A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks

The day after Barack Obama decisively won the Democratic primary for US Senate he took the time to stop by good friend and spiritual advisor James Meeks' church to attend Bible study. "I know that he's a person of prayer," Meeks says. "The night after the election, he was the hottest thing going from Galesburg to Rockford. He did all the TV shows, and all the morning news, but his last stop at night was for church. He came by to say thank you, and he came by for prayer."

Now an event like this shouldn't cause any alarm with anyone. Politicians regularly spend some of their free time recharging their political batteries by immersing them selves in spiritual matters. Obama is surely not alone there. But most politicians don't hang out with "men of god" who regularly call the mayor of their city a "slave master", call other pastors and politicians "house niggers" and white people that don't vote for him "racists." But then again, you might not know Obama's other spiritual advisor, supporter and superdelegate: State Senator Reverend James Meeks.

Harsh Words

Per pulpit video from July 5 Rev. James Meeks states, "We don't have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated."

"Is it fair to compare Mayor Daley, him and the governor, to slave masters?" CBS 2's Mike Flannery asked.

"They do the same thing. They preside over systems where they have the control of the lives of African-American and Hispanic people," Meeks replied.

Who does this sound an awful lot like? That's right, another Obama "spiritual advisor" Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The racist bigot that blames 9/11 on America, that believes we should be singing God Damn America, that says the USA is just like Al Qaeda and the guy that blames all the ills of the world on white people.

Notice a pattern here?

"You got some preachers that are House Niggers. You got some elected officials that are House Niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man," Meeks said in the sermon tape.

In his interview with Flannery on Friday, Meeks said, "The word nigger is not in the African-American community a bad word.
It's a term of endearment. And I don't see it as derogatory or defensive, offensive."

"That is an insult. You weren't using that term as a term of endearment," Flannery said.

"And no one will be offended, except an individual that it applies to," Meeks said.

So according to Obama's spiritual advisor the word nigger is a "term of endearment." Then does that mean that a House Nigger is an especial term of endearment, something a little more elevated than say, a lawn jockey? Because the way I heard him say it, it sure didn't sound like he was praising anyone. Don't believe me?

Watch for yourself:

Does he sound like he is paying anyone a compliment here? Is protecting the white man something that Meeks thinks is a good thing? If he is anything like Jeremiah Wright he sure doesn't. But a close association with Obama shouldn't be used as the only reason to condemn someone. Let's allow James Meeks to speak for himself and determine for ourselves whether he is in any way prejudiced or bigoted like Jeremiah Wright.

Meeks for Governor


"Come on with me white churches ... Call me and tell me to run for governor," Meeks said. "White people who believe in Jesus, call me and tell me to run for governor"

Meeks is an Illinois senator in the 15th District. He is counting on an anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage platform to appeal to conservative white Christians.

"If I do run and there are two people in the race who both are not standing for morality, if I don't have every white Christian vote in the state of Illinois, I will stand on top of the Sears Tower and call every one of ya'll racist," Meeks said from his pulpit.

So he is going to call all white people that don't vote for him racists? How quaint. Where have we heard that before?

And just what is Reverend Meeks' association with Barack Obama? According to his campaign they barely know one another. And of course we hear the same standard line about Obama denouncing the racist talk of this person he barely knows. Blah blah blah. We've all heard the drill before. It would seem that as frequently as one of Obama's associates turns out to be a bigot and a racist that they would have a more creative explanation by now. Like maybe we are just bamboozled. Yeah, that makes sense. Okie doke!

But once you slice through the typical lie from the Obama campaign you find out that not only are Meeks and Obama friends, they have other friends in common. In fact one of their mutual friends is directly involved in the day to day activities of Obama's campaign. Guess who? His initials are JJJ. Yes indeed, the person I am referring to is Jesse Jackson Jr., the national Co-Chair for the Obama campaign. It seems JJJ and Meeks have been close friends for a very long time. And JJJ is a member in good standing with Meek's church. So he apparently agrees with what Meeks says. At least there is no evidence that he believes otherwise. In fact the evidence about JJJ is quite telling. He doesn't hide his contempt for white people very well.

The Conventional Wisdom Defied

"The natural reminder here is O.J. [Simpson] -- how does an African American candidate attack a white woman?" said Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr.

Yes, he said these words right after Obama won the Democratic caucus in Iowa. An unusual choice of a phrase don't you think? Especially since his guy won. But just in case we failed to understand what JJJ meant when he uttered those words, he uttered a few more not barely a week later that clarified it for us.

Clinton didn't cry for Katrina

In an appearance today on MSNBC, Jackson said that Clinton's "tears" -- none actually fell from her eyes -- are something that "we're still analyzing within the Barack Obama campaign." "Those tears also have to be analyzed," Jackson said. "They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45 percent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."

You see, JJJ isn't shy about playing the race card. And why not, his pastor and good friend James Meeks plays the race card from the pulpit. And that other close associate that Meeks and Obama share in common? Well, you have probably already guessed but it is none other than that jailed indicted political fixer and slumlord Tony Rezko. In fact of all the politicians with ties to Rezko and all the money Rezko donated to politicians, State Senator James Meeks ranks 14th in the list of politicians receiving the most money from this political pariah. 14th out of who knows how many politicians (The Cash Cow). The question to be asked, which I have been unable to find the answer to, is whether or not Meeks gave the money back or donated it to charity? And if it was to charity, was it to his own church where he uses the pulpit to call white people that don't support him racists?

So it has been clearly determined that James Meeks is a bigot and a racist and has close ties to Barack Obama. But what has yet to be discussed are his other beliefs and activities that are a little out of the mainstream norm. For instance: James Meeks is known to be vehemently anti-gay.  

2nd Obama-linked pastor under fire for racist talk

Meeks is also notorious for his strong anti-homosexual platform, which is in contrast to Obama who has been campaigning for the "gay" vote. Meeks has routinely voted against pro-homosexual legislation and has been quoted during sermons referring to same-sex attraction "an evil sickness."

And how does the Obama campaign distance itself from Meeks on this? It's very simple. At first they ignore it. Then they pretend as if Obama is the most forceful advocate for LGBT issues in the country. And finally, just to make sure they haven't offended anyone, they invite a "reformed" gay singer to campaign with them in South Carolina. Of course I am referring to Donnie "I'm cured now" McClurkin.

Obama's gospel mistake

Adding fuel to this fire was Obama's reply to questions about the concert. He haughtily told a reporter from the gay news magazine the Advocate, "If there's somebody out there who's been more consistent in including LGBT Americans in his or her vision of what America should be, then I would be interested in knowing who that person is."

In 2004, during his U.S. Senate run, Obama campaigned at Chicago's Salem Baptist Church, whose leader, Rev. James Meeks, called same-sexuality "an evil sickness." That was quickly forgotten, overshadowed by Obama's eloquent speeches on hard-core Democratic issues, gay rights included, to turn-away crowds that treated him, as more than one commentator has noted, "like a rock star."

Now a gospel star may have driven a wedge between Obama and his gay supporters and roiled others as well. For, by putting McClurkin in the spotlight, Obama has broken black America's 11th Commandment: "Don't talk about it in front of the white people!"

But it was McClurkin who dominated the event, claiming before an audience of about 2,000 Sunday in Columbia, S.C.: "I don't speak against the homosexuals. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality. No matter what blog you read, let me tell you, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature!"

Did it work? Was Meeks appeased that Obama had someone campaigning for him that had rejected homosexuality? Again, we may never know because Meeks, like many Obama supporters, has effectively been muted. But if there is any indication as to what type of person Meeks is and how strongly his beliefs are we need only to look toward his church where they have an unusual habit of taking things to the extreme. And what better subjects to promote their twisted view of morality than teenagers who are looking for adult guidance to begin with.

Something I was not aware of until I began writing this was the growing practice among some evangelical churches to celebrate Halloween in their own way, by scaring the hell out of children. Salem (ironically appropriately titled) Baptist Church where Meeks is the head pastor decided to create their own "Nights of Terror" where essentially they have a Christian version of a haunted House. At Salem Baptist they frighten the youth by informing them that: "YOU HAVE DIED AND GONE STRAIGHT TO HELL!"

Meeks sends kids to 'hell'

In one scene, a girl was lying on a gurney where a masked man in surgical scrubs pretended to perform an abortion. A toilet was sitting nearby apparently to collect the aborted fetus.

A fenced-in cell housed a few denizens of "hell," including a pedophile trolling the Internet for a young victim, a meditating Buddhist, and two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals.

So according to this church that Obama had to attend and pray with Meeks on the night after he won the Democratic primary, the way to a child's soul is by scaring them. The threats of hellfire and damnation revisited. Abortion under any circumstance is a direct ticket to hell. If you happen to have a different religion that practices self responsibility, humility and peace, you are going to hell too. And if you are gay you are definitely going to hell. But at least they will let you keep your glitter.

And the church, just what does it think about all of this? Do they consider their actions controversial? As it turns out, yes they do. They are quite aware that some of the things they do are not within the norm. But like all religious zealots they have a perfect excuse: The Bible.

Comer knows some of the parts of Salem's "hell" will be controversial but says he and Salem's senior pastor, the Rev. James Meeks, who could not be reached for comment, are confident they can back up their vision of hell with Scripture.

Just why is it do you suppose that Obama has strong ties to so many controversial figures? Isn't he supposed to "represent" the new politics of hope? Isn't he supposed to be the post partisan, post racial candidate? If so, then why is he so closely associated with so many people that are clearly partisan and vehemently racial? Do you think that this is just some odd coincidence? That somehow a random alignment of the stars caused all these people to intersect the life of Senator Obama for so many years? That he had nothing to do with cultivating these long standing enduring relationships? Because that is exactly what someone would have to believe in order not to see how Obama's acquaintance with people like Wright and Rezko and now Meeks are not accidental associations, but rather carefully calculated relationships designed to forge alliances with people of similar mind who share the same goals.

The question is: Are they your goals too?



Display:


Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (1.66 / 3)

That sound you hear is straws being grasped within an inch of their lives.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:46:46 PM EST

Ummm, no... (2.00 / 6)

The sound I hear is of another Kosobama fan coming here to try to discredit a good piece of blog journalism. Sorry, but snide dismissals of all non-Obama-love diaries don't work here.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm, no... (1.33 / 6)

I've been here longer than you, so you can shove the sanctimony.

And snide dismissals of pathetic guilt-by-association-with-another-black- guy hit pieces actually do work here.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm, no... (2.00 / 6)

I thought we were having a purge to keep the level of discourse civil. Please do that while commenting in this diary.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm, no... (2.00 / 1)

Now that's rich.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:05:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please stop wasting our time (2.00 / 9)

If you have something to say, say it.  But just to say that someone is grasping at straws after they've written hundreds of well-considered words doesn't cut it.

On to a more direct observation of the diary, with which I agree.  I share somewhat the observation of Erik Rush on this one, that many (he says "vast majority") "ethnic activists exist to keep racial tension alive in America - period. It's a simple case of self-aggrandizement, power and, in some cases, money."  The same can be said of other activists in any line of work -- generals, bureaucratic empire builders, etc.  I prosecuted cases for the federal government for many years -- and I can tell you there are some prosecutors who clothe themselves in a "public interest" mantle when they merely want to advance their careers.  Men of the cloth are no exception to this greed.  Ask a good Middle East expert what he really thinks of political activists in those countries, who trade people's lives for personal wealth and power.

Wright and Meeks seem to be the classic power builders.  They seek to incur wealth by dividing.

Obama's talk about greed in America took convenient aim at corporate America today, but all he had to do was look at his own church.


by katmandu1 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:25:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop wasting our time (2.00 / 2)

If you have something to say, say it.

I have nothing to say about it. Wasn't that clear enough? I don't feel the need to dignify every  Obama attack diary with a substantive response. This is especially true when we've already played this tune before. (Except, when it played on the jukebox before, it was guilt-by-association because Meeks was an Obama superdelegate. Now, it's guilt-by-association because apparently Meeks has now morphed into a "spiritual advisor.")

And to be frank, sometimes I'd rather just voice my incredulity in the form of a brief, dismissive comment rather than risk getting troll-rated if I said what I really wanted to say.

But you want to know why this diary is ridiculous? Well, then I'll point it out to you:
1. Because it has almost nothing to do with Barack Obama.
2. Once AGAIN, a right-wing source is used to attack a Democrat.

WORLDNETDAILY?? Are you freaking KIDDING me?? Do you guys just not know what the right-wing noise machine is, or should we start implying malice at this point? Because I gotta tell you, after seeing Newsmax, Worldnutdaily, Bill Kristol, Debbie Schlussel, and Fox News all used as "reputable sources" to attack a Democrat, I'm really starting to wonder.

As far as connecting Obama to all this, the best Worldnutdaily can do is that Obama "stopped by" Meeks' church after winning in 2004, and has his endorsement on his website. Heaven forbid!

And here's the diarist him/herself, using their brilliant detective powers to get to the bottom of this:

And just what is Reverend Meeks' association with Barack Obama? According to his campaign they barely know one another. And of course we hear the same standard line about Obama denouncing the racist talk of this person he barely knows. Blah blah blah. We've all heard the drill before.

In other words, the diarist knows nothing outside of the worldnutdaily article, along with their own "intuition." But hey, might as well smear Obama anyway. Why the hell not?

And as we see, no matter what junk you post, as long as it attacks Obama, it undoubtedly gets the  lockstep chorus of "great find!" and "wow, I didn't know that!" comments.

So if you want to know how I really feel, I'll re-post my comment from the other diary on this silly topic:

I realize that both Barack Obama and James Meeks are black, but they're not actually the same person.

