The View's Hasselbeck: "[C]an white people go to [Obama's] church?"
SUMMARY: The View's Elisabeth Hasselbeck, referring to Sen. Barack Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, asked her co-hosts, "[C]an white people go to that church?" Sean Hannity, whose show Hasselbeck mentioned, has falsely suggested that the church is segregated.
During the March 10 edition of ABC's The View, co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck, referring to Sen. Barack Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, asked her co-hosts, "[C]an white people go to that church?" Fellow co-host Whoopi Goldberg responded, "Sure, white people do go to that church."
Earlier in the show, Hasselbeck mentioned watching a segment on Fox News' Hannity's America titled "The Real Barack Obama," in which host Sean Hannity discussed Obama's church. Hannity previously has falsely suggested that the church is "segregated." As Media Matters for America has noted, Rev. Jane Fisler Hoffman, a minister in the United Church of Christ who attends Trinity, recently made a statement about the church -- video of which is available online -- in which she stated that "ministers all around the United Church of Christ -- European-American, African-American, and other denominations -- bring people from their churches to Trinity because the worship is so powerful, the preaching is so meaningful and prophetic." Hoffman went on to add that Trinity "is a church that reaches out to everybody, locally, around the world, all colors, and it just wants to share the gospel and good news of Jesus." Moreover, in an April 2, 2007, posting on the website of the Martin Marty Center -- the institute for advanced research in all fields of the study of religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School -- professor emeritus Martin E. Marty wrote of Trinity: "My wife and I on occasion attend, and, like all other non-blacks, are enthusiastically welcomed."
From the March 10 edition of ABC's The View:
GOLDBERG: Hi, we're back. We're back. So, continuing on with this very interesting discussion. We were talking -- really, the bottom line comes down to, does Obama need to move away from his minister? Is his minister gonna end up hurting him? Do they have any control over what their ministers say from day to day, or what the people who like them, like the -- Ron Paul had the white-supremacist guy who kept giving money to him. He said, "Listen, I'm not returning the money. I don't know this guy. I didn't ask him to call me. I'm doing it." You know, what do you do?
HASSELBECK: I guess it just bothered me that -- wasn't it Barack Obama when he gave that incredible speech at the Democratic National Convention? Didn't he talk about one America? And it was so inspiring. And I just thought, there he had me. But then I just lose it a little bit when I hear him talk about the one America, but then if he follows this -- if it is a belief system and it is executed in their actions, I just feel as though it's, in a way, could be deemed as exclusive and not --
[crosstalk]
SHERRI SHEPHERD (co-host): What is the -- when you say "the belief system executed in their actions," what are you saying?
HASSELBECK: I'm just saying, is it about -- can you only be -- can white people go to that church? When they talk about --
[crosstalk]
GOLDBERG: Sure, white people do go to that church.
HASSELBECK: But if they are teaching -- if that's their priority, OK, in that whole journal -- yeah, the black community. If it's so focused on that, it seems to me that that just -- I see a dichotomy there. I see -- OK, yes, they're talking about that here, and then Barack Obama's talking about everyone together. It just -- I don't understand that.
SHEPHERD: But then also, too, Elizabeth, the church has to -- has to embrace the community that it's in.
HASSELBECK: Sure.
SHEPHERD: And it is in a black community and surrounded by it are people that are not doing well. So it is embracing that, and Barack started going to this church. Now, he may decide, "I need to go to a different church," but, you know, that church is embracing its community.
GOLDBERG: It may not change the --
HASSELBECK: It hasn't.
GOLDBERG: -- well, no, but the message may not change. If you go to another black church and they're having as much trouble, they're gonna talk about the same things because -- we've had this discussion. Is the country out of its racist period? No, it's not.
HASSELBECK: It's not. It's definitely not.
the dumb blonde trick.
In Hasselbeck's case, it's neither a trick nor an act. She really IS dumb.
But is she really BLONDE? XD
Only her hairdresser and her husband know for sure.... :-)
"Only her hairdresser and her husband know for sure.... :-)"
Baloney! Look at the photo. Only bleached blondes have dark roots like that!
The total of my knowledge of this show is this clip, but if that is indicative of the normal banter then the term "dumb" should be applied to all participants. Talk about giving women a bad name!
HASSELBECK: "can white people go to that church?"
Yes, darling, but those who have gone there have never been seen or heard from again. ;>)
Yes, Elisabeth, there's the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, too.
But white people entering a "black" church are generally drugged, bagged and thrown aboard a rusty old trawler and taken to Sierra Leone where they spend the rest of their days manufacturing hydrogen peroxide for America's never-ending thirst for stupid blondes.
I am baffled why some on the right are so obsessed with where Obama goes to church. It stinks of desperation.
Limbaugh spent a lot of time on the subject today, suggesting that Obama is somehow responsible (or in league with) everything that his pastor says.
Idiocy. Sheer idiocy.
As for Hasselbeck, do I think she's racist for her question? No. Dumb as a post? Yes.
I tend to agree...I don't think she intended to be offensive. But I find stupidity on television offensive... ;>)
This girl is just another Rushketeer. She needs a name tag and their symbol, a huge cigar hanging out her mouth. We can add Lizzy to the ranks with Annie C., Seannie and an assortment of Rushketeers.
Maybe Lizzy will appear tomorrow and say it was just a joke and you liberals fell for it. No, Lizzy, it was your ignorance that stood out. How I wish Rosie was there for this one. Lizzy would probably get pregnant again and need time off. And this woman is a mother...another little Rushketeer prined for the future.
This girl is just another Rushketeer. She needs a name tag and their symbol, a huge cigar hanging out her mouth. We can add Lizzy to the ranks with Annie C., Seannie and an assortment of Rushketeers.
When out of substance, belittle, mention "Rush", that'll strike fear into their hearts.
You say that maybe "Lizzy" will appear tomorrow and claim her question was a JOKE? She wouldn't steal that tactic from John Kerry, now would she? That would only work for a fellow liberal and a "botched joke".
- No, Lizzy, it was your ignorance that stood out.
So, now you define "ignorance" as asking a question? This is rich! Whatever happened to the notion of no such thing as a stupid question, only a stupid answer? Oh yea, this is a "Rushketeer" we're talking about.
Lizzy would probably get pregnant again and need time off. And this woman is a mother..
Attack her ability to mother her own child; that's a nice shot. It's as meaningless as it is pointless; but it's a thrilling bit of partisan venom spitting.
.another little Rushketeer prined for the future.
And finally we part with another mention of the anti-Marx, "Rush", but this time it's directed at the woman's child. How nice! Koombya, baby!
She was not just asking a question. She was commenting that Barack Obama is a hypocrite because he talks about one America but doesn't practice that in his personal life.
I've read the transcript above twice and have yet to find any derivative of of the "hypocrite" cited therein.
Hasselbeck is ready to believe anything the right-wing info-tainers feed her.
Or, perhaps, and certainly quite possibly, she's bringing out a question that has been raised (by whomever) and is simply asking a question.
Hannity and Rush claim white people are not allowed in Obama's church,
I've looked online for the entire, complete, contextually respresentive transcripts of the Hannity's America show regarding this subject. Until I find and read the entire transcript for myself, I'll exercise prudence in accepting the afore cited comment. (Maybe they both actually said this; maybe they did not.) One thing for sure, I have not heard them say it. Plus, I read one of the hotlinks (above) which summarizes that Hannity accused the church of being "separatist". However, within the actual quote, Hannity says that from what he's read that it "seems" like they're running a seperatist organization. That's a bit removed from the former claim where Hannity accused the church of BEING separatist. Not the same thing.
which is completely false,
Maybe so. Much of the philosophy cited in the church's mission statement is very separatist sounding, by focusing very heavily on the word "black" and "African", "-history", "slavery", "oppressed", "haves and have nots", God is angry with America for its economic mal-distribution", etc. While it's likely this church would welcome people of all backgrounds to their services, I think it is very reasonable to question the church leadership's motivations behind promoting such a "black" oriented message, especially where a white outsider would read the church literature and website and might reasonably wonder if it is fully Christian, or partially/ mostly "black". There is certainly nothing wrong with posing such a question. All one must do to see the reason is to imagine a church that made all those same claims with regard to "white" people, etc. If Woopie Goldberg asked if black people could go there, I doubt seriously that MedicaMatters would be razzing her for asking such a stupid, racist question.
