A Bright, Shining Moment
Today we saw and heard a preview of our brightest possible American future in Senator Barack Obama's glorious speech. This, then, is what it means to be presidential. To be moral. To have a real center. To speak honestly, from the heart, for the benefit of all. If there was any doubt about what we have missed in the anti-intellectual, ruthlessly incurious Bush years, and even the slippery Clinton ones (the years of "what is is"), those doubts were laid to rest by Barack Obama's magisterial speech today. A speech in which he distanced himself from a flawed father figure, Reverend Wright, and did so with almost Shakespearian dignity and honor.
"This is it, it's here," I thought while watching Senator Obama lay it on the line. We are finally talking about race. Slavery, Jim Crow, economic enslavement, no FHA loans, the failure of affirmative action, busing, offended whites who match offended blacks in rage and fear. Obama shined a light on the conservative talk show hosts who fan white resentments, and at the same time, did not dismiss the reasons for the resentments. He reminded us that the dreams of black America do not come at the expense of white America.
Someone running for the highest office in the land finally talked about it -- the dark and secret swamp that we Americans dodge at every possible opportunity. As he finished the searing truth telling, I realized that this was not so much a speech but rather a unifying call to arms, an insistence that American people act on change. This was an order and a prayer from someone worthy of being called Commander in Chief -- an order that as a bruised and bloodied nation we finally discuss that what unites us, as well as that which divides us. So we can grow, together as a people.
Barack Obama's speech, perhaps one of the most important in modern political history pushed us as a people to move beyond race and gender, beyond Democrat and Republican, beyond politics and into reviving the spirit of the nation itself. To talk, to talk at home, at work, at the dinner table. To really finally talk. What a great day, and where else in the world but in the United States? Today I am very proud to be an American.
Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to Obama's speech
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Anamandy wrote "But for the past 40 years a lot of capital and advantages were given to blacks to help propel equality. "
I think this is where there is confusion. A lot of white Americans feel that America has more than paid its debt to black America with social programs and affirmative action, etc. and that if blacks are still experiencing difficulty, why should white Americans continue to be blamed? Part of the problem is assuming that the social programs that America invested in actually fixed or were intended to fix the problem. The reality is they did not and in many cases made the problems worse. For example, people like to talk a lot about programs like public housing and food aid, however they were actually put in place primarily to _control_ black populations and hide away the poverty that resulted from discriminatory practices.
Why was there poverty in the first place? Because of poor grade schools that are reminiscent of the fallacy of "separate but equal", few blacks ended up attaining a college education needed to lift themselves up from poverty, rampant discrimination that led to blacks having a hard time finding good jobs and being stuck in menial jobs (which they "pass on" to the next generation), and also up until VERY recently (in the 1990s is when the Justice Department began to seriously address this issue) blacks were routinely being denied loans to start businesses and buy houses in decent neighborhoods - if they were lucky enough to get a loan, the rates were usually exorbitant and far higher than those paid by whites with equivalent financial standing. Many neighborhoods across the country maintained convenants explicitly disallowing home sales to blacks.
So instead of upsetting somewhat reluctant white communities and addressing these many problems, the cosmetic change of putting up housing projects (which enrichen the local white contractors who build and maintain them) and food aid programs came to play. It was also a matter of control as well - by putting up the projects and silently allowing neighborhoods to bar blacks from buying homes in them, whites could basically determine where they wanted blacks to live. And determining where they live also determines the quality of schools their children attend, their quality of life, etc. That's why blacks dominate unfavorable places like the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans (where they can't get reasonable insurance to cover loss of their dwelling). And by restricting blacks to certain neighborhoods, it further aids in discrimination - the employer/loan officer doesn't even need to see you, just look up your street address and guess what race you are and decide to reject you without an interview. Thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
There is this sad myth that the problems of racism were all magically solved in the 1960s and we don't have to deal with them today. While we've made A LOT of progress, we're still many yards away from the finish line. As I mentioned, a key issue is better schools to get the next generation out of poverty. Even when the schools are "good enough" to send kids to college, blacks still struggle in the college environment because of lack of preparation. In the 1990s when I went to college, it was horrible - less than half the blacks admitted would actually make it to graduation. Universities today are now employing a number of programs to improve retention and graduation rates. Even when blacks do get the job, pay disparities remain an issue today, with blacks typically earning 80% of what their white counterparts earn. Transfer of wealth from generation-to-generation is critical barometer for economical prosperity and it is something we're only beginning to see progress in in recent years.
