View Story | 444 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
On a personal level, I feel so bad for both Obama and Wright.
by Aerials on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
from Wright after Tuesday and after Obama's denouncement - there is no doubt in my mind that Wright threw himself under the bus for Obama. Not a doubt.
This man was a Marine. He knows what it means to take one for a fellow soldier. He is as selfless as they come. The truth may never come out to the rest of us, but I truly believe Wright (and hopefully Obama) will take to the grave that they may have had to give up their relationship for a greater purpose.
Please make some calls for Barack!
by sick of it all on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:33:46 PM PDT
What else ???
Rev. Wright has a lot to say that most white poeple never hear.
Please, DEAR LORD, let him do it AFTER the inauguration in January, 2009.
Enough is enough.
Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Rev. Wright. Overcome our evil with good.
by vets74 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:50:32 PM PDT
Both men no doubt will carry the grief to their graves.
that grieved me the most.
How tragic. Our media are shameless, our viewing of the smears, sickening.
I will always advocate for NO TV as long as this shit occurs.
http://www.freejohnwalker.net/
by berkelbees on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:35:33 PM PDT
by Kdoug on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:11:59 PM PDT
Bill Moyers a real American journalist.
by princess k on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:28:38 PM PDT
what a profound statement. Bill Moyers again shows his integrity and honesty in a way that few others do. He should get an award.
A lie makes it halfway around before the truth gets out the door.--Mark Twain(paraphrased) -4.50, -1.90
by Ab2kgj on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:04:02 PM PDT
He interviews "expertologists" on the release of their book, "Mission Accomplished - How we won the war in Iraq". They mention media experts, etc. Worth watching.
Moyers interviews 'expertologists'
You're right, he should get an award.
If you like Iraq, you're gonna love Iran.
by FundaMental Transformation on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:27:44 PM PDT
It's about the right wing and their control of the media.
If Obama was white, the same would be happening. If Wright was a Republican, he would have been given a pass.
This isn't about race. That's just another distraction from the root problem.
by BetterTogether on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:00:36 PM PDT
I take your point, but eliminating race from the equation and attributing it exclusively to the right's control of the media risks the "terrible simplification" against which Moyers, via Burckhardt, so wisely warns.
What he does is to speak his mind in a language and style that unsettles some people
In other words, he sounds like an Angry Black Man, the quintessential bogey man for a significant portion of white America.
At the beginning of the campaign, the figure of Obama allowed these white Americans to assuage their racial guilt by liking, even supporting him. Like gophers, they dared to poke their heads above ground and sniff the bracing air of potential post-racialism. Then Wright came along and whacked them over the head with big black mallet, reminding them of that guilt, showing them that the wounds caused by their collective past misdeeds are still bleeding, thereby breaking the spell and sending them scurrying back to the blind comfort of habitual thinking.
mi 'di thag chod ma byed na, nga tsho la las yod ma red
by jedley on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:38:21 AM PDT
I was married to a black woman and lived in a black community for many years. It took that type of exposure for me to see what most black people experience their whole lives.
I understood the context of Wright's remarks from the beginning. Moyer's translation is an eloquent interpretation of Wright that might make white people understand that it isn't really anger at white people individually, but an American culture that systematically cuts down Black American to this day.
Most white people can't see this. When I point out certain details to them like Wesley Snipes sentencing, the acquittal of the cops in NY, the Jena Six affair, and incarceration rates for Black Americans, they get upset and don't want to see America for what it is.
Encourage your representative to sponsor a Support the Troops Act today.
by altscott on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:46:20 AM PDT
I'm not so sure that saying the Rev Wright media circus is "not about race" is the same as "eliminating race from the equation". Certainly there is an element of racism in the issue, and I think it's obvious that the corporate media is using Wright to pander to the racist element in their viewership, but, if a white minister or politician had said what Rev Wright said, that white person would be catching just as much heat. Look at what the corporate "liberal" media did to Howard Dean, for example. Now look at how African-Americans such as Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice get treated by the corporate media and their fellow Rethugs.
I agree that it would be foolish to deny that there is racism inherent in the corporate media's treatment of Rev Wright, but I feel that it would be equally short-sighted to simply boil it down to pure racism and nothing else. The Rethugs and their corporate media allies are using Wright to Swiftboat Obama, and they'd be doing that regardless of the color of either man's skin. This has far more to do with ideology, class warfare, and partisan politics than with race.
Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.
by drewfromct on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:45:39 AM PDT
up until the "far more to do with ideology, class warfare and partisan politics than with race" part. Why "far" more? Aren't we saying the same thing, with you insisting on a hyperbolic prioritization of all the other factors, so long as race is last on the list? Colon Bowel and Condi Rice are not threats to our national identity - they're not threatening to become our president. Obama is.
by jedley on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:58:11 AM PDT
far more because that's my opinion. You're more than free to disagree.
by drewfromct on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:10:50 AM PDT
to stifle any argument without having to actually refute it.
p.s. (it's al-Qaeda, al-Qaida, or al-Qa'ida - never Al Qeada)
p.p.s. sorry, i can't help it...;o)
by jedley on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:22:02 AM PDT
do you want from me?
I'm not trying to stifle an argument--I'm trying to stifle what I see as pointless nitpicking.
Go back to the first post you replied to and re-read it. My entire line of reasoning is summed up neatly there. Disagree all you like if that's what makes you happy, but if there's not enough already there to convince you that racism is not the be-all, end-all of the Wright hypefest, then, well, I have better things to do with my time on my only day off.
As for the spelling... it would seem as though you could really use something more important to do, yourself.
by drewfromct on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:14:15 AM PDT
...to post the same thing.
I'll just rec your comment instead.
"That which I am writing about so tediously may be obvious to someone whose mind is less decrepit." - Ludwig Wittgenstein
by Mad Dog Rackham on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:56:29 PM PDT
and in this case MERCY.
It is very hard for me to be so merciful to Wright.
In him I see my own older male spirit based so called leaders and they all simply sadden me.
There is no TALK OF PEACE in any of these so called faith based leaders.
The Jesus I know was called, THE PRINCE OF PEACE.
This is also lost on HRC's so called faith based group and yet somehow that has gone unreported.
by 1Eco on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:32:42 PM PDT
Wright looked directly at the cause of violence and terrorism and challenged his flock to do the same. He explored a psalm about PAYBACK. Huffington Post has posted found pictures today of 1945 Hiroshima. Look, look, look if you can stand to -- that's what he was talking about. These were civilians, women and children, babies. Everybody who flew up and called Wright offensive and crazy -- fine, why didn't they do that when the US actually DID those things that he was only talking about after the fact?
by thatvisionthing on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:02:53 PM PDT
a surprisingly honest, empathetic statement about Wright a while back:
And one other thing I think we've got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, "That's a terrible statement," I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you: We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, "You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
Look, even Huckabee gets it. The rest is just propaganda, and like Moyers said, there is a glaring double standard. Just like Iraq was all about oil from the beginning, digging up Wright has been about nothing but race. It's gotten a little past dogwhistling. I'm sickened that in this day and age, it still works.
by Leap Year on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:25:04 PM PDT
I am so hurting for Rev Wright. He exemplifies semper fidelus. Although i can find not one, no not one thing he said that was inaccurate, we stood by and let the media make the call that it was some sort of hate mongering.
Many of you said that it was all about Rev Wright, no verily i say unto you the wise shall be made foolish, and the foolish made wise. The Rev was running for Jesus, and regardless of those of you who can not get past an angry black man caricature the media made of him, i will pray for you all. You all that condemed the good Rev should do some soul searching and decide exactly what it is that you think was about him. I will pray for ya'll.
Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed! King Arthur: Bloody peasant! Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway!
by wargolem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:07:49 AM PDT
You're as bad as the media that totally took Wright's comments out of context. If you listen to the rest of his sermon, Rev Wright is railing against all the violence and saying violence begets violence. He's calling for people not to take revenge because that solves nothing.
"He's not an African American candidate, he's an American candidate." - 82 yr old Jean Weiss on CNN
by vernonbc on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:43:27 AM PDT
Thank goodness he is back. Too bad he is about the only person on TV with a semblance of intelligence and moral sense.
by Leap Year on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:19:39 PM PDT
sort of "dismissed" from PBS when the crazies took it over at the first of the Bush crime regime.
