Okay here we go. I will respond to your points.
1. I think Obama has addressed the Revs comments. He gave a very honest speech on the topic. You also mistake his possible strategy. Perhaps it was politically prudent for him to align himself with this Rev.
Don't forget that he needs black votes and to hang this guy out to dry to appeal to the far right would lose him more votes than he would win.
To simplify for you: take the parallel of John McCain bashing Pat Robertson and Falwell and now flip flopping to support and even speak at Liberty University. He made the same political calculation that it would gain him more votes and people who are alienated by his about face were not going to vote for him anyway.
2. On your second point I am not sure what you mean by purge ? Kill? Ignore? I again assume you wish for the same for the Christian Right leaders who spew the same vitriolic hate. If your point is to remove the extremists on both sides then I would agree with you but it is not very likely to occur in a free society.
3. Not sure what your point is here. If you are comparing a Hollywood movie to a black man running for the Presidency giving a landmark speech on race in our country then I am not sure how to respond.
I am not sure you want to go down the road of using Hollywood offerings to defend your arguments.
4. I have to disagree again with you. I think even you would admit that Obama cannot win the White House without significant white voting support. If anything, I think the right wingers have not had to appeal to any minorities .
1. No doubt it was politically prudent to align himself with the Reverend. He wouldn?t be hanging him out to dry for the far right, he would hang him out to dry from everyone from the intellectual left rightward. I?d hope most blacks are equally offended by the Reverends comments.
As for McCain, to an extent I agree. However, Obama?s poor judgment for TWENTY years comes to question. He married Obama, baptized his children, was his mentor and political advisor, and inspired the title for his book. This wasn?t a short term political marriage. Again, if he can?t confront his twenty year mentor and closest confidant on such outrageous statements, his conviction to stand up to true enemies and threats (while cutting off other friendly conversations) rings hollow.
2. By purge, I mean purge them from the conversation. It was pretty clear that I didn?t mean kill them since I said in the same way Duke was purged. And yes, that goes for both sides. As for the free society comment, I don?t expect brown shirts to muzzle them, I expect their credibility and newsworthiness on par with fortune tellers, witch doctors and chiropractors.
3. My point is that while the speech was a good one, it wasn?t the starter pistol to a discussion on race relations. We have a black history month, Katrina,
The Bell Curve, OJ?s trial, endless University classes, and literally the entire history of our country discussing race relations. Jefferson?s phrases and Franklin?s early and open opposition to slavery should at least get the nod to the US? first discussion on race. My comment on
Crash addresses the fact that Hollywood, not exactly early adopters, already awarded an Oscar to a film that took an honest look at race relations and election cycle ago. I?d expect our politicians to be initiating the discussions, not taking their cues from Hollywood. Most clamoring for a new conversation are more longing for offering instruction.
4. Are you familiar with the VRA? At inception, districts were drawn towards race, allowing for more minorities in Congress. To redraw these districts, for whatever reason, shifts the burden of proof on the state to show that it will not have a discriminatory effect. It gives sweeping power and precedent to the courts to maintain black districts as black districts. While it was believed to have been necessary at the time, and there are arguments both ways, it has undoubtedly hurt black politicians in the long run. Black politicians are getting their start in such districts, but to carry them, they are forced to appeal to the blackest common denominator. The blackest common denominator isn?t anywhere near mainstream and the formula doesn?t work in a general election.
As for Obama, of course he needs white support to get to the WH. The problem is he?s hampered by his patronizing of the black districts. As you know, Obama lost a primary to Rush because he was perceived not ?black enough?. In a normally distributed district, he would have distanced himself long, long ago from Wright and his rhetoric. In the southside Chicago district, as the pastor of a 10,000 member church, Wright?s support was necessary. The exact criteria necessary for his start in politics could prove to be his undoing. What is really scary is that there is a 10,000 member church bedrocked on Wright?s comments and Cone?s book that espouses "the destruction of the white enemy." Let?s have an honest discussion about that. Edit - do I beleive Obama espouses those views? Of course not. Will he suffer politically for them? I sure as hell hope he's held accountable.
