Wright Is Right

The mainstream media is having a field day with the recorded sermons of Rev.
Jeremiah Wright, recently-retired pastor at Barack Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ.  Right-wingers and not-so right-wingers are screaming that Obama denounce his longtime spiritual advisor for saying, "God damn America" in a sermon.

Barack Obama should do nothing of the kind.  It's bad enough that Obama has backpedalled and made some statement comparing Wright to a daffy old uncle.  How insulting!  If Obama really sees Wright as his spiritual mentor, then he should have the courage to defend him in public.  

Most folks know I have come reluctantly to support Clinton over Obama.  I did so because I did not believe Obama's rhetoric was anything more than that - rhetoric.  But if Obama were to say, "Y'all live one week as a black person in America and come back and we'll talk then."  or if he were to say, "If America listened to Rev. Wright, then maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are today." I would throw out my "Hillary" yard sign and toss my "Hillary" buttons in the garbage can.  But can he?

That's the $64,000 question.  Sure Geraldine Ferraro's statements about Obama were revolting.  But they pale in comparison to the media attacks upon Rev. Wright.  Rev. Wright has the audacity to compare the mass incarceration of African Americans to genocide and white America goes apeshit.

Oh, yes.  It's politically acceptable to be a black man running for office and say that things are just looking great.  Unless you happen to be black, brown, or poor-white living in South Chicago, East L.A., or West Virginia.  God knows Hillary Clinton won't do anything to upset her corporate overlords.

So I'm waiting.  This is the perfect opportunity for Obama to really show
that his politics of charge really is a politics of change.
Let's see some real audacity, Obama!
Defend Rev. Jeremiah Wright!

•  Tips and Otherwise

  by johnnygunn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:10:06 PM PDT

•  Can you stop?

  Wright is not right. Wright is just an old man who probably should keep his crazy ideas to himself. S

  And he doesn't represent Obama or his supporters. I hope I am not going to start seeing diaries defending him.

  by jenontheshore on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:13:50 PM PDT

  •  I'll defend him.

    What did he say that you find objectionable?

    by converse on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:24:31 PM PDT

•  If he had said these things....

  while on the stump for Obama that would be one thing.

  But he said them in a church in his capacity as minister and he is basically preaching to the choir, which is his job.  Perhaps his rhetoric is a bit harsh, but it's hard to argue that his statements about the injustices this nation has committed are untrue.

  I'd like to see Obama say that while he may chose to phrase things differently, Wright's sermons do in fact bring up injustices which need to be corrected if our nation is ever to live up to its ideals.

  by cometman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM PDT

  •  The more important thing

    Is what does Obama think about what he said?   What does the fact that he has been a member of this church for 20 some years tell us?    Obama needs to address this directly so we don't have to guess.

    by bandersnatch on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:03:42 PM PDT

  •  "preaching to the choir?"

    Are you saying that Obama agrees with him?

    by another American on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:43:46 PM PDT

•  Wirght is right but

  If obama used this as an opportunity to tell white people about themselves, his career would be over

  by LoLoLaLa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:20:37 PM PDT

•  Barack called. Said to tell you:

  "If America listened to Rev. Wright, then maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are today."

  (Counting on your vote now.)

  by converse on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:23:23 PM PDT

  •  I Googled the Quote -

    Couldn't find the source.

    Really, now, did Obama ever say this?

    by johnnygunn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:28:20 PM PDT

    •  It was a private call.

      Told me to only share it with you.

      by converse on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:30:25 PM PDT

      •  Nope -

        I need to see one instance where Obama has done something differently politically - where he has truly taken a political risk to place principle over political.

        In 1942, Colorado Gov. Ralph Carr spoke out in defense of the rights of interned Japanese-Americans.  It cost him his political career.

        Lyndon Johnson used the words, "We shall overcome" in his television speech urging Americans to support the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  It cost him and the Democratic Party the support of many white Southerners.

        Will Obama take such a risk?

        by johnnygunn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:39:38 PM PDT

        •  Gosh, an admitted Clinton supporter

          challenging Obama to "risk his career".

          What could possibly be the motivation???

          by converse on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:43:29 PM PDT

          •  You Know -

            I'm trying to be nice.
            You were, up until this point.

            Here's the logic.
            If Obama offers nothing significantly different than other politicians,
            Why risk his relative lack of experience and lack of connections,
            Not to mention his baptism by fire by the swiftboaters?
            If there ain't all that much difference,
            then I am cynically sticking with Hillary.

            If Obama truly is advocating a new politics,
            then I want to see some evidence of it BEFORE the election.
            I would love to see something really different, but I haven't.
            Johnson said that he would pass voting rights in the 1964 campaign.
            Reagan said that he would cut government in 1980.
            Potentially risky, concrete actions that challenged political inertia.

            That's my motivation.

            by johnnygunn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:50:52 PM PDT

            •  Nice is overrated.

              I was just havin me some fun.

              You're right, though, yours is the cynical choice.

              by converse on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:55:01 PM PDT

              •  And the Rhetoric Balloon?

                Should it pop in October, say?

                by johnnygunn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:01:08 PM PDT

    •  He really likes you a lot.

      Says he'd be honored to have your vote.

      by converse on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:33:11 PM PDT

      •  I'll Vote for Him in Nov.

        If he's the Dem nominee.
        Without a doubt.

        by johnnygunn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:42:46 PM PDT

•  He's more than partially right. The US supported

  state-sponsored terrorism against the South African people.  In fact, Reagan opposed John McCain's support of those terrorists.  (REAGAN with the moral highground!?)

  Israeli-Palestinian issues are quite different, but Israel has used torture against Palestinians.

