-
Website
http://blogs.eagletribune.com/soapbox -
Original page
http://blogs.eagletribune.com/soapbox/2008/03/18/obamas-clintonian-triangulation/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Did you actually watch the speech? Barack Obama delivered one of the best political speeches I've ever seen, on a topic that rarely gets more than lip service by most politicians. The last time I heard a presidential candidate speak coherently about race in America was when Bill Bradley talked about white skin privilege in the 2000 race.
The unpleasant truth is that we've never had an honest conversation about race and class in America or reconciled with the darkest moments of our past. Given how our nation is becoming more diverse (that means less white), its a fair question to ask how we can move forward as a nation until we've excavated some of these issues and looked honestly at them. Race and class are unpleasant issues to talk about and many people are uncomfortable with the idea but talk about them we must. After last night, I'm convinced that the only person who can lead that national conversation is Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton can't do it and I doubt John McCain even views this as an important issue.
The story of America isn't just the mythology we're spoon fed in grade school or the (slightly) deeper understanding we gain from the all-too-superficial lessons of high school or the polemic "peoples history" many of us learn in college. America's story is embodied in the ever present tension between what we SAY America stands for and what we actually do, the tension between the PROMISE of America and the reality of everyday life for most Americans. What I saw last night was, finally, a politician who doesn't just understand that, but can speak to those truths with clarity and eloquence. For the first time in my adult life, I have heard a candidate who can win, who doesn't talk down to me or spew fluffy patriotism. True patriots don't love their country, they are loyal to what their country is supposed to stand for. Someone once said a patriot must always be ready to defend their country against their government.
You ask for a president who will stand up for the essential goodness of America and Americans. How can anyone unwilling to honestly see our faults and admit our wrongs claim essential goodness? Can a president who ignores, justifies or trivializes our greatest wrongs, now or in the past, be taken seriously? How can eloquent, passionate praise of America be seen as anything but empty rhetoric if they are mouthed by a president who does not deal honestly and forthrightly with the darker side of our national nature?
America is not perfect.We have sins to atone for and wrongs to make right. All of the greatness we embody, all of the good we do, all of the evil we have stood against, cannot pay off the innocents we've killed, the thugs we have aided or the injustices we turn a blind eye to in our own backyard. That our good far outweighs our bad, that we've done the right thing more often than not, doesn't absolve us, as a nation or a people, of our collective obligation to take responsibility for ALL that we do, and do not do, both good and bad.
Only a man like Barack Obama, a true patriot, who knows well, our shortcomings and our sins yet still loves America dearly, can do that.
"True patriots don’t love their country, they are loyal to what their country is supposed to stand for."
SHOULD SAY
True patriots don’t just love their country, they are loyal to what their country is supposed to stand for.
sorry...TL
Well done and thank you.
Truely if we are ever to change we need to recognize that there will be some things we need to question and ultimately in a free soceity all things are up for questioning.
I wish you would.
The man Obama is a fraud and doesn't have the slightest idea how to do what he says he will do. He has yet to tell us a plan, any plan, of how he will do it.
Hitler too, was a great orator. Look what he led Germany to.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Your equating Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler because they both shared great oratory skills goes beyond the bounds of decency. The Reverend Wright obviously engaged in reckless, misdirected, foolish diatribes against the US on occasion.
He did so coming from a"left of center" political and theological point of view.
His comments that America got what it deserved on 9-11 because of its foreign policy is just the flip side of Pat Robertson's assertion that 9-11 was God's punishment of America because it had embraced gay rights, a woman's reproductive health rights, Affirmative Action, and a laundry list of other "sins" the Reverend Robertson finds unforgivable.
John McCain, after receiving the endorsement of the ultra-right wing,fundamentalist Christian minister John Hagee from Texas, has yet to powerfully reject Reverend hagee's rabid anti Catholicism.
McCain has minced words and said he doesn't share some of the Reverend Hagee's theological points of view but welcomes his endorsement nonetheless.
So, Mr. Carlson, why aren't you holding McCain to the same standard to which you're holding Obama?
I believe I am holding John McCain to the same standard I'm holding Obama to. I think my comparison of Obamas oratorical skills to Hitlers is not only within the bounds of decency but is very apprapo. That might be where the comparison ends, we can only hope so.
For your information, sir, I have told two cleric's in the churches I've attended that they are too busy trying to save the world and are derelict in their duty to save souls.
The Reverend Hagee oversees a mega, fundamentalist church in Texas. He has raised millions of dollars with his preaching. Much of it is so rabidly anti-Catholic that it blows the mind.
