Guilt By Association
Stanley Fish wrote a piece for The Times a couple of days ago.
In 1952, when McCarthyism was at its height, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas labeled the investigative techniques of the junior senator from Wisconsin "guilt by association" (Adler v. Board of Education). Douglas added that McCarthyite tactics were "repugnant to our society" because, despite the absence of any overt wrongdoing, the pasts of those attacked were "combed for signs of disloyalty" and for utterances that might be read as "clues to dangerous thoughts."More than a half century later, "McCarthyism" was joined in the lexicon by "Swiftboating," the art of the smear campaign mounted with the intention not of documenting a wrong, but of covering the victim with slime enough to cast doubt on his or her integrity. Now, in 2008, after a primary season increasingly marked by dirty pool and low blows, "McCarthyism" and "Swiftboating" have come together in a particularly lethal and despicable form.
Professor Fish goes on to write about Bill Ayres, who he knows personally and how he was used to tar Obama. But it is just as true for the Jeremiah Wright association: that the Clinton and McCain campaigns, with the total cooperation of the MSM, have combined McCarthyism and Swift Boating against Barack Obama. Obama can be accused of naivete for not publicly breaking with Wright before he announced for the Presidency. He made a point of not inviting him to the announcement ceremony, but he never made a Sister Souljah moment of it. That's part of his character that is in the true tradition of his faith--"He who is without sin, cast the first stone".
But even if he has handled it poorly, what Wright says has nothing to do with Obama's candidacy. It is "Guilt by Association."
UPDATE:The Daily News says an associate of Hillary Clinton arranged the appearance of the Rev. Wright at The National Press Club yesterday. If so, that will go down in the history of dirty tricks in this country.
Comments (80)
Or, if you lie down with dogs, you're likely to get up with fleas.
April 29, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is that supposed to be? Folksy wisdom? Maybe if you had something substantial you wouldn't need to rely on such silly clinches and innuendo.
btw, Speaking of dogs and their habits, there's always Bill and McCain, known to have laid with some fleabags, brought them home, and still lie about it.
April 30, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of dogs and their habits . . . .
If the shoe fits, kozmik, by all means, go ahead and wear it.
April 30, 2008 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
IF I ASSOCIATE WITH GOOBERS WHAT AM I GUILTY OF?
They bowl pretty good and always have beer.
(insert pot bellied hillbilly here)
HOPEism: The sinking ship is not half full it is half empty.
April 30, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thye association of Barak Obama and Rev. Wright does not meet the stipulation that the association must be irrelevant.
It stretches credulity to think that Barak Obama just happened to attend the Reverend's sermons for no particular reason at all.
Obviously he attended the Reverend’s sermons because he implicitly agreed with what the reverend had to say.
It stretches credulity to think that someone would attend the sermons of a Pastor for nearly 20 years and yet disagree with the views of his sermons.
Further it stretches credulity to think that just when Barack was in attendance, the Reverend preached things that are not objectionable.
So I'd say revisit the FORMAL fallacy of Guilt by Association and rethink your piece.
April 29, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew, I don't think you understand much about the relationship of congregants and pastors in the Congregationalist tradition, and that is unfortunate. (I do, I was born and raised in a UCC church.) Also you may be unaware of the structure of its Sunday services and the purpose of sermons. If you did you might not blithely assume that there had to be some philosophical or political agreement between the congregation and the pastor when a topic came up. You would also have to ignore the fact that for at least one of the sermons that had a snippet of controversy in it, Obama was provably not present. And dozens of people who are familiar with Wright's ministry, including leaders of the UCC international church, have confirmed that his more controversial views were not in any way a major feature of either his ministry or his work in the church.
To make your case you have to show that there was considerable content of Wright's regular services devoted to the kind of rhetoric that Obama condemned, and all evidence points to the contrary. In fact, Fox News, which put together the soundbytes, came up with exactly 30 seconds of tape from two specific sermons, and no others have ever been excerpted. Yet they had purchased over 40 hours of sermon tapes. What does that tell you about the overall content of politically-charged rhetoric in Wright's oeuvre?
I call foul.
April 30, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Wright doesn't offend. What now bothers me about him is the way he has given even more ammunition to second and third class minds like yours.
April 30, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, the above should have been addressed to Andrew Strat, in response to his lesson on logicial fallacies and question begging.
April 30, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is just a crass ad hominem fallacy. You have it backward: the people that commit the fallacies have second rate minds not those that correct them
April 30, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not particularly offended by the Reverend's sermons. That's not the issue; at least not with me. That is a political liability that Obama incurs with segments of the electorate. So you are still in the woods about what it's all about.
April 30, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's guilt by association! That's why they're doing it! It's disgusting, but it isn't like this should come as a big surprise.
