|
||
Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Media Blitz Forces Barack Obama to Face the Angry Black Man Test -- Again
For new school black politicians, it is an essential question: How do you recognize the righteous anger of those frustrated by racial inequality without looking like just another Angry Black Man?
Those of us who write often about black folks and politics knew there would come a moment when the first black man with a realistic shot at becoming president would have to face this challenge -- reconciling black anger and frustration with white fear and resentment.
Our mistake: We assumed that, for Obama, this issue would come flying from the direction of someone like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson -- a traditional civil rights leader who would insist Obama prove his fealty to black issues by showing the kind of aggressive advocacy which often turns off traditional white voters.
Who knew that the race-based bullet wounding Obama's campaign would come from friendly fire -- his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright -- adding yet another unpredictable twist to the most unconventional electoral contest in history?
I've already pointed out how the initial stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons have distorted many of his points. So I'm not saying he shouldn't feel compelled to defend his church and his reputation by facing down the media by speaking to PBS' Bill Moyers, speaking to the Detroit NAACP Sunday and speaking to the National Press Club in Washington D.C. as I write this.
But by now it's obvious Obama is deep in a sound-bite-fed, image-waged war. A man smart as Wright knows it doesn't really matter what he says. He's been reduced to an emotional image -- the Willie Horton of 2008 -- a boogeyman of black nationalism and aggression, used as a prop to make the professorial Obama look like a smooth talker hiding more radical inclinations.
Obama's people probably hoped they might flick controversy over Wright off the campaign's radar the way the candidate quoted Jay-Z in pretending to flick off criticisms from Hillary Clinton. Or the way Obama flicked off traditional black power brokers such as Sharpton and Tavis Smiley. Black folks surprised the pundits by accepting that Obama didn't have to touch base with these traditional leaders to get black votes, and white voters seemed pretty ready to disregard complaints from these figures, given his success with black constituencies.
But Wright's recent appearances will continue to hurt the candidate, because the reverend is the radical Obama never was, and he's close enough to give skeptical white voters an excuse. Right now, Wright is holding court before the world's TV cameras and an admiring audience at the Press Club. His dismissive attitude toward the moderator's questions -- which basically articulate the concerns many white voters have about Wright's public statements and positions -- are playing well in the room, but will likely stoke anger among the assembled press and probably among some white viewers.
The Today Show this morning featured a clip from Sunday's speech where Wright took aim at John F. Kennedy's accent (he was noting that people rarely criticize the way the Kennedys mangle English the way some black people do). But I think his more controversial comments came when he maintained the black people learn differently than white people because of the way their brains work -- something a lot of people, black and white, will find more objectionable.
Obama's problem is that Wright is genuinely controversial, though not in the way some pundits maintain. And as much as Wright maintains attacks on him are an attack on the black church, his appearance today mostly highlighted how controversial he is personally.
And he's now given Obama's critics a fresh raft of soundbites to wedge into news reports and campaign commercials, praising Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and refusing to retract statements such as his contention that the government created the HIV virus.
What's obvious to me, is that a moderate like Obama is much better equipped to referee America's inevitable struggle to reconcile black anger with white resentment. But Wright's bombastic tactics will put his skills to the test, forcing the candidate to bridge one of the largest cultural chasms in America while running one of the tightest races for the Democratic nomination ever seen.
Wouldn't it be ironic if Obama's pro-black pastor was the one who kept Democrats from presenting the party's first black nominee for president?
Follow Eric Deggans on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Deggans
Loading comments…
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
Being a Green in one of the Bluest states, and thus not involved in this internal Democratic fight, I make this observation just in the interest of accuracy, and to point out how easy it is for people to hear and read through their own distorting lenses.
Eric Deggens, and many commentators here and elsewhere, have concluded that the Rev. Wright "maintained the black people learn differently than white people because of the way their brains work". Most people who've brought this up either state or imply that he's claiming that this is something that's genetically based.
Not so. He talked about "learning styles", not brain function per se. He was talking about culture, not genetics. And it has to do with teaching styles as well as learning styles. Being cultural, it's not unchangeable, either, so it's not a fixed, eternal gulf between blacks and whites.
