March 20, 2008

"An aide to John McCain was suspended from the campaign today for blasting out an inflammatory video...."

Politico writes:
Soren Dayton, who works in McCain's political department, sent out the YouTube link of "Is Obama Wright?" on twitter at 12:31 today with the tag, "Good video on Obama and Wright." It has since been taken down....

McCain and his campaign have repeatedly said that they would stay away from personal attacks on Obama, but the temptation has increased as Wright's words have dominated the race in recent days.
Here's the video, which I am not embedding with approval. It's plainly offensive and intended to stir up racial hostility:



ADDED: Let's look at some of the reaction (as collected at Memeorandum). Matt Lewis at Townhall objects to suspending Dayton, because all he did was pass the video along, Obama deserves to be attacked about Wright, it may inhibit others in the campaign from "doing their job," and Twitter culture is such that "Dayton most likely didn't think he was Twittering in an 'official' capacity."

Ed Morrissey writes:
I’m conflicted by this. I know Soren, and he’s a pretty good guy. He didn’t create the YouTube, and... it doesn’t do anything except show Wright, Obama, and his wife Michelle speaking for themselves.
!

It doesn’t do anything except show Wright, Obama, and his wife Michelle speaking for themselves.

!
However, McCain has nothing to gain and a lot to lose by getting involved in this controversy....

McCain needs to take some action to show how seriously he wants to remain a disinterested observer in the coming meltdown. That means Soren has to get publicly disciplined, unfortunately. I doubt he’ll be on the sidelines for long. It may not be fair, but … it’s politics.
Wow, I'm amazed at Morrissey's insensitivity to that video. My concern was that McCain hadn't distanced himself enough from Soren Dayton and that the campaign should have had safeguards in place in advance to avoid any connection to this kind of trash.

James Joyner writes:
Does the video play on the fears that some whites have about angry black men? Sure. Mostly, though, it seeks to undermine Obama’s portrait of himself as mainstream. It’s more than a little unfair but that’s the nature of these mashups....

Would I like to see campaigns waged on a higher plane than this? You bet. But it’s not going to happen....

I might add that the Obama campaign has benefited from at least three other viral videos. The “Hillary 1984” video was very powerful in knocking down the original frontrunner. The “Obama Girl” video was vapid but got a lot of attention for demonstrating Obama’s appeal to young voters. The “Yes We Can” video was an internet sensation which spawned numerous imitators, including a “McCain 10,000 Years” video which itself went viral. So, now, another vapid video is working against him. That’s politics.
Going viral with racial material is different. It's a rough world, and Twittering and YouTube are going to be part of politics, but the campaign needs to have standards and set limits.

Daniel DiRito writes:
Yes, Senator McCain has suspended a staff member who was found to be distributing the video. Unfortunately, the GOP has refined the tactic of disseminating fear and falsehoods while maintaining the deniability of their candidates.
I'm not quite sure how those 2 sentences fit together, but the McCain campaign should be absolutely above using this kind of racial material.

Oliver Willis writes:

The base impulse of the modern conservative movement - especially the blogosphere and talk radio contingents - is to always appeal to base elements. Racism, sexism, smearing opponents as the worst things possible, they come as easy to the right as breathing. Dayton just made the mistake of getting caught in public. Don’t think the campaign and the party aren’t doing the same or worse behind closed doors.
The McCain campaign needs to ensure that Willis is wrong.

202 comments:

1 – 200 of 202   Newer›   Newest»
Alan said...

Wasn't this also the guy who worked for that Christian broadcasting company, Salem Communications? If one of Jesus's flock made this video than it must be true.

Jeff said...

Anne, if you don't approve of it, and it's plainly offensive and intended to stir up racial hostility, then why embed it?

George said...

Prof:..

Can you specify what exactly in the video is "plainly offensive" and would "stir up racial hostility"?

Is it the Malcolm X and Summer '68 clips? Mrs. Obama's comment?

The whole issue here is "racial hostility" surrounding a candidate who promises to heal the nation's racial wounds and who attends a church many find controversial because of its "Afro-centric" approach.

(For those unfamiliar with Malcolm X, here he is speaking. "We are the ones who face the dogs who tear the flesh from our limbs....Resort to any means necessary to bring about justice where the government can't give them justice. Extremism in the defense of liberty..is no vice. When one is moderate in the pursuit of justice...he is a sinner." That's Barry Goldwater! And maybe a better speaker than Obama!)

Daryl said...

Obama says his church isn't controversial.

Jeremiah Wright says "God Damn America"

"I did not hear such incendiary language"

Jeremiah Wright refers to "Clarence, Colon, and Condamnesia"

We nuked the Japanese "and we never batted an eye"

Michelle Obama has never been really proud of America before we started showering her husband with affection.

Senator Obama won't wear a U.S. flag pin on his chest.

Barack is going to get shot going to a gas station because he's black.

Michelle Obama says "our souls are broken in this nation"

Obama has his hands over his nuts during the national anthem.

Jeremiah Wright is using Malcolm X's language--and believe me, the "chickens coming home to roost" metaphor was made famous by Malcolm X; surely noted black religious scholar Jeremiah Wright would be aware of this--to blame America for 9/11

Senator Obama is claiming ignorance of the sermons by telling us that he wasn't in church that day/for 20 years

Don't tell me words don't matter!

Spread Eagle ® said...

Here's the video, which I am not embedding with approval. It's plainly offensive and intended to stir up racial hostility

It takes their own words (Wright's, Obama's and Michelle's words), in context and in no way distorted, and then uses them against them. And now that's "offensive"?

The fact is they should have their feet held to the fire for saying these things in the first place, and you ought to know it.

Matt said...

Daryl
Obama has his hands over his nuts during the national anthem.

You're an idiot. Unbelievably offensive comment.

rcocean said...

It had some good stuff in it. All they had to do was highlight Wright's ANTI-AMERICAN comments & his crazy lefty one's (like AIDS being a CIA Plot) and Obama's refusal to condemn them.

Instead they toss in the Malcolm X and the Black Panthers and make it about being anti-white. They compound the error by using white people in the contrast shot instead of having Condi or Colin Powell making some patriotic statement.

Good try, but too much race hostility. Its Obama's comfort with left-wing, anti-American ideas and advocates which disturbs me. I don't believe for a second that he hates white people.

madawaskan said...

Well I can't watch this all the way through -my computer crashes.

But it seems to me that one of the most unfair segments is where they show Obama-standing at attention during the flag ceremony-I stand the exact same way.

Then they switch rapidly to the Olympic Black Power controversy.
I must be a closet Black Panther supporter!

The "the lapel pin" repsonse seems to be taken out of context-I don't know what the story is there.

I also don't understand the overfixation on the wife.

The wife made him to this or that.

No,no,no Obama is responsible for Obama.

Daryl said...

In fairness, though, the repetition of the sounds makes Obama sound hesitant and evasive, which is unfair.

Also, I didn't understand the significance of the music in the background. Does it have some significance to a clip of speech that is playing at the same time? Or is it just there to remind viewers that Obama is black? Because it's definitely divisive and stirring up racial hostility, if that's the case.

I don't feel any sympathy for Michelle Obama. (A) I don't like her, and (B) she's the VP of Community Affairs at a hospital. She's an executive whose job is PR efforts. If she can't handle herself in a simple interview, maybe that suggests that she's grossly overpaid by the hospital solely because she's a political wife! For $320k/year, you'd think she could make an appearance in public without cramming her foot down her throat.

chickenlittle said...

"Obama has his hands over his nuts during the national anthem"

Well he does doesn't he?

Matt: You seem to think that what he doesn't do matters not- why?

madawaskan said...

This may sound corny to some but I think of it as prayer time and I use to stand that same way during church services when I went.

Simon said...

I share George's puzzlement. It isn't "plainly" offensive - as I understand that term, it conveys that any reasonable, intelligent, educated person would find it offensive, or at least, would understand the reason why others find it offensive. That claim fails, it seems to me. The ad may arguably be offensive, but that is a quite different standard, and (call me a dummy if you will) I don't understand what the argument is. I would sincerely appreciate if someone could explain that to us. Nor do I understand the charge about the author's intentions, but I suppose the answer to that question may become clear if it could be explained why it's offensive in the first place.

Submitted respectfully and in good faith,

Middle Class Guy said...

McCain and his campaign have repeatedly said that they would stay away from personal attacks on Obama, but the temptation has increased as Wright's words have dominated the race in recent days.


He suspended the guy from his campaign- whatever that means- so I guess his campaign means what they say.

MadisonMan said...

What does suspend mean? Fired? Why not say fired? Maybe the guy wasn't drawing a paycheck.

Methadras said...

Why is this issue so damned complicated for people to understand? Obama listened to his pastors tapes while in college. He was being indoctrinated by him during his 20 year membership, no? He was married by him, he had his children baptized by him, so I understand. Obama claims he never attended any sermons while these offensive statements were made, but I have to ask why attendance must be a requirement to as an association of guilt at this point? A long standing member of his church how purports to be so close to his pastor claims has to know those black racist/conspiracy theorist views by him and yet wants us to believe that he kept him at arms length over those 20 years as a member?

Then to make matters worse, in his speech, he claims to have racists and racism all around him, from his childhood upbringing to having his pastor/mentor there with him, to his racist, white grandmother, (who he totally threw under the bus) and yet somehow these views didn't hold any sway about his outlook on color and America? Now we have this video that Prof. Althouse says is offensive and stirs up racial hostility, yet nothing in it that I see that does anything of the kind.

The plain truth is that Obama is simply cloaking his Leftist/Marxist/Black racist/conspiracy theory views as populist, left-wing, feel-good, utopian hope/change tripe. His wife thinks like he does and his pastor has mentored him to think this way. His a black kid who went to a very privileged high-school in Honolulu and yet claims to be from the ghetto streets.

He got bored in the senate as a junior senator who couldn't get anything done. He won his senate seat against a kook like Alan Keyes who was thrown up against him 4 weeks before the election and walked to an easy win to replace a scandal ridden republican senator from Illinois. The man is a good orator, but nothing else. He opens his mouth yet the content of his oratory is empty and meaningless. He thinks that running for president under such austere conditions will allow him to affect the country in the direction he thinks it should go in. We don't know what that is other than the fact that his voting record alone should speak volumes for where it would go. Now McCain suspends one of his own because this video is a perceived attack against Obama and as I've stated before, McCain is hamstringing himself in an effort to appeal to a wider audience. An audience that is already in love with Obama and will have Clintonites moving to Obama if she loses the primary nomination. McCain will have gained nothing against this cotton-candy, empty suit known as Obama. How hard is this really to understand. There is that old saying about the company you keep, well, considering that you have a raving black racist/conspiracy theory kook as your spiritual guide who condemns America with patently conspiracy theory lies and distortions of the most grotesque kind, then I say let's keep examining the company this man keeps.

madawaskan said...

It's plainly offensive because it's unfair.


How in the hell if you stand that way does the youtuber make the logical leap to the Black Power symboligy-save for the fact of Obama's race.

It's patently unfair which is offensive to the viewer's intelligience.

Alan said...

It's only offensive to those who won't believe their lying eyes and ears that Obama is an angry black man who hates America. Praise Jesus there's a significant number of Americans who have a presupposed suspicion of candidates like Obama.

madawaskan said...

Grrreat-I just misspelled intelligence.

Oh and ya-from my comments here on this thread I'm an Obama supporter.

Riiiiiiiight.

Ann Althouse said...

The most offensive thing is the Black Power salute.

rhhardin said...

It doesn't strike me as offensive. Plainly against Obama, certainly.

But when you say stuff, you have an obligation to restate it without ceremony if it's been badly said; that's the movement of morality itself.

I don't think Obama has a ``without ceremony'' register because he has nothing to say.

If he wants to win over the doubters, he has to change pretty drastically.

The stutter edits are pretty ineffective.

Where do you get racial?

