Why hasn't anyone noticed Obama is running against President Bush?

1of42 · May 21, 2008, 6:03pm

Drosselmeier, much of what you say is true. America has a horrible history of virulent racism, enshrined for much of its history in official laws and government policies.

But, while there remains a great deal of racism, it is not nearly as bad now as it was then. There are still horrible things like unequal treatment in the war on drugs - one of the biggest reasons why I personally believe it is an abhorrence - and enshrined attitudes that adversely effect blacks.

But to talk about blacks as if, as a monolithic group every one is a victim of horrible white racism perpetrated by every white person is also abhorrent, in my opinion. There are those of us who are not in any way racist, and we take incredible umbrage to being typed as racists merely because of our race. Frankly, while I understand where Wright is coming from that does not make his comments any less offensive to me personally, as I am sure they are to many others.

Drosselmeier · May 21, 2008, 6:05pm

*“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” *
-J. Wright

I disagree with Wright on Israel for a number of historical reasons that I will not go into here. Yet, despite my differences, I understand why he views Israel is he does. One only needs imagine living in ones home, and then in a moment seeing people moving into it against your will, by force, to get an idea of how the Palestinians view this situation (Shoot. Most of us get bent out of shape even by illegal immigration. Imagine how we would feel if some government forced Hispanics into America and protected them). They know that the force that permitted the maintenance of the newcomers is supplied by the United States. So understandably they hate the U.S.

I may even disagree with Wright on Hiroshma and Nagasaki. But several of my relatives were alive during WWII, and they report that whites all across America were hostile to the Japs, and not merely because of Pearl Harbor. The nastiness toward the slant-eyed Japs was racial, unlike the hostility against the Krauts. While my relatives understand why we perhaps dropped the bomb on Japan and not Germany, they believe racism explains why America had no compunction about it. As for myself, I believe it impossible for us to bomb tens of thousands of average Japanese civilians, who had no control of their government, and not cause the rest of the world to look upon us with a jaundiced eye.

When we add to Hiroshma and Nagasaki Americas long-term meddling in the affairs of other nations, and the utter harm it has caused foreign civilians, genius is not required to understand that America has provoked a great deal of anger in the world. Since WWII we have bombed civilians in nearly thirty countries. We have also employed subversion, installed and/or supported oppressive dictators in nearly thirty countries. While we may think we are justified in these actions, fathers who hold their dead children, all killed by American bombs, do not. We have created tens of thousands such fathers now. The whole world has watched us. Poorer countries are unable to wage a face-to-face counterstrike against us. But citizens in these countries are learning how to strike back using terrorism. Wright did not justify terrorism. He pointed out that you cant bomb people and support dictators who oppress others, and not expect to cause a lot of anger. And when we anger people decade-after-decade, eventually they are going to figure out ways to strike back. Wright is correct when he says Americas chickens are coming home to roost.

Drosselmeier · May 21, 2008, 6:10pm

I understand this. I think Wright would respond that he never intended to talk about you personally, that he does not even know you. He would perhaps say he condemns America’s many racists, and its government for its hypocrisy and warmongering. Rather than say ‘God Bless America’ we should say ‘God Damn America’ for committing such sin and then hiding behind emptyheaded patriotism as a defense. I agree with Wright, though I reject his lunatic style and lack of sophistication.

-I must go now

parent2noles · May 21, 2008, 9:40pm

No, Hunt. I think my remarks fair. Controversial, perhaps, but fair. I think you believe this too, judging from your response.

I appreciate Dross’ passionate analysis of some of the issues, but I do not agree with many of his assessments. It is true that the United States and much of the world, for that matter, has repulsive elements of racism still working. At least in the U.S. we have been alerted to the issue and have been actively working on improvements for decades. Judging from Dross’ use of British spellings, he may have more of a problem with racism in the island kingdom than here in the U.S., if what I hear from my English and European friends is at all true.

Be that as it may, history cannot be undone - but we can change today and plan for tomorrow.

I do think Senator and Mrs. Obama have more than explaining to do for years of action associated with the black nationalism of Reverend Wright and his ilk. Dr. King, to the best of my knowledge, never preached such sermons despite being actively attacked by white racist elements in society and government. I hold the Reverend King as the example to follow in terms of addressing racial relations in the U.S. I wish Senator Obama did as well, but instead he chose to follow Rev. Wright and only established a broader perspective when campaigning for high office.

