TNR BLOGS

November 19, 2008 | 4:19 PM
November 19, 2008 | 3:45 PM
November 19, 2008 | 3:08 PM

November 19, 2008 | 4:23 PM
November 19, 2008 | 1:04 PM
November 19, 2008 | 12:43 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
19.03.2008
Superdelegates and the Wright Controversy

Former Mondale campaign manager Bob Beckel has an interesting column up at Real Clear Politics. Here's what he has to say on Wright:

Obama's other electability issue depends on the outcome of the controversy surrounding his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. This story broke at an especially bad time for Obama given the five week news hiatus before the Pennsylvania primary and intensified press scrutiny from reporters who felt an obligation to be tough after the Clinton campaign's endless complaints about soft coverage for Obama. ...

Unless it is proven that Obama lied about not being in the pew when Wright delivered the controversial statements in question then, for the vast majority of Democrats at least, he is likely to put this crisis behind him.

But the Republican right wing has seized on the Wright story and is unlikely to let it go. For John McCain this has serious downside potential. Anger in the black community towards Republicans is established and immutable. But if conservatives are perceived as exploiting yet another race story, anger could spread to moderate Republican and Independent voters, many in the suburbs, where the Republicans have been bleeding support the last decade.

For those supporters of Hillary Clinton who see the story as a way of selling superdelegates on Obama's unelectability, the downside is far more dangerous. If the Clinton campaign is caught using the race card, particularly after Bill Clinton's 'cracker tour' of South Carolina, it will assure a Clinton defeat in November. Not only will blacks boycott the polls, so will many of the millions of young voters Obama has brought into the political process.

(Many liberals like myself, who would be happy to support Hillary Clinton if she earned the nomination, would abandon her if her campaign seeks to exploit the Wright controversy either in the remaining contests or with superdelegates.)

This is why you basically never see the Clinton campaign touch the Wright story. (I was on a Clinton conference call this weekend; I thought I heard tumbleweeds blowing when a reporter brought up Wright.) There's almost no way they can actively exploit it, particularly after Obama's speech. They just have to hope it does the job on its own--or, to put it in less cynical terms, that Democratic voters think Wright is as big a problem for Obama as the Clintonites presumably think he is.

Update: Ambinder says the Clintonites are under strict orders from campaign manager Maggie Williams not to breathe a word about Wright, for basically the reasons Beckel mentions. Then, as if one cue, Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis breathes several words about Wright (enough to ask two questions!). (H/t Ben Smith.)

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:59 PM with 31 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!

Rhubarbs said:

"If the Clinton campaign is caught using the race card, particularly after Bill Clinton's 'cracker tour' of South Carolina, it will assure a Clinton defeat in November. Not only will blacks boycott the polls, so will many of the millions of young voters Obama has brought into the political process."

Ye gads. So the conventional wisdom is that the overt race-baiting that the Clinton campaign has engaged in so far is just fine with Democrats, but any more would be too much?

The longer Hillary sticks around, the more I question whether I'm really willing to associate myself with this particular political party. I expect Helmsian tar-baby race politics from the GOP; it's terribly damning that anyone would assume that there is an acceptable level of it _among Democrats_ too.

March 19, 2008 3:20 PM

teplukhin2you said:

hello? remember YouTube? 527s?

Neither HRC nor McC needs to touch this at all. There will be a hundred mashups of Wright and Michelle + Wright flying around the innernets, and none of them will bear any trace of the campaign.

Obama did not slay this monster, not by a long shot.  

March 19, 2008 3:29 PM

BHLnyc said:

tep,

Except amongst the far right punditry, Obama largely changed the conversation from Wright to Race. That certainly was the perception watching last night's and this morning's analysis and even many of Obama's critics hailed his speech as inspiring and important. Will the Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter industrial complex continue to flog this dead horse? Of course. That's what they do, because their ratings survival depends on it.

But make no mistake: if the GOP is counting on this to provide some kind of pathway to victory, they're completely deluding themselves. No matter how many video mash-ups are produced, the rantings of some discredited pastor from Chicago is, in no way, shape or form, going to be enough to overcome Republican identification with eight years of incompetence, arrogance, mismanagement, stonewalling, ethics violations and bungling.

