Taken from today's Los Angeles Times OP-ED
The candidate's message of unity is suspect if he doesn't divorce himself from the controversial pastor.
March 18, 2008
Barack Obama will reportedly give a major speech this morning at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, addressing the controversy about his extremist pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
Obama needs to do two things. First, he needs to make it incandescently clear that Wright doesn't speak for him in any meaningful way. If he won't do that, his campaign is a fraud and he is not qualified to be president.
Second, he needs to explain to black America why Wright's views are so poisonous.
By now, if you've paid any attention at all, you've read the quotes and seen the video clips of Wright at the pulpit. A supporter of Louis Farrakhan, Wright has echoed his view that the U.S. government created AIDS to perpetrate a black genocide. He suggested that America had it coming on 9/11.
His most infamous from-the-pulpit sound bite -- at least to date -- is this from a 2003 sermon: "The government gives [blacks] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America!"
Obama and his surrogates are denouncing attempts to link the candidate and the views of his pastor and mentor. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) on "Fox News Sunday," for instance, said, "Guilt by association is not typically American. We've all been around in places where people have given speeches or said things that we've thoroughly objected to, totally objected to."
OK. But even Obama didn't spin it that way. More implausibly, Obama claimed that he'd never heard his mentor say anything of the sort, in public or private.
Obama has been a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years. Wright baptized Obama's daughters; he officiated at Obama's wedding. The title of Obama's career-making book "The Audacity of Hope" is from a Wright sermon. Wright worked with Obama as a community organizer. Saying you were out back catching a smoke during one sermon or another won't cut it. The issue isn't what Obama sat through, but what he stands for.
Even Wright's tone is poisonous.
Obama righteously deplores "divisiveness." And yet he literally worships at the altar of division. He wants to transcend race, but his black nationalist church and his liberation theology pastor consider race permanent and central issues.
Obama claims that he's a different kind of politician, but his "repudiation" of Wright last week is traditional pol-speak and nothing more. To listen to Obama, you'd think he was the only person in Chicago not to know that his minister is a hatemonger. Either Obama is the worst judge of character in living memory or he's not the man he's been portraying himself as.
Or there's a third option. Perhaps Obama didn't hear Wright's bilious rhetoric because it blended in with the chorus around him. This is the fact that Obama really needs to address if the "Obama movement" is about more than getting the junior senator from Illinois elected.
What does it say that Trinity United Church is the most popular in Obama's old state Senate district, with a membership of 8,500? One of Wright's flock responded to the controversy by telling ABC News, "I wouldn't call [Wright's theology] radical. I call it being black in America." NPR's Michelle Norris explained on "Meet the Press" that Wright's tone, at least, is "not something that is unusual" in black churches.
A Rasmussen poll released Monday found that 29% of blacks surveyed said Wright's comments made them more likely to support Obama, while only 18% said the opposite, and half said Wright's comments would have no effect on them.
That is a symptom of a problem that platitudinous "hope" cannot alone remedy.
A 2005 study by the Rand Corp. and the University of Oregon found that nearly half of African Americans say they believe that HIV is man-made. More than 25% think that it's a government invention, and one in eight say it was created and spread by the CIA. Just over half believe that the government is purposely keeping a cure from reaching the poor.
And please, spare me the rationalization that blacks have reason to be conspiratorial. Doubtless there's truth to that. But that doesn't make the conspiracy theories any more true or any less destructive.
In the 2005 issue of Social Science Quarterly, Sharon Parsons and William Simmons tried to explain why conspiracy theories like these persist in the black community. Part of the answer, they concluded, is that black politicians have no interest in dispelling them. Paging Sen. Obama!
Obama preaches unity. Well, real unity requires real truth-telling and the ability to tell right from wrong, and Wright from right.
I, for one, have no interest in being united with Wright or anyone who insists that America is an evil, racist, damnable nation bent on murdering black people -- and I suspect neither will many general election voters.
