According to a new poll by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion, 82% knew about the controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s speech about race in America. Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, 52% said it made them less likely to vote for him. Moreover, 56% of blacks said the speech made them less likely to vote for him.
So Obama is bringing Americans together in a dislike of his speech, though I suspect that shared dislike does not represent much bridging of racial differences. Obama gave a speech focusing on race as a way to distract from the issue of religion, but the focus on race does not seem to have played well with blacks or non-blacks.
Update: Insta-lanched… and Farked!
[…] Karl was promising another new angle in the comments. Here you go. Chris Matthews will be inconsolable. Most startling is that blacks by 56% to 31% said the speech […]
[…] Amazing. Apparently the Messiah’s race speech didn’t do the magic the media made it out to. According to the latest Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion poll, 82% of voters know about the controversy surrounding Obama with regards to Wright. But as Karl notes: Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, 52% said it made them less likely to vote for him. Moreover, 56% of blacks said the speech made them less likely to vote for him. […]
@ link:
Sure.
Or 56 may approximate the percentage of black respondents who disdain Wrightology and didn’t appreciate Obama’s rhetorical excommunication of them from “the black community” — and maybe even recognize the blinding whiteness of the perspective that would lead him to do so.
We can all make of that number whatever we like. But “Brother’s just too real for the Toms, man” doesn’t leap to mind.
Well there you have it. Keep the focus on race, and you guys win the white house. Good luck. May the raciest racialer lose the raceorama. LOL.
He’s done made a spectacle of himself. They hate that. A lot really why black peoples are so homophobic is not that they for real are all that judgey, it comes more from a don’t we have enough shit to deal with without the brother being all gay kind of place. That’s not my insight, I learned that in a class called Issues Of Identity In The African-American Experience in liberal arts college. It might could be true to some extent. But still, I can see how they might just wish he’d shut the hell up… he’s not exactly working with a surplus of authentic black authoritah I don’t think.
Lisa as a white male conservative who disagrees with affirmative action and the redistribution of wealth what can I do to not be considered a racist?
I think Lisa may have figured out that I’m looking at this from a differnt angle than she first thought.
Lisa, why do you hate white people?
I thought the post-racial messiah said it was a good thing to have a candid discussion on race. Apparently Lisa disagrees and would rather keep these issues somewhere toward the back of the bus.
Typical whitey that she is.
Frankly, I feel like we may have dodged another Aaron Burr.
Livefromfortlivingroom: Why do you call yourself a racist? I haven’t called you that. Sounds like you have some guilt issues that have nothing to do with me. There are lots of people against affirmative action for a variety of reasons. They are not automatically deemed racist (not by me). Could you point to a post that indicates that I think you are a racist due to your views on affirmative action?
Why do I hate white people? Refresh my memory, tell me where I even HINTED that I dislike white people. Then we will continue this discussion.
ThomasD, try to practice your reading comprehension skills and then get back to me ok? Thanks for playing.
Well Obama mentioned that Reagan won on a platform of racism, so I was just guessing you agree with him.
Well Lisa, your comment was that it’s all about race, so maybe it’s you that might want to do some clarifying.
7 & 12: It is usually whitey’s like Perfessor Caric and timmy that scream racist when you question affirmative action. I have noted a fair number of Black folk agree that it might not be all that.
Lisa – “me me I I me me I I me I me I me me I I me me I I me me I I me I me I me me I I me me I I me me I I me I me I me me I I me me I I me me I I me I me I me me I I me me I I me me I I me I me I me me I I me me I I me me I I me I me I me me I I”
Enoch_Root on behalf of several members of the PW community – “fine, Lisa… you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you!”
There. Are you satisfied yet? My guess: no.
Victor: Let me diagram it for you since you have such a problem putting strings of logic together: The lovely Karl posted some data suggesting that a majority of the electorate, black and white are quite turned off by this story and LESS likely to vote for Barack Obama as a result. The suggestion was that the more Senator Obama talks about race, the less likely people will be to vote for him. My response was to suggest that now you, the GOP have a great strategy, if that interpretation of the data presented is correct: Keep the conversation on race, and your party will win.
Try reading. It is very effective.
