TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
17.03.2008
Obama: Damned if You Do....

It's not a new point to say that Obama probably felt both political and social pressure not to distance himself from Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church and the credibility within Chicago's black community it brought him, but this flashback from a Chicago Reader story from this very day in 2000 illustrates the point:

Obama's detractors rap him because he didn't grow up on the south side. He points out that he's spent most of his adult life there, his wife is from South Shore, and he's raising his daughter as a south-sider. His enemies also say he's too white and too bright. Part of it--although they won't say it publicly--is that he grew up with a white mother. Part of it is his demeanor. His lanky, Lincoln-esque body is usually stiff and upright, and he speaks in a stentorian baritone that sounds like a TV newscaster's (Lester Holt's, to be specific). But the main reason is that he's associated himself with Harvard and the University of Chicago, two strongholds of white power.

"Barack is viewed in part to be the white man in blackface in our community," says Donne Trotter, who detests Obama. "You just have to look at his supporters. Who pushed him to get where he is so fast? It's these individuals in Hyde Park, who don't always have the best interests of the community in mind."...

There are whispers that Obama is being funded by a "Hyde Park mafia," a cabal of University of Chicago types, and that there's an "Obama Project" masterminded by whites who want to push him up the political ladder. His campaign disclosure forms show that he's getting money from some of Chicago's most prominent white liberals[.]

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:45 PM with 55 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!

virginiacentrist said:

It's so easy being a black man running for the Presidency! You don't have to thread about 1000 needles or anything.

March 17, 2008 2:33 PM

teplukhin2you said:

He's not "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't." He simply has to make a clear CHOICE as to the _relative_ importance of identity politics in his platform and vision. Obama needs to tell us-- indirectly if he wishes, but clearly and unmistably, whether racial issues generally and the agenda of identity-politikers like Wright will command a level of attention and resource from his admin that is

a) more or less equal to

b) somewhat more than

c) vastly less than

issues like NATO's future, policy toward the dollar, the war in Afghanistan etc.

Every admin has limited bandwidth. Every admin gets a brief honeymoon in which to begin pursuing a few well-chosen core projects. Which means that by their PRIORITIES ye shall know them.

The crucial q for millions of well-intentioned (toward Obama) but skeptical voters like me is whether Obama believes that NATO and the dollar are more important to the nation than the issues that animate Jeremiah Wright.

March 17, 2008 2:40 PM

benjamin81 said:

I, for one, would welcome government by a University of Chicago cabal. There's an old joke about Chicago alumni:

A Harvard graduate walks into a room, looks at the furniture, and says, "Someday, I will own all this."

A Princeton grad walks into a room, looks at the furniture, and says, "Someday, I will inherit this."

A Chicago grad walks into a room, looks at the furniture, and says, "Wow, this furniture's ugly, and besides, it's arranged all wrong."

I think we could use a little fresh thinking right now.

March 17, 2008 2:57 PM

sdemuth said:

It is probably possible for a community to take a more self-destructive view of a candidate closely associated with them than this, but it's hard for me to imagine how.  This type of attitude validates the unfortunate (and unfortunately sometimes true) charge that many in historically alienated and oppressed communities define themselves by their victimization, and can't imagine empowerment outside of that.

Of course he's getting support from Chicago's most prominent white liberals - and those in many other cities.  Does anyone in the African American community seriously imagine that a black candidate who did not get such support could ever achieve national office beyond the confines of a gerrymandered congressional district?  Do the numbers, folks - there aren't enough African Americans in the country to elect an AA president without the support of some - maybe most - of us paler liberals.

March 17, 2008 2:59 PM

sdemuth said:

tep: Amen.  Right on.  Say it over and over again.  No one in this country will thrive if our econcomy continues to be mortgaged to China, and the European alliance is denigrated and ignored.

March 17, 2008 3:00 PM

ChanRobt said:

Look, there's nothing to engender sympathy here.

Obama is either a man who transcends racial labels or he is not.

If he chose to build up his black cred by trying to make himself a South Sider, then it was always a joke anyway.

I'm a white guy.  I grew up on the West Side of Los Angeles and in Manhattan.  If if moved to Chinatown or Little Tokyo at age 23, would I now, after well more than 20 years be considered Chinese or Japanese?  If I had moved to the South Side of Chicago, and attended Obama's church, would I now be accepted a black man?

Face it, Obama is not culturally "black" in the American sense.  That's the reason he can be both "black" and a serious presidential candidate with his meager experience.  (And, yes, I get it he's very smart, gives great speeches, and runs and excellent national campaign.)

Obama had his own political reasons in Illinois to position himself as black.  Now he has his own political reasons in a national campaign to position himself as both a black man and as transcendant.  (i.e. not one of those "too black" Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton types.)