The Obama campaign has sat there under fire for weeks like a sitting duck and done absolutely nothing effective to get beyond this issue or to effectively defend Obama from these baseless, irrelevant attacks. It's sad to see this happening.
Obama, unfortunately, is more than naive with respect to Wright who has said and done nothing wrong. Instead of trying to move away from the man from day one he should have come out swinging and told the corporate media to back off and he should have questioned Hillary's motives from the moment she started using this nonissue to hurt him. But Obama isn't experienced enough to know that and he has been handled by a crowd of Washington and Chicago consultants trying to cultivate an image of someone above the fray. This, in and of itself, leaves Obama pretty defenseless if attacked because if he fights back he's a hypocrite and if he doesn't he's just another pussy Democrat who can't or won't defend himself.
Obama should have come out sharply and caustically from the beginning saying "You're God Damn right he's my preacher! So what? You got a problem with that? It's none of your damned business. At least I go to church and I know my denomination unlike Hillary and Mccain. But if you're wondering about Rev. Wright, he preaches the chllenging message of Jesus which, by the way, condems the rich and powerful and sympathizes with the poor and powerless. Jesus was a liberal with a capital L and Rev. Wright echoes the teachings of Jesus both in letter and spirit. I am proud of his courage and outspokenness and a proud member of his church. There's no room in this campaign for trying to use my religion against me and that's that. Black preachers don't deliver sermons n the same ways that most white preachers do so you can either appreciate it for what it is or choose to distort his message and his beliefs, but I will not stand idly by and allow you to do so unchallenged if you make the choice to misinform Americans. Now back off! I'm done answering these questions."
I understand it wouldn't be quite that easy, but McCain has repeatedly fended off far more substantive criticism in this way as did Bush in 2000 about his drug and alcohol additions so it isn't as though it hasn't been an effective strategy in the past.
At least had he taken this tack he could have defended himself, Wright and been a liberal instead of a mealy-mouthed centrist/corporate Democrat. But he took the advice of the "smart guy" consultants early on, remained in the center and now is listing badly after having taken on lots of water even though he has repudiated Wright more and more and more. Denying the relationship only makes Obama look worse in my opinion.
April 29, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a perfectly plausible story that Obama:
- liked the religious part of the sermon, and the social gospel, but hadn't heard some of the more divisive statements
- Obama thinks there's a better way to get this country together than by dwelling on the differences
- Obama hoped that Wright would be able to show himself as a good human being, and that the media would allow that to happen (I was hoping for that too), but when that didn't happen, he did what he had to do: explain where he parts ways with Wright in terms of the ideology of how we achieve reconciliation
Even in his strong denunciation today, he didn't say anything bad about the man personally, but decried his latest actions and words very strongly. I think it was genuine, he did undercut all of what Obama is about. Wright was wrong to presume to impart all of his philosophies on Obama.
April 30, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
Yes, but we must not overlook the fact that Bush and McCain are Republicans. The key difference being that radio and cable & broadcast TV are together a comfortably deregulated industry that will do whatever is possible and necessary to remain that way, and a Democratic party represents the greater risk of rolling back the industry trend toward deregulation and ownership consolidation than the Republicans.
April 30, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo! Also the more war we have, the more people will read and watch the news for updates. Bombs exploding, people being carried off in pieces, massive fires, etc. sell to TV viewers and newspaper readers. Democrats are a threat to the current blood lust.
April 30, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
War coverage has actually fallen away.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/business/media/24press.html
April 30, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the fallacy of Begging the Question.
I know nowadays people use the term "begging the question" to mean "it raises the question", but that's another matter concerning the epidemic of cliché-words and phrases floating out there like "meme", "frames" and all that other rubbish.
Begging the question is often called circular reasoning and the classic example given in intor logic classes is as follows?
Patient: Why does opium cause sleep?
Doctor: Because of its soporific powers
(Where soporific powers merely means sleep inducing)
So it it must be guilt by association because “otherwise they would not do it” is begging the question plain and simple.
April 30, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/wright_defends_his_name.html
April 30, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
UPDATE: The Daily News says an associate of Hillary Clinton arranged the appearance of the Rev. Wright at The National Press Club yesterday. If so, that will go down in the history of dirty tricks in this country.
UPDATE: Trying to smear Clinton with the smearing of Obama with Wright may be Mcarthyism and/or Swiftboating. If so, it will go down in the history of dirty tricks in this country.
April 30, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Trying to smear Clinton with the smearing of Obama with Wright may be Mcarthyism and/or Swiftboating. If so, it will go down in the history of dirty tricks in this country."