If there's anything I want to get across it is this - bias and prejudice, no matter how "small" adds up to big problems. One person might think their bias is small and inconsequential, but the way things work is their bias "combines" with that of another so that these biases stacked up to making a BIG difference in the end. The teacher in class might think "if I give him a B+ instead of an A, it won't hurt him too much." But if you have other teachers thinking the same, your GPA isn't going to be as good as it should be and could eventually mean the difference between a good grad school/job or a not-so-good one. The folks in HR might think they're not hurting me too bad by underpaying me slightly less than they do others. When I go for a home loan and the guy's charging me 0.15% more than he charges other folks, he may think he's not hurting me too much. Then I go to get a car loan and I get the same treatment. In the end I'm making less and paying more for the conveniences that others enjoy. That means less money to invest (a substantial source of income for middle class family) and my kids might end up not as well off as my non-black co-workers.
Understand that what I wrote above is not "hypothetical", these are from my own personal experience in this decade of 2000. Since I don't feel it does me any good to go about life with a chip on my shoulder, I, like many other Afr-Ams don't waste our lives lamenting and complaining. If I talk to my parents (closer to Rev. Wright's generation), they can tell me a whole lot of awful stories of their experiences, about having to drink colored water, use colored restrooms, drive me around town and show me locations of restaurants and stores they couldn't enter, story after story of being unfairly treated. They remember vividly things like the murder of Emmett Till, Medger Evers, the church bombings in Birmingham, the Tuskegee syphillis experiment, etc. - these aren't just people of some textbook historical narrative but in some cases people they knew personally. They've seen and experienced the wickedness of racism in America firsthand and so live still distrustful of their nation. And that bitterness and resentment occasionally bubbles to the surface at times as it did with Rev. Wright, even in casual family conversation.
It's so easy to demonize someone like Rev. Wright as if he's "out of touch". At times I feel that we blacks engage in an unforgiving balancing act - we don't wish to complain too much but if we don't, people think "everything is okay", otherwise if we complain too much, people label us racist and unpatriotic or tune us out as whiners and complainers. There is a lot of work that the Afr-Am community has to do on its own and many of us as Afr-Ams are well cognizant of that - we don't need the lectures. At the same time, understand that most Afr-Americans do realize that statements like "God Damn America" are hurtful and do not help fix problems. But to be frank, given the scale of problems the Afr-American community faces TODAY, given our unfortunate 400-year collective history in this nation, we simply are in no rush to heap condemnation on inconsequential rhetoric intended and understood to be religious metaphor. If we could expend one-tenth of the air-time and debate on "God Damn America" on say the unjust sentencing laws that have thousands of blacks rotting in prisons, that would be sincerely appreciated. For all our progress, the reality is (white) America enjoys this rather vulgar luxury of devoting as much time and energy as it likes to such pointless pursuits as these asisine attempts at proving "see, blacks can be racist too" to somehow excuse itself from the stains of racism, yet we can't seem to get enough airtime and debate going to fix REAL problems that result from racism - poverty, heath care & education disparities, Katrina, etc.
What we need is something Barack Obama has alluded to many times - we need a sense as Americans of "I'm my brother's keeper". That failure whether it be in the poor Afr-Am community, in the poor white community, in the poor Latino or Native American community is a failure of the American people. We need to accept our history, not run away from it and work TOGETHER, being patient and understanding of one another to fix the problems we personally might not have created nor be responsible for but we all still have to deal with. We need to seize this "bright shining moment" and make it happen, for ourselves and for our nation. And if you study and understand our nation's history, you will surely realize that a leader like Barack Obama is a once in a lifetime opportunity to do so.
The issue of race has been talked about for a very long time. Obama gave a very good speech, but if a good speech could cure the senseless disease of bigotry, then Martin Luther King would have done it.
The real disease is our sense of class. Some people need others to lean on to make them feel alive. This is the issue that transcends and trumps all else. How else explain a Clarence Thomas or a William F. Buckley or a Wall St. greed head. The color is green, not black.
A (very) long time ago, Mel Brooks did a skit on a contest for a new National Anthem. It included this contest entry "America, you kill all your Blacks." Truth in humor?
He talked about it only because he was forced to by his own pastor's comments. I wish he'd shown some moral fiber and stood up at his church and disagreed with his paster at least or chosen another church. But he didn't.
Why not GOOGLE REV. MANNING ,find out what about the Clinton preacher. He is a lot more interesting.
Obama did voice his disagreements with his pastor however he respects him and his ministry in helping others and bringing people to Christ and decided to remain with the church.
If more Americans had shown the sort of moral fiber you demand of Barack Obama and stood up in their churches and stood up to the injustices in America in 1860, not 1960, Rev. Wright probably would not have had the basis and life experience from which to say what he said. You need to ask yourself why the truth Martin Luther King proclaimed 40 years ago still holds today "Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America". Are you and enough of your friends standing up in your churches to change that?
In fact kikiva, you have no idea if there were personal disagreeements or discussions between Obama and his pastor (nor should you). Additionally, Obama was NOT present, therefore could not walk out, during the videos in question. Unless you have personally heard the sermons Obama experienced it is curious that you would demand he break his ties with his church. You would have to be.... prejudiced ....to think you know everything about Obamas church after listening to only 30 seconds of video.
Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson have all contributed profoundly to the divisive religious dialog which is shoved down our throats by the media on a regular basis. It is time to stop allowing the right wing media and right wing churches to define morality and patriotism in our country. At least, not this time.
I'm not sure Obama has a central core to even why he is running for President. So it is easy for someone like me to think it is all about power with him.
If America, and serving the people of America, isn't why he is running - it is confusing. We demand that a presidential candidate not confuse us about this in particular. We want patriotism.
You have got to be doing it for us buddy.
At least that has to be believable. Rev Wright has made you into a man undercover in the white community who will favor his group over the rest of us.
Some Americans thought you were so well spoken - why not give you a chance. Well now, you are looking like some kind of intellectual snob not understanding why we are upset.
You sat in that pew. You preach from a pulpit yourself. 20 years is a long time.
No wonder you are shaken up. There is nothing you can do now. 20 years says it all. You have been defined.
You can no longer try to define your image yourself in this campaign. Maybe in time, doing the work of a Senator, you can point to things you have done that changes the image we have now.
But first - try to understand what we felt after 9/11 - and contrast it with this adopted father of yours. Americans were tramatized and sad. Five days after the event we were still upset.
There is no way you can bridge this gap. Remember - you asked your followers to tear the bridge down.
"You have got to be doing it for us buddy." I think Obama is doing "it" for all of us Americans. Here is a guy who graduated at the top of his class and was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He could have made a fortune at the law firm of his choice or clerked for a supreme court justice. Instead he went to Chicago where he worked as a community organizer.
As far as Rev. Wright's diatribes are concerned, I find them extremely offensive, but I am able to understand the rage behind them. In 1967-68, during my first tour in Vietnam, I, a white Irish/Italian, roomed with an African American officer from Mississippi. He managed to get leave and return to Mississippi for a brief vacation. I'll never forget his rage when he returned and recounted how poorly he had been treated by white Mississippians in his home state while defending his country.
He scared the bejesus out of me, but in retrospect helped me understand the anger felt by black Americans.
GOOGLE REV.MANNING , a clinton supported. Very interesting.
HuffPost's Pick
An observation . . . when you have a bright light shining, the edges and differences become clearer. I have noticed that the comments on this speech are to praise it or smear it. There don't seem to be too many gray ones. It has exposed the shadowy racial bias that hides under the surface. So many commentators I respect have shown themselves to be totally unaware of their own bias.
When you read all the examples of white ministers, National White ministers and their rants on evil US deserving God's punishment, etc. The balanced intellect must wonder about the disparity in coverage.
When you know that our government put small pox in blankets to kill American Indians, and the "Tuskeege Experiment". You see the factual, rational basis for many of Pastor Wright's statements, as opposed to Falwell and the religious right's "God hates gays so that's why we got 9/11" America-bashing fantasy. Rationality wonders where the balance is. Who knew the dual standards were so disperate?
Why is it that one side (the 'righteys') can slam and smear anyone in any way, and if someone brings up real truth they can't handle, they immediately shift into 'don't bash America or Americans' . To fix any problem, you first have to see the problem and accept that it is a problem. Denial won't change anything. There's that word 'change'. Yes, to get to something better, you have to change. And to do that you have accept that there is a problem and only then can you fix it.
Maybe it's because some people are not letting their desperation of getting rid of Bush impair their judgement. I believe that's why there's such a lack of real coverage of Obama instead of just sound clips and speeches.
Of course things that happened in the past in this country are terrible. There's no disputing that. There should also be no dispute that many of the terrible things happened under both administrations. Jim Crow laws for example. But for the past 40 years a lot of capital and advantages were given to blacks to help propel equality. After hearing that this kind of hate speech is common in black churches one has to wonder when is it ever going to be enough? BTW - There are plenty of black churches fostering homophobia too; that doesn't only occur in some white churches.
I agree with your point about the double standard, and it is about race. When white people think of Americans, they think of white people. When a black American man, speaks about US in derogatory terms, they see a foreigner condemning "their" America. They don't see people of African, Latin or Asian decent , and very sadly, Native Americans as "Americans". There are several "Americas". Barack Obama is hoping to put an end to this thought process and make us a real United States for all Americans. This is why his speech as so important.
I'll give you some guidance. I am a 42 year old African American male. I totally understand WHy his reverend said what he said. I do not agree with all of it but some of it is true. It's sad but it's true. Obama's pastor was brought up during those times and there is still much nastiness around us. If you want to judge him then base it on what he is showing you. He has tried to run a race free campaign. His background and body of work helping people are clear. Look at what we are doing now...going after him because of something his pastor said. If you want to question him about the 20 years at that church...use your head...you were using it before when you decided to back Obama. We have heard a few SELECT snips of a full sermon. There are a lot of White members in that church. Fox and other news outlets made sure to ONLY question the Black members of that church for a reason. To get people like you to do what you are doing. A few snips doesn't sum up 20 years in the pulpit. When you start judging...you assume he spent all those years in Obama's ear filling it with hate??? Even after you started to back a man that has shown so much balance.
