Turbulent priest issue
Apologies for coming rather late to the turbulent priest issue but the Obama speech allows me to catch up. Here is . Can he do it? More to the point how could he possibly have imagined he could avoid these matters - ?
Jeremiah meanwhile is . I can well understand that the black folk memory of America is hugely different to the white version but is this what black people really think? Is that what they were thinking five days after 9/11? Fascinating if it is true. Amazing that the ambitious Barack Obama could not break with this talk for fear of alienating a key constituency. And rather depressing for Americans keen on future harmony.
As for the big race between Him and Her, Richard Lake links us to the suggestion that Mrs Clinton might like to become Senate Majority Leader - I must say the idea of stepping into Harry Reid's shoes as opposed to George Bush's just does not seem to me to be likely to fire up the Clinton imagination.
Judge Drudge makes a trenchant point about Obama which may well turn out to be true: that he has fallen to earth. His judgement is as flawed as hers. In fact at the risk of upsetting everyone on the Democratic side, I wonder whether the conventional wisdom (which I fully accepted) that the Democrats were choosing between two titans is rather flawed? Their inability to knock each other out speaks of a certain weakness, does it not?
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Thanks for addressing it finally. We all rely on the B-B-C for reporting with calm British detachment and judgment.
Now, my question is: Willie-Horton or will-he not be elected?
Nayeem
You ride on his plane to and fro and yet you come on here and keep spreading the same hate engrossed in by the american media. Pathetic of you.
Tell me in your life what exaclty have you done to better humanity.
What that smug Scarborough fails to understand is that all this preacher is really saying is 'As you sow, so shall ye reap'. Or to give it its modern spin,
'What goes around, comes around'.
That said, I never could understand people worshipping at a church that professed to be able to tell them which way God would be voting - that is just a little ridiculous, as I guess there will be believers and unbelievers on both sides.
The hypocrisy here is astounding.
No group of people has sacrificed more for America than black yet somehow they are deemed less 'American', their opinions less valid and their criticisms more incendiary.
When a black preacher talks about America's chickens comig home to roost he is a security threat, when a white one does it he gets an invitation to Washington and slaps on the back:
I would like to know if Rev Wright's comments are truly what most black Americans believe. I'm white, middle class, and don't see things in terms of race. My friends are not all white--they are friends. My neighborhood is not all white-I offer them a handshake and welcome, not derogatory scorn that they are less valuable than myself. I'm younger than the BabyBoom generation, so perhaps my views will be seen as naive, however I was raised not to see race, but rather individual people. I have teenage children who also do not subscribe to this supposed racial divide.
Yet if it is true that most black Americans feel the same as Rev Wright (leading me to be hopelessly and ignorantly blind, I suppose), then I ask what exactly do black Americans want? An apology? $$ Reparations? But FROM WHOM??? My ancestors fled Ireland in the 1800's, were basically starved from their homeland, and yet they stepped off the boat on US shores, registered and got about the business of building a life here---despite the odds, despite horrible prejudice and "No Irish" signs posted for employment opportunities---and by the way, my great-great family members settled in Illinois, land of Abraham Lincoln; they volunteered, served and even died in the Union Army to protect the Union and end slavery. In the year 2008, am I supposed to publicly and daily apologize for transgressions my family took no part in? Do I cloak myself in an historical sense of guilt that even my non-white friends think is patently ridiculous?
If Wright's viewpoints are supposedly shared by most black Americans (sorry, but my friends tell me frequently that they DESPISE the mantle of "african-american" and so I defer to their wishes) I do not see or hear evidence of it. And currently residing in a southern-midwest state, I'm certain that these types of feelings would not be able to be hidden adequately for such a prologned period of our friendships and work relationships. My cousin attends what the media would call a "black church" and she has never heard such words preached from the pulpit as the Rev Wright does.
Does the media stir this race issue? And for what purpose does it serve? If my views can be disputed, I welcome it. Personally, I simply do not see evidence that Rev Wright's perspective is indicative of a majority opinion.
Quite interesting debate but at least Barack Obama is a christain and no longer turbaned Barack Hussein Obama a muslim. If he manages to get through this phase which I believe he will a new debate will still crop up at least to undermine his wide acceptability by people looking for a positive message for a long time. The Americans has the opportunity to prove Rev Wright wrong and continue to set the pace for the others to follow. The doom mongers will continue to shoot down any positive messenger as that does not serve their own purpose.
I know most good people will not agree with Rev Wright sermons however there also lessons in those sermons.
Dear Mr. Webb,
Thank you for your blog. Candid views of those inclined to post are most enlightening. The hyperlinks in lieu of footnotes certainly gives some depth and quick reference.
Poor Mr. McCain scarcely gets mentioned. I guess this is good for him.
If your blogs have a bias, I am not sure that I sense it. I do not agree with those that protest a bias.
Of the three major candidates, we have two very good people that will do well for the nation and the world.
I am very hopeful these two run. It will be the first time in decades we had a win-win ballet. We can actually vote FOR a candidate instead of voting to keep the worse of the two out.
(That Obama has had the same priest for 20 years tells me:
1) He thinks of more than himself
2) He is stable
3) He provided a healthy, positive environment for his family
4) He honors his vows/commitments)
Apologies for going off topic here Justin but have you seen this fascinating statement from the Obama camp with regard to the Michigan re-do. The interesting part relates to Texas and an allegation that the Clinton camp are preventing the results of the Texas caucus from being released.