The apologists here conveniently overlook the relationship that one has with ones pastor, especially one that has grown up in a church or spent all of ones adult life inside said church.
I wonder if MMfA would be as forgiving of a pastor of let's say John McCain who used the "N" word?
I wonder if MMfA would be as forgiving of a pastor of let's say John McCain who used the "N" word?
The entire media seems to be ignoring John McCain's association with the hatemongoring televangelist John Hagee......
Are you suggesting John McCain is a lifelong member of Hagee's church; looks to Hagee for wisdom, guidance, mentorship, book titles, etc.?
Plus, Hagee is NOT the issue here, Wright is!
But while we're on the non-issue, let us recall one David Duke's FORMER relationship with one racist organization which divebomb Duke's political aspirations. That is, the media trashes white folk for their associations with racial organizations, (PAST such relationships notwithstanding.). Yet the media (and the leftists among our population) choose to give Obama (who happens to be black... half-way at least) a complete pass for his current, long-time intimate relationship with Wright who is an open, outright anti-white, black racist jerk, and instead attack those of us who bring light to this obvious fact, as being the ones who are racist. Attack the white messenger as being racist. Being called a white racist is supposed to shut white people up; and it has been quite effective in doing so; however there are those of us white people who are willing to state the obvious. Obama's pastor is a militant black racist jerk of the 1960's POST-ML King pacifist civil rights era. The second wave of the civil rights movement included the likes of Malcon X (who dropped his last name for fallacious reasons), the Black Panthers, and other such militant racist jerks. This is about Obama and his long time relationship with an openly racist so-called "black leader".
Check this out: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1 Note it's on ABC news, not Hannity's American. Ask yourself whether you could listen to this garbage for 20 years and simply dismiss it! Then why continue to support such an organization?
Honestly, I started out liking Obama on a personal level. I don't like his politics and will not vote for him. But I've said several times that he appears a very likeable guy. However, after looking into this huge influence, I have a sick feeling in my stomach where my prior appreciation for Obama once resided.
You seem to be also very misinformed. I really dont know where to begin.
1. Don't re-write history. Malcolm X died in 1965 so he was not post-MLK. They were present at the same time and did inspire two different African American movements. On that is more militant and one that is based on civil disobedience. Both are necessary aspects of our histry and speak to the different reactions, ideas for solutions and thought patterns.
2. Now are all racists because we all see race and have certain tjings that we associate with race. Many of which are based in either a certain ignorance, discontent amongst other things. I am a racist and so are you and everyone else, its a result of our society.
Now let me take it a step further, you know the history of this country right. African Americans were not only stripped of their culture, they were stripped of their pride and were made to feel inferior and live as second class citizens. Trinity United Church through faith and fellowship are restoring this culture, pride in oneself and pride in one's community. It is empowerment. I have come to realize that many seem not to understand this concept. Jeremiah Wright preaches the social gospel!! Many black churches do because remember since blacks did not own public space and did not have certain priveleges and power, they had to create communities, grassroots communities. The largest in the black church which has been at the center of our communities for almost two centuries. Trinity United Church of Christ follows in this tradition. White people are welcomed, they attend and are welcomed. When a group of people are stripped of thir pride and identity etc..such places work as places of empowerment as I said before. They teach us our history and they encourage us to help others in our communties. TUCC is right next to a housing project on the South Side of Chicago and it is there in the center of the community of the poor and disenfranchised. The people who attend this church is just like Barack and Michelle Obama. They are professional, well to African Americans whose life goal is public service and helping the community.
Now, this county believes in freedom of speech. Rev. Wright ( who I think may be still on TV-One in Sunday mornings) preaches the social gospel where they link politics and social issues to the gospel. Look up Black Liberation Theology, Social Gospel, African American theology and its history and roots and you will get a much better understanding. Some of what he preaches is very "confrontational" and even liberal however the values bestowed in the church are conservative values of self-empowerment, family values, personal and social reponsiblity etc.. Much of what he was saying in those segments that was shown to the mainstream media was about how our society is built upon ideals and still carry ideals that are not upright. He speaks about the hypocrisy of America. I love my country but I would love it more if it actually lived up to its creed. When you hear some black leaders, activists and ministers speaking, you must understand where they are coming from. African Americans nt only in this country but around the world has been opressed. Much of that discontent with mainstream white society has to do with this discontent. As I said, because of our world and the ways in which race has been socially constructed, we are all racists. However before you come down on Rev. Wright, who I respect, see where he is coming from and learn from about the church and the people that go there before making blanket assumptions. Thank You Elizabeth Hasselbeck for saying how you feel so that we can engage in discourse and begin to understand one another.
Will MMfA and yourself condemn Wright? My guess is no. I'm also willing to bet you probably accept Wrights race baiting and hatemongering as long as it's directed towards the right.
Hypocrisy thy name is liberal.
I think we both know the answer to that question.
The exact word "hypocrite" is not contained in her statements, but look at the meaning of what she is saying. Read her first paragraph above. She's clearly implying that Obama talks about one America, but then attends a church that (she believes) does not allow white members. She was the one who mentioned Sean Hannity's program pointing out the problems with his church not allowing white members. She then goes on to say his church's "priority" is the black community. Her entire argument is that Obama talks of one America, but then attends a black-exclusive church.
You can argue his church is not "Christian" and is instead "black" as you put it, but I would counter that Jesus himself would be speaking against things like slavery or economic inequality. So, their message is very much in line with Christian teaching and the sermons of Jesus Christ.
As an example is the "as far as I know" controversy:
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002
It appears Chris Matthews had critized Clinton regarding this issue before he had even seen the full video. I'm am amazed he would give his opinion to millions of people without putting in a minimal effort (30 seconds) to watch the interview.
That's all well and good. However where's the evidence that this was engineered by the Republicans? And just what would the smarmy, fake republicans of Florida stand to gain in such a devious effort?
You didn't hear Hillary or Barak calling foul, did you? NOOOOOOO! By the way, don't you think that in the end, the Florida delegates will be seated? Hillary has already calling for them to be seated. Of course, she won in Florida, but do you really beleive that Smarmy Charlie engineered this so that Hillary could win and the delegates would not be seated, even though half the rep. delegates are also supposed to not be seated? Like I said, what would be their motive, aside from giving rise to a feeding frenzy at MediaMatters.com and other leftist conspiratorial loonies? It makes little sense, but it makes for effective tautology.
And just what would the smarmy, fake republicans of Florida stand to gain in such a devious effort?
Are you saying that they are too stupid to think ahead to the current situation, or are you not smart enough to realize it? Who in their right mind could not see the advantage to the R party by introducing chaos and controversy into the D primary? You?
The fact is that the actual history involved shows that the republicans introduced the issue of moving ahead the primaries, and they were the ones who stuck it in a very important bill about providing paper trails on voting machines, ensuring that the dems would have to vote for it.
My question to you is, did you not know any of this and just decided to talk out of your a$$, or did you intentionally ignore the facts in a lame attempt to score cheap political points?
Are you saying that they are too stupid to think ahead to the current situation, or are you not smart enough to realize it?
Even I am smart enough to know a fully loaded question when I see one, especially when it's pointed in my general direction. Your two choices here are that either they or I am too stupid.... etc.... So, let me mull this over for a moment. Operative sentiment: Agree with you or admit to being stupid. Hey, if you continue with this pace of mental development, maybe next year when you try out for it, you'll actually MAKE your 4th grade debate team.
Who in their right mind could not see the advantage to the R party by introducing chaos and controversy into the D primary?
So you're suggesting the republicans, who are, by the way, known for their inherent knuckle-dragging, troglodyte levels of sub-human intellect, were somehow able to miraculously become ingenius enough not only to engineer, in the past, this entire current event with known outcomes, without the use a magic crystal ball? Sounds a bit Michael Moorish conspiratorial, to me. But I've been wrong before.
