TNR BLOGS

May 09, 2008 | 9:33 AM
May 08, 2008 | 8:55 PM
May 08, 2008 | 6:06 PM

May 09, 2008 | 10:15 AM
May 09, 2008 | 10:10 AM
May 09, 2008 | 12:12 AM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM

May 08, 2008 | 9:12 PM
May 08, 2008 | 3:26 PM
May 08, 2008 | 2:38 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
14.03.2008
Obama on the Reverend Wright Controversy

He just addressed it on the HuffPo. Key passages:

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue. ...

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

This seems like as strong a statement as he can put out at this point. It doesn't implausibly distance him from a man that he's been tied to for 20 years (e.g., "I haven't had more than two or three five-minute conversations with him in my life") but does invoke a distinction a lot of church-going Americans can relate to, which is the distinction between a religious leader's religious views and his political views.

Whether or not this explanation does the trick depends on two things, I guess: 1.) Most obviously, whether Obama has really never heard Wright preach this kind of stuff. If Obama is somehow placed at a sermon in which Wright went on one of his rants, it's going to be a disaster. (Then again, it would have been a disaster without or without his HuffPo statement.) 2.) How plausible it is that Obama wouldn't have known about Wright's, er, greatest hits. Obama strongly implies he didn't know his pastor had a habit of giving nutty sermons up until the outset of his presidential campaign. Is that believable? Is there any way to disprove it? If the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively, then he'll weather this. If not, it could get uncomfortable.

Update [7:10 PM]: The more I think about it, the more I think Obama needs to go further. Part of the problem is we'll never be able to answer that first question strongly in the affirmative. Even if true, a lot of people are going to wonder how Obama could have missed this stuff during all his years of going to church.

More importantly, there's just too large an asymmetry between Obama's cool-headed explanation and the visceral power of those Wright videos. Fairly or not, it's the visual of Wright that will linger. I think Obama needs a more striking gesture of his own. Like announcing that he's removing Wright from his (largely honorary) position in the campaign, maybe giving a high-profile speech about his faith.

Update [8:10]: Wright has been dismissed from the campaign's spiritual advisory board.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Friday, March 14, 2008 5:18 PM with 67 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

twalker said:

I can think of a stronger statement.

March 14, 2008 5:57 PM

LISAH said:

The good rev Wright is a bigot. Media chooses, largely, to ignore this. (Although see Ronald Kessler in today's WSJ)...

But Obama bots get all cranked up when Ferraro makes an accurate point relating her being named to ticket in 1984 and Obama now. And when Hillary Clinton made an accurate point re Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson and civil rights legislation .

Ain't gonna be past race, people until you get the differences.....

And, meanwhile, the economy is totally tanking....and Obama bots can't get over their hurt feelings.

March 14, 2008 6:02 PM

NDworman said:

No it's not believable that he didn't know his pastor's views.  C'mon.  The hundreds listening didn't seem suprised by his remarks - they were enthralled.  A guy with that kind of fire in his belly doesn't keep it a secret from his followers for 20 years.

Reverse the colors of the people involved and what would it be like?  What if Hillary's "spiritual mentor" of 20 years (or whatever he called him) were to be making hateful speeches about black people?  

I think the New Republic needs to face this one head on and get out in front of it - not posing questions and avoiding a position.  

March 14, 2008 6:03 PM

Rhubarbs said:

I think a lot of this kerfluffle comes as a result of people who don't actually belong to churches. I've attended a neighborhood church pretty regularly in the last five years. For most of that time, we had one minister. Never much liked his sermons, but it was a great congregation and he was good at the pastoral care side of his job. Then it was discovered that he has plagiarized most of his sermons, and he resigned in disgrace. That was a little over a year ago, and honest to goodness I can't even remember his name right now. Anyway, the point is that plenty of people don't agree with their pastors, and lots of white pastors say inflammatory stuff from time to time. People who actually belong to a church will probably understand this. I am not responsible for my old minister's plagiarism or his lame sermons (dammit, what was his name?) any more than is Obama for his minister. Heck, I took my mom to Christmas Eve services at National Cathedral this year, and the minister there delivered a shockingly anti-American conservative sermon, and I didn't walk out.

You hear the sermon out, you get through the rest of the service, and then over coffee and pastry in the basement afterwards you gripe with the rest of the congregation about the minister's crappy sermon if you think he's said something disagreeable. That's just what you do; nobody walks out on a church service!

March 14, 2008 6:07 PM

virginiacentrist said:

LISAH:

You're right. Obama is basically being promoted over a more deserving white. It's the classic case of affirmative action. Ferraro is such a truthteller. Obama has it easy.

That's why our last 4 presidents were named Tracko Hussein Kahn, Dingus Muhammad Hitner, Doogie Ali Stalini, and Goofus Sharif Kahn.

March 14, 2008 6:20 PM

ndmackenzie said:

Noam Scheiber writes:

-- Most obviously, whether Obama has really never heard Wright preach this kind of stuff.

Which leads us to the distinction between hearing and listening. I would not be surprised if there were not many, many people who attend religious services faithfully every week but who tune out completely once the speechifying starts. They can hear the preacher droning away but they are not listening to what he says.

March 14, 2008 6:20 PM

LISAH said:

Virginiacentrist ...bigotry is bigotry, whatever the source.

As the good rev Wright proves, you don't have to be white to be a bigot.

March 14, 2008 6:46 PM

henderstock said:

"see Ronald Kessler in today's WSJ . . ."

And the likes of Kessler and Murdoch should be treated as authorities on whom the Democrats should nominate?

March 14, 2008 6:49 PM

asnevitt said:

I went to a church in my youth where the minister was an alcoholic. We had a great congregation. My church youth group meant a lot to me. I loved singing in the choir.

