LA Times falsely claimed that, during speech, Obama "offered a different account" of what he had heard Wright say
SUMMARY: In an article on Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and the controversy surrounding remarks by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Los Angeles Times reported that prior to the speech, "Obama had said that when he sat in the pews at Trinity United Church of Christ, he had not heard Wright make some of his more controversial statements," and that during the speech, "Obama offered a different account." But Obama did not change his account with respect to the specific statements "that are the cause of this controversy," but said in the speech that he had heard Wright "make remarks that could be considered controversial."
In a March 19 article about Sen. Barack Obama's March 18 speech on race and the controversy surrounding remarks by his recently retired pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, the Los Angeles Times reported: "Writing on the Huffington Post website last week and in interviews with Chicago newspapers, Obama had said that when he sat in the pews at Trinity United Church of Christ, he had not heard Wright make some of his more controversial statements." The Times continued: "On Tuesday, saying 'nagging questions' remain for some voters, Obama offered a different account" [emphasis added]. As evidence of this, Times staff writers Peter Wallsten and Peter Nicholas noted that Obama said in his speech: "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." However, contrary to the Times' reporting, Obama did not offer a "different account" from his previous statements on the issue.
In a March 14 Huffington Post column, Obama wrote of -- and condemned -- the specific remarks by Wright that sparked the controversy and that have been repeatedly quoted in news reports: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation" [emphasis added]. Similarly, during his March 14 interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama referred specifically to "the statements that have caused controversy," and said: "I'll be honest with you. I wasn't in church when any of those sermons were issued." The same day, during an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Obama also referred to the particular Wright quotes that have been repeated by the media, stating: "The clips that have been shown over the past couple of days are deeply disturbing to me. I wasn't in church during those sermons." Thus Obama did not change his account with respect to the specific statements "that are the cause of this controversy," but said in the speech that he had heard Wright "make remarks that could be considered controversial."
In quoting from Obama's speech, the Times omitted the distinction Obama drew between the "remarks that could be considered controversial" he said he heard and "the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm," which Obama said "weren't simply controversial," and which he had said he had not heard. Obama stated on March 18:
OBAMA: On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation, and that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy, and in some cases, pain. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis, with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial; they weren't simply a religious leader's efforts to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong, but divisive -- divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems: two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis, and potentially devastating climate change -- problems that are neither black, or white, or Latino, or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
On March 19, the Los Angeles Times reported:
Writing on the Huffington Post website last week and in interviews with Chicago newspapers, Obama had said that when he sat in the pews at Trinity United Church of Christ, he had not heard Wright make some of his more controversial statements.
On Tuesday, saying "nagging questions" remain for some voters, Obama offered a different account.
"Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," Obama said.
"Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."
But in his Huffington Post column, Obama specifically referred to the Wright remarks that have been endlessly repeated by the media, and that had become "the cause of this controversy":
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.
From Obama's March 14 interview with the Chicago Sun-Times:
Q: Do you need to distance yourself from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright?
A: "He's retiring. He preached his last sermon and is on sabbatical until his official retirement in May. I put out a statement today very clear about my clear rejection of the statements that have caused controversy. I'll be honest with you. I wasn't in church when any of those sermons were issued. I've known Rev. Wright for 20 years. I've known him as a former Marine, as a biblical scholar who's well-known and well-regarded around the country and has taught and lectured at some of the top theological seminaries. He is someone who is not my political advisor but has talked with me about faith and family and my relationship to God. I'd never heard him, he's always preached a social gospel, in a style that, I think, was more casual, less traditional than a lot of people. But the sermons I've always hear were no different than the sermons you hear in many African-American churches. I had not heard him make such, what I consider to be objectionable remarks from the pulpit. Had I heard them while I was in church, I would have objected. Had that been the tenor of the church generally, I probably wouldn't be a member of the church. The church I know, Trinity, is a pillar of the community, one of the most active and well-established churches in the country. It is a welcoming church that is visited by people from all across the world, particularly in the United Church of Christ family, so I strongly reject the statements that he's made.
[...]
A: I have to say that the particular statements that have been pulled out of Rev. Wright's sermons are ones I profoundly disagree with. And if I had heard Rev. Wright making those statements while I was sitting in the pews, I would have talked to him afterwards and said, 'I'm troubled by these statements, and I think they don't reflect my truth and how I feel about this country or race relations.' On the other hand, he preached for 30 years ... there's a well-rounded portrait with him.
From Obama's March 14 interview with the Chicago Tribune:
Obama: Rev. Wright. He preached his last sermon, he's now in retirement. I've put out a statement today. Ill be honest with you, this is somebody who I've known for 20 years. I basically came to the church and became a member of the church through Trinity [United Church of Christ] and through him. He's the person who gave me the line "the audacity of hope." He is somebody who is a former Marine, a biblical scholar, has taught and lectured at major theological seminaries across the country and has been very widely regarded and admired.
