Reader Blogs
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER BLOGS HOME | next »
Crazy Like an Uncle
Fox News ran a typically sensationalistic report last night on the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, retiring pastor of Obama's own Trinity United Church of Christ. The ostensible news hook for the story was a sermon delivered by Wright on January 13, which the network suggested may have violated the church's tax exempt status. Let's get that out of the way up-front. Wright never uttered the magic words "endorse" or "vote," which would have been clear violations. If discussing the candidates were grounds for the revocation of nonprofit status, whatever the rules may technically say, then the IRS would first have to clear a substantial backlog, revoking the 501(c)(3) status of thousands of other churches before it got to Trinity.
But the real news in the report was an incendiary clip of the Reverend Wright in high dudgeon, framing the election in starkly racial terms. "Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country, and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people," he says. Perhaps enough to raise some eyebrows, but pretty much par for the course at Trinity. What followed was not. "It just came to me within the past few weeks, y'all, why so many folks are hating on Barack Obama." Unlike Hillary and Rudy, he says, Obama doesn't fit the mold of elites. Hillary has never experienced racial discrimination, he argues, and can not know what that's like. "Hillary ain't never been called a Nigger!" he shouts. "Hillary ain't never had her own people say she wasn't white enough." It's not in the clip I link to above, but Fox reports he even took a direct shot at Bill Clinton: "Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty."
First, let's be clear about what's being said. Wright is targeting those in the black community who were inclined to support Hillary. The sermon was delivered less than a week after Obama's loss in New Hampshire, but well before the Illinois primary, and his frustration is almost palpable. His argument, such as it is, is that Obama (like Jesus) knows what it is to live in a society that turns its back on him and his kind. That Hillary cannot know that. That there is no reason for blacks to feel indebted to the Clintons. And so, at least by implication, that it is incumbent on black people to support Obama and not Hillary.
I understand the man's point, but the fact remains - this is every bit as divisive and polarizing an argument as that advanced by Geraldine Ferraro. If it is wrong to suggest that gender alone entitles a candidate to votes, that the experience of being a woman in a man's world is uniquely difficult - then it is also wrong to suggest race play a similar role. Wrong, polarizing, and ultimately self-defeating.
Indeed, Obama's campaign was quick to recognize that these remarks were beyond the pale. Campaign spokesman Bill Burton issued this response:
Senator Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Senator Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Senator Obama deeply disagrees.That, I'm afraid, isn't going to cut it this time. Obama may not think of Wright in political terms, but it's quite clear that the converse is not so.
It's worth exploring the relationship between Obama and his pastor in somewhat greater depth. Here's Senator Obama, in perhaps his most affecting explanation of that relationship:
It is true that my Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who will be retiring this month, is somebody who on occasion can say controversial things....It is also true that he comes out of the 60s; he is an older man. That is where he cut his teeth. That he has historically been interested in the African roots of the African American experience...
He is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don't agree with...
And as I said that last point I would make is that you know my Pastor is going to be retiring over the next month. So my general view, and the reason that I raise this, this is always a sensitive point, what you don't want to do is distance yourself or kick somebody away, because you are now running for President and you are worried about perceptions, particularly when someone is basically winding down their life and their career.
I find myself empathizing with Obama, and admiring his instincts. He doesn't want to denounce a man who played a crucial role in his own life, who was a friend and a mentor when he needed one, just because it's now expedient to do so. He understands that Rev. Wright hails from a different generation (what, in another context, he labeled the Moses Generation) and Obama's entire candidacy is premised on the notion that that generation's day has passed, that it is now time for the next generation to take the reins of leadership, to transcend the divisiveness of earlier battles, to move us forward to a better future without neglecting the sacrifices of the past. I'm even sympathetic to the problem of a controversial spiritual leader. Who among us attends religious services with regularity, and hasn't squirmed in the pew from time to time, as the pastor or preacher or reverend or rabbi gives voice to a thought with which we adamantly disagree? Perhaps even a thought that is politicized or prejudiced? Or hasn't had an elderly relative do the same?
That's why I've always moved the scurrilous, conspiratorial e-mails to the trash bin on my computer. I was content to know that Obama was attracted to Reverend Wright and his church for the "cultural community" that they embodied; for their recognition that not just material interests, but also "hopes and dreams and...ideals and...values" motivate actions; and yes, for their Christian faith. If there's a single theme to Obama's intellectual achievements, it's been his ability to sieze upon powerful words and themes, lifting them out of their original context and reframing them to be inclusive and uplifting. Thus, Rev. Wright's fiery sermon on "The Audacity to Hope" in a racialized world becomes the title of Obama's serene meditation on the possibilities of transcending political and racial polarization. That seems to hold true more broadly. It's how Obama is able to credit the honorable motives of his opponents even as he disagrees with them. It's how Obama took the best of what Reverend Wright had to offer - community, inspiration, rebukes for his congregation's shortcomings - and set aside the anger and divisiveness that seemed to him relics of an earlier time.
