TNR BLOGS

May 17, 2008 | 1:56 AM
May 16, 2008 | 10:40 PM
May 16, 2008 | 8:45 PM

May 16, 2008 | 7:03 PM
May 16, 2008 | 1:57 PM
May 16, 2008 | 1:28 PM

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

May 16, 2008 | 8:14 PM
May 16, 2008 | 2:08 PM
May 16, 2008 | 11:22 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
29.04.2008
Why'd Obama Join Trinity in the First Place?

The question is worth revisiting now that his ex-pastor is threatening his entire campaign.  

I've heard two basic theories since the Wright tapes first surfaced in March. The first is cynical: Obama was a black politician in Chicago with an exotic background and intimidating credentials. He needed a home in a black church to gain credibility with his less educated, less affluent, more parochial-minded constituents. Trinity offered him the requisite cred.

The second, not entirely unrelated, theory is psychoanalytical: Obama, as the product of a racially-mixed marriage, in which the black father was almost entirely absent, had spent his whole life groping for an authentic identity. Wright offered Obama both the father and the identity he never had.

The problem with both theories is that they don't answer the question of why this particular church, this particular pastor. Yes, Wright was a prominent figure with a large congregation. But surely there were other pastors and churches that fit that profile. And, in retrospect, probably distinctly less controversial ones.

Which is where this fascinating passage from David Mendell's Obama biography comes in:

Wright earned bachelor's and master's degrees in sacred music from Howard University and initially pursued a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago Divinity School before interrupting his studies to minister full-time. His intellectualism and black militancy put him at odds with some Baptist ministers around Chicago, with whom he often sparred publicly, and he finally accepted a position at Trinity. ...

Wright remains a maverick among Chicago's vast assortment of black preachers. He will question Scripture when he feels it forsakes common sense; he is an ardent foe of mandatory school prayer; and he is a staunch advocate for homosexual rights, which is almost unheard-of among African-American ministers. Gay and lesbian couples, with hands clasped, can be spotted in Trinity's pews each Sunday. Even if some blacks consider Wright's church serving only the bourgeois set, his ministry attracts a broad cross section of Chicago's black community. Obama first noticed the church because Wright had placed a "Free Africa" sign out front to protest continuing apartheid. The liberal, Columbia-educated Obama was attracted to Wright's cerebral and inclusive nature, as opposed to the more socially conservative and less educated ministers around Chicago. Wright developed into a counselor and mentor to Obama as Obama sought to understand the power of Christianity in the lives of black Americans, and as he grappled with the complex vagaries of Chicago's black political scene. "Trying to hold a conversation with a guy like Barack, and him trying to hold a conversation with some ministers, it's like you are dating someone and she wants to talk to you about Rosie and what she saw on Oprah, and that's it," Wright explained. "But here I was, able to stay with him lockstep as we moved from topic to topic. . . . He felt comfortable asking me questions that were postmodern, post-Enlightenment and that college-educated and graduate school-trained people wrestle with when it comes to the faith. We talked about race and politics. I was not threatened by those questions." ...

But more than that, Trinity's less doctrinal approach to the Bible intrigued and attracted Obama. "Faith to him is how he sees the human condition," Wright said. "Faith to him is not . . . litmus test, mouth-spouting, quoting Scripture. It's what you do with your life, how you live your life. That's far more important than beating someone over the head with Scripture that says women shouldn't wear pants or if you drink, you're going to hell. That's just not who Barack is."

So, if you buy Wright's account--and it rings pretty true to me--it was his intellectualism and social progressivism that won Obama over. Certainly it's hard to imagine that someone like Obama, who came from a progressive, secular background, would have felt genuinely comfortable in a socially conservative, anti-intellectual church. The problem for Obama is that the flip-side of these virtues was a minister with a radical worldview and a penchant for advertising it loudly.

Which, put another way, means that Obama's decision to join Trinity was probably the opposite of cynical. Trinity was the place where, despite the potential pitfalls--and he must have noticed them early on--Obama felt most true to himself.

Update: Just to clarify, by "felt most true to himself" I mean "most true to himself as a worshipper." The point is that the pastor who made him feel most welcome as a worshipper probably also made him pretty uncomfortable politically.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:55 AM with 70 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!

ChanRobt said:

Noam, if Wright is what passes for an intellectual in Obama's circles, we are going to have to question the value of a Columbia and Harvard education.

Which I'm sure many parents who have paid for same have.  Unless their children got the high-paying jobs that are supposed to come with those tickets being punched.

April 29, 2008 12:01 PM

ChanRobt said:

And Noam, if "...Trinity was the place where, despite the potential pitfalls--and he must have noticed them early on--Obama felt most true to himself..."

then Barack Obama is not fit to be president of the United States.  Anyone who shares Rev Wright's beliefs ought not be anywhere near the Oval Office.

And if the American people come to believe that Obama essentially agrees with Wright, he will never be president.  And, may, in fact, lose spectacularly.

April 29, 2008 12:03 PM

Noam Scheiber said:

I should have said, "felt most true to himself *as a worshipper.*" The whole point is that he wasn't on the same wavelength as Wright politically, other than his social progressivism...  

April 29, 2008 12:24 PM

eharder2 said:

Can a person win the presidency and not be a cynical robot?   After the most cynical presidency, perhaps humanly possible, we will soon find out.  

April 29, 2008 12:35 PM

dcshungu said:

I guess the question is "why should he not have"? It was a church, like any other, no? Did Michelle have any relations with the church (I assume they had known each other since Harvard Law, so that if she was already associated with Trinity, Obama joining would be no surprise at all)?

But would we even care if the Rev. Dr. were not such a wacko?

April 29, 2008 12:43 PM

rappleton said:

Chan, regarding wheter Wright as an intellectual or not, I would submit that IF you heard him speak for longer than a TV soundbite, even though you may disagree with him or find his opinions repellent, you might agree that he fits three of the four dictionary definitions cited below, #8 being the obvious exception.