Jesus rode a donkey, not an elephant!
by RagingDem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:51:46 PM PDT
The media's exploitation of Jeremiah Wright is the problem. I see this like blaming the internet for having been "invented" by Al Gore.
Jeremiah Wright's treatment doesn't quite fall into the Dixie Chicks category. Some voters might actually have heard him and been offended; it's not like opposition researchers are reading foreign newspapers that their base would never touch, to find imflammatory material to use against anyone who crosses them. Still, the desperation of the Repub media who try to use this for Guilt by Association is practically dripping from this affair.
I'm not asking you to take the country back, I'm asking you to take it forward-Van Jones.
by Judge Moonbox on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:16:26 PM PDT
Do you really believe the two haven`t spoken since Barack`s distancing speech? They did speak after Rev.Wright`s non-invitation to the kick-off of Barack`s campaign.Why was that? One of the most influential people in Barack`s life, and not invited to be a part of history. There`s only one apparent answere. They understood the politics and knew what eventially needed to be done.Check out the diary of BlackKos posted a couple of days ago. It makes a lot of sense. This was the only way things could have played out without losing the demographics they`re counting on. I must congratulate Mr.Axelrod--he`s more astute than Rove. No need to grieve for their relationship--they understand each other and will be best friends forever
by DocbytheBay on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:36:25 PM PDT
. . . But, but not in church. Those of us Caucasians who have lived in significantly African American areas around Chicago (and other places)have heard and seen it--primarily through attitudes and actions. Inflammatory remarks have an effect on the parishioners who hear them. They have a tangible effect. I've seen it. I am glad Obama repudiated Wright. Had he not forcefully done so (his first offering did not succeed, in my opinion) he would not have my support in the general election. He repudiated Wright and as a result, he will get my vote as the nominee.
"Accepting the inevitable"
by waztec on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:48:13 PM PDT
things things that they have said, including Hagee. God Bless Bill Moyers for saying the truth. It is about race, and I hope that America (and myself) learns the spiritual lesson that this election has brought us. That Billy Graham, Jerry Farwell, and preachers like Hagee should never be given a pass because they are white, nor should the politicians like McCain or HRC be given a pass by the press when they used Rev. Wright as a racist tool to divide people. Neither of these two politicians cared about the damage they were causing for Americans, black or white. And that is what is unforgivable, nor is it in my estimation, Presidential. A President leads by example, and both McCain and HRC had the opportunity to lead with dignity, intelligence, fairness and grace. Instead we were able to see them for who they really are as individuals who care only about getting elected and whose last thought is about the people and the country that they lead.
God Bless Bill Moyers for having the courage to speak the truth, and God Bless Barack Obama for enduring the double standard of White Preachers/Black Preachers in our country. What has this country come to when people will not even acknowledge the racial hypocrites we hear in the media everyday?
by Badabing on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:09:34 PM PDT
. . .of Wright's ilk should repudiate their inflammatory statements, because they affect their flock just as negatively as Wright has. Race in this country is a complex issue requiring a sometimes painful dialog. We have not yet completed that discussion. Obama's election, while it may help some, it will not, by itself, cure the divisions.
by waztec on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:15:23 PM PDT
. . .of Wright's ilk should repudiate their inflammatory statements, because they affect their flock just as negatively as Wright has.
The nicest thing I've heard about Falwell and Hagee on this blog; that they're no worse than Wright.
by Judge Moonbox on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:19:08 PM PDT
. . .I pay no attention to Falwell, Hagee, etc. They are all (expletive deleteds).
by waztec on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:05:48 PM PDT
The Clintons were the first one to bring Rev Wright to the White House...intimately I might add.
WAKE UP AMERICA!!
by OH NOT AGAIN on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:34:09 AM PDT
after reading your comment. I really don't think he said anything horrible. Maybe some things people don't want to hear.
Maybe you would like the expand upon what you mean by "Actions" and "Attitudes".
It's the constitution, stupid
by CTMET on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:42:41 PM PDT
Obama said he was offended by the SPECTACLE.
by njr on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:28:47 PM PDT
It was the question and answer period afterward.