BMoe: My generation does not feel they need affirmative action. I grew up with many privileges, thanks to my parents hard work. I received a fine education that prepared me for an excellent university. I enjoy my career and do quite well for myself financially. Most of my peers have had similar life experiences. We realize that at one point, it was necessary to “kick the doors of opportunity open”. But they are open now. I am not saying that there are not barriers for people who have different economic backgrounds, but affirmative action is not the best way to address those barriers. So there. Ha, you were all ready for a fight with a crazy female version of Al Sharpton, weren’t you. Sorry. Not this time.
Obama never said anything about a platform of racism. It was a campaign strategy that worked quite well. He was addressing the “southern strategy” which Ken Mehlman apologized for a while back:
“Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican Chairman to tell you we were wrong.” Ken Mehlman, the then RNC chair.
Enoch, don’t hate. Congratulate.
This, by the way is a really fantastic speech. It is really unfortunate that this was not covered more widely. http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=a02e599e-cabb-4261-b2aa-90b309e891ba
“Today, as Chairman of the Republican Party, I want to speak to you from the heart and share a message that I deliver everywhere I go: no matter how many elections Republicans win, no matter how many times we hold the White House, no matter how many seats in Congress, how many governor’s mansions, how many state legislatures we win, the party of Lincoln will not be whole again until more African Americans come back home.” — Ken Mehlman
That was particularly lovely.
Enoch, you are not nice. What is your major malfunction?
Comment by Lisa on 3/21 @ 5:29 pm #
Well there you have it. Keep the focus on race, and you guys win the white house. Good luck. May the raciest racialer lose the raceorama. LOL.
*******************
It seems clear to me that your original post at comment 5 was criticizing Republicans for keeping the focus on race.
You have bobbed and weaved in comments 12, 17, 18.
The fact of the matter is that all the wounds that Obama suffered since Tuesday are self inflicted.
As I commented at
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/20/obama-trashing-his-grandmother-again/
The reality is that Obama is trying to live a double life. To white liberals he is the post racial messiah. The purpose of the speech on Monday was to confirm to white liberal Democrats that Obama has moved beyond racism. His continuing attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ is to prove to black America that Rev. Wright is still his mentor and Obama believes the hate that Rev. Wright preaches.
Lisa,
My reading comprehension is just fine. Perhaps you’d like to parse yourself though,
Are you self-marginalizing or merely self-refuting?
Also, while you’re at it; is it the height of irony to take yourself too seriously?
Lisa, my entire point is that you are so consumed with race that you can’t even see that this issue is about judgment.
Do you really think those Black voters in the story are disapproving of Obama more now because they just realized he was Black??? Give me a break!
This story is all about judgment, despite your lecturing.
SLP: Yes it was critical, I never tried to say it wasn’t. What the fuck are you talking about?
Of course he is playing both sides of the issue. A successful politician does that. McCain will be a centrist who repudiates the hatefulness of the religious right when he is in New York, and a fire and brimstone conservative when he is in South Carolina. And does that well, that is why he beat all the other loser candidates for the nomination. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton do the same, tailoring their messages to who they are talking to which is why they are the frontrunners. Is this something that is shocking to you?
McCain is a good politician. And also he’s not a Marxist that worships the hatey God. That’s a big plus.
Annihilation, I mean extinction, of the human species. Obama is Baltar. We just dont understand why we must rise and fight as brothers in the union and better ourselves, the ignorant are deserving of punishment for not seeing what is plane before them. He can show us the way to our future. The cylons are right and we must lay down in the dust, unless he’s in charge.
Say you believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ha, you were all ready for a fight with a crazy female version of Al Sharpton, weren’t you.
No. I was trying to take your side by pointing out it that in my experience it is mostly white folk that go all nutty about affirmative action.
Victor, I am not sure how to interpret that data. But what Karl is suggesting is that the numbers say EVERYONE is less likely to vote for Senator Obama as the race becomes more about race. I am not sure why my response to the original post seemed so unclear. But apparently it was not. I apologize. I thought you were being deliberately thick.
I was being snarkserious…because seriously if I saw some poll numbers that showed me that a subject that would shitcan an opponent’s candidacy I would use it. I would talk about it 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
You say that I am obsessed with race, but this blog has been up in arms for days over race. I am just joining in the fun.
Affirmative action really only applies to people that venture into realms where affirmative action applies. Like teaching and government administrative work and some hospitals. There’s just bunches of places still where people actually advance on merit. Try to be in those places I think. Unless you suck, in which case go to the affirmative action places. They’ll find a place for you and the work probably won’t be all that hard.
