Wright and wrong
Even though I am making a reputation for myself as the resident Clintonista, I’ve resisted anything that could be construed as an attack on Senator Obama’s character, because, as some of you know, though he is definitely not my choice for President, I have long been a fan of the junior Senator from Illinois. I am going to have to depart from that caution now and risk such a characterization properly being applied, because I am deeply dissatisifed with the characterization, and the substance, of the Obama-Wright relationship.
Specifically, I often hear Wright referred to as Obama’s “ex” or “former” pastor. Is this accurate? Obama worshipped at his Church for 20 of the last 20 years; Wright was his “spiritual advisor.” Was there, before today, any kind of official “divorce?” A denunciation, a renunciation, a rejection, that I missed?
I remember Obama attempting to distance himself - first by dishonestly denying that he was present in church for the more ridiculous of Wright’s outrageous remarks to have been republished in the mainstream media, and thn when impeached with hs near-perfect attendance for ten decades, a weak denunciation of the position - but not Wright’s right to hold the views or preach them, nor any explanation for why he didn’t dissociate himself from the church or from Wright’s views any sooner. Frankly, it was lame at best.
As readers may be aware, I want to be fair. Spin doctoring is for FNC and its affiliates. Sometimes, though, a fine line must be drawn and I cannot beat around the bush on this. There are serious problems here. The problem is that none of what I’ve heard from Obama before today constitutes the kind of divorce that would justify the characterization. The stern dissociation Obama gave today seems 19 years and a few dozen sundays overdue. What took him so long? (And why is it that I’m the only person not on the Clinton payroll who wants to know?)
I do not want to disparage Obama’s faith or his right to hold fringe (or “unpatriotic”) religious beliefs. But I think it needs no defending that Wright’s lunacy goes well beyond religious belief. Wright’s nonsense is delusional, and dangerous. What saddens me here is that it seems that Obama took no significant action to distance himself from Wright until it became politically necessary. The flipside is that if he truly believes what he now believes, he cannot also satisfactorily explain why he remained in the church for so long without doing what he did today, except to say that it was politically expedient.
These arguments illustrate something I realize, and something many of the smart people on Overbreadth probably realize: Obama is a typical politician. Like a typical politician, he’s capable of associating himself with any group, taking any position, and casting any vote, that seems to help him, or poll well at the time. The only way in which Obama is not just another politician is that he’s better at it than most.
I contrast that reality with one of the myths of Obamania is that he is not a “typical politician,” but some kind of super-species of uniquely virtuous leader - like some democrats imagine Jack and Bobby were. And of course, if that myth can carry the man to the white house, then I’m for it. Some of us know that with respect to Jack and Bobby, it was more myth than reality, but if we found a candidate who could pull off the deception to win, we could live with it, for political expedience we find salutory. However, as I came to several suspect months ago that myth is evaporating it quickly, and so is Obama’s appeal among voters in remaining primary states. In short, I don’t think it’s going to work.
[Disclaimer: None of these remarks should be construed as a denial that Hillary Clinton is any less of a greedy, power-hungry, willing to say-anything or do-anything to win politican. I know exactly what she is.]
19 Responses to “Wright and wrong”
“I often hear Wright referred to as Obama’s “ex” or “former” pastor. Is this accurate?”
Yes. Wright has retired, and had already preached his last sermon at Trinity when the story broke. Therefore, he is an “ex-pastor.”
“I remember Obama attempting to distance himself - first by dishonestly denying that he was present in church for the more ridiculous of Wright’s outrageous remarks to have been republished in the mainstream media. . . .”
Dishonestly? They have video tapes. He wasn’t there for “God-damn America” or “chickens coming home to roost.” General assertions about his good attendance doesn’t really cut it when you’ve got video evidence (also, there’s more than one mass per day).
http://pajamajournalist.com
I am curious where the label “spiritual advisor” came from. I could be wrong, as has happened once or twice, but I think that it is a phrase that FOX began to toss around when they first discovered the Wright tapes. I think it is one of those things that has been said so long people don’t think to dispute it.
I think the term spiritual adviser better suits someone who is called to give council to or pray with, someone who is going through a period of spiritual crisis. Like, say, for instance, when Bill was suffering from the exposure of his affair with Monica. He was having a spiritual crisis so enormous that he called a whole bunch of pastors for advice, even inviting them to the White House. One of those pastors was one Jeremiah Wright. Wouldn’t the logic then follow that Jeremiah Wright was actually Bill Clinton’s Spiritual Adviser?
