Ellington

Excuse me if I seem out of breath. It's just that I've been laughing so hard since last week's West Virginia primaries that it's difficult to regain my composure. Don't get me wrong, I've got love for America's 35th state. Appalachia has contributed greatly to this country's history. It gave us the Hatfields and McCoys. It gave us moonshine. It even gave us Randy Moss. Well, not so much "us" as it did the Vikings ... and then the Raiders ... and then the Patriots. But I digress. The point is, the West Virginia primaries begged one question: Did Charlie Rangel even know there was a West Virginia before he made his infamous Mississippi wisecrack? Based on political pundits' descriptions and some voter interviews that I saw, West Virginia is arguably slightly behind the Magnolia State in catching up with the times.

West Virginia is a state—an entire state—that's 95 percent Caucasian; amazing, at least to me, by modern standards. Either some of its citizens aren't exactly what you call "media savvy"—I take it that neither CNN nor FOX News were regular visitors to the mountains—or they simply didn't care that they sounded like extras in "Deliverance" (cue the dueling banjos).

One voter admitted on camera that she didn't vote for Obama because he was "from another race, and it scares me." She added, "We've had problems with them."

A second voter said she was scared of the "Hussein" name. She'd "had enough of Husseins." And yet a third well-informed West Virginian said, and I quote: "He's a Muslim, and I don't like that."

What?! Is televised news even making it to these folks? Radio? Carrier pigeon? I kid—almost. When Pat Buchanan says the majority of West Virginians are uneducated, unintelligent and racist (his words), I'm almost led to believe that they'll say, "Thank you," instead of being offended.

What's not funny is the fact that this raises a huge issue for the Obama campaign. Pie-in-the-sky theories notwithstanding, West Virginia raises the question again: Is white America really ready to elect a black president?

We asked ourselves at the very beginning of his storied campaign, but abandoned it after "the speech." We hoped Obama's quest would finally help us get over the race thing, but left to its own devices, America always lends itself to the familiar.

That, unfortunately, is what Republicans will cling to in November. It's what Hillary Clinton desperately clings to to save her floundering campaign: the thought that when pressed, the bulk of white America won't pull the lever for a black man. And that scares me—not because one of the candidates is black, but because he may lose solely because he is black.

And that's the truth ... sho-nuff.

Previous Comments

ID

130321

Comment

Oregon and answered that question --- for me. It reassured me that not all white people are like the ones in the mountains of West Virginia and Kentucky. While the MSM was trying to convince us that the WV and KT results meant O could not get love from white people, Oregon proved that he can get love from white people --- maybe just not from the hillbillies in the mountains who made those idiotic statements like the one who said she would not vote for him because he was not born in this country when actually, McCain is the one who was not born in this country! Even WITHIN states there are big differences in the culture of white people (as best I can tell as someone who is not white). I lived in Austin, Texas for 8 years. White people in Austin and Central Texas share more characteristics with California or Oregon than with East or West Texas which is more like West Virginia. Some people still have not understood the concept that people (even white people :-)) are not the same everywhere you go. Keep the faith my brother. I may be wrong, but I suspect that most white people are not as unlikely to dismiss Obama for his skin color as the results in Appalaicha might indicate.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-05-30T16:57:00-06:00

ID

130323

Comment

Yes, some do always lend themselves to the familiar. So, if Obama loses the presidential election, then the only rational explanation is that he lost because he black, right? It could not possibly have anything to do with his lack of experience, extreme leftist political positions, or even some voters’ preferences for another candidate’s individual non-racial qualifications? No, of course not; that would be racist. What truly scares me, Kamikaze, is that many in America will vote for Obama simply because he is Black; because, for them, the most important qualification of Obama is his skin color. Moreover, it also worries me when people like you regurgitate the same old tired patented cries of those irrelevant dinosaurs of the civil rights movement. Many in the media, and people like you, continue to stir the race pot for no other purpose than for the sake of drama in an attempt to disguise the truth. It certainly does little to help the cause. However, the media, for some inexplicable reason, feels that White America needs to continue its self-immolation for past transgressions while acting completely oblivious to the fact that 1968 occurred over a half a century ago and that the dynamics of the “race thing” (and this country’s cast of actors) have changed dramatically since then. What many tag as racism today has absolutely nothing to do with race, but instead, has everything to do with culture. However, the R-word is still a nice scapegoat for Black America to avoid taking responsibility for the problems of its culture in aggregate, is it not? For example, when Black America moves into a suburb and White America moves out, the outwardly public reasoning is always racism. It is a quantitative fact that racial demographics are the largest single predictor of violent crime in America. For example, Black and Hispanic demographics alone display greater correlation coefficients to violent crime than do poverty rates, college degrees, high school degrees, income disparities, and unemployment rates, combined. And I am not even going to go into the matters of Black on White racism, Black on Middle-Easterner racism or the 800 pound gorilla in the room—Black on Black discrimination. I will also refrain from pointing out the fact that hate crimes committed by Blacks occur at 212% the rate of those committed by Whites (FBI’s UCR – Hate Crime Statistics, 2006). No, that is not the subject of this commentary and I am sure it would somehow be racist for me to say it, anyway. You point out the media’s convenience sample of back-ass-ward West Virginians while completely ignoring any real data and consequently any real truth. But that is not surprising; it is no more than you “lending yourself to the familiar.” As one may imagine, the media has not done a lot of reporting on America’s actual attitude towards presidential candidates’ race and gender—trading fact for ignorant speculation or misleading and suggestive reporting (possibly because the story they want to be there does not actually exist). The results of two polls—one conducted by WSJ/NBC and another by USAToday—showed that Americans are actually less concerned with a presidential candidate being Black than anything else. In both polls (cover your eyes and ears, Kamikaze, and keep the dream alive), voters were more likely to vote for a black man than for a woman or a Mormon. In the USAToday/Gallup Poll, the percentages of respondents that said they would not vote for the following were: Mormon: 24% Woman: 11% Black: 5% In the WSJ/NBC poll, the percentages of respondents that said they were either “very uncomfortable with” or had “some reservations about” the following were: Mormon: 38% Oldest Ever Elected: 30% Woman: 23% Twice Divorced: 21% Hispanic: 20% Black: 13% Wow, both polls show that Clinton actually suffers from more sexual discrimination than Obama does from racial discrimination. Moreover, it seems that America has more abhorrence for a septuagenarian than a Black man. Even Bill Richardson was more ethnically challenged than Obama! But wait! Shhhh…we must protect your fragile fantasy of White racism hiding around every corner. The fact of the matter is that non-Black America knows the difference between Obama’s culture and that, of say, the majority of West Jackson. So, with record breaking numbers of Blacks currently turning out to the polls, the question I am really curious to know the answer to is, “What percentage of black voters would not vote for a white guy/gal?” Let go of the race card/crutch, Kamikaze. It is well beyond its expiration. Allow Black America to stand (or fall) on its own merit. “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” –Martin Luther King (lifelong republican) And that is the real truth … sho-nuff.