This is the last time I will address this somewhat melancholy topic. I am a lefty, and I was pulling for Obama, the non-establishment candidate. But yes, it’s about judgment. Not knowing the man personally, I have to assume one of the following: he had no thought that his affiliation with this church and pastor would become known and be an issue; he knew it might be an issue but he could finesse it politically; he is invested in the general tenor of this church and its philosophies, and refuses to speak directly to honest questions about it.
I would never dream of demanding that anyone leave his or her church because it grates against my sensibilities. I would simply ask a political candidate to answer my questions. Are my concerns even relevant? And did he speak to them? For me, a chasm has been opened; that may need to be the case, but this is not the best time for such an upheaval.
Bmoe: Re: #27 – You are right about that. Which is why people my age are not so nuts about AA. I am not wild about the idea of busting my ass through grad school to be condescended to by someone who thinks I need to be socially engineered into a career. That is deeply annoying.
Ok, I am about raced out. I will now return to quiet observation and occasional “lol” posts.
Comment by Lisa on 3/21 @ 7:34 pm #
Calm down.
I did not use an obscenity.
I do not appreciate you responding to my comment with an obscenity
Oh. I hope you post more anyway Lisa I think. You’re nice and also quite smart and I think you intimidate the other for real trolls a lot.
Agreed.
Lisa – Enoch, you are not nice. What is your major malfunction?
I don’t like bigots. Especially ones who should know better.
I neither like star-fuckers… nor name-droppers
I do not like the self-aggrandizing pseudo-intelligentsia.
I don’t like double-talk.
I don’t like these things. And, you, Lisa, seem most of all, fettered to yourself in a most repulsive and sad kind of way. I know your kind, Lisa. I know them well. I know what you aspire to. I know what you believe is meritorious. And I believe it is ugly and very much what is wrong with the world.
This sums it up for me: I was being snarkserious…because seriously if I saw some poll numbers that showed me that a subject that would shitcan an opponent’s candidacy I would use it. I would talk about it 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
A hearty “Yuck!” is all my “major malfunction” be. I am sort of worry you asked me.
On a lighter note, someone recently linked a Dave Chapelle piece where Chapelle said if he were in the running to be the first Black President he would have a Mexican running mate to discourage assassins.
http://tinyurl.com/2sy3gt
Is Obama a fan?
I think he might do it. It preserves for sure the America wasn’t ready excuse when McCain runs away with it. The story is that Richardson is like uber foreign policy savvy. I heard that on NPR, so it must be true. It’s really hard to think of electable Democrats who know anything about other countries and stuff. So Obama could really actually pick him in spite of his looking a lot like Che Guevara would have if he had lived. That would just be a bonus.
Lisa,
I thought you got the point of my posts also, but it seems I was mistaken, so I will attempt a brief clarification.
From my perspective, the Black Liberation Theology issue is primarily an issue of religion or hermeneutics, and only secondarily about race.
One of the main points I hope people would take from the lengthy essay on it is that — removing Rev. Wrights publicized comments from the mix — the underlying theological issues remain.
In particlar, the issue of the degree to which BLT — or standard LT — rests upon the a fusion of relgion and politics that places a worldly (and leftist) political agenda above the traditional focus on personal salvation found in most Christian sects. The origins of this strain of thought — especially the German infuence on Cone — are contrary to the Enlightenment (and thus American) tradition of maintaining a separation of politics and religion.
Obviously, Americans do not and never have maintained a complete separation, and there is always debate over where that line is drawn. But it is exactly the sort of concern that caused JFK to make his famous speech regarding his Catholic faith — Catholicism itself was historically enmeshed in the intermingling of politics and religion that the Enlightenment was trying to escape.
Obama’s big speech, rather than confronting the serious underlying issue, chose to recast the controversy as primarily about race. And to the extent that he addressed religion, he avoided BLT and the issue of church-state separation. Instead, he went the route of suggesting whites don’t know what’s going on in black churches. People like Chris Matthews, Andrew Sullivan and Dionne may not recognize it as the low road, but others do. And that may be one factor among many as to why most did not respond well to it.
