Reason Magazine

Site Search

The Audacity of Friends

Am I out of step with the country or just out of step with the pundit class? The things I'm told to like about Barack Obama's persona turn me off, and the things that are supposed to be disturbing seem appealing.

I got my first inkling of this during the debate season, when the conventional wisdom had it that Obama was at his best when giving a speech and that he suffered when he had to share a stage with someone else. Whereas I always thought his speeches were platitudinous mush but enjoyed his debate performances, where he proved himself able to think quickly on his feet and crack a few unscripted jokes. The Obama of the speeches is a bore; the Obama of the debates seems like a man with whom I'd enjoy a friendly political argument over lunch.

Now we have the Jeremiah Wright "scandal," which frankly makes me like Obama more. If you don't have a friend -- a real friend, someone who means something to you and sometimes influences your decisions -- who occasionally expresses a nutty opinion ("The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color") or an impolitic truth ("a country and a culture controlled by rich white people"), then you really, really need to get out more. Obama's connection to Wright is like his cigarette habit, his willingness to talk about his past drug use, his fondness for gritty TV shows -- it's a sign that there's an actual human being in that suit after all, no matter how empty it may seem when he's blathering about "an insistence on small miracles" and the like. It's a sign he might know a thing or two about the real America after all.

This morning Obama delivered a speech on the subject. It goes on endlessly, as his speeches often do, but it makes the essential, obvious point:
As imperfect as he may be, [Wright] has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
I guess you either understand this instinctively or you don't. And then, of course, there are the people who understand it but will continue to pretend they don't, the better to smear Obama as a secret jihadist, Weatherman, or Farrakhanite.
Send this article to:

« Human Contraband, Pot Residue, Whatever | Main | New at Reason »

Comments to "The Audacity of Friends":

dodsworth | March 18, 2008, 11:36am | #

Jesse: Couldn't similar praise be made for Paul and his unwillingness to blame his "friend" Lew Rockwell for the newsletters?

The Wine Commonsewer | March 18, 2008, 11:38am | #

Obama fargin' smokes?

Jesus Chrysler, he'll never get elected.

Episiarch | March 18, 2008, 11:38am | #

That's Obama--all things to all people.

Am I the only one who sees him and says "politician, therefore douchebag" without getting charmed by some aspect of him?

ChicagoTom | March 18, 2008, 11:39am | #

There are people who will understand this instinctively

Like most Catholics I know...

There are many aspects of their faith that they don't agree with and find reprehensible. But I don't see Catholics fleeing in droves or public ally repudiating their church. Nor do I see anyone calling for out catholic politicians to repudiate the Pope when he says some of his nutty shit either.

I guess it's ok if it's mainstream nuttiness (like gays are an abomination and the equivalent of pedophiles and animal fuckers)...but when the nuttiness comes from a Black Church or some other non-mainstream sources, then it has to be all be repudiated and disowned.

a | March 18, 2008, 11:39am | #

Why'd you drop "PC drones"? Afraid of offending your colleagues?

TallDave | March 18, 2008, 11:40am | #

If you don't have a friend -- a real friend, someone who means something to you and sometimes influences your decisions -- who occasionally expresses a nutty opinion

I'm not running for President, but it's nice to know if I have a pastor friend that married me and served on my campaign who happens to be a neo-Nazi and says blacks and Jews are ruining the country, no one would hold it against me. Hey, we all have nutty friends!

And then, of course, there are the people who understand it but will continue to pretend they don't, the better to smear Obama as a secret jihadist, Weatherman, or Farrakhanite.

Does that mean Trent Lott will be getting an apology for wishing a 90-year-old well on his birthday?

Anyways, Obama's gotten so far left and will have such a long primary campaign this probably won't even matter.

ChicagoTom | March 18, 2008, 11:40am | #

Am I the only one who sees him and says "politician, therefore douchebag" without getting charmed by some aspect of him?

I look at him and I say "not the best, but SEEMINGLY better than most politicians so far" and I keep in mind that I have choose from the politicians we have, not the ones we wish we had

Daniel | March 18, 2008, 11:41am | #

Similar to what Ross Douhat has written, liberals would be up in arms if McCain had as close a relationship with an outspokenly homophobic preacher, as they were when McCain was endorsed by Pat Robertson.

ChicagoTom | March 18, 2008, 11:42am | #

Obama fargin' smokes?

He has quit during the campaign.

I know because it was in my local newspaper. Apparently his smoking habits are newsworthy for some reason. No word yet on what his favorite liquor is.

Warren | March 18, 2008, 11:42am | #

there are the people who understand it but will continue to pretend they don't, the better to smear Obama as a secret jihadist, Weatherman, or Farrakhanite.

Why can't we smear him as a self-serving little weasel lusting after power? Just because it won't distinguish him from the other candidates?

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 11:43am | #

The second half of his speech was really good. A black liberal Democrat talking about how whites resent busing. Has that ever happened before?

damon | March 18, 2008, 11:43am | #

The essential problem with this speech isn't the speech itself, but the double standard that conservatives will be offended by. Obama is making excellent points, but conservatives will rightly feel that they would -never- be given the kind of forgiveness or leeway Obama is requesting if they broke bread regularly, or god-forbid, followed a pastor with similarly incendiary views of minorities. The indignity won't come at Obama's actual words, but at umbrage toward the wider media and press whom conservatives will (rightly) note are willing to give Obama a much longer leash that they would give a similarly entangled WASP or Good-Ol-Boy southerner. I would simply posit: "What would happen if George W. Bush were a member of a congregation that held similar angry views." I don't think requests of understanding from Bush, or any other rightward-leaning official, would be kindly answered.

Jennifer | March 18, 2008, 11:43am | #

If cozying up to Bob Jones University back when it still enforced its ban on interracial dating didn't hurt George W, then I don't see why nuttiness of the same flavor but a different color should hurt Obama. Hell, even a couple of drunk-driving convictions on his record shouldn't matter. But does Obama have the courage to choose a vice-presidential running mate with a tendency to get drunk on hunting trips and shoot his friends in the ass? American voters like me want to know!

Lost_In_Translation | March 18, 2008, 11:44am | #

I don't hold this against Obama and do think sticking up for mildly crazy friends is upstanding, but I am nowhere near convinced I should choose him over anyone else come the fall. Oh well, mabye it'll be another year of voting for the crazy LP'er.

Episiarch | March 18, 2008, 11:45am | #

If you don't have a friend -- a real friend, someone who means something to you and sometimes influences your decisions -- who occasionally expresses a nutty opinion ("The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color") or an impolitic truth ("a country and a culture controlled by rich white people"), then you really, really need to get out more.