Matt said...

chickenlittle

His hands are not over his nuts. They are clasped together and held in front of his body where most hands natually reside when standing in such a way. If his hands were behind him I suppose you would say that his hands were over his ass crack? It's one thing to criticize Obama for his connections. But why belittle or diminish him in the way a fifth grader would? Can we get beyond that?

chickenlittle said...

...I use to stand that same way during church services when I went."

I think you're purposely evading the point.

It's more than just a B/W issue- Obama is a wannabe leader in search votes. His behavior reminds certain people of this sentiment.

"The most offensive thing is the Black Power salute"

yeah that was offensive when it happened.

Methadras said...

Ann Althouse said...

The most offensive thing is the Black Power salute.


[gasp] SHOCKING!!! [/gasp] [rolleyes]

rcocean said...

Just to repeat myself. That's what I really didn't like about video. Why are Malcolm X and the Black panthers in the video?

What the hell does that have to do with Obama and 2008?

Middle Class Guy said...

Oliver Willis writes:
The base impulse of the modern conservative movement - especially the blogosphere and talk radio contingents...

You could subsitute modern liberal or new left movement and the paragraph would read the same. Neither side are innocents. They will each use whatever they can get away with and throw anyone under the bus who has the misfortune of getting caught.

Politcal entities operate under the eleventh commandment; thou shalt not get caught.

Paul Zrimsek said...

The McCain campaign needs to ensure that Willis is wrong.

Not exactly the toughest assignment anyone's ever gotten, is it?

Simon said...

Ann Althouse said...
"The most offensive thing is the Black Power salute.

I had no idea what that was, or where it appeared in the video. I looked it up, and take it you mean the thing with two guys on a podium with raised fists (that's the only thing in the video that remotely approaches a "salute"). Well, I have no idea what that footage is from, what the context was, or what it's supposed to represent, so I will take your word for it that this nails the case, that it makes the video about race rather than Obama, his wife, their relationship with a kooky pastor, and what all that says about his judgment, all of which seemed fair game to me. As I said, I infer from your reply that there's a whole context I'm missing here. I will defer to your judgment, but with observation that there's a question begged by this experience: One has to wonder how many people share my apparent ignorance of "the Black Power Salute" (is a coded message still coded if no one watching knows the code?). Sincerely, I saw that picture and it made no association with me at all. I saw three athletes on a podium - nothing more. I don't follow sports.

MadisonMan said...

What the hell does that have to do with Obama and 2008?


Well, nothing -- except it will instill fear? misgivings? backlash? in Pennsylvania voters.

I wonder who made the video.

MadisonMan said...

and I agree that the McCain candidacy gains absolutely nothing by dipping their toe into the Democratic Meltdown.

The one reason (one of them) I don't consider the prospect of a McCain presidency a disaster is that I think McCain is a decent guy at heart. Not reacting to a staffer throwing bilge onto youtube won't underscore that opinion.

Simon: Mexico City Olympics, 1968. Gah, I feel old.

chickenlittle said...

Matt: You seem to think that what he doesn't do matters not- why?

Obama's videotaped actions are in and of themselves ground breaking for a wannabe commander in chief. Would they be fitting for a POTUS?

Doesn't he need to explain his beliefs here?
Maybe you should try for him

Revenant said...

It's plainly offensive and intended to stir up racial hostility

In the sense that white people are likely to get stirred up by the bigoted remarks of Obama's spiritual adviser, sure.

But the only think close to objectionable that the video does is put in the clips of the "black power" Olympic salute and Malcolm X's remarks on Kennedy. But considering that Obama's church honors the men in question, the parallel seems fair.

I'm sure we'll hear the usual demented honking the left about how it isn't racist for Wright to say those things, but IS racist for a white man to show him saying those things... but, eh, that's par for the course.

Trooper York said...

Arnold Jackson: [repeated line] Watchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis
(Different Strokes, 1978)

Ann Althouse said...

Simon, just Google "black power salute" and it will be obvious.

Kirby Olson said...

I've heard so many statements like these from inside the universities that this seems very very very mild.

Ward Churchill's speech is standard currency in almost all humanities departments across the country.

I don't think most of the Democrats I know will see this as at all offensive, and in fact will simply see this as one more reason to vote for Barack Obama. Most of the Democrats that I know in academia actually believe that W. is WORSE THAN HITLER.

And that America is a criminal empire gone rogue in the world that needs to be stopped with a bullet.

It's a very common viewpoint at least to me, almost a set of cliches. Where's the offense?

If you go into any ethnic studies department this would seem like a milquetoast version of what almost all the profs and students there believe about America.

This seems almost conciliatory.

ricpic said...

An immense amount of a well educated sophisticated white's sense of her own superiority is tied up in not having the wrong attitude toward blacks; the wrong attitude being to criticize blacks for anything they say or do. That's why the campaign video in question is so offensive: it shows a black, Obama, to be so nakedly wrong in his associations and pronouncements that it endangers the position that blacks can do no wrong. It draws the sophisticate dangerously close to the point at which she would have to say, "Yes, he's black and he's wrong." And that would strike at her image of herself as superior because nobly beneficent to the disadvantaged. That image must stay unchallenged. It must hold. It must!

Henry said...

Oliver Willis wrote The base impulse of the modern conservative movement ... is to always appeal to base elements.

Isn't that a meaningless tautology? Ann, I thought you had a standard for such things.

Kudos to McCain, anyway, for his follow-through. I hope he keeps it up.

Revenant said...

Ann,

What do you feel is so offensive about the black power salute shot? The association with Wright seems apt. The underlying philosophy is the same, as is the open expression of contempt for country.

If they'd thrown in some completely unrelated black wrongdoers (like OJ Simpson or Raymond Washington) that would be one thing. But Wright is part of the same tradition as Malcolm X and the Black Power movement, and it is a tradition that non-black Americans can quite reasonably be offended by.

Matt said...

chickenlittle

You seem to think that what he doesn't do matters not- why?Obama's videotaped actions....

Well then let's talk about it like adults.
Obama has explained it and explained it well. His grandfather taught him to put his hand over his heart for the Pledge but to stand and sing the National Anthem. Here's a photo of GWB doing the same thing. Would I conclude he isn't patriotic? No, of course not.

Henry said...

George, Simon, and (by extension) Ed Morrisey -- I'm not going to watch the video, so I'm just picking up clues from other people's comments -- but you act as if images have no meaning. The words of Obama and his wife are likely the least important factor of the experience.

titus5678begin said...

The guy he created it is some guy by the last name of Habeeb (sounds kind of islamic, huh), who was a radio producer for Laura Ingraham's radio show and now lives in Mississippi (surprise) and works for some talk radio network that puts out Hugh Hewitt's radio station.

I do believe that this stuff is not want most Americans want to hear during the next 9 months of election and could in fact backfire.

Alan said...

"Wow, I'm amazed at Morrissey's insensitivity to that video."

I'm not. That's why he posts at Hot Air and you don't.

Dubya said...

I could not disagree more. The only "inflammatory" stuff in the video was what Obama, his wife, and his pastor said themselves. Pointing out the fact that Obama et al. have a serious racial chip on their shoulders is not racist.

Why are you trying to squelch free speech?

Zeb Quinn said...

I say you're wrong Ann. The black power stuff was injected because the ideas and attitudes of Wright and his followers are highly reminiscent of that. If it was Colin Powell or Condi Rice running those memories wouldn't be stirred and those images wouldn't be injected. If Obama is all that good and all that special, then it shouldn't be necessary to shelter and protect him by not letting people highlight his own words and those of his closest associates.

Dubya said...

Obama has his hands over his nuts during the national anthem.

"You're an idiot. Unbelievably offensive comment."

Uh, it's true. Did you actually watch the video? How can the truth be "offensive?"

chickenlittle said...

Matt:

I think the comments to that Huffpost say things better than I could.

Could you provide a link to Obama's explanation?

Thanks!

paul a'barge said...

DiRito: Unfortunately, the GOP has refined the tactic of disseminating fear and falsehoods while maintaining the deniability of their candidates

This is hilarious, and I mean side-splitting. Look, it's the DHIMMIcRATs who are disseminating fear. And Obama himself is guilty of having spent the last 20 years and 20+ thousand dollars supporting and funding one of the most hateful, vile and bitter men on the North American cont
inent.

Maintaining deniability? McCain fired the guy DiRito, you simpering ninny. What in G-ds name are you talking about?

Falsehoods? Do you mean like "white people created AIDS to wipe out African Americans? Or white people in America were direct supporters of Apartheid? The list goes on.

I'm sorry but Althouse's filters are clogged to the point where the obvious hypocrisy and double standard of the race baiters can't be detected.

Oh, and Willis? Oliver Willis is Jeremiah Wright lite. He's the bud lite of the hate mongers.

How you could provide a platform for this hate monger to peddle his racist nonsense leaves a very black mark on you, Althouse.

You need to go back and watch that video again. Note that there was no one in the background holding a gun to the head of Obama, Michelle and Jeremiah Wright.

Pitiful. What happens to zero tolerance for intolerance when it is black Americans who wallow in the rut of intolerance?

Simon said...

Henry, of course I understand that imagery matters. I understand that. I infer that you're saying that people watching this ad will be more swayed by what they see than what they hear. A couple of responses to that. What if the person viewing the video, as I said above in my reply to Ann, has no idea what the black power salute is, and has never seen the image from (as MadisonMan tells us) a sporting event in the late 1960s? I can only speak for myself, but my mind almost completely ignored it at first pass; I only noticed it at all because Ann spoke of a "black power salute" occasioning a much closer viewing looking for something that could be construed as a salute. Does a coded message count, as I asked above, if no one watching knows the code? Furthermore, just saying that people will react to images doesn't say much; what meaning are you drawing from watching this video? If I had to guess, I would guess that you think people watching will tie the black power movement (about which I admit total ignorance and, by and large, indifference) and Malcolm X to Wright, and thence Obama; if that's so, what's your answer to Revenant's 8:06 comment?

Matt said...

Dubya et al

This video really takes Obama's words out of context. I've seen many videos about Bush that do the same thing. It's easy to take five words from anybody and twist them to have more meaning than they do.
Does Obama have a problem with Rev Wright? Yes, he does. But to link him to black nationalism as this video does is a way to fan the flames of racism and put Obama into an extremist group.
But anyone with half a brain knew this was coming. There is probably not a black Democrat anywhere in the country who would not be connected with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers ect. It's too bad.

Terry said...

The real issue should be Obama's church itself and his acceptance and/or tolerance of their theology. Wright bases his church's theology on Dr's. Cone and Hopkins theology of black liberation. Dr. Cone primarily of the two is most responsible for the basic tenants of TUCC. To say that he is not the biggest fan of white people is an understatement.

Cone says that Trinity UCC (Obama's church) "embodies" his theology and he is required reading for parishoners. Here in Cone's own words is a summary of that theology:

"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."

John Davies said...

rcocean-

>Just to repeat myself. That's what I really didn't like about video. Why are Malcolm X and the Black panthers in the video?

Daryl said it up above your question - Malcolm X used the phrase about chickens coming home to roost after JFK's assassination.

I'm guessing that the Black Panther stuff alludes to the New Black Panther endorsement that used to be on Obama's website which was removed recently.

Simon said...

Dubya said...
"Why are you trying to squelch free speech?"

How is Ann trying to "squelch free speech" by expressing her opinion of someone else's speech? Get a clue, learn to read, and show some damned respect when you come into someone's house.

Alan said...

"Fake, but accurate."

Paul Zrimsek said...

Not offensive, just kind of dumb and annoying. Those familiar with Malcolm X and the Black Power salute will be perfectly capable of drawing the connection with Wright unaided, and will appreciate being told to do so as little as I did. The kids who slept through history class will just be baffled.

Stuttering video should not be used by anyone for any purpose whatever.

Dubya said...

She is essentially saying that this video is "unacceptable" speech. I realize she doesn't have the power of the federal government behind her to actually censor this. But apparently she would approve of such an action.

Craig said...

Didn't Wright honour Farrakhan not so long ago? And didn't Farrakhan's Nation of Islam and its cohorts frequently adopt the Black Power salute?

And Obama worshiped at the feet of Wright.

So what is the problem? Political ads can be coarse in the associations that they infer, but this is hardly a reach. Obama has a seriously troubling history of associating with loony radicals.

It's not insensitive to point out the obvious.

Matt said...

chickenlittle

Obama and the Pledge
Google search will yield more including a Q&A session where he answers a woman about the Anthem.

More importantly how the heck can anyone criticize Obama for being shallow due to his speeches and then turn around and freak out because he doesn't put his hand over his heart for the Anthem or wear a flag lapel? Goodness sakes!

Simon said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Simon, just Google 'black power salute' and it will be obvious."

I did so, but I still don't understand. I do understand, however, that context matters, and since there appears to be context that you're familiar with but I'm not, I'll defer to your judgment.

rcocean said...

J.D.;

Malcolm X and the '68 black panther salute has nothing to do with Obama. THATS where the video went wrong. Its trying to imply Obama is a Malcolm X or a black panther - angry muslim who hates America. But Barrack isn't Muslim and he doesn't hate white people. Even is Rev. Wright does.

BTW, the target audience for this Video is the independent white blue collar votes over 50. And believe me, they remember Malcolm X, the '68 Olympics and the Black Power salute.

George said...

titus--

Habeebi means male friend in Arabic.

Malcolm X is in the clip because he apparently originated the 'chickens coming home' expression that Wright uses.

Fascinating that the 1968 Summer Olympics black power protest is not recognized. In the clip at hand the '68 images comes as the Star Spangled Banner except is played, just as it was when the runners received their awards. From wiki...

American runners Tommie Smith and John Carlos placed first and third in the 200 meter They received their medals shoeless, wearing black socks to represent black poverty. Smith wore a black scarf around his neck to represent black pride. Carlos wore beads which he described "were for those individuals that were lynched, or killed that no-one said a prayer for, that were hung and tarred. It was for those thrown off the side of the boats in the middle passage."

Carlos had forgotten his black gloves, but Norman suggested that they share Smith's pair, with Smith wearing the right glove and Carlos the left. When "The Star-Spangled Banner" played, Smith and Carlos delivered the salute with heads bowed, a gesture which became front page news around the world. As they left the podium they were booed by the crowd. Smith later said "If I win, I am American, not a black American. But if I did something bad, then they would say I am a Negro. We are black and we are proud of being black. Black America will understand what we did tonight."

Same as today...blacks and whites see and hear the same images and words but take away entirely different meanings.

Tim said...

Hmmm, it appears that when it comes to talking about race and politics in America, only the Left and those associated with them enjoy full free speech rights. The rest of us plainly have to watch what we say...

Dave said...

MadisonMan, maybe I'm missing something here: "I agree that the McCain candidacy gains absolutely nothing by dipping their toe into the Democratic Meltdown."

Are you claiming that McCain suspending a staffer (possibly paid) for an incident of passing a Twitter link is *worse* than a 20-year mentoring relationship with a race-baiter and being unwilling to end it?

Are there two sets of rules for behavior? (Oops. Forgot myself. *OF COURSE* there are two sets of rules for behavior. Otherwise O-dub would have ripped people for comparing Bush to Hitler, wouldn't he?)

SSnyder30 said...

If this is what constitutes "plainly offensive" then I have no idea what words could be used to describe Wright's rhetoric. The phrase "Gobsmackingly vile" comes to mind.

The McCain campaign is probably right to not associate itself with such things and take the "high road" but this hardly rises to the level of "plainly offensive", if by no other definition that it obviously doesn't offend everybody, and probably not most people.

Revenant said...

Does Obama have a problem with Rev Wright? Yes, he does. But to link him to black nationalism as this video does is a way to fan the flames of racism and put Obama into an extremist group.

Wright and his church -- and, presumably, the people who've been attending that church for 20 years -- are followers of black liberation theology, which has strong ties to the Black Power movement dating back more than forty years.

You say it fans the flames of racism. I say it fans the flames of white dislike of black racists.

Alan said...

I remember being instructed as a kid to put my hand over my heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. But I don't recall ever being told to do the same during the National Anthem. But then, I'm not running for President so I don't have to know better. Or I hate America.

Matt said...

Tim
talking about race and politic

Okay, then let's talk about it. Not make one-sided videos that aim to diminish and slander someone. I know it's nothing new - the Left does it a lot too. But how can the Right stake a better position if they resort to the same tactics as some on the Left?
But nonetheless I have a better opinion of McCain when he seperates himself from personal attacks.

Jim C. said...

"It's plainly offensive and intended to stir up racial hostility"

You're speaking of Wright's blatant racism, right? You couldn't mean it's racist to expose a racist, could you? Because that would be less than intelligent. And we all know how intelligent you are.

"The McCain campaign needs to ensure that Willis is wrong."

Willis needs no help to do that.

John Davies said...

rcocean-

You asked why the clips were put in the video and I responded why I thought the filmmaker put them in.

I am not the person who made the video so you don't need to convince me whether they are relevant or not.

My mistake was not to read your question as rhetorical.

Bob said...

The Malcom X comment about the "chickens coming home to roost" was put in there because the Reverend Wright used the same words in exactly the same context. This stuff is "unbelievably racist" on behalf of the guys who posted the silly video? I need to see a pointer to where the same public outrage by the same posters is so prominent. What I think is that one-sided outrage shows who is a child of the times.

Simon said...

rcocean said...
"Malcolm X and the '68 black panther salute has nothing to do with Obama. THATS where the video went wrong. Its trying to imply Obama is a Malcolm X or a black panther - angry muslim who hates America."

I would think that it's trying to say that Wright is of the same ilk as Malcolm X (whatever that ilk may be) and imply impropriety in Obama's relationship with such a man - not to say that Obama holds those views himself. But then again: I suppose that to maintain that, I'd have to account for the business of the lapel pins and the lack of salute, so perhaps taken as a whole they are trying to tie Obama to that angry radical mindset. (I should say that all I know about Malcolm X is that he was an angry radical; I'm a conservative, so to tell the truth, I don't have much time for, or interest in, angry radicals, regardless of what their cause (or race) may be.)

Bob said...

The Malcom X comment about the "chickens coming home to roost" was put in there because the Reverend Wright used the same words in exactly the same context. This stuff is "unbelievably racist" on behalf of the guys who posted the silly video? I need to see a pointer to where the same public outrage by the same posters is so prominent. What I think is that one-sided outrage shows who is a child of the times.

Pogo said...

The McCain aide was stupid for shifting the focus away from Obama and Wright and onto a metadiscussion about the way that subject should be handled.

Stupid.

There is a direct connection between the leftist black power militants, Malcom X, and Wright's sermons. What is wrong apparently is to mention it. Even my typing it will convince some that I must be racist. Wright can say whatever he wants about the US KKKA, and Obama can sit in that church with his wife and kids, and that's fine. Should I complain about that mischaracterization of "white" America -whatever the hell that is- that lie about me and my family, then it is I who has sinned.

I say bullshit.

Obama seems to be the Democrat's Magic Negro who would absolve the nation of its racism. But it isn't turning out that way. He isn't magic at all, and a bit of a charlatan.

MadisonMan said...

dave, enlighten me: What does the McCain candidacy gain by involving itself in this Obama thing right now? And why should Obama be censoring people? (And who is mentoring who?)

steve austin said...

Drop the black power salute + the stupid faux stuttering and you've got yourself a legitimate ad.

Dubya said...

From Jay Nordlinger on NRO:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTMwNTU2NGM5NTFkOGExN2VhYjE5ZDUzZjAwOTgyYmQ=

I know we’re not supposed to talk about Reverend Wright anymore, because Obama and his supporters have declared it off-limits. It is now in bad taste — sort of like showing the video of the Dean Scream quickly became in bad taste. (You remember that episode from the ’04 campaign?) But I’m not quite through with the Rev yet. In fact, I haven’t even started.

And thank heaven we live in a free country, where the Obamites can’t shut us up. Not even McCain — with Senator Feingold — can shut us up (entirely)!


My thoughts exactly!

Simon said...

steve austin said...
"Drop the black power salute + the stupid faux stuttering and you've got yourself a legitimate ad."

Well, it's out there now. Don't we have to deal with what is there, rather than what it could be if some material had been omitted? Drop the sex and nudity and Deep Throat becomes a legitimate (if probably quite dull) movie.

Daryl said...

Dubya: you're just flat wrong. Pointing out speech as "unacceptable" is compatible with free speech. Althouse isn't "silencing" anyone. The proper way to respond to speech you don't like is with more speech.

She isn't in charge of silencing Americans (no one is), and she isn't advocating for that. If she wants to say this video is a vile, racist sham, that's her perogative.

Certainly there are disturbing elements about it, and it's made in a style that is inherently disrespectful (messing with the Obamas' voices by stopping, rewinding, and replaying them)

Middle Class Guy said...

Well, I have no idea what that footage is from, what the context was, or what it's supposed to represent...


Simon, it is footage from the Olympics of the late sixties- early seventies, I forget which. It is a protest statement. It occured during the medal ceremonies which the US won for whatever competition.

Instead of the medal winners standing with hands on heart during the National Anthem, they gave the Black Power salute. It was the equivalent of giving the finger to the United States.

Henry said...

Pogo wrote, There is a direct connection between the leftist black power militants, Malcom X, and Wright's sermons.

And then you connect Wright to Obama, and voila, Obama is a black power militant. It's a game of six degrees of Kevin Bacon, but with the visceral power of video to create the powerful, and completely tenuous, impression.

Simon, that's the answer to your earlier question for me. If you want to logically examine Obama's relationship with an extremist viewpoint, then work with logic and reason.

A collage of negative images is simple propaganda and should be rejected as such.

Even if you think you have good reason to belive Obama is an extremist, that doesn't make the short-cut slam of a mashup video a defensible way to make the case.

mandrewa said...

An ok video. Honest and in fact understated. Jeremiah Wright's
church is proud of and sells recordings of him saying worse things.
Obama is not misrepresented or quoted out of context. I don't like
the stutter effect and feel it distorts and is unfair to Obama.

Oliver Willis' criticism is dishonest. This is not racism;
this is exposing racism. This is not smearing. There is no
misrepresentation here. This is confronting reality.

M. Simon said...

It is really racist to identify Obama with the church he attended for 20 years and the words of his minister?

After all if David Duke was McCain's Pastor the same rules would apply. You believe that?

OK.

I predict if Obama is the candidate McCain in the upper 50s and he will have big coat tails. There are a lot of Democrats fed up with the whole idea of race guilt. Sick and tired of it. Democrats.

America hates racist. Period.

Which is a good thing. America seems to be past the racial divide (or at least white people - mostly - are) which is a good thing.

mandrewa said...

Well, reading the above, I see there was a black power salute
in there and I don't think that belongs. Certainly that's very like
the message of Obama's church and might be assumed to be something
they would agree with, but in fact it's not an act of the church.
Nor is it an act of Obama.

Yes, I agree, that scene then from this video is a smear.

On the other hand, I just watched the thing and I never even
noticed. I didn't know what it meant and it meant nothing
to me.

Mimi said...

The reason for the Malcom X clip is that his phrase 'the chickens have come home to roost' folloew directly after Wright's use of hte same phrase (re: 9/11). The implication is that Wright drew from Malcom X.
The black power salute I'm not as sure about, but perhaps Wright made a similar gesture when he was waving his hands about - i didnt' really notice.

Simon said...

Henry said...
"Simon, that's the answer to your earlier question for me. If you want to logically examine Obama's relationship with an extremist viewpoint, then work with logic and reason."

In a thirty second TV spot? Henry, if that's the standard, then you've proved too much: doesn't the force of that reasoning carry one not only to the conclusion that this is bad, but that all political advertising (and for that matter, most political speeches) is just as bad because of constraints inherent in the medium?

Alan said...