If you want to question something...question why Fox is still showing the clips...ask why they won't stop...ask why they won't show you the WHOLE sermons they are sourcing so you can see how that sermon started and why it went where it did. I'll tell you why...to decieve you. They are trying to pull the wool over our eyes and cheat us out of the only chance to have a real president. There is no way HIllary is going to beat Mccain after the Republicans start their hate machine. They pulled out these tapes on Obama when it started to look like he was a problem. These tapes are not new...they are old and Obama commented on them before. Here we are again. They will do the same with HIllary...thing is...she has WAYYY more to attack. All they could find on Obama was a reverend making some bad statements in a few sermons.
Maybe all the posters here that are blaming Clinton or Obama and throwing incendiary shit bombs in all directions are really right wing infiltrators stirring up shit that will rip apart The Democratic Party. Maybe there is a room full of computers somewhere full of Rove wannabes tapping furiously at key boards and cackling gleefully as the Democrats self destruct.
If you don’t believe the neo-cons have a legion of fake posters then you are naive.
They are swarming this place right now.
GWW
And what's with the novella lengths of a few of these, Huffpo? I seem to recall a length restriction in the past, has this been rescinded for some reason? Well, I guess no one is forcing me to read them (and mostly I don't) but I liked the old way better.
And thanx for the guidence
All they could find on Obama was
OBAMA: PRO-WAR, PRO-TYRANNY, ANTI-CHOICE, AND
A RECORD OF LYING TO EVERYONE
Ignore His Right-Wing Voting Record and Believe his Words
By Gary F. (age 17)
Obama has a big burden. He has to go to his events and pretend he is something he is not. His voting record shows that he supports the war. He voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. He votes for war appropriations as if giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater is his sworn duty. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal, which if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come. The suspension is written right into Section 4 (b). The bill tells Bush to bring the troops home some day unless he doesn't want to. The very name of the bill, 'Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007' is a lie. This is par for the course for Obama.
Bruce Dixon and Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report have written articles exposing Obama's fraud in pretending to represent the interests of African-American voters. Before anyone believes that Obama cares about African-Americans, they should read, 'Barack Obama and the Winds of War,' 'Putting Black Faces on Imperial Aggression,' 'Barack Obama: the Mania and the Mirage,' 'Barack Obama: Hypocrisy on Health Care,' 'The Barack and Hillary Show Plays Selma,' 'Black America's Real Issue With Barack Obama,' and 'Barack Obama vs. Charles Hamilton Houston.' From these articles and others, readers can see Obama come down on the side of the oppressors of African-Americans. For someone whose ancestors owned black slaves, Obama tries to put pressure on African-Americans and fails. Al Sharpton's reaction to pressure to back Obama was, 'I'm not going to be cajoled or intimidated by any candidate not for my support.' Instead of supporting African American's Obama is into lying to them and intimidating them. What makes him different than others who oppress African-Americans?
Paul Street exposes the real Barack Obama very clearly in his article, 'The Obama Illusion.' Street shows how Obama, a Hamiltonian believer in free trade and supporters of globalization has lent his support to the '...Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other 'Wall Street Democrats' to counter populist rebellion against corporate tendencies within the Democratic Party... ,' how Obama provided valuable assistance to pro-war candidates (such as Joe Lieberman), and how he criticized the filibuster proceedings against Samuel Alito. Street shows how Obama voted for '... a business-friendly 'tort reform' bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation...' from corporations. Obama considers single payer universal health care too socialist and has stated that he prefers voluntary solutions. Street's article goes on to discuss Obama's support for other aspects of the neo-con agenda, including neo-con propaganda against African-American culture.
Obama voted to bring low-cost foreign labor into New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. This was a slap in the face against the African-Americans who were displaced in that city. Obama also voted to place Michael Cheftoff, the man responsible for the Katrina catastrophe, in charge of Homeland Security. Obama voted for the bills that gave Blackwater the funding they needed to shoot the people of New Orleans who were only trying to save their own lives. He voted to allow Michael Chetoff to waive all laws, including murder, torture and kidnapping.
In voting for the Real ID Act, Obama voted to end political asylum for people seeking shelter in this country because of terrorism at home.
African-Americans consider Dennis Kucinich, not Obama, to be their candidate. See Bruce Dixon's article 'Is Dennis Kucinich the 'black candidate?'
Obama voted more than five times for USA-PATRIOT's renewal. This is a bill that is patently offensive to most Americans. City after city has passed resolutions condemning USA-PATRIOT. Obama chose to side with tyranny over freedom and Bush over the people on this issue. The Real ID Act, which would allow Michael Cheftoff to declare martial law and imprison all Americans, was supported by Obama, as noted above.
