Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 18, 2008

Obama's Speech

That Obama sermon was quite impressive.

A few thoughts:

  • may be to interlectual - the media and its public is used to soundbites - I wonder if they'll catch the gist
  • his supporters will love it as it has much more 'favorable' stuff than any of Clinton's talks
  • this is idiotic:

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

AIPAC demanded that Obama pays his due? Well, he did ...

Posted by b on March 18, 2008 at 19:19 UTC | Permalink


What is so sad, he did not need AIPAC.

Posted by: IntelVet | Mar 18 2008 20:11 utc | 1


Well I'm still voting for him if I get a chance. I either have a lot of hope or I'm hopeless.

Posted by: beq | Mar 18 2008 20:53 utc | 2

Link not working for me b but I found the speech over at alternet

Posted by: beq | Mar 18 2008 21:36 utc | 3

In a time of universal deceit ...

Posted by: Cloud | Mar 18 2008 21:39 utc | 4

cynthia mckinney - A Discussion Of Race That Matters

I am deeply offended that in the middle of a Presidential campaign, remarks--be they from a pastor or a communications mogul, or a former Vice Presidential nominee--are the cause of a focus on race, and not the deep racial disparities that communities are forced to endure on a daily basis in this country.

Myriad reports and studies that have been done all come up with the same basic conclusion: in order to resolve deep and persisting racial disparities in this country, a public policy initiative is urgently needed. A real discussion of race, in the context of a Presidential election, ought to include a discussion of the various public policy initiatives offered by the various candidates to eliminate all forms and vestiges of racial discrimination, including the racial disparities that cloud the hopes, dreams, and futures of millions of Americans.
I am glad that candidate Obama mentioned the existing racial disparities in education, income, wealth, jobs, government services, imprisonment, and opportunity. Now it is time to address the public policies necessary to resolve these disparities. Now it is time to have the discussion on how we are going to come together and put policies in effect that will provide real hope and real opportunity to all in this country.
I welcome a real discussion of race in this country and a resolve to end the long-standing disparities that continue to spoil the greatness of our country. I welcome a real discussion of all the issues that face our country today and the real public policy options that exist to resolve them. That must be the measure of this campaign season. For many voters, this important discussion has been too vague or completely non-existent. Now is the time to talk about the concrete measures that will move our country forward: on race, war, climate change, the economy, health care, and education. Our votes and our political engagement must be about ensuring that fairness truly for all is embodied in "liberty and justice for all."

Posted by: b real | Mar 18 2008 21:44 utc | 5

Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama and the Unacceptability of Truth - Of National Lies and Racial America

written by a wise man for t'is true of any nation

It is they--the flag-lapel-pin wearing leaders of this land--who bring shame to the country with their nonsensical suggestions that we are always noble in warfare, always well-intended, and although we occasionally make mistakes, we are never the ones to blame for anything. Nothing that happens to us has anything to do with us at all. It is always about them. They are evil, crazy, fanatical, hate our freedoms, and are jealous of our prosperity. When individuals prattle on in this manner we diagnose them as narcissistic, as deluded. When nations do it--when our nation does--we celebrate it as though it were the very model of rational and informed citizenship.

So what can we say about a nation that values lies more than it loves truth? A place where adherence to sincerely believed and internalized fictions allows one to rise to the highest offices in the land, and to earn the respect of millions, while a willingness to challenge those fictions and offer a more accurate counter-narrative earns one nothing but contempt, derision, indeed outright hatred? What we can say is that such a place is signing its own death warrant...

Posted by: jcairo | Mar 18 2008 21:57 utc | 6

beq, Clinton isn't a far enough right wing extremist for you? You have to go for someone even further to the right? At a time when, "free-market" rubbish has destroyed America, you want someone whose Godfathers demand it as a matter of theology. Just what sort of a Nightmare are you hoping for anyway? You might take some time off to examine just what you are projecting onto a latte complected racist in an empty suit. Or do you really believe McDonald's makes hamburgers - if so, Oybamination is your boy. What he offers is Absolute Obedience to his Godfathers & the Ruthless Efficiency in manipulating the masses that Narcissists offer upon their Godfather's altar. Something we can believe in. Hard to criticize the GodFundies if you can believe in that.

Posted by: jj | Mar 18 2008 22:24 utc | 7

jj - You don't know me and you don't know what I want.