–noun

6. a person of superior intellect.  

7. a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, esp. on an abstract and general level.  

8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.  

9. a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher.  

As for making the Intellectually sloppy conclusion that Obama shares his beliefs and "essentially agrees with Wright" on all matters of importance, it says more about your flawed intellect than it does about his. Have you never been stimulated by an idea you disagreed with from a person you respected?  

April 29, 2008 12:43 PM

bsdespain said:

Actually Chan it' s not that Wright is a big intellectual - It's that he's fairly intellectual for a pastor.

April 29, 2008 12:58 PM

Nippers said:

ChanRobt: Seems that the passage Noam quotes characterizes Wright not as an intellectual, per se, but as "cerebral and inclusive" when compared to "more socially conservative and less educated ministers." Is there any arguing with those comparatives--more inclusive, more educated--even if you quarrel with the quality of his education or Wright's failure to make use of it?

The description of Wright's progressivism in the first half of the biographer's second paragraph--questioning scripture, opposing mandatory school prayer, welcoming gays, etc.--certainly sounds appealing to me. It's obvious, especially after yesterday's Q & A at the press club, what's unappealing about Wright. Noam is asking a different question: why, given how unappealing Wright seems now, would Obama have chosen that particular church? A worthy question, especially for Obama supporters. Noam's answer makes sense to me. But I also think human motivations are rarely singular. All three theories may hold some truth.

April 29, 2008 1:04 PM

bl462 said:

For whatever reason Obama joined Trinity United in the first place, he has a lot of explaining as to why he stayed there, and exposed his children to Wright's poison, particularly after Wright's "clarifying" comments yesterday at the National Press Club.  Perhaps "bad judgment" is the answer.  No more. No less.

April 29, 2008 1:17 PM

blackton said:

lesson for all future candidates, don't go to church, but belong to one, say that you go Christmas and Easter and that you love Jesus in your own way. If people question your devotion say you love Jesus and then quote John 3:14.

Separation of church and state, perish the thought when the Pastor is a black man from an obscure church in the south side of Chicago, make him front page news, because Obama sat in a pew one hour a week.

How many people here can even remember the church sermon from last week? We are a nation of Homer Simpsons pretending that we are all Ned Flanders.

America deserves George Bush, just let him stay President forever. But hey, we might get the next best thing, Hillary Clinton, who will go down in flames in record time. It will serve the rich Republicans who will get raped in high taxes (which will only make the economy tank even more), and the poor white Democrats who will benefit nothing from Hillary's empty promises.

Hope, screw hope, it is for the delusional.

April 29, 2008 1:33 PM

blackton said:

bl462. every non catholic candidate should also explain why they belong to heretical churches themselves. and catholics have to explain why they still worship the Pope. And jews, don't get me started on jews, and certainly all Muslims are terrorists.

I mean "Freedom of Religion" piffle. Everyone is free to agree with me and me alone.

In china, whenever any religious person criticizes the government they are thrown in jail, or simply killed (as we have seen recently in Tibet) but in America we are oh so refined, when a religious person criticizes the US we take it out on his congregants.

How about everyones religion and their practices be private? You know, separation of church and state? I suppose my witnessing the beatings that members of the Falun Gong received for daring to practice what I consider a nutty religion has helped me gain a tremendous respect for their character if not their belief. I dare say a lot of people who pronounce the loudest would be the first to pick up the baton to beat the Falun Gong if given the chance themselves. I guess witnessing naked repression has given me a sense of how sacred our freedoms are. The freedom to believe God as one sees fit without fear of consequences. Obviously, not so in America.

I don't care if a person is a Mormon, Buddhist, Atheist, or anything, I just care about their policies and if they seem to be at heart a decent human being. I don't care when they go to church or if they go to church. I am actually floored that I am one of the few people who seem to feel this way.

The most  bizarre thing I have seen is that out of all the recent candidates (outside of Obama) the only one who has had an ounce of decency has been Mike Huckabee.

April 29, 2008 1:47 PM

boneill said:

b1462-

You said " exposed his children to Wright's poison".  Is this the new talkingpoint?  Honestly, I've seen that formulation about a dozen times today.  Does anyone believe this, for real?  Does anyone think that one hour a week, maybe, with this guy, even if all he says is "God Damn America"- whichit is dishonest to believe that is the case- really sway the children of Barack, who clearly doesn't believe that stuff?  Where do you people get these ideas, really?

April 29, 2008 1:56 PM

jemerk said:

The very pertinent question is did Michelle Obama's family have a tie to that church, you coastal folks do not know how it works in the midwest.

April 29, 2008 1:57 PM

icarusr said:

Blackie: too early yet to be so dejected and, um, bitter :-).  Joseph de Maistre said, "Every people gets the leaders it deserves."  But he was a conservative philosopher.  Surely, you must believe that we can do better?

April 29, 2008 2:03 PM

ironyroad said:

"Anyone who shares Rev Wright's beliefs ought not be anywhere near the Oval Office."

Chan, Obama made it clear in his Philly speech that he doesn't share them.  Or do you hold to Wright's insane (your term) claim that Obama was just making a cynical political move?

April 29, 2008 2:03 PM

icarusr said:

Blackie: thanks for the cri de coeur; my cynical reference was to the earlier post.

April 29, 2008 2:05 PM

ChanRobt said:

I've been watching, and am now listening to, Obama's press conference on Wright.  He is doing a good job for himself.

This has a better chance of being a definitive answer than was the Philly speech, though I admired that speech.

April 29, 2008 2:09 PM

icarusr said:

Jemerk: I've heard that Michelle's second cousin once removed once dated a guy who had sat in the front pew when Wright said "damn America" - and neither rejected nor denounced the date.  Not only that - get this - a woman who once sat next to Michelle's niece five years ago at a Wright sermon, not only nodded her head when Wright was saying all that nonsense about AIDS (people said she was just nodding OFF, but we all know what THAT means: COVER UP), but at the end of the sermon, said to Wright, "You go girl."  Or something to that effect.  Quite clearly, with all this FAMILY connection and support and aiding and abetting of a known America-hater, Michelle Obama has no right to want to be the spouse of a President of the United States, and Obama himself should just go back to Kenya, or Nigeria, or Hawaii, or Bantustan, or wherever he's from.

