Barack Obama Becomes "Toby"
Finally after portraying Rev. Wright as a caricature the media – the white media mostly – got their wish. After facing immense pressure from the mainstream media, Senator Barack "Toby" Obama asserted doubts about the future of his relationship - a relationship of twenty years - with his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
For weeks, starting with pundits on Fox News, many news pundits have been calling for King Obama to renounce completely Reverend Jeremiah Wright after controversial remarks made at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago were looped over and over by the media and were deemed "anti-American" and "anti-white". Even blacks, who want a blackish president at all costs, have denounced Rev. Wright, although I believe any other time they would've agreed with him. Personally, I am happy – extremely happy - that Reverend Wright stuck to his guns and did not "repent" for his comments. Sadly, mainstream media (read=white) have overwhelmingly portrayed Reverend Wright as an extreme nut case. Keith Olbermann referred to Wright as a "cartoon". Richard Wolffe, a sissy who works at Newsweek, today called Wright a "freak show' on MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann show. CNN’s Anderson Cooper called Obama’s denunciation of Wright a “political smackdown”.
The white media has shown its power.
As I see it, if a strong, controversial black man in America is not kissing the asses of cynics and aggressively-patriotic white America or submissively acquiescing himself as "Toby" like Kunta Kinte in Roots, he is ostracized and electronically lynched. It is unfortunate that when sad truths are revealed about America - despite all of the good she has done in the world – people cannot see the truth because they are ridiculously and blindly patriotic. They are in deep denial. In my opinion, Reverend Wright has been vilified and “caricatured" because he has spoken the truth about America not being utopia. It’s time for Americans to take the blinders off. Obama stated Wright “caricatured” himself at the National Press Club press conference. What he, and most of Black America, has failed to see is the real caricature is Barack Hussein Obama, who has addressed race matters in America with kid gloves since running for the presidency. He had not had the courage to speak openly about race relations in America until his back was against the wall. Obama then gently threw Wright along with his grandmother under the proverbial Obama bus. Yet, Obama acts as if he is the martyr. In February 2007, Obama disinvited Reverend Wright from attending Obama's presidential announcement. Then last month, Obama said that if Reverend Wright had not retired, he would have left the church.
Ironically, Obama says he was "disrespected" by Wright yesterday. How laughable.
Wright was quiet for a long time. A man can only take so many punches until he starts fighting back. I’ve heard people call Reverend Wright “a crab in a barrel” implying that Wright is pulling down Obama so that he can have the spotlight. I submit if Reverend Wright is a crab in a barrel, then Senator Obama is the king crab.
Ultimately, I am glad that Reverend Wright told the truth about Senator Barack Obama. Although both men exhibit signs of self-aggrandizing, Wright didn’t play spurious media games with Obama. He threw Obama under the bus – hard. It sent a strong message to Obama. Obama should have known that Reverend Wright was not going to stand by and watch Obama nicely trash him in the media. Sorry, but I don’t feel sorry for Senator Barack Obama. I don’t care if he doesn’t become America’s first president with unambiguous African ancestry. Although it is good political theatre, I find it sad that
As with Sharpton, while I may never agree with everything he espouses, I admire a smart, educated, fearless black man who stands his ground and doesn't waver from his positions or beliefs just because the pressure becomes seemingly insurmountable.
Like Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright has become a hero to me. Contrary to what some people may think, Reverend Wright seems to want the best for America – just like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did. Both spoke about America’s good and bad deeds here and abroad. Confronting America about her past evils helps to make America better. Challenging America to do unto others as it would have them do unto us helps to make America better. Anyone who believes that America is utopia needs to wake up.
True healing cannot take place until truth is told. If America or King Obama wants to bring healing to race relationships, the truth, both good and bad (without gloss), must be told.
Labels: Keepin' It Real, Politics, Race, Racism
posted by Terrence | 12:00 AM
28 Comments:
America isn't ready for a mulatto
President,not ever.This Obama isn't
going to bullshit Americans,he is a
nigger through and through.Shame on his mother for having sex with a nigger.
Sorry Terrence, I respectfully disagree. This is my first day ever being on this blog (got linked from Jack and Jill).
Here's my take...
During his Philly speech on race, Obama gave Wright the "benefit of the doubt." While he denounced what Rev. Wright had said, he didn't 'disown' him, or "throw him under the bus." However, that was when Wright had simply made the comments (being played all over media). What happened Monday was different. Rev. Wright was not simply 'repeating' those comments, he was defending them, trying to rationalize what he said. For example, had Wright not elaborated on those comments, it would have been different. Let's say he was asked whether he believes what he said. If his response was, "well, look, as a pastor, sometimes you get passionate, and say things contemporaneously, blah, blah, blah." Or, if he wanted to stand ground, simply say, you know what, I'm not here to talk about those comments. I'm here to discuss some of the differences b/w the races, so that we can all understand each other better. I liked his "different isn't deficient" line. But he didn't. Instead, as Obama said, Wright had "amplified" his previous statements, trying to defend them, and trying to rationalize his comments, in front of the national media. That is why Obama rightfully did what he had to do. Now, Mr. Wright is a very smart, educated man. He knew exactly that his comments would torpedo Mr. Obama's comments. Now tell me Terrence, when you have the first ever viable black candidate, is this the way to treat him? Look, I understand Wright was F8c88d by the media. But as a religious man, shouldn't he have forgiven Obama? Shouldn't he have said, you know what, I'll just wait until he GETS the presidency, or at least the nomination. Had Wright done this after Obama secured the nomination, but well before the general, it would have been understandable. But 8 days before a primary, come on.
