Through the Looking Glass

It's fascinating how unhinged a lot of the reactions to Obama's speech are over at the Corner. Here's Charlotte Hays just flat-out denying that it makes sense to try to understand things in context:

Obama says that we shouldn’t “condemn without understanding the roots” of remarks like those Wright made. Whatever the roots, these remarks are to be condemned. Within what context is it correct for the Rev. Wright to say “God damn America?”

There's some kind of reading comprehension problem here if Hays can't see that Obama's not saying it was correct of Wright to say that. Roger Clegg sees the speech as "politics as usual" which makes me think he must have been watching a very different usual politics from me up until now. K-Lo says "Any hopes anyone had that Barack Obama would be a gift to civil rights in America — that he would shake hands with Ward Connerly and really be a change died today, I think." In the speech John Derbyshire heard, "blame whitey, and raise high the red flag of socialism" was the essence of Obama's message.

Comments

They're grasping around for the right party line. K-Lo, in particular, seems desperately unhinged (not that that's unusual).

Posted by right | March 18, 2008 12:49 PM

I thought the main message of the speech was "Allahu Akbar!" and "Where the white women at?"

Posted by blah | March 18, 2008 12:51 PM

Actually the funny part is that K'Lo first said it was a good speech (scroll down). She only started to go negative once she saw the others finding bad things to say about it.

Posted by Benjamin | March 18, 2008 12:52 PM

Lord, they are a stupid bunch. But then, their hysterical reactions are probably an accurate measure of the effectiveness of the speech in convincing more rational voters of Obama's sincerity.

Posted by Xanthippas | March 18, 2008 12:52 PM

Yes, the K-Lo thing was a bizarre non-sequitur... did we ever get the idea that there should be some grand reconciliation between Obama -- or any Democratic president -- and Ward Connerly? Is there any reason to assume that Obama would want anything to do with this guy in the first place?

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 12:52 PM

Yeah! And what kinda damn Kommunist Krap was this whole totalitarian Whole Foods "We The People" stuff???

It's like I just awoke in 1925 Moscow and all the black Stalinists in their Muslim berets and shades were about to shoot all the New York stockbrokers!

Clearly this is proof of Liberal Fatcysts!

Posted by El Cid | March 18, 2008 12:53 PM

People who see the world in black and white can't (or won't) see gray.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 18, 2008 12:54 PM

In what kind of fucked up Lewis Carroll alternate reality is shaking hands with Ward Connerly a "gift to civil rights in America?"

Posted by Yossarian | March 18, 2008 12:56 PM

Yeah! And what kinda damn Kommunist Krap was this whole totalitarian Whole Foods "We The People" stuff???

It's like I just awoke in 1925 Moscow and all the black Stalinists in their Muslim berets and shades were about to shoot all the New York stockbrokers!

Clearly this is proof of Liberal Fatcysts!

Posted by El Cid | March 18, 2008 12:56 PM

The relvant Charlotte Hays bit Matt left out:

I stopped listening when the senator started talking about immigrant Americans

If you stopped listening, how can you comment on the speech?

Still, this marks the end of the conservative sotto voce admiration for Obama. Up to now his patriotic and semi-conservative rhetoric confused them. Now they've found a peg -- so facts will be irrelevant.

Posted by Ikram | March 18, 2008 12:56 PM

And guess what, it's only mid-March. Get used to this from The Corner et al 'cause it's going to get much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, worse by the time November rolls around. It'll make you really proud to be an American with a shiny flag lapel pin.

Posted by ed | March 18, 2008 12:58 PM

Charlotte Hays knows she can't win the "roots" argument, so she tries to frame it back in favor, in which we once again start talking about "God damn America", and go back to our emotional, knee-jerk reactions to the idea.

She pays lip-service to "context", but after that whiff at it, she doesn't dig into it. Blanketting it as never acceptable, and not challenging that idea, is the only way in which the discourse swings back in her favor.

Posted by socctty | March 18, 2008 12:59 PM

Charlotte Hays knows she can't win the "roots" argument, so she tries to frame it back in favor, in which we once again start talking about "God damn America", and go back to our emotional, knee-jerk reactions to the idea.