And, you know, he hasn't been my political adviser, he's been my pastor. And I have to say that the clips that have been shown over the past couple of days are deeply disturbing to me. I wasn't in church during those sermons.
The things he said and the way he said them I think are offensive. And I reject them, and they don't reflect who I am or what I believe in. In fairness to him, this was sort of a greatest hits. They basically culled five or six sermons out of 30 years of preaching. That doesn't excuse them, and I've said so very clearly, but that's not the relationship I had with him. That's not the relationship I had with the church, and if I had heard those kinds of statements being said, if I had been in church on those days, I would have objected fiercely to them, and I would have told him personally.
When some of these statements first came to light was right around when I was starting to run for president. He was a year away from retirement, and the church itself is a pillar of the community and a well-regarded, well-known church. I suspect there are members of the Tribune family that are also members of Trinity.
From Obama's March 18 speech in Philadelphia:
OBAMA: On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation, and that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy, and in some cases, pain. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis, with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial; they weren't simply a religious leader's efforts to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong, but divisive -- divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems: two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis, and potentially devastating climate change -- problems that are neither black, or white, or Latino, or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television sets and YouTube, if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
So Obama heard Wright make controversial statements
He said he heard statements that could be controversial. The other day I was listening to a radio show and a caller compared Wright to Hitler because he said something about the Palestinians suffering in the Middle East. I wouldn't consider that controversial but obviously the caller did. I think the statements Obama is referring to are minor compared to what we've heard in the media and would not be cause for him to leave the church.
Please!
No newspaper has more openly campaigned and cheerleaded for Barack Obama than the LA Times.
MM's objection is silly, at best.
As Obama's closest friend and father figure, spiritual advisor and hero Wright might say, "God Damn the USA! And God Damn the LATIMES for daring to report anything other than praise for anything that Obama says!
(Obviously, the LATIMES must also be complicit in helping AmeriKKKa create the AIDS virus to kill only Black Children!)
God Bless Obama !
AND GOD DAMN THE USA!!!
sorry, I should have said "absolute good and absolute evil"
calling an entire segment of the population "evil" is ignorant. They may be misguided, and a few may actually be "evil," but the Christian Right in and of itself is not "evil"
NAC,
Your schtick is wearing thin, if it makes you feel good to Hannitize this comment section with the same yawning incendiary firestarters, don't expect much different than what you dish out.
Exactly Tommy, maybe we should ask Hannity if he believes and supports everything that has come from Rome in the last 20 years since he is Catholic. I wonder if he left the Catholic Church when there was evidence of complacency in the pedophilia scandals. Should we assume that since Hannity has remained a Catholic over the last 20 years he must agree and support the controversial aspects, statements, and actions of his church? Should we ask every Baptist to leave their church when they preach that women should yield to their husbands in all areas or that homosexuals are evil? The list goes on and on and I for one am frankly sick of this Hannity's all or nothing way of looking at this issue from his sycophants who post here.
Obama in no uncertain terms specifically addressed how he disagrees with the inflammatory statements of his pastor. I guess one should not take him for his word simply because there is a "D" in front of his name. What is hilarious is that Hannity and his followers would believe George W. Bush if he told them that the sky is really red, why? Because he has an "R" in front of his name. It is sickening partisan political hypocrisy.
There is a now a potential leader who may be able to transcend that style of partisan politics. For some reason there are some who would rather stay with the endless status quo of cardboard cutout candidates. They would rather throw away a real chance at inspiration and change. They would rather sheepishly tread water and instead choose to have a choice between two retail style candidates who have essentially lived their lives disconnected from all of us while they have rubbed shoulders in Washington for the last 20 years. Seriously, when is the last time Hillary or McCain had to go to Wal-Mart to buy something or fill up their own damn cars with gas. I guess I just fail to understand some peoples resistance to possibility. Puzzling to say the least.
"Should we assume that since Hannity has remained a Catholic over the last 20 years he must agree and support the controversial aspects, statements, and actions of his church? Should we ask every Baptist to leave their church when they preach that women should yield to their husbands in all areas or that homosexuals are evil?"
Do you even read the news? This story isn't about whether Obama believes in Christian teachings, it's about whether he has the good judgement to leave a church that teaches un-Biblically. I'm sure if Hannity's church had a pastor who was a pedophile and was preaching how pedophiles are being held down by whitey then Hannity should leave that church and find one that doesn't teach that kind of un-Biblical lifestyle. Not knowing whether you are a pedophile or not, I cannot say that same statement about you, but if you are not one...would you stay in that church that had a pedophile pastor teaching pedophilia?? (feel free to swap 'racist' with 'pedophile' in analogy--both are just as evil as the other)
Obama is a Christian, your statement implies that he should leave the Christian faith because people like Pat Robertson are members of the Christian faith. Try to follow along.
