Harken back to June, 1992. Bill Clinton was having trouble with Reagan democrats. Then Sister Souljah, an outspoken rapper and political activist, made some very incendiary comments in a Washington Post interview regarding the horrific LA riots. "If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" Clinton used a speech before Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition to take on both Souljah and Jackson, who had put her on the program the night before Clinton's address.
Clinton, speaking to a predominately black audience, said, "If you took the words 'white' and 'black' and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech." Souljah reacted with great vehemence, saying that Clinton "chose to comment without any investigation whatsoever based on an interview in an ultraconservative newspaper, the Washington Post, which is about as familiar with the experiences of Africans in America, inner city youth, and hip-hop, as Bill Clinton is." Then she engaged in a withering assault on Clinton's candidacy, concluding that "Clinton lacks integrity at painting himself as a staunch patriot, a people's servant, a compassionate liberal, a family man, a pro-woman candidate and a coherent scholar. Sister Souljah was used as a vehicle, like Willie Horton and various other Black victims. A poor excuse for an agenda-less candidate". Rev. Jackson added that Clinton's comments were "designed to set off a dynamic to compete with Dan Quayle on the cultural elite issue and the family value issue." The press had a field day.
Inside the Clinton campaign, there was fear about alienating an important constituency. But certain advisors suggested that it could be a good political move to show toughness against this traditional base. This was clearly an opportunity to gain support from blue collar and suburban white democrats while also appealing to independents and moderate Republicans.
Clinton could legitimately argue, as he did, that his position was not manufactured, but instead, entirely consistent with his campaign message. As he told reporters at the time, he didn't "say anything that I hadn't been saying since I first started running. I called for an end to division, which I've been calling for since I first began this race."
Now fast-forward to the Obama-Wright flap. Obama has made unity and reconciliation a theme of his campaign from its inception. No commentators have expressed any sincere belief that he actually shares the more extreme views of Rev. Wright. They simply call for him to make a clean break from a man more interested in bolstering his own ego and selling an upcoming book than supporting a parishioner and the first black candidate to have a real shot at the presidency of the United States.
Obama made a clear distinction in his speech on race between the views of certain older African-Americans who lived through the Jim Crow and civil rights battles and his generation. While recognizing the shoulders he now stands on, he made it clear he is of the future, not the past. He showed personal integrity by not 'throwing Wright under a bus', but is now a victim of that very maneuver. His bona fides established, he should recognize the opportunity Wright has given him. This is Obama's Sister Souljah moment. He would be foolish not to take it.
It's not that I am so young, but although I vote every year I really didn't get really involved in politics until 2000. Now I am a passionate junkie. So thank you.
Also a US citizen.
While I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Rev. Wright has to say, I know the same people who voted twice for an idiot like George Bush will seize this as an opportunity to discredit Obama by virtue of his 20+ years of proximity to Wright and his message of divisiveness.
To wit, Wright's ego and desire for national media attention has trumped his loyalty to a parishioner who's suddenly far more famous than he.
I admired Obama's speech a few months ago, in which he refused to throw Wright under the bus.
Now comes today and Obama has driven that same bus right over Wright's body.
I like Obama, but even stupid people will see today's denouncement of Wright as political expediency.
Obama should have seized this latest Wright problem and reiterated the same statement he made before. Taking the high road WOULD HAVE BEEN exhibiting fresh new politics, but Like Rev. Wright said, Obama just did what all politicians do.
She even forced Obama to marry his wife in Wright's church, babtize his kids there, and when Obama was writing his book, Hillary snuck in at 3 a.m. and forged the dedication to Wright.
She planned this whole thing.
It's all her fault.
You and Pedro the Migrant should hook up.
And, as far as your "fresh, new policy", what is fresh and new about hillary? Just askin'......
His press conference today will change nothing; those that oppose Obama will continue to do. If it wasn't Wright, they'd have another pretext.
OBAMA IS GETTING SWIFTBOATED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
Republicans gleeful at prospect of running against Hillary.
.
Up until last weekend, voters could look at Rev. Wright's comments as something that happened a long time ago that Obama's opponents were dredging up to use against him. But Wright's recent foray into the media spotlight has destroyed that argument.
In theory, Wright's disloyalty should free Obama to criticize him but he has to do it in a sensitive way. Something Obama is more than cable of.
Mike Dukakis would have been a perfectly acceptable and competent president, but the media thought he looked silly wearing a helmet. He also failed to come across as mach enough, when asked what his reaction would be if his wife were raped.
Unfortunately, we live in a country where the most rational leaders are rarely the ones who get elected. The media is the ring master in this circus called American Politics. It's not a good thing but it's the way it is.
If Barack Obama chooses to further distance himself from Reverend Wright, so be it. I just happen to believe that all of this will have blown over well before the convention, but even if it does not, this election is not about Jeremiah Wright. Never was. Never will be. In fact, I challenge Reverend Wright's detractors to compare their accomplishments with his, ESPECIALLY in terms of service to the world-at-large.
Are those crickets I hear?
Eric Meyer