April 30, 2008
A new, tougher Obama?
So, he has a killer instinct after all–or at least some limit to his forbearance. Obama’s response yesterday to Jeremiah Wright’s flurry of appearances, and especially to the pastor’s speech at the National Press Club on Monday, was pretty steely. He called what Wright had to say “a bunch of rants”. He said he was disgusted, and looked it. In contrast to his earlier and widely noted speech on race, in which he said he could never repudiate Wright the man, this time he just went ahead and did so.
We shall see whether this works. Wright isn’t going away. His NPC appearance showed that he is a narcissist as well as a racist demagogue, so there will be more. (So much, by the way, for taking his sermon snippets out of context. Wright has embarrassed not just Obama but also many moderate sympathisers who felt the reverend should be cut some slack. When asked about the government conspiracy to spread AIDS among the black population, he did not apologize for getting carried away; he affirmed that this was his view, saying that the government was capable of anything.) Perhaps Obama has now separated himself, but perhaps not.
It is worth noting that Wright did not say anything new on Monday; he did not say anything that Obama had not already heard. Plainly, Obama was angry not about what Wright said, but about the fact that he has chosen to keep on saying it–to the obvious detriment of Obama’s faltering campaign. Who wouldn’t be angry under those circumstances? But it is too late for Obama to say that the man’s views are so offensive in themselves that they put him outside the realm of decency. If that is true now, as Obama seemed to be saying yesterday, it was true weeks ago.
This is an inconsistency in Obama’s evolving position on Wright, though it might not matter. If the good pastor continues to ventilate, many people will continue to ask whether Obama was right ever to have given him the benefit of the doubt–and this is a fair question. On the other hand, giving an old friend the benefit of the doubt is an admirable and understandable trait, especially if you do not do it without limit and remain capable of seeing the error of your ways. As I say, we shall see.
Meanwhile, the gas-tax holiday. Was this a good issue for Obama to pick a fight on? I doubt it. With Clinton and McCain both agreeing on this admittedly stupid, pointless gimmick, Obama has set himself the task of explaining why a few months of slightly cheaper gas (let’s say, 9 cents a gallon cheaper–assuming that the incidence of the 18 cent tax is split 50-50 between producers and consumers) is such a bad thing. He is right on the substance: it solves nothing. But the problem is that his own larger ideas on the issue are no better.
The political punch in the way Clinton is spinning this proposal is that it demonizes the oil companies, second only in popularity in this country to demonizing the health insurers. It has to be a winner. And how can Obama object? He defers to no-one in his willingness, this present case excepted, to demonize both. His argument that the McCain/Clinton gas-tax idea is the usual Washington nonsense is true, but hard to square with his own litany on excess profits, wicked corporate interests, the gouging of consumers and the rest.
Well, Obama supported the Gas Tax holiday when he was an Illinois Legislator. Perhaps he is approaching the 20 year gestation period it takes him to realize when he has made a regrettable decision.
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/local-media-feeds/i-oppose-it-so-i-must-have-voted-for-it%2C1046/
Posted by: John Powers | April 30th, 2008 at 9:47 pm | Report this commentI would like to suggest to Mr. Crook that it is high time to stop focusing on the surface and get down to the underlying issues in this election, not only because they are more important, but because they are more interesting. What difference does it really make whether Wright wanted Obama to win the election (unlikely, on the basis of Wright’s actions) or whether he wanted to do his bit to help in the ongoing campaign to destroy Obama? What difference does it make exactly when and why it was that Obama finally decided that he was so fed up with Wright’s lunacy and he could stand it no longer?
What is much more important is that, as I have tried to indicate in some of my posts on Mr. Crook’s previous blog, the whole Wright episode is merely part of an ongoing attempt to demolish Obama by trying to link him with every hated terrorist, radical and Middle Eastern tyrant who comes to mind, even though it is obvious that Obama does not share Wright’s demagogic views any more than he has ever shared those of bin Laden, Saddam, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, Farrakhan, Somali tribal elders, or whichever other demons of the moment are conjured up as needed by the right wing hate machine.
As far as gas tax relief is concerned, I do not know whether it is a good idea or not. Fortunately, I do not drive or own a car, so I am not directly affected either way. But I have not seen anyone, pro or con, claim that gas tax relief would be more than a bubble (if it is safe to use that word) on top of an ocean (or at least a major oil deposit) of income inequality, unregulated greed and other economic injustices that threaten to divide America, more than ever, into a nation of a tiny super-rich elite, on the one hand, and an increasingly impoverished majority, on the other. Both Obama and Hillary are talking about this. McCain, obviously, is not. Your turn, Mr. Crook?
Posted by: algasema | April 30th, 2008 at 10:28 pm | Report this commentAlgasema: You’re right, it doesn’t much matter what Wright is thinking. I’d just be curious to know. As for Obama’s association with the man, this cannot be so lightly dismissed. I felt, as I said at the time, that Obama’s speech on the issue was brave and well-judged. To repeat, I was impressed and convinced by what he said, and it put the matter to rest as far as I was concerned. But I understand if others were not convinced. I don’t think their doubts are illegitimate or trumped-up. As Obama himself said yesterday, what Wright believes is a repudiation of Obama’s whole campaign—of his whole life-story, for that matter. So you cannot sweep aside their long friendship as though it were irrelevant.
And to labour the obvious, Bin Laden, Saddam and the rest did not officiate at Obama’s wedding; they aren’t quoted with reverence in Obama’s books; Obama never called them his spiritual advisers. To believe the Wright affair to be no more worthy of serious attention than the fact that Obama’s middle name is Hussein is, I’m afraid, absurd. As I say, I think that Obama’s race speech dealt with the issue more than adequately–it did so with distinction–but the issue is not a figment of the anti-Obama imagination.
If Obama’s views on race are not an “underlying issue” in this election I don’t know what is.
Posted by: Clive Crook | April 30th, 2008 at 10:53 pm | Report this commentThe Wright fiasco is also looked upon skeptically in the black community, according to columnist Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun-Times.
“This is a sad day for Black America.
So, when Obama says America was “offended” by Wright’s harsh language, he isn’t speaking for or to Black America. He is speaking to White America.