Author

Ezakimak

Date

2008-05-30T18:21:16-06:00

ID

130325

Comment

Above, I meant to say: I suspect that most white people are not as likely to dismiss Obama for his skin color as the results in Appalaicha might indicate. Eugene Robinson responded to Ferraro’s claim that she was called racist for suggesting Obama might win because he is black. Robinson said most people did not denounce it as "racist", but as "absurd". I think the same of the Ezakimaks staement that: “What truly scares me, Kamikaze, is that many in America will vote for Obama simply because he is Black.” Here we go with the “how lucky it is to be a black man” argument!? This guy might be a comedic provocateur. I like these lines, "The magic negro who will win with his blackness! (Get one now while supplies last.)". We need more humor in the world. Blacks are SuperPredators? (I always knew that dude behind the mask in the movie was black.) I hear scary music (probably something by 50-Cent). Age-standardized firearm homicide rates for the years 1987–1991 and firearm robbery and assault incidence rates for years 1991–1994 were obtained for each of the 50 U.S. states. Income inequality was strongly correlated with firearm violent crime (firearm homicide, r=0.76) as well as the measures of social capital: per capita group membership (r=−0.40) and lack of social trust (r=0.73). In turn, both social trust (firearm homicide, r=0.83) and group membership (firearm homicide, r=−0.49) were associated with firearm violent crime. These relationships held when controlling for poverty and a proxy variable for access to firearms. The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and firearm availability, on firearm violent crime indicate that policies that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-3T3SKRG-H&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dc72bb057397249bbb589069127d8c3f Could the breakdown of the marriage and family be a factor? If you are among the poorest in your neighborhood, then there might be pressure on your relationships that might increase your propensity for desperate behavior. Blacks are five times more likely to be a victim of homicide than whites. Homicide is the leading cause of death of black men ages 18-24. The most likely killer of a white person is another white person. Criminals like to kill people they are familiar with it seems. Interesting topic for a study. Why don’t they kill strangers instead? Rogers, et. al. 2001 noted that about 35% of the difference in violent crime rates between ethnic groups is explained by age, sex, social and geographic factors. Black people could not rely on the police in the South at a point in our history and developed a culture of settling things for themselves. Black on black murders were often ignored by law enforcement --- “let the n*&^%s kill themselves”. Leniency for crimes of blacks against blacks (versus harsh punishment for crimes against whites) encouraged a culture of personal law enforcement. What appeared to whites as black lawlessness was to some offenders personal law enforcement. We need to stop killing ourselves. There are many African Americans working on and addressing issues of personal responsibility and mental health. That is a piece of the puzzle. What does this have to do with Barack Obama? He doesn’t seem very scary. I bet there is a low correlation between violent crime and those who eat arugula. I just can’t picture an arugula eater in the hole at Pelican Bay with a shank hidden in his rectum. "Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime." Bruce P. Kennedya, Ichiro Kawachib, Deborah Prothrow-Stitha, Kimberly Lochnerb and Vanita Guptaa, Division of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health. Hate Crime Misinformation: According to the FBI, In 1995, among the 8433 known offenders reported to be associated with hate crime incidents, 59 percent were white, and 27 percent were black. An analysis by the Southern Poverty Law Center of the 2006 FBI data stated: “As in prior years, the data collected by the FBI was severely flawed. Only 12,600 of the nation’s more than 17,000 local, county, state and federal police agencies participated in the program. Certain states barely participated. Alabama reported only one hate crime in 2006. Mississippi and Hawaii did not report any hate crimes at all.” Yet and still the FBI report states: Of the 7,330 known offenders, 58.6 percent were white and 20.6 percent were black. http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov07/hatecrime111907.html African Americans voting for Barack Obama does not prove they are racially biased. We voted in similar large numbers for Bill Clinton, but when we vote 90% for Obama, then voting in overwhelming numbers for a certain candidate now means a race card is being played by black people. First slavery, now this (smile).