The problem is that Obama claims to have the good judgement needed to run our nation, yet he can't even discern whether his pastor is a racist or not and he's known him for over 20 years. And, Obama still hasn't addressed that aspect of the issue. We already have one president who uses poor judgement, now you think another is going to be better?? I thought liberals hated Bush, yet you seem to think a Bush clone will be the right answer.
"And God Damn the LATIMES for daring to report anything other than praise for anything that Obama says!"
Wrong. Read MMFA's headline again. MMFA's is not calling out the LA Times for a lack of praise. They're being called out for a lack of truth.
Yah, but how different were the remarks that Wright made that Obama did not directly witness from the ones that he did ? It seems that at first Obama is, in a way, disavowing any knowledge of the controversial remarks by claiming that he didn't witness them, but later he's admitting that he did. Perhaps not the exact same remarks, but again, how different were they ?
This is kind of like the Rezko thing (flame away, Obamaniacs) ... first Obama claims he doesn't know Rezko very well despite tens of thousands of dollars worth of contributions, then the relationship is outed because of the real estate transaction but he "can't remember" how it came about, then he was outed for touring the properties with Rezko prior to the sale, then most recently Obama admits that he accepted twice the amount of contributions from Rezko that he originally claimed he did ...
i've been saying for a couple months that we need to discuss everything now, not in the fall when the other side is going after obama. as this link says he finally just met with the editorial boards and reporters of the chicago tribune and chicago sun times after "many months of refusing to answer all the questions" about rezko. it does say that rezko toured the house with obama. obama now admits this was a "boneheaded move" because he was aware that there were rumblings of rezko being a legal target.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/843582,obama031408a.article
given those infractions, Obama is still the cleaner candidate by far.
Really, as a known Clinton supporter, do you really want to get into a "who is more corrupt" battle?
And another thing, SCOREBOARD! (I'm getting the tourney fever!)
Ok, fair enough.
Atheist, how do you figure Obama is lying here? On Friday, he was asked, by Major Garrett
"And I'd like to know specifically, Senator, what you vehemently disagree with and what you strongly condemn."
Obama answered:
"When I saw these (emphais added) statements, many of which I had heard for the first time, then I thought it was important to make a very clear and unequivocal statement."
None of these statements were ones that I had heard myself personally in the pews. One of them I had heard about after I had started running for president, and I put out a statement at that time condemning them.
The other statements were ones that that I just heard about while we were — when they started being run on FOX and some of the other stations. And so they weren't things that I was familiar with.
Once I saw them, I had to be very clear about the fact that these are not statements that I am comfortable with. I reject them completely. They are not ones that reflect my values or my ideals or Michelle's. And that, had I heard them, had I been sitting in the church at the time that they were spoken, I would have been absolutely clear to Reverend Wright that I didn't find those acceptable. And obviously..."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338433,00.html
Where did Obama say that he had never heard Wright say something controversial? It seems to me that Obama is speaking directly about those statements that were played over and over last Friday.
Where is the lie you speak to?
Oh yeah man, I'm so wasted whooo!!!!! Whatever Obama fed us is making my head feel funny! Oh man, this is crazy, I'm so high right now off of Obama!
Perhaps we should have a war on Obama, like the war on drugs. Some Columbian war-lords are still trying to sneak Obama lines past U.S. Customs.
And for the record, Atheist is not being shouted down. And when did this site become pro-Obama? I thought it was started by Hillary Clinton to undermine those good conservative peoples who just want God, guns and glory?
In the past you always said this was a pro-Clinton site.
Atheist is right about this. Obama was being disingenuous last week when he claimed he had never heard remarks-- he was implying that he never heard this kind of thing.
Now he's saying, 'well, maybe I did hear some things I didn't approve of.." Big difference.
And this guy is his spiritual advisor? Why?
This is just ridiculous. To focus on this "did he hear it or did he not" nonsense is missing the entire point of Obama's speech and his clear denounciation of Wright's inflammatory remarks from the past. What do Obama's critics want him to do? If he assailed Wright and crapped all over him during the speech, some would say he was being dishonestly and politically expedient. If he doesn't go far enough and only repudiates Wright's comments, well then he must deep down agree and condone them.
Isn't it time to move on to important issues? Obama addressed the issue with candor and honesty yesterday and gave an important and relevant speech about race in this country. So much of the recent discussions on race have been in the context of the 60's civil rights movements - what Obama did was bring the discussion to today, to what people's fears are now, and he did it magnificently.
Well, if it continues I suggest you change your moniker from Dazedandconfused to Clearandenlightened?
;)
Here here...
I heard someone else phrase it like this yesterday. Going back to a scene from Clear and Present Danger, when the President in that movie is talking about what a disaster it was that his best friend was found smuggling drugs and money from cocaine cartels, and his advisors said to disavow his friend at all costs, Jack Ryan says, "I'd go the other way with it. Someone asks you if he was your friend you say no. He wasn't just a friend, he was my best friend, a lifelong friend, and then they have nowhere to go with the story." Which is sort of how Obama played this one, and should have played this one.
I think it was heartening to see him speak so frankly to the American people, and with great oratory as well.
Did I think he should HAVE to do this? Nope, but unfortunately, this is the America we live in where he had to do this. Same for when Romney had to explain his Mormonism to everyone. I didn't think he needed to do that either.
I think Obama threw Ferraro and both H and B Clinton under the bus.
For all of his talk about his campaign not being about race, Obama sure spends a lot of time complaining that others are racist. But when HE is directly connected to racism, he's slower than molasses to admit it and refuses to completely denounce it.
I guess being a black racist is OK but being a white racist isn't.
Atheist, That is ridiculous. Even the most ardent Obama critics, except those in the Clinton campaign, have admitted that Obama has never made his campaign about race - the reason he confronted it this week was the firestorm brewing over his pastor's comments.
And I find it interesting to get a lecture on racially charged jabs from a supporter of Hillary Clinton, whose husband and some of her supporters have played the race card shamelessly at times during this campaign.
You misunderstood what I wrote. White people who are unafraid to make comments about race and who do so are torn apart for "playing the race card" or being racist.
Dang.. 2 times in one day that I've agreed with Tommy. I've got to agree with you here. Obama has rarely talked about race in his campaign for the White House. The only times he has had to talk about it, was when others were attacking him for it.
I ask Atheist to show us where exactly in Wright's sermon and or little speech, where he was being racist...
I'm choosing to not engage you, because I know what will happen. I will post a quote of Wright talking about "white supremacy" (his term, which he uses liberally) and his warnings to children to beware, thus instilling in them fear and hatred of whites ... but somehow you will "explain" to me that a) he is correct or b) I have taken his statements out of context or c) <insert other justification here>.
If a white candidate had a KKK leader as a "spiritual advisor", attended KKK meetings and didn't challenge the speakers, and only began to disavow the KKK leader when videos of the leader were blasted onto TVs all across the country ... we would ALL be outraged, myself included.
Well, put up the statements so that we can see them. As I mentioned, I'm sure you tons of examples, in context of course, and we can go from there. Are you sure he's not saying beware and watch out for yourself because there won't be anyone else who will watch out for you? Isn't there a chance of that.
You guys keep harping on how racist Wright is, and yet, provide zero examples of it for discussion.
In the flood waters of white supremacy that our children have to negotiate economically, educationally, culturally, socially and spiritually, there are not only sharks in those waters, there are also crocodiles, alligators and piranha! The policies, with which we live now and against which our children will have to struggle in order to bring about “the beloved community,” are policies shaped by predators.
I knew you would respond this way.
Well, explain it to me then. What is racist about his statement? He's not saying it is because of the color of their skin, he is saying it is because the white people hold ALL of the power (or the vast majority of it). You want to see a good example of racism, Google KKK statements.
Wright is not denigrating the white race. He's denigrating the people within the white race who want to keep black people down, and hold power and sway over them. Which, yes, is still happening.
If they are not race baiting, or playing the race card, then they aren't. In Ferraro's case, she was. And in Bill Clinton's case in SC, he was. Sorry if that is uncomfortable to hear, or if you disagree.........but it is the way I viewed both.
But this is exactly the problem ! Why are you saying that Ferraro was playing the race card ? Why B Clinton ? Are they not allowed to make factual or well-supported statements concerning race ? Why is Obama allowed to give an entire speech about race and all of the white people have to keep their mouths closed ? What if B CLinton or Ferraro had said that blacks have to take some responsibility for their own situation ? They would have been shredded ! But it's OK for a half black man to say it ? This is one of our biggest race problems, that a huge portion of the population is forced to sit in silence on a very important matter. That's racist in itself.
Because, Ferraro said that the only reason Obama was anywhere was because he's black, which is ridiculous, and NOT true.
President Clinton stated that hey, Jesse Jackson won SC as well, and then went on to say why Obama won SC, because he was black, which again, wasn't true.
Either you don't know the actual words that Ferraro and Clinton spoke, or you are deliberately mis-stating them to make your biased point.
I'll address Ferraro first ... here's what she really said:
"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.".