Obama's record on choice is less than 50%. He pretends to be pro-choice while voting for anti-choice justices who have vowed to end choice. Obama even voted for cloture on Priscilla Owen, a justice Alberto Gonzales felt was too far to the right.
Obama's pretense at being anti-war is a fraud on the American people. His actions are fully pro-war. He has voted anti-choice and to keep the USA-PATRIOT Act. A win for Obama will be a win for the neo-con agenda. An Obama nomination is a guaranteed loss for the American people who would have no major candidates to support in 2008.
If Obama had a conscience, he'd vote against himself. Voting takes place in closed booths. Will some decency overtake Obama in the voting booth? Or has he become so used to lying that he doesn't know what is up and what is down?
To call this speech "glorious" and "magisterial" is way over the top. Obama gave this speech for one reason and one reason only - to save his political butt! But, he acrually failed to explain his devotion to a hate-filled preacher and therfore failed to fullfill the purpose of the speech. What it boiled down to was a lecture to us on race in America. How arrogant of him to imply that if we do not overlook his 20 year attendance at this church (or question anything he does or says), we are somehow quilty of not being able to understand race relations in America. Quite the uniter, that Obama is!
The truth is exactly what Henryle said: "Maybe it is not political correct to say but I think Obama remains loyal to his reverend only to retain the black vote he currently dominates." Oh, but isn't this all politcs as usual?
Realistically, you can't make a speech like that just to save your bones. It was very risky politically as race is such a touchy subject. That's why the other candidates didn't have any comment. If it was politically motivated, the other candidates wouldn't have wasted a second to diss him over it with the same arguments you advance. If you still persist on thinking you are right, then you are also saying that your candidate is too dumb to call Obama on his hypocrisy, and for that, your candidate is not electable.
You must be aware that anyone saying anything critical of Obama has been called racist by the folks on his side. Even Hillary's 3AM ad has been called racist. So, after being forced to say something on the subject himself, he is hailed for his 'glorious' speech. The subject matter has been poisoned for many months by his team so that only HE can be the last word on the subject. Even though he said we should have an open discussion about race, I doubt if he'll touch it again and it's still off limits to Hillary or the republicans because no matter what they say they'll be called racist.
BTW. In his 'searing truth telling' speech, did he say anything that you haven't heard or read before? Plus, he couldn't resist bringing up Ferraro alongside Wright which again shows his pettiness.
For those of you who would like to have a real understanding of who Rev. Wright really is and what a typical sermon at Trinity United sounds like, versus the inflammatory clips that Fox News shows, I invite you to check out these links for the full Christmas 2007 sermon.
Xmas 2007, Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdfbWSJINhg
Xmas 2007, Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVeK0JDPm8Y
Xmas 2007, Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o36KBeDXJ8
Xmas 2007, Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFQAQVcn89A
What I saw is a very wise, joyful and intelligent man who loves Jesus and knows how to share that love with his congregation. Gave me a whole different context on IMs too!
It is a great day. He does deserve the title of Commander in Chief. He will bring honor and dignity back into the public discourse. What a speech.
I knew Dr King. Obama is no Dr King.
I was at the March On Washington to hear the "I Have A Dream" speech. People with courage DO things other than talk. Dr King was courageous for the things he did. There were years of marches, prison, humiliation.
The speech encouraged a new identity to those who listened and were moved. Dr King tried to teach us to judge one another on the basis of character - not skin color. I do not vote based on skin color.
After Dr King was assassinated, those that followed turned away from non violence into a black separatist movement - Black Nationalism.
That turning away from the discipline of non violence is one of the keys to everything happening now.
Obama has never claimed to be Dr. King. The media has been making the comparison to his speech and Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech.
He is, however, like it or not, a historical figure in Black History and has distinguished himself as a leader in this country for years to come.
I'm quite confident that Dr. King would be proud of Barack's accomplishments and the country's progress in accepting him as a viable candidate.
I got a challenge for you all. Google- Government medical experiments on blacks . Then try to use empathy if you can and put yourself in Pastor Wright’s shoes. He severed this country as a marine in WWII only to come home to Jim Crow. A country that DID use blacks in medical experiments.
If you can do this google search and then not find that the Pastor’s anger is not only justified but that the man made it through that hell with so little anger then ..... well it says something about you that isn’t nice.
The Nazi’s experimented on Jews and The USA experimented on blacks and there are people like Pastor Wright who are alive to remember.
God dam the government that did this.
Some white dude.
Go here too. http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/tuskegee/
For over 30 years the US Government did an experimential test on black men. By injecting them with Syphilis. At Tuskegee university in Alabama.
