April 28, 2008
Does Wright still want Obama to win?
Up to now I had taken it for granted that Jeremiah Wright wanted Obama to win the nomination and the presidency–and that was why he had not been seen or heard from since the controversy over his sermons first blew up. Obama’s speech on race had seemed to repair much of the damage, and though his association with Wright remained a problem, things had moved on and it was not going to sink him. Now this:
Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama’s presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning at the National Press Club. It was then that Wright, Obama’s longtime pastor, reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered - and added lighter fuel.
Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks (”God damn America”) and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.
In front of 30 television cameras, Wright’s audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama’s vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio’s April Ryan, confirmed that Wright’s security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.
Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. “He didn’t distance himself,” Wright announced. “He had to distance himself, because he’s a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American.”
Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, “We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected.” The minister continued: “Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls.”
I think one can imagine how delighted Obama must have been to read accounts of this appearance. What I would love to know, though, is what Wright and those cheering leaders of the black community are thinking. The obvious theory is that Wright must want Obama to lose, and thus affirm the pastor’s account of all that is sick about the country: God damn America, too bigoted a nation to elect a black man president. If that is what he is doing, and he keeps it up, he may yet get his way.
One has to ask if Wright ever wanted Obama to win any office. Obama’s only hope of staying in the race is, not merely to distance himself from, but to denounce this deranged egomaniac in the strongest possible terms. This may be difficult for many, many reasons, and Obama may lose some African-American votes, but there is no choice. This is Obama’s “Sister Soulja” moment, to recall Bill Clinton’s denounciation of a black extremist during his 1992 campaign. Even so, it may be too late.
Posted by: algasema | April 28th, 2008 at 10:03 pm | Report this commentOn second thought, maybe Wright is doing Obama a favor by attacking him, giving Obama a chance to make the clean break that he should have made earlier, but was too decent to do. Obviously, decency is not in Wright’s vocabulary. But why would Wright be trying so hard to elect Hillary or McCain, which is what he seems to be doing?
Posted by: algasema | April 28th, 2008 at 10:30 pm | Report this commentMy intuition says it is useless to look for rational explanations, as both Mr Crook and algasema try.
As algasema writes, this man is a deranged egomaniac. Possibly Obama had severed all ties and the dear pastor was acting to revenge.
Posted by: RCS | April 28th, 2008 at 10:55 pm | Report this commentIt’s over. McCain Clinton and Wright will destory Obama. Then McCain will edge out Clinton due to Obamas voters defecting to McCain or not voting.
As soon as McCain is elected he will get cancer or alzheimers and croke and we will be stuck with his vp
Condelisa Rice? Mitt Romney? Jeb Bush?
Posted by: Sade | April 28th, 2008 at 11:01 pm | Report this commentNo “swift-boat tactics” will be necessary. If Obama is the nominee, he will lose by a landslide. Dear superdelegates, consider that!
I have had second thoughts on the use of ’superdelegates’. What I had not previously considered was the ease with which Americans could register to vote in any party. Ideally, to be eligible to vote in party primaries, you should be able to prove a long-standing commitment to that party. But there is also a more fundamental consideration which is this: can political parties be democratic? After all, they were set up to espouse certain world-views (this being a post-ideological age, I will not use the word ‘ideology’, in any case the mainstream American political parties were never really ideological). This rounds counter to the principle of free choice on which democracy is posited; that is, there is a contradiction between free choice and the choices any party had already predetermined when it was founded, complete with a certain world-view (this conclusion holds even if we allow for evolving and changing world-views).
In Europe, inner-party elections are determined by activists. Therein lies the logic of the ’super-delegates’. But it is a muddled solution, a half-way house. Better to do away completely with the free-for-all of open primaries (for instance by requiring caucuses in every state).
Posted by: RCS | April 28th, 2008 at 11:39 pm | Report this commentAlternatively, Obama’s supporters have been making radical statements for quite some time now, but the press has chosen to ignore them, as they do not fit the narrative that David Axelrod has brokered with the media.
The media notices they can also get ratings from the ravings of Rev. Wright (or Michelle Obama for that matter) and publishes, regardless of the obvious contradiction of Axelrod’s story that Sen. Obama is some sort of centrist.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 29th, 2008 at 2:22 am | Report this commentObama seems to be taking his cue from Hamlet with regard to Wright: “To break or not to break, that is the question.” And with respect to Hillary, “To debate or not to debate…”
How many Hamlet-like figures have made it to the White House? I cannot think of any.
Posted by: algasema | April 29th, 2008 at 8:02 am | Report this commentThis development defines a dilemma far bigger than Mr Obama’s career. As one who had responded enthusiastically and independently to Mr Obama, I feel duped. It had seemed that he offered a much-needed turn of a page in US leadership–and that he brought with it closure of one of the ugliest histories of racism on the planet. The Rev Wright was no doubt true to his character yesterday. so, I need no explanation from Mr Obama as to why he has stood close to this man for five minutes.
Upon hearing this, Mr Obama’s profile becomes, indeed, that of a soldier for Farrakhan’s “Nation of Islam” (which has nothing to do with Islam).
America IS its own enemy. Its political system is failing. Those who will claim that this outing vindicates the tiresome media games we are subjected to in the name of democracy are deluded. Observers must question this country’s future as a leading nation.
As for the election, Hillary and Bill must answer to their own relationships with the Rev Wright and other US black activists. The Clintons are still the Clintons. McCain is still an old man with exaggerated war memories from another questionable war.
Bush and the Neocons. These are clever and cynical people. They’ve been exploiting their assessment of this broader failure in the US political system.
