US Elections 2008 - II

[Shambhu]

Mika is Big Z's daughter? Heh! Explains a lot...

[Guest]

Several things that stand out on this episode:

* what offended BO? (i) "Wright's rants" as he put it or (ii) the fact that his campaign's coming undone by Wright's rant?
BO campaign would like to us believe the former. His actions (a bit late) show otherwise.


* BO made that famous race speech not because he wanted to, but because he had to. This little difference was lost on people fawning our 'the great speech'.


* He tip-toed around this issue in previous speech even throwing his grandma under the proverbial bus. And now he's angry after Wright's gone on airwaves. Hard to believe that the dwindling poll numbers did not change his mind.


* At the time of previous race speech, even other Christian evangelicals lent support to Wright and this included Hucakbee - a presidential candidate at that time and a one time pastor.
BO's got to make sure that he doesn't roll Wright under the bus any harder than he already has.

* Black Theology, "difference", need to breakout of the western (white) mold/definitions etc etc have existed in past. Kawanzaa, Jazz etc are have it's own derivative from Western/American customs. Nothing new that cultural difference have existed and persisted since abolition of slavery in US.

If Alan Keyes or Al Sharpton were to running against Hillary/McCain for Presidential spot today, would this been an issue?
If not, why is Wright an issue in this campaign? Because it's exposed the side/character of BO that one's not been presented before. It's put his biggest strength namely his 'judgement' into question? Hard to believe that such as smart man's been hoodwinked for over 20 years now.


* Don't have statistics to back me up, but I trust the largest number of black converts in prison are Islamic. And given relationship of Wright's church with Farrahakhan, Saudi's pumping money into US for Islamic conversion won't make much of a dent. And religious establishment in US aren't as gullible as our Indian govt when it comes to external money coming in - certainly not after 9/11.


* Teflon image of nothing sticking to BO has been pulled down. It's clear that Republicans can even today swift boat if they need to. No one in media other than say Rush/Hannity types have consistently stayed on this issue. It'll be an interesting fall no matter who is the democratic nominee

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->* what offended BO? (i) "Wright's rants" as he put it or (ii) the fact that his campaign's coming undone by Wright's rant?
BO campaign would like to us believe the former. His actions (a bit late) show otherwise.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wright told public that BHO is "politician" not a messiah, no need to faint anymore. Clinton cracked his halo in Ohio and Wright told everyone which "halo". <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Just a drama. To keep his senate seat now he need Wright more than ever. After June Obama will ask for redemption, he sinned etc… <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> He will be next black leader replacing sundry Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. We may see rise of Jesse Jackson Jr. Currently he is adviser to BHO. He must be practicing his speeches.

[ramana]

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Apr 30 2008, 05:02 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Apr 30 2008, 05:02 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Apr 30 2008, 12:12 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Apr 30 2008, 12:12 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->No matter what Rev Wright says. Read this analysis. And see how this gora-saheb turns this race-argument on its head. I would think 100% blacks will have no problems with what Wright said in this matter. But to take this and spin it in completely different direction is really interesting. IOW this para means nothing to blacks. It means nothing to whites. And this person feels good about accusing another one as racist.
[right][snapback]81043[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>I think they (the blacks) are struggling to jettison the defunct normative frameworks of western civilization. The entire episode about "different not deficient" is simply an embrace of eastern relativity. But they are still languishing with christian terminology. </b>

Additionally, they do not want to accept the fact that westerners set the framework and the problem sets, therefore they will not concede any ground at all (eg AIDS and US govt) out of "principle". It maybe something beyond a power struggle and an assertion of presence. Let's see if they can transcend the western frameworks (including libeartion theology) instead of giving over to islam.

Will's essay is an attempt to control these trends and to put the blacks in their "seen but silent" place by resorting to the only thing they can resort to: the power of the definition (eg racism, reverse racism, the "true" learning style, etc). ---See I've defined Wright as racist: case closed. More than one culture, learning style?? aha, that's racist--- But the blacks are struggling to articulate a theory of cultural diversity along heathenish lines. Of course, I may be overreading. These developments may be nothing more than the witzel/nussbaum/liberation theology liberal strains co-opting the black struggles into "the system". Most likely this will be the end result.

(NOI is actually not an islamist org, it is more a black nationalist org. They don't care one way or the other about India, China, heathens, etc.)