Break over - back to lurking.

Posted by: beq | Mar 18 2008 22:46 utc | 8

sheesh jj, how do you really feel about obama?

you have been pretty hard on him and I wonder why. sure, he has been associated with people and organizations we all know to be our foes or enemies or competition....depends on how you look at it I guess but how can you be so sure that he is evil incarnate? do you have pictures or first hand knowledge of his evilness?

sometimes the best we can do is choose the least bad. between obama and mccain I would have to go with obama as well. i most likely will vote for a third party candidate as it will make very little difference anyway and I can vote my conscience. I am a resident of North Dakota which has 3 electoral college votes.

really, why are you so anti-obama? to the point of giving him strange nicknames no less. Is it CFR, AIPAC, his donors? Or is it that he stole the glory from Sen Clinton? I think it was Cokie Roberts who was commenting on all the hard work Hillary had done, standing by her man when he was in trouble, getting elected senator to New York, launching a presidential campaign, being the democratic favorite and then along comes some smooth talking man and takes it all away from her. She (Cokie) said that kind of thing happens to a lot of women more often than you think.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 18 2008 22:46 utc | 9

The way this being spread here in the U.S. made me think of b's earlier post called>Manipulation Operations.

By covering the Obama/Wright "controversy" without talking about the influence that religious leaders have on currently elected politicians, "the media" is playing an old game. It goes something like this, "We don't tell you what to think, just what to think about".

Why aren't they publicizing about the very real connections between extreme Christianists who "blame America" for bringing disaster on itself and the Republican politicians who welcome them with open arms? As a group, I'm talking about Hagee, Robertson, Falwell, Parsley and Bush, McCain, Inhofe etc.

Glenn Greenwald has a very thorough dissection of this>here.

Posted by: Bruce F | Mar 18 2008 23:14 utc | 10

Rev. Wright was right. God has damned America. He let us have the Bush administration.

Posted by: mikefromtexas | Mar 18 2008 23:19 utc | 11

Aside from the AIPAC BS, It was a well written speech, maybe even a classic. But you're right b, it's mostly over the head of the sheeple here in the US.

Posted by: Ben | Mar 18 2008 23:33 utc | 12

sheesh, i'm off line for a while and i come back to this!

beq, don't go into hibernation or nothin'. that's an order.

Posted by: annie | Mar 19 2008 0:38 utc | 13

Obama has a number of qualities which recommend his leadership. He is innovative; and if you read this most recent speech on race in America, you'll see he's not afraid to face problems squarely. I hope he makes it through this difficult election season and becomes president.

We have gone through hell with George W. Bush; and if we can avoid having another republican elected, things should improve in a way all Americans can appreciate.

Posted by: Copeland | Mar 19 2008 1:01 utc | 14

Well, I think grace & goodwill should carry on in the race issue.

its an aspect thats everyday-common between races in the streets and venues of America. Malcolm X surprisingly expresses it on his return from Mecca where he encountered blond/blue-eyed Muslims and theres likewise the personal testimonies of LBJ on civil rights.

and if we want to put measure to it, Geraldine Ferraro scores a few points for the Black column with her recent brain-damaged comments.

and on this issue, Obama might want to keep his eye on the street. Not to suggest that the Constitution, the Church and other convictions have not played key roles but the American peoples may have a sense of what they ultimately want, regardless.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Mar 19 2008 2:09 utc | 15

and maybe I'm just old-fashioned but Obama should have kept his grand-mother out of this.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Mar 19 2008 2:14 utc | 16

When you say "idiotic", you're not thinking it through. What Obama did with the
PNAC is disarm them. Like when you bring company home, and find out your
dog chewed up a favorite pillow. You hide the damage, pat the dog on the head
and call her a "staunch ally", then everyone has a nice dinner, and your mutt
has absolutely no clue why you kicked her in her $2B hynie after the elections.

AIPAC -v- Islam swept off the table in one sentence! Insta-mundo! Poof! Genius!

Speaking of which, after the news conference, (although it's being fiercely kept
from broadcast by the MSM), Obama was asked again about having Hillary run as his
vice president. He paused, thought for a moment, then said in honor of his white
grandmother, and because he believes everyone should have a second chance to make
right what they lost on their first half-hearted attempt, that he would be open to
having Hillary in his cabinet as ... Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.
[It's a little Inside-the-Beltway Liberal joke. Reagan disbanded the HEW in 1979.]