The problem is that, with just weeks to go before he stepped down and removed himself as an ongoing issue, Reverend Wright crossed the line. Obama was succesful in his efforts to distance himself from Wright's opinions on myriad other subjects; he simply said he disagreed. That won't work for Wright's opinions on Obama. If these sorts of attacks have no place in our political dialogue, then a generic denial by a campaign spokesman isn't going to cut it. Obama himself will need to forcefully and clearly reject the logic of Wright's claims, the tone of his remarks, and the words that he used. Then he has to take the most painful step - he needs to distance himself from Wright.
There's a lot of glee on these boards this morning regarding the Ferraro debacle. I don't share it. Ferraro has left us weaker, as a party and as a nation. "I don’t think identity politics has served the Democratic Party well. I think it’s been an enormous distraction," Obama said in response to her comments. As usual, the man had the right words for the occasion. But now that one of those closest to him has made statements that are at least as divisive and egregious, he needs to find similarly powerful words to express his rejection of those statements.
It's not that the Clinton campaign, or for that matter, conservatives or the media, have gotten in his head, or that Obama's too weak, or that he needs to prove his manhood. Not every incendiary remark made by a supporter is a test of a candidate's ability to withstand attacks, to hit back, to give as good as he gets. Sometimes, those remarks are a test of what the candidate believes, and of the ideas he's prepared to embrace, even implicitly, in his pursuit of power. It's a test Clinton failed with Ferraro. And without denouncing these remarks, Obama fails it twice. He loses on a tactical level, because a campaign that splits along racial and gender lines is a campaign he loses. And he loses on an ideological level, because he has devoted his political life to convincing Americans that those divisions are less important than the things we share in common.
This one's not going away until Obama puts it to rest. So, Senator, what do you have to say?
Comments (347)
Fly - very insightful. I was dismayed to see this clip last night, but when I got to thinking about it, I believe that if Obama handles it swiftly & strongly, he can beat back a lot of the damage that has been done to the D Party in the last week. His response could get us out of this swamp & put him right back on his message of hope and unity. I hope he seizes the opportunity.
March 13, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good post, Fly, however Obama isn't going to be able to put this behind him even if he does come out forcefully.
Why? Because this isn't the first time Wright has been caught being phenomenally divisive and outrageous. Check out part of it here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788&page=1
The message is that Wright has been spewing this kind of stuff for years, and Obama has stuck with him, and stuck with the church for the last 20 years. It's not a matter of distancing himself from one or two isolated comments. Its a matter of explaining why, for *20 years*, he dutifully went on Sunday and listened to his Pastor expounding such hate-filled diatribe. And we know Obama listens to him - the Audacity of Hope was even one of Wright's lines. Now we're starting to get a clearer picture of just what it is they're hoping for.
The Republican machine will be going giddy over this, and no speech, however good it is, is going to explain away the last 20 years of Obama's faith.
March 14, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make some valuable point, Fly.
You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see civil rights marches. Led by many of our leaders, including Obama. Including Senate and House leaders. Denouncing bigotry of any type, standing up for human rights, the Rule of Law, the Constitution, our basic principles.
I think so many things have gone wrong here. And I fear we are losing our one best chance to pull back from the brink. We need leaders to speak out and people to stand up against torture, sex trafficking, racism, religious bigotry and for the dignity of all persons, regardless of where they live or what they might have been doing, even if picked up for a crime or on a battlefield.
We almost need to take a breather from primaries and instead affirm our ideals by public demonstrations.
Sorry for hijacking your thread. I think you are making an important point, but I just wanted to enlarge your perspective - and make a plea for all of us do things to make our values clear.
I sincerely call upon Barack to follow the Fly's urging - but to go further and call upon his supporters, making use of his campaign organization, to hold rallies and marches - with speeches by our leaders and others, voicing the condemnation of any form of bigotry or physical violence against groups or individuals based on that and standing up forcefully for the Rule of Law and respect for the decency of every. Amen!!!
March 13, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry for the typos. ... I guess I got carried away with outrage...
March 13, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not open your own post instead of hijacking this thread?
March 13, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Fly has a problem, it's up to him! I did it on purpose!
♪♪♪
March 13, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to take an important post like this off center is a freeper trick.
The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human - sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. You have to wait till they move on you before you can zero them.
Gotcha.
March 13, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Off center? I think most readers would see that I put a nice circle around Fly's bulls eye! And your comments only make that crystal clear! Thanks for making it so clear that this post is on target and so are my remarks.... I just made the target clearer, that's all. Thanks for your help in underscoring that!
