The Audacity of Hate

[George Gervin's Afro]

Though the democratic primary has been interesting it's over and so is the general election. It will be close in the popular vote but a landslide for McCain in the electoral college. Hillary's base is older white female voters. 10% of those defect and it's disaster for Obama in places like California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin...hell pretty much everywhere but he loses the big hitters in the EC and it's over. I suspect that is just what is going to happen. It's going to look like 1988. Close popular vote, EC blowout. If McCain takes JC Watts as a VP, he'll sick him on Obama and keep him on the ropes. The only hope for the Dems is an Obama/Clinton ticket and I just don't think she'll go for it. If she does, landslide for Obama. Either way, this election is in the hands of middle aged white females.

Just my two cents


I agree... we will have many people who won't vote for a woman or a black guy. we will have people , on the side of the loser, staying out of the election because of their emotional ties to their candidate. The country is too divided for the dem to win this year...

let me save all of the Clinton haters a post..



It's all Hillary's fault..

[Extra Stout]

I just finished reading Papa Ratzi's treatise on liberation theology and my head exploded. When I recast Barack Obama in that hermeneutic, everything he says and does makes perfect sense. How he can go to that church makes perfect sense. How he can view Jeremiah Wright as a mentor without buying into his racialist rhetoric makes perfect sense.

If the secular left ever got their minds around this, their heads too would explode. Obama as a Christian Liberationist would be running simultaneously the most leftist and yet the most explicitly religious campaign in American history. I'm fascinated. I'm also a little sick to my stomach thinking about it, but nevertheless I'm fascinated.

[smeagol]

Which would be the reason why I wouldn't vote for McCain.


Which is the reason I did not believe your bullshit:



I'm not a "vote blindly for one party" type of person.


and you other bullshit:



I'm a truly independent voter.


Which is the reason why I continue to believe that if you are a liberal or a Democrat, and you don't go to vote in November because your candidate did not get the nomination, then you are an idiot playing into the hands of the Republicans.

Check out what Joe is doing and then get back to, jr.

[JoeChalupa]

Though the democratic primary has been interesting it's over and so is the general election. It will be close in the popular vote but a landslide for McCain in the electoral college. Hillary's base is older white female voters. 10% of those defect and it's disaster for Obama in places like California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin...hell pretty much everywhere but he loses the big hitters in the EC and it's over. I suspect that is just what is going to happen. It's going to look like 1988. Close popular vote, EC blowout. If McCain takes JC Watts as a VP, he'll sick him on Obama and keep him on the ropes. The only hope for the Dems is an Obama/Clinton ticket and I just don't think she'll go for it. If she does, landslide for Obama. Either way, this election is in the hands of middle aged white females.

Just my two cents

I concur. The election is now McCain's to lose. He is the clear front runner and is on a presidential roll that will be hard to stop. I really have no problems with McCain because I beleive he will work with democrats and independents to get things done just like Obama would.
And I do agree that middle ages white females will be a key to the November elections.

[smeagol]

I agree... we will have many people who won't vote for a woman or a black guy. we will have people , on the side of the loser, staying out of the election because of their emotional ties to their candidate. The country is too divided for the dem to win this year...



Sad state of affairs . . .

[peewee's lovechild]

Which is the reason I did not believe your bullshit:





and you other bullshit:





Which is the reason why I continue to believe that if you are a liberal or a Democrat, and you don't go to vote in November because your candidate did not get the nomination, then you are an idiot playing into the hands of the Republicans.

Check out what Joe is doing and then get back to, jr.

You're reasoning makes no sense at all, much like your grammar.

I am an independent voter.

I will not vote for McCain because of his stance on many issues.
Does that make me a blind Democrat?
Not at all.

If there were a Republican running that doesn't push religion and is all for getting out of Iraq in an appropriate manner, I'd vote for him or her.

What's so hard to understand about that?

If I voted blindly for a party, I'd be okay with voting for Obama.
But, I'm not okay with that, as I've stated before.

So, whatever point you tried to make is just . . . well, pointless.

[JoeChalupa]

Sad state of affairs . . .

United we stand...divided we fall.

[JoeChalupa]

You're reasoning makes no sense at all, much like your grammar.

I am an independent voter.

I will not vote for McCain because of his stance on many issues.
Does that make me a blind Democrat?
Not at all.

If there were a Republican running that doesn't push religion and is all for getting out of Iraq in an appropriate manner, I'd vote for him or her.

What's so hard to understand about that?

If I voted blindly for a party, I'd be okay with voting for Obama.
But, I'm not okay with that, as I've stated before.

So, whatever point you tried to make is just . . . well, pointless.

You can always write in Hillary's name.

[Extra Stout]

The idea of a Christian Liberationist becoming President of the United States is revolutionary. What would such an Administration look like?

On an intellectual level, this is like one of those pie-in-the-sky hypotheses people come up with for thought experiments. And Obama so far has been able to hide it, because if people understood that Liberation Theology is the reconstitution of Christian doctrine through a Marxist dialectic, a fusion of religion and state through a leftist worldview, there's no way he could ever be elected President.

I also know that virtually nobody has any idea of what I'm talking about because they're more interested in the racial stuff, and getting a grasp on what Liberation Theology actually is, is like holding onto a wet football, so it's unlikely this would occur to the general public before November.

Astounding.

[Kermit]

The idea of a Christian Liberationist becoming President of the United States is revolutionary. What would such an Administration look like?

On an intellectual level, this is like one of those pie-in-the-sky hypotheses people come up with for thought experiments. And Obama so far has been able to hide it, because if people understood that Liberation Theology is the reconstitution of Christian doctrine through a Marxist dialectic, a fusion of religion and state through a leftist worldview, there's no way he could ever be elected President.

I also know that virtually nobody has any idea of what I'm talking about because they're more interested in the racial stuff, and getting a grasp on what Liberation Theology actually is, is like holding onto a wet football, so it's unlikely this would occur to the general public before November.

Astounding.

Explain away, or at least send me somewhere were I can see what you're talking about.

[AZLouis]

Great minds discuss ideas;
Average minds discuss events;
Small minds discuss people.
-Eleanor Roosevelt


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...t_n_92077.html

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

[word]

Sad state of affairs . . .

Hold on there slick. Until yesterday, Hillary, if you recall, was NOT for immediate withdrawl from Iraq, for example. Yesterday she changed her tune in a shameful last ditch effort to win the anti-war vote in Pennsylvania but during the ENTIRE campaign thus far, and in the debates when Obama said 'immediate pullout' at a brigade a month she poo-pooed and shook her head calling it 'unrealistic'. NOW, as of yesterday, she's calling for a TWO brigade a month withdrawl. This is what the Clintons do. No surprise there but you are implying there is NO difference between Obama and Hillary other than their genitals and skin and voting against Obama is the same as racist, which is a racist statement, you racist !! :blah

[rascal]

Yonivore your a tool who lets others lead you to believe what they want you to believe.

