Florida, and 5 Supreme Court justices on his side – and therefore didn’t actually need to win the election according to the usual American rules.
Assuming that the next Democratic candidate manages to win by a large enough margin that she or he can get into the White House despite all the vote-rigging to support McCain that we know is going to happen, I hope that one of their goals before 2010 is going to be a thorough scouring of the DoJ, and an independent commission to review the US electoral system and ensure that the next election is run honestly and democratically, according to the rules.
It occurs to me that this post is akin to the Rev. Wright situation–not so much what is said, but how it is said.
Jay Jerome: Putting personal self-interest beyond the good of anyone or anything else is exactly the Clinton habit that makes it impossible for me to support them, and a key characteristic of the murky dysfunctionality of “Hill-Bill” that may make a “Hill-Bill” presidency a disaster for the country. We won’t be in Iraq for 100 years no matter what. As for the Supreme Court, that’s a worry, but I’m not sure it’s as big a one as you imply.
Jes — yes, maybe on average and historically the VP slot can be a good springboard to the presidency. My point is that that’s not always true, and I don’t see it as likely in this case. And whether Clinton and Obama will “pull well together” or not (I doubt they would), that wasn’t my point either. My point is that it won’t be just Clinton and Obama. It will be Clinton and Clinton and Obama, and the roles will be toxically ill-defined. For that reason, what Brent said. (More or less.)
Yes, but Gore won. His disadvantage wasn’t that he was closely linked to a popular President: his disadvantage was that he was running against George W. Bush, who had the Governor of Florida, and 5 Supreme Court justices on his side – and therefore didn’t actually need to win the election according to the usual American rules.
Barely. More than that, if you recall, he spent most of his campaign distancing himself from Clinton. Now one can argue that he was wrong to do that and that he would have done better embracing Clinton but thats all a moot point now. The fact is that being the VP did not help him much making an argument for his candidacy. He still constantly had to answer questions about his experience. He still had a lot of work to do to sell people on the idea that he was anything other than an empty suit. He still lost Tennessee quite handily.
Now maybe he would not have even had the opportunity if he were not VP. I don’t know but for sure, whatever happens, Obama will be in a pretty good position to run again if it comes to that. 4-8 years is a long time and a lot can happen but that isn’t any less true for someone who sits around the White House doing basically nothing for the National political agenda. It really hasn’t happened too often that a VP gets elected to the Presidency. I think maybe 5 or 6 times in history.
It will be Clinton and Clinton and Obama, and the roles will be toxically ill-defined.
Well, that would be why Obama and Clinton – and I mean Hillary, not Bill! – would need to sit down together and set out what the roles would be – and then specify to Bill Clinton what his role would be. Which, once decided, I’m certain that both Obama and Clinton could count on Bill following it. This wouldn’t be a public discussion, but it would have needed to have happened for it to work. And despite all the public stramash, all three of them are adult, intelligent, able, loyal people.
I’m not saying this has to happen: I’m just saying I see how it well could, and if it did, I think it would enrich and strengthen US politics, not split them. Brown/Blair worked damned well, despite everything.
It really hasn’t happened too often that a VP gets elected to the Presidency. I think maybe 5 or 6 times in history.
I thought it had happened more often, but you’re right: I really love this website, which I just discovered when I tried to check the stats.
Still, although the first time a V-P succeeded the Presidency by successfully running for election was in 1904 (Theodore Roosevelt), it has happened – and statistically, it looks like a pretty good route.
Well, that would be why Obama and Clinton – and I mean Hillary, not Bill! – would need to sit down together and set out what the roles would be – and then specify to Bill Clinton what his role would be.
What role? Past the election and not withstanding the outsized influence of the current VP, VPs don’t really have a role except… be ready if anything happens to the POTUS. If I were looking at a VP slot,( which I am not by the way. I am happy with my current job) I wouldn’t be worried about Bill. Maybe he will horn in on some of the foreign dignitary funerals that I might otherwise attend but he is really not going to usurp any power from what is mainly a powerless position. I would be more worried about Bill if I were say Chief of Staff or Secretary of State, in which case I might actually have to worry about him getting in my way.
Blair and Brown are not really a great comparison in this context because you are talking about a parlimentary government there where power and influence are spread far more evenly throughout the party and it was possible for Blair to give Brown the leeway he did to set domestic policy. This, no matter what happens, is not going to be that kind of co-Presidency and I don’t think either candidate would be wise to think it might be.
Jes, you paint a much more optimistic and clean-lined image of a Clinton-Obama(-Clinton) role assignment process than I can believe in. I doubt (based on what, 16-17 years of watching at this point) that the Clintons are as self-aware and sophisticated about their own complex psychology as that process would require to work well. I don’t have any faith in the possibility that Hillary is capable of (in some sense) allying herself with Obama as a decision-maker in prescribing a role to Bill, or that Bill, under the surface, would be able to stick with the program, even if a clear one, uncontaminated by Hill-Bill murkiness, could be laid out for him.
And yes, again, what Brent said. I was writing while he was posting.
Jes: I think it works better for Republicans than Democrats in any case. They have a more developed sense of hierarchy. Our last example, before Gore, was Humphrey, and it didn’t work so well for him. (I suppose one might also count Mondale, ditto.)
Plus, when I think of Bill Clinton, “discipline” is not the word that leaps to mind.