That's how I feel, since you asked.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop wasting our time (2.00 / 8)

Since I am the diarist and you are criticizing me perhaps I should respond to your unfounded allegations. You make a big deal out of the fact that I used a two sentence quote from worldnetdaily. Do you dispute the validity of the two sentences? Because I can find many other sources that will say exactly the same thing. When the so-called "liberal" media isn't doing the job that journalists are supposed to be doing and we are left to get actually unbiased information from other sources then we will get our sources from other sources. As long as the statements they make can be backed up with other sourcing nothing else really frickin matters. It's called journalism.

Or we can play the gotcha game you hope to promote where we only use authorized sources for our materials when it is clear that the authorized sources are blatantly biased.

If anyone is smearing anyone here it is you smearing me with no evidence to back up your smear other than your misguided elite foolishness.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:40:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop wasting our time (1.00 / 3)

Do you remember when I said you weren't worth the keystrokes? I'll maintain that position. I have nothing to say to you.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:43:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop wasting our time (1.00 / 4)

I'll expend the keystrokes. Take this racist crap back to the Free Republic.


by Gimmeliberty on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:45:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop wasting our time (2.00 / 4)

Fair warning. You have leveled two accusations. One, that I am a Republican and two, that I am a racist.

Change the tone of your discourse.

I am playing fair and demand that you do as well.


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:15:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop wasting our time (2.00 / 0)

You're accusing one of our Democratic candidates of being a racist through an absurd "associate of an associate" smear by citing two noxious right-wing sources.

Change the tone of your own discourse, buddy. It's infuriating to see this on a formerly Democratic blog.


by Gimmeliberty on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:44:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop wasting our time (2.00 / 0)

My previous comment came off harshly. My point is that our attempts to converse are utterly unproductive and are more frustrating than anything else. I feel your diaries are unfair, and I've stated that. However, I do not feel like engaging in a heated back-and-forth that will ultimately lead nowhere. It's tiring.

So instead, I'm just not responding (or rather, I'm responding to state that I'm not responding further), and I'll leave it at that.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop wasting our time (2.00 / 1)

"I have nothing to say about it. Wasn't that clear enough?"
---------
Yet, you chose to post and continue to post even after you say you don't have anything to say about it?

Well, isn't that just on target rationale.


Well I guess that's one way to say things have 'changed'.
by TxDem08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:43:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please stop wasting our time (none / 0)

It helps if you keep reading past the first couple lines.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:05:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm, no... (2.00 / 0)

FYI, copy/pasting a hit job from the odious worldnutdaily isn't a "good piece of blog journalism." In fact, it's laughable.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm, no... (2.00 / 4)

I quoted two sentences from that source. And I attributed the source. That is pure journalism. The rest of the piece uses various sources which you apparently have no problem with. There is much more writing than there is cutting and pasting. Get real.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:43:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm, no... (none / 0)

Well look at that...a 0-rating for pointing out the source cited in the diary. Glad you're keeping your ratings in perspective, 07rescue.  


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:56:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm, no... (none / 0)

On the one hand, it's a well written piece.  As relevent to this campaign, however, it's a racist hit piece.  It is grasping at straws.  The pattern I see is to find anyone with whom Obama has shared a friendship or association and dredge up any and all statements from that person that could be twisted without regard to context or discussion.  Your use of them to attack Obama is wrong on two fronts.  

As for me, a middle-aged white guy, I read and hear Meeks' statements; and I understand where it comes from.  I've lived through Jim Crow & the civil rights marches; and I know that the progress blacks have made in this country is too often mere window dressing.  Meeks has a right to make those statments; and on top of that, he is metaphorically correct, if politically incorrect.  A lot of African-American politicians and leaders do enjoy the comforts of power without really having any except with the permission of the white power structure.  "House niggers"?  Not a nice term, but not far from the truth.

Second is the dishonesty of ascribing the words and opinions of others to Obama himself.  Do you stand squarely behind the words and opinions espoused by all of your friends?  Are they your opinions?  Do you disavow your friendships over any controversial opinion they make or prejudice they hold?  No you do not, and it is dishonest to hold any politician, Hillary Clinton included, to that standard.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:36:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 9)

The more I learn about Obama the less I like him.


by Caliman on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:48:16 PM EST

I don't know... (2.00 / 8)

But I will say that it's getting harder for me feel great about our chances to win in the fall if he's the nominee so long as there are more and more skeletons falling out of his closet that he can't deal with.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:15:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know... (2.00 / 6)

It ain't pretty, that's for certain.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:44:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know... (2.00 / 0)

How is this a skeleton?

The diarist doesn't back up his or her claim that Meeks is Obama's "spiritual advisor and friend". The only thing connecting them is Obama's stop at his church at JJJ. That's all. But, of course, there's this non-evidence:

And just what is Reverend Meeks' association with Barack Obama? According to his campaign they barely know one another. And of course we hear the same standard line about Obama denouncing the racist talk of this person he barely knows. Blah blah blah. We've all heard the drill before. It would seem that as frequently as one of Obama's associates turns out to be a bigot and a racist that they would have a more creative explanation by now. Like maybe we are just bamboozled. Yeah, that makes sense. Okie doke!

But once you slice through the typical lie from the Obama campaign you find out that not only are Meeks and Obama friends, they have other friends in common.

So, the diarist didn't "slice through the typical lie" at all. We didn't find out that Meeks and Obama are friends.

This diary is, quite frankly, doesn't merit the title hit piece, as it doesn't target Obama.

There are plenty of actuall reasons to dislike Obama, but this particular "skeleton" is nothing more than a holloween coustume.


"Don't let it end this way; tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa
by shef on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:11:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know... (none / 0)

I've come to learn that there are some diarists with whom you just don't bother debating. And yes, you are exactly right.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:08:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 7)

Then get prepared to like him even less than you already do. You might say a whole graveyard of skeletons are starting to come forward. Definitely horror movie quality stuff.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:44:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BUT (1.66 / 6)

BARRY SAYS HE BARELY KNOWS THE MAN.

IF YOU DONT BELIEVE HIM, YOU MUST BE A RACIST TOO!


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:04:28 PM EST

Re: BUT (2.00 / 5)

You got that right.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:45:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 6)

These just keep coming. Thanks for the information.


by DaleA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:15:08 PM EST

And surprise, surprise... (2.00 / 6)

We find another Obama spiritual adviser who has a homophobia problem. So will Obama do anything to denounce James Meeks' bigotry? Or like Donnie McClurkin & Kirbyjon Caldwell, will he try to have it both ways?


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:21:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And surprise, surprise... (2.00 / 4)

You don't know the half of it. But you will.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:47:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait, you mean wright had a homophobia problem? (2.00 / 2)

With Obama competing with rival presidential contender Hillary Clinton for gay votes in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary, revelations of Wright's controversial sermons have raised questions among some activists about whether Obama's longtime pastor was among the preachers who delivered fire-and-brimstone sermons attacking homosexuality.

"Absolutely not," said Rick Garcia, political director of Equality Illinois, the Chicago-based state gay rights group.

"Trinity has been among the strongest supporters of LGBT rights," Garcia said. "I have the highest regard and admiration for Rev. Wright."