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-05-30T19:53:45-06:00

ID

130326

Comment

Ezakimak, point taken. Because in your effort to discredit what Ive written you instead only further proved my point. My column focused moreso on W. Virginia than the broader synopsis of the entire country. While I in no way say that state can speak for the rest of Americas voters, I can however point to the obvious fact that some W. Virginians still hold a backwards way of thinking. In the real world, the one which you say is fantasy..there are some white folks who still hold those same beliefs but simply may be too savvy or cowardly to let them be known. Your crutch statement is as offbase as it is humorous because nowhere in the column does it suggest such. Indeed Im calling for all of us white and black to move past race even as we see many folks in Appalachia have not. You wonder how many black folks would vote for a white candidate? cmon are ya thinking man..ahem..Bill Clinton? and better yet how about every election since the voting rights act? since we've only had white candidates up til now. I can safely say that Blacks have willingly and in ample numbers voted for white men.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-05-30T21:20:30-06:00

ID

130327

Comment

Kaze, you might be interested in this study from Newsweek:

Obama's race may well explain his difficulty in winning over white voters. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, participants were asked to answer questions on a variety of race-related topics including racial preferences, interracial marriage, attitudes toward social welfare and general attitudes toward African-Americans. Respondents were grouped according to their answers on a "Racial Resentment Index." Among white Democrats with a low Racial Resentment Index rating, Obama beat McCain in a hypothetical match-up 78 percent to 17 percent. That is virtually identical to Clinton's margin in the category, 79 percent to 13 percent. But among white Democrats with high scores on the Racial Resentment Index, the picture was very different: Obama led McCain by only 18 points (51 to 33) while Clinton maintained a much larger 59-point lead (78 to 18).

I cited the Newsweek writeup in my own piece on West Virginia and Kentucky. My conclusion, and I think the conclusion of most reasonable people who look at the data, would have to be that racism not only played a role in Clinton's Kentucky and West Virginia victories, but played the role in Clinton's Kentucky and West Virginia victories. That said, Clinton would not likely be any more dominant in November in those two states than would Obama. The only reason she did so well among high-RRI voters earlier this month was because the race was white vs. black; when it's Democrat vs. Republican, the same voters who gave her those delegates are the same voters who can be counted on to happily swing for McCain. And even now, there are signs that the two candidates are viewed in similar terms. Obama and Clinton do about equally well in electoral-number polling against McCain. Obama does better in some polls; Clinton in others. But these early numbers are pretty useless until the general election race really takes shape, which doesn't usually happen until both conventions are over, regardless of whether the nomination has been settled. Dukakis led GHWB at this point in '88; GHWB led Clinton at this point in '92. It's not until August or so that the skill and appeal of the relevant nominee will really be tested. And I think Obama would come out of that process better than Clinton would, who is already trying to blame her losses--in the Democratic Party, mind you, not in the general election--on sexism, essentially taking a passive attitude towards the outcome. Obama's response, consistently, has been to the effect of "I need to work harder." And that's the sort of proactive approach that I want to see the nominee take. Clinton's whole campaign has a tragic arc to it--like she expects to lose the nomination, or expects to win the nomination and then lose the general election. That's hard to get excited about.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-05-31T01:45:14-06:00

ID

130328

Comment

It is sad indeed Tom. I for one would love to see a rousing contest based on merit rather than one mired in preachers, age, or likeability issues. Its unfortunate that race plays a part..Even moreso when folks try to downplay its obvious signifigance. As much as we try to get away..Realities in W. Virginia and Kentucky pull us back in. Realities like Hillary saying ''hardworking'' white folks are going to vote for me. or Bill saying in his coy way ''Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too''. If race wasnt a factor they clearly would not have had to stoop to such tactics. Instead they chose to play them up to try and gain an edge..Im not race baiting or playing the victim role as it was suggested earlier. Im stating the facts. Black and White..we're still using race as a factor in this election. Hell,Ive seen a couple womens groups on CNN and Fox saying Hillary has been discriminated against.That folks wouldnt have been asking a ''man'' to get out of the race. and theyre right! We CLEARLY have a way to go in this country and this election has shown us..Race-wise Gender-wise we havent matured. Dont even get me started on that ridiculous experience argument either. BUT Id much rather debate the issues than the color or gender of our candidates.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-05-31T09:30:21-06:00

