-
Top Commenters
-
Community
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Tough to "retool" his thinking though. He sees government as a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth, and he said so. I'm sure he'll "reword" that in the future.
- Bijan and I traded some thoughts on this the other day...I like the idea of creating something new that combines community + market to make some kind of "distributed product design" thing happen. (I've ...
- I think there is debates/ discussions/ conversations and then there is genuine relationships - its what I call 'The Cat (needs no maintenance/commitment - 'add friend'), The Dog (totally needs it - 'make ...
- i'm a facebook developer and yes, facebook install numbers are HORRIBLE...hahah
- I'm not so sure the surge is "working" in the sense of demonstrating sustainable progress/success. http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/z2008-07-08-SurgeStatus
The Lessons of Rev Wright
I didn't vote for Barack because I was afraid of what has now transpired. I went for the devil we know over the devil we didn't. But I've been rooting for him.
The notion of a post-boomer political realignment around the challenges ...
127 comments
-
MikeC 2 months ago with 2 points
I want to weigh in on this issue and I apologize in advance for this long post, but I just can't sit quietly anymore. I'm a black professional who went to high school and college (Stanford Undergrad) in mostly white schools and whose career was spent in an industry (semiconductors) where people like me were overwhelmingly under-represented. I find that Obama's candidacy is unconsciously causing the country to come face-to-face with its continuing discomfort with real discussions of race. The comments I see here, and that I have experienced at large are so much more painful than people "not of my color" can really imagine.
When Obama first decided to run I spoke to many of my friends who commented that their fear of his candidacy wasn't that he was too young, too inexperienced, too liberal, but that he was . . . well, just Black. And our fear was - that in the rough and tumble world of politics and the media's coverage of it, that the country would find ways to tear down a Black man for all the public to see; a public lynching of sorts.
I know those are strong words, but I'm expressing the strong fears that still exist in our community. And there are people who want to make us wrong for feeling this way, but feelings are neither right nor wrong - they just are. It's how we deal with those feelings that count.
In some ways Obama is one of the most perfect Black candidates, almost out of central casting. He's youthful and energetic, he's extremely well spoken (what that means in my neighborhood - he doesn't "sound" black, which has been a bit of a kiss of death for blacks in the public eye), he's highly educated, he's not from San Francisco or Austin, Texas (don't take offense - it's just that people in many parts of the country think that people from highly liberal cities don't share our values), he's a churchgoer, the list goes on.
Yet look at what seems to be the issues dragging him down:
Biggest Mistake One: He is associated,with maybe even likes, an angry Black preacher (my experience is that if you want to be sure that people not of your race discount you, be perceived as being "angry", whether you are justified or not). If that is a litmus test for a black candidate, it will be several more decades before we can run for office. Many black leaders from the civil rights era speak in angry tones, use hyperbole and exagerration to make their points, but are just as patriotic as George Bush or Rush Limbaugh. We understand that when one of us "condemns" America for Jim Crow (and its remnants), segregation, "economic apartheid" (Jesse Jackson's current favorite term), or whatever label is used, what we are saying is that America's actions are often out of alignment with its ideals, and that we can be better than that. I don't agree with Rev. Wright's use of words or characterizations, but I ABSOLUTELY understand his upset and his passion about what needs to be changed, and what needs to be exposed and discussed.
Biggest Mistake Two: He's being considered to be "elitist". OMG - this is the same fight that I fight with my own people when boys in the hood look down on kids with schoolbooks because they are trying to "act white" (as if that's some kind of disease). You know what, as an American I pray to god that my President is smarter than me and maybe has more education, more knowledge, more insight than I do because we need that level of sophistication to deal with a complicated world. And before you pile on about being able to "connect" with people yes, I want my President to be able to understand my situation, and empathize with my situation, but being able to bowl or liking deep friend twinkies is not a rational pre-requisite to running the most powerful nation on the planet. So for me, I hope that Obama is elite.
Biggest Mistake Three (and this is not really a mistake), he's inexperienced. This is a specious argument, you know why? It assumes that having experienced makes you more qualified to do this job. If that was the case then Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Chenney should have led us to the land of plenty. There were no more experienced people in the country than those two, yet look at the havoc they have caused. I don't care what you did before, I only care about your ability to make the right (or at least the best decisions). So I don't want to hear about this argument anymore.
And lastly, the press is complicit (and we with it) in dragging down our public discourse. If any of you on this blog were to have a camera in your face 24/7 and had any 10 words you spoke in any given day taken out of context, do you beleive that those 10 words are who you are or what you believe? We have to be better than our entertainment-driven press whose sole job is to look for the flaw or look for the hero story because that makes better headlines than, "New Candidate offers tough but reasonable plan to reduce hunger."
