Preacher Politics

Great column from E.J. Dionne:

After Wright's bizarre and narcissistic performance at the National Press Club on Monday, Obama would have looked weak and irresolute had he not denounced him. But if there was a moment of courage in this drama, it was not Obama's condemnation of Wright but his earlier and now much-criticized effort to avoid a complete break with his unapologetic pastor. [...]

The catalogue goes back to Bailey Smith, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Speaking at a 1980 religious convention that was also addressed by Ronald Reagan, Smith declared that "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew." [...]

Two days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Jerry Falwell, appearing on Pat Robertson's "700 Club," declared: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' " [...]

And, of course, there is the endorsement of McCain by the Rev. John Hagee, founder of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore of Babylon" and "the anti-Christ."

E.J. asks "Do white right-wing preachers have it easier than black left-wing preachers? Is there a double standard?" I think there is a double standard, but it's a double for politicians not for preachers. After all, all those right-wing nutters attracted their fair share of condemnation. The difference is that a white politician is presumptively assumed to be "one of us" so if some religious figures he has a relationship with has wacked-out views, those are seen as his views and not necessarily a problem for the politician. A black politician, however, is expected to constantly prove that he's "one of us" rather than "one of them."

Comments

Reminds me of that "patriot" Glenn Beck when he asked newly elected Rep. Keith Ellison to prove that he wasn't working with our enemies.

The sad part is, as much as we want to rail against people like that for being so ignorant, they really are representative of a large swath of our country.

Posted by Trigger | May 2, 2008 3:38 PM

Rev. Wright probably won't appear on any of Al Gore's ads. Pat Robertson does, though.

Let's compromise: white preachers and white politicians have it easier than black preachers or black politicians.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 2, 2008 3:41 PM

I'm not sure that it's strictly black/white, so much as the number of voters associated with that church tradition, and the number of other voters familiar with the first set. That is, it's not just that white politicians are "one of us"--though that's certainly there, and that's a good point--it's that we are mostly familiar white people who attend churches that say crazy or disfavored things, and they seem pretty normal. I'd love to know how Romney performed in counties with decent-sized but not overwhelming Mormon populations as compared to no exposure to Mormons. Also, maybe the Southern Baptist correlation that I've seen done with Obama.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 2, 2008 3:41 PM

I don't fully agree with this analysis. I feel like race is being talked about in very simplistic ways these days. I also think that the difference is (also) between conservative and leftwing preachers (or secular types who express leftwing views, for that matter). Dionne has shown very little interest in the media double standard that punishes Dems/liberals -- perhaps because this would involve a bit of self-examination.

Posted by mary | May 2, 2008 3:41 PM

I'd love to know how Romney performed in counties with decent-sized but not overwhelming Mormon populations as compared to no exposure to Mormons.

I'm not sure you need to look at counties; Romney carried three states with hefty Mormon populations--Utah, Nevada and Idaho--by enormous margins, and the other candidates left them uncontested. I think he got something like 90% in Utah. Elsewhere he was just another candidate who sometimes did well and sometimes didn't.

Posted by mark f | May 2, 2008 3:49 PM

I tend to think it's more a liberal/conservative double standard than a black/white double standard.

Posted by blah | May 2, 2008 3:49 PM

It has everything to do with "not being one of us." Romney really should have done much better but, instead, Iowa voters preferred an unknown Baptist preacher who fries squirrels in a popcorn maker. Why? Because Romney is a Mormon and Mormon's are, for many evangelicals, apostates.

They ain't voting for apostates.

Posted by Shine | May 2, 2008 3:54 PM

Shine, I think there's more to it than that. Certainly Romney's Mormonism was a factor, but I think Huckabee's appeal in Iowa was genuine. He played the populist notes well, he more easily identified with the people and the region, and I would imagine he was vastly superior in the meet-and-greets and town halls.

Romney was never working with a strong base of support; the Republican establishment in Massachusetts hates him (viscerally), and all of his donors were based in Utah (his actual home state) or had the last name Romney.