I sat through a lot of sermons from him. A bit too fire and brimstone for me. And, seemed hypocritical what with his alcoholism and such. That doesn't mean he didn't impart some of the constructive aspects of religious teaching. I didn't leave that entire community behind. And I didn't denounce him.

Am I an alcoholic then? Am I unworthy of the  leadership role I have because of this affiliation?

This is all stupid. This man is not claiming to represent Obama's point of view. Obama, like so many other churchgoers, could easily have gleaned the good spiritual insights he needed from this man while rejecting that which he found unpalatable.

for the record, I think the same is true of the Ferraro/Clinton thing. If Ferraro could make it clear that she speaks her own point of view and it does not reflect Clinton's, then I don't see the need for Clinton to disavow any connection. We have this odd idea about freedom of speech in this country. If you have a boss you are only free to speak what she would speak.

March 14, 2008 7:02 PM

LISAH said:

Kessler's peice is reasonable, makes good points (coulda done without the dumb last 'graphs). Aside from Wright's sheer bigotry, his hate-America/love-Farrakhan rhetoric is gonna be an albatross for Obama should he get the nomination. The nutjjob right-wing crackpots are already all over it. Unfortunately, this is a case where they really have a good argument.

And please note: the nutjob right-wing crackpots will also be all over Clinton for all kinds of the usual things if she gets the nomination.

All of which is why neither of these two should get the nomination. Sigh...

March 14, 2008 7:07 PM

LISAH said:

...and, henderstock, I should've added....it matters who the Democrats nominate because they've shown they don't know how to deal with the stuff that's hitting the fan....

March 14, 2008 7:13 PM

dbuck said:

LISAH,

"But Obama bots get all cranked up when Ferraro makes an accurate point relating her being named to ticket in 1984 and Obama now. "

Logic 101:  In 1984 Ferraro was plucked from obscurity and placed on the D ticket.  In 2008, Obama is running for president across the U.S., he has won a series of caucuses and primaries, gathering up 12 million voters, and more than 1,200 delegates.

Ferraro has no point; there is no comparison.  She's an imbecil.

Dan

March 14, 2008 7:25 PM

Crock1701 said:

In my book, if you aren't at the Church when the preacher gives a sermon, you don't go back and ask around about it.  If he wasn't there for the sermon, (and he seems to have a busy schedule) I see no reason to think he'd know about it until someone told him about it during the campaign.   For me, this is a reasonable explanation for it.  My family stuck through a pastor they didn't like at our church, because we liked the people and the larger congregation.  We didn't leave over the pastor, and we were blessed because last year, when my dad was diagnosed with terminal cancer, they were there for us all the way through to the end.  I've got no problem with this explanation at all, it's perfectly reasonable.

March 14, 2008 7:27 PM

LISAH said:

dbuck -- silly of me to bother, but you ain't gonna make it to logic 102...sure, Ferraro hadn't run for the presidency in Dem primaries that year (wasn't gonna happen for a woman)...point is that she did have a local political history and the only reason Mondale picked her was because he was trying to be politically correct....

He most likely couldn't have beaten Reagan (talk about junk presidents) anyway, but it was a bad move...

And there's no way Obama hasn't been aware of the good rev. Wright's views over the past 2 decades...he should at least own up to that and say whatever he wants to about whatever reasons he may have had for remaining in the congregation. That would be the honest thing to so.

March 14, 2008 7:40 PM

AlanSP said:

What Rhubarbs (and others) said.

The Rabbi at my synagogue is pretty far to the right, and he occasionally makes disparaging remarks in his sermons about Islam and even other branches of Judaism.  My family disagrees vehemently with a lot of the stuff he says, and I think some of it has no place in a synagogue or anywhere else, but we're not about to leave the synagogue because of it, and he certainly doesn't speak for us politically.

March 14, 2008 7:53 PM

billy_budd said:

Wright just officially left the campaign. That should be the end of it. On the bright side, at least people will not think Obama is a Muslim.

www.politico.com/.../Wright_leaves_Obama_campaign.html

March 14, 2008 7:53 PM

eweiss said:

should have happened a year ago

March 14, 2008 8:13 PM

chmclean said:

LISAH -

Why do you have to disparage people with whom you have differences? As a supporter of BHO I'm getting tired of being characterized as a rube or naive or in the thralls of Obama's "cult of personality." Can't we have differences over whom we favor in this race without resorting to that sort of trash talk? I think it's perfectly legitimate to point out HRC's (and BHO's) shortcomings in the toughest terms but don't feel it necessary to trash her supporters. And I expect the same civil tone from Obama's fans. This back-and-forth between the two camps sounds a lot like the conservative talking heads who don't just disagree with their "opponents" but vilify them. We all have the same goal here, don't we, to elect a Democrat in November?

March 14, 2008 8:19 PM

nturner said:

Barack Obama is an inveterate liar.  Everybody knows he knew this shit was going on.  He just caught.  He has a two decade relationship with this nutjob!  He was baptized and married by this bigot.  He has sat and listened to this crap for decades... and he expects us to believe he didn't know AND that he, himself, doesn't harbor some of the same ideas about white America, Israel, etc.?!  

At the end of the day, Obama attends this Church because it's more about politics (racial, South-Side-of-Chicago-esque politics) than it is about religion.  The so-called Christianity going on in this church has very little to do with Jesus Christ's message of peace, forgiveness, reconciliation, and love.  It's all about victimization, martyrdom and revenge.  You know, there are a lot of conservative Christian congregations that are as political, but at least they have some relation to Christianity by virtue of their theological teachings.  This church is a den of radicals that ought to loose its tax-exempt status.  Call it whatever you want to, but don't call it a church.

It does not surprise me that Barack Obama would be attracted to this kind of rhetoric.  I'm sure twenty years ago, it gave him some legitimate black bona-fides which he, no doubt, needed, upon moving into town with his private school education, his Hawaii/Indonesian upbringing, his white anthropologist mother, and his effete university-leftist sanctimony. Ugh... My disdain knows no bounds...

