Early this morning, I finally got a chance to sit down at the computer and watch Sen. Obama's entire 40-minute speech (while reading along). I thought it was a wonderful speech, and it sets up a discussion that our country needs. And, thanks to Barack Obama, more of the country is ready to participate in "The Discussion". Moving beyond hate - racial and otherwise - is essential to making our country and our world a better place.
I have yearned for that Discussion, and have tried in my small ways to hasten the day when we could have it, and when we could take real steps to improving our society. But, however strong my yearning, I am still supporting Sen. Clinton for the Democratic nomination. I believe that she will be a great leader for our country and that she is the best prepared to be President. Those qualities have to be my primary concern.
Sen. Obama has already done a great deal in kicking The Discussion to a new level. Whether he wins or loses the Democratic nomination - whether he wins or loses the Presidency - this Discussion is going to continue, and Sen. Obama will be in position to move The Discussion forward.
It is a great speech, but I also feel that it is not going to accomplish his secondary (or, was it the primary) goal - to undo the political damage that the Rev. Wright sermons had done to his campaign. For two reasons:
--(1) He declined to explain whether and how he tried to combat the (somewhat understandable) bitterness/hatred/etc. that he - and his children - experienced at the church. This point goes a little toward the how-could-you-stay-at-the-church question (which I took issue with last week, stating that there are many reasons people belong to a church/temple/etc), but it is more: he could have demonstrated that he had tried to bring healing close to home - speaking with his children after a sermon, or Rev. Wright, and other church goers. There is no evidence of that, and I think that many people have - perhaps, even subconsciously - taken note of that; and
--(2) I think that there are STILL too many people (yes, even Democrats) who are going to react only to Rev. Wright's sermons and not to Sen. Obama's counter-sermon(s). Whatever analogy you want to use: Pandora's Box, genie in the bottle, cat in the bag.
Sen. Obama acknowledged yesterday that he and his candidacy are not perfect; noone is, no campaign is. A lot of people jumped off of the Obama Train when Rev. Wright's sermons hit the mass media. As good as this speech was, I think it was not good enough to get most of them back on.
These last two weeks have given us an opportunity to continue reducing intolerance. Whether or not Sen. Obama is the Democratic nominee, I hope that he continues to lead The Discussion and the improvements that should follow.
(This article is part of "GATHER Discusses Tolerance", a group created in October 2007, located at nohate.gather.com. Please check it out, join and participate!)
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 51
I also think that, regardless of people's initial reactions, Obama will probably get back many of those lost votes (if there truly and honestly are people who did that), and will continue to do well. Personally, I hope he gets the nomination and wins the presidency. I think only if someone is truly in a seat of power can they make effective change happen.
So, REGARDLESS of the actual strength of the relationship, I think he needed to explain to people whether/how he tried to lessen the hate/bitterness in his church community.
I get your point about generational differences, loud and clear. But, Sen. Obama (and his kids) were not the only churchmembers of the younger generations listening (and being effected) to the sermons.
And, you definitely have a point about the benefits of being "truly in a seat of power". But, I don't think that it is "only" those in the "seat of power" who can bring about change (MLK?) Plus, as much as I want that "effective change", I can't bring myself to vote for him solely because of that.
I am for Hillary Clinton as well. I think she is better suited for the job. I am appalled at the press and media attention that Rev. Wright is getting. There really isn't a connection, but the smear campaign has begun.
I think there are a large number of people - and the new polls seem to be bearing it out - who were very disturbed by the Rev. Wright sermons that were snippet-ized. I think the only way he can neutralize that (I think making it into a positive opportunity is no longer realistic) is by assuring us that he tried to change the tone at Trinity.
Thanks, Joe and Julie!
And I'm saying that Obama does not need to list every action or word he has said in that regard. I think his words and actions on the campaign trail and in his books are enough for me. He's so far above what we have now that I would take him immediately as president.
