March 15, 2008
Jeremiah Wright
Will the storm over Jeremiah Wright seriously hurt Obama’s campaign–and ought it to? This is no trumped-up attack, easy to dismiss. (So much for the Clintons playing the race card.) The video clip that has attracted most attention expresses rage against whites and contempt for the country that Obama is asking to lead. Wright is not another Farrakhan–somebody Obama barely knows and whose endorsement he would rather not have. Wright has been Obama’s spiritual mentor for many years: “The Audacity of Hope” is Wright’s phrase, chosen for Obama’s book as a homage to the man who coined it.
Here is Obama’s response: first his statement on the subject, then an interview he gave to Fox.
Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.
Obama does all right in the interview. (It is good that he laughs at one point at the questioner’s comically portentous and inquisitorial demeanour. I thought that was funny too.) But does he bury the issue? By no means. His claim in the interview and in the statement that most of Wright’s anger and (in my view) bigotry comes as news to him is just not credible. Tactically speaking, that is a transparent evasion, and will keep the problem alive.
But what I most want to know is why the Obama we thought we knew could hold this man in such esteem. Perhaps it is just a matter of loyalty to a father-figure, flaws and all–which is both understandable and, up to a point, admirable. But does Wright’s bitter resentment in fact resonate with Obama, despite all appearances to the contrary? That is a question that will trouble a lot of less-than-fully-invested Obama supporters.
A subsidiary question–one I have been asking of myself–is why the most recent Wright videos seemed to come as such a shock, when neither Obama’s close links to the pastor nor the preacher’s views about the ongoing evil of white America were any secret. Here is an interesting take on that from Politico:
The fracas started Thursday morning, when ABC’s “Good Morning America” ran a Brian Ross expose on Wright that included old video of him saying: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God bless America’? No, no, no. Not God bless America. God [expletive] America.”
On Friday night, there was Leno on NBC’s “Tonight Show” joshing: “McCain was running so fast from President Bush, he ran into Barack Obama, who was running from his minister.”
The story had burst onto the radar screen of average Americans with as much velocity as any other story during the 2008 campaign.
Political reporters and editors were inundated with e-mails from red-state friends and relatives wanting to know why the brouhaha wasn’t getting more instant and constant coverage from every news outlet.
To reporters who had followed the campaign, it was an old, oft-written story. But this time it had video of Wright saying things like “U.S. of K.K.K.A.,” available on YouTube and played endlessly by cable news channels.
Let’s see, Obama appears to oppose earmarks, but he votes for the Bridge to Nowhere. Obama appears to want to change lobbying, but he used ADM’s corporate jet. Obama appears to be a bi-partisan unifier, but has one of the most partisan voting records in the Senate. (aside: Obama appears to be a non-smoker, yet enjoys burning a cancer stick now and then)
So Clive Crook asks
“But does Wright’s bitter resentment in fact resonate with Obama, despite all appearances to the contrary?”
maybe we can notice a pattern.
Posted by: John Powers | March 15th, 2008 at 8:49 pm | Report this commentObama, though only half-Black, strongly empathises with the African-American community. Some of the cultural strands in this community are reminiscent of Islamist self-victimisation and envy and hatred of the west. That is why a candidate like Jesse Jackson could not have been a credible candidate for the majority of Americans. With Obama, liberals were deluding themselves that the perfect Black candidate had arrived: a figure who would purge them of their feelings of guilt, while at the same time allowing them go on with their comfortable segregated lifestyles. But it was not to be so: even before this incident it had been reported that Obama’s wife had stated that America was not a country she could be proud of.
Many African Americans harbour a deep resentment towards the White majority. Through his marriage, Obama chose early on to associate himself with certain voices in the Black community today. Obama is no Nelson Mandela; more like Thabo Mbeki with his instinctive support for Robert Mugabe.
Posted by: RCS | March 15th, 2008 at 9:07 pm | Report this commentMany African Americans I have spoken with in the 7th ward harbour a deep resentment towards Barack Obama, for his affordable housing shennanigans, support for rotten schools, and driving away Wal-Mart from the South Side.
Chicago may still vote for Sen. Obama, but don’t think that voting for someone in Illinois is the same as supporting him.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 15th, 2008 at 10:50 pm | Report this commentIf Obama were Al Sharpton in disguise, wouldn’t his record reflect this by now? Is there any evidence from his time in the Illinois state legislature or in the U.S. Senate that he is a black nationalist or is full of hatred for the white oppressor?
