Steven Stark has been an unreadable shill for Clinton this entire election, and this latest column is is worst effort yet.  This sentence in particular got to me, and we've seen this basic meme flot up a lot in conservative circles:

"But what Obama will never be able to explain away is why, of all the people in the world who could inspire him on a weekly basis, he chose the one who was known to exclaim, "God damn America," and preached a gospel not particularly distinguished by an appeal to everyone's better nature. Alas, we are judged by the company we keep -- as well we should be, when the company is a chief spiritual advisor."

This is a really stupid understanding of what it means to be a member of a religious congregation.  People don't "shop around" looking for the minister who most closely matches their theological or political beliefs.  Sure, they generally look for people who believe something close to their religious beliefs, but that's the least of what it means to be part of a congregation.  What keeps people in different churches is the relationships they build with people, especially the relationships that they build with their ministers.  Those relationships aren't just commodities that you can casually compare to other relationships in other churches; Reverend Wright isn't delievering a spiritual product in a way similar to the way McDonalds might deliever a food product or a politician would deliever a political viewpoint.  A good minister attracts people to his congregation by building strong relationships and trust with his congregants.  A good minister isn't trying to convince people to believe in a set of theological beliefs.  A good minister is trying to work with people, get involved with their lives and direct them towards God and a Christian life.  That's the essence of what it means to participate in a religious congregation. 

Whether you agree with your minister on political matters, and to a great extent even whether you agree with your minister on theological matters, is a secondary consideration.  Just look how ridiculous Stark's second clause is: "of all the people in the world who could inspire him..."?  What does that even mean?  Being inspired isn't something that just automatically happens when you are in the presence of someone who trades in inspiration.  Who knows how many people in the world could have inspired Obama.  This one, Jeremiah Wright, did, in a way that Obama describes very well in his memoir.  And in my experience, that is actually an extremely rare phenomenon, and not something to be casually discarded because of a political disagreement. 

Also, who is Steven Stark to judge that Jeremiah Wright "preached a gospel not particularly distinguished by an appeal to everyone's better nature".  Somebody who has watched a 30 second clips of the man?  Barack Obama actually knows the guy.  He actually has seen the guy in the community.  He actually has a relationship there, and when he talks about who Reverend Wright is, he actually knows what he is talking about. 

Some of this stuff is starting to border on religious prejudice.  The prophetic tradition of Christianity has often expressed itself in terms of scathing damnations of the government and mainstream society, from Jeremiah's condemnation of the Israelites to Luther's thesis to Calvinist fire and brimstone.  The God Damn Ameica for being racist fits pretty comfortably into that tradition, and it isn't that dissimilar to several speeches by Martin Luther King.  The religious tradition of black liberation theology is an important and valuable contribution to the American religious scene; black churches that are influenced by black liberation theology had a huge influence on the civil rights movement, and form some of the most important groups fighting poverty and alienation in inner city communities.  No, the movement, like it's individual members like Jeremiah Wright, is not perfect.  Yes, it is often too extreme, too dogmatic, and too self-righteous (but what religious group isn't?).  But being a member of that religious tradition should not disqualify you from public office, or make you any less of an American.

Walking around Nairobi the past couple of days wearing an Obama '08 t-shirt was a heady experience. Literally, I couldn't go three seconds without someone yelling out a supportive "Obama!" chant, or shaking my hand, or outright hugging me on the street, or joking about the absurdity (in their eyes) of a white person supporting a black candidate. Many people talked about how seeing the support for Obama among many whites in the United States had great symbolic significance for Kenya, a country in which the "democracy" is still effectively "vote for the member of your tribe". That way of thinking of course is responsible for the recent post-election violence in the country.

Anyway, I wanted to share one other comment made to me by the manager of my hotel in Nairobi, which I thought was interesting. He said that he has talked to many people who have stayed in his hotel over the past couple of months from all over Africa, and all of them are extremely excited about Obama, despite the loyalty that many Africans feel towards the Clintons (especially Bill). He said that what Obama represents to Africans is the possibility of Africa becoming a place known for more than genocide, repression and HIV. That generally, the west only pays attention to Africa during situations like the crisis in Kenya, or the disaster in Zimbabwe, and represents Africans only as either perpetuators or victims of violence and disease. In Obama, my hotel manager said that for the first time, an African might become important and famous, not for something he has contributed to Africans (like say Mandela) but for something he has contributed to western countries. He believes Obama as President of the United States would send a signal throughout the continent that African people have something to offer, and he expressed hope that would have wide-ranging and long term effects on the way Africans see themselves.

He was certainly very optimistic, but I thought it was an interesting opinion. Obama has to walk a fine line in terms of African politics, but I do wonder whether he would have a postitive impact. Right now, it is easy for the corrupt thugs of Africa to rail against the international community as nothing more than new forms of colonialism, a view that justifies despotic and corrupt governments. If the international community was led by a second generation African, I wonder whether people would be less accepting of that kind of ideology.