« Reich on the Race | Main | In The Zone » Accept No Substitutes29 Apr 2008 10:59 am
Some turns of events just cry out for the NY Post headline treatment. Meanwhile, a friend Twittered the suggestion that perhaps the right way to understand Rev. Wright is as a successor figure to the Billy Carter / Roger Clinton / Neil Bush tradition of embarrassing associates. Comments (74)
Is he raising the roof like it's 1998 or trying (and failing) to walk like an egyptian like it's 1986? 
I posted this at the tail end of the earlier discussion, but I'll repeat it here: This news article says a Major Hillary Supporter,Barbara Reynolds , set up the Rev Wright Press Conference. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted. Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds. A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister). It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter "
This campaign is becoming more and more like a Tom Wolfe novel.
Well, you can't pick your family, but you can choose your minister.
I didn't read the other thread on this issue, but as someone who thinks anyone this religious is a nutty loon, I thought he was hilarious. And extremely good at pulling random sources out of the air in seconds.
You can probably add Bill Clinton to the list of embarrassing associates.
I think this whole thing is very sad. Wright doesn't seem like a bad dude to me. Watching his Q&A session live the other morning, I didn't even think he seemed particularly unusual. These are frightening times indeed when someone like him becomes an "embarrassing associate." He's never done anything to deserve this kind of scorn.
Rev. Wright is as a successor figure to the Billy Carter / Roger Clinton / Neil Bush That's a fairly offensive statement. Wright has some extreme political views but do we really need to put him on the same level as crooks and drug addicts?
"Meanwhile, a friend Twittered the suggestion that perhaps the right way to understand Rev. Wright is as a successor figure to the Billy Carter / Roger Clinton / Neil Bush tradition of embarrassing associates." Your friend doesn't get it. Reverend Wright isn't some dimwitted hanger-on -- he's a smart, highly-successful black preacher. And he's got some things he wants to say. The longer people like you keep ignoring them, the more he will repeat them. You are focusing too much on the meta and not on the substance of Wright's ideas. If you want to help Obama, the best thing to do is to take Reverend Wright's arguments at least as seriously as you take Fred Kagan's, and then ask Obama whether or not he agrees with them. "This campaign is becoming more and more like a Tom Wolfe novel." A commenter on Sailer made the Reverend Bacon comparison, but I don't think it holds. Reverend Bacon was more like an Al Sharpton; I think Sailer is right that Reverend Wright is an intellectual and wants to be respected as one.
Re Don Williams It's perfectly obvious. Reverend Wright has been bought and paid for by Hiam Saban. How could anyone think otherwise.
Does the righteous indignation towards Wright remind anyone else of Giuliani: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xKITUOl0NBc ? Isn't Wright just talking about blowback, like Ron Paul and many others were? His theories are nothing new to me.
He's never done anything to deserve this kind of scorn. One time he said God Damn America! IN A CHURCH!!!! As Chris Matthews said, "this is [Obama's] Iraq."
Re "embarrassing associates", Note that the News Media nevers asks why Israeli Billionaire Haim Saban thinks Hillary will be "Good for Israel" -- and whether that means that she will NOT be "Good for America". Nor does it ask Haim if his "Director of Research" Kenneth Pollack has found Saddam's nukes yet. Hillary's announces she's willing to start a nuclear war with Iran and that flows over the News Media like a cool summer breeze. Because it's too busy parsing every syllable from the Crazy Black Preacher.
I'm pretty sure Wright's political views are not what Matt's talking about. It's his personal conduct . . . going out of his way to insult and injure his friend.
Is he raising the roof like it's 1998 or trying (and failing) to walk like an egyptian like it's 1986? None of the above. He's clearly doing the crane kick like it's 1984.
As an Obama supporter, I wish Rev Wright were the kindly preacher with a twinkle in his eye who offered up the quasi-theological comfort food and unchallenging view of life and history that Americans want from preachers, teachers, politicans and Oprah... ....but the more I see of this guy, the more I like him. He cracks me up and makes me think.