And for the people who are "very disturbed", well, that's their business. There are many people who get "very disturbed" over what Brittany Spears does in her private life. I can't justify ignorance, or bigotry, or pettiness, or any other behavior that I disagree with for many reasons. I have one vote....and can only do my best to make other people think reasonably. If someone presents a reasonable argument in support of John McCain, I have no problem with them. If they are only voting for McCain because of Rev. Wright's occasional remarks from his church's pulpit, then I cannot respect that, but it's their vote, too.
Sure, Sheryl, in and of itself, I agree. But, politically speaking, Sen. Obama (and Dems, if he is our nominee) wants and needs those people. So, though we may think he does not NEED to, I am suggesting that the burden of persuasion IS on him.
We don't need to convince people disturbed by Britney (or however she spells her name) of anything (at the moment, anyway), but she is not - and we are not - running for office. Obama is, and he DOES NEED every danged vote he can get. And, my gut tells me that there are a significant number of people that were effected by this episode.
As I stated in a comment on another article, everyone is entitled to their opinion about things, no matter how offbeat or crazy their views are. And Obama is certainly entitled to maintain his friendship and close association with this man. But then he does not have my vote - or the vote of many other Americans who also agree because they love this country and don't want to elect someone who so closely associates with such an ignorant, un-American, nutcase.
... And if Obama had stated yesterday he was disassociating himself with Rev. Wright, I might have a different opinion. But he did not. And I am glad his campaign is done.
And Sheryl, to your comment that Paul is "over-estimating the impact of Obama's attendance at this church and his relationship with the pastor" ... I'm sorry but that is a very simplistic view of the situation. Rev Wright isn't some drunken old uncle that says embarrassing things. He's a blatantly anti-American, anti-gay, anti-semite, whom Obama has known for over 20 years and calls his "spiritual advisor" and "mentor".
That's my opinion. It's also my opinion that people who change their opinions of Obama because of a couple of his church's pastor's sermons, no matter what interactions Obama has had with him, really have no desire to really understand what Obama stands for in any way. They are like the cooler rats at work, gossiping about the latest item on the boss in the area. They just jump from one sound byte to another, twittering about superfluous data rather than looking at who the person really is, and what they have and will accomplish. I don't doubt that many Americans will do just that.
And maybe I'm being optomistic about my assessment of Americans - maybe they are much more superficial and uninformed than I hope they are. Maybe you are right.....but I continue to hope they aren't. I keep hoping that they learned their lessons with Bush - that a cutsey smile, and a good ol' boy drawl and a bunch of lies are meaningless. That what we need is true integrity, true vision, true ethics. And someone who stands behind a parent-figure, even when he does not agree with everything the man says, is doing pretty good in those areas in my estimation.
We want an end to Black-on-Black violence, "snitching," cooperation and collaboration with the oppressor.
We believe we can end police brutality in our community by organizing Black self-defense groups (Black People's Militias/Black Liberation Armies) that are dedicated to defending our Black Community from racist, fascist, police/military oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment of white America's Constitution gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black People should unite and form and "African United Front" and arm ourselves for self-defense
check this page out
http://roadsassy.com/index.php/2008/03/14/jeremiah-wright-the-new-black-panthers-and-barack-hussein-obama/
Wolf's Head (secret society)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The beginning of an esteemed Yale College (New Haven, Connecticut) tradition of students challenging the society system and then accepting its rewards was the decision of fifteen members of the Yale Class of 1884 to abet the incorporation of The Third Society, later known as Wolf's Head Society (W.H.S.).[1] Incorporated in 1883 as The Third Society by the Phelps Trust Association, W.H.S. is the third oldest senior or secret society at the liberal arts college (allowing for the societies -- Book and Snake, Berzelius and St. Elmo's -- associated with the Sheffield Scientific School, a division of Yale for science and engineering students, 1854 - 1956). Members of the Yale Class of 1884 joined forces with over 300 Yale alumni[2] to counter the dominance of Skull and Bones and Scroll and Key in undergraduate and alumni affairs.