Yeah, I do have friends like that. And if I ran for office and somebody found out and published it, I would get creamed. So fuck Obama, he can get screwed for having an impolitic friend just like the rest of us.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 11:46am | #

Damon-

I've never heard Wright disparage whites in any of his speeches. He attacked the government, said nutty and offensive things, but he never said something like whites are devils or whites are inferior or something like that.

Again, I don't think "black" churches are any different from Polish Catholic or Russian Orthodox Churches. Or, for that matter, the Episcopal Church which is just a WASP club.

Jesse Walker | March 18, 2008, 11:48am | #

Why'd you drop "PC drones"? Afraid of offending your colleagues?

I don't know my colleagues' views on the matter. I dropped it because there are other gradations of opinion that the phrase ignores.

Does that mean Trent Lott will be getting an apology for wishing a 90-year-old well on his birthday?

When Obama declares that the world would be better off if Jeremiah Wright had been elected president on a Kill Whitey ticket in 1968, I will revise my opinion.

Dello | March 18, 2008, 11:50am | #

"If you don't have a friend -- a real friend, someone who means something to you and sometimes influences your decisions -- who occasionally expresses a nutty opinion"

I have a friend whose a diehard Union supporter, but he has a friend whose a libertarian, so I guess we're even...

some guy | March 18, 2008, 11:50am | #

a tendency to get drunk on hunting trips and shoot his friends in the ass

Jennifer,
Cheney shot his friend in the face, not his ass...his face! It's much funnier that way. Jon Stewart repeated it endlessly one night so I know it's true. And I'm all for face-shooting VPs.
Who wouldn't be?

dhex | March 18, 2008, 11:50am | #

i have to say i'm sort of impressed as well.

(if you don't see the difference between wright and rockwell...shrug?)

Christian Prophet | March 18, 2008, 11:53am | #

Obama wants it both ways. He asks America to rise above race and religion, while hoping to appear religious himself. But he is in deep trouble if a spotlight is shined on his own THEOLOGY. See:
http://miraclesdaily.blogspot.com

Perry | March 18, 2008, 11:54am | #

that was one of the more moving speeches that i've heard in a while. When was the last time that you've heard a politician - one running for president of all things - talk so honestly about an issue as divisive about race?

ChicagoTom | March 18, 2008, 11:54am | #

but conservatives will rightly feel that they would -never- be given the kind of forgiveness or leeway Obama is requesting if they broke bread regularly, or god-forbid, followed a pastor with similarly incendiary views of minorities.

What??? I mean really what fucking world do you live in where conservatives would rightly feel that way.

McCain has gotten a pass on his sucking up to Hagee and Falwell. So has every GOPer that courts the Bill Donahues and the Pat Robertsons.

The GOP is in full embrace of racists and no one bats an eye. In fact, its so accepted that shills like Jeff Beck get put on the TV and are given a plaform to ask a Mulsim congressman "How do I know you aren't working for Al-Queada" or some such thing.

TallDave | March 18, 2008, 11:55am | #

When Obama declares that the world would be better off if Jeremiah Wright had been elected president on a Kill Whitey ticket in 1968, I will revise my opinion.

Ah, I see, so we ARE going to pretend Trent Lott is a racist, but we're NOT going to pretend Obama is a racist.

Glad we straightened that out.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 11:56am | #

that was one of the more moving speeches that i've heard in a while. When was the last time that you've heard a politician - one running for president of all things - talk so honestly about an issue as divisive about race?
Not only that, he talked about how white resentment really is grounded in reality. I've never, ever heard a liberal Democratic politician (let alone a black one!) say something like that before.

TallDave | March 18, 2008, 11:56am | #

Oh, and the Duke lacrosse team is on line 2 for you Jesse. Something about lefty hypocrisy on race.

dhex | March 18, 2008, 11:58am | #

saying "man, it's too bad we didn't elect the white supremacist way back when" in public requires a whole in one's head so large that geese or perhaps even albatross could be directed through it.

does it make trent lott a racist? no, but it makes him a ginormous fucking idiot, to be sure. (i realize for some "republican" and "idiot" are synonyms, and while this is generally true, this was a level of dumb above and beyond the call of duty.)

andyinsdca | March 18, 2008, 11:58am | #

What if I'm the nutty friend with the nutty opinions?

Jesse Walker | March 18, 2008, 11:59am | #

Ah, I see, so we ARE going to pretend Trent Lott is a racist, but we're NOT going to pretend Obama is a racist.

Trent Lott probably is a racist, but that's beside the point. He didn't get in trouble for associating with Strom Thurmond. He got in trouble for praising Thurmond's presidential campaign of 1948.

NAL | March 18, 2008, 11:59am | #

Does that mean Trent Lott will be getting an apology for wishing a 90-year-old well on his birthday?

Or how about Geraldine Ferraro for stating an obvious truth? Or is that somehow different?

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh will be forgiven real soon for the treatment he got for his "outrageous" comment regarding Donovan McNabb being over-rated: "The press wants to see a black quarterback do well."

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:01pm | #

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh will be forgiven real soon for the treatment he got for his "outrageous" comment regarding Donovan McNabb being over-rated: "The press wants to see a black quarterback do well."
Limbaugh was a moron for injecting divisive politics into something that is, for many (myself included) a diversion from that kind of stuff--sports.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:02pm | #

Or how about Geraldine Ferraro for stating an obvious truth? Or is that somehow different?
Uh, he actually defended Ferraro in his speech from accusations of racism.

dhex | March 18, 2008, 12:02pm | #

alternately we can all go read:

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/

TallDave | March 18, 2008, 12:03pm | #

saying "man, it's too bad we didn't elect the white supremacist way back when" in public requires a whole in one's head so large that geese or perhaps even albatross could be directed through it.

There is still a KKK member serving in the Senate.

Trent's exact words were "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," He might have been talking about the budget deficit, national defense, or any number of things.

It's ridiculous. Pretty much all the candidates running in 1948 were racist homophobes by today's standards. We had just interned 100,000 Japanese Americans for Christ's sake.

Brian24 | March 18, 2008, 12:03pm | #

Some interesting comparisons to the Obama/Wright situation here, but I don't think any of them hold up.

In this case, Obama is acknowledging what Wright has said, stating categorically that he disagrees with the statements, and further saying that he is still the man's friend regardless of this disagreement.

With Bush/Bob Jones or McCain/Robertson, first of all I don't think the people involved ARE friends, and if the politicians disagree with those they're trying to get support from, they're doing their best to hide it. Sure, McCain denounced Robertson years ago, but we all know he's trying his best now to cover that up.

With Lott/Thurmond, the whole point was that Lott was strongly implying that he AGREED with Thurmond. A totally different situation.

