Picking out Ferraro’s comment, but it’s made by many:
Ferraro also said she could not understand why Obama had called out his own white grandmother for using racial stereotypes that had made him cringe.
“I could not believe that,” she said. “That’s my mother’s generation.”
Because the best strategy is to politely ignore racism? That’s worked well, hasn’t it.
WTF?
She joins ranks with a bunch of conservative morons that John Cole nicely gathers so I don’t have to.
My Grandfather, Tom Handlin, is the single greatest person I’ve ever met. He was a farmer, brought up by friends of the family after his father abandoned 11 other kids and his mother. He was measured and thoughtful and had one of the sharpest minds I’ve ever run across unless he was fighting with a boar who wasn’t cooperating.
And you know what? He was a racist. Not a KKK racist, but a racist who thought blacks weren’t as good as whites. I loved that man.
I’m not throwing him under the bus by saying he was a racist. I’m acknowledging that humans are complex and not caricatures.
He’d insist on it.
It’s a way of thinking in a more expanded mindset that’s not always easily grasped by folks used to thinking linearly.
Neither good or bad, just different. Cong. Ferraro reminds me of the supposedly polite “we don’t talk about that” way of dealing with things.
Not thinking of people in terms of their caricatures (individual or collective) is difficult for politics… Look at the similar reactions between Ferraro and the Ill Review crowd who labeled the speech “lies” and “sophistry” as they dismissed it out of hand without actually taking it in and considering what Sen. Obama really said.
What I find hard to believe is that Obama’s grandma was, at least privately, just a “typical” white person prone to using racial stereotypes (his assessment from a subsequent interview); but that Rev. Wright, despite his occasionally “controversial” sermons containing “distorted” viewpoints, is, personally, quite tolerant and has never spoken a cross word about other races behind closed doors.
But, even if it’s 100% true, there’s still something rather unseemly about unnecessarily pointing out a person’s flaws as a means of defending someone else (sometimes called “throwing them under the bus.”) It’s not something I would ever do to the woman who raised me, and, based on what you’ve told me about him, it doesn’t sound like something your grandfather would do, either.
I’m curious to know whether or not Obama spoke to his grandmother about this speech before hand, and asked her if it was alright to reference her the way he did.
Hey look! It’s grand old partisan completely missing the point and choosing instead to advance right wing talking points!
I didn’t miss the point, which seems to be that Rev. Wright’s comments should be viewed in the context of the admittedly greater complexities of race in America – I simply disagree with it.
And, let’s no kid ourselves here. Obama didn’t give that speech because people wanted him to start leading a national discourse on the state of race relations in the US – he gave it because people heard Rev. Wright making claims of attempted racial genocide against the US government and implying that the attacks of 9/11 were America getting what it deserved, and they wanted to know why this otherwise leveled-headed politician decided to remain a close spiritual pupil of this man for 20 years.
What I (and millions of other Americans) wanted to know was: when did he become aware of Rev. Wright’s extreme political views? As an up-and-coming political leader, did he ever discuss Wright’s beliefs about government conspiracies with him, and did he ever advise him that it was irresponsible and counter-productive to spread voice such controversial and unfounded theories from the pulpit? Obama’s speech didn’t answer the questions that Americans were really asking. Rather, he dismissed those concerns by broadening the debate. If anything, Obama missed the point.
===What I find hard to believe is that Obama’s grandma was, at least privately, just a “typical” white person prone to using racial stereotypes (his assessment from a subsequent interview); but that Rev. Wright, despite his occasionally “controversial” sermons containing “distorted” viewpoints, is, personally, quite tolerant and has never spoken a cross word about other races behind closed doors.
I know several people who know Jeremiah Wright. Not one has said he has ever said anything derogatory about an individual of another race. In fact, many know him to be a man who wouldn’t do such a thing. He has said that racism is a problem and he’s angry about it.
===But, even if it’s 100% true, there’s still something rather unseemly about unnecessarily pointing out a person’s flaws as a means of defending someone else (sometimes called “throwing them under the bus.”) It’s not something I would ever do to the woman who raised me, and, based on what you’ve told me about him, it doesn’t sound like something your grandfather would do, either.