I don't know to what degree the Rev. Wright is ethnographically accurate about this, but it's a reasonable anthropological hypothesis -- and if you search the web, you'll see that there's been a lot of research as well as speculation on the topic. In addition, judging from my own children and grandchildren, and from the scientific literature, I suspect that there are, indeed, individual genetic differences in favored modes of learning.
Being a Green in one of the Bluest states, and thus not involved in this internal Democratic fight, I make this observation just in the interest of accuracy, and to point out how easy it is for people to hear and read through their own distorting lenses.
Eric Deggens, and many commentators here and elsewhere, have concluded that the Rev. Wright "maintained the black people learn differently than white people because of the way their brains work", with the inference that this is something that's genetically based.
Not so. He talked about "learning styles", not brain function. It's cultural. And it has to do with teaching styles as well as learning styles. Being cultural, it's not unchangeable, either, so it's not an eternal gulf between blacks and whites.
I don't know to what degree the Rev. Wright is ethnographically accurate about this, but it's a reasonable anthropological hypothesis.
I think I love you - in a platonic sorta' way. ;-) I've been angry (yeah, angry black woman) about the corporate media's subtle racism regarding the Obama - Wright issue.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/29/18245/5100/537/505939
Thank you Eric. What a fantastic post.
1. If Sen. Obama was experienced, he would have brought his Pastor’s anger to the table a long time ago. Instead, he hoped it would not come out.
2. If Sen. Obama was experienced, he would have understood it is not anger that is of concern; it’s politics.
3. If Sen. Obama was experienced, he would have understood his mistake was -- hoping it would not come out was the solution to the problem.
4. If Sen. Obama was experienced, he would have understood that Rev. Wright is predictable.
5. If Sen. Obama was experienced, he would have known that the Reverend could not hold his fire.
6. If Sen. Obama was experienced, he would know that he is not in a “sound-bite-fed, image-waged war,” but in an election to lead all of the people.
7. If Sen. Obama was experienced, he would know that there are many out there who do not see color.
8. If Sen. Obama was experienced, he would know that only he can hurt Sen. Obama and he did – he hoped it would not come out.
9. If Sen. Obama was experienced, he would know that that skeptical voters are skeptical because -- he hoped it would not come out.
10. If Sen. Obama was experienced, he would know his critics are his critics, not Rev. Wright’s critics, and he would know how to clarify that.
But, as he's shown with his inexperience in declining to debate -- he cannot deliever.
Senator Obama has been very clear that he is not running on traditional Washington experience. It makes me sick to my stomach that the very antidote to what has become normal politics would be exploited in such a viral, diminshing way.
I don't know if you are voting for Clinton or McCain, but if what you hope for is more of the same old same old, you go ahead and pull that lever for either one. There really is little difference between the two.
But, if you want character, honesty, intelligence, forward thinking, steady, hard working, empathetic leadership, I encourage you to reconsider Senator Obama. Until Hagee, Falwell, Graham and others, along with the long line of politicians who've associated with them are dragged through this kind of slanderous mud, to vote based on who might be whose pastor is as ignorant as voting based on what the color of their hair might be.
I don't know why anyone would say inexperience is such a bad thing anyway, when you consider the shithole that experience has dug us into.
Bush has 8 years of experience as president. Experience isn't the only factor in the equation. Principle, character, vision, intelligence, leadership. Mrs. Clinton falls short, way, way, way, way, way, way, way short.
We have several thousand people killed in Iraq, because she held her finger up to the wind and decided to go along. She refused to apologize for it. She claims she will get us out. I believe that as much as I believe she will really fight for better trade deals - at the same time she refused to do more than reassign Mr. Penn who was busy helping the Colombians with their free trade deal. She says one thing and then does something else, and hardly bats an eye when caught at it. Similar to the sniper fire in Bosnia. This is a person who has no problem saying "ANYTHING" and then doing some altogether different.
I don't want that kind of experience. This country has had plenty of experience dealing with politicians who say one thing and then do another.
It is time for - CHANGE.
Obama 2008
I can NOT fathom why Rev. Wright would throw Obama under the bus like this.
What could be his goal?
If Wright truly seeks to erase and erode the racial injustices in this country -- what better way than to have an African American President.
I just watched Obama in a press conference. I felt so bad for him -- he doesn't deserve this from a man he defendent as a friend.
And I say this as a Hillary supporter who is totally committed to supporting Obama as the Dem candidate.
Obama appeared too upset to speak just now and some may see that as weakness too. He stammered way too much.
Axelrod is not doing well advising Obama.
Michelle Obama would have done a better job at dealing with Wright in this press conference today.
Daisy says...
"Michelle Obama would have done a better job at dealing with Wright in this press conference today."
I agree that he should hide behind his wife for a bit. Maybe she can beat the HillBilly machine, while paying off those nasty student loans!
I watched the PBS interview with Rev. Wright and was truly impressed. I was convinced that Rev. Wright’s intellect and thoughtfulness debunked the charges being screamed by the smaller minds in the media (and some comment threads). We’ve all heard them -- he’s a racist, a hatemonger, unpatriotic, wacko, etc. Well, he’s none of these, and now everyone can see it.
So, I thought, any negative impact on Obama would fade. I thought people would come to see Rev. Wright as a good and reasonable man; one they might not always agree with, but who had done a lot for his neighborhood and the larger community beyond his neighborhood. I came to feel a genuine admiration for Rev. Wright.
Well, now I’m not sure what to think. I assumed that Rev. Wright would want to temper his rhetoric (and visibility) until after November -- not to “sell out” his convictions, but in service to the greater good of electing Obama. Rev. Wright’s choices over the past couple days make me question my assumption. He is certainly smart enough to know that his words -- and the timing of when he delivered them -- are potentially harmful to Obama’s chances for election.
Of course, this only matters in terms of its influence on “undecided swing voters.” I confess, I can’t fathom how anyone is undecided at this point, so I have no idea how an ongoing “Rev. Wright Show” will play with that group. For me, there’s no change. Obama 08!
I second mostly all that you mosty all tha you say... I just cannot understand how anyone can hold Obama responsible for anything that Wright has to say.
These are two totally different men. If I were to be held responsible for everything that my friends, relatives or co-workers has said in the past... WOW, I'd be doomed for sure!
I believe things have to be put in perspective. Afterall, he is Obama's former Pastor.... It's not like they are lovers!
Have you considered the possibility that Wright is simply a racist lunatic who thinks blacks have different brains from whites?
Why not simply take him at his word?
Have you considered the possibility that people who don't "get" where Wright is coming from and insist on using his words out of context to stir up trouble for Obama are racist lunatics who think blacks shouldn't hold high office?
I'm afraid Wright peaked too early.
I really wanted Obama to make it past the HillBilly wrecking crew before America found out what racists he hangs with. But the dogs of war have been let out and Obama is toast.
But it will be worth it just to watch the "progressives" here and at Kos and Move.On move to "reconcile" with HillBilly for the general election, and win back her favor.
Can you imagine the groveling a loser like Richardson is going to have to go through to get back in Club Clinton?
Knee pads, please!
lol - But I don't think its going to come to all that.
In your dreams. Richardson and the rest of America have been treated to the ugly side of the Clinton Club, including watching the way they have treated him.
The Clintons' sense of entitlement is utterly repugnant. People should be allowed to decide for themselves without fear of having their reputation ruined. It only shows what very poor sports the Clintons are.
You know, as an independent leaning towards Clinton, I find this whole thing terribly disturbing....I just don't know if I can support a candidate who doesn't do more to speak out against these sort of tactics from the left or from the right.....especially when considering...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SMJFuRU5Pw&feature=related
ironic? he's already doomed the Obama campaign. For 15 mins. of fame, you'd think Obama, rather than disowning Wright could have shut him up entirely.