Finally, regarding Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, Paul is shielding an unnamed ghostwriter who wrote in his own name, which makes people (not me!) suspect that he either (a) wrote the articles himself or (b) sympathizes with the articles. Paul would have been much better off taking exactly the tack Obama is here. Just say Rockwell wrote them, that you disagree vehemently, but that the guy's your friend.

Jennifer | March 18, 2008, 12:04pm | #

Ah, I see, so we ARE going to pretend Trent Lott is a racist, but we're NOT going to pretend Obama is a racist.

No, what you ARE pretending is that there's no qualitative difference between a black guy who says "I think the government treats black people like shit" and a white guy who says "I think the government SHOULD treat black people like shit."

Abdul | March 18, 2008, 12:04pm | #

Obama is not just friends with a guy who has loopy views. He's a member of the club which cheers when they hear "God Damn America." And it's not just a club, it's a religious belief. I'm not supposed to have faith in my poker buddy's fad diets, but I am supposed to have faith in my church.

That's why it's different. That's why the press spent so much time asking Huckabee and Romney about their faiths.

Fluffy | March 18, 2008, 12:06pm | #

Similar to what Ross Douhat has written, liberals would be up in arms if McCain had as close a relationship with an outspokenly homophobic preacher, as they were when McCain was endorsed by Pat Robertson.

This is BS. There were people who were up in arms about it, just as there were people who were up in arms about McCain's french kissing of Hagee, but the media and the pundit class shrugged it off and moved on.

When the media talks about Hagee and McCain for ten days, get back to me.

And when the media focuses on McCain's admitted hatred of "gooks" for ten days, get back to me.

McCain can't even get in trouble for virulent anti-Arab racism when he employs it IN A DEBATE. When Ron Paul advocated friendship and trade with Arab nations, McCain said he didn't want to trade "for burkhas". If a Presidential candidate said there was no need for friendship and trade with Israel, because "I don't need any yarmulkes" what do you think the reaction would be?

McCain is getting a pass on all of this precisely because he's such a contemptible piece of shit that no one expects any better of him. It's like his obvious near-insanity is such an old story that he's infinitely entitled to act like a crazy old coot now.

Damon | March 18, 2008, 12:07pm | #

Cesar and Chicago Tom

Cesar:

Check YouTube. Plenty of examples.

ChicagoTom:

It's a little different. Obama is a 20 year member of this man's congregation. He's not just sucking up to him, he's a follower of the reverend who, as he says, was deeply moved by the man and regularly attended his sermons. There's definitely pandering on the right, but the relationship with Wright is much deeper. Equating the right-wing pandering towards religious figures is different from being a member of a specific flock. Trying to equate the two is post-hock reasoning. This doesn't make right-wing pandering any more tolerable, but it is not the same thing at all. Also, if you pay attention to Michele Obama's speeches, you'll notice many of Wright's sentiments echoed at times, which would indicate to me that she, at least, was quite familiar with the content of his speeches. She's not running for office, of course, but it does indicate to me that the Obamas aren't blind to Wright's stances, and it begs why Obama didn't distance himself until after the relationship became a problem.

My feelings about Obama have no impact on my feelings toward similarly hypocritical right-wing politicians. I take politicians on a case by case basis. Obama's relationship to Wright, however, is simply not the same as the pandering you mention above.

TallDave | March 18, 2008, 12:08pm | #

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh will be forgiven real soon for the treatment he got for his "outrageous" comment regarding Donovan McNabb being over-rated: "The press wants to see a black quarterback do well."

Clearly you don't understand the Jesse Walker Doctrine: when a Democrat embraces a racist, calling attention to it is "smearing" and "pretending not to understand he has nutty friends who have absolutely no influence on his views, except in good ways." When a Republican does it, it is a Very Significant Issue that must be followed by protests, apology, begging for forgiveness, and a formal ceremony wherein they kiss Jesse Jackson's bare ass.

dhex | March 18, 2008, 12:09pm | #


Trent's exact words were "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," He might have been talking about the budget deficit, national defense, or any number of things.


then mr. lott prolly shoulda been smart enough to mention those things specifically.

i mean, like, durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:09pm | #

Damon, I've watched the youtoube loops. I don't hear anti-white statements. I hear statements against the United States government. I hear statements that the government is run by "rich white people" (which though crudely put is a fact). The closest thing I heard to "anti-white" sentiment was that the United States government create HIV. Again, it seems more anti-government than anti-white. Loopy and crazy? Sure. Anti-white? Thats a stretch.

jul | March 18, 2008, 12:09pm | #

I'm still waiting for Al Sharpton to be tolerant of the following three words:

Nappy Haired Hos

Jeff S. | March 18, 2008, 12:09pm | #

I'll start watching cable again if Jeff Beck gets to do the interviews.


http://208.65.153.238/watch?v=YHGNUxSqqmg&feature=related

Neu Mejican | March 18, 2008, 12:09pm | #

an outspokenly homophobic preacher, as they were when McCain was endorsed by Pat Robertson

Isn't McCain the Rep. Candidate?

Points be made several times above.

My only worry.
Enough people on this board were impressed by Obama's speech. If this group likes it, the chances it will play well with the larger public is slim...

;^)

ChicagoTom | March 18, 2008, 12:10pm | #

Paul would have been much better off taking exactly the tack Obama is here. Just say Rockwell wrote them, that you disagree vehemently, but that the guy's your friend.

You're absolutely right.
Instead though, Paul didn't even feel he had to talk about it. He felt like there was something wrong with even being questioned about it. Only reluctantly and after a lot of hounding did he even revisit this thing that was "in the past"

Brian24 | March 18, 2008, 12:11pm | #

He might have been talking about the budget deficit, national defense, or any number of things.

As someone said earlier, if this is what Lott meant, he's a ginormous idiot. The raison d'etre of Strom's presidential campaign was white racism. To praise his run is to praise that strain of American thought. There really isn't another way to take it.

Caveat: I think Lott was just trying to say something nice to a guy on his birthday. But wow, what a tone-deaf thing to say.

wayne | March 18, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Not only that, he talked about how white resentment really is grounded in reality. I've never, ever heard a liberal Democratic politician (let alone a black one!) say something like that before.
You are absolutely correct. I remember Bill Clinton talking about "angry white males" with a smirk on his face and a condescending tone.

Obama is eloquent. I was listening to him talk and I was swayed, but my inner cynic was saying, "he is a lieing bastard and could not care less about poor Americans of any color". The even deeper cynic in me was saying "you are full of shit, Hillary cares even less about poor Americans".

I think Obama is unelectable because of his affiliation with the not quite white Reverand Wright. If the Dems nominate him, we will suffer the lash under McCain.

