Because unity, love and understanding is bad news for a bottom line that demands competition amongst segregated markets, The Wall Street Journal absolutely hated the enlightening, heartfelt, unprecedented speech Senator Barack Obama gave yesterday.
Barack Obama took the stage this morning to give what was billed as a "major speech on race." It was, of course, an attempt to rescue his campaign from the revelation that his so-called spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, espouses a virulently anti-American and antiwhite worldview called "black liberation theology."
…
Our first thought was that it was pretty low of Obama to exploit his (still living) grandmother in this way. Is it really necessary for the whole world to know about her private expressions of prejudice? Doesn't simple decency dictate that a public figure treat embarrassing facts about loved ones with discretion?Obama was trying to accomplish something very specific by dragging his "white grandmother" into this political mess. He was trying to diminish Wright's hateful theology by implying that it too is a private matter.
One wonders, Is it their dollar sign eyes that make them so blind?
Interim Editor
Cord Jefferson Editorial Director
David Hauslaib Publisher
Jossip Initiatives
All Hip Hop
The Assimilated Negro
The B Life
Black Agenda Report
Black Male Appreciation
Black Prof
Black Voices
Bossip
Cake & Ice Cream
Clips and Kisses
Clutch Magazine
Concrete Loop
Crunk & Disorderly
Essence
EUR Web
The Fashion Bomb
Giant
Greasy Guide
Hip Candy
HipHopDX
Hip & Pop
Juicy News
King
Miss Info
Mollygood
My Urban Report
Nah Right
Necole Bitchie
Nova Slim
Panache Report
Racialicious
The Rap Up
Rhymes With Snitch
Sandra Rose
Shake Your Beauty
Straight Outta NYC
SOHH
TMZ
Vibe
Wendy Williams
XXL
Young, Black, Fabulous
Their point of life is to make money - so in that way, they really haven't missed it. And are you really surprised, Cord?
I loathe the WSJ's conservative bent. I would prefer them to stay focused on financial news, and be as impartial as possible when it comes to reporting on subjects that intersect with finanical happenings.
precisely, JackJohnson. Since Murdoch has taken over the WSJ, a decidedly conservative tone has imbued the paper (for the worse).
weird thing is conservatism and capitalism are at odds. i smell a self-destruction coming.
Murdoch's Newspapers in Australia and the UK are not just conservative but totally Right-wing.
Of course Murdoch/Rush Limbaugh/George Bush/Fox Media/Pat Buchanan/Billy Crystal/insert right-wing nut name here. will disagree with Senator Obama's speech, because if Obama's premise(s) are accepted by the populace their candidate cannot win the Presidency, their political domain will be in danger of falling.
What BMD said.
souldecirce, the WSJ has pretty much always had a conservative bend. They support the party that supports their goal in life (see BMD's comment) so this goes with it As for conservatism and capitalism being at odds, how so? On paper, conservatives believe in small government which generally goes which generally means a more hands-off government that won't tax the hell out of big companies and will actually give them help but demands little of them (except in campaign donations).
i said conservatism and capitalism are at odds. not american right wing /republican platforms and capitalism are at odds.
capitalism can only thrive where there is growth and expansion. conservatism requires a maintenance of status quo.
when i was a wee lass, my republican friends complained about (usually poor) people buying foreign cars, without knowing that it was the so-called conservatives who were capitalizing on exploited labor overseas.
libertarians also favor limited (small) government–this makes sense. to call oneself a conservative and an unapologetic capitalist is a contradiction in terms.
Sould, I totally agree with your definition, there is nothing I could add to that.