I want our leaders to be above such issues. I am disappointed in Senator and Mrs. Obama for what they have said publicly and what they have done in private. Their initial statements spoke volumes about their thoughts.

kluge · May 21, 2008, 10:48pm

P2N, sorry, but I can’t agree with your self-appraisal. Only a comfortable white person with an innate conviction of moral superiority could express the casual double standard you unwittingly display towards Obama while no doubt sincerely feeling that he was being “fair.” You’ve never taken me up on my repeated requests for white people volunteering that they’ve never sat by silently in the face of racially offensive comments from fellow whites, so I’m guessing you don’t qualify for he “Do as I do” category. But you’re still sanctimoniously “disappointed” in Obama for not quitting his church in the face of occasional goofy comments by a pastor. There’s a word for that: hypocrisy.

Your willingness to accept gross distortions of what the Obama’s have said as “proof” of their inner lack of adequacy, coupled with your own tone-deaf attitude towards race relations in America - to the point that you couldn’t even “hear” what Drosselmeier was trying to tell you - “speaks volumes” about why a real living black person can never meet your standards. At least you’ll get plenty of exercise moving the goalposts. :)

barrons · May 21, 2008, 10:55pm

Virtually as many if not more Germans were killed in the many bombings during WWII. Heard of a little town called Dresden?? Berlin?? The only reason they did not Nuke them was that they did not have to. Germany quit first.

Drosselmeier · May 22, 2008, 12:26am

I think the claim of ‘changing today and planning for tomorrow’ is just a meaningless platitude when we are obviously unwilling to acknowledge yesterday’s causes of the problems. And simply saying ‘we had bad things back then’ is not an acknowledgement. The problems that provoked Wright and many black clergymen are not getting better. They are worsening. There was a time, for example, when the communities of poor blacks were not being ravished by crack. While the ministers had to deal with other issues, crack was not one of them. America allowed it, and now combined with many other pressures, including its War on Drugs, the dissolution of the black family is worse than it has ever been. That is what Wright decries, albeit in a way that I do not personally encourage. He speaks in ways common to very many black ministers. Essentially, he is circling the wagons against a country that is at war with some of its citizens, and he is speaking out against its crimes. One might sit in his church for an entire lifetime hearing his sermons and not come away thinking of them as being in the least bit racist. I suspect this is exactly Obama’s perspective on it, and that it did not occur to him how politically damaging the sermons were until they were taken out of their context and played piecemeal on Youtube.

MLK existed in a different time, and he was a different sort of leader, inappropriate for Wright’s time and church. Despite his six years as a pastor in Alabama, MLK was not really a shepherd of people in the same way Wright was. He was essentially an itinerant advocate, petitioning white government on behalf of blacks. The civil rights for which MLK petitioned are now on the books. Ministers like Wright, on the other hand, aim to protect their church and decry the failure of the government to act honorably. Wright shepherded his church for nearly forty years, witnessing the destruction that American policies wrought on specific families in his congregation. He spoke to warn and encourage his members and to shame America into holding up its responsibilities, not to appeal to whites for civil rights. In the course of his work at the church, he has undoubtedly preached hundreds of sermons wherein he warned blacks against the government and expressed legitimate grievances against America’s racism, past and present. I do not think it reasonable to compare him to King, and then demand black ministers function as King did. Were black ministers today to adopt King’s posture, there would arguably be a much worse mess in the black community than we have currently. I do not advocate hatred or bitterness, and I do not think Wright does either. I think warning blacks against unquestioning jingoism, and taking America to task for its hypocrisy is entirely reasonable.

[Listening</a> to this](<a href=“Angry Blog is under construction”>Angry Blog is under construction), few would claim it outlandish at all. But many whites only heard a snippet, and tried to hang Obama with it. I think these people are all being dishonest.

I think those who tend still to want Obama to “explain himself” aren’t interested in any explanation at all. They aren’t open-minded people with sincere questions, but are Obama’s enemies, arch-enemies, who cannot stand to see the man meet with political success. They want “explanations” because they want Wright to remain a damaging issue for Obama. These people have never had any intention to vote for him at all. They know Obama is no racist, and that he loves America. They are not even the least bit open to Obama’s candidacy. I suppose Obama will simply move on unless the Wright controversy comes up again. If it should come up, he would be the smart deal with it again. But I do not think the Obamas have anymore explaining to do, especially to people who are so quick to condemn him for something someone else has said. If Obama’s claim of having never believed Wright’s beliefs, and if his having publicly rejected Wright’s statements and denounced Wright himself are not enough for such people, then it is obvious that there is nothing else he can possibly say to win these people. They are just lying. They know they are lying, and decent men hearing them also know they are lying (nodding to Kluge).

