Louis Farrakhan and Senator Obama

parent2noles · August 5, 2008, 7:54am

McCain obviously courted any prominent evangelical and should have investigated Hagee’s views before accepting his support. Not surprising - this is quite like soliciting political contributions and then being embarrassed by revealed aspects of the donor and returning the donation. Even universities do this and make the same error.

Obama lived in the midst of Wright (and maybe Farrakhan) for decades. He embraced Wright and only (quite temporarily, I suspect) cast him aside when he discovered (in reality it was forced on him by handlers, I’d wager) that Wright damaged his chances for election.

This is why, when Farrakhan says he’s patiently waiting for Obama to be securely elected President, Obama causes concern. This seems to indicate there is another shoe to drop. Fortunately, we still have time in the campaign for the “chickens to come home to roost”. ;)

It’s not unusual for McCain or any POW who was tortured for years to hate his former captors (at least back in 2000). I’d find it strange if he said otherwise. You’re basically saying a woman who was raped should like her attacker - even years later? I think not.

Drosselmeier · August 5, 2008, 9:54am

I have asked here repeatedly for evidence supporting the claim that Wright is an anti-white racist, and yet no one has given such evidence. This strongly suggests to me that no such evidence exists. So in my view, we have very effectively dispatched the claim of racism regarding Wright and his church. I will henceforth summarily reject any future claims of this nature. And since it appears no one is able to support the contention that Wright is a racist who discriminates against whites, I don’t see why Obama’s twenty year relationship with Wright is a great issue. If one cannot contend immorality in Wright, then one ought to be able to fathom how someone like Obama could have been close to Wright for twenty years. I can fathom this because despite my cultural disagreements with Wright, I see a man who appears to be kind and generous. Despite my rejection of the man’s style and beliefs, I could easily have a close relationship with him, even for twenty years, simply because I closely identify with the social issues about which he cares.

Now that we have shown no evidence exists supporting the claim that Wright is a racist, we should move on to another possible reason for why Obama should have rejected Wright, namely, Wright’s alleged anti-Americanism. Wright declared “God damn America”, a harsh declaration to be sure. But when its meaning is maintained, I think we see that Wright speaks what is to be expected of any pastor who sees moral corruption in a country. Indeed what Wright has said is quite the same thing that is being said by white evangelical pastors all across America. I have visited dozens of these white churches in my lifetime, several dozens of them, and I have discovered that their pastors preach constantly and openly of God’s damnation of the country, this, because of America’s support for abortion, gay marriage, and because of its refusal to acknowledge God especially in schools. These preachers are Wright’s counterparts, except they are white and condemn America for different sins, so-called. Yet, despite their strident condemnations, America’s president, George Bush, enjoys their support and few, if any, Americans condemn him for it. Even when 911 struck America, Jerry Falwell claimed God had allowed it because of America’s support of gays. Though Falwell has long enjoyed friendship with Bush, Americans never once blamed Bush for Falwell’s longstanding condemnation of America.

Of course Falwell is the same man who before he died [became</a> McCain’s friend](<a href=“McCain Woos the Right, Makes Peace With Falwell - ABC News”>McCain Woos the Right, Makes Peace With Falwell - ABC News) despite the fact that, unlike Obama with Wright, McCain formerly recognized Falwell’s wrongs and was hostile to him. How is it that McCain came to call Falwell a friend after once calling him an “agent of intolerance” as far back as eight years ago? How did McCain, for eight years knowing of Falwell’s unchanging anti-Americanism, come to claim that he “spoke in haste” when he rejected Falwell? Falwell never changed his views toward gays, and to his dying day he thought God would condemn America for godlessness and abortion. How did McCain speak so forcefully against a ban of gay marriage in 2004, but in recent times had Falwell dine at his home and even assured the preacher that he would give his support of a gay ban should it come up in the future? What accounts for McCain’s radical change in moral philosophy here?