Posted by mark f | May 2, 2008 4:02 PM

Shine, I think there's more to it than that. Certainly Romney's Mormonism was a factor, but I think Huckabee's appeal in Iowa was genuine. He played the populist notes well, he more easily identified with the people and the region, and I would imagine he was vastly superior in the meet-and-greets and town halls.

Romney was never working with a strong base of support; the Republican establishment in Massachusetts hates him (viscerally), and all of his donors were based in Utah (his actual home state) or had the last name Romney.

Posted by mark f | May 2, 2008 4:03 PM

A black politician, however, is expected to constantly prove that he's "one of us" rather than "one of them."

And this is the heart of what's so offensive about the Clinton's many attempts to drag race into the center of this election. The message they're trying to push is pretty clear: "This man is not LIKE YOU, he is not ONE OF US." It's what unites Ferraro's comments, Bill's comments after South Carolina, the turban pictures, and the sickening attempt to work with Scaife and Bill O'Reilly to fuel the media storm after Wright first popped up.

It's racial politics that would not have been out of place in some Midwestern municipal election in the 1970s. It's disgusting to see it on the Presidential scene in 2008.

Posted by NS | May 2, 2008 4:05 PM

But if there was a moment of courage in this drama, it was not Obama's condemnation of Wright but his earlier and now much-criticized effort to avoid a complete break with his unapologetic pastor.

Oh please. There was nothing heroic in Obama's earlier refusal to dump Wright. Previously, he figured he didn't have to do so (the brouhaha would soon blow over), or else the cost of doing so (adversely affecting his relationship with African-American voters) would outweigh the benefits.

Obama decided to dump Wright at precisely the moment it was clear standing by the reverend would hurt him politically, and that he had no choice if he wanted to win.

It's pure political calculus. He's a very canny politician, I'll give him that. Hillary has more than met her match in that department.

Posted by calculator | May 2, 2008 4:08 PM

D'oh. That should say the Clinton campaign's, not "the Clinton's"

Posted by NS | May 2, 2008 4:09 PM

I think there is a double standard, but it's a double for politicians not for preachers.

I would agree that the larger double standard pertains to how the press treats the politician associated with said pastor (with the obvious bias to always attack the liberal). But I would argue that it is a double standard for both the politicians and the preachers. Wright's comments (which are about 99% completely un-radical) are treated as outrageous while Hagee's statements (probably 70% more radical/outrageous) are generally shrugged off or ignored, as others have pointed out.

After all, all those right-wing nutters attracted their fair share of condemnation.

Is this really true? While I remember some degree of outrage at Jerry Falwell's comments post 9/11 it was in no way covered with as much obvious glee as the press is covering Wright's less controversial statements. Perhaps someone with LexisNexis could try to find # of mentions of Falwell around that time v. Wright.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 2, 2008 4:12 PM

NS, I'd also add the "elitist" meme and the "electability" argument, generally. That is, "as far as I know." The "elitist" attack is particularly galling coming from the "nouveau riche," and is a very clever way to paint Obama as "other" without making it seem racial, since the particular attack flies in the face of 400 years of history.

Posted by David B. | May 2, 2008 4:18 PM

Talking about genocidal idiots, why is Jeff Goldberg on the Atlantic's payroll?

Posted by DJ Kiloj | May 2, 2008 4:19 PM

The analysis ignores one key difference, Wright is Obama's pastor I real life, for twenty years. He is not a political prop like Falwell and Hagge. That is what bothers me even though I agree if this was a Rethug the press would not be all that interested. I feel the divide in this case is political not racial.

Posted by phg | May 2, 2008 4:19 PM

"Is there a double standard?"

You're damn right there is. All Wright had to mention was 'white' and out came the charges if racism.

If its one thing whitey won't tolerate, its an intelligent black person pointing out the continuing existence of institutional racism in the U.S.

Posted by An Outhouse | May 2, 2008 4:22 PM

A key distinction, it seems to me, is that Falwell and his ilk are criticizing gays and abortionists and pagans. No problem there. Wright, on the other hand, seems to be criticizing America.

Of course there are a number of problems with this logic, but if you're inclined to want to beat on a lefty, this is probably good enough.