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thela test.cfm?blog_id=17266


by furiousxgeorge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, you mean wright had a homophobia (2.00 / 1)

I was listening to NPR the other day and they were interviewing voters in PA about Obama and Wright. One voter said he was gay, and he couldn't vote for Obama now after hearing Rev. Wright say all those hateful things about gays. And my heart just broke, because I know that Rev. Wright is one of the most gay-affirming religious figures in the nation, with one of the earliest HIV ministries in 1982, and support today of full marriage rights and a religious community at Trinity and the UCC that is fully inclusive of gays.

What was obvious was the prejudice behind that statement -- how this Pennsylvania voter probably really did think he had heard Wright say anti-gay things. He saw a couple of Youtube clips of an angry black guy, and he filled in the rest in his mind. And that's what's going on across this country and in the media: a mass projection of the worst kind of racial prejudice.

Right now no one has the balls to stand up and say, stop it, you racist fucks, Rev. Wright is not the caricature you've dehumanized him with but a fine man and a fiery preacher like any other with a passion for social justice.

During this episode, all the things that white folks think about black folks but never say in public are bubbling out of the muck. This sickening diary is the perfect example of that.


by Gimmeliberty on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:04:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, you mean wright had a homophobia (2.00 / 4)

I take issue with you calling me a racist f**k.

Just because one person in PA got the mistaken impression about Wright is no excuse to attempt and hoodwink everyone else about the facts about Reverend Wright. He is a despicable racist and a bigot. And the facts bear that out.


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:29:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait, you mean wright had a homophobia (1.00 / 1)

You know, I actually wasn't thinking about you when I wrote those words, but now I sure am.

You must be proud that you stand on the same side as the right-wing echo chamber, flashing Willie Horton's mugshot from Selma, Mississippi.

But some people have no self-reflection.


by Gimmeliberty on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:40:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And surprise, surprise... (2.00 / 6)

We find another Obama spiritual adviser who has a homophobia problem. So will Obama do anything to denounce James Meeks' bigotry? Or like Donnie McClurkin & Kirbyjon Caldwell, will he try to have it both ways?


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And surprise, surprise... (2.00 / 7)

You joke?  He couldn't even stop McClurkin from doing the 3 day Gospel Tour in South Carolina, playing IN TO the phopbia and hate.

I have never seen so much hypocrisy from one person.  It's astounding and mind boggling.


by LindaSFNM on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:24:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And surprise, surprise... (2.00 / 6)

He had no intention of stopping him. That was the whole purpose of having him there.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Aravosis (2.00 / 4)

What does Aravosis at Americablog see in Obama?  He was agonized by McClurkin, then he just went ballistic on Hillary.  Maybe he just has a woman problem.  Former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern just talked about that.  (He's a Hillary superdelegate.  For you youngsters out there who think Hillary isn't liberal enough, you should consider McGovern's support of her.  He was more than a liberal -- he was a courageous one.  His opposition to the Vietnam War makes him one of the greatest liberals of all time.)  Anyway, I stray.  He talked about the inability of some men to accept a leadership role from a woman.  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/clinton-backe-1.html


by katmandu1 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:31:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And surprise, surprise... (2.00 / 6)

A comment well worth repeating.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:51:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 5)

Glad you enjoy. Stay tuned.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:46:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 7)

I can only say, NO WONDER they Obama campaing started playing the Race Card right after New Hampshire.  But I still find it utterly disgusting that he accused the Clintons of being racist, when he knew they weren't even talking about race at all, ie Fair Tale and the Voting Rights act.

This is what they do, play this nasty divisive game for the sympathy vote.  Yeah, that's gonna go over real well.


by LindaSFNM on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:23:21 PM EST

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 5)

And this stuff is just starting to dribble out. I think much more is on the horizon.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (1.00 / 1)

OMG! He's a Manchurian Black Muslim Nationalist candidate trying to destroy "the Man" from the inside!!!

Hide the white womens!!! Barack Obama's coming!!11!!1!


by Gimmeliberty on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:06:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i don't use that word. not for anything. (2.00 / 7)

and i don't associate with people who do. calling it a "term of endearment" in the context of what he said about "some preachers" is a blatant lie. it was said with the intent to humiliate them.


by campskunk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:23:08 PM EST

Re: i don't use that word. not for anything. (2.00 / 5)

I totally agree. The video made this very clear.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 3)

I will not fault HRC for her spiritual advisors, and I will not fault Obama for his.

This is the Democratic party, and I would tolerate either candidate . . . even if they belonged to a Wiccan sect.

Is MyDD the new Faux News?

KUMBAYA in JULY!!


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:26:37 PM EST

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 3)

Hey, if something is true, the source makes no difference if it can be corroborated.  This nonsense about "this came from a right-wing website", blah blah blah, means zero.

Let's use an extreme example for illustration:  Say Fox News came up with a story that candidate X was captured on video/audio buying cocaine from some dealer, and later propositioning a minor for sex.  Are you going to say it doesn't count because an some organization not inclined to support the candidate unearthed it?  It doesn't count because of the source?  The electorate shouldn't know about it or Candidate X's party should do everything in its power to hide this?

That's no party I want to be involved with.  I want transparency, particularly when there's an image of a person that projected and echoed by the media that may very well be inaccurate, or at least substantially incomplete.

I'm not looking for perfection; that's unattainable.  But I don't want caricatures being presented as true, either, be them positive or negative.  I want to know someone's character, and part of getting to know that is getting to know who they choose to associate with or bring into their inner circle of friendship.

This is fair game.  God knows there's plenty of stuff that's been thrown at the Clintons that Obama fans don't seem to object to.  


by DaTruth on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:32:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The ANTI-ASSERTION (1.00 / 1)

two things:

Since the Democratic party has never been about pesecuting people for their religious associations, so who are you with?

"God knows there's plenty of stuff that's been thrown at the Clintons that Obama fans don't seem to object to."  

!!ASSERTION ALERT!!

"The act of making a statement does not, in itself, imply truth".

OK, since I am an Obama supporter, I would like to ask you to provide examples of "plenty of stuf" that has been "thrown at the Clintons" that I don't object to.

Thanks for coming out.

-chris bask


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:06:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The ANTI-ASSERTION (2.00 / 4)

You mistake this as being a persecution of a person based upon religious affiliations. But you miss the point entirely. While Wright is Obama's self defined spiritual mentor, he is also a friend and long time associate. This is about the CONTENT of Obama's character. The fact that he has remained a member of a church with a Reverend that spews hatred, racism and bigotry points to Obama's moral fiber as a human being. He can try and explain this away as him being some crazy uncle or he can pretend like Wright represents the entire black community. Neither of those assertions are true.


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:37:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The ANTI-ASSERTION (1.00 / 1)

You make the mistake of throwing around assertions with no basis in fact from a perch of lofty superiority and expecting rational people to fall in line with you, er, "thinking".

Hillary Clinton's pastor, to following your twisted logic, shares all the "blame" and character faults you assign to Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright, since Mrs. Clinton's pastor has come out in extremely strong defense of Rev. Wright.

-chris blask


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:56:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The ANTI-ASSERTION (1.00 / 1)

Oh, and your frivilous assertions?

Still waiting for the CONTENT to go with them.

....

hmm hmm hmm...

hmm..?

Well?

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:57:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The OJ Simpson Option (2.00 / 6)

From the mouth of Obama's national campaign co-chair the night of the Iowa caucus, Jesse Jackson Jr quoted by the WaPo said,

The natural reminder here is O.J. [Simpson] -- how does an African American candidate attack a white woman?

WTF! Now, I call that the "OJ Simpson Option." And this is the campaign of unity and hope? The implication here (as disgusting as it is) is how to "attack" Hillary and play the race card to get away with it. I really want an Obama supporter to try to defend this statement. Please, I really would like to hear what you have to say.

Thanks, FleaFlicker. I suggest you add the WaPo link to the cite in the diary.  


by grlpatriot on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:14:13 PM EST

Re: The OJ Simpson Option (2.00 / 2)

Thank you. I thought I had one in there. Glad you caught it for me.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:30:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The OJ Simpson Option (none / 0)

You know, it's utterly plain that Jesse Jackson Jr. was saying that the campaign was maintaining a positive message because it was worried that harshly attacking Clinton (a black man attacking a white woman) might bring out those same racial resentments that the OJ Simpson trial did.

But yes, if you strip away all context and warp it to your needs, it sure does sound like he's saying that Obama will murder Hillary with a knife.

Reading comprehension has it's advantages.


by Gimmeliberty on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:17:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Move along folks - nothing to see here (2.00 / 1)

Just because we mention O. J.  and attacking a white woman in the same context of a campaign involving a "black man" and a "white woman", it really meant nothing.  Nothing at all.

AND, if you think it did, then you're just a racist.

If you don't believe me, just ask Chris Matthews.  I'm sure he could look at that statement and see that it is surely something that's Hillary's fault.


by Southern Mouth on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:22:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Move along folks - nothing to see here (2.00 / 2)

LOL!


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:38:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I heard.. (1.66 / 3)

I heard a Catholic priest Obama once met in a bus station hates people from Estonia.  Quick, MYDD, TO THE TOP OF THE REC LIST!


by furiousxgeorge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:27:29 PM EST

Re: I heard.. (2.00 / 4)

A shame Obama didn't just meet his spiritual advisors and that was the end of it. For the oddest reason he decided to stick around for all those years and keep coming back. Damned shame.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I heard.. (2.00 / 0)

And Bill and Hillary invited his pastor to the White House, and called him a part of a core group of religious leaders.  And after all those years of offensive sermons.  Damned shame.


by furiousxgeorge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the "Catholic priest" opening (2.00 / 4)

Obama has a third problematic religious adviser, the Rev. Michael Pfleger.  The Sun-Times wrote of him:  http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/726 619,obamafalsani040504.article

Friends and advisers, such as the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in the Auburn- Gresham community on the South Side, who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years, help him keep that compass set, he says.

Indeed, Obama has placed a Pfleger testimonial on his website.  http://faith.barackobama.com/page/conten t/faithtestimonials

Part of the controversy involves a dispensation of pork to Pfleger.  According to the Chicago Tribune, "[t]he Rev. Michael Pfleger contributed to Obama's campaign and in turn Obama redirected a $225,000 grant to St. Sabina."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainm ent/chi-0705030035may03,0,7803217.story

The greater controversy involves Pfleger's ties with the Nation of Islam and his long friendship with Louis Farrakhan.  http://www.israelforum.com/blog_article. php?aid=1334752   Louis Farrakhan has been a frequent guest to Pfleger's church.   http://cbs2chicago.com/local/louis.farra khan.nation.2.337213.html  

[For background, Farrakhan's anti-white and Jewish comments have raised the ire of many over the years.  For example, Farrakhan was censured unanimously by the United States Senate for a speech in which he said Hitler was a great man.  (for the full context, see Farrakhan was censured unanimously by the United States Senate for the speech.)  Farrakhan has referred to Jews, Palestinian Arabs, Koreans, and Vietnamese collectively as "bloodsuckers" and maintains that "Murder and lying comes easy for white people."  He also said: "The same year they set up the IRS, they set up the FBI. And the same year they set up the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith... It could be a coincidence... [I want] to see black intellectuals free... I want to see them not controlled by members of the Jewish community."]

In a well known controversy in Chicago, Pfleger criticized a mass resignation of Jewish members on a state of Illinois hate crimes commission:  http://www.nbc5.com/news/7782149/detail. html?rss=chi&psp=news

"Callers to Tuesday's radio show included the Rev. Michael Pfleger, the white pastor of a mostly black Chicago church and a friend of Muhammad's.
Pfleger said "good riddance" to the people who had left the commission.
"Leave, go ahead and go on out, we don't need that kind of a spirit or mentality and a narrowness on that kind of commission. I'm glad they're gone," Pfleger said.

The controversy involved a member of the commission, Sister Claudette Marie Muhammad, who is the Nation of Islam's minister of protocol.

[She] "was under the radar until she invited other commissioners to attend a Farrakhan speech last month.  Criticism of Muhammad mounted after the speech, which included references to "Hollywood Jews" promoting homosexuality and "other filth."
The three Jewish commission members who resigned said Muhammad should not be on the commission unless she repudiates Farrakhan's criticism of Jews, gays and other groups. On Tuesday, the Jewish Community Relations Council, which represents 46 Chicago-area groups, passed a resolution supporting the three commission members.
"We're not willing to give credibility to this commission in the face of this appointment," said Alan Solow, the chairman of the council."

So there you have it; another lightning rod for Obama.  And I'm sorry, you can argue associations and imperfect pastors all you want, but siding with someone who won't repudiate blatant anti-Semitism and homophobic hate speech?


by katmandu1 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:38:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (2.00 / 1)

You guys are self parodies, this is great.  Thanks.


by furiousxgeorge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:46:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for the Catholic priest opening (2.00 / 5)

Very interesting material. That Obama has the cream of the crop for spiritual advisors. A shame the harvest is blighted.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 3)

Creepy is the right word for it.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:32:20 PM EST

"Mega Dittoes"!! (none / 0)

I had a really truly bitterly sarcastic comment to put here, but I deleted it out of some hope of sanity in this disaster of a "conversation" we are having here.

I think the Subject says it all...

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:24:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 2)

On what are you basing the claim that Meeks is Obama's "spiritual advisor"?

Your entire diary seems to hinge on linking Meeks not just as an acquaintance, but as an advisor.

Obama's camp says they hardly know each other, and the only evidence you offer to dispute this claim is that they have friends in common. That hardly makes your case that Meeks is advising Obama on spiritual matters or anything else.

Besides, if Meeks is advising Obama that gays are evil and abortion is murder, then Obama's clearly not listening. He has the most gay-friendly agenda of any candidate, and he's solidly pre-choice.

Do you have more evidence of this"advisor" relationship you aren't sharing?


by jdusek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:52:13 PM EST

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 4)

The Obama camp always says things like Obama barely knows him, or he only worked 5 hours for him or he wasn't there when he said all that nasty stuff.