His “outrage” over Wright’s latest remarks signals something quite different. With the gap narrowing, Obama advisers are obviously scrambling for every white vote.”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/923055,CST-NWS-mitch30.article
Posted by: Ann H | April 30th, 2008 at 11:56 pm | Report this commentMr. Crook, I appreciate your response to the points I raised about Wright and Obama, and, of course, you are right in stating that the long relationship between the two has more significance than, for example, the accidental fact that Senator Obama has Hussein as his middle name. Clearly, the Senator chose his pastor, but not his own name.
However, in the context of the ongoing attacks on Obama by right wing media figures who make liberal (maybe not the best word) use of his middle name in order to inflame the public against him, as well as the attempts to link Senator Obama with so many other hated and despised figures, one almost has to ask whether, if Jeremiah Wright did not exist, someone would have invented him.
While I certainly agree that Senator Obama gave an effective and moving response to Wright’s recent speeches, the Murdoch media empire and Obama’s numerous other opponents on the right have little or no interest in doing anything except keeping this story front and center at all costs and dragging Obama’s character through the mud, no matter how low they have to stoop in order to destroy him for daring to give voice to the injustices, inequalities and prejudices in American society.
For example, Wednesday’s New York Post carried a huge front page headline entitled “Barack Stabber”. I was too disgusted to read whatever trash Rupert Murdoch’s people chose to put inside, so I was not clear whether the meaning was that Obama stabbed Wright in the back, vice-versa, or, more likely, both of the above. My point is that it did not really matter what was inside. The only purpose was to continue the association between the two in the public mind in any and all ways, until as many voters as possible come to believe that the North Carolina Republican party ad in which the two figures merge is true, just as no answer that Senator Kerry was able to give in 2004 could possibly have overcome the effect of the Swift Boat campaign of lies about his war record.
I also cannot agree that Obama’s views on race are an “underlying issue” in this campaign, for the simple reason that there is no room for legitimate dispute as to what Obama’s views are. Unless one is willing to believe that everything that Obama has said about transcending racial differences is nothing more than a clever lie designed to put him in the White House so that he can carry out Wright’s agenda, a charge that would be so absurd that not even Fox News can dare to make it, there is no question that Obama’s entire record, and indeed, as he has said himself, his entire life, are a refutation of Wright’s divisiveness, hatred and demagogy.
The question, therefore, is not about Obama’s racial views, but why he associated so closely with someone whose views were so antithetical to his own. This is a question of judgment, not of whether Obama is, somehow, a closet racist demagogue himself, and it is important to distinguish between them. At the very worst, Obama showed bad judgment in his close association with Wright, but this raises vital questions as to far we should carry the concept of guilt by association.
Being just a year younger than Senator McCain, I am old enought to remember what it was like in the McCarthy era, when the careers and livelihoods of so many people were ruined because they had once been friends with, or attended meetings with, someone who, in the opinion of someone else, might possibly have been a Communist sympathizer. I also remember the persecution that Martin Luther King endured at the hands of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI and of racists everywhere in America, who tried to smear him as a Communist agent, all based on his real or alleged associations.
Is this the way that American voters want the 2008 election to be decided? Certainly, Obama may not have shown the the best possible judgment in continuing his relationship with Wright for so long (any more than Senator McCain showed good judgment in not just associating with, but actively supporting Keating, or than Senator Clinton has shown good judgement, in the view of some, by continuing her connection with a certain contoversial, impeached former president who not only pardoned the likes of Mark Rich and allegedly auctioned off the Lincoln bedroom (as Fox News will no doubt remind us if Senator Clinton is nominated) but who actually invited Jeremiah Wright himself to the White House.
I respectfully suggest that it is far more important for the political health of this country. if not the survival of our embattled democracy itself, to speak out against and combat the Swift Boating of our election system than it is to spend the rest of the campaign trying to psychoanalyze what was clearly a complex personal, not political, relationship between these two men. I apologize for such a lengthy post.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | May 1st, 2008 at 2:32 am | Report this commentDear Roger,
What would ever make you change your mind on Obama? My guess is that nothing. You repress any evidence contradicting your clean and pure idealisation, you downplay any sign of weak judgement on his part, you continually blame the messenger — the media reporting, even if in overblown manner — for his faults.
This is not to say you have not made many poignant points, but you are definitely not open-minded when it comes to Obama.
Posted by: RCS | May 1st, 2008 at 6:48 am | Report this comment>>Algasema. Swiftboating. The likelihood is high, but, sadly, Senator Obama’s relationship with his misguided pastor is his responsibility to manage. I also suspect that the depth of the relationship with this church in recent years has keyed as much or more on Michelle Obama’s ties than the Senator’s abiding faith in the man. Nevertheless, as Mr Crook well argues, this story hasn’t been made up.
Renouncing Wright outrightly will likely prove to have other consequences. While his points are absurd, i.e., the USG’s fueling of the AIDS epidemic, they are revealing of how deep the discontent runs in the US. One has every reason to think that the Rev Wright, indeed, subscribes to his list of conspiracy theories. So do millions of Americans. Millions think far worse.
Rather than renounce them, I would suggest such absurd lies be held up by Mr Obama as evidence of what happens when the US Government does lie. Today, I would suggest a survey of credentialed, certifiably sensible “decision makers” in G7 countries think the US over manages its story lines, i.e., lies as in no time in the history that has come before. Just look at the PR industry’s infrastructure in Washington.
The internet and related advances in communications are replacing history in real time. Lies have never had it so good.
US-style democracy is indeed at risk. We can see clearly how AIPAC recognised and mastered the new rules quite quickly. They have their two candidates and appear now to be locking up the field. Wright, Farrakhan, Barry, et al, have for years been building their own special interest PR machine. Obama was the best opportunity to ever come along for them. The question–still opên–is to what extent had he realised how he was being used.
My guess is that he has realised it, discounted the risks, continued to focus on the agendas that are more important to him (and which attracted such seasoned and sound support to his team), and assumed that he could get a little wind in his sails from a broadly based Black movement.
When you’re up against the Clinton Machine, AIPAC, the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, Hollywood, Boeing, Blackwater and the Feminist/Mommy State movement–all supporting Hillary and/or McCain, the battle Obama has waged for hearts and minds is a tough one.