Obama's power base is made up of black voters and the upscale left-wingers who condescend to them. Well, it is time he spoke truth to that power. If the eloquent, self-proclaimed truth-teller and would-be first black president can't manage that, he should go straight from would-be to never was.
jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com
Showing posts with label Los Angeles times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Los Angeles times. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Boyle Heights Latinos for my girl Hill - In today's Los Angeles Times
Steve Lopez:
In Latino neighborhood, Clinton's experience counts
From today's LA TIMES
February 10, 2008
Nick Frousakis went to his grave in December, and one of his most loyal customers, Raul Sousa, followed him into the ground the very next day, old age doing both of them in.
"Nobody wants to sit there now," said Diego Romero, pointing to where Sousa used to hold forth at Jim's Burgers, State and 1st in Boyle Heights.
But the gang still shows up most weekdays to carry on the tradition despite the absence of Frousakis, a Greek-born businessman who had the good sense to put tacos up on the board next to hamburgers.
They drink coffee from Styrofoam cups. They soak up the sun. And they talk.
Life, death, sports, women, politics.
It was the last of those subjects I wanted to hear about last week. Latinos turned out as never before in the California presidential primary, accounting for 30% of the Democratic vote. As a group, Latinos sent an early valentine to Hillary Clinton, voting for her by a 2-1 ratio.
I wanted to know why, but first I had to find some Clinton voters. So which candidate did these guys like?
"Clinton," three men said in unison when I sat down Thursday.
"Clinton," said three different men when I took a seat at the same table Friday.
Altogether, four of the six said they had actually voted. One is a legal resident but not a citizen, and the other just didn't make it to the polls.
The state's Latinos are overwhelmingly Democratic, and none of the Jim's crowd even considered voting for a Republican, even though Sen. John McCain supported a path to legal status for many illegal immigrants.
"They're for the greedy corporations," said retired landscaper Feliz Botello. "They don't care about us and our people."
He might get some disagreement from the estimated 10% of the state's Republican voters who happen to be Latino.
So why Clinton instead of Obama?
"El sabe menos [He knows less]," Roberto Luz, a mariachi, said in Spanish of Barack Obama.
"¿Que ha hecho, él? [What has he done?]," echoed Joaquin Vega, who used to run the auto repair shop across the street.
Most of the comments were similarly straightforward. It didn't hurt that L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa supported Clinton, said the men.
But if I had to list the top reasons the men liked Clinton over Obama or a Republican candidate, the order would go something like this:
She has more experience than Obama. The Clinton name is trusted. Times were good under Bill Clinton, and Hillary is cut from the same cloth. Too much money and too many lives are being wasted in Iraq while things fall apart at home.
Jaime Regalado of Cal State L.A.'s Pat Brown Institute told me by phone that some of Clinton's enemies on the right are seen as enemies of the Latino community, particularly on the subject of immigration. She was smart, Regalado said, to use Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in TV ads and link herself to the slain Kennedy's support for Cesar Chavez and farmworkers.
Regalado was surprised by just how strong the Latino turnout was. But in retrospect, he said, the gloomy economic news, the war and the possibility of ending Republican rule were something of a perfect storm, and Latinos were eager to make their voices heard.
"The last factor is that in the Latino community, as in all communities, there is a certain amount of prejudice," Regalado said, and some Latinos were probably more comfortable with a white woman than a black man.
Even a black man who said illegal immigrants should have driver's licenses and that immigrants can't be blamed for problems in some black communities?
Yes, and yes again.
"He's a very good speaker, and maybe he would be better than Clinton," said Vega, who agreed that younger Latinos seemed a little more inclined to connect with Obama. "But I like Clinton."
I pointed out to Vega, Bill Escarsega and Botello that they don't exactly come from a matriarchal culture. So how did these old-school caballeros suddenly get so comfortable with the idea of a woman in the White House?
"It's not black or white, male or female, it's experience," said Vega.
"My grandfather? Macho, macho, macho," said Botello. "My father? Macho, macho, macho.
"I don't believe in that B.S. anymore. You know why? I'm civilized. I went to school."
When the men talked about all the lives lost in Iraq, and Botello said his cousin was killed in combat, I reminded the kaffeeklatschers that Clinton had voted to support the war.