Don:
I'm not going to get used to agreeing with you this much Don. It's just not natural. :) But, my friend, you are absolutely correct. Professor Taplin has demonstrated once again that he can legitimize the Matt Drudge approach to political discourse as well as any disingenuous FOX News analyst. But, in fairness to him, I don't have to read his "analysis", and I usually don't; there are enough regular posters on here to rail against.
On the other hand, I don't want to detract from what I think is significant this morning, and that is that Senator Obama impressed me yesterday because he took a risk and did what he had to do, and while I support Hillary as much as I ever have, and while I think Obama is not being honest and candid about what he knew about Reverend Wright in the past, I ultimately really don't care where he went to church and why. I wrote yesterday that I thought he should just move on and ignore Wright, but that's why I'm just a two-bit poster and Obama is running for president.
In the end, I will not allow 500 Professor Taplins to ruin this moment in the campaign for me. Nor will Professor Taplin and his like-minded Foxies from the alleged left keep this real Democrat and genuine old-fashioned dyed in the wool liberal from voting for the Democrat in November, whoever he or she may be.
Bruce
P.S. Do you think that Professor Taplin even realizes how ironic and hypocritical it is for him to write about McCarthism and swiftboating when, in the same post, he spreads viscious and speculative rumors about Senator Clinton? Maybe Taplin should be a sport and apologize and retract. Now that would show class.
April 30, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't hold your breath, Bruce
:)
April 30, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hope springs eternal my favorite drunken bee.
April 30, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, I have to disagree (but I don’t really). I didn’t see Obama’s speech and don’t know if he was courageous yesterday or was courageous last week when standing by Rev. Wright. On Friday, Wright was touted as MLK; on Monday he was Farrakhan. I don’t think he’s Jekyll and Hyde. I don’t dislike Obama and I have never “associated” him with what Wright has said. That Obama went to Trinity and worked helping people is one of the most positive things about him to me.
This issue was bound to come out regardless of whether the media has treated him with kid gloves or not. It's a political problem, not a matter of Obama's beliefs or church. Even though I agree it is irrelevant, it is not guilt by association but a question for voters of who Obama is and what his beliefs are and have been. It’s not fair, but it was completely foreseeable. As a politician, he is trying to put out a fire. But his supporters are putting it out by burning Clinton with it.
The whole race issue, as it has evolved in this campaign is too opportunistic for me. I thought in January that he should have clearly disassociated himself with the philosophy of Wright. But when it finally exploded, he gave his Great Philadelphia Speech on race divisions. He has barely mentioned what he paraded out this most important issue of race before or since. I regret that Obama is in this position just as I regret that Clinton has been maimed by race politics and if McCain ends up getting elected regret won’t even touch on how I’ll feel.
April 30, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds good but this is non sense. Try on Hagee, Liberty University, Bob Jones University,700 Club and so on for size in your equations.
But, I do agree the Wright affair was a matter of time.
April 30, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, if you say it's nonsense, I can't argue with that. I agree that McCain gets a pass on most everything and the double standard in coverage is despicable. And politics aside, the networks won't even mention the NYT story about paid retired generals shilling for the Pentagon on their own broadcasts. Readers and viewers are bought and sold to advertisers, so things will change only when there is a rebellion by information "consumers" over honesty and truth in the press.
April 30, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do agree what is called the press make door knobs appear to be gifted. And, this is far beyond agreeing or disagreeing with a point of view, too many of these folks are plain dumb with little knowledge of anything behind the tip of their nose.
The self serving rants of Krugman, Dowd, Brooks, Broader and the absolute con job of Judith Miller represent relics in pursuit of dinosaurs, the younger crown is not much different. And, it is pointless to address the shock jock and cable network types.
Simple declarative sentences with verifiable facts need to return in vogue, differences do remain between facts, opinion, and the factual determination on what actual events and facts mean.
April 30, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don:
Your money quote:
"It's a political problem, not a matter of Obama's beliefs or church."
I agree that this a political problem. My point was that I was impressed with how Obama handled this in a political sense, even though as I wrote above, I don't believe that Senator Obama has been honest and candid about his relationship with Reverend Wright. Again, I could care less where Obama goes to church or why he chose his church. But I'm under no illusion--and no serious person in the entire nation can really be under the illusion--that Senator Obama was not aware of Reverend Wright's beliefs until this past Monday.
But the ultimate point is, I think, is one that you and I have addressed in the past, and that is that politicians are just that and nothing more. Senator Obama, even if he wants to be, cannot escape the albatross of the political process by just saying that he's not playing the game. Fact is, and again it's not his fault, he is playing the game because he has to.
As I have written to you before, the key is to remember that we are a government of, by and not just for the people. That means that we have to hold whoever is elected, i.e. whichever politician is elected, to be politically accountable. Anyone who thinks we can depend on the good graces of a political president to do the right thing without regard to political pressure is just flat misguided in my not too humble opinion.
