Obama's Speech on Race

1) This On Point program was disappointing: One two guests (DeVeere Smith) was clearly a great supporter of Obama, the other (Ambassador Young) is black and altough a supporter of Hillary could not be critical. You should have had someone who is really concerned about the connection between Obama and his pastor. The only two callers who were let through were also supporters. What kind of balance does this represent? Out of the 50+ minutes you had one person speak maybe 3 minutes raising a concern.
2) I would like to point to what is for sure an explicit lie by Obama who has said that he has not heard his pastor speak in this inflammatory way. It is simply not believable. Moreover, it is evident from her "first time proud of my country" comment that his wife,
who is second only to God as his advisor (according to Obama) has internalized this pastor's
message. Would we want her as First Wife - in the White House? I think not.

I saw it

I was interested to hear Andrew Young explain his support for Hillary because everyone knows her skeletons in the closet. I sense a fear among elder black leaders that Obama and black America will be hurt but attacks against him.

Listening to his speech is a reminder to me of why we need Obama. White America has had years to move from our ugly past of racial inequity. Both whites and blacks have voted to elect white males and females who moved beyond their histories and elders - we are now showing that we can do the same within the black community. Now it is time to invite those who have felt like outsiders to see the lines disappearing and ALL of us to move beyond hate.

I am a white, middle class, southerner who has voted as a Republican for the past 30 years and I cannot wait to elect Obama as our President.

Hello Tom,

I had the opportunity to ride back to the airport with Ambassador Andrew Young when he was on college campuses registering people to vote back in the 70s. I've admired him ever since (though I'm disappointed he is backing Hillary Clinton and not Barack Obama).

To answer your question, this is a watershed moment in American history— it is not a flash-in-the pan political speech. Barack Obama's speech yesterday was a call to action, and it was one of the best speeches I have ever heard. And you should know, I am a 53-year-old white woman, a lifelong Republican who switched parties because Republican values have changed and so that I could vote for Senator Obama in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary.

Barack Obama is the most patriotic of all the candidates. He is reminding all of us of our nation's founding principles, inspiring us to turn from the negative practices of the past and make our country be the best it can be. He has some of the same, rare qualities of my favorite president, Abraham Lincoln. He loves the Constitution, and spent a good part of his life studying it, teaching it, and putting it into practice helping the poor.

A few years ago our independent production company produced a documentary about another period in history where blacks and whites came together for a common purpose -- in the years leading up to the Civil War on the Underground Railroad. James Oliver Horton, a professor from George Washington University, was one of the many historians who helped us understand the complex issues of race that are still with us today, whether we want to admit it or not.

If you don't mind, I will share one of the pieces from his interview, which to me is a call to action, whether you are black, red, white or blue. If you are willing to open your hearts and your minds, we still have a chance to make our country a place we can be proud of, and a shining example to the world.

"You know, America has some wonderful principles. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. These are the magic words of American history and the American nation. We are a nation with ideals that ought to be the envy of human kind. We are a tremendously impressive nation in terms of what we want to be. But, the fact of life is that from the beginning, we haven't been what we said we were. We haven't been what we want to be. The abolition of slavery was a step towards becoming what America said it wanted to be. It seems to me that every citizen has a responsibility, and the responsibility is to live up to the highest ideals of your nation, and to do everything in your power to see that that nation lives up to its highest ideals. You don't have the luxury of being apathetic when it comes to pressing your nation towards its highest ideals. That's what being a citizen in a Democratic society means."

Here is another piece from Dr. Horton's interview --

"When you look at the abolitionist movement and you look at both people who are pressing to rid America of its most obvious contradiction -- human bondage in the land of human freedom -- those people were some of the most patriotic people you could imagine. They took their responsibilities as citizens seriously, and as far as blacks were concerned, they took their responsibilities as citizens seriously even when the Supreme Court said they weren't citizens.

"They loved the country, and they wanted the country to be what it could be, and they realized that it would never be that if they did not step forward to risk everything to make America be what it said it was."