No worry, M. Simon. Obama won't be the nominee. He's now considered unelectable. Hillary will get the required super delegates and receive the nomination. And she'll be our next President. I think you can thank Sean Hannity for the Wright take down and Rush Limbaugh for Hillary's popularity momentum.

Simon said...

Addenda to my previous comment, replying to Henry: Put another way, it seems to me that you're arguing for political campaign by detailed policy exegesis, and if that's so, aren't you basically arguing that politics as it's presently praticed, has always been practiced, will always be practiced, and - if public choice theory's concepts of rational ignorance hold - can only ever be practiced - is fundamentally illegitimate?

MPH said...

Anyone who spews insanity for a living (J. Wright) deserves to be laughed out of business. Congrats to the person who made this video. Well done.

Icepick said...

The base impulse of the modern conservative movement - especially the blogosphere and talk radio contingents - is to always appeal to base elements. Racism, sexism, smearing opponents as the worst things possible, they come as easy to the right as breathing.

Well, they can't help it. They're just "typical white [people] who, uh, if [they see] somebody on the street that [they don't] know there's a reaction that's been been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way...."

M. Simon said...

Yep. Obama had nothing to do with the Black Panthers.

Except he featured an endorsement by the New Black Panthers on his campaign site. Well, he took it down in the last couple of days. Now doubt because it would have been misinterpreted.

Let me add - Rs take the Presidency, The House, and the Senate. Obama or Clinton. Don't matter.

I am a Republican and consider my party totally inept. Until I look at the Democrats. They make Republicans look like rocket scientists.

M. Simon said...

Daryl
Obama has his hands over his nuts during the national anthem.

You're an idiot. Unbelievably offensive comment.


So true. Let me fix it.

Obama has his hands over his balls during the national anthem.

Better now?

PatCA said...

"Why are Malcolm X and the Black panthers in the video?
What the hell does that have to do with Obama and 2008?"

Well, Obama uses Malcolm X's speech in Spike Lee's movie (bambozzles, hoodwinked) in his speeches. He is appropriating Malcom X's language. Doesn't that imply he is in some way inspired by the source, given his mentorship with Wright?

I am one of those people who thinks racists like Wright are just as offensive as white racists, so I don't see what's racially offensive about this video and not Wright's. Wright and Obama clearly identify with black nationalism.

I'm still waiting for a clip of all Wright's nice, Christian sermons, the ones Obama always heard on lo those many Sundays.

M. Simon said...

In fairness, though, the repetition of the sounds makes Obama sound hesitant and evasive, which is unfair.

Its a rap music thing. You old fogeys wouldn't get it. I'm 63 so that must make you about 80.

Simon said...

Alan said...
"Obama won't be the nominee. He's now considered unelectable. Hillary will get the required super delegates and receive the nomination. And she'll be our next President."

I agree with the assessment, but the conclusion is problematic. Hillary's nomination is a double-whammy: it has the potential to solidify Republican support behind McCain (most of those in the party who hate McCain enough to bolt are the same people who are almost rabid in their hatred for Clinton) at the same time as it creates potential fissures in the Democratic party.

medaura said...

Perhaps this video was a bit too provocative and might be perceived as overly aggressive if it came directly from McCain's campaign with his approval, might be perceived as a cheap shot in some ways...

But the video itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with its contents, and I am still trying to understand why Mrs.Althouse is so outraged over it.

What's the big deal??

Freeman Hunt said...

Revenant explained the context. In light of that, is anyone's opinion changed?

mandrewa said...

Henry, and others that feel the same, I just don't understand this idea that it's somehow unfair to tag Obama with Wright's words.

If you watch these videos of Wright and the pans around the audience, nobody seems shocked, nobody seems surprised. In fact we hear a lot of applause.

And then there's the incredible clue that this church was actually selling these sermons. These were not exceptional sermons; these were not unusual sermons. They were part of Wright's normal fare.

No one thought, hey, there might be something wrong with these ideas, because to these people they were more than ok. The sermons were a means to attract others of like mind.

The proposition that in 20 years Obama had not heard this sort of thing over and over is not credible. He has heard it all before.

Does this mean that Obama agreed with these ideas? No, it does not mean that. You can listen to something without agreeing with it. But Obama has chosen to associate himself with these ideas. He repeatedly chose to do so over twenty years and again he chose to do so in his recent speech the other day.

somefeller said...

No worry, M. Simon. Obama won't be the nominee. He's now considered unelectable. Hillary will get the required super delegates and receive the nomination. And she'll be our next President. I think you can thank Sean Hannity for the Wright take down and Rush Limbaugh for Hillary's popularity momentum.

From your lips to God's ear, Alan. Though I'm not so confident about that as of today. We'll see how Pennsylvania turns out.

Tim said...

"Okay, then let's talk about it. Not make one-sided videos that aim to diminish and slander someone. I know it's nothing new - the Left does it a lot too. But how can the Right stake a better position if they resort to the same tactics as some on the Left?
But nonetheless I have a better opinion of McCain when he seperates himself from personal attacks."


Agreed. And in a better world, that's exactly what would happen.

We don't live in that world, so the issue for me isn't the video stupidly distributed by the for-now-erstwhile McCain aide - but rather the disparate treatment between Wright and Dayton. We saw a preview of this when the Wright issue first surfaced, when Obama defenders equated his 20+ year association with Wright with Hagee's (sp?) of McCain, as if they were remotely equivalent.

They weren't then, and they aren't now. Was it stupid for Dayton to distribute the video? Sure. Is it as offensive as Ann suggests it is? I don't think so, although I do think it mildly offensive and most certainly heavy-handed. No doubt a more artful presentation of the more important issues raised by Obama's association with Wright could have been made with less ugliness. Does the McCain Campaign deserve much opprobrium for the fact one aide distributed a video the campaign did not commission? Not really; certainly not the opprobrium (or, if you prefer, scrutiny) Obama deserves for his very close and long association with the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.

So, can we talk about it without the double standards?

My own bet is no, we cannot, and it is naive to think we might any time soon.

TMink said...

Ya know, angry black men do not scare me. Socialist presidential candidates scare me.

As for the Mexican Olympics and Malcolm X, parts of the country were at war with black Americans at that time. It was shameful and sinful. In that context, I can accept both the salute and Malcolm X. If black America was at war with me and my family in the same way, I would speak and act in a way to keep me and my family safe. While I cannot imagine adopting a white power posture in any situation, I would certainly adopt a loaded 12 gauge.

I have seen no evidence that Senator Obama is a racist. I wonder about his wife though.

Trey

Daniel said...

Good thing Ann is not running for president or the comments on this blog alone would be cause for a Wright-like scandal.

Of course they don't speak for her, but...neither did the pastor for Obama.

I do love how the (obviously) white guys don't get what's offensive. Reminds me of my four years of college in Wisconsin.

John Clifford said...

It's a pretty lame video that could have gotten the point across (Obama is only distancing himself from this minister, and these views, now that his long-term comfort with them has become widely known) without some of the inflammatory images (Black Panthers, Malcolm X). I also think the audio looping/repeating to emphasize certain words or phrases was annoying more than illuminating, but I don't think it was racist. It was stylistic incompetence.

IMO, a better way to illustrate inconsistency or evasion is to juxtapose a person making a statement and then show the same person making the opposite statement, or some factual evidence that contradicts that person, and then repeat this a couple of times. For example, showing Bill Clinton waving his finger saying "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" and then segue into his 'contrition' speech after the stained dress became known, then show him equivocating over the meaning of "is", and then repeat this sequence.

I do think the image of Obama standing with his hands clasped instead of over his heart, as an emphasis on his refusal to wear an American flag on his lapel, is relevant and not inflammatory.

The real question is, did this change my opinion of Obama? A little. Was it anywhere near as effective as will.i.am's video? Not even close. I'd bet that Obama owes his surge primarily to that video and the effect it had on the literally millions of viewers (mostly young) who saw it.

The Left still holds the advantage when it comes to effective propaganda.

MadisonMan said...

Let me add - Rs take the Presidency, The House, and the Senate.

Yes, this is why 5 of the 6 Republican Leaders from the 2006 races aren't running.

A McCain Presidency with a Republican Legislature would be a complete disaster. Look what happened when Bush had Congress. Ugh. My preferred outcome is McCain and a solid Democratic Congress. I don't know if it will happen. I was pretty certain the Senate would turn Democratic in 2006, and it did. I haven't finished reading my tea leaves yet for 2008.

Henry said...

Simon, there's two levels of communication going on here. One is the visceral level of the 30 second TV spot. I almost never watch TV so I'm not too concerned about the actual ad. The second level of communication is how grown-ups (bloggers in this case) respond to it. It does matter if smart, rational people choose to promote (or defuse) a piece of visceral clap-trap.

As for McCain, I think he benefits from the high road, especially at the moment when Hillary and Obama are self-destructing; the racial identity game is very volatile (as the Dems have discovered), and McCain need take no part in it.

MadisonMan said...

Clarification: House Leaders. 5 of 6 House Leaders from 2006 are not running in 2008.

EvilDave said...

The racially offensive (please) angle may be generational.
As someone born in 1972, I see nothing racially offensive about this.
The black power salute and Malcolm X were over the top, but not out of bounds.
The video used Wright, Obama and his wife's own words against them.
I sorry that you want to give Obama a free pass because he is black, but that isn't equality. Equality is treating him like a normal candidate, and the candidate's own words and those of his advisor's are fair game.
It showed Obama's belief in the anti-American wing of the Dem party. I don't believe those are "black views" I believe those are
Obama's views (and the views of a sizable portion of the Dem party).
Do you think an ad like this against David Duke would be racially offensive to whites?


In summation, the Malcolm X & Black Panther stuff is over the top, but the ad isn't plainly or racially offensive. He said those things, he sought out a paster who said those things. He should get called on the carpet for those things. The Malcolm X and Black Panther stuff is over the top, not because it is racial (oh, let us never mention that) but because Obama didn't do or say that. The video sections are true, but generally ... well ... non-admissible evidence.

M. Simon said...

Why are Malcolm X and the Black panthers in the video?

Because until recently Obama touted support from the New Black Panthers on his www site?

And his minister is fond of quoting Malcom?

To be perfectly fair:

The chickens are coming home to roost. Just not in the hen house. They appear to have landed in Obama's house. I'll bet it must stink.

Speaking of Obama's house. How is the Rezko thing going?

You know in '04 I thought the Ds nominated the most inept candidate with the stupidest campaign ever. Here it is in '08 and the Ds have outdone themselves.

I'm looking forward to '12. I can't wait to see how they top themselves.

The sheer entertainment value is worth double the price of admission.

I'm really beginning to believe those stories that came out showing Democrats to be much smarter than Republicans. I think it is a case of too smart by half.

Daryl said...

revenant wrote: Wright and his church -- and, presumably, the people who've been attending that church for 20 years -- are followers of black liberation theology, which has strong ties to the Black Power movement dating back more than forty years.

Bingo. Black Liberation Theology is the religious counterpart to Black Power politics. It is Black Power. It's fair to link the two.

It's not fair to link the salute to Obama's picture with his hands [not over his heart] because:
1 - he was standing in front, so how did he know everyone behind him had their hands up?
2 - how did he know it was the national anthem? The Black Power movement's greatest victory has been to trick Americans into butchering their national anthem. A few black singers started it, and now it's impossible to go to a public event and hear the anthem sung halfway normally. I blame Black Power, but I don't blame Senator Obama. (Okay, I don't really blame Black Power.)

Until we have real reason to believe that Senator Obama deliberately refused to put his hand over his heart (which the flag-pin-thing supports but only in a very weak way), we can't equate the two.

Simon said...

Daniel said...
"Good thing Ann is not running for president or the comments on this blog alone would be cause for a Wright-like scandal. Of course they don't speak for her, but...neither did the pastor for Obama."

Of course, Ann hasn't sat at the feet of her comenters for twenty years, proclaimed us to be her mentors, titled her book after our suggestions, or given us thousands of dollars (although we did once give her money to eat an egg salad sandwich, that would be the wrong way around for the simile you pose). Four years of college in Wisconsin and you don't know how to compare like with like? I'd ask for your money back... ;)

mandrewa said...