I would not ask Obama to leave his church, if he is truly committed to it. But if he is that committed to it, voters may want to know just how committed he is, particularly given his comments about the church being the political, economic and social center of the community. Once he answers, the voters may judge, as always.
Yeah, hf, and Richardson now looks about as “colored” as Obama. What a riot!
cynn,
I find myself in general agreement with your analysis with one exception. The public record demonstrates quite clearly that Obama was aware that Wright would likely become an issue in the campaign, leaving us with the latter two possibilities you suggest. And given the way Obama has handled and is handling this matter, the third seems most likely to me.
Lisa: You say that I am obsessed with race, but this blog has been up in arms for days over race.
Lisa, this blog has talked about “race” for many moons before Obama ever was found to have gotten into his double+ trouble with Wright.
But I don’t think you understand that the topic here has involved “race” not as a settled concept at all, but rather mainly as a social construction, just as the Progressives keep telling us it is, and which they summarily claim has been the sole province of the White Race in its alleged design to oppress all those “of color” – a very strange and also self-contradictory notion to begin with, if not also an apparently too-convenient projection.
Under the direction of Progressives, “race” then becomes a social construction often with rather suspicious and even predictable elements of definition, such as whether one says or agrees with things another group says – for example, involving the authority assumed and given in order to call or intimate that someone like Condi Rice is not a “real” Black because of what she says and does in so far as she does not say and do what Progressives want her to do and say, and which they even claim she should not do – actually an epitome of true racism, imo – or in dubbing someone who is white a “racist” because s/he says or believes the “wrong” thing, or simply because of being white as to skin color.
-things that I believe have nothing to do with one’s race as traditionally understood and as understood by people such as MLK. who believe that skin color has nothing at all to do with the potential in each of us for individual free thought, any more than does gender, age, “ethnicity”, “group history”, and so on.
Iow and imo, “race” as frequently discussed here has to do with the seemingly arbitrary and suspicious definitions and characteristics assiged to those of a certain “race” – along with similar definitions of and assignment to concepts such as “diversity”, “ethnicity”, “culture”, “religion”, “science”, “equality”, “rich”, “poor”, and every other got-dam concept under the sun – and these very specially socially constructed concepts’ relation to Postmodern views on the uses of language, coupled with Progressive political tactics which are themselves directed to further Progresives’ designs upon obtaining critical positions in society and electoral wins, and thus ultimately controlling everyone as Progressivism’s main end.
-so that Progressivism’s means, controlling definitions and dictating “correct” speech and actions, is also Progressivism’s end, controlling these same things – and thus attempting to control thought itself.
-because winning and controlling is all Progressives really believe thought and the use of language to be good for, as they have already told us. Hence their “social constructions” of everything, of course, as directed by the always “helpful” Progressives.
So Obama is right, the Neocons are right, and the People are right in saying that we should be discussing “race” – now!
But the “race” you think is being discussed and obsessed-over here and elsewhere among various people is likely not the “race” or “racism” you think it is.
Obama is just hiding behind race. If his pastor were white he would still have a big problem. Cause it’s about what the pastor said and believes and how much Baracky shares those beliefs. It doesn’t have anything to do with what color he is. That part is what otherwise smart people have trouble seeing.
Oh. That part was just my summary of Karl. Me I can’t get over the part about how Baracky supported a cult that spread anti-American propaganda and we’re still having this conversation.
Really. He’s not fit to serve in the freaking Senate, much less be president, and seriously, someone should file a complaint with whatever committee is in charge of ethics there. I say impeach the sick anti-American twist.
Impeach Obama!
hf, is it legal to impeach someone who apparently has no self – apart from whatever happens along to willy nilly supply him with one?
Not sure. Lots to read I guess. Here’s something funny… someone already registered impeachobama.com and is just having it redirect to Baracky friendly sites. I guess they saw this coming, probably cause of him being a sick anti-American twist and all.
Hey Lisa is back. I really do think she’s OUR foil and should be treated with some degree of respect. And here’s why – unlike ninshi, I think she has brains and can keep up. Lets talk about race, seriously. I hung out with a republican female tonight and we discussed racse- we decided that while both of us are prejudice againtg black folk,we’re not racist. I swear I think if we could find some way to make prejudice ok, on both sides of the aisle, then racism (ie hatred of person due to their skin color) would be a thing of the past.
