Yes, we can all agree that Obama gave a very impassioned speech on race in America. In many, if not most, respects he is right. The American experience revolves around race, for all of us. For asking us to look at those issues, he should be thanked. It was a very good speech. Especially when taken out of the primary presidential campaign context. Obama would be much more believable on the issue if he had made this speech at the beginning of his campaign; if he had acknowledged that race was an issue in his campaign early on, instead of repeatedly denying that fact. In this speech made toward the end of the primary campaign, he finally admits that race is, and always has been, an issue for him and his community, much as it has been for most citizens of this great country. But, did Obama actually address the real issue before him and those of us who must choose the nominee of our party, or the next president; the issue of the hateful, divisive, ugly words and ideas professed many, many, times by his pastor, his self-admitted spiritual advisor for these past twenty plus years, for virtually his entire adult life.
I do not believe he did.
The fact is that Obama made this speech, at this moment, out of political necessity, not out of any moral imperative. He saw his support falling dramatically over the past week, and he knew that he had to change course, to take on an issue that he had before publicly chosen to ignore. And, while that certainly does not mean he was insincere in most of what he said; it does mean that he saw a political reality, so he changed his mind. I am convinced that he would not have made a similar speech if he had not been confronted by public disclosure of the hateful divisive language uttered by his pastor, at least not during the campaign.
He did artfully and impressively manage to change the issue from that of anti-American hateful religious rhetoric to one solely about race. I will not repeat what Wright told his congregation on all those Sundays. I realize that race is a factor in what Wright preached, but it certainly is not the only or greatest factor. Politics played just as important of a role in those sermons. Just replay the one about Hillary Clinton. That was pure politics.
Obama skirted around the political tone and content of Wright’s preaching and focused on race. I believe he did so because as a politician in a close race for the nomination he could in no way politically justify his past close and continuing relationship with an individual who preaches that we Americans are responsible for 9-11-01; that we Americans are responsible for HIV/Aids; that we Americans intentionally infected people of color with HIV/Aids in some racially inspired war. Such words are political suicide for any presidential candidate. They are also words not only about race, but about politics, and beliefs deeply held. So, in the end Obama disowns the words, but continues to embrace the man who preaches them.
Obama chose the following words: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother … .”
It is simply is not fair or genuine to suggest, as did Obama, that choosing to remain a member of a religious congregation is the same as remaining a brother or grandson or nephew; that choosing and keeping a spiritual advisor is the same thing as loving or keeping a daughter or mother or cousin. Obama chose to join Wright’s congregation. He chose to stay in the pews and listen for 20 years. He chose to stay with his pastor despite hearing those hateful and inflammatory words. He chose to place Wright on his presidential campaign committee knowing that he had uttered those sermons; and Obama chose to keep Wright on his campaign committee until news about those sermons broke. Obama chose to stay and participate in Wright’s congregation.
In the end it is not an issue of guilt by association; it’s an issue of guilt by participation.
6 comments:
No doubt Obama had to give this speech, and I agree with you that it was out political necessity framed in a way to show some moral obligation to discuss race. He has every right to change up his strategy in the middle of a heated campaign, and I think we would expect nothing less. His speech was still loaded with his "Hope and Change" theme which has characterized his campaign.
He has not with this speech, however, distanced himself enough from Reverend Wright, and I don't believe has sufficiently quelled undecided voters' reservations about his relationship with Wright. So in that regard, the speech failed. It is disconcerting that he refuses to "disown" Wright and compares him to his grandmother. You don't choose family, but you can choose to abandon a church filled with such hateful language. Especially if you so vehemently repudiate your pastor's beliefs. I concur that it was political opportunism to just now address his pastor after the media jumped on the story.
In the end though, this speech was about race in the American experience. And his eloquence in discussing the matter and coming together to tackle our historical racial divide should not be lost in all this. It was a powerful political speech, and served to inspire hope that we, as Americans, can discuss race together, to listen to each side, and to move towards bridging the racial gap.
Dear Solidarity,
Congratulations. You just became Rush Limbaugh. You just became qualified to be a Fox News talking head. Maybe you can take Hannity's place when he retires. Who are you to tell Obama when it't a credible time for him, a Black man, to talk about race? I think it's interesting that crackers use the term "disown," as in the opposite of own, as in slave.
You suffer from selective recall. Obama has said time and again, that the reviled pastor never said thsee kinds of things in his presence. That would include in church, Solidarity. Did you demand that Hillary "disown" Ferarro when she made her hateful, divisive comments?
Since when is it wrong for a Black man to speak in anger about all the injustices heaped on the Black community by white America? Why is that hateful? Why is it hateful to remind folks that our founding fathers, a bunch of honkies, talked a good game about equality, while working to protect slavery. Why is it hateful or anti-American to remind folks about all the evil things, including murder, rape and theft, our government has done in the name of freedom and democracy?
Your comments evidence the pitiful state of the Democratic Party. They were spoken like a true cold warrior.