It is time to unfund this enterprise and force it to face its demons and lies and debts.
Posted by: WCM | April 29th, 2008 at 8:47 am | Report this commentWow.
American Democracy, as a system of choosing and holding to account government, is so so broke…
…as a form of entertainment, designed to distract from the actual wielding of power, it is rising to ever higher standards of performance.
Posted by: David | April 29th, 2008 at 9:58 am | Report this commentGiven the furore over the Wright story when it first broke, it’s surprising to see how muted the response has been by the media (e.g. CNN, BBC) this time
Posted by: CJG | April 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am | Report this commentNo doubt, the greatest show on earth. There hasn’t been such an exciting election season in living memory.
algasema,
Very frank and courageous remarks. Seems you are willing to admit Obama is not cut for the presidency. And as for all the doomsayers who claim the American system is broke — on the contrary, these sets of tortuous exams have succeeded in shining an x-ray light on the candidates, in seperating the chaff from the straw, in revealing their personalities and their stamina. This great vetting process will, I think, this time produce a good president, whoever she may be.
Posted by: RCS | April 29th, 2008 at 10:37 am | Report this commentRCS is a fool if he thinks the Clintons and their AIPAC/Likudite support have scored a win.
Obama will be history, no doubt, but the knife came from within his own camp. The US loses respect in this pathetic spectacle. The ROW will see this failure of the US political process as yet another outcome of the degradation in the US system that began with the Clinton’s arrival on the national stage in 1992.
The Likudites are, no doubt, seeking new frieds and rewriting their spin as I type this post.
Posted by: WCM | April 29th, 2008 at 11:02 am | Report this commentRCS, Good point on the vetting process. However, the press could have mentioned the 90% of Sen. Obama’s track record that was not included in his PR/Biography, and Sen. Obama would have been out of the race after Iowa.
Obama’s left-wing-party-hack background was never hidden very well, as his voting record is open to the public. As Sen. Obama is still pretty much off-limits to criticism, it has taken his Wife, his Reverend, and his radical supporters to act as a safe proxy so that the press can scrutinize without being accused of attacking Sen. Obama.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 29th, 2008 at 12:53 pm | Report this comment>>John Powers: I have dismissed your aggressive–and sometimes rude and crude–Clinton support. Your attirbution of the term “left-wing party-hack” to Obama is mistaken; his association with his “mentor” Jeremiah Wright–and some of Michelle’s comments–reflect more the Farrakhan Fascism than any left-wing leanings. I had been noting these inconsistencies with his Message, and trying to overlook them. As a good preacher should, the Rev Wright brought the message home clearly in his homily yesterday.
The names of Barack Obama and those of his staff which have been welcomed in my inbox are now “spammed”.
>>Barack Obama, should he read this: My support for you was founded on a thin observation that you were a refreshing, free thinker. I was wrong.
Yes, you have betrayed the confidence of many who share my concerns and hopes that the US could be a better citizen.
No. You have not been betrayed. The knife that has slain you was not drawn in attack, but in a moment of frivolity amongst your “friends”.
No. You have not failed us.
You have used us. Good riddens. You will find you many fewer friends in Europe today.
Posted by: WCM | April 29th, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Report this commentAllowing Rev. Wright to speak freely will either be viewed as the beginning of the end of Obama’s campaign, or a brilliant political move. The latter seems to be unfolding: public opinion has already begun shifting away from questions about Obama - to questions about Rev. Wright and the earlier characterization of him as “a crazy uncle we all have in our family.”
Let me posit the following: (a) The premise on which Rev. Wright has based his sermons for the past 30 some years would collapse if Obama became president. Wright apparently needs to keep the notion of “victimhood” alive to remain relevant; (b) it is in Clinton’s interest that Rev. Wright stop talking.
The first point is obvious. The second is predicated on the notion that Rev. Wright will self-destruct thereby “absolving” Obama. What is being suggested is that voters will come see Rev Wright for what he really is: a self-centered erudite, clinging and feeding off of a past that the country has long moved beyond…albeit imperfectly.
In the event of an Obama presidency, Wright’s sermons would need to move beyond focusing on wounds of the past, and delusional accusations, to focusing exclusively on helping his flock acquire the tools for social success - the kind of success that Obama represents. Whether he can make or is willing to make that transition is not yet clear…
Posted by: E. Guichard | April 29th, 2008 at 1:52 pm | Report this commentI think the emphasis here is the wrong way round.
I am sorry for any embarrassment caused to Obama, an example of just about all that is good in America.
But Wright is articulate and, more importantly, he is largely correct.
Supposedly, he has the freedom to speak his mind.
The ugly truth is that of all countries enjoying freedom of speech, America is, by a good measure, the least free.
But you are free to call people names.
Social pressure from officials making personal attacks against individual citizens - attacks which are repeated endlessly in the press - is a nasty and effective way to silence people.
Why do Americans tolerate this kind of low-life behavior from a man like Cheney?
It’s simply disgusting.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | April 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm | Report this commentWCM,
That’s a rather childish reaction.
On what facts do you base your extreme statements made in purple prose?
Absolutely none, so far as I can see.
Unfortunately, such uncritical understanding of events - understanding showing no reading between the lines, no subtlety - is not uncommon in America.
It explains a lot about the unbelievable set of messes in which the country finds itself.
On another subject, related by the very fact that is far too often ignored, how few address Hillary’s unspeakable comments in threating to incinerate 80 million people.
The Boston Globe at least spoke out, calling her Hillary Strangelove.
