Reverend Wright and Barack
I am a Barack Obama supporter. I liked Senator John Edwards, think Hilary Clinton would make a super president, but have been persuaded ever since the start of the campaign that Barack offers the greatest chance for substantive, and greatly over needed, change.
I'm still in the Barack camp. But, as a vocal supporter, I'd like just a couple of answers about the flap over Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, the Chicago megachurch where the Obamas have been members for 20 years.
Guilt by association is totally unwarranted. Barack is not responsible for Wright's views. However, how he responds to those views -- and whether he is being straight with us, the voters -- is critical as to whether he should lead our country.
The key issue for me, as both a supporter and as a reporter, revolves around what I view as Wright's most incendiary comments, those implying that America -- because of its own actions -- deserved the 9/11 terror attacks.
Wright made his comments on September 16, only 5 days after the deadly strikes in New York and Washington. He said, in part, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye....We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Barack was then serving in the Illinois senate. He had unsuccessfully run for Congress the previous year. Although the Trinity United Church is large (6,000 members), the Obamas were then, and have been since his 1997 election to the State Senate, some of the best known parishioners.
A church, synagogue, mosque, and other places of worship, are like extensions of the local communities they serve. Afro-centric churches like Trinity serve not only as houses of worship but as a backdrop for a wide range of social, personal, and often business, relationships. When a parishioner is away from their house of worship, if the preacher/priest/rabbi/imam says something particularly out of character -- or wildly controversial -- it is almost impossible that members aren't going to talk about it endlessly as gossip.
There was no more traumatic event in our recent history than 9/11. Reverend Wright's comments would have raised a ruckus at most places in America, coming so soon after the the attack itself. Political commentator Bill Maher lost his TV show when he seconded a guest's observation that the hijackers had courage to carry out their attack. The country was emotionally raw.
If the parishioners of Trinity United Church were not buzzing about Reverend Wright's post 9/11 comments, then it could only seem to be because those comments were not out of character with what he preached from the pulpit many times before. In that case, I have to wonder if it is really possible for the Obamas to have been parishioners there -- by 9/11 they were there more than a decade -- and not to have known very clearly how radical Wright's views were. If, on the other hand, parishioners were shocked by Wright's vitriol only days after more than 3,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists, they would have talked about it incessantly. Barack -- a sitting Illinois State Senator -- would have been one of the first to hear about it.
Can't you imagine the call or conversation? "Barack, you aren't going to believe what Revered Wright said yesterday at the church. You should be ready with a comment if someone from the press calls you up."
But Barack now claims he never heard about any of this until after he began his run for the presidency, in February, 20007.
And even if Barack is correct -- and I desperately want to believe him -- then it still does not explain why, when he learned in 2007 of Wright's fringe comments about 9/11 and other subjects, the campaign did not then disassociate itself from the Reverend. Wright was not removed from the campaign's Spiritual Advisory Committee until two days ago, and it appears likely that nothing would have been done had this story not broken nationally.
Come on, Barack. I'm backing you because you are not 'one of them.' You have inspired me and millions of others because you are not a typical politician. You tell it like it is, don't fudge the facts, and don't dodge and weave with clever words to avoid uncomfortable truths.
Tell it straight. Was Reverend Wright so radical that his post 9/11 comments did not cause a stir at the Church, and you never learned about them until 2007, nearly 6 years later? Why, when you did learn about them, did you not ask Revered Wright to step down from his role in your campaign?
Give us the plain truth. You won't lose us by being brutally honest. You only risk shaking our faith in you if you seem like so many other politicians that crowd the field.
Gerald Posner is the author of 10 books of investigative non-fiction, seven NYT bestsellers, and a finalist for the Pulitzer in History. His last book was Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi US Connection
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
I cannot believe you are entertaining the idea that Obama has some cogent explanation for this affair. His answers to the questions asked by interviewers yesterday are so obviously false that you surely can't believe there's a chance that he's telling the truth.
Rev. Wright has long been well known as an incendiary pastor, and if the press had been doing its job this, and more, would have all come out long ago. This is part of the free ride that Obama has gotten. The reporters and "journalists" are so in love with the guy they didn't want to know and they didn't want the people to know.
The truth is Obama is just another Chicago politician, his relationship to Trininty Church was politically advantageous in the district he ran in for the State Legislature. He has become too embedded with Rev. Wright to have tossed him overboard when he began his try for the White House. That's another reason he should have held off for six to eight years before making his movit would have given him time to distance himself from his "spiritual advisor."
I can't help thinking of all the big brains, like Jonathan Alter, who told her to pull out ot the race because she didn't have a chance. At this point, the superdelegates should vote for Hillary Clinton because Obama's chances in the general election are practically zero. That's what the superdelegates were created for - to cast their votes for the candidate with the best chance of winning in November. If they have the guts to do the job they were created for, Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the democratic Party.
