U.S. Presidential Election 2008

[BeautifulBurnout]

Linky here from The Guardian for the text of the speech, for anyone that would rather read than watch.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by mmm skyscraper

From the speech:

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; 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.

Interesting.

yeah that gave me pause for thought, too. a furrow-browed pause.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by cacophony

i'm not sure i agree with your point. the general communal sentiment towards robertson's and falwell's words was pretty angry and unaccepting of the blame. i don't see the outcry over this situation as being inherently louder or more divisive than what came out of the white preachers' portrayals of 9/11 and katrina as a delivery system of god's wrath.

Yes but they weren't callled unamerican. That was my point. Yes people railed against the absurdity of the comments, and even the hate it betrays towards certain minorities. But there was very little talk about it being hateful towards the country, and anti patriotic. Compare that to the outcome of Wright, and you see first and foremost a question of patriotism, a hate for america, and only sometimes a logical counter argument to the pastor's comments. This is the exact opposite response.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by cacophony

From the speech:

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; 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.

Interesting.

Agreed. It was a curious way to structure a sentence about the mistaken cause of the conflicts. (If he was going to say "instead of" then he should at least have moved the word "primarily" to the last half of the sentence, I'd have thought...) It didn't quite chime with the rest of his speech. I'm aware it sounds like we're giving him a free ride if we speculate about this being inserted as an unequivocal rebuttal to those who see him as Muslim or being soft on terror. I suspect his position is rather less stark and one-sided, but certainly I'll be paying extra attention to his views on this in the future, particularly in light of his comment a while back about bombing Pakistan.

[Deckard]

Incidentally, based on what I've read of the comments of Wright, they don't seem all that far removed from the position of a certain Republican presidential candidate this year.

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

Or are they?

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Incidentally, based on what I've read of the comments of Wright, they don't seem all that far removed from the position of a certain Republican presidential candidate this year.
Or are they?

exactly. and look where it got that certain candidate. To be fair though, I don't believe that its exactly the same thing. Ron Paul's sources were the 9/11 commission report and intelligence briefings. Wright's sources was a mystical layer of divine retribution. One's a lot more easy to scienfically verify than the other. One is constructive, and helps to put a needle of reality in the ever expanding balloon of neocon ideology. The other is not as constructive but merely provides a vehicle to throw in one's own gripe list against the country to rationalize your own ideology. The lack of rigor of which can converge to insulting.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Agreed. It was a curious way to structure a sentence about the mistaken cause of the conflicts. (If he was going to say "instead of" then he should at least have moved the word "primarily" to the last half of the sentence, I'd have thought...) It didn't quite chime with the rest of his speech. I'm aware it sounds like we're giving him a free ride if we speculate about this being inserted as an unequivocal rebuttal to those who see him as Muslim or being soft on terror. I suspect his position is rather less stark and one-sided, but certainly I'll be paying extra attention to his views on this in the future, particularly in light of his comment a while back about bombing Pakistan.

I think you guys are right calling Obama out on this exerpt. But again, its pretty incredible the strides he's actually taken in this no win situation. I firmly believe that a candidate cannot be elected in unless they are unequivoval allies of Israel.

But there needs to be a distinction drawn between someone who can face talking with our enemies and those who won't, defending against america's enemies and defending against Israel's, imperialist wars and wars of strategic defense. In other words, its not like the bush administration made warfare obsolete, they just spectacularly misapplied it. And I think we are deluding ourselves that the next 4 years will see no cause for further military actions somehow related to al qaida or 9/11. The bush administration has all but guaranteed it.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

Yes but they weren't callled unamerican. That was my point. Yes people railed against the absurdity of the comments, and even the hate it betrays towards certain minorities. But there was very little talk about it being hateful towards the country, and anti patriotic. Compare that to the outcome of Wright, and you see first and foremost a question of patriotism, a hate for america, and only sometimes a logical counter argument to the pastor's comments. This is the exact opposite response.

In fairness, I think that the reason the "un-American" charge has come up is because of specific comments Wright made like "god bless America? No...god DAMN America". My guess is that had he only made racially charged comments, then charges of "un-Americanism" very likely wouldn't have been raised.