Onward to the Mountaintop!
by NWTerriD on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:52:52 PM PDT
of the questioner (or person reading questions by others) at the the National Press Association talk. Why not??
I was disgusted by her smirk and supercilious attitude and by the questions. I was laughing at Rev. Wright as he made fun of both the questions and the reader. They deserved his derision. The questions were on the order of those posed by Step-on-us and Gibson and were of the "gotcha" variety. No one has called out these reporters or this woman who posed the questions. Why not?
Mr. Juslikagrzly is a pastor, we're white. He's been to many black churches and he is amazed at the firestorm this has created. It is easy for whites to brand Rev. Wright as "narcissistic", "driven by ego", "over the top", etc. because we (whites) are judging him based on the standard of whiteness that exists in this country. If it isn't "white", it's abnormal.
I sit in the pews in our church, surrounded by white people, and we can barely bring ourselves to clap for a beautiful aria sung by a choir member. The energy and beauty of a service in a black church is just amazing. The prophetic is alive.
Anyway, I'm sick of this pretend outrage. Walk a mile in Rev. Wright's shoes, look at the good he's done and the truth he speaks. Focusing on his delivery as "ego-driven" negates the powerful preaching and truthiness of the black pastorate.
While I understand the political necessity of Obama distancing himself from Wright, I am deeply saddened that we continue to enhance the caricature of Rev. Wright as some kind of kook. And I am deeply saddened that both men were made to publicly let go of what I imagine is a deep and abiding love for each other. How sad!
Eyes on the Prize - JedReport
by juslikagrzly on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:49:24 AM PDT
might have been regarding US govt involvement in AIDS, but given Tuskeegee experiments on black soldiers could you blame people for not trusting the US govt?
by CTMET on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:16:04 PM PDT
What about the preacher who ran for the presidency three times and died after Scopes trial apoplexy? William Jennings Bryan? I remember him as a religious self-righteous blowhard from his portrayal in Inherit the Wind, but on reading about him in wikipedia -- he was no joke after all; I might have voted for him.
Because of his faith in the goodness and rightness of the common people, he was called "The Great Commoner."
Too eerie:
He appeared to be ahead in the Midwest, so the Republicans concentrated their efforts there. They said Bryan was a madman—a religious fanatic surrounded by anarchists—who would wreck the economy.
by thatvisionthing on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:18:56 PM PDT
at first I thought as a caucasian you heard other caucasians speak the reverse of Rev Wright but you say Blacks are the ones with the attitudes and actions?
What attitude and actions have you seen from Caucasians?
Who were you going to vote for first?
Just wondering?
by OH NOT AGAIN on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:32:19 AM PDT
said on Moyers that God was intending something bigger and better out of the circus. I think you are right that the fact Wright still hasn't showed up since Obama's rejection probably meant he purposefully martyred himself.
by sesquioxide on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:51:23 PM PDT
incontrovertibly supporting this. This would be the brilliant political move of the century - tragic, but brilliant - if it is true. It would, more importantly, make me revere him if it turned out that he sacrificed himself for the good of all of us. As it stands, I don't quite no what to make of what we've seen over the past week. There are numerous explanations floating around, and I think the jury is still out.
by WaveFunction on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:14:06 PM PDT
the press club that he intentionally set up a situation whereby Obama could denounce him and thus separate himself from the furor Wright had created. If so, Wright has more nobility by far than those who would accuse him. And that was done while everybody else was either capitalizing on 'the Wright story' or getting a free pass from the press.
by phrogge prince on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:22:08 PM PDT
is Wright's silence since Obama's denouncement. Wright doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would take marching orders from anyone but his higher power. If Obama's crew had any influence to shut him up, it would have been done long ago.