I note that Fly seems unconcerned. ♪♪♪
March 13, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate Billy's concern that we remain on-topic, but I don't mind the digression.
I would remind you, though, that Obama is a candidate for office, and that's a fundamentally different thing than being the leader of a broad-based social movement. True, his success has been built, in part, on his efforts to blur that distinction. But his programmatic case is built entirely on this premise: elect me, and together we can change the country.
Should he leave public office, he could choose to launch a moral crusade instead of a political one. But I rather doubt he'd take that approach. Obama spent some of his younger life trying to change things by building a grassroots level movement, and came to the conclusion that he could be far more effective working as a leader within the system than leading marches or protests on its margins. I happen to think he's correct about that.
The other point I'd make is that Barack has steadfastly resisted casting his own campaign in these terms. He doesn't decry racism; he speaks of our essential similarities. He doesn't denounce discrimination; he exhorts us to treat one another with respect. He doesn't channel his anger; he offers his hope.
In my opinion, that's why his message has found a receptive audience. And if you want to build open the foundation he's laid, I'd encourage you to do so in similar terms. To use language that positively defines our American values and calls upon all of us to live up to the standards they set. To focus on how our aspirations can be harnessed to make our lives better, and not on how our shortcomings have made them worse. I think that the Obama campaign has the potential to transform the Democratic Party. Too often, it's been an outlet for the (entirely legitimate) grievances of a rainbow of different groups, each of which pitted a different subset of the population against the whole. Obama suggests that it might instead serve as an outlet for the shared hopes and aspirations of those groups, which united, could work to rectify those grievances and injustices. That's a powerful idea.
March 13, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Fly!!
March 13, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly Fly I think you're getting this all wrong, and no offense, but this is sounding awfully concern-troll-y.
Other than the Lewinsky comment which wasn't in the clip -btw why would FOX omit that? Fox of all sources? If he'd really said that wouldn't it be front and center in the clip? -other than that what is offensive about what Wright said?
That the country is run by rich white people? It is (right now), isn't it? That Hillary has no clue what it's like to be racially discriminated against by both your own race and others? She doesn't does she?
Your comparing this to the comment by Ferraro demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of what she said -that Barack Obama would not have risen to the level he has were he not black. I.e. that his success is based on his race and not any other quality or skill or life experience. That is quintessential racism, stark and simple.
Wright's comments on the other hand were not degrading in the least to whites he doesn't even refer to all whites (as Ferraro refers to all blacks by proxy with Obama) but only the "rich" whites. He doesn't criticize the subgroup of whites (as represented by Hillary and Rudy) he refers to -he merely states that they don't understand what it's like to personally experience racism.
The only truly offensive part was conveniently left off of the clip and you said "Fox reports he even took a direct shot at Bill Clinton". The first two words in that sentence are an oxymoron.
I submit that the message of the speech was not that blacks should vote for Obama simply because of the color of his skin (which Ferraro bizarrely thinks gives him an unwarranted advantage), but that blacks should vote for him because he comes from their shared experience therefore has a profound understanding of their situation. Apples and oranges.
March 14, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate Billy's concern that we remain on-topic, but I don't mind the digression.
That should shut Billy up for at least a little while.
March 14, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see where you're a "freeper," dunno where Billy Glad has a short trigger finger.
Anyway, I'm piggybacking here to get near the top of the thread list.
Beyond the other racial stuff, what I most loathe is the pseudoscientific "black Jesus" crap from Wright. And that's what it is.
And, Republicans who want to drive a wedge between Obama and Jewish voters have new ammunition to fire.
Jesus was not Caucasian, and was likely swarthy, but he wasn't from sub-Saharan Africa, either, Rev. Wright.
March 14, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Hatian-American friend of mine, raised by white holy rollers, told me that the Bible refers to Jesus' "kinky" hair, and he's read the entire Bible several times. Sounds of African descent to me. People weren't necessarily situated racially and ethnically 2000 years ago as they are now in that region of the world.
Besides, why would a black jesus get your goat so much when whitey's been putting up pictures of a blue-eyed jesus forever and you know damned well THAT is just ridiculous.
March 14, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah, and "pseudoscientific" you say?
We are talking about a Biblical character, no? I didn't realize the Bible was a factual and scientific document.
March 14, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fly, as always a fine post that captures the nuance while getting to the heart of the matter.
There has been the occassion that I squirmed in the pew. I have relatives who have made not only an off-color remark, but something I find offensive. How do we deal with this? I do not think distancing ourselves is the answer.
As you suggest, it needs to be talked about. Make it clear to them that you don't agree, why they are wrong, and that it's not acceptable to you. But, I believe modeling / discussing what is right will have more effect and this means remaining close to the person.
With someone we don't know it is easy to just denounce what they said and to reject them. The hope being that political correctness or the people in their circle of influence will make them rethink their prejudice.
I guess what I'm saying is that I agree Obama should address what Wright has said and in strong terms. As you've written Obama has made his feelings on this clear before, but it needs to be repeated. I suspect he may have already had the conversation with him directly, but it is important that the people here it.
But, I do see a difference with Ferraro in that she was an official part of Hillary's campaign. I wouldn't have asked that Hillary never associate with Gerry again. In fact, I would hope that she talked to her about it and tried to open her eyes to what her comments mean and their impact. But, when Ferraro didn't apologize and instead escalated the issue she should have been fired.
Clearly Obama shouldn't be hiring Wright for any faith-based initiatives. But, I don't agree that Obama needs to remove Wright from his life just as I wouldn't expect you to disown your uncle.
March 13, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your response. As it happens, Wright serves as a member of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee, a formal campaign role, albeit a trivial one. But it gives Obama a chance to make a clear statement - he should ask for Wright's resignation from that committee. That would sever the formal link between Wright and the campaign.
March 13, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama's public statements that he consults with Wright on political matters is much more problematic than Wright's membership on a council. The only way out of this for Obama is to publicly rebuke Wright. He has to make it clear who is charge here. He's dancing around this one the same way he danced around the Farrakhan endorsement.
March 13, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
What blather. He didn't "dance around" Frahakkahn at all. To claim otherwise is simply nonsense and the same crapticular drivel that Clinton tried to run up the flag pole at the Austin debate and was resoundingly laughed off the table as one of the major lead balloons in the debate.
March 13, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has been a loyal member of this preacher's congregation for 20 years, given boat loads of money to the operation and identified this man as his mentor (father figure?), what's he supposed to do, act like he didn't know what the guy stood for?
March 14, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has been a loyal member of this preacher's congregation for 20 years, given boat loads of money to the operation and identified this man as his mentor (father figure?), what's he supposed to do, act like he didn't know what the guy stood for?
That is, precisely, the problem.
If you think I'm a Hillbot, feel free to check out my posts elsewhere on TPM.
March 14, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. BHO should not have to 'banish' his old mentor from his life, but a strong disavowal of any misguided notions would help.
Completely cutting off the old man personally doesn't seem appropriate to me, and is probly against BHO's basic philosophy and impulse toward human kindness.
From what I've seen so far, BHO seems to be handling it all very well. If there are more calls for him to do what he is still reluctant to do, perhaps he might explain his position, thereby providing a demonstration and example not only of his natural preference but his leadership skills as well in convincing more of us of the merits of his decision: why it is best for all concerned &/or does least harm to any.
March 14, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The combination of the Wright speech and Michelle Obama's remarks could be difficult to deal with in the Fall if Obama is the nominee. My understanding was that Wright started his ministry as an alternative to the Nation of Islam. His rhetoric, although couched in Christian instead of Muslim terms, doesn't seem that different. Obama has acknowledged that Wright is more than a "spiritual" adviser. He's said that he consults with Wright on political topics to make sure he is staying true to his moral center. That center will be open to examination now. Obama is vulnerable to attacks on two fronts. On the one hand, his accomplishments can be questioned by characterizing him as an "affirmative action" candidate. On the other hand, he can be characterized as a militant black, concealing his radical background.
I wonder if America is post-racial enough now to just let it all hang out. Maybe we're about to find out.
March 13, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting, Billy.
I have to say, I don't buy your read. Jeremiah Wright may be a polarizing figure, but it's going to be tough to tar Obama with that brush. There are two ways in which these sorts of associations tend to harm candidates irreperably - when the public believes that surrogates are giving voice to sentiments that the candidate harbors but dares not express himself, and when the public believes that the candidate is associating with a figure with whom they disagree purely for political gain. The Ferraro incident fell into the former category; many suspected that Clinton herself was similarly aggrieved. The Hagee affair falls into the latter; no one suspects McCain feels the same way about Catholics, and that's precisely why voters are upset he's swallowing his objections to accept the endorsement.
Wright falls into a third category. It's not expedient for Obama to associate with him; he has no further gains to make among black voters, and the association certainly harms him in other communities. I think it's patently absurd to suggest that Obama is a "militant black" or that he inwardly embraces such ideas, and such attacks will largely fail to hit their mark, because most voters can see that for themselves.
Wright hurts Obama for a third reason: he's loudly and publicly contradicting his campaign's central message. Wright makes it harder for voters to believe that Obama really is different, that he really does seek conciliation and unity, that he really is able to transcend traditional divides. Obama says these things don't need to hold us back - Wright says they always will. Obama asks us to believe in a better future - Wright urges us to remember a divisive past.