Hispanics are also watching. When whites become minority, we see the real fun start. They have their own Evo Morales et al, and stronger claims as well.

Will:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The answer is: Certainly, because Wright's paranoias tell us something -- exactly what remains to be explored -- about his 20-year parishioner.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is a typical christian/western concern. How can someone do something without "believing" in it? Obama himself is struggling to articulate this and the answer is not to be found in the western framework at all.

<b>At the very least, these episodes indicate imperfect integration and a crumbling western grand narrative. Wright's main assertion is that an imposed and normative homogeneity as well as assimilation is not acceptable.</b>
[right][snapback]81063[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Dhu, Interesting comments and insight. Can you expand more? We can now see the whole Civil Rights movement in new light. The Selma march, the NOI, Black Muslims etc. What is interesting is that MLK was able to obtain some recognition only when he adopted non -violence which is not in either of the two paths available to blacks in US.

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+May 1 2008, 02:25 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ May 1 2008, 02:25 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->We can now see the whole Civil Rights movement  in new light. The Selma march, the NOI, Black Muslims etc. What is interesting is that MLK was able to obtain some recognition only when he adopted non -violence which is not in either of the two paths available to blacks in US.
[right][snapback]81112[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So you are saying that Gandhi exported the Eastern framework into the black struggle. If true, this would be quite significant.

Questions like what causes the differences in marching band styles of blacks and whites cannot arise out of the western famework alone; they have to be smuggled in from heathen sources (either pre-slave traditions or Gandhi). -Non-normative ethics cannot arise out of normative ethics-

It is like Ram Swarup remarking that Kancha Illaiha is still acting like a Hindu by making meat-eating the point of comparison between "lower classes" and muslims, rather than the sharing of theological beliefs. Wright no where mentions that Blacks and whites are ideologically non-racist and racist respectively. He examines the situation from the viewpoint of differences in culture, that is, marching band styles, quite heathenish actually.

Per Shelby, the blacks have only two options for action, situated in the white culture:

1. leveraging their mask of subservience (the bug-eyed self-caricaturing of Louis armstrong).
2. excessive combativeness

Both are unnatural and affected postures, especially if you are requierd to live your life like that at all times. (Whites have their own fake smile culture to complement this situatiion). Look at wright NAACP video. he does some bug-eyed gestures, but these are not subservient (?)

Obama is no where near the intelligence level of Wright. According to Shelby, Obama simply chose the "blackest" church he could find in an effort to rediscover his blackness which was denied to him growing up.

The danger, which cannot be overempahsized enough, is that we are overreading the events from our viewpoint; Wright may be doing nothing more than assaulting the western grand narrative (ie religion) of manifest destiny from the viewpoint of a religionist, in the same way that a muslim, for example, refuses to give obeisance to the false idol of a country or a flag. The western grand narrative fits in perfectly with white christianity, but for black christianity it is obviously problematic. That is he may simply be doing theology, rather than trying to explicate an alt framework.

There is no such thing as assimilation anxiety or fake smiles or masking, in the jati culture of asia.

[Shambhu]

Michelle Malkin's turn. Pretty damn straightforward. Damning as this piece is, it is only a very lukewarm preview of what awaits if BO has to face the GOP machine in Fall.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...preacher_o.html

[ramana]

Dhu, I think this is what happened. Bear with me.

Blacks who were enslaved ~ 400 years ago were either animists or Muslims from Africa. Once they were enslaved they had to take up their master's religion that is Nicaean Christianity and its world view. After Civil War and Emancipation they were legally free but economically and socially still enslaved. World War II was turning point as America needed all the men it could muster and there was a great migration from South to the West and non traditional black areas. This started them on road to economic freedom. Along with this the integration of the armed forces brought about social respectability.
The blacks rebelled out of the normative blanket by creating the black church which was quite extensive and provided emotional support to the newly freed African Americans and by reaching out to Islam- Elijah Muhammed and Malcolm X. This movement was quite ineffective for it preached violence and that was something that White America knew how to deal with and did. MLK jr's genius was to adopt and adapt Gandhi's non violence as means to achieve Civil Rights for African Americans. In a couple of years he was able to achieve it. By adapting non-violent means he was able to connect with the black diaspora all over the globe and get empathy for his movement and struggle. It is interesting that it was his adoption of non Abrahamic means of expressing his protest that prevailed over the straitjacket of Biblical doctrine. He prevailed due to the Protestant culture of America. The non -violent means hark back to the time of Jesus and the early Christians who faced the might of Rome and did not flinch. I think we are seeing the growth of a new black movement that has found its voice and is able to express it confidently and stridently. Eventually they will be able to rectify the birth defect(allowing slavery in a free society) that was present at the time of the founding of America. Read Gordon S Wood and his books.