March 19, 2008 3:59 PM

wesmcgee said:

"But make no mistake: if the GOP is counting on this to provide some kind of pathway to victory, they're completely deluding themselves."

Yes, but never, ever underestimate the GOP ability to delude themselves. Remember, impeachment would give them a path to congressional victory in 1998?

Terri Schaivo?

Gay marriage?

Immigration?

Given everything the GOP has given us, they can't run on anything but fear and loathing.

March 19, 2008 4:16 PM

blackton said:

come on tep, do you really think people are going to watch the same videos by Wright over and over again? this is America, land of the short attention span. Reruns don't sell, hell TV had to put up the schlockiest reality shows because of the publics demand for the new when certainly there are literally hundreds of thousands of quality reruns they could have shown instead and have spent no money.

I must say I am dare I say pleasantly surprised that no one on the Clinton campaign has said anything stupid about this. Even she seems to realize if she dug any deeper and then somehow got the nomination, it would be useless.

March 19, 2008 5:11 PM

teplukhin2you said:

blckie, maybe you're right. I think it was TalkBacker "buffaloboy" on another thread who floated the possibility that Obama leaked this stuff and actually put it out there so he could deal with it lon before November, and on his own terms and tempo. That's a better conspiracy theory anyway than, say, suggesting the government created AIDS and deliberately injected black men with it...

March 19, 2008 5:24 PM

blackton said:

tep, Fox news is claiming they broke the news (at least Hannity did). And no, I agree that the government didn't inject aids deliberately into black men, that was syphilis. Because of that monstrousity I am reluctant to mock elderly blacks for possessing delusional ideas about Aids.

March 19, 2008 5:58 PM

drdannyu said:

Blackie, good point about syphilis.  I hadn't actually thought of that until you wrote it, and it makes obvious sense.

March 19, 2008 6:19 PM

ChanRobt said:

It all depends how ham-handedly the Wright story is exploited.

McCain is going to take the high road, as he did today, and defend the patriotism of Obama.

The Switft Boat types will do other things.

But, even if n ot another word is spoken about this, the damage has been done among many Reagan Democrat types in the industrial states.  And among independents and other swing voters who still don't know much about who Obama really is.

The neo-Manchurian candidate thing will be there with many voters, and for president of the United States, they're just more likely to cast their vote for a guy who's unambiguous loyalty to the country has never been in doubt for ten seconds.

March 19, 2008 7:14 PM

blackton said:

channy, it depends on how bad the economy and Iraq is in November. when times are bad people are far more likely to vote in their own perceived self-interest and not as a reward to the more honorable person. If the industrial states ain't very industrial then why would people say "hey, this stuff hasn't worked for 8 years, lets do another 4" just because of what some Pastor said? I wouldn't get too confident if I were you, not even against HIllary.

March 19, 2008 7:43 PM

wyllie said:

The government didn't inject syphilis, they just did not treat it - this happened between 1932 and 1972.  Apparently 10% of African Americans believe that the government did inject HIV, while another 20% could not rule it out.

March 19, 2008 8:16 PM

Eos said:

Obama's public image has been permanently changed in five ways by his long relationship with Wright and the distribution of the Wright videos. These changes amount to a new narrative about Obama that will provide the context for the interpretation of future events. This in itself strengthens the narrative. Obama has now been branded with Wright as the most salient specific fact known about him.

1. Obama is now much less turstworthy because major new information has emerged that directly contradicts the way he has been presenting himself.

2. Obama is widely perceived to have lied for first repeatedly claiming he didn't hear offensive things said by Wright in church and then changing his story to say he did hear them.

3. Obama's basic judgment has again been called into serious question.

4. It becomes much harder to have a sense that one knows who Obama really is. For example, how does one man bridge the gap from Rezko and a house with a 1,000 bottle wine cellar to Wright and black liberation theology?

4. Obama is now seen as much more liberal than he was before.

5. Obama is seen as a speechmaker and rhetoritician.

March 19, 2008 10:35 PM

AlanSP said:

pccostello,

I wasn't even going to bother, but "5. Obama is seen as a speechmaker and rhetoritician."  Seriously? That's one of the ways his public image has changed because of the Wright stuff?  That's been one of the major narratives about him for 4 years now, since he started making all those wonderful speeches.  In any case, I'm pretty certain that making great speeches is a good thing.  I don't think any candidate has ever thought to himself, "Man, I wish I was a worse speaker."

