Finally, a post in GD-P worth lots of loving attention!

[bobbolink]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5081727&mesg_id=5081727

This is well-deserving of a boost.. how bout some love and a bunch of recs?!

:applause:

[LiveLiberally]

1. I already gave it a K&R....

Wright's comments are incredibly, terribly wrong & there is no excuse for them. However, I did appreciate & learn a lot from the perspective of another UCC pastor (and Edwards supporter).

[Two Americas]

2. interesting

I have a different take on this. I do not think that pastor Wright's comments were incredibly, terribly wrong at all.

Probably most of the people commenting on this have not spent any time in African American churches. Comments like the ones Wright made are just not that unusual, nor should they be. I have heard similar remarks countless times over the years. Failing to recognize that, or being shocked by his comments merely reflects the racial divide and the persistence of racism and denial of racial injustice in the white community.

My problem was not with Wright's remarks, nor with Obama's association with the church. My problem is with the white Obama followers, who are embracing a "unity" notion of disappearing the "divisiveness" over issues. That contrasts completely with and contradicts the truth, and Wright comes much closer to speaking the truth about American society than the Obama supporters do.

Disappearing divisiveness and "reaching out" and the rest has always meant one thing - disappear the people and issues on one side of the divides - the poor, the persecuted, the downtrodden, and minority people. The wealthy and powerful are not going anywhere. They will not stop pressing their advantage. The only was to "heal the divide" is to get those without power to shut up.

So which is it Obama supporters? Speak out strongly for the oppressed, as Wright has done, or "heal the divide" and ignore the powerless? You can't have both.

Wright's remarks will be used by the right wing, and will get traction with the public, unless we are prepared to talk about oppression and injustice and thereby risk losing "unity."

[bobbolink]

3. "heal the divide" and ignore the powerless?

We're pretty good at that, aren't we????

Very well put!

[Beaverhausen]

4. thank you for articulating what I have been unable to for months

I want to use this sentence as my new sig line- I will give you credit, of course. Please let me know if it's OK:

So which is it Obama supporters? Speak out strongly for the oppressed, as Wright has done, or "heal the divide" and ignore the powerless? You can't have both.

[bobbolink]

5. Go for it!

It takes a lot of courage to stand out on the cliff like that, but we're at the point where we just can no longer afford to "play it safe" and let those without voice take the hindmost!

:applause:

[Two Americas]

9. yes

Yes, absolutely. Feel free to use anything of mine - creative commons, copyleft, open source.

This is not just a challenge for the Obama supporters, but for the entire left in my opinion. You can't go in two directions at once.

[bobbolink]

10. that sig looks good on you!

:thumbsup:

[chimpymustgo]

8. Two Americas, you should post this in GDP. It's quite thought provoking.

[LiveLiberally]

6. Frankly, when it comes to the issue of giving voice to the powerless...

I'm disappointed in both of the remaining candidates. (Neither of whom, by the way, was even ranked in the recent congressional score card of legislators who supported anti-poverty measures because neither had even voted on enough of the proposals to be ranked) Both seek to protect and represent the middle class, but neither have proposed policies that will do anything meaningful to redistribute the wealth in this country and close the gap between the obscenely rich and the working poor. Of course, just representing the middle class would be an enormous improvement, but that is only because Bush/McCain/Cheney & Co. have set the bar so low.

Are there solutions? Not easy ones, but Edwards' proposals were the most progressive I've seen in a long time. But I frankly think we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this rush to a 21st century "post-racial" world. It probably sounds old-fashioned, but the 1960s "War on Poverty" -- according to every rigorous study I've seen -- improved the socio-economic status of more Americans than any reforms before or since. (With one exception, that being FDR's creation of Social Security) Affirmative Action isn't perfect, but there is no other way to effectively redress generations of socio-economic oppression. I personally benefited from attending HeadStart as a kid and I know it made a real difference. In short, there are solutions, but I don't see either candidate giving more than lip service to them.

[bobbolink]

7. "neither had even voted on enough of the proposals to be ranked"

Which is exactly why I'm voting for neither!

After I was dumped by the peace movement, the environmentalists, and all the other "progressives" as not important enough, I realized that my survival issue of poverty must be the only thing I consider now. Sad to say, but it came to that.

Given that, I will NOT work for or even vote for someone who doesn't even give a rip about me.

IN that, I find that there are more and more poor folk who feel the same, and have given up.

THAT is a sad commentary!!

You need massive recruitment to tell the poorest of the poor what is possible.
Jonathan Kozol

When "progressives" take the sentiment of this quote seriously, and start LISTENING to those of us on the bottom rung, and start CARING about the prejudice we face, and start running the party accordingly, THEN it will be time to take another look at "working within" the party.

Until then...

:thumbsdown: