 |
Obama Circling the Drain as the Pundits Get it Wrong
by John C. Dvorak
If you listen to the media, left and right-wing versions all the chatter is about Jeremiah Wright and his emergence into the public domain to “defend” mostly himself over accusations that he is a firebrand nutcase as the conservative Rush Limbaughs and Michael’s Savages would have us believe. If you are liberal you have to go with Obama’s evaluation: Wright is beloved but a little like his crackpot old white woman Grandma.
“I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”
So Wright suddenly re-emerges this week and again brings up the ‘we had 9/11 because we Americans are the terrorists and we get what we deserve’ screed. But this time he does it at the National Press Club (to applause it seems). Of course he blames the Bible for the idea. Yeah, this is helping Obama to the max.
So you have to ask the bigger question: why is he saying anything? He is single handedly sinking the Obama campaign and nobody can do anything about it. The pundits say he is grabbing for attention to maybe do a book deal. Perhaps, but has anyone thought of the obvious reason for all this?
Obama insulted him (disrespected, if you will) in that major Philadelphia speech about race by associating him with an old white woman who he implied was a little off her rocker. I personally do not like Wright from what I’ve seen, but I can understand his deciding to now screw over Obama to teach him a lesson about respect. And you can be sure that Wright didn’t appreciate essentially being called a woman. You become Jeremiah Wright for that moment watching that speech. What would you think as your blood pressure hit the roof? Most people didn’t catch the insult. Wright sure did.
This was a terrible slight coming from someone who was a regular at your church, one of the flock. This is a simple vendetta now, and nothing more. And it will end the Obama chances since there seems to be no exit strategy out of this quicksand.
See how fast it can happen? And, of course, Hillary is seen as the one who opened the can of worms so forget the massive black Democrat vote in November. — J.C.D.
i like the take on it, wouldn’t hurt to be a bit more hopeful for Obama though, but of course you are Dvorak.
Interesting…I didn’t think of it that way.
The chickens are coming home to roost.
The sad thing is that any salient aspect of anyone’s speeches will be lost because of the shallowness of the news cycle. Fault Rev. Wright if you will, and Obama for opening that door, there is truth to the fact that the sound-bite news story is only what will filter to the masses. Those that watch CNN or FNC or MSNBC for analysis are self-selecting for that very reason. You’re right… the Dems are self destructing again.
The older I get, the less I trust “first impressions.” The older I gete, the more I distrust “arm chair psychoanalysis from afar.”
You could be right, but more likely wrong==only because of the multitude of other choices, all unknown. A pure statistical thing.
Who knows the mind of another person? Even a friend, spouse, family member, mentor, priest?
Even reading this blog, at first blush we think people posting as we ourselves would not are just having a lark with us, or bullshitting. It takes a few go-arounds to figure out that people really do have different “world views” than yourself.
People are different, shocking, I know.
Wright also said that the white man’s government was a source of evil and that he would challenge Obama if he became President. That could explain it all. A man with a different point of view being honest.
Tie it in with Wright saying Obama was distancing himself from Wright’s words because that’s what all politicians do. It cuts against Obama’s claim of bringing about a “new politics.”
Mean while, shocking news from around the world goes unreported.
#6–jim==how can you post a detailed report and then say it goes unreported?
To that end, you might inform your palestinian friends that when they declare their wish to destroy their neighbors and take acts to do so, their neighbors might return the favor.
Looks like John called it on this one, although there is more to it. Let’s look at Wright’s own words at the National Press Club.
“This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright,” said Rev. Jeremiah Wright this morning at the National Press Club, explaining why he was emerging before a national audience, regardless of what harm it might do to the candidacy of one of his parishioners, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. “This is an attack on the black church.”
So, Obama is attacking the black church, and by extension what it is to be black in America. Remember the press pundits debating whether Obama was “Black” enough?
Well, according to Wright, Obama is not.
“Politicians say what they say and do what they do because of electability,”…” “He had to distance himself because he’s a politician..”
Wright’s tactid response indicating that Obama was using the church for his own political ends, and that he has no problem with being a “politician”. Not a new kind of politician, but the same ol’ Huey Long type of politician.
Wright continues: “On November 5 and on January 21, I will still be a pastor. In our community we got a thing called ‘Playing the dozens,'” he said, referring to the African-American tradition of trading clever insults in a competition. “If you think I’m gonna let you talk about my momma and her religious tradition, and my Daddy and his religious tradition,…you got another think coming.”
Here is where John focuses. Wright says without any reservation that he was insulted, and has no problem returning in kind. An eye for an eye.
To sum it up: Wright is on the warpath. He is clearly calling Obama a back-stabbing political opportunist who would throw the entire black community under the bus if it would further his own personal ambitions.
For even more info, here is a good article on Wright’s speech.
http://tinyurl.com/5pdptf
#6, Jim.
Great piece of unbiased reporting from a group of journalist who in the past has shown the greatest standards of integrity and honesty.
And they are? “Source: Al Jazeera and agencies”
(Sarcasm, in case you missed it)
#8–Ah Yea==did I read JCD incorrectly. I thought JCD’s position was more childishly emotional regarding the 12’s==that Obama called Wright a woman.
I know I couldn’t think of anything more shameful than being a woman–quite an insult and more than enough to fuel Wrights response.
#7 It was reported in Europe but,went under reported in the main stream US media. The US media have oiled their propoganda machine very nicely. Jeremiah Wright is just the latest smoke screen. Your commit is typical of someone who is blind to injustice. You might inform your murdering friends to stop their occupation and mass killing.