March 19, 2008 11:52 PM

jack12k6 said:

Obama gave an interview to Anderson on CNN tonight on the campaign trail, and was asked directly about what he heard from Wright in his sermons....his answer was very vague and vanilla...nothing to do wilth anti-americanism..etc....stay tuned if objective evidence comes out that he was there.Obama also said didn't learn about the 9-11 statements until he started his campaign.during this interview...hmmm.

March 19, 2008 11:59 PM

wyllie said:

getting back to that HIV thing.  There was some controversial drug testing done in Africa in the late 90s on pregnant women with HIV.  Some of the women were given a placebo so that the could see how HIV was transfered to the unborn child vs. women treated with AZT.   I believe that these types of tests are illegal in the US but I'm having trouble finding a reference.  

more here: www.tuskegee.edu/.../Story.asp

March 20, 2008 1:02 AM

asnevitt said:

If there is a Maggie Williams directive, it may be due to this:

www.motherjones.com/.../hillarys-prayer.html

rather than any concern about race relations.

March 20, 2008 1:38 AM

ChanRobt said:

blackie, if it's the economy, stupid, Obama is going to have to identify himself a lot more powerfully with economic programs and solutions.

So far, he's identified with coming out against the Iraq War first.  And with the Wright thing.  And with a counter Health Care plan to Hillary's.

None of the three candidates is exactly powerful on economics.

March 20, 2008 2:12 AM

Annabella2 said:

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that these videos were tiny snippets in what must have been over 1000 hours of sermons over 20 years...I hear that Wright is a remarkable inspirational speaker and a great pastor.  Also all his sermons are recorded and sold at the church... I for one would love to see some of the stuff that his very high reputation is built on.

Yes, I had forgotten about the purposeful injection of syphlis into Blkack men... small wonder he came up with that AIDS notion.  It is hard to believe our government could have done such a thing.  BUt it did.

And where was the hysteria when Falwell and Roberston said that 9/11 were our just deserts for homosexuality, abortion etc... why was that not worthy of a like kerfluffle?  Why is it only when Blacks express frustration and rage in over the top rhetoric?  P.S.  I am a nearly 70 year old White woman and I have no racial guilt, I'm one of the immigrants Obama talked about.

March 20, 2008 2:26 AM

Eos said:

Alan,

Here is an example of what I mean by #5--that Obama has been confirmed as a rhetoritician and sppechmaker (rather than a doer or man of action). The article is by the executive editor of Roll Call:

www.realclearpolitics.com/.../obamas_pastor_and_populism_fos.html

March 20, 2008 8:44 AM

roidubouloi said:

chan,

Although everyone refers to them as "Reagan Demcrats," because Reagan moved them from the Democratic party to the Republican party, they are, for the most part, not Democrats any longer.  They are part of the Republican base.  Doesn't say that some cannot be swung the other way in a particular election, but this is not 1980.  This is an important group of voters but no longer the swing group that must be captured by either party to win.

pc,

You talk about what all of this "confirms" about Obama, but you never address the question, "Among whom?"  Mostly this confirms something or other for people who were already disposed not to vote for Obama. The way I read the very latest polls, Obama is already coming up of the "bottom"  (which was not very low, of the drop that was caused by the Wright controversy.  Once we get Hillary out of the way, there will be lots of opportunity for McCain to "confirm" that he is one step away from senility.  You don't think his gaffe about Iraq will be his last, do you?  Especially as he wearies during the campaign.  Th fun hasn't even started yet.

March 20, 2008 9:14 AM

Sirhc said:

I don't think Obama's campaign leaked it, but I think it is wrong to believe that it came up at an especially bad time:  Right after Ferraro (equals potential wash).  Right during Spitzer.  An eternity before the next primary.  I think it was the best timing for Obama that he could ask for, no time was going to be a good time.  

What I've found interesting over the last couple of days is that people find the videos objectionable, but less so the more they watch them.  Certainly, the AIDS comments are objectionable, as are any hints of associating with anti-semitism.  Beyond that, people understand that in a church setting saying that G-d will damn something is fairly standard in America and so on.  

People will continue to find Wright objectionable, but watching them over and over will not make things worse.  If these are Wright's worst hits then Obama will overcome the controversey.