That's why Obama can put this story to rest, and in fact, turn a potentially damaging story to his own advantage. He has an opportunity to explain, clearly and forthrightly, where and why he differs with Wright. That's something he's preferred not to do, because the closeness of their relationship has trumped their huge substantive disagreements. But now, I think, he has to. And if he does, he'll actually be a stronger candidate for it.
March 13, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"There are two ways in which these sorts of associations tend to harm candidates irreperably - when the public believes that surrogates are giving voice to sentiments that the candidate harbors but dares not express himself."
Oh, I agree. And that is precisely the basis of the idiotic "Obama is a Muslim" meme -- that actually got some traction in Texas and Ohio. I don't thing the Republican 527s are going to have any trouble at all developing the meme that Obama is not the unifying figure he "pretends" -- their word, not mine -- to be.
March 13, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's one of the things that is so exciting about Obama. The idea of a charismatic and brilliant African-American President going around the world representing the United States is a very appealing prospect. It is significantly more appealing than the propect of a brilliant and charismatic white President doing the same thing.
I understand the man's point, but the fact remains - this is every bit as divisive and polarizing an argument as that advanced by Geraldine Ferraro
It is true that my Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who will be retiring this month, is somebody who on occasion can say controversial things....It is also true that he comes out of the 60s; he is an older man. That is where he cut his teeth. That he has historically been interested in the African roots of the African American experience...
He is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don't agree with...
If you would have done your homework on Obama in Chicago you would not be so "shocked" ,"shocked" that he far from son transcendental guru, but just another political opportunist.
You can forgive politicians for being opportunists. It is part of the price you have to pay to play the game. But you can't forgive Obama for leading you latte-drinking yuppies around the nose for months and months, so much so that you became maniacel about Obama only for it to come out that he holds some pretty radical and racist views. Read Michelle's Thesis. She was a separatist then. She quotes Stockley Charmichael as an expert source. Yes that Carmichael who founded the original Black Panthers and advocated separatism. I can go on and on. This was all out in the open from the start. Now all of a sudden you are Shocked Shocked. And you have the FUCKING TEMERITY TO EQUATE THIS SORT OF THING WHITH WHAT FERRARO SAID. Sickening!!!!
March 13, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Andy, Take a prozac dude. You may want to try a latte, but I'd make it a decaf.
2 Thoughtd:
1. When I went to college, I was a philosphy major with a leaning towards existentialism and its marxist offshoot in Sartre. Now I am a 50 year old managing partner of a law firm that handles large commercial transactions. I have evolved intellectually, and I can assure you that Hillary would not want to be judged by her more radical thoughts and statements from the late 60's nd early 70's. In looking at the past writings of a twenty-something black woman of high intellect, I would be profounbdly disappointed if she did not lean eadically to the left with a strong dose of racial consciousness. I see that as a plus, not a minus, that Michelle Obama ihad radical views at some point in her life. It is a shame to have to give up your idealism and racial consciousness as a youngster in order to live up to the standards of Clintonian political correctness that you are setting, where you summon up righteous indigantion while reminding PA voters over and over that their own uncertainty about the black guy proves that he will have a harder time in the general election -- a self fulfilling porophecy, at least if Mark Penn gets his way.
2. Obama is his own man. He is front and center and we see exactly what we are getting. By every metric I care about, he is a better choice than she is. I think they are both wonderful and would have no problem voting for her. But I think the way these campaigns are being run -- by the candidates and what they allow their senior advisors to so -- I think Obama has proven over and over why is more qualified to lead the nation.
March 13, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow man.
The offense you take to Wright being compared to Ferraro kind plays the rest of your hand. Subtle can be more effective than yelling often. This goes for using the caps in a blog-comment as well as making racial or sexist commentary verbally.
I am not sure why you do not see some sense of equivalence between the two, although I could fathom a guess
Share with me a link (I know you are not fond of links, or passing along material to read) if you would about these supposed racist beliefs. It would greatly help me in understanding your position. If you have more regarding his Chicago time (Other than the Rezko that is already out there) that makes you think he is so bad. Guilt by association an argument does not make.
If you look at his tragectory - I would bet there is not enough of a timeline to say Chicago Politics Ergo Corrupt, but I am willing to be disproved. I have had this argument already, and have only found little evidence and mostly tangential hearsay.
ENLIGHTEN ME
March 13, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if he does, he'll actually be a stronger candidate for it.
I hope you're right, Fly. Maybe I'm cynical, but I don't think he can pull it off. Not in the America of 2001-2008.
March 14, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
BHO is *not* concealing his radical background or his present radical perspective: on the contrary, he is calling for *change* right out front for all to cheer on and follow enthusiastically ...
I suppose great change would threaten some of the current power bases ... hoho!