The truth of Tuskegee is a bit different. It doesn't absolve the government, but they didn't inject syphilis into anyone. They observed the "natural history" of the disease in people already infected, leaving it untreated for decades after cures were available. It was clearly unethical and racist. Of note, in the 1950's a famous pediatrician, Saul Krugman, fed hepatitis laden feces to children with Down's syndrome in order to see what happened. In response to these evils (along with Nazi experiments) the bioethics movement of the 1960's arose.
And don't forget the AP article about how the CIA introduced crack cocaine and weapons into South Los Angeles.
"The evidence shows that for nearly 10 years a Central Intelligence Agency operation sold crack cocaine by the ton along with sophisticated assault weapons to two Los Angeles youth gangs, the Crips and the Bloods. The CIA then funneled millions of dollars in drug profits to U.S.-trained terrorists in an effort to oust the Sandinista government in Nicaragua during the 1980s. The Sandinistas had overthrown the U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship in 1979 in a mass-based revolution."
http://www.workers.org/ww/ciadrugs.html
The anger in the black community is what Ron Paul (citing the CIA) would call "blowback" from U.S. foreign policy.... Whites have long forgotten these blips in the news. Blacks, who continue to see discrimination and oppressive (even passively) do not forget.
The government experimented on everyone. They released germs and viruses in the public subway systems. They nuked the Bikini Islands which were a home to indigenous people for thousands of years and made their islands uninhabitable. Everyone was a target of the mad scientists at one time or another, not just blacks.
To quote Dick Cheney, "So?"
Terrific response! I felt the same way, finally an adult was speaking, a thoughtful, inspiring adult.
I've been working a lot on issues of voter franchisement, and Senator Obama's speech made me realize it's necessary to do more - as a Western nation, the US needs to move away from imprisoning so many young man, as well as to stop depriving convicted felons of suffrage for life after they pay their debts to society. We need to bring them back to voting and connect them to society again.
Let's get to work on perfecting this country!
Ah, leadership...being presidential, that was the meta-message of Obama's speech. At the end of the day we are facing a struggle for America's soul. It is a conflict between the optimists and the cynics. True leaders draw on our optimism and our common hopes. Demagogues spread fear and powerlessness. They create an environment of cynicism that justifies inaction. Voters stay home. The ruling class wins by default. Cynicism is the voter registration tactic of the ruling class. Contrary to what has passed for leadership the last seven years, Obama seems to have three essential leadership qualities: optimism, an ability to influence culture, and a healthy ego that can celebrate the achievements of others.
The Bush-Cheney version has shown none of those qualities. Bush's optimism is stubborn blindness; Cheney is a pessimist of Hobbesian proportions. Together they can only destroy and steal. They have no sense of American culture outside the rarified world of the "haves and have-mores." Hence, they can only divide and pander to special interests that represent the worst aspects of our national character. As to celebrating the achievements of others they only hog the spotlight and use our troops as a backdrop for media-ops.
The essence of Goebbels' propaganda technique was to personify the leader as the answer: "I'm the decider." Even in an exploitative way they cannot draw attention away from themselves. We see no flag draped coffins coming home; the wounded vets are hidden from view. Indeed, mediocrity and failure are rewarded in Bushworld: "Heckuva job, Brownie" or have no consequences. (Who got fired after 9/11?)
"If I have a choice between a leader offering hope and one offering fear I'll go with hope."
--W. J. Clinton
"It is a conflict between the optimists and the cynics."
My thoughts exactly. Or: idealism vs. corruption.
Wow, I love your post! I really wish more Americans would wake up and realize whats going on here. Just what is at stake after what atrocities we have seen in the last 7 years.
Jon Baitz,
I wish to thank you for this excellent blog. For the most part, I think it served as a catalyst for excellent discussion of issues. I hope that Obama's speech would instigate similarly open and honest discussion across the country.
Again, thank you.
Thanks for your heartfelt post. May the healing begin.
Rex
So, why aren't you having THE discussion about race. Most of the comments on his speech deal with the discussion about the discussion with an occasional personal story.
What's an open and honest discussion about race? Some people applaud Wright for his expression on the subject. Do the rest of us get that same freedom or do we have to be careful once again or else?
HuffPost's Pick
I find it hard to believe that Obama can listen to these negative pulpit speeches for over 20 years and not be affected by them. The reverend many be "like" an uncle to him but that is just it, he is not an uncle and this is a country of free will. We are free to choose the church we go to or not go to one at all. You can't, however, choose your family sso the comparison to his Grandma is unfair. I am concerned that Obama puts loyalty above concerns he has about the reverend so I wonder what kind of President he would be if he can so easily dismiss the reverend's hate speeches. Would he then be a liberal version of Bush? Do we want another President who is blinded by loyalty?