Alas, now Barack can embrace anti-semitism and call it religion.  Don't question him, though; after all, that makes you a RACIST!!!!!    

March 14, 2008 8:25 PM

henderstock said:

"And there's no way Obama hasn't been aware of the good rev. Wright's views over the past 2 decades...he should at least own up to that and say whatever he wants to about whatever reasons he may have had for remaining in the congregation. That would be the honest thing to so."

LISAH, the truly honest thing would be for Obama, Clinton, McCain and other politicians to shuck and denounce all these demagogic, phony charlatans and bullshit artists who spout theological nonsense no educated and intelligent person actually believes and political hatred that should shame even the shameless.

Q.:  Would any one of them do it if someone held a gun to his/her head?

A.:  I believe the expected response* would be that of Jack Benny when he was given a choice of "Your money or your life."

*For those of you too young to know, I won't keep you in suspense:  a ten-second pause, then "I'm thinking!  I'm thinking!"

March 14, 2008 8:43 PM

vanwurs said:

I just saw a couple videos of Jeremiah Wright, followed by Obama's interveiw with Keith Olberman.

Complicated.

Jeremiah Wright was not just a preacher that he half listened to and then went downstairs and bitched about over coffee and donuts with the other old farts.  Jeremiah Wright is his mentor and friend.  Jeremiah Wright gave him the heart and soul of his Convention speech and the title for his last book, the one that launched his Presidential carreer.  Amd Jeremiah Wright (at least when the camera is rolling...) is a motherfucker.  Jeremiah Wright is a truthteller, whether you like his truth or not.  But the truth he has to tell is not going to get Barack Obama the votes of too many white people.   My friend Tyrone, on the other hand, will sign up to work at his headquarters, because it is exactly the kind of clear eyed class based cirtique of politics and society that Tyrone himself makes, with the same frankness.  It is not "The Truth", but it is an aspect of the truth and needs to be understood and dealt with.  (I think Barack, after he gained his footing..made much the same point himself with Keith.)  

So, perhaps Madame Wilentz is right.  Perhaps this is a machiavelian plan by Barack Obama to secure the vote of apolitical black men.  I hope there are enough of them to swing Pennsylvania.

March 14, 2008 8:48 PM

roidubouloi said:

nturner and LISAH,

That's a crock.  All these comparisons are a crock.

First of all, it is Hillary who picked this fight starting with Farrakhan.  Farrakhan wasn't part of Obama's campaign, but he expressed his support for Obama.  Then Obama has to denounce and reject or reject and denounce him.  Okay, he did.  Hillary scores nothing.

A campaign aide makes a nasty comment about Hillary, the sort of thing that they no doubt say in campaigns all day long, and it inappropriately gets reported.  Hillary plays the victim.  If she had the slightest bit of political brains or the slightest bit of class, Hillary would have dismissed the remark as the sort of thing that people say in the course of campaigns when they get emotional, and blah, blah.  Hillary would have scored big with that and Obama would have looked bad.  Instead, he lets Hillary due the stupid thing and he does the smart thing, dumps powers right away.  Hillary looks petulant and Obama looks like he won't tolerate any crap.

Then, we get Geraldine Ferraro, who is part of Hillary's campaign, making a racist remark, not in general, but about the opposing candidate, about Obama himself.  All Hillary had to do not to get hung with Ferraro was denounce and reject her.  But Hillary waffled.  She timidly disagreed and then left Ferraro on the finance committee and allowed her to make a tour of talk shows still bearing the imprimatur of the campaign.  Why?  Because Hillary quite clearly wants Ferraro stoking anger in PA with the idea that Obama is the beneficiary of some kind of affirmative action.  She keeps Ferraro out there as long as possible before she has to cut if off.  That's what makes Hillary responsible.  She could have dumped Ferraro right away to make the point that she does not approve -- denounces and rejects -- but instead Hillary exploited Ferraro's racist comment for political gain.

Wright says all kinds of loopy things that don't represent Obama (I only think of a couple of rabbis in my life who didn't say things that offended me all the time). But, as soon as this is raised as an issue, Obama makes clear that he rejects and denounces these ideas and dumps Wright from his ceremonial position to make it clear.

That's the difference between Hillary, who is an obvious hypocrite, and Obama, who is not.

March 14, 2008 8:51 PM

jacksondyer said:

The Jew hating mackenzie is a supporter of Wright. Why am I not surprised. I am sure he/she likes his antisemitic comments. Birds of a feather.

March 14, 2008 8:52 PM

jacksondyer said:

henderstock, all candidates should stop preaching and stick to politics. They are not in the "soul healing business" as Michelle Obama seems to believe.

March 14, 2008 8:55 PM

buffaloboy said:

ndmackenzie said:

"They can hear the preacher droning away but they are not listening to what he says."

If that's the case here, then it's pretty damning of Obama.  Whatever else you want to say about Wright, the guy's not a droner.  Many members of the congregation are obviously enthralled by what Wright is saying.

The other way it's damning is that if Obama really is tuning out his closest personal spiritual advisor, it really calls into question the sincerity of his commitment and belief in Christianity.  

March 14, 2008 9:00 PM

Eos said:

Six difficulties lead to a conundrum.

Wright's racism and politics seem deeply intertwined with his role as pastor. Look at how his congregation is responding in the video--this is not new to them.

Very hard to believe that Obama did not know this is how Wright thought. The Farrakhan prize, the trip to Libya, the church magazine, the role of his own daughters in giving the prize to Farrakhan, all suggest that Wright has been very public about these views.

Obama has been very, very deeply intertwined with Wright for twenty years--spritual advisor for decades, sought his counsel about whether to run, prayed with him the night before he announced, Wright married him, years later baptized his daughters, dedicated his home.

