Father Pfleger on “white entitlement” and Hillary Clintion

Fri, May 30, 2008

Barack Obama, Father Pfleger, Hillary Clinton

This post was written by:

Antonio D. French - who has written 2903 posts on PUB DEF.

Antonio D. French is a writer, political consultant, and newly-elected Democratic Committeeman living in north St. Louis, Missouri.

Contact the author

13 Comments For This Post

flyover Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 9:09 am

As most of you know, I am not voting for Barak F. Obama, but this guy makes me sick. To use Obama’s situation for the obvious self promotion is disgusting. He knew exactly what he was doing and how it would drive an even bigger wedge between Obama and mainstream, independent voters who will decide the election. I haven’t seen a white guy with such a bad black accent since Hillary did her “nobdy told me the road would be easy” speech a few months ago. There are plenty of white clergy who work in black neighborhoods and do it to help people without the hope of self promotion. This guy is a disgrace. Obama is in a very sour pickle here. This church could very well cost him the election. If he quits, blacks will say he sold out. If he doesn’t, whites will say he is part of an extremist, whacko group. I don’t think God cares where you go to church, just that you go. Does anyone know if Obama has a Washington DC church? An easy way out would be to simply say he was going there as well over the past four years and would be making that his principal church. I am not voting for him, but I hate to see a church ruin anyone.

Douglas Duckworth Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 2:44 pm

For a further examination of what Pfleger calls white entitlement, check out Robert Jensen’s Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Racism and White Privilege.

flyover Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 5:22 pm

CNN reporting Obama quits Trinity Church.

Doug Duckworth Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 5:54 pm

That’s expected.

anon Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 7:28 pm

The truly ironic part is that white MEN have treated white women as property for most of history, and only very recently in historical terms could women hold property, vote, or run for office. White women are white, yes, but we haven’t benefitted in nearly the same way from white entitlement that white men have. So from a white woman’s perspective, this is a male privilege issue, not a white privilege issue. I understand why black people see it the other way, but they should try to understand as well that white women have not had the same experiences of power and “old boys clubbing” that white men in this country have. And Obama needs to understand that if he wants the votes of all the women who saw Hillary as the one who could finally break the only-men-need-apply presidential history of this country, and now see that no, once again, only men need apply.

flyover Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 11:09 pm

I don’t think this ends questions about Obama’s true character. I just think it stinks that men of the cloth use a church for personal gain. Look for this Priest to come out with a book, hit the lecture tour, etc. Hill got screwed all right in the election, by the biased media. This looks like its going to the convention. I can hear the Ozone Man warming up in the wings.

john w. Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 11:15 am

Clinton got screwed in the election? Ha ha hah a hah ha ha!!!! I’m getting a contact high by proximity to the people in this room and whatever it is they’re smoking! Clinton screwed HERSELF by running one of the most stunningly incompetent political campaigns for a candidate one one time such a near certainty to be the Democratic Party nominee. Her apparent (and quite arrogant) underestimation of Obama before the primary season began is now the reason, and ONLY reason, for her current position of irretrievably behind in the delegate race. The mathematical difference in delegates between Senators Clinton and Obama is approximately the same as it was at the end of February and just before the March 4th contests. The race was lost for Hillary after ceding WAY too many consecutive contests and virtually ignoring the caucus states (which, BTW, have been part of the Democratic party process for some time, and certainly long before the 2008 race, and certainly also part of former President Clinton’s successful math in the spring of 1992). Has Senator Clinton been coming on strong in last months and big “swing state” contests? Absolutely. It’s rather like Obama, in stunning fashion, scored 35 unanswered points and then watched Clinton score 28 unanswered points to fall 7 point short of the ultimate goal of having the most points. The clock ran out, and there was one winner and one loser. For one to win, one had to lose, and the loser is now searching for any reason other than the simplest of facts as to why the outcome was what it was. Clinton is about as formidable a political force as is imaginable, and she’s been out-campaigned by a stronger candidate. Is it fair to say that a Democrat has not the won the White House without some of the states that Senator Clinton has clearly won by large margins IN THE PAST? Of course. It’s also fair to say the Democratic party has never nominated a woman or an African American to represent its party in a general election IN THE PAST.

flyover Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 11:53 am

I wouldn’t spit on her if she was on fire. I am only saying the biased, liberal media was not fair in its coverage of her. I could care less about your elite, circular firing squad way of keeping score. Its like the Democrat Party has its own House of Lords. Just because I grew up in the sixties, I think you are assuming quite a lot about those smoking charges.

kjoe Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Anon, I think you have a point. I doubt if I will convince you to look at it my way, but i will give it a shot.

Hillary would not have been a good choice to be the first major party nominee for potus. There is the overwhelming fact of Bill Clinton. Is that the only way a woman has a chance—being married to a former president?

