Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Wright is Nothing But Flowers
After a week of being fairly despondent about the prospect of losing another potential leader to the sensational, to the sound bite, I started to think about Flowers. Bill Clinton and Jennifer Flowers to be specific and how The Reverend Wright youtube sound bite 'controversy' looks more and more like that moment back in 1992.
I know, there is a huge difference between an affair being exposed and a candidate being associated with controversial sound bites from the pulpit, but there are larger similarities.
· Both media events exploited the sensational to seemingly confirm the unspoken worst fears surrounding each candidate.
· Both events, when they initially hit the street, seemed like insurmountable fatal body blows.
· Both candidates ‘flipped the event’ on their accusers and used a tough moment in the campaign to demonstrate their strengths.
Barack, by embracing his controversy head on, getting in the proverbial front of the story, borrowed a page right out of Bill's ’92 playbook Bill and Hillary went on 60 minutes, Barack gave a historic speech (and countless interviews on the subject). Just like Bill in ’92, how Barack is dealing with his”controversy” will ultimately resonate stronger with the public than the facts being exploited (Far less exploitable facts than Bills IMHO).
They both used controversy to demonstrate, as candidates, how he will face a shit storm and survive as leaders.
Barack, in his Flowers moment, exceeds Clinton in that he not only is indicating his political resilience (something we need in any President) but his unique ability to turn spurious accusations into a serious discussion and shape that discussion in a direct yet inclusive tone that the country is more than hungry for.
Simply, his response and reaction to The Reverend Wright youtube sound bite 'controversy' is a demonstration
of leadership.
By the end of the ’92 campaign (when it mattered) we remembered how the Clintons
refused to be brought down by sensational elements of the Flowers incident. Not
the details of the incident itself. And it made us (or me at
least) like Bill more for it.
In the end, we'll remember this in a similar light. Like Bill, he’ll get the respect he deserves
for not backing down, staring into the eye of the storm and persevering. Unlike Bill, Barack will also be remembered for
shifting the discussion on one of our 3rd rail social topics in this
country. What a bonus!
I look forward to him taking on more of the inevitable controversial events (personal or otherwise) in this manner as my President.













Comments (2)
What amazes me about this is that so many Clinton-supporters desperately want to believe that a few unsavory one-liners from his pastor are going to sink Obama's campaign.
Oh well. I guess we should cut them some slack. They'll need it for the inevitable recovery period after the superdelegates hand the nomination to the top vote, delegate, and state-getter.
What I don't understand is this: As soon as Obama won Wisconsin, we all understood that the only way Clinton could win was by making Obama unelectable. So is it really that much of a surprise, given urging from the top, so many Clinton supporters claim they won't support Obama?
What I'm asking is: Do these people genuinely hate Obama, a person the nation met only a year ago, or is all this lame posturing just meant to further the whole Clintonite electability argument?
March 22, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What I'm asking is: Do these people genuinely hate Obama, a person the nation met only a year ago, or is all this lame posturing just meant to further the whole Clintonite electability argument?"
I can never figure out the animosity. Perhaps its a sense of entitlement. Perhaps a little subtle prejudice (Obama is often labeled as "smug" or an "empty suit" -- ie. he doesn't know his proper place or couldn't possibly be smarter than her. Edwards had far less public experience and is never spoken of as an "empty suit")
What's weird is that Obama has been scrupulous in not disparaging Clinton personally. She has said nasty things to him ("Shame on you!!!") while he seemed reluctant to hit back too hard -- to a fault.
Case in point: The debate where she said "change you can xerox" and got booed, he called her campaign "magnificent". I think he was being too kind.
Meanwhile, Clintons campaign has belittled him as naive, a "kid", a "fairytale", another Jesse Jackson, etc. etc.
In contrast, when Obama called Hillary "likable enough" -- a laughably mild jab -- her supporters were outraged and called it sexist.
I just don't get it. I'm not sure why the Clintonistas are frothing at the mouth about a pretty nice guy.
Meanwhile, McCain as we saw against Romney and elsewhere, is a testy ungracious hotheaded jerk (also see his nasty joke about Chelsea).
March 22, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment