Up to now I had taken it for granted that Jeremiah Wright wanted Obama to win the nomination and the presidency--and that was why he had not been seen or heard from since the controversy over his sermons first blew up. Obama's speech on race had seemed to repair much of the damage, and though his association with Wright remained a problem, things had moved on and it was not going to sink him. Now this:
Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.
Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.
Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."
Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."
I think one can imagine how delighted Obama must have been to read accounts of this appearance. What I would love to know, though, is what Wright and those cheering leaders of the black community are thinking. The obvious theory is that Wright must want Obama to lose, and thus affirm the pastor's account of all that is sick about the country: God damn America, too bigoted a nation to elect a black man president. If that is what he is doing, and he keeps it up, he may yet get his way.
"The obvious theory is that Wright must want Obama to lose, and thus affirm the pastor's account of all that is sick about the country: God damn America, too bigoted a nation to elect a black man president. "
I thought this, and what would have happened to candidate Jack Kennedy had he had a Catholic Priest such as Wright for a spiritual adviser during the 1960 primaries.
"What I would love to know, though, is what Wright and those cheering leaders of the black community are thinking"
Maybe they think that:
a) Wright is his own man, not Obama's trained monkey that Obama can order around;
b) That Wright has the right of freedom of speech in America today-which means the freedom to hold and express impolitic opinions.
Both Obama AND Wright have said that Wright doesn't speak for Obama. What could be clearer than that?
What's astonishing to me is that the press had swallowed whole the right wing meme that Wright is Obama's surrogate and that Obama should be held responsible for Wright's opinions. When did either Wright or Obama ever say this?
What is the point of repeatng Milbank's opinion? Wright's comments, wheter you agree with them or not, are avaiable for everyone to read or see. Why not read them yourself and let us know what YOU think.
a) Wright is his own man, not Obama's trained monkey that Obama can order around;
b) That Wright has the right of freedom of speech in America today-which means the freedom to hold and express impolitic opinions.
Sorry, this is bananas. The point isn't whether Wright has the right to do this, or whether he's "his own man." It's a question of the audience recognizing the fallout and the vulnerability of Obama's position--a position one imagines isn't totally unaligned with its own self-interest. When your uncle starts antagonizing the dinner guest you don't say, "oh he's his own man" or "it's his constitutional right to spout moony opinions." You recognize that the dinner guest has--and perhaps will only ever have--a keyhole view on your world, and so you take care to present something other than a freak show carnival.
It's hard to overstate how depressing it has been watching the reemergence today 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?
I thought that we were done with the renounce/denounce sideshow, but it seems not. Guilt by association is alive and thriving in the United States. I keeping hearing "political analysts" [they must be, because they say so] opining that Obama and Wright are "joined at the hip" or that in some convoluted way Wright is a surrogate of the Obama campaign. Wright is a pastor and black activist. Obama is neither, and never has been. Then again he may very well have been captured by the North Koreans and may really be The Manchurian Candidate. As some talking head said tonight about Obama, "we really don't know who he is."
I found it humorous that Wright chided Obama for not being at church more often, and said that Obama would not be immune from Wright's criticism should Obama be elected to the presidency. Obama must be thrilled at the prospect. That's Wright's deal. The only thing I see that "joins" them is their skin color. To think that a black man can become president of the United States is a long shot. If it wasn't Wright who created a "problem" for Obama, there would have been another black man who would. And there still may be during the general election. Obama could resolve the is 'he too black, not black enough, or just black enough' to be electable conundrum, by simply declaring himself white. To think that the hoorah over Wright is not associated with race is to be blind and not have a clue as to what the black American experience has been.
I personally think all religions are wacko cults. They are all founded on the same four stipulations: men run the show, have the direct line to God, women are subordinate to men, and relief of the anxiety about death is promised by the fairy tale of some kind of "heaven." You might as well believe in the King Arthur and the Knights at the Round Table, David Koresh, or Jim Jones. The only reason Mormons are still thought of as 'cultists' is that their history is so recent and subject to close scrutiny. All the other of the world's major religions started as cults, and then were transformed into legend, myth, and fairy tales over time. I don't need a mediator to explain God to me. Does anyone think a white straight guy who is an agnostic, deist or atheist can become president of the United States? No? Well, maybe Thomas Jefferson. So I disagree with Wright that difference IS deficient when it comes to believing in religion. Religion serves many purposes, but very few of them worthwhile.
Much of what Wright has said over the last few days is factually true, some of what he said is assertion and opinion, and some of what he said is flat out false. That puts him above the 98th percentile of people whose cacophony fills the void with their thoughts and ramblings.
For a few days after Obama's speech on race in Philadelphia the media encouraged and looked favorably upon the notion of a conversation about race. That was wonderful until Wright reappeared and the history of the black experience became flesh and context. Now a lot of people are flipping and freeking. I guess the conversation stops when we, all races and religions and non-religions, have to deal with the extremely complex reality of race and religion in America. The history of race in America is not pretty and is full of repression, oppression, injustice, and targeted neglect. One only has to look at the criminal disgrace of what happened in New Orleans to get a snapshot of how far we have come as a country.
Of course, stonetools [above] has it right. But, that doesn't seem to matter to many people. Why is that?
I say judge Obama on what he says, what he does, what he has done, how he handles the turmoil caused by Wright, and how he well he runs his campaign.