Posted by Walter Sobchak | May 2, 2008 4:27 PM

It's not what wright said--what he said was pretty run of the mill--it's the color of his skin and the way he said it. He is a black preacher with the black preacher's style and rhetoric. The way he talks and moves irritates a certain segment of white america the way touchdown celebrations by black athelete's annoy a certain segment of white americans. That calling attention to oneself, those histrionics, the black lingo, the dramatics: those are no nos in white protestant northern european culture.

Before Wrigth, Obama was the kind of black man that certain segment of white americans could appreciate. He was assimilated, he was not too black. By tying Wright to Obama, they connected him back to the unacceptable parts of black culture in the minds of the certain segment. He's a regular black man after all. Not our kind, not the kind of person we want for president.

Posted by cw | May 2, 2008 4:30 PM

Oh please. There was nothing heroic in Obama's earlier refusal to dump Wright. Previously, he figured he didn't have to do so (the brouhaha would soon blow over), or else the cost of doing so (adversely affecting his relationship with African-American voters) would outweigh the benefits.

I don't buy this. Obama would have been smarter to dump Wright then. Better yet, why not before the campaign began? There is no cynical explanation for his behavior. There was clearly a strong personal tie that prevented him from doing this until Wright went over the top recently.

Posted by Jim W | May 2, 2008 4:32 PM

"Do white right-wing preachers have it easier than black left-wing preachers? Is there a double standard?"

Yes. Yes, there is a double standard.

Posted by ed | May 2, 2008 4:34 PM

Here's what really pisses me off about this coverage, especially that numbnuts Sean Hannity. If you're going to criticize 20 years of a church, wouldn't it make sense to look at more than 30 seconds of one sermon delivered on 9/16/01 (the Sunday after 9/11) because Wright was asked to speak about terrorism? Sure, he's nutty as a loon when it comes to foreign policy, but does anyone actually think he was talking about blowback and Hiroshima and Grenada every Sunday? From everything I've read, they talk more about duty to the black community and upholding their African roots. If you can prove that spewing bullshit was a regular pattern, then you have a problem, but nobody seems to be able to do that.

What I'm saying is, I don't have a problem with Obama sitting there for 20 years, because I'm guessing that at least 95% of those twenty years worth of churchgoing had nothing to do with the government's role in state-sponsored terrorism or creating AIDS. I'm guessing it was just a normal black church.

Posted by 55 | May 2, 2008 4:48 PM

This must go back to slavery. If one slave whispered to another and the listener seemed enthused - the whole kit and kaboodle might get some ideas. And, if another started kicking their feet up and got that look in their eye - even the massa would hear about it and it had to be stopped RIGHT QUICK. String one or two of 'em up, and take it from there.

Posted by Trevor | May 2, 2008 4:55 PM

"The analysis ignores one key difference, Wright is Obama's pastor I real life, for twenty years. He is not a political prop like Falwell and Haggee."

I think both phg is bringing up a point that some have ignored. Obama has portrayed himself as someone sincere in his faith, seeking out spiritual guidance - therefore we expect that he must have been aware and influenced by Wright's views. Bush and the GOP shills have used the rightwing preachers as props - it is clear none of them have read a Bible, much less intended to act upon any of Christ's teachings in decades.

I'm in the agnostic camp myself, but I'll bet I have a better understanding of the Gospels than many of these bible-bleating politicians.

Posted by CParis | May 2, 2008 4:58 PM

"duty to the black community and upholding their African roots"

See,see, they're racist! You don't see the Irish and Italians supporting their communities. Well, okay, they do - but they're white so its okay.

Posted by An Outhouse | May 2, 2008 4:58 PM

What I'm saying is, I don't have a problem with Obama sitting there for 20 years, because I'm guessing that at least 95% of those twenty years worth of churchgoing had nothing to do with the government's role in state-sponsored terrorism or creating AIDS...

I wouldn't have a problem with "Obama sitting there" even if Wright had spent way more than 5% of those twenty years spewing his whackyness. Why? Because it's obvious that Senator Obama is a brilliant, gifted, balanced, and deeply thoughtful human being, irrespective of the paranoid ruminations of his preacher.