There are some black elected officials of this stripe, though not many. Maxine Waters, Cynthia McKinney and Bobby Rush come to mind. Obama tried to unseat the latter. Do you think it was because Rush wasn’t anti-white enough?
RCS, Obama is a liberal Democrat. That’s hardly a secret. But he hopes to persuade some centrists to follow him, to build a broader coaltion. You may disagree, but there’s nothing sinister or hidden there.
He smokes, or used to smoke, or quit smoking and may or may not start again. Whatever. Nothing sinister there, either.
It seems that he wanted to become part of the black community in Chicago, and used Trinity Church as part of that. That probably means he has some respect for Rev. Wright’s angry outlook, without sharing it. Such things happen fairly often.
Now if you had some evidence, from Obama’s own actions or even his words, that would be different.
Posted by: Hal | March 15th, 2008 at 11:50 pm | Report this commentWhen former US President Jimmy Carter, after 65 years of being a member of the Southern Baptist Church (SBC), found the preachings of the SBC offensive, he left it. When Obama heard about the preachings of “G*d Da*n America” Jeremiah Wright, he did nothing…that is until he was forced to do something because it was politically expedient to do so. The difference between the two approaches is starkly apparent: Carter acted out of faith, while Obama acted opportunistically to save his presidential bid.
But this not a new thing for Obama. In fact, the typical modus operandi is for Obama to change his tune whenever it is politically convenient to do so. A blog in The Chicago Sun Times noted that, “This is Obama’s third ethical conversion of convenience—taking on a higher standard, but only when it appears to be politically expedient”, “ citing: (1) a reversal on subsidized rides on corporate jets, the very week Obama became the lead Senate Democrat on ethics in January 2006; (2) a reversal on accepting donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees for his House and Senate races and his own Hopefund political action committee when Obama launched his presidential campaign in February 2007; and (3) refusal to disclose earmarks for years prior to 2007.
Finally, Obama just revealed in an interview with the Chicago Tribune that indicted Chicago real estate developer, Antoin Rezko, donated more money to Obama’s campaign than previously disclosed, and that Obama had made repeated lapses of judgment in dealing with Rezko. The timing of these disclosuree is awfully convenient since all of it would have come out during Rezko’s trial on corruption charges that is now under way in Chicago, in any event. All in all, another opportunistic move made by Obama to save his hide.
So much for hope and change. It’s politics as usual. With tarnished image, Obama is merely a mortal politician, though one with undeniable flair and a gift for gab.
Relevant links below.
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/10_23/pages/carter.html
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_column_obamas_politicall.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obama-rezkomar15,0,2968927.story
Posted by: Ann H | March 16th, 2008 at 3:00 am | Report this commentMore irony from the Obama camp as reported in the Huffington Post: “Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday decried “the forces of division” over race that he said are intruding into the Democratic presidential nomination contest.” Apparently Obama is now concerned about racial division, though doesn’t think about such things when he is sitting in church and listening to the racial hatred spewed by his pastor Jeremiah Wright.
As to why it’s taken so long to discover the true nature of Obama, I would say the media (including you, Mr. Crook) turned off its critical faculties in its love fest with Obama, in much the same way it gave a pass to Bush II in the 2000 election and in the run-up to the Iraq war. In short, Mr. Obama hoodwinked and bamboozled you.
Posted by: Ann H | March 16th, 2008 at 3:43 am | Report this comment1 SPIRITUAL ADVISOR AND FATHER FIGURE: a racist.
2 WIFE: “could never be proud of America”–unless her husband is President.
If Sen McCain is guilty by association with the incumbent President from the same Party, and Sen Clinton is guilty by association with the ex-President from the same marriage, why isn’t Sen Obama similarly guilty?
Posted by: HKLivingston, 26, investment banker | March 16th, 2008 at 4:02 am | Report this commentWe are living a strange and absurd time during this campaign. How come the idea that Barack would support a racist diary against Whites? Barack’s mother was white. Barack father was black. He is the real symbol of Unity among different cultures. Please, let come back to a real ideas debate on economic and political issues instead of such distraction…
Posted by: Joseph | March 16th, 2008 at 5:44 am | Report this commentMr. Crook,
Bravo for a breathtakingly honest facing of a REAL problem for the Senator from the South Side.