Wright may not be "a bad dude," but he's sticking it to Obama big time. And yes, Obama's best hope now is that Wright will indeed complete his transformation into some kind of Tom Wolfe-esque caricature. It's certainly easier to deal with than if Wright were seriously trying to be ecumenical and Obama-esque and trying to convince everyone of the "can't-we-all-just-get-along" reasonability of all his most controversial views; rather, he seems to be adopting the pose of a race-man provocateur--which is perfectly in keeping with his generation. And perfectly in opposition to Obama's own message. But Obama's latest mountain to climb is that he's going to have to articulate all this forthrightly, and clearly reaffirm how profoundly his views have parted ways with his old pastor.
I think someone should organize a debate between Obama and Rev. Wright. I can't think of a better way for Obama to show affection for the man and point-by-point refute the paranoid opinions.
Wright may not be "a bad dude," but he's sticking it to Obama big time. Nonsense. Look, I'm an Obama supporter, but I don't think Wright has any more obligation to the Obama campaign than Obama has to support his minister. He has every right to defend his name and his ministry, and if Obama doesn't like it, tough shit for him.
Maybe this will play well- Wright stabbing Obama in the back shows that they're not on the same page, there's an obvious line between the two. Watched Fox "News" for the first time in a very long time last night. Do people still watch this garbage? If you combined Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, you'd get 1 brain and -5 souls.
Count me as a Wright convert. Comparing the news media reports of what he says with the whole of what he says (see the whole Moyers interview if you haven't) just makes me want to smash the mediocracy more than ever. Smart guy. Hullaballoo has some great posts on the subject: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/jeremiah-wright-by-tristero-if-you.html
Obama's also got Sharpton problems... During what a source described as a "heated" phone call yesterday, Sharpton told Obama he was disappointed with the Illinois senator's words on Friday, when Obama said "resorting to violence to express displeasure" was "completely unacceptable and counterproductive."
"I think someone should organize a debate between Obama and Rev. Wright. I can't think of a better way for Obama to show affection for the man and point-by-point refute the paranoid opinions." I doubt that would happen for two reasons: 1) Obama probably agrees with most of Reverend Wright's ideas. Otherwise, he wouldn't chosen his church and stayed there for 20 years. 2) If Obama does disagree (or pretends to), Wright would mop the floor with him in a debate. Wright seems far better at thinking on his feet and speaking improvisationally than Obama.
What's funny is that Wright is probably less than one-eighth black, genetically speaking.
At this point I think Obama should just go with corn rows up top, nominate Wright as his running mate, and hire Nation of Islam bodyguards to pass out God Damn America lapel pins at his rallies.
MY OH MY WHAT HYPROCRITES WE ARE! Addressed to MSN Everyday Chris Mathews and Pat Buchanan and the like at MSN criticizes Barack Obama for attending his church for over twenty years and for his monetary donations he has given the church over the years. Well theses same Hypocrites continue to attend and donate to the Catholic Church during and after knowing the pedophilia that took place by the priests within the church. Even before the accounts of these molestations aired in public the undercurrent and rumors of these acts were always present within the Catholic Church. “NO ONE LEFT AND CONTRIBUTIONS CONTINUED”! By moving these priests from diocese to diocese the Catholic Church played a shell game, and innocent children paid the priced. So does this world hold catholic parishioners responsible for not staging a mass exit form the Catholic Church and for not withholding all monetary donations? NO! Rev Wright pales in comparison to what these priests did and there is more self-righteous indignation on what he said than the molestation by the Catholic priests. So I guess now is the time to tell the parishioners of Rod Parsley, Hagee, and the Rev Wright’s churches that because of your affiliation with these churches you are forever excluded from seeking the office of the President of the United States of America. The ignorance, bigotry, and hypocrisy that run rampant throughout this country have become contagious. Any moment now I am expecting Congress to start holding hearings such as they held in the past when “The House Un-American Activities Committee” were formed. At times like these I understand the term “The Ugly American”.
