View Story | 923 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
about this because I don't care, lol. I know my attitude is not widely shared.
But the bottom line, to me, is that Obama is running an anti-tribalist (not post-racial) campaign. Which means that he is very deliberately asking people to prioritize commonalities rather than the very real divides arising from the enormous levels of racial oppression in this country, of which black people have borne the worst brunt. Wright speaks to that oppression, as a pastor. However, Wright's message is inconsistent with Obama's, not because Obama is a Tom, but because Obama knows that the only way to break up the truly elitist power monopolies in this country is to mute the effects of divide-and-conquer.
It just is what it is. Much ado about nothing, IMO.
Those who find Wright problematic can and should email Wright and express those feelings.
by GN1927 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:18:57 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
People downstream are bringing this up, too, but in the context of the media playing the Democrats for fools every four years. What's happening here is power (the corporate media, the war-machine) protecting itself by pitting us against one another. I'm not arguing for selling out or loyalty at all costs, but just for us to fight our real foes and stop wounding each other.
"To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice." --Confucius
by Socrates on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:52:32 PM PDT
How long has divide-and-conquer worked in this country? If even someone like me is willing to venture from my tribe, with my MYRIAD and valid grievances towards this country, and actually stand in coalition with people who I ordinarily would find useless...
...hell no, the real power elite is not going to take this lying down. It's up to us to continue to move ahead. Obama is neither friend nor savior. He is a tool which can break up the rat's nest of corruption currently running the show in the country. And for that, we're going to have to at least temporarily suspend prioritization of our respective tribes.
And Obama is increasingly looking as if he has a shot of convincing us to do this.
That's why the Wright "scandal" is so transparent to me.
by GN1927 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:03:32 PM PDT
That's the only hand that conservatives have to play. And of course the corporate media is right there to help them every inch of the way like a carload of sinister clowns. The whole spectacle makes me so angry. Why is this even being discussed? Why does Obama have to answer for Wright in the first place? I guess if Russert's going to hold him responsible for Harry Bellefonte's comments, this should be no surprise.
Anyway, what the fuck is so offensive about what Wright said? I don't agree with all of it, but what's the big deal? The borderline anti-semitic stuff doesn't distinguish it from the likes of Hagee and numerous other prominent white pastors. The double standard is blatant.
Chomsky Fever! John McCain sucks.
by miasmo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:34:22 PM PDT
Why is this even being discussed? Why does Obama have to answer for Wright in the first place? Bingo. This is the biggest load of trumped of bs out of the media since they sold the Iraq War. Audacious levels of spin and lies.
They should have left that church alone; Rev. Wright is hurting nobody, they should have left him alone.
Thank you for understanding that someone is running for President here, and it's not Wright.
Obama has been more than capable of speaking for himself, his ideas, his background and his ideology. This was an attempted Obama character assassination, no more no less. And when the media is playing games like this, sometimes the only way to win these games is to refuse to play them at all.
Like you, I reject any and all attempts to portray this "story" as something significant to seating Obama as the next POTUS, and he's going to be seated. We all need to keep on our toes at this point.
I wish I had more than one rec for your comment.
by GN1927 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:49:40 PM PDT
by revgerry on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:39:02 PM PDT
by GN1927 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:50:30 PM PDT
that what Wright was saying was somehow new. It wasn't. The main reason Wright was so controversial was those very things that had been in the sermons or those 30 second clips. There was nothing new revealed in the Q&A. Obama, I assume, was just angry because he was called a politician who would say anything to get elected. And rightly so. But for him to point out AIDS, US terrorism, etc. He already knew that from hearing about the controversy in Feb. I just didn't see why he needed to go that far. Most people I know, laughed at the Rev. Wright and realize that he was very opinionated but not that bad. He was only praising Farrakhan for the work he did for ex-cons and etc. Christians are supposed to do that.
To err is human. To forgive, divine.
by Highwind on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:37:03 PM PDT
the vast majority of Reverend Wrights statements. I called out Dailykos in a diary when the Reverend Wright controversty first began. I was pissed at people's reaction and thought were acting like chumps. http://www.dailykos.com/...
But yesterday was different. He accused Obama of being totally insincere in his speech in Philadelphia and went on to say that Obama really didn't believe the things he was saying. he completely disrespected Obama by doing that and there was no call for him to do that. I agree none of this should be a big deal, but this country is what it is and this media is what it is and that is what Obama has to overcome.
~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~
by jennybravo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:47:09 AM PDT
Not to say I like all of my fellow tribespeople.
Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.
by alizard on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:49:03 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 923 comments