"And she should be held responsible," said Vega, but that doesn't mean she's not the best candidate.
"Bush lied," Botello charged. "Bush and Cheney lied to everybody, including Congress."
As we spoke, a Latin beat warped and wobbled out of a music shop across 1st Street, and a man came along pushing a battered old bicycle someone had just given him. It needed some love, he said, but it would be fine.
So who did he vote for?
"Clinton," he said immediately, and with that, the former first lady had swept the corner of 1st and State streets in Boyle Heights.
In Latino neighborhood, Clinton's experience counts
From today's LA TIMES
February 10, 2008
Nick Frousakis went to his grave in December, and one of his most loyal customers, Raul Sousa, followed him into the ground the very next day, old age doing both of them in.
"Nobody wants to sit there now," said Diego Romero, pointing to where Sousa used to hold forth at Jim's Burgers, State and 1st in Boyle Heights.
But the gang still shows up most weekdays to carry on the tradition despite the absence of Frousakis, a Greek-born businessman who had the good sense to put tacos up on the board next to hamburgers.
They drink coffee from Styrofoam cups. They soak up the sun. And they talk.
Life, death, sports, women, politics.
It was the last of those subjects I wanted to hear about last week. Latinos turned out as never before in the California presidential primary, accounting for 30% of the Democratic vote. As a group, Latinos sent an early valentine to Hillary Clinton, voting for her by a 2-1 ratio.
I wanted to know why, but first I had to find some Clinton voters. So which candidate did these guys like?
"Clinton," three men said in unison when I sat down Thursday.
"Clinton," said three different men when I took a seat at the same table Friday.
Altogether, four of the six said they had actually voted. One is a legal resident but not a citizen, and the other just didn't make it to the polls.
The state's Latinos are overwhelmingly Democratic, and none of the Jim's crowd even considered voting for a Republican, even though Sen. John McCain supported a path to legal status for many illegal immigrants.
"They're for the greedy corporations," said retired landscaper Feliz Botello. "They don't care about us and our people."
He might get some disagreement from the estimated 10% of the state's Republican voters who happen to be Latino.
So why Clinton instead of Obama?
"El sabe menos [He knows less]," Roberto Luz, a mariachi, said in Spanish of Barack Obama.
"¿Que ha hecho, él? [What has he done?]," echoed Joaquin Vega, who used to run the auto repair shop across the street.
Most of the comments were similarly straightforward. It didn't hurt that L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa supported Clinton, said the men.
But if I had to list the top reasons the men liked Clinton over Obama or a Republican candidate, the order would go something like this:
She has more experience than Obama. The Clinton name is trusted. Times were good under Bill Clinton, and Hillary is cut from the same cloth. Too much money and too many lives are being wasted in Iraq while things fall apart at home.
Jaime Regalado of Cal State L.A.'s Pat Brown Institute told me by phone that some of Clinton's enemies on the right are seen as enemies of the Latino community, particularly on the subject of immigration. She was smart, Regalado said, to use Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in TV ads and link herself to the slain Kennedy's support for Cesar Chavez and farmworkers.
Regalado was surprised by just how strong the Latino turnout was. But in retrospect, he said, the gloomy economic news, the war and the possibility of ending Republican rule were something of a perfect storm, and Latinos were eager to make their voices heard.
"The last factor is that in the Latino community, as in all communities, there is a certain amount of prejudice," Regalado said, and some Latinos were probably more comfortable with a white woman than a black man.
Even a black man who said illegal immigrants should have driver's licenses and that immigrants can't be blamed for problems in some black communities?
Yes, and yes again.
"He's a very good speaker, and maybe he would be better than Clinton," said Vega, who agreed that younger Latinos seemed a little more inclined to connect with Obama. "But I like Clinton."
I pointed out to Vega, Bill Escarsega and Botello that they don't exactly come from a matriarchal culture. So how did these old-school caballeros suddenly get so comfortable with the idea of a woman in the White House?
"It's not black or white, male or female, it's experience," said Vega.
"My grandfather? Macho, macho, macho," said Botello. "My father? Macho, macho, macho.