She pays lip-service to "context", but after that whiff at it, she doesn't dig into it. Blanketting it as never acceptable, and not challenging that idea, is the only way in which the discourse swings back in her favor.

Posted by socctty | March 18, 2008 1:01 PM

I did not hit post twice.

Posted by El Cid | March 18, 2008 1:03 PM

These are the same people who want to bomb Iran yesterday, right? I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest their judgment might be questionable at best.

Posted by Jake | March 18, 2008 1:04 PM

Isn't 'God Damn America' exaclty what Falwell and Roberston said in response to 9/11 and Hagee said about Katrina? According to them, these evenets were literally God's damnation upon America for its sinfulness. And yet these same conservatives who condemn Wright kiss up to them...

Posted by RC | March 18, 2008 1:05 PM

Funny, what I see here at this blog are the unhinged folks. You aren't the audience he needs to convince. The people at NRO are a lot closer to that audience.

Posted by Cal | March 18, 2008 1:05 PM

The people at NRO are a lot closer to that audience

Wow. Hillary's primary voters are a lot more conservative than I thought!

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 1:07 PM

I'm sorry, but Rev. Wright is handing out lame Black Nationalist rhetoric that has nothing to do with reality. I understand that he grew up in a racist environment. That doesn't give him license to talk racism.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | March 18, 2008 1:08 PM

Can we please stop pretending that the far Right, as at the Corner, is some set of fellow Americans with whom we can conspire towards a better America? They don't see the same world we see, and they don't like the one we want to see. They are fundamentally opposed to us, and will see, say, and do what is necessary to get their way and prevent ours. Engagement is futile. Accept that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 18, 2008 1:08 PM

For me, the speech did nothing to convince me that Obama is not, at his core, an anti-American bigot. He just nicely told me to shut up and ignore his double life. It's brassy of him, I'll give him that. The man is morally unfit to be president. His hard left politics combine with his bitter anti-Americanism and bigotry to make a nasty, toxic brew.

Posted by jim | March 18, 2008 1:12 PM

You really need to compare Derbyshire's reaction to Ron Paul being linked with bigots and his reaction to Obama.

It's quite funny.

The same can be said of Steve Sailer, btw

Posted by tg | March 18, 2008 1:12 PM

I'm sorry, but Rev. Wright is handing out lame Black Nationalist rhetoric that has nothing to do with reality. I understand that he grew up in a racist environment. That doesn't give him license to talk racism.

We should totally not vote for Rev. Wright for President, then. Cripes.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 18, 2008 1:13 PM

Here's the Corner's Charles Murray (yeah -- the Bell Curve guy)

Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols....

So perhaps not all of them have found the party line yet. The confusion -- it's all very funny to read.

Posted by Ikram | March 18, 2008 1:14 PM

"blame whitey, and raise high the red flag of socialism"

This would make a great bumper sticker.

Posted by Jim W | March 18, 2008 1:14 PM

Within what context is it correct for the Rev. Wright to say “God damn America?”

Christianity.

They do it all the time.

9/11 is God's punishment. Katrina was God's punishment. Soldiers dying in Iraq is God's punishment.

Christian firebrands hate on America all the fucking time. So what's the problem? Because he's black? Because he's a Democrat?

Honestly, Republicans have been riding the Christian/anti-American gravy train for so long they've forgotten what's holding their ass up.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | March 18, 2008 1:14 PM

As I noted in my URL (click my name!), The Corner appears set to spend the day using the speech as a bludgeon on issues unrelated to the Wright Problem, which is, namely, whether Obama can truly lead on isssues of race in contemporary America.

There's just no intellectual good faith over there. Goldberg's "rushing to get a column done" on a speech whose last words were just uttered, Hays can't read the difference between "offering excuse" and "offering context," Derbyshire doesn't know what "red flag socialism" is, while Lopez highlighted an email that said Obama "is a con-artist" who "never offers specifics."

Where's the honesty?

Posted by Mike | March 18, 2008 1:17 PM

I have to say what worries me about the backlash against Obama is not about Obama himself but is a backlash against holding any kind of strong ethnic identity and blacklash against any sort of religion (even Christianity) that acts as anything other than a nationalist mouthpiece for the United States.