Hillary is reported to have watched Obama's speech and after-comments on her
Tivo, then when she heard the word HEW, she's said to have belched a blue cloud
of raw funk so foul it shocked even her Marine guards. She flung the clicker at
the TV, physically wrenched the Tivo off its stand and shattered it on the floor.

Eldercare, she guesses.

[Now back to our "buying institutions of liberty" speech by El Idiot in Chief,
with his veiled velvet-glove-iron-claw implications for an Armageddon in Iran.]

Posted by: Terrence Micheals | Mar 19 2008 2:50 utc | 17

"...above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

How can any aware person support this man for President?

Posted by: Jake | Mar 19 2008 3:34 utc | 18

Jake@18, I feel you. And I believe your reaction is essential for the record.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Mar 19 2008 3:50 utc | 19

And death rides the sky...

I can't even imagine what it must be like to be prey to something like this. Goddamn America, indeed... and Fuck Obama. And all these political pussies.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 19 2008 4:33 utc | 20

Obama is not the messiah, but neither was FDR and we got some good stuff out of him that would not have proceeded from a Hoover.

I'm not looking for a president to "save" us. That's our job.

But I am looking for the one who'll seize the opportunities when they arise to take credit for our work. Why? because the alternative is politicians who actively destroy our work.

So, with all respect, unfuck Obama.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 19 2008 5:07 utc | 21

U$ - The UH-1 and CIWS are 35 years old.
The Israelis use Blackhawks and Hellfires.
Political pussies use Kalashnikov's and IED's.
Real men with the Right Stuff just use the Fed.

Posted by: Terrence Micheals | Mar 19 2008 5:13 utc | 22

DoS, I've said several times that my virulent objection to Oybama derives from the fact that he's running on the wrong party. If he ran as the Right-Wing Ideological Purist that he is on the Repug party I'd have no objection. Still I'd have zero respect for him, but at least there would be a modicum of honesty involved.

I heard interview w/John Nichols who'd just had one-one interview w/Clinton & Oybama. He said Oybama is ideologically way to the right 'cuz at least Clinton see a constructive role for the state to play; whereas Oybamination does not. The Democratic Party has derived from the philosophy of J.S. Mill - the function of the State is to Provide the Greatest Good for the greatest number. So, yes, he makes my blood boil, as he's the final & complete obliteration of the party. And his economic obeisance to the Predators mirrors his view of the state. Views do not get any more ideologically rabid, insane, or destructive than his. The Predators are God. Taking the Predatory Mortgage Disaster - At least Clinton is only 98% horrific - she called for freezing rates, evictions for ~ 1 yr. That's horrific, but at least buys time. This bastard has the gaul to yammer about racism, then turns around & says tough shit to those evicted - oh yea, I'm supposed to be "compassionate", so it's fine for you to be tossed out - blacks are disproportionately affected - but I'll just toss you a councilor.

Put it another way - anyone who really had anything to offer wouldn't offer up some vomitous Madison Avenue Slogan for the sheep to project their stuff onto.

We are in the terminal stages of a Class War of the .1% vs. the 99.9% and this bastard is yakking about playgrounds for black kids....How does that merit being taken seriously? Above all else, I hate being defrauded. I can't ever recall feeling the pain that I do watching the con job this bastard is putting over on us. Put it another way - the only way he gets away w/such a radical right-wing extremist platform is 'cuz he's not a white guy. I said a long time ago, that the (white male) Elites wanted to impose such monstrous agendas that they needed to camouflage them behind new wrapping paper; otherwise the sheep wouldn't get distracted by yammering about gender & color & might start asking dangerously serious questions.

My vote is that people stop wasting time discussing either one of them & start discussing what matters to us. That will show up how far over on the rightward lip of the abyss both are. Someone needs to get Michael Hudson's tax plan out there for discussion - that will re-industrialize America & allow us to feed ourselves again. And similarly his thoughts on cleaning up the Wall St. mess. In short, change the topic to put pressure on both these clowns.

Posted by: jj | Mar 19 2008 5:53 utc | 23

what U$ @ 20 said

Posted by: ran | Mar 19 2008 6:41 utc | 24


I would like to offer two points which might explain obama's behavior.