March 14, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
EEEW, I don't think you can fairly compare Wright with Ferraro. Here's the thing: Wright spoke his mind to his congregation; Ferraro spoke hers to a reporter.
Now, given the attention Wright has gained for being Obama's pastor, I guess it isn't a surprise that this tape made it into the hands of the MSM. BUT, it took over a month to surface. Clearly, his intent was not to raise a public howl, but to rile his own congregation. It's his right.
And...if we're going to be honest here, when he says that she doesn't know what it's like to be called a N-----...he's not wrong. Ferraro was extremely wrong to say that being an African American in politics is "lucky."
I don't disagree that poking at the gaping wound that is racial politics is painful and will probably lead to a nasty infection, but I don't think that the Wright/Ferraro comparison holds water.
March 13, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for bringing a lucid call to planet earth.
March 13, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright *sells* his sermons on the internet!
Watch ABCs report on other sermons Wright has given over the years.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788&page=1
March 14, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
And this is all good news for Hillary. Her campaign has long sought to marginalize Obama as "the black candidate". Gerry Ferraro's race baiting has finally pivoted the national conversation to race and all the old garbage is pouring out via MSM. As anti-hope messages go this is a pretty effective one. Way to go, Hilla-Rove.
March 13, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know Obama has a problem when someone other than Idiotic posts "this is all good news for Hillary," and sincerely means it.
March 13, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch. Consider me nailed. I wasn't paying much attention to my choice of words on the lead in there. It was a pretty gross overstatement so let me amend it:
A bitter, protracted debate in the MSM over race is likely to further divide Democrats along racial lines. This clearly hurts Obama more than Clinton. He is already taking 85-90% of the black vote. Hillary on the other hand hasn't hit a ceiling on white voters, especially white male voters. Even if Hillary doesn't steal more white male voters the negativity of a racial squabble may turn them off from voting Obama.
So yes, I believe it is a problem for Obama and a net positive for Clinton.
PS: Just think, Idiotic could have actually been right on this if s/he had only trolled a bit longer.
March 13, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ain't touching this.
March 13, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is EXCELLENT NEWS!! For MartinX!!!
March 13, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking of doing something like that (posting the well-beloved 'idiotic' comment) over at Billy Glad's post, but I couldn't bear to. My irony glands didn't go that far.
idiotic, if I could hug you, I would.
March 14, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is effective. But if Ferraro can do that much with one assertion about Obama being lucky, think what the swift-boaters and 527s are going to be able to do when they start digging into his accomplishments to turn him into the "affirmative action candidate," on one hand and into his community connections and contacts to turn him into a black muslim. They already have his picture up next to Malcolm's on some sites.
I'm sure Obama is ready for them and has a plan, but here's my take. Imagine if he said, "I saw Rev. Wright's sermon, and I've already rebuked him for it."
March 13, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Effective at shooting Clinton's campaign in the foot perhaps. If you think that Gerry's racist crap will help Clinton, or hurt Obama, I think you are seriously misreading the lay of the land and the media take-away.
Unless you think getting cold-cocked by Olbermann on national television's a good thing for Clinton that is.
March 13, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a feeling that most of America is not as enamoured with Obermann as you and Rosenberg are. Just a hunch.
March 13, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's oppo research knew all along all the skeletons in Obama's closet. They were too decent to use them against Obama. But Obama had no compunction in using the race card against Hillary albeit with deniability because he has the MSM and all you "little helpers" to do it for him.
The Trashing of Hillary by so--called Progressive Democrats is an eye opener for many of us. The viciousness and unfairness that that woman has suffered under the hands of so-called liberal democrats and the MSM (including TPM)is vile.
March 13, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have their chickens come home to roost?
March 13, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt very much that the media will pick up the story.
March 13, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
They were too decent to use them against Obama.
You funny. They were too decent to use the really negative stuff, so they just decided to endorse McCain instead. Right.
March 13, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
here's a fantastic new 'dream team' --
McCain/Monster
can't you just feel them crossing that threshold together? chic cic! or is that cic w/chic ? you know! how safe is that?! tsktsk
March 14, 2008 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This argument is the dog you guys should let lie.
Too decent my ass. First of all, timing is everything. Second of all, the last time this argument got trotted out it was shot down.
Mix, Rinse, Repeat: Hillary was too kind to use this before, and it is Obama's behavior that has forcedher to punish him.
Bad Barack.
March 13, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
A somewhat bemused footnote. As I write this, the post is about to be pushed off the bottom of the "Recent Reader Posts" list, without having made the jump up to the recommended column. I believe that's the first time that's happened to me. And while my ommission of my usual plea for recommendations may have played a role, I have to wonder if the fact that this is my first post that's actively critical of Obama also had some impact.