Barack Obama has taken that risk. I'm hoping that the voters and the delegates will, too.

Did you hear it? Did the Obama speech say big, true things to you about Americans white and black, who they are and who they want to be? Was it a watershed moment – or a campaign flash in the pan?

Yes, I heard it. The big, true things said about Americans both black and white are the same rehashed things that are always said, "the whites are the problem."

I disagree with the whites are the problem. Whites can't say anything derogatory about what blacks say, if they do then they are racist. No matter what is said, it is twisted around by the black leadership.

I find most hatred now a days come from the black community toward the white community.

"Whities" wear the names and uniform numbers of black sports stars, they go see the games which are majority black players. I really don't think 50 years ago that would have happened, but the whites ( now let's be reasonable--not all whities but for the majority) of the caucasian race it has transcended the racial problem.

There hasn't been much more atrocities to the blacks than to the chinese, American Indian, or the Irish, but each picked up his boot strapes and moved on--bettering themselves to some degree.

Look, there iare just as many of the other races in the USA that are in poverty, not just the blacks, but you don't see them going around calling each other bitches, hos, and pulling guns out and killing each other.

I think as long as any race can not put the atrocities behinh them and move and break the cycle of hatred that race will always be stagnated and carry the pity-potty.

The good book says to love your enemy--and if one does, then it is a formular to heal the racial divide by bringing all people into a common community--not black, white, Asian, nor anyother race, just the common community of of the human race.

Look at it like this, when you cook a pork roast or melt vegtablr oil it usally stays in one big spot or glob which is easy to remove, but if you stir it arounf you have multiplied the glob of grease from one glob to thousands of little globs which are impossible to remove.

Will it ever happen? No, because as long as people are making a living stirring the racial pot, there will always be too much seasoning for some one.

No, Obama did not say anything to heal the nation, he was trying to turn it around and blame the "whities", after all, did he not throw his white Grand Mother under the bus.

Well, that's one opinion. I would say it was one of the best speeches about the rampant racism on both sides of the black white divide I have ever heard from an American politician, and that includes the years of the Late fifties into the sixties , when segregation and Jim Crow were sent running.

I listened to the show on Obama's speech and just had to comment. Attack me all you want but at least try to address the substance of some of what I am bringing up.

I have genuine reservations about this man becoming the President of all Americans because of the judgment his association with this church exhibits (i.e. best case scenario: cynical base-building, not the politics of unity and hope). You might disagree but I don't feel this way because I am a crazy, bigoted right-winger.

I want to insert some reality into the NPR echo chamber and reassert some truths to counter what was one of the most pathetically one-sided whitewashes I've ever heard on On Point.

1) Obama has been planning this speech for years. Wright's own statements indicate that Obama has said he would have to distance himself from Wright at some point. Sounds like cynicism to me. He is not, as some of the guests and Mr. Beatty suggested, some enlightened one guiding us poor ignorant masses to better understanding . He is not my mentor. He is not showing me the light. He is not expressing any profound ideas we don't all already know. He is desperately trying to save his political chances. Note that this speech was not given until the MSM belatedly covered some of the material on Mr. Wright that has been available for years.

2) The guests, hosts, and callers seem to want to make the problem to be "right-wing" radio, when in fact the issue is the vitriol coming out of Wright's mouth and Obama's chosen association with him for 20 years. There is a disturbing pattern on the left to label as character assassination the simple act of directly quoting someone (who in this case happens to be selling DVDs containing his comments).

3) Obama excuses Wright's comments as rooted in generational wounds. Why does the current pastor of Obama's church, who is younger than Obama himself, say similiar things?

4) It is totally fallacious to minimize these comments by saying they are simply taken out of context, as I heard basically everyone on the show do. Go read black liberation theology. Go look at the work of Mr. Hopkins, the guest from yesterday (also invited to whitewash the controversy--he's from Divinity school, dontcha know). Go look at the work of Mr Cone.

5) I suppose you can call Mr. Wright a biblical scholar. But he is preaching an ethnocentric version of Christianity which is essentially a heresy. Many people were quite exercised about Mitt Romney's Mormonism. Let's take a better look, then, at what United Trinity believes.

Go read this and then tell me these comments are taken out of context:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html

Go read United Trinity's published value system and tell me you don't have serious reservations.

6) Just because this is the tradition of black church oration does not excuse it.

7) Here's a quote from Mr. Wright's philosophical touchstone, James Cone:

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

This is not a universal message for all Americans. It is a racist ethnocentric religion that is not even real Christianity, which is universal. I don't see how anyone who subscribes to this religion deserves to be the President of all Americans. This is not the church of some messiah uniter. You true believers are deluding yourselves.

8) It was repugnant for him to compare his poor grandmother's private comments with the proudly dissmeninated racist propaganda of Mr. Wright. There is no equivalence. And all the commenters blithely joking about crazy uncles are eliding the important distinction that we don't choose our family, but we can choose our pastor.

9) The church has a published, promulgated, and preached dogma, which happens to be abhorrent to a large number of Americans. Simply stating that these types of views are typical in the black community is not sufficient. If Sen. Obama does not agree with the church dogma, he should have left the church long ago.

I want to elect a President to govern and administer the country, not to be healed, not to be part of history or a movement, not to be saved, not to redeem myself or my country. Sorry, I am not a true believer. The onus is not, as Mr. Wright's cousin said on today's show, now on the country to prove itself by electing Sen. Obama and acquiesing to every class warfare socialist program he and his leftist allies demand. Don't try to pull that jujitsu. The spotlight is still on Sen. Obama and it is up to him to prove to me that he is ready to be my President, I don't have to prove that I am worthy of his assuaging my white guilt by voting for him.

I know it makes many of your listeners cringe NPR, but you need a little more balance if you engage this discussion again.

Ah yes, more appearances by the strong Republicans who are nevertheless supporting socialists for President.

@lisa: "Barack Obama is the most patriotic of all the candidates."

Lisa, please forgive me because I know this is going to sound a little harsh, but I have to disagree with your appraisal. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, or are able to look inside a person's heart or head, but let's just consider the available evidence.

Sen. Obama doesn't like saluting the flag during the pledge of alliegance, because somehow he thinks doing so is jingoistic and a display of false patriotism. Sen. Obama's wife appears to be somewhat of an ingrate who is not really proud of her country unless it elects her husband President--she said it more than once. Sen. Obama goes to a church that preaches an ethnocentric doctrine rife with references to how horrible the country is. Sen. Obama's campaign slogan and goals--much as they are discernable--are all about changing the country he supposedly thinks is so great.

Now just for the sake of argument, I ask you to compare that with Sen. McCain, who went to war for this country, was in a POW camp for 6 years, has devoted his entire life to service of this country, and who I don't believe attends an anti-American church.

Now maybe you can look at that and just easily make definitive statements about Sen. Obama being "the most patriotic", but to me it just looks like you are projecting. To me it looks like cynicism and political ambition. But of course, opinions differ and you have a right to yours. Allow me the courtesy of disagreeing with you.

I think this is a great article. The reply's are warrented. I agree with the reply made by
PONHROS (please allow me to introduce myself) ONE, Mar 19, 2008, 12:10pm.

I also would like to state that Hillary's Skelatons are far from being known by the american public and to even suggest it is naiive.

Allow me the courtesy of disagreeing with you.

Well said bernard m.

Here's some lies that come from Senator H. Clinton. This is purley charcter.
Things I have learned so far that make me dislike this woman more than I already do:

In an airport, she happened to run into Sir Edmund Hillary, who was the first man to climb Mt. Everest. So, what to say to this man? Lie, of course. She claimed that her mother named her Hillary and with twp "i's" after Hillary the climber. Only problem- he didn't make news climbing anything until 5 years AFTER Clinton was born.

