ROLLING STONE Article Obama did not find offensive !

Tonight we heard about senator Obama once again speaking to REV WRIGHT issue, saying he never heard the specific comments AKA RACISTS / ANTI AMERICAN on tapes or comments which were that incendiary - implying THAT' S WHY! he did not come out and disavow his pastor a year ago.

He specifically mentioned in tonight's debate about a Rolling Stone article he read last year as a introduction to some of  REV Wright's hate speech and that was the only extent of his knowledge about any comments his pastor made.

After reading that article Barack still kept his pastor on his campaign.  

Obama has always left us with the notion that while he heard " SOME""OTHER" comments he never heard the horriable ones like on the tape. You be the judge if rolling stone articles citing of specific comments should have made obama drop his pastor ASAP!

NOW HERE IS THE ARTICLE! Please tell me what part of the language he learned within this article a year ago was not grounds for walking away from the church or kicking his pastor off his team.

The Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Barack Obama attends in Chicago, is at once vast and unprepossessing, a big structure a couple of blocks from the projects, in the long open sore of a ghetto on the city's far South Side. The church is a leftover vision from the Sixties of what a black nationalist future might look like. There's the testifying fervor of the black church, the Afrocentric Bible readings, even the odd dashiki. And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial institution, with his own radio shows and guest preaching gigs across the country. Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite ten essential facts about the United States. "Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he intones. "Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!" There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. "We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SHIT!"

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/sto ry/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_root s_of_barack_obama/print

Tags: Debate, obama (all tags)

Comments

49 Comments

Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

Yet, of course, they were not the comments that caused the uproar. Thanks for finding another reason to publish a guilt by association diary on MyDD.

by amiches 2008-04-16 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you, because I don't agree with everything my clergyman believes and I'm sure you don't either. But if I were running for office, he'd be on my campaign in a heartbeat.

Sorry this disappoints you. Go back to Free Republic if you'd like more of an echo chamber.

by amiches 2008-04-16 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

And what was incorrect in Wright's remarks, by the way?

by politicsmatters 2008-04-16 07:03PM | 0 recs
You don't get it

its not what you or I think about Wright's remarks- it what America will think when this... association is played over and over and over again in a hypothetical general election.

by linc 2008-04-16 07:19PM | 0 recs
Nice hand wringing

But what about the children!!!11!???

Leave the "I'm concerned about what americans will think" to the professional nancyboy handwringers who do that, so badly, for a living.

Speak your own truth for your own self.

by Quarterbackjoe 2008-04-16 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

Isnt it  a fact that a government agency was involved in the peddling of drugs in certain neighborhoods in California. There were a serious of articles either in Sanjose or mercury whatever newspaper.

Obama was referring probably to the HIV stuff.

by Pravin 2008-04-16 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

And let's not forget the Tuskegee experiments.

by psychodrew 2008-04-16 07:40PM | 0 recs
The Aleuts have a bone to pick...

...about being radiation experiments.

What is good about America - what is great about America - is that we can talk about these things.

Try having an open conversation about Nanjing in Japan, about Tianamen in China, about the Aral Sea in Russia...

It is not that America is a terrible place because we have done terrible things - this is not a unique trait among nations - it is that America is an amazingly wonderful place because we do not hide behind our own rhetoric.

Indeed, God Damn America for doing bad things, but even moreso God Bless America for leading the world in Self Honesty.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-04-17 07:50AM | 0 recs
Oh good grief

This is the silliest debate ever. The comments that were looped over and over were the "god damn America" comments.

by Zoey 2008-04-16 07:49PM | 0 recs
You don't understand.

I think it would be really difficult to understand Rev. Wright's anger if you have never been the target of government approved or sponsored discrimination.  Until you have been treated like 2/3 person, you really won't understand.

Rev. Wright is not racist and he is not anti-American, and there is a degree of truth to a lot of his controversial statements, even if they were out of line.  Take a look at Obama's speech on race relations.  Maybe you'll understand this a little bit better.  If you don't want to do that, read the diary I wrote on it.  Maybe you'll understand this a little bit better.

by psychodrew 2008-04-16 08:12PM | 0 recs
It's an honor to Mojo a Clinton supporter

...and this from an Obama supporter! ;~)

AltJay, FleaFlicker...  these folks cannot be seriously Democratic (or Republican, for that matter) and it's hard to believe they even support basic American ideals.