My grandfather believed in telling the truth isn’t throwing someone under the bus. He thought it was telling the truth. How is it throwing someone under the bus to say they have racist views if they have racist views?
It’s an awfully convenient way to claim that we just shouldn’t talk about racism and as such, a way to perpetuate it.
Most people live in a world that is far more complex than the caricature you are drawing where people are all good or all bad. That’s the point. And adults are able to discuss that there’s a lot in between without bullshit claims that talking about reality is being unloyal to someone or throwing them under the bus.
===I’m curious to know whether or not Obama spoke to his grandmother about this speech before hand, and asked her if it was alright to reference her the way he did.
This is the definition of concern trolling. What business is it of yours how he communicates with his grandmother? And given he talked about the discussions with his grandmother in the speech, why would anyone feel the authority to even question him on that?
=====he gave it because people heard Rev. Wright making claims of attempted racial genocide against the US government
As do many in the pro-life community when talking about abortion. As do many when talking about slavery. He’s wrong about AIDS, but his rhetoric is hardly as out there as you would like to make it seem. Rod Parsley, a spiritual advisor to John McCain, has both called Planned Parenthood Nazis. Are you concerned about that and why John McCain would be crazy enough to hang out with him?
==and implying that the attacks of 9/11 were America getting what it deserved
And again, not something unheard of by people who are spiritual advisors to the current President and John McCain–except, the chicken’s coming home to roost phrase is more similar to karma causing something to happen instead of God striking us as those ‘spiritual advisors’ like to say.
==and they wanted to know why this otherwise leveled-headed politician decided to remain a close spiritual pupil of this man for 20 years.
Because 4 or 5 comments that are being played aren’t the entire career of the man. He is controversial on several subjects–some of which I disagree with him on such as Israel and Palestine. But that isn’t his everyday message. They are a couple outtakes from a couple sermons. He doesn’t preach every weekend anymore, but listen to Moss on the radio–it’s available in Chicago. See what Trinity is about. I’ve actually watched the services at Trinity and at Hagee and Parsley’s. Have you?
However, these aren’t the every day rantings of Parsley or Hagee who you can watch on Trinity Broadcasting Network every night telling poor people to send them the money. Every night calling for a third world war to lead to an apocalypse. Every night calling Catholics, Jews, and Muslims as bringing on the curse of God.
1) Painting all of “white America” with the same brush and blaming all men and women of a common racial ancestry for the same alleged crimes may not be “derogatory,” in the strictest sense of the word, but no reasonable person could argue that it is an expression of tolerance. Rather, it indicates to me that, despite what you suggest, Rev. Wright is concerned and angry about more than simply “racism” in the abstract. His passionate denounciations of “white America” makes him seem like someone who is – perhaps justifiably – angry about racism that has negatively impacted his race, and thus harbors unjustified hostility towards an entire other race that he see as collectively guilty. Now, whether or not those are his personal views, those are the views that he preaches to his flock – which, to me, is just as bad, if not worse, than personally being a racist.
2) My problem with Obama’s reference to his grandmother isn’t that I don’t think it’s true – it’s that it’s so unnecessary. This speech was supposed to be about his relationship with Rev. Wright, and his reaction to Wright’s “controversial” statements. So why drag grandma into it? And please, don’t question the sincerity of my concern for others, even those who I do not know personally. Even though I am an evil conservative, I am still capable of genuinely caring about someone who I think was wronged. If anything, perhaps I am out of line for assuming that Obama’s grandmother is anything like mine, and might not want someone to share private aspects of her family life with the public for any reason. If that’s the case, than I am sorry.
Grand Ol’, Where’d you get the idea that “This speech was supposed to be about his relationship with Rev. Wright, and his reaction to Wright’s “controversial” statements”?
He never billed the speech as being about just those two limited things.
Rather, his campaign referenced it as being about race in general. He titled the speech he wrote, “A More Perfect Union.” Those subsequent interviews you referenced earlier clearly indicated he was discussing race relations as a broader topic.
It is you, other partisans (left and right) who oppose Obama, and a few lazy talking heads who labeled the speech as being about Rev. Wright when in reality the Reverend was only a catalyst for the discussion to begin in earnest.
(That said, I do recognize it was, at its most basic, a political speech. So was the Gettysburg Address, which was similarly pilloried by partisan opponents back in the day.)