[word]

United we stand...divided we fall.

Ross Perot is not in this election. Which reminds me, Nader is always good for 3% of the democrat vote.

[2centsworth]

Ross Perot is not in this election. Which reminds me, Nader is always good for 3% of the democrat vote.
he received less than 1/2 a percent the last go around and from mostly people who wouldn't vote otherwise.

[Extra Stout]

Explain away, or at least send me somewhere were I can see what you're talking about.
In liberation theology, Jesus is not just the savior of mankind, he is the deliverer of the oppressed -- not just in a spiritual sense, but literally. Therefore Christians are supposed to take sides in the class struggle in the political realms, and liberate the oppressed.

In liberation theology, sin is the tendency of man to elevate his needs over those of the greater good, resulting in a political system where a small ruling class, represented by Satan, holds dominion over the vast majority, who is kept poor, meek, sick, without opportunity. Death runs rampant.

Christ teaches man to go against the authorities, the teachers of the law, the Pharisees, the ruling classes, and effect change through nonviolence. This is God's way. Jesus Christ therefore was violently killed by the ruling classes because they could not accept the radical egalitarian change of the Kingdom of God. This crucifixion is an image of the slow crucifixion exacted upon the working classes by their rulers.

The Kingdom of God is a society where there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, etc. It is the responsibility of Christians to push for political and social change to make this Kingdom of God real.

In liberation theology, faith is confidence in the historicity of Jesus Christ, and the belief that society will be saved through him. Hope is the confidence that the future will bring social change towards the Kingdom of God. Love is the selfless act of preference for the poor and the forgotten, and the struggle against the ruling classes of sin and death.

As you can see, Christianity is remade into a leftist political philosophy.

[smeagol]

I have seen first hand what Liberation Theology can do in Argentina. Many of the 1970s marxist guerrilla members adhered to this theology.

The country is still bleeding because of it . . .

I don't think this is what Obama has in mind, though.

[Kermit]

In liberation theology, Jesus is not just the savior of mankind, he is the deliverer of the oppressed -- not just in a spiritual sense, but literally. Therefore Christians are supposed to take sides in the class struggle in the political realms, and liberate the oppressed.

In liberation theology, sin is the tendency of man to elevate his needs over those of the greater good, resulting in a political system where a small ruling class, represented by Satan, holds dominion over the vast majority, who is kept poor, meek, sick, without opportunity. Death runs rampant.

Christ teaches man to go against the authorities, the teachers of the law, the Pharisees, the ruling classes, and effect change through nonviolence. This is God's way. Jesus Christ therefore was violently killed by the ruling classes because they could not accept the radical egalitarian change of the Kingdom of God. This crucifixion is an image of the slow crucifixion exacted upon the working classes by their rulers.

The Kingdom of God is a society where there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, etc. It is the responsibility of Christians to push for political and social change to make this Kingdom of God real.

In liberation theology, faith is confidence in the historicity of Jesus Christ, and the belief that society will be saved through him. Hope is the confidence that the future will bring social change towards the Kingdom of God. Love is the selfless act of preference for the poor and the forgotten, and the struggle against the ruling classes of sin and death.

As you can see, Christianity is remade into a leftist political philosophy.

So, the Catholic Church worried that some in it's organization would align themselves with radical, Marxist movements and push socialist agendas in those countries? Basically, The Catholic Church and the Liberation Theologists agree that poverty has to go, just disagree on how to do it?

[Extra Stout]

So, the Catholic Church worried that some in it's organization would align themselves with radical, Marxist movements and push socialist agendas in those countries? Basically, The Catholic Church and the Liberation Theologists agree that poverty has to go, just disagree on how to do it?
1) Since the Catholic Church purportedly charges itself with maintaing the doctrines of the faith as handed down by the Apostles, it cannot tolerate a novel theology that radically reinterprets those doctrines, even though it might admire some of its aims.

2) Often liberationists characterized the Catholic Church as a historical instrument of the ruling classes, and therefore denied its apostolicity, and the validity of its episcopy and ecclesiocracy.

3) Marxism in its classical sense characterizes religion as the "opiate of the masses," with a view that eventually religion would become obsolete. So naturally the RCC would be distrustful of a Marxist reinterpretation of the faith.

[Extra Stout]

I have seen first hand what Liberation Theology can do in Argentina. Many of the 1970s marxist guerrilla members adhered to this theology.

The country is still bleeding because of it . . .

I don't think this is what Obama has in mind, though.
Take LT and layer the American political dialectic over it. This isn't Latin America. Also, consider the prospect of such a worldview coming into prominence through the ordinary electoral cycle of the global capitalist superpower, rather than through violent revolution.

[smeagol]

You're reasoning makes no sense at all, much like your grammar.


You're a fucking dumbass :lol :lol :lol :lol

At least I know the difference between your and you're. You might as well learn it, before you start throughing around some grammar smack :lol



I am an independent voter.


Sure you are . . .



I will not vote for McCain because of his stance on many issues.


His stance in many issues make him what he is: a Republican.



Does that make me a blind Democrat?


You are a liberal. Get it out of the system. It will make you feel much better.




If there were a Republican running that doesn't push religion and is all for getting out of Iraq in an appropriate manner, I'd vote for him or her.


If the sky was green . . .




So, whatever point you tried to make is just . . . well, pointless.

My point is it is stupid for somebody who votes Hillary to stay at home in the general election if your (not you're) woman does not win the primaries.

You said that is precisely what you will do, hence, you are stupid.

[Kermit]

Take LT and layer the American political dialectic over it. This isn't Latin America. Also, consider the prospect of such a worldview coming into prominence through the ordinary electoral cycle of the global capitalist superpower, rather than through violent revolution.

So, are you hinting that with Obama, our country would take on a more Social Reformist look?

[Yonivore]

Excellent speech. I read it twice and think he responded to the issue of Reverend Wright and his continued association with Trinity and the Reverend in a wholly appropriate and understandable way. As far as I'm concerned, he's off the hook with me, on this issue.

As for the rest of the speech, there should have been more Bill Cosby (responsibility for self) and less blaming past generations for the social ills of the black community. Yes, there was some but, it was little and only after he blamed rich and corporate America for everything that is wrong with the black community.

"...languishing in prisons..."? Maybe they belong there.

Anyway, kudos to Obama, great speech that will probably go down as one of the greatest on race relations in America.