April 29, 2008 2:12 PM

bhunziker said:

I'm finding this presser painful to watch.  It may be too late.  SurveyUSA now has Clinton within 5, and that poll was taken before the Easley endorsement.  If either Edwards comes out before May 6 to endorse Clinton (rumor has it Elizabeth, who enjoys enormous credibility here, wants to endorse Clinton), I think Hillary will pull of NC.  

April 29, 2008 2:22 PM

blackton said:

yes, we coastal folks are not the same kind of human as people in the midwest.

April 29, 2008 2:23 PM

jobeek2 said:

Ah Noam, havent you heard the word from your blog's commenters? From Obama haters to Obamaites, everyone's now agreed that Wright is a wacko, a nutjob, an extremist - "psychotic", no less.

You cant just post a text like that in which Wright appears as not just a reasonable man, but actually a man of some intellect, able to discourse on religious matters in a way many other preachers would be unable to. It goes against the whole conventional wisdom du jour.

April 29, 2008 2:30 PM

jemerk said:

I'm just asking, not a taunt, in the midwest the wife is usually the person more interested in church and therefore the one who gets the choice.  I actually favor Senator Obama.

April 29, 2008 2:34 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Didn't Obama himself admit in one of his autobiographies that he joined Trinity to up his street cred with southside afr-amers?

Why not take the man at his word? This isn't complicated. He's a politician. This is what politicians do.

And now he needs to enact the time-honored political ritual of slaying a treacherous former ally. Just get it over with, already. Get rid of this little sh*t, and get back on message.

April 29, 2008 2:40 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

GLOBAL WARMING

PRICE OF GAS

FOOD SHORTAGES

QUAGMIRE IN IRAQ

DESTROYED INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION

SOFT POWER GONE

TORTURE

ECONOMY CLOSE TO DOOMED

DOLLAR DONE

POISONED FOOD/WATER/CONSUMER PRODUCTS

KNOW-NOTHING HACKS RUNNING THE EPA. JUSTICE, THE FDA - ET ALL

MIDDLE CLASS: DONE

Reverand Wright farted.

April 29, 2008 2:50 PM

jobeek2 said:

Icarusr, that was funny.

Meanwhile, for those reluctant to hear, here was Obama today:

"I have said before and I will repeat again that what some of the comments that Rev. Wright had made offend me, and I understand why they have offended the American people.

"He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign.

"He's obviously free to speak his mind, but I just want to emphasize [that] he is my former pastor. Many of the statements he made both to trigger this initial controversy, and that he's made over the last couple days are not statements that I heard him make previously.

"They don't represent my views and they don't represent what this campaign is about."

What else do you guys want him to say?

April 29, 2008 2:56 PM

ratnerstar said:

Farts contribute to climate change, wandrey.  Climate change threatens food production, resulting in shortages and forcing us to import contaminated replacements from other countries.  All that extra shipping drives up the price of petroleum, which hurts the economy and squeezes the middle class.  It also encourages us to embark on military adventures in the Middle East.  The war leads to torture and destroys our international image, resulting in significantly lessened soft power.  The excess spending for the war drives us deeper into debt, devaluing the dollar.

You see, it's all Wright's fault.  Why isn't anyone paying attention to this important issue?!

April 29, 2008 3:04 PM

anonevent said:

Wright says God Damn America for its hubris and the way it treated blacks over it's history, and Obama has to disown the soundbites, and you go nuts.  Hagee talks about how Catholics are whores, hurricanes are Gods punishment for gay parades, and muslims are terrorists, and John McCain thanks him for his endorsement, and what do I hear about it...nothing.

April 29, 2008 3:23 PM

spencer97m said:

Don't forget that Obama was in his 20s at the time he started going to Trinity.  As a church-goer myself who started attending my church in my 20s I can say that the bond that gets formed with fellow congregants is much stronger than the one with the preacher.  A church is the congregation of people, not the pastor.  I'm not surprised that Obama stayed with Trinity.  Lord knows I've disagreed with my preacher over the years, but I'm not going to let that drive me away from the community of believers that I worship with.

April 29, 2008 3:46 PM

bl462 said:

blackton, and boneill

Then how  do you spin Obama's comments today about Wright at the National Press Club?

"...But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today...."

April 29, 2008 5:19 PM

blackton said:

b1462, did you read what I wrote above? I don't care about Wright, he is not running for President. I don't care about any candidates religion or their minister. Do I have to spin what happened with Priests because I am Catholic? I judge candidates on what their positions are. I would vote for a jew or a mormon or a buddhist, or even a muslim if I agree with his positions and believe the candidate was an honorable person. Obviously you wouldn't.

What is so hard about the concept of separation of church and state? Thomas Jefferson wrote about a wall between the two. Jesus Christ said render unto Caesar what is Caesars.

Do you favor cameras recording every church sermon in America as being mandatory so that we will have a perpetual record of what any future Presidential candidates reaction was to every sermon?

But avoid these questions. Make the argument that the private religious lives of candidates is public business.

April 29, 2008 6:00 PM

bl462 said:

blackton, The private religious life of candidates is indeed their own business.  The company you keep is a matter of judgment.  Your judgment is a matter of public interest if you are running for public office.  I mean, if Obama considers Wright a fair political issue why can't the rest of us, too?

Nice spin, though.  

April 29, 2008 6:17 PM

icarusr said:

"The company you keep is a matter of judgment."

I totally agree.  Hillary stayed with a philandering, lying husband for nearly three decades.  Great judgement.