Why has no one in the press pointed out that Wright doesn't just show up to speak to the National Press Club of his own volition? He was, in fact, invited to speak by a USA today reporter who just happens to be a Clinton supporter. Surprise, Surprise! Please. Also, the media wants the fireworks and scandal that will be part and parcel of any Clinton presidency, so it will insist Rev. Wright is the most important issue facing this country and carry Hillary's water. Meanwhile, Baghdad continues to implode, Karzai came quite close to being killed a couple of days ago, foreclosures continue unabated, new corporate scandals emerge daily, and New Orleans still largely remains in ruins. But the MSM has nothing better to do than smear by association the man who has inspired millions and appealed to our better selves and given the nation reason to hope. Obama has both the Republicans and the media running scared that when he says he will change things, he actually means it.
miss, no one forced Wright to appear or to make the comments he made. It is very predictable for you to bring up the Clinton past scandals; a) she was hardly responsible for Monica and b) everything else was examined in detail by Ken Starr. Obama will change nothing and it's clear his pastor knows he lies. Some of his supporters will continue to blind themselves to the truth and the rest of us will support Hillary.
Eric Deggans correctly says that the Wright issue will put Barack Obama's skills to the test, which is the real problem for Obama. Does he have the political skill to deal with an issue like this, or will his lengthy association of convenience with Jeremiah Wright force him to pussyfoot around his first real challenge? For me, it's not a question of whether Obama shares his pastor's views - I'm sure he doesn't - but why he attached himself to Wright in the first place. I believe he was trying to establish a racial identity to facilitate his political prospects, and now has to disengage from Wright without either offending much of his African-American constituency or so angering the combative Wright that he creates an actual enemy inside the gates. How he handles this will illuminate voters on what kind of GE candidate or President he might become.
I am bored with Rev Wright, isn't it time for someone else's 15 minutes of fame. How 'bout McCain's John Hagee or Rod Parsley or maybe Hillery's "the Fellowship" group. Isn't it their turn now? How I wish for an atheist.
see article about The Fellowship for real scary stuff
http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html
"How I wish for an atheist."
j.gold, I completely agree with you. But an atheist could not possibly be elected to a high office in this country. Polls consistently show that Americans distrust and dislike atheists far more than any other definable group, whether based on ethnicity, religion, race, gender, etc. I think that it would be wonderful if we had a Deist candidate---- if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it should be good enough for us.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. It is RELIGION that is the cause of the majority of the
chaos, commotion, unrest, havoc and instability in the world today!
It is PATHETIC!
I don't advertise my atheism outside the anonymity of this forum... this country has way too much prejudice against us for that! We're the last legitimate target of the ignorant (along with the gays, I suppose) since political correctness has made anti-black and anti-semitic unfashionable.
The reason no one talks about it; There is no there, there.
Yes, once again the race issue has raised it ugly head in this campaign. Poor Obama. Totally fooled about who his friends are. The real truth about the race issue to come out is this. You cannoyt judge a man by the color of his skin. You can only judge him by the things he says and does. Then you shall know the true evil in his heart. Mr. Obama says i can no sooner disavow Reverend Wright than disavow the black race. That is your hangup Mr. Obama - you see things as black versus white. The rest of us see it as bad and good, neither one with color. Hope you all enjoy having one racist sabatoge another racists political campaign.
It's interesting that once again the spotlight is shining on Reverand Wright and the truly scarey religious group that Hillary Clinton calls herself a member of " The Family" is being virtually ignored. Maybe the media chooses to keep this info under wraps because so many media companies (being Republicans) have ties to " The Family " themselves. Maybe that's why they choose to keep the focus on Rev. Wright?? WAKE UP people and read : http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich......
Has it occurred to you they don't talk about it because it is ridiculous? There is nothing to talk about or believe me, someone other than "The Nation" would be covering a story that big.
If today's news media was around when Jimmy Carter was running for President, I think Carter would have had a hard time getting elected because of his brother Billy. Jeremiah Wright is Barack Obama's Billy Carter. In 1976 the news media considered Billy Carter a joke that they could report on but they reflected that America was intelligent and mature enough to realize that Billy's behavior was not a genuine reflection of Jimmy's ability to serve as President. Too bad we aren't that intelligent or mature now.
As someone said, You can't chose your family, but you chose your pastor.
True, but we all have people in our lives (by blood or by choice) who are imperfect. Should we reject them? Or should we simply acknowledge that our associate is someone we like or admire, but that they have committed an act that is not admirable? It simply isn't fair to assess the character of Jeremiah Wright on the basis of a 30 second sound bite. And even if Wright is found wanting in character, if guilt by association is the best the swift boaters can do against Obama, then it only confirms for me that he is still a better candidate than anyone else currently running.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