She did not, as you claim, say that "the reason Obama was anywhere was because he's black". By "this position" she means a front-runner Presidential candidate. SHE'S RIGHT ! Much of the country would love to have a black President. I would ! But most are not so thrilled about having a woman President. (Why ??) If Obama were a white man he could not have distinguished himself from the rest of the pack. Edwards was very popular early on and would have undoubtedly remained ahead of Obama. And if Obama were a woman, he would suffer from the same misogyny Hillary is suffering from. It's because Obama is (half) black AND because he's a man that he has been able to create this distinct image of himself.
Regarding B Clinton ... he was responding to the media's obsession with, at each Dem primary, writing off H Clinton, especially after Obama's mega win in South Carolina. Clinton FACTUALLY pointed out that Jesse Jackson did extremely well in South Carolina too but in the end did not get the Dem nomination. How a factual statement can be considered racist is beyond me. Well, no it's not beyond me. I understand it. If Obama is your guy and you want to demonize the white candidate, the easiest way to do it is to excise some comment and claim that it's racist, including doing so of her associates and husband.
Probably nobody will see this but I'm posting it anyway because I just found it and it's IMPORTANT. Notice that this is posted on Obama's own Senate page. Notice that HE ADMITS HE'D BE JUST ANOTHER WHITE GUY IF HE WERE WHITE, thus exonerating Ferraro:
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/
Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
I think I have heard it said many times before, that lots of people are more than ready for a woman President, except, they don't want it to be H. Clinton. It's not that she's a woman, it's that she's Hillary Clinton, and most don't like her.
Ferraro was indeed making a statement that Obama is where he's at because of the color of his skin, which is ridiculous, considering the amount of racism, and discrimination he has no doubt faced, because of said same color.
It's not ridiculous to admit that Obama is a front-runner because he's black. There are many many people who would love to see a black President. As I said, I am one of them. I would consider it a huge victory in our country, another tangible sign of progress. I also don't think it's bad for someone to support Obama because he is black.
But his color is exactly what distinguishes him from the others. Edwards was more popular than Obama prior to the primaries. I am 100% certain that if Obama were a white man, he would have been out of the race a long time ago and Edwards would be #1 or #2.
Btw, the complaints against Hillary have been complaints generic to all female candidates. She's too soft, she's too cold, she cries too much, she doesn't show enough emotion, she's not tough enough, she doesn't look right, etc. Diamonds or pearls ? What MAN would have been asked such a question ? What MAN would have been criticized for some age-appropriate facial wrinkling or a hoarse voice from being forced to speak loudly at gatherings ?
"Btw, the complaints against Hillary have been complaints generic to all female candidates. She's too soft, she's too cold, she cries too much, she doesn't show enough emotion, she's not tough enough, she doesn't look right, etc. Diamonds or pearls?"
I agree. But those complaints were not generated from the Obama campaign. They come from the MSM and the Republican side of the aisle.
I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee, because if it's between her and McCain, there's no real difference between them to me. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, it's the fact that her campaign has pushed this bottom of the barrel, scorched-earth campaign that has made the November election a lot closer than it would have been normally. And the fact that she's a neo-liberal triangulator who has found friends with more Republicans than Democrats, and the fact that she has committed a cardinal sin of primary campaigning: Do not hold up the other side as better than your primary opponent.
Oh, and the fact that she's hammering the point that Obama may not pull out of Iraq and she absolutely will is an absolutist view of a very nuanced issue and shows, to me, that at least a few of her policy decisions will be blunders.
Just what I thought, you won't vote for her because of her gender.
/sarcasm off/
Atheist,
There may or may not be an element of truth to what Ferraro said, however it isn't that simplistic or measureable because of the many attributes that Obama has. Therefore, Ferraro attempted to diminish his candicacy, to minimize its impact, to stain his appeal and marginalize it - all because of his race, which he has flat out not made an issue. So there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support what Ferraro said, none.
Obama could be white as the driven snow and had he acted the same and presented himself as the exact candidate he is, he could very well be in the same position to knock out the candidate who thought she would walk to the nomination unchallenged. It's nothing more than sour grapes.
Ferraro race baited, if she can't admit it, that is too bad. I do not think she is a racist by any stretch, but she knew what she was doing, and it was pretty transparent.
Obama admits he benefitted from his race ! Read this excerpt from an article which is posted on his own Senate web site:
Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/
What do Obama's critics want him to do?
Tommy, come on you know what they want HILLARY HILLARY HILLARY And nothing I do mean nothing, not logic or common sense will do just HILLARY HILLARY.
Obama will win the nomination, that is going to happen.
What;s most disturbing about all this is not the statements Wright made or whether BO heard them or not. We'va all heard them and by BO's acknowledgement he knows they are racist, radical, and inflamitory. A church is a congregation of diverse people who share core common beliefs. It is in it's own way a micro government. It is also a great place to develop and hone leadership skills. I'm not loking for BO to tell me why he remained associated with this church and this reverend - but why did he not try to bring the kind of change to this church that he wants to bring to America? Where was his leadership among a small group of like minded thinkers? Why did not try to change the tone emminating from this church and steer them into a marker he could hold up as an example of his leadership abilities? Instead we are watching him run from the controversy.