By the way, General Scowcroft, one of the most qualified and intelligent advisors in Bush Pere’s administration and former head of the National Security Council, has just written that the United States needs Obama’s diplomatic skills in today’s world.
That in my view is a definitive recommendation.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | April 29th, 2008 at 2:24 pm | Report this commentRCS, yes, I certainly have begun to have some doubts about Obama, which should be a big sign of trouble for him, not because my opinion is more important than anyone else’s, which it is obviously not, but because I have been and still am one of his strongest supporters. Therefore, there must be many other Obama supporters like me who are very worried about whether his candidacy is still viable.
However, my doubts about Obama have nothing to do with any belief that there is even the slightest grain of truth in the Republican inspired smear attacks on Obama’s patriotism. Obama has, so far as even his most “bitter” enemies have been able to come up with, never in his entire career said a single word of his own against America, against whites, or in support of Wright’s particular brand of hatred and lunacy. If he had, one can be sure that Fox News and the rest of the right wing smear machine would have long since found out about it, and that we would be seeing about it so often on television that even Wright himself would have been shunted off to the sidelines.
Nor are the attempts to present Obama as a wild eyed radical leftist based on his liberal voting record likely to convince the millions of his supporters who, like myself, want to see real change in this country, not more of the same Bush/McCain government of, by and for the wealthy elite, or the Bill Clinton/Hillary Clinton politics of expediency, “triangulation” and “centrism”, i.e. business as usual.
What raises the most serious doubts about Obama is his failure to take on openly and speak out clearly against those who have poisoned this campaign by spreading hatred, lies, racism and divisiveness on both sides in order to try to destroy, not only Obama himself, but his ideal of an America that can move beyond race and beyond government serving only the interests of the most privileged class, in order to build a more open society that cares about the welfare of all of its people.
Obama’s vision is anathema to the right-wing purveyors of hatred, smear, fear, the Big Lie, racism, authoritarian suppression of civil liberties, continuation of untrammelled, unregulated financial industry excesses that have put our entire economy at risk, and of ever expanding imperial wars initiated for the benefit of the oil and defense industries. This is exemplified by the Neocon mouthpiece, Fox News, which serves the Bush/Cheney administration just as faithfully as the Volkischer Beobachter and Pravda once served their respective masters in Germany and the Soviet Union.
On the other side, there is Jeremiah Wright and his anti-white racism, together with his lunatic views on AIDS, 9/11 and other issues (including, though this rarely appears in the media, the same hatred of gays and abortion that is common in white evangelical churches - Wright has a great deal of company on the Christian, fundamentalist right).
Both the attack machine on the right (with no small amount of complicity from Hillary’s supporters) and Jeremiah Wright on the left are plunging their daggers into Obama’s hopes of becoming president. (I compared Obama to Hamlet above, but maybe the comparison should have been to Caesar instead - “Et tu, Jeremiah?”)
Obama’s weakness and his greatest failing, therefore, have been his inability to confront these twin forces of hatred and divisiveness, on both the left and the right, head on. Instead, he has treated Fox News with far more respect that it deserves, appeared on it, and tried to reason with their hatchet men (as if Caesar could have had a calm discussion with Brutus and Cassius on the 15th of March) instead of openly denouncing them.
At the same time Obama has failed to take on Wright, who is now doing everything in his power to bring Obama down, whether because of simple jealousy, seeing Obama’s fame as a threat to his (Wright’s) own bloated ego, or because Wright, also, like his counterparts on the right, is poisoned by fear, hatred and loathing for Obama’s vision of a harmonious and just society.
Obama must, urgently and forcefully, speak out against these twin forces on the right and on the left that, each in its own way, seeks the destruction of everything that America stands for. If he does not, the doubts of supporters like myself as to whether he is qualified to be president will only increase.
It also goes without saying, that, if elected president, Obama will have to deal with foreign leaders who are far, far worse than Fox News’ hacks, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, or Ann Coulter on the right, or Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan or whatever other successors to Willie Horton the media can come up with on the left. If Obama cannot take on the character assassins and smear artists in our own country, how is he going to handle the likes of Ahmedinejad and Kim Jong-Il, not to mention the leaders of rising authoritarian superpowers such as Russia and China, overseas?
Posted by: algasema | April 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm | Report this commentHe’s going to talk to them algasema, he’s going to talk with them over some tea and crumpets.
Posted by: Sade | April 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pm | Report this commentDear Sirs,
It is difficult for me to understand the vitriol of many of your comments.
Posted by: E. Veiga | April 29th, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Report this commentMy impression is that the candidature of Barack Obama has been chalenging so much of your assumptions, to the point of being unbearable to live with, that you will use any kind of justification to justify your prejudices.
The same with Pastor Wright. Nobody likes to hear the inconvenient truth in the face. Nobody likes to hear that we are not perfect, that we aren’t the most beautiful, that we haven’t always be nice, etc.. etc… But the ways we react to it speaks more about us than about Mr. Wright.
For what I am concerned, I prefer much more having in front a person who respectfully disagree with my opinions than somebody who will not even hear my opinions, like HRC or McCain.
Obama’s “guilt” by association, in a country whose much-touted freedoms include the freedom of association, is a very convenient tool in the hands of those who would not vote for him anyway. It would have served Obama or any of the other candidates right, if their associates were convicted criminals. Then, the issue of poor judgment would legitimately have been raised. Otherwise, we are left with insulting the intelligence of the candidates as if they are too weak to remain themselves or retain their inner core regardless of the noise surrounding them. (Parenthetically, all the great prophets associated with all sorts of characters, yet they remained true to themselves and their divine messages). A selection process is warped, indeed, that would push meritocracy and personal responsibility to the back seat while promoting “moving in the right circles”. The system produced George Bush. George Bush had ivory league associates but what good has that done the USA and the rest of the world? This time around, the beginning of wisdom for America ought to be the jettisoning of a selection process that would perpetuate the selection of the likes of George Bush. Now is the time to judge a candidate by what he/she says, does and plans to do, not by the actions or sayings of his/her associates. That is the only way the country would choose a leader capable of bringing about the fundamental socio-economic changes required in the recovery of the American and world economies.