鈥淐onsidering the fact that Senator Clinton is currently trying to prevent and delay votes in Texas from being counted because she didn't like the outcome, it's pretty apparent that the Clinton campaign鈥檚 views on voting are dependent on their own political interest. Hillary Clinton herself said in January that the Michigan primary 鈥渄idn鈥檛 count for anything.鈥 Now, she is cynically trying to change the rules at the eleventh hour for her own benefit. We received a very complex proposal for Michigan re-vote legislation today and are reviewing it to make sure that any solution for Michigan is fair and practical. We continue to believe a fair seating of the delegation deserves strong consideration.鈥
Do you have any information on the Texas situation? I'm sure you noticed that the counting of the Texas caucus stopped abruptly which has delayed the expected announcement that Obama in fact won Texas. I had assumed that this was down to administrative chaos but it seems Obama's team believe there is more to it than that. Some investigative journalism is in order!
To be honest I think this media frenzy is all a bit of beat-up, Justin. Obama made clear right from the start of his candidacy that there were views his paster held that he didn't share. I'm not suprised he didn't want to highlight what they were. But, still, despite Wright's extremely negative views concerning the US's power structure, until recently almost entirely dominated by whites, it is also noteworthy that in none of his comments that have emerged so far do we find him urging his congregants to commit acts of volence aganst white people. Instead he asks them to battle injustice. Nor do we find him particularly rejoicing about 9/11 either, just pointing out that if you do morally bad or dubious things they have a habit of coming back to bite you. He obviously doesn't approve of the genocide of the American Indian that clearly occurred in the nineteenth centure - who does? He also obviously doesn't approve of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - well, I personally think it was an unnecessary act of revenge and that a simple demonstration - dropping the bombs out to sea - would have ended the war with much less loss of life. Ok, that's all ancient history, I know. But I think you'll find that many blacks of the same age whose lives were forged in the American South will hold similar views to Wright. Not suprising given their experience. Nor, Justin, is it suprising that many younger black folk still verate these oldsters, even while disagreeing with them on some things.
Mark 1
His spiritual leader is a minister or pastor, not a priest. He's not Catholic.
Justin,
Sometimes I find your blog very astute but there are times it quite simply takes on a very paper-over-the-cracks approach. This entry very much falls in to the latter category. Commenting on a crazily opportunistic topic with equally baseless arguments (links) to support it.
I'll start off with the "controversial" Reverend that has America up in arms. The nerve and hypocrisy of this nation (or shall i say the media) is something to behold. A man is crucified and a congregation is damned for pointing out social ills that are apparent to even those with the most selective take on history. In an ideal and sane world, instead of the treacherous charges being directed at Rev. Wright, this would be an opportunity for a nation(guided by the media) to examine its soul and engage in dialogue to find out why this kind of talk is not considered outrageous by most of its minority populations. But in an ideal and sane world the events that led up to this wouldn't have occurred in the first place.
I might not agree with all that the preacher says but I have enough sense to appreciate where his anger is coming from. Instead we are treated to faux shock and outrage that further demonstrates the major population's refusal to acknowledge its sins (to fit in with the biblical context) and its unwillingness to even accept the other side's arguments. Talk less of rectifying the issues in question. Rev.s Wright's approach may appear particularly vitriolic but i bet his congregation got his message on that(those) day(s).
On a side note, where is this sense of moral guidance by the media when the right and it's evangelical preachers bash gays, immigrants, islam and unpatriotic citizens who question torture or wire-tapping.
As to the charge Obama has to 'bat away', I am not accountable for my father's, teacher's, minister's views. It sure doesn't stop me from listening to them and forming my own opinions. The politician in Obama has had to repudiate and reject (a lot of this going on) the remarks but at what cost, possibly the loss of a confidante and the faith of a 'separatist' congregation, but none of this matters so long as the majority can pat itself on the back on a lynch job well done.
It doesn't matter when Obama first heard these statements, as I doubt the Rev. was plotting the downfall of the US of A during this period. And I don't care what Obama said or didn't say to his preacher on hearing them. Instead I am going to judge a man and church on it's actions. Bringing people of different races and creeds together or helping the homeless, HIV/AIDS patients, accepting gays, funny how this humanity is overlooked.
As to the arrogance article, if you or the author don't get the humour, I'd be expecting the same on "bomb bomb iran" Mccain, "doing God's work" Bush, "i brought peace to northern ireland/women's rights to china" Hillary and the countless "doing God's work statements" from the ever so humble Huckabee.
"...is this what black people really think?"
Here you refer to Wright's views on 9/11 like their are some kind of conspiracy theory. Admittedly "the chickens coming home to roost", is insensitive but nonetheless utterly congruent with the 9/11 report and the CIA notion of blowback. It is widely acknowledged that US policy in the Middle East played a role in fomenting terrorism e.g Mossadegh, arms to Iraq/Iran, the propping up of the Saudi regime.
See:
for more analysis.
Moreover, aside from lumping all black people into one demographic group, you feign incredulity as to what this man believes. Lets not forget he spent his formative years in a country that overtly instituted discrimination through Jim Crow. The man is entitled to feel ire toward that country.
A little perspective please Mr Webb.
It's amazing so many white people are completely appalled at something like this. I challenge anyone to name one thing that wasn't true in that post-September 11 sermon. As a white person, it's only too easy for people like me to believe that we have always acted on the international stage as impartial arbiters of right and wrong. No one else in the rest of the world believes this myth, and we shouldn't either. Blacks, who have a long history of living under the oppression of whites, are not blind when we do the same thing to other peoples around the world. Poll after poll shows that even conservative Muslims admire American principles and wish to incorporate some of them in their own societies, but almost everyone in the Muslim world, even in a country as secularized and westernized as Turkey, opposes our foreign policies. Until our ideals match our policies, we will continue to face violent opposition from those we oppress.