Now, how could/would/should Hillary take advantage of this? It is her last, best shot to make her case that the man is only a politician, and as such has not had been assessed by the criteria applied to her. Consider the options:
1. The high road. Yea right.
2. Hillary could say ( sort of ) : “Well, it seems to me folks, that i have been sort of kind of hinting about the issues of Concerns, well, you know concerns resulting from INEXPERIENCEracialadvisors. ( one word for Hill!).
3. Probable choice: the political suicide of the month club. Continue to get different would be staffers, campaign-what-nots volunteer to commit “hari-kari” by bringing up the “totally inappropriate claim that Obama’s racist minister disqualifies him on the grounds of …. You got it folks: JUDGEMENT. Then Hillary fires them and takes the - quick, but very temporary retreat to the high road. Then churn the mix, get volunteers, and a new selection once the other is “fired” repeats the process until it really stinks.
Too Machiavellian? Not for our Riotgrrrrl. The Florentine said those most successful through Fortune stand most at risk to a reversal. It is the speed of the seizing of the opportunity that counts. You Go Girl!
Posted by: Jay B | March 16th, 2008 at 6:12 am | Report this commentWhat is matter in this racial ad is “confusion and distraction”, not Judgement or lack of experience… There is a confusion between preach and a political advice. There is confusion between spirituality and politics… the relation between Barack and Pastor Wright was a spiritual one, not political. When Barack or McCain is the President of the USA, he is the President of all Americans with their beliefs and convictions, with their past and future, most of all, with the legacy of their history… So Barack is not running for the Presidency of a Platonic country, which has never known racial tensions! Remember Lincoln, remember Dr. Martin Luther King. They were not fictions figures.
Now let come back to what is matter in this campaign. The Country needs an inspiring Vision led by Judgement to deal with issues and challenges the country is facing. And Barack is the Candidate who is convincing voters across all lines and racial frontiers that he will spread this Vision as President. That is the meaning of the mobilization of Americans during this election…
Posted by: Cixi | March 16th, 2008 at 6:46 am | Report this commentWith the Fox News “interview” (inquisition) of Barack Obama, it is clear that the old right wing game of smearing black politicians as anti-American is now underway in earnest, with Senator Obama as the latest target. Martin Luther King, it should be remembered, was widely vilified and persecuted by his enemies (especially by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover) as a “Communist” and “agitator”. There is simply not the slightest shred of evidence that Senator Obama holds any of Jeremiah Wright’s obnoxious views, or ever has. At the most, Senator Obama may have been lax in not throwing Mr. Wright overboard sooner, but has Senator McCain thrown Prsident Bush, who has done far more damage to America than an almost unknown, intemperate preacher whose influence on Barack Obama’s policies has been exactly zero, overboard?
When has Senator McCain ever said that he will refuse support from anti-immigrant bigots, Wall Street CEO’s who are running our economy into the ground while pocketing multi-million dollar bonuses, oil and defense companies that have so much to gain from our continued presence in Iraq, and neocon hawks who are pushing for yet another Middle East war? To the contrary, he is actively courting these interests (and seems unable to disentangle himself completely from of their lobbyists).
Who is the greater danger to the economic well-being of the avarage American and the political freedoms of all of us? Jeremiah Wright, or Bush/Cheney and what President Eisenhower once called the “military-industrial complex” that has brought us the Iraq war, growing poverty, an unprecedented assault on democracy, and, very possibly, the prospect of a financial meltdown that may rival that of the 1930’s?
And when will John McCain make it clear that he will not accept the support, should it ever be forthcoming, of far right voices of hate such as Rush Limbough.
What is most disheartening about Clive Crook’s latest blog is that, instead of discussing the real issues in the campaign, which he is so well qualified to do, he is apparently choosing to go along with Fox News and the other right wing media that are, as usual, turning the entire presidential campaign into a huge circus, to the detriment of the great majority of Americans who are upset and outraged over the status quo.
The American people, far from being stupid enough to be distracted by this nonsense over a few statements from a minor preacher whom most of us have never heard of and who has no national significance, want to see a debate over the real issues facing this country, not merely more contrived celebrity style pap put out by the same interests that have the most to lose from the fair and open discussion that would be taking place if America were a real democracy.