There's a certain irony in Oliver Willis waxing indignent about what he claims is a smear. Note that he can't complain about the "smear" without making a smear.

Quote: "Racism, sexism, smearing opponents as the worst things possible, they come as easy to the right as breathing."

It makes the inadequacies and unfairness of this video -- the stuttering effect and the Olympic ceremony -- look trivial in comparison.

Brian J. said...

Come on, Ann. An exclamation point is not a rational argument.

Context is important in making personal judgments; it is far less so in choosing a president.

As a fellow human, I understand why black people of a certain generation would foster resentment towards this nation, whites, and others. I don't believe Rev. Wright's rantings make him evil. But I do believe they objectively disqualify him from being President of the United States. And if Barack Obama sympathizes to any great degree with those views, then I believe him similarly disqualified.

It's like hiring the next Exxon CEO from the ranks of Greenpeace. You can't lead an organization, or in this case, a nation, that you are fundamentally opposed to.

And the question of whether Obama does, in fact, share those views is, in light of everything we know, undeniably fair.

Lastly, re: the black power salute: Obama himself may not endorse black radicalism, but those who do endorse it, endorse him. If we could all get past the knee-jerk reactions, the cringing, and the "!", we might realize that the media, and informed voters in general, are right to scrutinize the company our candidates keep.

M. Simon said...

OK Henry.

I think it goes to the heart of people's reservations about Obama.

Obama got in this mess because the folks who raised him were hard leftists and one of his early mentors,Frank Marshall Davis, was a hard line communist.

Wrights church would be very friendly to some one who holds those views.

Obama's tragedy began in his 20s and has evolved from there. To bad. If he was just a plain vanilla Democrat he might have served a useful function.

Obama has insured that no Black Democrat can get elected President until a Republican Black breaks the ice.

He has set race relations back. He is no healer.

BTW how come the D party didn't look under the hood (an unfortunate choice of words no doubt) of this clown?

In any case wait until you get into the theology of his minister. It will just get uglier.

I'm doing my part:

Liberation Theology.

It starts out with white people as untermenches and gets worse from there. I guess Obama was trying to scourge his whiteness out of his system. I'd say he has done a pretty good job.

Alan said...

MadisonMan, that's why the Dems are going to sweep in November. The retiring members see the writing on the wall.

The Right has been successful taking out Obama by characterizing him as an angry black man who hates this country (guilt by association). But many independents and crossovers that wanted to vote for Obama aren't going to be happy GOP voters. They know who took Obama down; and it wasn't Hillary. And they also know the take down didn't square with who they thought Obama to be. He is not an angry black man who hates this country. The resentment toward the Right Wing will be real. Plus, selling a hundred year war against religious fanatics isn't going to work well for McCain. It's all down hill from here for the GOP.

Beth said...

I had to spend the day with some of the elders of our family today, as my partner's father is having some sort of heart episode and that has brought us together. We sat around the table and ate bowls of the gumbo he'd made just yesterday, before having chest pains, and after we'd marveled at its perfection, we still needed something to talk about, something other than worrying about J. in the hospital.

So someone threw out "What about that Jeremiah Wright?" The pro-Obama forces were represented by liberal, devout Catholics at the table: the eldest sister and her husband, and one of the brothers, all in their mid- to late-70s. One of them compared the whole outpouring of anger from different sides to the truth commissions in South Africa after apartheid's end. If we can hash out some resentments and anger, however justified or unjustified, maybe that will be a good, cathartic thing, they said.

The one most appalled by Wright is J's partner, a liberal Northeasterner (born in MA, Harvard grad, military veteran, an MD) in his early 80s. M has lived through decades of being gay in America, and while certainly he's benefited by his whiteness and maleness, he could have plenty of reason to be deeply angry at our culture. Instead, the words "God Damn America" anger him to his core.

It was an interesting slice of Americana. The gumbo was sublime.

reader_iam said...

Dubya writes: But apparently she would approve of such an action. [censorship by government power]

Based on reading Althouse's blog for four years now, I'm pretty much 100% sure this is is not so.

Windonfish said...

I don't take the ad as being intended to stir up "racial hostility"; it's intended to expose racial hypocrisy.

In a recent radio interview with the WIP AM 610 Sports Radio hosts in Philadelphia, Obama explained his statement that his grandmother "on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

His explanation was that "she is a typical white person...." (listen to the clip to get more context; audio avail. at:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/020088.php).

I'm white and I doubt that his grandmother is a stand-in for me. In fact, I "cringed" at being reduced to equivalence with her by accident of birth. I don't even know the lady - why should I be lumped in with her because of skin tone?

His hypocrisy and reliance on racial politics in trying to soften his criticism of his grandmother's reliance on stereotypes by saying that she is "a typical white person" undermines the entirety of his campaign. It shows poor judgment and a distinctly non-post-racial approach to life, much less politics. Other than his judgment on Iraq and a promise that, by his election, we would put this racial stuff behind us, what does he have to offer? Certainly not a record or specifics about the future he wants.

The person who put the video together should have left out the Black Power salute footage and the Malcom X quote. Obama's words and the words of his selected, and Obama-defended, mentor would have been more powerful, and rhetorically clean, and damning, on their own.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

I don't think the black power salute is inappropriately in the video. There is a variance from standard practice in Obama's not having his hand over his heart during the national anthem. A book on conduct for military officers stated, if I recall correctly that, in uniform, you should salute during the anthem and, as a civilian you should put your hand over your heart. But you don't have to have read that book. You just have to have gone to a baseball game and see what is considered respectful practice. Obama 'can't divorce himself from the black community' and that 'community' has a tradition of a deviance from the 'typical white person' during the national anthem and it's supposed to signify something. The video does make a hypothesis, i.e. links it to the original noted deviance. We might want to listen to the Senator re: that.

I think the stuttering of the tape is an effective and accceptable way of bringing one's attention to important elements. A psychological interpretaion of stuttering is that one tends to stutter when one both wants to give one's thoughts and to withould them. They might be too aggressive or revealing or too emotional.

Middle Class Guy said...

M. Simon said...
BTW how come the D party didn't look under the hood (an unfortunate choice of words no doubt) of this clown?

The same could be said of Hillary Clinton. How come the D party never looked under the hood of this clown. She is a person of zero accomplishments. Her only claim to fame is marrying the future President of the United States, Uncle Festus. She was never anything more than a second rate lawyer. As First Lady, she gave and attended tea parties. Her foreign policy experience is attending tea parties in foreign lands.

If attending and giving tea parties was a qualification for being president, the convicted felon Martha Stewart is more qualified to be President than Hillary. At least she knows how to bake cookies!

M. Simon said...

It's not fair to link the salute to Obama's picture with his hands [not over his heart] because:
1 - he was standing in front, so how did he know everyone behind him had their hands up?


Because it is traditional? In fact I think there is a law explaining how it is done. All that law school training gone to waste (except for defending slum lord Rezko). Pity.

Because it is a standard American ceremony at the beginning of political rallies? Or don't the Democrats do that any more? That can't be it. All the other Dems did it right.

However, it may be that Obama never attended any American political ceremonies as a member of the audience. I'm sure that explains his ignorance. Or perhaps it was because whitey is holding the black man down. Including his hands.

What he needs to do is hire a protocol expert with some of the vast donations he has been receiving. Some one who can teach him the nuances of acting American.

MadisonMan said...

Am I the only person here who actually sings the National Anthem when it's played? Guess I shouldn't run for office. M. Simon will call me unpatriotic for singing.

chickenlittle said...

Alan said (with obvious smugness) "It's all down hill from here for the GOP"

Chill out dude- the election is still a future event!

Simon said...

MadisonMan said...
"Am I the only person here who actually sings the National Anthem when it's played?"

I never sing because I'm a horrible singer. I think it's funny that people complain that in that video Obama is being unpatriotic by not covering his heart with his hand while some godawful singer is ritually slaughtering the national anthem.

madawaskan said...

You stand at attention.

Unless my husband the active duty Lt.Colonel and squadron commander has it all damn wrong.

Plus you know me as his wife and the daughter of a guy that fought WW II Korea and Vietnam I'm un-American because I cover my nuts as it were.

Jeebus!

And my dad the retired Colonel-that SOB.

Plus the guy my dad sponsored through the Academy and who is now an astronaut.

Common guys let's not lose the guys who cover their nuts vote!

Pahlllleeease.

M. Simon said...

A McCain Presidency with a Republican Legislature would be a complete disaster. Look what happened when Bush had Congress.

True. And I'm a Republican. Of the libertarian kind.

I have been reading a lot of blogs and message boards on this and I can tell you Obama is making a lot of Dems unhappy. Jews. Whites. Blacks. Heck I even saw a grandma complaining. The number of people with that attitude may be small. However, it doesn't take much of a shift to cause a landslide.

I'm Jewish and am hooked into the Jewish grapevine. I'm hearing a lot of Jews who are willing to defect or stay home. Not true in '04. In '04 if you were going to do something like that you had to keep your mouth shut. Not this year. My Mom is a yellow dog Democrat. She will never, ever, ever, vote for Obama. However, I did my part. I voted for him in '04. My motto then? The communist over the theocon. It was a Rovian plot.

The man may have single handedly destroyed the Democrat Party. Brilliant. Just brilliant.

chickenlittle said...

MM said: "Am I the only person here who actually sings the National Anthem when it's played?"

I do both (hand on heart and sing), unless it's the Hendrix Woodstock version, during which I like to air-guitar!

Spread Eagle ® said...

that's why the Dems are going to sweep in November

Correction. The Dems were going to sweep in November. The Repub base had been throughly suppressed, disillusioned, fed up, and half asleep, ready to be steamrolled, but here came Barack and his little buddy Rev Wright, with a skosh of help from Michelle, and done gave the entire Repub base a major league wake up call. The Dems have snookered and cornered themselves into nominating Obama, and now there's no way this guy can win in November.

The Dems did have everything going their way too. All the celestial ojects were aligned for them. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They did it to themselves, their own insistence upon gilding the lily with identity politics.

But ya know, that's why we have this process. To vet the contenders and unmask the pretenders. So, hey, the system works!

M. Simon said...

You stand at attention.

I'm a former Navy man. 'Nam.

Attention is hands at the sides.

madawaskan said...

Well when they stand at attention they are leaving their nuts out-but still..

And when they are on base they salute, but during retreat they stop their cars.

Do I have to explain "retreat" to you guys?

mandrewa said...

windonfish,

I went to the clip of Obama speaking about his grandmother that you cited

www.powerlineblog.com / archives2 / 2008/03/020088.php

and I listened to it, and I just don't see what was wrong with it. I understood what he was saying; I think he meant well. I understand that he was, without intending to, confessing to having prejudices and preconceptions of how white people behave. But in the real world everyone does.

I understand that if John McCain were to use the phrase "typical black person" there'd be a big fuss made by the press. And that in contrast there won't be even the mention of this. But the press is partisan; that's just the way it is.

And the reality is that no ill was really meant by Obama.

If there's a wrong here, it's Obama's implication that somehow this is a special "white" sin. That the attribution of characteristics to strangers based on superficials like skin is something that only "white" people do. Instead of being the universal human behavior that it actually is.

The possibility that Obama might think this is uniquely a white sin is disturbing. But it's possible he didn't actually mean that.

M. Simon said...

M. Simon will call me unpatriotic for singing.

Not if you can hit all the notes.

Dale St. Clair said...

I haven’t read the comments – have only viewed the video. If Obama’s own words, his wife’s own words and his pastor’s own words are “plainly offensive and intended to stir up racial hostility,” isn’t this evidence, in Wright’s pithy parlance, of their own “chickens come home to roost?”

It must be mightily annoying to Obama supporters that these folks said these words and that these words are now being disseminated but that is the nature of the internet and modern communications – if one speaks rash, hyperbolic, racist and otherwise ill-advised words publicly those words will surely come to be known by the multitudes.

Best to keep such trash for private uttering, perhaps among family, as Obama’s grandmother did. Of course you always run the risk then of an ungrateful and opportunistic grandson outing your relatively innocuous transgressions to millions for the sake of his political hide, but that’s politics, eh?

Please, put the blame where it belongs – on the authors of the message, not the messenger.

madawaskan said...

Ya dang.

M. Simon I knew I liked ya-even if you are ...

Navy!

See my dad did the Battle of the Bulge as Army enlisted and then he got all chicken and joined the pink panty wearing AF.

So I'm stuck with that crew.

M. Simon you should participate around here more.

I enjoy your comments.

Dale St. Clair said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

And then you connect Wright to Obama, and voila, Obama is a black power militant. It's a game of six degrees of Kevin Bacon

Oh, sure, Henry, it is such a stretch to "connect" Wright and Obama. He only spent 20 years following the guy, after all. A mere two decades in a congregation that follows the racist and racialist philosophy of black liberation theology. What a stretch to connect him with it.

Get serious. Obama's been a Wright follower for three times as long as David Duke was in the Ku Klux Klan. Anyone here want to try claiming that Duke's ties to Klan members are just another version of "the Kevin Bacon game"?

M. Simon said...

The same could be said of Hillary Clinton.

True. In a year when the Dems had every thing going for them - the war, the economy, national sentiment - the Dems put up two candidates who are basically unelectable.

They put up a guy who couldn't win his home state in '00. They put up an anti-war guy in '04 when America wanted a war leader. And this year they put up a closet racist. And the screecher.

I don't know how they they do it. It has got to be some kind of special talent.

M. Simon said...

madawaskan,

I'm honored.

I usually drop in when Insty puts up a link. I used to be more of a regular before I started my own blog, Power and Control, and then got invited to blog at Classical Values.

Be assured I will be back. Watch those Insty links.

mschaff said...

Leave it to the Democrats to, once again, blow another "gimme" presidential election opportunity.

So now they decide to put an African American candidate who cut his teeth on black nationalism and who refuses to enumerate policy specifics because he's a raving socialist.

Throw in the support from the New Black Panther Party and you have a winner with Middle America!!

Good God man, the Dems can't even hit a hanging curve ball.

MadisonMan said...

Obama's been a Wright follower for three times as long as David Duke was in the Ku Klux Klan.

David Duke has pretty obviously bought into the whole KKK Poor Oppressed White Schtick nonsense. It's not clear that Obama has done the same to Rev. Wright's peculiar type of preaching to the poor oppressed Black. Is Wright's influence noticeable in Barack Obama's legislative record?

Simon said...

M. Simon said...
"And the screecher."

That's unfair. I was in her company today. Her voice is perfectly normal. (She's cute in the flesh, too).

MadisonMan said...
"Is Wright's influence noticeable in Barack Obama's legislative record?"

In his what, sorry? He has a legislative record?

MadisonMan said...

Har har. He has voted on things, you know.

Tim said...

"It's not clear that Obama has done the same to Rev. Wright's peculiar type of preaching to the poor oppressed Black. Is Wright's influence noticeable in Barack Obama's legislative record?"

It's not clear that Obama hasn't done the same thing to Rev. Wright's peculiar type of preaching to the poor oppressed Black. Is Wright's lack of influence noticeable in Barak Obama's legislative record?

Just sayin', ya know?

M. Simon said...

Plus, selling a hundred year war against religious fanatics isn't going to work well for McCain.

Especially since that war has already been going on for 1400 years. Which, during most of that time America wasn't even around. It is rather unfortunate that one of the early Democrats, Jefferson, got in a war with the jihadis (the term in Jefferson's time).

You had better hope for enough Americans ignorant of world history and the Marine Corps Hymn.

...the shores of Tripoli... ring a bell?

"We win, they lose" is a better slogan than "retreat and surrender". Because Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.

BTW the Democrat lack of support for our allies in Vietnam, cost Kerry the election. Blowback.

MadisonMan said...

Perhaps next time I'll ask the question in latin to show that I am er-you-dite.

M. Simon said...

M. Simon said...
"And the screecher."

That's unfair. I was in her company today. Her voice is perfectly normal. (She's cute in the flesh, too).


Obviously she needs acting lessons. She is different on the tube.

I know some folks working against her who just hate the sound of her voice. I don't much like it either. Although I think (other than the crooks and corruption) she would make a pretty good President (toughness) with a Republican legislature to moderate her socialist enthusiasms. I thought Bill did a good job under those circumstances.

MadisonMan said...

Just sayin', ya know?

There are lots of things you can call Obama, but he strikes me as someone who does not for a moment believe he is downtrodden. How could anyone be successful in politics if they went in thinking that?

Revenant said...

Har har. He has voted on things, you know.

It isn't really possible to prove what motivates someone to vote a certain way. You can only disprove theories about it -- for example, we can pretty well rule out the idea that Rick Santorum was motivated by a desire to support the gay rights lobby, even though we can't know for sure whether he was genuinely homophobic or just cynically playing for the homophobe vote.

So the better way to state the question is to turn it around. Has Obama ever voted counter the beliefs of black liberation theology? For that matter, has this ostensible champion of a New Approach to Racial Issues ever voted on racial issues in a manner inconsistent with what we'd expect of any other left-wing black politician?

Maybe he has. I can't pretend to be an expert on his entire voting record, even considering how shallow it is. But if he hasn't, then I think it has to be conceded that while it is (and will always be) impossible to prove that he has a racialist approach to voting, we can't rule it out either. In other words, given that he persists in lying down with dogs, he'd better at least have some anti-flea legislation under his belt to reassure the public with. :)

Simon said...

MM - sorry, couldn't resist. ;)


M. Simon said...

M. Simon said...
"And the screecher."

That's unfair. I was in her company today. Her voice is perfectly normal. (She's cute in the flesh, too).

Revenant said...
"It isn't really possible to prove what motivates someone to vote a certain way."

Which is one reason intentionalism is bunk.

M. Simon said...
"I know some folks working against her who just hate the sound of her voice. I don't much like it either."

I don't much like what she says, but I thought she was fine. I don't recant any of my previous observations about her.

MadisonMan said...

I wouldn't think he'd be voting against his church in the Illinois Legislature -- he was the legislator after all of a mostly black district.

As a US Senator, though, I think he'd have a tougher time supporting his church's views if those views run counter to the views of most FIBs -- and it's fair to say that they probably do. Of course, his records aren't long enough to do an exhaustive comparison.

Boy am I up late!

Tim said...

"...but he strikes me as someone who does not for a moment believe he is downtrodden. How could anyone be successful in politics if they went in thinking that?"

Agreed, not downtrodden, but certainly carrying a chip on his shoulder, as did Nixon, Johnson and Clinton. And, quite possibly the secular agent of Wright (I don't mean that nefariously - really) and his "downtrodden" congregation,in that he'd help deliver from the State that for which Wright preached. That prospective agency/shared ideology certainly warrants extreme scrutiny, simply based upon Wright's (and now Obama and his wife's) own commentary and actions, and that the man wants to be president of the U.S., rather than just another pork-chasing, camera-loving backbencher in the U.S. Senate.

M. Simon said...

I have seen no evidence that Senator Obama is a racist. I wonder about his wife though.

There are white closet racists. Why not black ones?

How do you go to a racist church, marry a wife with what appear to be racist sympathies, and not hold racism in your heart?

I have been anti-racist since I was 5 and drank out of a "Colored Only" water fountain. I could read (my mother taught me when I was 4). I knew what it meant. I decided to defy the ban. My mother was so proud. I would never be caught in a church like Wrights a second time or marry a woman with such animosity to America.

Obama sought out that church after listening to Wright's tapes. What does that say about the man? It is obvious where his (formerly secret) sympathies lie.

Obama's big advantage is that he is a chameleon. He can adopt the local color. Powerful. Empty.

Liberation theology teaches that whites are incomplete. Ice people. The mirror image of David Duke's mud people.

How do you go to a church that tears down 1/2 your identity? You have to be really self hating to do something like that. A man not comfortable in his own skin. Not Presidential material.

All this wouldn't matter if Wrights theology said that although America is very, very bad - it is perfectible. However, at its core this theology say America will forever tainted by original sin. Despite 360,000 mainly white Americans dying to correct that sin.

That is not America. In America we leave the past behind and look to the future.

My Jewish ancestors in America told me tales of discrimination. Do I want to hold that against a country that has given me so many advantages and where that discrimination is mostly a thing of the past? Hell no.

I'm sorry to say this but Obama is not an American at heart. He doesn't get the American experience. He has the words down pat. That is true. However, he doesn't live like he believes them.

If Koreans with no money can come to America and start businesses in the ghetto why can't black people? I read a black man addressing that issue. He said it is because black people think that they are owed something. Victimology. One of the chief tenets of the Democrat party. Obama fits right in. Sadly they are doing the people they claim to help no service.

If Obama had spoken out against victimology (I know - the speech - so why doesn't he sound more like Ward Connerly?) I would be more than satisfied. He can't do that though. He would lose his church and all the Blacks who prefer victimology.

So many blacks who come to America voluntarily manage to rise. Yet American Blacks seem to have difficulties in that respect.

Yes it is harder for Blacks to rise in America. (not near as hard as it used to be) The American way to overcome that and earn social respect is to work harder. It is difficult to do that when you have "I'm owed" running around your head.

Wright's Church is not a Church of Liberation (despite the name of the theology), it is a church of bondage. If nothing else they are in bondage to their anger. One of the seven deadly sins. For good reason.

jeff said...

"Instead of the medal winners standing with hands on heart during the National Anthem, they gave the Black Power salute. It was the equivalent of giving the finger to the United States."

Really? That's the consensus of everyone who remembers that? I was 7 when it happened, but I was familiar with it and always assumed it was a gesture of black pride and a protest against the way black people had been treated in this country. Especially in '68 after the assassination of MLK. As a conservative Republican cracker, I always had a great deal of respect for those athletes who made that statement. So everyone else saw that as a insult and a big FU from ungrateful medalists? And I never connected them to the black panthers.
Googled it, found this from Tommy Smith, one of those men:

“I took a stand against a system that didn’t acknowledge equity,” Smith said. “It stood for the love of mankind. It was just not for African-Americans; it was for human rights,”
So what was wrong with that?

Revenant said...

I wouldn't think he'd be voting against his church in the Illinois Legislature -- he was the legislator after all of a mostly black district.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I would hope you don't have to kowtow to the Wrights of the world to get black people to vote for you. The alternative is depressing; it suggests that black people won't have a real place in American politics for the indefinite future, while the other racial and ethnic groups go about the business of assimilating.

As a US Senator, though, I think he'd have a tougher time supporting his church's views if those views run counter to the views of most FIBs -- and it's fair to say that they probably do.

FIBs?

Anyway, his voting record in the Senate fails paints him as a person who votes the Democratic Party line -- which is what you'd expect from a freshman Senator with Presidential aspirations. But it doesn't do anything to establish him as a guy who votes against his church's interests.

M. Simon said...

If you go into any ethnic studies department

The proper term is Angry Studies.

Revenant said...

So everyone else saw that as a insult and a big FU from ungrateful medalists?

Not everyone, of course, but a lot of people did. Especially non-liberals.

Keep in mind that the Black Power movement was in large part a rejection of the goals of the Civil Rights movement; it directly opposed Martin Luther King's goal of blacks assimilation into mainstream American society. That was why a lot of people saw it as an "FU" to America for those two athletes -- who had no problem with letting mainstream America send them to the Olympics in its name -- to turn around and refuse to show the most basic gesture of respect to the nation which had honored and supported them. Instead, they made a public gesture of rejection of that nation.

What's particularly repugnant about the two is that they didn't have the balls to boycott the games. They were willing to represent us -- just so long as they didn't have to actually act like they wanted to.

It was just not for African-Americans; it was for human rights," So what was wrong with that?

Nothing, aside from it not being true. Nobody thinks of the black power salute as a symbol of human rights; that's revisionist claptrap.