Wright's way of talking and thinking is not all that unusual among politicized but not middle class African-Americans. A little punchier, but the main themes are not uncommon. (See the polling data on beliefs about AIDS.) In fact, there are substantial conceptual and attitudinal similarities between Wright and Orlando Patterson's diatribe in the NYTimes.

Apparently there are many sermons like this one on tape. this is not an isloated instance.

Apparently these videos were distributed in South Carolina before the primary.

All of this makes Obama genuinely difficult to understand.

March 14, 2008 9:13 PM

buffaloboy said:

Rhubarbs said:

"You hear the sermon out, you get through the rest of the service, and then over coffee and pastry in the basement afterwards you gripe with the rest of the congregation about the minister's crappy sermon if you think he's said something disagreeable. That's just what you do; nobody walks out on a church service! "

Well, I've walked out of a church service.  If the priest is boring, or advocates a silly tax policy, or makes a theologically weak point - no, I'm not walking out.  But if he's offensive, and making hateful statements, and is about as un-Christian as you can get - yeah, I'm walking out.  

And I expect that Jesus will be waiting by the door, not to congratulate me, but to ask why I took so long to get up off my fat comfortable ass.

March 14, 2008 9:14 PM

vanwurs said:

Pccostello,

You are really good.  You got that shit up there fast, and in a clinical, implicitly judgemental but masked by the  Sargent Friday presentation, kind of way you have presented some other truths that will have to be dealt with.   (But where do you get your information?  Are you a Clinton operative?  Man, you act like you know what's down under the iceberg.  Is this, hint, hint, the dice getting rolled?  Stuff that was always out there and he just didn't deal with?  You have my respect, Pccostello.  Whatever else you are, you are not a twit.)  

And I like the fortune cookie opening.  

March 14, 2008 9:37 PM

LISAH said:

Well, roi -- all this is and is not a crock. It's part of what the country will be going through when we'll have for the first time either a black man or a woman versus the usual white male, although in this case the oldest white mail to run (right? don't recall Reagan's exact age when he ran in '80)...

All this is part of sorting things out. Powers and Ferraro should not have had to resign. Wright is a different order of problem; others on this and the other thread have covered some of the details. The man is clearly a bigot, clearly a bom-thrower, on race, the U.S., etc., in ways that none of the other political aides/surrogates and Clinton and Obama themselves are not -- at least in the things they've said.

But it is troubling that Obama has listened to this man, been close to him, etc....for decades, and would still be -- may still be -- and is only distancing himself now because of the campaign. That's a problem,  in a decency sense, and most important for the election, in a pragmatic sense.

Henderstock -- yes, just right.

chmclean -- I don't recall if I specifically have used "cult of personality," but I don't disagree with it. Sorry if the shoe fits....

March 14, 2008 9:45 PM

chmclean said:

LISAH -

I was not necessarily referring to your comments when I made the "cult of personality" reference; but it is a characterization I've seen elsewhere in these blogs. I was trying to make a point about the overall tone of these discussions which seems really personal and ugly a lot of the time. Unfortunately with your dig about the shoe fitting, you certainly didn't raise the tone. What you're saying is that anyone who supports Obama couldn't possibly be a reasonable, rational person with legitimate reasons for doing so, that an Obama supporter is, by dint of BEING a supporter, an "Obama bot." That's pretty offensive.

btw I don't care for the Hillarista (or similar) label either.

March 14, 2008 10:07 PM

lymon1 said:

I saw Obama on Olbermann (Obama knows where to go for the kid glove treatment) - he seemed mechanical and forced.  Anyway, while I fault him for not getting Wright off his committee before this and don't believe for a second Obama didn't know of Wright's views long before 2007, at this point it's time to let people put what weight they will on this story and move on  -- there's no serious basis to believe Obama holds these kinds of radical views.  Call it a tie with Clinton with Ferraro on puting calculation ahead of moral clarity.    

March 14, 2008 10:17 PM

nechayev said:

Obama is clearly lying about not knowing Wright's views until recently.  I rarely go to my family's church, but i usually know the political views of the pastor. (Because i am interested in politics, as Obama probably is.)

Obama has gotten a free ride from the press up until the last 2 weeks.  now the stuff is starting to come out, and Obama, a political novice, has no idea how to handle it.

March 14, 2008 10:30 PM

maxblum13 said:

I'm just baffled Hillary didn't play this card way sooner.  Why wait till now?  And don't tell me they didn't have this in their opp file on Barack.

I don't know though, part of the reason I don't attend a church or synagogue is because I've never heard a sermon that I could agree with.  Why do pastors insist on making everything political?  It doesn't serve anybody well except perhaps their wallets.  I don't really buy Barack's line that he didn't know this was going on either.

That being said, I don't really know why I should care about this.  I've known plenty of cooky people in my life who have believed and even said some pretty stupid things, but are otherwise decent.  I've never understood the whole guilt by association game that goes on in politics.  Barack's whole narrative is that he can associate with people who have different (even fucked up) view points and still get things done.  The fact that he can take advice on spirituality from someone that clearly believes different things about politics and race relations from him merely supports this narrative.  If you've read Dreams from my Father, you'd already know that Obama has known and associated himself with plenty of people with fucked up views on race.  Of course I'm assuming people who throw around lines like "cult of personality" haven't actually read anything written by both candidates before the tactical game began.  If they had, I can't imagine why they would find this whole episode surprising or revealing.

March 14, 2008 10:32 PM

myzaguirre said:

One side point - Wright stated that Jesus Christ was black.  While it's possible that was just a rhetorical flourish that most people find uninteresting or trivial, that got my attention.  Generally, when Christian ministers seek to deny or minimize that Jesus Christ was a Jew (as opposed to a rather Nordic-looking man with long blonde hair or something else), it's for reasons that aren't very decent regarding the relationship between Christians and Jews.  While I'm not ready to call Wright an anti-Semite because of that one point, that coupled with his Farrakhan sympathies makes one wonder.  

