Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama throws Trinity UCC under the bus

undercarriage Baltimore Sun:

CNN is reporting this afternoon that Sen. Barack Obama is leaving Trinity United Church of Christ, his longtime religious home on Chicago's South Side and a place that has triggered repeated controversies during his presidential bid.

Well. I don't blame him, actually. I was riding around town on the bus today, and they play talk radio. They were playing Pfleger over and over again, and it did not sound good. It would take the super-best-est speech EVAH to get out of that one.

So, indeed, foutre le camp could considered the indicated procedure.

Were it not for the fact that the Republicans are going to play the tape over and over again anyhow.

See how important vetting can be?

NOTE Think Obama can get the $26,270 he gave Trinity in 2007 back? It hardly seems fair that they should keep it, and I'm betting his campaign is going to need the money very shortly....

0
No votes yet

Comments

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

It would be a good match. Obama fits right in with the GOP crowd. They have similar interests.

------------------------------------------------
“Rules are not necessarily sacred,
principles are.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Swift Loris's picture
Submitted by Swift Loris on

...to tell her about this, and just as I was about to hit Send, I looked at my subject line again: "Obama Resigns from Trinity."

If only...!

Submitted by lambert on

and in fact I thought a lot of what he said was quite sensible. But Pfleger? Uh-uh. Mocking Hillary from the pulpit? I don't think so. Vetting counts....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by hipparchia on

people would do well to listen to him, even if they don't like his preaching style.

pfleger otoh is repulsive enough that even i can't be bothered to listen to him.

joc's picture
Submitted by joc on

but didn't Obama just tell us that he spent the last twenty years sitting in a church which, now that he is running for President, he finds unacceptable? And this is the guy that is supposed to be so politically talented? He better hope the press is there to help him on this one, because the Republicans are going to be like sharks smelling blood in the water.

Which McCain attack do you think will have more resonance?

1. Barack Obama is the sort of person who throws his decade long friendships under the bus after only a month or two of bad press, rather than stand-up and fight for them?

2. Barack Obama is the kind of guy who takes his kids to an ideologically extreme church (where they call on God to damn America and preach that everyone should be forced give up their 401k's or be called a racist), and is trying to run away from his true beliefs?

Submitted by brucedixon on

While the first is closer to the truth, the second is the most useful for Republicans, and will be very useful against brutha O.

He has chosen to run a right-leaning campaign, same as every Democrat since Dukakis, instead of trying to move the conversation, the consciousness of the nation to the left. All Repubs have to do then, is show the fence sitters that Obama is not as conservative as he pretends to be.

Obama will be running away from every progressive stand on every issue possible to combat this, so Trinity UCC will not be the last thing he flings under the campaign bus. Get ready for it.

The fact is, what are looked at as Wright's transgressions are pretty much the run of the mill opinion, the common wisdom of African Americans across the land. That is what Obama has to divorce himself from. Remember during his initial denunciation of Wright after the National Press Club, Obama equated Wright's assertion that the US practices "state terror" abroad with "hate speech". With that, Obama allied himself with a view of America that is deeply at odds with that held by most African Americans. But thanks to the MSM and other factors, most of us black folk seem willing to give the guy a break, even as he disowns us, even as he has made a career of doing so.

Sad. And sick.

In fairness, they would have run substantially the same campaign against Hillary, though. Both of them are weak candidates, even against McCain, which shows how profoundly rotten at the core our political and media system is.

Bruce Dixon
www.blackagendareport.com

Submitted by lambert on

Good to see you. Surely the "political" system and the "media" system are now a single system? Symbiotic, we might say. I mean, the press could hardly be picking our President for us if they weren't totally integrated into the political system, eh?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

cal1942's picture
Submitted by cal1942 on

"and again—-totally reactive, and totally weak.

Right you are amberglow.

A decision 20 years in the making.

If he's the nominee the GOP will have a field day.

Submitted by lambert on

Heck, at my standard baseline of $30 a month for food (not counting the latte)...

Well, suffice to say I could live a long time on the pocket change Obama threw UCC's way.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

Wasn't Obama's book a reflection on all the goodness he learned at Trinity United?
What's he gonna call his book now?

And I sure as f*ck do not agree with one damned thing that a-hole Wright ever said. He's a disgraceful, anti-white racist. I seriously do not understand how anyone, regardless of skin color could agree with anything he says. I know there are alot of far left wingers who suffer from white guilt, but I definitely do not.