Politics is the art of the possible and you have to get elected to do any of them. All politicians must make the proper noises during their campaigns or risk being unemployed purists.

If people who genuinely cared about people's problems could get elected running on such a platform Dennis Kucinich would be the democratic candidate.

I will confess that I too fear we will all get bent over the table and violated by this smooth talking man, that is what happened with WJC and I can see the parallels......lost father at early age, extremely bright, good schools, humble background, strong wife, etc, etc. but what are the options? are you suggesting Sen Clinton is electable as well as being the candidate best qualified?

now is not the time to challenge obama with a tax plan, it is a no win situation. mccain will simply say that he will lower taxes and that will be the end of it. any serious talk by obama will be scoffed at and besides everyone knows that democrats will raise your taxes. It is the job of the congress to pass laws anyway so if you want someone to do something with a tax plan you need to engage your reps and senators. if you can move the congress to the left it won't really matter how far to the right the president is.


Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 19 2008 7:25 utc | 25

Au Contraire, DoS, this is the only time the masses are asked what they think. I keep hoping they will organize sit-ins/die-ins near polling places - saying Hell No to the lot. I'd be really excited if B- would email Hudson & ask him to do regular posts outling his thinking. David Cay Johnson, the Repug. NYT tax beat guy has a new book out called "Free Lunch". He also has much to say - like how France has markets, but we don't etc. The only reason FDR was FDR was 'cuz the people demanded it. that may not be possible, but I think that's where energy should be put, rather than picking nits among the elite sock-puppets, all of whom have simply declared war on us. I feel as though I'm trapped inside someone else's nightmare. Oybama gives a speech ostensibly about "race", yet all his policies will devastate black people. If he'd used the occasion instead to illuminate this, to show how irrelevant race is now 'cuz the 99.9% of us are all in this rapidly boiling cauldron together, he'd deservedly win in a landslide. He fired his spiritual Mentor, but not Goolsbee his Chief Econ. Monstrosity. How Nuts is it that the only person who is stating the obvious - that we have to immed. start manufacturing necessities & growing our own food is to save desperately needed energy is Matt Simmons, Chief Oil Industry Analyst - and no one is saying anything about it...NOTHING will happen after the election that benefits us, unless we start NOW asking our few leading economists who care about us to begin discussing real problems & propounding real solutions. MIchael Hudson isn't a leftist. As he said there are 32 different flavors or capitalism. The one we have is the most reactionary. What can we contribute to that discussion?? How about asking Barkeep to email Matt Simmons for a piece on why it's essential that we produce what we need, industrially & agriculturally, & how he'd implement it. Then ask Prof. Hudson to reply to that. Then we could send out links to cursor, etc. to spread it around the web to get things going. Also, include Fitts & David Cay Johnson. That's my $.02.

Posted by: jj | Mar 19 2008 8:45 utc | 26

gosh jj, either you are in my time zone or you never sleep.

I would like to rebut your statement that the masses have been asked what they think. Frankly I don't see it. on the republican side there were a couple of popular candidates who were promptly torpedoed by corporate media, i.e., huckabee and paul. first our masters tried to get romney instated and then when his mormonism turned out to be too much of a turnoff (for this election cycle anyway) they got behind giuliani. giuliani turns out to be a one trick pony and has a lot of baggage concerning corruption and infedelity and doesn't pan out either. at that point mccain was chosen and the republicans all lined up behind him. it is much the same on the democratic side with real valid caring candidates being excluded from debates and completely ignored in corporate media. almost everyone I know who is not an avid blogger or news junkie gets their information from the teevee and we all know that the teevee is firmly controlled by our who exactly is asking the masses what?

still, I think the only way to get out of this mess is to put lots of pressure on the local political parties and force the selection of clean honest people and not easily corruptable someone-with-a-terrible-secret kinds that we currently have. it is the congress that makes the laws and congress critters want to keep their jobs. if pressure can be brought on them to do what they are paid for and if citizens respond properly to corporate interference by well placed and focused boycotts this can be fixed. it takes work and dedication and constant vigilance. the elite never quit and are always looking after their interests and that is why they have the upper hand now and for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 19 2008 11:00 utc | 27

Re: "a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

Thank you for pointing out that totally gratuitous and profoundly offensive statement. The man not only sold out his mentor/pastor but all his early supporters, like Rashid Khalidi. To gain what? And I was beginning to think I could vote for the man.