He has the most gay-friendly agenda of any candidate, and he's solidly pre-choice.

Come on... please stop it. I'm rolling on the floor, busting a gut here. Hard to talk because I can't stop laughing.

Ever think about moonlighting as a comedian?


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:09:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (none / 0)

Do you want to provide some facts to refute what I wrote?


by jdusek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:28:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GOP trolls (1.40 / 5)

I have determined that GOP trolls run amuck on MyDD, since they were smoked out of DKOS.

Democrats DO NOT have a litmus test like this diary!


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:57:10 PM EST

Re: GOP trolls (2.00 / 4)

Isn't there supposed to be a crackdown on people that call others Republicans and other such offenses. Obama is the one reaching out to Republicans, not Hillary or her supporters. We are REAL Democrats.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:05:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP trolls (2.00 / 1)

I hope we are all REAL Democrats on here. I was a fund raiser for Bill in '92, and WILL vote for our nominee . . . BUT I will not support attacks on either candidates spiritual associates.

I have NO problem with HRC's conservative prayer group, and I could care less what is preached by Obama's pastors.

This is SIMPLY not the way the REAL Democratic party does business. YOU know that this is the debate Hannity and Rush want us to have, but we need to come together and beat them at their own game. . . VOTER TURNOUT with a unified Democratic Party!


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP trolls (2.00 / 5)

You have your morals and I have mine. If Wright's rants don't bother you you are certainly entitled to your opinion. As well as i am entitled to be offended by what his spiritual advisor of 20 years said and says.

I will not have anyone question my loyalty to the Democratic party. I won't put up with it. But I will tell you one thing. And that is that a REAL Democrat doesn't ask frickin Republicans to register as a Democrat for a Day to help him defeat another Democrat. Actually encouraging Republicans to help select our nominee isn't something REAL Democrats do.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP trolls (2.00 / 0)

Are you defending Bill Clinton's appearance on Rush Limbaugh's radio show on the eve of the Texas vote?

I had been registering new Democrats in PA . . . and if I doubt their allegiance . . . then I suggest they do it on their own time, and do not assist them.

Both DEM candidates will preserve Roe v. Wade and civil unions  . . . our alternative on the GOP side will be forced to pander to the anti-choice side.


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:54:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP trolls (2.00 / 3)

I didn't say a word about Bill Clinton. Where the hell did that come from? Would you mind providing a link to your assertion?


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:41:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP trolls (none / 0)

I need to wash my laptop after going to his website:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s ite_030408/home.guest.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_ laura_ro_080312_wtf_3f_bill_clinton_on.h tm

http://themoderatevoice.com/media/talk-r adio/rush-limbaugh/18313/bill-clinton-we nt-on-rush-limbaughs-show-day-of-texas-p rimary/


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:39:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, which part of the country will you not offend? (2.00 / 1)

"I will not have anyone question my loyalty to the Democratic party. I won't put up with it. But I will tell you one thing. And that is that a REAL Democrat doesn't ask frickin Republicans to register as a Democrat for a Day to help him defeat another Democrat. Actually encouraging Republicans to help select our nominee isn't something REAL Democrats do."

I wish you were on an actual High Horse you could fall off of, instead of just your Assumed Moral High Ground.

"frickin Republicans" - OK, so roughly half of the American population are not good enough for you.

You don't like black preachers?  There goes another 12% of the population (largely Democrats). (and please spare me the rebuttal and read all of Rev. King's sermons, first)

So there is, perhaps, 40% of the American people who are eligible to qualify for your respect?  Let's not forget that no more than %40 of the population register as Dems to begin with, so you're down to 30%.

Let's subtract the rest of the fiery Evangelical preachers and their congregations - the majority of them white folks - who preach or listen to all sorts of wild talk from the pulpit.  I'll cut you some slack and we'll say that there remains a healthy 25% of Americans whom you deign to tolerate.

I'll take a swag and say that - based on the deep baritone of superiority you are projecting - that given the chance for a thorough Inquisition at your hands, more than half of the remaining people who would consider themselves Democrats wouldn't pass your muster.

So, you and your 10% of the American population hold the Moral Peak over the remaining 270 million of us who are only lucky enough to live within your Sphere of Influence.

Gosh, I feel warm all over.

"I will not have anyone question my loyalty to the Democratic party. I won't put up with it."

Well, sorry, but I do question your loyalty to the Democratic party, and you will have to put up with it.

By your attitude you are contravening the principles of inclusion that I understand to be one of the founding principles of the Democratic party - and this is not loyalty by any definition.

By your attitude you are putting your party on a path that if adhered to will see a Republican in the White House - and this is not loyalty by any definition.

So, troll rate me if that is your response to being challenged, but at least one of us is trying to get a Democrat elected to the White House this November, and that is me.  If anyone chooses to question my sincerity on that, I will "put up with it", because that, sir, is the American way of dealing with diversity.

-chris blask


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:49:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, which part of the country will you not off (2.00 / 2)

As I am supposed to keep the level of discourse on a higher level I will not wallow in the same muck as you.

Where, pray tell, did I say that I didn't like black preachers?


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:43:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, which part of the country will you not off (none / 0)

You have singled out several black evangelical preachers, and these individuals have said things that are no different in tone and often content from words Rev. King has also said.

If Rev. King is held in the highest regard and - in your limited world view - REv. Wright in the lowest, then you have already condemned both ends of the spectrum so logically everyone in the middle also falls under your Watchful Eye of disdain.

For the rest of evangelical Christianity, you would find it hard to locate a church or preacher where extreme statements have not been made.  By your standard all of these would - given enough research - be guilty of something that all of your flock should find worth judging.

Sen. Clinton's own pastor - by supporting Rev. Wright vocally and often - would, through association also fall into this group.

With your Limbonian segragation of the human population into diminishing circles of acceptability, I doubt if even many of your own adherants would be able to defend themselves against your monocled inspection of their lives, families, friends, associations and words.

You are preaching precisely the Orwellian oversight that leads to the safety and security of no one.

How safe are you from yourself, FF?  Is your own association of friends, family, supporters and contacts a Pure Blood of freedom and Tolerance?

And if so, why are you hiding your identity?  What do you have to fear, and why won't you answer your own line of Inquisition?
-chris blask


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK, which part of the country will you not off (none / 0)

You have singled out several black evangelical preachers, and these individuals have said things that are no different in tone and often content from words Rev. King has also said.

If Rev. King is held in the highest regard and - in your limited world view - Rev. Wright in the lowest, then you have already condemned both ends of the spectrum so logically everyone in the middle also falls under your Watchful Eye of disdain.

For the rest of evangelical Christianity, you would find it hard to locate a church or preacher where extreme statements have not been made.  By your standard all of these would - given enough research - be guilty of something that all of your flock should find worth judging.

Sen. Clinton's own pastor - by supporting Rev. Wright vocally and often - would, through association also fall into this group.

With your Limbonian segragation of the human population into diminishing circles of acceptability, I doubt if even many of your own adherants would be able to defend themselves against your monocled inspection of their lives, families, friends, associations and words.