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 1:17 PM

You have to love how Allen hears "immigrant" and automatically thinks that means "illegal Mexican." Unless she's Native American, Obama was talking about white people like in her family.

"Funny, what I see here at this blog are the unhinged folks. You aren't the audience he needs to convince. The people at NRO are a lot closer to that audience.

Posted by Cal | March 18, 2008 1:05 PM"

So the average American is made up of proudly racist British Burkeans and the world's dumbest Latina GOP operative? Considering that the smartest guy there is a Catholic guy named Ramesh Ponnuru and that they all still back the Iraq War, most of them still support Bush, etc., I doubt they somehow represent the average American. Those are people who are never going to vote for a Democrat, not even Lieberman ("vote for a Jew? Why I never!").

Posted by Reality Man | March 18, 2008 1:17 PM

Who cares what the people at the Corner think?

I'm an empiricist, I care what the voters think.

Here's my party-line. Pennsylvania's a big diverse state, that has a reasonable "swing" for November. Obama has plenty of time and money to give it his best shot and really work his speechifying magic there.

If Obama can stay within 20 points of Hillary among the non-black PA Democrats, he's a reasonable bet for November. If he loses by much more than 20 points, the Democrats would be total fools to nominate him.

Posted by RKU | March 18, 2008 1:18 PM

For me, the speech did nothing to convince me that Obama is not, at his core, an anti-American bigot. He just nicely told me to shut up and ignore his double life. It's brassy of him, I'll give him that. The man is morally unfit to be president. His hard left politics combine with his bitter anti-Americanism and bigotry to make a nasty, toxic brew.
Posted by jim | March 18, 2008 1:12 PM

You're a bit broken inside aren't you?
I pity your friends and neighbours.

Posted by Northern Observer | March 18, 2008 1:20 PM

For me, the speech did nothing to convince me that Obama is not, at his core, an anti-American bigot. He just nicely told me to shut up and ignore his double life. It's brassy of him, I'll give him that. The man is morally unfit to be president. His hard left politics combine with his bitter anti-Americanism and bigotry to make a nasty, toxic brew.

And what hard left politics would that be? Have you been stealing some of Cindy McCain's pills?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 18, 2008 1:20 PM

Check out NRO Commentator Charles Murray... Someone who has also had his fill of racial divisiveness ("The Bell Curve"):

Have I missed the competition? [Charles Murray]

I read the various posts here on "The Corner," mostly pretty ho-hum or critical about Obama's speech. Then I figured I'd better read the text (I tried to find a video of it, but couldn't). I've just finished. Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols.... But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie.

Posted by dj | March 18, 2008 1:23 PM

jim, have you stopped beating your wife?

Posted by Reality Man | March 18, 2008 1:25 PM

Where's the honesty?
Posted by Mike | March 18, 2008 1:17 PM

It died the minute the right decided it had to be as ruthless as bolshevicks to defeat their political enemies. John Birch and his bastard children are above honesty.

Posted by Northern Observer | March 18, 2008 1:26 PM

Well, of course the Conrer & Co. (e.g. Limbuagh, Hannity, etc.) are unhinged. They're scared shitless. Seriously. Obama's speech points towards a more open and more nuanced discussion about race in this country. That sort of discussion threatens to erode one of the main (but uspoken) pillars upon which the far right has based its political success - racial resentment and polarization. Seething anger from whites on immigration and affirmative action benefits them. Angry nutcases like Farrakhan help them becuase they can then stand up and say "you see, they don't want reconciliation; they want your blood." A cycle of knee-jerk charges and counter-charges is exactly what they want and exactly what they need. Changing the tone of this discussion hurts an already crippled movement. Fear of "the other" is just about all that they have left.

Posted by Shawn | March 18, 2008 1:28 PM

dj, like most iq-hustlers, Murray is fascinated by the trappings of intelligence, whereas most traditional conservatives find intelligence to be suspect and an attempt to hoodwink them. So it doesn't surprise me that Murray liked the speech. Murray might not understand intelligence and heritability, but he likely has a lot of repsect for intelligence. By contrast, the rest of The Corner except for Ramesh finds the entire enterprise of intelligent discourse and appealing to people's ability to think is something they've railed against almost since the founding of the NR.

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 1:29 PM

To get a feel of the "average voter" I check out MSM website comments, like CNN. And, well...we're a nation of idiots, run by idiots.

Posted by ZednCu | March 18, 2008 1:29 PM

Re "I'm sorry, but Rev. Wright is handing out lame Black Nationalist rhetoric that has nothing to do with reality"
---------------
1) Actually , Rev Wright is handing out Christian rhetoric. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol, the National Review crowd etc don't recognize it because their religion is just as fake as is their patriotism and their respect for truth.

2) Here is what Jesus said:
"41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal"
Matthew:25:41-46

3) For 50 years, The US government has condemmed the Palestinian people to refugee camps --with an annual income of $1600.

For 50 years , the US government has used military power to prop up the Saudi puppet dictatorship so that it could steal the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia and condemm the people of that country to eternal poverty.

In the 1990s, the US government condemmed 600,000 Iraqi children to death by destroying water treatment plants and then promoting water borne pandemics by blocking Iraq's import of water treatment materials. Then the US started an unnecessary war which has killed an estimated 100,000 more civilians.

Throughout the Islamic world, there are memories of massacres and torture carried out by US-installed puppet dictators -- in Iran, in Indonesia, and in the Phillipines.

4) Do you think God will BLESS such actions?

The Roman Empire didn't listen to Jesus either. So where is it?

Posted by Don Williams | March 18, 2008 1:30 PM

I wonder how this is going to make people think on Sundays between now and whenever they next vote locally or nationally. A lot of Catholics, for instance, continue to go to Mass out of a sense of tradition, but hate what the priests have been saying. A lot of non-fundie Protestants do the same. They're probably going to be wondering about whether they would want to be judged over what their minister, priest, etc. say.

Posted by Reality Man | March 18, 2008 1:31 PM

"His hard left politics combine with his bitter anti-Americanism and bigotry to make a nasty, toxic brew."

Nasty, huh? That's Mr. Obama if you're nasty...

"He just nicely told me to shut up and ignore his double life. It's brassy of him, I'll give him that. The man is morally unfit to be president."

Ok, for the last time, the person on the screen is not actually talking to you. It's only an image projected on your screen. He can't hear you screaming profanities about the islamocommiefacistgirlscoutloungesingers so you should save your voice for your next support group session. And I can't emphasize this enough, people, medication compliance is vital to your recovery...

Posted by Rihilism | March 18, 2008 1:32 PM

Turn politics into a circus and there will be clowns. And they're wearing some very big shoes over at The Corner.

Posted by Harley Peyton | March 18, 2008 1:36 PM

I feel really bad that Obama has failed to convert crazy right wingers to love Democrats & liberals.

Posted by El Cid | March 18, 2008 1:37 PM

I'm assuming K-Lo had the same reaction to comments by D'Sousza, Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, et al., when they claimed the US deserved 9/11 and brought it upon itself because it had angered God due to gay pride parades and the like. Right?

Posted by jim | March 18, 2008 1:41 PM

The Corner makes a lot more sense if you think of them as professional liars.

Posted by goethean | March 18, 2008 1:47 PM

Interesting responses/insults to my comment. I get along fine with my neighbors, thanks, most of whom are upper-class liberals (a bit of an oxymoron I know). I think their politics is immoral and harmful, of course, but ignore it on a day-to-day basis. The anti-Americanism of the white elite is mainly about status competition between and among white anyway. The long term damage of their policies isn't something they consider or are aware of.

I come from middle class ethnic Catholic midwestern stock and due to being a reasonably bright guy, moved up in the world income-wise. One of the biggest differences I noticed as I moved up the class scale, is how much the rich whites bash America, esp. compared to middle/lower class whites. I think upper-class lefties don't realize how they come off to regular people. I think Obama has spent his life in a combination of elite white and black nationalist environs -- probably the two most anti-American subcultures around.

But, no, I don't think Obama is a morally decent man. My best hope is he's just been lying and pretending to be a racist to ingratiate himself to Chicago-area black voters. But I think it's clear now that the anti-American bigotry of his church is something he shares and agrees with. I don't think he was pandering to Rev. Wright.