Thanks, Hilzoy. That’s my laugh of the day, so far.
> I don’t think there can be any talk about “finishing off Clinton” until Pennsylvania.
And if waiting to be ‘fair’ to Clinton is what marginally costs the democrats the election? I know there are all sorts of political arguments to be made about who is better – but he one thing that isn’t better is the race itself.
BTW Clinton will probably win Pennsylvania reasonably easily – she will then have an reasonably good case that she is only “quite a bit less legitimate a candidate than Obama “as opposed to “not legitimate at all”. And her only hope of victory will be to try and destroy him as a presidential candidate.
In fact the damage to Obama’s momentum may already have cost him the presidency.
President McCain…
BTW Clinton will probably win Pennsylvania reasonably easily
and according to TPM, she’s also very very close to Obama in NC. of course that’s still a month and a half away, so who knows.
gray’s speech Obama should have given:
Black folk gots probemms. But we thank whitey for all the helps, yessir, massa.
====================
To a certain extent this is true, but my experience is that even when a person’s actual friends are black/Asian/whatever, it lends them insight, but not necessarily credibility, because their experience is, by necessity, incomplete.
My cuurent girlfriend is black (actually, a cute “red-bone”), and I’ve lived in minority neighborhoods most of my adult life. But I would no more speak for what it’s like to be black, than I would for what it’s like to be Martian.
============================
Keeping the party unified instead of splintered is beyond your comprehension.
So you oppose Clinton and support Obama?
Nothing Obama has done indicates he thinks of himself first, and then the party or the country. On the other hand, we have Clinton…
================
all three of them are adult, intelligent, able,
loyalpeople.Fixed. Clinton’s loyalty to small-state voters, for example, is pretty well known.
I know this is all hypothetical, but why is it Obama being offered the VP spot?
but why is it Obama being offered the VP spot?
“is it” ?
if that’s supposed to be “isn’t”: Obama’s in the lead. if anyone is in a position to offer the VP slot, he is – not Clinton.
if that’s supposed to be “is”: by acting as if she’s in a position to offer the VP slot to anyone, Clinton is trying to cast herself as the presumptive nominee.
Let me amend my observation somewhat. You wouldn’t speak for all white people, either, of course, but you could speak of what whites might think. And, you could speak from authority on what it’s like to be in an inter-racial romance. But all that’s miles away from trying to lead, or trying to tell a group what to do and what not to do.
Now, if you’re wondering why Obama hasn’t offered Clinton the spot, I speculate it’s because he knows she would sink the ticket. Despite Jay’s talk about an “overwhelming” wave of support for the two of them together, my impression is that most of Hillary Clinton’s support will transfer to Obama is he becomes the nominee, whereas her incredible negative figures among independents and moderates will cling to her.
“Because being VP to a popular and successful President is the clearest route to being President in your turn.”
# of U.S. Presidents: 43.
# of U.S. Vice-Presidents subsequently independently elected President, without inheriting the office: 5.
Richard Nixon, who lost on his first try.
Before that: Martin Van Buren, Veep: 1833 to 1837, President: 1837-1841
Before that: Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.
The success rate of this method doesn’t make it entirely clear to me that this is the most successful career path to becoming President in your turn, but mileages may vary.
“No, ‘Middle East’ in that sentence is bland code for Israel/Palestine.”
That’s not my reading, but I don’t assert the validity of my reading; I merely offer that there are other people with other readings, as a datapoint.
“Well that’s good of you. Just to clarify though, I think that everyone who thinks poorly of Apartheid should think poorly of Israel, just like they should think poorly of Dick Cheney.”
Exactly as so of “America” and “Americans,” if you make the equation that the strategic decisions of a government should be held against a people.
One might also discuss which had more choice, and more at statek in supporting apartheid South Africa in certain ways, such as making arms deals, or looking for diplomatic support: a tiny and threatened and somewhat diplomatically isolated country with few allies, then in far less secure position, pre-Camp David, with Egypt and Jordan still at war with Israel, of the United States of America?
Which is not to excuse the government of Israel at the time — decades ago, should people round the world still be considering the U.S. as if Ronald Reagan were still President? — merely to suggest a bit of perspective beyond the black and white might be available.
(I’m not going to have time to follow up on this discussion, so another time. Apologies for my likely being very hit and run on ObWi for the next few weeks.)
Incidentally, the point about grey’s 11:30 AM, the one that starts “The speech Obama should have given” is that it’s 100% addressed to “America,” with Obama taking the role of speaking for “[t]he black community.”
Grey’s grammatically makes “the black community” something separate from “America,” with Obama in the role of speaking to — apologizing for, to accurately describe it — “the black community” and pleading with “America” — those people the “black community” aren’t part of — for patience for the failings of the BC, while thanking America evah so much for not being angrier, and offering profuse reassurance that the BC really isn’t angry, and we just want to buckle down and be quiet, promise.
grey’s offered Obama speech:
It’s always interesting when people make clear what they’re looking for, and why.
And it’s obvious that there’s no racism in America today in the view of someone who wants this speech, there’s been no racism in the recent enough past worth even mentioning when making a speech on race — let me repeat that, it’s so remarkable: grey wants a speech on race that doesn’t mention racism — and most of all, since there is no racism, and has been no racism within memory worth mentioning, there is no possibility anyone anywhere in America could possibily be legitimately be upset about any issue related to racism, so any expression of concern, let alone irritation, about racism, is obviously completely unjustified, illegitimate, and a reason for people who believe this to feel utterly unfairly attacked and oppressed.