Posted by: Applepie | Mar 19 2008 12:27 utc | 28

Oh beq, there's always "Hope", maybe not in our politicians, but in us.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 19 2008 12:56 utc | 29

he had no choice, this is a US presidential election, the goal is to gain power, not make a martyr out of himself. Relegating the pastor's attitude towards Israel to one sentence, which feels so tacked-on, was the best any pro-Palestinian person should hope for.

Posted by: boxcar mike | Mar 19 2008 13:17 utc | 30

what a farce - meanwhile, McCain does his part

McCain "looking presidential"

Bizarrely, it appears true that in certain cases, pledging fealty to a foreign power can make one look presidential

Posted by: boxcar mike | Mar 19 2008 13:29 utc | 31

Your analysis of the election seems spot on, a selection process managed and imposed on us, to the best of ptb abilities.

Given that "the .1%" (those properly called the "upper" class because they do not need a job, any job) cannot simply do whatever they please, I gather that our job in a presidential election cycle is to push back against horrendous outcomes such as Bush or Giuliani, but also not to identify with mere lesser-evils. And so I highly value the kind of criticisms U$ and jj are contributing. What I'm seeking in this conversation is to better grasp what's happening.

To that end. I don't understand, for example, why jj or anyone would assert that Obama is properly a Republican/right-wing idealogue. What I see is a man looking for high position, someone who was editor of the law review, which seems to evidence that he is willing to sacrifice his own pleasant time to get the glory, or perhaps the thrill of performing on a kind of high wire. So, he is ascetic enough that I fear his willingness to sacrifice things he shoudl value.

That said, I don't see his willingness to bow ceremonially to Zionism as a clear sign of what he thinks - rather I see someone presenting what everyone views as a ticket of admission to the game. In fact, I view his membership in his church as evidence that this is merely a ticket. Craven, perhaps, but no less so than anyone who might become president. In fact, much less than most are capable of in dinner conversation with even vaguely Zionist Jewish friends. What, I wonder, would any one of us say to our valued friend who is looking at us and asking if we think they are morons to support the country of their cousins, et al.? And Obama does have the balls to stay with his church membership, so from this angle I see him as a good bet .

Are his economic policies disastrous? How specifically? And I view answers via this filter: we have not actually fallen off the cliff (yes, the cliff is collapsing internally) and the upper class (the no-jobs) can still punish anyone who tries to strip them of their imperial clothes. So, I apologize in advance if I may tend to see supine strategies as firewalls against attacks from the upper class. But I would like to know if I am duping myself, so I would like to know - what makes Obama a mis-recognized right winger?

Posted by: citizen | Mar 19 2008 15:36 utc | 32

were you saying that "not this time" sounds a tad intellectual? I'm curious because it sounded strong to me, but hey, I'm an intellectual. I would appreciate your response on this.

I did find certain parts tepid, that is, they did not seem designed for coalition building, but for reputation maintenance. To whit:

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn...

If Obama meant to have white progressives see that all the hell visited on minorities will inevitably be vistied upon them too, he would have ended that sentence not with "Native American children" but with "white children". He would have paused there and stressed this point. Instead, he merely made the 'we are all equal' point. The "karma is a bitch" point is the only proper basis for carrying out "not this time" because it engages self interest, it engages reasonable minds. "We are all equal is just for sentimentalists.

So, yeah, I like it but I'm waiting for the people of this nation to make Obama turn up the heat.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 19 2008 16:04 utc | 33

Barack Obama is to the right of Hillary Clinton on the issues. The three reasons I voted for him in the primary were:

1) His election would signal that American has switched from a white Anglo Saxon nation to a multi-cultural one,

2) Raised in Indonesia and Hawaii he will be unable to identify them, the others, all Muslims, as evil, and

3) Gender is even more powerful than race.