ID

130329

Comment

Geraldine Ferraro was on the warpath again yesterday with an op ed piece in the Boston Globe arguing that Obama and the media have been sexist and that is the reason she lost --- not the fact that Obama ran a better, more strategic, more well managed campaign as is obvious to most objective observers. Obama doesn't need the high racial resentment (i.e. hillbilly) vote to win. Bill Clinton won in '92 with only 37% of the white vote due to getting 90% of the black vote. Jimmy Carter also won without a majority of the white vote. The winning Obama coalition is about 40 - 45% of the white vote, 90% of the black vote and 60% of the Hispanic vote. It is doable. He needs his base, progressive whites, blacks and hispanics to turn out.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-05-31T09:58:23-06:00

ID

130330

Comment

That said, Clinton would not likely be any more dominant in November in those two states than would Obama. The only reason she did so well among high-RRI voters earlier this month was because the race was white vs. black; when it's Democrat vs. Republican, the same voters who gave her those delegates are the same voters who can be counted on to happily swing for McCain. In other words, Clinton's landslide victories in WV and KY can be characterized as a protest vote against Obama and his skin color by white conservative Democrats who would likely vote Republican in November regardless of the Democratic candidate. It was funny to me to watch the media talking heads dance around that obvious point without actually saying it.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-05-31T13:49:09-06:00

ID

130331

Comment

I thought they (the fabled mainstream media pundits)were trying to portray the West Virginia and Kentucky votes as somehow representative of white people all over America (I assume of "the good, hard working ones"). That is ridiculous to anyone who knows the differences in culture between different regions of the country and even different regions of states. Maybe I misunderstood what they meant. Bitterness can lead to misunderstandings.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-05-31T15:08:45-06:00

ID

130332

Comment

I wouldn't worry about Hillary's showing there, it is, after all, Appalachia. What do you expect? Rankin County thinks W. Virginia are a bunch of necks.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2008-05-31T18:59:04-06:00

ID

130333

Comment

Obama is getting strong (green) white support. The end of this story is too funny: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/39067.html

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-05-31T19:20:16-06:00

ID

130334

Comment

I mainly watched MSNBC and Fox News the night of the WV and the KY/OR primaries. My recollection is the MSNBC pundits were very careful to emphasize cultural differences in characterizing the overwhelming support for HRC by whites in both WV and KY in addition to deep racial prejudices that were inflammed by the Rev. Wright/"bittergate" controversies.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-05-31T19:31:15-06:00

ID

130335

Comment

Obama resigned his membership from the TUCC this afternoon: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/ Good move, but it will be criticized as a political move rather than a heartfelt one.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-05-31T19:36:21-06:00

ID

130336

Comment

Speaking as a diehard Obama supporter, I think it was a bad move when he went any further than "I disagree with those statements" in his response to Jeremiah Wright, and I think it was a worse move to resign membership in his congregation. Nobody who pretends to be outraged over his membership in TUCC, or the fact that Wright was his pastor, will be pacified by his resignation from the church.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-05-31T19:56:00-06:00

ID

130337

Comment

As a Catholic, I was offended that a Priest from my church would go on like Pfleger did. That was just embasrassing.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2008-05-31T20:06:54-06:00

ID

130338

Comment

Right Tom. Its akin to caving under pressure which could speak to a character flaw that you simply can't have as a leader. Its disappointing that he was forced to completely seperate himself from the church to appease his critics. Thing is as you said. They won't be satisfied in either case because the pundits simply wish to find a way to dig into him. Stay with the church...he's questioned. Leave and you're questioned. If only he had special powers which allowed him to control what comes out of other grown mens mouths. lol

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-05-31T20:10:44-06:00

ID

130339

Comment

Funny thing is, sometimes stating the obvious in a less than articulate fashion can land you in hot water. I could be wrong and this may not be a popular stance amongst some of you but: I dont think many of us will disagree that at the outset Hillary Clinton felt as if she was the unchallenged front-runner for the Dems nomination. I dont think many of us will disagree that Clinton did not forsee the emergence of Barak Obama as a viable political opponent. I dont think many of us will disagree that Clinton did not anticipate having to strategize past Super Tuesday and that faux pas began to show. I dont think many of us will disagree that a series of Obama victories rattled the Clinton campaign..sent them into a panicky catch-up mode which led to the classic dirty politics they are famous for. Now though the priest's delivery may have been a spectacle and you may not agree with his methodology or ''how'' he said it but he only interpreted what I just stated above. There's nothing shocking about that.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-05-31T20:29:29-06:00

ID

130340

Comment

Nobody who pretends to be outraged over his membership in TUCC, or the fact that Wright was his pastor, will be pacified by his resignation from the church. I'd venture to say that his resignation had a lot more to do with himself than with what anyone else thinks. Think about it: the Rev. Wright sermon clips that initially came out preceded Obama's campaign. After Obama denounced the statements, Wright came out a few weeks later and happily put his foot in his mouth again (guess he loves the flavor), and now we have Father Pfleger adding fuel to the fire by going to his church and saying what he said. They knew good and well that those comments would spread through the media like wildfire. It's like TUCC is trying to sabotage his campaign now, and it's sad. If I were him, I wouldn't feel comfortable going back anyway. With friends like that...