I was raised Catholic my entire life yet I left the church because of my concerns over issues like women not being allowed to become priests, priests not being allowed to marry and the pedophile scandals. I made a conscious decision to leave a church that was hurting more than helping me. Obama could make the same decision if he had the courage to do so. Giving speeches is easy compared to taking a real stance against something. I want a president of action and not words alone. So far, Obama has not become a man of action. At least with Hillary, I know what I'm getting. She may be flawed but she is also open about her past and who she is.
Maybe it is not political correct to say but I think Obama remains loyal to his reverend only to retain the black vote he currently dominates. How can things really get better in this country if we constantly excuse the bad behavior of others. It is easy for a candidate or a leader to say he does not support someone's ideas or beliefs but I want to see action. Remember the saying, "Actions speak louder than words."?
Again, I am concerned about how Obama gets a free pass and the Tv commentators love to criticize Hillary. By constantly repeating that she is losing and how wonderful Obama is, this only reinforces perceptions and makes voters in future primaries less likely to vote for Clinton as they may see it as a wasted vote. TV News has a lot of influence and it really upsets me to see everyone give Obama a free pass. They are so concerned about the race issue that no one wants to call Obama on his lack of experience, his lack of a detailed plan compared to Hillary, etc. Even the so-called "experts" go on and on about how wonderful Obama is and how evil Hillary is.
There is this accepted idea that it is bad for TV anchors not to call a winner too early on an election day as it will discourage people from voting if they think their candidate has no chance. But that is exactly TV commentators are doing - only months in advance. By reinforcing the perception that Hillary is losing, she in fact, does start to lose because people believe what they hear. She has probably lost votes because TV commentators keep repeating over and over how much she is supposedly behind Obama in numbers. TV anchors are so eager to discuss the latest poll or perception of a candidate then run that issue into the ground. I think the criticism of the media giving Obama a free pass is right on. They are giving Obama a free pass just like they gave Bush a free pass in the months leading up to the war. Obama is no doubt a powerful speaker but I want someone with experience who is going to make this country better and not just make a great speech about making it better.
TV political commentators did not ask the tough questions leading up to the Iraq war and took everything the white house said at face value. Now we are in a never ending war and I blame the media for letting the white house roll over them. Well, the media is doing the same thing with Obama and Hillary. Obama gets a free pass because the media likes him and because of the fear of frank discussions about about the race of a candidate.
CNN and MSNBC often critcize Fox for being the conserative Bush network but I do think that CNN and MSNBC have become the Obama network over the past few months and it makes me just as sick to see what they are doing to Hillary as it does to see Fox become the direct media voice of the Bush White House.
I have almost entirely stopped watching MSNBC news shows like 'Countdown' and 'Hardball' (and CNN) because I get so upset at the way Hillary is railroaded. She is not getting a fair shake and I hate it. I hate the glee I see on the faces of TV news commentators talking about her failings. I suggest the anchors of MSNBC look hard at themselves and realize how partisan they really have become. It's not a pretty
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, including the reverend of Obama's church. Note how many white southern preachers have screamed hate-filled epithets from the pulpit without having to defend themselves; whereas Reverend Wright's comments, while delivered a bit angrily, are actually true.
Hillary is getting criticized because her behavior deserves it. She has no dignity or magisterial traits and has been dividing her own party. I would rather have a president who can possibly unite this divided country.
I agree with you.
I lived in the period where blacks were not able to use the same restroom as whites, not able to go to the same restuarant, having to set in separate areas in the movie. I could go an on. I think you get the picture. I fully understand how someone can have those feeling. Until one has walked in those shoe. They have no clue about how someone that has been treated in such a matter feel.
I wonder how whites would feel if things were reversed. There are whites in the South that are still upset about losing the war, and still fly the confederate flag, Why aren't the hypocrites upset about the confederate being flown. I see no outrasge. It is called bouble standard. White preachers can say inflammatory things. When it is brought up in discussions. It is explained away by people like Pat Buchanan, as not being the thing.
He can't unite the country. Haven't you seen how his campaign has divided the Democratic Party? His supporters have been threatening revolt for many months if they don't get their way. I've heard that black delegates have been pressured and threatened if they don't vote for him and on and on.
'Unite this, Barack'
That's because a few negative words out of thousands of sermons does not make up the entirety of his sermons, his message, or Wright - the man. Where have you seen the Reverends positive words played? I rest my case.
This is nothing more than the politics of distraction. A wedge issue to distract voters from facing the real problems we have in this country and in our foreign and domestic policies.
I don't think you should rush to judgement on that. From what I understand all the tapes are bieng vetted. Seems there's not much of Jesus' teachings in Wright's preachings.
"A few negative words out of thousands of sermons...." reminds me of that saying:
"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
Newsbreak: Obamba is winning. He has the most delegates, the most votes and the most states. There is no legitimate way that Hillary can win. She can only work a backroom deal. Part of her alleged unfair handling stems ironically from her "experience." She is better known from her many years of public controversy, her connection with the good-bad-ugly aspects of her husband's presidency--and remains the one candidate in either party with the highest negative public attitudes.
