Obama's Race Speech Won't Make Wright or Race Go Away for Him

"There were early warning signals of the ugliness that could come....the message was that Obama was not exempt from a racial dig. That was also evident in the knock at Obama's Southside Chicago church, or to be more exact the minister at the church, Jeremiah Wright. He is an outspoken afro-centric activist on racial and social issues. The inference was that Obama's guilt by membership and friendship with him made him a closet radical and a race baiter."

This writer wrote these words in a column January 6. It was a no-brainer prediction that the Wright card would eventually be played hard by the media and milked for all it's worth. The inflammatory, provocative rants of Wright were well-known. Thousands within and without his church have heard them for years. His afro-centric tinged writings have been widely cited by black commentators. It was only a matter of time.

The only surprise was the timing. This writer expected that the Wright card would be kept tightly in the political deck and dumped on the political table by the GOP "truth squads" in the fall if Obama is the eventual Democratic presidential nominee. But then again why not dump it on the table now. The Wright rants are just too juicy, racially salacious, and media sensational to keep under wraps any longer. And since Hillary Clinton has been so trashed and demonized by much of the media, while Obama got a free pass, all the better to toss out Wright now. If Obama can be hammered with and tainted by the guilt by association tag with Wright that further poisons the Democratic Party well and makes the throngs of independents that are enthralled by Obama waver, maybe even rethink just who and what they're getting into by backing him.

But this writer didn't just make the prediction that the Wright card would sooner or later be used against Obama. He also flatly predicted the instant Obama stood on the steps of the Old Capitol building in Springfield, Illinois back in February 2007 and announced that he was on a history making quest to be president that two things would happen. The first is that the racial innuendos, rumors, gossip, hints, digs, and finger-pointing would be a subtle and tormenting subtext to his campaign.

The second thing was that he couldn't duck and dodge racial matters by simply pounding away that he and his campaign was about hope, change and unity. That was good campaign stump stuff but it is not the reality of race and politics in America.

Now we come to his so-called race speech. Obama did the obligatory sprint backwards from Wright's preachments and philosophy. The idea was not just to distance himself from Wright's views, but to get ahead of the curve and reassure the waverers and doubters about him that his hope, change and unity theme was still alive and well. The problem with this is that it won't quell the doubts.

He made the speech only under extreme duress, namely the beating that he took for his association with Wright, and his fear that it could wreck or at the very least be a horrible distraction to his campaign. As he correctly noted, the Wright speech(s) will continue to resurface and will continue to be a prick in his campaign's side. It won't open up any new dialogue on race that some commentators naively think will or should happen. Obama in fact told us why. He mentioned the O.J. Simpson case, and how the great racial discourse that the case supposedly ignited was grotesquely twisted, mangled, and ultimately botched.

But that doesn't mean race will magically disappear from the presidential campaign trail, or more specifically from Obama's campaign trail. These questions will still be whispered or shouted out whenever Obama's name is mentioned: Is America ready for a black president? Will whites vote for him in a showdown with two white males? Does he really have the experience (read intelligence and competence)? Is he patriotic enough? Is he black enough? Is he too black? Will he tilt toward blacks and other minorities in the White House? Will he be a yes man for (white) corporate interests? Will his election make race a dead issue in America?

This doesn't make for serious dialogue on racial problems, let alone point America in the direction of real solutions to them. This is mere momentary racial titillation. Obama's speech contained the seed for the racial discourse dodge when he spoke of the disparities in the criminal justice system, failing inner city schools, HIV/AIDS, and chronic and nagging Great Depression high rate of black male unemployment, the need for greater family supports only in the broadest of broad generalities. There was not the barest hint of any specific initiatives to tackle these problems.

The Wright issue and by extension race was forced on Obama. One eloquent and flowery speech won't make either go away.

Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to Obama's speech

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

Comments

[NursePatric]

I would not sit in a church where hate or fear mongering, or worse anti-American comments and incitements to violence were being hurled from the pulpit. I might not just walk out. I might protest first and try to remove the offending "leader" from power. I wouldn't just stay and rationalize that the good being done outweighed the bad. The man represents exactly what Obama rants against -- old school, angry, stuck in the past, bombastic politics -- under the guise of teaching the lessons of Jesus. Lets imagine I wasn't aware of the worst of the vitriol. If, after having that pastor preside over my kids baptisms, my marriage, and after exhorting his virtues for 20 years I were to suddenly become aware of it -- a preposterous scenario -- but lets imagine, I would feel angry and betrayed. I would denounce that person. I certainly would not make excuses for them or try to justify their horrible behavior with a slurry of other qualities that while more admirable do nothing to negate the spew that the public and supposedly Obama just became aware of. This doesn't seem like the church for the new kind of leader who hasn't had time for the passe race discussion -- that turns out to be hardly passe. Here is a case where surely if the Black and White shoe were on the other's foot the outrage would be insurmountable for a candidate. And yet Andrew Sullivan, et al. bombard us with pieces praising what again seem like empty words to me. I have to wonder if the preponderance of todays blogs were not written before the speech was even delivered. At least it seems to me they well could have been -- very predictable "analyses". Where as Mr. Hutchinson saw this coming and had already analysed it's significance and what it would take to overcome this unseemly association. The speech was not only flowery -- it used only purple. Manipulative and self serving at best.

[kennies]

I suggest you read the Bible and remember those without sin throw the first stone!

[bish66]

Thank you for a balanced and well-crafted view on the issue.
Yes, without the controversy, Obama would never have felt the need to address the issue of race in such a speech. Because of that, the speech loses its impact. Concering Clinton, many people claim that she would say and do anything to get elected, right?

He made the speech, because he had to and now he is keeping his fingers crossed that people will buy it. Wright will not go away, his sermons will not go away, Obama's 20-year-long knowledge of Wright's sentiments will not go away.

During the Lewinski scandal, Clinton bombed some foreign country. Under critical fire, Obama holds a speech.

[ladyfractal]

Before I go into the meet of this comment, I want to make this clear. If I had my druthers Barack Obama would be the Democratic nominee in August and the President come January. IF I had my druthers.

That said now the painful part. Barack Obama should drop out of the Presidential race right now, today, go back to either the Senate or try for the Illinois state house. Why would I say this if I want to see him elected President? Because it won't happen. The black politician who can win the Democratic nomination--and do so without being savaged by the political and media elite--has not yet been born and, given the things I have seen posted here by ostensibly Democratic and Progressive people, will not be born anytime soon. It wouldn't matter if he had disowned Wright and spit in his face, the people here at HuffPo would *still* be in opposition to him. If he gets the nomination (which won't happen) the alleged progressives here won't vote for him. So we should just coronate Clinton and as the nominee and be done with it.

Cheers

[Sumocat]

"The Wright issue and by extension race was forced on Obama. One eloquent and flowery speech won't make either go away." -- The race issue was forced on Obama? Hasn't that been true his entire life? The man is of mixed race, raised in places where neither side is dominant. He could very well be the only half-black Kenyan, half-white American person to have grown up in Hawaii and Jakarta. If anyone knows race will always be an issue, I'm pretty sure it's the guy who's a minority in every community.

[kennies]

You know it is beyond my belief of these people and Earl Hutchingson who suppose to be educated people and spout out the thing they do.

I have seen Earl on news shows and the African Americans that are not partial to Obama. They are always invited for long discussions about the wrongness of Obama. These people haven't done anything significant in their own right for the African American community themselves, to be fair that I know of.

I disagree with Rev. Wrights remarks and have set in the pews and different forums where this kind of hate has be spewed out. I'm sure Earl has as well. I didn't get up and leave but I have lived my life in a way to counter the hate spewed messages.

What kind of messages does Earl and the rest send out to young black men, looking past the good in someone because of association. It does nothing to aid in the pride of the African American community and in young black men. At best Earl and the rest doesn't show a healthy balance in their critique of Mr. Obama

It reminds me of what I read in the book," The Black Boureoisie" by E. Franklin Frazier about how some African American MIDDLE CLASS don't seem to identify with the African American community once achieving minimal success.

I don't want to just say what Mr. Obama can only identify with the black race and young black men but for all young men. Our nation should promote leaders with true character. His character is in question because of a hateful tirant of a preacher.

Did anyone including Mr. Hutchingson ever consider that Mr. Obama was in his mid- twenties looking fo an African American male to identify with. He went to this church and this Rev. was this man. So he sat and listened, at the age of 25 or 26 we all have tried to find our way.