"I don't believe in that B.S. anymore. You know why? I'm civilized. I went to school."
When the men talked about all the lives lost in Iraq, and Botello said his cousin was killed in combat, I reminded the kaffeeklatschers that Clinton had voted to support the war.
"And she should be held responsible," said Vega, but that doesn't mean she's not the best candidate.
"Bush lied," Botello charged. "Bush and Cheney lied to everybody, including Congress."
As we spoke, a Latin beat warped and wobbled out of a music shop across 1st Street, and a man came along pushing a battered old bicycle someone had just given him. It needed some love, he said, but it would be fine.
So who did he vote for?
"Clinton," he said immediately, and with that, the former first lady had swept the corner of 1st and State streets in Boyle Heights.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Caucus in the west
Inspired by Louise Roug's article on Column One in the Los Angeles times today, I've decided to be a political tourist. In her article, she follows a local couple from Van Nuys who venture to Iowa to partake in a political process that we Californians often experience only in sound bytes. The couple in the article had such an amazing experience attending candidate events, running into Bill Clinton at their hotel, and all in all resparking their interest in politics. I contacted Louise Roug and am now going to plan my own political tour here in the west - Nevada in a couple of weeks. Anyone interested?
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Traffic solution in motion at Pico and Olympic
I heard murmurings of the Pico/Olympic plan to ameliorate traffic at the Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley’s summit on transportation held at the Burbank Holiday Inn. At the time, I wondered whether anything substantial would come out of gathering – hoping for less talk and a lot more action. Luckily, such a meeting of the minds and officials seems to get the juices flowing, propelling ideals to come from off the table and onto the streets. When ideas are shared in a summit or conference and is covered by the news (like I did – for the Sun Community newspapapers – http://speechspeech.net/EconomicAllianceSummit_Article.jpg) people get interested and the idea acquires more momentum. I bet this is especially true when those city officials meet with outspoken and interested community and business members who are itching for change.
I don’t know how long the Pico/ Olympic plan was in the works, but it’s a breath of fresh air. The article in the Los Angeles Times yesterday quotes a Westside neighborhood council chairwomam who wished the city took more steps in working with locals before moving forth on the project. On a past one-way street proposal, she proclaimed that it “was unacceptable because she could not have gotten ‘to my house anymore.’" With that kind of individualistic thinking, I’m glad that she wasn’t involved this time around.
If neighborhood councils and community representatives oppose and speak out about traffic solutions that can benefit drivers, workers and residents all at once, then their interests should be placed on the backburner. It seems obvious to say it, but the interest of the community on the whole should be valued more than local homeowners who like things the way they are, thank you very much.
Kudos to Villaraigosa, Jack Weiss, Yaroslavsky and those involved in the transportation committees for taking measures to improve traffic. I was very impressed with all the intelligent and dedicated civil servants, committee members and researchers who have devoted themselves to better incorporate feasible transportation solutions into our daily routines. I hope the Pico/Olympic plan is just one step in many to improve the current abysmal situation of gridlock.
I don’t know how long the Pico/ Olympic plan was in the works, but it’s a breath of fresh air. The article in the Los Angeles Times yesterday quotes a Westside neighborhood council chairwomam who wished the city took more steps in working with locals before moving forth on the project. On a past one-way street proposal, she proclaimed that it “was unacceptable because she could not have gotten ‘to my house anymore.’" With that kind of individualistic thinking, I’m glad that she wasn’t involved this time around.
If neighborhood councils and community representatives oppose and speak out about traffic solutions that can benefit drivers, workers and residents all at once, then their interests should be placed on the backburner. It seems obvious to say it, but the interest of the community on the whole should be valued more than local homeowners who like things the way they are, thank you very much.
Kudos to Villaraigosa, Jack Weiss, Yaroslavsky and those involved in the transportation committees for taking measures to improve traffic. I was very impressed with all the intelligent and dedicated civil servants, committee members and researchers who have devoted themselves to better incorporate feasible transportation solutions into our daily routines. I hope the Pico/Olympic plan is just one step in many to improve the current abysmal situation of gridlock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