Once again, if Solidarity is who I think it is, I'm deeply saddened.
Peace,
Tom
Tom,
First off, I just want to ask a question. Can Obama do ANYTHING wrong in your eyes? You are always skating on thin ice when you blindly support a person whom you find to be flawless. Everyone has flaws, and for you to not see one even minute flaw in Obama is a little scary, as if you are following some cult leader. And someone with such a disposition towards a candidate can be written off as delusional and brainwashed. As a Clinton supporter, of course I find flaws in her, I found flaws in Edwards. This is normal.
Second, to address your comments, don't you think a white man, yourself, using the term "cracker" is a bit radical? YOU'RE WHITE. I also find it a glaring error in your comment that you accuse Solidarity of introducing the term "disown" in this discussion. That is Obama's term, he used it in his speech, which Solidarity quoted in his post. Another misstep in your comment is claiming that Obama "has said time and again, that the reviled pastor never said these kinds of things in his presence." That is just false. Taken from the Senator's Tuesday speech:
"Did I know [Wright] to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely."
When Obama admits that he heard Wright make remarks that could be considered controversial while he sat in chutch, and answers "yes," I think we know the type of remarks to which he is referring.
Finally, you question why Solidarity labeled Reverend Wright's rhetoric as "hateful." Well, your boy Obama has called the remarks "profoundly distorted", "wrong", "divisive", and "inexcusable." All quotes taken from his speech. Obama and the rest of America know that Wright's language gets the conversation going nowhere and only breeds hatred. So yes, the pastor's comments ARE hateful and wrong. In an impassioned tone, Obama underscored the need to move beyond this hateful dialogue, and work together to bridge the gap and overcome our historical deficiencies. It seems that your comments evidence an endorsement for Reverend Wright's hateful ideology. If that is the case, then I am deeply saddened.
I don't know how to start a new subject, so I'm adding to this one.
I read a column by Maureen Dowd today, and it made me think. The ending, in particular, struck a deep chord.
I don't quite know what to say. I suppose I have helped place Obama on the pedestal, viewed him as "Saint Obama." I now consider myself duly chastised, perhaps because it came from someone other than a Clinton supporter.
Obama is a man, a human being, with faults. He apparently has heard Rev. White say some things considered offensive by White Americans, including Dowd. He had some dealings with a slimebag. He wasn't completely forthcoming in either front. His lack of total honesty on both issues was wrong. I hope you're happy now, Solidarity.
I do not think, however, that is is wrong for Obama to not "disown" White. I think it's wrong, and supremely arrogant and foregetful of history, for White Americans to demand that he do so. What kind of person abandons his friends, or members of their extended family, because they say things that might offend? Not the kind of person I want in the White House. Is Obama supposed to forget all the good things White did for him, all White has meant to him spiritually? What right does white America have to pass judgment at all in this matter?
I apologize for any comments I have posted that offended anyone. I now take my leave of the blog.
Pdrez, thanks for the invite. Sorry I abused your courtesy. You're a good man.
Take care all,
Tom
I agree with Tom here. When Obama stands by his pastor, to me, it doesn't show that he agrees with him on the issues and ideas but more that he stands by the people he loves.
Obama loves America, and when he communicates such an honest and open loyalty with a Pastor he so publicly refutes. It says to me that he is going to care for the American citizens, even if his issues are different than theirs.
You could almost compare this loyalty to the ones that brothers have, regardless of arguing over their political differences.
Tom: Of course, I do not believe it is wrong for a Black man to speak in anger about "injustices heaped upon the Black community by the White community," or to otherwise remind White America of about our hateful past.
In fact, if you read the post completely you will see that I said that we should all be thanking Obama for asking us to look at those issues.
It is not wrong to question Obama’s motives in making that wonderful speech at that particular moment simply because I am white.
And, the word “disown” was Obama’s word not mine. If you read my post closely, I did not say he should disown Wright’s words or the man. What I said was that it was disingenuous to compare disowning blood family with quitting a congregation, when we enter in and remain with the second by choice.
Certainly we, as a nation, as a people, have come much further than accusing each other of racism simply because we publicly disagree with someone running for president. I know that you do not believe that disagreement with Obama equals racism. But it has become all too typical in the blogosphere.
With respect to Ferraro, you certainly recall that the Obama camp and Obama supporters (surrogates) were demanding that Clinton disown Ferraro.
My post also did not attempt to tell Obama when he should have made the speech. I simply was saying that it would have been more believable, forceful had it not been made in response to political controversy.
My post was also more concerned with the fact that much of what Wright said was political in tone and content. They were not purely race issues. I found, and still find, it rather remarkable that the media and Obama were able to turn it into a race issue.
Finally, my comments do not represent the Democratic Party; they represent my thoughts.
I am not deeply saddened by you or your opinions, and never will be.
In fact, I think you should join this blog as a contributor so we can read what I know would be insightful and well -received posts.
Post a Comment