This whole election cycle is, to me, an encouraging sign of the strength of this country.  I've lived in Canada (off and on) half my life.  Travelled a decent chunk of the rest of the world, and talked (some would say too much ;) to thousands of people from all walks and all geographies.

Free Speech, Individual Rights and Responsibilities - all of these would be pipe-dreams if people were as stupid and gullible as those like AJ would have us believe.

But we aren't.

For the first time in all of history, millions of people are directly involved in the debate about world leadership.  For the first time ever in human history there is more information and opinion being put forth by individuals than by Powers (Monarchies, industrial powers, dictators...) - and It Is Good.

People aren't stupid.  

I have had the chance to try to figure out why people support those I oppose, and even some of those foaming at the mouth in honest opposition (I reserve a tiny sliver of possibility that even AJ is one...) often climb down to have informative discussions quite frequently.

I've directly debated with white supremacists and their opposites, Earth Firsters and Pave the Earthers, communists and libertarians.  It's amazing what happens when people actually speak to each other - moderation and understanding materialize (and ideological trolls are exposed for what they are).

Thanks, psychodrew!  I may hope your candidate loses, but I hope you win. :~)

-cheers!

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-04-17 07:20AM | 0 recs
ROLLING STONE article cited
My curiosity really wants me to find out why Obama cancelled Wrights appearance at his announcement for president a year ago.  Obama said that there was another issue that prompted that and that it had nothing to do with the preaching style of the Reverand.  Anyone else dying to know the other issue.  If listening to
Wright for 20 years didn't prompt Obama to cancel his appearance, then what in the world did?
by Scotch 2008-04-16 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

I agree with Wright completely, to be quite honest.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 06:55PM | 0 recs
thats fine- we are democrats

we allow differing points of view.  However, if you believe this association makes Obama at all electable in America- then you have had a little too much hope these last couple of months.  

by linc 2008-04-16 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: thats fine- we are democrats

MLK has said similarly scathing things. Would associating with him made someone unelectable?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-16 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

As do I but I ahve taken the time to listen to his sermons

by Ida B 2008-04-16 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

these problems that wright rants about seem  insurmountable even for obama!!!

by tofriends 2008-04-16 07:01PM | 0 recs
But you're not running for President

So believe Wright's statements, if you wish.  But when you're trying to be the leader of the U.S. (that stands for "united states" by the way) you better not be sitting in a pew where hate speech is being spewed.  Because you know what?  Bigotry is not healthy to this country, and a President has to set the tone.  Setting the tone for our country is by taking a stand against hate speech.  No matter to whom that hate speech is addressed.

by izarradar 2008-04-16 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack
snore...
by jwolf 2008-04-16 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

We did test radiation on our own people. Those folks won HUGE judgments from the US govt.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-16 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

Go back to Stormfront, you right wing racist troll. You just outed yourself.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

Troll, and a shitty one at that. Educate yourself and get the hell off this site.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

He was banned at DKos after one or two diaries. It appears he's on the fast track here, too. I've read, I think, that he is a presence at Hilaryis44.

by Quarterbackjoe 2008-04-16 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

Really? I wonder which one. That site is beyond the pale. Check out hillaryis44.blogspot.com for some interesting background on some of their posters.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack

Racism was how this country was founded. You don't remember slavery?

You've never heard of the School of the Americas? Or the Bush Administration approving of waterboarding torture?

You've never heard of the Tuskegee Experiments?

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

Caps...inflammatory rhetoric...absence of logic...

Yep, must be a Freeper.

by rfahey22 2008-04-16 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

What are you, a ten year old neo-Nazi or something? Your spelling is almost as atrocious as your thought process. Get your racist bigoted hateful lying uneducated ass back to Stormfront.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

You have no knowledge of history about this country, and your "love" is equivalent to jingoism. Your racism is loud and clear in your comments to others in this diary, beginning with the extremely racist and ignorant black panther comment. (The Black Panthers were an important force for black communities in the 60s and 70s and promoted youth outreach and community organization to improve the lives of impoverished black citizens, not that you'd care.) The fact you use it as a derogatory term clearly shows exactly how closed minded and ignorant you are, and that doesn't fly on a Democratic website.