May the gods look favorably upon Obama, and may the American people see through the all the propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, and ludicrous, wacko distractions thrown in front of them. The future hinges on the collective courage of the American people. This time is as much a test of us as it is of Obama.
"Up to now I had taken it for granted that Jeremiah Wright wanted Obama to win the nomination and the presidency..."
why would you think that? he hadn't endorsed obama, he hadn't said anything positive about obama, in fact he hardly noted that obama was running for president. would your pastor-poobah endorse you for any public office? maybe you thought that because both wright and obama are black? nah. you're to elite to think that.
clive, the world and the people in it are very complex. we don't even understand ourselves, let alone other people. making assumptions and presumptions about people is a losing game. the best you can do is hear what they say and see what they do.
maybe wright is bitter and clinging to religion. that's as valid a theory as "The obvious theory is that Wright must want Obama to lose, and thus affirm the pastor's account of all that is sick about the country." all i can say is watch out he doesn't go hunting and bowl.
What leads you to believe Americans always vote in their best self-interest? If they did, why did the white middle class vote for Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2? How could black Americans vote for Clinton when he ruined the nutritional programs for the children of the poor and destroyed welfare for those who didn't have a shot at working for a wage that would put them even with the poverty line? Why do you think Marion Wright Edelman [founder, Childrens Defense Fund] won't have anything to do with HRC? Come on, be real. What is it you don't get? Are you really qualified for this position? I don't think so.
File Under "Get A Grip."
will get a grip. te lawrence may have said "this is a side show to a side show." obama get nomination. he doesn't implode because of Rev. Wrong even if he's right. that battle will be fought another day. Obama can't lose unless Clinton tries a coup d'etat via the stupid-delegates. if that happens the streets open and they democratic party comes to a rather abrupt end, not only losing the election out of the draws of victory but committing suicide by eating its young and dying in the process. hence, a new more energetic, progressive and popular party will emerge. do you think the democrats want to do that ? [they are only putting off the inevitable]. in reality, neither party will last more than two election cycles and the 4-6 new parties will emerge. a change has really come.
I have a completely different take on this.
In the long term - whether or not Wright's comments will eventually hurt Obama remains to be seen....
In the short term, however, I believe that his comments will COMPLETELY ELIMINATE ANY POSSIBILITY (which was small anyway) of Hillary Clinton securing the Democratic Nomination. Here's why:
With his recent media blitz, Wright has effectively distanced himself from Obama and turned the "spotlight" on himself. Whether or not Wright speaks for the "black community", blacks and black leaders are growing increasingly impatient with the injection of race into this campaign. Witness the strong remarks last week by the black leader, Representative James E. Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, who said “black people are incensed over all of this.”
If the MSM now over-zealously turns the spotlight back on Obama, there will only be a further alienation of the "black community". Obama has already addressed this issue with a well thought out speech in Philadelphia, and if the black community feels that the MSM is "piling on", I believe it will only reinforce their loyalty to Obama and make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the super delegates to overturn Obama as the Democratic nominee.
Obama might be hurt by Wright's comments, but will have plenty of time to deal with this between now and the general election. If the super delegates were to overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses and give the nomination to Clinton, millions of black voters would stay home on election day and Clinton would have ZERO chance of defeating John McCain.....
I did get the distinct impression that Wright was angry at Obama for distancing himself and for saying "what politicians need to say to get elected." But it would have been worse if Wright had praised Obama, which he conspicuously failed to do.
The presence of Nation of Islam guards stage left at the National Press Club was the icing on the cake. We've seen a reminder that many African-Americans, especially in cities, do live in a different country and culture. Unfortunately, many people will decide that Obama belongs to that "other" America.
The shame is that much of what Wright has to say (AIDS theories aside) is perfectly admissable.
True or not, there is a precedent/basis for the reverend's AIDS theory. Between 1932 and 1972 the US Public Health service allowed a few hundred men (mostly poor black sharecroppers) to go untreated for syphillis - just to see how it would affect them.
As the reverend said, there is no trust of the government once it has done something like that.
One more reason to voter for Obama. To shut up people like Rev. Wright.
Or is the explanation for Wright's speaking tour even simpler: does he just love the huge amount attention he's suddenly getting? Watching the NAACP event, there's a clear vibe of "They're finally paying attention to us!"
Re Michele and syphilis experminents history: Yes, indeed, and it's not crazy to wonder what one's government is capable of. But extraordinary claims about AIDS require evidence.
Facts are a stubborn thing. Obama cannot close his 20 year old relationship with Wright because there is so much video evidence against it. On the TV program THE VIEW, Obama declared that Reverend Wright accepted that his view were inappropriate and mischaracterized. That it had offended many people. Then weeks later Wright goes on a national Hate America Press Tour? This was a blatant lie. Or worse, Obama was fooled by Wright which is kind of scary. That a possible next president can be played by a character such as Wright. Check the video evidence yourselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6J7yJ9R5p0
Please check out "The Truth vs Barack Obama"
http://savagepolitics.com/?p=317
I saw this today, and HAD to share it with everyone. It is just a brilliantly researched and written list of inconsistencies with several of Obama's stories. I think it should be done for ALL three candidates, but I guess this is a good way to start at finally looking at the candidates with some honesty.
http://savagepolitics.com/?p=317