Letters to the Editor
-
@AKA Smith (cont.)
Wow, long tangent and my letter became so long it had to be splt. Anyway, back to what started this, Hillary scoring points on the Wright controversy. Is this a bad thing for the Hillary camp to be pushing? You say, if she wins nomination and general, it is. I disagree. Put aside the fact that this is very unlikely to help her win, unless by winning you mean help Obama to lose in the general and have a better shot in 2012. The problem I am highlighting is that the Wright story is a play on the oriental/exotic/foreignness of black Americans. This is territory normally reserved for Karl Rove, and understandably so. It alienates blacks to the outer fringes of society and plays on that alienation to scoop up white vote, and that move is very favorable to Republicans, (a.k.a. the party of white folk), in national races, (see for example 'What's wrong with Kansas?'). Speaking of which, I don't think it's a winning strategy for Hillary Clinton no matter how you slice it, given how much she will need black vote in swing states were she by some miracle to get the nomination, but that is very much beside the point. The point is that there should be some things that Democrats realize are so harmful to the party (and the nation), that no amount of personal utility can justify them. Do you not agree that in principle, even if you were able to convince yourself that this bettered her chances, that it is too destructive a tactic to condone? I sincerely hope so.
-
Not suggesting the quotes are inaccurate (I have no way of knowing and will assume they are)
But doesn't this strike you as being just a bit contrived, a ginned up controversy and guilt-by-association that's the bread-and-butter of these right-wing running dogs?
Perhaps I should be deeply offended by this reference to the "garlic noses" of my particular ethnicity - which I suppose counts as a slur of sorts - but I find it almost comical that this should register as outrageous.
And I find it somewhat comforting that this piece from last year is the best they can come up with, as I presume the VRWC is now rummaging through every last utterance by Rev. Wright.
What I don't find so comforting is this: the right-wing echo chamber is intruding on progressive politics. Bill Clinton is now a welcome guest on Rush Limbaugh's show, encouraging his dittoheads to corrupt our nominating process. Hillary Clinton chooses the forum of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - the right-wing rag owned by Richard Mellon Scaife, the very face of the VRWC - to attempt to drum more life into the Rev. Wright controversy. And, I'm sorry to say, Joan Walsh's echoing of Karl Rove's talking points on the long, rancorous Democratic primary being "good for Democrats" despite every indication that it is killing us.
I'm beyond dismayed at this point.
-
Sorry for the confusing crossposting lacking the "@"!
My last too-hastily written and un-previewed post was in response to RealityCounts (and I also meant to say I assume the quotes are *accurate*).
-
@Ricardo Have to wonder
If people have gotten carried away at this point. Are the antics of Rev Wright the best way to decide this campaign? Hillary has come out with an economic plan. Obama is giving a speech on economics on Thursday. I'll bet there's going to be some differences between them. Hillary wants to put Greenspan and Rubin on her team. I always liked Rubin's strong dollar policy, but I'm less sure about Greenspan, especially after his bogus ARM advice.
No, let's talk garlic instead One of my favourite fruits!
-
@ Ricardo Malocchio
The point is not whether you think it is ginned up, or whether you are offended. Hard core Obama supporters will not be influenced by these revelations, but hard core Obama supporters are not enough to elect him. And, if this was all that Wright said it probably would be minor. The point is that it is cumulative. This is just one more piece of evidence that Wright's bigotry is pervasive and not just a slip of the tongue. The fact that it is cumulative also makes it harder to believe that Obama was not fully aware of his pastor's positions. I know you don't care about it. I don't much care about it either. I have much bigger problems with Obama that I might post about a little later when I have time to put my thoughts together. The question is not whether you or I care. The question is will the general electorate care. And hiding from it won't make it go away.
-
@RealityCounts
I certainly agree that this must be confronted directly. But I don't agree that Rev. Wright is racist or anti-American. And knowing you just a little bit through your opinions here, I don't think you would find that to be an apt description either. I think if you knew more about the man and the church, you would find the hyperbolic outrage of the conservative punditry to be almost as ridiculous as the "flag pin controversy". Or the "madrassa smear" email.
"Garlic Nose". "Goddamn America". The obviously erroneous claim of the government infecting black Americans with HIV. These are part of his history (again, I'm assuming the "garlic nose" thing even given the source). But they are neither the totality of it, nor majority of that which defines him or Trinity Church.
I can do nothing more but attempt to paint the larger picture. Trinity is a multi-ethnic, multi-class church that openly welcomes the gay community. It is committed to serving the poorest of the poor, and helping those shunned by other church communities. It is Afrocentric, certainly, but hardly some bastion of revolutionary ferver, and mainstream luminaries like Oprah attend its services.
And it has its defenders among the mainstream, people you might consider more worthy of attention than Sean Hannity or Pat Buchanan. For example, did you know that Hillary's pastor has defended Wright and Trinity?
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/deborahwilliams/CpVd
A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream.
To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence.
Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize.
This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth.
Dean J. Snyder, Senior Minister
Foundry United Methodist Church
March 19, 2008