There's enough hate-filled websites like Stormfront that would welcome you with open arms. Don't expect it here. Piss off.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

What about the Black Panther party is an insult to you? Oh wait let me guess, its the "black" part.

Educate yourself, if you wish, although I'm sure you don't care to remove your self-imposed worldview. You won't get anyone reinforcing your ridiculous hateful beliefs here.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

By the way, my mother knew and was friends with many members of the Black Panther party in NYC in the mid 70's. They helped her find housing and looked out for her while she lived in what was then the most dangerous part of Spanish Harlem. And she's white.

Did I just blow your horrible little mind?

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

Oh, I forgot another thing. I'm a race traitor. That's right, I date people of different ethnicities than my own, including black men.

The only time I've ever heard the kind of ignorant, hateful garbage spill from someone's mouth is when they're a complete racist hiding behind whatever excuse they can come up with to justify it. You prove Reverend Wright more correct than you know.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

See, the problem is that your posts are so incoherent that it's actually hard to figure out what the hell it is you're trying to say.  Is it anti-American to be critical of this country?  Because, you know, we have a) trained killers (we have and continue to train armies and ship arms throughout the world); b) performed radioactive tests on humans (at Los Alamos, in the 1950s); and c) in fact, slavery was written into our Constitution and racism has had a long and ugly history even after the Civil War.  So, no, I don't have a problem when someone says that this country has done some awful things, because it has.  You can't build a better country if you're completely ignorant of its history (as you seem to be).

by rfahey22 2008-04-16 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

You certainly profess it yourself with your comments. You're proving the Reverend absolutely correct, and you don't even see the irony.

The time of bigots and ignorant hatemongers like yourself is over. Don't spill your uneducated vitrol in this site.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

Well said.  Some folks simply think that an acknowledgment that the USA isn't pefect, and in fact has plenty of warts, means you aren't patriotic.  I didn't realize those folks posted on progressive web sites, but this truly is an odd primary.  sigh.  

by HSTruman 2008-04-16 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

There's not one thing Reverend Wright said that was untrue, and you've been unable to provide any proof to the contrary. Numerous other posters here have provided evidence and links to exactly what he's talking about.

I have a few ideas why you're called "neo Nazi".

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 07:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

"You guys"? "We're called neo Nazis"? I have a very, very, very hard time believing you're a Democrat.

You're pathetic. Take it to Stormfront.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

To paraphrase Tracy Morgan, let me explain the recent uproar about Senator Obama and race.  Try and pay attention, because it's very complicated.  We live in a racist country.  The end.  

Seriously buddy, the fact that you think its out of bounds to recognize that racism is alive and well in 2008 means you have no credibility in my book.  

by HSTruman 2008-04-16 07:51PM | 0 recs
You. Don't. Get. It.

1/  There is nothing more American than criticizing America.  Go to China and try criticizing China, and you will begin to see what I mean.

2/   Don't know if you are a neo-Nazi or not, but if you were I would defend your right to be one, and debate every point you put forth to justify it.  Lots of experience at that sort of thing, happy to shoot you down, but I'd never shut you up.

3/  You obviously have taken the 10-second view of Rev. Wright.  Senator Clinton's pastor has spoken out in defense of him, as have most of the Christian church in America. I've watched the video of the whole sermon (a challenge for a non-theist like me, but context counts) and I have no problem with it.

I'll post a separate comment about the noun "racist" and how useless it is.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-04-16 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article

What I "profess to"?  What does that even mean?  

Sermons often have words to the effect of "We want/desire/believe in X more than we do in God."  Usually that X is money or worldly possessions.  That phrasing is not some condemnation of America, but the idea that people have fallen away from true spiritual teachings because of worldly concerns.  The point is for people to abandon the former (here, hatred for fellow human beings) and embrace the latter (here, Christianity).  Seriously, get some reading skillz.  

by rfahey22 2008-04-16 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: ROLLING STONE

Keep lobbing insults. They'll look fantastic when the mods review the kind of uneducated jingoistic revisionist bullshit you're spewing in here. Pure freeper. Go shill your racist ignorance someplace else. No one here wants it.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: ROLLING STONE

Please continue. I know you want to ask me if I'm white, you've already questioned my citizenship. Hm, I wonder why they do call you "neo Nazi", you revisionist, reverse-racism-crying jingoistic kneejerking troll.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: ROLLING STONE Article Obama did not find offen

Hillary's strategist was involved in Union Busting, and has been engaged to cover up and manipulate government policy all over the world around Human Rights violations: she is profiting from this! personally and politically.