You are so right!
Hey Terrence,
The first anonymous comment represents the uneducated fabric of America. This is the reason we have the President we have now. We really really need to invest more into our educational system.
Bobby
Bobby, I agree with you 100%.
At first I thought about deleting the comment, but I felt that it was important for readers to see it.
I think you are over-estimating the willingness of white voters in this country to acknowledge the validity in the statements Reverend Wright has put forward, and you're underestimating the resulting untenable position that Senator Obama is left to hold because of the aforementioned inability to separate fact from the fancy many Americans have regarding race in the 21st Century.
Americans will hide their biases -- to a point. And Reverend Wright has consistently pushed past that "point" to his credit, and my personal satisfaction.
The problem comes into focus when a candidate of color is associated with such an "habitual line-stepper" to paraphrase Charlie Murphy. Obama then has to protect his flank from this fear of fact, and dislike for he who speaks it. As a result, Obama is left to do one of two things:
1. endanger the coalition he's attempting to build across race, class and gender while staying true to his personal opinions and defending his spiritual leader of the last two decades, or
2. distance himself from Reverend Wright to satisfy and mollify members of his own party whose liberalism only extends as far as modern issues, and who would rather leave America's dirty laundry aside, out of the debate about equality in this country.
Either is a losing proposition for Obama. But in this case, the lesser of two political evils is throwing Wright under the bus" and it's his only choice at this moment if Obama wishes to be President, regrettably because of the inability of others to hear the truth, and their fears of his possible "hyper-blackness."
This issue says less about Obama than it does the built-in biases held by the majority of the mainstream.
If the press and some voters rather castigate Obama and his pastor for highlighting the obvious deficiencies in American life, as opposed to focusing on his proposed solutions -- right or wrong, good bad or indifferent -- for what ails the nation, they deserve John McCain (or for that matter Hillary Clinton).
Love your blog and hope to see more of your commentary...
(that first commenter was out of order)
Stacy
White media? WTF with Don Imus - sacrificial lamb? All he said was "Nappy Hoes" ... How does that compare with "God Damn America?"
I understand why Obama is trying to distance himself. Doesn't anyone know anything about politics? You try to make people happy and not scare them with fire and brimstone. Some of the things Rev Wright said sound VERY much like Fred Phelps (see "God Hates Fags") - it's all just a little extreme. Sorry, but you try to avoid extremes when you are attempting to win a popular vote.
So - Tiger Woods can play golf, but Obama can't be the president, eh? What's up with that anyways? He ain't black enough? Do whites ever say that about white presidents?
If you ask me, this black thing is just too much to live up to. I don't even really dig Obama's platform - but I respect how he at least tries to justify himself to a minority community with poor voter turnout. Gotta give the guy props for that.
AIDS, Crack? Did the white man put these in black communities to destroy them? How about the self loathing that the black community has? Who put that there?
As long as it's the white man's fault the black man lives in a white context. I applaud you Terrence for being Black Media for the new age. I read you when you write because you try to be honest. But really, white media...? Come on, man. You can disagree with Obama without all that, right?
Thanks for an "alternate" perspective, good read!
I agree with the first comment. Miscegenation is disgusting, and ought to be forever banned through a Constitutional Amendment. Mulattos should be barred from voting, holding public office, serving on juries, and inter-marrying with Whites. Ordinary Blacks too, for that matter.
Word up, Terrence. I be readin' yo stuff and be all like DAYUM this brotha got it goin' on on da political tip, yo. Anywayz, y'all keep keepin' it real and representin' us REAL NIGRAS. F a buncha sellout cracka Obama.
White media!? LOL!!!!
That's so f*cking ridiculous.
It's the JEWISH MEDIA and Jews are NOT White. Just because a bunch of bought and paid for White talking heads are on TV does NOT mean they serve the interests of White folks. That's just plain ignorant to refer to a "White media".
Black folks get much more positive coverage on TV than you're admitting my friend.
And the JEWISH media is extremely ANTI-WHITE. Don't you watch TV commercials? Hollywood movies?
Get a clue.
And Obama is the actually better than Clinton or McCain. Obama's not great but the other two as president would make George W Bush's presidency actually look good.
And I'm White.
Terrance,
Your outrageous lambasting of Obama is ridiculuous. While I agree that it would be nice if a black man could speak the truth about the good and the bad of America. Obama is running for President of all Americans not just Black Americans. For the life of me, I do not understand how you can support a white divisive woman over a half black/half white man who is trying to unite this Country! I reside in Houston also. I will check out your blog but from what I've read so far you beliefs and mind are worlds apart. Good luck!