I do not understand this assertion that Obama's chances in the general election are practically zero. Is this based upon a hunch, or something you can provide a link to?
Here's my link, which today shows Obama beating McCain, and McCain beating Clinton in the Electoral College.
http://www
As for the rest of your argument, I think you began with the premise that HRC should be the nominee, and went from there.
Agree the press has not done their jobs. They spent so much time "outing" Kucinich over his UFO sighting, and Edwards over his haircut, totally ignoring Biden, Dodd, and Richardson as "unelectable against such "historical candidates", they missed the obvious- that backing a "historical" candidate was going to come with "historical" consequences. I have been profoundly saddened by the vicious attacks from both camps of this campaign, sexists calling Hillary names, shouting "iron my shirt" at her rallies, comparing Chelsea's campaigning with "pimping". Then, the racists- first over MLK and the Civil Rights Movement, Jesse Jackson, the backlash of Ferrraro, and now over Wright.
The real issues of the '08 candidacy have been swept aside, in favor of racism and sexism. The lack of affordable healthcare in this country is not limited by race or gender. Nor are the lack of jobs, the failing economy, and glut of foreclosed homes. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were colorblind, as is global warming. It is doubtful that our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan care as much about the race or gender of our next Commander in Chief, as they do about "chickens coming home to roost" , "God damn America", and making sure that the next time we send them overseas on a mission that we have an exit strategy beforehand, and allies on the ground who speak the language when we arrive.
I also have to agree that Obama's excuse of "not having been there" rings hollow. These sermons have been posted on U-Tube apparently for sometime, and ABC reported that recordings of these, and others, are actually offered for sale through the church. It may be this problem was what Hillary was alluding to, in a recent debate, when she said that she had been thoroughly "vetted" and that Obama had not. Even if NEITHER CANDIDATE says another disparaging word about their opponent for the remainder of the primaries, the damage has been done- the footage is already being spliced by the 527s. McCain is feeling like, no, HE is the one lucky to be who he is, in this election.
The feeling in my gut is like that of someone who has just discovered that their lover has not only been cheating on them, but has given them an STD as well. I did not want either of these candidates initially, based on the "issues" I held dear in this election. But now, with no clear winner, we're stuck with them as a result of a dreamy electorate blinded by their promises of hope and change based on color and gender. I feel cheated, and sickened at our prospects come November.
I watched Sen Obama's interviews both on MSNBC and CNN, and in both cases I came away with the feeling that this guy was not telling the truth. He stated that he had only recently heard about the inflammatory remarks by Rev Wright, however, it has been reported that over a year ago he had told Rev Wright that he would have to distance himself form him, and both agreed. Sen. Obama must have known something would come out that would be hurtful to his campaign back then. I could care less what the Rev Wright preaches, but Sen Obama must not go on TV and say "I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE REVEREND'S REMARKS!" If Sen. Obama had any chance of winning the Presidential election, it was lost last night. If he is the nominee against McCain, McCain will win in a landslide.
Barack did explain it
He said he learned of many of the more incendiary comments when he began his Presidential run last Fenruary. This was one of the reasons Rev Wright did not give the invocation at that event.
He did not elaborate or expand on the problems with Rev Wright as he was set to retire this year (now retired) and Obama had made the decision not to leave his church so he was not going to "sell out" (my words not Obama's) the Pastor, That Rev Wright has provided spiritual not political guidance.
Today on CNN they announced a group of black preachers are getting together to denounce Barack for throwing Rev Wright "overboard". He did not do this either. He renounced the words of the pastor bu not the man. He separated the "sin" from the "sinner"
As someone who inhabits many aspects of the American dream, I imagine Obama has learned how to walk this tight line of the white and black worlds but it is a tricky path.
He is a muslim - no now he is a Christian
He is not black enougn - no now he is too black
As a white jewish woman over 50 - I like everyone else deplore some of Rev Wrights statements - but I also agree with some of what I heard he said. I will never know what it is to be a n*#@ -- I will never have a cab pass by me because of the color of my skin -- If Rev Wright devoted his life to making the community better for his congregants - that is something to be applauded.
I ask Mr Posner - has he not been to synagogues and heard Rabbis and theologans say things he would not want made public and would not want to by found "guilty by association" of?
This is a "visual" problem - the words are amplified by the fiery style of Rev Wright. The incessant replaying of a handful of minutes of a forty year career are intended to scare white america - scare less educated america --
Mr. Posner: those same constitueny's would be equally appalled seeing a Rabbi in their own environment who has a theatric style --
This is one of the reasons of the power of words and Obama learning that lesson.