Now, all he has to deal with to get my vote is his promise to negotiate with our enemies, his promise to surrender Iraq, his promise to spend more money than any previous politician ever on social programs, and his associations with a criminal (Rezko) and a communist ("Frank" whatever his name is).

Other than that. He's in. I do think he locked up the Democrat nomination today...and I didn't even see him deliver the speech but, if he delivered those words in the same manner he's done his other speeches, he gets an A+.

B+ if they were written by a speechwriter and, no, I don't think there's anything wrong with that; it would just be more meaningful if they were his words and, judging from what I've seen, there's no reason to doubt they are his words.

Alright, never let it be said I can't reach across the aisle and give credit where credit is due.

Carry on. You'll hear no more from me on the issue of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. May he enjoy retirement in peace.

[smeagol]

Liberation Theology is a fringe movement with in the RCC.

Marxism and communism are clearly on the antipodes of what Catholicism is all about.

[Kermit]

Excellent speech. I read it twice and think he responded to the issue of Reverend Wright and his continued association with Trinity and the Reverend in a wholly appropriate and understandable way. As far as I'm concerned, he's off the hook with me, on this issue.

As for the rest of the speech, there should have been more Bill Cosby (responsibility for self) and less blaming past generations for the social ills of the black community. Yes, there was some but, it was little and only after he blamed rich and corporate America for everything that is wrong with the black community.

"...languishing in prisons..."? Maybe they belong there.

Anyway, kudos to Obama, great speech that will probably go down as one of the greatest on race relations in America.

Now, all he has to deal with to get my vote is his promise to negotiate with our enemies, his promise to surrender Iraq, his promise to spend more money than any previous politician ever on social programs, and his associations with a criminal (Rezko) and a communist ("Frank" whatever his name is).

Other than that. He's in. I do think he locked up the Democrat nomination today...and I didn't even see him deliver the speech but, if he delivered those words in the same manner he's done his other speeches, he gets an A+.

B+ if they were written by a speechwriter and, no, I don't think there's anything wrong with that; it would just be more meaningful if they were his words and, judging from what I've seen, there's no reason to doubt they are his words.

Alright, never let it be said I can't reach across the aisle and give credit where credit is due.

Carry on. You'll hear no more from me on the issue of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. May he enjoy retirement in peace.

According to news sources, the words were his.

[Yonivore]

According to news sources, the words were his.
A+ it is.

[peewee's lovechild]

You're a fucking dumbass :lol :lol :lol :lol

At least I know the difference between your and you're. You might as well learn it, before you start throughing around some grammar smack :lol





Sure you are . . .





His stance in many issues make him what he is: a Republican.





You are a liberal. Get it out of the system. It will make you feel much better.






If the sky was green . . .





My point is it is stupid for somebody who votes Hillary to stay at home in the general election if your (not you're) woman does not win the primaries.

You said that is precisely what you will do, hence, you are stupid.

Yea, I got "you're" wrong.
I can admit when I'm wrong.

But, anyway, you say I'm a liberal.
Good.

How do you explain that I'm pro-life?
I also support tougher criminal penalties.
I also don't like the welfare system.

Are those things a liberal would support?

As for not voting because Hillary won't be a Presidential candidate . . . why the hell would I vote for someone I don't believe in?

Stupid is the person that does.

[Extra Stout]

Liberation Theology is a fringe movement with in the RCC.

Marxism and communism are clearly on the antipodes of what Catholicism is all about.
Obama's pastor is a Black Liberation Theologist. The TUCC website explicitly states that it is a church that teaches Black Liberation Theology. That is the basis for their Black Value System. They have taken LT and simply reapplied it to address the plight of urban blacks.

Obama's political ideology is a generalization of his church's teaching to cover all of America, rather than just blacks.

In the context of the United States, and expanded outside of the RCC, LT is not explicitly communist, and has given up violent revolution in favor of nonviolent political change.

[smeagol]

As for not voting because Hillary won't be a Presidential candidate . . . why the hell would I vote for someone I don't believe in?

Tell me what the insurmountable differences between Hillary and Obama are . . .

[smeagol]

Yea, I got "you're" wrong.
I can admit when I'm wrong.

The funny thing is you did it while running some grammar smack . . . :lol

But don't listen to me, I'm always fucking cows and sticking soccer balls up my ass . . . :lol

[Extra Stout]

So, are you hinting that with Obama, our country would take on a more Social Reformist look?
I think he'd be another FDR.

[smeagol]

Obama's pastor is a Black Liberation Theologist. The TUCC website explicitly states that it is a church that teaches Black Liberation Theology. That is the basis for their Black Value System. They have taken LT and simply reapplied it to address the plight of urban blacks.

Obama's political ideology is a generalization of his church's teaching to cover all of America, rather than just blacks.

In the context of the United States, and expanded outside of the RCC, LT is not explicitly communist, and has given up violent revolution in favor of nonviolent political change.


Good to know.

Thanks :tu

[smeagol]

I think he'd be another FDR.

Isn't that a good thing?

In 50 years, many highways, bridges and airports will be named after him.

[Extra Stout]

Isn't that a good thing?

In 50 years, many highways, bridges and airports will be named after him.
It's a good thing if you believe in liberal ideology, and a bad thing if you believe in conservative ideology.

[smeagol]

It's a good thing if you believe in liberal ideology, and a bad thing if you believe in conservative ideology.

Didn't FDR pull you guys out of the Great Depression?

[Extra Stout]

It's also remarkably ironic that a political movement in America which has so closely wedded itself to secularism as to attract just about everyone that hates religion... could institute the most overtly religious ideology in American history.

[Extra Stout]

Didn't FDR pull you guys out of the Great Depression?
World War II pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression.

FDR gets credit for keeping the U.S. from succumbing to either a communist or fascist revolution in the 1930's. Both were attempted. The fascists almost suceeded. We take for granted that America is a stable capitalist democracy today, and don't understand how the Depression convinced a large number of Americans that both capitalism and democracy had failed. We are fortunate that FDR was able to steer the ship through that narrow strait.

However, we inherited the legacy of big government from him.

[Kermit]

I think he'd be another FDR.

It would take freefall into a derpression and a vast majority of Democrats in the House of Reps and the Senate to accomplish the social programs worthy of being compared to FDR. IMO, there are way to many veto points for our country to return to that kind of a social welfare state. I'm not saying he wouldn't try, but he would fail and fail spectacularly.

[Yonivore]

Isn't that a good thing?

In 50 years, many highways, bridges and airports will be named after him.
FDR was a dictator.

[Yonivore]

It would take freefall into a derpression and a vast majority of Democrats in the House of Reps and the Senate to accomplish the social programs worthy of being compared to FDR. IMO, there are way to many veto points for our country to return to that kind of a social welfare state. I'm not saying he wouldn't try, but he would fail and fail spectacularly.
And, thank God for that! Can I get an amen?