Posted by: algasema | March 16th, 2008 at 2:58 pm | Report this commentI would like to correct two typos in the above post: “underway” should have read “under way” in the first sentence, and there should have been a question mark after “Rush Limbough”. My apologies once again.
Posted by: algasema | March 16th, 2008 at 3:04 pm | Report this commentI also see that I misspelled “President Bush”. I will not speculate on which unconscious reasons may have led me to do so.
Posted by: algasema | March 16th, 2008 at 3:44 pm | Report this commentIs this a distraction? Maybe. But since this newspaper is specifically about financial times, this blog entry isn’t really a distraction, per se.
Race in America needs to be talked about, nationally. Specifically the black/white 2 America’s. Obama was supposed to be a uniter, in many upper-class and “educated” whites’ minds who supported Obama at the start. This idea of uniting the black/white 2 America’s is a very noble one. IMO, it can only be done by the democratic party, who represents the gamut of the US consumers (from A to Z).
At the same time, the black communities vote for him just because he chose to anchor himself in the black culture, which was obviously predicted. It’s up to black America to explain that, IMO. White Americans need to listen.
Going back to whether or not this is the distraction that we all know is happening. An administration that makes consumers “feel” good while they’re pinching pennies and getting screwed by the very government that’s inspiring them is a solution, but it’s just wrong. Talk about hoodwinked.
Posted by: ft_subscriber | March 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pm | Report this commentDear algasema,
Obama’s association with Rev. Wright is not something which can be easily discounted: over the years he has probably heard many many sermons of the type that eventually trickled down to YouTube –yet he chose to remain at that church.
Obama has very clearly chosen to associate himself with the downtrodden Black minority, and I salute him for this: it is a noble position to have taken, especially since he is not unambiguously African-American (for apart from being part-White, his African roots lie in east Africa, while ‘African-American’ usually denotes of west African origin). However, this also means he cannot be president, since he hails from a very clearly anti-American milieu.
I sense a bit of desperation in your writing, and from your point of view rightly so: Obama is ultimately as unelectable as Goldwater or McGovern.
Posted by: RCS | March 16th, 2008 at 5:07 pm | Report this comment“However, this also means he cannot be president, since he hails from a very clearly anti-American milieu” RCS. What is the meaning of the “ANTI-AMERICANISM”???? Is it to be critical? Is it to agree that inter-racial relation in America can be better as Dr Martin Luther King suggested in his Dream which has become the ideal American Dream in the World? Is it to claim that Every Human Beings are equal in Rights? Is it to defend the Freedom as the Essence of the foundation of the Human Dignity as Lincoln did? Is it to claim that the Democracy as the Government of People by the People must guide the principle of governance of Human society as defined by the USA founders… If all these mean ANTI-AMERICANISM, than Barack would not be eligible as the President of the USA…
In my sense, America is a Light and a Model in the human history, not because of the contradictions of its society, but because of the Principles that had founded its Country and help Americans to deal with these contradictions for a Peace living, and for Prosperity for every body. Barack is now the candidate who inspires this Greatness of the American Ideal as well described by Alexis de Tocqueville… As an external observer, I would be pleased to come back the presidential campaign in the way of the Greatness of the American Dream…
Posted by: Joseph | March 16th, 2008 at 6:24 pm | Report this comment“[Obama] hails from a very clearly anti-American milieu”. Is this RCS’s way of saying that the Illinois Senator is black? If so, this sounds like a pretty desperate comment to me.
Posted by: algasema | March 16th, 2008 at 6:43 pm | Report this commentFace it. Obama blew it. Even if all the rationalizations put forth by the Obama supporters are true (and they are quite good at rationalization), Obama has already cost the Democrats the general election this fall, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination.
Hillary’s in a bind–at present, she cannot comment on Wright given the tense state of affairs in the Democratic Party. Should she secure the Democratic nomination, the Republicans will pounce on her for not condemning Wright, as they are now doing. Either way, Hillary loses.
As to Obama, the Republicans are going to run this Wright video clip on a daily basis, turning off a large portion of the electorate in the process, including Reagan Democrats, independents, and moderates. This will ensure a Republican victory in the fall.
Thank you, Obama, for another four years of incompetent Republican rule.