I do think he is talented ... he wears his pleasing mask well, but it hides a poisoned heart.

Posted by jim | March 18, 2008 1:49 PM

Funny, what I see here at this blog are the unhinged folks. You aren't the audience he needs to convince. The people at NRO are a lot closer to that audience.

The Corner-ites can't be convinced. Not their job. They are beyond the realm of persuasion, argument, etc. They aren't 'analysts' in any sense (with some exceptions, I'm sure). Like their soviet and nazi functionary-forebears, their job is to spin up content, no matter how ridiculous, which supports the Party Line. I'm sure it's not easy at times, but we all have to do something for money. It's a cleaner job than shovelling literal turds.

Posted by jonnybutter | March 18, 2008 1:54 PM

I don't think Obama is a morally decent man.

You can make that judgment when he advocates the use of torture and the invasion of Iraq. 'til then, I think not. Because the rest of his legislative and policy track record is a much more morally-focused agenda then one typically finds anywhere from any national Republican politicians, as far as anyone can tell.

Your problem is that I think, ultimately, you're put off by having to content with the fact that professionally and personally, Obama is better than you are (perhaps even with less effort than it took for you), and this seems to upset you. Part of growing up is learning to move beyond the petty jealousies that you find yourself reveling in and just concentrate on being the best person you can be.

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 1:58 PM

jim, coming from a guy raised by a middle-class Irish Catholic, nowhere in your weird little rant did you say anything that actually connected to anything. Since upper-class white liberals are overly concerned with status, Obama is somehow leading a double life? The evidence of this is that his pastor said some bad things? Do you even know what argumentation and evidence even are? Are you a telepath? Professor X, is that you?

Posted by Reality Man | March 18, 2008 2:01 PM

The bizarre part of this is that Obama's "historic" speech was pitched only to the superdelegates and the press. Most Americans are at work and aren't going to watch it.

It will be judged a success only if it takes back control of the media narrative. The content is relevant only insofar as it causes the pundits to fall over themselves about how great the speech and Obama is.

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 2:03 PM

The Roman Empire didn't listen to Jesus either. So where is it?

Correlation doesn't imply causality. By the time the Roman Empire finally vanished (sometime between 400-1453 AD, depending on how you look at it) it had been officially Christian for a long time. In fact, Alaric the Goth and his followers were Christians and conducted their sack of Rome in full accordance with Christian principles of love and brotherhood.

Sorry for the OT comment. Back to the main discussion.

Posted by James Gary | March 18, 2008 2:05 PM

The guy in my office who always drops the Republican party line on me and thinks the economic crisis is a liberal media conspiracy just said, "Goddam, that was a good f-in' speech."

You have to remember that the Corner folks were arguing just before the 2006 election that Republicans would "hold the Senate," but the House was "on the bubble." It's hard for them to get a sense of how most Americans think when they spend all day hunkered in a circle, kissing each others' asses.

Posted by nitpicker | March 18, 2008 2:10 PM

"One of the biggest differences I noticed as I moved up the class scale, is how much the rich whites bash America, esp. compared to middle/lower class whites."

What "rich whites" are you talking about? Dick Cheney is a "rich white". George W. Bush is a "rich white". The guys running the stock market are (almost exclusively) "rich whites". Or don't those "rich whites" count?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 18, 2008 2:12 PM

Hays:
There is no excuse for Wright and his ugly sermons. Obama could have said he loved the man, but he’s wrong in his hatred of America. But that is not what Obama said. There is no excuse for Wright’s brand of hatred.

Yes, I'm sure if Obama just acknowledged that his pastor hated America that would have put this whole controversy to rest, and he could just move on to shaking hands with Ward Connelly and everyone at the Corner would start supporting him.

Posted by ibid | March 18, 2008 2:13 PM

Re James Gary's comment "Correlation doesn't imply causality. By the time the Roman Empire finally vanished (sometime between 400-1453 AD, depending on how you look at it) it had been officially Christian for a long time. "
---------------
You might look at Edward Gibbon's argument that Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire.

The conversion of Constantine was definitely the downfall of the order set up by Augustus and Tiberius.

But well before that, large number of Roman citizens were finding that Christianity --even as a persecuted, clandestine cult -- provided a life far better than an allegiance to an amoral, utterly corrupt, and cruel fascism.

Posted by Don Williams | March 18, 2008 2:14 PM

I think jim was just stringing a bunch of buzzwords together in the hopes that they would strike enough nerves to cause some flaming in reply.

Posted by Tyro | March 18, 2008 2:14 PM

Yes, Jim does indeed beat his wife. We've tried to make him stop, but he explains that his working-class "enthnic-white" background firmly believes and embraces wifebeating.

Word is that Jim's wife will be speaking at 4:00 to give a speach explaining why she remains condemns Jim's actions, but won'd disavow herself from him....

Posted by Jim's counselor | March 18, 2008 2:22 PM

Yes, Jim does indeed beat his wife. We've tried to make him stop, but he explains that his working-class "enthnic-white" background firmly believes and embraces wifebeating.

Word is that Jim's wife will be speaking at 4:00 to give a speach explaining why she remains condemns Jim's actions, but won'd disavow herself from him....

Posted by Jim's counselor | March 18, 2008 2:25 PM

Re jim's comment "One of the biggest differences I noticed as I moved up the class scale, is how much the rich whites bash America, esp. compared to middle/lower class whites. "
------------
Actually, we don't "bash America" -- rather, we hate whores who betray America for wealthy interests --especially when those whores also wave the flag and proclaim their patriotism while stabbing this country in the back.

4000 soldiers have died in Iraq and we've lost close to $1 Trillion. 3000 died on Sept 11 and we lost another $1 Trillion. Tell me how that is in the national interest.

In the meantime, the NRO crowd, Bill OReilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck etc have all gotten much richer from promoting an unnecessary war -- a war done for the benefit of Big Oil, Big Defense, and billionaire patrons of the Israel Lobby.

Posted by Don Williams | March 18, 2008 2:25 PM

One of the biggest differences I noticed as I moved up the class scale ...

Sorry, but going from the fry vat to the cash register isn't really moving up the "class scale."

But whatever you need to do to make yourself feel better ...

Posted by Mark D | March 18, 2008 2:29 PM

Senator Obama said that Wright's comments were wrong and divisive -- except, when they're not, because they represent one set of extreme responses to the African-American experience of life in the United States.

The Senator knew Wright holds such views. He's heard them before. The Senator condemned Wright's remarks, but understands them, as Wright came of age in Sixties-era segregationist America. And, Wright is a part of the Senator's community, and his personal life, through the experience of his religion. The Senator suggested everyone has heard their minister, priest, or rabbi say things we disagreed with -- though I've never met a minister, priest, or rabbi who has cursed and reviled people of another race in profane, or any other, terms.

The Senator feels that Wright and his rhetoric embody the contradictions and complexities of race in America, which the Senator feels must be addressed through an effort to unify, and not divide, the country. Wright will continue to hold and speak his views, even though they are (at a minimum) divisive, and counter to the Senator's stated campaign message of changing the country by unifying its people.

In that spirit, the Senator asked his listeners to take another step, away from divisiveness and a constant reference to the past, as the victim or as the oppressor, and believe in that possibility enough to support him as the Democratic candidate for President.

You can cut this two ways: Was the speech self-serving, a politician's way of saying all things to all people and defuse an incendiary situation that could dent his campaign? To some degree, yes. Are Obama's observations about Wright, and race, sincere? I believe so. While I don't seek out persons who embody their own anger as friends, Obama isn't a character in a Dickens novel -- and life is a complex web of people with difficult emotions and points of view.

But do Obama's words move me, finally, to support him? I have to say no (and I don't support Senator Clinton, either).

The whole question raised by Obama's candidacy seems to be: Is this a time when we believe in the force of our ideals? Do we take an evolutionary step (the Senator expressed it in terms of his faith) in how we consider our relationship to one another, to our communities, and finally our politics? Or do we recognize how complex times have been made and set idealism aside as insufficent to the immensity of the task -- that we need clear, direct plans, pragmatic and tangible solutions?

How much is head, and how much heart: Are idealism and pragmatism mutually exclusive, and which candidate's person and politics reflect that in a way that would be the most positive force in the United States as its President?