The fact is that the actual history involved shows that the republicans introduced the issue of moving ahead the primaries, and they were the ones who stuck it in a very important bill about providing paper trails on voting machines, ensuring that the dems would have to vote for it.
And they did this in conjunction with only one other state believing they would cause the current issue in the dem party where there are actually TWO candidates running for office during the primary season. (I'm sorry but doesn't this pretty much define primary seasons?) Hey, here's an idea. The democrats engineered Mike Huckabees tenacious campaign during the republican primaries to which many claim caused the demise of Mitt Romney's run during the rep. primary. Hey, remember all the fuss from the right during that debacle? Why Ann Coulter, herself, was so up in arms that she stated publicly her intent to vote for Hillary over John McCain. (I'm sure this was a democratic conspiracy. Hey, Who in their right mind could not see the advantage to the D party by introducing chaos and controversy into the R primary? My reply to that would be a resounding YEA RIGHT, as should your with regard to the current D party primary!
My question to you is, did you not know any of this and just decided to talk out of your a$$, or did you intentionally ignore the facts in a lame attempt to score cheap political points?
And your closing statement offers yet another example of low-level communication skills: The classic dichotomy wherein choosing either pin-headed option leaves the subject pleading either talking our of his liberal end, or self-imposed ignorance. How about "neither of the above". My comments and thoughts are well stated above. Find yourself a dictionary and have a go. Meanwhile, put this in your pie-hole and smoke it: I'm NOT stupid. If I fall into the chasm of intelletual confusion and moral amnesia, I'd not be stupid, I'd be a modern day liberal democrat.
Is it too much to ask for her to do, what five minutes research, on the issue she is commenting on?
Apparantly, she did her "research" by watching Hannity's Amerika.
You all need to deal with you blonde-aphobia issue here. Watch out or your spark another element of the national victims of social abuse club: The White Blonde Female.
Alll is fair in politics. Obama's life is currently open-season due to his candidacy. It just so happens that his church pastor has made some "interesting" PUBLIC statements, not the least of which was awarding Louis Farakan with an outstanding citizenship-type of an award. This is controversial because of Farakan's well-publicized anti-white racism and his anti-semetic public remarks.
Obama's affiliation to such an organization is being questioned and scrutinized, and for good reason.
This isn't about a dumb blonde white woman and her apparent dumbness and/or latent racism.
Oh and that would completely change the entire prognosis, your honor. You win; I withdraw my following statement.... but I maintain my previous.
Following statement (withdrawn)
Following comment: ToMAYtoe ToMAAtoe, the preacher handed out the award to Louney Farakan, the preacher's daughter handed out.... All in the same church, all in the same family, all within the same element of said church pastoral family, which is about as close to saying nothing of significant difference.
No ALL is NOT fair in politics. Some things are sleazy and some things are stupid. THIS was stupid. I dont care how blonde she is. As for Obama. His PASTOR did something he immediatly denounced and then denounced Farrakhan. Since his PASTOR is not running for president I dont see any issue. I have gone to several churches that did things I didnt approve of. Sometimes I left. Other times I just agreed to disagree. So I dont see any issue whatsoever.
1. No such renunciations have been made.
2. Check this out: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1 Note it's on ABC news, not Hannity's American.
3. Ask yourself whether you could listen to this racist garbage for 20 years and simply dismiss it!
4. An intelligent person does not sit, listen, and obsorb stuff with which he disagrees for TWENTY YEARS! The INFLUENCE on the Obama household of Wright's racism could not have possibly been dismissed!
I think some of you Obama apolists are hanging to the wrong bias in this particular case. Further,
Honestly, I started out liking Obama on a personal level. I don't like his politics and will not vote for him. But I've said several times that he appears a very likeable guy. However, after looking into this huge influence, I have a sick feeling in my stomach where my prior appreciation for Obama once resided.
1. No such renunciations have been made.
2. Check this out: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1 Note it's on ABC news, not Hannity's American.
3. Ask yourself whether you could listen to this racist garbage for 20 years and simply dismiss it!
4. An intelligent person does not sit, listen, and obsorb stuff with which he disagrees for TWENTY YEARS! The INFLUENCE on the Obama household of Wright's racism could not have possibly been dismissed!
I think some of you Obama apolists are hanging to the wrong bias in this particular case.
Honestly, I started out liking Obama on a personal level. I don't like his politics and will not vote for him. But I've said several times that he appears a very likeable guy. However, after looking into this huge influence, I have a sick feeling in my stomach where my prior appreciation for Obama once resided.
1. No such renunciations have been made.
2. Check this out: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1 Note it's on ABC news, not Hannity's American.
3. Ask yourself whether you could listen to this racist garbage for 20 years and simply dismiss it!
4. An intelligent person does not sit, listen, and obsorb stuff with which he disagrees for TWENTY YEARS! The INFLUENCE on the Obama household of Wright's racism could not have possibly been dismissed!
I think some of you Obama apolists are hanging to the wrong bias in this particular case.
Honestly, I started out liking Obama on a personal level. I don't like his politics and will not vote for him. But I've said several times that he appears a very likeable guy. However, after looking into this huge influence, I have a sick feeling in my stomach where my prior appreciation for Obama once resided.
IT's1. No such renunciations have been made.
2. Check this out: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1 Note it's on ABC news, not Hannity's American.
3. Ask yourself whether you could listen to this racist garbage for 20 years and simply dismiss it!
4. An intelligent person does not sit, listen, and obsorb stuff with which he disagrees for TWENTY YEARS! The INFLUENCE on the Obama household of Wright's racism could not have possibly been dismissed!
I think some of you Obama apolists are hanging to the wrong bias in this particular case.
Honestly, I started out liking Obama on a personal level. I don't like his politics and will not vote for him. But I've said several times that he appears a very likeable guy. However, after looking into this huge influence, I have a sick feeling in my stomach where my prior appreciation for Obama once resided.
nyuk nyuk NYUK.... Yea, becuase that's obviously how black people talk. "Pass da mufu(k)in plate..."
And that was NOT a racist remark.... !?!?
Doesn't this girl READ? Before making a fool of herself you'd think she would have looked it up if it was that important for her to know. White people do attend Obama's church.
The story says that she mentioned Sean Hannity's show. That means she's been "Hannitized", and her brain no longer functions.
It's almost like reading right wing Cliff Notes. ;>)
The difference is Cliff Notes are a suitable substitute for the original, where right-wing talk shows are not a suitable substitute for the truth.
CliffNotes give you a general idea of the content of a book. But right-wing talk radio does NOT give you a general idea of the facts behind an issue, or the truth.
That's the analogy I was trying to make.
Since when would you have to spend an entire day reading or watching mainstream news resources in order to be well informed on a daily basis?
From what I've seen, the news flashes are repeated throughout a 24-hour period; as such one can stay quite current with the day's events without spending all day at it.
The talk show folks stay very well informed and current. I've listened to talk radio while driving and then turned on the tv news and basically allready heard everything that is presented therein. And I'm talking mainstream news channels. (I don't have cable.). The only difference in what I've heard on talk radio and what is presented on tv news, is that the talkers offer more time to each story and, therefore, offer much more detail than the tv crowd.
Your darlings on the View are way too biased to be considered as a single reliable news source. Yet I note you guys are only razzing the resident conservative, Ms. Hasseldorf. Not very "open-minded" of you, is it?
By the way, do you folks think that spending your time farting around in this blog reading MediaMatters slanted "news" stories and each others comments keeps you well informed? pppffffttttt.....
The talk show folks stay very well informed and current.
Bwahahahahaha. That was good. If your sole way to judge the depth of knowledge and accuracy of talk show hosts is that they give you more info that the local news, then you may be right. That would be like saying that the sourkraut I ate was really sweet because it was way sweeter than that show of vinegar I had before dinner.
Solon, you're overuse of the word "stupid" is already bordering on monotony, redunancy, etc.
Here's a list of synonyms you can use to add color to your obviously dry vocabularius palate: blockheaded, dense, doltish, hebetudinous, obtuse, thickheaded.
Finally, then why all the frenzied excitementable commenting on all of these MM stories? Are you suggesting that you and your virtual playmates at MM.com actually get your "new" straight from the proverbial horses' mouths? If so, that would mean you regularly listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and watch their tv shows, rather than taking in only the queens on the View, MSNBC, and other such leftist reporters? I'd be surprised!