Who wants to buy that paper? I do, but I'm not sure many Americans wouldn't pass that up for "Hilary catches Bill with another intern!!"
OK, I'm done. Peace. -
Mike
This is an excellent comment, but it's really a blog post.
I am reblogging it at fredwilson.vc because it stands on its own and is
excellent
Thanks for sharing it with us
fred -
Andy Freeman
Fair enough.
One question though - are there any reasons one can prefer another candidate to Obama without being called a racist?
IMHO, this question is related to a "which service to use" issue that a lot of folks misunderstand. As Dave Winer points out, many folks prefer services that don't have lock-in. For example, the easier it is to get my data out, the more likely I am to put my data in. -
That was a great comment. Puts some things in context. Thanks.
-
strtme
Mike C,
Well said, young man. Nothing further needs to be added.. -
Also.....I'm no Obama fan by any stretch. In fact, I think he's a very bad choice.....but come on Dems, this is a freakin FIGHT!
I'm just so disappointed in the Democratic party this year for not stepping up to the plate and kicking the hell out of the GOP. Instead you let an unvetted, inexperienced hype-machine rise to the top without challenge....and now what? You're going to bail on him as soon as he takes the first bullet? Don't you understand....if he survives this bullet he'll be MUCH STRONGER in October when it counts! Fight for your freakin candidate don't just wave the white flag. Is this the party of Harry Reid or Harry Truman?
Fuck I'm sick of the DNC whining and moaning instead of playing to WIN!!!! The GOP is literally trying to hand this race to you....McCain is a sacrificial lamb! Goodness. -
stone
I couldn't agree more, Andy. Well said!
-
notstone
i second that, which reminded me of this article on the curiously undecided superdelegates:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/nobody-to-blam... -
The optimist in me hopes this Wright fiasco is the catalyst that enables us to get beyond the racial hate and anger. It's certainly creating a discussion -- maybe a very messy version of the discusson Barack in Philadelphia said we need to have.
In any case, I don't think this is a tragic ending. Nobody died. There's still a lot of drama yet to come ... -
stone
Great Post.
As I've been saying since the beginning Barack Obama is a great speaker but has little in his background to support his current presentation. Karl Rove was on TV last night and, although he's not my favorite person, he made this same point. Hillary Clinton is actually much more willing to work across party lines to get things done in the Senate. Her record actually proves this is true. John McCain is famous for working across party lines --- not just words, actual deeds. Obama's message is hopeful and I believe that he wants to do it but lots of people want to do lots of things. The Wright issue will taint him, like it or not, and may prevent him from being the inclusive leader he wants to be. Why? Judgement matters --- and he's made a whopper of a mistake with Mr. Wright. Facts are facts. His thesis for running is that Hillary made a BIG mistake on the war. I wonder how he would've voted if he was actually in the senate at the time.
When you run a company you will always make mistakes but you want to carefully guard against making the REALLY BIG MISTAKE. Unfortunately for Obama, he didn't learn this lesson, which is why I do not think he's qualified to be president yet. He needs to go back into the senate and, though his deeds, prove to us that he's a "special" leader. If he does this I will be the first to vote for him next time around. -
Dick Costolo
Stone, this is precisely the kind of nonsense that all of us who will never vote for Hillary can't stand to hear. Obama's big mistake is that a guy who's church he attended turns out to be a bit off the rails and so that's Obama's fault? Meanwhile this Hagee idiot can go out and say that Katrina is God's punishment for the sinners in new orleans and McCain thanks him for his endorsement? And McCain and Hillary can endorse the worst foriegn policy decision in the history of the country and you're left with the lame "well, maybe this guy would have done the same" even though he explicitly declared at the time that it was a moronic decision?
The ONLY reason hillary is in the running for president is because she is related to an ex-president; ditto for G.W. Bush, and that's worked out so wonderfully for us. To believe she would otherwise be where she is today is foolhardy. If people decide that what we really need is a two-family constitutional monarchy instead of a democratic republic, then that's the decision of the people, and we will indeed continue to get the government we deserve, but let's not make the mistake of confusing our wishes for a constitutional monarchy with false generalities about the characteristics of leadership.
I agree with Fred 100% on this post, and it may indeed be the case that Rev. Wright will be Obama's ruin. That's not obama's "fault", that's just the way reputation management goes. You can't get elected living in a cave for 40 years so that you have no ties to anybody before you run, and there's no way in the world anybody can possibly research all the human connections in their life to know whether there's a gotcha moment around the corner from somebody who's less than directly related to them. -
scott
great comment Dick.