April 29, 2008 6:36 PM

blackton said:

b1462, God damn it, it is not spin. This has to do with our freedom. Is Freedom spin? I don't care if Obama considers Wright a fair political issue, it is idiocy that it is. Address that idiocy.

Political issues are Iran, gas prices, affirmative action, education, it is not UCC religious policy. And it is certainly not an obscure preacher.

The company you keep in not soley a matter of judgment, to say so is profoundly ignorant of the human condition. Will you condemn every Iranian on earth because they live amongst fellow Iranians?

I have lived in China for years, I know many Communists there, I am not a Communist, am I to be condemned for living there? Am I to be condemned for helping poor chinese people because they are chinese and because I chose to associate with them? Are we to condemn people who work with drug addicts for, you know, associating with them? Or even people who know such people?

Can we not make an effort to separate Church and State? Is the concept of sanctuary so alien to you? So meaningless that you would sacrifice it for feelings of fleeting superiority? That is just evil.

Honest to God, most assuredly you have never lived abroad, have never seen genuine religious repression, and have no idea how fleeting freedom can be.

April 29, 2008 6:46 PM

blackton said:

If church can't be a sanctuary where people are allowed to worship God in whatever way they feel (provided no one is physically hurt) without repercussions then our freedom means nothing. Not a single Hillary supporter will ever address this issue. They are too busy being self-righteous pricks.

What next, shall we bug confessionals? Doesn't the public have a right to know?

April 29, 2008 6:54 PM

bl462 said:

blackton,

You really need to lighten up.  This is politics, not baseball.

April 29, 2008 7:06 PM

blackton said:

b1462, try telling that to my wifes cousin who languished in a Chinese laogao for daring to practice her religion. Try telling that to the Tibetan monks who are getting killed, it is all just politics.

As I have been trying to say, this goes far beyond Wright or Obama. I found it nauseating that part of the reason Romney could not win was because he was a Mormon. I don't like him because he is an insincere flip flopper, but as to his religion, it is none of my business.

My convictions have always been solid on this issue.

April 29, 2008 8:25 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Any black minister that wants to preach his poison of being inclusive and welcoming to gay folk can poison my kids any day.  Poison away.

b1462 - pull your head out of the ass of your partisan bias and see this for the complicated scenario that it is.  Wright screwed Obama but I have no doubt you wouldn't give a whit if it didn't suit your biases in the first place.

April 29, 2008 8:43 PM

bl462 said:

"If a person sees that sufferings afflict him, let him examine his deeds."  - Berakhot 5a

April 29, 2008 9:05 PM

bl462 said:

.,,and I'm talking about Obama and Wright, not the oppressed, in case that needs saying (which, judging from the discourse, it probably does).

April 29, 2008 9:08 PM

blackton said:

b1462 caveat aside on your posting, (and why would you post something that needs a caveat?) you still don't get it. Wright is irrelevant, it is only people like you who have made him so.

So I take it that you feel only white protestants (or maybe conservative Catholic) are fit to be President.

April 29, 2008 9:44 PM

bl462 said:

blackton,

If Obama thinks Wright is relevant, who am I to argue?  I don't remember saying anything about the religion or complexion of whom is fit to be President of the United States.  Don't know where you got that.  All I was saying is that Obama is responsible for the company he  chooses to keep, and the consequences of choosing that company, whether that be Rezko, Wright, or Ayers.  

In a democracy, the voters are always right.  If Obama is the Democratic candidate, and the voters choose Obama,  I'm fine with that. If Clinton is the Democratic candidate, and they choose Clinton, I'm fine with that.  If they choose McCain, (no pun intended, and sorry about the caveat), I'm fine with that, too.

Let's not take ourselves too seriously.  The bloggers on this thread (you 'n me included) are a micro-splinter of public opinion - subscribers to TNR who are , for whatever reason, blessed with enough surplus time on our hands to express our opinions about the various political causes and candidates of the day.  

Let's keep things in perspective.   While we all have our own views, (and we undoubtedly believe that they are the right ones), it doesn't really matter what any of us say in terms of affecting the final outcome, either of the Democratic primary or of the Presidential race.  Will any of us remember or care about what is said in these postings 20 years from now?  

April 29, 2008 10:21 PM

psantillana said:

Amen, blackton! And don't lighten up, ever.

April 29, 2008 10:53 PM

Annabella2 said:

ChanRobert... am joining this conversation late, but answering your initial post... I have sterling academic credentials... won't trundle them out here... but out of curiosity after the first Wright brouhaha broke, I weent to Trinity for Easter services... I am a devout secular humanist who never understood emotionally the appeal of Christianity but did get it for the first time there although the sermon was given by the young minister.

There is another thing.  Wright's is one of the best shows in town.  It is down right fun.  And if you don't get up tight about outrageousness and provocativeness, you have a rousing good time listening to Wright.  I heard him give a eulogy recently of a very prominent Black lawyer/jurist... there were very up tight White judges in the audience of a most Germanic bent on and off the bench, who thought, post sound bites but pre the Media Blitz, that he was phenomenal.

He is a rhetorical show of the first order.  If you like artistry, you can;t help but enjoy it.  As one very prominent, African=American academic said to me today, Wright is absolutely right 90% of the time and just plain crazy 10%.  Well for people who are tolerant of ambiguity, they over look the 10%.

You have to admit, the Press Club performance was quite a performance, imitating a monkey, listening to the questions behind the person reading them, like some crazy old COOT.  It is weren't for the fact that it was intended to torpedo the Obama candidacy, it would have been uproarious.

April 30, 2008 1:24 AM

Annabella2 said:

Right on Blackton!  I'm with you all the way and you couldn't be more correct on Mike Huckabee... I started saying it to my "Liberal" friends early on in the campaign season when his decency, humour, common sense appealed to me enormously.  Well you should have heard all the "Liberals" shriek.  God spare me from all sorts of utter self righteous hypocrites of whatever stripe, color or persuasion.