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-05-31T20:30:17-06:00

ID

130341

Comment

It seems as though everyone in charge at Trinity wanted to draw that kind of attention. I don't blame Obama one bit for what he did.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2008-05-31T20:31:33-06:00

ID

130342

Comment

My either, Reximus, and that was the point. Obama is a politician, nothing more, nothing less. He's doing what typical politicians who value getting elected do. I suspect in the DNC's eyes, Obama had to do something to take TUCC out of the headlines. It's pretty clear now that the media is monitoring TUCC closely waiting for more soundbites to exploit. And the mainstream media was jumping all over these latest comments, not just Sean Hannity and Faux News. Obama needed to put distance between himself and the church to eliminate the need to respond directly to any new flareup. Both his campaign and the DNC probably feared that another TUCC "controversy" would crop up weeks before the Nov. election.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-05-31T20:44:43-06:00

ID

130343

Comment

You mean the classic " October Surprise"? And why would his church try to sbaotage him? It makes me scratch my head. Here he is on the precipice of doing something truly historic and they're bound & determined to screw it up.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2008-05-31T20:50:05-06:00

ID

130344

Comment

You mean the classic " October Surprise"? And why would his church try to sabotage him? It makes me scratch my head. Here he is on the precipice of doing something truly historic and they're bound & determined to screw it up.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2008-05-31T20:51:12-06:00

ID

130345

Comment

I really don't think they (the Church) were trying to sabotage him, Reximus. I think they were just enjoying another Sunday sermon that included commentary on current events and politics, and the guest pastor didn't think about the fact that the church was being monitored, or how his words would be played outside those church walls.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-05-31T21:01:46-06:00

ID

130346

Comment

How could he not have known? His (Fr. Pfleger's) act was way contrived and overtly over the top.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2008-05-31T22:31:15-06:00

ID

130347

Comment

Kaze writes: "Its akin to caving under pressure which could speak to a character flaw that you simply can't have as a leader." Well, no, I disagree there, every leader we've had has caved under pressure with respect to his or her personal life...I still think Obama is probably the best presidential candidate of my generation. But he unquestionably made a mistake here with abandoning Wright and TUCC, as it hurt some of his closest allies without doing anything for his campaign. Offended whites who were previously saying "See? He'd belong to the sort of church where this sort of thing is said" will now say "See? He's the sort of guy who'd leave his church to win an election." He can't win these people over. Leaving TUCC and Wright will not solve the problem because TUCC and Wright were never the problem to begin with. The people who criticized him over Wright and TUCC will continue to see him as a quota hire, and they will inevitably find some other spurious excuse not to vote for him. But I believe he'll win anyway, even without their support. Re Pfleger, I haven't actually seen the video but completely agree with the partial transcript I've read of his remarks ("a whole lot of white people" were crying with Hillary Clinton, and the West Virginia and Kentucky results prove it), however much or little that might be worth. I don't know that a pulpit was the best place to air the remarks, 501(c)(3) status being what it is, but his exchange with a nutty Fox reporter a couple of months ago re: Wright and race was downright brilliant.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-05-31T22:47:15-06:00

ID

130348

Comment

I tend to disagree, Tom. I don't think there wil be any "blowback" from his leaving the church at all. I could be wrong, but I think it was a good move.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2008-05-31T23:22:12-06:00

ID

130349

Comment

I believe and hope he'll be the next president, Rex, and I certainly want to believe it won't hurt his campaign. But I wish he hadn't done it.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-05-31T23:40:51-06:00

ID

130350

Comment

Tom, he didn't leave TUCC to win over his detractors, as most of them have made up their minds about him anyway. He announced his decision to leave the church because the media coverage is a huge distraction from his campaign and he needed to take it out of the headlines. It benefits him to do so because he no longer has to respond to each and every incidiary sermon that may come out between now and election day. In my view, he actually did TUCC a favor by leaving because now the media has no legitimate reason to continue monitoring and criticizing the church. The right-wing nutjobs might continue as they want to make their case about Obama's beliefs, but the mainstream media knows that Obama has effectively neutralized the church as a valid continuing news story.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-01T07:06:30-06:00

ID

130351

Comment

Jeff, after doing some digging I'm inclined to agree on every point except the last one. The church was never really a valid continuing news story, and subsequently I doubt anything can neutralize it. It falls under the same heading as the easily-debunked but never-neutralized "Is Obama a Muslim?" story.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-06-01T07:23:16-06:00

ID

130352

Comment

The church was never really a valid continuing news story... True.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-01T07:58:13-06:00

ID

130353

Comment

Does that in turn mean that Rev. Hagee was not a valid story?