[boutons_]

I read an article yesterday that said the costs of the Iraq war will pre-empt any new president's plans for health care, and for just about any other discretionary spending, and for a lot of spending.

Spending the govt into crushing debt has always been the hidden agenda of Repugs/Norquist/AEI, so that the resuliting forced enconomizing, no matter which party held power, could be directed at govt expenditures, except for the untouchable, over-stuffed wasteful military.

dubya and dickhead have totally fucked their stewardship of the govt and will be leaving tons of shit on the WH lawn next 20 Jan.

socialism, never defined and exposed, is just another sound-bite myth the right wing uses to get knees to jerk.

[JoeChalupa]

FDR was a dictator.

Bush IS a dictator and some in here think he's a King.

[PixelPusher]

FDR was a dictator.
Nowadays, we called that the "Unitary Executive Theory".

The Republican subscription to this theory will likely expire in 2009.

[smeagol]

FDR was a dictator.

You have no idea what a dictator is

[Yonivore]

Bush IS a dictator and some in here think he's a King.
If he were a dictator, there'd be no dissenting on the Iraq war. He'd control the press and the Democrats.

He's just right.

[JoeChalupa]

You have no idea what a dictator is

Sure he does. He calls him President Bush.

[Yonivore]

You have no idea what a dictator is
I didn't say he wasn't a benevolent dictator but, FDR was, ideed, a dictator. And, had he stacked the Supreme Court the way he wanted, his coup would have been complete. But, most of what the government did, during his administration, was by executive fiat.

Look it up.

[Kermit]

FDR was a dictator.
I assume you're refering to the attempted packing of the Supreme Court? Lincoln did some shady things as well. Most Presidents have. Although I'm sure the court packing isn't the only thing you're alluding to.

[Yonivore]

Sure he does. He calls him President Bush.
Now, Joe's a guy that has no idea what is a dictator.

[JoeChalupa]

If he were a dictator, there'd be no dissenting on the Iraq war. He'd control the press and the Democrats.

He's just right.

Well according to Bush if there is any dissent they are a traitor and un-American. He's just plain wrong and thank God Almighty for term limits.

[Yonivore]

Well according to Bush if there is any dissent they are a traitor and un-American. He's just plain wrong and thank God Almighty for term limits.
I've never heard him call any dissenter a traitor or un-American. If you look back at his speeches, he vehemently disagrees with those would dissent but acknowledges their right to do so...he just disagrees with them.

Besides, even if what you said were true, calling him a dictator based on his "name-calling" is idiotic. Throwing a whole race of people into concentration camps becuase their indigenous land bombed Pearl Harbor is a dictatorial move. Creating social programs out of whole cloth is dictatorial.

[Kermit]

Well according to Bush if there is any dissent they are a traitor and un-American. He's just plain wrong and thank God Almighty for term limits.

I'm not a supporter of many of Bush's policies and ideas, but I don't think I've ever heard him refer to anyone of his dissenters as a traitor.

[Yonivore]

I assume you're refering to the attempted packing of the Supreme Court? Lincoln did some shady things as well. Most Presidents have. Although I'm sure the court packing isn't the only thing you're alluding to.
You're right, it's not. It's just one of the examples of FDR's dictatorial style.

I will say this, I believe he only did what he thought was right for the country but that didn't make his actions any less extra-constitutional.

[Kermit]

Throwing a whole race of people into concentration camps becuase their indigenous land bombed Pearl Harbor is a dictatorial move.

Ah, yes. I forgot about that one. And we paid reparations.

[Yonivore]

I'm not a supporter of many of Bush's policies and ideas, but I don't think I've ever heard him refer to anyone of his dissenters as a traitor.
You haven't, that's just the popular Liberal narrative.

[PixelPusher]

Throwing a whole race of people into concentration camps becuase their indigenous land bombed Pearl Harbor is a dictatorial move. Creating social programs out of whole cloth is dictatorial.
Denying habeus corpus to suspects based on their indigenous land is dictatorial. Creating "intelligence" out of whole cloth to justify war is dictatorial.

[Kermit]

You're right, it's not. It's just one of the examples of FDR's dictatorial style.

I will say this, I believe he only did what he thought was right for the country but that didn't make his actions any less extra-constitutional.

I'm sure that in 40 years we'll be able to draw a comparison between the unconstitutional actions of FDR and Bush Jr. and place them in the "did what he thought was right for his country" argument. Or not, depending on how courts decide the impending lawsuits regarding measures that President Bush and his administration have taken to protect the presidency.

[Extra Stout]

It would take freefall into a derpression and a vast majority of Democrats in the House of Reps and the Senate to accomplish the social programs worthy of being compared to FDR. IMO, there are way to many veto points for our country to return to that kind of a social welfare state. I'm not saying he wouldn't try, but he would fail and fail spectacularly.
I doubt he'd be nearly as effective as FDR, for many of the reasons you lay out, although the economy is going to suck, 1981-style, for the first two years of the next President's term, which will soften up the electorate to left-wing economic reform.

[Yonivore]

I'm sure that in 40 years we'll be able to draw a comparison between the unconstitutional actions of FDR and Bush Jr. and place them in the "did what he thought was right for his country" argument. Or not, depending on how courts decide the impending lawsuits regarding measures that President Bush and his administration have taken to protect the presidency.
First of all, you'll have to name an unconstitutional action taken by President Bush that is comparable to those taken by FDR. Just one.

[Kermit]

First of all, you'll have to name an unconstitutional action taken by President Bush that is comparable to those taken by FDR. Just one.

I can't. I'm not a constitutional scholar or a judge. But there are many who argue that he has taken measures they consider to be unconstitutional to protect his policies and time will tell if they are or it they are not depending on how they're ruled upon. Signing statements, habeas corpus, refusing subpoenas....

Edit:

Not that the actions themselves would be comparable, but the reasons for the actions taken.

[JoeChalupa]

You haven't, that's just the popular Liberal narrative.

It also comes from people like Yonivore, xray, insHannity, Rush Limpballs, Savage and all the other conservative pundits.

[Kermit]

Rush Limpballs

:lol Balls are supposed to be limp and loose, right?

[JoeChalupa]

:lol Balls are supposed to be limp and loose, right?

Yeah but he's such a dickhead who the hell knows.

[peewee's lovechild]

But don't listen to me, I'm always fucking cows and sticking soccer balls up my ass . . .

You Argentines sure know how to have a blast.

[Yonivore]

I can't. I'm not a constitutional scholar or a judge.
So why make the statement?