March 14, 2008 10:32 PM

Eos said:

van,

thank you for the respect. i have no connection to any campaign.

March 14, 2008 10:48 PM

blackton said:

LISAH, so what is the upshot of Obama's listening all these years? That he is running as a liberal Democrat with many centrist policies? That he talks about narrowing the partisan divide between the parties, that he talks about trying to finally end our racial divide, trying to run as a post racial kind of candidate? From his positions, he legislative record, and his speeches where do you see the insidious Wright influence? If someone like Obama can be considered as the fruit of Wrights influence, well then that is one mighty fine fruit don't you think? Isn't it more likely he took from this Minister the good and overlooked the bad. If he took the bad, he probably very well could have been a Congressman at least or Mayor, but of little value to America being hopelessly partisan and racialist. America has had our share of them, some even get calls from Hillary (didn't Bill seek spiritual advice from Jesse Jackson?) And I don't even care about that, just to say Obama could have been another Jesse but he is not.

Why the hell can't we just judge Obama on his actions, his words, and his deeds, and not judge him on the basis of people he knows? Do we really want to live in America where everybody vets everyone else, quick to judge, quick to condemn, quick to take offense.

Well, one thing seems certain, the only blacks that will ever be able to run for President will have to be Republican, have served in the military, and belong to a suburban white church. They can be black on the outside, but God forbid they have any black on the inside.

As to regular blacks, lets just keep them on the Democratic reservation, where they can vote for Whites for President who like to fancy themselves as understanding blacks because they like jazz music and have fried chicken. Oh yeah, only white Democratics can save blacks. At least the Republicans are upfront in their attitudes. The only color they care about is green.

I am starting to think F the Democrats, it is far better to lose now and watch the country fall to pieces under the Republicans. Maybe in 20 years we will be smart enough not to obsess over such little shit as what someones minister said, and fix what will doubtless be a truly f-ed over country.

March 14, 2008 10:55 PM

cspencef said:

It seems from here that there are a lot of people blathering on about this whole business who have no idea what it is to belong to a church.  It isn't something casual like changing sports allegiances.

If you're doing it right, it isn't casual.  It isn't something you walk away from easily, no matter how horribly the pastor misbehaves.  For one thing, if it's really working right, it isn't about the pastor.  Despite the fact (and it is a fact) that so many evangelical churches and organizations can resemble personality cults at times, a church lives and dies on the bonds between the members.  Some pastors stay a long time; others come and go.  But in the end it works when it's about being part of the Body of Christ, not followers of Rev. Wright or Pastor Hagee or Rev. Huckabee or whomever.  Quite frankly, sometimes you stay and keep working and praying together despite the pastor.  It happens, fairly often.  

I was born into a family of active and faithful Southern Baptists.  It was a different time, mind you.  I was educated at a Baptist college and headed off to a Southern Baptist seminary, with the idea of being a church musician.  The Southern Baptist Convention, at the time, was in the midst of some serious crap, a fundamnmentalist takeover that made the demonination the wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party that it is today.  And in the end I had to walk away.  The crap was finally too much; the theological warfare and petty backstabbing and other thoroughly unchristian behaviors and beliefs had claimed too many friends, ruined too many careers, changed something I had invested in, and which had invested in me, into something I could no longer recognize or accept.  I had to reject and denounce, to use the current buzzwords.

That was fifteen years ago.  Even now I can feel the grief, or something very like it, at the separation, even as I can't stand the denomination or can't recognize or relate to that church that raised me.  (Every time Eve Fairbanks cites Richard Land I have to restrain myself from pounding a hole in my computer screen.)

So most of you aren't churchgoers, and that's fine.  (If you want to go on about drinking the kool-aid or cult-like behaviors, well, I don't have any respect for you either.)  But certainly you've had to give up relationships that went sour; you're going to say it was easy?  Frankly I'm not sure I want to know you if you do; any relationship that has any effort and energy invested in it is not easy to break.

Obama had to pound on the preacherman.  He had to kick him off that advisory committee.  And if this crapfest keeps up, he'll probably have to walk away from that church.  I would think a hell of a lot less of Obama if he were able to do so easily or glibly.

March 14, 2008 11:09 PM

vanwurs said:

Blackton,

All that being true......

I have seared into my brain the image of Barack Obama's friend of twenty years, spiritual advisor and intellectual mentor (by Barack's own account), source of the best political product he has (Hope), character in his book and center of one of the very best episodes, looking straight at the camera and shouting out "GOD DAMN AMERICA!".    Jesus.

And I can explain and rationalize it if I process it long enough.  But a lot of people are going to find this one straw too many, and a scary straw (for all the complicated reasons) at that, and say, fuck it.  

Tomorrow when I wake up, this will have all been a bad dream.  Right?  

March 14, 2008 11:18 PM

roidubouloi said:

blackton,

Don't take it too seriously.  The Hillaristas here are trying to whip this into a frenzy, or pretend it is one, notably the usual suspects, LISAH and pccostello.  This is a big nothing.  One news cycle. By the time it comes up again, Obama will be able to say, calmly, that he has no tolerance for bigotry or divisive behavior and has immediately removed from his campaign anyone who has engaged in it.  It will be boring and no one will care.

Wait until someone starts making a point out of the pardon papers that Bill and Hill are still hiding, the thousands upon thousands of documents that she is hiding.  Wait until we get a glimpse of her tax return and people start asking where that money came from and it becomes clear just whom they consort with in the business and political world.  No one will give a crap about what Obama's minister has to say about anything.