US interest groups know how to master lies. Obama has, to his credit, reminded US voters of some cherished truths. Reports I see on the BBC of abandoned homes in suburban Washington suggest that many voters there are more concerned about petrol-price holidays and 5-percent salary rises than they are about truths. More than likely, stories of USG conspiracies, and their counterpoints amongst those who think the world is ganging up on Damn Good Americans and Israel, are happy to have something to bitch about when they are avoiding opening their post.
Posted by: WCM | May 1st, 2008 at 10:54 am | Report this commentMr Crook
A short response to your title question:
I think it is tougher for Obama.
Posted by: WCM | May 1st, 2008 at 2:58 pm | Report this commentWCM,
What on earth gives you the idea that Sen. Obama has not pandered to the “interest groups”? From the trial lawyers to the truckers unions, Sen. Obama has raised more money than any candidate in history from lobbyists, interest groups, bundlers, the Rezko family etc.
The “cherished truth” of a functioning democracy swinging it out over issues and personal background is finally coming to play. Despite the massive efforts of Obama’s PR Machine at gaming the press into ignoring ALL the candidates’ voting records and platforms, to concentrate on Sen. Obama’s winning smile and absence of neckties, voters are allowed to make the decision here, rather than having the lobbyists/donors decide for them.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | May 1st, 2008 at 3:10 pm | Report this commentRCS, of course Obama, like Hillary, McCain and every other public figure in history, has his faults and lapses of judgment. As JBP never fails to remind us, Obama also has other connections and policies which may raise more legitimate questions than the Wright affair, because they are more politically related. Obviously, I do not agree with JBP’s conclusions, but I have never suggested that it is wrong to raise these issues, any more than it would be wrong to question McCain’s and the Clintons’ much longer list (since they have more “expeience”, remember?) of questionable, if not sometimes utterly despicable, associations, actions and policies.
But to Swift-Boat Obama ad nauseam as an America-hating, black Muslim sympathizing, terrorist -loving radical who shared the opinions of his demagogic pastor, merely because Obama sat in a church pew intending to worship God, or had a personal and religious connection with Wright, is to promote the politics of smear, lies and hate which will cause far more damage to this country than 100 Jeremiah Wrights could possibly do.
I am planning to take this month off from commenting further, as there are other things in life that need to be done. This, no doubt, will come as a relief to many of my fellow bloggers, whose opinions, like Clive’s, I always enjoy and respect, nothwithstanding our disagreements. See you all in June, when, if Howard Dean is to be believed, we will finally have a Democratic nominee (who according to Fox News’ resident Clinton-hater and disgraced former Clinton advisor, Dick Morris, will still be Obama, hands down.
Just one final parting shot: What on earth was Hillary doing Wednesday night on the Bill O’Reilly show, hosted by someone who, in his own way, is just as bigoted, intolerant, angry and offensive as Wright? Talk about bad judgment (not to mention more than a little dabbling of her own in the fine art of Swift-Boating Obama).
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | May 1st, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Report this commentIt seems that I cannot even take time off without having to make a spelling correction: “experience”.
Posted by: algasema | May 1st, 2008 at 4:03 pm | Report this commentObama is constantly revealed as a calculating narcissist. Watch him with the sound off. Look up narcissism. He has always used Wright for his own purposes, and now that ruthless ploy comes back to haunt him. Do we want such a ruthless narcissist as president of the US
Posted by: John Lammi | May 1st, 2008 at 4:56 pm | Report this commentDifferent people; different views; But there is one America with almost the same needs; economic security, social security, development and prosperity. Everyone huffs and puffs; but what are we all doing while the nation cries? foreclosures, job losses, gas prices sky rocketing; well God forbid if the food prices do not follow suit; Who ever is president come November, the best judgement for all voters will be who is the best person to repair where the nation has derailed?
Posted by: steven | May 1st, 2008 at 6:37 pm | Report this commentIs the nation really crying? We just went through a record five years of job growth. The inflation rate is 3.6% last time it was measured. Despite the media trying to tie a recession on to President Bush, we are not in one now, nor does it seem likely that we will have one before the November elections.
Perhaps a bit less huffing and puffing, and a bit less government meddling (look where that got us with house prices) with the economy would be welcome.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | May 1st, 2008 at 6:58 pm | Report this commentI know that I promised not to comment anymore until June, but I cannot resist: It is a shame that JBP is unable to shed any tears over the 47 million Americans without health insurance, the up to 2m people at risk of losing their homes in the subprime predatory lending scandal, the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers who have lost their jobs as American factories move to China, the students who cannot afford to stay in college, the forgotten victims of Katrina and, above all, the soldiers who have given their lives in Iraq in the cause of greater profits for the oil and defense companies.
Our government’s domination by the lobbyists and its focus on the welfare of the wealthy elite only, which will continue if McCain is elected to Bush’s third term, should be enough to make all except the wealthiest Americans at the very top cry. They are having a good laugh, however as the rest of us bail them out and pay their multi-million dollar bonuses with our taxes. Happy May Day, everybody. More next month.
Posted by: algasema | May 1st, 2008 at 7:47 pm | Report this commentOne last May 1 comment: Which of the three candidates is the most serious about trying to do something to address the economic injustices in this country, and is therefore most hated by the Murdoch empire and the other mouthpieces for our governing elite? Hint: The answer is not Hillary or McCain.
Democrats, why is it so difficult to see that, with all due respect to Clive Crook, the Wright affair is mainly, if not entirely, a giant smoke screen, a huge distraction, the latest entertainment blockbuster, or, if you will, a form of bread and circuses updated to 2008 A.D., all in pursuit of the single-minded and desperate goal of America’s elite, super-rich ruling class, namely that at all costs, “Obama delendus est”?
Posted by: algasema | May 1st, 2008 at 8:25 pm | Report this commentI have just returned this evening to find an email from a longtime, non-partisan Washington friend that included a copy of Michelle Obama’s university thesis (Princeton, 1985): ‘Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community’, written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson. I suggest others research it. European media has not provided us much insight on Mrs Obama.
I am further disturbed to see documentation of a long history between the Obama’s church and the Nation of Islam movement of Louis Farrakhan. The material I have reviewed merits questions of Senator Obama.