You forgot the sarcasm tag. I've been drinking, I'm a little slow!
She's soooooo gonna get introduced to alter love if she shows up at that "black" church! ;)
It's a legitimate question. A white person can't join the Congressional Black Caucus so maybe Obama's church is the same
WRONG! It's dumb question, like asking can Asians go to a Catholic church or can A Protestant go to a Baptist church. It's illegal to discriminate period!
A white person can't join the Congressional Black Caucus so maybe Obama's church is the same.
WRONG AGAIN. It has never had a white member in its 36-year history. However, its stated mission is to work for "America's neglected citizens," whatever their color. And a little research into Obama's church you would ind is DOES NOT discriminate either!
WRONG! It's dumb question, like asking can Asians go to a Catholic church or can A Protestant go to a Baptist church.
Or George W. Bush asking the leader of Brazil if he has black people in his country.....
Stupidity abounds among the ranks of conservatives. Their average IQ dropped substantially when William F. Buckey died - he was carrying the majority of their IQ points.
Pearlene,
As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Now that he's a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.
"I think they're real happy I'm not going to join," said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in the Memphis district. "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."
Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be "a social faux pas" after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was "critical" that the group remain "exclusively African-American."
Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay's son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.
"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."
The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, a House aide said, but no non-black member has ever joined.
Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who is white, tried in 1975 when he was a sophomore representative and the group was only six years old.
"Half my Democratic constituents were African American. I felt we had interests in common as far as helping people in poverty," Stark said. "They had a vote, and I lost. They said the issue was that I was white, and they felt it was important that the group be limited to African Americans."
Cohen remains hopeful, though, that he can forge relationships with black members in other ways.
"When I saw the reticence, I didn't want anyone to misunderstand my motives. Politically, it was the right thing to do," he said. "There are other ways to gain fellowship with people I respect."
Cohen won his seat in the 60 percent black district as the only white candidate in a crowded primary field. If he faces a primary challenge next year from a black candidate, as expected, some Black Caucus members may work to defeat him.
A similar situation arose in 2004 after redistricting added more black voters to the Houston district of former Rep. Chris Bell, D-Texas.
Although House tradition discourages members of the same party from working against each other, about a dozen black lawmakers contributed to Bell's opponent, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, the eventual victor. Even Bell's Houston neighbor, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, campaigned against him.
One black member who criticized his colleagues for sandbagging Bell was Cohen's predecessor, Harold Ford.
"You have an incumbent, and you don't support an incumbent? It was inappropriate," Ford told Congressional Quarterly in 2004.
Cohen has won high marks for hiring African Americans. A majority of his staff is African American, he said, including his chief of staff.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2389.htmlCohen said in a statement that he told a reporter that he would be honored to join the caucus but did not apply, "nor has the CBC denied membership to me." The political Web site Politico.com, which first reported the issue, quoted Rep. William Clay, Jr., D-Mo., as saying the black membership in his group is "an unwritten rule."
AA, it appears that Mr. Cohen says he did not apply for membership nor was he denied.
I think the desire by some to join the CBC has less to do with "Democratic African American constituents" and more to do with curiosity and novelty. The notion of a black caucus with white members is silly on it's face. It would no longer be called the Congressional Black Caucus. I'm curious is there a great desire to join the Congressional Hispanic Caucus?
It would be foolish to pretend that we live in a color blind society. There are ways to forge relationships and understanding with Blacks and Hispanics without joining the CBC or CHC.
Last time I checked Barney Frank was white. He was (is) in the Congressional Black Caucas, too.
take care tony and guidedog Lido
A white person can't join the Congressional Black Caucus so maybe Obama's church is the same.
You gotta be Superman to make such a leap of logic :D
That should read "defending their 'nasty, racist, divisive' ideology".
That should read "defending their 'nasty, racist, divisive' ideology".
?
Pearlene,
It was sarcasm. The woman on the video was none of those things, but it demonstrates how the right -particularly Hannity - is trying to spin gullible people into believing it is true.
Hey Open_Mind where the hell have you been? I was asking about you on a thread weeks ago, you & a few other regs were MIA ;-)
Glad to see you've returned, your voice here has been missed.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/05/lynee-cheney-dallas-country-club/
I'll bet there are more white people in Obama's church that there are black people in this place
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/05/lynee-cheney-dallas-country-club/
Not when you count the wait staff.....
OK, I can't help myself anymore. Look at the above picture, and think she is saying this:
"If ya grab them people by the berries, here's how far the twig is from the branch".
Is that Tim or Matt Hasselbeck's wife? Either way he has a sexy idiot for a wife. Can a white person go to Obama's church? Sounds like she just volunteered to take Fox cameras to the church and hear a sermon. It'd be good for ratings.
that's all they care about anyway
Hasselback: "But if they are teaching -- if that's their priority, OK, in that whole journal -- yeah, the black community. If it's so focused on that, it seems to me that that just -- I see a dichotomy there. I see -- OK, yes, they're talking about that here, and then Barack Obama's talking about everyone together. It just -- I don't understand that."
What does this even mean?
That's the most convoluted statement since this classic by Miss South Carolina Teen USA, Caitlin Upton - another blonde in her position simple because of her looks and not because of her intellect:
“I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uhmmm, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh, I believe that our, I, education like such as, uh, South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us.” Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20473692/
To crib lines from Rage Against the Machine
"Hasselbeck ain't seen a brown skinned man since her grandaddy bought one."
what they should do is set a big kids table and a little kids table, that would balance the View out a touch...Goldberg will feel a trifle lonely at the big kids table but I think Behar and Walters could join her from time to time to discuss the news, meanwhile Hasselbeck and Shepherd can ponder life's big mysteries like is the world flat, are black folk the same as white folk and how much duct tape Americans need to have on hand during an attack on the HOMELAND
I feel like a f'n Russian having to say MOTHERLAND because President Jr dragged it into the lexicon
Eden,
It seems to me that maybe you Dem/Libs should start worrying less about what an Republican/Conservative airhead like Elisabeth Hasselbeck has to say & more about what an intelligent Democratic/Liberal like Geraldine Ferraro is out there selling.
While it's always more comforting to you folks on the Left to blame MOST of the ills of the world on the Right, it might behoove you all to address your own problems first.
IF the Dems don't get to the White House this time around it won't be because of a ditz like Hasselbeck, it will be because racism & sexism actually does exist in your own party & it took THIS primary to finally expose it for all to see.
This nasty primary election season between the Obama & Clinton camps is NOT the fault of the Right. And I won't blame the Republicans for using all the material handed to them by the bickering on the Left.
IF the Dems don't get to the White House this time around it won't be because of a ditz like Hasselbeck, it will be because racism & sexism actually does exist in your own party & it took THIS primary to finally expose it for all to see. - Jeter2
I think what we're seeing is that the levels of racism and sexism within the Democratic party are much lower than many thought several months ago. There have been some isolated charges of subtle racism and sexism, but they've been few, far between and questionable as to whether they qualify. I recall early in this contest the charge was made that white Democratic voters wouldn't be able to bring themselves to pull the lever for a black when they got into the privacy of the voting booth. That charge has been soundly and thoroughly debunked.
This nasty primary election season between the Obama & Clinton camps is NOT the fault of the Right. - Jeter2
I don't think it's been all that nasty. Sure, there have been some occasional shots that crossed the line of good taste, but we're dealing with human beings here, pushing hard for the most powerful office in the country. They're going to fight hard and sometimes they will be perceived as having gone too far. With hundreds of campaign officials on both sides frequently speaking to local media, it's a certainty that some of them will especially cross the line. This is just to be expected.
I simply can't agree with the alarmists charging that the party is being torn apart. In fact, I think they could benefit from the extra media attention for the next couple of months. McCain's shots at the two candidates are being treated as little more than background noise because the contested nomination is where the news is. When the nominee is settled, most of the party will rally behind the chosen candidate. One more so than the other, in my opinion.