No, I have a problem with "Obama sitting there" for twenty years because it's obvious a lot of yahoo Americans don't think as I and other enlightened progressives do, and that this will help the Rethuglicans hold on to the White House.

Posted by Mitch | May 2, 2008 5:11 PM

E.J. asks "Do white right-wing preachers have it easier than black left-wing preachers? Is there a double standard?"

The fact is that all varieties of Christian preachers are charlatans -- albeit with differing goals.

The white right-wing preachers are usually oriented towards obtaining money.

Black preachers are most often ISO trim.

Posted by Elmer G. | May 2, 2008 5:27 PM

Obama: Chose the freak to get ahead politically. Titled a book based on his sermon. Featured him prominently in the book. Had him officiate his wedding. Had him baptize his children. Stayed for 20 years absorbing the hate. Used Wright's connections to move up in state politics, then as a springboard to the uS Senate. Not a tough decision ever to make concerning Wright.

Disinvited him at the last minute at his presidential announcement, but lists Wright on his campaign's "spiritual advisory" panel. Ignored him when he announces because he knows Wright won't play beyond the south side. Thinks the press will give him a pass so he doesn't need to make the tough decision of breaking with him. The first hedged decision concerning Wright.

Wright videos surface. Firestorm erupts: Who is Obama and why did he associate with this nutbag preacher for so long?

Obama hedges again. Draws parallel between his white grandmother's expression of fear after being assaulted 35 years ago and Wright's inendiary racist sermons. Can't disown Wright anymore than he can disown the black community or his own white grandmother. The press circle jerks at the marvelousness of obama. The second hedged decision concerning Wright.

Wright won't shut the hell up. He likes the attention, and believes what he said. He knows obama is lying for political purposes, and says so.

Obama gives tepid response, hoping the press ignores the events, because, after all, the messiah already addressed that a month ago. No such luck. The campaign forces obama to stop hedging (to stop the hemmorging), so Obama finally denounces, even though he just said he could never do that. Obama drips out statements that he barely knew Wright.

That's alot of things, but courageous it ain't. It actually shows alot about Obama. He's a pussy.

Compare that to comments by right wing preachers (what is it with all of these protestant sects anyway-freaks on the right and freaks on the left) who have nothing to do with anything about who the candidates are.

I have trouble drawing the distinction. But maybe someday EJ will convince me that there is equivalence.

Posted by Wile E. Coyote | May 2, 2008 5:37 PM

Jim W

Read the NY Times story "Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized" about Wright and Obama's presidential announcement in February 2007. Clearly the personal connection was the main reason Obama did not dump Wright then but political calculation also played a role.

Posted by timeline | May 2, 2008 5:43 PM

Posting from no tv land here, and so I've only read the transcript of Wright's Q&A. I honestly don't see why it caused the fuss it did, but maybe there's some scary blackness in the visuals that doesn't come across that way in the transcript.

After watching yesterday's very interesting bloggingheads with Josh Cohen and Glenn Lowry, I wanted to write something defending Wright's contention that Obama hadn't really distanced himself from Wright, but only from the controversial soundbites. However, this interpretation doesn't really hold up to a close reading of Obama's speech. He says things about Wright that cannot be inferred from those soundbites. In particular, Obama claims Wright's worldview is too static, and, this seems true on reflection. Wright's examples of American injustices are listed as if all of them are equally relevant to today's discussion. So Wright, I think, is guilty of dismissing Obama's speech too quickly as a political necessity, and of not engaging its content. Hence Obama's anger.

Ultimately, I think Obama and Wright embody very different notions of black identity. It's too bad our politics are such that we can't see Obama and Wright discuss their agreements and disagreements in public.

Posted by matt | May 2, 2008 5:43 PM

I kinda like much of what Wright said--America as a supporter of terror, for instance, is obviously true. Too bad Wright mixed it up with silly HIV conspiracy theories and one or two other dumb notions, though the double standard there is that nice white people who fell for Bush's lies about Iraq are still part of respectable society.