As I said, it’s interesting what concerns different people, with different backgrounds and contexts.
Do, to be sure, correct all my misapprehensions, grey.
If you add up both constituencies — Obama’s and Clinton’s — you have a juggernaut of voters and donators.
Obama’s constituency is at least in part independents who don’t like Clinton and young voters who have never voted Democrat (if at all) before. Clinton’s constituency is people who, for the most part, will vote Democratic regardless of who the candidate is.
She needs him. He doesn’t need her. This is not difficult math.
“Over one million views on YouTube in just 19 hours. And growing.” At TPM. Other good stuff there; i.e. Nc is looking good for Obaaa.
Arrgh. NC and obviously, Obama
Eh? Where are you seeing that? TPM has been highlighting a bunch of polls saying things are not looking good for Obama, including in NC.
I missed Jes’ 02:11 PM when I wrote my comment about the Veep; sorry about that, Jes.
Gary, you also missed my summation of gray’s post at 03:21 PM.
Exactly as so of “America” and “Americans,” if you make the equation that the strategic decisions of a government should be held against a people.
One might also discuss which had more choice, and more at statek in supporting apartheid South Africa in certain ways, such as making arms deals, or looking for diplomatic support: a tiny and threatened and somewhat diplomatically isolated country with few allies, then in far less secure position, pre-Camp David, with Egypt and Jordan still at war with Israel, of the United States of America?
I can appreciate that Israel might have done bad things because the nation was in dire straits as it were. That would be a perfectly legitimate explanation if the government of Israel had, at any time in the last few decades, publicly apologized about their behavior with respect to South Africa and explained that they acted in a way that betrayed their national values and that they only did so because of the very difficult position they were in. In the absence of any contrition (and perhaps I’ve just failed to find any, so please, correct me if I’m wrong), I don’t see any reason to believe that successive Israeli governments representing the citizens of Israel see anything wrong with supporting Apartheid.
Look, if even the Japanese government can mumble some token half-hearted apologies for horrific atrocities Japan committed during World War II, surely Israel can be expected to make some half-hearted acknowledgment that their behavior violated their own national values. Assuming that Apartheid does violate Israel’s national values. One might hold the US to the same standard; the only mitigating factor that comes to mind is the large number of local and regional boycotts passed in protest of the federal government’s policy. Nevertheless, I have no problem applying the same logic to the US.
Which is not to excuse the government of Israel at the time — decades ago, should people round the world still be considering the U.S. as if Ronald Reagan were still President? — merely to suggest a bit of perspective beyond the black and white might be available.
There’s a huge gap between “considering the US as if Reagan was still President” and refusing to acknowledge the historical reality of bad acts committed by a state. I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that the US is no different than Israel in this regard. In any event, I’m quite aware of the existence of alternative perspectives, but I fail to see how offering straw man comparisons advances the discussion.
I don’t know much about the history of Israel’s relationship w/ apartheid South Africa. Is the wikipedia entry accurate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-South_Africa_relations
From the look of that article, if accurate, Israel repeatedly denounced apartheid, joined in an early boycott of South Africa, and eventually gave that up and became a minor trading partner. Unconfirmed reports that it traded nuclear expertise for raw materials needed for its own nuclear program do not seem especially relevant to the apartheid issue, as I never heard of anybody planning to invade South Africa to stop apartheid only to be deterred by the fear of nuclear retaliation, and I am fairly sure that the white regime didn’t threaten to use nukes within its own borders. Israel did supply some conventional weapons, but my impression is that this made a lot more difference to Israel’s tiny economy than to South Africa’s large army. In short, other than the “eww” factor, I’m not quite sure what Israel had to apologize for. Nelson Mandela doesn’t seem to have thought Israel needed to apologize.
Kc, sorry for the delay; The NC piece I had in mind.
Another hit, as it were, pretty much on the subject. Found it unlinked at Pandagon, bt I knew where to look. I once counted the man, the father, as a friend, before he joined the dark side.
Francis Schaeffer was once a saintly hero of mine. Apparently the piece is being widely linked.
Obama and many here think America needs to have a serious discussion about race and I agree.
Obama wants to be a uniter, but his supporters here are certainly not, nor do they want to encourage the “wrong” kind of white ignorant people to join in the conversation.
Gary,
You couldn’t be more wrong… that’s what Obama actually did.
To quote the uniter:
Obama is the one who characterized it black and white. I however used the term black community and America. Unlike the words you want to put in my mouth, when I say America that means and follow closely here… America. Not white community. Unlike Obama I didn’t even mention the white community. I unified us with the term Americans. And I damn well meant America from the top to the bottom. Hey, maybe I am the real uniter here?
So it appears your gripe is mostly with the way Obama separated us… not me.
Yes, you guys are great at encouraging a discussion on race.
How does this comment encourage that discussion? I open my mouth and immediately I am attacked.
And this encourages my involvement to participate in a discussion about race, how?
More encouragement for a white man to partipate in a discussion about race? I think not.
I try to participate…
I’m not sure what Lord Voldemort has to do with the discussion, but again if someone doesn’t have the same perspective as those here they get attacked.