I don't think Wright has any more obligation to the Obama campaign than Obama has to support his minister. He has every right to defend his name and his ministry, and if Obama doesn't like it, tough shit for him. Is characterizing Obama as a pandering politician defending his ministry? Is promising to "come after" Obama if he's elected defending his ministry? Obama could have denounced his minister; he chose not to. Similarly, Wright has a perfect right to say what he's saying, but the choice to do so (and do so now) is a slap in Obama's face.
MY OH MY WHAT HYPROCRITES WE ARE! Addressed to MSN Everyday Chris Mathews and Pat Buchanan and the like at MSN criticizes Barack Obama for attending his church for over twenty years and for his monetary donations he has given the church over the years. Well theses same Hypocrites continue to attend and donate to the Catholic Church during and after knowing the pedophilia that took place by the priests within the church. Even before the accounts of these molestations aired in public the undercurrent and rumors of these acts were always present within the Catholic Church. “NO ONE LEFT AND CONTRIBUTIONS CONTINUED”! By moving these priests from diocese to diocese the Catholic Church played a shell game, and innocent children paid the priced. So does this world hold catholic parishioners responsible for not staging a mass exit form the Catholic Church and for not withholding all monetary donations? NO! Rev Wright pales in comparison to what these priests did and there is more self-righteous indignation on what he said than the molestation by the Catholic priests. So I guess now is the time to tell the parishioners of Rod Parsley, Hagee, and the Rev Wright’s churches that because of your affiliation with these churches you are forever excluded from seeking the office of the President of the United States of America. The ignorance, bigotry, and hypocrisy that run rampant throughout this country have become contagious. Any moment now I am expecting Congress to start holding hearings such as they held in the past when “The House Un-American Activities Committee” were formed. At times like these I understand the term “The Ugly American”.
"At this point I think Obama should just go with corn rows up top, nominate Wright as his running mate, and hire Nation of Islam bodyguards to pass out God Damn America lapel pins at his rallies." That wouldn't hurt him at all with the liberal white hipster vote. They'd just assume it was an ironic pose, like their trucker hats (if they still wear them) and cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon.
They'd just assume it was an ironic pose, like their trucker hats (if they still wear them) Wow. You should leave the house more often.
Is characterizing Obama as a pandering politician defending his ministry? Is promising to "come after" Obama if he's elected defending his ministry? Let me put this more clearly: Wright has no obligation, moral or otherwise, to support Obama in any way. And I don't give a damn how hard he slaps him in the face. Whatever their personal relationship is, there's no reason it has to extend into electoral politics. Certainly I've had friends that I would work against if they ran for office. If Obama wants to defend Wright, I urge him to do so. If Obama wants to condemn Wright, fine. But the implied idea here seems to be that Wright should just shut up and let Obama do and say whatever he wants. And that's no more a display of "friendship" than anything Wright is doing to Obama.
Re SLC's comment "It's perfectly obvious. Reverend Wright has been bought and paid for by Hiam Saban. How could anyone think otherwise. " Rev Wright is trying to be true to the beliefs of a gentle Jew named Jesus. Those ideas have never found favor with Zealots -- look at what they did to Jesus. Haim Saban talked about his family being from the Middle East. I can imagine his remote ancestor being there in the crowd before Pontius Pilate. Yelling out "Crucify the mother-fucker! --or I'll ensure that the the tax revenues fall short. Tiberius will have your nuts sent to him within a month. You NEED my money, dammit." Haim's ancestor thought Pontius was "Good for Israel." He also bragged that Pontius fetched wine for him whenever he visited the Roman Headquarters.
What peep and dry_fish (@ 11:20) said.
I'm with 55. And all you so-hip-that-I-love-Wright folks, please explain to me your love for his left-brain/right-brain white/black racist-essentialist BS? If that's so "intelligent" and "brilliant," then we don't need no educayshun....