Skull and Bones ... none of the rightwingers opposed Bush belonging to.
Rashid Khalidi (born 1950), an American historian of the Middle East, is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and the director of the Middle East Institute of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs.
He received a B.A. from Yale University, where he was a member of Wolf's Head Society, in 1970,[1] and a D. Phil. from Oxford University in 1974[2] and spent many years as a professor and director of both the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago before joining the Columbia faculty. He has also taught at Georgetown University, Lebanese University, and the American University of Beirut.
Khalidi is married to Mona Khalidi,[3] former President of the Arab American Action Network.[4]
Princeton University let it become known that it was considering hiring Khalidi in 2005. Howvever, a controversy developed, in which the Daily Princetonian described Khalidi as "an individual who has a political agenda rather than a scholarly approach to history."[5]
[edit] Public life
Khalidi has written dozens of scholarly articles on Middle East history and politics, as well as op-ed pieces in many U.S. newspapers. He has also been a guest on numerous radio and TV shows including All Things Considered, Talk of the Nation, Morning Edition, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Charlie Rose, and Nightline, and has appeared on the BBC, the CBC, France Inter and the Voice of America. Khalidi had an advising role at the Madrid Conference of 1991 between the U.S., Israel, Palestinians and Arab states. He served as president of the American Committee on Jerusalem, now known as the American Task Force on Palestine, and is currently editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies. He served as President of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in 1994.
[edit] Areas of research
Khalidi's research covers primarily the history of the modern Middle East. He focuses on the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean, with an eye to the emergence of various national identities and the role played by external powers in their development. He also researches the impact of the press on forming new senses of community, the role of education in the construction of political identity, and in the way narratives have developed over the past centuries in the region.[2]
Much of Khalidi's scholarly work in the 1990s focused on the historical construction of nationalism in the Arab world. Drawing on the work of theorists Benedict Anderson who described nations as "imagined communities", he does not posit primordial national identities, but clearly argues that these nations have legitimacy and rights. In Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (1997), he places the emergence of Palestinian national identity in the context of Ottoman and British colonialism as well as the early Zionist effort in the Levant. This book won the Middle East Studies Association's Albert Hourani Prize as best book of 1997.[6] His dating of Palestinian national emergence to the early 20th century and his tracing of its contours provide a rejoinder to Israeli nationalist claims that Palestinians either do not exist, or had no collective claims prior to the 1948 creation of Israel. Nevertheless, Khalidi is also careful to focus on the late development, failings and internal divisions within the various elements of the Palestinian nationalist movement as well.
In Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East (2004), Khalidi takes readers on a historical tour of Western intervention in the Middle East, and argues that these interventions continue to have a colonialist nature that is both morally unacceptable and likely to backfire.
Yep.. there's a boogey man in every corner.
Patti: You weren't serious with that defense of the blog, were you? And, neither you nor the article cited any statements by Rev. Wright, anyhow.
Debra: Did you find any connection that we should be making? Seems pretty tenuous to me.
Sandy: I, too, would like to think that he gained from his speech. The poll numbers are showing that the Wright episode has hurt him significantly; I do not think he undid all of that damage, and I (reluctantly) suspect the unrepaired damage will hurt him - either now or in November.
Fern: I agree. Other than a few Obama fans, was anyone pretending that race wasn't an issue that had to be addressed?
Do you trust polls that come out ten seconds after an event?
I DO think that those polls accurately show mood swings among those voters that are not solidly wed to one candidate or the other. And, with the daily feature, I think it is easy to pinpoint what events have caused a swing over a few day period. (Now, that's not to say that it WILL have a long-term impact; just, that it has impacted a lot of those persuadables at the present time. But, you have to somehow re-swing them to your side, and that's why I felt Obama had a burden of persuasion.)