Nothing so apparently dishonorable has taken place with Obama and Wright. Sitting in Wright’s church as a black man, Obama likely heard discourses on history and condemnations that, though rejecting some of them, he thought were the responsibility of pastors to make. After all, much of Wright’s condemnations actually have a legitimate basis. In other words, while it is up for debate whether Falwell is correct in his claim that God hates gays (since gays do not hurt anyone but arguably themselves), it is clear that Wright is correct in his claim that harming innocent people is a sin against human nature. The philosophy that America relied upon from the 1600s to the 1800s to slaughter innocent native populations and take their lands actually existed and is worthy of Wright’s condemnation. It is the same philosophy that America relied upon to enslave innocent human beings, forcing them against their will to stay in a country that they hated, so that their innocent children would be raised in intentional ignorance, shame, and without a country of their own. It is clear that Wright is correct that God damns America for this obviously sinful philosophy. It is the same philosophy that compelled America into Mexico, during the land grab that was the 1800’s Mexican-American war. It is the same philosophy that caused the South’s desire to protect slavery in the 1860’s, the same one that caused it to harm blacks from 1877 right up into the 1970s. It is the same EXACT philosophy that allowed America to literally enter countries against their will in the 1960’s and 1970’s and then bomb innocent children. It is the same philosophy that America relied upon to bomb people in South America in the 1980s. It is the same one that America relied upon when it permitted drugs to be trafficked into American black neighborhoods in the 1980’s to fund those bombings, whole families of black people, wiped out because of America’s evil dealings. It is the same philosophy America relied upon to enter Iraq and bomb it, harming tens of thousands of innocent children, despite the fact that Iraq did nothing to us, and despite that we knew it had done nothing. Wright was correct in saying “God Damn America” for all of these things, since they are indeed abominable. But we are hard pressed to claim Falwell is correct in saying God condemns America for its support of gays, since gays do not harm innocent people. Again, we may debate the morality of gay marriage, something for which Falwell condemned America. We cannot debate stealing lives as America has done, which sin Wright claims God should condemn America. Yet we have no problem with McCain’s friendship with Falwell, but we condemn Obama’s friendship with Wright.

Why the difference? Falwell and McCain are white guys, while Obama and Wright are not. That is at the heart of it. America can take whites who condemn the country over gays and abortion because it is filled to the brim with such unthinking Jingoists that it cares little for the pains of anyone who is not white, straight, with big hair, print dresses, and makeup that is as thick as whipped cream on a pie. This is why when a white guy like Timothy McVeigh, explodes a bomb that kills hundreds of people, including many blacks, not even one white person in America ascribes the behavior to whites generally. But should a black guy like O.J. Simpson kill just two whites, millions of whites all across America condemn blacks generally. The same racist phenomenon is at play here with McCain-Falwell and Obama-Wright. Falwell and Falwell only is blamed for his stupidity. McCainn, though he was Falwell’s friend even after knowing of Falwell’s stupidity, rides into the sunset as president of the United States. But since Obama is black, he takes the fall for any nonsense uttered by a black man within his sphere.

Woodwork · August 5, 2008, 10:22am

.

It is clear that **Wright is correct that God damns America **for this obviously sinful philosophy. It is the same philosophy that compelled America into Mexico, during the land grab that was the 1800’s Mexican-American war. It is the same philosophy that caused the South’s desire to protect slavery in the 1860’s, the same one that caused it to harm blacks from 1877 right up into the 1970s. It is the same EXACT philosophy that allowed **America to literally **enter countries against their will in the 1960’s and 1970’s and then bomb innocent children. It is the same philosophy that America relied upon to bomb people in South America in the 1980s. It is the same one that America relied upon when it permitted drugs to be trafficked into American black neighborhoods in the 1980’s to fund those bombings, whole families of black people, wiped out because of America’s evil dealings. It is the same philosophy America relied upon to enter Iraq and bomb it, harming tens of thousands of innocent children, despite the fact that Iraq did nothing to us, and despite that we knew it had done nothing. Wright was correct in saying “God Damn America” for all of these things, since they are indeed abominable.