Another story from the book talks about how Hillary is at a race-relations conference in Boston with some teenagers, and she claims that she was on the soccer team, and a player from the opposing team told her that she hated her kind, and Hillary said- 'you don't even know me,' to which the girl replied- 'I don't have to know you to know I hate you.' An attempt to try to make the kids believe she knew exactly where they were coming from, and from personal experience at that! Too bad this is almost surely a lie, since there were no girl's soccer teams at her high school in the 1960's when this supposed event took place.

There is also the lie- well known to most- where Hillary claimed that her daughter Chelsea was in danger on September 11, claiming that her daughter went for a jog down to the towers themselves, and when the planes hit, she saw the buildings right there and was nearly in peril. Too bad again, since Chelsea totally debunked her mother's phony story in a magazine article. She was realy on the other side of the city, and was woken up with a phone call telling her to watch the news- and she never got anywhere near the towers, instead she was staring shocked at the tv screen most of the day.

These stories, along with the many Hillary scandals from her days in the white house, are very creepy. The woman is a corrupt, lying, power-hungry maniac, evidence would suggest...yet, she's the most popular democrat in the country, and millions would vote for her if she ran for president. That says a lot about millions of people in America. They're clueless. I'm sure, tho, that many among the millions are, in fact, completely tuned into the truth, but just don't care how corrupt she is or how many lies she tells, no matter how small those lies are. She's a phony, and it's clear that she's a phony, yet many people love her. Why? I've no earthly idea. But, it's truly scary that so many people do, indeed, love her; and you have to seriously wonder if they drink the same water that the crazy people who keep re-electing Ted Kennedy drink.

Lisa!

Take that post and make it an article. People need to read that.

Let me just say that some people who are against had a very positive response to his speech. I was moved by the speech. I think we all have a role to play. Everyday we need to do our best and a better America will follow. We need to address racial problems and we all have a share of the problem. I don't think he blamed anybody. He did not excuse anyone either. Not himself, not Rev. Wright.

I agree with Lisa's points on Obama. Read his books, listen to people who know him. You won't hear much you don't like. That's the bottom line.

I did a little research on commentator Whitfield Ayers, with who I unfortunately share a first name. He was outraged that Obama's associated with his UCC Pastor with the fiery rhetoric and a church that had lauded Farakan's contributions to the black community. Interestingly, Mr. Ayres political clients have included Strom Thurmond, the leading Dixiecrat racist and segregationist. Senator. http://www.layman.org/layman/the-layman/2001/no3-may-june01/ayres-whit-profile.htm We can only hope that the racist subtext of the attacks on Barrack backfire in the face of the hypocrites who are bringing these attacks.

Please also see the comments posted to OnPoint on March 18, on the same subject.

I just got a chance to listen to this show and it was pathetic. You know this show will lean left but at times there is good information presented here. This show made no attempt to show both side of the matter. The one republican that spoke was cut off and just dismissed. This was a ridiculous.

On "Obama's Pastor and Race in America", why do the guests bend over backwards so hard to put the ranting of a religious nut-ball in "perspective"? The pastor makes some valid points about abuse of power, but to wrap it in a religious context is just a way of hiding from rational criticism. The religious right have made many, many equally irrational and inflammatory statements; when Falwell blames 9-11 on gays, I just dismiss him as a crackpot because there is absolutely no relationship between the 2 issues, but yet pols cozy up to him because their constituents are sheep. Read "God is not Great", it's a downer but Hitchens makes the point "Why do we listen to these people?" they should be ranting and selling pencils on a street corner. The bias of the religious informs their religion more than the religion informs their bias. Falwell has insecurity about gays, so he looks for religious justification to blame bad things on them. The pastor in question sees whites as evil, so he frames them as the romans in the bible. Both wrap themselves in the cloak of religion so they're safe from being criticized. In medieval times, if they didn't like jews, and there was a plague, somehow it was the jew's fault; and the church went with it! My problem with Obama isn;t that he listens to this pastor; it's that he listens to any of them at all! USe your heads.