"Wow. You should leave the house more often." I leave it plenty, but since I live in a non-gentrifying area with working class black people, Latinos, and hyphenated whites, I readily admit I'm not up to speed on the current sartorial choices of affluent white hipsters -- hence the qualifying phrase, "if they still wear them". The point that hipster whites would see a Wright-ized Obama as an ironic pose still holds -- unless the hipster crowd has somehow embraced Jedediah Purdy without me knowing it.
Re Peter's comment "What's funny is that Wright is probably less than one-eighth black, genetically speaking."
Re Peter's comment "What's funny is that Wright is probably less than one-eighth black, genetically speaking."
I don't give a damn how hard he slaps him in the face. Whatever their personal relationship is, there's no reason it has to extend into electoral politics. Certainly I've had friends that I would work against if they ran for office. First of all, wow. I guess we really don't disagree on the substance. Wright is gutting Obama. You just think it's justified.
Maybe Wright's mad at Obama?
Oh so Wright's a Q. Then he's ok with me.
It's hard to overstate how depressing it has been watching the reemergence yesterday of Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club. It has been depressing to see the Obama campaign go through more "Wrightgate" in the wake of "Bittergate", and the loss of Pennsylvania. Obviously, this is the last thing in the world they needed. It has been enraging to watch the news media obsess so deeply over the words of a man who is not even running for office, and then associate those words and positions with Sen. Obama—a man who has never uttered publicly any of those words or ideas, nor taken publicly any of those positions. It has been even more infuriating to hear a blowhard like Chris Matthews ask aloud "why won't the reverend just go away", then devote the entire hour of Hardball to picking over his every word. This, naturally, has been the reflex position of the entire political elite the last 24 hours. It must be downright surreal for the Obama campaign to watch someone utterly out of their control pop off to the news media whatever he feels like saying, whenever he gets the urge, and then have the same media gallop over to Barack and demand an explanation. More than anything, though, to have watched Barack Obama go to great pains several weeks ago to defend the character of the man he once called pastor, only to have Jeremiah Wright stab him in the back today with the following comments, was the most galling moment of all. When Wright was asked today about his original remark that 9/11 was "America's chickens coming home to roost", rather than offer the sound foreign policy theory of blowback to explain, he used the Bible: "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles." On his feelings toward Farrakhan: "He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. I said, as I said on Bill Moyers, when Louis Farrakhan speaks it's like E.F. Hutton speaks." Not to stop there, he dragged all African-Americans down that road with him. "All black America listens." Really? So now Jeremiah Wright speaks for all black America? On his theory that the U.S. Government gave AIDS to black people: "Have you read Horowitz's book 'Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola'? Whoever wrote that question, have you read 'Medical Apartheid'? You've read it?" No, we haven't. On the sincerity of Barack Obama's disowning of Wright's controversial remarks: "He didn't distance himself. He had to distance himself, because he's a politician..." On his personal loyalty to Barack Obama: "If you get elected, November the 5th I'm coming after you, because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people." I don't agree with the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, or the National Review, that this event may have doomed Obama's candidacy. I do believe, however, that it may have doomed his chances to win the Indiana primary—one that until today was essentially a dead heat. It also threatens to seriously tighten his popular vote margin in North Carolina. I confess I don't know exactly where I stand on the near-unanimous media opinion that Obama's only escape from the newest controversy is to completely disavow Wright, once and for all. I think there is a good point to be made that Wright's narcissistic rant today was a public betrayal of Obama, thereby providing a fair pretext for a disavowal. I believe there is an even stronger argument that since Wright has insinuated Obama is faking his distance from the controversial statements, this requires the senator to directly refute Wright, publicly and immediately. Obama certainly can't have anyone close to him—especially