So do you suppose this is what Senator Obama was referring to in Berlin when he said:

Although with less detail, I suppose you believe that Senator Obama is refering to the same things you enmuerate America as being guilty of while making your defense of Reverend Wright above.

I also feel Reverend Wright got a bum rap in all of this.

He was not a politician running for office. His constituents --his congregation-- clearly approved of his leadership as steward in their moral and spiritual lives.

I wonder if Senator Obama agrees with us on this point?

.

Hindoo · August 5, 2008, 10:28am

Wright got a bum rap until he tried to deep-six Obama’s campaign. Then he lost my sympathy.

Woodwork · August 5, 2008, 10:44am

Wright may not have understood his ministry as part of the campaign but rather as his ministry. A spiritual one. One he had built from nothing over decades of hard work and sacrifice.

Senator Obama, in one of the more brilliant political speeches I have ever heard, set up his former pastor for the inevitable coup de grace that had to follow. He overplayed his hand and was then left with no choice but to sacrifice his mentor, pastor and friend in order to cut away an anchor that was about to capsize his political ship in a perfect storm.

The Senator’s soaring rhetoric, regrettably, became an end in itself. It was about the speech. He sought perfection and finality.

He must have known that he was flying too close to the sun on this one; pushing his friend way beyond any reasonable expectations of a man, Wright, that had pulled himself up by his boot-straps and had already exceeded any rational expectations of someone that had already accomplished so much. The same desire for perfect redemption may have been what drove the Senator to reach deep, deep into his own personal life and his drag his grandmother along with him.

Both were very good people; but not angels.
Not in heaven; just too close to the Sun.

All in a noble…if doomed cause.

Wright is already living that sad tragedy.

.

Hindoo · August 5, 2008, 10:48am

You’re very poetic, Woodwork. :)

bz2010 · August 5, 2008, 11:17am

Wordwork - where did that quote (the first one) in your post #84 come from?

Woodwork · August 5, 2008, 11:30am

^^^post #83

Drosselmeier · August 5, 2008, 11:47am

Yes, and yes. I think Obama certainly had these things and more in mind, including [the</a> current Iraqi War](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/31/iraq.unitednations]the”>Iraq war is blamed for starvation | World news | The Guardian). I also think he would agree that Wright was mischaracterized by the press, by Bill Clinton and Hillary, and now by the GOP. What I think is very unfortunate is that both Hillary and the Republicans thought nothing at all of abusing Wright in order to slander Obama. They had no problem, for years on end, with what Wright was saying as long as Obama failed to contend for the presidency. But once he aimed to be president, the Clintons and the Republicans knew they could take him down by irrational association, to make him look like an angry black, racist militant. They knew that whites would have no clue at all about Liberation Theology and the historical context of the black church, a place where blacks have always turned to sympathize with one another and express their misery. All that mattered to Hillary was getting Wright out to whites so that whites could experience the psychological revulsion to blacks that is all too typical of too many whites. Through this revulsion, Hillary and the GOP knew they could trash Obama, that America would swallow the poison willingly, even eagerly.

Wright was too unsophisticated and arrogant to see beyond himself. When he confronted the press, contrary to the pleadings of the Obama campaign, he left Obama no choice but to reject him publicly. His buffoonery and lack of forethought could not permit him to suffer the public’s slander for Obama’s sake without a fight. He could not help but try to put the press into its place, confronting its ignorance of Liberation Theology as his personal defense. It did not work, since the public has no interest in such things as truth and context. America wanted to take down a defiant black man and that was that. Indeed, this is why though Obama has been a Christian all his life, large segments of the America public refuse to accept it, instead intentionally ignoring the truth and promulgating the claim that Obama is Muslim. Wright was too self-absorbed to consider this, and this is why he is where he is today.

bz2010 · August 5, 2008, 11:53am

Thanks WW - alas, I do not always have time to slog thru all of Dross’ posts, much less respond to them!

