You have to admire the BBC’s devotion to Obama. Following the media firestorm ignited by the comments of Obama’s long standing spiritual guru, the Reverend “God damn America” Wright, the Senator has been forced into make further statements on his relationship with this raving bigot. Obama has desperately tried to dampen this down but has so far only succeeded in raising more questions. However the BBC drools over his speech with such comments as “It was a broad – some would say brave – point” and “it may have been too nuanced”. Best of all is the pay-off line “The Illinois senator is often accused of avoiding tough decisions; of skipping important votes. On this occasion, though, he did the presidential thing.” Pass the sick bucket! Obama has been forced into making these dissembling explanations. The idea that it is “Presidential” to damn America’s past may fit in with the endemic anti-Americanism motif that runs through the BBC, but were this a Republican candidate, does anyone think the BBC would be quite so charitable, quite so effusive in its desire to understand,? I don’t think so for a moment. The BBC is infatuated with the idea of a having a black left wing American President, (Although I can remember the BBC playing along with the idea that Bill Clinton was the first, wasn’t he?) and THAT is why it provides such gushing coverage of Obama’s shame.
Nice to see you’re presenting your own opinion as fact once again, as well as misrepresenting Obama’s statements. Did he really “damn America’s past”? I’ve read the whole speech, and nowhere can I see anything approaching that.
If you knew anything at all about this story you would not have made that comment. And I’m not going to explain it to you.
His spiritual adviser did. His socialist wife has claimed that she has just “for the first time” become proud of her country. Obama has been FAR from honest about this but that is beside the point. It is the BBC’s dewy-eyed reporting of his speech that I seek to discuss.
David Vance
I did of course mean Scott’s comment. Not your intro
meggoman: I know plenty about this story, thanks. It’s possible to know about the subjects David Vance blogs about and still disagree with him. In fact, the more you know about them I’d say the more likely it is.
Here, David said that Obama damned America, then admits that actually he’s interpreting comments made by people connected to him. Which, even though it’s an admission of inaccuracy, he still attempts to peddle as taking a high moral stand.
“Nice to see you’re presenting your own opinion as fact once again”
You’re entirely right. I’m beginning to suspect I can no longer rely on Vance for balanced and impartial reporting on the big stories. I will have to turn elsewhere.
Think I’ll try Sky.
Interesting but irrelevant, the BBC and the American Left have invested much in Obama in what must be one of the greatest examples of self delusion that I have ever seen.
Presidents of the United States will for the forseeable future remain Male & White. To suggest that Obama (or indeed Hillary) have a chance of winning a National poll is to misunderstand the United States and illustrates the lengths to which the Lefty media will go to puff-up their favored Parties & Candidates.
Any time spent on analysis of Obama or Hillary is time wasted.
Think I’ll try Sky.
Hugh | 19.03.08 – 2:54 pm | #
Thanks for giving me a chuckle Hugh.
Scott,
Can you point to where I said what you allege? Maybe you were moved to tears by Obama’s mystical words and failed to see the print of what I said? Obama is the guy who has, amazingly, indicated that he goes along with the Rev Not so Wrights bizarre view of America’s past. That, my friend, is his shame.
I shudder to imagine the feeding frenzy at BBC had it been a white Republican candidate’s white paster who made similar remarks.
“The idea that it is “Presidential” to damn America’s past”
So who was damning America’s past? By including the word “presidential”, I take it you were referring to Obama – the man campaigning to be the Democratic candidate – rather than his wife or his pastor.
Expect Obama hasn’t said any such thing.
Obama is the guy who has, amazingly, indicated that he goes along with the Rev Not so Wrights bizarre view of America’s past.
No he didn’t. I’ve read the whole speech, and he made it clear that he disagrees with it – at one point calling it a “a profoundly distorted view of this country”, adding “Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive”.
But at the same time, he addresses, among other things, the era Wright grew up in and sought to understand why such sentiments persist.
