Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (248498)	5/2/2008 10:08:22 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793895

The worst part of Wright's shtick is that it's so hackneyed. Blacks have rhythm. Blacks brains are build different. I swear if he'd kept talking we'd have heard all about blacks and their watermelons.

To: greenspirit who wrote (248498)	5/2/2008 10:10:15 AM
From: Murrey Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793895

Does anyone have an idea of what the ethnic makeup is of Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ? I have a Demo friend who insists that it is 50% caucasian, which I find hard to believe. Wiki calls it predominantly black, buts goes no further than that.

To: greenspirit who wrote (248498)	5/3/2008 12:24:00 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793895

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line Blog has a good comment, and seems to be thinking along the same lines as I am: A speech we should be grateful for Charles Krauthammer's piece today about Barack Obama's reversal on Rev. Wright makes some good points. However, I disagree with Krauthammer to the extent he suggests Obama's Philadelphia speech on the subject was insincere or fraudulent. In my view, the speech was pretty honest by political standards. The problem, in fact, was precisely that Obama generally believed what he said. No one can be certain, of course, whether Obama spoke candidly in Philadelphia. However, subsequent events have confirmed what seemed clear enough at the time, namely that the speech did not take the most politically expedient approach. And Obama's deep and longstanding connection with his pastor renders quite plausible his statement that he sees much merit in Wright and that Wright ought not be "disowned." It is Obama's about-face on these matters that smacks of expediency and fraud. Krauthammer takes Obama to task for suggesting in Philadelphia that whites should be ashamed they were ever surprised by Wright’s remarks. I didn’t understand Obama to be saying that, exactly. I thought, instead, that Obama was pointing out that whites underestimate black anger. That might well be true. Obama’s error was the implication that anger approaching Wright-like anti-American dimensions should be taken seriously by whites or by blacks who aspire to lead America. But again, this is a substantive error, not a matter of insincerity or fraud. In the circles in which Obama has traveled -- not just African-American churches but also elite white academic institutions and activist organizations both black and white -- rapid anti-Americanism is taken quite seriously. Indeed, it is usually a given that America is at best deeply flawed, and an open question whether it is too evil to be redeemed. To a far greater degree than we had a right to expect, Obama’s Philadelphia speech candidly exhibited that mind-set. We should be grateful that it did.