Corporate media is for John McCain. The get Obama campaign has begun. The real question is the public mood is so sour due to the never ending war, collapsing dollar and skyrocketing gasoline prices that they ignore the media and throw the bums out. Barack Obama's campaign is brilliant because it makes you feel good about yourself at the same time as you get rid of some vermin.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Mar 19 2008 16:25 utc | 34

Someone said Oibama had 'tacked on' the sentence about arabs. Maybe so, but it was hardly the first time he has expressed strong pro-Israel cinnamons. He doesn't seem as deeply embedded in the Israeli mire as Pelosi and Clinton, but he has time and again spouted the neo-con viewpoint.
And this is because it is a necessary evil for him to get elected?
I doan think so!

Posted by: Jake | Mar 19 2008 16:32 utc | 35

andrew wimmer reads between the lines of obama's sermon as

Fighting wars, especially a war against terrorism, requires strong national unity. Courageous leaders help us achieve that unity by translating complex, troubling realities into language that can be incorporated into our national story. While Mr. Obama has "opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning" he vigorously condemns anyone who would sow seeds of divisiveness by claiming that the war is firmly rooted in anything other than the "perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

Posted by: b real | Mar 19 2008 18:55 utc | 36

Beware of rhetoric.

Obama is to Blair as to the masses that suffered under Thatcher, Blair was even more venal that Thatcher, when the truth be told.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Mar 19 2008 19:29 utc | 37

Bad news for Obama - a challenge, well met:

key points here:

... they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. (i see someone above also quoted that..)
It all depends on how the public, the PTB, the media, treat this, and I reckon that rests on trigger hairs.

Pastor Wright can be presented as the solid but sometimes controversial figure, the elderly uncle whom one loves but disagrees with violently from time to time.

Or he is Obama’s long time spiritual advisor - so in US folklore Obama has to believe, adhere, follow, admire, pray without reservations. (Which is what many do without any consequences.) Obama has what? 15 years of attendance (no doubt wife M. was keener) and major dollar contributions to account for.

The twist is that Wright is not only Afro-American centric, which can be explained and washed away or even exploited (see Obama on race, etc. In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community..., not quite in context, just flavor..), but expresses opinions (as far as I can see) that are political and many Americans adhere to, including the leftish ‘blow back’ theory to explain 9/11. That won’t do, they can’t be expressed, even if a majority might either agree or be willing to consider that a legit. opinion to be debated. The slogan “God damn America” is a killer.

So it all rests on underground stuff, success of spin... The media.

Posted by: Tangerine | Mar 19 2008 20:19 utc | 38

black agenda report: Fire and Damnation Awaits Those Who Transgress White America’s Civic Religion

ABC and the rest of the press were initially confused as to how to characterize Dr. Wright’s rather ordinary dissertation on the racist origins and countless crimes of the U.S. Many other Black clerics and statesmen have bequeathed similar assessments to history – although few whites found such documents worthy of attention. Should Dr. Wright’s sermons be listed under “race” or “religion?”

It’s a ridiculous question. The real American religion is all about race: the glorification in the conquest of two darker races by the favored white race. It was God’s will, and Heaven’s sign that the growth and prosperity of the United States is God’s design for the future.

In other words, U.S. Imperialism is sanctified at the Highest Level, according to the prevailing White American Religion,

Black theology and the Black historical world view rejects the religion of the victor, who is also the continued tormentor of people of color around the planet . Yes, God Damn the U.A. for its multitudinous crimes, past, present and future.

Barak Obama thinks he can talk his way out of the confluence of American racism and an American religion that is saturated with racist doctrines and celebrations. It is an impossible task – but one that will keep the talking heads dumbly bobbing in imitation of thought.

sorta related - has some interesting perspectives & insights

video -- John Henrik Clarke - A Great and Mighty Walk (1 hr 35 min)

This video chronicles the life and times of the noted African-American historian, scholar and Pan-African activist John Henrik Clarke ... all » (1915-1998). Both a biography of Clarke himself and an overview of 5,000 years of African history, the film offers a provocative look at the past through the eyes of a leading proponent of an Afrocentric view of history. From ancient Egypt and Africa’s other great empires, Clarke moves through Mediterranean borrowings, the Atlantic slave trade, European colonization, the development of the Pan-African movement, and present-day African-American history.

"now the best move, if you want to get someone off your back, is to stand straight up"

Posted by: b real | Mar 19 2008 20:48 utc | 39

To my favorite Uncle (29) - Hug.