If different information comes out, I will evaluate and re-evaluate, if necessary. But, again, I think WND's Aaron Klein hit a deadend here and is trying to hyperbolize what little he found as much as he can. I'm not buying.
"Chicago-based organization established to promote the interests of the city's large Arab-American population
Supports expanded rights for illegal aliens
Founded by anti-Israel professor Rashid Khalidi, former director of the PLO press agency and onetime moderator of PLO advisory committee
Established in 1995, the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) "seeks to empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other communities … [and] to be an active agent for positive social change." Its founders were Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi (the former Director of the PLO press agency and onetime moderator of the PLO Advisory Committee) and his wife, Mona Khalidi.
Headquartered in the heart of Chicago's large Palestinian community, AAAN views the United States as a nation wherein Arab citizens are routinely maltreated. To remedy this perceived societal injustice, the organization aims "to challenge government policies that violate the civil, political and human rights of the Arab American and Arab immigrant community." Among these policies are "detentions, deportations and other attacks on immigrants that result from Homeland Security [measures]."
AAAN has worked closely with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which seeks to promote open borders immigration policies, to advocate for a law giving illegal aliens who attend Illinois high schools (dubbed "undocumented students" by AAAN) "the opportunity to pursue higher education; to press the state for increased funding for immigrant services, such as English Language, Outreach and Interpretation, and Civics programs; and to support other beneficial immigrant rights legislation."
Among the current luminaries of AAAN's staff are: (a) Vice President Ali Abunimah, who maintains the website ElectroicIntifada.com and is a Board member of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center; and (b) Executive Director Hatem Abudayyeh, who has condemned "the Israeli government and its military killing machine."
AAAN actively collaborates with scores of leftist organizations nationwide. Among these are the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International, the Arab American Institute, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the 8th Day Justice Center, MADRE, the Mosque Foundation, the National Lawyers Guild, Service Employees International Union, and Voices in the Wilderness.
AAAN has received donations from the Fry Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the Polk Brothers Foundation, and the Woods Fund of Chicago."
Sue, there is a big difference between Brittany Spears and Barack Obama. For one thing, she is not running for the highest office in the land. Like I said, at one point I considered voting for him when all the candidates I really wanted dropped out of the race. But there is just too much here to sit back and dismiss it. At least for me, and I think a lot of other Americans too.
This is NOT in any way, shape or form a race thing as far as I'm concerned. I just don't feel comfortable having this man run our country.
Really, Bonnie? I find that so difficult to believe. They're almost identical looking, for one thing.
Where in the world did that statement come from, Bonnie?
Sorry... that comment was in response to Sheryl O. not you. Too many comments on here. No wonder you were confused.
Personally, I support Obama because his political views are more progressive than Hillary's. It's about the issues, people! To learn the various candidates' views on the issues, go to http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Iraq_War, and for other issues, click an issue on the right-side menu, and compare what the candidates say.
I'm supporting Obama for two reasons: his views are closer to my Progressive views, and the Republicans WANT Hillary to get the nomination, so I don't. I like her, but she's trying to be very centrist (probably to attract disenfranchised Republicans), and I'm looking for a Democrat who's REALLY a Democrat. (Is it too much to hope Barack will ask Dennis Kucinich to run as his VP?)
You'll notice that the GOP are only attacking Obama right now. That's their strategy until Hillary gets the nomination, and THEN they would start to attack her. They've wanted to face Hillary in the general election all along, because they already have a head start...they spent eight years hunting the Clintons, putting their every move under a microscope in an attempt to smear Bill. They're READY to swift-boat Hillary. Barack, on the other hand, is charming and popular, and all they have right now are ridiculous propaganda to use against him, like his Arab name and his father's religion and his association with a jerk like Rev. Wright. Let's not help them by continuing to discuss this non-issue. !
Let's give the fascists what they DON'T want: a Barack Obama candidacy and Presidency!