I’m not worried about a black man coming up behnd me in a bar parking lot, because I will hurt him in ways he cannot imagine if he decides I’m an easy mark. If a black man chooses to not mug and go in opposite direction, then ok. I do wholeheartedly think its about feeling safe. I’m mot saying its right but I am saying its honest. While I’m prejudiced, I’m not racist. Dr. King said not to judge a man by the color of his skin but judge by the character of his person. I firmly believe we should do that. I want every single black person and every single white peraon to be nudged by their character not their skin color. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is irrelkevnt. I want the left to know, the right does NOT want to keep the black man down- you’ve missesd the point- everyone contributing to sicuety as a whole = better worlds.
I really don’t think this is a race thing, Matt. I mean sure, Obama is putatively black, but c’mon. Humoring him and playing along is one thing but I don’t think we should elevate opposing Obama into the realm of prejudice.
HF- I don’t think we can conclude obama is a racist. I will say he is likely to be prejudiced based on his background. I think (and I grant you, its probably just me) but prejudice is different then racism. Racism, to me, implies I hate blacks b/c their black, I hate muslims becaus their brown, I hate asians b/c their chinese/japanese. None of that is true but there is certainly prejudice involved and I am guilty. But so is Jerimiah Wright and so is Obama, if he spent 20 years in Wright’s church. If you’re Obama, you can certainly hate me and/or marginalize me but ultimately you need the white man’s vote to be president and after your speech, you will never get it.
I think Michael Meyers (cited by Dan earlier) is right- we’re all human race. I have no problem voting for a black man who represents my beliefs but I will, under no circumstances, vote for a black man solely for the sake of electionabiity. And this comes from somebody who wishes McCain was not the nominee.
– So we cannot possibly come to any practical understanding because we will never be able to understand the Black American experience. But if we listen to Obama’s words and make the effort, and in doing so take his very own statements at face value, and are left thinking he meant just what he said, as well as what he didn’t say, we are somehow unfair and racist.
– Check, and check.
– Personally I’ve come to the conclusion its really all about cigars.
– Personally I’ve come to the conclusion its really all about cigars.
If we’re talking about Bill C, then yes I totally agree with you…
And blue dresses. Dont forget the evidence on the blue dress. If it wasn’t for Clinton’s kink, we would have never known a president shoudl be held to such low standards. The funny thing is, we’re waiting for the other shoe to drop and then we’ll vote against whatever shoe ends up the repub nominee.
I see where you’re coming from better now, Matt. I agree a lot with that. I’m just sad cause for awhile there we really had a chance to beat him just for being a left-of-socialism Hugo Chavez wannabe, and I think the Democrats could have learned a lot from that.
HF- they did learn from Hugo Chavez. They learned that socialism will thrive in a vaacume. I don’t blame them for finding Hugo is like Che in many ways. I think liberals have to decide whether they want a market economy, where the successful can make money or if they want Hugo’s nationalized product. I wish we’d spend more time promoting democracy in central america but I completely understand the need to secure Iraq.
I guess I get sick of A. the anti-surge headlines, whne the surge is clearly working and B. what do we do next if Iraq becomes a stable and somewhat friend government. I think McCain, for all his flaws, understands how to talk to the Iraqi government and at the same time, give the middle finger to the Iranians and whoever else is causing chaoas. Obviously, Im just a drunk white boy but still, a free friendly Iraq makes me happy.
– But wait – theres more.
– This obsessive refusal of the Left to let go and move on is really getting annoying. As I commented yesterday, if the race card was outlawed officially tomorrow, Sharpton and Jackson would both have them a coronary.
– At times it seems like all the other major political gtoups, Classic Liberal. Conservative, and Independent, are the adults in the front seat of the social van, on their way to “White House world”. In the back seat we find Pete, the hard Left boy, and Amy, the SecProgg girl, and about every two miles Pete pipes up with “Are we there yet?”. and Amy chimes in with “Daaaa-yyyaaaad, hes looking at me again”.
– You want to just reach back and pour a whole bucket of ice cubes on their heads.
[…] Protein Wisdom comes this InsiderAdvantage / Majority Opinion Poll. 82% of those polled, say they know about the […]
I don’t know where your poll numbers are coming from, but I was a Barack supporter from the beginning and will remain a Barack supporter! The truth of the matter is, those who support Obama for President, will still support him, and those who keep up this stupid whoopla about Rev. Wright are just using that as an excuse and were never going to vote for him anyway! To sum this whole thing up, I am voting Barack Obama for President, not Rev. Wright for President. The last I checked the Rev. was not running for President!
Matt, a few thoughts on “Esq.”
In the United States, “Esq.” is of no legal significance.
I think that it should continue to be of no legal significance. However, in some states, the use of “Esq.” by individuals who not licensed to practice law is evidence of practicing law without a license.
It is my personal opinion that individuals append “Esq.” to their names to compensate for feelings of inferiority.
My, slp, that was a non sequitur.
Me too. And also that we could have beat either of them just on the basis of their shocking inexperience. I say again, as I’ve been saying all along: are these really the best they could come up with? (I have a bit of an issue with the Republicans along those lines too; it’s irritating that we have to choose among Senators.)
Maria – Inform us. convert us. Tell us why we should join you in voting for Baracky. Tell us what he has done, and what he will do, in his glorious career that makes him the best candidate for President.
slp – Matt Esq is an atty, and one heck of a good fellow. Regardless, why would it matter what his internet handle was?
Lisa,
It is not about race. It is about G-d Damn America.
It is about a man who believes in Theological Marxism. If Obama doesn’t buy into that why didn’t he find another church?
It is about Frank Marshall Davis. It is about Liberation Theology.
Comment by JD on 3/22 @ 5:54 am
My comments on the use of “Esq.” reflects my quixotic desire to curb the meaningless use of the term for ego enhancement.
Lisa: “you guys”?? Didn’t Perot get in trouble for saying “you people”? I think Whites have had it with the racial double standard. Imus (among many, many others) lost his job over “nappy-headed hos”. Rev. Wright is defended and Obama gets a resume enhancer as “racial conscience of America” for his Pastor’s outrageous anti-White and anti-American rants.
I think Obama may be performing a service for race relations in America, but not the one he thinks he is. He may be bringing about the end of racial double-standards, which can only be good. They’ll be no more of the permanent White Guilt and no more of the permanent Black Victimhood.
Now, if we can only get Hillary to says some stuff about men, we can start on the sexual double-standard.
JD- I’m just jealous that I don’t get a cool “tag” to add to my name. Mom is all I got, but I don’t want to be labeled as one of those “Mommy bloggers.”
Ego enhancement? You mean like Enzyte?
Carin – Give me time to ponder, and I will come up with a good appellation for you.
[…] the InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll on the Obama-Wright-Trinity controversy discussed here yesterday, I thought it only fair to note two new polls that have better — though not much better […]
Give me time to pander. I’m a typical White Person.
As a sign of solidarity Matt Esq. Matt Esq. is a good dude and not an egomaniac.
And because I’m hot and brainy. And feeling a little inferior and in need of an ego enhancer.
But mostly because I’m hot. And the IQ thing. (hey nishi, how’s it going)
….and I’m a typical white person
It is my personal opinion that individuals append “Esq.†to their names to compensate for feelings of inferiority.
Do any of you guys know where I can get the PDF of the warranty info on my irony meter?
Carin:
How about Motown Momma
“Carin 54DD” would be impressive to approximately 2/3 of the commentariat.
Pablo: u r evul
When MLK said not to judge a man by the color of his skin but judge by the character of his person, he got it right for Obama…his character is weak. So weak, in fact, that he couldn’t NOT nod in agreement with the anti-American tripe Mr. (can’t glorify him with the honorific ‘reverend’) Wright spoke in his church…over, and over, and over. Certainly he’s too weak a character to lead…even in his current lackluster Senate position.
I just bought a Corvette!
“Carin Montana” would bring the kids in.
I think Carin 54DD is an excellent idea.
54DD is a terrible modifier. Women with a 54 band size are generally considered worthless by Western Society. The spam filter ate my suggestion of a better modifier…
As usual, Karl Rove is behind all of this. Yep: he’s been propping up Rev. Wright for years, he steered Barry to join that church, and, no, really, Karl actually wrote Barry’s Philly speech. That Karl, he’s diabolical, devious, a manipulator supremo. Oh, and I hear he’s white, too. More proof (not that anyone needed it). But there ya go.
Those who support the anti-American hate-whitey cult in Chicago will still support the hate-whitey anti-American cult in Chicago. Now they’re just using this stupid whoopla as an excuse and were never gonna love whitey or America anyway.