How can we expect him to lead a nation as diverse as ours if he can not lead a small congregation? How can he stand up to radical congressmen and world leaders if he can not stand up, respectfully of course, to the likes of a Reverend Wright?
For DIMS to have an "excellent point", we must assume that Obama was there for EVERY friggin sermon, or that Wright NEVER preached on anything else.
As for DIMS closing rant, I would counter.... how can John McCain lead if he can't even remember which faction is supported by Iran?
If you are a Hillary supporter as somebody said earlier, are you sure you want to open that can of worms? The Republicants will eat her lunch with that one.
" I guarantee you, if Hillary were closely connected to someone as controversial as Wright, she would be shredded to bits."
Only because she started it.
Obama has plenty of fodder to attack her with, he chose not to.
She has a few points to attack him on, and she chose to pull out all the stops.
Why did Obama, his wife, and his two young daughters sit in those pews Sunday after Sunday
PROOF?
OH NO. Do not buy that stupid frame. When blacks talk about racism they are supposed to help themselves and eschew the victim status. When they use the language of self reliance and self help then they are racist and anti American. STOP IT. I doubt that week after week he talked politics. I notice that only a handful of inflamatory things have surfaced. Most likely if there was a huge laundry list of such language it would have been produced. Most likely 90% of the time or more the sermons were just that. Spiritually uplifting, religious sermons. Why are you all of a sudden buying into the rightwing frame on this?
Dems,
You are not being fair here. You don't know what Obama's role in this church was, what positions he held, the innerworkings or the directions and the hierarchy of the leadership in this church is, how it operates, what Obama did or did not do as a member.
I think this is a pretty weak stance criticizing him for not "straightening" them out, and somehow that shows lack of leadership or committment on his part.
Obama has denounced what he does not agree with, that will never be enough for some, I understand that - but to now somehow blame him for not taking over and smacking some sense into them is quite a stretch.
Tommy - yes I do not know the things you refer to regarding BO and his church. As I stated earlier a church is a great breeding ground for developing and honing leadership. If he even so much as tried to do anything there we would have heard about by now. If he is the leader and the uniter he want's to believe that church could have been a great proving ground.
I am nit blaming him for not doing anything at the church. It is raises a red flag to me though how someone selling himself as a leader and a uniter, seeing what he himself saw as reprehensible, could just look the other way and run from it as he is doing now.
There is not much more he can do with this except put it aside. There has been an underlying uneasyness about this whole thing for me, besides the rhetoric. It just makes me question if he really is the leader he want's us to believe he is. Going forward he can show me real world examples where his leadership has made a difference in uniting diverse groups. I'm tired of his stump. Show me the leadership he did not exemplify in the church.
And you have every right to question his leadership or his qualifications for the job he is seeking, those are perfectly legitimate issues and important considerations for voting for any candidate.
For me, his pastor and the incendiary and inflammatory statements he has made are his own, I blame nobody else for them. Considering Obama attended the church where he made many of these remarks, and his relationship with Wright deserves clarification from Obama, he has done that for me satisfactorily. Each person makes their own judgement. I just hope people do so fairly and honestly.
We should wonder why Obama chose Wright to be his "spiritual advisor".
If I had to bet, I would say he did it to prove his brother-ness.
If I had to bet, I would say he did it to prove his brother-ness."
Because yes, he had to prove it in order to be accepted into the black community. Why was Ferraro on the Clinton campaign? Oh, because she had to prover her womanhood.
What a ridiculous statement.
If I had to bet, I would say he did it to prove his brother-ness.
LOL
Atheist you are a sad sad person. With nappy hair you don't have to prove "your broth-ness". Sorry but leave it to the uninformed to come up with that word. LOL
Actually, I'm appreciating Dems posts.
What's with this ridiculous black-and-white thinking that if you aren't pro-Obama then you must be a Republican or a racist ?
"What's with this ridiculous black-and-white thinking that if you aren't pro-Obama then you must be a Republican or a racist ?"
Who is advocating that? Nerzog was addressing a specific point that Dem_sol made, and had a valid criticism at that.
You're really getting thin with your arguments.
"I am nit blaming him for not doing anything at the church."
Is 'nit blaming' similar to nit-picking except you assign responsibility to the object of said nitpickee?
You have not heard them all. What you've heard is a sound bite from one sermon on one particular day that keeps getting played over, and over, and over again. This is what you hear. If you want to hear the rest of them, get the DVD of Wright's greatest hits, and see if there is anything else in there worth putting out there to draw controversy. Even though I have personally not watched the DVD, I am assuming that there isn't anything else in there that is controversial, because we would have seen it, ad nauseum, again and again.