The ironic part is—-though he propelled her to consideration—-she is a squalified by experience as obama, and if Bill had not done all the stupid things he did during the campaign, she would probably be the nominee.

Governor Sibelius of Kansas is someone who impresses me. Claire Mckaskill, who said on Meet the Press that she would not want her daughter around Bill Clinton, probably made the difference for obama in the MO primary.

Hillary would have been ok—I hope you are young enough to see someone who will be a better choice, without Bill Clinton type of baggage some day.

flyover Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 1:20 pm

While not agreeing specifically with the women you mentioned, I agree there are plenty of women who would make a great presdient. Just not THAT woman.

john w. Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 2:19 pm

flyover… describe to me, with mathematical precision and proof, how the media is ‘liberal’. When I hear talk radio, it’s nothing but right-wing claptrap across the dial. When I tune in to the news, especially the corporate cable news outlets, it’s nothing but right-wing claptrap from station to station. That ‘liberal media’ sure did bang up job vetting Mr. Bush and his despicable, criminal administration when the claims they made in the lead-up to the wretchedness that is the occupation of Iraq were lapped up like meat in a dog’s bowl. “Just not THAT woman…” You might want to think about the rubbish you spew before spewing it, and I’ll just keep coming on this blog and setting you straight. There are plenty of women who would, indeed, make a great president, but I’m at a total loss to name even one from the diseased republican party that comes close to fitting the description. Keep posting your comments, and I’ll just keep coming back on to correct you. I really don’t care who you’d spit on if they were on fire, but I’ll just say that if the entirety of the Bush Administration were on the Titanic, and I were either the California or the Carpathia, I’d steam steam on by and let them sink because the world would indeed be a better place. McBush is a third term. Use your head.

flyover Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 7:38 pm

I have never seen any of your posts that “correct” me, just you spewing your illogical opinons. McBush? How about Carter II?
I will grant you that talk radio is by and large conservative. Hoewver, and I assume you can add from one, most everything else, with the exception of Fox News is LIBERAL. MSNBC (do I even need to explain that one)? The Clinton News Network? NBC effing News? CBS, ABC, PBS, The New York Times? LA TImes, Post Dispatch, USA Today, you want me to continue?. There have been several emperical studies done to measure the politcal leanings of “journalists” and its 90-10 and the ten don’t admit it. NBC News has its “reporters” giving regular opinion on MSNBC. This is against every ethical standard of journalism. When a media member agrees with you you don’t recognize they are being unfair, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t. At least Fox News ALWAYS has both sides presented. You NEVER see Britt Hume or other reporters on Hannitty and Colmes or O’Reilley. Those are opinon shows. You do see Engel, Gergory, even Russert on MSNBC shows like Hardball all the time. Chris Matthews was so deep in the tank for Obama he could have discovered new life forms he was so far down there. Let’s face it. JJournalism is kind of like teaching. It just attracts that kind of person and they have historically had little supervision on being fair. The state of journalism is so bad today since journalists seem to think themselves part of the story and not an observer of it. See John, you are like the socialists who try to shout down opposing views. You don’t want dissent. But, you can come back and make your lame attempts to shout me down, but you won’t ever do it. I am going to continue keeping all of you honest here. Its me against the rest of you. That seems about fair. Bring it on.

DonR Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 am

4 rules:
Religion and Politics don’t mix.
Race and politics don’t mix.
Sex and politics don’t mix. (SEX not Gender, despite current popular belief)

Yes, in that order. The 4th one is, Media and politics don’t mix. I don’t know where to put that one though. It is probably the worse one of all depending on the situation. I doubt there is a liberal bias, it is just that the media is to the left of where you want it to be. Everyone likes to think they are the “middle”. From my point of view, everyone not sharing my views seems to whine, complain, fearmonger, race-bait, and worse. If only I had another 50 percentage points, I could be president in 2028.

Fact is the reason Clinton is losing, like JohnW said, she dropped the ball. No other reason. She didn’t expect it to go past Super Tuesday. She thought this was hers. She looked around and said:
A. Republicans can’t win with this war going bad.
B. She was better known amongst all her competitors on the Dems’ side.
C. The people more experienced than her really did not have a chance, if they did they would have been considered before now.
D. The rest where on her level in experience, ie just now on the scene, or already had one strike against them as well. Her being a Clinton. Edwards a trial lawyer, Obama a black, and Richardson a hispanic.
E. Her husband could raise money in the poorest countries in the world. $$$
F. Women are over 50% of the country.

How could she not win? If she had won Iowa, white caucus state, then followed it with New Hampshire, the it would have been over. Money follows winners. But she didn’t.

The rest is history.

PUB DEF