Since this whole issue is about guilt by association, perhaps we should examine Billary’s associations. I think there are far more meaty stories there. Maybe you have inspired me to dig a bit.
http://mattoflamancha.blogspot.com
Deborah,
FNC is good for inducing vomiting and little else. Since recovering from my struggles with bulimia, I have not had much use for it, so I doubt I got the label from them.
Seriously though, I was under the impression that it came from an Obama press-release after his first speech about Wright. I could be mistaken. Please post what you learn. If it’s Fox propagandizing, I don’t want to be repeating it.
As for whether Wright was Clinton’s “spiritual advisor” too - isn’t there a bit of a difference between a few moments’ counsel and a politically savvy photo op on the one hand, and twenty years of routine attendance in a ministry on the other? I don’t think this is your best defense.
http://overbreadth.com
Couple points:
There was some momentary scandal as witnesses popped up claiming that, contrary to his claim, Obama was in attendance for the “God Damn America” sermon. The witness report was published in some conservative publications, along with the statement that Obama was nodding along with Wright and, I dunno, raping a little girl in the bathroom afterwards. The story didn’t get much traction, however, because Obama was delivering a speech in Miami that day.
As for the handling of Wright, my personal view is that Obama’s handling of the situation has been anything but “typical.” Typically, when an acquaintance of a politician is vilified by the press (deservedly or not), the typical politician “throws them under the bus.” Rather than play distraction politics, Obama tried make something positive out of the situation by elevating it to a discussion of the real frustrations in America relating to racial politics.
But when the Wright sequel came out (should we name it after Batman? “The Dark Wright”?), Reverend Wright left him no options. As Obama said at the press conference, there wasn’t any way to make something positive for Americans out of Wright’s statements on Monday. They were just hateful.
I’m very nervous about what Wright will say next, but confident it will be something egotistical and stupid. It’s unfortunate that Obama has to campaign against folks like Wright and Bill Clinton, McCain and Hillary, but the fact that he’s able to do so and still lead in national polls impresses me.
http://www.matthewfunk.net/blog
Two things I’m curious about:
1. If Obama refrained from severing ties with a man he’d known for 20 years, and who brought him to the social gospel, until way past when it would be politically expedient, how does that make him “a typical politician?”
All political good sense demanded Obama ditch the man who made the compassion of Christ resonate with him back in fall ‘07, but not until now did he act.
Why not brand him as a miscreant while still trying to take support from him, like Hillary did with Peter Paul? Or Romney did with Larry Craig? Are they then ‘atypical’ politicians?
2. I believe Wright was Obama’s spiritual mentor. I believe Wright acts pretty damn kooky from time to time, and says the kinds of things usually restricted to Pacifica radio listeners and Noam Chomsky fanatics. This having been said, do you think Wright’s offensive comments were typical of what his Sunday sermons over the last 20 years were?
Do you think Oprah, most community social services groups in Chicago and prominent Church leaders the country over embraced him because every Sunday he’d come up with Lone Gunman theories about AIDS?
If not, how can you say that the people close to Wright are “disappointing” when they refuse to let 20 years of reasons to love him be defined by 2 minutes of reasons to hate him?
http://lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/
“The witness report was published in some conservative publications, along with the statement that Obama was nodding along with Wright and, I dunno, raping a little girl in the bathroom afterwards. The story didn’t get much traction, however, because Obama was delivering a speech in Miami that day.”
Bill Kristol actually reported this in The New York Times, based on a Newsmax article he had read, and had to retract it due to its falseness. If there are two laws of journalism, they should be: (1) Don’t quote Wikipedia, and (2) Don’t quote Newsmax.
http://pajamajournalist.com
“Seriously though, I was under the impression that it came from an Obama press-release after his first speech about Wright. I could be mistaken. Please post what you learn. If it’s Fox propagandizing, I don’t want to be repeating it.”
Your kidding right? Since /you/ are the one that used the term, I would think that /you/ should be the one to figure out where you got it from.
If your just repeating what has been repeated over and over again in the media, and using it as evidence that Obama is acting dishonestly, I think the onus is on you to figure out where the term came from or at least why you used it.
I’ll do my research, you do yours. Let me know what you find out.
http://mattoflamancha.blogspot.com
I must admit, I don’t know what a typical sunday sermon of Wright’s was like, but if I heard just one which had gems like, “the U.S. government spreads AIDS to thin out the black population,” I probably wouldn’t stick around to find out, would you?