You are preaching precisely the Orwellian oversight that leads to the safety and security of no one.

How safe are you from yourself, FF?  Is your own association of friends, family, supporters and contacts a Pure Blood of freedom and Tolerance?

And if so, why are you hiding your identity?  What do you have to fear, and why won't you answer your own line of Inquisition?
-chris blask


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:30:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exclusivity isn't Inclusivity (2.00 / 0)

I have been a registered Dem, spent most of my time as an Indie voting Right (though voted for B. Clinton once) and am now back on the Dem side.

So, you are saying I don't belong?  This is the argument you offer to bring the country together and put your party in the White House?

I'm actively supporting Obama and have had to have my say among that crowd about the knee-jerk impulse to criticize people for not being "REAL Democrats" (I can't even type that without picturing a pompous puff-chested voice to go with it...).  But this highly-Clinton-supporter-slanted crowd on MyDD has, frankly, taken the prize for divisiveness by a country mile.

I've seen many condescending statements her like the above, sigs with "you can lead a conservative to water but you can't make him think" and more slander than you can shake a frozen carp at.

Lemme share something with you about November, if I may.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/el ection04/parties.htm

"Today, the Republican and Democratic parties pervade the political process. Approximately 60 percent of Americans consider themselves either Republicans or Democrats, and even those who say that they are independents normally have partisan leanings and exhibit high levels of party loyalty."

What this means is that while the Democrats can count on Democrats voting for a Democrat most of the time, the real decision on who will be president is made by Independents, and we normally go towards where we lean.

I've leaned to the right for a long time now, but at present I am leaning to the left - and it is due to Barack Obama.  I have heard from boatloads of others in the same situation, and many outright Republicans who are also on-board the Democratic ship because of Barack Obama.

I have not heard of a single Republican voter who has joined your crew to actually elect Sen. Clinton (I'm sure there must be some), but there is abundant evidence that after the Reps finished with their own race a lot of them followed Rush Limbaugh's advice and climbed onto the gunwales of your ship in an effort to sink it.

So, if you folks who are "REAL Democrats" - in your own Lofty estimations of yourselves - don't want us here, well, then there are other parties who do.

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:26:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOP trolls (2.00 / 1)

Here's how I explained it to my 6 year old.

(Feel free to swap HRC and Obama below if it makes you happy.)

Obama is fresh baked bread.
HRC is stale, hard bread.
McCain is cat poop.
Bush is horse $hhhh!

Now even though our dog recommends cat poop as the most palatable kind of poop among those that eat poop, we do not recognize cat poop as food at all. While we might work harder to have fresh bread, we would never pick cat poop over stale bread, period.

The above comment was inspired by MyDD member - "itsthemedia"


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 3)

Fleaflicker- thanks for yet another valuable insight. I agree that the MSM has not done their job and so it is left to others. Just wish people would open their eyes and accept the facts. No matter what the rational for supporting Obama, his associations make him unelectable. The media that is oh so supportive of him now is going to tear him apart if the Dems are idiotic enough to give him the nod.
Keep it up! There is a candidate who can take everything the media dishes out, she has proved it time and time again.
Go Hillary!
by ProudMilitaryMom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:02:29 AM EST

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (1.50 / 2)

They said exactly the same thing to LBJ about Martin Luther King.

Read the sermons.

Pat Buchanan told Richard Nixon:

"...not to visit "the Widow King" on the first anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination, warning that a visit would "outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history." (New York Daily News, 10/1/90)"

So, climb in bed with Pat Buchanan and let us all know how that works out.

I am trying - and often failing - to keep my cool on this site, but the frothing flagellation I see here is enough to drive a nun to the bottle.

I've written letters to Howard Dean about the filth being posted on democrats.org in the name of his party - and specifically and exclusively in support of Sen. Clinton.

I cannot believe that the party I fervently adhered to in my youth as the Voice of Compassion and Inclusiveness has degenerated into this sordid wallow of swill.

Listen to yourselves!!

Are you proud to have a chance to cut-n-paste that horrible word above??  Do you share with your mothers the frisson of excitement you get out of tearing down a man for his religious associations?  One of your own party's men?  Is there some sort of ritual festival where you revel in the propagation and exhortation of your "hate" for the "hate" that you "hate" to see "hateful" people "hating" so much?

I am a past Democrat who is fighting for your party!  I am a past Christian who appears to know more about Christian Charity than the lot of you!  So many of you have descended into a Pagan thrall of destruction that it has the surreal impact of watching a grand machine tear itself to pieces with it's own motive power, a train derailing and taking out half the surrounding town...

If you have substantive issues you wish to assault my candidate with that are in some way related to his qualifications as a political leader of this country, then let the debate begin!

But this....

ack!

It leaves me speechless, and that's one h&ll of an accomplisment!

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:13:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 4)

descended into a Pagan thrall of destruction

So you are anti-pagan?


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:47:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 2)

Someone has to do the media's job. We will all keep plugging away. Eventually people will take notice.

Thanks!


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:48:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 0)

How exactly does this comment deserve a hide rating?


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:06:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I read that Hillary has KKK friends (1.00 / 0)

and they spend lots of time together in secret meetings.  

But it's no biggie - just because she has friends who are members of the KKK, there should be no "guilt by association."

If she had dinner with Osama bin Laden, no big problem for her - one shouldn't assume guilt by association.


by Southern Mouth on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:27:26 AM EST

Exactly, TX Darlin (2.00 / 2)

It's a double standard

Case in point: On my old blog, former VA senator George Allen was excoriated by all the liberals (me included) for having had his pic taken with two members of a southern white supremacy group.  The newspapers never picked it up because in the end it was just one of those unfortunate photo ops.  Here, you have long term associations and the liberal-guilt media by and large turns the other way


by katmandu1 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:34:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly, TX Darlin (none / 0)

Can you truly not see how comparing Meeks or Wright to the KKK is not hideously offensive and disgusting?

How about if I were to call ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jews a bunch of Nazis? I mean, it's clear that that's a hyperbolic and sickening thing to say.

Please, please I beg that no one responds with an attempt to justify calling Hasidic Jews Nazis.


by Gimmeliberty on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:30:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why? It's not for Obama. n/t (none / 0)


by Southern Mouth on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:49:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 0)

Yep!

Nothing like fratricide on religious grounds to get a party going!

yee ha!  Let's find some more groups to alienate, now that we've cut out Christian Evangelicals!

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:53:13 AM EST

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 1)

Really?  Is this really what makes the rec list?  Guilt by association of an association.  Really?  And don't you think Spiritual Advisor is a bit of a stretch?  Quoting Worldnetdaily? Really?  I thought this was MyDD, not newsmax.


by shalca on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:48:31 AM EST

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (1.00 / 0)

Actually, it's both!
MyDD cites Newsmax!
MyDD cites Newsmax!
MyDD cited Newsmax!
MyDD cites Newsmax!
Daily Double! MyDD cites Newsmax AND Worldnetdaily!
Bonus! MyDD cites Jonah Goldberg!

And the hits keep coming!


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:27:01 AM EST

Do you like haveing 92% of Blacks vote Democrat? (none / 0)

The thing is the democratic party is a coalition of dis-affected groups. You have white women, hispanics, African Americans, and conciencious white males. The most consistent voting block in the Democractic Coalition are African Americans.

Perhaps you dont want the African Americans in the coalition because they are too divisive. They are perhaps too concerned with race and racism. Perhaps there leaders agitate these FEARS for power and glory. But you must remember one thing, if they have nothing to fear they can just vote Republican.

Democrats suppose to be the party of inclusion. Whites can rest easy blacks dont reject them so much as they are threatened by them. Blacks are fearful of a recent history of racism. Perhaps in another generation such talk will be passe but for now it has vague relavence at least in a historic sense.

I dont see anyone calling Jews sepratist or there fears of genocide illegitimate. Some old wounds heal slow, people used to understand that.


by edtastic on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:04:04 AM EST

Re: Do you like haveing 92% of Blacks vote Democra (2.00 / 2)

This is about the content of one's character not the color of their skin.


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:51:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yawn (none / 0)

what a joke. I hear obama watched Roots when he was younger. That scares the shit out of me.


by Chimpeach on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:34:18 AM EST

Obama says he'd leave church if Wright stayed (2.00 / 1)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 308/Obama_now_says_he_might_have_left_ch urch.html

From Ben Smith at Politico:

Obama now says he might have left church

In appearance taped for airing this morning on "The View," Senator Obama makes news by saying he might have left Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ if the Rev. Jeremiah Wright had not retired.

In a clip posted by ABC, Obama says: 'Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country -- for all its flaws -- then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church."

In Obama's speech in Philadelphia last week, he said: "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

Why, did Wright say something wrong?  LOL

I wonder if he'll badmouth Meeks and Pfleger, now that it might be not wise politically to be close to them.


by katmandu1 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:37:51 AM EST

Re: Obama says he'd leave church if Wright stayed (2.00 / 3)

This really is almost too funny. Obama is great at creating these scenarios in which no one will ever know whether he is speaking truth or speaking lies. If proof comes out that places him IN the church while these things were being said I wonder what he and his supporters will say then.

Chances are that they will call anyone that points it out racists.


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:54:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 2)

Why is it wrong to observe that Obama has a strange habit of surrounding himself with: racists, criminals, anti-semites and domestic terrorists?

I know that Axelrod marketing studios has decided that there can be no such thing as "guilt by association", but I disagree.  Since we have almost no public record on which to evaluate Obama, and since the limited public record he has contradicts nearly everything his marketing studio has said, we can only evaluate him based on character and judgement.

Don't these associations say something about both?


by bobbank on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:49:19 AM EST

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 2)

Excellent points. All of them!


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:55:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (none / 0)

Rush Limbaugh would agree with you.

I, however, do not.

By asserting as you do you simply lower the discourse to a tabloid level.

I could assert that FleaFlicker - whoever that is - associates with Luddites and cattle ranchers but it does not make it true.

By using hateful words in your assertions you leave no response possible other than dittoheading from parrots or statements of offense from people who are seeking an actual discussion.

It is as appropo to ask Mr/Ms. FleaFlicker if he/she has stopped beating his/her spouse?

Have you, FF?  Have you in fact stopped beating your spouse?

I have an abiding belief in the possibility of recuperation for every human being -we are pretty amazingly capable creatures -  but realisitically I do not expect FF to change his or her views in the foreseeable future.  But for the many more people reading than writing, please give some thought to the likelihood that those who are speaking through assertion have neither a good argument nor your best interests in mind.

-cheers!

-chris blask


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 2)

"Since we have almost no public record on which to evaluate Obama, and since the limited public record he has contradicts nearly everything his marketing studio has said, we can only evaluate him based on character and judgement."

Terrific point! All the more reason for candidates for president like BO to wait until they have a substantial record and experience to run on, the better to weather the unsightly baggage in his closets. He cannot survive the spotlight, and should have waited before offering himself as a candidate. These associations will be thoroughly exploited by the Republicans if he is nominated.

I really question his judgement in running for an office that places candidates under observation and interpretation of their associations..


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:14:30 AM EST

Adios, MyDD (2.00 / 1)

This diary is how we get to having such a fractured Democratic party. Its truly depressing that this site has become less and less about Hillary and her abilities than it has in slandering Barack Obama. Every person who Barack Obama has ever spoken with and every word they have ever uttered in their lives has become fair game for those who support Hillary Clinton. What has this group of Dems become? I have tried to believe that the wounds that have been inflicted during this tense primary campaign could be healed when a nominee was finally selected. Diaries like this make that idea seemingly impossible.

I dare say that this diary marks the point of no return. No longer capable of ably defending your candidate of choice you have become a smear merchant and dressed it laughably as journalism. This is not journalism, not in any way shape or form. This is character assassination at its worst.

I would wish to defend Senator Obama from attacks like this but no thinking person could ever defend against the words of other people, not the candidate himself. Where would it end? Honestly, where would it end?

Supporters of Hillary Clinton have lost all perspective here. I believe this diary proves that you have all become exactly what the Dem party has despised for so long. This sort of commentary is reserved for those like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who are the self-appointed arbiters of what is allowed to be said in public, of who is not fit to be President because of people they crossed paths with in life. Policy positions and the actual words of the candidate be damned. He knows someone who said something offensive, sorry you are unfit to be President. It is truly appalling that this has creeped in to the Dem community and for what? This is truly sad that you are so comfortable resorting to this kind of character assassination.  

Its shit like this that turns people off from actively engaging in dialogue about the best way forward in this country. YOu are unable to impugn the policy positions of Obama becasue they are seemingly identical to that of Hillary, when all else fails guilt by association is apparently the only card left to play. The sad truth is that you are no different from everything that we have been fighting against for so long. Could we expect this kind of stuff every time an opponent of Hillary's, R or D, gets a leg up on her? If so, what makes you different from the rabid and illogical supporters of GWB?


by AHunch on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:32:07 AM EST

Re: A Term of Endearment: Rev. James Meeks (2.00 / 2)

Thanks bunches TexasDarlin.


by Fleaflicker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49:00 AM EST

Does Rev. Meeks (none / 0)

think Todd Stroger or Todd Stroger, Jr. is one of those "house niggers?" It is true that they have played chicago politics for years - and I wouldn't mind hearing it discussed by the Reverend. However, these comments are for the black people in church - not the whites out here - unless I misunderstand the whole thing. And because it is for the black parishioners - are we supposed to ignore it - speaking in two languages but we should ignore because it's not our language. It is my understanding that Sen. Obama is a supporter of Todd Stroger, Jr. The post of county president is considered a "black" post. Okay - I get politics. but couldn't we have put up a competent black county board president? Many people are upset about Lipinski and nepotism. Well, what about Stroger, Jr. and nepotism? But perhaps Sen. Obama is no friend of either Rev. Meeks or Todd Stroger, Jr. Seriously, I don't know.
by Xanthe on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:59:21 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.