Why is Wright out of the spotlight? (To me - he did what needed to be done and now it's Obama's turn. Wright - if the silence continues - has passsed the reins to Obama.)
by sick of it all on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:29:29 PM PDT
Wright took one for the home team.
by wargolem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:19:20 AM PDT
That Q&A session was an exercise in narcissism, pure and simple. If he'd wanted to help Obama, he'd have done the Moyers interviewed and then taken a long trip to another country w/ poor phone service and no TVs.
by JRG on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:30:46 PM PDT
because the speculation that existed before the Moyer's interview simply would have continued unabated. By denouncing him, Obama has now effectively put the issue behind him and I suspect that Wright knew that's what was needed. Even Chris Matthews noted yesterday on Hardball how he went from a reasoned and thoughtful speech to the spectacle that was during the Q&A session. I for one, can't help but think that dramatic shift was done purely for the cameras. The high-fiving, shucking-and-jiving responses to the questions were not meant to engender understanding but rather outrage. He was intentionally hamming it up to give Obama an out, to force him to do what he had to do. If Wright were truly as narcissistic and you claim, given his statement about "the dozens," do you honestly believe that he would just let Obama say what he said and not respond in some form or fashion? Think about it.
They don't hate us because of the freedom we enjoy in our country, they hate us because of the liberties we take in theirs.
by sly1171 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:25:13 PM PDT
which is to say that many of them get charged up by the energy of a crowd and it makes them get more and more grandiose. Also, for a good long time, Wright has probably become accustomed to speaking primarily in front of supporters (is there any more fawning crowd then a congregation for their beloved leader?). Perhaps this lead him to underestimate how many reporters were going to be at the Press Club trying to take him down, or he underestimated how well he could handle them. Or maybe the truth is he just simply wasn't going to b.s. when he was questioned about certain things like Farrakahn. He stayed away from that in the interview, but he wasn't going to dodge it in the Q&A. Had he limited himself to just his speech at the Press Club, it might not have been the straw that broke the camel's back, even though I'm sure Obama was annoyed when on Moyers Wright essentially suggested that Obama only said what he had said about Wright that could be considered negative for political purposes.
by brueso on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:26:08 PM PDT
have a Doctorate of Divinity, can not speak 5 languages, and most preachers i know of are just average. Jerimiah is like a spring breeze after a rainstorm, that builds up into a cresendo of rain upon a rooftop in the hot summer months, which in turn brings forth the harvest so needed.
by wargolem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:22:31 AM PDT
if you think:
Wright has probably become accustomed to speaking primarily in front of supporters (is there any more fawning crowd then a congregation for their beloved leader?).
While people in most churches, white and black alike, can be stirred up by a good sermon from the pulpit, that does not mean that they are 'fawning'. On the contrary, anytime a preacher does something the congregation doesn't like, you can bet your bottom dollar that preacher catches an earful, just not during service. If you spend any time in most churches after the sermonizing you'd find that Churches of all stripes are full of people with very different personalities, interests and motives, many of which are not always in line with the preacher's vision for where the church is or should be headed. Sure, some individuals do fawn after the pastor (usually lonely single women in a churches with young, handsome, charasmatic preachers), but most do not. Preachers often have to deliver numerous sermons that challenge the congregation's 'comfort zones.' They rail about the church's actions or inaction, depending on the topic, and often chastise the congregation for common Church ills such as gossiping, back-biting and self-righteous snobbery. That's not to say that that's all they preach about, but if the Church were full of fawning supporters, such sermons would occur much less frequently than they do because fawners tend fall in line. Even in the Catholic Church, where the Pope is considered infallible on matters of faith, few in America pay him such deference as evidenced by the willingness of many American Catholics to ignore Church canon on issues about which they disagree (birth control, divorce, abortion, etc.) There is no such tradition of Papal Infallability in protestant churches, which includes most black Churches. First of all, there is no Pope in the protestant Church, but more to the point, Protestant Churches tend to be organized in a manner so that power eminates from the bottom up rather than the top down. The Pastor is but the servant and caretaker of the congregation and steward of the Church's properties. There are some notable exceptions to this rule, such as Jim Jones' church and the Branch Davidians in Waco along with numerous other non-affiliated churches, some of which exhibit at least borderline cultish behavior, but these radical sects are far outside the norm and Trinity United Church of Christ is nothing like any of them. As for Wright not knowing how many reporters were going to be at the press club or about the opinions that many of them held regarding him, I acknowledge that this is possible, but highly unlikely. Frankly, I think you seriously underestimate the man. A man as learned as Wright who knows about The Huffington Post most assuredly was aware of the media diatribe against him. One way or the other, it's one of the reasons that his answers were of such a sarcastic tone and nature. I'm sure he knew exactly how the press would react to what he had to say. It's not like this was his first interraction with the press. That said, I don't believe that Obama had any idea of what he was up to. Still, I remain thoroughly convinced, based on what I've learned about Rev. Wright through my own research, that Wright took it upon himself to give Obama an out, one that he knew Obama could not refuse and that few if any would question.
by sly1171 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:16:02 AM PDT
Obama's poll numbers fell after Wright incited Obama's repudiation; previously they'd been holding steady despite weeks of Wright nonsense on TV.
But I don't believe the conspiracy theory anyway. I think Wright spoke out last week because he thought he had the winning argument. He got acclaim for Moyers' interview Friday night, and he got laudatory approval on CNN for the NAACP speech, and the Press Club crowd was with him all the way Sunday morning.
I think he just misjudged the hateful megaphone wielded by ABC, Fox and MSNBC (in this case). That's all. He thought he'd won the argument because he had logic on his side. He didn't realize the argument continues until Fox says it's done, and Fox isn't done until you're buried in illogical fear mongering.
I don't know why Wright has kept silent since, though. I remember he kept silent after the first burst of publicity as well. I'm eager to hear him speak again, myself. If there's no freedom of speech for Wright because we want Obama to win, I can't even finish this sentence because that's too ridiculous an idea to contemplate.
Whatever happened to Victoria Iseman? Seems like she just dropped off the face of the earth.
by overlander on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:02:13 PM PDT
your opposition out of the game, and take the pot with a lesser hand, you DON'T show your hand to anyone. Folks, just let this one be!
And isn't Moyers just brilliant? Didn't he just NAIL this one? It's about race, isn't it, this whole Wright thing? But I'll tell you what. This time it doesn't matter. This time they're pulling out all the stops, and they're going to lose anyway. This time it's Obama's assessment of where the American People are at that is the correct one. The cynics are taking it on the chin, losing it badly, as it turns out. On November 4th, exactly SIX MONTHS (and 4 hours) from now, he's going to be raking in the big one, the Jackpot, and it's not just that "Baby needs new shoes," it's a whole new way of looking at our government that Baby (We the People) needs! And never mind if he had to bluff a hand or two to win this one! Bluffing isn't cheating, it's good, solid card-playing, but trying to play with a stacked deck like "some candidates" did, well, that is cheating. But this time around we caught them at it!
"We the People of the United States..." -U.S.Constitution
by elwior on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:52:01 PM PDT
Yes.
Please.
by NWTerriD on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:56:52 PM PDT
Moyers is right, sick as it seems, but Obama is going to win anyway.
I'm at a fair this weekend where 60,000 people are attending. It has no political attachments, it's agricultural if anything.
The man who brought Obama T shirts has already sold out. It's only the first day.
Rev. Wright is a firebrand, and Obama was caught between a rock and a hard place, but he's going to win anyway.
by VA gentlewoman on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:15:53 PM PDT
It was clear to me on Tuesday and I said so here
Wright being thrown at Obama every day from here till August, or Novemeber and Obama and Wright being silent on the issue or trying to avoid it for the next 6 months. I always see the angle in things and I am pretty sure this was a play on the media. Wright and Obama agree to end the madness by acting mad, reacting madder. Wright throws Obama under the bus so that Obama can once and for all disown him in public and in good conscience and with the media's atention and blessing, after all the media themselves called for it. Obama is handed the oppurtunity in one weekend, a three day Wright Blitz. Obama says Wright was a caricature of himself. Indeed. Obama denounces dejects, rejects, renounces and the media eats it up..."poor Obama, look what his rev. did to him! Obama is right to throw Wright under the bus..." Praise and glory and sympathy and kudos.Wright takes the fall. Mission accomplished. Hillary is an aside in the news until Friday, being unable to steal the attention. Obama gives speech next weekend on Energy. Election on Tuesday. News at 11. The press was played, IMO, right along with all the idiots who thinks this relationship between pastor and politician reflects on Obama's honor and integrity and "blackness" to begin with. I'd say Obama is a genuis. Anyone who can manipulate the press against the press has my support. We'll see if I'm right or wrong on this if and when Wright responds. I predict he will now lay low and say he's already spoke his peace.