TerpDad · May 22, 2008, 3:11am

Apparently, the voters in the Ohio Valley region are not convinced that the Obama’s claim to be objective to Rev. Wright sermons . Especially, after subjecting themselves to his hateful dribble for twenty years. Logically, it’s unacceptable and hard to swallow! Maybe their just being bitter!

parent2noles · May 22, 2008, 3:12am

The standard I am applying to Senator Obama is one of trying to be colorblind. I am looking at the Senator and assuming he is white (or of the majority), and what would his actions and statements be perceived as in such a state. As such, I hope to ensure that race plays no role in rendering political judgments on his candidacy. * …judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin…* I look at the Republican McCain the same way. I have written before on this board that I hoped Senator Obama would be a balm for the country in terms of racial relations, but that was before the Wright eruption and the statements of Mrs. Obama, each with an erosive effect on my hopes. I knew his politics were very much left, but I could ignore that aspect of his candidacy for the higher good of the symbol he would present as a successful African American president.

If we could project this fanciful complexion condition, I think he and Mrs. Obama would be criticized for a form of nationalism that would make political life difficult. The reason is I give him no pass to be out of the mainstream for any reason. I am not overlooking nationalistic statements he may be sympathetic to or perhaps even embrace, out of a sense of obligation or sympathy to the historic burdens of African Americans.

I note that no one has decided to air my statements that Senator Obama has made no effort to work across the aisle…which I suggest is essential to effective government. Of course, if one believes the government exists merely to afflict a particular race, maybe this consideration won’t matter.

It seems you would have me overlook such defects in his candidacy out of sympathy to the black condition (your interpretations of this situation or Bill Cosby’s?) or maybe to a more calculating, less inflammatory affection for things on the political left.

Be that as it may, kluge, you know it is unnecessary to use personal attacks when we disagree. It just sets the wrong tone. The children may hear and become upset. ;)

Mr_Payne · May 22, 2008, 3:31am

Obama’s goal is to win. The democratic party’s goal is to win. I have no doubt that they will be pulling out all the stops. The Republicans certainly will be.

parent2noles · May 22, 2008, 3:40am

^That is fine. That is politics. It is a way of establishing priorities and resolving conflicts short of going to war.

We are very successful at politics in America. :)

spideygirl · May 22, 2008, 4:32am

KLUGE: “Only a comfortable white person with an innate conviction of moral superiority could express the casual double standard you unwittingly display…”

Let’s change one word and see how it looks:

“Only a comfortable black person with an innate conviction of moral superiority could express the casual double standard you unwittingly display…”

Does that provide some clarity? That is a very racist remark.

KLUGE: “in the face of occasional goofy comments by a pastor”

Minimizing racism and hate speech doesn’t benefit any of us. As much as Obama fans may try to spin his dubious associations, it’s just not going to work when it comes to Wright and Ayers.

Mudder_s_Mudder · May 22, 2008, 9:21am

Google is your friend. Try it; you’ll like it.
[.:</a> United States Senator Tom Coburn :: Press Room :.](<a href=“http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=8dcb8c35-802a-23ad-4d37-9c8ea9c43460].:”>http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=8dcb8c35-802a-23ad-4d37-9c8ea9c43460)

and

[Richard</a> G. Lugar, United States Senator for Indiana - Press Releases](<a href=“http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=278019]Richard”>http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=278019)

Your next assignment, should you choose to accept it, will be to google “barack obama chuck hagel”.

What is “mainstream”? What is a “mainstream” white church? Frankly, I’m pretty horrified by a lot of the rhetoric coming out of some of the churches white America apparently considers mainstream, judging by the lack of outcry by whites (compared to the overwhelmingly white outcry against Wright). That a Republican presidential candidate actively courts one of these white pastors, whose views on American foreign policy tied to biblical prophesy I hope are not “mainstream” but which dovetail with that candidate’s stated foreign policy objectives in the Middle East, horrifies me. That said candidate has not actively repudiated and distanced himself specifically from said pastor’s views of biblical prophesy horrifies me. That some of these white “mainstream” pastors have had the ear and direct access to the current President (google “Haggard Bush weekly conference call”) horrifies me. That the Republican party, as it is today, counts followers of some of these white radical pastors as part of its base of bloc voters, to be assiduously courted and pandered to, horrifies me. That some of these same so-called “Christians” can’t seem to decide which deserving folks belong on the highway to heaven with them (google “Hagee Rapture Israel Jews”) horrifies me. I can recognize, however, that there are millions of white Christians who sit in their pews week after week and year after year, decade after decade, and embrace a message of Christian redemption and love while sifting out the nutty call to arms. I can even accept that these Christians derive grace from good works in such a church.