On the other hand, I don't like Obama much--he's a typical politician pretending to be something better when he's not. True, he's not pimping the gas tax cut, but that's just McCain and Clinton sinking even lower than the normal level for a politician. Next to people who sink that low, Obama looks pretty good.

Posted by Donald | May 2, 2008 5:50 PM

To answer EJ:

There's a double standard between black people and white people in this country.

We've made very little progress in 300 years.

Posted by Luke | May 2, 2008 6:04 PM

cw gets to the heart of the matter imho. sad, but true.

Posted by Peter | May 2, 2008 6:15 PM

The fascinating thing for me, is that everyone says the most ridiculous thing Wright said was about AIDS. Yet not a mention about Rev.Parsley(McCain spirit guide) saying that the govt and Planned Parenthood are collaborating to practice genocide against African Americans.

Posted by keith | May 2, 2008 6:48 PM

The fascinating thing for me, is that everyone says the most ridiculous thing Wright said was about AIDS. Yet not a mention about Rev.Parsley(McCain spirit guide) saying that the govt and Planned Parenthood are collaborating to practice genocide against African Americans.

Posted by keith | May 2, 2008 6:49 PM

My workmate and I are two working-class white gals in our 30s and we both watched the entire National Press Club speech. Neither of us could find anything particularly offensive; in fact, as public speakers we both agreed that Wright is a fabulously entertaining man; witty, engaging, intelligent, maybe a little nutty but isn't everyone these days?! We are hoping Reverend Wright might get his own talk show someday; we'd like to see more of him, much as we love Obama...we actually enjoy Wright's outrageous antics! Wright reminds me of and old brilliant wacky professor I once had; he was a cranky guy who hated students but if you removed the chaff from the grain he could always be counted on to yield a few golden nuggets, even if they were just clever rhetorical flourishes. The more we knew him the more he endeared himself to us; the good outweighed the bad. Too bad the pundits bullied Obama into disowning Wright...it's a shame that the political times still demand this symbolic 'whitening' process. Anyhow, like so many other things in this election, maybe this is a generational issue. Ours is the generation weened on rap music; we're not afraid of 'gangstas' or hyperbolic expression; Ice-T is a guy we first learned to fear back when 'Cop Killer' came out, but now he's a cop on tv and it's all good, ya know? But you know what we do take seriously? Torture, War, Katrina, Health Care...all the stuff the media wants us to ignore.

Posted by kristi | May 2, 2008 7:04 PM

There's also a major Democrat/Republican double standard here. The Republicans and their proxies are past masters at finding (or making up) something trivial and shouting it from the rooftops as if it was relevant to the campaign. Remember the $400 haircuts? The Obama madrassa story?
Since Republican government has been an unmitigated disaster, and McCain just wants more of the same, the Republicans have nothing else to run on - we can expect a continuous stream of these things until November.

Posted by peter | May 2, 2008 8:06 PM

"Do white right-wing preachers have it easier than black left-wing preachers? Is there a double standard?"

Absolutely a double standard.

Posted by rikyrah | May 2, 2008 9:11 PM

Of course Barack is "one of us" and not "one of them." He's running for president. QED coupled with duh! That he purposely sat in Trinty U. for decades and was schooled in the art of polemical religiosity, which fancies itself as blessed black nationalism, is just happenstance.

So why is it I never hear the phrase, "sleep with dogs and ya' wake up with fleas," anymore? Barack Obama needs a new campaign theme, methinks, to reaffirm his street-cred with da' white folk.

Posted by resh | May 2, 2008 9:55 PM

Bill Moyers on the double standard:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05022008/watch.html

A must-see if you're thinking about this.

Posted by 55 | May 2, 2008 11:53 PM

Matt

Do you recall when Chris Matthews
said that Billy Graham's anti jewish
remarks must represent
Georg Bush's Jekyll and Hyde persona?

After all - didn't that play into an existing
Bush narrative???

What? Matthews never said that? But he said something similar about Wright and Obama that was less plausible?

Why? Racial double standard dictates that Matthews sees Bush and Graham as two different people - Indeed, people in the media even cut Graham slack on that.