And by the way, the locution "it is troubling that so and so has listened to this man" is pure McCarthyism.  Doesn't surprise me.  But you are right about one thing, you and your ilk will certainly be engaging in this sort of thing right through November and Obama had better learn to slip the knife in with a big smile.  Fortunately, with all their dirt, both Hillary and McCain make nice fat targets.  Even more fortunately, it is too late for Hillary.l

March 14, 2008 11:22 PM

roidubouloi said:

I am sure, by the way, LISAH, that whatever Wright had to say, he was simply discussing the issues of race -- in a useful way.  Yet, suddenly we don't here you mounting the "political correctness" defense of Wright.  Why is that?  Cannot he express his views on the troubled racial history of America?   I guess when a white  woman like Ferraro makes racist remarks, it is just a "useful airing of the issues."  When a black man makes racist remarks, why, it's despicable.

It is hypocrisy like yours that is going to make this a non-issue in short order.  Too clearly partisan to be credible.  You want to express moral outrage, you need a place to stand.

March 14, 2008 11:27 PM

roidubouloi said:

blackton,

"you and your ilk" refers to LISAH who is the one who said "it is troubling that Obama listened to this man."  Obviously I was not referring to you.

March 14, 2008 11:34 PM

eweiss said:

roidubouloi, have you seen this stuff? the guy is a nutjob. he is poison and he is going to be the end of Obama. This is no casual relationship. He is Obama's closest spiritual advisor and mentor. Obama is in serious trouble. Watch the sermons on youtube. you can't help but be shocked. I could put togeter a death blow attach ad now in about 20 minutes. Obama is on life-support.

March 14, 2008 11:44 PM

willpastor said:

Godalmighty, only in politics are you accountable for everything all of your advisors, friends, dinner party guests etc. think. This scandal is total garbage, and Hillary should not be faulted for things Geraldine says either.

March 14, 2008 11:52 PM

LDuncan said:

An encouraging thing Obama said on Olbermann was that he may view this as an opportunity to address the state of race relations in America and contrast the views of many in Wright's generation with Obama's own views.  Obama indicated that his experience and that of many of his contemporaries is that white America is accepting and welcoming of blacks, and that Wright was wrong to suggest otherwise.  

March 15, 2008 12:02 AM

henderstock said:

"I am starting to think F the Democrats, it is far better to lose now and watch the country fall to pieces under the Republicans. Maybe in 20 years we will be smart enough not to obsess over such little shit as what someones minister said, and fix what will doubtless be a truly f-ed over country."

blackton, I'm beginning to think you're a lot younger than I thought you were.  Trust me, I've been through all this, as I imagine other commenters have. To make a long story short, I've voted for Dick Gregory in '68 (result: Nixon) and John Anderson in '80 (result: Reagan).  I'm too old for futile gestures, but perhaps you can foresee a rainbow a-shining o'er the horizon.  It looks like a lot of Trotskyist crap to me (we've gotta make it worse so it can get better).  Personally, I think Obama is the best bet to get us out of the ditch.  I'd vote Hillary if I had to, but I think that won't be necessary.  The country has already fallen to pieces--in your words--enough for me, thank you, and it's best that its decline be stopped forthwith.

March 15, 2008 12:06 AM

roidubouloi said:

eweiss,

I don't doubt that the stuff that Wright says is vile.  I think it doesn't stick to Obama as long as he is clear that he rejects it and repeats it a few dozen times in the right places.  Americans do not believe in guilt by association, "Are you now or have you ever been .  .  .  "  Watch him make lemonade out of these lemons with a speech about the "ending the politics of grievance and rebuilding a politics of shared contribution and shared opportunity."  Like lduncan said a little bit ago.

March 15, 2008 12:26 AM

roidubouloi said:

By the way eweiss, maybe you missed the fact that I was being sarcastic in my response to LISAH.  This is part of an earlier discussion in which she defended Ferraro's remarks as being part of a "useful" discussion of racial politics in America.  And I thought that was ridiculous.

I don't actually think this about Wright's sermons, that they are useful.  From the description, they are to be deplored and Obama  has been willing to say that quite unambiguously.  Then he followed up by booting the guy from his ceremonial role.

March 15, 2008 12:29 AM

jacksondyer said:

roidubouloi said: "I am sure, by the way, LISAH, that whatever Wright had to say, he was simply discussing the issues of race -- in a useful way."

You couldn't be more wrong.

Saying that the US had it coming on 911 because  we "bombed HIroshima" and because we help oppress the Palestinians is not "simply about race."

And calling this country the US of KKK is not a useful way to have a discussion about race.

Obama's claim that he never heard this kind of talk is not to be believed. He had an over decade long relationship with the Reverend.

This isn't going to go away and if Hillary or someone else doesn't get the nomination John McCain will be our next President.

March 15, 2008 12:30 AM

roidubouloi said:

I was being sarcastic, jackson, echoing the defense that LISAH made of Ferraro.  I think Clinton should promptly have both rejected Ferraro's comments AND dumped her.  Obama has promptly and unequivocally rejected Wright and dumped him, and Obama was right to do so.  My beef with LISAH is her hypocrisy in treating Ferraro's racism as merely a "useful discussion of racial politics" while dissing Obama who has firmly disassociated himself from Wright.

By the way, given the responses of the churchgoers above, I don't believe this is an important issue with the electorate.  Crazy church leaders aren't that uncommon.  (You wouldn't believe the public dustup in my synagogue a couple of years ago.)  It will be grist for the Limbaugh mill, Ann Coulter, et alia, but they were going to find plenty anyway or make it up.

Get back to me in a week and let's see how important this is.

March 15, 2008 12:48 AM

roidubouloi said:

However,  Obama really, really needs some surrogates who can go after Hillary big time.  There has to be retribution or she is going to keep cranking up the attacks until they really bite and cause damage.  I have beaten Republican smear campaigns several times by just going back at them relentlessly until they are in so much pain they stop.  And then I stop.  Obama cannot afford to let himself be Hillary's punching bag any more than McCain in 2000 or Kerry in 2004.