Although his sermons lack credibility with me, Wright’s comments about Obama make too much sense to discount. Wright is truly committed to his delusions, so I really doubt that the church changed. What changed was Obama’s political needs.
Obama’s strange relationship with the church typifies a political operator. He hangs out there when it gets him closer to his constituency. Every would-be politican knows you need to have a religious congregation to support you - preferably a large one.
But while it may have helped in local politics, when it got him bad publicity in the national campaign, Obama showed tremendous backbone by standing up and affirming his faith and his relationship with Wright. Oh wait, no he didn’t. He did what any Capitol Hill invertebrate would do: he tried to sweept it under the rug.
But of course, like the proverbial intern-in-the-Resolute, it just doesn’t go away. The bad publicity can’t be outrun. So he acts like he’s at odds with the church.
Sure he is now. Now that it’s politically necessary. Now that it’s convenient. Convenient faith is a trite ploy.
http://mattoflamancha.blogspot.com
Earlier today, Michelle Malkin wrote something very similar to my posting (and subsequent comments). Here’s a link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_undisownable_preacher_o.html
http://overbreadth.com
You’re referring to the Michelle Malkin who launched a baseless smear campaign against a twelve-year-old? link.
http://mattoflamancha.blogspot.com
“Baseless?” “Smear campaign?” Oh, DailyKos…
Yes, that Malkin - hey, even a blind hog sometimes finds an acorn.
http://www.micahfk.com/blog
The same Malkin that said the imprisonment of Japanese during WWII was acceptable…
…yeah, I tend to stay away from sermons, I meant blogs when I hear something like that.
http://lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/
Your main point aside, citing to Michelle Malkin doesn’t help to bolster your claims. She gets outraged over such small things and has no sense of proportion. Here is a video of her berating two consenting adults simply for running an Internet pornography site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhqK3CQuHyc
Also, just for some perspective, we’re currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the country is $9 trillion in debt, Congress is debating how best to stem foreclosures and retool our farm policies, food riots are breaking out all over the world, millions of people don’t have health care, McCain recently proposed that we drop Russia from G8, social security won’t be solvent in a decade, our tax policies are up for renewal in two years, etc. I know that this is a blog discussion about a narrow topic, but sometimes it helps to take a step back and acknowledge how small an issue this is in the grand scheme of American politics.
http://mattoflamancha.blogspot.com
I guess it should be less excited about beating her to press with the concept.
However, I am not going to berate myself over it too much - we’re not alone in our concerns. RCP also gave American Thinker blogger Richard Baehr a forum for roughly similar concepts: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_wright_turn.html
And also in the ballpark, but playing a different angle, is Dick Morris, former advisor to Trent Lott (paragon of virtue that he is/they are): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_opportunity.html
The New York Post just wants to turn it into a highlight from Mel Brooks’s “The Producers:” http://www.nypost.com/seven/04302008/news/nationalnews/rev_enge_is_sweet_for_betrayed_pastor_108791.htm
http://lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/
For a Clinton supporter, you sure do cite a lot of trashy conservative sources (I’m not saying that all conservative sources are trashy - but Michelle Malkin, NewsMax, and The New York Post certainly are). Also, what is your point in citing them? Just to point out that there are like minds out there on the Rev. Wright issue?
http://mattoflamancha.blogspot.com
I would hardly call them “citations” - doesn’t that imply I somehow relied upon them? None were published, to the best of my knowledge, when I blogged. They’ve appeared subsequently, and they do, as you indicate, show a trend that my thinking on this is comparable to Conservative blabbermouths, a fact from which I cannot, on this issue, distance myself.
http://www.micahfk.com/blog
“For a Clinton supporter, you sure do cite a lot of trashy conservative sources (I’m not saying that all conservative sources are trashy - but Michelle Malkin, NewsMax, and The New York Post certainly are). Also, what is your point in citing them? Just to point out that there are like minds out there on the Rev. Wright issue?”
One small editing fix on my part:
Michelle Malkin is a reactionary, not a conservative. So, I would like to submit to the floor that Matt is taking some from the reactionaries as well.
http://mattoflamancha.blogspot.com
Well, a truly Clintonista attitude might be summed up in a rhetorical question such as, “why does it require conservatives to get to the heart of the issue?”
This is not the last of my thoughts on the matter - I am going to present a very different theory a little later on.
http://mattoflamancha.blogspot.com
Susan Estrich has joined my party (the
“What took so long?” party)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/judgment_and_character.html
What ad hominems do we have in store for her?
Discussion