There have been several posts which I’d like to tackle and fillet, but I do have a life outside CC!

marite · August 5, 2008, 12:07pm

Woodwork:

I don’t think that Obama set out to repudiate Wright. But Wright’s subsequent highly public speeches gave him no room for maneuvering on this. Now, he may have known Wright well enough to expect that would be exactly how Wright would react. I suspect he did not. Otherwise, he would have made a cleaner cut than he did.

I did not think that Obama “threw his grandmother under a bus” as people have been saying over and over again. He probably accurately reflected her beliefs and attitudes. What was unfortunate, in my opinion, was not the mention of his grandmother but the word “typical.” Last year, I recall an article he wrote for a women’s magazine in praise of the most important woman in his life (Hillary Clinton also wrote one). He chose to praise the three most important women: his grandmother, his mother, and his wife. I thought that article very touching. I don’t seem to be able to google it, having forgotten the title of the magazine. I did not see a parallel being drawn beterrn his grandmother and Rev. Wright despite the sentence structure. Maybe I was overly generous? Who knows?

By the way, I don’t blame McCain for calling Vietnamese “gooks.” Given his experience, it is absolutely understandable. In fact, one of the key reasons for my admiration of him is his willingness to work for better relations between Vietnam and the US. That took all sorts of courage: courage to overcome his feelings toward Vietnam and courage to buck his Republican colleagues as well as the American public. I still think, however, that his campaign has been cynical in its treatment of Obama. Not racist, but cynical. And Obama has also said things about McCain that are, er, stretching the truth, as in his gas ad.

Woodwork · August 5, 2008, 1:28pm

I certainly agree with you on both points, Marite.

I want to believe that the Senator’s publicly excoriating Rev Wright was likely one of the most painful things “Barack Obama,” as a man, has had to do in a very long time. I can’t imagine having to do the same to a friend, mentor, etc: to denounce and condemn.

At the same time I feel quite certain that Senator Obama did not realize just how much he would have pinned a man like the Rev Wright in the corner with his beautiful rhetorical flourishes on friendship, loyalty, devotion, courage and goodness. As he did in his speech.

At the time and thereafter, it felt almost as if he’d used words to paint a tragic scene of Jeanne d’Arc rather than of ex-marine and current activist/pastor James Wright: A saint that could be the transcendent human being that he wished him to be and needed him to be. Like his grandmother would be.

Though there is, reportedly, no sin in sincerity, Barack Obama’s sin --to my mind-- is the sin of sincere enthusiasm; even if I may say, optimistic naivet

interesteddad · August 5, 2008, 1:36pm

When BHO disinvited Wright from speaking at his campaign announcement in Feb 2007, he told Wright that he would probably have to repudiate him at some point.

poetsheart · August 5, 2008, 5:58pm

How convenient. Saves one from really having to seriously consider and address the words of a thoroughly well thought-out and compellingly logical post. Since it carefully deconstructs an impressive number of disingenuous rationals used to condemn Obama, I can certainly see how some would find it easier to simply dismiss Drosselmeirer’s posts as “too long” or something to “slog through”.:rolleyes:

poetsheart · August 5, 2008, 6:29pm

Nope, the equivalent would be if a woman who was raped, said she hated men, and always would.

I understand why McCain said what he did, too, so I’d give him a pass on that statement, especially since I doubt he still feels that way. But I find it interesting that the same people who are so understanding of John McCain’s reasons for saying what he did about “gooks”, are completely unwilling to understand how Jeremiah Wright, a man who, due to the color of his skin, was treated most egregiously by his own country for most of his life, would sometimes be less than worshipful of that country, or be disinclined to rubberstamp its many immoral actions around the world. Imagine what they would do if Wright had said, “I hated white people. Always will.”