PS: On your first point, Grand Ol’, Sen. Obama acknowledged as much in his speech… or did you not see or read the same speech as everyone else?
===) Painting all of “white America” with the same brush and blaming all men and women of a common racial ancestry for the same alleged crimes may not be “derogatory,” in the strictest sense of the word, but no reasonable person could argue that it is an expression of tolerance. Rather, it indicates to me that, despite what you suggest, Rev. Wright is concerned and angry about more than simply “racism” in the abstract.
He didn’t paint white America with one brush, he talked about rich white Americans having power. Is that even a controversial statement? If you are angry about racism in the United States, who, but white Americans are in the position of power?
People keep saying he said things that he didn’t say. He says the United States Government has long had racist policies and that rich white Americans have perpetuated racism. Those are true statements. You are reading into them more because he is angry at the same time he says. them.
===his speech was supposed to be about his relationship with Rev. Wright, and his reaction to Wright’s “controversial” statements. So why drag grandma into it? And please, don’t question the sincerity of my concern for others, even those who I do not know personally.
I think Obama explained this pretty clearly. He considers them both close, but he understands that people are more complex–and to note someone else who is close to him on the other side is his grandmother.
I’m often baffled why people think they know other’s families better than the person in the family. Being offended for his grandmother is silly. That’s between Obama and her, not a Obama, her, and 300 million people. It’s his family. Just as it’s my family to talk about my grandfather. Or not.
The only place I get it are these women who keep getting pulled up to stand next to their cheating men. That is so bizarre I get the reaction. But when it comes to sharing something, why would we assume we know better than the person speaking?
Rob,
He could have titled the speech “the Gettysburg Address” if he wanted to. The simple fact is that he gave the speech because he knew that his relationship with Wright was causing damage to his campaign.
That’s what the speech was about.
But if you want to kid yourself into thinking that, despite the admitted quality of the style (and even much of the substance), it was motivate by something more noble, go ahead. But kidding yourself is, indeed, all you will be doing.
“If you are angry about racism in the United States, who, but white Americans are in the position of power?”
Well, I live in Illinois, where the CEO of the electric company is black, as is the President of the State Senate. Since you are more familiar with the broader collection of Rev. Wright’s sermons, I’ll ask you: has Wright ever publically expressed anger of the way that these two black leaders have increased the financial burdens of working class and poor citizens of all races?
Grand Ol’ displays his partisanship: “He could have titled the speech “the Gettysburg Address” if he wanted to. The simple fact is that he gave the speech because he knew that his relationship with Wright was causing damage to his campaign.
“That’s what the speech was about.”
If the entire speech were solely about Rev. Wright it would’ve lasted two minutes. Sometimes you really should try taking those partisan blinders off.
As I said, Wright (or, if you will, the media’s incessant “Dean Scream, The Sequel” looping of 30 seconds of video out of Wright’s 20 year career) was the catalyst for the speech but the speech was clearly not just about the Rev. Wright.
For that matter, taking your position to heart and arguing from the basis that the speech was in fact only about Rev. Wright at least the man had the cajones to get up in front of 300 million people and lay it all on the line while still displaying loyalty to his “team”.
Used to be conservatives approved of guts and loyalty… apparently partisanship trumps all that when convenient, eh?
Forgive the injection of humor. This is Ann Coulter live blogging the Gettysburg Address.
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/literature_/2008/03/if_ann_coulter_had_liveblogged_the_gettysburg_address.php
“CEO of the electric company is black, as is the President of the State Senate.”
For les than 5 years… perhaps you are not as old as you claim to be?
Ultimately it does not matter what his reverend believes because Obama is his own person.
I can’t understand how, even passively, you have missed Obama’s thousands of appearances…. How you can so willfully be ignorant. There is absolutely no excuse for you to have enough time to ask such ridiculous questions and not find time to actually look at any of the material that Obama has produced.
I hope your goal has been to sharpen the skills of people that support Obama, because this little exercise has made me better prepared for my Family’s Easter dinner.
BTW – to who ever decided to put this Wright controversy in the news the week before Holy week has given Obama one of the best tools for victory.
1- no one can say they heard Obama is anything but a Christian.