Scott
FYI, I am not responding too much here because I am busy commenting in other places.
I appreciate the sensible comments and questions noted here.
For the record, several of these comments here are from people who obviously visit the forum noted below.
**Bigots Forum**...........
Looks like a white supremacist forum.
[Note: If I have to, I will list the IP addresses, cities, and streets where these bigots are responding from.]
I watched the Moyers interview and thought he was warm, learned, charming and reasonable. In the NAACP speech he might have been a little too histrionic, but I don't think he went overboard. Though I don't agree with some of Wright's language, I thought he spoke a lot of truth about the bad policy of the U.S. and how it continually haunts us and wanted what was best for his community.
But I just can't understand how you can defend Rev. Wright after his performance at the Press Club. His egocentric grandstanding and hectoring did no credit to his race or his profession.
I really don't understand how you as a black man can condone the blatant disrespect that Wright showed to Obama. Obama may not have defended Wright to Wright's satisfaction in his Philadelphia speech, but Obama made clear that he still had love for him. That was clearly not the case from Wright's perspective in his Press Club comments. I thought Christians were supposed to be about love and forgiveness, especially to one of his own congregation.
Wright's behavior on Monday fueled the caricature too many white people have of the "angry black man." Yes, blacks have far too much to be angry about, but how does this kind of fighting make things any better?
You may not support Obama, but that doesn't mean you should revel in the politics of personal destruction.
"I watched the Moyers interview and thought he was warm, learned, charming and reasonable. In the NAACP speech he might have been a little too histrionic, but I don't think he went overboard. Though I don't agree with some of Wright's language, I thought he spoke a lot of truth about the bad policy of the U.S. and how it continually haunts us and wanted what was best for his community.
But I just can't understand how you can defend Rev. Wright after his performance at the Press Club. His egocentric grandstanding and hectoring did no credit to his race or his profession."
Katty, I think you need to read what I wrote thoroughly. First, I acknowledged that both Wright and Obama have self-aggrandizing characteristics. Don't come here twisting and misrepresenting what I've written. But as you "defend" Obama's Judas behavior; I will defend Wright’s need to “defend” himself.
Ultimately, my comments were not about Wright's "performance"; but his right to defend himself against mischaracterizations.
My commentary also was about Obama’s Toby-like acquiescing, which has splintered the relationship between Wright and Obama.
Furthermore, it seems you are less “threatened” by a black man who is acting "warm, learned, charming and reasonable". It is likely that you and others are more comfortable with these characteristics, and perceive a black man who exhibits them is “credit to his race and profession.” He’s not rocking the boat or stirring the pot. Give me a break. Regardless of your race, can you not see the biased overtones in your assertions? If a black man is being “energetic” and self-assured he’s not a credit to his race and profession. He’s uppity. He’s a caricature. And he’s a threat. He’s out of order and disrespectful. And why does Wright’s behavior have to reflect poorly on his race and profession? That’s what you are implying. Come on.
"I really don't understand how you as a black man can condone the blatant disrespect that Wright showed to Obama. Obama may not have defended Wright to Wright's satisfaction in his Philadelphia speech, but Obama made clear that he still had love for him."
Don’t come here with that nonsense, Katty. In case you don't know, African-American/black men are not monolithic in thought - particularly social, political and religious thought.
I don’t have allegiances with black men just because they are black. Like other racial and ethnic men, black men are not monolithic. Find a way to understand this. This is why I can "condone" Reverend Wright's defense of himself against Obama and the media.
And for the record, Obama has been blatantly disrespecting Reverend Wright for over year starting with the disinvitation to Obama’s presidential announcement in Springfield, Illinois.
"I thought Christians were supposed to be about love and forgiveness, especially to one of his own congregation."
Oh please. Stop with the guilt-tripping. Who’s to say that Wright doesn’t love and forgive Obama? You don’t know where Wright stands with regards to “love and forgiveness” as it relates to Obama. Wright can love and forgive Obama, but still criticize him as he rightfully should.
"Obama may not have defended Wright to Wright's satisfaction in his Philadelphia speech, but Obama made clear that he still had love for him."
Screw Obama. Don’t pee on me and tell me it’s raining. If Obama had love for Wright, he wouldn’t have uninvited him from his presidential announcement last year. If there was love, he wouldn’t have sucker-punched Wright on an international stage and said, (paraphrasing) “Had Reverend Wright not retired, I would have left the church.”
Yeah, that is pure love. LOL!
"Wright's behavior on Monday fueled the caricature too many white people have of the "angry black man."
Tough. There are angry people everywhere. This also gets back your earlier assertion. As long as a black man is meek, submissive, and docile - he is not a threat. When a black man asserts and articulates himself without fear of retribution or reprisal, “he’s angry”.
Ultimately, that is a perception that some white people need to address within themselves. It’s ridiculous.
"Yes, blacks have far too much to be angry about, but how does this kind of fighting make things any better?"
Be careful of your stereotypes and racial generalizations.