This is exactly the type of double standard I have in mind when I assert that the threshold of tolerance for the mistakes of a black man is often much lower than that for the same mistakes made by a white man.

bz2010 · August 5, 2008, 6:40pm

ph - NOTHING against dross’ posts. I respect his logic (most of the time), and I’m usually impressed by the things he has to say. But to address them sometimes involves more time than I can devote.

Yes, it IS more convenient that way - I engage on CC at my convenience. I think it’s set up that way - unless you know something about getting paid to do this that I don’t!

I appreciate well-thought out posts - I’d just prefer they be astute & concise - those are the type to which I’m more inclined to respond, regardless of the POV.

And verbosity doesn’t necessarily equal intellect. 
To be incisive it is much better to use a scalpel than a shovel.

Woodwork · August 5, 2008, 6:42pm

…agreed.

I see the Reverend Wright as a victim; or more to the point, a victim of national circumstances beyond his control. He was not running for political office. He didn’t ask for this.

From what I know of him, he is a sincere and good man, if at times, like all the rest of us, misguided on the way to the truth.

.

parent2noles · August 5, 2008, 7:10pm

^I agree with this. I do not hold Reverend Wright responsible for his words and he did not ask to be part of the national discussion of presidential election politics.

Obama is different from Wright. Senator Obama is running for high office and is still something of an unknown quality. While Dross demands evidence of racial bias enough circumstantial evidence has been printed by the media to warrant our attention to this area.

btw, ph - Nope, the equivalent would be if a woman who was raped, said she hated men, and always would.
A better analogy would be “If a woman was raped by a North Vietnamese male, she would likely be uncomfortable around North Vietnamese men.” correct?

poetsheart · August 5, 2008, 7:58pm

I hope you’re not holding your breath, calmom. If they ignore the question, it’s as good as pretending you never asked it.

And enough concrete evidence points to the exact opposite of the allegations you so gleefully superglue to Obama. Meanwhile, we have not only racist statements that have come directly out of John McCain’s mouth, but his actions which loudly supported of the ideologies of The Confederacy. His obvious respect for the most potent symbol of the oppressive south, coupled with an apparent disdain for the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (a man who fought the very thing the Old South most potently stood for) would more strongly suggest racist tendencies in John McCain than anything Barack Obama has either said or done.

But of course, McCain has apologized for his stand against the MLK holiday, stating in the most emphatic terms that he was wrong to do so. I’m not so petty as to continue to condemn the man for his past mistakes, especially in the wake of such a heartfelt apology. But I see little evidence that people are willing to extend the same benefit of the doubt to Barack Obama for something he is merely alleged to believe, allegations that ignore all concrete evidence to the contrary and rest on the thinnest of supposed “circumstantial” evidence.

parent2noles · August 5, 2008, 9:53pm

If McCain had long term associations like Obama then I would agree with you. If McCain had not spent so long in the public view, unlike Obama, then your points would have merit. Funny as well how you and others overlook the fact McCain adopted a black child. You remember that McCain did this or that, but you forget that a prime example of his selflessness waits for him at home. Obama has done some of this, but little compared to McCain.

Indeed, McCain has such enormous sweat equity in painful personal selflessness - that are qualities of leadership we all admire - its nigh impossible for anyone to actually believe he’d be biased against anyone based on the hue of skin. Yet, when legitimate and fair questions are asked of Obama, based on real proximate relationships to individuals of dubious repute, you recoil as if the question should not be asked, as if Obama has earned the right to our trust.

Well, frankly, no. Senator Obama has not earned this right yet. He is not proven and is not vetted. When his poll numbers drop he bleats his case of racial victimization, first against Hillary Clinton and now against John McCain.

I don’t buy it - for a second. I want vetting - full and complete, befitting the trust we’d place in one who would have enormous executive power over us all as well as authority to command our military forces.

These are basic elements of good government: solid vetting, checks and balances on enormous power, earned trust based on personal commitment and sacrifice.

Louis Farrakhan and Senator Obama

CONNECT WITH US