his former pastor—continue to give interviews telling everyone not to really believe Obama means what he says. On the other hand, I get pretty nauseous when the media starts dictating to public figures whom they are and aren't allowed to associate with. Let's call it what it is: blackmail. The MSM is saying to Obama, "you can make this easier on yourself if you play by our rules, and cut Wright loose. Otherwise, we will hound you day in and day out with this until you drop out of the race." Not included in the threat is the obvious fact, of course, that nothing Obama says or does will ever shut the media up about Rev. Wright anyway. So, what's the point? Also, wouldn't it look deeply political for Obama to kick Wright to the curb at the very moment the minister is causing him the most damage? And didn't Obama himself say "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother"? You can just see the tabloid headline: "Obama Disses Wright; Granny Takes The Hint, Packs Her Bags". I don't really know what Obama should do, though the thought of Barack having to cough up yet another mesmerizing "race" speech to get himself out of yet another jam certainly isn't appealing. I do however, have a question for Rev. Wright. You're obviously an intelligent man, Reverend, who I surprisingly find a lot in common with ideologically, although I believe your leftist politics are of a more conspiratorial strain than my own. It is also obvious that you care passionately and profoundly about the African-American community you have dedicated your life to serving. With these two truths in mind, the obvious question surfaces: Why are you knee-capping the first viable African-American presidential candidate in our nation's history?
And all you so-hip-that-I-love-Wright folks, please explain to me your love for his left-brain/right-brain white/black racist-essentialist BS? First off I think his whole theory is shit, but I don't think he was making an argument the left-brain right-brain hypothesis was genetic but that you learn to learn and that's passed on the same way as European vs. African musical scales. You know I try not to bash Baby Boomers and think they get a bad rap sometimes but if Obama's sunk because older white women have a second wave feminist meltdown over Hillary and Obama can't get his preacher to figure out it's not the seventies anymore I'm gonna be pissed.
Matt this is a terrible post, proven by the fact that is has brought out the worst in the comments. I dare you to watch either Moyers -- and I can't seem to find a post from you on that interview -- or the PBS documentary on Wright's church from the 80s, and say that this man is like Roger fucking Clinton. Its shit like this that makes me think Obama won't get the nomination after all. He has made real contributions, and the funny thing is that, at least according to Obama's book, his church was viewed as too middle-class or "bourgeois" vis-a-vis other black churches.
Wright's clearly mad at Obama, but I still hope his plane crashes.
I'd like Sean Hannity to point to one single thing Obama has said, or a law he has voted for or proposed, in his adult life that would suggest that he, Obama, is in any way a black supremacist. I seriously fucking hate Sean Hannity. Guilt by association? Hanging a man for something his pastor said? What the fuck have we come to?
I saw Wright's interview with Moyers (and other public appearances) and have followed the commentary following his public re-emergence. I don't have anything to add to the discussion of Wright himself, but one thing struck me. I'm 19, and an avid political junkie (to the extent that I adjust my college workload to accommodate political up-to-dateness), and despite that, I had to Google Billy Carter, Neil Bush, and Roger Clinton--I didn't know who they were beyond a vague recollection of having heard the names in passing. What's my point? As large as Wright looms now, this *will*, in fact, blow over soon. Ezra Klein's post today recalling initial public perceptions of Bush ( http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2008&base_name=mccain_week_part_1_the_militar ) reenforces the same point... In the end, this is not going to make much of a difference; Pennsylvanians did not ultimately view Obama as "out of touch" (re: this MyDD post http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/28/21211/0467 ) and it's a waste of time to angst over.
"What's my point? As large as Wright looms now, this *will*, in fact, blow over soon." If by that you mean that in ten years another 19 year old "political junkie" will have to look up who Reverend Wright is, you're probably right. But it's safe to say that no one will forget Reverend Wright between now and November -- especially since he has a book coming out this year.