When Wright was humping the lectern and bashing the Clintons, it was the exact same thing that Pfleger got in trouble for. In fact, I got into arguments with Obama supporters when Pfleger came out and defended Wright back then. All the Obama supporters were saying "See, there was nothing offensive about what Wright said because a white Catholic Priest says it's all OK", to which I replied that Pleger was another far left wing nutjob, just like Wright. I bet you can guess that that did not sit too well with the Obama crew. But who was right? You guessed it!

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I read the piece at your website on this point and thought it was very insightful at the time. Democrats get pushed to the right this way anyway. If it's a person of color or a woman, it's going to be even worse because it's so much easier to portray them as "other" because there are all the racist and sexist stereotypes to rely on in addition to the usual right-wing framing. I think that's especially true when you have a guy like Obama who isn't well-known from years in the public eye. Easier to project what you want on a guy who is a blank slate to a lot of people. And then as he protests what they project, he'll move further right. Then they'll show how that differs from his record and the damage will be done.

Other than the anti-Hillary rants, which I thought had sexist undertones, I never had any real problems with most of the substance of Wright's remarks. Or rather, to the extent I disagreed, none of it was half as offensive as what a lot of white preachers on the right peddle. I feel the same way about Farrakhan. I think he's something of an asshole, but that doesn't make him wrong about everything and he's hardly as noxious as, say, Hagee. And, yet, every election Democrats are expected to denounce Farrakhan. It may be good politics, but it's still wrong. I think the media missed the real Hagee story which wasn't about John McCain, it was about the fact that there are preachers like Hagee out there spewing that noxious shit from the pulpit every Sunday and they have rather large followings.

My big problem related to Wright has always been that I thought Obama handled it badly as a political matter and it would do long-term damage. He's been in reactive mode the entire time and that's almost never good in politics. His resigning from Trinity doesn't solve his "problem." Because he's already defended Trinity and he stayed 20 years. The whole thing just makes him look weak and, even worse given the campaign he's running, like just another politician.

I agree with you that his best bet was to have gotten out in front on this and talked honestly about African American anger and history. Good politics does sometimes flow from good principled stands. Sure, he may have lost, but he might not have. And this whole thing could cause him to lose in the end anyway. Only now he doesn't even have principles to fall back on.

But what do I know? I still think he should've gone to the hills of West Virginia and Kentucky, admitted he had little in common with the people there culturally but talked to them about their shared hopes and how his policies would help them economically and how even if he wasn't like them, he would still fight for them. What can I say? I'm a liberal who wants a leader who is about lifting the poor and oppressed up. I'm not going to get one, but I keep wanting it anyway.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

but it shows Obama has what it takes to throw his big donors under the bus should the necessity arise.

Submitted by lambert on

Throwing somebody under the bus you gave $27,000 is different throwing somebody under the bus that gave $27,000 to you, isn't it?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

So no throwing them under the bus!

This one's true for all pols, btw. Not just Obama, but it certainly includes Obama.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

if Amnesty International or someone else gets a warrant for arrest for war crimes, and a big donor can no longer travel anywhere in the European Union, Obama may very well throw him under the bus.

same with a Hedge Fund that gets into legal trouble, under the bus they go

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

As a Chicagoan, "I greatly resemble that remark."

Yes, things do sometimes get to be a bit raw in Chicago, no doubt about it. People tend to wear it on their sleeves a little more. When, fifteen years ago, I moved out of the city into a nearby suburb, I noticed that "everyone" was "liberal" but their liberalism was skin deep. You'd never hear the "n-word" but with some (not all) it wasn't far from the surface. In Chicago you'd hear both the n-word and tenacious resistance to it. While the rest of the country was at best tepidly resisting Reaganomics in the 1980's, in Chicago, we were FIGHTING it. It's not often remembered now but the great movement that brought Harold Washington to the mayoralty was initially fueled by a tremendous voter registration drive in the previous year which was motivated not by identity politics but by opposition to Reagan. Better "Beirut on the Lake" than passive acceptance of Reaganomics.

Which brings me to Michael Pfleger. His comments about Hillary Clinton were indefensible and repugnant. I won't defend them. He deserves the muzzling by the archdiocese, and the "under the bus throw" by Barack Obama.

I will, however, defend the man and his history. He's been there when others have not. White suburban sports leagues suddenly want to drop the inner city schools from their schedules? Pfleger's the man for that job. He's the man for running programs for the disadvantaged African-Americans left stranded by deindustrialization. Whites may be tired of being guilt-tripped, but sometimes a spade needs to be called a spade. Is his rhetoric sometimes overblown? Obviously.