Obama doesn't run his church, the pastor runs the church. Wright is now RETIRED. So someone else is running the church.
And can you tell us what exactly Obama said about Imus? I don't remember him giving an almost 40 minute speech about Imus, so maybe you're wrong again?
Obama did say that he thought Imus should be fired. Given that Wright is retired, how could he call for such a thing for him as well?
And he didn't. And???
Wright's sermon was not hate speech at all, but that's OK, ignore the whole speech, and only concentrate on certain items, and I'm sure you can read hate into it somewhere along the line.
Go back to sleep NUTZOG
WASHINGTON -- With the Rev. Al Sharpton leading calls Monday for radio host Don Imus to be fired over racially insensitive remarks, Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign avoided the controversy throughout the day.
Not until Monday evening, five days after Imus's comments were uttered and hours after CBS Radio and MSNBC announced a two-week suspension for the radio host, did Obama weigh in, saying in a statement: "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." Obama did not address whether he thought Imus should be taken off the air.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/
"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.[...] "He didn't just cross the line," Obama said. "He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women -- who I hope will be athletes -- that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It's one that I'm not interested in supporting."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3031317&page=1
That's a REALLY weak statement ! He should have said "Imus should be fired for such a racist and misogynist statement." Period.
He doesn't have the lead in the most recent Gallup nationwide poll. Hillary is ahead.
Atheist, you cry about folks calling you racist but YOU have a problem discussing race. Even though folks have told you time and time again you keep repeating the same uninformed statements.
I’m a 73 years young and I’ve tried to explain to you why Obama is considered black. Again and again I’ve tried to get you to understand the history of this country is why Obama is considered black. Black folks do not dismiss his white mother, black folks are mixed with a little bit of everything so a little bit of white makes no difference. Again another history lesson, one drop of black blood makes you black. Those were the rules I grew up with. Black folks don’t think having a white mother is a big deal. No matter how many times black history is explained to you, you keep trying to make a NON point that Obama is trying to be black. Are you truly that uninformed? How many folks walk around with hair as NAPPY as his with skin as brown as his and call themselves white? Maybe the reason folks have problems discussing race with you is your lack of understanding from folks with a lot more experience about being black. Folks who have navigated through life with brown/black skin every day of their lives. Lived in this country with that black/brown skin every day of their lives.
You cannot accept that while Obama's race may have cause some folks to stop and listen they would have keep right on going IF he didn’t have anything worth listening to. His message is the cause of his support not his color. His ideas are the cause of his support not his color. Obama is a lot more than his color and plenty of folks know that. YOU would like to simply make this about his race and it’s not. The statement that if Obama was white is ridiculous on it’s face and insulting to boot. YOU cannot see that you have basically said that the only thing Obama offers is his color and I‘m sorry but that’s pretty dumb. Should we say that the only thing Hillary offer is her sex? Are those voting for Hillary because she is a woman? I don't care if I have a black President but I’m happy that I'm finally voting for someone I truly want and not lessor of two evils.
You go on about Edwards but you forget Edwards was in Iowa since the 2004 election and who’s fault is it that after all that time he did not win? Obama? You really need a reality check.
Let me be the first to say that I would have voted for Hillary. She was never my favorite but I would have voted for her. The Clinton’s actions in South Carolina pissed me off but I got over it, but her compliment to McCain over a fellow Democratic was the last straw for me. You don’t do something like that PERIOD! Please don’t try that she cared about the country cause that bull sh*t. What experience has Hillary had besides sleeping next to Bill, when he was home? She NEVER has Natl. Sec. clearence during the entire 8 years she was in the White House. She NEVER read a PDB or attended a Natl. Sec. meeting BUT somehow sleeping next to Bill gives her experience? Sorry but that dog ain't hunting. Hillary will probably get the nomination but she has alienated so many folks in her own party that her chances for winning are slim to none.
It’s time to retire your old ways of thinking... Pearlene. The youth do not care as much as you do about the color of skin and as long as you perpetuate the old ideas that you have about races or racism in this country…you hinder progress.
What ways would that be? Hinder progress? You can’t figure out which way to go UNLESS you know where you came from so don’t be to assume you know which way to go. There is a reason that children wear diapers and adults change them
People in this country are exited that a black man could be President. They are final excited that there is finally a “quality” black candidate and not a race baiter like Jesse Jackson. Do I dare say that people might vote for Obama because he is black and the country is tired of racial tensions that are way too played out by all forms of media? Do you think people might vote for Obama because they believe if a black man becomes President and holds the highest position of power in the country that the country could no long be considered racist by design?
I don’t care if your blue as long as your not an a**hole. People in this country are excited about Obama who HAPPENS to be black. It’s the MAN and HIS MESSAGE, NOT his color.