Posted by Comment | May 3, 2008 12:41 AM

CW,

I think that’s pretty close to the mark, the style is almost as jarring to white America as what he said. It’s actually a sad commentary on race relations in America that even when it comes to religion, we are still somewhat separated.

I’m Catholic, the largest and probably the most diverse Christian denomination in the world. Yet while there are a huge number of African Catholics, of the 65 million Catholics in America, only 2.5 million are African-American. And even among those 2.5 million, unlike most Black Protestants, relatively few are the descendents of Southern slaves. Instead, African-American Catholics usually trace their ancestry though Caribbean slaves. My wife grew up in a Pentecostal Church, a denomination with a significant black membership. Yet the particular church she attended was almost entirely white.

Another issue that came to mind was how alien the effect of a sincere religious conviction seemed to strike most of the TV talking heads. The fact that one could be a 20-year member of a congregation, hear the pastor say something that is very offensive and yet stay in the church is not that extraordinary. There are numerous explanations why the Obamas might have made this decision, explanations that have nothing to do with agreeing with Wright’s rhetoric. Perhaps if more members of the media bothered to attend Sunday services, they could relate better?

There is the fact that the church is more than just the head pastor, no matter how charismatic he or she is. There is the fact that a pastor is often like a member of the family, they hold a place in your life where the good they do and say often outweighs the bad that they do or say because of simply who they are. You willingly put them in a place of high importance your life, if only your spiritual life, you don’t want to ever think badly of them. It doesn’t matter that you may disagree on a whole host of different issues; their purpose is often more emotional than logical. Then there is the somewhat interesting fact that the United Church of Christ is a relatively progressive denomination but has a predominantly white membership. Yet the particular congregation that the Obamas were a member of had a majority black membership and had a traditional black church feel to the services. There in lies the dilemma, this ties into my earlier point about racial separation in churches. If they liked the progressive theology of the UCC denomination but wanted to stay in a congregation that had a “black church” feel to it, they had no where to go. As a Catholic with a lefty political bent, I can relate quite easily. Sometimes the rituals of the service are far more important than the words the pastor preaches in his or her sermon. What can be most important is that you feel a connection to your God.

Posted by Raindog | May 3, 2008 1:33 AM

But to the larger issue of plain racism, I think Chris Rock said it best;

“it's alright cause it's all white…..so if your black or brown you can make money in America, you can get rich in America...but whatever you decide to do it better be positive, cause if one person is harmed you will be destroyed…..Cigarettes! Cigarettes are the most dangerous product known to man. Kills people every single day. Cigarettes so dangerous it kills people that don't smoke. That’s how dangerous cigarettes are. That’s right, first hand smoke, second hand smoke. People talking out of their necks into a f*cking machine like "Hey what’s up man, I love cigarettes, this is cool." But it's alright cause it's all white. S*it could you imagine if the Phillip Morris family was a bunch of jheri-curled n*ggas from Mississippi? Do you know how illegal a pack of cigarettes would be? You would get sixty years just for a pack of Newports. But it's alright cause it's all white. …White man makes guns? No problem. Black rapper says 'Guns'? Congressional hearing…..but it's alright cause it's all white!”

Posted by Raindog | May 3, 2008 1:37 AM

Very true, but I think the double standard isn't completely unjustified. With Reagan or McCain (less so Bush), there was always the sense that they were just co-opting the evangelical movement, and while the movement might have some real say in the kinds of policies Reagan had or McCain might have on things like abortion, sex education, and the like, we all know that Reagan and McCain aren't fundamentalist Christians at heart, that they just seek these endorsements for political reasons. So for myself as a Jewish conservative, when I see that a Republican's sought the endorsement of a bigot, I just say, well, they need to do that to get the turnout they need to win the election. (And, as a separate issue, I don't really find the views of a Hagee that disconcerting since they're really strictly religious views, and I think you're allowed to think that your denomination's the best, God doesn't hear prayers from other denominations or religions, etc.) With Obama, it's the opposite. This isn't someone he associated with, at least in the context of this election, for political purposes; on the contrary he tried to hide him as long as he could. This is a guy who he was friends with long before he ran for office, so, while you don't have to think there's some kind of commonality of opinion between the two, it's very reasonable to ask if there is

Posted by Asher | May 3, 2008 5:44 AM

Once again it is hard to know if Matt is simply lying or is he really this obtuse?