For the record, sometimes confrontations, dissention and fights must happen in order to allow healing and growth to take place.
With regards to fighting between Obama and Wright, ask Obama, David Axelrod and some white media outlets why they instigated such a fight. Ask some white media outlets why they have yet to do instigate fights between other candidates and their religious clergy.
I hope that Obama and Wright reconcile only after Wright comes hard against Obama one last time.
"Though I don't agree with some of Wright's language, I thought he spoke a lot of truth about the bad policy of the U.S. and how it continually haunts us and wanted what was best for his community."
What Reverend Wright said had lots of truths to them. I agree.
"You may not support Obama, but that doesn't mean you should revel in the politics of personal destruction."
As I have stated, I support Dr. Wright’s right to defend himself against the politics of personal destruction. If that is “reveling” so be it. If I point out the contradictions of Obama and caricature him as he caricatured Dr. Wright and you perceive it as reveling, tough.
If you are going to support Obama, take off the blinders and differentiate both his strengths and weaknesses as you did with Dr. Wright.
For me, it goes back to the question of character. All of this hype about him being "different", espousing "change" and "hope", yet he disrespects his BLACK pastor/surrogate father/mentor in a passive-aggressive manner in order to get votes when other candidates have not had to do the same.
Obama had no backbone to stand up for himself against the white media namely Fox News Channel, yet he denounced his pastor who defended him during a sermon. Where were the "leadership" skills?
"I think you are over-estimating the willingness of white voters in this country to acknowledge the validity in the statements Reverend Wright has put forward..."
Anthony, overall I understand your assessment and agree with most of it, but trust me, there is no "over-estimating the willingness of white voters in this country to acknowledge the validity in the statements Reverend Wright has put forward" on my part.
I know quite well that many whites won't acknowledge the validity of Wright's statements - especially the sound bites.
My point of contention was that until they do, we are always going to have contentious debates about what is patriotism and how it should look; and blacks are always going to portrayed as unpatriotic in some of their eyes because we raise questions about America's misdeeds here and abroad.
People on all sides have to be willing to see the truth if we are going to progress as a society.
"and you're underestimating the resulting untenable position that Senator Obama is left to hold because of the aforementioned inability to separate fact from the fancy many Americans have regarding race in the 21st Century."
Again, I am fully aware. However, it still speaks to character. I don't want him to be a "race-baiter", but if the issue of race comes, he as a black man in America, must be able to address it openly and honestly and not when it is convenient. He cannot downplay the issue of race in our society. If Hillary has no problem addressing race, then a black man who has admittedly faced racism and discrimination should not be timid under any circumstance to discuss race and racism.
There's a saying that goes, "If you downplay racism to get into power, you will downplay racism to keep power." Then how do we progress.
Don't speak out for political expediency and pandering, but for the real good of America.
I think you are cutting Barack too much slack. Obama is a smart man. Smarter than our current president. Obama is running for POTUS the highest office in the land and one of the most respected in the world. He needs to have more of a confrontational backbone - not militant though. If there is backlash, so be it. For me, it's about integrity and trust.
...we are always going to have contentious debates about what is patriotism and how it should look; and blacks are always going to portrayed as unpatriotic in some of their eyes because we raise questions about America's misdeeds here and abroad.
People on all sides have to be willing to see the truth if we are going to progress as a society.
You're correct that we all have to be willing to see the truth, but you assume (wrongly, in my opinion) that the mainstream for the most part, want to see the truth in its most ugly and honest light.
The good Reverend Wright is a former Marine who fought for this country -- a country that would deny him his "unalienable rights" to life and liberty -- so the patriotism argument should have no legs. If there's anyone that has earned the right to be critical in this case, it's Wright. That point is missed by many.
...If Hillary has no problem addressing race, then a black man who has admittedly faced racism and discrimination should not be timid under any circumstance to discuss race and racism.
Come on Brother...Did you really say that?
Hillary can always address the issue of race, because she is a member of the majority. It's a passing issue for her, something to pull out of pocket for quick points, plain and simple. She can pontificate on race and be seen as visionary, especially if she is critical of the present state of race relations. Obama doing the same would immediately be labeled as a 'cry-baby,' with short time before he's criticized for highlighting race issues even as he himself is "an example of how far we've come."
Obama's ability to speak frankly on race is limited to speeches like he gave after the first Wright flap. He can be positive, "post-racial" and forward looking but I guarantee swift derision if he goes the "strength and honor" route you wish for him to travel.
He needs to have more of a confrontational backbone - not militant though.
And you really do want him to lose...Americans, including most Democrats, are not ready -- and may NEVER be ready -- for a confrontational debate about race and privilege, and certainly not in the race for President. Obama fighting that fight now would relegate him to the same status as Jesse Jackson '84 and Shirley Chisholm before him: interesting for a moment, but surely marginalized once you ask the voters to examine their deep-seated race biases.
Hustle Harder
http://www.obsidianhustle.com
thanks for your commentary, Terrance.
Frankly, I'm not angry with Senator Obama. On matters of race and racial politics, he's been consistent throughout this campaign. 'Nuff said.