-
Dick, I think you make some good points but there is more to this story than you lead on. I mean....did Obama not give a speech DEFENDING Wright a month ago? Did he not base the title of his book on Wright's message(s)? Did he not call him a "spiritual mentor" whom he "prayed with in his basement" the night he decided to run?
It's one thing to have a pastor that says some things you don't agree with, it's quite another to make him a mentor, defend him while distancing from him, and then disown him when the polls go against you. The way many describe the relationship is that it was one-way, with Obama merely in the audience, quietly disagreeing with the hateful remarks. In reality, it was a two way relationship that Obama sought out and embraced....until it got him into trouble with the pollsters.....
This is less about race and religion, and more about judgement and whether Obama really is different than other politicians..... -
m
@andy
No, Obama did not "give a speech DEFENDING Wright a month ago". He gave a speech in which he denounced certain statements he made, while not wholly disowning the man himself. (Oh, and there was about :35 minutes more of a discussion of ... what was that? Oh, yeah, race relations in contemporary America.)
I support Obama. But I'm not sure where that somehow becomes construed with me (or anyone else) not thinking him 100% a politician, much less believing him to be some messiah.
That said, there are two key take-aways from this IMHO:
1. This whole bruhaha serves little more than to amplify how people already feel; in that sense, it changes nothing
2. If this is truly Obama's "REALLY BIG MISTAKE" then ... wait, what was the question again? -
Andy
I think it's a bit deeper than ³until it got him in trouble with the
pollsters²
Rev Wright went off the deep end in a way that Bill hasn't even done to
Hillary, yet
Fred -
I didn't see him say anything new at all. He just said them again and debunked the "out of context" nonsense argument that Obama was making.
What was new (other than the outrage?) -
i feel stupid for making a point in a debate that doesn't concern me (and thanks to all so far that found the time to answer my questions) but if guilt by association is causing so much obamarucus, why is nobody pointing out that mrs clinton is touring the country holdings hands with an adulterous and impeached former president? How long till the muck starts flying about who else she's associated with - will it, do you guys think?
-
strtme
You can' t be serious. HC? Willing to work across the aisles?
BTW, Obama's been in the Senate longer... I'm not sure which race your monitoring... -
Help a Brit out: what did Obama and his campaign do wrong here?
How are Jeremiah Wright's attitudes significantly different from other (supposedly) widely accepted and publicly revered heroes of black history, e.g. MLK? Is it not that they're different, but that MLK's comments were appropriate back then, but inappropriate in today's supposedly improved situation?
What's inherently evil about Wright?
What was the backstabbing? What's Obama's response, beyond distancing himself, been?
Is the outrage and controversy genuine and widespread, or has it been amplified and distorted by the disingenuous in society? The media? The political rivals? The same class of person in society that somehow made an appreciation of nuance and intelligent, nondogmatic response to issues, a bad thing (flipflopping)? Who's really being evil here?
Lastly: if you didn't vote for Obama because you feared a reopening of a deep US wound, are you a victim of terrorism - the use of fear to influence behaviour? If so, who are the terrorists? -
The media giveth and the media taketh. The media likes to build leaders up and tear them down. Let's be honest and admit that Obama's momentum in Jan-Feb was driven largely by the soft treatment of his campaign by the media. Now that some members of the media are attacking/exposing some of Obama's weaker points, you can see he is no longer the juggernaut that strung together several states in a row and put Clinton on the brink of elimation.
As for Wright, Fred is spot on. And please never put MLK and Wright in the same discussion. MLK never used hate to incite his constituency, he used God's love and equal creation of all humans as his message. -
ryan
I agree that you cannot compare MLK and Wright, but I think Philippe brings up some important points. What did Obama's campaign do wrong. They did not court the Rev., unlike McCain who has gone after support from some whack jobs. ARe we going to investigate Clinton's and McCain's associates like we have with Obama? I have been a member of organized religion, my father was a cantor at our temple, but I don't feel that my rabbi, regardless of his political views, should be allowed to represent me. And how different is what Wright said from what Falwell and Robertson have said about 9/11 and Katrina? Why doesn't the media freak out about that and the fact McCain needs their support?