Fortunately, I do not vote next week. Nonetheless, I am suddenly and deeply concerned about the possibility that Senator Obama may have a long association with or even represent interests that have been carefully hidden and are reprehensible. Here in Europe, we have seen him as something quite different: promising. Why has the information that forced him to hold a press conference 36 hours ago not come to the forefront sooner?
I am familiar with Ultimate Fighting, which inspired the film “Fight Club”. I first discovered it in Sweden and Finaland more than decade ago. Since then it has become a major Las Vegas sport. I do not advocate it, but became fascinated in discovering that a Swedish lawyer, whom I have known to be a top professional, was slipping off to Helsinki to compete short of a broken neck in a cage.
It seems that US politics have devolved the same way boxing has: no rules short of killing your opponent. Is it possible that Senator Obama’s trainers for this championship have been quite other than the grand names of experience and academia which we have seen?
It is time to hear a word from Larry Summers, ted Kennedy and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Posted by: WCM | May 1st, 2008 at 11:52 pm | Report this commentIt is perfectly appropriate for Sen. Obama to be taking political damage from the ratings of Rev. Wright.
Sen. Obama’s association with this man and his ministry goes back decades. He brought Sen. Obama to God, performed his marriage ceremony and baptized his children. Sen. Obama has spent many years regularly listening to Rev. Wright speak.
The overwhelming majority of Americans would find much common cause with this Rev. Wright; however, Mr. Obama was happy to extol the intimacy of his relationship with Rev. Wright until the political costs became unbearable.
It strains credulity to think that a future President Obama would not be profoundly influenced in his beliefs and disposition by his long and intimate association with Rev. Wright.
For a man so reluctant to commit himself on almost anything controversial, this revelation offers a rare insight to just how many standard deviations off the mean Sen. Obama’s true beliefs likely lay.
I do not think this insight is enough to cost Sen. Obama the Democratic Primary Election, however, it will certainly not play very well in the General Election.
Posted by: NLC | May 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 am | Report this commentUltimate fighting? No one laid a finger on the two Democrats for over a year, and the wilt at the slightest scrutiny.
I had a long conversation with the Alderman from one of the wards Sen. Obama could theoretically represent if he weren’t so busy “uniting” and “giving people hope”. The Alderman (a Democrat btw) described to me that not only had there never been a news crew in his very blighted ward, there had never even been a request for interview from anyone in the press about Sen. Obama’s representation over the last 10 years or so.
What might happen to Obama’s candidacy if the press were to lift a finger to look at his track record over his career as an “activist” and politician?
Outside of a very few exceptions, the press has been as lazy as hell in this campaign taking spoon-fed statements from the candidates as facts. How about the Fifth Estate getting in the fray a bit and taking a few swings?
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | May 2nd, 2008 at 1:58 am | Report this commentthis obama gentleman certainly stirs up the pot and the emotions of those motivated to voice their opinions on this blog. he must be doing something wright-oops right- hate to have to write again to correct my awful spelling. i seem to recall that mr obama is running for the office of president of the united states of america. to be successful in this endevor it is assumed one would need to practice the art of politics with some degree of skill. to lack such skill would certainly eliminate one from the race rather quickly. ron paul’s well financed but generally ignored campaign comes to mind. when wright became a liability mr obama cut him loose as any skilled politician would. mr obama certainly must bear the responsibility for his association with this very angry man whose roots date to the segregationist era of american history. wright’s failure to shut up when it mattered for his candidate illuminates his self-obsession. the press is all too happy to extend wright’s 15 minutes of fame to keep a story alive. we all can learn a lesson from mr obama’s current dilema- be careful who you associate with because guilt for the sins of another can transfer quickly and effectively to us. especially in this era of slime journalism. this economy is quite vulnerable to recession if not already in one. the banking system endures severe capital weakness and market liquidity survives on fed reserve life support. whistling past that graveyard is pure folly, even more assinie when camouflaged by partisan politics. america doesn’t need mcnasty and a third term for the neo con agenda to further subvert what has made this country great. and we don’t need hillary to carry forth the tired agenda of her “husband”. no hillary, we don’t need neo con lite politics under a democratic label. the answer is real change. and as scary as that is for some americans and bloggers the status quo is a one way ticket to the further deterioration of this country. we should turn our collective backs on the mainstream media for stooping to such dispicable levels of diversion, avoiding the issues in favor of tabloid journalism. shame on those of us who allow the media to set their agenda and guide their talking points. as aristotle said, it is the sign of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
Posted by: gym-bob | May 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 am | Report this comment>>I try again with the mnemonic “USJ” replacing the term that I believe is blocking this post. If it fails again, please inform me asap as to what word/combination of words is leading to the rejection of this post.
>>JBP. Agree. Ultimate fighting hardly fits this situation. I had picked up on a match when scanning channels moments earlier. My expectations for press scrutiny, however, are different than yours. I would be more concerned about ideology than failed business dealings or time misspent.
>>gym-bob. sound and cynical analysis, except that wright has been something other than a loose cannon, and he was not cut loose soon enough. so, the us is left with one choice. is this choice merely flawed and a bit green? or does he reflect an adherence to another variety of narrow or hard-line agendas which have been carefully and artfully masked? his wife’s separationist politics do not fit well with “free thinking” change.
During most of our living memory, some of the most refreshing and compelling humanist thinking and leadership has come from two unique groups in contemporary America: the USJ and the Blacks. Both had distinct legacies of victimhood and both were pivotal in defining the values most in the world celebrate today as “American”.
What many here are only beginning to see at this turn in US history is that both groups have spawned not just “liberals”, as is so often presumed, but some very reactionary and self-serving wannabes (male and female). They also have their well developed mafias. These less enlightened wings–the Neocons (largely USJ) and the Nation of Islam (a black separationist movement with rigid “middle-class” values, i.e., for Europeans, a variety of Fascism)–appear to have ascended and are now competing to highjack what is left of a sound political system in the US. All under the slick guise of their acquired, respective legacies of victimhood.
Hillary’s pseudo Feminists do not fit the same model, but they try.
Thanks to Political Correctness, such observations as even this very distant and questioning one are rendered inappropriate.