And what is it about us that we do find these types of issues ever so much more compelling and worthy of attention?  No I don't mean that we should all turn into policy wonks full time instead, but is it that it allows us to see the world through our own prisms and projections, it allows us to gossip endlessly, which as human, we do so naturally and perhaps are better at than policy wonkery.

I am firmly of the belief that seeing more of Wright has been good for all of us and for letting some disinfectant on the issue.  He becomes ever so much more multi-dimensional for all his Wacko side...

But honestly... do let's stop acting as if in belonging to Wright's church, Obama had somehow  been guilty of an irreparable lapse of judgment.  Up with separation of church and state.  Down with this nonesense.  Do we really want a society where only the blandest of the bland forms of worship are henceforth permitted to any politician striving for public office?  And does Hillary belong to The Family not give us any pause?  And does McCain get a free pass for consorting with Hagge and what about Robertson and all the other fundamentalist Kooks who have been guilty of embezzlement and adultry that have backed Republican candidates in the past?  The hypocrisy and double standards boggle the mind.

April 30, 2008 1:38 AM

GSpinks said:

Thank you Noam!!! Your journalistic integrity is beyond compare.

Kudos to blackton, et al!

"All I was saying is that Obama is responsible for the company he  chooses to keep, and the consequences of choosing that company, whether that be Rezko, Wright, or Ayers."

Maybe, but the insinuations are thicker than molasses on a cold February monring. For starters, you have not defined "company" very well; it looks a whole lot more like you are simply trying to slime Obama by proxy.

As for Rezko, not exactly "company", but they did end up having an extensive working relationship, and he already returned all of the money that had Rezko's name. Additionally, no proof linking Obama to any of the charges being filed, or any of the charges that are not being filed, for that matter.

As for Ayers, a presumed terrorist who has never been convicted of a felony, who has claimed responsibility for deplorable acts committed 40 years ago, who has since then moved on to become a "respectable" member of society, teaching at the university, sitting on the board of a charity, etc. Bringing up Ayers in relation to Obama gets you nowhere because you cannot establish a level of "company" applicable to that "relationship" that would not discredit every other candidate currently available.  Additionally, in case you weren't listening when Obama denounced the things Ayers claims he did, Obama denounced the things Ayers claims he did. The only point left is that you can take the "conservative" approach, and accuse Obama of consorting with a known, antiamerican terrorist, or you can the more moderate approach that Obama is allowed to establish working relationships, and act decently, with people who have unfavorable reputations.

As for Wright, all you really have there is a pastor that the Right-wing media outlets attempted to crucify in an attempt to smear Obama by proxy. The problem is that Wright is a Pastor involved with and incredibly knowledgable regarding religion, and the Right-wing media is largely secular, but they jumped into his arena, and they're going to take a severe beating before this is over. And, unless you can actually refute what Noam put forth in this article, that is the end of that.

April 30, 2008 2:39 AM

pccostello said:

Of course, that must be it. Obama joined Trinity for the intellectual stimulation. The Univesity of Chicago just couldn't cut it compared to Wright.

Noam, don't you ever feel the least little bit like a dupe and stooge?

April 30, 2008 8:09 AM

skipper2379 said:

Chan,

Come on, there are plenty of intellectuals--people worth talking to--with kooky views on some things. Does everyone you know half beliefs that are entirely politically correct, by which I mean views that wouldn't disqualify them from elected office? If so, how very sad.

April 30, 2008 8:20 AM

roidubouloi said:

You know, personally I'm pretty much on the same page as blackton.  And most spiritual beliefs strike me personally as pretty lunatic.  If I were to judge people based on those, I would conclude that no one with any sort of devote belief ought to be anywhere near the Oval Office.  However, over a reasonably long life, I have discovered that theses spiritual beliefs don't correlate with much else.  I have met devout bigots and bigoted disbelievers.  Intellectually curious and rational believers and crazy, irrational non-believers.  I just let it alone.  Everyone has to address this for themselves.  

Having also been associated at various degrees of arms-length with congregations of different sorts, it is also clear to me that the relationship with the other congregants and the community is far more important than the relationship with the spiritual leader.  I know lots of people with a wide variety of relationships to their houses of worship.  In my entire life, I have never once had anyone say to me, "You should have heard what my [priest, rabbi, pastor, preacher, minister] said today.  It taught me something."  On the other hand, I have heard plenty of stories about outrageous things they sometimes say.  

Withal, Wright is not Obama's problem.  Hillary Clinton is Obama's problem.  She is the beneficiary of this controversy, not its author, but it happens in a context created by Hillary, a context in which she has been framing him as "not ready for prime time" and he has been refraining from framing her at all.  Quick?  What is Obama's take on Hillary?  Can't say.  If he continues down the road of allowing her to frame him -- such that crap, and there is always crap, sticks to him -- while not doing the same to her, he is jeopardizing his nomination.  It is the mistake made by McCain when he fought with Bush in 2000.  It is the mistake made by Gore -- who was framed as an effete, elitist intellectual but did nothing to frame Bush.  And it was the mistake made by Kerry, in spades, when he failed to respond to the Swift-boat attacks.  

Successfully framing an opponent requires time.  First of all, it takes a lot of repetition, both by the framer and by other voices who begin to pick up the refrain.  Second, the public has to forget that it all began as a blatant political ploy by a political opponent.  It has to take on the coloration of "common wisdom" even if still a minority view.  Third, it is the duration of the effort that creates opportunity.  Things happen that can be twisted to both fit into the frame and reinforce it, to create that feeling amongst people that, "Gee, I didn't really buy into this idea that so and so is thus and so, but maybe they were right."  