I smell a bit of Obama bashing here. This blog strikes me as highly biased and dischordant with the actual tone of the current election campaign. Why don't you just come out and say you have a pro-Clinton bias?
Do your views reflect on the editorial positions of the 主播大秀 regarding this election?
I wish to add that commenting on your blog is a task nigh-impossible as technical glitches torpedo 9 out of 10 attempts at posting.
aaron-
Hello Justin,
I've been enjoying your blog and coverage.
The largest part of Mr Obama's appeal is that he is NOT Hillary.
Whatever virtue's he has (and there are many) his growing popularity is in direct proportion to the other Dem challengers having left the primary race.
I've made this point in other venue's before but it bears repeating: almost ANY other challenger to the anointing that Hillary believed was her due (still does?) would have a similar groundswell of support. Too many people here just don't like her.
Justin, your final observation has been discussed in many a forum these past few raucus months of She vs He. Indeed, a potential 'white knight' to save the day at a brokered convention is an interesting proposition and in my mind at least is probably whispered about in many circles. No doubt there are intriguing reasons why John Edwards is behind the scenes. In Denver (or mercifully sooner), after the dust has settled and the numbers are incontrovertable and conclusive...maybe the Dems offer Hillary a bone and the Majority Leadership while Obama gets 4 years to prove his mettle. That is, unless McCain and a bold move for a VP sidekick do not get in the way...
One other possibility you wish to ask your readers: what's the chance for an Obama or Clinton 3rd Party candidacy, given the stakes?
No, that is not what African Americans thought at that time of Sep 11. We were devastated just like anyone else!!! However, it is impossible to explain the tradition of the African American church to someone outside of this very unique community. If I may try, The church is a place that as been at the absolute forefront of fighting social injustice and has a pacifist, anti-war interpretation of the bible; which is in contrast with the right-wing sort of church here in US. The Black church has picked up the pieces of shattered lives where the government and other agencies couldn鈥檛. So from us, it gets some major allowances. Did Wright cross the line on several occasions? Yes!!! However, as I have been in attendance, such messages are few and far between. Most of the time, it鈥檚 about not giving up , about keeping your sanity in a crazy world where success is a major challenge for an African American and most of all about Jesus鈥 message of love and peace.
The gravity of this situation should not be underestimated 鈥 should these revelations have occurred early in the primary season, Obama would have been driven from the race with shame, and Clinton would indeed be the flawed nominee. It does make one wonder how Obama could not have seen these revelations coming, and acted to try to minimize their potentially lethal effect in advance. It reminds one of the fact that, despite his oratorical skills, the only competitor he has had in his brief national career was the out-of-the-mainstream African American Republican conservative television scat fly Allan Keyes, a contest that any nominee of the democrat party in Illinois would have easily defeated.
As for the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, like most Americans (including, surprisingly to some, a number of liberal Democratic broadcasters and public figures), I would like nothing more than to reach through the television screen, grab him by the neck, and pound my fist against his face repeatedly. But he鈥檚 up in years, so that鈥檚 not a proper thing to do, even through a television screen. He鈥檒l meet his maker soon, and will discover who has been 鈥渄amned鈥 and who has not.
Michael Medved (the charge to bat away) makes a valid point, assuming his facts are correct. On the other hand, can one associate a person with specific statements made by the priest of his or her congregation? If one disagrees with specific statements, does on have to withdraw from a congregation? How about the statements (on abortion, homosexuality, Darwinism, etc) made by priests whose support is sought by right wing politicians? What is un-American and where does McCarthyism begin?
Barack Obama is beginning to suffer the contradictions of his own politics. Yes, he has shown that many are fed up with the silly bickering of purely partisan politics. And he has also reflected a desire for more participative politics. Especially young, better educated people look for politicians who won't simply represent them, but also be open and involve them in an ongoing debate and action.
But it is an illusion to suggest that conflicting interests can generally be transcended. One ends up trying to be all things for all people. It鈥檚 a recipe for indecisiveness 鈥 the risk: 鈥渁 mind so open that one鈥檚 brain falls out鈥.
I believe Hillary Clinton would be a good president, and that her battle with Obama has improved her as a person and as a politician. But she must take on board some of the aspirations revealed by the Obama campaign 鈥 the aspirations of attitude and method rather than of policy.
Hey, This isn't the sedate church of England! Pastors over here wallow in melodramatic hyperbole: No one takes them seriously, of course, but it does stop the congregation falling asleep. It's all part of the "show".
I heartily agree with s.o.c. @ 11 calling the media reaction "faux shock and outrage". That's exactly what it is. The media are cynically manufacturing more foaming outrage to counter the Pastor's own brand of hyperventilation.
What next? Obama's hairdresser got a speeding ticket! Shock! Shock! Hold the front page!! :o
It seems clear to me that Hillary can't win now. So why is she still in this contest?
I have read of one possible reason. On MyDD (https://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/16/18411/2283) they are debating the possibility that a compromise could be reached by Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Al Gore, and Nancy Pelosi. Essentially, Reid retires as Senate majority leader and backs Hillary Clinton for that role. The price? Hillary withdraws from the race and a bloodbath at the convention is avoided.
Because the Senate has more power than the House of Representatives, for example, voting on confirmations such as federal judges, she would then be the second most powerful politician in the USA after Obama. Even with a McCain presidency she would have a huge amount of power because McCain would be facing a Senate with around 55 Democrats or so - he could not get anything done without having Senate's approval - therefore he would need to rely on the Senate majority leader to prevail.