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2008-06-01T08:20:56-06:00

ID

130355

Comment

I agree..It should be a small to non-issue with concerned voters. I am only concerned with what comes out of the mouths of the candidates. Period. Not their advisors, not their supporters, not their pastors, not friends that they went to high school with, not guys that theyve had lunch with or sat on a committe with, not their brothers, wives, kids none of em. What comes out of the mouths of the CANDIDATES is what is important. Listen, listen again, research, and scrutinize what your candidate is saying. And thats what an informed voter should do.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-06-01T10:20:46-06:00

ID

130356

Comment

Does that in turn mean that Rev. Hagee was not a valid story? To date, I don't think McCain or Obama have stated views or positions that are in sync with the controversial comments of either Hagee or Wright respectively. Continuing to monitor the church for new soundbites to report after Obama disavowed Wright's comments was ridiculous. The Hagee story was newsworthy in that McCain SOUGHT an endorsement from Pastor Hagee (who is not McCain's pastor, mentor or spiritual advisor), a fact that Hagee himself confirmed. Many of Hagee's inflammatory comments about Jews are widely known and were available for review. The question of whether McCain sought the endorsement from Hagee because he agrees with his views or whether it was a politically expedient way to gain favor from the “Religious Right” was legitimate and a legitimate news story. But it was never in the same ballpark with Wright in terms of media coverage. The MSM bit into the Wright controversy like a rabid pitbull and was so busy thrashing about with that, the McCain/Hagee endorsement story went by almost completely unnoticed.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-01T10:39:46-06:00

ID

130357

Comment

FYI..Leonard Pitts wrote an absolutely fantastic column in today's Clarion Ledger on this exact subject. And he almost closes the deal. Ezakimak if you're reading..check it out. Don't have the link here. If someone can post it please do. Its an excellent read

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-06-01T11:21:36-06:00

ID

130359

Comment

Kaze wrote: “If only he had special powers...” If only he were faster than a young O.J. Simpson, able to leap Wright and Pfleger (and anyone who does not love America as much as Pat Buchanon)in a single bound…up, up and away!

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-01T16:24:55-06:00

ID

130360

Comment

Personally, I'd have gone w/ a young Gale Sayers, but that's just me.

Author

bill_jackson

Date

2008-06-01T18:16:33-06:00

ID

130361

Comment

As soon as Obama gets elected I'm going to start selling the t-shirts I've made recently with Obama's face on the front, and written on the back in bold letters, "A White Man ______ it up, A Black Man fixed it. Sho you right!"

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-02T08:29:39-06:00

ID

130362

Comment

That was a joke, y'all.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-02T08:44:00-06:00

ID

130363

Comment

We are constantly reminded of the saying that a gaffe in politics is when you forget and tell the truth! Kaze wrote: "Funny thing is, sometimes stating the obvious in a less than articulate fashion can land you in hot water." The key is not what is said, but who says it and where. If Chris Rock, Margaret Cho, Cheryl Underwood, D.L. Hughley or George Lopez had said it during their act it would have been just brilliant. Obviously, Father Pfleger is a talented comedien, but doing that in church will certainly offend some people which makes it bad POLITICS. It was not untrue, but bad politics.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-02T09:33:05-06:00

ID

130364

Comment

I getting emails for the shirts. I was asked to replace Sho you Right with "America, God Shines his Grace on These." Let me know if any of you want one.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-02T10:43:58-06:00

ID

130365

Comment

Alright, people, allow me to talk to myself again. I'm used to it. Been doing it a long time. What I'm trying to say is that if Obama gets elected, and it appears he might, black folks will be so proud that we won't be able to contain ourselves. If Obama gets elected he will do a good to excellent job because he's smarter and more able than Bush and other republican presidents of the last two scores, and no one can do a worse job than the republicans have over this period of time. The problem is that we black folks won't know how to show pride in Obama's accomplishment without harming the fragile egos of whites. Any statement of pride is likely to offend. I'm thinking of just calling him the president to keep from hurting any feelings. Y'all know how dedicated I am to not offending the majority. After all, they came and got us, gave us these good jobs we enjoy, and haven't ever stopped thanking us for the good job we're doing. If Obama is elected and fails to perform admirably by some freak of nature or due to the purposeful collusion of other powerful forces placed in his way of succeeding; Hillary can then say both failed and Hillary is needed to fix things up again. I might even agree at this point. Black folks would be wise to prepare well for fallout and emergencies, and to acquire and save as much money and property as possible. Once Obama wins, we won't be able to claim racial discrimination or racism again, no matter how obvious, protracted and painful they are to bear. Justice Scalia, Justice Big Daddy Thomas, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and others will say racism and discrimiation don't occur any more and those negroes need to come up with a new hustle and form of socialism because we good white folks aren't falling for that crap any more.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-02T11:37:34-06:00

ID

130367

Comment

Walt, you, Rev. Wright and Father Pfluger need to stop picking on white people. There are a lot of white people who need help (or socialism if you are a right wingnut) in the form of better schools and healthcare just like all of us.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-02T14:19:38-06:00

ID

130368

Comment

Don't forget that a white woman gave us Barack Obama (let's hope a white woman doesn't take that dream away --- ironically, by going nuclear to the convention).