[Guest]

<b>The Real Agenda of Black Liberation Theology</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And what might these institutions be?  They are not specified.  But it is safe to say that they are not the welfare state or the Democratic Party. <b> Given that black liberation theology is a product of the dreary leftist politics of the twentieth century, the very vehicles employed by the left to advance statism certainly can't be the culprits</b>. 

For the left, <b>black liberation theology makes for close to a perfect faith.  It is a political creed larded with religion.  It serves not to reconcile and unite blacks with the larger cultural, but to keep them separate.</b>  Here, again, The Washington Post reports that "He [Wright] translated the Bible into lessons about...the misguided pursuit of ‘middle-classness.'"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If any further proof is needed that black liberation theology has nothing to do with the vision of Martin Luther King -- with reconciliation, brotherhood and universality -- the words of James H. Cone, on faculty at New York's Union Theological Seminary, may persuade.  Cone, not incidentally, originated the movement known as black liberation theology.  He said to The Washington Post:

<i>"The Christian faith has been interpreted largely by those who enslaved black people, and by the people who segregated them."</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/9230...mitch30.article

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Obama opens a can of worms
THE BLACK CHURCH | On the verge of making history, Obama opens a can of worms

April 30, 2008

MARY MITCHELL marym@suntimes.com
Well, it is likely that Sen. Barack Obama won't be going back to Trinity United Church of Christ.

Not after this.

On Tuesday, Obama responded to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's ill-timed defense by condemning his former pastor's fresh comments as "ridiculous," "outrageous" and "appalling."

"When he states and then amplifies such ridiculous proposition as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices in the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States wartime effort with terrorism, then there are no excuses," Obama said during a press conference.

"They offend me. They rightfully offend all Americans and they should be denounced," Obama said.

<b>This is a sad day for Black America.

At a time when African Americans are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down, up jumps a divisive issue that is being driven by those outside of the black community.</b>

Obviously, Wright's timing for a press conference about his sermons couldn't have been worse.

Still, when Obama says he is "offended" by Wright's latest comments -- given in defense against an orchestrated assault on his character and on his ministry -- he's opening up a can of worms.

<b>There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. </b> And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people. Even so, after Wright's fiery speeches surfaced on the Internet, most African Americans understood why Obama had to distance himself from Wright.

Obama's cross-cultural appeal, which, by the way, made some blacks suspicious of him early in his campaign, is largely because of his ability to make white people feel comfortable with his blackness.

But Wright speaks to a different audience, and that audience has been supportive throughout his ordeal.

On Monday, for instance, when Wright spoke at the National Press Club, the predominantly black crowd cheered, clapped and punctuated Wright's speech with shouts of "amen."

So, when Obama says America was "offended" by Wright's harsh language, he isn't speaking for or to Black America. He is speaking to White America.

<b>As much as I want to see Obama make history by becoming the first black man to be elected president, I don't want to see a warrior like Wright denigrated to prove to white voters that Obama is not a radical.</b>

When Obama denounced Wright's angry words but refused to disown him, it signaled that he understood the sensitive tightrope he is being forced to walk.

His "outrage" over Wright's latest remarks signals something quite different. With the gap narrowing, Obama advisers are obviously scrambling for every white vote.

But really, what more should blacks have to sacrifice? Their dignity?

Frankly, Obama and Wright risk becoming metaphors for the ongoing struggle of blacks to unite politically.

Obama shouldn't have held a press conference to deal with Wright.

He should have been able to pick up the phone.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Obama shouldn't have held a press conference to deal with Wright.

He should have been able to pick up the phone.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I dont understand what she means by the above. Can somebody explain what she means ?

[Shambhu]

The latest poll has HRC up by 2 in NC!

..and 9, 8, 5 in IN (latest 3 polls)

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+May 1 2008, 12:16 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ May 1 2008, 12:16 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Obama shouldn't have held a press conference to deal with Wright.