But, what Obama has never done is the Tiger Woods thing.   That is, eschew any label, and just think of himself and show himself to be a new melange.  A model for a trans racial American future.

As he has not done that, there is no "damned if you don/don't" situation here.  He tried to play it both ways, and now the contradictions are catching up with him.

Please.  Save your tears, and don't ask for ours.

March 17, 2008 3:17 PM

ChanRobt said:

tep, I jumped right in with my post without reading the rest.  You and I are side by side on this one.

March 17, 2008 3:18 PM

ChanRobt said:

sdemeuth writes, "...This type of attitude validates the...charge that many in historically alienated and oppressed communities define themselves by their victimization, and can't imagine empowerment outside of that."

Absolutely right, sdemeuth.  One of the best extreme and clear cut examples are the deaf people who are upset when a child in their circle gets an operation that restores the child's hearing.

March 17, 2008 3:21 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Sdemuth - spread the word. We are a strong nation with millions of smart, creative people. We can turn this around if we get back to saving more, educating our people better, and INVESTING massively in new technologies that will give us a dominant position in a trillion-dollar renewable/clean energy technology goods and services market.

Oh, and if our idiotic national political debate can ever get beyond "middleclassness" and start focusing on the real issues....

Speaking of which,

# of TNR threads devoted to identity-politics pissfests this past week = 20+

# of TNR threads devoted to financial meltdown, Afghan war, NATO's death rattle = ?

March 17, 2008 3:28 PM

schrek2000 said:

And for those of you not in the know, by the way, the article is referring to Illinois state senator Donnie Trotter as the person who "detests" his former colleague, or at least did at the time the article was published.

March 17, 2008 3:38 PM

lymon1 said:

# of TNR threads devoted to our energy policy, immigration policy (note big news on border "fence" went without comment), water pollution) = ?

But as to this post-- Michael, it's a false dichotomy -- lots of people would cut Obama some slack, just not endless slack.  I suspect most people weren't offended by Wright's comments about a white power structure and "Hillary will never know what it's like to be..."  but when you start talking about a government AIDS plot, you're in Farrakhan land and if you knowingly try to have "the best of both worlds" with that, there should be consequences.

Meanwhile, Obama's supporters have a good political point of their own: their man finally had his Rezko sit-down interviews with the Tribune and Sun-Times -- I wasn't quite as impressed as the Trib, but isn't it time the media start clamoring more loudly for Hillary's tax returns and earmarks?

March 17, 2008 3:43 PM

teplukhin2you said:

I'd cut him plenty of slack. Every afr-amer has to associate with angry/wacky, race-baiting and conspiracy-mongering afr-amers. Comes with the territory.

What matters for us as voters is whether Obama as PRESIDENT would allow himself to get distracted by all this BS, just as America's "First Black President" did in the Lani Guinier/gays-in-the-military era.

I'd guess that the f-p and financial crises BHO will face in 2009 are a damned sight bigger and nastier and more complex than anyone Bill Clinton faced in '93-94. Look how badly Bill f***ed up. What reason is there to believe that Obama's train of identity-politics hangers-on will not distract and handicap him as badly as Bill was.

Only Obama can give me comfort on this, and so far, he hasn't been at all reassuring.

March 17, 2008 3:54 PM

roidubouloi said:

Watch Obama.  He is going to "pivot" off of the Wright controversy and leave Hillary in the dust.  I'm betting on his political talents.  All the huffing and puffing on these blogs -- mine included, but of course pccostello's, charobts, jacobt1s, LISAH, and a few others I cannot remember -- is just a bunch of drivel when held up against that fact there there exists a political world.  Obama is a player, and boy does he know how to play.  Pundits and us little pundit wannabes are just wannabes.

Tep, you just don't get the nature of American electoral politics.  Politicians are on the whole, if not very smart, at least very shrewd.  There are exceptions (ChimpyBush comes to mind, but he got a headstart), but generally you cannot get elected to anything if you are not a good judge of human nature and of individuals.  Politicians talk about what the American public responds to.  It doesn't matter what they would prefer to talk about.  Or what you or I thinks is important.  They speak in order to have people vote for them and as a group they are just a helluva lot better at discerning that than you are.  That's what democracy is about.  You can make all kinds of fun of Obama's tropes (or his chops as I prefer), just as you could Bill's.  But both those guys know how to connect.  If it were up to you, they would abandon a winning technique and talk about NATO.  And then they would be losers like Hillary Rodham Clinton.

You wanna be a player?  You gotta learn how to play the game.

Lymon, yeah, past demand the press started looking hard at what Hillary has been doing the last eight years.  The idea that Hillary is disfavored in the press is just another form of Clinton manipulation.  She has been getting a mostly free ride on every one of her preposterous claims for herself.  Even when she is caught fibbing about her resume, the press pretty much ignores it.  They report it, sort of, but nothing more is said.