Jennifer | March 18, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Clearly you don't understand the Jesse Walker Doctrine: when a Democrat embraces a racist, calling attention to it is "smearing" and "pretending not to understand he has nutty friends who have absolutely no influence on his views, except in good ways." When a Republican does it, it is a Very Significant Issue that must be followed by protests, apology, begging for forgiveness, and a formal ceremony wherein they kiss Jesse Jackson's bare ass.

It is impossible for anyone to understand the Jesse Walker Doctrine outside the context of the Tall Dave Law of Conciliation: a Democrat whose friend says "I think the government mistreats black people" is no different from a Republican who says "Wasn't life grand when the government mistreated black people? Wouldn't life be awesome today if we'd voted for the segregationist?"

Damon | March 18, 2008, 12:13pm | #

Cesar

That's a pretty semantic argument. Aren't you leaving out the detial about the HIV comment stating that "the government" created aids to whipe out black people.

Not a large leap then to suppose that "the government" doesn't include black folk?

Regardless, I don't think it is very difficult to piece together a somewhat obvious bias in the reverend's opinion, and more to the point, to note that similar biases in certain white preachers are rightly condemned and belittled by the media. That's really the crux of the argument: balance.

Neu Mejican | March 18, 2008, 12:13pm | #

This, by Jennifer, is the best summary of the issue.

No, what you ARE pretending is that there's no qualitative difference between a black guy who says "I think the government treats black people like shit" and a white guy who says "I think the government SHOULD treat black people like shit."

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:14pm | #

Damon, I dont recall the media crucifying George W. Bush even though one of his "spiritual advisers" (namely, Franklin Grahm) made anti-semitic statements in the past.

The Wine Commonsewer | March 18, 2008, 12:14pm | #

And I'm all for face-shooting VPs.
Who wouldn't be?


Besides, he was an attorney. Where's the harm?

Muttley | March 18, 2008, 12:16pm | #

Abdul, do you mean Obama is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church? I thought they were mainly white inbreds.

Abdul | March 18, 2008, 12:18pm | #

Abdul, do you mean Obama is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church? I thought they were mainly white inbreds.

When Obama starts picketing the funerals of America's soldiers, don't say I didn't warn you!

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:18pm | #

I'd also like someone to explain how Obama can supposedly hate white people when half his family is white.

TallDave | March 18, 2008, 12:19pm | #

But wow, what a tone-deaf thing to say.

And what a tone-deaf career decision by Obama to embrace a pastor who said and did the things he said and did.

Oh wait, did I just "smear Obama as a secret Farrakhanite"? My bad! Nevermind, he was just a nutty friend! But not like Strom Thurmond!

Jennifer | March 18, 2008, 12:20pm | #

Black or white, you gotta love the irony of a guy like TallDave posting on a libertarian forum to criticize a guy who had the audacity to express distrust in the government.

Abdul | March 18, 2008, 12:20pm | #

I'd also like someone to explain how Obama can supposedly hate white people when half his family is white.

For the same reason his white grandmother could be nervous about black men when her beloved grandson was one of them.

Jennifer | March 18, 2008, 12:21pm | #

TallDave, I'm still curious: do you honestly not see a difference between a black guy saying "the government treats black people badly" and a white guy saying "the government should continue to treat black people badly?" Do you honestly not get it, or do you simply find it more convenient to keep your partisan blinders on?

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:21pm | #


For the same reason his white grandmother could be nervous about black men when her beloved grandson was one of them.
Theres a difference between being nervous and hate.

sam | March 18, 2008, 12:22pm | #

I don't really even understand how this is such an issue.

Water is wet, Good Charlotte is a terrible band, the US Government has consistently mistreated people of color. They're called facts. Deal with it.

ChicagoTom | March 18, 2008, 12:23pm | #

Damon,

I dunno if agree with your analysis. The pandering is worse to me.

many people don't agree with everything that their spiritual leaders say, but most don't feel the need to disavow or change churches. Like I said upthread about catholics, many disagree with the Pope on many things. But we don't demand that all Catholics repudiate the Pope.

Now I don't know the reverend Wright. And I can't speak to how good or bad he is as a spiritual leader. But I do know that there are many people who are close to me personally and who I am good friends with who are homophobes and racists (among other things). I don't agree with them about those things, but they do have many other positive traits and I remain have remained close with them throughout the years. When they do bring up a topic that we disagree on I either change the subject or politely chide them, but I don't repudiate my friendship with them.

I wouldn't expect Obama to do so either.

And I have to say, I think Obama is doing the right thing. He isn't going to be pressured into ending his relationship with someone because other people are trying to score political points. But he also isn't trying to sweep this under the rug. He is publically repudiating the sentiments he disagrees with -- which is the right thing to do (and is something the GOP hyppocrites don't have the courage to do -- how often do you see GOP panderers turn around and repudiate the hateful rhetoric of the same blowhards they are trying to get an endorsement from? )

In this instance, I think Obama is not only handling it properly, but is also the morally superior one (compared to GOP panderers or Ron "Let's not talk about the garbage out in my name" Paul). He is dealing with it head on, and he is repudiating what should be repudiated. And he isn't allowing himself to be pressured into throwing a friend under the bus, even if that might be the smarter political move.

bendover | March 18, 2008, 12:24pm | #

I hear statements that the government is run by "rich white people" (which though crudely put is a fact).

Cesar - when David Duke says the media is controlled by jews - is your first thought that this is a "crudely put" fact?

The Wine Commonsewer | March 18, 2008, 12:25pm | #

to criticize a guy who had the audacity to express distrust in the government.

Point taken, except that Obama means to involve the government he doesn't trust in the medical business to a much greater degree than it is now.

Obama also trusts that the government should safeguard the armory by further reducing our ability to own and use guns.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Cesar,

You've just switched the context of your point. Are we talking about Obama or Bush? I take it then that you at least concede my point that Wright is obviously not assuming that the "government" that created AIDS was pretty explicitly and contextually a "white" entity?

As for your Bush comment: I don't think that Grahm's statements are any more or less excusable. However, the relationship is still a bit different. George Bush was, as far as I know and I could be quite wrong, not brought to Jesus by Grahm and a part of Grahm's flock for 20 years, and so I would assume the attachment is not nearly as close. Nor, as far as I know, was Grahm quite as vociferous and reliable on such topics as Obama's Reverend.

As far as religious context goes: I'd actually not be as worried if Wright were making negative statements about other religions as I am about the racial context. After all, most religions espouse to be "the true faith" and so condemnation of other religions, though very unsettling and distasteful, are somewhat expected. The Rev. seems to be moving quite outside the province of religion though, and his anger and bias seems to focus quite a lot on the aforementioned "government."

I understand your point, I simply disagree with your premise.