This gets no news coverage because she and McCain are both in bed with PENN as "corporate shill candidate".

Don't be stupid Democrats.  If you vote for either of these two, we won't have any Democracy left.

Tonights hit job on Obama was as good an example of how the corporate media is arrayed against him and grossly gives Clinton a pass as I've ever seen.

Not ONE QUESTION about her involvement with the same firm as McCain or Penn's involvement with Human Rights abuses all over the globe.

Where are the Democratic values so many of you claim to posess?

by URKnot 2008-04-16 07:48PM | 0 recs
What's wrong with those comments?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-16 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: ROLLING STONE

Here's a fun little threshold question for you.  Does racism still exist in this country?  If so, who has the worst of that deal?  Let me give you a hint -- it's still easier to be white.  

by HSTruman 2008-04-16 07:53PM | 0 recs
I can't believe this!

Are we still talking about this?  Can't we please just LET IT GO!?  This isn't good for Hillary, Barack or any of us.

I am no fan of Obama, and I think he has been inconsistent in explaining what he knew and when he knew it.

BUT, Rev. Wright's anger, if inappropriately expressed is justified.  I really think that this is something that is difficult for a lot of Americans to understand.  For a lot of God-fearing, patriotic Americans, this is NOT the land of the freedom and equality and equal opportunity.  I love America, just as Rev. Wright does--let's remember that he served his country honorably in Vietnam--but sometimes I just can't bear hearing the land of the free, home of the brave bullshit.  BECAUSE IT'S FREAKING BULLSHIT!!!!  I have, on more than one occasion, said things a lot worse than God Damn America.  A lot worse.  It's not because I don't love America.  It's not because I'm not patriotic.  It's because it's bullshit.  As a gay man, I feel like I am 2/3 person and I am expected to just ACCEPT it.  Sometimes, it is just too much and my anger is expressed in ways that would make most straight, white people very uncomfortable.

Until the Rev. Wright clips appeared, I thought I was crazy because I was angry sometimes.  But it turns out that I'm not.  Rev. Wright is good American who expressed his anger in a manner and setting that was not appropriate.  I have a lot of problems with Barack Obama, and he did not receive my vote on Super Tuesday, but I don't for one second believe that he shares the sentiments expressed by Rev. Wright.

Can't we just let this go?

by psychodrew 2008-04-16 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe this!

Thank you for a great comment. I shudder to think what ATLJay thinks of the gay community, if this is what he thinks of the black community.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't believe this!

Perhaps its a good thing that so few people really understand the context of Rev. Wright's comments.  After months of criticizing Obama, it was strange to find myself passionately defending his relationship with Rev. Wright to so many of my skeptical friends and colleagues.

by psychodrew 2008-04-16 08:37PM | 0 recs
Beautifully said, psychodrew.

It was worth it to slog through the whole pie-fight upthread, just to read this one post.  Thank you.

Prog

by Progressive Witness 2008-04-17 06:00AM | 0 recs
The R Word

The word "racist" has been used a lot of late.  Often by others, sometimes by those of us.

I would just like to say a few words about that - and other - nouns.

In German there is no word for "Heroin Addict" - the best it can be translated is "Heroin Seeky".

I like this way of looking at people.  Someone is not an Object/Noun ("Addict", "Racist", ...), they are a Person with an Adjective modifying them ("tending to seek a drug", "having a behavior").

The whole disturbing trend of using the "r-word" is not much better than the other-consonant-word.  When you do that you objectify the person - you turn them into a noun that identifies them as something other than a person.

I remember a good Canadian friend telling me, when I was in my 20s and had just moved down to South Carolina from Toronto, that she was a "bigot bigot" (iow - "intolerant of intolerants").  I had a desire to agree with her - so I did, out loud - but I was beginning to learn that the "bigots" that I had expected to meet in SC were usually people who I got to know and like before I discovered their "bigotry".  Even then I was having a hard time reconciling my view of these nouns called "bigots" and the people I was getting to know and appreciate in their complexities.

Words matter.

"person" is the noun.  Other words describing a person need to be adjectives.  People can often choose to change their adjectives.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-04-17 07:34AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------