Have you read the speech, David? I must admit it would be uncharacteristic for you to actually sit back and take in somebody else’s viewpoint before reaching for the vitriol, but I can live in hope.
“The idea that it is “Presidential” to damn America’s past”
is what you wrote, Vance. Scott is correct to accuse you of misrepresenting Obama’s statements when you inferred Obama had “damned America’s past”
Despite Obama specifically disowning Wright’s comments, you wrote:
“Obama is the guy who has, amazingly, indicated that he goes along with the Rev Not so Wrights bizarre view of America’s past.”
Oddly, in the speech I saw on ITV news last night he specifically made the point that he disowned the comments, while not disowning the man.
Where has he said that he agrees with Wright’s view of the past?
Well it’s only thanks to Fox News that this story has any traction at all. When The New york Times spun a load of lies about John McCain they put it on the front page, yet this story (also about judgement) has almost been hidden from view not only by the likes of the BBC here but by the liberal media in the USA.
On Hannity and Colmes Sean Hannity read out several passages from Obama’s book that appeared to recite some of the dodgy parts of the sermons from Wright.
At the end of the day this story is not about Obama and what Wright said, but
1. About his judgement to be President
2. Has he been truthful
1 seems to be up for grabs still, but many people still feel that Obama has been less than honest. Obama MUST have known about these statements from Wright. Can we also kill the BBC lie that this was only one Speech from Wright. Fox have hours of this stuff and they have the only interview with Wright.
What the truth is no longer matters, Obama’s losing support from the middle ground. Both Hillary and McCain will make hay with this lot.
This will be another Swift boat saga. The BBC will igonre it and then everyone in the UK will wonder how George Bush got elected again.
The Swift boat saga NEVER got time on the BBC.
What conerns me is how the most powerful person the planet can be obsessed with frigging religion in the first place.
p and a tale of one chip: “Despite Obama specifically disowning Wright’s comments… Where has he said that he agrees with Wright’s view of the past?”
The truth, according to the BBC’s correspondent seems to be somewhere in between, surely:
“[The speech] was artfully constructed to try to deflate the immediate political crisis of Jeremiah Wright’s remarks, by conflating them with the bigger picture of what Mr Obama called America’s “racial stalemate”.”
“While renewing his condemnation of Reverend Wright’s more controversial comments, the Democratic candidate called on Americans – of all races – to appreciate the long history of injustice which lies beneath the anger expressed by black pastors…placed alongside the video of Barack Obama’s long time spiritual mentor shouting “God damn America”, it may have been too nuanced.”
But in any case, does one really read the posts for a sober, balanced account of current affairs? The point is whether the BBC’s coverage is skewed, not Vance’s. And it has to be said, the claim that it’s somehow presidential to make a speech principally designed to stop your campaign going down in flames is a bit ridiculous.
p and a tale,
My name is David. Use it if you want a response.
Scott,
The thing about Obama is that he has a problem with the truth, like most politicians! Did you happen to note his issues with the donations given to his campaign by Chicago fixer Tony Rezko. He initially said it was 60,000 dollars. Then the media discovers it was virtually three times that amount, $150,000.
Now Obama admits that the actual figure received was $250,000.
Obama then points out that at NO STAGE did Rezko look for anything in exchange for the cool $250,000 he donated, not even a sausage!
Listen, this guy is an insubstantial fantasist whose spiritual adviser is a disgusting race baiter / hustler. I take it you don’t go with Wrights wrongs? Obama is in a hole and he’s digging. The BBC cannot objectively examine this because they WANT Obama to be the next President. In that regard, the bias is surely evident, even to you?
As has been said by a poster over on my site..the short version of his speech goes like this..
“Not only is my pastor a racist but so is my grandmother and so are you!. The only way out of this is to elect me. God (fingers-crossed) Bless America”
Next question?
Obama is a phony, always has been. He talks out of both sides of his mouth, and this is just more evidence. His speech was the standard reductio ad absurdum dodge he learned in law school. He was basically saying that since America has a racist past, we must allow blacks to be angry about it forever, and that white Americans must accept that as he has done. He validated everything Wright said, right then and there.
When Obama uses the word “divisive” he doesn’t mean “incorrect.” Yet everyone is lapping it up, convincing themselves that they have just been spoken to like adults. He has used a bit of language acrobatics to not only get everyone to “understand” Wright’s remarks, but to accept that we deserve them. This, of course, completely avoids having to say that Wright’s remarks were wrong.
All the Leftoids are now going further into religious fervor, and any criticism of Obama’s speech is heresy. Obama enabled the ugly anger espoused by Wright. He did not say that Wright’s words were incorrect, wrong, awful. He just laughed it off, and we are all forced to eat it up.
More double talk, just like when he says he will bring all troops home from Iraq within a year, and at the same time his foreign policy adviser saying on record that he doesn’t really plan to do just that. Same goes for NAFTA and a Canadian diplomat.
Yet we must not question Obama. We must trust our faith in him. We must submit. We must believe in hope and a better future for America.
And now we’re supposed to believe that he never heard any of Wright’s most egregious offerings. Even when we know Obama had tapes of the good Rev.’s speeches, even though we know that the odds are against his attending the church for 20 years and never hearing any of Wright’s greatest hits.
Obama is a liar. He knew perfectly well that the guy was trouble, but didn’t care until it became clear that he was going to become too popular to avoid it. The BBC doesn’t want you to know that. Deniers here don’t want you to know that.
So read this:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/03/16/contrary-claims-obama-very-close-racist-preacher-wright
Even back in April of 2007 The New York Times quoted Wright that he’d already talked with Barack about his controversial relationship with the ranting Reverend.
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
And now we’re supposed to pretend that Obama is above all this? What a f¥@king liberty.
The point is whether the BBC’s coverage is skewed, not Vance’s.
Trouble is, if a blog poster bases his criticism of the BBC’s coverage on his own distortion, then it becomes harder to claim the moral high ground.
In the comments above, Vance claims that Obama “goes along with… Wright’s bizarre views of America’s past”.
When given direct quotes that demonstrate the contrary, Vance then starts calling Obama an “insubtantial fantasist”. A subject I guess that Vance himself knows much about.
Scott.
Inform yourself and read David Preiser’s post. Then you will be in a better position to debate.
“Presidents of the United States will for the forseeable future remain Male & White.”
Mind you the lefturds in America will make damn sure the world knows the reason is because of our hate for blacks and women.
I am debating, David. I’m just not agreeing with you, which is why I think you’re getting uppity and coming across as a patronising arse.
It is fascinating how the beeboids and other leftists continually attack the messenger and avoid reasoned debate. They clearly do not dissent – this would seem the stand up the Liberal fascism theory.
Now socialist types, read this slowly, I will write it only once. Of course you will get opinion on “Biased BBC” posts. The thing is (now do read carefully, go and get a dictionary if you must) the population is not forced to pay for this blog whether people want to or not. Biased BBC does not have a massive staff and budgets and a duty to delivered fair, accurate and balanced reporting.
No one minds that The Guardian is a left wing propaganda sheet, it is entitled to an editorial opinion and no one is forced to buy it. By remit the BBC is not entitled to a corporation wide editorial slant and we are forced to buy it.
David Preiser: I’m sure you are well aware that the US Saturday Night live shows have been having a go at the way the liberal media in the USA have been going soft on Obama. In fact even Hillary had a rant about it (the why do I always get the first question)
Funny thing is, NONE of that has been reported here in the UK.
In fact it comes across that the US media (except for Fox) has been shamed by these comedy sketches about how much Obama arse licking has been going on.
Only now is some of the US media starting to take a closer look at Obama.
Problem I see is that the Democrats are in a right mess. Hillary is probably their best candidate, but if she runs against McCain I think she will lose. Americans love a “real” war hero (not prats like John Kerry) and Hillary is very unpopular in parts of the USA.