He's a white man who has chosen to throw in his lot with Black people. Maybe he thought as a white man he could get away with crap a Black man couldn't. It was wrong, and it was indefensible. In Chicago, we've learned to take the bad of Pfleger along with the good. And somehow we manage to live together.

But people, "all that Chicago shit" is just the other side of the coin of "all that hillbilly shit" you guys righteously condemned the OFB for in W.Va and Ky. Both are the Democratic Party's cross to bear in any election. Whether Obama or Clinton is the nominee, it has to be faced.

Isn't a bit defeatist, after all, to say that the Republicans are just going to hit "all that Chicago shit" and therefore we're doomed?

I agree with Bruce, above:

In fairness, they would have run substantially the same campaign against Hillary, though. Both of them are weak candidates

A Democrat's life is not an easy one.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and all Obama-related--from Palmer and Daley/machine shit, to Farrakhan and Wright and Ayers and Dorn and Rezko and Auchi and Phleger and all of it.

You guys are way dirtier than us in NY--in multiple ways--and Obama's totally entwined with all of it.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

to run on---no issues, no more "bring people together", no accomplishments, etc---and insults and derision of millions of Democratic voters who already don't like him.

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

Just a little rawer and more rough-edged. There are no corrupt politicians in New York? There are no obnoxious radicals? Annoying religious figures? Isn't Al Sharpton a New Yorker?

Please.

You mention Ayers and Dohrn. What should have been done with them? Who knows? It was long ago. What did happen was that they beat the rap for their crimes and were rich enough to have connections that "rehabilitated" them back into the mainstream. Even Mayor Daley issued a statement defending their later life and work, which has not been the work of Weathermen. Sure, they're idiots for not repenting any of their youthful stupidity, but what does it all mean, really?

You see, that's another thing the Washington period did for us here in Chicago, we got over the sixties. Many sixties radicals got integrated into the system during that time. On the whole it's been more good than bad.

Sure the GOP will try to tar Dems with "the sixties". But overcoming that is part of "shoving the Overton Window leftward." We don't need to emulate the sixties, but we need to stop being ashamed of them.

\

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that doesn't mean we're clean--

what you have done there is institutionalized and welcomed all those people that are toxic in national elections--and what Obama has done is played with all of them--and has money connections (thru fundraising or grants or programs, etc) with all of them.

We don't have Black Panthers in our "establishment" here. We don't have politicians going to FALN homes for fundraisers. We don't have the slimy gatekeepers you have--whether they're accepted there or not.

Unrepentant bombers are not acceptable to Americans--it's like as if McCain went to Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph's houses for fundraising.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

ever spout that kind of racist shit from the pulpit or on the streets that we've all seen from Wright, Phleger, Farrakhan and others in Chicago.

Submitted by brucedixon on

That's not a bad thing, of course. I was in the Illinois Chapter of the BPP myseff during 1969-1970. An SEIU 1199 leader in NYC, Bruce Richards was also in the BPP in Oakland.

You have a lot of old standup movement folks in NYC and thereabouts who are still doing the work, and are in positions of authority and responsibility. And again, that's a good thing.

Bruce Dixon
www.blackagendareport.com

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and even back then, politicians didn't hold fundraisers in their homes, or need those people's support to get elected.

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

"Sharpton, Butts and others never ever ever spout that kind of racist shit from the pulpit or on the streets that we’ve all seen from Wright, Phleger, Farrakhan and others in Chicago."

Excuse me, but how do you know this? Do you attend their churches and monitor everything that's said there? Wright, Pfleger, and others are merely doing what they've always done, but suddenly they're under a microscope they're not used to and not ready for the wider scrutiny.

I'm sure that if this microscope were turned on Sharpton, it would not look all that different. But he isn't as relevant today so he toils in relative obscurity. When the microscope was turned his way, I don't recall him looking all that great.

And would there be a market for the Sharptons, the Wrights, and the Pflegers if there weren't myriad legitimate opportunities for black people to be offended?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Butts does not preach against white people--he doesn't rile up racial animosity to preach--there's no need to.

Phleger exactly imitated Wright--why is that? And why did he mock Clinton as "whitey" DURING A CONVERSATION ON RACE at that church?

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

Which I said from the beginning.

I'm defending my city which you have attacked without basis. You guys were all over it when Kentucky and West Virginia were attacked and you were right. But now you're doing the same thing, and I won't let it go unchallenged.

"Phleger (sic) exactly imitated Wright".