Race baiting Jessie Jackson? Grow up, no man is without fault. While your so quick to label him a “race baiter” you seem to forget that man negotiated the release to US soldiers held captive. When you grow up you will realize that NOTHING in life is simply black and white.
One would be ignorant to think that his color has not been a huge factor. People are excited to see a black man of his caliber running for office. I don’t see anything wrong with making a correlation that he is popular because he is black. I don’t understand why black people argue and try to take away this factor and call it racist or playing the race card if someone does. Should black folks feel threatened when someone says “you got where you are because you’re black”.
If race played such a HUGE factor as you claim Jessie and Al should have been big hits but they weren't becuase they had NO message. Obama has a message, class and integrity AND he's black. People should not feel threatened they should be insulted.
Most find these words offensive and it’s all because of the negative affects of affirmative action. Affirmative action has made it so…some folks can not feel totally justified to be successful because they maybe reminded by white folks in the media or locally who resent paving a way for future success of black folks. I know this is a simple statement.
I have 3 daughters who all went to college with the help of affirmative action. Affirmative action DID NOT help them study nor pass their classes, THEY did that all on their own. If affirmative actions makes some folks feel less THEY have a problem. Affirmative action may get you in the door but you d*mn well better be able to do the job or your butt is out the door. If you can do the job you shouldn't give a d*mn what someone else thinks. I certainly don't.
But why can’t people be proud that a man is trying to be elected president and that man is successful because he is black? One day maybe… and the youth of America is the answer and not your seasoned way of thinking.
You have not been listening to Obama if you think he's successful BECAUSE he's black. Your actually subscribing to the Clinton/Ferraro way of thinking that Obama is successful BECUASE he's black. You have not been listening to Obama becuase he has ALWAYS said he was NOT running as a black President he was running as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
If you are an example of that youth? Let me just say the future doesn't look to bright for you".
You need to go back and listen to Obama again.
People in this country are excited about Obama who HAPPENS to be black. It’s the MAN and HIS MESSAGE, NOT his color.
Oh come on ! Blacks are overwhelmingly voting for him because he's (half) black ! And that's why there are ads and articles all over the place touting him as the first viable African American candidate and the first potential African American President. I listen to black radio stations here in Chicago and I've heard plenty such ads, especially right before the IL primary. The focus was on his black-ness.
He's a very intelligent and motivated man, but if he were white, as Ferraro hypothesized, he would not be distinguishable from the other white guys who were running, and Edwards would have been in the top two.
Obama himself admits that he has benefitted from being (half) black:
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/
Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
This proves that he's a hypocrite. He said of himself the same exact thing that Ferraro said of him, but Ferraro is a racist ? That makes Obama a racist too then.
Here's something for MMFA.
The LA Times is wrong in stating that Obama gave a different account in his speech than he had given before.
From his Friday appearance on Keith Olbermann:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23675485/
OLBERMANN: There‘s an awful lot of strong material that is now on videotape. We have played it. I see no reason to play it again, but a phrase that suggests that—God damn America is a better phrase to use than God bless America. Can you characterize your own reactions to this? Did you know that he made these statements before the videotape appeared?
OBAMA: You know, frankly, I didn‘t. I wasn‘t in church during the time when the statements were made. Now, I think it‘s, Keith, important to point out that he‘s been preaching for 30 years.
He is a man who was a former marine who served this country, a biblical scholar, somebody who‘s spoken at theological schools all across the country, and is widely regarded as a preacher. That‘s the man I know. That‘s the person who was the pastor of this church.
I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally, either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew. He always preached the social gospel and was sometimes controversial in the same way that many people who‘d speak out on social issues are controversial.
But these particular statements that had been gathered are ones that I strongly objected to and strongly condemned. Had I heard them in church, I would have expressed that concern directly to Reverend Wright. So, I didn‘t familiar with these until recently.
Wright said months ago that Obama might have to distance himself from him, but methinks they are too little, too late. No wonder, Obama styles himself as the agent of change, and then refuses to renounce a race-baiter. Obama was quick to condemn Imus for his racist slur supposedly to protect his daughters, but put them under the teachings of a race-baiting bigot for years without apology. He emphasizes his 'judgment' and then says that Rezco was a 'lapse' in judgment.
The one thing that Obama has going for him is that he leads against one of the best 'machines' the Democrats have seen in a long while, and also one of the most ruthless. Not that that will help him much in the general election. "I'm electable" may carry some weight in primaries, but it's worthless in a general election.
He's an empty suit.
And one more time, here is an excerpt from an article on Obama's own web site. It totally exonerates Ferraro ! Notice that Obama himself has admitted that he benefits from his race !!
Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/
What a freaking hypocrite he is !!