M. Simon said...

Here's a photo of GWB doing the same thing.

Uh. Bush was standing at attention. Hands at his sides.

Now I can get all snarky and say maybe Obama had something to hide. Or perhaps he was trying to avoid envy from the men in the audience. But I'm not going to do that.

Instead:

Of course Bush was military so he would know what to do. They teach that stuff. It is kind of like a secret hand shake. Which is why some military experience is good for candidates. It gives them a bond with those who will be called on to possibly make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of American ideals.

TMink said...

M. Simon wrote: "I have been anti-racist since I was 5 and drank out of a "Colored Only" water fountain. I could read (my mother taught me when I was 4). I knew what it meant."

Wow, I was 4 and with my family at the Louisiana capitol building. The sing said WHITE but the water fountain was grey. I did NOT know what it meant, but I remember asking mom "It says white, but it is grey" with a confused tone.

What a small, strange, and sometimes sad world we live in.

But to your point instead of our oddly intersecting history, I agree that there are certainly closet racists. I just have not seen evidence of Senator Obama being one.

Trey

jeff said...

Revenant- I don't know. Like I said, I was 7 when it actually happened, but that was not the impression I have had all these years. Always possible there has been a fair amount of revisionism since then, but while they didn't mind going and representing the country at the Olympics, this was only 3 years since Selma so I can see there being a certain part of the country they might protest against. What I find offensive is the idea presented by some of our more liberal brethren is that there is no difference between Selma '65 and Name-any-American-city-here '08. I never read anything about those two saying anything close to God Damn American, but just standing there with the fists up at a time where they had some legitimate things to protest against.

downtownlad said...

I'm sorry, but this country is seriously f&cked up if the only thing they can discuss is Obama's pastor, Obama being a Muslim, Hillary being in the White House when Bill got a hummer, and a Lieutenant Governor having an affair.

Seriously - when are people going to debate the real issues?

Or is this going to be one long campaign season of the politics of personal destruction?

Revenant said...

this was only 3 years since Selma so I can see there being a certain part of the country they might protest against.

Smith said nothing about protesting "a certain part of the country" in the quote you provided. He was protesting "a system that didn’t acknowledge equity", which was an asinine thing to do in 1968 when the federal government had been cranking out civil rights legislation and cracking down on southern racists for years with the enthusiastic support of the majority of Americans. If they'd done it at the 1956 Olympics, or even the 1960 Olympics, that would have been another story -- but they openly rejected an America that was already doing what it could to make things right, and they did it in front of the whole world.

Besides, the period between Selma and 1968 was when the Black Power movement broke with the rest of the Civil Rights movement and came to favor a separatist, sometimes violent, resolution to the problems of black America. By 1968 nobody would confuse a black power salute with a wish for the warm fuzzy feelings Smith says he was shooting for.

John Lynch said...

Gah! Republicans being stupid! This is exactly the behavior that will drive independents and center-left liberals into voting Democrat. I've half a mind to do the same thing.

We should punish any behavior that shows the Republican party as racist in any way, shape, or form. Voting Democrat is a good way to do that.

It's not necessary to harp on this to beat Obama! He's a lefty! Lefties don't win. Why go after this? Dumb!!!

M. Simon said...

The base impulse of the modern conservative movement - especially the blogosphere and talk radio contingents - is to always appeal to base elements. Racism, sexism, smearing opponents as the worst things possible,

Of course the Democrats have a better way.

Vote for the Black Guy because you know he is Black.

Vote for the Woman because you know she is Female.

And no extra points for military service you baby killer.

john marzan said...

I saw the video, and i see nothing wrong with using their own words against them. but i do think it's better for mccain to not get involved with this in any manner at all. that's obama's problem, not his. let him self destruct.

Anyway, here's what i think:

Obama's not a racist. McCain's not a racist. Rev. Wright is though.

don't tell me the Democrats and pro-Obama supporters won't use this type of tactics against mccain if given the opportunity.

The McCain campaign needs to ensure that Willis is wrong.

nothing the mccain campaign can say or do that will satisfy the far left kos/oliver willis types. it's like trying to wake somebody up who's pretending to be asleep.

M. Simon said...

It's not necessary to harp on this to beat Obama! He's a lefty! Lefties don't win. Why go after this? Dumb!!!

Maybe. But since this came out Obama is dropping like a stone.

Another thing it shows is that Obama's leftism is not situational, but foundational.

I believe that is the big difference between Hillary and the Big O. Hillary was a Goldwater girl once. She prefers leftist solutions, but can tack in any direction when it suits her purpose.

Obama appears to be a believer.

Way more dangerous.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. Clive Staples "CS" Lewis

Daryl said...

downtownlad wrote: Seriously - when are people going to debate the real issues?

Or is this going to be one long campaign season of the politics of personal destruction?

Don't blame the country for the sins of the Democratic Party. That's what their voters want to talk about. If Republicans on the sidelines want to gawk at the pileup, it's not our fault that the cars are crashing.

The reason is, Hillary and Obama agreed a long time ago not to argue over the issues: they both said that their policy positions were basically the same. They've also aggressively indistishinguished their positions from one another on issues like NAFTA.

So now Dems have to choose between the black guy with very little experience, and a history of extreme-left voting and extreme-left friends; and the white girl with very little experience. Which do you want? The one who, as a child, had experience living in foreign places; or the one who, as a wife, had experience sleeping next to an important man? "Yes we can" or "Yes she will"? "Hope and change" or "it's my turn and I always get what I want"?

You don't get a debate on issues, but you do get to choose your candidate on race, gender, and slogans. Which, apparently, Democrats think are super-important.

M. Simon said...

But to your point instead of our oddly intersecting history, I agree that there are certainly closet racists. I just have not seen evidence of Senator Obama being one.

He hangs with an obviously racist pastor? He would throw his white grandma under the bus before his racist pastor?

There is a name for this game. "Passing".

Daryl said...

If we (the right-wingers of the blogosphere) fail to denounce race-baiting, that's dangerous because we'd be living in a swamp, and we will eventually pay the price (Americans will take hope & change over racism, even over a lazy tolerance for racism). If we let this video slide, the next one will be worse.

If we do denounce race-baiting, and then other bloggers defend it (because they don't see the racism, or because they like it), we will end up with a circular firing squad. I don't want to see right-wing bloggers pitted against each other. I don't want to have to condemn Capt. Ed. Morrissey or Patrick Ruffini, for example.

The solution is simple: we all need to be very wary of race-related viral media, especially viral media that's less like a documentary and more like a . . . Michael Moore documentary.

Altering the video/audio of Obama speaking, for example, should be rejected 100% (even obvious edits like fake stuttering and remixes).

Showing two things, to suggest a connection between them, should be done only when the connection is very solid (such as the "chickens coming home to roost" -> Malcom X connection, and NOT like the anthem -> Olympics black power salute mashup).

Any sort of tricks or advertising techniques should be eschewed. Sleight-of-hand is out. A YouTube video that only showed the particular things that Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and Malcom X said, in the same order it was shown in the video in question, omitting anything extraneous (like the black power salute, stuttering, music in the background) would be much safer from race-baiting charges. It still wouldn't be safe for a McCain campaign worker, but that's a different issue!

Anything that's too cute--shun it. Don't link it, don't praise it, and let others know that it's not the right tone for the campaign. We can address Obama's association with Black Liberation Theology, or his past support for Palestinian terrorists, or his 100% liberal voting record, in a manner that is sober, careful, and fair.

I know my plea for politeness will be seen as majorly uncool--we just got these nifty YouTube tools, and we're ready to run with them in this election, and make all sorts of snarky homemade vids, and we could have a lot of fun doing so vs. Hillary if she were the nominee--but it's necessary if you care more about the outcome of the election, and the long term health of black-white relations in this country, than in having fun in the next few months.

M. Simon said...

OK. I denounce all race baiters.

David Duke and Rev. Wright come to mind.

Toxic stuff from both of them.

My hatred of race baiters is color blind.

How about you?

Obama spent 20 years with race baiter Wright? Not my fault.

You don't get it Daryl.

America is now colorblind. It will not stand race baiters. Black or White. No one gets a pass.

Which makes my day. We have come a long way, baby.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Here's the video, which I am not embedding with approval. It's plainly offensive and intended to stir up racial hostility:

Sorry Ann, I think 'Reverend' Wright did that already.

Middle Class Guy said...

downtownlad said...
If you feel that this country is so effed up, you could always leave. You will not be missed. I here Tibet is a nice place to live. They allow people like you to discuss the issues.

reader_iam said...

M. Simon: Did you not read past the first paragraph of Daryl's post? Or are you deliberately ignoring the rest of them? Curious onlookers would like to know, for the purpose of information and calibration. Consider this a teachable moment: What do you think wrong with the overall point of Daryl's post, and why?

rightwingprof said...

As soon as somebody invokes the "sensitivity" or worse, "insenstitivity" label, you know they have sunk into the lowest levels of idiocy.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Seriously - when are people going to debate the real issues?

DTL thinks there's more than one real issue? Since when?

Middle Class Guy said...

Paul Zrimsek said...
DTL thinks there's more than one real issue? Since when?


The 's' was probably a typo.

Pogo said...

Daryl's post has great advice. And the video mash-up in question should be rejected for that reason. It's not racist, it's unfair and changes the focus from some of the scary things that Democrats think to what the GOP thinks about what Democrats think.

But I'm just a typical white person, so what do I know?

TMink said...

M. Simon wrote: "He hangs with an obviously racist pastor? He would throw his white grandma under the bus before his racist pastor?

There is a name for this game. "Passing"."

I concede your points, but differ in my conclusion! I just need to see more from him personally. For me, Michelle Obama's statements about not being proud of being an American until she was a bona fide contender for First Lady was very telling.

I am proud of so many things about America:

our Constitution, our Civil Rights progress, Tiger Woods, landing on the moon, our volunteer armed forces, the list goes on and on. That a woman as successful and accomplished as Ms. Obama has not been proud of America is telling to me.

But the senator has not provided me enough info to conclude that he is a racist. I hope he does not, as I am proud that America has a minority contender for POTUS. I just hope he is not the eventual winner!

Trey

TMink said...

The "typical white people" comments are really too much! The folks who are making them are probably the types who would be offended (and rightly so) by a t shirt with the Confederate battle flag on it that says "It is a white thing, you wouldn't understand" but sadly applaud a shirt that read "It is a Black thing, you wouldn't understand."

Both are bigotry, but these poor souls are so confused as to not recognize minority owned racism! It makes me wonder what I can trust them to accurately recognize.

Trey

Henry said...

Revenant -- I'm not saying you can't connect Obama to Wright.

I'm saying you can't connect Obama to Wright to Farrakhan to Malcolm X. Well you can, if you want to be inflammatory, but it is a meaningless game.

I mean really, what does it mean? Don't tell me what Black Liberation Theology means. Don't give me a list of bad things Wright has said. Tell me what this means about Obama.

Does it mean he's a white-hating America-hating radical? Really? Where's the evidence of that?

I would look at what Obama himself says and what Obama himself does. Guilt by association comes much further down the list and comes in context of the first two factors.

If you tell me Obama's friendship with Wright is evidence of bad judgement, or evidence of base political alignment -- those seem reasonable criticisms.

But there's no evidence that Obama has bought into Wright's extreme beliefs, let alone those of Malcolm X.

MadisonMan said...

Revenant:

FIB

So much easier to type than people from Illinois -- and more accurate!

submandave said...

I have to agree with many here, that regardless of if one finds the video misleading or slanted there is nothing "racist" about it. If one were to make a video of a white candidate revealed to have had connections to David Duke or another white separatist and intercut it with historical examples of similar language would it be racist?

The fact is that Sen. and Mrs. Obama are black, Rev. Wright is black and the separatist/blame whitey rhetoric espoused by Rev. Wright has historically been shared by other blacks. But the fact is also that the world and times in which Malcolm X lived are distictly different than the ones in which we live today. Rev. Wright seems to not recognize that, and many feel that clinging to a past that no longer exists is exactly the sort of impediment to progress that the Sen. claims to be able to bring to the nation.