March 15, 2008 12:51 AM

seanwright said:

If a black man who has a close associate who is extremely pissed off about white racism in the United States is unqualified to be president, I guess we really aren't ready for a black president.  Pity too, because Obama certainly seems sincere about trying to put the battles still being fought by members of Rev. Wright's generation behind us.

March 15, 2008 12:57 AM

seanwright said:

If a black man who has a close associate who is extremely pissed off about white racism in the United States is unqualified to be president, I guess we really aren't ready for a black president.  Pity too, because Obama certainly seems sincere about trying to put the battles still being fought by members of Rev. Wright's generation behind us.

March 15, 2008 12:57 AM

rothmanp said:

Dan: "imbecil" is spelled "imbecile."

March 15, 2008 1:04 AM

jacksondyer said:

" was being sarcastic, jackson, echoing the defense that LISAH made of Ferraro.  I think Clinton should promptly have both rejected Ferraro's comments AND dumped her."

I read your reply to Weiss. I posted my own comments before I had read them.

" Obama has promptly and unequivocally rejected Wright and dumped him, and Obama was right to do so.  My beef with LISAH is her hypocrisy in treating Ferraro's racism as merely a "useful discussion of racial politics" while dissing Obama who has firmly disassociated himself from Wright."

Ferraro was is and probably will remain a twit.

In any case, the two situations are not analogous.

Obama's relation with his pastor is longer, deeper and more intimate. I don't think this issue is going away and I believe that it will sink his nomination. I am guessing that he will be out either before or right after the PA primary.

March 15, 2008 1:17 AM

eweiss said:

sorry if i am missing the sarcasm. sometimes discussions (as great as they are) in this forum do get hard to follow. for sake of clarity, i think the point here is not how we generally liberal readers of TNR (remember you have to have a subscription to comment) view Wright or Obama's relationship with him, it is how regular voters do. And as enlightened as I think (and hope) this country is, I can't help but think that the videos I saw on Olbermann (and others) tonight of a ranting and raving lunatic African American preacher will scare a lot of regular voters shitless. We are talking politics and the political ramifications of this story are deep and real. What was so disturbing about the videos was not even so much what he was saying (vile) but how the audience reacted. There was not a hint of shock or surprise. People were lathered up and into it. You could imagine Obama in the front row saying "Amen". To me, his response was weak. He is full of it that this is somehow out of character or unusal . Those scenes reflected a very real comfort between Wright and the congregation. That comfort is going to make a lot of voters very uncomfortable. While I admire his loyalty, Obama is going to regret not distancing himself from this guy in a real way a long time ago.

March 15, 2008 1:19 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Not sure I understand what's going on here, maybe because I find preachers and preaching generally so tedious and annoying that to be honest, I never paid much attention to Jeremiah the Jeremiah. Perhaps the good folk can clarify a few things for me, to wit:

1. Is the guy a) Obama's spiritual mentor and intimate friend? Or, as many here suggest, b) just another pastor whom Obama pays little attention to, or no more attention than he would to any other pastor?

2. If the answer to the above is a), then it raises a follow-on q. Both Obama's spiritual mentor and his wife, who apparently also is a strong influence on his views, exhibit the "anger" dynamic that Shelby Steele talks about and that Obama's pitch, persona and platform are singularly _lacking_ in. Deep down, does Obama share his wife and his mentor's all-too-palpable resentment of white America?

3. How do the Obamaphiles here recommend that voters like me square the circle between the transcendent, post-racial, cool centrist Obama image and the image suggested by his repeated choice of close partners or mentors who exhibit more than a touch of contempt for people who don't buy into various conspiracy narratives involving wicked America and assorted nefarious "monsters"?

Please accept these q's in the good-faith spirit in which they were posed, and respond in kind.

thanks in advance,

t

March 15, 2008 1:19 AM

cliffpotter said:

A president must bring people together with integrity and propriety.  I am sorry, but Obama fails this test.  Perhaps the best example is the current controversy and its certain impact on Obama's children.  His statement that he has never heard of these comments before is simply not credible.  In fact, he tried to distance himself from Wright before.  And he cannot do much now to repair the damage that this represents.

Unfortunately, race is constantly injected into this campaign as soon as anyone says anything about race - - - from the Clinton side of the aisle.  Indeed, nothing need be said about race at all.  Just mention King or the commentary of Obama's being a "fairy tale" regarding Iraq votes.  And watch the claims mount against Clinton.

That Obama has waged a race war is indisputable in my view.  Now that he has done this, the voters will choose the ultimate result.  

I can see many arguments that can be made that would support such attacks against any white who mentions race.  But that is not what I want for our country.  I want more than the past.  I want those who have managed for years to avoid any controversies, who have been seen as supporters of fair policies and civil rights.  Not someone who counts among his mentors Dick Lugar.

March 15, 2008 1:23 AM

matthawk said:

What are we talking about here? We are talking about a witch hunt. We are talking about a religious litmus test that we thankfully rejected with it was applied to John F. Kennedy in 1960, to Joe Lieberman in 2000, and to Mitt Romney earlier this year. We are asking whether a man is qualified to become president of the United States, despite his 11 year history of holding public office (which should give us a clue as to his approach to government) because of some of the things that the minister of his church said.

Remember, in 1976 there was a brief flair-up over the fact that Jimmy Carter’s church did not allow African Americans to attend their services. The church didn’t change their rules until well after Carter was in the White House. Did that affect Carter’s ability to be a credible and fair public servant for all Americans, including the African American community? Obama’s church, in 2008, is no where near Carter’s segregated church of 1976. The majority of the members of his religious denomination are actually white, not black. And his church in the South Side of Chicago includes white members.

What are we talking about here?  We’ve fought this battle over the influence of religion on elected officials before. Hopefully we’ve learned that a candidate should not be judged by the words of his or her pastor, but by their performance in public office and their understanding of the relationship between church and state.

March 15, 2008 4:31 AM

peter1943 said:

Well, you have to give Obama credit for dumping Wright and conceding new points on Rezko on a Friday evening. That's an ace political move. Just ask G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

And I'm sorry, but if you listen to your pastor unleash this kind of invective for years and don't change churches you're passively agreeing with his rhetoric.

March 15, 2008 8:24 AM

boxofrox said:

Well now. It would seem that the whole idea of secular separability is thrown in to question. Is it possible to be apolitical? Even atheists kick in their own brand of ordered propriety and take on collective v individual. I truly have enjoyed this election season. So many postured positions are, by virtue of steering wheel contention, having to become reanimated and brought forth to answer for themselves. Fascinating stuff.

I have to tip my hat to TNR and its contributors, both payed and voluntary, for attending in sincerity the intriguing times we live in.

March 15, 2008 8:47 AM

roidubouloi said:

tep,

If you are thoughtful about it, it is not hard at all to "square the circle."  If you are a black man and you choose to ignore all of the members of your community who are pissed off about racism, you are going to be very lonely.  Because they have every right and reason to be pissed.  You can be damned sure any of the rest of us would be.

One of the things about Obama that makes him so appealing is that he seems to have transcended this in his own life, not by capitulating, but literally by getting beyond it.  That gives a lot of people hope for an American future that is not still defined by racial hostility.  And it is also what makes Hillary so repellent -- her willingness to stoke race anger for political gain when most Democrats are hoping to see that diminish in their lifetimes.

March 15, 2008 11:17 AM

The Stump said:

Basically the same as the HuffPo statement : The big problem is that the Wright videos will be Obama's

March 15, 2008 11:50 AM

roidubouloi said:

Right Stump,  The thing to do is make lemonade, not hide.

If Obama is REALLY good and confident, he will make an ad that includes a Wright clip, says calmly that he completely rejects those views, and is trying to build a shared future in which race anger is a thing of the past.  

"That's what my campaign is about.  Getting past the useless arguments, partisan anger, and old grievances that divide Americans so that we can work together to build a common future.  I'm inviting all Americans, black, white, men, women, not to nurse old wounds and grievances -- we all have them -- so that we can move forward, with the optimism and spirit for which we Americans are admired, to confront the enormous challenges of a rapidly changing world.  And I'm asking for your vote so that we can walk that road together.  Thank you, and God Bless."

March 15, 2008 12:17 PM

eweiss said:

tep: one of many (from January Baltimore Sun): www.baltimoresun.com/.../bal-te.preacher16jan16,0,1629577.story

March 15, 2008 12:20 PM

roidubouloi said:

So, eweiss, what's your reading of that baltimore sun article?  Mine is that this is not only going to go away but become a net benefit.  There are far more positives than negatives in that article and a lot to sell.  They should get the professor of diviinity on TV explaining the message of that church and its good works.

March 15, 2008 12:43 PM

LISAH said:

Okay, people -- I'm getting tired of repeating these points but I'm going to do it anyway. First: I don't support Hillary Clinton -- seems to be an assumption by some people that criticizing the nature of Obama's following means you support Clinton. As I keep saying. I'll hold my nose and vote in the fall for whichever one of them wins. Neither one should be the Democratic candidate. They both have too many negatives.

Second, overall -- the points I've made above are not aimed at Obama himself -- I can understand that he might have warm feelings, thankful feelings, to the man on a religious basis and still disagree with his politics...although given the good rev Wright's politics, that does trouble me a bit.

Third: sorry chmclean, if I attacked you unfairly, but I'm just plain exasperated, fed up, pissed off, etc., with people who don't get that my comments on this and other threads have more, much more, to do with the sheer hypocrisy of the immediate and nonsensical crap that exploded over Ferraro (and for thar matter over Powers) for what was in Ferraro's case a reasonable and clearly non-racist comment (and tough, those of you who disagree), while this guy Wright remained essential;ly unnoticed and unexamined for the length of Obama's time in politics while he was delivering these sickening, racist, bigoted, anti-American rants and kissing up to the likes of Farrakhan. (And Powers made a perfectly reasonable comment; if that was her true feeling about Clinton, she's sure entitled to it.) Zeesh -- get over the crackpottery, folks....

roi --seem to remember you're a prof or some such? scary to think you can't tell the difference, given your clear lack of being able to distinguish discussion from sheer racist blather...it's related to the -- uh -- useful use of language. Ferraro is not a racist. Wright is. Tough if you don't get that...

blackton -- again, my argument is with the Obama types (will leave off the bots for now), much more than it is with Obama himself....There is too much hypocrisy in being willing to let him off the hook for this long on a badly needed examination of Wright and the various political implications and concerns raised by eweiss, pccostello, vanwurs, and others on this and other threads....Like the point or not, there is a willingness to let blacks off the hook for this kind of bigotry while ganging up on whites for pointing it out. Our country's history is no longer an excuse for this -- it's just racism in another direction.

Until people are willing to make the needed distinctions, racism will continue to be a problem

pccpstello -- I second vanwurs -- you're terrific -- thanks so much...

jacksondyer -- you're terrific...but Ferraro is not a twit (!!!)

March 15, 2008 12:49 PM

jerb said:

Are you people for real?  All pastors are bigots.  They all think they have a special revelation that tells them who God favors and doens't favor.  We have just given a PC pass to religious beliefs as off limits.  Sure this Wright is a ranting scam artist - what preacher isn't?  At least he isn't saying white people are so bad they all deserve to be in hell (as ever right-wing preacher says of us atheists, of gay people, etc.).  Are the repubs sure they want to start giving religious views the same treatment other views get?  All preachers are agains reason, against reasonable evidence based opinion and against inclusiveness.   Just a superficial look at Bob Jones, John Hagee, Pat Robertson or any other political preacher of the Right shows what a hateful unAmerican bunch they are - are the Republicans going to apologize for it?

March 17, 2008 12:27 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.