But there are many who argue that he has taken measures they consider to be unconstitutional to protect his policies and time will tell if they are or it they are not depending on how they're ruled upon. Signing statements, habeas corpus, refusing subpoenas....
None of the three you mentioned are even being litigated so, unless someone with standing files suit pretty quick, there will never be a determination on the constitutionality of signing statement (which, by the way, were used by Clinton and other presidents before him), habeas corpus (and, I think there's a distinction to be made between detained combatants and American citizens), and refusing subpoenas (if you're talking about Congressional subpoenas of executive branch officials over matters under the exclusive purview of the executive branch, there's a larger school of thought that the subpoenas, themselves, are unconstitutional; but, again, not being litigated.)


Edit:

Not that the actions themselves would be comparable, but the reasons for the actions taken.
Don't make a statement you can't support.

[Kermit]

think there's a distinction to be made between detained combatants and American citizens

Yes, but American citizens have been detained without charge and our executive branch has lost three(?) bouts with the courts on the issue. So, that has been litigated. Statement supported.

I assumed that with all the uproar over President Bush's signing statement and the Bar Associations criticism of it that some litigation had been attempted or comtemplated. Ass-u-me.


Don't make a statement you can't support.

:rollin

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Good speech by Barack. :tu

Extra Stout, do you have a PhD in theological history or what? lol not being a dick, just curious.

[PixelPusher]

Interesting take on political distinctions in black political philosophies, and what seperates Obama from Wright.


Black Conservatives in Large and Small Caps (http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-conservatives-in-large-and-small.html)

......

Black Conservatism essentially operates off the premise that racism is an ingrained and potentially permanent part of White-dominated institutions. As a result, Black Conservatives essentially tell Blacks they can only rely on themselves to get ahead in America -- counting on White people to be moral or "do the right thing" is a waste of time. Politically, this means building tight-knit communities that emphasize the patronizing of identifiably Black institutions, with the end result being social independence from White America. In this, it mixes at least partial voluntary self-segregation with a significant aversion to external dependency, with Whites and White institutions being defined as outsiders who can't be trusted. Every dollar that flows out of the Black community and into the hands of White America is a dollar that is in the control of a group that, at best, has a unique set of interests that can't be counted on to converge with those of Black people. Contained within this school are thinkers as far-ranging as Derrick Bell, Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey, Clarence Thomas, Huey P. Newton, and Malcolm X. Black groups and leaders who were/are not Black Conservatives include W.E.B. Du Bois, Martin Luther King, the NAACP, Thurgood Marshall, and yes, Barack Obama.

........

Virtually all the controversial statements said by Rev. Wright make the most sense as expositions on Black Conservative ideology. His disclaimer of the pursuit of "middle-class-ness" is a term of art; he's flaming Black people who are more concerned about looking good to White people than they are about insuring the health of their own community -- including those who haven't yet moved up the ladder. His extraordinarily grim predictions about the state of racism in America are textbook Black Conservative arguments, as are his efforts to break down the idea that America is a particularly moral government that can be trusted (rightly, when he notes that America too has engaged in state-sponsored terrorism in Latin America and supported it in South Africa; wrongly when he alleges that we infected Black folk with the AIDS virus).

I'm not saying I agree with all of his points -- I'm not a Black Conservative, and as I outlined in the Thomas post, I'm not sure that a White person can morally adopt the premises of Black Conservatism. But we can't understand what we're yelling about until we properly position it within its philosophical school. This is why I feel confident in asserting that Obama and Wright are not of a political kind -- they operate from totally different ends of the Black Conservative spectrum. Obama is an integrationist, the very act of running for President means that he believes that there is a space for Blacks in our hitherto White-dominated government, and all of his speeches, policies, and writings have indicated he believes that there is hope for an America that is not separated and divided on racial lines. All of these positions would be derided as doe-eyed idealism by a true Black Conservatism. And if there is one thing Obama can't be accused of, it's of being too much of a pessimist.

......

[Extra Stout]

Good speech by Barack. :tu

Extra Stout, do you have a PhD in theological history or what? lol not being a dick, just curious.
No, but now that you've asked, I need to say something emotional and half-baked in order to self-level. Expect it within 48 hours.

[smeagol]

You Argentines sure know how to have a blast.

If you say so . . . :rolleyes

[whottt]

Extra Stout, do you have a PhD in theological history or what? lol not being a dick, just curious.


He can be taken out with the ethnohistory of North and Central America :tu

[whottt]

Oh and...

http://wonkette.com/assets/resources/2007/10/baracksnopes.jpg

I guess he didn't want Uncle Pasty to get upset.




Obama hates America...period.


He's considers himself a citizen of the World type...they always hate America.

[Extra Stout]

Obama hates America...period.


He's considers himself a citizen of the World type...they always hate America.
If I had to guess, I would guess that Barack Obama has fashioned a sort of American liberation theology which re-examines traditional liberation theology through the prism of the American political idiom of classical liberalism, anti-communism, and non-violent change.

Remember that liberation theology has nothing to do with orthodox Christianity. It is a type of postmodern theology which denies the historic doctrines of the faith, but seeks somehow to make the themes of Christianity relevant to the modern world in different ways. These theologians usually refashion Jesus in terms of whatever person or group of people they are trying to speak to.

Liberation theology originally was a fusion of Roman Catholicism with Marxism among the poor in Latin America. Since then, it has spawned feminist theology, where Jesus is viewed through the perspective of the woman's experience, black theology, which we've covered in this thread, gay theology, Palestinian theology, etc. Really, anybody can identify some group as victims and construct for them a liberation theology.

In this view, the ministry of Jesus would be reinterpreted through the experiences of the ordinary American worker. The ordinary American worker is the oppressed Judaean whom Jesus is coming to liberate. The greedy corporate executive, the lobbyist, the rapacious capitalist, is the Roman oppressor, Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees, etc. Jesus' crucifixion is recast as the slow asphyxiation of the middle and working classes. Sin is the pursuit of ill-gotten gain through corruption of the markets, lobbying abuses, pork, illegal wars, etc. Death is grinding poverty and violence in America and throughout the world. America as a collective becomes the body of Christ, responsible for each part to work together and lift the other up, and to use its bounty to minister to the world.

God becomes the agent of change to liberate the working classes from economic bondage. God's love is the act of that liberation. Faith becomes an affirmation of the history of American progressivism. Hope becomes confidence that the future will bring this change.

Once you start down this road and establish this dialectic, Marxism is not far away, since we know from Scripture that all the early believers held everything in common, and that Paul exhorted the more prosperous churches to keep only what they needed, and give the rest to the less prosperous churches.

In sum, this turns America into a neoliberal theocracy, which of course is a delicious irony for the secular left. America becomes the Chosen People of God and the Church, though only in a symbolic sense.