Posted by: beq | Mar 19 2008 23:52 utc | 40

its been said that fear & race are most profound dominant pillars of the American psyche. And the question of whats really in the heart of Obama represents a monumental confluence of both.

but its doubtful that Obama is anywhere as vulnerable on matters of race & fear as his detractors think. His own personal confluence of skills and ability may be enough. And the Pastor Wright issue has presented him the opportunity to lock down some more votes and to also frame on his own terms.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Mar 20 2008 0:27 utc | 41

and Obama's speech may have finally confirmed the suspicion that at heart, he is an artist. First, most artists are incapable of speaking of perfection without also perhaps politely acknowledging the elusiveness but also, for them perfection is inherently undefined.. And others (artists & appreciators especially) will recognize the desire for meter that seems to be a part of Obama. Ask beq. But thats just a matter of style. It does'nt say anything about his substance one way or the other.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Mar 20 2008 1:19 utc | 42

Let's give Obama a little credit for true grit and character. He could not be bullied by the patriotic pinheads, into wearing the little flag in his lapel. And he could not be bullied into trashing and disowning Pastor Wright, as a friend and person who introduced him to Christianity. Obama distanced himself from some of the opinion of Wright, without making the crude sacrifice of the man, that would have gratified his political enemies and a number of ghouls in the media.

Obama is better than that.

Posted by: Copeland | Mar 20 2008 5:36 utc | 43

Can He Deliver?

Obama and Global Trade

Paul Craig Roberts

Posted by: beq | Mar 20 2008 16:51 utc | 44

Someone else here observed how tenuous the connection has always been between campaign rhetoric and the actions of governing leaders, once elected.

Roosevelt ran in 1932 on vague promises of a "new deal".>He criticized Hoover's huge deficits, and advocated

"immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures," "abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating bureaus and eliminating extravagances, reductions in bureaucracy,"

Of course, when he had won, he not only continued Hoover's relief program for the unemployed but expanded government with new agencies to help people deal with the massive Depression. His deficits were as large as Hoover's.

He withheld pointed criticism of banking and financiers until his inaugural address. As citizen and danos note, a candidate who states some positions openly won't be given the chance to run. From FDR 1933 inaugural:

Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted. . . . Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, ...The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple ... The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Per citizen and danos again, the candidate roll is limited before it is delivered to voters. And media control has grown effective at muzzling or skewing those candidates, like Kucinich or Paul, who enter early campaigns largely to raise issues, even before the field is narrowed.

As voters we are left only with hints, trying to parse as much what candidates do not say as what they do say, scrutinizing their routes to candidacy, and watching nuances of how they manage their campaigns and campaign crises, assessing the realm of the possible, in order to choose one candidate or another.

Curious to read those at the Moon warning of Obama's conservatism, "right of Hillary", at the same time that right media pundits hammer repeated warnings of how far "left of Hillary" is Obama. And why is Hillary the measure?

Concur that one of best ways to bring pressure for changes is thru state officials and legislatures and US congressional representatives. Recent presidents have not yet turned it wholly into an imperial presidency. Push back through the other, elective governing bodies.

Posted by: small coke | Mar 20 2008 17:52 utc | 45

thanks for that beq.

I am starting to like him again.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 20 2008 18:00 utc | 46

beq, thanks for the input on Obama being wise enough to make an issue of job offshoring.

Now, I generally respect Paul Craig Roberts, but isn't this a bit ridiculous?:

David Walker, head of the US Government Accountability Office, has put the unfunded liabilities of the US government (principally Social Security and Medicare benefits) at between $50 and $60 trillion. Official statistics show no growth in real median family incomes in many years. The dollar's value has declined dramatically in relation to other traded currencies. The United States simply cannot afford to stand by blindly while its corporations shift US GDP growth to China, India, and elsewhere abroad.

The unfunded liabilities of the US government amount to $500,000 per American household. As no more than one or two percent of American households can come up with this kind of cash, the US government is essentially bankrupt.

The significance figure of that $50-60 trillion figure is absurdly vague, so I smell flim flam. Is he saying that the present value of the entire stream of these liabilities for all time would require a bank account of $50-60 trillion today?

First dimension of flimflam - using modern terms with medieval financial norms. The modern world comes into existence with the practice of not needing to have a whole year's budget worth of gold sitting in the dungeons before you can plan next year.