I’m starting to get the impression that no one here really wants a discussion about race. You all just want to reinforce your own opinions.
No discussion taking place there.
Again, if one disagrees with you they will ridicule your posts.
How is calling someone arrogant helping to elevate our discusson of race?
Who woudn’t want to have a discussion about race with this person?
So I try to have a discussion about what I thought Obama should have said, but this doesn’t seem like someone who want’s to encourage discussion about race with a white man.
So I try to express my thoughts on race and Obama’s speach and this person keeps claiming I say things that I don’t. Why would I want to have a discussion about race with someone like that?
I once heard a comment about finding a soul mate, “If you want to find the right person, you have to be the right person.”
If you really “want” to have a discussion about race, start by being a person who really “wants” to have a real discussion about race.
Great characterization. You know full well that wasn’t my intention, but you chose make up a false interpretation.
If you are all Obama supporters why in the hell would anyone want to have a discussion about race with you guys?
I see that Jesurgislac is considered regular. How can anyone let this comment slide:
Why did no one call this person out?
If you would have stated that it was highly contested I could agree with that. But to say Gore one is a perpetuation of a fairy tale.
Jesurgislac are you familiar with the state of Florida? There are two time zones in Florida. When they called the election for Bush the other time zone had still not finished voting. There was no reason to… Bush had been declared the winner.
The other time zone is the most conservative part of the state other than Jacksonville. It’s full of military bases. Those people who would have voted for Bush hypothetically didn’t vote. The point here being if you are going to make up scenarios about how Gore could have one, then you must also take into account how the panhandle conservative vote was depressed by them declaring Bush the winner.
So, if the Dem wins will you admit that holding on to an 8 year fairy tale was a mistake on your part?
Last thought. If so many here support Obama and what he is trying to accomplish with respect to uniting our country, then why is someone like me attacked, mischarcterized and obviously not welcomed. Shouldn’t you be helping Obama by embracing people like me?
The link below has some description of Israel’s links to South Africa. Back in the cold war days Israel was linked to all sorts of unsavory regimes–my local library has a book by an Israeli about some of those connections, some in Africa and some in Central America, but I can’t recall the author’s name. William LeoGrande’s book “In Our Backyard” says that when Somoza was fighting to keep from being toppled, the countries that came to Somoza’s aid were Israel, Spain, Argentina, Brazil,Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador–in 1979, most of those were rightwing dictatorships and that’s the kind of company (along with the US) that Israel kept. If you read about Guatemala and their genocide one of the things you read is that the Guatemalan army used Galil rifles and had been trained by Israelis. According to James Dunkerley’s book “Power in the Isthmus”, when Carter cut off military sales and aid to Guatemala Israel became their chief supplier of both. Dunkerley says “At least until 1981, the Israeli connection represented a clear alternative to US military aid; thereafter it tended to become more of a surrogate although still providing the Guatemalan military with an appreciably wider margin of independence than was possessed by their regional counterparts.”
Below is the link about South Africa–
Tony Karon
I found the author I remembered–here he is, summarizing his book.
beit hallami
Of course, I misspelled his name. I’d do it again if I tried again, but the correct spelling is at the link.
Why did no one call this person out?
because it’s a discussion that comes around every other week or so. if i had to guess, i’d say that most of us are tired of having it.
Shouldn’t you be helping Obama by embracing people like me?
if you were actually willing to vote for him, it seems strange that you’d spend so much time blaming Obama supporters for not helping you reach that decision.
i mean, you’re the same person who wrote this, right:
I can honestly say that I never disliked Obama until this speech.
…
Thanks Obama, now let me tell you what you need to do. Go jump in a lake. Fix your own house before you start trying to fix mine.
and this:
More moral superiority… why am I not surprised. First Obama, now you.
you don’t actually sound like you’re interested in voting for him at all. it sounds more like you want to attack him and mischaracterize his words. and you don’t sound very welcoming yourself.
so, um. spare us the self-pity.
If you would have stated that it was highly contested I could agree with that. But to say Gore one is a perpetuation of a fairy tale.
You are relying on the April study to make this argument. The later November Consortium study is actually much more ambiguous but suggests that if both overvotes and undervotes were counted than Gore would have won. Nonetheless I agree that the issue is certainly disputable.
The rest of your odd defensive ramblings only reinforces my sense that you seem, bizarrely, to believe this debate is all about you. Beyond that, your argument remains incoherent, and whatever point you are trying to make, completely opaque. Your technique of actually ignoring the basis of the arguments against you to complain about how unfairly you are being treated is entirely unpersuasive.
For example, this:
So I try to have a discussion about what I thought Obama should have said, but this doesn’t seem like someone who want’s to encourage discussion about race with a white man.
What I said was pretty straightforward and direct. Speaking as one black person, Your rewrite of Obama’s speech does not go over very well with me. Now, if you were serious about having a discussion you might have actually tried to clarify your point and explain why exactly your “speech” was not an insult. Instead what you did was retreat into this strange defensiveness of yours and suggest that the fact that I disagreed with you means that I am not interested in having a discussion with you. Clearly, in your own mind, this is some sort of serious response to criticism. It isn’t.
Obviously, you’ve missed the previous 872 occasions where this person was called out.
“Is the wikipedia entry accurate?”
Within my limited knowledge.