Don't take this intellectual exercise as any kind of affirmation of this ideology/theology, which of course would wreck the country. It is interesting that in this framework, Obama's langauge makes a great deal more sense, as does the messianic overtone of his campaign. These themes are clear in his speech yesterday, for example, where he connects the experience of the immigrant working class to that of the black man. He probably belongs at an egghead university instead of the White House.

[Extra Stout]

In PA, Hillary is now up 56-30, and Obama's support among blacks has eroded to 63-27, so there's really no evidence that the speech yesterday stopped the bleeding.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

This is my favorite part of his speech



But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. that's rich. he's comparing people that protect their land when attacked to people that strap on bombs to their kids, mothers, fathers, and more recently, literally retarded people to blow up and KILL people for their "cause". he's justifying his pastor's stance. jews are no better or worse than terrorists. great job.

[Kermit]

This is my favorite part of his speech

that's rich. he's comparing people that protect their land when attacked to people that strap on bombs to their kids, mothers, fathers, and more recently, literally retarded people to blow up and KILL people for their "cause". he's justifying his pastor's stance. jews are no better or worse than terrorists. great job.

Did you even read the snippet you posted? How could you misinterpret five lines that you selectively picked out? Try again.

[GaryJohnston]

Bush IS a dictator and some in here think he's a King.

God Save the Bush!

[Ignignokt]

If I had to guess, I would guess that Barack Obama has fashioned a sort of American liberation theology which re-examines traditional liberation theology through the prism of the American political idiom of classical liberalism, anti-communism, and non-violent change.

Remember that liberation theology has nothing to do with orthodox Christianity. It is a type of postmodern theology which denies the historic doctrines of the faith, but seeks somehow to make the themes of Christianity relevant to the modern world in different ways. These theologians usually refashion Jesus in terms of whatever person or group of people they are trying to speak to.

Liberation theology originally was a fusion of Roman Catholicism with Marxism among the poor in Latin America. Since then, it has spawned feminist theology, where Jesus is viewed through the perspective of the woman's experience, black theology, which we've covered in this thread, gay theology, Palestinian theology, etc. Really, anybody can identify some group as victims and construct for them a liberation theology.

In this view, the ministry of Jesus would be reinterpreted through the experiences of the ordinary American worker. The ordinary American worker is the oppressed Judaean whom Jesus is coming to liberate. The greedy corporate executive, the lobbyist, the rapacious capitalist, is the Roman oppressor, Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees, etc. Jesus' crucifixion is recast as the slow asphyxiation of the middle and working classes. Sin is the pursuit of ill-gotten gain through corruption of the markets, lobbying abuses, pork, illegal wars, etc. Death is grinding poverty and violence in America and throughout the world. America as a collective becomes the body of Christ, responsible for each part to work together and lift the other up, and to use its bounty to minister to the world.

God becomes the agent of change to liberate the working classes from economic bondage. God's love is the act of that liberation. Faith becomes an affirmation of the history of American progressivism. Hope becomes confidence that the future will bring this change.

Once you start down this road and establish this dialectic, Marxism is not far away, since we know from Scripture that all the early believers held everything in common, and that Paul exhorted the more prosperous churches to keep only what they needed, and give the rest to the less prosperous churches.

In sum, this turns America into a neoliberal theocracy, which of course is a delicious irony for the secular left. America becomes the Chosen People of God and the Church, though only in a symbolic sense.

Don't take this intellectual exercise as any kind of affirmation of this ideology/theology, which of course would wreck the country. It is interesting that in this framework, Obama's langauge makes a great deal more sense, as does the messianic overtone of his campaign. These themes are clear in his speech yesterday, for example, where he connects the experience of the immigrant working class to that of the black man. He probably belongs at an egghead university instead of the White House.


and hello jonestown!!!!!!!!

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Did you even read the snippet you posted? How could you misinterpret five lines that you selectively picked out? Try again.i did read it. what are you getting at? he's defending what his pastor says, feels, and preaches. the same pastor he's had for the past 20 years. he's not agreeing with. i never said that. nor did obama. what are you getting at, Kermie?

[Extra Stout]

This is my favorite part of his speech

that's rich. he's comparing people that protect their land when attacked to people that strap on bombs to their kids, mothers, fathers, and more recently, literally retarded people to blow up and KILL people for their "cause". he's justifying his pastor's stance. jews are no better or worse than terrorists. great job.
You need to bolster your reading comprehension skills. He most certainly did not make that moral equivalence, nor did he justify his pastor's stance.

Stick to valid criticisms. There are plenty enough. For example:

"I don't care what he feels about Pastor Wright, or the social capital of Trinity Church, to stay in a place where that kind of filth is preached week after week for 20 years... is inexplicable."

Or...

"Spare me the in-depth explanations of liberal theology. Are you trying to tell me that the parishoners at Trinity all have theology degrees from the University of Chicago and can understand the "nuance" of black liberation theology? Bullshit. It's putting a happy face on race-baiting hatred. He tosses the red meat, the people in the pews eat it up, and afterwards when he gets called on it he can just claim you're not 'intellectual' enough to understand him."

Or...

"The best part of all this are the liberals trying to explain how "God DAMN America" really is an appropriate sentiment. Please, please, get yourself interviewed on CNN and identify yourself as a Democratic activist."

Or...

"So when Don Imus makes one insensitive joke, he needs to be fired immediately in order to protect the delicate ears of your two daughters, but subjecting them to "white people created AIDS" and "the CIA created crack" and "God damn America" "destroy Israel" and "America deserved 9/11" week after week after week is edifying for them? Do they have theology degrees from the University of Chicago too?"

[smeagol]

This is my favorite part of his speech. that's rich. he's comparing people that protect their land when attacked to people that strap on bombs to their kids, mothers, fathers, and more recently, literally retarded people to blow up and KILL people for their "cause". he's justifying his pastor's stance. jews are no better or worse than terrorists. great job.

You need to take Reading Comprehension 101 again.

[Kermit]

i did read it. what are you getting at? he's defending what his pastor says, feels, and preaches. the same pastor he's had for the past 20 years. he's not agreeing with. i never said that. nor did obama. what are you getting at, Kermie?

What are you saying? I think I need you to translate your own paragraph.

[smeagol]

i did read it. what are you getting at? he's defending what his pastor says, feels, and preaches. the same pastor he's had for the past 20 years. he's not agreeing with. i never said that. nor did obama. what are you getting at, Kermie?
:lol :lol :lol :lol

You read it once . . . ? Go back and read it again. Please.

If you still don't understand, get somebody to explain it to you.