Obama might get away with letting Hillary have free shots in the primaries because he has built a large lead (remember, Hillary's "great victory" in PA netted her a gain of only 10 delegates against his 166), but he has been taking a lot of risk with his political Mahatma Gandhi routine.  The last thing the American people want is a president with even a whiff of pacifism around him.  That leads to the walking nightmare we call Jimmy (now there's a case if there ever was one of a political officeholder taking his spiritual beliefs far too seriously as a basis for running the country, with predictably awful results).  It would also benefit Obama in the general to demonstrate now, soon, that he knows how to fight when necessary.  FDR, my political hero, was a great fighter.  You should see and hear some of the speeches in which he gleefully went after the Republicans, skewering them mercilessly while wearing a huge grin on his face.  We need more Franklin and less Eleanor form Obama right now.

Pccostello,

I cannot tell you how amused I am to read you here referring to someone else as a "dupe and stooge."  Can you guess why?

April 30, 2008 8:47 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

One of Hillary's winged monkey's was the person who invited Wright to speak at the National Press Club in the first place, the President of it in fact.  

When asked about it, she said "Wright is news, period."  Yeah right Winged Monkey Woman, Wright's ego problems on live TV a week before election say is earthshatteringly important.

Hillary Rove lives.

PS Roi - PC isn't a stooge, she's an employee.

April 30, 2008 10:01 AM

icarusr said:

PCCostello:  Only someone with zero imagination, intellectual curiosity and academic experience would think that 1) a university setting is intellectually stimulating for a prof - and law schools are the worst place for that; and 2) once you get your intellectual fix at your part-time work, you should not seek it anywhere else.  Your comment is mindbogglingly fatuous.  Stick to insulting people: you're better at it than trying to sound profound.

April 30, 2008 10:06 AM

icarusr said:

Wand: it is entirely possible to be a stooge AND an employee; demonstrates the ability to multitask.

April 30, 2008 10:19 AM

jemerk said:

Has anyone asked Senator Obama why he first visited Trinity?  What caused him to make return visits?  Does he discuss this in either of his books?

April 30, 2008 10:32 AM

r-brown207 said:

roidubouloi  - Your point regarding the similarity of the pacifism of Jimmy Carter and the hesitance of some voters to support Obama are on target. I have long thought this was the case. To me there are similarities between the two candidates that can not be overlooked. Obama must show a fighting side or he is going be extremely vulnerable in the general election, if nominated. Cool intellectualism and soaring rhetoric alone will not carry him through the general election. Obama's open minded all inclusive attitude has it's limitations and are certainly not strengths when it comes to a fight. He will either learn to fight in the political area as it stands, not the "new political area" that he wishes were in place, or he will falter. Politics is not a debating society or some high minded intellectual exercise at a certain point. If the Rev. Wright problem forces his back to the wall so that he has to come out fighting to show his strength of character and not just his intellect, so be it. Obama is so smart, inspirational and well educated he has been able to cruise thus far in his political career. This campaign is the first time that he has every had to really fight his way through adversity and he simply isn't accustomed to having to do it. If Obama ultimately looses the nomination to Hillary or the general election to McCain my guess is that it will be on the issue of a whiff of pacifism.

April 30, 2008 10:51 AM

roidubouloi said:

icarus,

Considering the way Hillary pays her bills, one might say that anyone who is an employee is necessarily also a dupe and a stooge.

April 30, 2008 10:57 AM

ironyroad said:

By the way, while we're on the judgment thing -- all presidents have shown lapses of judgment, both before taking office and after.  Indeed the current administration's cosmic lapse of judgment could be the worst in modern American history.  The thing is to admit it to the degree possible (Obama is more honest about that than most) and learn from it.

Has Hillary really shown that she has learned from her misjudgments?  Does McCain even realize that he often seems to have no sense of where he's at?  And could there be a day on which any of the above wouldn't be showing sharper judgment skills than the current incumbent?

April 30, 2008 11:27 AM

jforstad said:

Perhaps Obama's choice of Trinity over other available churches was not cynical, but it seems likely to me that the first, cynical theory still prevails. He chose to become involved in a black church for political credibility on the local level. As an aspiring politician, his secular/athiest upbringing was a liability, and it was politically wise to embrace Christianity. It's interesting now that he may be brought down by the cynical bargain that got him in the door to start. Memebership at Trinity enabled his local political career, but may doom his presidential aspirations. At least it seems clear that Obama was not plotting a course to the presidency from the start. If he was, it's hard to imagine how did not foresee that Wright's "radical worldview" would one day pose a problem for him.

April 30, 2008 11:40 AM

GSpinks said:

jemerk: it is mentioned in the book Audacity of Hope, and in several interviews and maybe even a commercial or two. Obama first discovered TUCC and Rev Wright while working as a community organizer in chicago. Obama has said that Wright helped him find God at TUCC, but never really talked about how.

r-brown: it is not that Obama is a whimp; he wants to show that he is a better candidate than Hillary by discussing the issues and the facts, not be drawn into debates about flag-pins and other banalities. McCain understands this, and is either preparing to go back on his word and start up the Republican attack machine or get trounced when it comes time to debate Obama over policies.

Obama wants to give us the opportunity to choose a candidate based on policies, not partisan assault capabilities. To debate policies, not which politician knows more criminals or abortionists or whatever the stigma is for the week. This is what draws a lot of people to Obama; I've been waiting for an opportunity to decide on a candidate I liked more, rather than a candidate i hate least, or just going down the democrat side of the ballot checking boxes.

But don't confuse his decency for weakness. He showed he was more than capable of taking off the gloves at the end of the PA primary. He was running some doozies and  bouncing Hillary off the ropes; of course, America does not want to see a woman get pummeled like that, and it cost him the undecided votes.

April 30, 2008 11:43 AM

dlrocdoc said:

anonevent, regarding McCain:  McCain is not a member of Hagee's church; he didn't choose Hagee as his pastor.  Equating McCain/Hagee to Obama/Wright isn't legit.  