March 17, 2008 3:58 PM

teplukhin2you said:

roi,

You mistake me. Leave aside NATO for a sec and focus on the financial sh*tstorm. The crisis on Wall Street has affected Main Street. Trust me, the voters are watching, and they see the storm right on their doorsteps: in $4/gal. gas, in escalating prices for milk and meat, in deadlocked mortgage and real estate markets, in skyrocketing rates for auto loans and credit cards and consumer debt generally. This is not an esoteric crisis; it's systemic, and it's already flowed through to consumers because, well, it BEGAN with consumers, remember?

People get this. They understand inflation, intimately. Those of us >45 remember the stagflation of the Carter era. That was a world of pain for most in this country, and you're simply wrong to think that your average voter doesn't perceive this storm now.

IMHO it would be politically brilliant, not stupid, for Obama to do what no candidate (save Romney, in Michigan a few months back) has done and get out front of this massive, complex and absolutely critical issue with an intelligent and far-sighted plan for leading us out of the morass.

Emphasis on LEADING. That's what his fantabulous candidacy promises, right? Leadership?

I'd bet you any sum that this election goes to that candidate who convinces people by means fair or foul that he or she is a courageous and reassuring leader. Gaseous verbiage won't cut it any longer. Crunch time now.

March 17, 2008 4:11 PM

teplukhin2you said:

I do not care about our Kulturkampf, or about idiot preachers of any stripe. I just don't give a f*** about this nonsense. Enough, already.

My country is facing two major crises that if botched will seriously hinder my nation's prospects in the world. We've known for a long time that Iraq would be a mess, and everybody accepts that we're on our own their and will muddle along for years to come. This surprises no one.

What does surprise and shock  smart and influential people all over Asia and Europe is the prospect of the US currency in free fall, of the US financial system locking up and tottering like Goliath with two broken legs. Shock #2 is the prospect of the world's most powerful military alliance, aka The West, falling on its face and losing out to the Taliban. The Russians are now chortling and treating NATO defeat in Afghan as a foregone conclusion. Our intrepid allies in Germany and France don't give a f***.  This is a death rattle for NATO and with it, for the notion of a unified West.

That we are spending so much time on yet ANOTHER idiot preacher spewing hate, and the ritual dance of our politicos in his wake, is decadence, pure and simple. Fie. A pox on all your houses

March 17, 2008 4:26 PM

lymon1 said:

Tep:  I think they are thinking "investment opportunity!"  That's why they aren't bailing us out now and/or only to the extent to prevent meltdown -- they'll wait for the right moment and then start buying us up.  Look at how local governments have been selling assets: in Chicago we sold a tollway and are about to lease an airport, and there's talk of leasing the state lottery.  There was some joking last year about naming rights for national parks.  The biggie might be agriculture futures -- if there's one thing we're rich in that the world needs, it's food production.  

March 17, 2008 4:38 PM

rebml said:

Sometimes ancient texts teach valuable lessons; for example, "Keep yourself far from evil neighbors..." (Pirkei Avot 1:7) Commentators on this verse teach that we should avoid evil neighbors to prevent ourselves from being influenced by them. Was Obama influenced by his affiliation with Rev. Wright? One piece of evidence suggests he was: Obama repeatedly asserted Wright's false claim that  more young blacks are in jail than on college campuses. What other poisoned ideas has the senator adopted?

March 17, 2008 4:41 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Not too late for Biden. Or Dodd or just about any experienced leader with a good brain for f-p and financial matters who will not be consumed with this identity-politics horsesh*t.

Al Gore, call your office.

March 17, 2008 4:50 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

benjamin81, that is a terrific joke - very informative!

March 17, 2008 4:59 PM

lymon1 said:

Al Gore for Obama veep + chief of staff?

March 17, 2008 5:21 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

who is this evil neighbor rebml?  A man who critiques the US?  in one sermon?  He's devoted his life to good works, more than 95% of us can say.  Calling him evil is just stupid.

March 17, 2008 5:27 PM

ironyroad said:

tep, will you get a grip on yourself and understand that this country has elected, twice, a president who can barely string a sentence together under pressure and who has no ideas beyond what's to be heard during after-game drinks around the bar at the golf club.  It has elected an administration that declared reality to be an ideological concept that it wasn't bound to recognize (ok for French intellectuals, not good for a U.S. government!) and invented intelligence to launch a major military intervention that it was convinced would be greeted by cheering crowds in a country it never understood.  At this stage in our political culture, the Republican Party would fight a Stalingrad over universal health care even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it would lift the single most unproductive burden crippling both American business and American citizens.