But I thought Senator Obama did a politically effective job on Tuesday afternoon, and I ain't gonna hold that against him. He's got my vote if he is the nominee, even if I peeked under the tent a long time ago and understood from the get- go that there are two politicians competing for the Democratic nod.
Bruce
May 1, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies for the faulty editing. Still on first cup of coffee.
May 1, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I concur with all you say, Bruce. Now if we both sign here, we have an agreement :) I realize we do a lot of repeting ourselves (well I do) but I find it helps solidify thinking.
I didn’t see Obama’s press conference Tuesday, but everyone seems to have a lot of sympathy with the bind he finds himself in (and I do too). But (I think you’ll stipulate) this is still an election and he may be politically wounded just enough that McCain could beat him in Nov. It’s still too early to tell, but the Wright issue could sink him eventually.
Of course, you’re just labeled a concern troll or purveyor of RW talking points if making these points, but I still think this will lose him a broad swath of Dem and independents. It is not race or religion so much as a question of Obama not making that connection with those “regular” folks, questioned core political beliefs and simple common sense judgment. It’s government by the people, but the people seem to become sheeple during elections and are led (read misled) by the storylines they are given (the blogs at least are having a slight countering effect, which is hopeful).
Peace
May 1, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
James Wolcott (love his writing) has a great article about the battlin' bloggers and Clinton/obama typewriter wars. Josh Marshal gets a mention, too.
Check it out- When Democrats go Postal:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/06/wolcott200806
May 1, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don, thanks. I had read about the Wolcott piece on another (Talkleft) website but I haven't read it yet. Will do though.
May 1, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now Senator Obama has two desperate-and-fading politicians named "Clinton," one addled Republican militarist named "McBomb," and an over-the-top preacher all after him at the same time. With an association of extremist adversaries like that, Senator Obama looks better the more of them he accumulates.
April 30, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
No need to try to paint Obama as a victim. He's already doing a fine job of that himself. And he learned how to do it from Jeremiah Wright.
And how foolish it is to try to link Clinton and McCain to this. This whole mess belongs to Barack Obama. It helps Clinton and McCain, if that is what has you so angry, but they didn't create it. Obama chose the wrong church and the wrong pastor 20 years ago. He chose the wrong mentor. He chose the wrong man to inspire the title of his book. He chose the wrong man to pray with immediately before announcing his candidacy. He chose the wrong man to be a member of his campaign's religious advisory council. Obama chose Wright, and it has caught up with him. Clinton and McCain had nothing to do with it. So when this destroys Obama's candidacy, and it will, direct your anger where it belongs.
March 19, 2008 - Barack Obama in Philadelphia: "I can no more disavow him (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disavow the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother . . . a woman who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are part of me."
April 29, 2008 - Obama denounces Wright. Ever since the Wright controversy broke Obama has been denouncing the media for playing sound bites of just a few of Wright's remarks. But today Obama angrily quoted some of those very sound bites. Suddenly all those people whom he criticized for being outraged over Wrights remarks were right all along.
April 30, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attn: Todd & MJ: Jonathan's got it.
Guilt be association. How weak. As I have tried to do on other postings, I will again endeavor to make the point that this was not even an ordinary association. This was an association of a worshiper (who happens to be a politician) and his pastor in the United States, where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. In other words the relationship of a parishioner and a parson ought to be privileged, not unlike a person and his lawyer. Senator Obama has not recognized this special association. He has assumed responsibility for it, made himself liable for it and denounced it, much to the enjoyment of his political foes. Shows lack of judgment, if you ask me.
When General Petraeus, or any other person, comes up for confirmation in the Congress will his pastor's words be examined? Of course not. How stupid Obama is to fall for this.
April 30, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 30, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meh, it's just a 21st Century version of 'uppity Negro.'
Cain't them darkies jes' learn to stay in their place? Doan' they know they'll never make it to the Big House talkin' lahk that?
April 30, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
what a bunch of race-mongering crap you dish out!!!
April 30, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew, there's this novel concept you should know about--it's called 'satire.'
April 30, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh now I get it, that race mongering crap is really satire. Satire aimed at who may I ask?
April 30, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read something other than your Aristotle and Plato on your bio and remember similar satire by Mark Twain you will understand which ethnic group is the target-
...and I was just about to go and vote myself if I warn't too drunk to get there; but when they told me there was a State in this country where they'd let that nigger vote, I drawed out. I says I'll never vote agin. Them's the very words I said;
April 30, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is *still* up at Hillary's campaign website:
In Case You Missed It: “Obama once visited '60s ‘terrorists’.”
http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/02/22/143137
No, absolutely no evidence of guilt by association being peddled by that campaign (unless you happen to read its website) ... sigh
April 30, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's just a link to news report at Politico.