  We did bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki in what Eisenhower and several of Truman's highest-ranking officers called an "unnecessary" attack.

  Were the "chickens coming home to roost" on 9/11?  Well, al-Qaeda specifically attacked a civilian target with other civilian targets, something very different than suicide bombing the Pentagon or blowing up an aircraft carrier, so no, 9/11 was a horrible, unconscionable, and disproportionate attack.

  Of course, Hillary Clinton voted to continue using clusterbombs on civilian targets, so we can't say that the US government, or even all Democrats, have taken the moral highground on the issue of killing civilians.  Nor do two unconscionable wrongs make a right.  Nor does voting for Hillary Clinton knowing all of this do anything but say, "Well, raining down upon men, women, and children with a few thousand landmines is fine by me" -- a moral dilemma worth considering.

  In short, Reverend Wright is historically correct up to a point but his summation is wrong.  The fierceness of his condemnation is probably what makes most people ASSUME he is wrong without listening.  But he isn't saying anything that Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal haven't written entire books about, nor is it mere, base conspiracy theory.

  The question is, will people listen and then judge or judge without listening or agree or disagree or something in between?

  by NotablyZen on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:30:13 PM PDT

  •  Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not so simple.

    Michael Walzer, among others, makes a strong case against the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Oliver Kamm, among others, makes a strong case that the attacks were justified. See, e.g., An open letter to the editors of Media Lens - finis and the additional links therein.

    In brief, there is no contemporary evidence that "Eisenhower and several of Truman's highest-ranking officers" advised Truman against carrying out the attacks. And there is extensive evidence, based on a review of Japanese sources, that, without both attacks, Japan would not have surrendered, condemning the Japanese, Americans, and others involved to months more of carnage.

    The moral problem is that the purpose in attacking Hiroshima and Nagasaki seems to have been to compel the Japanese government to surrender, but the cities as such were not legitimate military targets. But even Walzer accepts the concept of "supreme emergency" in war. Considering the alternatives Truman had, I'm not so sure he did the wrong thing.

    by another American on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:53:56 PM PDT

    •  Although There Was No U.N. Yet -

      The U.S. was a signatory of the Hague Conventions which prohibited targeting civilians.  Pres. Roosevelt had also strongly condemned the bombing of undefended cities at the beginning of WWII.

      So judged by contemporary standards, not present ones, we committed a gross violation of the rules of war.

      by johnnygunn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:59:07 PM PDT

•  Obama should denounce and reject

  Rev. Wright -- right after George W. Bush and the Republicans denounce and reject Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell for claiming that 9/11 was God's judgement for the actions of feminists and radical gays, and when Republicans denounce and reject Fred Phelps and his ilk who say that the death of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan is God's judgement for homosexuality in America and who show up at military funerals gleefully rejoicing in those deaths, and when John McCain denounces and rejects his supporter John Hagee for his anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish rhetoric.

  by Cali Scribe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:46:11 PM PDT

  •  Separate issues

    What Obama should do with regard to Rev. Wright is not in any way dependent on what Bush and Co. do about the wingnuttier elements of the right wing.

    The fact that Bush and Co. have accomodated or promoted evil, does not excuse Dems from doing good or provide a pass for Dems to condone evil.  (Please note that this is not intended as a comment on Rev. Wright or what Sen Obama should do, but only on the justification you provide for Sen Obama not doing anything. )

    by Justanothernyer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:20:09 PM PDT

•  Obama is a Protestant

  He doesn't call his pastor infallible, or have to believe or defend everything Wright has said from the pulpit or anywhere.

  Alex
  Choose Our President 2008

  by ourprez08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:48:31 PM PDT

•  I've Got news for you

  This guy is bad news for Obama  because this   election is now  unfortunately a race election and  there is a lot of "get whitey "  vibe  coming out of this guy.   Obama needs white votes.   He had better distance himself from this clown  quickly.   Believe me,   in this unprecedented situation,  white voters have their " get whitey" radar up.

  I was starting to look more favorably  at Obama.  He is a great politician and I am looking forward to seeing  signs that he can grow into a great statesman if elected.    Then   I became aware of this Wright character.     After listening to him,  It helps one understand  what Michelle Obama  said  about the country.  

  by bandersnatch on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:51:25 PM PDT

•  Do You Honestly Think -

  That we can have any discussion about race in this country if everyone goes around pretending?

  by johnnygunn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:53:20 PM PDT

•  I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what

  Rev. Wright said that is not true.

  If Rev. Wright said something that is not true, Obama should denounce it.

  I have no problem with Obama trying to have us look forward to a better united America.  It is not Obama's job to spell out a list of grievances for America's past and present, because he believes that looking forward together is the best way of solving our problems.

  On the other hand, Obama should not denounce the truth, no matter how uncomfortable that truth is.

  The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime, but victors make history and international law, so American history lies to us and tells us that the bombing saved lives.  Rev. Wright truthfully says that is bullshit.  Obama should not condemn Rev. Wright for telling the truth.

  Irie.

  by pwr2thepeople on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:02:32 PM PDT

  •  People are feeling bad

    about the country now,  both blacks and whites.    Michelle Obama's comments about the country,  and  Wright shouting "goddamn America"   is not  something Obama should be associated with  if he wants to win this election.  

    by bandersnatch on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:13:32 PM PDT

•  The good Reverend has a point or two or three

  About militarism abroad by US forces.
  What you do unto onother, may also be done upon you.
  And that is why the nuclear arms thing is such a sensitive topic here.
  Personally I would not care if Iran had nukes.
  For if it dare uses it the US can retailiate

  by wuod kwatch on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:24:09 PM PDT

  •  Just what we need. Nuclear strikes on both

    the US and Iran.

    by another American on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:42:39 PM PDT