How large or small, or tarring, a sin one regards Israel’s history with South Africa doubtless says something about one’s views on Israel overall.
“Linked” is always a wonderfully flexible word.
Everyone thought she was a black American so maybe that would give me credibilty
Nope.
No discussion taking place there.
OK, let’s discuss.
No, the fact that everyone thought the woman you were dating was a black American doesn’t give your claim to have a profound physical and spiritual insight into the American black community any credibility whatsoever. In my eyes, at least.
Your later comment that you live in a black neighborhood seems like a better basis for claiming such an insight, but proximity is not always intimacy. I don’t know you, so I have no idea what insights you might have on that topic. You really haven’t shared any.
Your overall point here seems to be that Obama’s comments about what white Americans need to do to help heal the rift between black and white are scolding and morally superior in tone, because you personally haven’t done anything to black people, and because you personally have a totally unproblematic relationship with black Americans.
Great, you’re off the hook. Assuming all of your claims are true, you’re an unusual guy. Take five. The rest of us have some work to do.
It’s true you had a bumpy reception in this thread. As blogs go, this is not a particularly hostile one. Quite the opposite. Even a cranky hothead like me is allowed to stick around.
Maybe the problem is on your end. Just saying.
Net/net, if you don’t like Obama, don’t vote for him. Nobody here is going to try to make you do so.
Thanks –
“Obama is the one who characterized it black and white.”
Except he spoke from both sides, and to both sides. You demanded that he speak only from one side to the other.
That was my point, which, unsurprisingly, you missed. I repeat it for clarification, confident that this time, of course, will be the charm.
“More encouragement for a white man to partipate in a discussion about race? I think not.”
A number of us here are “white” men. Woo-hoo.
Why do you need “encouragement,” exactly? Is talking about racism scary? I guess it can be, and that’s perhaps not unreasonable. But you seem quite concerned about it, and quite affronted at the very notion of talking about racism.
I’d be happy to be disabused of that notion.
Hillary and her circle of worshipers. Unreal. From The Nation.
“Linked is always a wonderfully flexible word.” –Gary
From my sources, Israel was “linked” to the murderous Guatemalan military in the sense that they trained and armed that military in a period when it was more than clear what sort of monsters they were training and arming.
Their guilt overall is the same as the American guilt, since we also have a long record of training and arming murderous regimes and terrorist groups. To my mind the record of both countries in that regard is contemptible and nauseating and should be condemned by any decent person. It is perhaps not that different from the record of numerous other countries, which again to my mind provides no excuse. People in Western countries tend to be outraged when some enemy supports a terrorist organization–they merely need to be a little more consistent in their feelings.
grey: Why did no one call this person out?
Because the issue of more voters voting for Gore than for Bush in Florida has (a) been frequently argued over (b) is not remotely germane to the thread* (c) the germane point, whether V-P is a good position to run for President on, was actually settled with remarkable comity.
*I admit this hasn’t stopped either myself, or Slarti, or others, for hashing it over in the past. But it’s a fast news week.
Yes Publius, Obama distanced himself from the words but not the man. No easy trick that considering where the words came from, and no need to apologize after a slight of hand bordering on magic.
Possibly a ventriloquist could offer an explanation, or an opportunist.
I feel a double standard coming on…
Now let the hair splitting begin between “disown” and “represent”.
At the end of the day, it’s okay for Obama to associate with someone like Wright, but it is not okay for a Senator to offer an aging Senator praise for his service to our country.
That’s a double standard people and the American people aren’t going to fall for it.
I really used to like Obama. It’s sad that he has been so inconsistent and hypocritical.
because somehow there’s no difference between saying “yay, segregation” and “I disagree with this man but love him as a person”?
What was it you “really liked” about Obama? I have a hard time accepting that liking as genuine if this sort of thing can disabuse you of it. Not that you need to care what I think, of course, but it is a little hard to take you seriously.
I wish we could have a mature discussion about race. I just don’t see how when the black community can’t even do it amongst themselves.
People like Bill Cosby and Juan Williams have been skewered when talking about race in America.
People like Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice have all been attacked because they aren’t part of the “real” black community.
It’s ashame. I wish for better for all of us.
It’s fine to offer praise for his service, and if that were all Lott had done there wouldn’t have been a peep about it. It’s decidedly not fine to offer praise specifically for his segregation-centered presidential run, and suggest that we’d have avoided “all these problems” if he had been elected on that racist platform.
dnftt
farmgirl,
I don’t recall that being the context. He was giving praise to an old man who had served his country. I think any reasonable reader of Lott’s comments would reject the idea that he was specifically referring to segregation.
When the Dem’s take away the leadership role of an kick out Robert Byrd, then I will believe they actually care about racists. He actually was the KKK of America.
What I like about Obama?
He is inspirational. Granted I like alot of things about Bush, but when it comes to communicating with the American people he sucked. Obama is so much better.
I like Obama’s presentation, but I dislike the solutions he offers. Like many Americans I long for an inspirational leader. Obama is. ‘nough said.
I guess Hilzoy doesn’t really want to have a discussion about race either. Unless its with people who think the same.
Obama hoped we could, but his supporters aren’t willing. Too bad.
grey argued: I don’t recall that being the context. He was giving praise to an old man who had served his country. I think any reasonable reader of Lott’s comments would reject the idea that he was specifically referring to segregation.