Clinton is apparently a popular senator (with other senators) and grasps the intricacies of how the Senate works - it could be a consolation prize that she could find acceptable.
That being said, Clinton won't go for such a deal until she is convinced that she has absolutely no chance of winning. That could happen possibly after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries.
The link with Joe Scarborough's commentary is interesting. He asks, 'what were you thinking the Sunday after 9/11?' He then plays a clip of Rev Wright's remarks, and I was suprised to find him echoing the very things I was thinking the Sunday after 9/11. These ideas are not limited to members of the African-American community.
It is one of the most heartbreaking situations one can face-to be an American who is proud of what their country represents, has achieved, and potential it offers. And then to watch as, year after year, our acts fall far short of what we profess; our morality and courage gets devoured by fear; and we still manage (as the richest nation in the world) to allow a vast amount of our population to live in sub-standard conditions, without providing a decent education or health services.
Rather than seeing Rev. Wright's sermon as one of 'anti-Americanism,' isn't it just as likely that these are the words and sentiments that are actually held by anyone who feels this country has let far too many people down and practiced hypocrisy across the globe? Is it not the very definition of American patriotism to speak out about it based on the underlying hope and desire that we can do better?
Justin Webb is not biased in favour of anyone. Just take the fact that all sides are accusing him of bias as your proof. British readers will quickly sense that he has a touch of the right about him, but that still probably puts him on the far left in American terms...
This blog goes out of its way to search out all those controversial (and partisan) statements made by US commenators, and I thank Justin for that.
The reason this race is relying on the 'faux outrage' stories is that there is so little to choose between Obama and Clinton. One offers hope, the other offers experience - I forget which is which. On policy, I defy any supporter of either to name 10 serious things where they have a difference of opinion.
By now you really should have settled this. At least Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had the good grace to make a deal over dinner (and if Brown hadn't been so bolshy Blair just might have stuck to it).
Justin,
I asked for this a few days ago, now I wonder. I just read Obamas speech on the drudge report:
www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm
This speech brought tears to my eyes and I don't know why. He writes in a spell binding manner, beautiful and poignant.
I was angry yesterday, today not sure. I won't vote for him but I like what he says, I don't agree on his view of the war and don't believe the president can do what Obama says.
Is any of this speech visible in his Senate record or public service record? Please help, I am looking for this as well.
It's very sad really!
Not too long ago he had to go around squashing rumours that he's a Muslim. Now that his Trinity church attendance is brought into light because of his pastor's inflammatory words, he is forced to profess his Christian faith, while distancing himself from his preacher...
Tracy Morgan's Saturday Night Live (15-Mar-2008) skit was hilarious though!
Tim at #12 has it about right.
Nothing in that sermon was anything but the uncomfortable truth.
Aaron at #13 expresses the frustration of those of us trying to post through a veritable storm of 502 errors.
Do try and get the technicals sorted out.
Salaam, etc.
ed
and, in a lighter vein, a nice comment on the season (see video on the right) from Minyanville:
and, from Mark Fiore on the 'red phone' matter:
There's a journalist over at the politico who goes by the name of Ben Smith, and he's frequently accused on anti-Obama bias, pro-Hillary bias. Most of the accusations are pretty week, indeed, I doubt there's any legitimate claim of anything but objectivity in the huge majority of his writing. You however, Justin, are different...I haven't actually seen anybody accuse you of a pro-Hillary bias before but it's becoming patently obvious to me. Practically every other post you're shooting him down and lifting her up. I actually don't mind if you prefer her over him. That's fine. But please, try not to let it shine through in your writing, OK?
To add to my earlier post
It wasn't a skit by Tracy Morgan on Saturday Night Live but his 'Weekend Update' bit.
Comment 11, S.O.C.,
Simply brilliant! I couldn't have said it better.
It says a lot about the state of American politics that when someone gets up and states the bleedin' obvious, a leading presidential candidate has to dissociate himself.
Agreed with Ed Iglehart about the 502s. If Eddie Mair can solve it, so can you.
At least he finally mentioned race which somehow takes us (very disappointingly shy from a commander-in-chiefs-to be)back to what Ferraro said last week doesnt'it?
The most fascinating thing about this discussion is the extraordinary intensity of the anti-Americanism among the British posters here. I find that to be a fascinating phenomenon.
The Brits may support the bizarre paranoid fantasies that make up the "sermons" of Obama's mentor and advisor, but most Americans are disgusted and repelled. You may think he is telling tough truths. The problem with that is anti-Americanism is damaging and dangerous.
Comment 11- bang on. Best post I have read on here. I agree that the US did " reap what it sewed" with Sept 11th. Dont agree with all the Reverend said, but he wasnt far off the mark.
What people need Justin is for somebody like you to cut through the nonsense. Take your "how could he possibly have imagined he could avoid these matters"? mmmmmmm perhaps because he never imagined such a thing. He has addressed race issues on so many occasions in the last two years and has repeatedly said that he isnt naive enough to think it would come up.
Why bother providing a link to a baseless article that, as comment 11 pointed out, is bordering on the satirical.
All in all this reminds me of Ron Paul and the Republican debates. As soon as he told the truth, that America had only themselves to balme for 9/11, he got booed to death. Why? Many Americans simply cant deal with anything critical of their country. The media then seizes upon this and plays it for all it can. Take the Michelle Obama "first time I have been proud of my country debacle". She said what many many young Americans are thinking. But if you are in anyway critical of America you are seen as unpatriotic which is completely illogical. Criticism of ones country comes out of a love of that country and a yearning to see it do better. The media jumps on the bandwagon "ooooh, looky what Obama's wife said" blah blah blah.