I'm basically with you, but why pick on Wright and this particular teacup-storm when we have already experienced a president who didn't seem to notice when a major American city was drowning, but who on another occasion flew back to DC to sign an ideological bill (passed by both Senate and House, who of course had nothing else to do) interfering in a single individual medical case that had already been through practically every court in the land?  No matter who wins in November, they can't do worse.

March 17, 2008 5:31 PM

stgla said:

Chan,  Obama may not be "culturally black" but too many people in the world will treat him and discriminate against him consciously or unconsciously based on his skin color.  My mother in law voted against him because of his skin color.  Trascending racial labels does not mean ignoring the prejudices that he faces.  It means not playing victim and identity politics the way Hillary does every other week.

Chicago politics is ugly, with racism and racial bias on all sides.  I worked on a campaign in Chicago where the (black) candidate's face was on the posters in the black parts of town but not in the white parts.  THe candidates have to inflect their voices differently based on who they talk to.  It's sad but necessary to earn trust.  Joining a church that is a bit more firebrand than you like and cozying up to the minister is pretty tame stuff compared to what most politicians have to do in that city to get elected.

March 17, 2008 5:49 PM

AlanSP said:

Back to the original post for a moment, hadn't Obama already been a member of the church for 12 years by 2000?  Those comments seem to indicate that Donne Trotter and company didn't care what church he went to.  If joining the church was a political ploy to assert his "blackness," it seems not to have worked very well.  I just don't buy that as a rationale.  It seems more plausible to me that Obama, as a community organizer, was initially attracted to the church because of it's commitment to community outreach.  Just speculation on my part, though.  Does he talk about why he joined the church in his books?

March 17, 2008 6:05 PM

lymon1 said:

stgla -- don't get me started on Chicago and Illinois politics -- Obama, the protoge of Emil Jones, the man who possibly could have tipped the Cook County Board into reform by endorsing Forrest Claypool, the man who endorsed Dorothy Tillman, etc. etc.  He's been perfectly happy to be the beneficiary of ugly racist Chicago politics since he was elected in 2004 and had the political capital to rise above it if he wanted to.

And as others have pointed out, there were other churches he could have picked.  It's not like Trinity was a right of passage for African-American or even Hyde Park pols.  I don't think the whole Wright issue is that huge a deal, but the more Obama and his surrogates try to minimize it, the longer it's going to stick around.  

March 17, 2008 6:18 PM

AlanSP said:

"He simply has to make a clear CHOICE as to the _relative_ importance of identity politics in his platform and vision."

tep,

Is there anything in Obama's statements or his legislative record that would suggest identity politics is part of his platform?  To clarify, I mean his own statements and record, not those of his supporters (if elected, he will be leading the country; they won't).  This isn't simply a rhetorical question, by the way; I don't claim to know everything that Obama has said and done throughout his career, but nothing that I know of suggests that identity politics is part of his vision for the country.  If he wanted to play at identity politics, he could have easily done so earlier in his career.

March 17, 2008 6:22 PM

teplukhin2you said:

irony - I'm not picking on Wright. I couldn't care less about him. I would like Obama to show some real chops as a leader and start addressing the huge crises we're facing now.

March 17, 2008 6:38 PM

ironyroad said:

Agreed tep -- we're drifting, in more ways than one . . . I hope too that Obama uses his planned speech to re-focus everyone's attention on the real game.  But some of the posts here have been correct, although I hate to say it:  even if he does bring out some strong stuff that really shows what he can do, what kind of plan he has, what guarantee is there that the bulk of the media won't continue to obsess about Wright and race?

March 17, 2008 6:59 PM

ChanRobt said:

ironyroad, the media is not "obsessing" about Wright and race.  The Wright story raised some really germane questions about how Obama sees the world.

Yes, Tep is absolutely right, there are much more critical, non parochial issues to be faced than this identity stuff.

But, if Obama sees the world along the lines that Rev Wright does, even if he is leagues smarter and more sophisticated, the average American is right to be concerned at putting America's fate in such hands.

We have a right to have a president whose love for and loyalty to the country is unquestioned.  Obviously we want that president to be extremely competent and focused on the essential issues as well.

One would like to have had the loyalty thing settle and not in the picture as the price of admission to the race.  Not as a worry this late in the game.

March 17, 2008 7:15 PM

nturner said:

I was talking to my Republican brother today, who had just come from lunch with a bunch of his fellow Repub. strategists.  They are absolutely sure they can beat Obama.  He's been downright giddy lately.  

Can you imagine the 527 ads they are going to put up in swing states? :

"Obama says he's not a Muslim.  And we certainly agree.  This is Rev. Jerimiah Wright, Obama's spiritual mentor, the man who performed his marriage and baptized his children.  Does this look like Christianity to you?

CUE REV. WRIGHT VIDEOS

"God Damn America."