Jennifer | March 18, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Point taken, except that Obama means to involve the government he doesn't trust in the medical business to a much greater degree than it is now.

I was talking about Wright.

Jennifer | March 18, 2008, 12:27pm | #

The Rev. seems to be moving quite outside the province of religion though, and his anger and bias seems to focus quite a lot on the aforementioned "government."

So should the Reasonoids stop posting about government perfidy and start bashing Muslims instead?

TallDave | March 18, 2008, 12:28pm | #

TallDave, I'm still curious: do you honestly not see a difference between a black guy saying "the government treats black people badly" and a white guy saying "the government should continue to treat black people badly?" Do you honestly not get it, or do you simply find it more convenient to keep your partisan blinders on?

What a crock. Trent Lott did not say black people should be treated badly, and Jeremiah Wright did not just say America treats blacks badly.

But hey, enjoy your imaginary debate.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:28pm | #

Bendover-

The Senate is a millionaires club. Its also 99% white.

Ditto for the Supreme Court. Its rich, and 8/9 of the people on it are white.

Forty-three our of Forty-three of our Presidents have been white, and were either wealthy before or after leaving office.

It is not the same thing as saying the media is "Jewish".

wayne | March 18, 2008, 12:29pm | #

TallDave, I'm still curious: do you honestly not see a difference between a black guy saying "the government treats black people badly" and a white guy saying "the government should continue to treat black people badly?" Do you honestly not get it, or do you simply find it more convenient to keep your partisan blinders on?
Jennifer, pardon my interruption of your flaying the flesh off the tall one's back, but where did Trent Lott (I presume you are talking about Lott) say, "the government should continue to treat black people badly?"

x,y | March 18, 2008, 12:29pm | #

Maybe I missed it, but I've yet to see a piece from anyone at reason analyzing the similarities and differences between this and the Ron Paul newsletters. Any takers? Jesee? You seem willing enough to post follow-ups on the blog. How about a 700-1000 word analysis?

Jennifer | March 18, 2008, 12:29pm | #

What a crock. Trent Lott did not say black people should be treated badly,

No, he simply said that if America had voted a segregationist for president the country would be better off today. But continue focusing on semantics rather than reality; I'll bet it makes you feel a lot more confident in your delusions.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:29pm | #

In fact, Bush was "brought to Jesus" by the Grahms. So you're wrong about that. He has a long-standing relationship with them.

Reinmoose | March 18, 2008, 12:30pm | #

Jesse Walker -
Yes. I was thinking the same thing while I was reading his speech, but you put it nicely into words.

Kelly | March 18, 2008, 12:30pm | #

I have a friend who believes in psychics, and I don't think any less of her as a friend because of this. But believing in psychics isn't the same thing as holding and disseminating dangerous, false convictions that the U.S. government is implementing genocide. It's especially not the same when someone who's running for president of said U.S. is so close to the conspiracy theorist as to have him as his pastor.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:32pm | #

Kelly, we elected Ronald Reagan, a man who believed the apocalypse would happen in his lifetime.

joe | March 18, 2008, 12:32pm | #

Obama's speech vs. TallDave's comments really drive home who wants to keep racial hostility alive in this country, and who wants to move past it.

TallDave | March 18, 2008, 12:33pm | #

Jesse Walker | March 18, 2008, 11:59am | #

"Ah, I see, so we ARE going to pretend Trent Lott is a racist, but we're NOT going to pretend Obama is a racist."

Trent Lott probably is a racist,

Again, glad we cleared that up.

Pain | March 18, 2008, 12:33pm | #

McCain's associations don't net much press because people feel they already know him (rightly or wrongly).

Obama is still much of an unknown. And one of his main appeals is that he is a "nice black man" and not an "angry black man." The majority of white people aren't going to vote for somebody who they think is going to shake them down for reparations and make them feel guilty for living.

The association with Wright, however, could (we'll see) make him come off as some sort black Manchurian Candidate for many. Nice up front but when he's in office he'll suddenly start acting like Al Sharpton.

If it sticks, he's done. In the general election if not in the primary.

bendover | March 18, 2008, 12:33pm | #

TallDave, I'm still curious: do you honestly not see a difference between a black guy saying "the government treats black people badly" and a white guy saying "the government should continue to treat black people badly?" Do you honestly not get it, or do you simply find it more convenient to keep your partisan blinders on?

Jennifer - do you honestly not see the difference between making an offhand compliment at the 90th birthday party of a retiring co-worker and spending 20 some odd years as a member of a church whose pastor spouts this nonsense. Or do you simply find it more convenient to keep your partisan blinders on?

BTW - Talldave I know you can defend yourself, excuse me for chiming in ;~)

damon | March 18, 2008, 12:33pm | #

ChicagoTom,

I see your point, but I don't know if I agree. I would never sit in a church with a preacher espousing hate. I explicitly know several people (and one standing politician) who have left their churches because they found distaste with opinions their pastors have espoused on the pulpit.

I -would- expect a person to walk away from a church that espouses such anger and hate (especially and at least when that anger and hate seems more than a bit paranoid).

Obama had a very long time to move away from these stances, but only did so when it became politically expedient. This indicates to me some kind of tacit acknowledgment and agreement with the basic views of the Rev, and at the very least, the lack of courage to stand against those points. I would suggest that he stayed with the congregation for the same reason he now distances himself: political advantage. In his early political days (not too long ago), Obama probably gained a lot by associating with the Rev. considering his weight in his state. Now he stands to lose a lot, and so the distancing happens. I only suggest that this distancing has nothing to do with the content of Wright's views, since one would then have expected Obama to distance himself when the Reverend -made- the comments, not when the comments began to gain media attention.

And no, I don't hold any other politician in the political race to be any more honest. We get our choice of pandering weasels.

Jennifer | March 18, 2008, 12:33pm | #

But believing in psychics isn't the same thing as holding and disseminating dangerous, false convictions that the U.S. government is implementing genocide.

Sounds like you're begging the question there. I don't believe in psychics or that AIDS was a government invention, but if I wanted to write an article called "The U.S. Government Is Implementing Genocide" I could find a lot more actual facts to back that up than I could find facts to justify an article called "Psychics Are Real."

Face it: your psychic friend is just as bugshit crazy as Wright.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:33pm | #

I love how nobody is talking about Obama.

"Look over there! Trent Lott!"

dodsworth | March 18, 2008, 12:34pm | #

Finally, regarding Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, Paul is shielding an unnamed ghostwriter who wrote in his own name, which makes people (not me!) suspect that he either (a) wrote the articles himself or (b) sympathizes with the articles. Paul would have been much better off taking exactly the tack Obama is here. Just say Rockwell wrote them, that you disagree vehemently, but that the guy's your friend.