He's doing it becauase he can, and it feeds his ego. Wright says some offensive stuff, although some of it is overplayed by the media, but his most obnoxious trait is one he shares with most prominent preachers and politicians; a gargantuan, monstrous need to be the center of attention at nearly all times. Watching Wright preen and strut is an exercise in the grotesque, just like watching most prominent preachers is. Or U.S. Senators. Anybody who has that strong a desire to be in the spotlight, so they can espouse their views on morality to huge audiences, is overwhelmingly likely to be first rate prick. Wright's audience has simply expanded hugely in the past few months, to include people who view his method of delivery to be quite odd, and as a result his message isn't well accepted. When people outside the Oral Roberts cult would watch the old charlatan chew the scenery for some donations, they were appalled or incredulous, but to Roberts' normal audience it was nothing unusual. Politicians usually are cut from the same cloth. To watch these creeps mug for the camera, spouting nonsense, because being on camera gives them pleasure like nothing else can, and then to reflect on the fact that these gargoyles presume to rule us, is quite nauseating.
Well, with all those Rev. Wright comments praising Farrakhan to the skies, I'll bet that Hillary's fund-raising problems have suddenly vanished...
I saw Wright's interview with Moyers (and other public appearances) and have followed the commentary following his public re-emergence. I don't have anything to add to the discussion of Wright himself, but one thing struck me. I'm 19, and an avid political junkie (to the extent that I adjust my college workload to accommodate political up-to-dateness), and despite that, I had to Google Billy Carter, Neil Bush, and Roger Clinton--I didn't know who they were beyond a vague recollection of having heard the names in passing. What's my point? As large as Wright looms now, this *will*, in fact, blow over soon. Ezra Klein's post today recalling initial public perceptions of Bush ( http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2008&base_name=mccain_week_part_1_the_militar ) reenforces the same point... In the end, this is not going to make much of a difference; Pennsylvanians did not ultimately view Obama as "out of touch" (re: this MyDD post http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/28/21211/0467 ) and it's a waste of time to angst over.
Obama's also got Sharpton problems... Uh, no. I'm sure Obama wishes he had more such "problems".
I don't think Obama needs to make another "race" speech. I think he can just continue saying that Wright can say what he wants but that Wright does not speak for Obama and he should go after the media for trying to chain the two of them together. At the same time, he should have his people follow Hagee with a camera 24/7 and then release every outrageous thing Hagee says and try to tie that to McCain. None of this will help, but neither will anything else. The best thing is to hope that the media just gets tired of the story. It clearly has nothing to do with Obama and I think almost everyone in the world can see this. As for Wright himself, you really have to wonder what the man is thinking. Clearly he is trying to sandbag Obama. He knows that every time he opens his mouth it hurts Obama and yet he keeps on doing it. All he had to do was lay low until November and then he could do whatever he wanted. I really liked how Obama refused to disown the man. But now I wonder why he didn't. Wright must freakin' HATE Obama to be kicking up a storm like this. Whether you like the man or not, he knows the impact he's having.
Is the good Reverend a "Que Dog?"
Re Don Williams "Rev Wright is trying to be true to the beliefs of a gentle Jew named Jesus." Gee, Mr. Williams finds something to admire in a Zionist like Joshua of Nazareth. Tsk, tsk, getting soft in his old age.
McCain should be able to compete more effectively for the Jewish vote come November than the typical Republican nominee, assuming Obama prevails, but I'm not enough of a Electoral Collge aficianado to know whether that would make much difference. I suppose it would make it really hard for the Democrats to compete in Florida, which would help the Republicans somewhat.
Well, with all those Rev. Wright comments praising Farrakhan to the skies, I'll bet that Hillary's fund-raising problems have suddenly vanished... Because you know who has LOTS of money? Jews! Lolololol!!!1!
"new dkos diary from me today, on anti-Obama criticism and Fox News" If you have a point to make here, make it here. Using this blog to pimp your Daily Kos 'diary' that no one cares about is lame.
Rob Mac: "It clearly has nothing to do with Obama and I think almost everyone in the world can see this." But it has everything to do with Obama. 20 years with the man, only to distance himself when Wright becomes a political liability during a tough fight for the nomination to be president. It shows extremely poor judgment and a severe character flaw to have sat in silence (or worse) for so long while Wright did his thing. A real leader would have walked away when it meant something-- before it became politically required. And he still won't walk away, because now he can't. Americans do not elect issues for president, we elect individuals to be leaders. It is all about the person. You may lean toward one or the other based on issues, but elections turn on who best the electorate thinks is fit to lead. Doesn't always turn out right, but you got two choices and you make the call based on what you got on a Tuesday in November every 4 years. Obama has shown he can read a great speech, but he is not a leader. He is very much a follower with no true conviction. He's been exposed, and that's what makes you all so ... bitter.
Great, Yglesias. Getting that Beltway media whore schtick going good, there -- your career is set, ace! But whyn't you follow up with your oh-so-informed observations about how Wright appears to "real" Americans? Tap those vast reservoirs of life experience that you've got, and fill us all in. Fucking punk. I caught Wright's Detroit address on C-SPAN, and I didn't hear a goddam thing that wasn't essentially true. Wright's only problem is that he doesn't pussyfoot around. In that sense, he's refreshingly like another guy we're all supposed to laugh at, Ron Paul. Given the pablum and out-and-out bullshit that passes for "political discourse" -- a decline that the once-valuable Atlantic seems happy to assist -- Wright's behaving like a patriot.
Well, it looks like Wright the Baptist "appears" to be making statements of racist douchebaggery to ... the Messiah himself! Obama's gonna cut him loose for all those "goddamn things that are essentially true"! http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/29/obama-plans-to-address-wright-issue-at-press-conference/
Obama probably agrees with most of Reverend Wright's ideas. Otherwise, he wouldn't chosen his church and stayed there for 20 years. Why is this the presumption? Is it safe for me to assume that everyone I know that regularly attends church agrees with most of the things spoken by the pastor at their church? I've always assumed that what church you attend was determined by some combination of: large factors: medium factors: Am I way off base here? Does one really look for a church that has one guy with whom they already agree about everything? (And what would be the point of that? What would you learn, or what value would you get, out of the church-going experience?). I personally don't expect to agree with most of what anyone thinks, and that extends to my wife and other people that you would assume are closer to me than a pastor might be.
"I think someone should organize a debate between Obama and Rev. Wright. I can't think of a better way for Obama to show affection for the man and point-by-point refute the paranoid opinions." Obama would win on the HIV conspiracy theory, though he'd be forced to admit that given the actual history, it's not surprising so many blacks have swallowed it. Obama would lose badly on US foreign policy and the whole blowback issue, because Wright is right on that. And on the subject of Israeli state terror, Obama "I was a Palestinian sympathizer until I started running for office" would look as sleazy as most American politicians.
What Brad L said.
"Why is this the presumption?" Because: 1) Obama joined the church largely for political reasons (to help with his community organizing and later political career). 2) Wright is an inherently ideological pastor. 3) Obama wasn't born into the church -- he shopped carefully for a church in his late 20s, choosing Wright's church partly because Wright's ideology appealed to him. 4) Obama has described Wright as his mentor, etc. -- Wright apparently has been the most influential person in his life over the last 20 years, with the possible exception of his wife. 5) Generally people don't continue to voluntarily associate with, and subject their kids to people whose views they find objectionable.
By the way, I pointed out on January 15 that Wright may well be trying to take Obama down, so Wright can go down in the history books as the Willie Horton of 2008 who showed that a black man just can't get a fair shake in racist America: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-rev-wright-trying-to-sabotage-obama.html Of course, I was talking about what a problem Wright would be for Obama all through 2007. But, there were a lot of heads in the sand over the Wright stuff.