"US of KKK A"

"Chickens Coming Home to Roost"

My brother suggested that they (the Republicans) are just going to keep on talking about how "formidable" Obama would be as a general election candidate.  He says it's worked already, given that the media has swallowed this nonsense whole -- hook, line, and sinker.

His money quote to me:  "I really believe y'all are so blinded by your political correctness that you're going to nominate this fool.  And we'll happily destroy him."

Alas, I fear my brother is correct.

March 17, 2008 7:44 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Obama needs to put a stake through this, and then some. Souljah time.

If he's a tough-minded leader, then he'll do it. And give the rest of us confidence that he can be tough-minded and even more ruthless when dealing with really serious bad actors on the global stage.

March 17, 2008 7:57 PM

AlanSP said:

Chan,

How exactly does this raise questions about how *Obama* sees the world?  Let me see if I understand the reasoning here.  Wright has a controversial view of the world, and Obama is a close associate of Wright, so there are questions about how Obama views the world?  Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems fairly flimsy to me, given that a) we can get a pretty good idea of Obama's worldview from the things that he has said and done over his career ,including the two books he's written, and b) that worldview importantly includes not pushing people away because they have opposing viewpoints.  As a Republican posting in a predominantly liberal forum, does the idea that of not pushing away people with different political views really seem so outlandish to you?

Also, you write, "One would like to have had the loyalty thing settle and not in the picture as the price of admission to the race.  Not as a worry this late in the game."  I think that as a practical matter, this is more true for the Republicans than the Democrats.  For the GOP, criticisms of a candidate's patriotism/loyalty, if they come at all, usually come in the primary.  The Democrats don't usually attack each other on the issue, so if it comes up, it's usually later on in the context of a general election (e.g. Kerry).

March 17, 2008 8:01 PM

nturner said:

Problem is:  Obama can't "put a stake though this" and remain credible.  Everybody knows he knew about "Rev." Wright's rhetoric.  The more he distances himself, the more he looks like a same-ol'-same-ol' politician.  

Somebody elder in the Democratic Party needs to approach him and tell him that his two-decade affiliation with a Blame-America-First, racist, anti-semite, whacko have made him unelectable.

He needs to drop out for the good of the party.  

March 17, 2008 8:13 PM

Eos said:

One can understand why Obama wants to have it both ways, but he can't have it both ways. He can't vote "present" on this, miss the vote, or claim that he hit the wrong button.

March 17, 2008 8:37 PM

rebml said:

wandreycerl asks "who is this evil neighbor?"

The "evil" spouted by Rev. Wright includes honoring Louis Farakhan, an anti-Semite who has described Judaism as a "gutter religion." Rev. Wright has praised this bigot as a man of "integrity and honesty." The evil spouted by Rev. Wright includes embracing the teachings of James Hal Cone that  divide the world into white oppressors and black oppressed. Cone writes, "Where is your identity?  Where is your being?  Does it lie with the oppressed blacks or with the white oppressors?  Let us hope that there are enough to answer this question correctly so that America will not be compelled to acknowledge a common humanity only by seeing that blood is always one color."

The evil spouted by Rev. Wright involves spreading the big lie that America intentionally spreads the AIDS virus. He said, The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

The evil spouted by Rev. Wright blames America for a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 citizens.

Barack Obama has identified this man as his spiritual mentor and guide.  

March 17, 2008 8:44 PM

teplukhin2you said:

nturner, I'll cut Obama some slack on this, bu only if he makes a clean and total break. Obama's a bright guy. As a local pol, he obviously used an association with this clown to bolster his cred with the local community, no different from what you or I would be forced to do if we were running for office in a poor white, bible and flat earth-belt constituency somewhere in, say Arkansas. Gee, come to think of it, wasn't there a white liberal gov and candidate from such place who decided to execute a retarded teen on death row in order to establish his crime-fighting cred with flat-earthers in the red states? Now THAT was repulsive, IMO.

But this association with an idiot like Wright is just retail politics, IMHO. So just as Obama rode this horse to the first, _local_ plateau of his political career, now he has to chuck it off and ride another horse to the _national_ and _world_ plateau of that career.

Obama: Ditch him, already. The fact that you haven't summarily and ruthlessly ditched him yet raises real and serious q's. Not so much, What does he owe you? as What do you owe him?

March 17, 2008 8:59 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"Somebody elder in the Democratic Party needs to approach him and tell him that his two-decade affiliation with a Blame-America-First, racist, anti-semite, whacko have made him unelectable"

Some group of elders needs to huddle with both BHO and HRC and tell them that neither one is a decent candidate for President at this point. And offer them a chance to fight for the position of Gore's VP.

Draft Gore, Now.

So that we don't botch it in the GE yet _again_.