April 30, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, the Politico report calls them "radicals" ...
FUD.
April 30, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taplin, another good post. Kudos.
April 30, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think Obama believes in a Providential God?
April 30, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup Obama's "association" with Wright is all clinton's fault. She forced him to go to that church knowing it would help her when she had to run against him 20 years later. I must say anyone who had that kind of foresight is the person I want for my president.
Mr. Taplin how do you live with yourself when you can argue about guilt by association for your candidate and then include a blatant smear suggesting that a fellow black pastor and professor at Howard University (Wright's alma mater)just because she is a Hillary supporter was conned by the Clinton campaign into arranging this press conference knowing that Wright would screw Obama.
April 30, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
After reading the Daily News report about Barbara Reynolds, it doesn't smell like a dirty trick to me. It sounds as if Reynolds genuinely admires Wright.
So how close an "associate" of Clinton's is the Rev. Reynolds? What sort of statements similar to Wright's has she made?
April 30, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand why conservatives jump on this Reverend Wright thing. Wright threatens the staus quo. But liberals are supposed to be, well, liberal. They're supposed to promote free speech, the rule of law, a free exchange of ideas and a transparent system of government, and reject state-established religion. Liberals are suppoased to be open to lifestyles and manners of conduct that may differ from their own.
But what we see here in the Wright affair is a lack of acceptance for one or another, or both, of two African-Americans that aren't performing up to the standards that some White Folk seem to think would be more appropriate. Wright preens improperly and Obama prays with the wrong pastor.
Is this racism? Well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .So apparently this IS the America that Wright has described and damned.
April 30, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you Don. This whole Rev. Wright "issue" is clearly a tactic that very deftly exploits white racism.
Unlike (I would imagine) most of the people commenting on this, I have watched the entirety of Wright's public comments both at the National Press Club and at the Detroit NAACP. I find absolutely nothing the Jeremiah Wright said to be even close to controversial unless, of course, you take his remarks completley out of context.
I am well versed in Christian theology and Wright's comments are firmly rooted in MAINSTREAM Christian theology. Nothing Wright said in those two speeches would depart from the viewpoint of Martin Luther King or other liberal Christians of the past 100 years or more. "Liberation" theology is, I believe, a misleading term. What is labeled "Liberation" is simply the message of Jesus which, you may recall, was rather radical and controversial when Jesus himself lived. In fact, his reward for preaching his message was crucifixion.
I found nothing Rev. Wright had to say the least bit "divisive" or "angry". He was making a clear, cogent case for viewing all people first and foremost as human beings, alike in the eyes of God while acknowledging the physical and cultural differences humans who come from different backgrounds have from eachother. His objection is to elevating any one group of humans above any other. He makes clear that the heart of his message is universal respect for all human beings and to stand up for justice, mercy, equality, and morality even in the face of great power. Is there anyone who actually objects to this? If so, I feel sorry for them.
It is true that Wright lays bare our racist history in America and makes it clear that racism is abroad in the land today as well. Is this even news? How can anyone claim that pointing out the truth is divisive? Wright clearly states that the conditions in our society are divisive, not his message and I have no choice but to agree with him because he is correct about this.
He did not deliver his remarks angrily, but confidently. He did not exhibit any hate or envy. He pointed the way out for botht he oppressed and the oppressors in this nation and he did so because he believes (as millions of us do) that it is his obligation to speak out against injustice and use his time on earth to make the world a better place for all of God's children.
The media's immature and openly dishonest coverage of this issue proves beyond any doubt their willingness to engage in racist slander. The public reaction to this is based upon the media's reportage. How can the public conclude anything other than what they are being fed by the media? Well, they could go online and watch the entirety of the man's remarks, but that would take effort and time so they don't. It is easy as can be for white Americans to suspect bad motives of black Americans, particularly if they only know a tiny bit of the story and that is precisely what fuels this fire: racism and laziness.
That Clinton has exploited this issue says more about what kind of person and politician she is than it does about Obama or Wright. Her behavior over this and the idiotic "terrorist" crap is shameful and disgraceful. She should not be allowed to have power.
April 30, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I call Bullshit on that. Somehow any arguemnt that calls out Wright is white racism? Please
April 30, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, not at all.
Let me make clear, I'm not Obama's number one fan and I've found the, at times, nearly hysterical howls of racism we've seen coming from his camp durig the primaries absurd and unwarranted. This case is different. Very different indeed.