“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”
I don’t see how any reasonable person could read these comments and not understand that Trent Lott was saying he was proud to have voted for Strom Thurmond in 1948, when Thurmond ran for President on a third party ticket.
That was the States Rights Democratic Party, which split from the Democratic party explicitly to oppose Truman’s and other Democratic efforts to end racial segregation. Trent Lott said he was “proud” of voting for a party which stood for racial segregation.
Trent Lott added that if “the rest of the country had followed our lead” – had voted for racial segregation – “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years” – that is, wouldn’t have had the “problems” of an integrated military, of black voters, of black politicians, lawyers, and even Supreme Court judges.
You would have to be extremely uninformed about the political situation in 1948 to think that Trent Lott was not specifically referring to racial segregation. And presumably, Lott had enough memory left to know what he voted for back then.
Lucky for John McCain that he skipped out on the Values Voter Debate, isn’t it? Or he might have been spending the months since September, just as Mike Huckabee, John Cox, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, and Alan Keyes all have, fending off demands that he explain how he could bring himself to sit still and listen to the Church of God Choir, from Springfield, Ohio, sing a parody of “God Bless America” which damned the US much more unequivocably than Wright did.
Oh wait. For some reason, all of those Republican candidates got a free pass from the media for listening to a song that began
and then got worse. So I guess it would have been okay for John McCain to attend, instead of just showing up a month later to personally address the unpatriotic America-haters who approved this outrageous attack on the US.
IOKIYAR.
Jes, Lott was only 7 years old in 1948, so I don’t think he was actually talking about personally voting for Thurmond.
Lott was only 7 years old in 1948, so I don’t think he was actually talking about personally voting for Thurmond.
Really? Wow. *facepalms* You know, I never once thought to check his date of birth: to be personal, he looks elderly enough to have been old enough to vote in 1948. My bad. Thanks for the correction.
Hilzoy: dnftt
Whoops. When I see someone from the Republican party cite Robert Byrd and defend Trent Lott, I ought to know by now they’re trolling. Sorry.
I wish we could have a mature discussion about race. I just don’t see how when the black community can’t even do it amongst themselves.
People like Bill Cosby and Juan Williams have been skewered when talking about race in America.
Your presumptions about what is possible or not in the Black community are both condescending and incorrect. The fact is that as with all communities there is a diversity of opinion and that diversity gets expressed in different ways. I shouldn’t even need to say that some black people quite like what Bill Cosby has to say about race. Others disagree with him and have made that very clear. That is the very nature of discussion… that some people will disagree.
Again, your argument is just incoherent to me here. What is your actual complaint? Cosby raised an issue and stated his opinion on the issue. Many people agreed with him and many didn’t. Contrary to your blithe dismissal of the complexity of black discourse which I find quite puzzling, black people, from all walks of life, still talk about these issues as raised by Cosby and offer a wide range of opinions and justification for those opinions.
What I want to understand is how does the consideration and rejection of the opinions of Cosby or Williams by some people in the Black community demonstrate for you that “mature” discussion is impossible? Is your standard for a mature discussion one where everybody agrees with whatever opinion you happen to think is right? If that is not the case, then please give me some idea of what this hypothetical “mature” discussion on race would require and explain just how the Cosby discussion failed to fulfill such requirements.
As for this:
I think any reasonable reader of Lott’s comments would reject the idea that he was specifically referring to segregation.
That hypothetical reasonable reader would then only need to explain what Lott meant by “all these problems” that would not exist if Thurmond had won on his segregationist ticket.
Change takes time. I’m responding here to grey’s contention that the African American community isn’t ready to discuss race.
The African American community is not monolithic. Some are ready to discus, some not. many people with lots of opinions.
From my limited experience with AA co-workers: there is a problem with identity. it is hard to reconcile the history of victimization with current circumstances. Feeling victimized is a big part of AA identiy. it seems like a betrayal of the ancestors if one gives up feelings of victimization now. So there is a struggle within each person to determine if bad experiences with whites are racial or just human nature or even selfr-generated.
Also within the AA community the norm is to be supportive amd forgiving. this norm si not always followed of course. in fact there is peer pressure to maintain the traditional identity of AA’s and to resist transistion to an identity within current political and social realities. But there is a strong resistance to criticsm and a strong protection mechanism against criticism from outside as well as a tradition of keeping criticism within the community, as opposed to shared outside,
Again I emphasize that I’m not saying everyone thinks this way. The African American coworkers I knew thought about race issues and idedntity issues this way. And disagreed with each other and sometimes had explosive fights carried out in public so that whites like me heard all about it.
So it doesn’t make semse to me to say theat the African American community isn’t willing to discus things. There is a discussion going on.
I think you could make a better case case to say whites don’t want to talk about it. White people tend to fall into two catagories: racism is the problem and you are a racist if you deny it and there is no racism, get over it.
Jes, people judge age differently, I guess, but you really think this guy looks like he’s 80 years old?
KCinDC – Actually, I may have been mixing up the few pics of Lott I’ve seen with pics of some other elderly white American males: he certainly looks younger in that photo you linked to than I’d remembered him. Still. Yes, I should have looked up his DoB rather than assuming that when he said he’d voted for Strom Thurmond in 1948 he meant he’d voted for Thurmond in 1948.