Posted by: Kasim | April 29th, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Report this comment“Obama will have to deal with foreign leaders who are far, far worse than Fox News’ hacks, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, or Ann Coulter…”
Wrong.
There are no foreign leaders worse than these people. They spew hate with no intention of communicating anything but hate. Their only measure of success is to increase listeners by being outrageous.
Even the darkest foreign leader has legitimate interests and concerns with which he or she must deal.
It is perfectly possible to have a meaningful conversation or negotiation when someone has such an interest. There are countless examples, from the IRA to Carter’s work with North Korea years ago.
It is not possible to have a meaningful conversation or negotiation with someone whose only object is prominence through hate and ugliness.
And that last clearly includes Hillary now. Her entire objective is to win by discrediting and hating her opponent. How else do explain her absolutely insane threat to murder 80 million people?
Hillary represents blind ambition with no legitimate social purpose other than personal success.
Sadly, too many Americans confuse that condition with being brave and tough. How else do explain the long list of dreadful presidents?
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | April 29th, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Report this commentRight on, Kassim, but, unfortunately, it is not enough to point out politely, as Obama has been trying to do, that a candidate should be judged on his (or her) own statements instead of through guilt by association. In an America that has been poisoned by the despicable gutter politics of both the Fox News variety on the right and the Jeremiah Wright variety on the left, Obama must speak out more forcefully against both if his candidacy is to survive.
Posted by: algasema | April 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pm | Report this commentA further thought.
Why is it that Wright’s words so bother some Americans?
America has so many, many other examples of “ministers” who’ve done nothing but spew hate and ignorance.
Consider the fried-brain Pat Robertson, who, apart from a host of idiotic remarks, a few years ago called for the assassination of a foreign leader (Chavez).
Why wasn’t he branded a terrorist?
Why wasn’t he arrested under America’s dark anti-terror laws?
Consider the late Jerry Falwell, the Jabba the Hutt of the Religious Right.
Falwell claimed homosexuals caused 9/11.
Falwell said once that the Anti-Christ (reference the Book of Revelations) was alive today, and he took the form of a male Jew.
Falwell sold tapes from the pulpit that suggested the Clintons murdered Vince Foster.
The man was a raving lunatic, but I guess so long as he did not touch the sacred name of America and things that it may have done wrong, he was okay. More than okay, he thrived and got lots of publicity.
Consider the “Rev” Jimmy Swaggert who said from the pulpit that he would kill a homosexual who made a pass at him.
The list is very long, and today includes a “minister” associated with John McCain, who made idiotic remarks getting little publicity.
Then there’s a former minister of the Clintons who is on trial for child molestation.
Good God, what a lunatic asylum.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | April 29th, 2008 at 4:36 pm | Report this commentalgasema,
I admire your integrity, your idealism and, not least, your eloquence. However I think you are — even now — naive about Obama. I don’t think he ever knew he represented all the great ideals you have crowned him with. In this I am in agreement with the Dear Pastor (if Kim Jong-Il is the Dear Leader, Wright can be called the Dear Pastor): Obama is a politician like any other; neither better nor worse in his ethics. What you and others had interpreted as representing a new style of politics, has transpired to be no more than a sign of weakness, as you eminently demonstrate yourself.
Posted by: RCS | April 29th, 2008 at 5:15 pm | Report this commentOkay everybody, stop freaking out. Obama is still going to get the nomination. He is right now 10-14% ahead in north carolina. He will regain his popular vote count by all measures as well as add to his delegate lead on may 6th. Then all of the stupid Clinton freaks can shut up.
Posted by: Sade | April 29th, 2008 at 5:23 pm | Report this commentSade, even though I am an Obama supporter, your reference to “stupid Clinton freaks” is unhelpful, to say the least. The Democratic party needs the support of Democrats on both sides if we are to have any chance of beating the Republican attack machine in the fall.
John Chuckman, I will admit that it is a close call between America’s own homegrown hatemongers, such as those on Fox News, talk radio and the Christian fundamentalist right on the one hand, and overseas tyrants on the other. However, the likes of Ahmedinejad, Kim Jong-Il, Putin, Mugabe, etc., are arguably more dangerous to more people than even Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly.
And yes, Sade, Obama will have to talk to our adversaries if he is elected. Ditto for Hillary and McCain. Tea and crumpets might not necessarily be called for, but they would still fit better on the menu than obliterating any country whose interests do not happen to fit in with the neocon fantasies of an American imperium.
Posted by: algasema | April 29th, 2008 at 6:29 pm | Report this commentTHIS JUST IN, from the New York Daily News, first seen on Rawstory.com:
Is Jeremiah Wright a colossal disaster for Barack Obama or a press trick?
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html
Posted by: Cash Mundy | April 29th, 2008 at 6:43 pm | Report this commentYes and if Clinton wins the nomination I might just plug my nose and vote for that stinker.
By the looks of things we might be seeing a Clinton -Wright ticket in november.
This whole thing has gone on too long.
We got to know the candidates, as a country were leaning towards obama untill the Clintons began an deceptive almost abusive campaign of lies, helped by the right wing and the easily manipulated media.
Thanks to this Hillary is still in the race, but only enough so to completely rip the democratic party in half, giving the future of America to what will be an ultra conservative bush like senile administration.
Will the democratic party ever recover if it loses the 08 election?
In the words of Ralph Nader if the democrats cant win in a landslide in 08′ they should regress and come back in a different form.
I for one plan to register as an independent if The dems cant win it this year. Ive been faithful in 2000, granted they got robbed, 2004 was disapointing, and 2008 is starting to look like an all out disaster.
Posted by: Sade | April 29th, 2008 at 7:07 pm | Report this commentThis campaign is not an audition for the presidency of the US. Many of the presumably US comments here pass on points of principle and focus on the context of the football match or spectacle. It has never been a surprise that Obama has gotten this far on his acting abilities. It is a surprise to me to finally hear the words of the man Mr Obama has often referred to as his mentor. As such, I feel correct in assessing and judging this “minister” as a significant influence on the candidate. There is good reason to suspect another agenda at work when smart, independent thinking and sound support are required.
The words and representation in the Press Club’s top-floor dining room yesterday should set off more than lights. One can observe here and elsewhere the embarrassed condescension of US white elites and the double talk fitting a culture of lawyers.
John Chuckman rightly points out parallels with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al. The UCC is not the Roman Catholic Church; people go to it for the preaching and the community. I will note that I do not think Reagan spent 20 minutes with his Alzheimered ears more than politely and politically bent towards these characters. Mr Obama has spent 20 years in Rev Wright’s church and has acknowledged the man’s exceptional influence in his spiritual and moral development.
Farrakhan and others cited in this story have taken notes on the success of the white brethren of the cloth who put the Christian Right in power. Why should one today not think that they picked the photogenic and articulate Obama to carry their flag and more? The current leadership void and sorry state of political discourse in the US seems to have provided ideal cover to move the ball onto and up the field.
I earnestly was impressed by and supported Mr Obama until last night. I have vigorously promoted his candidacy as an observer on the European side of the Pond. I am not merely throwing my toys out of the pram, thank you.
It is my understanding that Larry Summers was amongst the Harvard group that was quick to pick up on the Obama movement and add value and credibility to it. I would rather hear what Larry has to say today than words from Barack Obama. One of Larry’s Harvard Yard critics was sitting in the Press Club audience yesterday.
I stand by every word I wrote (with apologies for some typos and for misspelling “riddance”.
Posted by: WCM | April 29th, 2008 at 7:24 pm | Report this commentThe Clintons are the reason why I have participated in these FT blogs. I have better than passing knowledge of them, their White House and their ambitions. I detest them; it has been rare for me to feel compelled to proclaim so about anyone over more than an intimate dinner table.
Yet, despite their dirty campaign, helped by the Neocons who have feared Obama as a threat to Israel, I underline my argument that it is Mr Obama who is responsible for, at least, a grand deception, if not an outright highjacking of the US political process.
He is running for president of the US. What explanation should be acceptable from him?
Posted by: WCM | April 29th, 2008 at 7:42 pm | Report this commentWCM
I don’t know what I have ever typed here in favor of Sen. Clinton, but if I ever have, I certainly apologize for it.
Perhaps Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism is more appropriate description for Sen. Obama’s politics here, but the word fascist is poison to most discussions. He left voting record is well documented (when he gets around to voting-which was not all that often in Illinois) and he is a statist.
Working for the Chicago Machine? Sure-fully documented. Working against his own neighborhood to support the Party? That too. One of the most left-partisan members of the Senate? Yup.
I’ll stick with the documented left-wing-party-hack and leave the extreme labels to Sen. Obama’s supporters to assign to him.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 29th, 2008 at 8:28 pm | Report this commentObama has just made the remarks that I am sure that all of his supporters, and the country, have been waiting for, denouncing Wright in the strongest possible terms. No one who continues to attribute Wright’s crazed ravings, his hate and his divisiveness to Obama himself, can possibly be considered to be in good faith or having the slightest respect for or connection with the truth, if that was ever possible.
Of course, that will not stop Fox News, the North Carolina Republican State Committee, or the right wing hate show hosts, from continuing to pretend that Wright and Obama are the same person, any more than there will be an end to the rumors that Obama is a Muslim, supporter of Saddam, or bin Laden, or whomever. But Obama has done what he had to do, and has reaffirmed his core beliefs and identity in a may that no amount of lies, from the right or the left, can take away from him.
He is firmly back on track to be our next president. (However, it would also be nice if he would agree to debate Hillary, instead of making it look as if he is running away scared).
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | April 29th, 2008 at 8:31 pm | Report this commentI meant to say “in a way”, not “in a may”. Apologies.
Posted by: algasema | April 29th, 2008 at 8:34 pm | Report this commentI just heard that Obama today finally denounced Rev. Wright for his message and his antics over the weekend. Looks like he finally figured out the good Rev. wasn’t what he thought him to be. All that remains is for him to wake up and denounce Farakan and Ayers too and make a clean sweep of it. I don’t know if I admire Obama for sticking by his “homies” or not. At first it was refreshing that Bush did that, if only to thumb his nose at political convention, but it later became obvious that, just as in Obama’s case, many of those closest to him (Bush’s “homies”) gave him bad counsel as well. I believe the Bush Presidency will be judged much more genrously in time than Obama’s Candidacy, if only because it won’t have the opportunity to be judged fairly in time enough to benefit him becoming President.
Also, for those of you who aren’t Americans, I find your observations interesting but wanting in a fundamental undersatnding of everything that makes America great. It is precisely our ability to create greatness from seeming chaos, do good in spite of our flaws and tear at our failures only to rise again that makes this place so very, very special. Americans are optimists at heart and their hearts are very, very big and open to the rest of a world that increasingly seems all to willing to take pot-shots at our all too obvious imperfections without offering to step up and fill the gap themselves. At least, as the lead dog, our view of the world is always changing!
Posted by: Charles | April 29th, 2008 at 8:55 pm | Report this comment“But Obama has done what he had to do” and it only took him 20 years to notice that Rev. Wright was a bit radical.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 29th, 2008 at 8:56 pm | Report this commentTo John Powers: Yes he did and even though it took him 20 years, to his credit, he did finally figure it out. Friendship, real or assumed, plays funny tricks on people. That is why deceit from a friend is so crushing. I am not down on Obama for being “used” by Rev. Wright because I figure the good Rev. was being “used” by Obama to further his local political ambitions. The mix just didn’t play well on a national stage. It is just that, having seen what being blindly committed to presumed “friends” did to President Bush, I worry that the same charity might prove as fatal a blind spot to Obama, if he ever makes it through McCain. I am now more than ever concerned that Obama’s high minded, deceptively refreshing “change” agenda will prove to be nothing more than academic naivete in the Oval Office. That would bode worse for the entire world than President Bush’s well meaning but bungled attempts to save a Western Civilization that can’t get over its misplaced guilt over previous colonialization long enough to percieve that it needs to be saved from real dark-age barbarians.
Posted by: Charles | April 29th, 2008 at 9:21 pm | Report this commentthis morning on c-span.org call-in program, a caller made a key point: in the black community, churches talk a lot about races because racism is very much at the center of the african-american community, it’s a reality that whites don’t relate to,so it’s normal for them to talk about this with a passion….in the end, if Obama is smart and strong, he will come out a winner and stronger, he is breaking so many cliches, this very smart half-white and half-black kid from Chicago is breaking all the records, and that can only be great for the Republic….and also puts the racism in all of us,including in the african- american community ,on the table and in the open,to get some fresh air, and that’s good for all !
Posted by: blogger | April 29th, 2008 at 9:25 pm | Report this commentI’ve supported Obama throughout, and still think he would be better than his two rivals. But barring unforeseen events torpedoing McCain’s campaign further down the line (always possible I suppose), I think it’s all over for Obama - and by extension - for the Democrats.
Even if he continues to expand his popular and delegate count in the remaining states as expected, the Wright affair has damaged O’s electability among too many blue-collar Democrats now. Wright’s current antics prove that the video clips weren’t isolated remarks taken out of context. That raises serious questions about O’s judgement in staying so close to him for so long.
If Clinton manages to wangle the nomination, that will energise the Republican base in a way that McCain hasn’t been able to. Her tactics against Obama have alienated her from his core supporters - she won’t win the presidency.
So much for change - looks like more of the same old Republican foreign policy adventurism to come. Unless of course that unforeseen curveball does hit McCain at a critical juncture…..
Posted by: DKM | April 29th, 2008 at 9:53 pm | Report this commentJPB, was it 20 years ago that Wright made his despicable remark about the 9/11 attack? Was Obama supposed to censor every word that Wright said in his entire career? Are Hillary and McCain also responsible for everything that has been said or done by every single person they have been connected with in their long (allegedly so in Hillary’s case) careers? Or do we have a double standard here, depending on whether the candidate running for president is white or black?
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | April 29th, 2008 at 9:55 pm | Report this commentSorry: JBP, not JPB.
Posted by: algasema | April 29th, 2008 at 9:57 pm | Report this commentWho among us would accept responsibility for every foolish or outrageous thing our own ministers, spouses, or friends say? Only a moron would assume that Obama is responsible for someone else’s crackpot comments. Most Americans, including the media, are crackpots themselves to obsess over Wright’s comments. Why do they care so much about a previously obscure minister? Is Wright a legitimate threat to the US? If the American public is fooled by this cynical media fakeout, they deserve another George Bush.
Posted by: jorsini | April 29th, 2008 at 10:21 pm | Report this commentAgreed Sade. If the racists of the Jim Crow era hadn’t ruined the idea, I would suggest a test for the right to vote. 10 questions. Your vote is multiplied by the percent of questions you get right.
Posted by: Michael Johnson | April 30th, 2008 at 1:31 am | Report this commentWright and Obama are part of a vast, left-wing conspiracy to make Hillary Clinton seem like a centrist… and, so, electable.
Posted by: Steven Cooper | April 30th, 2008 at 3:52 am | Report this comment[…] The curse that is Jeremiah Wright Clive Crook, the FT’s Washington columnist blogs on whether Rev. Jeremiah Wright actually wants Barack […]
Posted by: Obama: The curse that is Jeremiah Wright « The Inquiring Mind | April 30th, 2008 at 6:43 am | Report this comment“But Obama has done what he had to do” and it only took him 20 years to notice that Rev. Wright was a bit radical.
No one goes to church to worship a pastor. One goes to worship god.
Posted by: Kelly Pierce | April 30th, 2008 at 9:34 am | Report this commentWhich is what Obama did. You stay there also no doubt since he probably made friends there amongst the other goers. Stop turning everything into a net negative. There are so many concern trolls. Sprouting off. Without any intention of voting for him in the first place. It is meanness and the right wing is very well known for it.
I have just taken time to listen to Mr Obama’s press statement yesterday. I commend him. His comments recognised fully the damage this association has caused and offered comprehensible insight as to why he had failed to see the risk Jeremiah Wright posed. His closing comments on his anger at Wright for taking the stage during this critical period of the campaign and distracting the debate were most welcome.
Nonetheless, the blount anger I have expressed over the last two days likely reflects the depth of the outrage and concern that many of his silent supporters have experienced. I will hope that they all take the time to closely listen to his comments yesterday. Indeed, they show he is the only candidate qualified for the US presidency in competence and character, and the ROW should continue to hope that US voters will vote accordingly.
As for my anger, I believe it would’ve been wrong to wait to see how he handled such a devastating and undermining revelation. I will wish him and the US the best.
Posted by: WCM | April 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am | Report this commentI don’t think Rev. Wright hurts Obama. The majority of Americans attend church on a regular basis. Catholic politicians should not be held accountable of the paedophilia addiction of some Catholic priests (as all priests should not as well).
Many people attend churches to become part of the community, to network, and/or to make friends. Others are more dogmatic about it.
Should we hold Hillary accountable for the dogma of the methodist church?
Posted by: Michelle | April 30th, 2008 at 11:56 am | Report this commentMichelle
This was not about Mr Obama sitting passively in a pew where this man spoke a few “uniquely inspired” words for 20 minutes of an hour+ of defined text and vibrant music. What troubled me are his recent acknowledgements that this errant minister had been his longtime personal mentor. It is this relationship that has put Mr Obama in a difficult spot. Not his selection of pews.
The link with the RCC’s problems with sexual abuse is valid, but only to an extent. The onus on practising Catholics came when the evidence was put before them. For those in authority who had been informed/warned, their responsibilities came before. Once the issue was flat in front of all, continued silence or confidence in the system–and in accord with Catholic teachings on authority–to vet the issues was wrong. Much of the pressure was brought from outside the Church.
Mr Obama is not a Catholic and the UCC has had a reputation as a church that encourages spirited dissent. Previously, a white denomination, it was the home of significant dissent during the era of civil rights and opposition to the Vietnam War. Mr Obama has now acknowledged that he may have sat in that pew a bit too long and failed to take seriously much of what he had heard. To the extent that the UCC is such a robust environment, he deserves some slack.
After listening to his remarks, I am inclined to think he sat in that pew and ignored his questions, scepticism and the occasional offences in the interest of doing what many US churchgoers seem to think is the “respectable” thing to do.
I suspect at least one parishioner in the US will be more honest with himself in future.
Posted by: WCM | April 30th, 2008 at 12:23 pm | Report this commentIn reading through these responses over the past couple of days, I was struck by the tendency of many thinking Americans to quickly assert rights as a defence. Such assertions have more than once implied that those of us living outside the US may not have equivalent (and certainly not more) rights.
Mr Obama has rightly recognised that people have the right NOT to vote for him, and that that right takes precedence over many of his rights.
For a country founded on criticism and challenge, poloitical discourse in the US today seems constrained by excessive political correctness, anger management, and, perhaps, an overdoes of anti-depressants. You should see what is being written and said about France’s president. Editors here work to amplify, not mollify.
I will turn my attention elsewhere for the next hours. Many thanks for the space to join in on this important debate.
Posted by: WCM | April 30th, 2008 at 12:44 pm | Report this commentMichelle,
As a Catholic if my local Priest is abusing children, it is certainly my responsibility to get him to stop, one way or another…just as Sen. Obama, as a (so called) community leader could have used his persuasive skills to get Rev. Wright to straighten up.
The laity are not required to be passive members of a congregation. And one can certainly change churches without much penalty in Chicago. Sen. Obama had 20 years to make some changes, but has apparently put upgrading his Rev. on the same timetable as upgrading the public schools in his neighborhood, which are also a disaster.
And WCM, you are most certainly wrong if you think that Catholic in the pews were not able to stop abuse before it happened. If it were not stopped, we would see abuse levels similar to the public schools, which have (perhaps) 10x per capita the number of abuse cases as Catholic parish.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 30th, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Report this commentSenator Obama is NOT responsible for Revd Wright. There seems to be a failure in some commentators’ application of logic - a teacher may be responsible for the opinions of his students if he/she has influenced them but how can a pupil be responsible for the opinions of his/her teacher? If there was any reason to suppose that the mixed-race (half-white) senator espoused the anti-white racism recently spouted by Rev Wright, we should need to worry, but I, at least, have seen no evidence of this.
Posted by: John | April 30th, 2008 at 2:57 pm | Report this commentI should like to hope that US adults would vote for a President based on their ability to do the job rather than on their race, sex, wealth, age or religion. So far they have only had middle-aged or elderly white males - there is an opportunity to change this but everyone should ask themselves “would you vote for Senator Obama if he was all-white, would you vote for Senator Clinton is she was a man, would you vote for Senator McCain if he was black?”
However there is also an argument for voting for Senator Obama on the grounds that the gains he could achieve in racial harmony might outweigh the damage from his party’s policies on free trade, security and insolent interference in the internal economic affairs of other countries.
Racial Harmony? Take a look at Sen. Obama’s neighborhood that he has represented for 10 years or so and show me how much harmony he has brought to his own wards.
Sen. Obama practice of “racial harmony” has consisted of a miserable affordable housing development, and a campaign to keep Wal-Mart and private schools (except the one his kids go to) out of the South Side.
If you vote on ability and record, you would certainly not vote for Obama.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | April 30th, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Report this commentAs I have previously suggested, there is a double standard that overlooks hate speech by white preachers, whose endorsements are often accepted by white presidendial candidates without anyone caring, and the standard that is being applied to a black candidate such as Barack Obama. There is an excellent article about this in today’s Boston Globe by Scott Lehigh.
One also has to look at l’affaire Wright in context. Even without Wright, Obama has already been accused of being connected with just about every black radical (and/or terrorist, Muslim or otherwise) that one can think of, limited only by the fantasies of Fox News and other far right wing outlets which are no less expert in spewing hate than Pastor Wright himself. Wright is merely icing on the cake, or if it were not for global warming, the tip of the iceberg, for those who will stop at nothing in their efforts to destroy Obama and his vision of a more just, tolerant and unified America.
Posted by: algasema | April 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pm | Report this commentThe Wright business is being blown entirely out of proportion, and I believe the reasons for this are neither honest nor wholesome.
In focusing so much attention on this, America, which weeks ago was congratulating itself with the idea that a black man could run and win, now begins to show old, true underlying attitudes.
In this the country resembles someone whose hair dye-job was being praised weeks ago for its freshness but is now the source of ugly gossip as the genuine hair color creeps back in at the roots.
God, if Obama made a mistake here it was a small one.
Just look at the mistakes in Washington. Often it seems nothing else goes on there but mistakes.
Bush and the strategic blunder of the century, wasting lives and resources on a colossal scale?
A Supreme Court which effectively appointed Bush in the first place?
Hillary Clinton living with Bill Clinton for three decades of ethical degradation and embarrassment and shame?
Bill Clinton, a man of considerable talents who to a large extent squandered them and demonstrated countless times a highly doubtful character?
John McCain mocking and attacking the Religious Right and then shortly after crawling for their support?
One could write a book called Washington Mistakes. If the author only briefly cited each error and kept the time-frame to say the last fifty years, the book would be encyclopedic in length.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | April 30th, 2008 at 4:20 pm | Report this commentI apologize for the garbled syntax in my first sentence, but since the meaning, I trust, is clear anyway, I will not try to correct it.
Posted by: algasema | April 30th, 2008 at 4:23 pm | Report this commentThis horse should be dead, but I’ll beat it once more.
>>algasema wrote: “Senator Obama is NOT responsible for Revd Wright.”
I have not suggested he was responsible for Wright’s words, but for his relationship with Wright and seemingly this extended group of Wright’s friends. Wright was not just Senator Obama’s pastor; he was his mentor since 20 years. That is what is garbling up some sentences.
Obama is NOT in denial as to how critically damaging Wright’s speech was. His response marked a much-needed new high for this campaign. I will hope voters have ample chance to hear and see and read it.
If the Clintons or McCain were actively engaged in playing on the Wright weakness and leveraging it to divide the party, will any journalist live to tell the story before the SuperDs take their vote?
Posted by: WCM | April 30th, 2008 at 6:10 pm | Report this commentagree with Crook.but God’s Promise to America shall prevail.Obama 08
Posted by: jack | April 30th, 2008 at 6:33 pm | Report this commentActually, WCM, the quoted words were not mine, but “John’s”. However, I agree with them. In view of the fact that white ministers such as Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart, to mention only two, make equally hate-filled comments almost every day, without any one caring, it is becoming more and more obvious that the whole Wright affair is nothing more than one more trumped-up episode in the ongoing smear campaign against Obama, which, even before Wright’s remarks were dredged up from the sewer, was trying to depict Obama as an America-hating, terrorist-loving elitist Muslim wimp.
The attention given to Wright, while ostensibly an attack only on Obama, is also an attack on the entire black, and, by extension, other minority communities. It is no accident that, at the peak of the Wright controversy, which, I believe, has peaked (since what more can either Wright himself or Fox News say that is worse than what has already been said?) the US Supreme Court issued a far reaching decision in an Indiana voting rights case that will lead to widespread disenfranchisement of black and Latino voters throught the US in this fall’s election.
Instead of obsessing endlessly over the details of who was Wright and who was wrong (no pun intended) about Obama’s meglomaniac former pastor, it makes more sense to look at the larger picture of still-rampant racism in America. This picture is not a pretty one.
I am no mathematician, but I would like to propose an equation (of sorts):
drivers’ licenses + illegal immigrants + Latinos
Posted by: algasema | April 30th, 2008 at 9:02 pm | Report this comment=
Wright hullabaloo + Barack Obama + Blacks.
It seems the free press is being used to attack inividuals that are not here to defend themselves.
It seems Obama has nothing to offer the American people because America has GIVEN him all that he needed: a fulfilment of the so-called American Dream.
The Obama-Wright scandal is doing a lot of damage to a country known as a model of opportunity.
I have always held my AmericAn colleagues with the highest regard and looked to them as models of order.
The whole Obama affair seems to be what everyone has been waiting to see: Race coming to the center of the debate.
From the outset, it seems Obama was not keen to introduce THE ‘white-black-Indian’tag in this race. Only the media kept emphasising that ‘exit showed him trailing his opponent.’
Obama has fought his fight, proved his worth; this seems to be the best time for him to back out of the race and leave the Clintons to battle McCain. This campaign has been yearning to get dirty and that moment is here.
Obama’s charisma: Rest In Peace. Good luck in other endeavours,
MM
Posted by: Mutimba | April 30th, 2008 at 9:43 pm | Report this commentIn my previous comment, I should have written “anti-Latino racism” and “anti-black racism”, instead of “Latinos” and Blacks” in my “equation”. I did not mean in any way to imply that Wright speaks for all blacks or that Latinos are all illegal immigrants. Nothing could be further from my views.
Posted by: algasema | April 30th, 2008 at 9:53 pm | Report this comment