Brian24: Ah, but it wouldn't be "exactly the same tack." Paul would have had to do something Obama would not have to do: he would have to actively "out" his friend and/or some lowly stringer. Obama did not have to do this since Wright is clearly identified as the source of the statements. Paul's challenge was a lot more difficult in this regard....that is if we accept Jesse's initial premise.

D.A. Ridgely | March 18, 2008, 12:34pm | #

But does Obama have the courage to choose a vice-presidential running mate with a tendency to get drunk on hunting trips and shoot his friends in the ass? American voters like me want to know!

If he does, then for the sake of the nation I am willing to serve as vice president.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:34pm | #

In fact, Trent Lott is still in office and is the second ranking Republican in the Senate IIRC. Its not like he was forced to resign from office.

sam | March 18, 2008, 12:35pm | #

"I have a friend who believes in psychics, and I don't think any less of her as a friend because of this. But believing in psychics isn't the same thing as holding and disseminating dangerous, false convictions that the U.S. government is implementing genocide."

What about a president who consults psychics?

Reagan: putting the "voodoo" in Voodoo Economics for over 8 years...

John | March 18, 2008, 12:36pm | #

The same magazine that barbequed Ron Paul for having his name on a couple of newsletters that were written 10 years ago and were racist, now like Obama even more for going to a black supremicist church for over 20 years. Jesus Jessee, is this supposed to be comedy?

Jesse Walker | March 18, 2008, 12:36pm | #

TallDave: I explained why I think the Obama and Thurmond situations were different. So far, you have not engaged -- or even acknowledged -- my argument, instead preferring to spin this silly fantasy that I am motivated by a partisan preference for the Democrats over the Republicans. As long as that's the approach you're going to take, I don't see any reason to continue the conversation.

For the record, I do think there was a lot of self-congratulation -- and a whiff of heresy-hunting -- to the anti-Lott crusade. And while I criticized Lott at the time, I also offered some criticisms of his critics. The fact remains, though, that there is an obvious difference between what Obama has said about Wright and what Lott said about Thurmond. I summed up the distinction at 11:48.

MassHole | March 18, 2008, 12:36pm | #

McCain rightly called Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance" several years ago, but then got on his knees for them when he decided he needs their votes again. That's not pandering, that's selling your soul. McCain wants to be president so bad that he'll stoop to that. At least Obama is taking it like a man and saying yeah, this is my pastor, he's not perfect either. So he said some things that scare whitey or are a little nuts. I don't agree with him on those things.

The likelyhood that Obama is racist is about the same as McCain. Like most people, they probably hate some type of person. Heck, maybe they both hate fat people. Bottom line is that if you have a preconceived notion regarding either one, these religious jerks surrounding them will only reinforce your views.

Abdul | March 18, 2008, 12:37pm | #

In fact, Bush was "brought to Jesus" by the Grahms. So you're wrong about that. He has a long-standing relationship with them.

The Clintons were also friendly with Billy Graham. In fact, I think the last five or six presidents had him over to the White House at least once or twice. He was as moderate as a high-profile religious figure can be.

Somehow, I expect we will not be seeing Rev. Wright strolling about Obama's rose garden.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:37pm | #

I'd really like someone to give me a "black supremacist" statement from Wright. It seems people are seeing things that are not there.

He never said "blacks are the master race" or "whites are inferior". If you can find a quote like that, let me know. Until then, hes not a "black supremacist".

Jesse Walker | March 18, 2008, 12:37pm | #

John: I see your reading comprehension skills are at the TallDave level.

TallDave | March 18, 2008, 12:38pm | #

No, he simply said that if America had voted a segregationist for president the country would be better off today.

They also elected Robert Byrd, who was a KKK member. I haven't heard anyone apologizing for saying nice things about him.

Also, that was in 1948. We had just interned 100,000 Japanese, and homoseuxality was considered a mental illness. I don't think any of the candidates were exactly enlightened by today's standards.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:39pm | #

Oh, not to mention the fact Bill Clinton's spiritual adviser was Jessie "Hymietown" Jackson, but the media gave him a pass on that too.

John | March 18, 2008, 12:39pm | #

The bottomline is that Reason would never give a white politician this kind of pass. It didn't give Ron Paul a pass. Why does Obama get a pass? Because ultimately the all white staff at Reason doesn't think black people or politicians are worthy of being held to the same moral standards as white people. Basically it is saying that it is okay for black people to beleive and be associated with crazy shit because they really aren't the same as white people. It is a common and subtle form of white supremecy that we sadly still engage in.

dodsworth | March 18, 2008, 12:39pm | #

Brian24 and Jesse:

Taking the Paul comparison further, Obama's reaction also does not compare well with Paul's in another respect. His remark about his racist grandmother who helped raise him showed a surprising lack of good grace.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:39pm | #

TallDave-

Truman and Dewey were calling for de-segregation and civil rights in 1948.

Thurmond opposed them. That makes him a fringe candidate, even by the standards of the day.

dhex | March 18, 2008, 12:40pm | #

was the birthday party also in 1948?

hmmmm...

damon | March 18, 2008, 12:41pm | #

Cesar,

Indeed? I didn't know that.

I thought Bush was converted to Christianity by "Billy Graham" not "Frankling Grahm". Am I mistaken?

Assuming you are right, can you say that the following are true:

-Grahm expresses anti-semetic sentiments as a matter of course (at least to a similar level as Wright expresses his level of anger?). Or do you have to dig very deep to find "possible anti-semitism" in his case?
-Was Bush a member of Grahms flock for as much of a time, or at least somewhat the same length of time?

However, I do think you may be wrong about Franklin Grahm converting Bush. I rather believe it was Billy Graham, who is entirely a different person with his own issues.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:41pm | #

Damon I could, if I wanted, put together Billy Grahms "Greatest hits" and make him look like a complete kook.

Charles | March 18, 2008, 12:42pm | #

If you're a black guy who came of age in the 1960s-70s, how can you not be a paranoid government-hater at least willing to consider the craziest conspiracy theories? I'm not surprised some people believe that the government invented AIDS or things like that; I'm surprised so few do.

John | March 18, 2008, 12:42pm | #

"Now we have the Jeremiah Wright "scandal," which frankly makes me like Obama more. "

Which part did I not understand Jesee? Do you like Trent Lott more for his standing by his friend Strom Thrumond? Do you dislike Robert Byrd more for his having ditched his KKK friends? Do you like George Bush more for having spoken at Bob Jones University? Why do you like Obama more for standing by a nutcase preacher who thinks white people created AIDS and thinks that God only loves black people?

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:43pm | #

Oh, I'm still waiting for a quote by Wright that says blacks are superior, or that God doesn't love white people.

John | March 18, 2008, 12:46pm | #

Ceaser,

Wright is a Black Liberation Theologist. Black Liberation Theology beleives the black race is God's chosen people. If that is not Black Supremecy, what is?



James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the "black liberation" school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black. As he explains:

Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html

TallDave | March 18, 2008, 12:46pm | #

TallDave: I explained why I think the Obama and Thurmond situations were different. So far, you have not engaged -- or even acknowledged -- my argument,

On the contrary, I've not just engaged but destroyed it. You call Lott a probable racist and say he should be condemned for an offhand compliment to an ancient Washington fixture, but claim any similar criticism of Obama based on his much closer association with his pastor must be a "smear" based on deliberate misunderstanding.

It's ridiculous, and you know it.

Jennifer | March 18, 2008, 12:46pm | #

Which part did I not understand Jesee? Do you like Trent Lott more for his standing by his friend Strom Thrumond? Do you dislike Robert Byrd more for his having ditched his KKK friends? Do you like George Bush more for having spoken at Bob Jones University?

Not that I can speak for Jesse, but you're making the same fallacious comparison as TallDave did: the examples you mentioned here were all examples of using authority (either governmental or on-campus) to keep black people legally segregated and legally distinct from white people. This is NOT the same thing as a black guy saying "the government has done bad things to people of my color."

joe | March 18, 2008, 12:46pm | #

The usual suspects, making a point of playing dumb.

Look, geniuses: Trent Lott endorsed Strom Thurmond's segregationism when he said we'd be better off with if we'd had a segregationist president.

Barack Obama just spent the better part of an hour, and the better part of two weeks, and has spent the past year, denouncing, not embracing, not saying we'd be better off being led by, black militants.

Embracing vs. denouncing. I don't believe for a second anyone actually misunderstands this.

Some people want to whip up hostility between the races as part of their political program, and some people want to help our society get past that.

I'm damn proud of the side I'm on.

wayne | March 18, 2008, 12:46pm | #

Jesse,

What the hell did you expect Lott to say when it came time for his toast, "You were a miserable, cheating scumbag and now that you are old you will soon meet the devil..."?

I know next to nothing about Lott, but it was obvious that he was railroaded (or lynched to use a term with racial connotations) over his toast on his friend's birthday.

John | March 18, 2008, 12:46pm | #

More Black Liberation theology Ceaser

ither God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him, Cone maintains:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]

joe | March 18, 2008, 12:48pm | #

Black Liberation Theology beleives the black race is God's chosen people. says John, based on his years of theological study and attendance as a black church.

Er, wait a second, instead of "years of theological study and attendance as a black church," I meant "repeated viewing of four five-second clips culled from a decade worth of someone's sermons." My bad.

Warren | March 18, 2008, 12:48pm | #

Way to go John, you made joe look like the reasonable one.

ChicagoTom | March 18, 2008, 12:48pm | #

damon,

I would never sit in a church with a preacher espousing hate. I explicitly know several people (and one standing politician) who have left their churches because they found distaste with opinions their pastors have espoused on the pulpit.

And while I genuinely find that position admirable, I don't hold it against the others who choose not to go that route.

Furthermore, I don't pretend to know the reverend Wright or anyone else's pastors for that matter. If someone makes a decision that despite the spiritual leader's flaws, the positives outweigh the negatives and this person can have a possible influence on their life, I don't find it my place to judge that decision as right or wrong. Nor am I arrogant enough to believe that my opinion and what I would do is the only acceptable action to take. Furthermore, It wouldn't just be Obama leaving the church, it would be his family as well. And it might cause his family to sacrifice many other relationships within that church community.

As for the politics aspect, to me, his current course of actions seems the least politically expedient.

As a voter you are entitled to judge it however you want, and I see where you are coming from and think your beliefs are justified, but I will have to respectfully disagree with your analysis.

Jennifer | March 18, 2008, 12:48pm | #

I'm guessing that if I went around saying "women in the world still often get the short end of the stick these days," John and TallDave would insist that I'm the equivalent of a Saudi judge insisting that women need to be kept under gender-based house arret all their lives. Because, you know, we're both making some point about gender equality or the lack thereof, and all points about gender are exactly alike, just as all points about race are too.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:49pm | #

John-

I'm familiar with black liberation theology, and if you take it literally it looks ridiculous. But its not mean to be literal. The tales of the ancient Israelites are used as metaphors for the experience of blacks in the United States. Thats why Martin Luther King made so many Old Testament references in his speeches.

John | March 18, 2008, 12:49pm | #

Jennifer,

Read the examples of Black Liberation Theology above. It is a lot more than that. It is basically the black version of the old bullshit Nazi "Aryans are God's Chosen people" stuff. Wright is not just some pissed off black guy. Anyone that would go to his church and listen to that crap and still have their kids baptized there, and give them thousands of dollars is either a moral coward or a crank.

wayne | March 18, 2008, 12:49pm | #

Look, geniuses: Trent Lott endorsed Strom Thurmond's segregationism when he said we'd be better off with if we'd had a segregationist president.
Joe, no he did not say that. He said we would be better off if we's had Strom Thurmond as president. I know you don't see the difference, but hey that's why you're not a genius.

joe | March 18, 2008, 12:49pm | #

James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the "black liberation" school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black.

Note that this is supposed to be a reason to be afraid of Jeremiah Wright.

Think about what's going on in the head of someone who believes that.

damon | March 18, 2008, 12:49pm | #

Cesar,

I'm noticing that you simply move on to other points when direct questions are directed to you. Are you perchance a politician?

I'm sure Graham has also said some dumb things, and yet the argument remains: Does a person brought to religion by, and 20 years in the congregation of, and a close friend of a person such as Rev. Wright, genuinely distance himself from the Rev. at this point because of actual disagreement, or out of pure political expediency? My argument is simply that, and I posit that Obama may share more views with Wright than he would now let on.

This is entirely separate from the question of: Are George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Thomas Jefferson, or Aquaman also hyprocrites?

R C Dean | March 18, 2008, 12:50pm | #

Regardless, I don't think it is very difficult to piece together a somewhat obvious bias in the reverend's opinion,

Dig a little deeper, folks. The good Rev. is a leading light in the "black liberation theology" movement, where the racialism and resentment-amped-to-hate is pretty obvious.

Whatever else you can say about the Rev., I don't think you can say he's post-racialist or working toward racial conciliation.

The real interesting question now is whether the leading lights of the MSM will seize upon Obama's speech as an excuse to put this behind themselves, or whether they will continue to dag and press on the unanswered questions.

joe | March 18, 2008, 12:51pm | #

Who the hell is this "Cone" guy?