Excuse me? I'm not aware of Wright's ever having said anything about Hillary Clinton one way or the other. So what did this imitation consist of other than making remarks that greatly offended you? (And you can't repeat this stuff too often, offended me).

And now are you comparing remarks made on preachers' broadcast TV shows with remarks made in other contexts? You cannot know what goes on in a particular set of churches unless you or someone else goes there and listens to what is said.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I’m not aware of Wright’s ever having said anything about Hillary Clinton

To quote Wright:

"Hillary Clinton ain't never been called a nigger!! Hillary Clinton ain't never had to work twice as hard, to get where she is!!"

Now, the first line is true, she's never been called a nigger, but she has been called hateful names that serve the purpose of denigrating her as a human being, because she's a woman. And the second line is total horse shit.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Submitted by brucedixon on

--- it's not off the wall "total horse shit"

--- is a piece of internal black dialog, something I and my siblings, and every black person I know was told by their parents, which I and every parent has told their black kids, and which I am afraid I must tell my grandchildren too, that goes like this ---

"As long as you're black in America, you can expect to have to work twice as hard to get and stay wherever you are as any white person... It was just a way of saying, less long-windedly than Father Pfleger, that Hillary was a beneficiary of white skin privilege.

It's amazing to me that so much of Black America's internal dialog, when opened up to the ears of white America, is perceived as "total horse shit" or even "racist". I've even heard TUCC denounced as a "racist" institution because they identified themselves as a "black church", as if it was some collective black decision to segregate ourselves on the south and west sides of Chicago and a like ghetto in every city and town in the nation.

Same planet, I guess, but different worlds.

So I guess for a black person to point out the existence of racism, or to accuse in any way any white person of being a beneficiary of white skin privilege is racist, no?

Bruce Dixon
www.blackagendareport.com

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Hillary Clinton hasn't benefited from white privilege. But can you name any woman with Obama's resume, who wouldn't be laughed off the debate stage? Or that a man with Clinton's resume wouldn't have closed this out by now?

Wright denigrated Clinton, her achievements and her struggles, in an attempt to emphasize that she hasn't struggled as black people have(neither has Obama, IMO, though I grant he has suffered in ways I a white woman never will). He didn't have to do that. Clinton has struggled. I think it could be fair to say, the fact that she is still in the public forum, when all the media and the Republicans wanted in 1992, was for the bitch to just go away, she has certainly struggled more that Obama.

That's why the second line is total horse shit. That line denigrated her struggles, her successes despite the obstacles before her.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Submitted by lambert on

Does Obama throwing UCC under the bus make him more fit to be President, or less? Will it affect his election chances favorably, unfavorably, or not at all?

Interesting though I do find all the distractions....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

It doesn't reflect on his fitness to be President one way or the other. He should be judged on his beliefs, not on those of others with whom he is or was associated.

Will it hurt his chances?

Probably not, at least not compared to the endless distraction caused to his message by this church and the media coverage it would have received had it continued.

It was conceivable that the Wright remarks would have derailed his candidacy. It didn't. The connection to Pfleger is less strong, so why would it?

But we won't know for sure until this thing is over.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

ppl all over the country in every state since it came up have mentioned it. most if not all polls since have asked about it too.

This is about Obama's beliefs--Wright is who gave him belief. Phleger is who he has a long association with as well--monetarily as part of his jobs too.

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

I stand corrected. Evidently Wright did say something about Clinton.

I still don't see how this constitutes an instance of Pfleger "imitiating" him.

Submitted by lambert on

He got himself into this mess. He's the one who keeps having "preacher eruptions". And how does resigning from Trinity fit with this from Teh Greatest Speech EVAH:

Why not join another church? ... That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright.

If Obama stood on principle then, he should stand on principle now. He isn't. He's an empty suit. He has no core. As we see from the way he's conducted his campaign.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

And you, of course, would have praised him had he stood his ground? Somehow I don't think so.

Yes, this is a problem for Obama. Yes, the Republicans are good at coming up with these kinds of issues. What serious Black candidate has ever not been placed under a microscope? Pretend none of this exists, if you like, but it's sort of a recurrent theme. Jackie Robinson, even as he led the way to integrating Major League Baseball had to bite his tongue for two years.

Interestingly enough, many UCC parishioners seem to understand this.

And yes, Hillary Clinton will have to face similar kinds of music if she were somehow to prevail and get the nomination. Other than MSNBC, the MSM has been laying off her in recent months, as her fortunes have declined. It will all start back up if the situation changes.

Suck it up and keep on fighting. It's all any of us can do.

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

What you've said needs to be said.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

What the Pfelger video does is document the culture of the congregation, and speak directly to the heart of Obama's character. It shows not just Pfleger's behavior but that of the congregation itself, the congregants standing, applauding, cheering on, Pfleger's abhorent behavior - and it was abhorent.

The congregants did not sit in shocked silence. They did not shout out disapproval. They did not meet afterwards with the church elders and demand that Pfleger be rebuked. No, they didn't do any of that; rather, they endorsed him.

What the Pfleger performance will do is confirm in the minds of many that the congregation to which Barak Obama has belonged for 20 years is not warm and nurturing but denegrative and destructive. That may or may not be true, but it is what will be seen to be true.

Leaving the church, as Obama himself immdiately saw was required, will likely not be enough. For 20 years he was comfortable there. Comfortable as a member of a congregation that applauds the nastiest sort of public denegration of a perfectly decent woman, a twice-elected sitting United States Senator, former First Lady of the United States, and the popular choice of the voters of the Democratic Party as the next President of the United States of America.

Actions that should make the crudest bigot cringe with shame were not just everyday occurences in this congregation but the subjects of applause and cheering and universal acclaim and approval. No speech will be enough to distance himself from 20 years of association, of fellowship, of congregation. This little problem with his church could well be the beginning of the end of the Obama candidacy. It should be.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Women and blacks have had unreasonable standards of "acceptability" put upon us, but Wright in an attempt to demonize her to the AA community, tried to take that away from her. That's why its horse shit.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Submitted by brucedixon on

You're calling it "demonizing" to point out that there IS a double standard.

With that kind of rule, blacks are always the troublemakers for pointing out that there is indeed a problem here.

I guess the only safe thing for us black folks to do is to "transcend race" and keep white folks comfortable in their unearned privilege by never mentioning it, except as cute cultural references --- like when Opha uses ebonics every so often, or to agree with you. That's what whites call "transcending race", isn't it?

Bruce Dixon
www.blackagendareport.com

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Like he is pointing out the double standards that AA's are held to, while totally disavowing the double standards women are held to. I think it is possible to recognize the oppression of one group in our society, without ignoring the oppression of others.

I've never called Wright racist, a "troublemaker"(in a bad way as you seem to imply), and have never said that we need to "transcend race" to make white people comfortable. Please stop ascribing that to me in your responses.

White people need to be uncomfortable. We need to see more people like Wright(just please leave out the sexism and AIDS conspiracies next time!). White people will wriggle in their chairs and whine, "Why are black people still so angry?" They will do it because they don't see that we still live in an unequal society. So we will have to show them, again and again and again, that we do. And yes, it will make white people uncomfortable. And yes, white people will say and act ways that people who are uncomfortable are wont to do, like when you do when your kid interrupts you on the toilet.

And please, stop treating your allies as if we are just all another type of hater.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

does in fact silence them, and does not show anyone anything--except for the cowardice of candidates, and whether their relationship is stronger than some voters' comfort levels or not.

Submitted by hipparchia on

wrong whatever... the standards are deliberately set to keep as many 'others' as possbile out of whatever the existing power structure is.

as far as the oppression olympics goes, in my county i'd say that on the whole, white women fare better than blacks of either sex, especially higher up on the income ladder, but there are subgroups [for lack of a better term] where being a male of any color generally trumps being a female of any color.

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

Lambert has said the problem is that Obama hasn't stood up for his church and is too willing to throw them under the bus.

Others of you have said that the problem is that what Pfleger and Wright have said are deeply outrageous. The Clinton campaign has also expressed this sentiment:

The Clinton campaign at first had no comment, then Thursday evening said Obama did not go far enough in distancing himself from Pfleger. "Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counterproductive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics," said a statement issued by Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "We are disappointed that Senator Obama didn't specifically reject Father Pfleger's despicable comments about Senator Clinton, and assume he will do so."

Please explain to me how both of these sentiments form a consistent political viewpoint and not just an anti-Obama animus.

Submitted by brucedixon on

Which is why I subscribe to the first critique of Obama, but not the second one.

The two critiques are indeed incompatible, and evidence of a narrow partisanship that sees everything through a pro-Hlllary lens, just as distorted as any used by the Obamabots.

Thank you, sTiVo for pointing that out.

Bruce Dixon
www.blackagendareport.com

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Is the new rule that everyone has to agree on just one reason to be upset with Obama over this? Is the problem for you that having people be upset over more than one thing at a time is more than Obama's supporters can handle? We should have stayed in single file? How rude of us.

