TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

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

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 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, Kristol, Newsmax (Updated)

This morning the Obama campaign firmly denied the assertion in today's New York Times column by Bill Kristol, citing a story on the online conservative outlet Newsmax that Barack Obama sat through a July 22 sermon when Jeremiah Wright denounced the "United States of White America" for inflicting suffering on the world. 

As of 11:30 this morning the Times had not corrected Kristol's column. But I see that Newsmax has now posted this:

Clarification: The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama's church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. Central time. While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama's attendance. Mr. Davis' story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. Wright's comments during his sermon. The Senator's office declined to comment.

Huh? First this statement obliquely allows only that Obama was present "during one of" several services in July, which obviously could mean a day other than July 22. But then it goes on to assert that Obama "was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story." This makes me wonder if the implication here is that Newsmax might have been wrong about the date of the sermon in question, not Obama's presence at said sermon.

Overall it sounds like Newsmax isn't backing down. But given the level of scrutiny they're under you'd think they could explain things more clearly.

More: I meant to add before posting: To some degree the specifics here are something of a red herring. It seems pretty obvious by now, regardless of which sermons Obama attended, that he's probably long understood Wright's worldview. The main issue is how much people judge Obama on the basis of their overall relationship. (That said, media and politics are strange, and I suppose placing him at a specific sermon makes it easier for, say, a cable TV show to drill into the specifics of that one day rather than discuss more esoteric questions of how to think about the relevance of politician's church.)

Update: Kristol corrects:

In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama camapaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.

Update II: Newsmax author Kessler speaks to USA Today, and is much clearer than that cloudy clarification:

A few minutes ago, Kessler told us by telephone that "the NewsMax editors have talked with Jim Davis" and "he might have been wrong about the date."

Davis, Kessler added, "says he could have been wrong about the date, but it definitely happened."

Kessler added that he's confident about the rest of Davis' reporting because "I was impressed by the details he had." Asked if getting the date wrong isn't something that would raise questions about the rest of a reporter's work, Kessler said no. And he said that "in general, (Obama's) claim that he doesn't know anything about these sermons is ridiculous."

Kessler said NewsMax will be posting a new story about this shortly.

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:28 AM with 6 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!

ejbenjamin said:

Please.  The right is all about discrediting whole stories by quibbling over details-- they did it quite thoroughly to this magazine several months ago during L'Affair Beauchamp.  So don't do their work for them by allowing their own faulty details to be sublimated into a larger context.  They got it wrong.

March 17, 2008 12:13 PM

AlanSP said:

Red Herring or not, specifics matter politically.  Remember the Dan Rather controversy in '04?  The general gist of the story was accurate, but they got nailed because they didn't check the specifics about the documents.

Also, I think the specifics are important here because of Obama's claim that he hadn't heard Wright make the remarks that are the subject of the current firestorm.  He undoubtedly did understand Wright's broader worldview, which sees the world as being polluted by racism and oppression, which need to be overcome.  That broad-scale view is not what is causing the current controversy.  The recent firestorm is about specific rhetoric (e.g. "God damn America!") and specific claims (e.g. that the government is responsible for AIDS).  He probably does not use this rhetoric and make these claims in all or even most of his sermons.  It would be implausible for Obama to say that he never heard Wright say that there was a great deal of racism in America, since this is a view that Wright has expressed quite often, but it is plausible for him to say that he never heard Wright say "God damn America" or that the government started AIDS, since he does not say these things all the time.  This has essentially been Obama's claim, and disproving it requires specifics.

March 17, 2008 12:40 PM

teplukhin2you said:

THe problem I have with Obama's straddle, his simultaneous reachout to identity-politics partisans and post-racial moderates, is the amount of energy and attention this straddle will steal from other, vastly more important issues. Identity politics is a huge distraction. Remember all of Clinton's distractions in his first 2 years-- esp gays in the military and Lani Guinier?

We've got more urgent fires to put out now. Two wars going badly, a currency in a nosedive, a financial meltdown, our core western alliance on its deathbed.... I'm not convinced McCain will do much about the financial issues, but I know that he'll work like hell to turn around our faltering wars, give rescuing NATO our best shot, and keep the lid on potential Asian troubles.

With Obama, I have little comfort that he will not be as distracted as Clinton was from Mar '92 to Nov '94. It's a long way to November. If Obama doesn't figure out a way to get identity politics out of sight/out of mind, I suspect many more people than are telling pollsters now are likely to tilt toward McCain.

I write this as someone who wants, very badly, to believe that Obama will address the above challenges successfully, as Clinton's A-team (eventually) got our financial house in order and met the LTCM and emerging market meltdown challenges successfully. Of course, Clinton's feet we're held to the fire by a GOP congress. Who will force Obama to get his mind out of identity politics and start focusing on vastly more important financial and f-p matters?

March 17, 2008 1:36 PM

Andrew Davis said:

I worshipped at Trinity UCC once, and Wright gave an excellent sermon about the importance of Black fathers in the lives of their children (something I'm sure Obama could relate to).  How come FOX doesn't play THAT sermon a hundred times?

March 17, 2008 1:38 PM

thesimulacra said:

Since the central point of Kristol's article was that Obama attended an anti-American sermon by Wright on July 22nd, something which Kristol has now admitted was not true, shouldn't they just withdraw the editorial altogether?  It was a half-brained, poorly constructed and meandering dinner table ramble even before its central argument was undermined by a little thing called a lack of facts; shouldn't the Times just make him write a new piece or hold his money until he actually publishes something Times-worthy?  If it wasn't Bill Kristol that had written the article, would they have published something like that?

March 17, 2008 3:23 PM

rfaris10 said:

Let me see if I  understood your criticism of Kristol.  He got the date wrong about when Obama sat in the pew listening to the good Pastor declare that American got what it deserved, and that that fact--the Pastor's condemnation of America--was the only "controversial" fact about this whole flap.  And that even though Kristol has apologized for that error, it doesn't matter. Do I have that right?  So, for example, the obvious facts that Wright for many, many years had been uttering the most venal things about our country, combined with Obama's own assertion that he sat through many of his sermons, generally endorsed the ideological bent of that church, and would now have us believe he is a convert to mainstream politics is not at issue at all?   Ok.  So the next time a Republican has been found to be a member of a racist country club for twenty years and is running for president, saying we have to understand the context within which the racism at the club is expressed, I guess we should be celebrating that brilliant oratorical maneuver too. Or maybe  I've just not understood your "he's ok no matter what he does or says" view.  Enlighten me, would you?

March 18, 2008 4:53 PM