Thursday, January 10, 2008

More Garbage Thrown at Barack

Well, we knew the barrage of garbage would keep coming against Obama. Here is another email that is circulating in the shadows. This one attacks his church...
Subject: FW: Obama's Church

Barack Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It's the Trinity Church of Christ. I found this interesting.

Obama's church: Please read and go to this church's website and read what is written there. It is very alarming.

Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa . No where is AMERICA even mentioned.

Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing.

Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!

I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers. This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of our family and friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary.

Click on the link below for the website of the church Barack Obama belongs to:

I'll give you one guess how many people of color go to the author of this email's church... uh... try zero. You know the old addage: "What's the most segregated hour of the week? Sunday morning at 10am"

There have been a few news stories lately about a "swift boat-style" group preparing an attack on Obama through his affiliation with this church. So, if you like Obama, get ready to fight back...

... to that end, here is an excellent and reasoned break-down of Obama's church from The Christian Century: Africentric Church: A visit to Chicago's Trinity UCC

Some folks think we should simply ignore this stuff and hope it doesn't do any damage. Some folks think posting it on a blog like this, or forwarding it on to others, only perpetuates it and gives it strength.

I'm of a different opinion. I think we need to shine light on this crap and call it what it is: a racist attack. We need to not shrink away but stand up to it. The time has come for a massive movement of people, in the face of this inevitable onslaught of divisive, racist innuendo, to say, "No more! We reject these tired politics. We will defeat you at the ballot box and make a better America. We have hope and we will make change."

I find it interesting that currently everyone is talking loud about the gender dynamics of the election, while most commentators I read and hear out there (even on the liberal/progressive/left) want to minimize the racial dynamics of this race. Don't get me wrong, sexism is very much alive and well out there and Hillary faces it. I just find it strange that folks don't want to face the racial reality, too, or as vigorously...

... for instance, while I am not sure I'd call it "racist," take Hillary's ludicrous statements that LBJ was more important to realizing Dr. King's dream than Dr. King or, by implication, the civil rights movement. Yikes!'ll write more on this later, but suffice it to say that Clinton fundamentally misapprehends the way social change happens. And, essentially, she got a free ride on that cheap shot.

NYTIMES: "Ranking African American in Congress Rethinking Neutrality in SC After Clinton's Comments on Civil Rights Movement"

Here is another thoughtful response to Clinton's misstep for your consideration:

What do you think?


  1. I think it's funny/sad that they change his middle name depending on the context of their argument. Another email emphasizes that his middle name is Hussein to paint him as an ally of the terrorists. This one incorrectly emphasizes that his middle name is Muhammad to paint him as anti-Christian Muslim.

    Oddly enough, I had trouble finding anywhere on the TUCC's website where it said you had to be black to be a member of their church. All I found where things like "committed to the liberation of all of God's people" and "an equal opportunity employer." Hmmm....

  2. Two things I want to comment on. First:

    "Clinton fundamentally misapprehends the way social change happens"

    I think we need to remember that Clinton is not teaching history, she is running for president and part of that is distinguishing her strengths from the strengths of her opponents. You can agree or disagree with the accuracy of her assessment of these strengths or the tactical utility of each effort to distinguish, but as a candidate this is what you do.

    We both teach history and we’ve taught King, Kennedy, Johnson and the struggles for racial justice many, many times. One exercise I do with my students is to give them a list of 5 or 6 individuals -- the list changes but often include King, Kennedy, LBJ, Jackie Robinson, Berry Gordy. Elvis, Malcolm X, Huey Newton, Chuck Berry, Rosa Parks, Septima Clarke, Earl Warren, Thurogood Marshall...a varied list -- and ask them to rank them in order of their contributions to racial justice in our society. I tell them their are no right or wrong answers and point out the male bais and the bais toward individuals is a bias toward "leaders" at some level. The point of this exercise to get them thinking about how change happens via the interactions in different areas of our culture/society/government. Now Hillary wasn't teaching history, but her statements were ones that I would be proud to get from one of my students because they do indicate at least a partial understanding of the dynamic that creates change. I certainly wouldn't dismiss them as a fundamental misapprehension.

    The second this is the "essentially, she got a free ride on that cheap shot." I'm not convinced it was a cheap shot (I'm not convinced that tactically it wasn't either), but she did not get a free ride and to pretend otherwise is silly. She's been hit steadily on this by both Obama supporters and the MSM.

  3. TJ,

    Uh, yeah, she was deploying it for political purposes. Right. Just like the never-ending trickle of lame-ass racial innuendo from her surrogates and husband are ALL deployed for calculated political purpose. Isn't everything with them?

    We can argue about the history; I stand by my assertion of her misapprehension of it. And, to me, that is not insignificant. She may be running for president, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't interrogate the veracity of her claims and the implications behind them.

    And, for the record, at the time I originally posted this, she HAD been given a largely free ride on this one. Since then, it has caused a firestorm. Freedom Road features cutting-edge journalism, what can I say... (smile)

    Look, TJ, Hillary's statement was dumb for another reason. The current social context and political possibility is different; it is 2008 not 1964. Hillary and you may recall that Jim Crow was still in effect back then and that was a significant part of the political dynamic playing out between King (the Movement) and LBJ (the white political power structure). The analogy is about an inch deep...

    But, you are right that she is trying to use this distortion of history to claim her own supposed "experience" is what is really needed. Uh-huh.

    If I were Obama, I would head straight into Bobby Kennedy waters about now. And I'd come up with a funny quip about LBJ and VIetnam to hit her on the war stuff. He won't, but I would...