Huh? What? Talk about murkiness. Anybody who would suggest Hillary should rely on Obama’s and not Bill Clinton’s opinion about anything more complex then ethics reform or civil rights legislation (or civil wrongs, depending on your perspective) is as dense as a doorknob.
To remind you, during Clinton’s administration we had good relations and respect from our traditional allies worldwide, two terms of economic prosperity ending with a trillion dollar surplus. After the first World Trade Center attack (which occurred 38 days after the first Bush left office) the Clinton administration developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy (which led to the interdiction of planned Al Qaeda attacks against UN Headquarters, FBI Headquarters, the Israeli Embassy in Washington, Boston Airport and the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and the George Washington Bridge in NY). Under Clinton’s leadership we passed the Family and Medical Leave act of 1993, the AmeriCorps Volunteer Program, the Brady Bill. Bill Clinton appointed two liberal justices to the Supreme Court (Ginsburg and Breyer) and even with the Oval Office blow-job controversy his approval rating at the end of his term was 73%
In other words, he ran the country for eight years – and everybody (and African Americans specifically) were doing better than they were before he took office, and certainly better than they’re doing now. Are you going to suggest anybody in their right mind wouldn’t rely on someone with Bill Clinton’s experience for advice, and defer to the Boy Orator instead?
Clinton-Clinton-Obama White House Scenario #1:
A major terrorist attack on the USA, with a simultaneous catastrophic 7.2 magnitude earthquake in a major city. At a quickly called emergency meeting at the White House:
HILLARY: Bill, any suggestions?
BILL CLINTON: I’ve already contacted Homeland Security, National Guard units and first responders are on the on the way to both locations, as are teams from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the Red Cross, and State & Local Health Departments…
HILLARY: Barak?
OBAMA: Hold on a minute, I need to locate my thesaurus…
That’s all a very nice acenario Jay, but don’t we run into constitutional problems like (we should have) when Cheney ordered the airliners shot down?
HILLARY: Bill, why didn’t I get the nomination?
BILL: The other guy beat you.
HILLARY: Where did I go wrong?
BILL: More ways than I can count. To name just one, you had the kind of supporters who like to refer to a black senator as “the boy orator.” That kind of smart-assery doesn’t get you too many votes from African-Americans.
Jesurgislac: “So I guess it would have been okay for John McCain to attend, instead of just showing up a month later to personally address the unpatriotic America-haters who approved this outrageous attack on the US.”
I agree with you… McCain shouldn’t get a pass, or Huckabee, etc. – or the religious bigots and dopes who made those inflammatory racist statements..
And ditto above for Obama and Wright.
So in this obnoxious religious display of racial bigotry (from both sides of the color divide) Hillary is obviously the lesser of three evils…. Belief in Invisible Entities leads to irrational behavior – so vote for the least irrational: H.Clinton.
When has Obama made racist statements? Or overtly appealed for support from those who make them? I’m not seeing the equivalence in your argument.
This is…ganz falsch.
You’re doing a good job, Kevin, perpetuating the racist divide in the US with your nit-picking politically-correct sanctimoniousness, keep up the good work. I used the term ‘boy orator’ as a sarcastic replacement for the well known boy wonder – not as a paternalistic racial pejorative.
And by the way, Kevin, Obama isn’t a ‘black’ senator. He’s a half-white, half-black senator – wasn’t his mother Caucasian? How someone who’s half-black becomes all-black is one of the great mysteries of American racial alchemy — a biological transformation as mysterious as alembic transmutation. But of course you’re free to misinterpret reality to your heart’s content, for as long as you like.
“I’m not seeing the equivalence in your argument.”
McCain is to Hagee as Obama is to Wright. etc.
Slartibartfast: “This is…ganz falsch.”
Wenn Sie das sagen.
Farshtaist?
Kevin’s reaction is, I guess, another example of the different-worlds thing that Obama talked about on TV earlier (as per Katherine’s post). I read “boy orator” the way Jay intended it, and Kevin’s interpretation didn’t even occur to me.
I thought the use of “boy” for “black man” had gone out of style. It was never big outside the South, and I have never in my life heard anyone use the word that way. Kevin, have you?
Jay — I understood the equivalence you were *trying* to make, but my question stands.
McCain sought out the political support of Hagee, among other inflammatory white preachers, and appeared by his side at a campaign event. (Also the whole “Church of God Choir” event that Jes brings up.)
Obama attended a church led by Wright, specifically did NOT invite him to his campaign launch, and has specifically and repeatedly disagreed with specific controversial and/or offensice statements made by Wright. (To be fair, Wright was included on an “advisory committe,” but I’m unclear what its role is.)
Do you really see these things as being equivalent? If so, do you see how others might not?
I saw a photo on the newspaper of him shaking a black man’s hand and thought – hmmm that looks like a white man’s hand to me.
I expect its a little bit less than half ‘black’ (break out the DNA tests!). But I can be pretty confident he is 100% light brown.
… that’s “offensive,” duh …
I thought the use of “boy” for “black man” had gone out of style. It was never big outside the South, and I have never in my life heard anyone use the word that way. Kevin, have you?
I certainly have but I think its also beside the point. Since the topic is honest racial dialogue, I will give you my take as one black person who can attest to a lot of other black people like me feeling the same way.