My biggest concern with the whole Wright controversy is that it reveals a pretty blatant simplicity in the thinking of many people. The assumption being made by people who insist that Obama must share Wright's positions is a wildly unrealistic one - it's the assumption that if Obama, or anyone else for that matter, maintains a relationship with someone who holds a certain set of beliefs, then Obama must automatically share all of that person's beliefs. I assume I'm not alone in saying that I have plenty of close friends with whom I have numerous differences of opinion....and it doesn't stop me from being friends with them. In fact, it tends to make for some of the most interesting conversations if you're open to discussing opposing viewpoints in a constructive way. Hell, that's why most of us are here in the world forums.

And I'd even go so far as to say that I'd probably be more troubled by someone who only associates with others who share identical viewpoints to their own. I believe Obama has shown a real ability to understand opposing viewpoints even if he disagrees with them, and then incorporate them into constructive solutions. But you can't understand opposing viewpoints if you refuse to ever be exposed to them.

Granted, many intelligent people are voicing concerns over Wright, but I think that the vast majority of them probably support an alternate candidate and are voicing their concerns as a means of trying to damage Obama's chances at winning the nomination. This, of course, bothers me because of it's dishonesty. I'm fine with people having their personal preferences, but it sure would be great if we could state our cases based on honest concerns rather than rhetorical b.s., ignorance, or flat out lies.

I just hope that people can keep themselves aware enough to make a choice that ends up being good for the country and the world we interact with so closely. My fear though is that people will make their choices based on ignorant or false charges.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Sean

In fairness, I think that the reason the "un-American" charge has come up is because of specific comments Wright made like "god bless America? No...god DAMN America". My guess is that had he only made racially charged comments, then charges of "un-Americanism" very likely wouldn't have been raised.

I see where you're coming from but hear me out, because i think its an important point to explain why this is happening.

You can take Wright's statements two ways. You can say they reduce to the same structure as past comments made by robertson and falwell in which case he's saying nothing more than what has been said before. then you have to account for the broad hypocrisy in which the statements were received by the media in terms of anti-americanism compared to the way the statements of falwell were received. Again i'm not saying that the fervency of the negative reaction is more or less in either case. But when it came to the case of WRight, all of a sudden he and his believers are branded as hating america. That's new. That's different.

The other way you can take Wright's comments is that they were not meant to heap blame on America, but to express a pre-existing hatred of it. In my opinion that's only believable to those individuals who were leaning in that direction in the first place.

In other words, he's either condemning America or he HATES america. And unless you're an absolute conspiracy nutball who's looking for it, its kind of hard to imagine a viable presidential candidate would foster their beliefs under an environment of nebulous hate. Which one makes the most sense? Especially in context of certain media hit jobs who have made B. "Hussein" Obama Bin Laden's american lapel pin, comments by his wife, his lazy means of saying the pledge of allegiance a serious topic with which to concern the american public.

THere's a reason this is happening and it has nothing to do with Wright. That may be my own conspiracy theory, but how else do you explain this coming out a YEAR later?

Originally Posted by Sean

Granted, many intelligent people are voicing concerns over Wright, but I think that the vast majority of them probably support an alternate candidate and are voicing their concerns as a means of trying to dmaga Obama's chances. This, of course, bothers me because of it's dishonesty.

Oh the hit jobs are coming in strong man.

Check this shit out.

U.S. News and World report : Obama Speech Falls Short

Check out this paragraph.

Obama's speech, however, is likely to add grist to conservative claims that he has been less than honest about his knowledge of Wright's most controversial remarks. Obama himself last week posted remarks online denying he'd ever heard Wright make controversial remarks in person.

Below is Obama's remarks before the speech. Can someone point out where he says he heard nothing controversial or where he's contradicted.

Originally Posted by Senator Obama

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Interestingly enough the article also mentions the newsmax piece that claims to have proof Obama was in attendance for that infamous sermon. A story that was picked up by the neocon Bill Kristol for the New York Times, which happens to be an all out lie and compelled the new york times to post an apology after pictures of Obama in Miami that sunday emerged.


abc news: buried in eloquence Obama contradictions about pastor

again tries to argue a case of double speak.

Can you media asses fucking read before you post this stuff? He said "those statements that caused the controversy" not "any statements that are controversial"

fuck. i better pop some more meds.

[Deckard]

Hahaha! I don't know what's worse, these asshats, or the ones that will inevitably follow it with, "So Hank, I'm confused... is he saying he's for or against the Reverend Wright?"

Either way: Head.... meet brick wall....