-
Many people are bringing up the Hagee-McCain connection, so it needs clarification. McCain instantly criticized Hagee for his anti-Catholic remarks. Can the same be said about Obama regarding Rev. Wright? The comparison is really grasping at the straws from Obama supporters. As much as people like to believe McCain is some religious right hero, I find it really hard to believe. Falwell endorsed Huckabee and Robertson endorsed Giuliani in the GOP Primaries. Oh and hope this helps clear it little more from LA Times: http://tinyurl.com/3t2mpv
This is Obama's mess, he has to clear it up himself. People blaming the media, Clinton, McCain or GOP are just looking for excuses to defend Obama at all costs. -
aarondelcohen
Phillipe:
I'm a fan of your posts. But Wright has been incredibly irresponsible. Louis Farakhan has not been a positive force in American politics. When Wright says, "Farakhan didn't enslave him," he's basically echoing history that is very old. Most young people in America want to move past 150 years of racial politics.
The arguments against Obama's substance are reasonable. But people are willing to gamble. Wright is taking the opportunity away from them because he's as narcissitic as they come. It's fairly shocking. -
proales
Good post.
The preacher in this shakespearian tragedy obviously does not think its time for America to move beyond the the issues that divide us. But does his actions to bring the agent of change down, really mean that the American public is not ready to move beyond the issues that divide?
The logical leap maybe there, but was not the focus of your discourse. Could you expand on that? -
Gabriel N.
My take is that this preacher man is a parasite who abused his authority and influence for political purposes. The true meaning of Christianity is lost on this man.
Organized religion is hierarchical socio-political model that uses religion to attract followers and then controls them for political gain. In this model, a disconnect with God happens whereby man thinks of himself as God on earth.
Did Obama trust his pastor too much and not question his views/sermons because of deference? If he knew about his view and they were not congruent with his own, why would he have continued as a parishoner? Or, does he share some of those views? Only he knows in his heart what he believes.
This is a lesson in reputation management. Guard it with your life. -
I believe if he made the speech he did yesterday back in March, we would be talking about the general election between Obama and McCain right now.
-
I think you are spot on. Obama miscalculated back in early March how America would view his relationship with Rev. Wright. When the "story first broke" Obama stood by him and stood by him and stood by him. By waiting until now to "disown" (the remarks or the person or both...) he now looks like he is willing to do what is politically expedient... Which is not a trait we like in our politicians.
-
news
Unlike Hillary who will offer a bogus gas-tax holiday to court votes. McCain who dropped his objection to the far right in order to win his nomination. Why aren't they eating more crap for blatant pandering and flip-flopping.
Why is it so hard to accept that this man had a personal relationship that was hard to sever. It may not have been politically smart to do it now. And it sure would have been more politically expedient to toss this guy out before he announced for President than now. -
I think the difference is in the nature of the subject.
Americans appear to be worried that Obama lives or believes in a different America than they do. Same with Romney (too rich and Mormon). -
news
Obama does live in a different America than most whites in this country. However he does believe in the same principles most people think this country is based on.
He says what he believes and his record, no matter how thin you think it is doesn't show different. Don't most Americans think it is bad to lie? Being a liar would seem to be a central component of a person's character. But we're willing to overlook blatant lies by the candidates on a regular basis.
Some people want to believe (or are too lazy to think it all the way through) he agrees with Rev. Wright. It gives them a free pass to oppose him. Not everyone who opposes Obama is a racist; you might think Hillary is legitmately a better candidate; you might not like Obama's positions. Fine. But people who oppose him because of the Church he went to or his exotic upbringing are afraid he'll get into office and become a Black Panther or he's a sleeper agent for Al-Qaeda. Same for Romney. He was Governor of Massachusetts and he didn't try to impose his Mormon beliefs on the Commonwealth. Did he?
Obama states that the America he believes in is the one that would allow him to be in the position he is in running for President. I believe him. If Obama says this kind of stuff wasn't coming out of Rev. Wright's mouth every week, why can't we believe that and there is no evidence to the contrary. There are many, many prominent mainstream people that go to Trinity United and they say it also. -
This is not the time to be standing back on this issue and letting the status quo win. I'd like to know who extended that invitation for Wright to speak at a national forum 2 weeks before 2 key primaries.
-
Tom this is what happens (to most people) when they run for President.....their alliagences are questioned and vetted. Obama made a huge speech a month ago saying that after 20 years, he could "no more disown Rev Wright than [he] can disown the black community". Then Wright's true character is revealed by Wright (as it likely would have been in the 20 years of being a "spiritual mentor"), and suddenly Obama can disown him as the polls crumble. It's "politics as usual", and people are seeing it now that Obama is given 10% of the scrutiny that Hillary has weathered.
-
Bill D.