2 – Obama’s Line about his grandmother will cause literally millions of young adults to talk to their grand parents about Obama this weekend.
Rob –
“Grand Ol’ displays his partisanship”
wow – you’ve really got me there. I guess my cover as an objective observer is really blown.
damn.
Seriously, though….oh wait, there’s more.
“Sometimes you really should try taking those partisan blinders off.” You’re right. I should try to be as open-minded towards Democrats and liberals as you, Rob, are to Republicans and conservatives. If everyone out there were all as unbiased as you, Rob, our nation would be a better place.
Okay, seriously. I call myself the grand old PARTISAN. I admit that I am biased towards Republicans and against Democrats. Why do you think that the word “partisan” is going to be some sort of verbal secret weapon to shame me?
Of course Obama actually talked about more than just Rev. Wright. And I read every word of it, a couple times. And, as I said in comments on the previous post, there were things that I was glad to hear Obama say (there I go again – being reflexively partisan!).
But the fact of the matter is that Obama would not have given that speech if his relationship with Wright had not become an issue. The entire speech, then, must be viewed through that prism. Perhaps you should take YOUR partisan blinders off (see – how do you like it?) and think about that.
==Well, I live in Illinois, where the CEO of the electric company is black, as is the President of the State Senate. Since you are more familiar with the broader collection of Rev. Wright’s sermons, I’ll ask you: has Wright ever publically expressed anger of the way that these two black leaders have increased the financial burdens of working class and poor citizens of all races?
ahem, I don’t think him denouncing the black people you think he should denounce quite fits the bill of what a real test is.
A better test to my mind is does he take on black officials, individuals, and religious leaders for their faults, and he certainly does.
He has taken on Creflo Dollar and TD Jakes for their Prosperity Gospel as being damaging to African-Americans. He has taken on the gangs their violence and their drugs. He has taken on the homophobia in the black church which is highly controversial. He has taken on Farrakhan and NOI’s view that Christianity is a slave master’s religion (something not mentioned when Farrakhan came up before). He challenged the Million Man March with a more local effort to improve those in Chicago. He challenges the dangers of the break down of the black family and talks about the essentialness of marriage.
But none of that gets covered. He’s not Jesse Jackson Sr. who jumps in front of every camera and pisses off the local civil rights workers. He’s a guy who works within his community to solve those problems, but isn’t afraid to point the finger outward.
Guilt by association just means you have nothing on the candidate and have run out of material.
G-Ol’ says, “Why do you think that the word “partisan” is going to be some sort of verbal secret weapon to shame me?”
I don’t.
I am responding as much to you individually as to the dozens of other readers who simply lurk.
As for your suggestion I take off my own partisan blinders… I’ve acknowledged several times that the incessant looping of 30 seconds of Rev. Wright sermons (30 seconds out of 20 years) was the catalyst for the speech and that any speech on a topic of such national importance is inherently political in nature. These facts, of course, directly contradict your premise that I’m blindly ignoring reality out of partisanship.
Is your point simply to prove that your remarks are hollow and have no meaning due to your tendency to ignore facts as they are and overlook responses to you instead of actually paying attention?
You really ought to try and stop contradicting yourself — “The entire speech, then, must be viewed through that prism [of Rev. Wright]” versus “there were things that I was glad to hear Obama say,” etc.
What you’re missing there is the fact that the speech wasn’t just about Rev. Wright, as you appear to acknowledge but not comprehend. In essence, what does it matter if Wright was the catalyst or the first day of spring was that catalyst? The speech on race relations (not on Wright) was written by Sen. Obama and given by him and later promoted and explained by him.
Either you thought the speech was worthwhile (“glad to hear Obama say”) or you don’t (“entire speech … viewed through that prism”). You seem to be hedging your bets; wanting to reflexively pan the whole thing as a purely partisan reaction but begrudgingly acknowledging the historic nature of the landmark speech itself as an opening for an honest, blunt and forthright discussion of race in modern America.
As such, your comments are generating a good many responses pointing out the various ways in which your thoughts are unfortunately lacking and possible rationales for why this is so (ie, your partisan aims).
Happy Easter, Grand Ol’.
Free rape video….
Rape video. Free rape video. Rape scene xxx video….