The good progressives want us to think that Wright is just another preacher in a world full of the idiots and it is only because Wright and Obama are BLACK that the relationship is criticized.

What an effin pile of Donkey odour this is!

Wright is, in Obama's own words, "friend, mentor, advisor" to Hussein and has been for nigh on 20 years.
Hagee is none of these things to McCain. Can the Stupids not see this distinction?

Put it another way:
If HRC had spent the last 20 years attending an Aryan Nation Church and called some neoNazi her "friend, mentor, advisor" then would Matt say that the resulting and appropriate ire was generated just because they were WHITE or she was a woman?
HELL NO!

It is now clear that there is nothing that Matt and his gang of Puerile Partisans will not accept or excuse in Obama because they believe that they will prosper by getting the Black Fraud in the White House. Theirs is just BushLove transferred to new projection.
All of this even to the point of Hussein pissing on our legs and telling us it is rain...

Posted by JTHB | May 3, 2008 5:46 AM

Re: The analysis ignores one key difference, Wright is Obama's pastor I real life, for twenty years. He is not a political prop like Falwell and Haggee."

Which is excatly why I cut Obama some slack in the matter. A minister is a personal connection, not a political one. People can be excused the fact that their personal conenctions (and even business connections, to some extent) hold and express daffy and/or politically incorrect viewpoints. It's their political connections, the people (like Hagee and Dobson) that they deliberately seek out for political reasons, whom I consider dangerous in this respect. If elected president I seriously doubt Obama would direct the FBI to investigate the AIDS virus "conspiracy" at Wright's behest. But it's quite possible McCain might seek to ander to Hagee et al by following policies dear to the Religious Right.

Posted by JonF | May 3, 2008 9:56 AM

JonF, yours is I think naivete of the highest order.
Have you not listened to the enumeration of the pies that Wright has his fingers in?
His "ministry" is a political front group and his church is the very essence of ward politics on the South side of Chicago.
To pretend that the Religious Left (whackadoodles is I think the preferred nomenclature) is any less agenda and policy driven than the WingNut churches is delusional.
As to Obama's true feelings and beliefs well we simply don't know. But his adherence to Wright and Wright's "theology" for 20 years is a valid concern. Your touching faith that Obama will be somehow more ideologically pure because of his mythology is just that, an act of faith.
Sadly Obama's performance art over the Wright affair seems not to have induced the same faith in most Americans.
And it doesn't help that Obama has repeatedly lied about the relationship and the issues it raises.

And why in heaven's name is any "progressive" considering voting for a man either stupid enough or manipulative enough to proclaim a belief in the Angry Sky God anyway? Sheesh...

Posted by JTHB | May 3, 2008 2:48 PM

Re: His "ministry" is a political front group and his church is the very essence of ward politics on the South side of Chicago.

There's a big difference between local community activism and the sort of overwhelming national presence and bribery machine that Robertson or Dobson maintain.
Moreover, the Right has cherry-picked a small handful of nutty things Wright has said over a long career. I've said un-PC and/or nutty things in my life, you've said un-PC and/or nutty thing ("Angry sky God" comes to mind); we all have. Sorry, but I see this whole business as another rachet up of the fetid GOP slime machine. Soon no one will be able to run for office (at least on a Democrat ticket) who hasn't lived as a hermit for their whole life lest every last association they've ever had be scrutinized for Officially Unapproved ideas.
Good grief, get over it! The pulpit is one of those places (see also: the bar stool) where full-scale unthought-out rants occasionally can happen. That's an old, old tradition. The "jeremiad" was named not for Jeremiah Wright but for a Jeremiah who lived in the heydey of the Baylonian Empire.

Posted by Jonf | May 3, 2008 6:50 PM

This topic really seems to have hit a nerve. You usually don't see such crass comments about "rethugs" and "rethuglicans" this much in matt's comments.

Posted by scottynx | May 4, 2008 5:32 AM