Jeter, I'm not buying into the media's meme that "the sky is falling" and "the Dems are imploding". I think you watch too much TeeVee. ;-) Otherwise you would see what Billjman and I see....a party who is supporting both a woman and a black man for office without too much drama (except the manufactured drama). This is a contest after all and people want to win. The Republicans throw more mud in one day than we have the entire campaign. So maybe Republicans should get their house in order before they end up a forgotten minority in this country.
"In the South there has been a steady decline" is what I meant to say
It’s been an interesting season and I for one will be glad when it’s over. I’m not enjoying this as much as Jeter. In fact I find it rather discouraging
Aw Lynn now I feel bad :-/
I guess I sort of view politics like sports & it has been a wild ride to the playoffs thus far. The Republican primary season has been so boring [though Huckabee gave it a few laughs] that I guess watching the Dems attempting to go down to defeat by their own hands & BEFORE the GOP can even swiftboat them has been a tad amusing. Well ok, amusing to me...
Lynn, on a serious note, I honestly believe Obama will eventually secure the nomination, & stands a better than 50-50 chance of defeating McCain.
Hang in there :-)
Hey Lynn,
I'm 99.9% sure that Ferraro is from New York. As for her remarks, well I'm not too certain what exactly she was trying to say, but I know how it sounded. Personally it sounded to me like sour grapes. No doubt Obama certainly got a tad extra attention a few years back when he was chosen to speak at the convention as an up & coming African-American politician, BUT had his speech been a dud I doubt we'd be talking about him running for the Oval Office today. That speech was the catalyst that introduced him to America. From there he's made his own way forward.
What's sad is that Obama tried and was succeeding early on to not inject race or allow others to inject race into his candidacy. He was a candidate for President who just happen to be an African-American. Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond his control, he is now being identified as the African-American candidate running for the Presidency.
I don't blame you for wondering if the majority of Americans are ready for a President who happens to be Black. But Lynn, look at how well he's doing. He's ahead in states, delegates, & the popular vote. While the General Election might prove more challenging, especially in the South, I'm betting that most Americans will judge him, not by the color of his skin but by content of his character. At least I hope so. If not than we as a nation have not really come all that far in 40 years.
Are you kidding? Get the entire text of Ferraro's speech. There were no sour grapes, and no racism at all in what she was saying. If you don't want to read, go to MSNBC TV and find the clip from yesterday where Contessa Brewer interviews Jonathan Capehart from the Washington Post. He read the context and reports it beautifully.
As for Obama not wanting to inject the race card, I sure couldn't disagree more. From the screams of Bill Clinton being a racist before the SC primary, to the sudden turn of the 3 am ad being just a repeat of previous presidential campaigns to it now having a hidden racist message, to the events surrounding Geraldine Ferraro, Obama consistently takes every opportunity to get on air and act the poor victim. BUT, when he dirties the campaign waters claiming that Hillary Clinton is personally dividing the country by pointing out the states where he wins the primaries are states that rarely to never end up Blue in the national elections, and constantly attacks her with gender biased phrases like "kitchen sink" in reference to her strategy, and "tea party" to describe her experience, you don't hear Hillary whining all over TV that HE, PERSONALLY, is using gender bias against her! He gets away with all this because he SAYS he's not doing it?!!
What Keith Olbermann did to Hillary Clinton last night was so absent of fact and substance, Keith Olbermann deserves to be taken to task and removed from broadcasting. But, do you hear Hillary crying foul? No, she is staying focused on her message and what she wants to do to make this country secure and prosperous again...for everyone!!
I'm not discouraged Lynn. And Jeter is NEVER right. ;-0)
Just kidding J2 man. I think you and I agreed on a thread a day or two ago.
"...more than 3/4's of Hillary voters say they don't support Obama, Dems got a problem and they better figure out how to fix it"
So, 25% of HRC supporters support Obama? I would think 100% of them supported Hillary. If the Dems biggest problem is that both of their candidates have too much support, I'd say they're doing OK.
The Col.'s point still stands, Tommy. After all, you said "...more than 3/4's of Hillary voters say they don't support Obama, Dems got a problem and they better figure out how to fix it" (emphasis mine). "Don't" means a current, not future condition ("I don't drive a Chevy" doesn't mean I never will, especially if the alternatives are worse); "If" something happens implies future tense.
Your snarkiness is hereby noted, and you are shot down yet again.
Furthermore, as Bill-J already correctly pointed out, the "problem" is small and very unlikely to do any damage. Certainly nothing between Clinton and Obama is as bad as what happened between Bush and McCain in 2000, and did anyone talk about how such negativity would weaken the party? Perish the thought!
And, if events of eight years ago are too difficult for you to grasp, try reading about McCain vs. Romney, or Giuliani vs. Paul, or any of the other recent Republican snipings. Clinton-Obama has been a love-in by comparison.
I'll guarantee you this--when it becomes official, whoever gets the Democratic nomination will get a ringing endorsement from the other, with a promise of full support. Feel free to take this down and hold it against me if it doesn't come true.
I've got to get back to work, but you, Tommy, are the one who's really out to lunch.
I just read those exit polls and I think you're misstating them a bit. Almost 3/4 of Clinton's supporters would be dissatisfied if Obama wins. That is definitely not the same as saying they wouldn't support him.
That oughtta humble you into refraining from the snarky insults for a while. Like 10 minutes.
Tomorrow's a brand new day, Tommy! and besides, with your time-traveling powers "don't" and "won't" really are interchangeable ;0)
Actually, I, and most of my friends and family, are Clinton supporters who would not vote for Obama and it has absolutely nothing to do with race. It has to do with the double standard of him not even coming close to honestly representing what he says through what he does.
This could be the first election where the write-in candidate wins if Obama is the democratic choice on the ballot.
Lady Julia, would you bicker with a husband that looks like a guy that has on more than one occasion won Sexiest Man Of The Year ;-)
Well sometimes she gets pissed when I don't pick up my socks & put them in the hamper. But I hear Michelle has the same gripe with Barack ;-)
My sweet Julia, you are either in deep denial or delusional. But that's ok you're still my Lady ;-)
BTW, the media is not manufacturing the brawling between the Obamabots & Clintonites...they are simply reporting it. Of course they are enjoying it too. Hey the media loves controversy, & the Dems are supplying it.
So for instance you think they should have simply reported : Obama advisor Samantha Power called Hillary Clinton a monster, now onto our next story...
Sorry my sweet Julia, as long as the Obama & Clinton camps keep throwing mud at each other, the more they give the media something to pontificate about. And Lord knows they love to discuss these *incidents* into the ground.
Who do ya blame? I'd say this is a what came first the chicken or the egg argument ;-)
Hey Lynn,
Haha sorry about that.
Of course I didn't think up either label myself [I first read Obamabot over at HuffPo] but if you can come up with a kinder & gentler label for Obama supporters I'll be happy to use it :-)
Jeter,
This will irritate some here, and they aren't my words but it is absolute food for thought regarding the way some liberals, most notably Ms. Ferraro, feel toward blacks - and for some, I agree completely;
"Left wing paternalists regard themselves as architects of racial progress, guarding and guiding blacks along the path of success - a role in which they assume to stand forever at the head of the march. But what happens when blacks overtake their enlightened white helpers? All hell breaks loose and the mask of progress drops to reveal the stricken faces of the white avant-garde.
Ferraro's condescension captures the tone of paternalistic liberalism perfectly. Its "victims" should know their place and plot their ascent according to the progressive charts set by the white liberal establishment"
Snoop,
I don't blame Clinton for Ferraro's words, she can't be blamed for what her supporters say, none of the candidates can. But it is a problem within the Democratic party, in my opinion, that is far more than just primary political battling.
Talk about whining! Neumayr sets a new benchmark.
I don't find the main theme irritating as much as I do intriguing. Inside every white and open-minded Democrat is a racist wanting to get out. LOL. They are a "wolf in sheep's clothing." I wonder which party Neumayr considers to be the "true friend" of the black man? I would love to see him answer that and tell us why.
As a whole, it's just another whine about Democrats consistently being able to capture the lion's share of the black vote.
He's beating his head against the wall in lieu of asking the tough questions regarding his own party's inability to appeal to minorities on a large scale.