March 17, 2008 9:02 PM

ChanRobt said:

AlanSP writes, "...How exactly does this raise questions about how Obama sees the world?  Let me see if I understand the reasoning here.  Wright has a controversial view of the world, and Obama is a close associate of Wright, so there are questions about how Obama views the world?  Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems fairly flimsy to me..."

AlanSP, setting aside Tep's plausible theory that Obama joined this church and attended it for twenty years, how could it not raise such questions?

Going to church regularly is a major commitment.  Doing it for twenty years would for most people mean that you agree with most of that church's teachings.

Taking your children to that church would mean for any normal person that he wanted his children to be exposed to that church's teachings.

Now, I can attend a church for twenty years and certainly not agree with every last aspect of the pastor's teachings.  But, unless I were attending purely for show or some other ulterior motive, it would indicate I was in synch with the pastor, liked the way he interpreted and taught the lessons of my religion, that I was comfortable with the man and pretty much in synch with him.

And, in this instance, that I trusted him with my children's moral instruction.  In other words, that twenty year commitment would demonstrate that I saw the world, at least in moral terms, the way the leader of my church did.

It goes against common sense, at least, if not against the rarified double-think of the Left, to imagine a person sitting through twenty years of outrageous fulminations if he did not pretty much agree with the content of the pastor's rants.

But, AlanSP, it doesn't matter a whit what I think or how I interpret this.  What matters is how millions of voters see this.

So, AlanSP, I'll give you the job of spokesman.  You can stand up and 'splain to the minions that Obama's presence in Rev Wright's church for twenty years implies no endorsement of the Rev Wright's views.  That he knew his children were sophisticated enough to ignore them as well.  

The great mass of voters, being nuanced folks will entirely understand your meaning.  They're probably sleeping through the sermons they attend every week.

March 17, 2008 9:53 PM

ironyroad said:

I think that most people who would ever vote for Obama understand that Obama is not like Wright.  Nobody can believe that Obama is some kind of covert racial-exclusivist candidate, but he has to put a good explanation out there that says not only why he disagrees with Wright but also why he put up with him for so long after announcing his candidacy when he knew the guy was like an unexploded grenade.

If the explanation is that he just didn't know, that's dangerous.  Obama has the possibility of both explaining why Wright was the reality you had to deal with in Chicago politics if you were a black activist, and making it clear that his vision is something far beyond Wright's paranoid nuttery (and he doesn't have to disassociate himself from the legitimate parts of it -- the U.S. is run by rich white guys, and they are richer than they were 30 years ago by a hell of a lot of $$ in a system that says if you do a normal job, you're a pathetic loser).

This is a dangerous but also potentially liberating moment for BHO.

March 18, 2008 12:05 AM

AlanSP said:

There are separate questions here about Obama's views and about public perception of Obama's views.  The latter is a major concern for the candidate and the party, but I think questions about his actual views should be answered by the things that his words and his actions.  This is not a particularly nuanced position.  I don't think you're giving the "great mass of voters" a whole lot of credit.  The ones that are involved in their churches would probably understand there are many reasons for and against staying with a church, and the leader's views are only one part of it.  This isn't rarefied double-think; ask people why they belong to their church and see where "I agree with my pastor's political views" ranks as an answer.

Maybe my view on this is distorted because I in fact have a rabbi whom I strongly disagree with on political issues and who makes disparaging remarks that I think have no place in a synagogue (eerily enough, he's also about to retire), but my family is not about to leave the synagogue because of it.

You do raise an interesting point about the children, which isn't something I had really thought about before.  I admit that if I had children, I probably wouldn't want them listening to some of the things Wright  says, or to some of the things my rabbi says for that matter.

March 18, 2008 12:48 AM

AlanSP said:

I need to proofread these posts more carefully.  That should read:

There are separate questions here about Obama's views and about public perception of Obama's views.  The latter is a major concern for the candidate and the party, but I think questions about his actual views should be answered based on his words and his actions.

March 18, 2008 1:09 AM

ChanRobt said:

A CRITICAL PHRASE LEFT OUT

"...AlanSP, setting aside Tep's plausible theory that Obama joined this church and attended it for twenty years FOR POLITICAL REASONS, how could it not raise such questions?

March 18, 2008 2:50 AM

ChanRobt said:

AlanSP, I didn't mean to condescend to voters.  I think they usually prove, in aggregate, to be quite wise and perceptive.  

What they don't tend to do is to rationalize away the what common sense would tell them.  And they are going to tend to translate the experience of their own lives to their judgement of a candidates actions.

Of course many people sit in churches and temples not in full agreement with their reverend or rabbi week after week.

But, I think also, if one's priest or rabbi was belching on a regular basis, ideas you considered atrocious and hostility and lies against our own country, you would abandon his church or synagogue and find another.