The last two months campaigning serve to convince me further and further that America is on the road to doom. These politicians are having to pander to the uneducated and irrational elements in the population who have not the slightest idea what is reality and what is fiction. Some democracy!
Justin,
i feel another issue that has been ignored by the mainstream media in america that is very much linked to the issue of race and religion is the topic of obama's religious beliefs. Don't the false accusations of him being a muslim (the latest of which was the ridiculous suggestion that wearing african dress meant he was linked to the islamic faith) and the implication that that means he would be unelectable not highlight the silent bigotry that is entrenched in american politics and the mainstream media?
The fact that hardly anyone has come out and said so what if he was a muslim speaks volumes. Even obama himself hasn't addressed this issue.
Would be interested to see this issue raised in your blog.
We knew his pastor was a Farrakhan supporter so the remarks are not really a surprise. What is a surprise is why Obama didn't make clear to him early on not to say things like this during the campaign, or Obama would take a huge hit. It makes both of these men look stupid.
"Apologies for coming rather late to the turbulent priest issue"
Rather late is correct, Justin. I posted a comment to your blog back in January asking why, given your evident fascination with the influence of religion in the Republican Party, you didn't have a similar interest in the controversial views coming out of Obama's church. It was one of those rare occasions on the 主播大秀 Editors blogs that I got a message confirming my post had been received. Sadly it never appeared, but I hope you read it. Just think, if you had ignored your prejudices (religion only matters where the right-wing is concerned) and challenged your own white liberal guilt, you could have broken this story two months ago.
Doug (23),
For an interesting speech, have a look at this, from the potential Democrat VP most-favoured by the WSJ political market:
and then look up Sen Webb on Wikipedia (other reference sources are available).
The WSJ political market is here:
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
Justin, you espouse the idea that Obama has been brought back to earth. As a Black African whose history is not related to slavery or colonisation, I am nevertheless reminded everytime by people like you about that past. You do not allow people to move on, you think you are asking legitimate questions, exposing at the same time your own flawed prejudices. It is a double sword isssue. Damned if you raise it, damned if you do not. It is a pity Justin, but I guess you are doing your bit to maintain 'white' dominance.
How do you assume that ALL Black people think the same?
I understand Reverend Wright's anger and I understand the context of his hyperbole.
But what I can't understand is how you can take a 30 second snippet and not only define the priest by that - not his life long work - but also use it to automatically define everyone that sat in the pews that day or any day.
We didn't ask Catholics to condemn the post because he made an insensitive and inflammatory remark about Muslims. We don't demand everyone leave Jerry Falwell's church because of his views.
The beauty of the USA is freedom of speech - even if we don't like what is said.
But smug commentary that seeks to assign blame to an entire ethnic group because of the unfortunate angry remarks from a single retired pastor is an example of the double standard that faces people like me. And explains that despite my success in my career, and my dual degrees obtained without affirmative action - I'm still going to be battling a stereotype that discounts me for the rest of my life.
I thought 主播大秀 was better than that.
I, personally, agree with #3 Bedd Gelert, #12 Tim, and #21 Liz. We have in the past done mean hypicritical things, that haven鈥檛 been seen by countries on the world stage since the British and French were dukeing it out in the 17 and 18 centuries!! That is a very shameful, sad, and bitter pill to swallow, and to add more to Liz/s point, we have to, and must always be scrutinizing ourselves and attempting to appologise for these mistakes and do our damndest in the future never to act in the wrong on the international stage ever again!!!
My personal thoughts on the paster鈥檚 comments, however, are that while I whole-heartedly agree with what he said, I鈥檓 not sure if his timeing, and the way in which he said it were chosen with the wisest of intentions. I mean it was recently after 9/11, and no matter what people believed as far as what led up to those events, and whether we had it coming, and whether we deserved it or not, there鈥檚 a certain unspoken rule, is there not, that people are to at least pretend like they are sad about it all for at least a week before criticizing and pointing the finger of blame. That aside, it was a national tragedy, and it is (or should be) a rare opertunity to bring the country and the world together, not tear them apart. That debate could鈥檝e been held off for a wile in my opinion.
Also, while I personally agree with what the rev said-what goes around comes around, others may not with respect to whether it was right to drop the bombs on Japan after WW II etc, so out of respect to those people, it would鈥檝e been nice if they were given a little time to sort out one thing before dealing with another. Its like well, one wouldn鈥檛 expect others to act the same in private as they do in public. However I must say, I was quite shocked at the way in which the rev said it, though. It seems to be exactly what it seems the majority of British people think when asked questions on web forems on Irans nuclear ambitions etc. Even though the question wasn鈥檛 about us per say, they find a way to connect it to us and how our actions in the past lead to Iran acting the way it does now, and that鈥檚 all that the rev was doing as well-because in a sence its true. The US鈥檚 actions do affect nearly every country, and that country鈥檚 future in the world in some way. But regardless, while its no secret that the British are largely more sinical than us, so (I think) (some of what they say) should be taken with a grane of salt-not ignored!!!!, but at the same time not taken too personally, still, I must say, call me nieve, but I do expect other Americans to be just a smidge more polite when criticizing our nation than foreigners. They certainly can dislike or hate us and/or our actions Just as much, but in my experience, one is much more likely to get what they want out of others through kindness rather than meanness. I would urge those Americans not to follow the path our nation did so many, many times with respect to other nations and be demanding and rude, rather try to encourage with dialog and perswasiveness. Its like Churchill said 鈥樷漥aw ja is better than war war鈥. I suppose that works domesticly as well.