Over the years perhaps the reverends message got more hateful but by this time their relationship had surpassed certain boundaries. He became a father figure to Mr. Obama at the same time Mr. Obama was coming into his own beliefs and love for this country.

When you grow to care for or even love someone, even though what they represent,you may have grown to hate, you can't stop loving them.

I believe as a young man finding his own way Mr. Obama came to love the man and not the mesaage. That is why it's so hard for Mr. Obama to totally dis-own this reverend.

I know many young black young men have looked for father figures in the wrong places but it shows that Mr. Obama didn't. Who could go wrong in the church? Apparently Mr. Obama did. Should we be so hard on him for this? I think not.

All I'm saying is take a few step back and understand Mr. Obama's plight. I have seen good people ruined because of peole tering them down.

Will he be perfect? No. Will he make mistakes, Yes. I can't belive that people relly believe that becoming president exempts you from being human first.

If I had a friend, brother, father with the character Mr, Obama has I would be very proud indeed.

He could be my President !

[Gibbons]

If you sat in church and heard this kind of talk and didn't agree with it then you should have spoke out against it otherwise you are an enabler as was Obama.

[kennies]

So he should of spoke out on it according to your standard? Perhaps in private conversations he did just that. Who is going to get up in the middle of a sermon and denounce the pastoer right there?

I can't believe all these self rightious Americans. He DENOUNCED IT ! Please get over it.

I think we are all enablers of some in some form.

[LAJonathan]

Why? because YOU say so? Interesting, last time I checked you weren't in charge of everyone. Your judgment of others is mind blowing!

[KimberlyKay]

I don't know how you could dismiss one of the best speeches I have ever heard in my adult life so utterly, so completely and so QUICKLY unless you wanted to dismiss it outright before you even heard it. I believe we should push for something utterly new in the public educational system -- a class on listening. We should require this class include "listening without preconception." I believe you and many others who are blogging out here could benefit from such a class. I have yet to speak to anyone about this speech without discussing the inherent problems in this society caused by institutional racism, actual racism and poverty. I have spoken to African-Americans, Irish-Americans, a Latino American and my parents, fairly WASPy Republican Americans. None of us believe Senator Obama can solve all of these problems, but there is nothing wrong (or naive) about trying for progress.

Moreover, there is everything right about fixing our broken healthcare and educational systems and ending a war that should neither have been authorized, nor waged. There is everything right about putting our fiscal house in order and everything right about beginning to end our dependence on foreign oil.

[NuttyProf]

I agree. You know, his post did come out pretty quickly. i would expect Mr. Earl O. to be more thoughtful in his responses instead of impulsive. It's as if he knew what he was going to say about this even before he heard the speech.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Of course he knew already. He's a Clinton cultist. Any black male who can take seriously Ferraro's statements that being black is an advantage in an American presidential election is drinking some pretty serious kool-aid....

[argyle73]

I hope that the Wright issue does not go away. What a worthwhile debate will entail is not only a discussion about race, but a meta-analysis about the discourse used to discuss race, the use of race as a proxy for power (the so-called race card, for example), and so forth.

Near the beginning of the presidential race, the New York Times ran a story about Obama and Al Sharpton. The take-away point was this -- that Sharpton's rhetoric is inflammatory and not popular among whites, and that Sharpton and Obama reached an agreement in closed meetings that Sharpton would keep his distance from Obama's campaign because they both understood that for Obama to be a viable candidate, he could not be seen as an "angry black man."

Obama, when he was ready to announce his candidacy, also un-invited Wright from the public affair. The reason was the same as the Sharpton agreement: he had to keep his distance.

So, why can't everyone be honest about what it means to "play the race card" or to engage in "race baiting"? Why is is bad for a white person to do it, but okay for a black person to do it?

[On a tangential note: Why did Obama make a reference to the OJ trial? It seems that today, the public consensus is that everyone knew he did it, but African-Americans were going to support him as a protest against the racism in the criminal justice system.]

What looks at first to be a "unifier" now looks like something else: Obama looks like a guy who says one thing to the white folk, and another thing to the black folk, to keep each group appeased.

[ebbtide]

Today, Barak Obama made a speech that will go down in history.

Sir, if you read or have listened to that brilliant and courageous speech, you will have noticed that this man never said racism was going to go away. What he said was that we all must together work to make it better than it has been and that we can do that if we all work to make it so. We need to work together to make it different and there are many who see the wisdom in that and are willing to follow Barak Obama.

