A Real Scandal Behind The 2007 "Race Video?"

The right (namely Fox and the Daily Caller) has been making all kinds of fuss over the 2007 speech then-Senator Obama gave at Hampton University, with Rev. Wright in the audience, in which he supposedly engages is dirty racial politics. This was interpreted by the Right as proof of his racial animus and radicalism, and the media's refusal to hold him accountable. Most of the nonsense behind this has been shot down, although there is one substantive issue in the tape, brought up by Thomas Sowell (HT: Althouse)

Unlike Jeremiah Wright's church, the U.S. Senate keeps a record of who was there on a given day. The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against -- repeat, AGAINST -- the legislation which included the waiver.

As to this alleged hypocrisy of his vote, Sowell's leaving facts out: Senator Obama voted against the final bill, but supported an earlier version which included an Iraq withdrawal timetable. FWIW, I would've voted for the final bill, because I opposed a timetable for withdrawal, and I also find it bad form to vote against something that important, even without a timetable. I suspect, as with similar bills, Obama knew the bill would pass, and voted against it as a statement about the war. It's a typical politician move, but I can defend that.

The problem is, he knew the bill would pass, and that it did pass, so it appears that he was lying when he told the audience at Hampton that it didn't pass. I'm not really sure how you square it any other way. Now, as to the racial politics of this, I suspect Obama was making a larger point about frustration in the black community--and used the Stafford Act as evidence. Now, a great number of conservatives were convinced before this "revelation" that Obama is an evil race baiter, and will judge him as such no matter what. At best, he was making a legitimate point using untrue facts. At worst, it was a cynical and deceptive pander.

Deal-breaker? Hardly. Disappointing? Yeah. This is a typical politician move, and I can't really defend it. Not much else I can add. Even if I were to somehow abandon Obama over a few political lies, who would I turn to, Romney? The man who lies as a matter of course? The man whose entire campaign is based on panders, hype, personal attacks and bullshit? I think not.

"Certainly we are an America ardently "conversing" about it year-round. What Holder wants is not a conversation but a conversion."

The indispispensable John McWhorter, on Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" comment, with regards to our conversation (or lack thereof) about race. My view is not only that Holder's words were an inappropriate way of making a legitimate argument, but also that he is too harsh, even on the substance. McWhorter handles this better than I could:



This idea of a "conversation" (conversion) on race forever just out of reach is interesting in an intellectual sense. However, all evidence is that the only conversation that's going to happen already is. It is a sometimes messy exchange, conservative and liberal going head-to-head, gradually settling on a centrist position.


Namely, racism must be reviled, the government can do things to help people, but much of what ails black people today is too abstractly connected to racism for whites to feel guilty about it anymore. That centrist position is no longer heresy among an ever-growing number of blacks or whites, and is underscored by a black man running the United States.



Yeah. The fact is, we've been having a conversation about race for a while now, and there is of course a lot more tht ought to be addressed. but I suspect Holder's beef is that we're not havig the one he would like us to have.



Read the whole thing.



HT: Jac

"That a part of my family started Jim Crow is kind of a load to carry, " she said. "I wish I could change that."

That's from Phoebe Ferguson, the great-granddaughter of Judge John Ferguson, who ruled against Homer Plessy in the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson. The descendants of Plessy and Ferguson met in New Orleans, to remember the historic event of Homer Plessy's act of courage:

People often think that his ancestor held some responsibility for the legalized segregation known as "separate but equal, " said Keith Plessy, 52, a longtime New Orleans hotel bellman whose great-grandfather was Homer Plessy's first cousin. In actuality, Homer Plessy boarded that train as part of a carefully orchestrated effort to create a civil-rights test case, to fight the proliferation of segregationist laws in the South.

Keith Plessy first learned about his relationship to the case from his teachers at Valena C. Jones Elementary School, who called him to the front of the room as they discussed the case. But his textbooks simply listed the name of the case and its result: a half-century of "separate but equal" schools, drinking fountains and buses.

Phoebe Ferguson, 51, a documentary filmmaker, left New Orleans in 1967 but moved back after discovering her great-great-grandfather's role in the infamous legal fight.

Judge John Howard Ferguson ruled against Plessy from his bench in Orleans Parish Criminal Court. The judge was born in Massachusetts and had strong ties to abolitionists, she said. So she doesn't think he was a racist.

Still, Phoebe Ferguson can't quite get over the powerful impact his decision had on the black community, which would endure a half-century of government-sanctioned segregation.

"That a part of my family started Jim Crow is kind of a load to carry, " she said. "I wish I could change that."

Read the whole thing.

HT: Althouse

On the Race Card, And Other Issues

Now I'm sure we're all aware of the latest bit of controversy between Obama and McCain, over cooments Obama made about the GOP and race. For a refresher, Obama said this:

"What they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

McCain took offense, and responded:

"I'm disappointed that Senator Obama would say the things he's saying," McCain told reporters in Racine, Wis. The Arizona senator said he agreed with campaign manager Rick Davis' statement earlier that "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

Obama's camp defended themselves this way:

"Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue, but he does believe they're using the same old low-road politics to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign," said spokesman Bill Burton.

Let me say that I think Obama did make a mistake here, as McCain himself hasn't really brought up the issue of race, although Obama himself has, albeit in a different context. To be fair, Obama argued that the GOP would use race as an issue (and let's be clear, there's no other way to really interpret that "doesn't look like other Presidents" line), not that they did, although it's not really fair to make such a prediction without prior evidence. As to patriotism and attendant issues, Obama's on safer ground, at least with regards to the anti-Obama forces in general (less so with McCain specifically).

At the end of the day, on this issue, Obama played the race card.

Changing gears for a bit, there's been much talk about the campaign turning negative. It's a little disheartening, but not at all surprising, as I suspected for a while now that the idea of the candidates not going negative was a fairy tale. McCain has clearly decided to go negative, and if you ask me, it's personal now, as reflected by this now infamous ad, and this new one just put out.

First off, I'm not at all offended by these, but they are negative, decidedly personal, and ridiculous. The Spears-Hilton ad makes McCain look desperate. Some have suggested that there are racist overtones, but I don't see that at all. Rather, it's McCain basically saying Obama is an empty, vacuous celebrity with nothing to offer, like Britney and Paris. There are ways of making the argument I think McCain's trying to make, without taking it to that level. It makes him look silly, and frankly, a little petty.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Huckabee Sticks His Neck Out For Obama

This I found quite interesting, and dare I say, refereshing. Mike Huckabee comments on Rev. Wright's comments, and tries to understand:

And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie.

You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..."And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.

First off, let me say that I like what Huckabee's saying. I know people will accuse him of excusing Wright's hatred, but he's not. I'm not, and Obama isn't either. Huckabee (and Obama) is simply trying to put things in context, to try and understand where it comes from. It's not right what Wright said, and Wright's comments cannot be justified. They must be rejected in full. We cannot allow ourselves to remain in bitterness and the past, but I think context helps to understand the complex relationship Obama has with his pastor.

Nice work by Huckabee, and a pleasant surprise, considering some of things he's said in the past.

HT: David Schraub, who I've officially added to the blogroll.

Jeremiah Wright is a Conservative

That is, a Black Conservative. David Schraub explains the difference in a must-read essay:

Black Conservatism essentially operates off the premise that racism is an ingrained and potentially permanent part of White-dominated institutions. As a result, Black Conservatives essentially tell Blacks they can only rely on themselves to get ahead in America -- counting on White people to be moral or "do the right thing" is a waste of time. Politically, this means building tight-knit communities that emphasize the patronizing of identifiably Black institutions, with the end result being social independence from White America. In this, it mixes at least partial voluntary self-segregation with a significant aversion to external dependency, with Whites and White institutions being defined as outsiders who can't be trusted.

He goes further, and explains how this applies to Obama:

I'm not saying I agree with all of his points -- I'm not a Black Conservative, and as I outlined in the Thomas post, I'm not sure that a White person can morally adopt the premises of Black Conservatism. But we can't understand what we're yelling about until we properly position it within its philosophical school. This is why I feel confident in asserting that Obama and Wright are not of a political kind -- they operate from totally different ends of the Black Conservative spectrum. Obama is an integrationist, the very act of running for President means that he believes that there is a space for Blacks in our hitherto White-dominated government, and all of his speeches, policies, and writings have indicated he believes that there is hope for an America that is not separated and divided on racial lines. All of these positions would be derided as doe-eyed idealism by a true Black Conservatism. And if there is one thing Obama can't be accused of, it's of being too much of a pessimist.

Damn good stuff. Read it all.

HT, from Andrew Sullivan

Obama's Speech

I watched the speech, and I thought it was really good, and did most of what it supposed to do, at least in terms of the Rev. Wright controversy. I believe Obama effectively repudiated the hateful and divisive rhetoric of his former pastor, while doing his best to explain the complex relationship he has with him:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all. Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

And this:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

And this part here:

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

I think Obama is saying that Wright's views reflected in this sermons are wrong and hateful, but one must understand the background they issue from--and this is important, they do not reflect the totality of the man. Wright is family, and he cannot totally walk away from his family.

You should read the whole thing here. (HT: Tom Maguire and Drudge.)

As I said, the speech was pretty good, and dealt with this issue the best way he could have. As a black man, I have experience dealing with the wide range of views Obama talks about. It's important for us to continue to move forward, face the challenges, and heal the wounds that still remain, even after all the progress that has been made.

Politically, I still feel he may face questions about his judgment, (namely why he let his children attend, and the fact that many of Wright's statements weren't so much but race, but vicious attacks on American foreign policy) but at the end of the day I think he did a pretty good job. I'm in agreement with the view that those who choose not to vote for Obama over this probably weren't going to anyway, and those who have a preconceived negative view of Obama aren't going to be swayed by this speech.

Ross Douthat has a really insightful piece on this:

Barack Obama’s long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright isn’t significant because it suggests that Obama shares Wright’s more controversial views; I have no doubt that he does not. It’s significant because it undercuts an important aspect of Obama’s promise as a politician: Namely, his potential to break the mold of American politics, by transcending both the recent templates for African-American political activity (grievance-based shakedown politics on the one hand, Afrocentric separatism on the other) and the larger red-blue polarization in the country as a whole.

He needs to reject his minister's politics, in other words, in the name of a new generation of African-Americans, while simultaneously suggesting that the bigotries are not necessarily the only measure of the man, and that the appropriate response to Wright's noxious words isn't outrage but rather the mix of pity and tolerance that a white American might feel toward a racist parent or grandparent, who deserves to be loved and accepted in spite of their retrograde opinions.

Could he actually say all this? Can a half-white, half-Kenyan politician presume to speak for the experience of black America? Can a man who clearly loves his pastor go so far down the road toward attacking him outright? Can a black man persuade white Americans that they should feel toward a ranting black preacher the way they might feel toward their own grandparents? I doubt it. But I'd love to see him try.


Shelby Steele goes a somewhat different route, and deals with Obama's whole candidacy. As to "the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap," Steele in effect says that it is. He's totally wrong, much like Geraldine Ferraro was wrong, but his piece deserves a read. (HT again to Tom Maguire)

UPDATE: The always-on-point John McWhorter gets it right. (HT: Sully, who gets it right as well.)

Yeah, This Sounds About Right:

Shay from Booker Rising, on Geraldine Ferraro:

Damn, I check out for one day to attend to family business and another crusty, white feminist Democrat becomes unhinged at the thought that a black person isn't (1) being subservient to white interests and (2) has the audacity to not only not shuffle and move out of their way, but is outdoing them. As a black moderate-conservative feminist, I gotta do a mini-rant. On Monday, it was Sen. Hillary Clinton's condescending, white arrogant appeal for Sen. Barack Obama - who is the Democratic frontrunner - to be her number 2. Now a blast from the past back when I was a kid, Geraldine Ferraro, is cutting up. Ms. Ferraro - who is backing Sen. Clinton for president - yesterday claimed that Sen. Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is in the presidential race if he weren't black.

And this, which hardly anyone else has brought up:

Sen. Obama put Ms. Ferraro in check though, and also said that if someone in his campaign had suggested that Sen. Hillary Clinton "is where she is only because she is a woman" then she and Ms. Ferraro would be offended. Never mind that Sen. Obama has more experience as a legislator than Sen. Clinton has - I don't count sleeping with President Bill Clinton to be significant experience, since Sen. Clinton won't release her First Lady papers - but Ms. Ferraro wants to diss Barack. Oh wait, Sen. Obama has more experience as a legislator than Ms. Ferraro too. Talk about someone who got a vice presidential nod due to race and gender. - that would be Geraldine Ferraro. White girl needs to sit down somewhere and check herself.