Posted by: WCM | May 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm | Report this commentTRIANGULATION REVISITED
“Some commentators be lieve Mr Obama was initially reluctant to denounce Mr Wright, one of America’s most influential black preachers, in part because he feared alienating African-American supporters.” — Andrew Ward, FT correspondent
Posted by: RCS | May 2nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Report this commentWhat Rev. Wright said is simply unacceptable; And whatever everyone feels deep inside. The only way forward in this modern world; a.k.a United States of America; Is to come together as one and have a common good. Lay down a foundation that will address problems and issues we face today; Is America divided? Yes! it is along may lines of division. There is nothing to hide under the naked sun.
Questions that need to be addressed beyond all divisionism would be; How will we make America a better place for us, our children and all those that will come? How will we compete with other countries with the world becoming a small global village. That calls for laying down strong economic foundations that would keep the engine running.
And lastly a question many people would rather pretend it is not there; how do we best work out our differences. I personally would not be quick to blame Obama; Atleast he gives me an inkling that he is ready to look at both sides of the coin for a better America. Infact him telling Rev. Wright that his words were divisive sends a clear message to the other Wrights out there; This country is no longer about self-interest groups. Its about the people; same applies to the washington lobbyists. good day people
Posted by: steven | May 2nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm | Report this commentAt last year’s presidential election France decided it was time to break with old-style politics. OK it is currently hating its choice - but in five year’s time I believe they won’t be.
The BIG question is - is the USA ready to make the same choice?
The result of first, the Democratic nomination, then (possibly) the presidential election will tell us, in the rest of the world what to expect. I, in France, have my hopes (for the future of peace and the planet) but only the people of the USA will decide.
Posted by: derek tunnicliffe | May 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm | Report this commentDerek. We are not in the same France.
The French learned late how dismayed they were with the field of candidates rendered before them last year. The role of the media in promoting Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal was transparent and appalling. Continues to be so. These two candidates abused their respective party machines.
Both sought and leveraged US support: Sarkozy took counsel from Richard Perle and a long list of Neocons. Ségolène Royal became a poster child for Neocon Feminists and stood as Hillary’s spiritual sister.
Since, then Sarlozy has reversed French foreign policy on key fronts and is selling out to Corporatist interests. Don’t be fooled by his marriage and the scripted noise around it. Research Italy’s Tebaldi-Bruni family from the time of Mussolini up through their current relationships with Berlusconi.
As I suspect you are not a francophone and an expatriate, then you likely were unaware of “l’appel du 14 février”–a public declaration signed by 10,000 legislators, mayors and business leaders, including four of Sarkozy’s ministers and a large proportion of his own UMP party’s leadership, and supported by 74 percent of the electorate, that served blount notice on le Président that the French people expected him to govern, not transform the Republic or the world, or to entertain.
Sarkozy made a televised apology in response only a week ago. His performance would’ve benefited from Mr Obama’s style.
Franc-maçonerrie (Masons) represents exceptional power here. Sarkozy is a relative newcomer to “les Cercles”, but around the time of “l’appel” he was summoned to a meeting with the leader of the order. He was seriously chided for his abuse of power and for risking the integrity of the French state. (for those interested, Le Nouvel Observateur detailed the proceedings.)
In parallel, each of the three Monarchist families, very central to the franc-maçons, have youthful male pretenders who are increasingly visible in the press (but I think quite unimpressive). A young Bourbon told me a week ago that democracy is failing. In the same discussion, he expressed informed support for the EU’s economic mandates. La famille Napoléon is the latest to step onto the stage with articles this week on le Prince Napoléon (also early 20s and with a profile uncannily like that of his great-great grandfather, Louis Napoléon III). Some in France are seeking a new Sun King, not a social wannabe like their president. Times may be stranger than they seem.
As for peace in the world, the French do not see the US as key to such. The French love the US, but expectations go no further than they would for one’s niece in marriage. Presently, what is seen in the US is not surprising. Our media have well warned of the risks.
The Democrats need to look carefully at what has happened/is happening to the Socialists following the debacle created by Madame Royal.
The political avarice of the Clintons and the now-apparent grand deception of Barack Obama are rendering a gravely wounded Democratic party. There is no sign of a Third Way there. As a non-French European diplomat complained last night at dinner, how did Ted Kennedy let this happen? My guess was that Mr Obama’s failure/deception has been allowed to play out by the Clintons, who, like all Narcissists, think they are the party.
Quelle honte! Quel cauchemar.
Posted by: WCM | May 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm | Report this commentMy apologies, but a small-if-irrelevant correction to my preceding post is required. The face of the young Napoléon resembles his great-great-great Uncle, Napoléon Bonaparte. It must be further noted that this new Prince Napoléon remains a relative nobody given his direct descent from the unloved Louis Napoléon III.
Posted by: WCM | May 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm | Report this commentwhy are we not writing about the devisive comments of the good reverend hagge who is endorsing mcnasty? as an irish italian american i could be tremendously offended by his remarks regarding catholicism if not for my timely rescue as a boy from said ‘ism’. instead i am offended by the media’s obvious bias. sure wright is a self absorbed bafoon overdosing on the narcotic of fame. it is this need for fame that makes the reverend such a pliable tool of the media and the republicans. but his foolishness does not diminish the importance of mcnasty’s public acceptance of hagge’s endorsment.and yet so little has been written or said by the mainstream media about this man’s brand of bigotry. the light came on for me today. mr obama is scaring the hell out of the neocon/fascist wing of the republican party. such selective reporting makes one wonder who is pressuring the media to take obama down. one of bill’s big gaffes, no not that one, was to agree to the consolidation of the media. concentration of power in the media in the hands of a small number of rich white men makes the focus on wright vs hagge not right. even a bit suspect. what i truly suspect is that america will find a way to elect yet another white male who has sold his soul and his country to corporate interests. we have flirted with the black candidate. it made great press for a while and assured us all that we could not have a race problem in america if a black man runs for the highest office in the land. and if he doesn’t win,we are absolved in the notion of a level playing field. he just didn’t measure up in the land of equal opportunity. history will not be kind to america when assessing our role in our own demise if we continue to stumble blindly on our current course. as a democratic republic we have managed to allow our fears to trump our judgements and our freedoms at the ballot. bush/cheney have repeated the lie that ‘they hate us for our freedoms’. but i see only bush/cheney attacking our freedoms. and i foresee more of the same under a mcnasty administration. it takes guts to change direction. it takes a serious sense of conviction to alter one’s path. oh well gotta go now. time for american idol.
Posted by: gym-bob | May 4th, 2008 at 3:43 am | Report this comment>>gym-bob. I share nearly each of your concerns and have welcomed the Obama candidacy as a chance for the US to right itself, particularly in reversing hegemonic Neocon ambitions. The US’ current tact is not sustainable, and Obama seemed to have the clarity of vision, political independence and smart support required to turn your tired battleship around or even mothball it for a better venue.
Yes. Had it just been a passing relationship with this church and pastor, I would agree that the Clinton/McCain/Neocon deployment of their “swiftboating” tactics be held accountable. With the revelations of the Obamas’ relationships with this other (less visible) side of the Black movement in the US–one that is unquestionably alarming in opportunistic/separationist/(pseudo)Fascist ideologies, one must step back.
It is fair and important to pose the question as to why Wright is a threat–or more of a threat–than the long roster of narrow-minded preachers that have surfaced these past several days. Surely AIPAC and the Vatican are exercising more influence than these characters?
The answer is that they raise not just a character question, but an unforeseen ideological risk at a very late stage in the game.
In Obama’s own, written words: Wright has been his (uniquely close) spiritual advisor for more than 20 years. Furthermore, credible worries are now surfacing in the written and spoken words of his (intellectually unimpressive) wife, beginning with her less-than-enlightend separationist views and even closer bond with Wright and Farrakhan’s organisation.
Obama’s character remains subject to legitimate questions at this point in time more than that of either Clinton or McCain (both quite flawed, but well documented). Eloquent words and claims that he had remained in dubious company with the hope that a little angel dust might spread are too little too late.
On this side of the Pond, we would like to hear something from the “Elders” who have helped this man achieve the candidacy and the stature that has held much of the world’s hopeful attention for nearly a year.
The absence of concrete statements and reaffirmation from many who vested credible repuations in Mr Obama’s rise is not only not reassuring, it has likely been lethal. One has reason to fear that they are as bewildered as I and other observers are.
For many voters on Tuesday, a vote for Obama is now little more than a desperate effort to block the Neocon-lite Clintons and hope for change. Most realise the risk involved, and many will stand back and see what happens. Sadly, many who were on the verge of joining/returning to a healthy democrative process seem also likely to go back to their computers and look at other topics. The Democratic Party will face tough questions in the weeks ahead.
Posted by: WCM | May 4th, 2008 at 12:54 pm | Report this commentto WCM
This blog is about Obama vs Clinton, rather than our differing views on what’s happening in France right now.
Politicians are free to take counsel from whoever they please - they’re selfish, and they want to win: whether it’s Sarko vs Ségo or Clinton vs Obama.
I stand by my view that the different style of politics (note, politics, not life-style!) and the tough changes (rupture) that Sarkozy is insisting on will bring the French economic growth such as they haven’t experienced for too long.
As for Clinton vs Obama, for me Clinton (like McCain) represents aggressive politics - especially in terms of foreign policy - as ususal; Obama appears to be seeking a less confrontational approach.
Whether it’s France or the USA, I have to judge by what I read (NB not the committedly anti-Sarkozy Nouvel Observateur). In terms of change-management, I have experience - which is why I stand by my views on Sarkozy.
Posted by: derek tunnicliffe | May 4th, 2008 at 6:09 pm | Report this comment>>derek. You are right. This thread is about Obama, but you have raised points about France that merit rebuttal. You introduced France.
You are better informed of the US than you are of France. Sarkozy has no doubt been an event, and a stimulating one. Nonetheless, his personal command of a vision has been comrpomised by who he is trying to listen to at any given moment. His strategy of a PR coup (the divorce, the marriage, with unprecedented “private” coverage and exhibitionism) provided needed oover, but many promising moments on key agendas were, indeed, squandered.
As for le Nouvel Observateur, I suggest you read the detailed reporting on the call-on-the-carpet of the head of le Rite français. You will learn something surprising: despite much tension, Sarkozy exited the meeting with an invitation to address the grand assembly (recent and private) in order to present his programme. The last French president so invisted was in the 1930s.
Despite Sarkozy’s desire to move French governance to the media age and align it more closely with the US, France’s civic life is in beter form than the US. He is being reigned in by his own party.
Enough said on Obama. If he is to win the nomination and be worthy of it, a mot of work is needed now. I fear it is too late. We all lose if so, but it is not clear now if the world would be in good hands with him. The questions come late, but merit the debate they are getting.
Posted by: WCM | May 4th, 2008 at 8:54 pm | Report this commentwcm- concern about any furhter advance of the neocon agenda is precisely the reason voters must choose mr obama vs the other two candidates. it was mr obama and very few others willing to risk the political backlash during the post 9-11 blood lust.he spoke out against waging unprovolked, preemptive war with the iraq. you raise the character question as though the other two have passed some litmus test that mr obama has not. clearly the opposite that is true. as a man of character, mr obama took this public stand against the neocons during a hotly contested race for the senate seat he later won. and lets be clear, i did not mean to indicate that the reverand wright is feared as a threat by the politicos using him so skillfully. no to the contrary he is welcomed as a blunt tool to hammer away at the least educated americans among us. i refer to the hardworking woman and men of this great country who display the flag on their pickup and oppose unions and have been duped into believing that the neocon agenda and its accompanying trickle up economics and rediculous tax policy and war that sends their boys to die- that agenda is serving their working class interests. wright is a tool being used to strike at the real threat to the status quo- the real threat is mr obama. you write of the character issues prsented by the annointed ones mcnasty and clinton, that theirs is flawed yet well documented. this country deserves more from its president than well documented duplicity.watching hillary lie to the good people of pa. about her position on nafta was almost as nausiating as her story about imaginary sniper fire in bosnia. you can’t find a seat on the straight talk express because mcnasty’s entourage of lobbyists have occupied all the seats.you seem to fear the idea that a candidate might harbor opportunistic(?)seperatist, fascist(??) views. did you forget shiftless and lazy? you advance the idea that ms obama is lacking in intellectual gifts. i’ll let that rediculous statement stand on its own merit.you refer to the less visable side of the black movement. the black movement as you call it has been quite visable for those who look. its like slums and unemployment and substandard healthcare and education. just depends where you look. it has been quite well repressed and hidden by the media to make it easy for some to avoid its existance. the us has a history of slavery, government sanctioned segregation and a bloody civil rights movement that is a work in progress.please show equal outrage against the system that perpetuates inequality, poverty and violence or grant understanding to the people who endured the bigotry.it is not difficult to understand anger or the desire to seperate from those who hate us. what is amazing is that some emerge from this history with a willingness to contribute to a solution! how effective swift boating is. once again we operate with the fallacy that attributes the idiocy of reverand wright to a member of his congregation. mr obama’s great fault was in not recognizing the short window he had to toss mr wright aside. the swiftys and the media were so quick and very determined use this rancid tidbit to define the candidate. vultures must have a poor sense of smell. some of the elders in the us like bill bradley have appeared publicly to support mr obama and denounce the media’s handling of the wright fiasco. sadly others may lack the backbone- the same backbone that would have helped them oppose the needless killing in iraq when mr obama did; they may lack the political salt to stand up now as well. wcm while you may share some of my concerns about my great country and this very important election i find it difficult to fathom when your words indicate something quite different.
Posted by: gym-bob | May 5th, 2008 at 2:24 am | Report this comment>>gym-bob. I’ve read your post very carefully and, again, note that I respect your concerns and your rebuttal to my points. Thoughtful and passionate. In some ways, quite saddening.
I am not there. My eyes on this process are more concerned with US foreign and economic policies, and I am looking at November. Mr Crook today gives a relatively clear-eyed assessment of where the Democrats are. Nonetheless, his conclusions point to the Democrats’ huge loss of critical mass and momentum.
I have beaten a dead horse perhaps too many times vis-à-vis Rev Wright and the questionable relationships Sen and Mrs Obama have maintained. I try to think that the Sen had outgrown and stayed on that bus too long. We need a leader at this turn in the US who commands broad respect. I am far from alone in questioning how soft Sen Obama’s clay feet are.
I am picking up a sense that McCain–and the Republican PR Machine and AIPAC–will devour Obama. I agree that staying the course is no option and I fear where the Neocons really want to go. Yet, I agree that the Neocon Clintons will unlikely survive such a match either.
Two weeks ago, I did not see Obama as a high-risk gamble. Today, I guess we must pray US voters are gamblers.
Posted by: WCM | May 5th, 2008 at 9:20 am | Report this commentwcm- the beauty of the american election process is that men/women of good principals can differ and vent and return to discuss another topic with equal passion another day. i respect your views. they are well concieved. your arguments well constructed and shared by millions in my great country. i will always read your words with interest and respect because they are ‘representative’ of many in middle america.(at least on this issue) but it will remain my passion to refute ideas that fail to advance my great country toward it’s truest ideals. it is a sucker’s bet to think either clinton or mcnasty can lead us in a new and enlightened direction. the gambler in me sees more reward than risk in mr obama’s character and vision of america’s future. unless america rolls the dice the world will only know a slightly different set of policies and america will only know more of the same ineffective and dangerous policies. today america’s foriegn policy lacks a vision beyond the almighty buck. our hegimony has brought wealth to many but has damaged so many more. we have so little respect for our neighbors.and i have so litle respect for the fourth estate. they are letting this country down. again it is the greed behind the bias that is most dishartening. best to you wcm.
Posted by: gym-bob | May 8th, 2008 at 2:48 am | Report this comment>>gym-bob. “unless america rolls the dice…”
I will agree with you, but I am concerned with risks I had not considered a few weeks ago. I am also concerned that the “powers that be” will fix the outcome other than you wish. Just look at the “word” on the US dollar now that Iran announces the well-reasoned shift to the euro. Israel will live first with a two-state solution before they will line in a world where Europe is the dominant economic power.
Anyway, the timing of the dollar change is manageable for the US; a large part of the Iraq costs has been invoiced to Europe, with a larger part going to China and the Saudis. Also, the financial cover of the mortgage/credit crisis will be covered by US, European and other taxpayers. Israel will still receive its lush subsidies from the US, with no obligation to report either true reserve estimates or nuclear arms status. Not to mention courtesy calls ahead of its next air strike.
Your other comments are appreciated, but I must disclaim any responsibility for my words. Thanks keeping the level of discussion on the rise!
Posted by: WCM | May 8th, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Report this commentOlivier Roy (SciencePo, Paris) has written a book (Sept 2007) entitled “Le croissant et le chaos”. I prefer the German title (and better binding and better placement in bookstores there last week) “Der Falsche Krieg: Islamisten, Terroristen und die Irrtümer des Westens” (The False War: Islamism, Terrorism and the Mistakes of the West”. (A search shows it is now available in English under the title of “Politics in the Middle East and Chaos”).
On p 167 of the German text, in the discussion of the second generation of al-Qaeda, one will find four names that are likely well known now to Americans (frankly, I never read them with more than a glance until just the other day). Each is a black American. At least one was certainly an active member in Nation of Islam. Farrkhan and Wright are attributed with expressions of a bit more than support or sympathy.
I suggest a google on each name combined with ‘farrakhan’ and one can judge from the countless hits for themselves how much credibility should be given to the links.
As apparently has been suggested on blogs going back two years, Obama needs to address these links. He will have a problem come Autumn 2008 otherwise.
James Ujaama
Kevin Lamar James
Levar Haney Washington
Gregory Vernon Patterson
As I have noted, I have extended considerable support through my own world to Senator Obama since one year. When I realised the undeniable links between Wright and Michelle Obama to Louis Farrakhan two weeks ago, and then went back and read and listened to the Obama story again, I withdrew my support.
As my response to gym-bob reveal, I am ambivalent and uncertain about what would be right for the US. I would only wish now I could withdraw my interest in the outcome of the US elections in November.
Posted by: WCM | May 8th, 2008 at 7:42 pm | Report this commentMy post from yesterday evening, which remained viewable atleast six hours, has been deleted and marked “awaiting moderation”. As there are no offensive terms or phrases, and certainly no wild speculations, I would appreciate an explanation.
The post cites the names of four black Americans listed in a recent book by Olivier Roy as members of al-Qaeda. My post suggests that one should reveiw and perhaps be concerned at the numbers of google hits one gets with each of these names and that of Louis Farrakhan, and often enough, Jermiah Wright. As one who has long supported Senator Obama, I have asked for more forthright disclosures about his and his wife’s relationships with these two men.
Why would that post–and perhaps this one–be deleted? At the very least, one can send an explanation to my email address.
Posted by: WCM | May 9th, 2008 at 9:54 am | Report this commentIf upon your review, you agree that the original post should not have been deleted, then please repost it and delete these two subsequent posts (this one and the one at 09:54 GMT).
Posted by: WCM | May 9th, 2008 at 9:58 am | Report this commentWCM, I agree that you are entitled to an explanation, at least by email to you personally, if any post or portion thereof is deleted. I note that Damian Carrington, a former interactive editor who, as I am advised, has since left the FT, was quite punctillious in this regard. He recently deleted a part of one of my posts but, gave me an email explanation so promply that I received it before I had even noticed the deletion, and which I actually found quite helpful.
I also notice that another post of mine, one on Gideon Rachman’s blog (relating to the US Vice-Presidential ticket) in which I made a reference to Condoleezza Rice in unflattering, but, I firmly believe, accurate terms, was also marked “awaiting moderation”, though it has not, up to this point, been deleted. I subsequently wrote another post explaining the reasons for my previous comment in greater detail, including citation of a relevant Washington Post article.
Anyone interested can go to that blog. Hopefully, both posts will remain on the site. In any event, I do not dipute the right of FT editors to determine, in their own absolute discretion, what sort of comment should is acceptable, but one would hope that the previous policy of giving private email explanations for removing any comments will be continued.
I belive that this is essential in order to preserve the consistently high quality of the comments which I and so many others enjoy reading on the various FT blogs, whether one agrees with them or not. If posts can be removed without explanation, it will be harder for readers to say what they think, or to know what others are really thinking. In that case, what would be the point of a blog at all?
Good look in having your issue resolved in a satisfactory way, even though, as most readers are aware, I personally disagree with your view that there is any relevance at all in going into Senator Obama’s associations, as opposed to his actual statements and views. One could do the same thing with his two opponents, and the list of questionable associations would be much, much, longer in each case.
Posted by: Roger Algase | May 9th, 2008 at 3:45 pm | Report this commentRoger–Thanks for the knowing support!
I believe when they say ‘awaiting moderation’ and are stricken from the recent-posts list at the upper right, they are viewable only to the author. Maybe I’m wrong, but if you can see one that cites Roy’s books in the three titles (French, German and English) and listing four American names–each in the public domain as they are now convicted, then I am wrong.
This happened once before, and without clear reason.
Posted by: WCM | May 9th, 2008 at 5:03 pm | Report this commentpublic discourse containing public information should be encouraged. opinions often involve the interpretation of “fact” and the association of selective “facts” provide support for an indiviual’s opinions and arguments. like mr algase i have taken issue with opinions expressed by wcm but have found his comments less offensive and more cogent than those expressed by some of the “men of the cloth” our candidates have associated with in past (obama) and present (mcnasty). these folks have been freely quoted to help others form their own opinions and interpret the “facts”. the intelligent readers of ft can edit the ideas of wcm from their minds if need be. wcm’s words will not hurt the quality of this blog/ argument any more than censoring them will. and surely mr algase and other intelligent participants of this blog would be quick to discredit any fallacious arguments advanced upon inaccurate information or faulty logic. identifying”offensive” language and ideas puts editors on the edge of the slippery slope.
Posted by: gym-bob | May 10th, 2008 at 4:33 am | Report this commentthere was a time that i could concieve of little i might have in common with wcm. our views often clashed and we shared few interpretations of the “facts”. i strongly supported wcm and his unencumbered participation on this blog. i now have something concrete in common with him. i blogged today in response to the column: hillary clinton would be the biger gamble. my comments are being “moderated”. how 1984ish. i wrote nothing offensive,hateful, inane. i didn’t write anything that might move the markets (wish i had that power),wasn’t inflamatory, abusive, overly aggressive, irrelevant, or excessively long. well long is a matter of opinion. and yet my words are sitting in orwellian limbo. to what end? when i consider the fact that wcm’s views may be at the opposite end of the political spectrum i must wonder if wcm and i may have strayed too far from the middle of the road. perhaps i did. but i can’t think a new thought if i read and hear the same darn opinions and filtered positions every day. soon writers learn the boundaries and write within. those who enjoy seeing their opinions in print will conform, others will not.those seeking truth and honesty must look elsewhere for unfettered exchange. we dont expand our minds by reading the same things over and over again!
Posted by: gym-bob | May 11th, 2008 at 1:47 am | Report this commentit appears that my blogging days with ft are past. censorship is a slippery slope gentleman. good day to you. i’m sure you can moderate this one- as we say in america, the land of the mostly free ‘bye now’!
Posted by: gym-bob | May 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm | Report this comment>>gym-bob. I hope your comments have been restored without moderation, and I thank you for your support, as mine have appeared.
I had not realised that you perceived we were so opposite in our views, except on my belated concerns regarding Obama. Certainly, I am somewhat alone in making such a quick and clear jump away from him, following the Wright debacle. I deem the questions as to just how indirect are the lines between Farrakhan and Obama’s “spiritual home” in Chicago to be legitimate.
After a long, sunny weekend at home in Paris, where the dinner table and some good vintage helped to bring enlightenment on this topic, I can conclude that my disillusionment is simple: I had been impressed by a candidate who seemed to embody a 21st century mindset formed in the best university environments in the US. What has emerged is a portrait of a candidate tied to tired 20th century agendas.
My interests focus on the leadership we need in the international community. I now see a candidate who is and apparently has been deeply rooted and politically indebted to America’s black community. That leaves me with concerns that a future Obama administration may never get its head above painful domestic issues.
I do not think the world needs a black or female president. I do not think it needs an American orator. We need a leader from the US who is truly as free of special interests as is humanly possible in that failing democracy. We need a leader who can see the line between eminence and imperialism. I no longer think Obama really read the coursework.
>>gym-bob. I trust you will return.
Posted by: WCM | May 13th, 2008 at 6:43 pm | Report this comment