And any consideration of Wright and Obama's relationship with him aside, that's really the question, isn't it?

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 18, 2008 2:30 PM

This comment at the Corner from Mark Hemingway was interesting, though:

Further, no matter how eloquent he is here, the ENTIRE speech is about race. The reason why Obama has done so well to date is his ability to get beyond rehashing the same struggles and arguments with regard to race. Now everybody is going to spend weeks talking about the state of racial injustice in this country in response — pretty much the exact opposite of the discussion about unity he's been fostering so far — and that's a serious distraction that doesn't benefit Obama's candidacy.

Posted by mq | March 18, 2008 2:45 PM

Christian firebrands hate on America all the fucking time. So what's the problem? Because he's black? Because he's a Democrat?

It's because he accused the US of having a systemic bias against blacks, which just rubs the Corner the wrong way.

Posted by socctty | March 18, 2008 2:48 PM

In the speech John Derbyshire heard, "blame whitey, and raise high the red flag of socialism" was the essence of Obama's message.

To be fair, Derbyshire hears "blame whitey" in every speech by someone less racist than Pat Buchanan and "raise the red flag of socialism" in every speech by anyone more statist than Ron Paul. He's probably said the same thing about a Dole speech at one time or another.

Posted by Shinyk | March 18, 2008 2:50 PM

Jemand,

If you've never heard a priest, minister or Rabbi condemn another group, including but not limited to by race, in similar fashion to what Obama's pastor did then you really have very, very limited experience with firebrands in religion. I'm sorry but to suggest that anti-white bigotry is somehow different or worse than the hundreds of other ridiculously common bigotries slung from preachers of every stripe and religion is... is.... beyond naive.

From the hun to the terrorist to the illegal immigrant, untold numbers of sermons have incited hatred against many easily identifiable groups - I just listed Germans, arabs and mexicans in my code word examples.

Posted by Bullsmith | March 18, 2008 3:04 PM

Re Jemand von Niemand "though I've never met a minister, priest, or rabbi who has cursed and reviled people of another race in profane, or any other, terms"
-----------
The Southern Baptist Convention was formed in defense of slavery. Based on the Bible, no less.

Amazing how the Bible so frequently supports the interests on those who drop the big checks into the collection plate.

Posted by Don Williams | March 18, 2008 3:11 PM

I think it's also important to remember that Obama ain't trying to win over Cornerites. The people who get their views from an extreme and divisive group of naval gazing maniacs are never going to vote for someone like Obama. If Obama was a Republican, they'd be cursing him as a traitor

Posted by isaac | March 18, 2008 3:21 PM

...I'm sorry but to suggest that anti-white bigotry is somehow different or worse...

Didn't suggest it. Wright was the topic, viz. Obama. I haven't had any personal experience in a church or Temple with zealots of that stripe.

I noted Wright was a Marine; that means both of us wouldn't be strangers to harsh language, and I'm sure neither of us are naive.

Depending on your interpretation of firebrand, I think Savanarola and even the Baal Shem Tov might qualify. But a truly angry person (not simply 'impassioned') with a point of view is often perceived as nothing but angry -- even if there's validity in their opinions. It depends on what they're trying to accomplish with the show of anger, I'd suppose.

With Wright, Obama respected the man as he disagreed with his rhetoric; I appreciate the difference. But as regards Wright, there's a surfeit of angry people in politics, religion, on the street; not constrained to any race, gender, or party. In our politics, we need hearts and minds, now -- and I while I could be wrong, that may have been one of the Senator's points.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 18, 2008 3:58 PM

The people who get their views from an extreme and divisive group of naval gazing maniacs are never going to vote for someone like Obama.

C'mon. The Corner is not an extreme forum for discussion. It's rife with disagreements that clearly illustrate that there is no unitary right.

You've got K-Lo, the social conservative and moronic Limbaugh sycophant.
Derbyshire, the paranoid British Bircher.
Stuttaford, the doctrinaire Libertarian.
Freddoso, the non-doctrinaire Libertarian.
Frum, the compassionate conservative.
Ledeen, the erudite, scholarly neocon.
Levin, the McCain-hating, Darfur-obsessing, Ledeen-wannabee.
Stein, the nativist.
Kudlow, the Wall Street Republican.
Lowry, the moderate.
O'Bierne, the party apparatus.
And Goldberg, who dabbles in a bit of all of the above.

There's no such comparable diversity in ideology at any exclusively Progressive outlet (at least, that I can think of).

Overall, the Corner's been fairer to Obama than, say, the Nation (or even the NYT) has been to Republican X, whomever you choose to embody Republican X. If I had more time, I'd dig up all the glowing posts about various things Obama has said on issues as varied as race and teacher salaries.

Posted by Shinyk | March 18, 2008 3:59 PM

"Actually, we don't "bash America" -- rather, we hate whores who betray America for wealthy interests --especially when those whores also wave the flag and proclaim their patriotism while stabbing this country in the back.

4000 soldiers have died in Iraq and we've lost close to $1 Trillion. 3000 died on Sept 11 and we lost another $1 Trillion. Tell me how that is in the national interest.

In the meantime, the NRO crowd, Bill OReilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck etc have all gotten much richer from promoting an unnecessary war -- a war done for the benefit of Big Oil, Big Defense, and billionaire patrons of the Israel Lobby."

Here, here! 'God damn America', indeed. Good liberals shed tears in 2000 when our Constitution failed us and we watched as an idiot took control of our country. 'God damn America!' Then we watched in horror as Bush read 'My Pet Goat' while our country was under attack. 'God damn America!' Then we watched as we went to war based on lies and watched our own party lap it up with gusto. 'God damn America!' In 2004 51% of Americans voted to keep an incompetent in power. 'God damn America!'
I spent my life watching the poor and middle class get pissed on by corporations and the wealthy and I always turned a blind eye to how America has been perverted. After Bush was elected I realized we were indeed a damned country. The damned have earned their ignominy and I will take my share of the blame for the sorry state we find ourselves in, but let's not fool ourselves into believing we aren't anything but damned.

Posted by eddie | March 18, 2008 4:03 PM

"no such comparable diversity in ideology"

I'm not sure if this is really a virtue. A conservative outlet could be good by 1) being conservative in an intelligent way, but also by 2) being conservative and addressing some concerns with and criticisms of conservatism (diversity which includes non-conservatism). Simply having a motley cast of conservative characters who really don't challenge and engage one another on much of anything doesn't seem to be better (or even as good) than having 10 smart mainstream, average conservatives.

The Corner has said *some* nice things about Obama, but Goldberg has admitted explicitly that it comes from their undying hatred of Hillary and uncontrollable warm feelings for anyone who opposes her.

Posted by Colatina | March 18, 2008 5:31 PM

Simply having a motley cast of conservative characters who really don't challenge and engage one another on much of anything doesn't seem to be better

My point was that these ideological differences do result in both challenges and engagement, and not just challenges on the effects of a perticular course of action on the party (which is the most you see in left blogs/publications), but challenges and engagement on big, underlying assumption-type questions such as:

What is a society and do moral concerns about the direction of a society ever justify violations of natural law rights?

Is the preservation of tradional culture worthwhile if the cost is stagnation?

Questions like this are seldom discussed in left forums. In fact, the only left-figure I can recall who openly challenges underlying assumptions like this, on a consistent basis, is Obama, which is why, even though he's not a Corner favorite, he's viewed more kindly than figures like Kerry, Gore, Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid and Clinton.

Posted by Shinyk | March 18, 2008 6:25 PM

They're looking at the distinct possibility that they may have to run against the guy who gave the political speech of our generation.

Of COURSE they'll be nit-picking at everything they can come up with. Their jobs are on the line.

(It's either that, or Hillary's tactic of studiously ignoring the thing.)

Posted by Demosthenes | March 18, 2008 11:15 PM

Amen, Eddie. I'm waiting for the debate on the validity of Wright's statements. I know not all of them are true, but it sickens me how arrogant we've become as a nation. Apparently, we can do no wrong.

Posted by Tony | March 18, 2008 11:25 PM

You might look at Edward Gibbon's argument that Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire.

There's also a good argument to be made that Rome's conversion to Christianity ultimately destroyed Christianity as understood by the early christians.

Posted by Michael Sullivan | March 19, 2008 1:26 PM