“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Wait, did I miss the part where he said “unless the content of their character reveals them to be an intolerant homophobe, a bigot, or kind of a dick, in which case I would really prefer that the content of their character be excused because of the color of their skin”?
Barack says he can’t renounce his whitey-hatin’ minister because that would be like renouncing the whole black community. That makes perfect sense. So what you’re saying is that the next time I hear a white bigot talking shit, I should understand that I can’t renounce his views, because his people have a history of being backwards-ass ignorant crackers and that makes it all OK?
Or is it just African-American bigots that get a free pass from Obama? I thought I understood what he was saying, but now I’m confused. I just want to make sure that all of us wide-eyed liberals are all on the same page.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it wasn’t nice of Barack to say those remarks were inexcusable. I’m just saying I’d have been a little more convinced if he hadn’t followed it up with quite so many excuses.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
It's a spot. It's on the web. It's dead. It's a dead spot on the web.
Feed Someone
Go play FreeRice.
Show off your mighty vocabulary and earn money for the UN World Food Program. It doesn't cost you a dime, and it's already donated a billion grains of rice to the WFP.
I Read Your Blog
Buzz Buzz Buzz
About Me
About You
What Am I Talking About?
- politics (65)
- food (38)
- populah cultchah (36)
- WTF (35)
- metablogging (23)
- administrivia (15)
- crazoid fundies (12)
- language is a virus (12)
- news flash (12)
- declaration of principles (11)
- Duh (10)
- sigh (10)
- soccer (10)
- travel (10)
- geek (9)
- hate (9)
- booze (7)
- cheeky monkey (7)
- music (7)
- school (7)
- robot overlords (6)
- Corinne (5)
- I hate my job (5)
- blame Dale (5)
- kids (5)
- Charleston (3)
- Schadenfreude (3)
- buildings (3)
- dead to deadspot (3)
- despair (3)
- iPod 10 (3)
- road trip (3)
- avatar (2)
- poo (2)
- work (2)
- Eastern (1)
- I'm not bovvered (1)
- John Frum Movement (1)
- Venture Brothers (1)
- bats rule (1)
- darwin (1)
- drugs (1)
- for WP (1)
- genealogy (1)
- haiku for you (1)
- riveting (1)
- spam spam eggs and spam (1)
- this joke would have worked better as a sight gag (1)
- true crime (1)
- unpopulah cultchah (1)
- vox populi (1)
- weather (1)
Why Is Technorati Such Crap?
You Down With TTC?
View blog top tags... or not.
Well, you know me.
Ask For It By Name
Shamelesly Stolen
"It is an open question whether any behavior based on fear of eternal punishment can be regarded as ethical or should be regarded as merely cowardly."
-- Margaret Mead, cultural anthropologist
9 comments:
Food for thought, indeed.
BTW, you've been tagged.
Maybe the minister and Geraldine Ferraro will be on the next season of The Surreal Life together. With Michael Richards, and a special guest appearance by Mel Gibson.
I disagree about Obama's speech. I think his response shows that he is capable of talking to the people of this country in a nuanced and thoughtful way, and not just engage in some kind of ham-handed blanket renouncement that was campaign-correct but emotionally empty.
And, speaking as someone with a whole passel of bigoted relations, I identified with his remarks about his minister. Judging someone by the content of their character does not mean condemning them because their views on race relations come from a different perspective than yours, or are offensive to you. I don't think that Wright is a racist any more than I think that Ferraro is.
I saw, Johnny. I'm working on it.
You know, I almost made a Mel Gibson reference, Becks, but it didn't make the final cut.
I saw part and read the rest, Vikki. I wasn't impressed. I thought it mainly showed that he is capable of making excuses for bigoted evangelicals whether they're bashing gays or white folk.
I was, however, amused that he had the stones to offer up this line:
"We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as
evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that."
My first thought was "We know you can. We've seen you." Remember how they went after Bill for saying that South Carolina had a history of voting for black candidates in the primaries?
Bill's comment was made to lessen Obama's victory by likening him to hot messes like Jesse Jackson. Obama's speech was trying to show that people of different races see this country very differently. While I don't agree with everything Pastor Wright said I have to admit that I'm not one about to run around blessing America as backward as a place that it is.
Personally, I don't think the opinions of people who support any candidate should be taken into account (Bill being an exception because I think he will have a HUGE part in Hillary's presidency). I don't care what Ferraro says. I don't care what pastor Wright says. I care what the candidates say and, to me, Obama said something that needed to be said for some time in this country.
hmmm..
First, Bill's comment was in response to Barack's comment that it had taken two people to beat him, trying to lessen Hillary's victory by implying that people were only voting for her because of Bill.
Second, he has the facts on his side. If, as you say, Jackson is such a hot mess, then how did he win the state twice? Just because a fact is unflattering doesn't make it racist to say it. How often has Obama suggested that white voters will vote for a candidate because the candidate is white? Hell, he did it in this speech. If Obama gets a pass for that, then why doesn't Bill get one for saying that black voters will vote for a black candidate because the candidate is black, especially when he has the facts to back him up? There's a huge double standard here.
Obama engaged in some smack talk about why people were voting for Hillary, Bill responded in kind, and Obama's campaign went straight for the race card.
He can't have it both ways. He can't use race as a cheap way to score points and then turn around and try to grab the moral high ground.
Honestly, I have no idea why Jackson ever won anything. He is such a self-serving pompus fool that I am astonished anyone ever considered him a viable candidate. He had some relevance back in the day but it was long gone by the time he ran for office. I also didn't say Bill's statement was racist. I said it was a way to diminish the victory.
I may have missed something but when Hillary wins something Obama's camp doesn't seem to degrade it in the same way. Sure they say she was expected to win a certain state because of the constituents and that is true. Black people are more likely to vote for Obama, that is also true. Essentially saying "so what, Jackson did it too" is what I had issues with.
I'm sorry, Natalie. I meant to say that Obama's campaign made the implication that Bill's comments were racist, not that you had. I wasn't very clear.
Obama's campaign has actually belittled Clinton's victories many times. Like I said, Bill's comment about Jackson was in response to what Obama had said to diminish her victory. The reporter had asked him about Obama's comments suggesting that Hillary only won because of Bill. When Obama said that it took two people to beat him, he wasn't just saying that her husband was out on the campaign trail. We all know that candidates' spouses always campaign for them, including Obama's.
And remember New Hampshire? When Hillary won, Obama's campaign chair went on national television and accused her of shedding crocodile tears to influence the voters.
I expect campaigns to try to diminish their opponent's victories. They're just trying to keep their own momentum going and keep their opponent from doing the same. It's part of the process. I think it's a little stupid to take swipes at each other in the primaries; they're on the same team... the real opponent is McCain, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination.
That said, leveling accusations of racism where there isn't any is taking it too far (and, because the real ugliness will probably come out in the general election, it's really not a good idea for him to cry wolf now).
Post a Comment