Wright being thrown at Obama every day from here till August, or Novemeber and Obama and Wright being silent on the issue or trying to avoid it for the next 6 months.
I always see the angle in things and I am pretty sure this was a play on the media. Wright and Obama agree to end the madness by acting mad, reacting madder. Wright throws Obama under the bus so that Obama can once and for all disown him in public and in good conscience and with the media's atention and blessing, after all the media themselves called for it.
Obama is handed the oppurtunity in one weekend, a three day Wright Blitz. Obama says Wright was a caricature of himself. Indeed. Obama denounces dejects, rejects, renounces and the media eats it up..."poor Obama, look what his rev. did to him! Obama is right to throw Wright under the bus..."
Praise and glory and sympathy and kudos.Wright takes the fall. Mission accomplished. Hillary is an aside in the news until Friday, being unable to steal the attention. Obama gives speech next weekend on Energy. Election on Tuesday. News at 11.
The press was played, IMO, right along with all the idiots who thinks this relationship between pastor and politician reflects on Obama's honor and integrity and "blackness" to begin with.
I'd say Obama is a genuis. Anyone who can manipulate the press against the press has my support.
We'll see if I'm right or wrong on this if and when Wright responds. I predict he will now lay low and say he's already spoke his peace.
NOT THIS TIME!
by donailin on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:53:53 PM PDT
doesn't come out until after November.
by NWTerriD on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:54:46 PM PDT
by WaveFunction on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:33:43 PM PDT
I just think the pressure got to him. Too much negative attention laser focused on him for too long. Too many lies told on him, to many threats to his life, the people he loves, the church he loves. Too much for a sane mind to handle easily. For some of us it was like watching a run away slave be brought back and beaten, or one who had lost his temper and said something improper and then had to face an over the top punishment. Yesterday, he would have been physically lynched. Throughout history whites have watched this sort of thing happen some with equal revulsion, some with apathy, some cheering it on. I am comforted by those who feel this like I do but we are all helpless to make it stop. Some of us are better equipped to handle injustice and unfairness, and bitter hatred directed at us. King was, Obama apparently is, but most of us would probably just pop-off and say some very unpleasent things. It is painful to read Moyers comments, and your responses are incredibly painful...like I was even surprised at how much emotion is still in my spirit over this. But we will go on, hopefully to victory. The Black community will find Rev Wright, wherever he is, forgive him and love him, and God will heal him, at least that is what I am praying for.
by jazzyjay on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:30:12 PM PDT
I think you are right that the fact Wright still hasn't showed up since Obama's rejection probably meant he purposefully martyred himself.
I don't know if this is how you intended it to come across, but I read that statement to mean that Wright turned himself into Obama's "Sister Souljah." Could you please clear this up? Thank you.
by Judge Moonbox on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:22:03 PM PDT
I am in agreement with Sick of It All. I feel that Reverend Wright, noting how he could be used as a threat to Obama, purposefully made it so that Obama had to reject him and that no one can blame Obama for not standing by him.
In a sense this is different from Sister Souljah, because Sister Souljah did not ask to be rejected and Clinton did not have to bring Sister Souljah up (to distance himself from Jackson).
I will, of course, reserve my final judgement based on what Reverend Wright do in the future. If he comes out criticizing Obama for rejecting him or going on TV saying new "controversial" things, then clearly the hypothesis discussed by Sick of It All would not be valid.
by sesquioxide on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:35:32 PM PDT
pated he'd be asked about Farrakahn, etc. in the Q&A. Most of the criticism came about his responses to the Q&A. While it was reasonable to know there would be hostile questions in the Q&A, I can't imagine they're rely so much on the press to play their role. What if there had been no Q&A?