Indeed. I'm going to expand on this tomorrow, but let me say that Ferraro's argument is risible and ridiculous. I'm not saying she's a racist, but the idea that Obama is only here because he's black, or because the country wants to elect a black man is insulting to Obama and those who voted for him.

The sexism charge is pretty silly as well. Let me say that if Hillary loses (or wins), it won't have that much to do with her gender, and if Obama loses (or wins) it won't br because he's black, not that being the first black or female President isn't a boost, and momumentally great for the country.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Obama's race isn't a factor. There is a strong desire to see a black or female President, but with Obama, the fact that he's black isn't the only thing keeping him at the top. I know Earl Ofari Hutchinson disagrees, but if Obama was white, and still brought the same qualities he has to the race, he'd still be on top.

Now, this is somewhat moot now that Ferraro has stepped down from the campaign, but I don't think she should've been sacked. I'm inclined to agree with the view that this rush to fire people who say things that are offensive is a disquieting impulse. I think we need to be really careful with this. Besides, her argument deserves to be scrutinized and exposed as faulty, not silenced. I also don't expect her to apologize for something she apparently believes in her heart.

A final point on the media coverage. Some of the media coverage of Clinton by certain outlets has been unfair, and Obama probably hasn't been hit has hard in certain respects as he probably should've been. That being said, there has been a lot of dirt, unfair charges, and hype on both sides, and the fact is that a lot of the wounds Clinton has received were self-inflicted.

I mean honestly, who knows, the media is a fickle beast. As to the sexism charge, I'm inclined to agree with this from Camille Paglia, via Althouse:

The cloud of feminist cant about Hillary's struggling candidacy has been noxious.

Uh huh.

Robots Are Horrible Racists!!!

Or at least, profoundly incompetent, according to Google. I missed this story, but apparently, there was a glitch in Google's image-based news search, that linked Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons, and Merrill-Lynch CEO Stanley O'Neal, to a photo of rhesus monkeys. Frankly, their explanation still smells like bullshit, and their almost dismissive indifference on the matter rubs me wrong.

I'm staying on this story.

They Wonder Why They Don't Get More of the Black Vote...

Perhaps this might have something to do with it?

Are you telling me that Tancredo had enough sense to show up, but none of the frontrunners did? Are you kidding me?

A Brief Thought on The Jena Six

Just wanted to point out this from Glenn Reynolds, who wanted to get to the bottom of the controversy in Jena, and asked Radley Balko what he thought. Balko nails it, in my view:

The final fight took place in the school cafeteria. The victim was among some white kids who were taunting a group of black student-athletes, including one who had been beaten up several nights before. The black kids got angry, and jumped one of the white kids. Six black boys then beat the white boy. It was a fairly serious beating. The initial fall knocked him unconscious. But after treatment at a local hospital, he left on his own, and attended an event that night.

The prosecutor initially charged the six black kids with attempted murder. After some public backlash, he dropped them to felony assault with a deadly weapon (the weapons, as it turned out, were the students' shoes). As I understand it, none of the six had prior records. The first to be tried--Mychal Bell-- had his charges dropped to felony aggravated battery, but still received a 15-year sentence. An appellate judge just tossed that sentence out, ruling he shouldn't have been tried as an adult. The rest have yet to be tried.

Read the whole thing.

Rosa Parks: 1913-2005

America, and the world has lost a giant this week, as Rosa Parks has passed away at age 92. You all know the story, of how she refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on the segregated buses of Alabama, and thus took a principled stand against Jim Crow, and for the civil rights, and basic dignity of all Americans. Parks' stand half a century ago gives us in this generation an example of the triumph of the individual-- it reminds us that one person, armed with truth, really can make a difference. Her stand set the stage for the leaders to come, including of course, Dr. King.

The legacy of Rosa Parks, in her stand against the ruling powers and popular opinion of her day, in her overcoming of fear and doubt, gives us a lesson, that for the continued survival of this republic, must march unimpeded throughout the long trail of history: That principled people of all kinds, must often make trouble, and challenge those in power, in order to see that justice is done when and where it ought to be done. Even at the cost of one's life and livelihood.

Especially in times like these...