So, without getting very complicated and nuanced here, one has to assume that Obama spent 20 years in the Rev Wright's church insensible to his ideas and activities (trips to meet Khadafi in Libya with Farrakhan, etc).

Or, that he was aware of these ideas and activites and did not find them objectionable.

Tomorrow, I'm certain we will hear an explanation that is not either of the above.  I'm looking forward to hearing it.

March 18, 2008 3:08 AM

ChanRobt said:

irony, if Obama tomorrow, exercises the option of,  "...both explaining why Wright was the reality you had to deal with in Chicago politics if you were a black activist, and making it clear that his vision is something far beyond Wright's paranoid nuttery..." then he will pretty well undermine the main tenet of his candidacy:  that Barack Obama transcends the old kind of dishonest politics.

March 18, 2008 3:12 AM

JEFF FREY said:

There is another possibility here, which is that Wright rarely expresses the nutty views highlighted in the video. Let's put it this way, assuming that someone posted the video with the intention of harming Obama, he/she would have posted the most extreme available video.

Most people here are leaping to the conclusion that what we've seen is typical of Rev. Wright. I have noticed two posters in the various threads who have actually stated that they attended one or more services at TUCC, and they said what they saw was very different. I'll grant you that Obama probably knew that Wright spouted off on occasion, but he may have found most of the services totally different. Which in fact is what he has said.

Let me tell you a story from my days in South Carolina. A small town upstate was told by the state court, thanks to a lawsuit, that they were not allowed to bar blacks from the town swimming pool.. The court ordered them to de-segregate the pool. So they SHUT DOWN THE TOWN SWIMMING POOL! This was not in 1955 or something like that; it was about 1990. I don't think you can understand what it means to be black in America if you cannot imagine what it is like to have people think it is better to shut down the town swimming pool than it would be to allow it to be polluted by allowing you to swim there. I have tried, but I can't bring myself to fully imagine how the blacks and whites in this story really feel. When you consider that when a man like Rev. Wright was young, DRINKING FOUNTAINS were segregated (in the south), and he was on the side that wasn't allowed to use the decent ones.

So, yeah, I can understand that black people can be pissed off, and it is not about slavery 150 years ago, it is about being considered to be dirty and second-class, less than a human being, in the very recent past. This is the poison that lurks underneath the surface of American "equality". Does that mean I agree with Wright? No, I don't. I think his now-publicized statements go beyond reason and reality into the realm of fantasy. But I understand at least a part of his point of view. And, frankly, he is no more off in outer space than Dick Cheney, in the news again pushing his fantasy  Iraq-al Qaeda link, or the neocons who pushed war with Iraq because we would be greeted with flowers, as long-awaited liberators. And, in the long run, Wright's flights of dark fantasy are less destructive to our country than our present Administration.

After all, if this country can't handle a preacher saying "God damn America", we don't have very much going for us. Move to China if you want to live in a place where criticism of the country is not allowed. Please. Spend enough time there to appreciate what the right to criticize your country and culture is worth, even if you have to listen to a lot of crap sometimes.

March 18, 2008 6:38 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

rebml - in the 1930's, the federal government conducted research on unknowing black servicemen (you know, people who signed up to fight and die for our country) with LSD and various deadly and incurable STD's - plutonium too - while they were in he hospital being treated for injury or illness.  

Federal researchers recorded the results as they watched this group of vets either die of syphillis or break down emotionally from being drugged with a hallucinogenic.  This is not a conspiracy theory, this history.  I'm a researcher at Columbia and have checked out the research myself.  Several books have been written on these experiments and the children and grandchildren of these reseach subjects fought for years to get restitution for the suffering and deaths of their fathers, brothers, husbands at the hands of the US givernment who used them as guniea pigs, treating them like animals.

It's not a mystery why paranoia and conspiracy theories flourished in certain segments of the African American community of a certain generation.  It may appear to be outrageous to you, it isn't to me.  I forgive them and am sad for their pain and fear of the US government.

Look, I would charactierize myself as a borderline philosemite and am also borderline irrational in my support for Israel.  I will not hear a syllable against Jews. Ever.  My gentile family has a long and detailed history of supporting Jewish causes.  I support your disgust with Wright's words of support for Farrakhan.

Louis Farrakhan is a banal, evll man who shouldn't be allowed to breath the same air as any of us.  I condemn anyone who has anything nice to sy about him as a bigot.  I do not support Reverand Wright's comments and think he deserves what he gets for that bigotry.  It's certainly time he grew up, was m ade accountable for his bigotry and acknowledged that it's 2008, not 1938, 48, 58, 68.  He has it coming.

But this man also has a more detaled history of laying his life on the line for the truly damned of the earth than most people you could point to.  People are often good and evil in the same person - usually not this intense of a dichotomy, but often. His work is much more than this, although he pays a deserved price for having it eclipsed by his support of a bigot, I know that.

