Wrighteous Indignation

At a press conference yesterday afternoon, Barack Obama publicly divorced himself from his former pastor, calling Jeremiah Wright's controversial comments inexcusable rants, destructive, outrageous and appalling. Obama appeared to take the appropriate tone and has received, thus far, mostly positive reviews throughout the blogosphere and in the mainstream media.

The comments by Wright were also wrapped into a news cycle in which Al Sharpton took a surprisingly sharp tone with Obama, criticizing him for seeking nonviolence in the wake of the Sean Bell verdict. According to the New York Post, Sharpton accused Obama of "grandstanding in front of white people." Taken together, Wright's comments and Sharpton's criticism suggest a growing schism among the leadership of the African American community. Those leaders born out of the struggle of the civil rights movement appear frustrated, if not threatened, by a potential Obama presidency.

To some extent, it is a question of method. The post-racial ideals that undergird the Obama candidacy run counter to the tone that Sharpton and Wright have used as a guiding principle: furious anger in the face of injustice. Obama's approach is more measured, more even-keeled, and given his success, more effective. It may be that Sharpton's and Wright's motives are purely selfish, growing out of a fear that Obama will marginalize the need for their kind of leadership.

Whatever the case, that Reverend Wright has stepped back onto the national stage is undoubtedly damaging to the Obama campaign. But it brings with it a silver lining. Though Obama's attempts to defend Wright while denouncing his comments were certainly admirable, it had the effect of keeping the Wright story alive. Now, the nuance that Obama once required is no longer necessary; when McCain or the RNC attacks Wright, Obama can agree.

It also allows Obama to separate himself from Wright in a way he has, until now, been unable. Obama's previous defense of Wright had painted him as a good man taken largely out of context, leaving questions in the minds of many as to how much Obama and Wright were really alike. Now that Wright has proven himself to be angry and arrogant, paranoid and delusional, the contrast between him and Obama could not be more stark. It is no longer possible to compare them.

In the narrow context of the upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, Wright may still prove to have been severely damaging to Obama. But in the broader context of a race that won't end until November, this new controversy will likely subside.

The frustration with presidential contests is that they almost always devolve into issues that do not -- or at least should not -- matter. John Kerry's race was more about Swiss cheese and wind surfing than it was about Iraq and health care. It seems too that a presidential race itself has little relationship to answering who would make a better president. Debates and town halls bear little resemblance to the day to day activities of a commander in chief. But the one thing a presidential campaign can demonstrate is the extent to which a candidate can deal with the political reality of political reality.

Reverend Wright as an issue shouldn't matter. Reverend Wright as an obstacle should. Obama must prove that he is capable of navigating such hurdles, and overcoming them; doing so is the only way he can prove to the American people that he will not be distracted from the work with which he is asking to be entrusted. As of today, he has done his job well.

Comments

[MARTYB]

SUPERLIVE , why does Obama have to be an Uncle Tom? Please explain because what he said in his speech was/is true to a LARGE extent.

[superlive]

As I've posted previously, he's a pandering sellout. Like the classic Uncle Tom Obama talks down to Blacks an up to Whites because that's what the White Corporate Media like hearing. Compare his Popeye's Fried Chicken speech delivered in South Carolina to a predominantly Afro-American audience to the Race Speech in Philadelphia for the benefit of the WCM. In the former he has the nerve to joke about Blacks being neglectful parents using Black slang and cultural references; in the latter he starts off stating that he's half-White and entirely raised by Whites before knocking Dr. Wright (and the Black community) for being "bitter and full of contradictions". Keep in mind that in the speech he was basically telling White people to patronize Dr. Wright, but don't take him seriously because he's basically a harmless old codger.

PHILADELPHIA IS JEREMIAH WRIGHT'S HOME TOWN!

Had Obama disowned Dr. Wright that night, it would have cost him votes in Wright's old neighborhood. Dr. Wright caught on to him, which is why he keeps asserting to the WMC that Obama is a POLITICIAN and as such will do whatever is necessary to keep himself electable.

[ndolomar]

I love how some posters slide the "Black Power" references in there as much as they can, taking careful measures not to sound "racist." Still, these same people are quick to express exactly what John Stewart had the chochkis to do on TDS when he asked Obama point blank if he would enslave the white race. That's really what it's all about, and people hope that by focusing on the Rev. Wright and his "anger" that they somehow can tangentially suspend any notion of (self-inflicted) "payback" for the sins of their forbears. Heck, it doesn't even matter that Obama's half-white. It's the same reason AAs weren't allowed to own guns after the 14th Amendment passed: People fear retribution, whether just or otherwise. And now that Obama is nudging closer to getting the nomination, the people who largely have remained in power are afraid if he achieves it, he'll use it to "get even" for all the crimes committed against half his descendants. I have a feeling they'd be greatly surprised if they are able to let go of their fear long enough to understand his politics and issues. However, if Clinton manages to win the nomination and the presidency, I have a feeling "payback" would be a very real concept for Republicans.

[rwe]

you are correct, there is no way one can associate the two anymore...... wright ,for all his racism anti semitism,anti americanism, is also a man of uncompromising priciple who never has wavered over his 20 plus years... Barack however is a different entity.... only yesterday did he decide that he was against racism and antisemitism and anti americanism.....And , Please, we can lay the excuses of snippets and he was not there to hear it himself to rest as we all know Wrights sermons have been on the best of CDs for years.

[ndolomar]

You're proving you didn't hear the speech, because nowhere in it is there racism or anti-Semitism. I'll give you the anti-Americanism for the sake of argument. However, it's clear you only listened to what the pundits on MSM said, because quite the contrary is true: Trinity Church and its former pastor have been outspoken advocates for gays, lesbians, the Jewish community and poor. In fact, that particular church has white members in its congregation. I think what happened was, the MSM pundits and Obama's opponents' camps heard the "N" word, and instantly it became a "racist" speech in a militant, black church -- which is actually kind of funny, because that term usually indicates racism against blacks. Not to mention that Sept. 11 didn't happen 20 years ago, Katrina wasn't 20 years ago -- so, enlighten me: What exactly was so hateful that the reverend was preaching from 1987 to Sept. 10, 2001? I mean, after all, he could have loved and lauded his government up until that time. But we'll never know, will we? Sadly, those sermons aren't on YouTube.

[hhkeller]

Obama should take a few years to sort out his problems.
He seems to be having one identity crisis after another.
So far he's thrown his biggest supporter, his grandmother and now his pastor overboard.
His backbone seems smaller than I hoped.

[knighthowl]

I am sure your brain is smaller than your ancestors had hoped. Just how did he throw his pastor overboard when that man had already thrown Barrack under the bus?

[NABNYC]

Society often takes the weakest members and defines their views as being crazy, or irrational. Women's views are often dismissed in that way.

Why is it that people cannot simply disagree with Rev. Wright, but instead have to attack him as some lunatic insane delusional crazy person? What's the problem? What is so scary about him? That he says the FBI had a program to murder or imprison on false grounds every member of the black panther party? That's true.

Is it that he suspects the U.S. government had some involvement in the spread of Aids? Lots of people suspect that. After all, we don't really have "new" diseases come along every day. And particularly one for which there is absolutely no logical explanation. Some have speculated that it was the drug companies using poor Africans for petrie dishes who started the disease, but who knows.

So disagree if you want with his views. But this nauseating McCarthy style of attack on this man is really sickening. You all will end up in the history books as examples of the beginning of the next repressive anti-black measures in this country if you don't step back and take a breath. Rev. Wright didn't kill anyone or support a war to murder millions. Bush, Cheney, and Hillary all have. Get some perspective on the relative dangers of the people before simply trashing someone just because he's down.

[CommanderWhitehead]

Thank you guntotinganglion.

"A man speaks truth to power, and he is vilified and insulted at every turn."

The fact is, Wright is right...on pretty much everything that he has said. Most especially the bit about the US engaging in "terrorism". From Hiroshima to the Phoenix program in Vietnam to 'Shock-n-Awe" we wrote the fu*king book folks!
We're just not allowed to admit it.

Wright was also correct in stating, unequivocally, that our lopsided, blood-drenched foreign policy is exactly why we had to experience the horror of 9/11. ( In high school physics, we used to say that "for every action, there's an opposite and equal reaction".) Nothing all that "Biblical" about it really. Just the laws of physics in play.

Some may not agree that Louis Farrakhan is all that Rev. Wright believes him to be...(And who knows, maybe he's right about AIDS.) After all, there is ample documentation that our government has in fact used unwilling/unknowing human guinea pigs on occasion.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/experiment.htm

Jane Smiley was also right on the money when she pointed out that Obama would not have this problem if Americans did not demand their politicians be "people of faith".

Sadly, we are largely a nation that has been inflicted (thanks to the ministry of propaganda that we foolishly refer to as "mainstream media") with an epidemic of arrested development.

I just hope it isn't too late.

[Hallucinocynic]

Some of the criticisms levelled at BO, in the wake of his public divorce of Wright were that he hesitated too often, punctuated his statements with too many "uh's," that he didn't attack Wright has quickly or as harshly as he should have. Bad speaking skills? Insincere? Duplicitous?

It's called 'being thoughtful.' He was speaking without prepared notes, extemporaneously, and he was carefully choosing his words because he knew - how could he not know? - that every word was going to be parsed, just as the MSM - and many HuffPosters have demonstrated.

Obama was outraged. He made clear his anger and disappointment toward Wright, but I also believe he's disappointed that one clear, honorable attempt to engage in meaningful discussion about race has long since eroded into a variety of not so subtle attacks. I find it amusing that HRC willingly goes on Faux and feeds into O'Really's skewed attack on Wright and Obama. No matter WHAT Obama said it was going to be attacked by both Faux News and the HRC campaign.

It truly is an example of he who is the enemy of my enemy is my friend - a stance embraced by a politician who is fighting not only for an office but for their political life.

[booksnmore4you]

Both Wright and Sharpton are a window into a significant segment of the older generation of blacks.

Every social group really does have its generation gap.

Some older blacks are very set in their ways; ways a lot of us would find offensive or at least a bit "backward", while the younger generation typically think very differently. Yet the younger remain respectful toward their elders, sometimes to a fault.

Older blacks have enjoyed power and influence, have spent lifetimes in their pursuits, and typically fight against change because it threatens what they've been about all their lives. The younger generation must typically struggle to take power from the hands of their elders and bring change. It is the wise among the elders who relinquish the mantle with blessings upon the younger.

Yesterday, we watched an historically important, iconic moment, where a "break" was made between the generation gap among blacks. That's the bigger picture in this "controversy".

[standforpeace]

It's not that people object to what Wright said, but rather how obsessed with him they are. Would these same folks be as obsessed if they discovered thatMcCain was not just endorsed by Reverend Hagee but rather that he was his minister? I think not.

The whole thing takes me back a few years to the OJ trial. Many Blacks thought OJ was probably guilty too but weren't obsessed with his trial. It didn't make us see the criminal justice system in a whole new way. That whole drama was about whites who couldn't believe this Black guy was going to get away with killing two white folks. For most Black viewers, we already knew that the justice system was deeply flawed and sometimes the innocent go to jail while the guilty go home. We already knew OJ had an advantage going in that most criminal defendents don't (the money to buy a quality defense).

The Reverend Wright thing is more of the same. If this was any other candidate, no one would still be handing a microphone to his ex-minister and then calling Obama to task for what the guy was saying. Hagee hasn't slowed down in blaming the devastation in New Orleans where mostly sick, old or poor folks who couldn't get out died on God's plan to punish the city for tolerating gays. Where is the moral outrage or media attention to a guy whose endorsement McCain accepted? Double standards driven by racism. Pure and simple.

[CommanderWhitehead]

I suspect that Mr. Loewe is correct. (This too shall pass.)

Next up: Tony Rezco

[IndependentTogether]

You're a little late. That one's already passed. Nothing to see here. In fact, other politicians (e.g. Karl Rove, etc.) are finding themselves implicated in wrongdoings connected to Rezco, not Obama.

[classof77]

Obama's situation with Jeremiah Wright has been very revealing. In Wright's public statements about Obama he compared himself to Obama several times--Wright is a pastor and he speaks as a pastor (i.e. "truth"), while Obama is a politician and says what he needs to to get elected (i.e., "lies"). Wright's clear implication is that Obama agrees with Wright but can't come out and say so because he needs to get elected.

Wright has been consistent in his messages, from the taped sermons, to the snippets run over and over, to his press appearances over the past weekend. There is no reason for anyone to believe he has suddenly formulated this worldview and is only now talking about it. On the contrary, Wright has talked about his views, about who he is and what he believes, for far longer than the 20 years that Obama has known him. We can only speculate that, no matter what Obama said yesterday, he has been fully aware of Wright's views for quite some time.

So there are two possible explanations for Obama's remarks yesterday: 1) he agrees with Wright and has to disown him for political expediency, or 2) he disagrees with Wright and has been associating with him for 20 years for political expediency. Or, perhaps most likely, a blend of the two. But either reveals Obama to be somewhat less than forthcoming and his campaign rhetoric of hope, change, and transparency to be hollow rhetoric.

[usedtowander]

Precisely. Couldn't agree more.

[guntotinganglion]

I'll admit that I haven't heard every word that Jeremiah Wright has said, but there hasn't been one word that I have heard to date out of his mouth that comes close to the comment made in this article..."Wright has proven himself to be angry and arrogant, paranoid and delusional".

I guess describing Obama as a politician who says what must be said to get elected, was outrageous and uncalled for. Kind of a big duhh in fact...HE'S A POLITICIAN! This reminds me of the sociopathic Republican Party ALWAYS attacking ANYTHING the other side does as "playing politics". DUHHHH...they're politicians...they do politics you freakin' dimwits! Somehow, quoting the job description has become an automatic insult. Damn...that's just totally out of line saying a politician engages in politics!!!! That's as outrageous as saying a bricklayer lays bricks! This country is overrun with cretins...and this cretinous ball rolls UPHILL...they get dumber with more power and position! Just look at the Frat Boy Torturer War President...he's the dumbest of them all. It rolls UPHILL people.

The fact of this insane uproar about this preachers comments says far more about the incredible intolerance, bigotry and sheer racism that remain as cornerstones of this so called "democracy". A man speaks truth to power, and he is vilified and insulted at every turn. And the "liberal" media can count on revenue generating viewership by shoveling this manure again and again and again...

[CallMeDeaconBlues]

Or is he just a typical black person?

[popecorvo]

Let the received and approved opinions begin!

I listened to Wright's Press Club speech and there was damn little he said that was not the truth. This despite all the characterizations of him as narcissistic grandstander and egotist, which may all be true.

So of course, he had to be finally disowned by Obama and called "angry" and delusional" by the pureveyors of what passes for acceptable framing.

And I support neither Obama or Clinton.

[NursePatric]

Thank God for you twenty something White kids at Harvard who are available to HP to frame these complicated issues for us. How else would we even know about post racial ideals? I didn't know there was even such a thing.
Your candidate is dead in the water -- and you embarass yourself by pretending to know the minds of Wright or Sharpton. You should be paying attention and learning -- not commenting on things well beyond your ken.
Work on your writing. There is no need to say "taken together" and then name both men doing the commenting; Say frustrated and threatened, not, "if not threatened." You imply that threatened is further along on a continuum of frustrated -- not really heuristically sound.
Stay in school.

[PioneerKing]

Are Rev. Wright’s comments worse than an institution that protects pedophiles and asserts that the problem is "an American problem," although it is documented that worldwide the Catholic Church has protected priests who are pedophiles.
The children from the polygamist sects who are called lost boys also feel that the abuse they endured is worse than many Americans acknowledge and the child brides suffer rape without any of the outrage that has surrounded Rev. Wright.
Which is worse? The angry ranting of Rev. Wright or the scared lives of children who have been harmed by result of adults who are sheltered by religious institutions?

[ah2323]

All these pundits accusing Rev. Wright of being "crazy," paranoid," and "delusional" are notably reluctant to back up their characterizations with actual crazy, delusional, paranoid quotes. The Bill Moyers interview showed the context for most of the earlier sound bites, and in context they don't sound nearly as crazy as the right wing pit bulls and the MSM were trying to make them seem. The craziest thing he said was the statement about AIDS being a manufactured virus, and how crazy is that in a country where black men were experimented upon with syphillis within living memory? And you have to admit that a reasonable person might wonder why the AIDS virus *just happens* to kill those people hated by the right wing.