It is quite well known by anyone caring to take the time to understand the situation that black Americans are very often held to a completely different standard by white Americans in all kinds of ways. It is quite well known that even the most well-intentioned whites often judge black Americans more harshly than they do their fellow whites and that is because of how deeply racist attitudes and standards are ingrained in our social and cultural reality here in America. It is so deeply ingrained it is difficult to escape. It is also well known that most white Americans have minimal contact with black Americans and very, very few have any social or casual contact with black Americans. We live in cities where housing is segregated, most religious institutions are segregated and that keeps our contact minimiized with those who are not like us. This isn't necessarily a choice of anyone at this point, it is just the way it is. It's pretty difficult to understand and really know about people with whom one's contact is so severely limited.
In fact, the vast majority of whites in America have almost no basis for judging black Americans that doesn't originate from a racist point of view unless they deliberately and methodically eliminate that racist bias from themselves. It is extremely difficult work for white Americans and it's very hard to shed all vestiges of racist thinking and standards. Almost no whites take the time to do this. The efforts most whites do make spring from good intentions, but fall short of actually understanding or even perceiving the depth of the racial problems we face as a society because of the legacy of our racist past. That isn't to say anyone needs to feel guilty, it's just a fact that we have to deal with. It's important to understand how we got to where we are if we're ever going to improve the situation.
Considering these known facts, it is clear to me that the reason all these white people are sqwuaking about Rev. White and acting so foolishly regarding some of the things he has had to say is A)they don't actually know what he said they are only reacting to distorted sound bites they've heard through the racist corporate media, and B)the underpinning beneath their ill-infomred judgements is the ubiquitious integration of racism that shapes the world view of most white Americans and makes it so easy to demonize a black American under almost any circumstances no matter who he is or what he has done or said.
That is what is going on here. It is racism at it's core and it is so ingrained in white people that many, if not most of them, are incapable of understanding that is even at play here. That is how they are able to act so shocked and offended---because their own racism blinds them to how absurd and distorted is their own reaction to Wright's statements which I repeat are not only true statements, but they are not even controversial statements when understood in context.
The majority of white Americans, unable to even understand their own racist biases (not intentional but ingrained) seem to be sort of like you Louisville1975. Had you taken the time, which I am quite sure you haven't, to listen to Rev. Wright's remarks in their entirety you might begin to understand what I'm talking about. But you haven't and it is unlikely that you will and so essentially, you don't know what you're talking about and have absolutely no grounds for "calling Bullshit" on anything I have written.
I have in no way, shape or form said that "somehow any claim that calls out Wright is white racism." I am saying that the complaints I am hearing and reading about what Wright has said are completely without merit and are uninformed criticisms and that the nearly hysterical reaction of most whites (such as yourself) commenting on this matter, ill-informed as they are, spring from racism. That's a far cry from "any claim" against Rev. Wright being white racism.
April 30, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree. And, I am not racist. You are however. You and others like you conveniently want to leave out the largest minority group in our Country today and act like they do not exist. Who has the most overt acts of racism perpertrated against them today? Hispanics.
I know, we are comfortable in our talking of racism and how relates between white/black. Its what we have grown up with and think is reality. It simply isn't true though. Who has the most menial jobs in the land. Who lives in the most squalid conditions. Who, has to prove they are "American" every time their name comes into any conversation. Who is also marginalized in ever Political conversation in the land. Its Hispanic Americans. Who hasn't enjoyed the largesse of set asides or Affirmitive Action programs?
We speak with forked tongue on this issue. Somehow, white and black americans seem think racism is only a white/black argument. Truthfully, it saddens me. We've got 12-17% of our population that we would rather not talk about. Let them pick our fruit and vegetables, build our houses, make up our hotels, make our food..but....Please....stay out of our discussions on race.
Making the Wright thing into racism still is bullshit. Rev. Wright enjoys and has enjoyed quite a nice life for himself. He is a winner in this country economically. There are plenty of Hispanic Americans sweating to make the food you will eat later today that aren't so lucky.
April 30, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, you do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about and are abundantly ignorant of the subject at hand. It's apparent you have not seen what Rev. Wright had to say yet, in your ignorance, you proclaim the treatment he has received is not racist.
To sum up: it is quite obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. My own advice to you is to stop now before embarassing yourself further.
April 30, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jon, Come back. Your in danger of going off the deep end here. At one time your calling out guilt by association and at the same time pointing at Hillary saying she is guilty by some kind of association.
Please. Jeremiah is a big boy. He had a couple of months to think about his next move. That was it. That your not happy with it is understandable. But, every bad and dumb move by the Obama campaign can't be Hillary's fault or be some kind of racism.
The argument is tired and old Jon. You need a new one. Think for yourself for a change. How about that? Its very refreshing.
And, you can gloss over Ayers all you want. It is a damning association that is going to be very very VERY hard to explain in a GE. Or even now. The Weathermen were terrorists straight up.