He should have been able to pick up the phone.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I dont understand what she means by the above. Can somebody explain what she means ?
[right][snapback]81131[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to put his Spritual Adviser/Pastor under train as he did to his grandmother. Pastor represents Black theology, "movement", in place of supporting blacks he is talking for whites. Basically, people are taking this as disowning his African black hertiage.
Pastor is taking major hit in media and public, from naked/britney type of picture or hackle by Obama supporters in hotel or comedy channels main carton.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->..and 9, 8, 5 in IN (latest 3 polls)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe independents can vote for Democratic candidate in IN. This should be interesting poll to watch.

BTW, those left wing Obamis who hailed Obama's decision to go on Fox last weekend as an avenue to reach across the aisle are not railing against Hillary's decision to go on O'Rielly's show. O'Rielly slipped out last night and uttered HC being '<i>lesser of three evils</i>'. Note he said three and not two. Are right-wingers rooting for HC over McCain?

[Shambhu]

Master puppeteer Karl Rove has said that JMcC should show more of his human side and reveal more of his story if he wants to be president. He said McC was one of the most private presidential candidates in history.

I saw the Colbert report. Colbert said McC is very superstitious. Always has his lucky penny, nickel, dime, and feather with him. Never throws a hat onto a bed.

Personally, I want to know:
1. How many superdelegates are superstitious.
2. If there are any superstitious superdelegates, do they delegate authority? If they did, that would be super!

[Shambhu]

Many commentators (eg Joe Klein-Time--have not read that one yet) are of the opinion that we should move on and get over the JWright thing.

As people have said, its is not what Wright said; it is about BO's ability to judge people. We all wring our hands over Iraq, oil, etc. Can we think how good (or at least how OK) things would be if Bush had not been elected? And that we have an opportunity to *not* elect another Bumbling Opportunist? (Although he may be a Breath-taking Orator, as is the case with BO)..

Or do we think the stinking rot that we are in at present is not enough?

[ramana]

I dont quite follow trends in the thread.

Are you guys for Hillary Clinton or Barack Hussien Obama?

And after that are you for or against McC? I see all sorts of glib short cut postings on this thread. What is the forum consensus opinion?


Who is better for US and then India?

The discussion is quite meanginless unless it explores these questions.

[Guest]

Ramana,
Remember those poll cliches like '<i>democracy is choosing between thief and a robber</i>' or '<i>I'll make up my mind at the polling booth</i>' - I used to believe that it's a load of crap. Till this election. Dynamics this time around are different.

One can see why democrats are torn apart and this will go all the way to Nov (not just Jun end of primary or Denver convention)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Who is better for US and then India?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
for US: anyone of the three compared to current guy
for India: won't matter - in my humble opinion only (ToI article listed earlier points to McCain, but authors not cutting it)
Others should list on their preference.

It's interesting to see where all this is leading. Journey could be better than the destination itself.

[Guest]

ramana,
Purpose of discussion is not to take sides at this stage but how democracy is working here.
First time, I got involved in this election. Initially, I was just angry seeing what is going own, now trying to understand how campaign works.
my observation -
Voters can be bought, in civil language they call it "street money".
Media can be bought, long term promises and funding from Daddies.
Rowdies/far-left activist can disrupt election.
Voter fraud is at undeliverable level, dead and out of state people are voting.
Super delegates are voting based on contribution, like today SD Joe switched side, two things had happened; suddenly his account his showing $12,500k from Obama contribution and Chicago firm's $50K support. Nothing wrong but it shows dynamics.
Democrats go around world to monitors elections, my one advice to them, please clean up your front and backyard first.
Religious places play very important role deciding sides.
In India, caste plays big role, here race and class plays major role.

Obama is not good for India, his team is far-left and he is with thin resume.

[Shambhu]

I am for HRC.

BO is too naive and will ruin everything.

McC will do lots of things to please evangelists.

HRC is a known, stable quantity who fights and stays out of this semitic religious crap (unless she absolutely has to go in). Meddlers and missionary kinds are bad for India.

****Heh: TeleResearch has joined the party; HRC by 10 in IN

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->****Heh: TeleResearch has joined the party; HRC by 10 in IN <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like Chicago muscle may change outcome, some SD suddenly changing side and lot of money is changing hands. Only advantage HRC had, now picture ID is required. Chicago buses can't vote for Obama but polling officer can do wonders in favor of Obama.
This will be very nasty. Remember, JFK did same fraud in Chicago when high number of dead people voted for him, but Nixon decided to keep quiet because it will bring shame to country.