“You're correct that we all have to be willing to see the truth, but you assume (wrongly, in my opinion) that the mainstream for the most part, want to see the truth in its most ugly and honest light.”
Anthony, come on dude. Don't tell me what I have assumed. You are wrong. I think you are missing the point and are reading too deeply into what I have written.
First, I am fully aware that some Americans may never acknowledge America’s wrong-doings here and abroad. Some actually don’t believe what has happened in the past – such as African Captivity, Jim Crow, Kuwait, Iraq, the Tuskegee Experiment, Grenada, etc. etc. were actually wrong. Some people may be apathetic because it doesn’t/hasn’t impacted them directly, yet some people may come around and accept that this country has had some bad domestic and foreign policy. I fervently believe that people have the capacity to change, so that is why I believe you are wrong here.
Although we have a long way to go in this country, we couldn’t have progressed to this point in our social history without people opening their eyes to the truth about America’s ugly ways.
My point of contention has been and remains that until more people take off the patriotic blinders, we will always have these contentious debates about what is or isn’t “patriotic”. People like Dr. Wright will always be vilified, scrutinized and looked upon as “nuts” and portrayed as “anti-American” and “anti-white” by some people when they challenge America’s policies and laws and raise questions about unusual events (i.e. AIDS phenomenon) in American society.
http://www.avert.org/origins.htm
(great link which outlines AIDS theories)
Keep in mind that I consider myself patriotic, but not in an extreme way.
“The good Reverend Wright is a former Marine who fought for this country -- a country that would deny him his "unalienable rights" to life and liberty -- so the patriotism argument should have no legs. If there's anyone that has earned the right to be critical in this case, it's Wright. That point is missed by many.”
I agree with this assessment 1000%. I would even say that Dr. Wright is more qualified than most Americans to criticize America because of his service to this country. He was absolutely right when he asserted that Dick Cheney did not serve this country as he did. Is Cheney looked upon as “unpatriotic” because he has never served in the military? Of course not.
“Come on Brother...Did you really say that?”
Yes, I did.
“Hillary can always address the issue of race, because she is a member of the majority. It's a passing issue for her, something to pull out of pocket for quick points, plain and simple. She can pontificate on race and be seen as visionary, especially if she is critical of the present state of race relations. Obama doing the same would immediately be labeled as a 'cry-baby,' with short time before he's criticized for highlighting race issues even as he himself is "an example of how far we've come."
Your assertion is not completely true. Just because she is a member of the majority does not mean that she “can always address the issue of race”. Certainly it is easier for her but not always because unfortunately there are a lot of racists, bigots and uneducated people who still possess a paternalistic attitude with blacks and minorities in this country and think minority activists just need to shut up.
So you don’t think Hillary would run the risk of alienating certain constituencies if she advocates on behalf of racial minorities too much? Although she might not face as much contempt and backlash as Obama, being a person of color, she does face almost the same risks as Barack Obama does with being branded. Needless to say, Hillary has GENUINELY addressed the issues of race in this country - Imus, Katrina, Jena 6 just to name a few. She’s done better than most white politicians – particularly Republicans - on those issues. On the other hand, Obama suggested that the government’s response to Katrina was “colorblind”. Hillary did not assert such a ridiculous notion.
While Hillary is not perfect, and some people have questioned her husband’s campaign tactics, I don’t think racial issues would be a passing issue for her. Check out her record, which has been one to support initiatives that disproportionally help the poor, African-Americans and other minorities. The issue of race wasn’t a passing issue for her husband when he was in office either, and I don’t think it would be for her either.
Additionally, just because Obama would be labeled a “crybaby” it does not mean he should cop out and not address race genuinely or downplay the matter just to get into office. As a man who has been the victim of racial discrimination, he should not passively address race when it is politically expedient - like he did in Philadelphia. Although I do not believe that Barack needs to be militant or a “race baiter”, to me, he needs to demonstrate a less timid approach than he currently exhibits.
“Obama's ability to speak frankly on race is limited to speeches like he gave after the first Wright flap. He can be positive, "post-racial" and forward looking but I guarantee swift derision if he goes the "strength and honor" route you wish for him to travel.”
True, I agree with your first sentence to an extent. We have freedom of speech in this country. Obama, as you assert, is limited to such speeches because he limits himself. People like Al, Maxine, Shelia, Martin, Shirley, Marcus, Malcolm, Booker T., Huey, Harry, Dubois, Martin Robison Delany, Woodson and countless others have taken hits when they have spoken up honestly about racial issues confronting America. They didn’t fluff around. This is how I personally like leaders who represent our community to be - unafraid. I don't like fluffy game players. And if swift derision happens, then so be it.
“And you really do want him to lose…..”
That is the understatement of the year. He is too liberal. Too open to illegal immigrants. Too accepting of abortion. Not open to certain measures to help secure our country such as Real ID etc. etc. He did not go to Memphis to memorialize King’s assassination. He did not attend the State of Black Union in New Orleans. He cowered to the white media against Dr. Wright. He said the Bush Administration’s response to Katrina was “colorblind” etc. etc. etc.