April 30, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be a dick, but three times in one post means it's not a typo:
you're = you are
your = possesive pronoun (the thing described by the next word belongs to you)
You're using "your" when you should use "you're".
-- ARG
April 30, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever, your, you are, you're an Dumbass. Clear enough?
April 30, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The National Press Club has already issued a response to the Daily News story, explaining that the invitation to Wright was not the idea of Barbara Reynolds, that it came from the entire speaker's committee, in response to Wright's the fact that Wright was newsworthy. Babara Reynold's was asked to be the point person in making arrangements for the event because she had a contact within the church community, and may have also known Wright.
Barbara Reynolds is on record as supporting Clinton's candidacy, but she is not part of the campaign, and she was not the prime mover behind the invitation to Wright.
Here's the link: http://blog.press.org/?p=605
It would be nice if Mr. Taplin were to update his blog post to include this denial, but alas, all the TPM franchises seem to be operating under the Clinton rules, by which I mean those utilized by the SCLM which posit that anything of a negative nature said about either Clinton is probably true, therefore, one can present it as fact, without making the slightest attempt to verify it.
April 30, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK Leah- I accept the Press Club's explanation. I'm letting Clinton off the hook here, but let's not have any illusions that the Rove style Republican attack machine has been feeding the Wright story for weeks.
April 30, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
In short it was all based on the same crap that rove and co. do as normal operating procedure.
April 30, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your last comment, an allegation of dirty tricks by Hillary in having an "associate" arrange Wright's appearance at the National Press Club is scurrilous and really crazy. The National Press Club - for want of anything better to do - hosts daily events and luncheons involving all types of newsworthy people and in view of Wright's importance as a magnet for the media, it was only natural and a coup for the National Press Club to have him appear there. In a few years or perhaps months, you and many Obama supporters will look back and see how your words have attempted to pervert free speech and individual expression in ways every bit as repellent as Bush and his administration, and, equally as importantly, you are really hurting Obama's cause.
April 30, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the fallacy of Begging the Question.
I know nowadays people use the term "begging the question" to mean "it raises the question", but that's another matter concerning the epidemic of cliché-words and phrases floating out there like "meme", "frames" and all that other rubbish.
Begging the question is often called circular reasoning and the classic example given in intor logic classes is as follows?
Patient: Why does opium cause sleep?
Doctor: Because of its soporific powers
(Where soporific powers merely means sleep inducing)
So it it must be guilt by association because “otherwise they would not do it” is begging the question plain and simple.
April 30, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument itself is a circle.
We do not conclude that it is guilt by association because Hillary and the Republicans are doing it. We conclude that it is guilt by association because the issue has no purpose other than or beyond guilt by association. This little maneuver is a standard political ploy and nothing new at all. It is not a fallacy in any sense to identify what is being done to Obama as guilt by association. If the motive was not to damage Obama in this way it would not be in the news at all. Thus, "that's why they're doing it." It certainly isn't being done because it is a means of enlightening the public nor is it a legitimate issue at all.
The fact is that the reason this "issue" has been generated and kept alive is to tar and feather Obama through guilt by association because Hillary and the Republicans cannot come at him in any other way. There is no other reason at all for the alleged issue to be in the news except that it helps Hillary to take Obama down despite the fact that it is completley and utterly unrelated to Obama or his ability to be a good President.
April 30, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb,
I think you’re right that it doesn’t ultimately tell much about Obama (though it could). Still, it isn’t about a man’s church and pastor and religious beliefs as much as political and race beliefs (both have talked about their long sweeping political conversations when they first met). And, no question, it is and will be used as a guilt-by-association attack. But in politics as in public life, association is an age-old and still pervasive means of persuasive communication. Jefferson and Adams had some of the most low-down campaigns of that sort. Association is the meat and potatoes of advertisers and PR firms. You’re right that it wouldn’t get this kind of play, especially right now, if it wasn’t damaging. But that is because it’s only news to the networks if there is something scandalous or shocking about it (or juicy video).
The investigation of Wright and Obama’s relationship is not illegitimate or (necessarily) unwarranted even though it is playing out in a damaging way. He is running on his “story” as told in his two autobiographies, stump speeches, articles, etc. You can see why, in electing him president and leader of the free world, that people would investigate any associations that might shed light on his story, outside his own version of it. And the significance of the issue is underscored because it was allowed to fester unaddressed for so long.
Certainly when Rolling Stone ran an article about it over a year ago, they couldn’t be accused of waging an attack (they even changed their title later to soften it for Obama’s sake). Asia Times Online and someone else had a straight but critical news story about the relationship before the video made it impossible for the networks to ignore. This is American politics and campaigns are all about spin. None of it is fair or “honest.” But, even though this story has not had a lot of in-depth straight investigative reporting about it in the MSM (what has?), that doesn’t mean it is out of bounds or not newsworthy. And ultimately, the Wright story itself doesn't mean much; it's the way Obama handles it that becomes the story in the political press.
April 30, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I differ on one small point and that is that it isn't news because it is scandalous. It is scandalous for Republican cadidates to associate with charlatans like televangelist preachers who run racist universities and who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and who, in essence, make their living stealing from the poor and vulnerable out there in tv land. What makes the Wright "issue" news is because it is racial. If it weren't a way to paint Obama as black as possible and to make him squirm and deny his association with the black community the Clinton people would never have used it. And in that regard it is also only an "issue" because the lazy corporate media is not interested in news, but in lurid gossip and speculation... you know, the sort of stuff the Puritans put people in the stocks for. An opposition campaign is always behind the generation of these kinds of stories. The media don't dig them up on their own I can assure you of that.
May 1, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
An opposition campaign is always behind the generation of these kinds of stories.
As far as politics, yes. The press doesn’t push a scandal unless they can attach it to something that makes it “news.” You make some very good points regarding the double standard but it is political not racial. I think the media has avoided the Wright story until they couldn’t anymore. They avoid touchy race subjects when possible. If Obama had a twenty-year mentorship, father-son relationship with Ayers, he would not have made it out of the gate.
May 2, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are funny oleeb. That's another classic example of circular reasoning. Just read it carefully and you will see it.
April 30, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be a dick, but three times in one post means it's not a typo:
you're = you are
your = possesive pronoun (the thing described by the next word belongs to you)
You're using "your" when you should use "you're".
-- ARG
April 30, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, this post is mis-placed. It was meant as a reply, above (where I have re-posted it).
This site's software doesn't seem to be working for me very well today.
-- ARG
April 30, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yay, ARG! Next let's tackle they're, their and there. After that, the reason is because. And then, my absolute fave, using the nominative with prepositions, e.g., between you and I.
April 30, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great....another teacher.
April 30, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just had a rather chilling thought. What if Jeremiah Wright is angry not because Obama has distanced himself from some of Wright's teachings, but because he knows Obama believes those things to be true and is just denying them in order to get elected. As we now attempt to demonize Jeremiah Wright and say that he has turned on Obama out of spite because of his bruised ego, what if it turns out Wright knows something we don't know?
Wright has said, "If Sen. Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected. Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls." Many might agree with that. But what about the underlying anger that Wright is now displaying. Is it all just ego? What if Wright is angry at Obama because he genuinely believes that the things that Obama has distanced himself from are in fact things Obama himself believes to be true? Things that he learned under his twenty-year tutelage under his pastor of choice. What if Wright is angry that the man he mentored is now denying the things he believes to be true in order to get elected? What if Wright believes Obama is selling out the truth he actually believes? What if Wright is angry because he knows Obama is lying when he accuses Wright of being wrong?
April 30, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if Mrs O'Leary's cow was in San Fransisco would the Chicago fire been in San Fransisco,and the would the San Fransisco earthquake in Chicago? If this is so than would you expect San Fransisco's Castro District now be Chicago's South Side, and view versa?
Just, a what if question?
April 30, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now there is a few questions there......I wonder.....
April 30, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
An example of guilt by association is to say that Jane is a drunkard who beats her children because she has a cousin Vinny, who is well known to drink too much and beat his children. Or that she is a gossip because two other members of her cooking club are known to gossip.
Having detailed his "surrogate father" relationship with Wright in Tales of My Father, and then taken the title of his second book from a Wright sermon certainly does not represent guilt by association. It goes far beyond a simple association. The connections between Wright and Obama are significant, and it rings hollow that Obama somehow only experienced one side of the reverend during their 20-year relationship.
All you Obamaniacs may dismiss this. But you are alone.
April 30, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I've been associating with the Catholic Church for 57 years without accepting it's views on gays, women, divorce.....
Religion has a very strong cultural component whether you are Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or in Obama's case African American. Are we really attacking Obama because of his association with Wright or because of his association with urban African American culture?
I can't see that Wright has said anything more offensive than Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. His sin is saying it as an angry black man.
April 30, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree, and frankly find nothing Reverend Wright has said to be offensive. The objection I have, however, is to apply a guilt by association standard, when there is far more of a relationship than merely attendance at Wright's church or a passing knowing.
I might vote for Obama knowing about Wright's activism and perspective, but Obama already has my vote. This damages him for those who would be upset by Wright, and merely saying that he's just the pastor of a church that Obama attended is misleading and inaccurate. Obama's disavowal of Wright now is complicated by the Philadelphia speech. What's next, his white grandmother?
Barack cannot have it both ways. That smack of bad old politics, and he's promised to do away with that.
May 1, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink