Obama's Former Pastor Speaks Out - Again

Were Dr. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's miscontrued? Democratic candidate Barack Obama's former pastor claims that his words have been twisted. Wright,an alumnae of Howard University, provided copy of a letter to the editor he submitted to the New York Times Reporter, Jodi Kantor to his alma mater which in turn blasted it out to various people. I was one of those people. Here is a copy of the letter. Has the media twisted Wright's words to create a firestorm around Senator Obama? Read the letter and decide:

March 11, 2007
Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959

Dear Jodi:

Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a “Spiritual Biography” of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.

For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run.

I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn’t I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family? I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.

I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just “in word only.” I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.

Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack’s spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, “What is that in your hand?,” that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it “in his hand.” Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.

As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack’s taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed “sound byte” and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.

I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation’s first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.

Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama’s “Spiritual Biography.” Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of “Hannity and Colmes” is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.

The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth. I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or “spin” because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.

Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party’s national “blog.” The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior.

Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. ,
Senior Pastor
Trinity United Church of Christ

(end of letter)

What do you think - is Wright a victim of the media or has he said too much?

Is Jessica Simpson the Next Suzanne Somers?

Jessica Simpson recently had the worst movie box office numbers ever for her movie "Blonde Ambition." It was released in her hometown in Texas and flopped. None of her films before it did well except The Dukes of Hazzard which had minor success. Despite failed films and poor CD sales, she keeps getting merchandising deals. I think she is in the process of reinventing herself. Given her lack of success in tradional show business, this is a good move.

Remember the Thighmaster? Suzanne Somers famously used it in a low-budget infomercial which launched her new career as a health and beauty billionaire titan. She has books, clothing, exercise gear, jewelry, food and anything else you can stick a label on. Jessica Simpson is moving in the same direction. I just saw on TV that she now has a swimsuit line. Ms. Simpson also has hair extenstions, footwear, handbags, clothing, and beauty products. There is a trend here.

I was never a fan of Jessica's music, but I found her amusing on her MTV reality show. But her footwear line isn't bad and from the clip I saw on TV of her swimwear line - it shows promise. There are a couple of pair of her boots that I definitely would wear. Suzanne Somers has a great partnership with her husband of many years and they have created an empire together. I am not sure if Jessica's team has the same business prowess as Ms. Somers team; however, she is really moving into creating a full-on merchandising empire that could save her career and her bank account.

I question if she has the charisma and business sense to carry a full-line of products. Only time will tell. For now I wonder if people will continue to buy Jessica Simpson merchandise to keep her empire in growth mode. I do hope she chooses to devote her energy to her merchandise full-time and exits gracefully from acting and singing. It could be the big break she is looking for.

A Historic PR Spin on Slavery: Colonial Williamsburg’s Website Dumbs Down Slavery

As a publicist, I am akin to spin. It is part of my profession and I usually do not fault a little spin, where appropriate. But after reading the spin on slavery on the Colonial Williamsburg official website , as an African American- I am in utter disgust.

I was planning a visit to Virginia and began researching Williamsburg. What I found was shocking. What we know as a horrific time for African-Americans in colonial times is characterized in a very odd manner on the Colonial Williamsburg website. To my horror, I stumbled upon the heading “Introduction to Colonial Life for African Americans.” Firstly, this makes the life for African Americans in those times sound very dignified. To even call it colonial life is a joke. Slaves had no lives – their lives were that of their slave masters. It wasn’t colonial life – it was colonial oppression. This section title alone put me on edge.

But it gets worse.

As I read this eloquently spun prose, I am learning some very eyebrow raising things about slavery. One thing is that there were advantages to colonial slaves. FYI - the words “advantages” and “slaves” should never be in the same sentence. Well it seems that field slaves had minor advantages over house or “urban” slaves. Here is Colonial Williamsburg’s spin:

“For slaves working on farms, the work was a little less tedious than tobacco cultivation, but no less demanding. The variety of food crops and livestock usually kept slaves busy throughout the year. Despite the difficult labor, there were some minor advantages to working on a plantation or farm compared to working in an urban setting or household. Generally, slaves on plantations lived in complete family units, their work dictated by the rising and setting of the sun, and they generally had Sundays off.”

“Complete family units?” “Sundays off?” Are you kidding me? Firstly, slaves who had SOME of their family with them were always threatened to be separated if they tried to break free OR did something to annoy the slave master, like report sexual abuse. Working sun up until sundown is no picnic – so how is that an advantage? The average person today begins work at least 2 1/2 hours after sunrise. Their “work” day was not easy.

To be fair they do mention disadvantages:
“The disadvantages, however, were stark. Plantation slaves were more likely to be sold or transferred than those in a domestic setting. They were also subject to brutal and severe punishments, because they were regarded as less valuable than household or urban slaves.”

Stop the madness.

All slaves were slaves in colonial times. All slaves were subject to abuse and there was very little preferential treatment. Yes, a house slave may have worn nicer clothing (because they were around their master’s guests and family) but they were not treated like gold. One misstep and they would be beat or thrown out to the fields. House slaves probably psychologically felt superior to field slaves – but they were all on the same level.

This is priceless – the story goes on to explain how “urban” and “domestic” slaves were better off than field slaves:

“Urban and domestic slaves usually dressed better, ate better food, and had greater opportunity to move about in relative freedom. They also were go-betweens for field slaves and the owners. They were privy to a great deal of information discussed in the "big house." They knew everything from the master's mood to the latest political events. The marketplace became the communal center, the place for "networking." At the marketplace, slaves would exchange news and discuss the well-being of friends and loved ones. They often aided runaways, and they kept a keen ear to those political events that might have had an impact on their lives. Regardless of a slave's occupation, there was considerable fear and angst caused by an environment of constant uncertainty and threats of violence and abuse.

Slaves networking – that is an interesting spin. If slaves were able to be off the plantation – they were still being closely watched. Their conversations were most certainly being overheard and they were desperately scheming to break free. I guess networking is a decent way to put it – but it is too positive. My favorite reference is “regardless of a slave’s occupation.” Occupation? According to Webster’s occupation means “"an activity serving as ones regular employement." Slaves were not EMPLOYED - they were slaves. This website’s characterization is totally ridiculous. “Threats of violence and abuse” Threats? Slaves were more than threatened – they were consistently abused, mistreated and on many occassions - killed.

I understand that Colonial Williamsburg is now essentially a business and a tourist trap. But there is no need to re-write history using questionable verbiage that clearly undermines the integrity of our history.



Sponsored Links
15,000 Bonus Miles & Always Double Miles! Apply now for
the Gold Delta SkyMiles® Business Credit Card
from American Express, and get a decision in 60 seconds!