Am I way off base here? Does one really look for a church that has one guy with whom they already agree about everything? (And what would be the point of that? What would you learn, or what value would you get, out of the church-going experience?). Brad L has some good questions - to which I don't know the answers. How do people pick their church? How much do people generally agree with their pastor on? These are questions that vary - and I bet people's reactions to the Wright controversy will vary to some extent based on peoples' own experiences with their pastor. That is, if a person feels very close to their own pastor, that person would be more likely to believe that Obama is close to his, dontcha think?
1) Obama joined the church largely for political reasons (to help with his community organizing and later political career). Which, if it's true, means Obama probably didn't join for ideological instruction, right? You're generally not shaped by the people you use. 2) Wright is an inherently ideological pastor. But Trinity, as many many people have pointed out, is a mainstream Chicago church--often recommended (along with Apostolic) for young African-Americans who are looking to engage with the community. 3) Obama wasn't born into the church -- he shopped carefully for a church in his late 20s, choosing Wright's church partly because Wright's ideology appealed to him. Perhaps. Or maybe he found his disagreements with Wright intellectually stimulating. Maybe he liked the sunday school. Maybe it was the closest church to where he was living at the time. Maybe he had a good friend who went there. The point is you don't have the first damn clue what determined Obama's choice. 4) Obama has described Wright as his mentor, etc. -- Wright apparently has been the most influential person in his life over the last 20 years, with the possible exception of his wife. You're reaching, and again, you don't have the first damn clue how influential Wright was. Obama certainly hasn't laid an agenda that is at all consonant with Wright's political views. And, as you said, there was political advantage in Chicago to be had from associating himself with Wright and Trinity. 5) Generally people don't continue to voluntarily associate with [. . .] people whose views they find objectionable. And yet here we are, Fred, you with me and me with you--commenting on the same blog, listening to each other, trying to discern the truth.
Obama seems to be claiming he had no idea how radical Wright's positions are, or alternatively, that Wright isn't the man he was 20 years ago. I suspect this is all crap. It's Obama who is changing as he rises politically. He used to be thought sympathetic to the Palestinian cause by people like Ali Abuminah, a Chicago-based Palestinian activist, but now he gives speeches that are designed to gladden the hearts of AIPAC. Wright is the radical pastor who feels abandoned. I'm guessing this is normal in politics--the young idealists go into politics, find out they have to make compromises, abandon their principles, and then denounce their former friends when they object.
If anybody actually wants to know how Obama came to choose Wright, you can read Obama's account of it on pp. 274-295 of Obama's autobiography.
By the way, I pointed out on January 15 that Wright may well be trying to take Obama down, And on January 18th, I predicted the creation of "Paultown," http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/postpatriotism.php#comment-1153209 I admit I was a bit off. I had Guyana and "town," not West Texas and "ville." But still, not bad, huh, Steve? When are you moving?
In a related thread, Don Williams said: Ha ha ha Read'em and weep, Rubes. You should've KNOWN something like this was coming. Now I may not agree 100% with absolutely everything that Don Williams advocates politically AND I know that Don Williams is a huge supporter of Obama... But, BOY, I wish that Don Williams were the one running for the presidency instead of the Speechifyin' Saint Barak. At least he'd probably get a few problems---and a few people!---"fixed"
I think it's fairly obvious what he's doing with all this. A year ago, nobody ever heard of this guy outside of Chicago. Now he's as well known as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. And for a black preacher, that's the equivalent of a date with Summer Glau for me. He doesn't care about Obama or the election. He's running his thing and profiting from his "15 minutes of fame." Obama should just treat it like that. Shrug it off, "Hey, he's running with his thing. Like, whatever. Not my thing." Getting all "outraged" and the like is just going to make Obama seem weak and vulnerable and make the Republican and Clinton attack dogs chase him all the more.
Comments closed May 13, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I wish. But he'll have more staying power than any of those three, by far. One, he's black and therefore "different". Two, he's at home behind a podium and on TV in a way that none of those three were.
Posted by TH | April 29, 2008 11:06 AM