Your candidate has a big problem here. If you have some way of supporting him trot it out. Getting all huffy because he's getting it from more than one side will not cut it.

What can Obama do to make this right? I'm open, convince me, but on reflection this looks very, very bad. Untwist your knickers and explain how this goes forward. Please.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Does Obama throwing UCC under the bus make him more fit to be President,

yes

it should not have been asked of him, but his willingness to do so indicates an eye to the main chance.

I am just not upset by the whole Trinity UCC controversy, maybe because I am UCC.

Submitted by hipparchia on

i can see how throwing tucc under the bus makes whites more comfortable with obama, like bruce says, and therefore more attractive to white voters, but i can't see that this makes him more fit to be president.

sTiVo's picture
Submitted by sTiVo on

These are not two separate issues. You're trying to argue opposite sides of the same issue and lay it all on Obama. Yeah, I'm calling bullshit.

Well, it's been a pleasant Sunday afternoon, folks, I'll be leaving now, but I'll be sure to read your replies later.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Be sure to come back when you have an answer. Look forward to it.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I am too lazy to dig it up, but somewhere there is a photo of Rev Wright at the White House. It has really got to hurt, it was OK for him to be wall paper for Bill Clinton in his hour of political need, but now HRC says that "she would not have gone to church there.

The more I think about this, the more hurtful it becomes.

For decades white Democrats have gone to black churches and asked for votes, what are the chances of that ever happening again? Were I a black minister, I don't think I would be entertaining any white Democrats anytime soon.

The attacks on Wright and Trinity UCC have been unbelievably shortsighted.

it is all very sad.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

it’s ones where the candidate has a long relationship and/or monetary connection—and they’re on his official campaign advisory committees, etc.

why would a black clergyman invite a white politician into his church in the knowledge that that same politician would vilify him and his church in the event that a member of his congregation might challenge that politician at some future date?

But it is even deeper than that, it is the whole notion of being used. They might not be OK with playing stepping stones for white politicians.

there has been a good deal about female anger at the way this election has unfolded. There is also a great deal of black anger too.

Suppose somehow Hillary does pull this out, then what?

I am feeling very discouraged all the way around.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

The criticism of Obama that he should've defended the church or that he should've left it long ago seem to me to be one and the same. The two criticisms of Obama coalesce around one main idea and it's a political one - that Obama now appears to have no principles with regard to his church and that's what is going to hurt him more than the church itself.

Because if he was comfortable in the church for 20 years, then he should defend it. If he wasn't, then he should've quit a long time ago. But he didn't quit even though he now claims to be dismayed by what's happening there. So either he's lying about being dismayed or he stayed in a church whose beliefs conflict with his own, presumably for political reasons. Two sides of the same coin - Obama's words/actions don't match his beliefs. Or as Jeremiah Wright put it, he's a politician. Which might not be so damaging if so much of his campaign weren't built around arguing he's not just another politician.

The two choices open to Obama that would've shown him not to be an unprincipled politician were: 1) quitting 20 years ago or 2) defending it now. He chose neither course and now is stuck in the politically uncomfortable position of either being a liar or someone who is comfortable with the stuff spewing from Trinity. Or actually, he'll probably be portrayed as both since he has repeatedly claimed he didn't know a lot of what had been said.

And to add to what Aeryl said, I think she's absolutely right that a lot of things should be said that make whites uncomfortable. I have no problem with that and, in fact, think it would be a very good thing. I would only add that a lot of things need to be said that make men, of all colors, uncomfortable as well. Because privilege comes in a variety of packages within both the larger society as a whole and in specific sub-cultures.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

ABC News reports that on the same day Pfelger gave his sermon mocking Clinton at Trinity, he also gave a sermon at his own church in which he said "America is the greatest sin against God." He then goes on to explain that he means racism, which is endemic to America. I don't have a problem with the idea that racism is endemic to America or that it is a sin against God (if I believed in God), but I do think it's rather America-firstish to think that that particular sin happens only in America or that it's somehow worse when it happens in this country. So that America isn't just a sin against God because of its racism or even committing the greatest sin against God, America itself is the "greatest" sin against God. I guess whether we're the worst or the best, we're still exceptional.

Maybe this "issue" will fade and it's still in the news because he just resigned Friday (and do you really resign from a church? I'm not criticizing, I'm asking having never been a member of any church myself. Yes, I know that makes me a bad person).