Oh, well. It's not as if I'm routinely ignored in this forum. And who knows? Perhaps having an obscure post will finally qualify me for inclusion in the "Recommended" post that the TPM Cafe staff puts up twice a week - it seems my usual fare hasn't been up to snuff.
March 13, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fear you are correct, Fly. I too regret that your post may not get a wider readership today.
And may I say, since the post is soon slipping off the cliff, that I so appreciate all the effort you put into this and that you are not reluctant to criticize any of us.
I also want to state that my concern about civil rights at the moment is that too many blacks may see and hear what the Hillary folks have done and looking at me in the grocery store or the mall, may think I endorse such things.
I like your idea of calling for "Unity" and voicing concerns in positive ways as a better way to deal with this. But I remain very concerned that the remarks of people associated with the Hillary campaign have seriously undermined a delicate balance so many of us have worked for. For that reason, I think your call for Barack to disassociate himself from his pastor is on target. But even more is needed in my estimation. I truly wish I had the power to make something happen, which you suggested above. I wish you did too!
Thanks again. I was distressed myself to see how few recommends there were when the post was already halfway down the list.
This post was excellent, regardless of of its fate. But, again, I think the primary has caused us to lose sight of large social issues, huge dissension that's been stirred up.
Peace to you... and don't be discouraged. You do a huge service for us all.
March 13, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fly,
Just remember that most news coverage and analysis is about the horse-race, and your insight on this subject feeds this hunger. The readership for other concerns is somewhat lower.
I've had posts with considerably fewer recommendations and comments disappear and then re-emerge up among the cream. The algorithm is not perfect, but I strongly suspect that this post will re-emerge from blog purgatory after it has scrolled down. I suspect post ranking status on TPM is updated periodically and not continuously in order not to bog down the system.
Likewise, I think most readers will appreciate what you are pointing out. There is a bit of over-exuberance which can cloud judgment, as in the case of many commenters dismissing the importance of Goolsbee-Canadagate, but this discussion will not be ignored by most.
March 13, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Fly, I told you so. Cream rises.
March 13, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never been more pleased to be corrected.
March 13, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this is a good time to re-examine why you do what you do. If you write to inform and to challenge people to think about your perspectives, I would say you have nothing to worry about.
If you write so that people will click a link recommending your posts... then maybe this is a good time to re-examine why you do what you do.
I intend no snark with that remark. If I look at a page of posts, yours is usually the first one I read, and I know I value your perspective even when (especially when?) it doesn't mesh with mine. That should be a mark we all strive for; you hit it more often than most, so cast not thine eyes upon thy navel!
March 13, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough.
Read it, if you will, as a mark of my frustration with the ongoing evolution of TPM Cafe. The reason I request recomendations is that they're the only means I have of gaining an audience for a post. If I put one up in the morning, it has a shelf-life of about two hours before it slides off the bottom of the list. If it makes the jump to the 'Recommended' list, it lasts for twenty-four. My posts rarely make the bi-weekly roundups posted by the cafe staff, and there's no other mechanism for readers to find them.
I count myself fortunate indeed that so many of my posts have found an audience, and that several have spawned interesting discussions like those in this thread. The odds of that happening are vastly increased if the post lingers long enough for people who don't happen to log on during that two-hour window to find it. I post to give form to my own thoughts, to share them with others, and to learn from your responses. So thanks for the feedback that you and other readers offer.
March 13, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, I always read your stuff and recommend even if I don't comment. Sometimes I just don't have much to add. That's a compliment, btw. :)
March 13, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama withdraws, I'm going to make you immortal. I'm going to post and repost everything you ever said that turned out to be mistaken! LOL. Just kidding, Fly.
March 13, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
i agree that these remarks from wright are politically troublesome for obama, and don't reflect what I believe is his broader message. I think he should officially remove wright from any leadership positions to avoid the appearance that he is a 'scary black nationalist'.
but I don't feel comfortable asking him to denounce his minister. i feel it's enough to indicate that one disagrees with the view of one's religious leaders. i'd add that i don't think we would be having this conversation if obama was catholic and the pope said something we didn't like or was politically sensitive. the fact that he is african american and goes to a church which focuses on the african american experience is what makes this such a volatile issue. i think we should allow our political leaders to participate in their religion/church of choice. we shoudl only be concerned when that religious belief takes a prominent and destructive role in a candidates policies and political stances. I think obama has made it clear that he is not a monolithic thinker and has made policy and political decisions based on a broad range of opinions and ideas.
March 13, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that we shouldn't renounce our ministers. That's why I choose the word "rebuke." Rebuke implies a superior/subordinate relationship. Americans need to know that no religious leader can influence the actions of an American President. If the Pope, for example, were to threaten to excommunicate Catholics who voted for a pro-choice candidate, I would expect a Catholic candidate for President to rebuke the Pope, to put him in his place. A candidate who is going to unite America going forward, as Senator Obama claims he will do, has to set his own house in order first.