I believe Jeter said earlier that "it might behoove you all to address your own problems first." Something that Neumayr could benefit from as well.
I don't know who wrote that Tommy but it's spot on. And yeah you'll probably piss off a few of the folks here that are still in denial.
In fact I've got the radio on at work & the radio host I'm listening to [Reese Hopkins WRKO 680 Boston] just said pretty much the same thing. Some Libs are all about helping minorities up...as long as those they are helping up don't manage to begin to climb higher on their own & don't need a boost any longer. And God forbid, actually surpass them.
Hey Tommy/Jeter. Regarding this ;
"But what happens when blacks overtake their enlightened white helpers? All hell breaks loose and the mask of progress drops to reveal the stricken faces of the white avant-garde."
I realize it's feel-good conservative stuff, but are you saying that ferarro is an example of this "hell breaking loose"? If not, can you give an example that backs up this theory?
Pete,
I wasn't saying that all liberals here, or anywhere, feel that way......but I don't doubt there are some that do. Liberals are always accusing conservatives of racism here, knee jerk reaction, and it is rarely challenged, just accepted.
Another point of view should be welcomed.
Look no further than the repeated use of this term and its variants to show how big of a right-wing hack Neumayr is. I don’t know where he gets this idea that left-wingers’ philosophy is to govern by providing for people while denying those people rights and responsibilities. This is so whacked out that it makes me it makes me think that his definition of paternalism is nothing you’d find in a dictionary.
“Geraldine Ferraro's remarks confirm that beneath left-wing paternalism lurks considerable racism.”
WRONG, the only things it confirms are the contents of Geraldine Ferraro’s head and the depths to which the Clinton Campaign will sink to attain victory. Ferraro’s remarks are reprehensible, and the backlash in the liberal blogosphere and on progressive talk radio is in high gear.
“Since liberalism is not based upon natural justice but willfulness, it never fails to devour its supposed beneficiaries.”
Leave it to a right-wing hack like Neumayr to define liberalism. How can he possibly conclude that liberalism is not based upon natural justice? Who are the people currently fighting to preserve Habeas Corpus? Who are the people currently fighting to preserve America’s moral standing in the world with regard to how we want our captured soldiers treated? Who are the people currently fighting to prevent circumvention of the Fourth Amendment by a rogue president and his lapdog telecoms? It’s certainly NOT the conservatives.
“Such is the generosity of Lady Bountiful she'll even let him serve as her apprentice in the VP chair for eight years.”
Name calling. Like I said, Neumayr is a right-wing hack. Hillary forwarding the notion of Barak being a VP in and of itself is not indicative of underlying racism or ethnocentricity, it’s indicative of her desperation to win in the face of a candidate who’s winning and bringing in tons more money.
“Where has the Clintons' commitment to a White House that "looked like America" gone?”
Wait, didn’t Neumayr just tell us four paragraphs ago that Hillary fancied a black man being her VP?
Neumayr offers up very few examples to prove his point that considerable racism lurks under the surface of liberalism. Two of his examples are from people associated with the Clinton campaign (Bill and Geraldine), a campaign which you know, unless your head has been stuck in the sand, has not been winning votes with a majority of Democrats lately. The only other ones he offers up are Cuomo and O’Connor. What a significant and considerable cross-section of liberalism he’s found.
“left-wing paternalists”… “progressive overlords”… “paternalistic left”… “plantation progressives”… “enlightened white helpers”… “paternalistic liberalism”
HACK…HACK…HACK… HACK… This man leaves you with no reason to take him seriously.
This is the same man who railed about the lack of balance on PBS. Which show gave him his platform on which to do his railing? THE NEWS HOUR WITH JIM LEHRER.
You LIE.
I trashed both.
You people here should know that this is a very widely help thought. It is not "drivel" nor "whining".
The problem is that there is absolutely nothing fact-based within the paragraphs you provided to refute. It's all flight of fantasy stuff. You might call it opinion, but it's opinion without a basis.
I think there are some who really want the Democratic party to have problems and are bothered that the problems they want to see aren't actually there. Ferraro's remarks are not representative of any widespread race or gender issues.
Ferraro's comments will be a 3-day issue with no lasting impact. They're indicative of her mindset and nothing else.
When the nominee is chosen the vast majority of Democratic-leaning voters will pull together and rally behind their candidate, (with some pulling together to prevent a McCain presidency). There will not be a significant amount of sour grapes. Race and gender issues are not rooted deeply in the party membership; they are more of a media topic.
It's the general election that will show which of us is accurately reading the national attitudes.
So do you discount the black Democrats on this very website who post regularly and say they will never vote for Hillary, based on the way her campaign's racially charged tactics have been displayed against Obama? Are they just irritated for the moment, but when they get their head pat they will come around and vote the "right way"?
Because I believe Pearlene, perhaps Preston and Lynn, feel that way - and I take them at their word. I have a feeling they are quite representative of the way many blacks feel about the disrespect shown their upstart little Senator from Illinois.....how dare he challenge the Clintons and possibly win the nomination? Apparently he doesn't know his place.
Tommy,
My wife is black, she hates Hillary, and she and I both voted for Obama in our primary. And I need to emphasize that she really hates Hillary, but if Hillary does win the nomination she will still vote for her over Gramps. Her dislike of Hillary doesn't compete with four more years of rightwing bs.
And thank God for people like you. I've been spouting the same thing for quite some time now. I'm a Hillary supporter, voted for her in the primary here in SF. I like Obama, but would prefer Hillary. Obama will probably get the nomination - and I'll vote for him in the general election.
It's funny that some people in the Democratic party (of which I'm not a member) believe that it's their Dem candidate or no Dem candidate (i.e. if Hills gets the nomination, I'm either (1) not voting or (2) voting for McCain as a protest vote. Nice logic there. You'll vote to have four to eight more years of the same nonsense we've had to endure the last seven years just because you're pissed that your candidate didn't make the nomination?
IMHO, if you love our country and don't want to see it destroyed by the (Neo)Conservative movement, your vote should be for whichever Dem nominee is chosen. Again, just my opinion...
I don't believe that what has come from the Clinton camp was definitely "racially charged." There have been some statements from them that could potentially be seen that way by someone who was looking for something like that. However, it would be hard to make a strong case that could be used against her.
As far as our African American posters here, I don't think they're hugely representative. I don't think I'm stating anything shocking to state that posters to sites like MMFA tend to be more informed, interested and passionate about issues than the general public. I truly think that most AA voters will give greater consideration to the party (Democratic) that best represents their concerns. Unless something comes out of the Clinton camp that is racially charged Clinton would get their support over McCain.
However, I don't think it'll come to that. I see Obama finishing with the nomination and producing levels of turnout in support of him that will tower over the record numbers of 2004.
So Bill, unless I am reading you wrong, are you saying that the more informed black posters who read and post here are not representative of the less informed majority of black people in this country who will vote for Clinton, simply because they are not as well versed or informed.
Because it sure sounds like that is what you are saying.
You know, it occurred to me after I posted that what I said could be misrepresented in that manner. But then I thought, nah, he wouldn't stoop that low.
Silly me.
Your description bore no resemblance to the point I made. ALMOST ALL of
continuing ...
ALMOST ALL of those who post here are more informed than the average voter. I made no racial conditions on that. We all as a group are more interested and passionate and are more likely to react accordingly. If the Clinton campaign were making truly racially divisive actions that would have an affect. The fact is, Clinton is not doing or saying anything that is likely to produce any large-scale backlash were she to get the nomination.
I don't argue the rationale or the passion of our regular posters. However, do you really think we all as a group are representative of the majority of voters? All too many (again, with no racial conditions) simply don't look into matters as deeply as we do or feel as passionate.
So yes, Tommy, you are reading me wrong. And I'm not so sure it was accidental.
No racial conditions? You specifically say African American, or AA, in two different places and this entire discussion is about racial conditions, so I don't by it. Your meaning was clear.
So, why don't you just apologize for what you said if you didn't mean it, instead of attacking me and backtracking so dishonestly. I am really surprised.