[Extra Stout]

and hello jonestown!!!!!!!!
They can serve the Kool-Aid in paper cups with American flags on them.

[Kermit]

You need to bolster your reading comprehension skills. He most certainly did not make that moral equivalence, nor did he justify his pastor's stance.

Stick to valid criticisms. There are plenty enough. For example:

"I don't care what he feels about Pastor Wright, or the social capital of Trinity Church, to stay in a place where that kind of filth is preached week after week for 20 years... is inexplicable."

Or...

"Spare me the in-depth explanations of liberal theology. Are you trying to tell me that the parishoners at Trinity all have theology degrees from the University of Chicago and can understand the "nuance" of black liberation theology? Bullshit. It's putting a happy face on race-baiting hatred. He tosses the red meat, the people in the pews eat it up, and afterwards when he gets called on it he can just claim you're not 'intellectual' enough to understand him."

Or...

"The best part of all this are the liberals trying to explain how "God DAMN America" really is an appropriate sentiment. Please, please, get yourself interviewed on CNN and identify yourself as a Democratic activist."

Or...

"So when Don Imus makes one insensitive joke, he needs to be fired immediately in order to protect the delicate ears of your two daughters, but subjecting them to "white people created AIDS" and "the CIA created crack" and "God damn America" "destroy Israel" and "America deserved 9/11" week after week after week is edifying for them? Do they have theology degrees from the University of Chicago too?"


All legitimate points, none of which will be adressed by the media who have already put this behind them.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

maybe i'm not explaining it correctly. i'm not saying obama agrees with his pastor. never did. he says he denounces it. the part that i quoted was obama justifying pastor wright's view. he's saying what his pastor feels. later on in the speech he says people that grew up during the 50's and 60's, which include his pastor, have that view because of the times that they grew up in.

[smeagol]

ES, do you think Obama is that dangerous?

My view is that even if he is elected, Americans would not allow their own country to go down the road you are predicting.

[smeagol]

maybe i'm not explaining it correctly. i'm not saying obama agrees with his pastor. never did. he says he denounces it. the part that i quoted was obama justifying pastor wright's view. he's saying what his pastor feels. later on in the speech he says people that grew up during the 50's and 60's, which include his pastor, have that view because of the times that they grew up in.

Where's the backpeddling emoticon?

(I'm just teasing you, dude :lol )

[Kermit]

maybe i'm not explaining it correctly. i'm not saying obama agrees with his pastor. never did. he says he denounces it. the part that i quoted was obama justifying pastor wright's view. he's saying what his pastor feels. later on in the speech he says people that grew up during the 50's and 60's, which include his pastor, have that view because of the times that they grew up in.

échouer.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

échouer.gazunteit

[Extra Stout]

ES, do you think Obama is that dangerous?

My view is that even if he is elected, Americans would not allow their own country to go down the road you are predicting.
Don't think of LT in the context of what it looked like in Latin America. There wouldn't be communist guerillas running back and forth through the hinterlands.

What he would be able to do is cast socialism in a langauge where a lot of ordinary Americans would find it very appealing. He's not going to come out and say, "Whoopee! We're a theocracy now!"

But, do you remember how George W. Bush's speechwriters knew how to use biblical allusions that set off the antennae of religious people in America? Well, Obama has even better command of that language and can apply it to left-wing socialism. Furthermore, his use of that language would not be ad hoc, but rather would be emanating from a coherent religio-political philosophy.

If you read a lot of the themes in the American liberation theology which I hypothesized, they are themes that strike a chord with many of the feelings Americans have about themselves, e.g. American exceptionalism. Obama would be able to channel those feelings into establishing a greater consensus behind a left-wing political agenda.

I suspect all that is hypothetical now, however, since Republican 527's can just play "God DAMN America" over and over again in a loop in their TV ads. Obama's wounds are probably fatal, even though his speech yesterday will likely be in political science textbooks a generation from now.

[smeagol]

Don't think of LT in the context of what it looked like in Latin America. There wouldn't be communist guerillas running back and forth through the hinterlands.


I wasn't. Don't worry. There is no scenario where what happened in LatAm in the 60s and 70sd can be replicated in the US.



I suspect all that is hypothetical now, however, since Republican 527's can just play "God DAMN America" over and over again in a loop in their TV ads. Obama's wounds are probably fatal, even though his speech yesterday will likely be in political science textbooks a generation from now.

Obama is young. You will have to keep him in check for the next 30 years.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

This is my favorite part of his speech

that's rich. he's comparing people that protect their land when attacked to people that strap on bombs to their kids, mothers, fathers, and more recently, literally retarded people to blow up and KILL people for their "cause". he's justifying his pastor's stance. jews are no better or worse than terrorists. great job.


Sounds like some Corsos need to brush up on the history of Israel's corso tactics CORSO

[RandomGuy]

I suspect all that is hypothetical now, however, since Republican 527's can just play "God DAMN America" over and over again in a loop in their TV ads. Obama's wounds are probably fatal, even though his speech yesterday will likely be in political science textbooks a generation from now.

I don't. I think that it will be a non-issue come November, and people will remember the speech more than the jackass.

For people sitting on the fence and playing wait and see, the speech will mean more, because it is the man in his own words and thoughts, and not someone associated with him.

From what I have heard, the people who hadn't already made up their minds were quite impressed.

As Jon Stewart put it:

"At 11am on a Tuesday, a politician spoke to the American people about race... as if they were adults."

[Extra Stout]

I don't. I think that it will be a non-issue come November, and people will remember the speech more than the jackass.

For people sitting on the fence and playing wait and see, the speech will mean more, because it is the man in his own words and thoughts, and not someone associated with him.
With apologies to the late William F. Buckley, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting you actually believe that.

[Kermit]

I don't. I think that it will be a non-issue come November, and people will remember the speech more than the jackass.

For people sitting on the fence and playing wait and see, the speech will mean more, because it is the man in his own words and thoughts, and not someone associated with him.

From what I have heard, the people who hadn't already made up their minds were quite impressed.

As Jon Stewart put it:

"At 11am on a Tuesday, a politician spoke to the American people about race... as if they were adults."

I'm with Extra on this one. There is no way the Republican base lets anyone forget this mess. You think Senator Kerry got swift-boated? Wait till Obama wins the nomination. There will be epic attacks on an unprecedented level the likes of which we have never seen in a presidential election. Senator Obama thinks he's shaken from this scandal. He hasn't seen anything yet.

[RandomGuy]

With apologies to the late William F. Buckley, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting you actually believe that.

I am an optimist. I like to believe that people might actually be able to be adults about this. What can I say?