Posted by: Ann H | March 16th, 2008 at 7:41 pm | Report this commentGuilt by associatiion? I think that’s not fair. And to take a sermon out of context makes singular comments seem more extreme than they are.
I think it would be more important to look at the history of african-american churches in the U.S. The arose because of red-lining and segregation. Blacks had to build their own churches because they were not welcome to sit with white congregations.
Some of what Mr. Wright falls in line with what Ron Paul has been saying about the U.S. government over the past 14 months. Except he said ‘we’ as opposed to ‘we white people.’ What’s the difference. There was no outrage by the media then.
It is curious to me that Mike Huckabee’s sermons were never broadcast on primetime news while he was a serious candidate. He was a preacher –from what some may believe to be a radical denomination. He also had a radio show for years. How did this not get aired.
John McCain is supported by 2 radical religious types. One of whom said –either Hagge or Parsley, that hurricane Katrina was god’s judgement on Louisiana.
Posted by: Michelle | March 17th, 2008 at 12:03 am | Report this commentI left out a word in my previous post. ..meant to write:
Some of what Mr. Wright says falls in line with what Ron Paul has been saying about the U.S. government over the past 14 months. Except he said ‘we’ as opposed to ‘we white people.’ What’s the difference. There was no outrage by the media then.
—
Bill Clinton , Mike Huckabee, and Jimmy Carter are Southern Baptists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention
Firey sermons.
Posted by: Michelle | March 17th, 2008 at 12:12 am | Report this commentChurch’s response:
Posted by: Michelle | March 17th, 2008 at 12:18 am | Report this commenthttp://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/obamas-church-b.html
A telling problem with Rev. Wrights sermons is that they seem more spiteful when taken in context than out of context.
As the United Church of Christ generally has a forgiving, conciliatory message, a Pastor spreading malice and bile within the context of Christianity makes his statements all the more divisive.
Posted by: John Powers | March 17th, 2008 at 1:36 am | Report this commentClive,
I have noticed that there is another person who uses the same Identification as “JOSEPH” on the blog. For more transparency and less confusion, I will no longer use my First name JOSEPH for next interventions.
My first comment on your blog was on March 02, 2008; the second one was on March 04, 2008 and I have done 2 interventions today on March 16, 2008 with my First name before this one.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this confusion may occur.
_________________________________
My last word (as Joseph in the blog): American voters know who they need as leader for this crucial moment… There will be many noises to distract and confuse them. But they will choose the right leader for the job… Is this a rationalization point of view? History will tell us.
Thank you.
Posted by: Joseph | March 17th, 2008 at 2:49 am | Report this commentMan is that profound, Joseph.
You’re telling us History can tell us what has happened in the past?
Sort of like Sen. Obama telling us “All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn”…the rhetorical skills of a 1960’s era robot.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 17th, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Report this commentObama’s campaign started cracking just a little over Michelle’s comments. Wright’s fulminations have turned the cracks into fissures. Any more of this kind of stuff will break apart the gilded marble statue that is Obama’s media image.
Posted by: Dave | March 18th, 2008 at 2:33 am | Report this comment[…] my previous post on the Wright affair I called Obama’s first line on the matter–”I wasn’t present when he said […]
Posted by: FT.com | Clive Crook’s blog | Obama’s speech on race | March 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm | Report this commentThe reference, by the media, to the Reverend Wrights’ sermons had me wondering about this aspect of it.
Were all of Reverend Wrights’ sermons taped? If so, why are the hate sermons the only ones we are seeing. If all sermons were taped, why are we not seeing the other sermons as well.
Or, are all of his sermons hate sermons? Surely, according to Sen. Obama, he has delivered lovely, caring and Christian sermons as well.
If these Christian sermons were delivered by Pastor Wright and taped, it would have helped Sen. Obama make the point that his Pastor is what he thinks he is, a loving, caring person.
I for one, would like to see the other sermons that were taped so that I could have a balanced opinion that Sen. Obama is telling the truth about the Reverend Wright.
However, I thought Sen. Obama’s speech was brilliant and clever and I would be very disappointed to find out that Sen. Obama was not truthful about this man.
Good Luck!
Barbara from Smithtown, NY
Posted by: Barbara Salvarezza | March 19th, 2008 at 3:06 pm | Report this comment