I'm sure McCain will collect more than a few looney endorsements.  For goodness sakes, Hamas is on record as supporting Obama; no one in their right mind thinks that makes Obama pro-Hamas.  

www.powerlineblog.com/.../020315.php  

April 30, 2008 2:17 PM

roidubouloi said:

r-brown,

I agree with you.  The "whiff of pacifism" is what hangs over Obama's campaign.  It may be rather silly to suppose that rhetorically fighting a political campaign in the very safe United States is somehow a rational proxy for the ability to take on enemies, foreign and domestic, but that's how this works.  Even McCain the war hero was blown up by Bush when he did not counter-attack viciously the smears thrown at him by Bush, however outlandish they were.  The not so subliminal message was that McCain, whatever he may have done in Vietnam as a young man, is not the guy you want out front of you in the worldwide knife fight.

Gspinks,

Obama's leads in next Tuesday's primaries are fading or disappearing altogether.  Now would be a nice time to take off those gloves again and bounce Hillary around but good.  

April 30, 2008 2:18 PM

dlrocdoc said:

Noam, "Why'd Obama Join Trinity in the First Place?" really isn't an important question, although I think you answered it quite thoughtfully.  

When Obama joined the church, what was it, 10, 20 years ago?---it was a completely different time, place, and context.  

The question of importance today is why Obama chose to stay as Wright morphed into the pastor we've come to know all too well these past 2-3 months.  Was it for political expediency?  Lethargy?  Or (unlike Oprah, who looks awfully wise for having bailed out on Wright years ago), did Obama continue to feel comfortable with the direction Wright was heading?

I'd like to see your analysis of that one.  

April 30, 2008 3:50 PM

dlrocdoc said:

roidubouloi, and in the past 3 days, Obama's lead over McCain in the RCP general election poll has gone from being ahead by 2% to being minimally behind.  Real damage has been done here.  

April 30, 2008 3:53 PM

mghogwild said:

"We are a nation of Homer Simpsons pretending that we are all Ned Flanders."  Great line blackton.

April 30, 2008 4:27 PM

purcellneil said:

blackton,

You say you don't care about the candidate's religion, and I wonder at that.  After all, we are now coming to the close of a presidency that was heavily influenced by the president's religion.  Even John Danforth, the former Republican Senator from Missouri, decried the extent to which the GOP has become a religious political party and in effect the political wing of dominionist evangelical christianity (Texas-style).

It is the success of the Bush-Rove exploitation of religion that led so many Democrats to begin testifying to the importance of faith in their lives.  The sanctimonious pandering was hard to take, but it was deadly serious politics.  Even that pagan John McCain has been pandering to the religious, adopting Mr Hagee as an ambassador to the religious right.

The Catholic Church, which since the time of JFK had been careful about politics, jumped into the 2004 campaign to attack John Kerry.  Perhaps the saddest indication of how far we have fallen from an ideal of church-state separation.

Poor Mitt Romney - even after publicly declaring his love for Jesus, he was rejected by suspicious christians.  Subject to the same prejudice faced by Kennedy in 1960, Romney was unable to make the same speech Kennedy had - things have changed so much he had to assure his doubtful audience that he actually shared their beliefs.  Had he converted on the spot from Mormonism it would have been only a shade more jarring than his pathetic and unconvincing assurances of his essentially christian faith.  

We all remember Reverend Huckabee's campaign - especially that commercial with the cross to remind you who the real christian in the race was.  Nice touch, that.

So now Barack Obama - my candidate - gets tripped up by his lunatic pastor and we're not supposed to notice?  Obama, who was not a religious person at all till he met Wright and has been a member of Wright's church ever since he took up the faith (possibly for political reasons)?  In short, what I want to know is why it is okay to play politics with your religion when it works for you, but any downside ramifications are not okay at all?

I would rather know nothing at all about a candidate's religion, but if religion and politics are going to mix as heavily as they do in America today, then anything is fair game.

When Jimmy Carter mentioned he had been born again, he was criticized all over the place for injecting religion into politics.  Those were the good old days, but as they say, that was then.

Today, we have to look closely at a candidate's religious belief, practice and values.  If in the end we conclude he is a faker like McCain, we can give it a rest.  It's the true believers we have to worry about.

Just like in Iran, after whom we have modeled ourselves.

April 30, 2008 4:41 PM

roidubouloi said:

Yup, dl, real damage is being done.  And it is far too simple to attribute it all or primarily to Wright.  Wright occurs within the frame that Obama has allowed Hillary to create for him "out of touch, elite, not read for prime time."  The only effective response to "framing" is to out-frame.  If you win the framing contest, you win.  Defense is not enough.

April 30, 2008 4:48 PM

ironyroad said:

roi -- that "knife-fight" thing is odd because on two occasions, 2000 and 2004, Bush, who never went to Vietnam, beat two opponents who had served there.  Gore's experience was minimal, so that didn't really count, but Kerry was a threat, so the Swift Boaters had to be called up.

On the other side, Bush 41 had a substantial flyer's record from WW2, but was beaten by Clinton, who not only didn't go to Vietnam but also had a draft-dodger/refusal problem.

The current situation is odd because, although people want to know that there's someone in the White House who can take forceful action if needed, there's now also a deep-seated suspicion out there of people who simply assert competence in military or strategic affairs as the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis did, and then screw up mightily.

To that extent, it may not be so difficult for Obama, especially as McCain's tendency to unpredictability and veering off-target is going to offer an advantage to the opponent.  Assuming Obama survives the current crisis and lives to fight on, what he has to do is make Americans comfortable with the kind of cool, considered, in-control vibe that he gives off.

It's just him, and it's ok, but he has to let people get used to it.  Maybe I'm optimistic but I have the feeling that this could be an election -- finally -- about intelligence, and not empty posturing.

April 30, 2008 4:49 PM

roidubouloi said:

Irony,

I think you over-estimate the American public and the disastrous effect that the Reaganized political culture has had on the American people.  With Reagan, and enchantment with ridiculous fantasies, from the Laffer curve, to supply-side economics, to Star Wars, displaced our previously hard-headed grasp of reality.