With your headline, sir, it looks as if you are not willing to do that, but prefer to keep up the racist meme as an attack on Barak Obama.

What possible benefit do you gain from that approach? To knock down a brillaint leader with the courage of a committed leader and one who is willing to take it to the people? What is the reward to you to follow that path?

What possible motive could you have to knock him down?

[efranklin]

The purpose of the speech was not to make race "go away". America is a heterogeneous mixture of colors, ethnicities, and backgrounds; this country will never be race-less. The purpose of the speech was to put Rev. Wright's inflammatory remarks into the proper context of the Obama campaign. To shed light on the sound bites that are getting an obscene amount of airplay. For crying out loud, Fox News and every right wing nut job out there has stretched this story out to epic proportions. Porn for the neocons. It's gradually become more and more divisive, sadistic, and frankly - sick. I think Sen. Obama sufficiently brought the story back to earth, and answered a lot of nagging questions that voters are having. I confess to being weirded out by Rev. Wright myself, but as of this morning's speech - I am satisfied. Of course, Rush Limbaugh will not be satisfied, but do we really give a flying @#$% about him and his ilk.

[NuttyProf]

And if he offers specific initiatives to tackle racial problems, won't he just be the "black people's candidate?" For you, the guy can't do right, either for blacks or for whites.

[trevor01]

Thanks for some balanced insight into the tricky situation. I want a democrat to win the next general election as much as I've wanted anything for a very long time. I like Obama, but I think he may have misjudged the moment. We need a candidate who has the bases covered, not one who will definitely be thrown out stealing second.

[ATLiberal]

What kind of analogy is that?

Sounds kind of like "Some of my best friends are black. But I'm not sure they can get the job done."

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

Hutchinson made some depressing predictions about a depressed electorate and they depressingly came true. Accurate barometers of America's cynicism have their value. Just as the idealistic liberal who watches MSNBC had better take heed when crusty old Pat Buchanan reminds us about what crusty old white guys think of Obama.


Yet when Hutchinson writes "And since Hillary Clinton has been so trashed and demonized by much of the media, while Obama got a free pass" I have to feel his temperature reading (to mix metaphors a bit) is a little on the high side there.


Come on, this is Obama. The black guy. Except he has one white parent. A funny name. People think he's a Muslim. If the media-- including Steve Kroft-- had been doing its job, would Obama still be battling the same silly, irrelevant stereotypes and rumors? He sits down with reporters from the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times and answers every question (again) about Tony Rezko, who is currently on trial for something entirely unrelated to Obama. Is such candor demanded of Obama because white America has another, stricter standard for black candidates? George Bush, who had been in public office a shorter time than Obama in 2000, was never subjected to such a thorough vetting.


First Obama was not black enough, then too black. He was rumored to be a Muslim, now a crazy kinda Christian. Has any front-runner ever confronted such silliness? Obama has had to work twice as hard to overcome these cynical predictions. True as those predictions turned out to be, let's not say he has had a free pass. He's had to deal with an opponent who tries to change the rules mid-game, who talks about caucus delegates being different from primary delegates, and pledged delegates being up for grabs. An opponent who has been echoing (or suggesting) the Republican attack lines for the past month or more. And every time he gives a great speech, and people say it's great, he's called a messianic empty suit and they're called a cult.


No-- these obstacles won't go away. And neither will the two times as high expectations placed on Obama to leap over them.

[tennesseeduo]

Wow Mr Hutchinson, finally a post that is not fawning all over the great Obama. You hit the nail on the head when you said he was making this speech under extreme duress. If he was so concerned about race relations he would have stood up in South Carolina and told his supporters the Clintons weren't using the race card. But he didn't because it was politically to his advantage to have the Clinton campaign appear to be using the race card. The only reason he made this speech today is because he was caught in a very delicate situation and is trying to diffuse it before it completely explodes.

[Blazhay]

It's depressing that all you see in the speech is dissent...

[Nommo]

Hillary's running out of money. She's gotta get all she can from Earl for her diminishing pennies. Between him and AnnofCa, she'll be stealing from more of her campaign workers pretty soon.

[Dailyfare]

Earl,

You are truly exasperating.