Hell yes, I sure do want him to lose and badly.
“Americans, including most Democrats, are not ready -- and may NEVER be ready -- for a confrontational debate about race and privilege, and certainly not in the race for President. Obama fighting that fight now would relegate him to the same status as Jesse Jackson '84 and Shirley Chisholm before him: interesting for a moment, but surely marginalized once you ask the voters to examine their deep-seated race biases. ”
I agree 100% and he is too much of a chump to have the backbone of a Shirley Chisholm.
"thanks for your commentary, Terrance.
Frankly, I'm not angry with Senator Obama. On matters of race and racial politics, he's been consistent throughout this campaign. 'Nuff said."
Thanks for your comment Denise.
Yes, Obama has been consistent on matters of race and racial politics and that is the problem. He's been too consistent the exception being his Philadelphia speech born out of political expendiency.
I fervently believe that people have the capacity to change, so that is why I believe you are wrong here.
I believe an informed populace has the ability to change. But many, if not a majority of Americans are not informed, woefully so, and choose to be willfully ignorant, so no they won't change. Having been involved in politics previously as a paid operative for the better part of a decade, I can tell you that change and Democracy are lost on many Americans through their own ignorance. In fact, most politicians bank on this fact.
So no, believe me, I'm right.
So you don’t think Hillary would run the risk of alienating certain constituencies if she advocates on behalf of racial minorities too much?
Sure she would. But this is the point. Hillary is no bigot. Neither is Bill. But she is an opportunist, and in that vane, she has the option -- and can satisfy either constituency. She can give platitudes on race for a day or two, and wow blacks and Latinos. Then, she can move away from the issue, back to the mainstream with no ill-effects anywhere. Look at the discussion we're having about Wright and Obama and whether Obama is "black enough
" or speaks on race strongly enough. This is proof positive that race is Obama's biggest hindrance -- damned if does, damned if he doesn't -- while it can be a subtle asset to Clinton.
He is too liberal
That's the best compliment you can give him!
Too open to illegal immigrants.
Neither he nor Clinton are going to have mass-deportations of by some estimates 3-6 million people. Business would have a fit, since agri-business, and even Wal-Mart employ a ton of "illegals." Additionally, many of these people have children born in the US, who are legal citizens by birth. There's no way either candidate is going to be able to do anything on immigration.
Too accepting of abortion.
Woman's choice. In fact, its a primary plank of the DNC that neither candidate is going to restrict anymore than it is now.
Not open to certain measures to help secure our country such as Real ID etc. etc.
Give it a rest, dude. RealID is a disenfranchisment method, nothing more, since most of the affected will be the poor and transient -- who would likely Democratic, liberal voters -- who generally do not have their official birth documents and who, for the most part, don't have government-issued ID at this time anyway. And before you scream terrorism, realize that none of the 9/11 hijackers entered the nation illegally, and they didn't have US IDs to begin with.
He did not go to Memphis to memorialize King’s assassination.
As an Alpha, I'm not offended -- and neither are nearly most of the Brothers I know -- that he didn't go to the memorial service for my esteemed Brother King. And dare I say, King himself would rather Obama be out winning the presidency than celebrating the DEATH of a leader. He celebrates the legacy and meaning of King's LIFE by running and winning.
He did not attend the State of Black Union in New Orleans.
Who gives a damn? I'd rather he be in the field pressing the flesh than pontificating. And so what, Hillary went. She went only because Bill had so inflamed black folks with his attacks on Obama prior to the South Carolina primary, that she had to go, if only to appease the black bloc of the DP.
He cowered to the white media against Dr. Wright.
He never cowered. He did what he deemed necessary to continue to build his coalition. I don't agree with his entire approach, but the logic is inescapable.
He said the Bush Administration’s response to Katrina was “colorblind”
You misquoted and mischaracterized Mr. Obama's comment. He said:
"This administration was colorblind in its incompetence," Obama said at a conference of black clergy. "But the poverty and the hopelessness was there long before the hurricane.
"All the hurricane did was to pull the curtain back for all the world to see," he said. - CBS News June 5, 2007
I disagree with you, but I applaud you for at least having put some thought into why you support Senator Clinton. I do think, though, that in your wish to have Hillary win, you place far to great a burden on Obama to make your personal cut.
Hustle Harder
http://www.obsidianhustle.com
“I believe an informed populace has the ability to change. But many, if not a majority of Americans are not informed, woefully so, and choose to be willfully ignorant, so no they won't change. Having been involved in politics previously as a paid operative for the better part of a decade, I can tell you that change and Democracy are lost on many Americans through their own ignorance. In fact, most politicians bank on this fact.
So no, believe me, I'm right. ”
Oh please Anthony. Give it a rest, dude. I guess I am not as pessimistic as you are about people. Anyway, I think you are splitting hairs here. Essentially, we are espousing the same thing. Informed/educated people, i.e. people who decidedly take the blinders off, can change and see different perspectives.
For the record, I come from a fairly political family as well. An uncle was an alderman in St. Louis. Another uncle ran for political office in St. Louis. My aunt worked for the mayor’s office after campaigning for him. My sister worked for St. Louis’ first black sheriff after campaigning for him. Trust me, I am well versed in the mechanics of politics too.
“Sure she would. But this is the point. Hillary is no bigot. Neither is Bill. But she is an opportunist, and in that vane, she has the option -- and can satisfy either constituency. ”
Well, I am glad that somebody black is capable of acknowledging that Bill and Hillary are not bigots. Praise Jesus.
However, she is no more of an opportunist than Barack Obama who wore a sombrero and danced around like Pancho Villa at a recent campaign stump to court Latino voters in Texas. While there was nothing wrong with it, any other time he would not be wearing sombreros and eating Mexican food.
Then he said during a televised debate, (paraphrasing) “If it were not for a whole host of Jews, I would not be where I am today.” Then he suggested that he wanted to be the one to help rebuild the historic relationship between blacks and Jews if elected to office. Come on. He is just as much of an opportunist and panderer as Hillary and McCain.
“She (HE) can give platitudes on race for a day or two, and wow blacks and Latinos. Then, she (HE) can move away from the issue, back to the mainstream with no ill-effects anywhere. ”
Umm. Change around the subjective personal pronouns and it sounds just like Obama to me. LOL!!
“Look at the discussion we're having about Wright and Obama and whether Obama is "black enough" or speaks on race strongly enough. This is proof positive that race is Obama's biggest hindrance -- damned if does, damned if he doesn't -- while it can be a subtle asset to Clinton. ”
Are you serious? Do you know how many black people I’ve heard say that Hillary and Bill did nothing for blacks/African-Americans? Lying through their teeth.
Do you know how many blacks/African-Americans say that Hillary was faking when she offered an olive branch as a result of her husband’s snafu in South Carolina? Do you know how many black/African-Americans said that her appearance at the State of The Black Union was not genuine and that she was only trying to get black votes?
With her it is also “damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t from blacks - and women. Anthony, it works both ways.
When Hillary courts the white working-class and it’s playing racial politics. Michelle Obama can say, (paraphrasing) “I think blacks/African-Americans will get it.” with regards to her husband, but the Obama's arent' accused of playing racial politics. There is a double-standard. If you ask Hillary, she’d probably ask you, “What subtle asset?” She's catching it from everyone.
“Me: He is too liberal
You: That's the best compliment you can give him! ”
Trust me, it isn’t a compliment.
“Neither he nor Clinton is going to have mass-deportations of by some estimates 3-6 million people. Business would have a fit, since agri-business, and even Wal-Mart employ a ton of "illegals." Additionally, many of these people have children born in the US, who are legal citizens by birth. There's no way either candidate is going to be able to do anything on immigration. ”
Who said anything about mass-deportations? Little-by-little would work fine with me. And the numbers are actually like 12-20 million illegals of all backgrounds.
Businesses are already having fits. If they were to do what was right by Americans in the first place, then they wouldn’t be having “fits”. If our government was more efficient, we could offer numerous work visas, but until that happens.....
Also, to me, Hillary has a better understanding of illegal immigration than Obama. If Obama had his way, he'd have open borders.
“Woman's choice. In fact, its a primary plank of the DNC that neither candidate is going to restrict anymore than it is now. ”
More Democratic/liberal BS. A woman’s choice my ass. Also, you don’t know what either candidate is going to do. At this juncture, I don’t put anything past either of them. However, it is not a woman’s right to kill an unborn child – especially one that is late term.
Obama is an abortionist in the worst way. He voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act in Illinois, which would have given protections to infants who survived late-term abortions and parents of the infants. Hillary, on the other hand, voted in favor of the U.S. version, Born Alive Infants Act, which passed in the Senate.
“Give it a rest, dude. RealID is a disenfranchisment method, nothing more, since most of the affected will be the poor and transient -- who would likely Democratic, liberal voters -- who generally do not have their official birth documents and who, for the most part, don't have government-issued ID at this time anyway. And before you scream terrorism, realize that none of the 9/11 hijackers entered the nation illegally, and they didn't have US IDs to begin with. ”
LOL!! Dude, stop being a victim of the DEMS fear mongering. I used to fall into that same trap. Homeland Security says, “REAL ID is a nationwide effort intended to prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the reliability and accuracy of identification documents that State governments issue.”
While legitimate visitors can get driver’s licenses and already come here with passports and various visas, a REAL ID would be an instrument to identify legal/naturalized legit American citizens and visitors. Yes, your information would be in a national database. But if you are not a crook or terrorist, why worry. Yes, it would be a tool intended to help prevent terrorism in the U.S. although it certainly could not prevent terrorism. Anything this country can do to help combat fraud and terrorism, I am all for it.
Also, as a person that has worked with the poor and transient population on a volunteer and professional level in the past, there are ways that if someone who wants to secure an ID, they can. REAL ID, I’m sure, would be no different. Don’t throw out that weak liberal argument.