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-02T14:29:50-06:00

ID

130369

Comment

I'm not picking Whitley. I'm trying to figure out how I should act should Obama prevail as many expects. I don't want to be disgraceful or disrespectful in any way. As one publisher and many citizens proclaimed, I'd be in Africa chunking spears at fishes, birds,fowls and other Africans but for the benevolence of good people who rowed thousands of miles to get and bring me to steady work and western civilization. Obama can't win without the help of many enlightened whites so I'm not about to badmouth them in too broad a manner. Wright and Pfluger were wrong.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-02T14:33:58-06:00

ID

130370

Comment

I don't think Obama will touch race after he's elected because it's a live wire. A model of how Obama's likely to be is Deval Patrick the first black governor of Massachusetts, a friend of Obama, and also a Harvard Law graudate. Deval is a very intelligent and good and decent man with a lovely wife but he doesn't touch race at all. His picture a week ago on the front page of our local paper, he was bending over shaking hands with an obviously very thrilled bi-racial young girl with her white Mom beaming in the background. I'm sure he changed that girl's life for the better. He's not strident, just being a passive role model. I'm disappointed. We want more from him especially in the rural counties, but we also thought they would have assassinated him by now. Our house is sold and we need an attorney of record for the closing. In all of western Mass. we can't come up with one black female lawyer to represent us. We need more than just role models.

Author

willdufauve

Date

2008-06-02T14:55:30-06:00

ID

130371

Comment

Great commentary Will. You're the greatest. Whitley, I won't forget Obama' mother is white nor will I forget Africa is the cradle of humanity or civilization. I'm not surprised Deval avoids race since he seemed the careful type to me. He probably has bigger aspirations, too. Obama is going to touch race during the first or second term depending on the situation once elected. There is no bigger job than the presidency of the U.S. so Obama has nothing to fear.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-02T15:04:58-06:00

ID

130372

Comment

Walt, you sound like you are familiar with the rants of Pat Robertson. He says that we are lucky to have been brought here to get all the good food stamps, welfare, affirmative action, civilization and what not. Maybe that is what Ferraro meant when she referred to Barack as being "lucky to be a Black man". Who knows how Africa's history might have been different though --- if it had not been looted and millions murdered and kidnapped?

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-02T15:06:02-06:00

ID

130373

Comment

You're right Walt...A very nice French lady who I used to work with had a hard time believing me when I told her that the Masai in Kenya vaccinated their cows before vaccinations were even imagined in Europe and that black Nubians were responsible for many architectural wonders in Egypt and Ethiopia. I had to educate her about the ruins of an archetectural marvel in Zimbabwe and the libraries that were burned to the ground in Timbuktu. Our history needs to be taught, then maybe there would be less racism.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-02T15:31:57-06:00

ID

130375

Comment

America has turned on Barak Obama (flipped the script - if you will). I dont' think he can rise above this whole thing about his radical friends. He is struggling now. He must regroup or Hillary will defeat him.

Author

Queen601

Date

2008-06-02T16:30:36-06:00

ID

130376

Comment

Obama is saying now the election for president starts tomorrow as he will get the votes and delegates to push Hillary from the race. However, I expect Hillary to stay in the race claiming she got the most popular votes, the lighest skin, the longest and fairest hair, the most colorful attire and the prettiest legs, eyes and backside. Additionally, Bill accidentally said today maybe the last time he works on an election. I hope Bill and Hillary remain good Democrats and help Obama wins the darn thing away from the repugnants. I'm worried they may be in the crash and burn mode still.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-02T16:39:44-06:00

ID

130377

Comment

Clinton and Obama are both scheduled to appear in New York City on Wednesday, and Clinton has suggested that she will drop out of the race when Obama achieves a full delegate majority, which is (coincidentally) likely to happen on Wednesday with the post-primaries superdelegate shift. This suggests to me that a deal of some kind has been reached.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-06-03T00:07:51-06:00

ID

130378

Comment

This suggests to me that a deal of some kind has been reached. A deal that is rumored to include Obama's campaign paying all or a significant portion of her campaign debt in exchange for her support. Must be nice to be able to extort cash from the same guy you've been blooding up for the past 6 months.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-03T05:16:18-06:00

ID

130379

Comment

The Obama campaign can't pay for more than $2,300 of her campaign debt directly. It can help her raise funds, though.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-06-03T07:09:45-06:00

ID

130381

Comment

At last, Black America gets Bill Clinton back tomorrow as an undercover brother. I missed him and didn't particilarly care for the angry other man he became. "Trying to make up for cheating on your wife is an expensive endeavor." Kobe Bryant.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-03T08:02:59-06:00

ID

130383

Comment

Queen wrote: "I dont' think he can rise above this whole thing about his radical friends." I wonder which radical friends? They tried to tie him to Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground that once advocated the overthrow of the government. Ayers is now a senior citizen who theatens no one and lives in Obama's neighborhood. They both taught at the Univeristy of Chicago and served on a board together. Living in the same neighborhood or serving on a board with someone does not mean you share their beliefs. Bill Clinton pardoned members of the Weather Underground and Hillary once worked for a law firm that defended Huey Newton of the Black Panther Party. That should not be an issue either. We all know about Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. I would not characterize them as radical. Their rhetoric is harsh, probably no more so than that of the Biblical prophets. They are villifying Pfleger now, but I remember him going all the way back to the 80's when I lived in Chicago. My best friend back then was a Catholic and a member of Pfleger's predominantly black congregation. Pfleger is an advocate for liberation theology which I do not consider radical. He always has been out there protesting against racism, police brutality, slum landlords. Protest and Freedom of Speech, as in the Boston Tea Party, is an All-American characteristic. The radical right wingnuts have made these characteristics seem radical and/or un-American and we are slipping if we buy into the warped logic of people like Pat Robertson. "Liberty or death", "no justice, then no peace" are concepts that America was founded on. I do not agree with the rhetoric of Ayers, Wright or Pfleger, no more so than I do with that of Pat Robertson who espouses very radical and offensive right wing views. Robertson was just on MSNBC this morning saying he saw nothing wrong with white voters sticking with "their own" because black people are doing that. The racist wingnuts seem to forget that we also voted 90% for Bill Clinton.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-03T08:16:03-06:00