I said "I don't think I'm stating anything shocking to state that posters to sites like MMFA tend to be more informed, interested and passionate about issues than the general public." Go ahead, read it. That's a statement that's fully inclusive of ALL MMFA posters. And it very clearly also referred to ALL of the general public. There was NOTHING before or after that altered the inclusiveness of that sentence.
So, yes, my actual meaning was clear. That didn't stop you from perverting it, twisting it to pretend I said something I didn't.
I'm willing to accept your apology for your blatant dishonesty anytime, but I'm not expecting it.
Bill, Bill, Bill,
I know you're trying to cheer yourself up. You don't want to believe that things are as bleak as they appear, but I am not an atypical Black person. The sentiments I express here are being hotly debated in my neck of the woods. Now I know nobody who is even considering voting for John McCain but some are seriously weighing the idea of sitting out this election. Furthermore there has been a long brewing sentiment that the Democrats have taken the Black vote for granted and there has been a racial element to this campaign season, and it’s always emanating from someone associated with the Clinton campaign. That said the Republican Party has nothing to offer. Hell, they hate you and let you know right up front they hate you. At least they are honest about it. And the sentiment you just expressed may be one that’s assumed by candidates like HC….that Black people aren’t all that politically informed and savvy and ALL we have to do is keep telling them how much the Republicans don’t like them and they will vote for us. I can’t name one Republican that I could pick as a first choice candidate for anything because of our opposing political and life philosophies but it bothers me that there is an assumption that I will vote for whatever candidate the Dems throw in the ring. Blacks have been the most loyal voters the Democrats have had and the Republicans have been trying to drive a wedge between Blacks and the Dem Party for years. It’s ironic that they seem to be getting oodles of help this year from our side. That said, even if I decide to sit this election out and I may not, I know the Republican Party isn’t an option for me. I’ll continue to vote for Democratic or Independent candidates that I feel are worthy of my vote but they have to meet the Lynn vote threshold
You might see my most recent reply to Tommy. NONE of us who post here are really representative of the voters in general. I'm sure if you've discussed politics with relatives, coworkers or casual acquaintances you've probably had the same experiences I have. There's some level of knowledge, but not the same depth most of us have here and likely not the same passion. So many, even those who vote, see politics more as a necessary evil. Again, there is no racial component to this. It applies to all voters.
Maybe I am underestimating AA antipathy toward Clinton. I'd certainly be willing to concede that. However, the racial element to which you refer has struck me as subtle at most, at least from the Clinton camp. From the media it's been just plain obnoxious. I also didn't mean to suggest the AA vote should ever be taken for granted. I don't think I'm doing that when I state that McCain is a poor alternative. Hell, there have been quite a few elections in which I felt like I was settling for the least offensive alternative. I was putting African Americans in that same boat.
I would think that even if Clinton were to pull out a win (an unlikely occurrence) it should speak volumes about the party if we look at how close Obama would have come. Is there another American party where he would have gone so far? Frankly, he's got me excited this time in a way I haven't been in many years. The last candidate I was really enthusiastic about was Mondale. Our country missed out on one of its greatest presidents with that election.
Mondale excited you? My God, man. He lost 49 states.
I know you're trying to cheer yourself up. You don't want to believe that things are as bleak as they appear, but I am not an atypical Black person. The sentiments I express here are being hotly debated in my neck of the woods.
You took the words right outta my mouth Lynn. As I read post after post saying how we will all come together I think to myself, they don't know the people I know.
"...but it's opinion without a basis."
Exactly, Bill. I wasn't trying to test Tommy, just asking if he had any real examples of this stuff. Ferarro's comments were pretty lame, but this Rush Limbaugh "acknowledging racism is the real racism" BS is much more lame.
IF the Dems don't get to the White House this time around it won't be because of a ditz like Hasselbeck, it will be because racism & sexism actually does exist in your own party & it took THIS primary to finally expose it for all to see.
Jeter so true. For me I expect racist comments from some Republicans. It's been the party MO in there effect to hold on the those Southern white males. It's not a surprise when they make outrageous statements. Watching how some liberals operate this election season has been an enlightening experience to say the least.
Jeter
I've been very loud regarding Clintons tactics and Ferraros race bait nonsense, much to the chagrin if some others
Hasslebeck is still a dope though
Hasselbeck was stuttering, as if she did not know what she was talking about.
Pathetic.
Is there NO ONE on the far right reasonable enough to hire and put on TV as " balance " ?
I'll give you Buchanan 5 out of 10 times, half the time admits what they are doing is slimy but laughs it off as part of the game, so he's still a loose nut
Its just a parade of freaks like Coulter and Hannity and Limbaugh and Beck....
Coulter and Hannity and Limbaugh and Beck... Oh my!
Just slip a pair of ruby slippers on Annie and you're all set. ;>)
So that's how conservatives are going to spin racism to themselves, they're not racists - they're just stuck in a racist period. ..Nothing to be done about it, so it's still OK to vote on racist grounds for a few years yet.
Disgust.
GOLDBERG: -- well, no, but the message may not change. If you go to another black church and they're having as much trouble, they're gonna talk about the same things because -- we've had this discussion. Is the country out of its racist period? No, it's not.
HASSELBECK: It's not. It's definitely not.
And the country will never get out of its racist period as long as people listen to what stupid people like Elizabeth Hasselbeck have to say.
I watched that show on Monday and it led me to the conclusion that Elizabeth is a foolish woman.
She was making a fuss over the Black upliftment ideologies practiced by Obama's minister and Farrakhan. She said that if those were White upliftment ideologies being endorsed, that as a White person, she'd be offended.
The redhead comedienne on the show used the example of the exclusivity of women's consciousness groups to better Elizabeth's understanding of the need for Black upliftment and consciousness groups, and still she didn't get it. Elizabeth said that those women are acting sexist by excluding men.
Either she's a lost cause or she feigns naivete and ignorance for the sake of ratings.
Here is a question for everyone in America.
How is racism ever going to end if you don't drop it completly? Can someone out there answer that for me.
Another thing I've listen to Rush A. limbaugh, Sean A. Hannity and some of these so called conservative talk show host every once and awhile. To me they are nothing but DICTATORS of HATE. All of them need to be off the air. Rush A. and Sean A. say they are not racist. Well if they are not racict then why do they keep bringing up on their shows. To me anytime it talked about on any of the media it should be called racism. When will it ever end?
This thread shows the typical liberal mindset here. Simply ignore the question Hasslebeck asks and attack her personally.
One can readily see that Hasselbeck is simply posing the question so others, like Whoopi, can respond.
It seems to me people here seem to ignore is the radical (racist?) ideology of the Obama's church. Some may call the ideology black empowerment, but whatever the name, it specifically emphasizes blacks over others. It is very simple to see when one substitutes white where one reads black. Some argue there is a difference and say you can't do that. Ok, but that is one interpretation, and maybe the correct interpretation, but it does not mean well intentioned people can easily interpret it otherwise.
Add to it the Pastor's long standing relationship with Farrakhan and how Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, honored Farrakhan at a gala, bestowing on him its Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer award.
This after Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals. He has called whites “blue-eyed devils” and the “anti-Christ.” He has described Jews as “bloodsuckers” who control the government, the media, and some black organizations.
Hasslebeck may be ignorant of Obama's church and its inclusionary nature. That is not being racist. The church's black empowerment ideology and affilliation to Farrakhan do call into question whether or not the church and it's founder are racists. Just like it was okay to ask Romney about the racist past of the Church of Christ of the Latter Day Saints, it is also legitimate to ask the same of Obama and the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Oops. Just to be clear, I forgot to mention that I cut and pasted the paragraph about Pastor Wright from this:
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_wright_farrakhan/2008/01/14/64332.htmlTrue true Col.
Plus, he added a link from Newsmax, which in my time on this Earth is about the most untrusted news source anyone could pull from. I would never trust Newsmax to actually come up with anything resembling news and journalism that's for sure.
Col. and Mags,
Thanks for opining about me and the link. I noticed you have nothing to say about the gist of my comment except to denigrate.
Your posts remind me of the old saw, "If you can't argue the law, argue the facts. If can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue the law or facts, attack your adversary."
It is very clear that is what is happening here.
I think what's clear here is that you love to deflect responsibility. You started your post by defending the ignorance of a media personality, and used that to launch into some very tired attacks on the church.