They're not all interchangeable, John.

ChicagoTom | March 18, 2008, 12:51pm | #

Correction:

possible influence

Positive Influence

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:51pm | #

Damon, no one has proved to my satisfaction that Wright thinks whites are devils, or blacks are the superior race. You're seeing things that simply aren't there.

There are, in fact, white members of Wrights Church. Why would they go there if hes an arch-racist?

damon | March 18, 2008, 12:52pm | #

ChicagoTom,

Well, at the very least your position is honest and your argument logical. I disagree with it (in that I fully expect people to distance themselves from such a church and I would hold it against them for not doing so until the media has made it a topic) but I agree that I am not the arbiter of other people's decisions in the context of their own lives.

Let us then agree to disagree, and I'm quite glad we've had a civil and rational debate on the issue. It has been a pleasure.

wayne | March 18, 2008, 12:53pm | #

"There are, in fact, white members of Wrights Church. Why would they go there if hes an arch-racist?"

Yeah, Barrack Obama for one.

ChicagoTom | March 18, 2008, 12:54pm | #

Let us then agree to disagree, and I'm quite glad we've had a civil and rational debate on the issue. It has been a pleasure.

Damon,

Same hear, sir.

John | March 18, 2008, 12:54pm | #

There is a white version of this nonsense. There are nutcases out in the West who believe that Whites are God's chosen people. If a white politician went to such a church for 20 years, no way would any of you be making excuses for the guy. But you make excuses for Obama? Why? Because you don't think that Obama is worthy of being held to the same standards as a white politician.

TallDave | March 18, 2008, 12:54pm | #

joe,

Embracing vs. denouncing. I don't believe for a second anyone actually misunderstands this.

/eyeroll

Lott also apologized for his remark and denounced segregationism after it became a big issue -- just like Obama is doing now.

The issue here is not whether Trent Lott was wrong to endorse segregationism, every indirectly. He clearly was, and he paid the price.

The issue is also not whether either man apologizes/denounces/etc now. The issue is whether, like Lott's comment, whether Obama did something wrong by embracing Wright for 20 years.

John | March 18, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Joe,

This Cone guy is the founder of the movement and the inspiration for Wright. They pretty much are interchangeable.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:55pm | #

There is a white version of this nonsense. There are nutcases out in the West who believe that Whites are God's chosen people.
Yeah, and they believe it to be literally true, and believe its their mission to exterminate the "mud races". Not quite the same thing.

John, if black liberation theology is racist then you have to said Judaism is racist, too.

damon | March 18, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Cesar,

I never posited any of those points. You're asking me to prove comments that other people made and which I do not agree with.

My only point, which I believe I proved through deduction, was that Wright's anti government rant in regards to AIDS implicitly and inherently posits that the "government" that created AIDS is anti-black (in that he believes AIDS was created to wipe out black people) and hence, by deduction, said government is probably not "black" itself, since the creation of AIDS would then seem to be an act of suicide.

That is all.

joe | March 18, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Actually, wayne, I am a genius.

And, as a genius, I'm able to go to the wikipedia homepage, enter Strom Thurmond, and read about his single-issue campaign in 1948.

This thread is very heartening to me as a Democrat. The only people expressing any continuing fear of Barack Obama, secret Black Panther are the most obvious Republican shills.

And, as already noted, none of them are talking about Barack Obama. Now, they're playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon with some preacher he's never even met, because apparently, not even Jeremiah Wright expresses the racism they wish to impute to Obama.

I second Cesar's challenge: somebody find a racist quote from Jeremiah Wright. Since John is so eager to go after him, and so eager to find scary "black liberationist" quotes, you know he'd have put them up if he could find them.

But he hasn't. None of them have.

John | March 18, 2008, 12:56pm | #

http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm

Joe look at the website. You will see how Cone is the spiritual inspiration for Wright and the church itself.

Cesar | March 18, 2008, 12:57pm | #

FWIW I defended Mitt Romney from this shit, too. I think religions are ridiculous all around, so to go after one particular religion when you still believe in invisible angels, men walking on water and whatnot smacks of a double standard.

PC | March 18, 2008, 12:57pm | #

What I would have liked to hear Obama say is:

"Give me a break people. I just wanted to make a living as a "community activist" like my contemporaries, the guys I mentioned earlier that play on black rage. Well unfortunately I give excellent speeches and my demand has surpassed my expectations. So now after waiting and preparing to be a "community organizer", to be an arm of the Democratic party to make sure the inner cities stay needy and brainwashed while taking my cut off the top, I have been thrown into this Jackie Robinson position. It is your fault. I played your game under your rules and you forced this temptation on me. You people do remember I am from Chicago right? When has the words "Chicago" and "honest" ever met without a negative in between in relation to politics? To build me up just to knock me down is a projection of your own ignorance, or an intellectually dishonest attempt at politics."

Jesse Walker | March 18, 2008, 12:58pm | #

The bottomline is that Reason would never give a white politician this kind of pass. It didn't give Ron Paul a pass.

Actually, when the issue was Paul's personal associations -- i.e., something roughly equivalent to Obama's relationship with Wright -- most of us did give him a pass. I was aware throughout his campaign that some of the people in Paul's circle had a history of insensitive statements. I did not hold that against him then, and I don't hold it against him now.

The criticisms came because of statements that went out under Paul's own name. And even then different staffers took different positions on the issue, so you're wrong to assign a unitary position to Reason. (For that matter, I wouldn't assume that all of my colleagues agree with me about Obama and Wright.)

What the hell did you expect Lott to say when it came time for his toast, "You were a miserable, cheating scumbag and now that you are old you will soon meet the devil..."?

I know next to nothing about Lott, but it was obvious that he was railroaded (or lynched to use a term with racial connotations) over his toast on his friend's birthday.


Except that he had praised Thurmond's old campaign in almost identical terms in at least one previous speech in 1980. It wasn't an off-the-cuff remark.

I don't care that Lott is friends with Thurmond or that he said something nice at his birthday. I think the "nice" thing he chose to say -- to single out for praise a presidential campaign that was basically a single-issue crusade for Jim Crow -- was stupid and offensive. The public reaction may have been disproportionate, but that's a different issue.

John | March 18, 2008, 12:58pm | #

"The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology."

that is who this Cone guy is Joe
http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm

Abdul | March 18, 2008, 12:59pm | #

James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the "black liberation" school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black.

Note that this is supposed to be a reason to be afraid of Jeremiah Wright.


Joe,
Rev. Wright is a self-proclaimed "black liberation" preacher. While black liberation theology may not have the message discipline of the Catholic church, and individual preachers have more freedom to interpet the theology differently, Rev. Wright signed on to this theology and claims to support it. It's not completely out of bo