鈥淎t the risk of upsetting everyone on the Democratic side, I wonder whether the conventional wisdom (which I fully accepted) that the Democrats were choosing between two titans is rather flawed? Their inability to knock each other out speaks of a certain weakness, does it not?鈥
Yes, Justin, I can鈥檛 personally think of anyone who thought the two candidates were near perfect, and willl bet you now at least, that no one does!! Everyone knows they鈥檙e both flawed in their own respective ways. But their inability to knock each other out is not, I think due to those flaws, but rather, as you explained in an earlier post, to the fact that both have a firm grip on certain types of voters, and neither one has the strong enough ability (yet) to eat away at the other鈥檚 constituency. Weakeness? Yes for the party as a whole because Mccane is getting stronger.
Text of Obama's speech today:
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
I saw Obama's speech on CNN. I was very impressed. He is articulete and convicing. As an englishman I feel he has the courage to make us face up to the reality of unfinished busines of inequality in races
It's not really that complicated.
Obama speaks:
With the single exception of the remarks on Israel, I concur. Too bad he see the middle East in such 'black and white' terms.
"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren鈥檛 simply controversial. They weren鈥檛 simply a religious leader鈥檚 effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country 鈥 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."
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
This appears to me to be a big non-issue. If Sen. Obama said some of the things attributed to the Rev. Wright, I might have an issue. But, I don't hold Sen. Obama responsible for anything that the Rev. Wright said. Nor do I think he has a duty to disassociate himself from his church because of any controversial remarks that may have been made by the pastor.
Should Sen. Obama end up as the Democratic candidate, I will judge him much, much more on what he has said and done than anything his pastor, who as far as I know has no role in the Obama campaign, has said or done.
Trying to nail Obama for the words of Wright is just another form of political mudslinging, not a real issue.
I have just watched your piece on the Six O'Clock news and it seems to me that you missed the point of today's speech entirely. Sure - there was an element of damage control, but there was so much more in this speech than the politics as usual of trying to limit the legs of a difficult story: indeed Barack Obama said so explicitly. Even Hillary's response recognised that fact.
And I don't understand how anyone who read or watched the speech could have failed to see that he was reaching for something else: it seems that you had your package ready and simply dropped the best fitting excerpt of the speech into a narrative that you had already framed - is that unfair or have I hit the mark?
Perhaps the problem here is the implied double standard. Simply put, a White candidate would be ruined if he were so closely tied to Black hate speech. There would be no long speeches justifying his anger. No explanations would be acceptable. Zero tolerance for one's hate speech but understanding for another's?
I wish to quibble about a point in American English. I realize that clergy of the Church of England & the Roman Catholic Church are called priests. Perhaps the clergy of non-Christian systems of belief are also called priests too.
In the USA only the clergy of the RC persuasion are called priests; those who are what we call the Anglican Church high church, aka Anglo Catholic, & some we call the broad church call their clergy priests. Some non-Christian systems of belief also call their clergy priest. The clergy of other denominations are called Pastor or Rev.
As an Englishman who became an American back in 1964 I was interested in Blogger Lisa's comment that her black friends despise the African-American "mantle". As a naturalized citizen I have never felt the need to call myself an Anglo-American, and indeed am proud to simply call myself an American.
Having heard Obama's excellent speech today,in which he advocated a coming-together of all ethnic groups in the country, surely there should be no more need for all those hyphens.
Justin
What are you lot up to at the 主播大秀? This mad priest has been spouting more than once!!
The 主播大秀 are trying to claim that he is only in trouble because of ONE speech.
Luckily we have Fox News to give us the truth where the 主播大秀 fails. Fox have been spot on to keep pressure on Obama to come clean over this priest.
Funny that the 主播大秀 (and you) were very quick to report the John McCain story over his "alleged affair" which has NO evidence at all for, yet the 主播大秀 and the liberal media in the USA have tried to bury this Obama story.
For example, why did Obama drop his preacher from his campaign a long time ago? He clearly knew what was going on yet has continually denied it.
I'm fed up with the 主播大秀 and its lefty journalists failing to do their job because they are so desperate to see a Democrat elected.
Well I've got news for you Mr Webb. The next President of the USA will be John McCain. Why? Because the americans love a hero not a liar or a coward.
*sigh* OK.
1. In the United Church of Christ denomination, there are pastors, not priests. It is a multiethnic denomination, though Senator Obama's congregation may be majority black.
2. Senator Obama's pastor no more speaks for all of "black" America than Pat Robertson or John Hagee speaks for all of "white" America. Black Americans are not a monolith; PLEASE make a note of it. Thank you.
# 10 Liz - priests are not exclusive to the Church of Rome ("Catholic") - read both your bible and a dictionary. The ancient Egyptians had priests and the Jews of Christ's time had priests, and every Christian denomination has priests, and Dr Wright is one of them.
As far as Obama's pastor's comments, I have been surprised by how little they bother me personally. His statements seem combative and dangerously over-simplified, which I object to, but I don't find myself objecting to his general main points. Frankly, 9/11 WAS in part a result of past American foreign policy actions. And as far as Wright's other comments that I have seen... they are intentionally inflammatory and one-sided, but it's no secret that America is an often imperialist, deeply racialized society. Wright is just calling it like it is.
Also, I have a question for you, Justin. Why has Obama consistently won smaller, rural states, and generally won the popular vote in urban areas within the more populated states, but consistently loses the most populated states themselves? I haven't heard a satisfying answer to this one yet... are there at least any theories out there?
Obama cannot recover. Yes, the chickens are coming home to roost. He cannot have it both ways. He clearly is NOT a unifier.