You've got to understand that if you post worn-out tired arguments here, and others respond, those aren't personal attacks.As easy as it might be to use sources like newsmax to set up an "attack the messenger" defense, it's not fooling anybody.
You seem to be confused about these things, as well as the term "Ad Hominem" (which I've seen you resort to in the past). Nobody here knows anything about you personally, except that you're routinely plagiarize unreliable sources and play the victim pretty well. If you can't deal with responses , put some more work into your comments. By that I mean some original ideas, critical thinking, less copy/pasting and crying about being challenged.
Another thing you might try to not take too personally is not having every single word of your long-winded post addressed, or accusing others of avoiding the issues by doing so. People are busy, and much of what I've seen of your input here has been discussed at great length in the past, or is just rambling on your part on subjects you don't seem to grasp.
I'm sure that's not how you see things, but that's what seems very clear.
It seems to me people here seem to ignore is the radical (racist?) ideology of the Obama's church. Some may call the ideology black empowerment, but whatever the name, it specifically emphasizes blacks over others
AA, some American churches, like some American neighborhoods are segregated, so having a church speak to the issues of the African Americans should not seem strange or wrong. African American churches have been the backbone of African Americans survival in America. They have provided guidance and support for African American families through troubling times and on a wide range of issues. Maybe it seems wrong to some white folks becuase this is their first look into African American churches. But churches address the needs of the community they serve, and the community provides tides to the church running.
You seem to want to make the point that Obama's church is discriminating while refusing to acknowledge or maybe you're not aware that churches represent the neighborhood the serve and Obama's church is in a African American neighborhood.
I gotta ask you, how many African Americans have you seen attending Juniors church? How many attended Bush Sr.'s church? Regan's church? Funny but I didn't hear any African Americans complaints about feeling left out or thoughts that their churches were discriminating.
Yes, it is legit to ask about something you know nothing about in order to gain knowledge however it is not ok to draw up assumptions. It is obvious you know nothing abou the need to the black community to come together to cultivate culture, pride and social responsiblity within their community. The history of this country is enough to explain why churches like these are all over and are neccessary. To replace white with black would mean that white people came to this country in chains, were stripped of their culture and identity, taught to hate themselves and view themeselves and others like them as inferior, exist as second class citizens, were locked out most institutions until very recently, do not have access to much public space, have been the victims of a low standard of living, have fought in wars for a country that does not fully appreciate them and then some. I am going to kindly ask you to understand our society and why such institutions have been created. If you have a question or feel a certain way then ask but do not make assumptions.
I first saw Minister Farrakhan when I was 6 years old. A cousin had taken me. I didnt understand it until I lived in our society to know why some people have those thought patterns. While I do not agree with some of what he says because yes he hasnt only made statements that are harsh to those you mentioned above but he also seemed to be sexist. However I respect the Minister because in some of his extremes, there is much truth in relation to our society and its history. He has orchestrated the Million Man March which Bill Clinton endorsed. The march was to bring together black men all over the country to let them know that they must stand up and be leaders and work to empower their community. Many women were upset because they were not included. In 2000, he orchestrated the Million Family March which I attended. It was a call for African Americans to create strong families and be a support system fro their children. He encouraged community building and education and such things. I believe that is what the magazine was rewarding him for. He has said things that I dont agree with but he has done a lot for the community. I cannot ignore that.
She asked the question because she believed that is was true. Once told that it was not true she still clung to the belief that it was:
"But if they are teaching -- if that's their priority, OK, in that whole journal -- yeah, the black community. If it's so focused on that, it seems to me that that just -- I see a dichotomy there. I see -- OK, yes, they're talking about that here, and then Barack Obama's talking about everyone together. It just -- I don't understand that."
This comment doesn't make much sense but clearly she still thought that the church was not accepting of all people. Her view seems to be "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."
Nobody claims that she's a rocket scientist. Her claim to fame is living a long time on an island. Big deal. But given the charter and views of Obama's church Hasselbeck's question is actually a fair one. Have any of YOU read what the church promotes and stands for? If not, youhave no basis to slam Hasselbeck for her comment.
"But what happens when blacks overtake their enlightened white helpers? All hell breaks loose and the mask of progress drops to reveal the stricken faces of the white avant-garde."
Tommy,
You asked anyone to refute the points in the quote, I hold the position that the fact a black man is the leading candidate for the Dem pres nomination that refutes the point in and of itself. If Democrats feel the need to keep the black man in his place, why is it that Obama wins so often? The whole basis of the statement is flawed.
Rev. Wright, Obama’s mentor and spiritual advisor, who has made statements such as "9/11 was a wake-up call to white people", preaches Black Liberation Theology. Although Evangelical theology has usually seen the person of Christ as the center of the Bible and thus of theology, black theology's center is the theme of oppression, i.e. the black experience of oppression. Just about every concept of Black Liberation Theology is framed as a black/white issue. Blacks are the oppressed; whites are the oppressor. James Cone, one of the major proponents of Black Liberation Theology, and one who Rev. Wright claims to admire, has said such things as: (1) "To be a Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people." (2) "The fact that I am black is my ultimate reality. My identity with blackness, and what it means for millions living in a white world controls the investigation. It is impossible for me to surrender this basic reality for a higher, more universal reality. Therefore, if a higher, ultimate reality is to have meaning, it must relate to the very essense of blackness. (3) It is my thesis that Black Power, even in its most radical expression, is not the antithesis of Christianity. It is, rather, Christ's central message to 20th Century America. ***** I don't think it is difficult to assess the reaction if Hillary Clinton or John McCain belonged to a church wherein the pastor taught "White Liberation Theology," where the prime focus of the church was the white versus black struggle. Neither of them would be elected dog catcher. I think it is time that Obama level with the American people about the nature of his beliefs and his mentor Rev. Wright, and if the people still wish to vote for him, then so be it.
"If Democrats feel the need to keep the black man in his place, why is it that Obama wins so often?"
And why is the Republican party incapable of nominating a black candidate in the first place (for any office)? How many black Republicans are there now or ever in Congress?
Good point, all the token black people the republicans always hold up to show they are inclusive are appointed positions.
RobRob,
The first black and the first woman elected to Congress were Republicans. Republican Edward Brooke was the first black Senator since the Reconstruction. I may be wrong but there are only five blacks who have been elected U.S. Senators, one of them being Obama. So the record is very poor for both parties.
As we all know, blacks started switching from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party during the Depression. Many more moved over during LBJ's years. Blacks, as a group, are probably around 90% Democrats.
Unfortunately for everyone, as blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, the Republicans pretty well abandoned trying to gain the black vote. Gerrymandering has played a large part in creating black districts that vote overwhelmingly Democratic and they vote in black Congressmen. It would be interesting to see how many blacks have been elected to Congress outside of these Black/Democrat districts. At one point I did have the statistics but the elude me now. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe the number of elected black Democrats outside those districts pretty well matches the Republicans.
It'll be interesting to see what'll happen to the black vote if Hillary wrestles the nomination away from Obama. If Obama wins, it will be no surprise that blacks will continue to vote Democratic.
the Republicans pretty well abandoned trying to gain the black vote.
AA, the Republicans first priority was to hold on to the Southern white male voting block. They have never made a great effort to gain the black vote.
the Republicans pretty well abandoned trying to gain the black vote.
I think they gave up around the time they realized that they would actually have to do things to support the black community in order to win their vote. Since they are wholly uninterested in that, they gave up and decided to trick the fundamentalist christians into voting for them without actually having to do anything for their support. After decades of evidence, it is apparent that the fundamentalists are a far more gullible or ignorant voting block.
It was in reference to the democratic establishment and not the people. What Tommy posted is actually been written by a lot of people. As I had said before W.E.B. Dubois believed that neither was a true friend of the black community. I should probably be more clear...neither the Republican or Democratic establishments. I am not saying that blacks should not vote or participate by no means. What I am saying is that they should not blindly follow either party hoping that they have their best interest at heart. Thats all. This had happened back in the 1930s when the black community left the Republican party for the Democratic party.
Consider the source..on this show - one of the bright lights argued about whether or not the world was flat...