!
Oh, that ego enhancement!
Perot didn’t get in trouble for saying “you people”. The whole context was a speech made to blacks on their behalf: “you people” making American blue-collar wages would lose in a competition against Mexican blue-collar wages.
The New York media, including SNL, made a big deal of it – despite knowing they weren’t considering Perot anyway. They did it because they were in the tank for Clinton. They didn’t want a result of 36 Bush – 30 Clinton – 30 Perot with an electoral college Bush majority, or *yikes!* a Perot victory.
But blacks didn’t care. I used to watch Arsenio Hall at the time and he brought it up as an example of media hoopla, not of Perot’s racism. The black audience, who weren’t and aren’t nearly as stupid as New York sophisticates think they are, accepted it as such.
Perot lost because he was a loony. And because his economics were wrong (despite that his speech’s heart was in the right place). He didn’t lose on account of being a Typical White Person.
Lisa, your comments are great when you explain your thoughts to us; but not so great when they snark and insult us. Since you’ve made it clear that you basically agree with us on a number of points, I’m not sure why you bothered with the snark and insults. I get that there is a visceral “ew!! neocons ickey!” air wafting about these days, and that you see yourself as an outsider here; but if you’re going to disagree, at least disagree on the specific point, do it with a full explanation of your thought process, and keep your sarcasm in reserve for obvious idiots.
As for Wright, my objection is that I live in a majority-black part of town, and I don’t want people like him whipping his congregation into hatred of people who look like me. If I lived in some part of upstate Tennessee wherein some white preacher was ranting about the Zionist Occupied Government, I’d complain about him too. Actually, I often DO complain about white preachers (on account of Intelligent Design, religious symbols in “the public square” etc); I’ve done it quite angrily in the past in these very comments. I’m applying the same standard to Wright as I do to whites, because I judge him on the content of his miserable character.
“82% knew about the controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s speech about race in America. Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, 52% said it made them less likely to vote for him. Moreover, 56% of blacks said the speech made them less likely to vote for him.”
I’d like to know how many of those that KNEW about the speech actually HEARD the speech. Because it’s possible that your survey is biased towards people who didn’t like him in the first place who only knew about the speech. This piece is very misleading.
#5 Lisa.
Thanks. Open expressions of racism are not important. Supporting and condoning those open expressions of racism are not important. Here’s your sign, it says ‘bigot’. Please wear it in good health.
And I say good health because I don’t wish you any ill. Because I am not a bigot, you bigot.
#30 cynn:
“This is the last time I will address this somewhat melancholy topic. I am a lefty, and I was pulling for Obama, the non-establishment candidate. But yes, it’s about judgment. Not knowing the man personally, I have to assume one of the following: he had no thought that his affiliation with this church and pastor would become known and be an issue; he knew it might be an issue but he could finesse it politically; he is invested in the general tenor of this church and its philosophies, and refuses to speak directly to honest questions about it.”
Oh that’s just super; we can excuse this because Sen. Obama is a power-hungry pol who will use whatever tool is available in his quest for the presidency, no matter how odious.
Thanks – I’m awfully reassurred now.
#41 J.Peden:
“But I don’t think you understand that the topic here has involved “race†not as a settled concept at all, but rather mainly as a social construction, just as the Progressives keep telling us it is, and which they summarily claim has been the sole province of the White Race in its alleged design to oppress all those “of color†– a very strange and also self-contradictory notion to begin with, if not also an apparently too-convenient projection.”
This is in-line with defining racism as a sin of white people because they have power; as opposed to defining it as judging a person by the color of their skin as opposed to the content of their character. And it is a very self-serving definition, and one that ought to be rejected – forcefully – by any person of good will.
Black Liberation Theology is as racist to its core as anything written by Josef Goebbels; and that is not a compliment.
BTW – I am not criticizing you, J. Peden.
Thing is, really, Baracky now really really has to hope there aren’t any white people what say racially insensitive things to any great effect between now and November. Especially religious white people. You just get the feeling he hasn’t thought this all the way through.
I get the feeling that anyone who thought he could go from Chicago Ward Committeeman to POTUS in only ten years hasn’t thought very many things all the way through.
(Or am I thinking of our Beloved Governor Blagojevich?…)
That’s a really good point.