I may be missing something, but here goes: Obama is a black man is how it seems to be portrayed. And yet Obama is the child of a black father and white mother, which surely makes him mixed race? I'd have thought that a child of mixed race ethnicity is absolutely perfectly placed to not only understand the race issues, but to appeal to all reasonably minded people, whatever their background - pity he's not half woman too, then there would be no contest.
i am an independent voter, so i am thoroughly enjoying watching Obama and Clinton bloody each other in the media. their egos, hypocrisy and hubris further validate my decision to be an independent voter.
the selfishness, greed and arrogance of the democratic and republican parties has destroyed both the U.S. and its government. until the American voters stop being so mentally and emotionally lazy and start actually questioning the narcissism of the democrats and republcans this nation will continue to suffer from bad government.
Joe #32: "Many Americans simply cant deal with anything critical of their country."
Many certainly, but not the majority (I should hope) and to help further prove my point, take a quick scan of the other posts on this blog, and definitely not me!!!!
I should point out, however, that it was largely the right-wing media that made a huge deal of the "First time in my life I'm proud of my country" statement from Obama's wife, not the entire media as you seem to think! There is being firmly critical of one's country, and there are mean atacks. I don't think it bizar for an average American to feel a bit offended when hearing an unjus, unfair atack on their country, just as I feel the same for any other nationality. People can be strongly critical, and at the same time not be insulting!! So when a foreigner sees an American get offended by a biting comment, I would urge them not to automaticly think that that American can't take criticism and sees everything as harsh insults because they certainly don't all see it that way!! Rather would encourage them to take a calm, rational look at the comment said, and think before judgeing whether the American's reaction was understandable and rational for not. This isn't to say that there aren't "uneducated, irrational" people in our society, because there certainly are!! But its not to say that we're all blind sheep either!!!
I can't say I agree with your view point on 9/11. While we certainly did things to antagonise, and encourage terrorists's actions leading up to it, I feel at least, that nothing justifys killing people. Just as nothing justifys one person killing someone else, the same holds for a group of people killing many others.
So we're headed down the road to doom are we? Well I have good news for you-you don't have to worry about it!! As you're British, you have the luxury of electing a prime minister in your next election who will distance him/herself from us, and in the meantime you can sit back and revel in your perfect (truely democratic) parlamentary system, while we arragant, ignorant "yanks"-me included-can only look on in jealousy and with wonderment, and wish we were in your shews!! It doesn't matter anyway, soon China will be the next super power, and they'll be scrutinised-it can't come soon enough!!!
Justin;
As one who enjoys the 主播大秀 perspective on America and it's unique and perplexing position in the world community today, I only have one thing to say----Righ on!!! and keep up the good work on reporting about "your cousins" from across the Atlantic.
Peace,
Tom
It strikes me that there are two sorts of responses to come to Obama's speech today, those that have watched or read it and those that have not. Mr. Webb's response seems to belong to the latter group. As a political commentator it is completely within his ambit to write on media treatment and anticipate impacts. It is, however, somewhat insubstantial. If Mr. Webb could summon 40 minutes to watch the speech rather than read the soundbite quotes would his reaction be the same--or is it his occupation merely to parrot American media types' reactions?
Dear Justin,
Stll enjoying your take on America.
Dare I say it but your last 2 articles have resulted in extremely intelligent replies from those who wish to place a comment, unlike a lot of the USA sites where the lack of thought provoking discussions / twisted attitudes / race and gender hang ups and a tendency to bad mouth any opposing view seem only possible using all the expletives and gutter swearwords available.
If I may I would like to inform your readers about a very good site which appears to have no axe to grind and delivers a middle of the road approach.
http:www.politifact.com a susidary of St Petersburg Times. This site and the links available dissect all comments from all parties-{Dem & Rep} regarding their truthfulness which allows one to at least make a more balanced judgement on the 3 ring circus that is now happening
I believe that the point that Mr. Obama was trying to make which will unfortunatly be lost on some is that despite the years since the end of the of slavery in America and the removal of the whites only signs from water fountains in the south we are still seen as black in America, not Americans. Many white Americans chose to identify as Irish American or Italian American as a nod to their heritage but when it comes down to which box you check on a form they are still Caucasian and we are stil African-American. As a black woman in America who has never set foot in Africa regadless of the level of education I may achieve or how white my mother may be I will always be seen as black in America and this is not often seen as a positive. I do not want reparations or empty appologies I simply want to be an American in the county in which I was born- without the "african" qualifier.
I'm fairly sure that the only way to end whatever racial tension still exists between white and black Americans is to wait for those old enough to remember the bad old days to die. Everyone over 30, basically.
People are saying that Obama's speech was very brave and moving; I take issue with both those assessments. For one: the man made a speech. I'm sorry, but I've never considered any speech particularly brave, since it holds no real risk. Second: Obama didn't write this speech, or any of the major speeches he's given so far. Politicians are performers, not writers, so let's give credit where it's due: Robert Gibbs (of Kerry 2004) and Ted Sorensen (of Kennedy 1960 and 'profiles in courage') deserve 'major props' for this one. I'm not sure how Obama attracted such an amazing staff, but they're sure running wild now.
I just watched Obama's speech. It was remarkable, it was brave and the fact that he did not disown his pastor shows what a striking politician he is. This speech was not the speech of a politician taking the safe route that we are so used to.
If you want to criticise Obama for not disowning his pastor, fine, but only do so after watching what he had to say.
Justin,
It is getting to you really. You as others are enjoying the attention.
Does any religious leader make any sense in his totality. Give me an example.
And all of a sudden, the man who appealed to whites because he didn't quite fit their stereotype of a black man is now too black. I suppose Gerry Ferraro got what she wanted and Hillary will be the last to complain. The issue of race was raised, FINALLY, but not quite the way people expected it to be raised. In one single blow, they were able to mix BOTH terrorism and "black culture" - whatever the latter term means as there's no such thing as homogeneity anywhere - in the most sordid way imaginable, brought to you by White America and no one else.
Is there truly a sane soul that will admit the American government played no role in 9/11 happening? Because if American foreign policy and intelligence did the right thing, 9/11 would have been known as the day terrorist attacks were PREVENTED... But Americans' memory is tragically short when bloodshed isn't involved, and people apparently still think 911 was just a bad day with no before or after or why or why not... just "bad guys" against America, and America is and has always been good (?)
But i'm getting off the subject here.
Really though, who are we fooling? did anyone truly imagine that Barack HUSSEIN Obama was going to be left unstained by a race (no pun intended) against the American establishment? Does anyone even know that when you have soaked and marinated in power for as long as Hillary and her establishment friends have, you will not hesitate one second to use the dirtiest tricks to disarm your opponents and get away with it?
If Obama survives this one, then I am truly and verily impressed. More than that, I will readily take part in this so-called revolution in American politics, even though I am not American myself.
Until then, you are still watching American politics as you've known them for quite some time, brought to you (some would swear) by Hollywood.
i'll get an error, but here goes anyway:
Isn't "chickens coming home to roost" exactly what the majority of people in the UK thought after 9/11 too? Its what everyone I know thought, after the initial shock had died down.
I keep trying to find insight and thoughtfulness in your blog as the owner of this discussion. I search fruitlessly it seems. Barack Obama is anything but arrogant, his words depict a philosophy of "we" not "I will do this," which I find too often, frankly, in the presentations and actions of Hilary Clinton.
I don't want to take sides, though I will vote and have in a primary already for Mr. Obama, so much as to say, perhaps your analysis can be more fine tuned as an independent person, none the less, I presume, paid by the 主播大秀. That is not an easy switch, but I believe you can do it.
It is in the USA, rather profound that a candidate for president can be as thoughtful, faith oriented, and as internationally oriented as Mr. Obama, who is, yes, a member of what appears to be a predominantly Black church. He is willing to express the anger and frustration of many Americans, of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, including the not for long majority of White Ango-Saxons.
The fact is racial background is no longer such a useful category as ethnic orientation, and the USA has as a country had historically a false start in that regard but also has made progress with social efforts, and Mr. Obama acknowledges this and provides an opportunity for the US, also the world, to think beyond "I am better than you." It is with the belief into action that Mr. Obama opens the horizon for me and I presume others to create a better world.
Obama's speech was wonderful. I think he clearly owns the position of senior statesman on racial relations. But the underlying point remains. What GOOD JUDGMENT do we expect from a man who wants to be the leader of the WHOLE NATION? Certainly not to voluntarily sit for 20 years in the church of a man who spouts hatred and racism. These were choices Barack made over and over for 20 years, and VERY BAD ones. It is the same point we make about the 90% of Muslims who are peace-loving. If they DO NOTHING but say "Gee, I wish the other 10% weren't jihadists", then they can claim to be "good people", but certainly can't claim to be leaders or a force for change.
Let me just go over just 5 of the many incendiary statements that Pastor Wright said in church service to put all this in perspective:
1)The American Government created AIDS and injected it into the black race.
2)The government gives crack cocaine to blacks & then builds bigger prisons to house them in.
3)The government knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked & allowed it to happen.
4)Black on black violence is wrong. Black violence should be directed at the true source.
And thusly,
5)The American government is run by rich, white men.
It doesn't take a genius to reach the conclusion he's trying to draw. And this is the pastor, friend, and spiritual advisor of 20 years to the future President? This is the source of inspiration for a book written by a future President? This a racist that is trying to goad racial tensions further to a boiling point.
Ludicrous, appalling, and very, very dangerous.
Actually, I think this has done Obama a LOT more good than anything else has/can!
I suppose AFTER this NO one will question Sen. Obama's Christianity. In fact it is quite possible that his OWN campaign orchestrated this. Has any journalist looked in to that possibility?
Although I might sound like a "conspiracy theorist" type of person: But, if you really think about it (Now: isn't THAT a typical "conspiracy theorist" type statement? :)anyway ... ), Nothing Sen. Obama could have done could have brought forward the fact that he is NOT muslim. NO amount of "Sen. Obama making speech at Church" could have grabbed media attention as this has done. It must have been a tremendous gamble, but if I were in his campaign, it is something I might have seriously considered. I am sure after this EVERYONE would know that Sen. Obama is Christian.
Has there been a poll about this before and after this controversy about how many thought Sen Obama was Muslim?
Arrogance! No wonder folks seemed to be rather stunned by the distortions regarding Rev Wright's sermon - they are online and although provocative, actually discuss how "we" need to change. He never said they, but an all inclusive "we."
There is so much lack of experience and misinformation regard various ethnic/racial groups and this is what I believe Obama was seeking to silence such that people could focus on the issues rather than race (and therefore sterotypes). If he is not successful, it will not be his failure but our failure to recognize our commonalities rather than differences.
Peace
On the 9/11 and "Chickens Coming 主播大秀 to Roost" issue-- no one is justifying such a horrible act against humanity. However, I believe that some of US Foreign Policy, cowboy politics, and the unresolved Palestinian crisis, will continue to contribute to the anger that drive people to such terrible acts.