Here’s an interesting opinion piece on what constitutes “mainstream” religious thought in America:
“As an evangelical Christian theologian, I must clarify that Mormonism is in no way consistent with orthodox Christianity. It borrows Christian themes and texts, but its most basic beliefs directly contradict the central teachings of Christianity.”
[R</a>. Albert Mohler Jr.: Evangelicals, Mormons on Same Side of Cultural Divide - On Faith at washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/r_albert_mohler_jr/2007/05/is_mormonism_in_the_mainstream.html]R”>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/r_albert_mohler_jr/2007/05/is_mormonism_in_the_mainstream.html)

Finally, I would like to posit that colorblindness, while a desirable goal, cannot absolutely be applied to black churches and white churches equally outside of historical context in this country. The black churches in a segregated society served a social function for black people that, with perhaps few exceptions, white people in general can only try to understand. The closest exception I can think of is the function that majority white Catholic churches or Jewish synagogues performed for those minority populations during the early 20th century in geographic strongholds of the Klan, like Texas, when the state, the law, turned a blind eye. Still, it is an inexact comparison. White Catholics and Jews could leave and seek refuge elsewhere. Is it really such a stretch to understand what sentiment MLK was speaking to when he quoted that old Negro spiritual: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we are free at last!” Is that the “nationalism” you mean?

Here’s John McCain on Hagee:
"I am very proud of Pastor John Hagees spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel, McCain said, but repeated again that in accepting the pastors backing does not mean he agrees with everything Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues.
[McCain</a> defends Hagee endorsement despite differences FOX Embeds FOXNews.com](<a href=“http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/29/mccain-defends-hagee-endorsement-despite-differences/]McCain”>http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/29/mccain-defends-hagee-endorsement-despite-differences/)

Doesn’t sound that different to me from Obama’s repudiation of Rev. Wright. But I still can’t tell if McCain agrees with Hagee about the Rapture.

kluge · May 22, 2008, 11:15am

P2N, there’s a famous quote from Anatole France:

Don’t you suppose that a person’s perception of that comment woul depend on whether or not they’ve ever been poor? What I’m trying to suggest to you is that it’s easy for you to insist that everyone acknowledge the “majestic equality” of American life, and to demand that everyone else do so too. You might feel differently if you had ever been on the sticky end of the “equality” stick - but you never have been.

Hunt · May 22, 2008, 11:23am

The situation with Wright is complicated, and it does depend, in my view, on how often Wright aired extreme views, and how much they affected what the church actually did. Since there is no hint and never has been that Obama shares any of these nutty views, I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, just as I think it unlikely that McCain thinks the Catholic Church is the Great Whore of Bablyon. But I think Obama does have to take his lumps over this, and has to explain himself.

The situation with Michelle Obama’s statement about being really proud of America for the first time is different. It is lifting one statement out of context to try to smear somebody’s patriotism, when you know that she certainly didn’t mean to say that she hated America. It’s very much like claims that McCain “wants” to be in Iraq for 100 years. I really hate this kind of “gotcha” claims based on isolated statements, especially by a spouse who isn’t even a politician. So to refer to Michelle Obama’s “disdain” for “things American” is grossly unfair, in my opinion.

zoosermom · May 22, 2008, 11:52am

“Here’s an interesting opinion piece on what constitutes “mainstream” religious thought in America:”

That would be your opinion of what constitutes a mainstream Christian, what we do and what we believe. I AM a mainstream Christian (see the National Council of Churches) and not an evangelical. The evangelical movement is large and important, but it is not the mainstream of Christianity. Catholics are Christian and pretty mainstream, too.

ag54 · May 22, 2008, 11:55am

“Why hasn’t anyone noticed that Obama is running against President Bush?”

Because he’s not, and whoever thougth he was is an idiot.

Hunt · May 22, 2008, 12:21pm

Of course Obama is running against Bush. That’s what he should be doing, in my opinion, if he wants to win.

poetsheart · May 22, 2008, 12:55pm

Did any of you bother yourselves to listen to the video clip that Drosselmeier linked in post #47? Tell me: What was the overarching theme of that section of sermon? Where was the “racism”? In light of the commonly accepted dictionary definition of racism, what exactly was racist about this sermon?

From Dictionary.com:
**rac·ism Audio Help /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.**

ilsa_belter · May 22, 2008, 12:59pm

Was Obama ever called upon to explain his “typical white person” comment?

Imagine if Mitt Romney, for example, referred to an African-American as a “typical black person.” He would have been forced out of the race the next day.

Why hasn't anyone noticed Obama is running against President Bush?

CONNECT WITH US