Second dimension of flimflam - "unfunded liabilities"? Actually, there is a very specific tax hole that does fund Medicare and Social Security. Commitments that are actually unfunded include military bases, schools, roads, and pretty much the REST of the Federal budget.

Third dimension of flimflam - more veiled 'time travel': "no more than one or two percent of American households can come up with this kind of cash..." Actually, if we're going to stop oscillating in time like some pomo Merlin, and if we're still talking the "forever value" of these liabilities, then $500,000 divided by infinity is somewhere in the vicinity of zero.

Now, if someone here knows how the economists actually come up with the "forever value" numbers that PCR is throwing around, I'd be happy to know what the number should actually be on a per year basis. But it damn sure isn't $500,000 and PCR should stop lying about how economic numbers are supposed to work.

If we all had to earn, before birth, the entire pile of money it would cost to pay our way through a whole lifetime, then we'd all be stillborn. Likewise this lame analysis.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 20 2008 19:20 utc | 47

@citizen - full ack. The math behind those numbers is completely irresponsible. It is the worst neandertal repubs and 'libertarians' can project.

They are right that the U.S. is currently living over its inherent economic capacity. They are wrong to project this state into some ridiculous eternal numbers. A decent correction of the 'american way of life' would be sufficent to take care of all of this.

But that is not what these folks want. They want a more intensive 'american way of life' for the rich without any regard for the conseqences for the poor.

What they essentially say is: "Re-introduce slavery and the problems we point out will be solved."

Posted by: b | Mar 20 2008 20:03 utc | 48

Re-introduce slavery and the problems we point out will be solved.

Thank you b. That line sums things up nicely, and gives a nice perspective on what these guys are doing when they ape humane policy.

I'll work on being able to back it up.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 20 2008 20:36 utc | 49

Wow, no wait, I'm getting it!

$500,000 -- prior to birth -- is the credit balance they calculate one must inherit to be a free citizen in their 'dream' Republic. That's their 'liberal vision' of the minimum endowment required to generate money to pay the "me no chain gang" annual dues.

You know, someone should warn all those poor schmuck single digit millionaires relying on the $500K promise: my investment pal says you can't make a living managing less than $10 million. Boy, they're gonna be surprised when they get the chains clapped on them too,

"Sorry old boy, we must've gotten the numbers wrong, somehow.

"Now about that $2 million..."


Posted by: citizen | Mar 20 2008 20:54 utc | 50

Did you know that African Americans' right to VOTE will expire in the year 2007? Seriously! The Voters Rights Act signed in 1965 by Lyndon B. Johnson was just an ACT. It was not made a law. In 1982, Ronald Reagan amended the Voters Rights Act for another 25 years. Which means that in the year 2007 we could lose the Right to vote!

Does anyone realize that African Americans are the only group of people who require PERMISSION under the United States Constitution to vote!

In the year 2007, Congress will once again convene to decide whether or not Blacks should retain the rights to vote (crazy but true). In order for this to be passed, 38 states will have to approve an extension.

Posted by: Black Bear | Mar 21 2008 5:21 utc | 51

Exhale, Black Bear. It's 2008 now and everybody can still vote.

Posted by: catlady | Mar 21 2008 5:30 utc | 52

I'm glad that citizen and small coke, above, also make a reference to FDR. Things are going to be so bad that we will need a new FDR. I didn't think we had a chance of getting someone like that. But we just did.

At least, that's how I read this speech. The courage, intelligence, and confidence were all there. This guy could be a new FDR.

Having said that, I was furious about the Israel-Islam crap. It's the one wrong note in the speech, and I complained about it on Obama's website. Here he has articulated a whole new vision of this country as a place where it shouldn't matter who you are or where you come from - and then he undercuts his vision with a throwaway line like that.

If he feels that he absolutely has to kiss the ring of the Israel lobby, he can do it without denigrating Muslims. It's so crass that I have to wonder whether it actually signals a lack of commitment to that particular campain promise?

Posted by: Voting Present | Mar 22 2008 3:56 utc | 53

"God Damn America" sermon in context

Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, and other news media all lied and distorted the image of pastor Jeremiah Wright. Though Barack Obama has already given a stunning historical speech on race and Wright, it's important for voters to get full context of clips.. For example, Wright's "chicken roost" remark quotes a white US Ambassador, Peck.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 22 2008 4:57 utc | 54

The comments to this entry are closed.