I ask you to understand the culture where he came from just a little bit more - not to justify it, but to try and see the history a little bit more.  Different peoples have different responses to stress and fear and pain. African American cultural history is very unique in this way.  

Not that there isn't room to grow and evolve and be held accountable.  There is.

I can just see clearly why someone of Obama's generation may have been patient with the weird parts of his pastor's personality.  I do not beieve that Obama hates America and will go so far as to state that it is racist to say so.  I am satisfied with his responses so far and look very forward to his speech today.  Frankly, its about time he spoke of race in America and African American cultural history openly. It's time for him to lead.

March 18, 2008 7:47 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

rebml - I didn't really emphasize this enough in my last message:  

It is time for the African American community to condemn all anti-semitic comments from within, no excuses. Furthermore, they need to root and and expel the prejudice entirely.  Retire that tired, unsupportable crap and stop feeling sorry for and over-protecting of those that can't or won't.

March 18, 2008 8:25 AM

sdemuth said:

Wandrey: Facts, as some like to say, are stubborn things.  Yours would be more credible if they weren't demonstrably wrong on important points:  To wit: plutonium was first created in 1941, so it could not have part of experiments on black americans in the 1930s.  Ditto LSD, which was not known to be psychotropic until 1943, and was not synthesized in the US until after WW II had ended.  The syphilis experiments at Tuskegee were indeed started by 1930, but were not done on black serviceman, but on black civilian men, and involved primarily withholding of treatment or undertreatment of men examined by the US Public Health Service,

Plenty of awful things have been done to black people in America in the last 500 years.  Some of them have gone on in our own lifetimes to be sure, but when we name them, it's worth getting the facts right.  Otherwise we invite impeachment of the political point we're trying to back up with the "facts."

March 18, 2008 8:40 AM

PeteBeck said:

The Wright uproar calls Obama's candidacy into question for at least two reasons:

1)  Obama clearly knew much about Wright's extremist views -- regardless of whether he was present for a particular sermon -- and that he would be seen as closely identified with Wright, whom he has called his spiritual advisor.  He should have addressed this much earlier: probably a year ago.  Material about Wright's church has been floating around the Internet since at least last fall.

2)  If Wright is as Obama says the person who brought him into Christianity and has until a few days ago remained his spiritual guide, there are legitimate questions about Obama's emotional core, regardless of his presentation for political purposes. Ultimately the emotional core will prevail.

March 18, 2008 8:46 AM

purcellneil said:

Mike

Why bring up an article about Obama from 8 years ago?  That would be like a 30 year-old article about McCain - no?

Neil

March 18, 2008 9:47 AM

jts44 said:

At the moment the superdelegates seem inclined to vote according to the popular vote. Will they be of the same mind if it appears that Obama's electability is seriously in question?  He may smooth things out within the party, but will the swing voters buy it.

March 18, 2008 10:03 AM

butchie b said:

Great thread.  Seems to me the biggest threat to BHO is all those folks who are just coming to the election, who might want to vote for him (primary or GE), and Wright scares the bejeezus out of them.

Tep's right, it's a Souljah moment, but that just won't happen.  He's got to stay "black" because when you get right down to it, unlike the vast majority of US blacks, BHO is NOT a descendent of slaves.  Does anyone know how that plays in the black community?  I think it may be important, but I'd like opinions.

NATO indeed, tep.  Good-bye and God bless.

March 18, 2008 11:52 AM

JEFF FREY said:

sdemuth, I think your corrections to WandreyCer are correct. I think there was never any experimentation done with Plutonium, but I don't know for sure. And the Tuskegee syphilis experiment did indeed involve the withholding of treatment of civilians infected with syphilis, in order to study the late-stage development of the disease. But you are wrong if you mean to suggest that this was not one of the awful things that have been done. The men in this study were treated like lab animals. The supposed rationale was, originally, to study possible racial variations in the progress of the disease.

The study continued until 1972. 1972!

From www.infoplease.com/.../A0762136.html

For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”

March 18, 2008 2:35 PM

JEFF FREY said:

By the way, the Army's LSD experiments were done on volunteers. A variety of pschyotropic drugs were tried on volunteers, supposedly to test whether they might be developed into chemical weapons that could incapacitate enemy soldiers. I don't think there was any racial targeting in this program.

March 18, 2008 2:41 PM

sdemuth said:

JEFF: No, I was not trying to say that the Tuskegee experiments were not part of the awful legacy of mistreatment of African Americans.  Precisely the opposite - I consider them to be no better than a "slow lynching," unless they are worse because they were perpetrated by well-educated professionals against their professional oaths, and out of cold calculation, rather than out of ignorant passion.

My point was close as possible to correct, or you invite impeachment.

March 19, 2008 8:54 AM