I'm not sure I made my point well enough.  Objectively, it is ridiculous to take the ability and willingness to be, let's say, Karl Rovian in a political battle as a proxy for the ability and willingness to deal effectively with America's enemies.  But in the kabuki theatre that our politics has become, I believe that this in fact happens.  I mean, really, is Hillary Clinton "tough" because she can dish out the sort of dirt that the Republicans have heaped on her?  Was George Bush an effective commander in chief because he could kneecap both McCain and Kerry in a political fight?  Indeed, as you point out, both McCain and Kerry actually served quite honorably in Vietnam.  You would think that this sort of thing would be impossible.  But they did it to Max Cleland too.

So, let's just leave reality behind here, because, since Ronald Reagan, the Republican party has left reality behind and a very large part of the American people has gone on the trip.  Forget about having an actual war record or being an actual war hero.  Forget about being someone who avoided service attacking someone who served.  None of that matters.  It is about the ability to hang a frame around the neck of your opponent.  If you do it successfully, then you are in control.  You are then able to characterize all sorts of irrelevancies as being more "evidence" that the frame is the truth.  

Of course, the most astonishing success with this was the Swift-boat attacks, which is why Swift-boating is now the word used to describe it, like zipper for a slide fastener or Kleenex for a tissue.  In the summer of 2004, Kerry was gaining on Bush precisely because of his military cred.  So Rove took dead aim at it with an objectively absurd campaign of lies.  But when Kerry did not respond, it stuck.  I have said for years that if someone had run ads saying this,

"Why is George Bush lying about John Kerry's heroic service in Vietnam?  Because Bush is a coward whose daddy got him  jumped over the waiting list into the Texas Air National Guard so that he could avoid a war he claimed to believe in.  So that someone else could go in his place.  Then, after the government spent a million dollars training him, he went AWOL, failing to show up for his flight physical and losing his flight status.  We can't win the war against terrorism with a coward in the White House."

Kerry would have won.

The problem is that in a framing battle, it doesn't work to just fend off the frame ("out of touch" "elitist" "not ready to be commander in chief"  "not tough enough") that your opponent is trying to hang around your neck.  You have to frame your opponent successfully:

"Why is Hillary Clinton engaging in the dirty politics of Karl Rove?  Because, next to George Bush, she is the most unpopular public figure in America.  According to ABC New and the Washington Post, independent journalists, 54% of the American public has an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton.  That's the highest disapproval rating she has ever had.  58% of the American public thinks she is untrustworthy.  Also a record.  Since she began running for president, it's only gotten worse.  Hillary Clinton is claiming that she can win the presidential election for the Democratic party.  But she has to explain to Democrats how she's going to do that when a clear majority of Americans already distrust her and don't like her -- and the general election campaign hasn't even begun yet.

To get us out of the mess made by George Bush and the Republican party, we don't need to bring Republican campaign tactics to the Democratic party.  United, we can win.  Divided by Republican-style campaigning, we can't."

He can make a frame out of Bill's weathermen pardons and her hypocrisy.  Out of her donors and her earmarks.  There's plenty of material to portray Hillary as a conniving, dishonest, self-serving pol from the old school.  But so far, Obama won't.

I said a while ago that Obama needs only two things to win the presidential election:  truthy economic proposals (not truthful of course, the public would never stand for the truth) and a ready willingness and ability to respond to Swift-boating when it comes.  So far, we have real economic proposals instead of truthy ones that the public can suck up and not much of a response to Hillary's framing.

April 30, 2008 6:05 PM

jemerk said:

Obviously I must read the book.  Just like it is a good idea to read On the Origin of Species before spouting on Darwin.

April 30, 2008 8:02 PM

ChanRobt said:

Annabella2, I like you because you are both passionate and fairminded.  Your voice reminds me a bit of Peggy Noonan, though not as emotionally carried away.

Your report on your attendance at services at Trinity Church is quite intriguing.  I have no doubt that the good Rev Wright is entertaining.  I have no doubt that he is canny and smart.

But, his bushels of promulgated ideas that are in equal weight inflammatory and stupid--and worst sin--unoriginal, argues strongly against him being characterized as an "intellectual".

Now maybe their is a preponderance of other evidence that he is a font of ideas.  Then maybe we can include him as an intellectual in the way the late Norman Mailer was.

Whatever cerebral prowess he might possess, I'm sure Obama would like him to keep it to himself for the duration.

April 30, 2008 9:00 PM

ironyroad said:

roi -- yes, I agree, I wasn't disputing your central point, that the rhetoric of positioning (active and passive) has become the governing force in presidential election campaigns.

But, nevertheless, look at America:  the numbers speak.  Bush's approval ratings the lowest since the Russians were asked whether they thought Rasputin should do more baby-sitting for the Tsarina.

This suggests that people want something different, or at least they don't want what they have, which is not quite the same thing.  They may want to square the circle -- the tough CinC and also the person who will tackle these economic and health care issues fo real.  Obama against McCain is the natural battle, because McCain offers more of the same, except not as crass, and Obama offers something different, but the nature of the difference is uncertain.

Obama is the one who can cash that virtual check that Americans have begun to write out but haven't signed.  They are looking to see what they should do.  They want to know why.  I agree that it's about framing, and it could be true that Obama thought he could get beyond framing and challenge the political culture of the frame.  But how do you deal with Wright?  That's not a frame.  That's a millstone tied to your neck.  Cut it loose.

But I still think, if it's frames, that Obama has to change the frame from one in which blustery declarations are the motif to one in which cool, calm, and underplayed are what voters like.  That's the way he can handle McCain -- respectful, but offering instead of bombastic foreign policy and refusal to face the domestic problems a new style of presidency for the 21st century, one for dangerous times, but also for hopeful times.  He needs to get us -- or as many of us as possible -- to see the world his way.

May 1, 2008 12:51 AM

The Plank said:

First, Reverend Wright went renegade. Dayo Olopade had predicted his meltdown far in advance, and Michelle

May 2, 2008 6:17 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.