Calling a grown man of any color a boy is already being deliberately provocative and almost certainly intentionally demeaning. When its a black man, its the sort of thing that at least calls your attention. Did I think that jay jerome intended some racial insult? Not particularly and I am not familiar enough with him to judge his attitudes about race negatively. I take him at his word that he meant nothing by it. But that being said, my first thought when reading that post was that I found it a bit bizarre that Obama, a man who evokes Presidential stature for so many, evokes boyishness or some sort of silly sidekick for him. That is not to say that I thought, “now that guy’s obviously some sort of crypto-racist.” But I did kind of file it away and think: “hmm… what a curious bit of imagery. Let me take a closer look at what else he has to say going forward.”
Is that fair? Maybe. Maybe not. I can certainly see how one could argue that it is not. But thats my instinctive reaction to that sort of language and my bit of racial honesty for the day.
Jay, you are aware that Hillary is part of a prayer and Bible-study group with some pretty fundamentalist types, right? I’m all for candidates who don’t believe in invisible entities, but you’re badly mistaken if you think Hillary is one of those.
Jay Jerome: “I used the term ‘boy orator’ as a sarcastic replacement for the well known boy wonder – not as a paternalistic racial pejorative.”
So you weren’t being racist or paternalistic, you were just being sarcastic. With supporters like you, is it any wonder the wheels came off Clinton’s campaign? If you want to do the Democrats a favour, throw your full weight behind McCain.
trilobite,
I live in Ireland so I don’t think my personal experience is much of a guide. However I note that members of Team Clinton used the term “kid” in January and again yesterday and that in the latest case reporters were a bit startled by it. So it seems at least some Americans (rightly or wrongly) suspect that there is a bit of dog-whistle politics going on.
And by the way, Kevin, Obama isn’t a ‘black’ senator. He’s a half-white, half-black senator – wasn’t his mother Caucasian? How someone who’s half-black becomes all-black is one of the great mysteries of American racial alchemy — a biological transformation as mysterious as alembic transmutation. But of course you’re free to misinterpret reality to your heart’s content, for as long as you like.
Let’s have Obama sit in on a Council of Conservative Citizens meeting and see how white he is all of a sudden, shall we?
“To my mind the record of both countries in that regard is contemptible and nauseating and should be condemned by any decent person. It is perhaps not that different from the record of numerous other countries, which again to my mind provides no excuse.”
I’m fine with that, Donald, and I agree with you on this. For the record.
So long as we stay on this side of “and therefore that’s why that country has no right to exist,” or “and the Jews are uniquely unentitled to a Jewish democratic State,” or that sort of thing, I’m right with you, fwiw.
How someone who’s half-black becomes all-black is one of the great mysteries of American racial alchemy
Historically the standard has ranged from about 1/16 black (one black great-grandparent) to one drop (any known black parentage in the family tree).
Not that we pay that close attention to it anymore.
Thanks –
More worthy commentary from Scott Horton at Harper’s about a WSJ piece by Peggy Noonan. (She likes it.) Good stuff. Horton’s bottom line about the speech: “It is the sole extraordinary moment of this entire campaign.”
Just watching Keeping The Faith at bloggingheads; some good stuff. But it got me thinking more strongly about Clinton’s ‘Family’ meme as it gestates. There’s a small puzzle here. The Family, both in the original Harper’s article and Ehrenreich’s column, is spoken of as secretive, shunning publicity. There’s an implicit spin of A Secret Organization which it obviously isn’t. The Senate Prayer Breakfast is a sort of old boy’s network power center but not secret and Sharlet after all was allowed to report on its functioning. Of course the real kick to the moral solar plexus is its massive networking among elites world-wide.
Now they must know that the book’s publication will be their coming-out party, rendered all the more public by its association with a presidential candidate whose religious leanings will be publicized in a setting of heightened public attention. One might say of roomful of balloons for their party.
So I ask self, what’s with that?
And self replies, well…The original 2003 Harper’s article I found pretty striking at the time, though more disturbing than shocking. But no wheels were spoked and nothing fell down. In retrospect it looks a lot like a trial balloon to judge public acceptance; and in the silence since they found they might be able to take a more public role.
If the Family are smarter than the Iraq War cabal they will have realized, and planned, for these developments. Since they seem skilled at working international diplomacy as an élite NGO, it is more than likely they have negotiating and manipulative smarts. They’ve after all made a very comfy bed for themselves and have thus proven themselves capable in pursuing power.
Diving off the deep end it’s possible to imagine that both the Haggee and Wright flaps, differing as they did, still (were intended to) set a more florid stage for the Family’s grand entrance.
Back up the ladder, I may be on surer ground to suggest this will be turned into a massive appeal to that fragmenting but still potentially powerful Evangelical Vote. They may élide the élite part, or they may appeal to the Evangelical hunger to be associated with power (an element I haven’t remarked upon which nonetheless is a significant factor). Prayer groups and Bible studies are potent symbols for Evangelicals. They signify, more than any other element, and haven’t yet been used in appealing to Evangelicals.
Back into the conspiratorial swamp for a moment, byzantine reasoning concludes McCain tanks (all manner of possibilities) and Brownback steps in (It’s referred to as ‘Sam brownback’s Bible Study’ in the bh confab). Clinton surges with what has become a boost, and the Family can’t lose.
All wild-eyed as I appear, this is probably an excellent spot to drop this pebble into the pool.