Respectfully, I think that alot of folks who have some sympathy towards Rev Wright are hoping he was taking one for the team. I think he started out trying to clear his name, and trying to damp down fears by playing the 'non-scary' Jeremiah Wright, and then those 1,000 watt lights got turned on him and he reverted to the fiery way he is in the pulpit. I don't think Wright is under some kind of obligation to make himself palatable to those that are afraid of 'angry black men', but on the whole, had Obama's campaign been a higher priority for him, I think he would've kept a low profile til after the Nov. election. And maybe clearing his name now was something of more importance to him- again- certainly his right.
by brueso on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:34:00 PM PDT
That's what he said on Moyers as to why he hadn't spoken out till then. I think it has something to do with giving the other side enough rope to hang itself with, the MSM relentlessly exposing its own bias and idiocy? (Help?) My biggest disappointment was that even Countdown came out against him. Well, my second biggest disappointment.
by thatvisionthing on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:23:53 PM PDT
let's not think too complexly about this or make Wright out to be some sort of hero. He let the attention go to his head and, in a very public way -- perhaps trying to make himself at last understood -- ended up making a complete ass of himself. There's nothing complex or mystical about ego-driven behavior.
A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.
by charlestown dem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:05:06 PM PDT
it truly just does not fit with what I have read and seen about Wright.
I must say that your version does fit with the narrative being sold by the assholes. Oh well. Believe what you will.
I happen to think Wright knows this is considerably bigger and much more important than himself and jumped the shark on purpose. Since you believe he is some kind of ego-maniac, it doesn't much seem to matter. The effects are the same, ultimately. He came across as a total nut. I just happen to believe it was intentional. You do not. Who cares, really? Only Wright knows for sure, and I bet he'll never tip his hand on this one - regardless.
I am curious, though, how you explain away his silence since - if he truly is so ego-driven?
by sick of it all on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:15:16 PM PDT
... just because Jeremiah Wright goes a little crazy now and then doesn't change one bit the fact that this is a VERY GOOD MAN.
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky
by ratmach on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:19:36 PM PDT
The results are the same - Obama has every reason to distnce himself and no one can blame him at this point.
(Love your sig line. I teach and Chomsky is brutal on education, too!! :))
by sick of it all on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:22:33 PM PDT
BRILLIANT.
And then some. The folks in Chicago are damn lucky and blessed.
by donailin on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:57:22 PM PDT
... but I'd be happy to go to his church.
by ratmach on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:05:46 PM PDT
and I'd return if I could find one priest that had one tenth the ability to evangelize like Wright. Holy Mother Church is a white sepulcher to me, and yet the Pope gets the royal treatment, meantime the real saints like Wright are crucified figuratively in the media.
S'okay. Wright will vindicated, I am confident.
by donailin on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:21:09 PM PDT
Or his silence could be due to regret or shame about what happened. Plenty of decent people overstep or overreach and act like assholes, only to deeply regret it later. Like it's been said, we'll likely never get the whole story so it's all just speculation.
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Ghandi
by Triscula on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:48:01 PM PDT
If it was for Obama though I would second guess him and say he could have done far more good by being thoughtful and patient in his answers rather than flippant or even that there would be ways to trigger Obama's rejection that would have been less damaging.
If he listens only to a higher power I'd say it surprises me that God wouldn't say "Jeremiah, be patient with my white children's questions, help them understand, we can bridge that gap in understanding a little."
I didn't ever suspect ego-driven as much as it might have been anger driven and God knows he had a right to anger. I never saw such an unfair one sided presentation as the frenzy over the clips. Had a white preacher who was pastor to a candidate had such clips cut from sermons they'd have gotten play too, that part wasn't race driven. What was I feel sure evidence of racial bias is the lack of balance in the picture, not having others there to speak or show the broader picture of the pastor and the church. People tried to be heard and they were ignored. That would not have happened with a white pastor and church. People may have stayed offended with the words on the clips but at least they would have fuller context and not think minutes of clips was the measure of the man.
I feel Wright could have done a world of good and regret he didn't take that step. I am no less sorry for the wrong that was done to him.
Just to answer your question... if his anger or ego did get the best of him as he was answering questions he could have stayed silent for the same reason we wouldn't push things after our ego or anger got the best of us in some moment. We'd realize we had gone too far and regret it.
by joynow on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:13:29 PM PDT
by sick of it all on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:21:42 PM PDT
I'm sure you're always entirely even-handed in matters of race. I know plenty of Townies, something hilarious about a Townie jumping on ANYONE else about racial divisiveness. Clean your own house first.
Tow