Sometimes it's just better to be the new candidate, especially if your legacy is as mixed a bag as hers is. Kindly reflect on her sarcastic description of her (and McCain's) wonderful experience while all Obama has is "a speech he gave in 2002." This both set a dreadful tone to the primary and was a de facto endorsement of McCain. She has done herself no favors with many voters who find Obama fresh and interesting. She appears willing to sacrifice a Democratic victory to her ambition. None of this makes her a target of warm affection.
Doesn't matter if he has the most delegates, or even if every super delegate voted for him. He's still going to lose in the general election. There is no way he can overcome the tie to this hate monger.
HuffPo and HenryLe -- You guys are wrong. (Must have been Rachel...) There is a very simple thread of logic you do not appear to be able to grasp.
If Jeremiah Wright had spent the last 20 years firing off hate speech after hate speech in sermon after sermon, we'd have a much, much longer set of Youtube clips to bandy about.
2 minutes of video CAN NOT encapsulate the entirety of a man's works.
Additionally (I know I'm late to the party), The bare fact is, Rev. Wright's "hate-speech" isn't entirely off-base.
I say this as a patriot and a veteran of two American wars and our UN involvement in the Balkans... I wore a cyan target on my head: He may have been a bit too enthusiastic in his delivery (he IS a black preacher, after all), but stating that decades of thoughtless and often mercenary US foreign policy in Africa and the Middle East over the past 60 years planted the seeds of 9/11? I cannot rationally counter this statement... neither could the 9/11 Commission. He didn't go as far Jerry Falwell did the day AFTER the attack, saying God did it to punish the US for its apostasy.... he cried that we don't deserve God's blessing because we export misery for profit. Was 9/11 a barbaric and horrible act? Obviously; but it wasn't a military action. It was a guerilla propaganda strike orchestrated by a well-financed and well-organized group of disenfranchised religious radicals. They did what they felt they had to, with the best means available to them. Having fought them with my own two hands, I am clearly not an Osama bin Laden supporter... but as a rational and critically-thinking citizen of this country, it would be folly to state that I couldn't see the connection between half a century and more of real and exaggerated violations against Muslim counties and peoples, and the eventual meaningful retaliation. Rev. Wright saw the connection, too. And he was clearly upset that we were giving ourselves and our government a pass.
"The United States of KKK." Others on Huff have stated this more eloquently than I could, but the fact is that our great nation does have a history in which the federal government has made it the the tacit - and sometimes explicit - POTUS to regard non-whites as nearly inhuman. From the genocides of Native Americans to interment of Japanese Americans, through the Civil Rights Era and even - stretching the point - to right now, when ONE IN NINE black men serves time in prison. As a disciple of Christ and a minister to Christian people, it would be wrong of Rev. Wright NOT to illuminate and underscore this injustice. I would use less incindiary verbiage, but I'm not a BlackPreacherInChicago.
Senator Obama said that he renounced his pastor's speeches on these topics not because they were wholly inaccurate, or entirely wrong-minded... but because they did not allow for the measurable fact that we are a people capable of change for the better, who have demonstrated change for the better, and who endeavor to do good in our nation and in the world.
Before today I saw the current candidate field as pretty much even; everybody seemed to have their flaws and their assets; and anyone would be better than what we've had. Still, I figured I'd vote Dem just to ensure a change of the guard on Penn Ave. But from this point forward, after being spurred by the senator's speech to research his background and candidacy, I will ardently support Barack Obama against power-grab opaque doublespeakers and YetAnotherRichOldWhiteHawk.
We've been down that road enough already. Let's show ourselves, our children, and the rest of the planet that we're still capable taking chances, and being daring, and being willing to EARN our seat at the head of the table.
You may be right, but simple research into the Marxist background of the Black Liberation Theory/Theology and the Black Liberation Army (a derivative of that movement in South America) of which the preacher’s entire work at the Church is premised; it is self evident the most logical motivation of the preachers life’s work is completely consistent to the hate speech and unpatriotic viewpoints.
The real question is what kind of judgment did the Obama’s exhibit by bringing their impressionable children to this church, especially since he admitted he lied about not hearing the preacher actually utter such divisive language? Why did they not change churches like many have when they disagree with such blatant hate rhetoric?
Lastly, why did Obama, so cleverly make his speech about race and not about Hate and Patriotism, which the Marxist beliefs of the preacher are rooted?
Hillary open about her past? You know what you're getting? Really? Then where are her tax returns! Every word out of her mouth is calculated and workshopped and market tested before it is spoken. You only think you know what you're getting because the Clintons are a brand name. I'm sure people thought they knew what they were getting with Bush because they were already familiar with his father.
Hillary is an open book. At least we are certain that she loves her country. That's more than can be said about Obama.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