He, about a month ago, endorsed John McCain.
John McCain, desperate as he is for the Christian jihadist vote, embraced the endorsement with a mild disclaimer that he didn't subscribe to Reverend hagee's rabidly, anti-Catholic views.
It was all pretty lame on Mccain's part.
With all due respect, I'm slowly realizing you consevatives, much more so than many liberals, are the personifications of hypocrisy.
It really is rather pathetic.
Based on your description it sounds like McCains rhetoric was somewhat like Obamas minus the oratorical embellishment.
As for comparisons between Barack Obama and Hitler, I agree that they're absurd. If you want a meaningful discussion of Nazi Germany, Hitler and the rise of fascism, Naomi Wolf's book The End of America offers a chilling comparison of Germany and Italy in the 1920's and the present-day Bush administration.
You don't have to agree or disagree with anything Rev Wright said, or Barack Obama's membership in his church. The question people should ask is why any candidate for public office should be held accountable for their private religious beliefs or for every statement their pastor, rabbi or minister makes. I find much of Rev Wright's comments offensive, others not so. I am more concerned with Obama's PUBLIC life, his public statements, what he says and does as a public official. Until recently, there has been an assumed line separating an elected officials personal religious beliefs and their public actions. I don't care if someone is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist. I only care that in doing the peoples business they are secular, rational and act in the public interest.
If there is a god, I'm fairly sure that he/she/it is something far beyond our comprehension. If there is a god (and I'm fairly open minded, though skeptical on the subject), I'm also fairly certain that he/she/it does not bless or damn any nation or take sides in the endless, senseless slaughter we insists on visiting on each other. The constant chatter about what sect is really following "gods law", or is the true faith, or knows what rules the supreme being of the universe wants us to follow or how to get to heaven strikes me as, in all honestly, absurd. I view the reassurances of candidates that they are people of faith as trivial and insulting as should any rational person. Having faith and going to church have nothing to do with one ability to serve the public interest. Some of the most moral and decent people I know are atheists, some of the most amoral and vile people I know are devout, church going Christians. (Mr.Carlson should remember that Hitler was a Lutheran and the Nazi's had the enthusiastic support of the Catholic Church.)
That being said, it is a dangerous road to start on when we scrutinize a candidates faith, their houses of worship and their spiritual leaders. Who decides what the right religion is, or the right church, or what sermons are acceptable? Where is the line drawn? Should public officials feel compelled to walk out of church whenever a minister says something that some special interest group may be offended by? This whole manufactured controversy is absurd. What issues aren't we talking about while wasting time on this witch hunt? Shame on every pundit, reporter, editor and commentator who helped carry on this this farce.
America faces serious challenges, this is the most important election in my life time. Can we please get back to looking at the people who are actually running for office and discuss issues relevant to running the country?
MC: Talk about hypocracy!!!
But, I can assure, I thought the brouhaha about Mitt Romney's religion was shameful. I didn't support Mitt Romney because of his politics, and because he was a "moist index finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing" kind of guy. In short, a perfectly coiffed phony.
Romney's religion had nothing to do with my lack of support for, or trust in, the man.
If the truth be told, the whole issue of religion in American politics today has gotten way out of hand.
I view the bipartisan political class of today as a bunch of old time Pharisees, touting their piety and religiosity in a cynical attempt to curry political favor with a gullible electorate.
I keep waiting for a more humble, less self righteous Publican to come along to vote for but, so far, they're all playing the holier than thou card with often reckless abandon.
It's really all pretty nauseating.
You people will just not accept responsibility even for what you say. If what Wright said isn't important to this election then I don't know why we're bothering to have one. Franklin Roosevelt said "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" Wright said " God bless America?, No God Damn America" and Mr Obama listened to that crap for 20+ years. It didn't seem to bother him until it became an election issue.
The only one responsible for Rev Wright's comments is Rev. Wright himself, not Barack Obama. I could care less about Mitt Romney's Mormonism and I agree that attacks on his faith were wrong. Interestingly, those attacks came, mostly, from conservative Christians. My beef with Romney stemed from two issues. First, he was governor of a state he clearly despised populated by people who, for the most part, held political and cultural beliefs in contradiction to his own. Mr Romney viewed this dichotomy not as a call to build consensus based coalitions to govern effectively, he saw it as a chance to pad his resume and stick his finger in the eye of democrats and the left. If there is a definition of a modern day carpetbagger, it's Mitt Romney.
Second, I cannot trust anyone who, once caught in a bald faced lie, tries to convince people that his lie is the truth. Romney's "I saw my father march with Dr Martin Luther King" statement can mean only one thing, a. Mitt's dad actually marched with Dr King and b. Mitt was there to witness it with his own eyes. Both of those two assertions were complete fabrications. Romney's tortured attempts to prove that he did see his father march with dr king since he was aware that his father supported dr king were as painful to watch as they were infuriating. Speaking of tortured....there is a 3rd reason why I couldn't support Romney. His insistence that we should "double Guantanamo" as well as jack up the defense budget to 4% of GDP showed Romney to be an even bigger war monger than Bush.
The Reverend Wright, no doubt ran off at the mouth. Just as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the Reverend Hagee have done in the name of religion and American values.
John McCain has yet to repudiate Hagee's claim that the anti-Christ's throne awaits him inside the walls of the Vatican.
The Reverend Hagee has called Catholicism a "whore" of a religion, yet John McCain, with a wink and a nod, distances himself from such remarks but remains grateful for Hagee's endorsement. McCain desperately needs the Christian jihadists to win the general election!
GW Bush catered to the bigoted rantings of the likes of Falwell and Robertson because Karl Rove told him it was in his political best interests to do so.
Mr. Carlson, I no more buy Reverend Wright's assertion that 9-11 wa the result of US foreign policy than I bought Robertson's assertion it happened because the US has grown more tolerant of gays, feminists, and God only knows who else Roberston finds offensive.
They both indulged in excessive hyperbole as they preached to a certain audience.
Barack Obama, like George W. Bush, just sat silent in the face of such bipartisan, theological lunacy because it was the course of least resistance.
But, unlike Robertson and his hateful, anti-American rhetoric, at least the Reverend Wright, all his oratical failings aside, has a track record of truly helping those in his congregation , and he's not grown filthy rich in the name of Christ.
If anyone believes Mr. Wright's remarks were a one time speech, then you are living in a fantasy land.
As a lifelong practicing Catholic, I have yet to hear my current pastor (or any of my past pastors) spout off on what a terrible country the U.S.A. is. Also, I'm pretty used to Catholic bashing. It appears to be quite trendy as of late.....
What none of these incompetents running for political office seem to realize is people want to hear how they are planning on fixing the problems in this country, not flowery speeches about hope and change. That's great, you believe in hope and change, but where exactly do you stand on the issues and what are your plans for changing things??? And what are you planning on changing????
Hope and change don't mean diddly without a real plan.....
Grow a spine and tell the people what you really think. I would like to know the candidates positions on national security, the war, illegal immigration, and taxes, and how they are planning on instituting their respective positions. Is that so much to ask?????
Happy Monday, everyone!
First of all, you're assuming that the Reverend Wright preached such excesssive nonsense on a regular basis.
He, obviously, went around the bend on a few occassions but that doesn't mean he did it all the time.
I am a Catholic and find John McCain's reluctance to forcefully denounce the vile anti-Catholicism the Rev. Hagee preaches, all because McCain needs the crazy, bible thumping Christian jihadists who dominate so much of the GOP, every bit as offensive as Barack Obama not speaking out in opposition to the Reverend Wright's rhetorical excesses.
But, just so you know, I have sat in a Catholic church and heard a priest denounce the US government in no uncertain terms.
That priest was my cousin who returned to the Merrimack Valley in the 1980's to educate parishioners about the shameful enabling by the Reagan/Bush administration of some of the most despicable, neo-fascist, murderous, right wing regimes in Latin America.
He never denounced America. He simply denounced the policies of the American administration in power at the time.
I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding the frequency of Mr. Wright's comments. I have a strong feeling this was the norm for his sermons, not an occasional rant.
And as far as your cousin, the priest, I would have removed myself from the parish altogether and confronted the pastor. In fact, I have done so in the past. I left the parish my family belonged to for 3 generations because of the rantings and personal attacks of the pastor at the time. However, his rants and personal attacks had nothing to do with politics or racism.
I confronted this priest and told him what I thought of his arm twisting and personal attacks in no uncertain terms.
He was an unbalanced individual who has since been removed from his position and replaced with a wonderful man.
I have no love for John McCain. While I have a deep respect for his military service and sacrifice, I don't think he is mentally or physically fit for the rigors of the presidency. He is no republican, at least in my book.
No matter who ends up in office, it'll be a repeat of either the Clinton/Carter administrations or the Bush administration. Either way, this country is in serious trouble.