But if the Dems go for Obama what else might come out of the woodwork? At the moment the Republicans must be pissing themsleves laughing the way the Dems are ripping each other apart, yet Obama (up till these videos) probably had the best chance of beating McCain (mostly by being able to bring out the younger voters)
What really annoys me is that if I watch say Fox I find I get really detailed information, but the BBC seems more interested in telling “us” what they think we want to know.
The BBC have always been big backers of Hillary (mostly because they thought she’d be up against Juliani and she’d walk it) but now the BBC are all screwed up. They hate McCain but do they go for the black man or the white woman. Shame neither is a Moozlum or lesbian (?) as the BBC would then be in pure heaven!!!!
I still think that this is an issue about “Judgement”. As Bill O’Reilly pointed out on Fox last night, Obama can’t be hled responsible for what Wright says and Wright is of an older generation where the isses of segregation etc were far worse than they are today.
Fact is if Obama is such a bad judge of this (a man he’s known for 20 years or more) what’s he going to be like facing down the Russian President etc.
That is the real test for Obama.
“The point is whether the BBC’s coverage is skewed, not Vance’s”
Er.. when DAVID is expressing a view on what the BBC is/is not doing, and making his own rather unique interpretations of it, his skew is pertinent.
David P:
“He did not say that Wright’s words were incorrect, wrong, awful.”
Except he did. The precise analogy he used was his allegedly racist grandmother.
nrg: Yes. It’s like the way the BBC attacks Fox News. Somehow the fact that an independent news organisation be anything other than “liberal” is seen as a crime.
If you remember some Beeboid used to post here (some bloke from Birmingham) and continually spouted the Fox News is right wing crap. Even if that were true (which it is not) so what? In the USA, the likes of MSNBC, CNN, NBC are hard liberal. I don’t see the BBC attacking them for “bias”
Scott,
You may have read the speech but I fear you did not understand it. In that regard you are not alone. I mean the BBC clearly is so misty-eyed about Obama that they just write PR pieces and pretend it to be news! So I’m guessing they just swoon at his voice and marvel as he talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.
The obamamessiah has everything needed to get the beeb and its lefties all moist and panting…so they will push in any way possible for the result most favourable to their leftist worldview.Sorry beeb..not going to happen..Barry O and his hope and change show is going nowhere.
You may have read the speech but I fear you did not understand it.
Well, I certainly understood when he said Wright’s opinions were wrong, which directly contradicts what you said earlier.
I can understand why you’re not happy to reminded of that fact.
But as the BBC correspondent himself pointed out, he basically said they were wrong, but understandable. Which some are clearly going to interpret as an excuse. I’m sure Vance overstated it, but that’s the point he and David Prieser are picking up on.
It always amuses me how enthusiastic the BBC and their like get about a candidate who they assume is some sort of European socialist – just like they did with Bill Clinton. Obama isn’t nearly as left-wing as they think (and certainly not as far to the left as Hilary, who is probably now to the right of where her husband initially was).
They are applying to the US presidential election the same relativism they showed when covering Iran’s recent elections (if the deranged are conservatives, the mildly-deranged must be ‘moderates’). If McCain’s a conservative then Obama *must* be a socialist, right? The fact that he’s not white is just the final clincher to the BBC, who are of course convinced that no ‘persons of colour’ could possibly be anything other than on the left.
I look forward to the day, if Obama is elected, when it finally dawns on the Beeb that Obama is, in fact, an American President, not a Euroweenie mole.
Hugh: Yes, I don’t think the actual speeches that Wright made are the issue. As I’ve pointed out even Bill O’Reilly on Fox has agreed that Wright is of a generation that has a lot of bitterness (and rightly so in many cases) about race.
The question is about Obama’s support for Wright. As Bill O’Reilly said, if Obama wants to be President he has to be a President for ALL of America, not just black people.
Obama can’t win on the black vote alone and his lack of distance between himself and Wright is already starting to hurt him in the polls with swing voters and white people.