ID

130384

Comment

Excellent comment, Whitley, as per usual. Robertson and any other dummy who accuses Blacks of sticking with our own is a damn liar and the truth isn't in them. We have voted for white folks since being allowed to vote due to trickery, fear and the false belief that whites are more able for a multitude of false conclusions. Robertson is a dumb and clueless so-called man of God for saying that and many other things. For years I have lloked upon Blackk folks rather strangely who watch his show or believe anything he says. We gotta learn to be more discerning otherwise we will forever be used and tricked. Personally, despite jokingly saying otherwise earlier, I see little or nothing wrong with what Wright or Pfleger said or did. Both largely told the truth. The majority aren't the only folks with feelings to be considered. I hope Obama wins the whole thing, but even if he doesn't I will be watching and deciding what the process says about Americans ans America. And I'm deciding for myself what it says, not someone else for me.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-03T08:31:34-06:00

ID

130386

Comment

I would characterize the Revs. Wright and Pfleger as radical, but what's wrong with being radical? Any minister who isn't radical about something may as well sleep in on Sunday mornings and let the Eucharist consecrate itself. We have radical problems and religion, unlike mainstream politics, presents us with radical solutions. When those solutions are both nonviolent and loving, as the solutions posed by Revs. Wright and Pfleger and Jesus generally are, then we owe it to ourselves to listen with an open mind.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-06-03T08:43:11-06:00

ID

130387

Comment

Good points Head! I just don't think they are very radical compared to what is going on in the world and our history. I can understand the Weather Undergound and the Black Panther Party or Hamas (in the present time) fitting a radical mold moreso than Wright and Pfleger. I think that Wright's AIDS theory is a little radical and that is one of the few things he has said that has no foundation in fact or history. Otherwise, I think that the most radical thing about Wright and Pfleger is the tone of their rhetoric that I think may be radical for a church setting, but not if we are talking on the street or in a bar over a beer. They are not advocating the overthrow of the government (as far as I know)(I keep channeling Hillary lately for some reason).

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-03T08:53:20-06:00

ID

130388

Comment

Queen and Head, I guess it depends on what definition of radical you use (channeling Clintons again): "Departing markedly from the usual or customary;" OR "One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radicals seeking to overthrow the social order." They are radical by the first definition, but not be the second. they do not advocate an overthrow because most of the members of their congreations benefit from the status quo. Both churches (Trinity UCC and St. Sabina) have large middle to upper middle class congreagtions who would probably be alarmed if they thought their pastors or priests wanted to actually overthrow things in a radical way. When the right wingnuts refer to Obama as having radical friends, I believe they mean to imply the latter definition! That was probably not Queen's intention.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-03T09:07:36-06:00

ID

130389

Comment

I always thought the wingnuts meant Obama wasn't the Uncle Tom kind of Negro they preferred. You know, the kind beholding to whites and hateful of blacks like unce Clarence Thomas or uncle Walter Williams and the likes. I think we give the wingnuts too much credit for being smart or on point. To me, they often say one thing and mean another altogether, like most phonies do. I think the wingnuts mean the same thing when referring to Wright to a large degree.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-03T09:18:31-06:00

ID

130450

Comment

Whitley writes: "One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radicals seeking to overthrow the social order." Exactly--and by that definition, I think Wright, Pfleger, and I would all be radicals. But note that the definition does not specify direct redistribution of wealth (i.e. socialism), nor does it specify overthrowing the government. It merely states that we seek revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions that would constitute an upheaval of the existing social order. Everyone who is serious in his or her opposition to racism is, by definition, a radical--because the entire existing social order is built on a racial caste system. The same applies to sexism and heterosexism. The radical vs. liberal argument has always been "How much change do we need?" The liberal approach says that incremental changes in policy are needed. The radical approach says that policy changes are great, but what we really need is to change some of the fundamental values and systems of our culture. LBJ was a liberal; Dr. King was a radical. Gorbachev was a liberal; Yeltsin was a radical (until he got into office). Burke was a liberal; Paine was a radical. Gandhi was a radical. Jesus was a radical. It's a very very old argument. And sincere religion tends to have radical goals.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-06-03T20:07:24-06:00

ID

130763

Comment

I agree with you Head. I suspect though that many right wingnuts would cringe at the thought of Jesus as a radical. Their Jesus wants a tax cut for the wealthy and the oil companies and the repeal of Roe v Wade (lol)! Oh, and git the g'ment out of everything but fighting wars to bring on the Rapture. In their version Martin Luther King is a Republican and Ghandi is probably gay (what was with the man dresses?).

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-06-12T15:13:51-06:00