I was referring mostly to Ireland with the political comment.
While the *revolution speech may be an indictment of the IRA, they haven't exactly been supporting the British troops either. It was always a broad "drop your arms, everyone on both sides" attitude. They even said at one point they'd rather support a cause that unites, rather than divides people.
As for Bill Clinton support...what about it is so political ? Would US voters really be swayed because a loaded Irish rock star (I would not be surprised if that was 100% Bono's idea, and the others just went along reluctantly) is seen around with Clinton ?
Rallying against Reagan on stage is more political...that said most of the time Bono gets a lot of flack when he is referring to US policies (debt aid, gun control on Elevation...), especially on stage.
And as for a celebrity against nuclear testing...hardly shocking.
I consider what he does now, and has been doing since 1998, far more political. It's easy to rant on stage, actually getting involved is another matter.
Rather than his activism, I see their age more as a reason why they are *less political. You will note most of the above examples happened ages ago when a much younger U2 was more open and interested about the political topics.
Given their weak political execution of late (Native Son, the awkward POW routine on Vertigo tour during BTBS and the overlong reading of the Human rights declaration, the Suu Kyi masks...), I think the band should let their more political moments be in the past.
I understand what you are saying, but a few observations.
1.)IRA- I understand U2 hardly supported the British, quite the opposite. However, in the Ireland of the 80s, it was certainly a ballsy move to openly oppose the IRA like U2 did. Especially coming from Catholic backgrounds as they did. See Bono's comments about how uneasy they were the 1st time they played SBS in Belfast. U2 were already prominent in Ireland, then they go worldwide with New Year's Day and Sunday Bloody Sunday, they're all of a sudden the best known Irishmen in the world. And they're out bashing the IRA.
Also, a good amount of this was targeted at Irish-Americans(usually 2nd generation or further removed) who cluelessly supported the IRA even though they had not an ounce of understanding of their brutality and what they were actually about. See the Rattle and Hum Sunday Bloody Sunday. As an aside, Whitey Bulger, now 2nd on the FBI's most wanted list to Bin Laden, helped oversee arms and money smuggling to the IRA from Boston. Many similar rings existed throughout America.
Anyways, the significance of U2 slamming the IRA and what it was doing for their publicity was not lost on the IRA themselves. They went as far as to threaten Bono with death.
2.)Bill Clinton: Taking the side of a major Party presidential candidate, or opposing them, is no small thing in the United States. It's the Democrats and the Republicans and that's it and they get all of the attention. If you take one side, it's considered very political. In the US, there are slightly more registered Democrats than Republicans and the majority are independents.
I understand they actually are personally involved now, particularly Bono, but they're not going to be endorsing candidates openly like they did back then. You didn't see them bashing Bush for the Iraq war on stage, even though they opposed it as strongly as they opposed Reagan's 80s foreign policy and Iranian drug lords who were flooding Dublin with heroin.
The rights readings, the videos, the masks, the torture reenactments and the "support ONE" speeches, though they can be awkward and time consuming as you say, aren't all that controversial. They're universal statements that people of all political leanings can and do support. End poverty? Free Iran? Free Burma? No controversy even in the subject lines, never mind how Bono presents it these days: "we need to come together, the left and the right."
3.)Gun control: I thought this was blown way out of proportion by the gun industry lobbying machine. All they did was play a dumb statement by Charlton Heston and then show a girl picking up a gun that probably a relative or other "good man" left around.
One of the 1st things I did when I got to be of age was get a license to carry from my Police Chief here in the Boston suburbs. I've been a gun owner for a while and take it seriously. I travel a lot late at night, drive through dangerous areas, live in a town with gang violence, etc. I don't think law abiding citizens should be denied carry permits.
That doesn't mean I want anything to do with the NRA, who's biggest issues as long as I've been around have been allowing criminals to buy guns at gun shows and preventing law enforcement from sharing gun trace data.
I don't think Bono, who walks around with armed security and wears bullet proof vests on occasion, has any problem with the people who own guns for self defense, most of whom have nothing to do with the NRA.
Anyways....the speech was at the very beginning, and then the song took a sharp, unmistakeable turn into condemning violence in general(Mark Chapman, 600K will go down in the streets of America...etc) leaving out any commentary on gun laws.
They could have pulled a John Mellencamp and scrolled the entire text of their opinions on gun laws behind them on a screen as they played, but they didn't. I think the purpose of Bullet 2001 was to make us think and examine the broader causes of violence.
Sorry to ramble, it's just my bottom line is this: I don't see how anyone could come away pissed off at U2 for being political in the 2000's as compared to the 1980's. They were a lot more likely to offend people of differing opinions back then.