The act of criticizing individual black people for supporting or appearing to support wrong ideas is not racist. It is legitimate criticism.

Pogo said...

"But there's no evidence that Obama has bought into Wright's extreme beliefs, let alone those of Malcolm X."

The path is this:

Rousseau → Marxism →
Gramsci's concept of "hegemony"
→ Malcom X and James H. Cone →
Black liberation theology → Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago→ Obama → 20 years of Sundays, marriage, baptism

Is Obama racist, or a black liberationist/separatist?
Dunno. But he hangs out with them, uses their words, apologizes for them, goes to their church, and exposes his kids to them every week.

What conclusion should I draw from those behaviors?
Seems like that's Obama's problem, not mine.

submandave said...

"If you tell me Obama's friendship with Wright is evidence of bad judgement, or evidence of base political alignment -- those seem reasonable criticisms.

But there's no evidence that Obama has bought into Wright's extreme beliefs, let alone those of Malcolm X.
"

Henry, I too dislike the presumption of guilt by association often displayed in the political arena. In this case, however, given the evasive and at times contradictory nature of Sen. Obama's answers he does little to argue against it. Imagine the assumptions that would follow any white politician had they enjoyed a close, personal relationship with a similarly incidiary figure and a long-term affiliation with a group headed by that individual (except for Sen. Byrd, for some reason).

joe said...

I know I am late to this party, but are some seriously saying that O-man's relation to Wright is not a big deal? That he should get a pass? That they are OK with the fact that the next (shudder) president may have as a mentor and longtime spiritual adviser, a raving leftist moonbat racist and conspiracy loon?
That throwing Obama's and Michelle's own words back at them is racist????
I fear for this country, if free speech in the political arena is so endangered.

Tim said...

Madisonman,

O.k., now I understand your new word. Anyway, I come from a long line of FIBs, although I myself was born in Colorado, never lived in Illinois, and now live elsewhere.

So, does the "one-drop" rule apply? Will you hold my FIB ancestry against me, even though I almost always root for the Green & Cheddar over da Bears?

Tim

PS: You must surely know it was a Republican FIB, Sen. Everett Dirksen, who ensured passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Tim said...

"...but are some seriously saying that O-man's relation to Wright is not a big deal?"

Yeah, that's the deal. Obama's 20+ year relationship with the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright is no big deal, but a heretofore unknown McCain aide distributing an Internet video the McCain campaign did not commission is a big deal, one we must pay close attention to, one the McCain campaign must ensure does not reflect their views of Sen. Obama's now-not-to-be-discussed-in-any-serious-manner relationship with a race-baiting, American-hating pastor of a Black Church he attended for over 20 years, married him, and baptized his two daughters. That is strictly verbotten.

Especially if you're a White Male Republican.

Because you're an oppressor, don'tcha know by now?

Tim said...

From the AP:

"LOS ANGELES - After serving six years in prison for trying to bomb police cars in the 1970s, former Symbionese Liberation Army member Sara Jane Olson has been released on parole and reunited with the family she hid with for years."

To borrow an expression from our friends at Southwest Airlines, "She is now free to join the Obama Campaign.

I'm sure she'd be welcome as an untypical white person...

El Presidente said...

Tommie Smith and John Carlos are the most honorable people in the video.

SGT Ted said...

I love the smell of the leftwing hypocrits who tied themselves in knots defending Obamas 20 year relationship with a black bigot anti-semite kook getting the vapors and crying "racist" over this youtube video.

And, yes Wright and Obama being black racists *is* a legitimate issue, seeing as how conservatives are forever being clubbed over the head with faux racist charges at every turn, usually for disagreeeing with liberal political policy positions. Now it's because we don't believe Obama's lies about his relationship with Wright and his own church.

And as far as the substance of the video goes, Wright is preaching what the Black Power and black separatists were preaching in the 60s. Obama went out of his way to first hide the Bigot Wright from the voters, claim ignorance of his bigotry and race hatred and then when it came into the open, pretend like it doesn't matter.

The video is fair and valid.

TMink said...

Pogo wrote: "Seems like that's Obama's problem, not mine."

Agreed. That is is crux of the biscuit.

Trey

mitrii said...

Yep, this is offensive video. And the people speaking in this video are offenders. IMHO, none of theirs words were taken out of context. This means that the speakers responsible for these words. I do not see how one can blame the mixer. He just gives us the truth.

MadisonMan said...

Tim, it's not my word, and you're really a prime FIB candidate if you're driving like a bat out of hell on a rural WI highway. Bonus FIB points for pulling a trailer with 2 jet-skis on it.

peter hoh said...

Speaking of long, friendly relationships that are questionable, how about George W. Bush and that Bandar fellow? I wonder if Bandar has ever said anything that might be construed as anti-American or anti-Israel?

Sloanasaurus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sloanasaurus said...

Obama cannot be a uniter nor a "post-racial" candidate because he does not reject the double standard. This has become all to clear in the last week with Obama failing to reject his racist pastor and church and his "typical white person" comment.

Obama's comments that he would never go on the Don Imus show after sitting in a black liberation theology church for 20 years reveal the double standard in its rawest of forms.

Every white person knows that if MCcain was in a church for 20 years that made racist comments about African Americans or gave a lifetime achievement award to david duke he would be dropped from the race. Every white person knows that if McCain called someone a "typical black person" he would be branded as a racist. Obama demands a pass on these things.... he demands to be treated differently than McCain because he is black.

Fairness is an American virtue. The double standard violates fairness.

Obama has proven in this past week that he will perpetuate the double standard with his candidacy and as president should he be elected.

Duncan said...

My conservative, Southern elementary teachers taught us to stand respectfully with our hands by our sides for the national anthem, and with right hand over heart for the pledge, just as Obama has always done.

John K. said...

Sheldon Richman's is the best take I've read yet on the Wright "controversy":

Was Rev. Wright Right? Yes and no. Most of the particulars that I heard Barack Obama's former preacher, Jeremiah Wright, cite -- the government's atomic bombing of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, its foreign policy of oppression and murder, its enslavement and then humiliation of black people, its racially motivated "drug war" -- should be fair game. (His collectivist racism and his theory about AIDS as a means of genocide are off the wall.)

But in damning "America," Rev. Wright makes an error similar to those who claim to be proud of "America." What is America? The doctrine of nationalism encourages people to identify country with state. The two are integrated into one. This is a dangerous move because it leads people to think that if they criticize the state, they are criticizing the "country." (That's why it is considered improper for an American to dissent from government policy while in another country.) It also leads them to think that an attack on the state the live under is an attack on them.

The idea of country is an abstraction that subsumes many things, admirable, condemnable, and neutral. The Declaration of Independence and Revolution are part of the country. My home is part of the country. But so are slavery, the Trail of Tears, Jim Crow, imperialism, colonialism, conscription, aggressive wars, carpet bombing of cities, the A-bombs, the early centralization of power and betrayal of the revolution, and so on. No one should let himself be trapped by the question, Are you proud of your country? (Leave aside the fact that taking pride in things you had nothing to do with seems problematic.) What the heck does that mean? If it means, Are you proud of the government and the people who run it? then my answer is no.

Nationalism is a scourge, an ever-present threat to liberty. This is a point worth making whenever possible. I don't salute flags. I don't pledge allegiance. I don't sing national anthems. I don't wear flag lapel pins. I refuse to mouth platitudes about pride in the country. I admire specific things about American history, and I'm happy to enumerate them if asked. But I will have no part of package deals that are ultimately designed to win unthinking loyalty to the state and its crimes.

http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2008/03/was-rev-wright-right.html

Sigivald said...

I don't normally pile on, but, man, who the hell takes Oliver Willis seriously?

To echo what others said, Willis manages to be wrong at almost all times simply by his own innate powers; nobody need exert effort to ensure it.

Salamandyr said...

Even if that were right, then Obama was still wrong, since standing with your hands in front of you is not standing at attention.

But during the National Anthem, at least what they made me do on pain of many push ups in the military, was as soon as you heard it, you turned toward the flag, stood at attention and saluted till the song ended. If you're in civvies, the salute is done with hand over heart. I'm not sure what you're supposed to do if there is no flag in evidence. Maybe you're supposed to just stand at attention then.

Hopefully in the future, Obama's handlers will get him to at least, go to attention.

Revenant said...

I'm saying you can't connect Obama to Wright to Farrakhan to Malcolm X. Well you can, if you want to be inflammatory, but it is a meaningless game.

You don't have to connect Obama to Farrakhan through Wright. Obama's taken Farrakhan's money, and his church has honored Farrakhan. That's a rock-solid connection, especially since Obama has refused to return that money even after being challenged over it.

And the commercial wasn't connecting Obama to Malcolm X. It was connecting what Obama's good friend and spiritual adviser said, to Malcolm's famously offensive statement about Kennedy.

Don't tell me what Black Liberation Theology means. Don't give me a list of bad things Wright has said. Tell me what this means about Obama.

It means the same thing a twenty-year membership in David Duke's National Association for the Advancement of White People would mean for a white politician. It means, Henry, that's he is presumptively racist until hard evidence -- in deeds, not words -- proves otherwise.

Revenant said...

Speaking of long, friendly relationships that are questionable, how about George W. Bush and that Bandar fellow? I wonder if Bandar has ever said anything that might be construed as anti-American or anti-Israel?

Yeah, I'm sure Obama's planning to run for office on the "I'm really no worse than George Bush" platform. That'd be a brilliant idea.

Refresh my memory -- when Michael Moore was using Bush's association with the Saudi ambassador to imply White House complicity in the 9/11 attacks, where were Obama's little leftie defenders? Oh yeah, that's right: buying tickets and inviting him to their convention.

Payback's a bitch, eh?

peter hoh said...

Rev, I think Obama should run on the "I'm just like W" platform. He runs for office with the same amount of foreign policy experience, is a viable candidate because of the circumstances of his birth, and he's got an attractive slogan that means whatever his supporters want it to mean.

And yes, I am aware that Habeeb and Moore are both using the same techniques.

Simon said...

John, good and well, but while Sheldon's free to believe what he says in that last paragraph, he isn't running for President. And never could: if he tried, he would be laughed out of the room because of those beliefs. Brian hit the nail on the head in his comment above: "You can't lead an organization, or in this case, a nation, that you are fundamentally opposed to." I agree with Buckley:

a President "shouldn't crave the idolatry of world opinion, for instance, when critizized by the United Nations for taking a position he feels he needs to take in the best interests of this country, he should feel free quite ostentatiously to turn off the national earphone." He must, moreover, be "proud of America's past [and] hopeful for America's future." No one is unaware of Sheldon's and Zinn's litany of sins - but unlike Sheldon and Zinn, I would think that no one who believes that the entries on that side of the ledger outweigh the accomplishments on the other side of the ledger ought to be surprised to discover themselves ostracized rom polite society and excluded from political success in America.

Revenant said...

Rev, I think Obama should run on the "I'm just like W" platform. He runs for office with the same amount of foreign policy experience, is a viable candidate because of the circumstances of his birth, and he's got an attractive slogan that means whatever his supporters want it to mean.

Peter, I'd guess you're trying a sarcastic "well you thought Dubya was good enough" approach here. The problem with that line of argument is that no, I didn't. I didn't vote for him in 2000, and I only voted for him in 2004 because the Democratic candidate was worse. Conservatives and other war supporters have also been sharply critical of Bush's closeness to the Saudis and his unwillingness to portray them as the supporters of anti-American Muslim terrorism that they are; they've been sharply critical of his fiscal irresponsibility and his mishandling of the war. There just wasn't an alternative to him.

So let me spell this out for you: liberals hate Bush. Independents dislike Bush. Conservatives are sick of Bush. That's why saying "Obama's like Bush" is a dippy thing to do. The man's approval rating is in the low 30s for a reason, you know.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 202   Newer› Newest»