March 13, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
i don't know how i feel about this superior/subordinate relationship you want politicians to set up with their religious leaders. maybe i'm reacting more to the words themselves, but it's seems unfair to ask a member of a congregation to set themselves up as above their religious leaders. i think you're right that we should ask our leadership to preserve the separation of church and state and be willing to make decisions that go against certain religious dogma, but surely they can do that by addressing specific issues? I don't expect politicians to leave their faith outside the door of government offices, simply because i think it's not realistic. i do ask them not to allow their faith to be the sole authority when they make decisions.
also--when has a catholic politician rebuked the pope? and in this post JFK world has something the pope said been cited as a cause for catholic politicians to rebuke him? i'm not saying your stance is wrong (i think catholics in high profile positions should take issue with the pope when they disagree with him) but i don't think most people actually feel the same. different religions/denominations get different treatment
March 13, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question is: Who is servant and who is master? The point about the Pope was somewhat rhetorical, although a Catholic bishop did make noises about denying Communion to Kerry supporters.
March 13, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ask the question: Why is it a master vs servant relationship?
Most religious leaders only consider their God the Master, and they the servant. As for congregates, I thought the same held true (although perhaps not always so "firmly")
Just wondering. I think I agree with the jist of your point though. Obama needs to make it clear that he is in charge of his own views. I think he has done that in general, but after this particular event he needs to have his "Kennedy Speech".
March 13, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fair question. I think I see it that way because I believe in a secular government. I believe that's what the framers of the Constitution intended. Churches have played an important part in the Obama campaign. I think his campaign has worked effectively through churches all over the country. I'm just looking for a sign that Obama knows how to tell Wright to get off it.
March 13, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you.
I just think the Master/Servant frame is the wrong frame, and is a bit to ... Republican. If we are looking for a secular government, ones religion can and should reside alongside rather than above and below.
I think the whole above/below dichotomy is what has helped propel the Republican agenda to its current dominance. Many religious voters feel that the "Liberals" subvert religion in the name of government. The two are separate and can exist side by side.
March 13, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can certainly live with your view. My own view is that State and Church are not equal. They coexist, but not as equals.
March 13, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!!! Very well said.
March 14, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think this is a great opportunity for Obama because he can really take the high road and also address his faith in a public way (he shouldn't have to do this, but that 'as far as I know' door needs to be slammed shut).
I would like to see him give a rousing speech on the subject: early in the campaign, he had such great timing with these things. I know he is trying to get away from the big speeches, but I think this is an occasion for one ala the MLK day speech.
March 13, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
He gave a speech on Faith at the UCC meeting, and in particular his faith, and how he came to become a member of the UCC. This is why the UCC is under investigation by the IRS in tersm of tax exemption.
Look on the barackobama.com site under "faith" I think the video is there - it may also be on Obama's YouTube site.
March 13, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
After the last two weeks rough campaigning, Ferraro, and now this, I feel that...THIS IS HORRIBLE NEWS!! FOR DEMOCRATS!! IN NOVEMBER!!
I would agree with the sentiment that this racial bickering will have been made "mainstream" and I think that the press in particular is going to run with this as the story more and more. It's controversial, it clearly gets people talking, and they can get a lot of people on camera who will say rather stupid things - it's the perfect media story.
I dread what will happen in the next 6-8 weeks, although I'm excited about the campaigns coming to North Carolina.
March 13, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tactically, I wish he had answered you back in February. But people like M.J. Rosenberg were implying that it was racist to even bring it up, the logic was that it would scare away racist Jewish voters or something like that, as if those types might be able to be convinced not to vote GOP. Yup, just shove the Rev. Wright in a closet and hope he stays there where the GOP can't find him, at worst, one has to deal with it later. Like a little kid trying to hide Mom's broken vase. (Which reminds me of the Saturday Night Live "TV Funhouse" cartoon with Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton...just a fable because they aren't involved in his campaign, but very apropos to this topic here.)
I believe that there was cynical reasoning behind many recent Presidents running to Rev. Billy Graham whenever in need of a minister. Graham was Rev. Palatable to the majority populace.
March 13, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. It is people like Rosenberg who called down this thunder. It was clear as early as January that Obama was going to have to leave that church.
March 13, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, he and his son were some practically 'original' islamophobia fascists -- real nasty sick stuff ...
March 14, 2008 5:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
speaking above of the 'rev billy graham' and his islam-loathing son (what's his face?) who preach the evils of islam etc
March 14, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Fly:
I have tried to put together a few thoughts on the issue for a post of m