Don’t blame the media for this. Blame Obama. If he can’t get this right does he have the judgement needed to be President?
p and a tale of one chip | 19.03.08 – 5:44 pm |
Except he did. The precise analogy he used was his allegedly racist grandmother.
No, he was saying some white people are racist, so it’s okay that some black people are. He was not comparing his grandmother’s supposed racism to Wright’s statements about 9/11 or Jews. He was saying he won’t distance himself from Rev. Wright for expressing anti-white sentiments. Obviously we’re all supposed to do the rest of the work for him, and apply that to all of Wright’s statements. But that’s hardly fair.
It doesn’t matter anyway, because he knew all along what this guy thought, knew all along what this guy was saying, knew all along that it was going to come up at some point. I hope you and others notice that Obama told Wright that he would have to distance himself from him, but now his spinmeisters have found a way for him to talk around it instead.
Obama may not be responsible for what Wright says, but he sure as hell is responsible for sitting there for twenty years nodding his head while Wright’s saying it. Oh, but we’ll pretend now that it never happened.
Ed Morrisey e-mail:
” I sat in his church, but I didn’t inhale”
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2008/03/us-obamas-pastor-problem.html
After reading the whole speech, I think he is ‘damming’ Americas past:-
“It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery”
“reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect.”
” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country.” But then he does just that.
“can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.”
“This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years.”
And whilst condemning the Pastor’s words he also excuses him :-
“a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.”
“For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.”
“Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears;..”
“Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect.”
And then a little twist:-
“We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America “-
It is a speech of twists and turns but to me it says America has got a dubious past in terms of race; progress has been made; but not that much. We all have to work together for the union; but particularly you ‘white people’. He is not someone I would trust, but he’s is unlikely to be the Gramsci inspired communist the BBC think either.
“Where has he said that he agrees with Wright’s view of the past?”
How about 20 years membership in Wrights “church”, baptising his children into this “faith” and naming his books and campaign after his “spiritual” mentor’s sermons? That not good enough, then how about his 20K in donations just in the past few years? No, no endorsement there.
But look Obama perfectly represents today’s Democratic party which is controlled by the adolescent America-hating left, so he should be their nomination. It should come as no surprise that the BBC and the Democrats love Obama and justify his hatred. He is only hating America, “Jews” and “whites”. Now if his church had said this about “gays” or Muslims, he would have been buried by now.
Think of the irony that the Democrats are going to nominate the first full-fledge racist for President. I am sure that the BBC thought it would be a Republican.
As a last remark, in 2004 the BBC lead Britain to be shocked that John Kerry wasn’t elected, so expect the same in 2008. Look elsewhere if you really are interested in the state of the US elections.
Martin | 19.03.08 – 5:40 pm |
Yes, I’m well aware that the cokeheads at SNL have been accused of shilling for Hillary. I think it was a combination of the general pro-Hillary sentiment there (really a projection of Bubba love, just like at the BBC!) and the fact that as cynics who hold themselves to be superior to actual media types (just like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and their ilk), they saw that the medial have been very obviously treating Obama with kid gloves. There was also probably unspoken agreement that it’s because he’s black.
And they were right. Once the press decided it was okay to give Obama even a little bit of scrutiny, his double-talk is revealed. So we get the race issue to distract us from the actual problem, which is the fact that Obama is basically a Leftoid, with very Socialist tendencies.
Every time somebody starts bringing up the race, he gets to stand there and say whatever he and his propagandists can think of to divert everyone’s attention from what’s behind it all.
And don’t you love the fact that Leftoids can sneer at Bush and any white person who claims deep spirituality and church-going, “Praise Jesus” tendencies, but it’s cool for black people? If Obama becomes President, would a BBC employee giggle when asking him about prayer? More disgusting Leftoid hypocrisy.
I still think that this is an issue about “Judgement”. As Bill O’Reilly pointed out on Fox last night, Obama can’t be hled responsible for what Wright says and Wright is of an older generation where the isses of segregation etc were far worse than they are today.
Fact is if Obama is such a bad judge of this (a man he’s known for 20 years or more) what’s he going to be like facing down the Russian President etc.
That is the real test for Obama.
You got that right. I sure don’t want to elect someone as President who tolerates Wright’s nastiness, who says unashamedly that he would forcibly redistribute corporate profits and income from the upper class, spouts protectionist dogma to unions during campaign pitches to them while his aides know full well he doesn’t mean it, talks “boldly” about being against any military action in Iraq and that he is the man to get us out of Iraq, while at the same time his foreign policy adviser is admitting that there is, in fact, no plan to withdraw completely.
Obama has a far-Left agenda, full stop, yet is allowed to campaign as a unifier, a peacemaker, a healer. I remember all too well that this is the exact same garbage we were fed about Bill Clinton. Even in Doonesbury cartoons. But we’re supposed to pretend that isn’t the case because America has a racist problem historically. Obama demonstrated bad judgment by not distancing himself from Wright a long time ago, by following one policy as a legislator and claiming another in campaign speeches and debates, and by following one policy with his advisers and policy wonks and claiming another in campaign speeches and debates.
Biased to the core:
It was a broad – some would say brave – point.”
Start off being nice to Obama, but then…
“But, placed alongside the video of Barack Obama’s long time spiritual mentor shouting “God damn America”, it may have been too nuanced.”
That’s a lot of emphasis on “long time spiritual mentor”. The far-right Beeboids might as well say they slept together. “May have been too nuanced is practically a euphemism for “retarded pseudo-intellectual poppycock.”
“He also snuck in an admission that he had – contrary to what he had earlier implied – been present when Reverend Wright gave some of his controversial sermons.”
Accusing Obama of lying!
“I was sure that I was going to vote for Obama,” one woman told me, “But this has made me think again.”
Final nail in the coffin – they quote someone who will no longer be voting for Obama. Any word from his loyal supporters? You’ll search in vain.
This is fun. I can see why you do it David.
I can’t see why do though, Alex,
Whoosh.
Alex: You’re missing the point. Obama has a strong core vote (mostly black). He cannot win the Presidency on that alone. He needs to attract white voters. This current “Wrightgate” thing is destroying that trust.
I’m guessing Alex you only listen to BBC output? In which case you’re missing out on a lot of background detail.
For example. Hillary & Bill Clinton have spent months trying to pigeon hole Obama as the “black candidate”. This has failed each time they tried.
However, Obama has managed to do this himself. All he will succeed in doing is drive away white Americans from voting for him.
That’s why it’s important to hear from floating voters.
If the Democrats don’t think he can attract enough white voters after this mess (which won’t go away even though the BBC are claiming it’s all done and dusted now) then will give Hillary the nomination even if he has the lead. This was discussed on Fox tonight with a Democrat strategist who clearly said the only reason the Super Delegates might go against Obama even if he has a majority of the delegates and popular vote is if he’s lost the trust of the white voter. And in my view he’s done that.
Stop listening to the lies and spin put out by the BBC.
David Presier: How much more nasty do you think it will get with Obama? I’ve heard that people are now trying to find out if there are more tapes of Wright out there. I’m sure there are, I’m sure there will be mobile phone video.
What on earth will happen if someone has a tape of Wright in full flow spouting his bile and there is Obama sitting in the audience? He’s finished if there is, is he not?
When the next Primary comes up it will be interesting to see if Hillary goes for him or if the media do.
I also saw a report that Hillary supporters have been getting a lot of abuse from the Daily Kos website. Looks like they want Obama. When you think how off the wall that lot are it really makes you think.
I can see the Democrats blowing up over this. If Obama thinks he’s losing it to Hillary I wonder if he will go after her Saudi Arabia links etc?
You can bet one thing though. It won’t be reported by the BBC.
