Wright is Telling the Truth about Obama

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted May 2, 2008 | 11:43 AM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

As a supporter of Barack Obama (and donor), it is hard for me to bring up issues that will damage his chances of election this year. But the truth is more important than politics, as Obama's former pastor hinted at in his speech to the National Press Club this week.

"Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls," said Wright. "Preachers say what they say because they are pastors. They have a different person to whom they're accountable."

Wright's comments are certainly ill timed for Obama's election campaign, but he is not wrong.

Obama, although infinitely better than Hillary Clinton and John McCain, has certainly altered some of his core beliefs in order to get himself elected. One of the best example of this is his stance on Israel. Having taken a reasoned and balanced view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict early in his career, Obama quietly saddled up to AIPAC (America's Pro Israel Lobby) and sold out the Palestinians for his White House career. While residents of the Gaza strip are entrapped in virtual prison, routinely shot at by Israeli troops, tanks and planes (all in violation of international law), Obama stated publicly that he supported Israeli actions and would not negotiate with Hamas. When asked whether he would meet with them, Obama stated:

"The answer is no and the distinction would be that Hamas is represented in the Palestinian legislature, or it was before the current rift, but they're not the head of state. They are not a recognized government. So I think there is a distinction to be drawn there and a legitimate distinction to be drawn"

Having (rightly) lectured Clinton on the need to talk to America's enemies, Obama wrangled his way out of offending Israel with a meaningless semantic technicality. Although politicians, including Obama, routinely refer to Israel as 'the only democracy in the Middle East', the existence of free and fair elections in Palestine is simply ignored. The overwhelming election of Hamas in 2006 was certified by the U.N, then rejected out of hand by the U.S and Europe. Obama supports democracy, but only when the vote goes the way he wants it to.

Obama's shifting stance on Israel, support for privatized medical care and relatively conservative economic agenda are signs that Obama has taken the necessary steps to become electable. Obama knows that he cannot threaten the enormous concentrated power interest that dominate American life, and has cobbled together a package that does not offend the business community too gravely.

"As far as political positioning goes, his strategy seems to be to appear as a sort of ideological Universalist," writes Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi. "One who spends a great deal of rhetorical energy showing that he recognizes the validity of all points of view, and conversely emphasizes that when he does take hard positions on issues, he often does so reluctantly."

Obama manages to seamlessly affiliate himself with just about every political persuasion on the spectrum. He is pro Republican and pro Democrat, pro 2nd Amendment and pro gun control, pro globalization, and anti NAFTA, pro tax cut and tax break, and pro universal health care without enforcing or paying for it. Obama wants to get out of Iraq while staying there, and wants to change the political system while playing it.

As Taibi writes, "You can't run against him on the issues because you can't even find him on the ideological spectrum."

This is of course, the game of politics, and it would be suicidal for him not to appeal to as many people as possible. However, many people, including myself, believe that Obama's true beliefs are much further to the left.

Rev. Wright's views on race and America are certainly outside the mainstream, and while Obama says he finds them offensive, he did not find them objectionable enough to leave his church for over 20 years. Wright is not running for office so has no reason to lie about Obama's true beliefs. When he implies Obama really agrees with him on core issues, there should be little reason to doubt him.

Wright may not be accurate when speaking about the introduction of AIDs to the African American community by the U.S Government, but he is correct when speaking out about its horrendous crimes committed against the Black community and the terrorist wars it has waged internationally. Infecting African Americans with AIDs would be one of the lesser crimes committed by the U.S government as compared to slavery and wars of aggression against Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps we should ask why such mistrust of Government exists within African American communities, rather than vilifying people like Rev. Wright. Having gone to Vietnam himself and fought the domestic battles to ensure people like Obama's equality, Wright's mistrust of government is completely understandable in context. He should not be painted as an extremist, and Obama knows it.

There is a deep social conscience present in the former community organizer from Chicago, one that nobly stood against the attack on Iraq, and one that has done much to elevate political debate in America. But Obama cannot align himself with Wright's views for political purposes, and has essentially left his former pastor out to dry.

As Niccolo Machiavelli wrote, "Whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times." Running for the highest office in the land requires such a change, and despite a concerted effort to avoid it, Obama has killed off an integral part of himself in order to be successful.

It must have hurt Obama immensely to do so, but it is a task he has already become adept at. As Rev. Wright said in his speech, Obama is now accountable to the sound bites and polls that will make or break him. The sound bites and polls have come out against Rev. Wright, and now so too has Obama.

Ben Cohen is the editor of www.thedailybanter.com and a contributing writer to www.espn.com. He can be reached at thedailybanter@gmail.com

 
 

Comments
20
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

While I'm a firm believer in Thoreau's warning about engaging in enterprises that require new clothes, to move a vision, a mission a dream forward, one must sometimes don garb which is out of the ordinary.
I hope you are right about Obama being further left than his positions on his website state. I get that feeling. And I agree with you that it would be suicide to do anything other than what he's done in terms of Israel and AIPAC. Even Nelson Mandela can't get around AIPAC:
Hero Mandela On US Terrorist Watch List"- Could it Affect AIPAC and Mideast?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/hero-mandela-on-us-terror_b_99555.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:04 PM on 05/02/2008

As pandering to interest groups is so 'old politics', some here seem surprised to the extent that Mr. Obama seems so able to participate in the ancient ritual he so regulary decries.

Is it really so heartbreaking for his supporters that he turns out, after all, to be a gifted and a intelligent and strategizing politician? I mean, after all, he was a politician before he decided to run for president. He had no greater qualification for office. Must he be a transcendent wunderkind above politics to enjoy their backing? I'm thinking they think he must be. Otherwise, it's hard to fathom all the emotionalism attached to this issue, which will never really go away, because Obama was a politician before he ran for president, while he ran, and will contnue to be even should he win the highest office in the land. You need to be OK with that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 PM on 05/02/2008

Paragraph 4-- "saddled up to Israel"-- did you mean 'sidled up'?

Paragraph 6-- "wrangled his way out" did you mean 'wriggled'?

Or are these instances of wordplays on common expressions?

Just curious...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:27 PM on 05/02/2008

You people just can't leave this Wright thing alone can you. A marjority of us don't care what Wright said. Spend some time trying to find out what Hilliary and McCain believe using their pastors beliefs. Guess what, you will never get your answer because you will never find their pastors.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 PM on 05/02/2008

I feel much the same way, but I do realize that political posturing is something that goes with the territory.

I see and believe what my ears, eyes and mind tells me about this issue, and what I draw from this is that the situation between Wright and Obama simply evolved in a very common, albeit uneven and problematic way. Their relationship was a high-level risk from the get-go, and Obama knew that, tried to work around it, couldn't, and ultimately had to cut Wright loose. Wright was initially put in a bad spot as well, then became upset, and utimately turned belligerent--and some might say rightly so, as the man obviously [albeit childishly] felt betrayed. So Obama cuts him off and Wright tries to spin it to his best advantage...and none of this is really outlandish or unreasonable human behavior.

The part that bugs me is that much of what Wright had to say in his sermons is known to be true; these statements don't fall under the BS notion that these are merely the unproveable opinions of leftwing loonies.

So yes, I understand what Obama had to do, but I will not feel any relief until I see some indication that he truly knows better than to believe we are an innocent nation that was attacked by Islamofacists who hate our freedoms. I for one have had ENOUGH of government propaganda and false patriotism.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 PM on 05/02/2008

Obama never severed ties with Wright until he attacked him personally sounds political to me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 05/02/2008

So merely having a different opinion, means it's okay to disagree, but if someone attacks you personally in a vile way you would take no offense. Sounds pretty human to me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:37 PM on 05/02/2008

"But Obama cannot align himself with Wright's views for political purposes, and has essentially left his former pastor out to dry."

And Wright made it clear that if Obama is President of the United States, that he (Wright) would be coming after Obama as the one who is now in charge of the foot on the throat of those traditionally oppresed by the American government.

Religion and politics are natural enemies. Do we forget that Father Drinan, a duly elected United States Representative, was ordered by Rome to relinguish that seat under threat of losing his position in the church? Because of their socio-political positions, Giuliani and Kerry are threatened with not receiving communion by the Catholic church. Wright is, indeed, correct about the views of Obama the man, but cannot ever be correct about the views of Obama the politician because of the requisite fluidity of those views. That fluidity is all about tactics and strategy, not about core beliefs.

Cohen, you must recall that Obama's remarks to AIPAC were generally viewed as tepid, and his support of Israel's actions extended only to Israel's right to defend itself, not build walls, cut off economic obligations and expand its settlements into Palestinian territory. Unintentionally, you have have muddied the waters here some, but that is the pitfall of a journalist-partisan. Perhaps you need to separate those out when you sit down at the keyboard to postulate. They, like politics and religion, are natural enemies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 PM on 05/02/2008

i'm sorry. Father Drininan was ordered by the Vatican, not Rome.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 05/02/2008

He's a politician, folks, just like the other two candidates. He will say or do whatever it takes to get elected. If he won't, he has no business running for office because he will, in the end, LOSE.

I don't support any of the candidates, but will vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is. I don't, however, believe that Obama will win in November. He doesn't have the demographics to win.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 PM on 05/02/2008

Like all pols Obama will have to tell the American people what they force their pols to tell them. If Jesus Christ ran for U.S. Prez he would be forced to lie to please all of the nuts all of the time. Seems pols have to appeal to our lower angels to be elected. We don't want and can't handle the truth. We will vote for the candidate who is "baddest." He/she must be able to say "I will obliterate this or that nation," or "I will never use diplomacy or negotiate with our enemies, thereby promising you eternal war." The candidates must promise to never ever raise taxes, to allow us to own enough guns to arm a nation, to bring an unholy wrath down on sinners, and to uphold good old xenophobia and bigotry. Our future prez must not be too smart, must bowl well, must shove phony photo-ops down our throats till those of us who have a brain are totally fed up with the whole circus and end up staying home on polling day.
Cohen, I don't get your beef(?!) You should know that had Obama not sided with Israel, he'd be out of the picture by now. So, like all pols, he'll be forced to say what we want to hear--at least till he's in the WH.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:04 PM on 05/02/2008

This just brings us back to the time-wasting efforts of trying to determine Obama's "true beliefs."

You seem very naive about politics.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 05/02/2008

With supporters such as Cohen, who links Obama's changing views as akin to Machiavelli's, well, machiavellan views about politics, who needs enemies? When will the pundits ever grow up, and ask the obvious question OF THE CANDIDATE: "You have said X, but now you say Y. Will you explain in detail the reasons for your changed views?" You see, when changing one's mind is automatically associated with pandering to a specific constituency, there are several baleful consequences: constituencies are demeaned as groups who can only be pandered to, not reasoned with; the person who makes the judgment, as Cohen does here, trivializes what appears to be (perhaps) his own basic intelligence; and, most perniciously, it denies any value to a politician's changing his mind as he confronts new circumstances. Sytlistically impressive, Cohen's argument is a baited trap, as his remarks on Wright indicate. Not to label Wright as an extremist is what Cohen calls for, but when Obama delivered his really quite remarkable speech on the Wright issue last month, the situation with Wright was different. Change your mind, by Cohen's reasoning, and you pander. But you need to change your mind to be elected, in which case you are no different than Machiavelli.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 PM on 05/02/2008


This is Alllll such a bunch of ridiculous and irrelevant blabber.

You want to talk about the truth, Cohen, OK, let's talk about the truth, but lets also talk about what matters.... What matters now, and what's going to make a difference later from now.

Obama said it best when he very simply stated, " I went to church to worship God, not to worship a pastor." That stops it. Everything. Cold.

I couldn't give a good hot D*mn what reason he went into that church, and most Americans won't care when all is said and done, either. I care more that he simply chose to go worship SOMEWHERE; that he has his own, close relationship with our maker. This makes everything to do with his connection and what you state that seems to actually have any relevancy completely irrelevant.

As to what he says that you say he changes, I see he's basically the same guy as before. When I look closer as to what might be different, I realize that he has some dangerous waters to tread on his journey to the nomination and election, and the fact he chooses to dodge conflict with people who are constantly looking for it without compromising his integrity -which he doesn't- seems like a smart idea to me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 PM on 05/02/2008

"But the truth is more important than politics"

But there's no such thing as *the* truth with an implied capital T, only different views of the same thing with various layers of meaning.

What the heck does that mean? It means we know what Rev. Wright was really up to: damaging Obama.

He wasn't out there just to speak "the truth" but harm the candidate. Wright's smart. He knew the impact of his words. When you use "the truth" as a weapon, the true truth is your motive behind using it. Maybe Wright felt betrayed.

The "truth" is-- sometimes you must be political. It's a big country with many conflicting interests and potentially hurt feelings. If you aren't careful about everything you say, you'll offend some key demographic. A candidate has to praise Israel excessively, unless he's Ron Paul and only wants 2% of the vote. If I have a favorite candidate I don't want to harm him by criticizing him for the very thing I would need to do if I were running for office.

Wright went out of his way to harm Obama, when he could have helped this historic black candidate-- by being more political. If you've ever had a job interview, you know what it means to say all the right things. Or if someone called you for a reference, and you liked the person who had applied for that job, the more sinister truth would be if you purposely hurt their chances of being hired.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:26 PM on 05/02/2008

Agree completely.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 PM on 05/02/2008

Yes indeed-- a lucid and insightful article!

FWIW, I will probably remain undecided until Election Day. But in recent weeks, I've been engaged in a running dialogue with a relative who is fairly cynical and disillusioned about Amerika's broken polity, but who's become enthusiastic about Obama.

As an Obama supporter, my interlocutor buys into the accepted truism that presidential candidates must avoid openly espousing progressive policies and stances, e.g. anti-war, anti-militarism, anti-imperialism. So he, too, would have me believe that despite the cringeworthy positions and statements Obama has taken and made, that the "real" Obama is truly progressive. (Or "leftist", to use the worn-out, obsolete designation.) Thus, he's understanding and forgiving of these concessions.

I certainly agree that Obama's vision and character are on a much higher order than the competition. But I wonder how much equivocating and pandering his supporters can tolerate before they question their conviction that Obama possesses uncompromising personal integrity.

I suppose it was too much to expect that Obama would simply declare that he'd rather be (with) Wright than President.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 05/02/2008

It may hurt him in the election but you don't have to look very far or deep to find all the times that McCain has changed his stance on key issues. so if the GOP calls him out, Obama can respond with the facts about McCain

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 PM on 05/02/2008

Leaving Wright out to dry? I dont think that Wright really needed to be brought inside. Wright is not really harmed by this in any substantial way as I see it. His bona fides as a preacher are enhanced in some eyes I am sure by the attention and his continued railing against the sins of his society.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 PM on 05/02/2008

Politics is not a simple, straightforward process that the magic wand fixes everything in one swoop. Its complicated, highly complicated, way more complicated than you could ever imagine. You don't know the circumstances around these complicated deals, so why act like you do?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 AM on 05/02/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

 
 
Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ask.com