“As an Alpha, I'm not offended -- and neither are nearly most of the Brothers I know -- that he didn't go to the memorial service for my esteemed Brother King. And dare I say, King himself would rather Obama be out winning the presidency than celebrating the DEATH of a leader. He celebrates the legacy and meaning of King's LIFE by running and winning. ”
Well you and those “Brothers” are different from most black Americans, most who are ARDENT Obama supporters. I know many of them who felt that Obama should have been there, but they gave him a pass. Others were downright offended, but gave him a pass anyway. Wake up. (sigh)
Furthermore, I don’t care one iota what you and your “Brothers” think or feel just because you all share a fraternity with King. It's irrelevent. Seriously, Anthony. Who gives a damn? Neither you nor your brothers are more credible than the Omegas. Obama’s absence was not about the Alphas or so-called "Black Greeks" for that matter. It was about paying respect. Oh please. Give me a break dude.
There’s nothing that I hate more than people who attempt to give a voice to the late Dr. King to support their argument. It is disingenuous. Even his children don’t know what their father would do nowadays. People change, grow, and evolve although some stay the same. Based on knowledge, I can tell you unequivocally that King was more forthright than Obama on the issue of race. King was a fearless man.
“Who gives a damn? I'd rather he be in the field pressing the flesh than pontificating. And so what, Hillary went. She went only because Bill had so inflamed black folks with his attacks on Obama prior to the South Carolina primary, that she had to go, if only to appease the black bloc of the DP. ”
LOL! Typical attack. It gets back to my earlier point. She is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn’t.
“He never cowered. He did what he deemed necessary to continue to build his coalition. I don't agree with his entire approach, but the logic is inescapable. ”
Oh boy. I did not know that you would turn out to be such an apologist for Barry.
“You misquoted and mischaracterized Mr. Obama's comment. He said:
"This administration was colorblind in its incompetence," Obama said at a conference of black clergy. "But the poverty and the hopelessness was there long before the hurricane.
Again, you are splitting hairs. Both are suggesting the same thing dude. Obama focused on poverty and obviously did not see a racial component, when there were even good and thoughtful white people who did.
"All the hurricane did was to pull the curtain back for all the world to see," he said. - CBS News June 5, 2007”
Come on. Don’t throw this out here pretending as if it was addressing race. It wasn't. Obama made that clear. Again, this statement was likely directed at how America treats its poor. While most of those stranded in New Orleans were poor, many were not. I’ve met and have heard about middle-class people who were bussed here (Houston) from New Orleans.
“I disagree with you, but I applaud you for at least having put some thought into why you support Senator Clinton. I do think, though, that in your wish to have Hillary win, you place far to great a burden on Obama to make your personal cut. ”
Dude, come on, don’t give me a backhanded compliment. I’d rather you not give one at all. I don't vote for people just for the hell of it, gender, race or name recognition.
Anyway, Obama is an ultra-liberal. I am a moderate Independent. If Obama had a backbone, switched positions on some issues, and wasn’t a chicken-shit bullshitter, I’d support him. However, there is a conflict of interests.
For the record, I don’t hate Obama. I just dislike a weak black man - especially one that is seeking my vote. At this juncture, in my opinion, Maxine and Shelia are stronger. Hillary, despite her own problems, is also exhibiting more toughness than he.
RealID is a disenfranchisment method, nothing more
Legitimate criticism of RealID is in reaction to its passage w/o discussion or hearings in the Senate by attachment to an Iraq appropriations bill.
The first issue is the lack of safeguards for civil liberties. As I recall, one of the first things DHS did was outsource implementation to third-party data aggregators. The problem is that the ID is spec'd as machine-readable and increasingly, a 'swipe' will be required to accompany all transactions w/ merchants, service providers, etc. The propensity for abuse is tremendous.
Pushback is also coming from the states that view the RealID implementation is an unfunded mandate to offload immigration screening on DMV employees. Some folks are in favor of any plan that may inhibit illegal immigration, but the problem is that as it currently stands, the door is wide open to the profiling of legal residents. Think of insurers that reject you based on your purchase of alcohol, etc.
Disenfranchisement is probably the least effective argument against RealID -- for example, the requirement that older citizens comply has already been pushed forward.
My position is that the bill should be repealed and reconsidered via hearings and public review.
Oh yes and there are more to come! lol Have you seen that he is willing to do away with race-based affirmative action? This power hungry mofo will stop at nothing and will hesitate to throw any of our black asses under the bus and then drive forward and then back over us again. I'm all for ensuring that the poor get a leg up. I most certainly am, but America is not at a point where equality has been achieved. We just aren't and if he is willing to toss aside the one protection that we've all been able to at least "hope" will give us a shot after we've done our parts--what will be next? Black America too is in for a rude awakening. I wonder though if we will continue to deny what is happening before our very eyes like a woman with a cheating spouse. (smdh)
Terrance I usually enjoyed your site.
But to to say you like Al? And compare Wright to King?
You are way off base with this post.
Oh well no one bats 1000!
YOU ARE A FUCKING NIGGER!
^Well, I guess I struck a nerve.
Mission accomplished.
White media? Jews aren't white!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home