March 20, 2008 9:37 AM

Eos said:

roid--

The shift in the narrative and the nature of the Obama "brand" is very important, for example, among independents and among democrats who are now voitng for Clinton. But I would think this would be obvious.

March 20, 2008 10:41 AM

BHLnyc said:

Looks like HIllary has her own religious explaining to do, as this report in The Nation makes clear:

www.thenation.com/.../ehrenreich

No wonder she's kept her pie hole shut on Wright.

March 20, 2008 11:31 AM

parnest said:

Regarding the comment above re 527s and YouTube, the NY Times reports today (www.nytimes.com/.../20race.html) that Obama's speech "is now the top YouTube video", having "been viewed more than 1.6 million times". The Times also reports that the speech was viewed on TV by 4 million viewers (to the extent one can rely on Nielson I suppose).

March 20, 2008 11:38 AM

Eos said:

bhl--

yes, that must be it. (LOL).

March 20, 2008 12:20 PM

ChanRobt said:

Annabella2 writes, "...What everyone seems to be forgetting is that these videos were tiny snippets in what must have been over 1000 hours of sermons over 20 years..."

Uh, Annabella, do you know how the opposition got hold of these "tiny snippets"?  They went down to the Trinity Church (well, maybe online) and bought the Reverend's DVDs.

The good Rev published these.  He was proud of these sermons and wanted them spread widely.

You can hardly marginalize the very sermons that the Rev Wright chose to example his own best teachings.

March 20, 2008 4:08 PM

ChanRobt said:

roid, all right, don't call them "Reagan Democrats".  Call them working class Democrats, or union member Democrats, or Rust Belt Democrats.

Or any other "ordinary people" non-elite, non-college grad, under $100 grand/yr Democrats who are only Democrats for the same reason that some people are Catholics and not Protestants.  For cultural and traditional and family reasons.

People like that get uncomfortable when they hear a sermon by a Rev Wright and learn that a major candidate sat through such sermons for two decades and brought his children to the same church at an impressionable age.

There are a lot of people who are Democrats because emotionally and culturally, they just can't be Republicans.  But, they will cross over for a guy like McCain who has a lot of cred from his sacrifice in the military and for being a frequently dissenting, always maverick Republican.

March 20, 2008 4:13 PM

odanuki1 said:

pccostello -

Dude, based on the potentially damaging nature of HRC's own religious background (per the Nation article linked above), and long history of shady associations do you think this is a line of argument her supporters should be pushing?  Count yourself lucky that the media haven't decided to hit her yet - and you're kidding yourself if you think a general election involving her wouldn't be a parade of terribles by right-wing operatives.

March 20, 2008 4:18 PM

Eos said:

odan--

The Nation article is truly ridiculous.You really have to laugh at it as part of the Obama campaign's effort to go even more nuclear on Hillary. And in her second senate election, Hillary ran well in upstate NY, a very red area of the country. Don't believe the stereotypes about who she is.

March 20, 2008 6:08 PM

AaronBBrown said:

Jeremiah Wright was White House guest

www.politico.com/.../Jeremiah_Wright_was_White_House_guest.html

.....of the Clintons

March 21, 2008 10:59 PM

roidubouloi said:

Chan,

I understand the demographic you are talking about.  They make up half the Dems in my town, the other half being the highly educated professionals, etc.  We make it a point to direct our campaigns to the working class Dems because we know that we have the politically engaged Dems as a reliable base.  They aren't going anywhere.

I agree that it is very much in Obama's interest to address this group and to do it successfully, but it is also important to recognize that they are a smaller demographic than they used to be/  There is not only one way to assemble a winning majority.  Thus, blanket statements that Obama cannot win without winning this demographic are wrong.  He may need some of this group, but if he is strong enough with other groups, it is not necessarily that case that he has to win a majority of this group.  

The Speech was addressed in part to the concerns and experiences of this demographic, but not to them directly.  I was a speech directed to the "elites" if you will.  That was essential because it is the elites who dominate the media and were working the Wright affair.  But Obama needs now to address himself directly to working class Dems of all groups.  PA is the perfect place to work on that message.  He has laid out his basic theme that if we work together America is not a zero-sum game.  Now I hope he will use his incredible skills as an orator to say that directly to working class people in a way that moves them.

March 22, 2008 6:37 PM