Alex | Homepage | 19.03.08 – 9:16 pm |Alex:
The BBC is finally admitting a couple of truths about Obama, yet this article artfully elides the main point with distractions.
Yes, they point out that Obama was not telling the whole truth about what he heard from Wright’s speeches. Yet, the very sentence you think is unbiased is not so. Let’s review:
He also snuck in an admission that he had – contrary to what he had earlier implied – been present when Reverend Wright gave some of his controversial sermons.
Obama was very clear in his earlier claims that he never heard any of that. Saying that he merely “implied” that lessens the impression that he was lying. “Gave some”? Shouldn’t that read “gave any”? Obama supposedly didn’t hear any of the ugly sermons, and now the BBC is suggesting that he merely “implied” that he hadn’t heard “some”. The BBC is completely distorting reality, and you fell for it.
The article makes a gesture towards impartial reporting with this:
Which leaves unanswered the question that has done him the most damage: why did he not object to his pastor’s comments earlier?
But the very next sentence tells us that it’s “white, working class” people asking that question, thus invalidating it.
“I was sure that I was going to vote for Obama,” one woman told me, “But this has made me think again.”
Final nail in the coffin – they quote someone who will no longer be voting for Obama. Any word from his loyal supporters? You’ll search in vain.
Actually they do get in a word from a loyal supporter:
“The Illinois senator is often accused of avoiding tough decisions; of skipping important votes. On this occasion, though, he did the presidential thing.”
This is a quote from Jamie Coomarasamy, who is the Beeboid what wrote this article. It is also the only featured quote shown on the page. This is something usually reserved for an actual quote from someone’s reported statement in the article.
And showing us a white person from Allentown who was turned off by Wright’s remarks is yet another of the BBC’s favorite moves: United Statesians are too racist to elect him. It’s the perfect defense. But then Coomarasamy takes the spin a step further:
Others agreed – although the senator did score marks, amongst some, for refusing to do the politically expedient thing and throw his former pastor overboard.”
In other words, the only reason to ditch Wright is that it would help Obama to get elected by racist, white Americans who do not understand or appreciate black anger. Not that Obama himself might be as horrified as the rest of us at Wright’s venom.
The article skips right over his statements about Jews, 9/11, etc., and expects that you will have forgotten about all that and just focus on black anger about white racism. The rest of the defense follows easily.
It’s so easy to do, and the BBC continues to do it. And they have just told you how to interpret the speech – “presidential” – while playing at reporting on it.
I think Obama has now created his “Kobayashi Maru” scenario. He had a chance to kill this once and for all. But he didn’t (even though the BBC tries ot pretend he has) and this story is going ot drag him down.
As you pointed out David he was present at some of the sermons (note the BBC keep pretending there was ONLY ONE SERMON) and as I mentioned Sean Hannity read some quotes out of Obamas book (The Audacity of Hope) which appeared to also have some from several of his sermons.
Perhaps Obama thinks he can ride this out? But with a Primary coming up fast and Hillary with a massive lead, it could really take the remaining wind out of his sails if he gets beaten really big time.
No general thread – I find this unbelievable. In an unusually terse article BBC describes Bin Laden’s latest tape:
“New ‘bin Laden tape’ threatens EU”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7306002.stm
Osama Bin Laden on the tape threatens EU in no uncertain terms because of the Danish Cartoons. He also threatens the Pope for his “crusade”.
Yet BBC finds a way to put their pet cause into his mouth:
The message comes on the fifth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq.
BTW, BBC’s beloved Hamas has its own take on women’s rights and hijab – from Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29336_Video-_Womens_Rights_Hamas-Style&only
From what I see of Obama, he believes that the “racial stalemate” in the US can only be ended when whites repent and elect a black President – whom does he have in mind? His sole and single reason to be President is that he’s black.
BTW, when he slated his white grand-mother for fearing young, black males, did she not have good reason for her opinion? Check the US crimes stats based on racial background of the criminals: it’s an eye-opener and should be pointed out to the BBC.
Well that’s just nonsense. I’m sorry but if you can honestly hear a speech and then infer two entirely opposite things from it then you are exhibiting your own chronic bias. Which judging by the descent of this site into delusional tabloid innacuracy isn’t all that surprising.
“But the very next sentence tells us that it’s “white, working class” people asking that question, thus invalidating it.”
Depends how you feel about the white working classes. I think Obama’s general feeling is that he needs their votes.
“Actually they do get in a word from a loyal supporter:”
“The Illinois senator is often accused of avoiding tough decisions; of skipping important votes. On this occasion, though, he did the presidential thing.”
“This is a quote from Jamie Coomarasamy, who is the Beeboid what wrote this article. It is also the only featured quote shown on the page. This is something usually reserved for an actual quote from someone’s reported statement in the article.”
Yewhat? This is a quote in your book? You might as well say “This comes from the BBC website, therefore all of it is a quote from hardcore Obama supporters”.
He says it’s ‘presidential’. Obama is a presidential candidate and attempting to react like a president. This is neutral language, at best reflecting an optimistic strategy. If I can remind you, the “presidential thing” for the past sixteen years has been lie about what you did with your intern and kick out misbehaving White House advisers by the bucketload.
“And showing us a white person from Allentown who was turned off by Wright’s remarks is yet another of the BBC’s favorite moves: United Statesians are too racist to elect him.”
Where does it mention that she was white?
It’s the perfect defense. But then Coomarasamy takes the spin a step further:”
Others agreed – although the senator did score marks, amongst some, for refusing to do the politically expedient thing and throw his former pastor overboard.”
Reporting public opinion. Nothing wrong with that. But oh look, the BBC is saying what Obama should have done.
“In other words, the only reason to ditch Wright is that it would help Obama to get elected by racist, white Americans who do not understand or appreciate black anger.”
Politician distances himself from his allies’ gaffes. Happens every day. And this article is almost devoid of racial references, especially for a speech on race – he needs the white vote, it was a black pastor, he mentioned his own white grandmother.
Mr Bungles.
I have listened to Nicky Campbell. I know what delusional tabloid inaccuracy is. This site is not delusional tabloid inaccuracy.
Try not be so patronising.
Alex: “He says it’s ‘presidential’. Obama is a presidential candidate and attempting to react like a president. This is neutral language, at best reflecting an optimistic strategy.”
Leaving aside that I’m not really confident I understand the end of your sentence, I think it is fair to say that “presidential” is being used with reference to its connotations of strong, decisive leadership. It therefore suggests that in delivering such a speech at this time, he lived up to the mark. It’s not neutral. The journalist didn’t say, ‘he is trying to do the presidential thing’. He simply states that he has behaved presidentially. Another interpretation is he simply behaved politically – gave a speech to try and save his campaign.
You also opted earlier for a bizarre interpretation of this section:
“It was a broad – some would say brave – point.
But, placed alongside the video of Barack Obama’s long time spiritual mentor shouting “God damn America”, it may have been too nuanced.”
I can only see that the writer must be suggesting that although Obama made a legitimate – and possibly “brave” – point about racism in America, it may prove too sophisticated for American voters. I fail to see how that is critical of anyone other than the voters.
Yes, there are two incidences of rather inappropriately positive language. But to balance that there is language that emphasises their relationship. And no quote from a loyal supporter to counter the disillusioned one. Even the “Mr Obama condemned Rev Wright’s comments” phrase is the caption to a picture of them hugging and smiling.
There might well be some bias in this article, but whether it is pro-Obama or anti-Obama is beyond me.
I don’t think inappropriate pro-Obama editorial comment should really be used to balance facts that happen to reflect badly on him. I don’t think that’s what people mean by balance.
Incidentally, a less odd way of looking at the juxtaposition of the picture and its caption is that the picture has been given a caption that works to counteract it. After all, it’s the caption that accompanies the picture, not the other way around.