You guys are watching to much FOX news.
If any of the people running were judged on there nutball church leaders. No one could win.
#9 Oh yea, you don’t get Al Jazeera in the US. I gather you consider it the ” terrorist news channel” . I can link other news sources, but what’s the point you almost certainly don’t care what happens outside the US tabloid news.
#11–jim==very little “world news” gets reported in the USA. People being upset they lost their war and would like to get even so engage in a series of losing guerrilla attacks is not newsworthy after about 50 years.
Do you sense how everyone gets propagandized?
>>People being upset they lost their war and
>>would like to get even so engage in a
>>series of losing guerrilla attacks…..
wtf are you talking about, Bob? Did those people really lose “their war”? Who are “they”, anyway? And if the war is lost, why are we going to be there for another 100 years?
If you think the guerrilla attacks are “losing”, you might want to take that up with the kids who are coming home, as we speak, with their arms and legs blown off (or in those caskets we never see).
#15–Mustard, wake up, finish that first cup of coffee. Its sounds like you think I’m responding to Iraq but the linked article at #6 is about Israel and Gaza?
You are forgiven, but aren’t “some” atheist not religious about it? You owe me that.
Bobster, the fact that the ARTICLE was about something doesn’t necessarily mean that you were talking about that something. Mea culpa. Who is engaging in the losing guerrilla attacks, though? The Palestinians who suicide-bomb Jerusalem, or the Israelis who blow 3-year-olds to smithereens?
And of course “some” atheists are not religious about atheism. I don’t think I’ve said anything to the contrary. By the same token, “some” theists are not hatemongering xenophobic whack jobs that deny evolution and are crippled by their sexual hang-ups. On the other hand, some are, both atheists and theists.
#17–Mustard==of course the Palestinians are losing. They could win in the future, but they are losing now. Jews had nothing 60 years ago and then got Israel. Arabs have started and lost 6-7 wars? Maybe you define losing/winning in some unique way?
I look forward to your blanket description of atheism as a religion to be qualified? But why stop a good rant?
A Warsaw like ghetto happening in Gaza is old boring news. A superior army using tank shells ( with made in the USA) to indiscriminately kill civilians is 50 year old boring news. Are America’s that cold? What will it take for you to see that the main stream US media are making fools of you once again. Jermaih Wright is just the latest page in the long saga.
>>I look forward to your blanket description
>>of atheism as a religion to be qualified?
Bobbolina, I think YOU need a good cup of coffee. Wtf are you talking about? My “blanket description”?? Did you read what I wrote?
As to how I define winning/ losing, I figure as long as toddlers are getting blown up and suicide bombers are prowling the streets, everyone is losing.
#19–jim==what do you see as the ideal outcome in the Israeli/Palestinian situation?
#20–Mustard==not in this thread, seems to me you last said “Atheism is a religion” as opposed to “Some Atheists treat it as a religion”, or words to that effect. I think you called OFTLO “naïve” in his urging you to stop calling atheism a belief system? Stop quibbling.
I say he’s on hilary’s payroll, and obama doesn’t know it
Bobster, atheism IS a belief system (albeit a negative one). And some atheists are intolerant, fundamentalist fanatics in support of their belief (non-belief?) system. Do you deny this? I don’t understand whence your confusion comes.
1. I believe that God exists
2. I believe that god does not exist
See the parallels?
It makes no difference to me what a person believes, as long as they aren’t intolerant, fundamentalist fanatics who seek to repress those who do not have the same beliefs as they do.
Is that so difficult?
325–Mustard, from Websters:
Belief: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
Atheism: 2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
See the contradiction?
It’s the same parallel/contradiction as exists is forcing religion on other people vs refusing to have religion forced on one.
Not so difficult.
>>It’s the same parallel/contradiction as exists
>>is forcing religion on other people vs
>>refusing to have religion forced on one.
Oh no, Bobbie. The correct comparison would be “forcing religion on other people” vs. “forcing anti-religion (which in itself is a form of religion, in a dark sense) on other people.
It mystifies me why you continue to debate the self-evident fact that some atheists are fundamentalist, intolerant fanatics, who believe that belief in a higher power is the root of all evil, and should be extinguished.
#28–Mustard==you surprise me. No circles.
What do you mean by “some?” And how can “non-belief” be forced on anyone? This line of argument is actually flimsier than your other argument.
Is it your position that when a religious person wants prayer in school that an atheist suing to prevent it is “forcing non belief” on the religious types? === or, how does “no belief” get forced on believers?
If so, ********* no, I’ll wait for your response and not anticipate.
#22 Well, obviously peace. Thats what most Israelis and Palestinians want. 64% of Israelis want their government to talk to Hamas. But, the Israeli/Palestinain conflict is not what this thread is about. I just used that as an example of how the main stream US media always fails the US public. Looking at it from the outside, all you see is stupid tabloid news while the real news goes unreported or is twist to their agenda. The coverage of Jermaih Wright is just stupid tabloid news as far as I’m concerned.
Bobster, I’m getting tired of your circuitous argumentation.
No, refusing to have school prayer forced on non-believers is not forcing a belief on someone.
Badgering, persecuting, ridiculing, vilifying, and even killing someone because they believe in God IS forcing a belief on someone (or a “non-belief belief, if you insist).
And if you don’t think Atheists have done this, I suggest you do some more homework.