[RandomGuy]

I'm with Extra on this one. There is no way the Republican base lets anyone forget this mess. You think Senator Kerry got swift-boated? Wait till Obama wins the nomination. There will be epic attacks on an unprecedented level the likes of which we have never seen in a presidential election. Senator Obama thinks he's shaken from this scandal. He hasn't seen anything yet.

(shrugs)

We'll get to find out.

The thing is, that moderates hate that kind of crap. I know I do.

Swift-boat worked because it worked up the GOP base, not because it convinced moderates. This crap might work because it works up the GOP base, but it will convince the moderates that Obama is the right candidate.

As I said, we'll see. I am usually pretty good about calling these things.

Think about it this way:
You have three voters, A, B, and C. A and C always vote in ways that are opposite. Where is the real decision making power?

[Extra Stout]

I am an optimist. I like to believe that people might actually be able to be adults about this. What can I say?
Prepare to be disappointed.

Hey, the past few days have been a marvelous intellectual exercise. I really believe that Obama's relationship with Wright was in spite of Wright's racial blatherings, that Obama really respected Wright's liberal theological erudition and drew from it, though with a focus on class where Wright put it on race. I make Obama out to be both a brilliant political scientist and an astute armchair liberal theologian to boot, even though I completely and firmly oppose his conclusions.

But you know as well as I do that the number of voters who are going to read or listen to a 37-minute speech and then make a thoughful and nuanced consideration of what Obama is saying is very small, while the number of voters who will react viscerally to soundbites of his pastor is much, much larger.

[RandomGuy]

ooooh, and then there is the economy.

If the economy goes south, that also historically bodes well for Dems.

[RandomGuy]

Prepare to be disappointed.

Hey, the past few days have been a marvelous intellectual exercise. I really believe that Obama's relationship with Wright was in spite of Wright's racial blatherings, that Obama really respected Wright's liberal theological erudition and drew from it, though with a focus on class where Wright put it on race. I make Obama out to be both a brilliant political scientist and an astute armchair liberal theologian to boot, even though I completely and firmly oppose his conclusions.

But you know as well as I do that the number of voters who are going to read or listen to a 37-minute speech and then make a thoughful and nuanced consideration of what Obama is saying is very small, while the number of voters who will react viscerally to soundbites of his pastor is much, much larger.

Yes, I do know that. I also think that in the end, it won't matter as much as so many other things.

Elections are usually not quite so cut and dried.

[101A]

ooooh, and then there is the economy.

If the economy goes south, that also historically bodes well for Dems.I love it when the party out of power is cheering for economic downturns....we're all in this together, right?

How about body-bags in Iraq; that'll SURELY get a Democrat elected.

ooooohhhh IED's !!!!

[Extra Stout]

Yes, I do know that. I also think that in the end, it won't matter as much as so many other things.

Elections are usually not quite so cut and dried.
True dat.

[RandomGuy]

I love it when the party out of power is cheering for economic downturns....we're all in this together, right?

How about body-bags in Iraq; that'll SURELY get a Democrat elected.

ooooohhhh IED's !!!!

Um, historically Democrats have been perceived as being better at managing the economy.

I am not cheering for bad things to happen, merely noting that fact.

I would much prefer *not* to have an economic meltdown, despite your distortion or jumps to conclusions about my views.

[RandomGuy]

Um, historically Democrats have been perceived as being better at managing the economy.

I am not cheering for bad things to happen, merely noting that fact.

I would much prefer *not* to have an economic meltdown, despite your distortion or stupid jumps to conclusions about my views.

Although, I can see how my post could be read that way, now that I look at it.

Perhaps I should have put "oooh yeaaah" instead of "oooh", to denote the "I just remembered this other bit" rather than "I am happy about this."

The perils of type-written communication. Experts say that the lack of body language and tone of voice take about 83% of contextual content out of written communication.

[101A]

Although, I can see how my post could be read that way, now that I look at it.

Perhaps I should have put "oooh yeaaah" instead of "oooh", to denote the "I just remembered this other bit" rather than "I am happy about this."

The perils of type-written communication. Experts say that the lack of body language and tone of voice take about 83% of contextual content out of written communication.Fair enough.

It was out of character for you after all...jumped on it all the same.

Really, the post wasn't aimed at you directly (although I see how it could be read that way [sic], but it has amazed me over the years that, in fact, the party out of power (either party), gets a gleam in its eye when bad things happen.

Regarding Obama's relationship with the church and its pastor.

It will have the same effect as if McCain had been attending a Baptist church presided over by a Grand Dragon who openly spouted racism. The difference is, in that case the M$M would do more of the heavy lifting; in this case; the Republicans and their allies mainly on talk radio, will be left to do it. The message, in either case, will get out, and it will sway some votes.

[Spurminator]

I don't know... The media favors "new" developments, so unless Pastor Wright says something even more shocking in the coming months, I don't think it's going to get the same amount of play as it has in the past.

Certainly it'll be an issue for some people, but I expect by July and August we'll have plenty of other shocking discoveries about Obama's past and the people he has been associated with.

[RandomGuy]

Fair enough.

It was out of character for you after all...jumped on it all the same.

Really, the post wasn't aimed at you directly (although I see how it could be read that way [sic], but it has amazed me over the years that, in fact, the party out of power (either party), gets a gleam in its eye when bad things happen.

Regarding Obama's relationship with the church and its pastor.

It will have the same effect as if McCain had been attending a Baptist church presided over by a Grand Dragon who openly spouted racism. The difference is, in that case the M$M would do more of the heavy lifting; in this case; the Republicans and their allies mainly on talk radio, will be left to do it. The message, in either case, will get out, and it will sway some votes.

Oh yeah, I agree on both points.

[RandomGuy]

I don't know... The media favors "new" developments, so unless Pastor Wright says something even more shocking in the coming months, I don't think it's going to get the same amount of play as it has in the past.

Certainly it'll be an issue for some people, but I expect by July and August we'll have plenty of other shocking discoveries about Obama's past and the people he has been associated with.

It will be interesting to see what the bloodhounds come up with.

I kinda hope this is the end of it, not because I support Obama (although I do), but more because I would prefer the election to be about say, issues, than personal destruction.

Personally, I don't doubt something will come up, but I doubt it will be anything really major.

[Spurminator]

Oh I think we're in for some HUGE scandal for both nominees. At this point, you have to dig up something, and if you can't, you make it up.

[101A]

It will be interesting to see what the bloodhounds come up with.

I kinda hope this is the end of it, not because I support Obama (although I do), but more because I would prefer the election to be about say, issues, than personal destruction.

Personally, I don't doubt something will come up, but I doubt it will be anything really major.Issues?

The people who pay attention and comprehend the issues have already made up their minds. The swing voters care about this stuff, so that's what the elections are "about".