Obama today spoke eloquently in Indiana - site where Robert Kennedy calmed the word the night of Martin Luther Kings's assassination by calling for an end to divisive issues of race --
Obama today:
"There is a tragic history on issues of race in this country
There is a lot of pent up anger
But I continue to believe this country wants something better"
as we all do
Everything Rev. Wright said was true. America has practiced State Terrorism for decades, heaping violence upon defenseless peoples. The shit hit the fa on 9/11. Wright said it. Does that make it not true?
I havent heard ANYONE say that McCain should disavow Bush who has committed War Crimes, Treason and impeacheable offences.
Why the double standard?? Anything to do with race??
I completely understand the importance of religious freedom in our constitution and the provision on separation of church and state. the current situation is an example of why the founding fathers put this in the constitution and why many of our ancestors migrated to this country. Since EVERYONE from the president to our candidates have listened to a talk in church or synagogue they strongly disagree with and would not want to see repeated on CNN for an entire hour, can the media and everyone else give Obama this basic constitutional right that we give every other citizen including all the other Republicans and Democrats that have affiliations we find questionable?
Nothing but guilt by association. That's all this is. As I white person I don't find anything Rev. Wright said to be offensive or a lie. America isn't run by rich white people? How many people of color are serving in Congress? How many of the Forbes 500 CEO"s are black? Of course America is run by rich white people. It has since it was founded. The fact of the matter is I know as a white person I'm not subject to the level of scrutiny black people are. I know I'm not going to be stopped by police driving down the street just because I'm white. I'm certainly not going to be asked if I have any drugs on me, or do I mind letting the cops search my car. Even though white people are 60% of drug users in this country, and much more likely to have drugs on them. Yet black people get this kind of treatment every day. Rev Wright didn't say that the 9/11 victims deserved to die. He said what you sow you shall reap. Our gov't has sown violence and oppression for 50 years of the cold war. Overthrowing democratically elected gov'ts in Chile, Guatamala, Iran, and others. Then our gov't supported violent dictators that terrorized their own people. We have bombed countries when ever we felt like it. The victim's of our bombs know where they came from, even if the American people don't. If you use violence on others, should you be surprised if someone fights back? That's not justifying the 9/11 attackers, but if you don't want to be the victim of violence, don't use violence against others. If anything Rev. Wright's message is extremely patriotic. America likes to proclaim itself the greatest country on earth, maybe we should start acting like it.
You are justifying the mass murders of 9/11. You're right about our sponsoring coup s'etats e.g., Chile etc but it wasn't Latinos who attacked us on 9/11. It was arabs, people who have been sponsoring and using terrorism for decades now.
Maybe you should take a class on reading comprehension because I stated clearly "That's not justifying the 9/11 attackers". Also we haven't done anything to the Arabs? Ok bud, I guess overthrowing the democratically elected gov't of Iran in '53 and installing the brutal dictator Shah was nothing. Nice try troll.
You weren't offended as a white person but try to convince 52 million other americans that what Rev. Wright said wasn't offensive to them as well. Good luck. Toast.
What is your issue. The journalists have been drinking Bush water and listening to the Clinton parrots back stage at CNN and feeding us what we should think. The US has some issues - social and racial inequality, war mongering policies that have consequences and a government that does nothing to address the issues of the working class. The Rev, while I grant he was wearing a technicolor tinfoil hat at the time, brings this up and you think it's shocking. Sen Obama may or may not have known about the comments, but what I submit to you the only reason you think they are incendiary is because of the water you have been drinking and the parrots you have been listening too, more people at the time than you think would not have found them shocking. Since you are so interested in real change I suggest you stop nit picking and get over yourself. I would actually like to have a discussion about the substantive issues rather than the delivery you find so offensive. Sen Clinton for all you say, given her track record and the Clinton policies has only added to these problems and that in truth is why I think she is a Republican
I still fail to see ANYTHING wrong with what the reverend said - whether I agree with it or not. I also fail to see why you are so quick to decide who should react, and in what way. For example, Bush's solutions were widely embraced, even though I though many of his comments, and certainly his decisions were much more disgusting to me than anything I have heard a preacher say - after all, one is a preacher, and the other head of state. Everyone has family members they disagree with, clergy they at times disagree with, etc. Do we throw them out in the street?
Obama may not have heard these sermons. The reaction might not have been that strong. Maybe you are proud of the way this country has participated in the murder of millions of clearly innocent people. Maybe you don't believe that any of our behavior would warrant a violent attack from those who feel affected. Maybe you think invading a country where no one has attacked us, and causing the death of a million people, should not warrant any response from other nations. Maybe you think that atrocities motivated by the greed of American corporate interests - actions that have brought suffering and poverty to many corners of the earth should not make someone angry enough to take action. Maybe you think that a group of people, who after planning for years, the best they could come up with was the attack on the world trade centers - the global centers of the type of greed and conspiracy that has interfered in the sovereignty of so many nations, should me met with "flowers".
This man, however poorly stated, had in there, somewhere, a very legitimate point that so aggravates the supremacist attitude of Americans - a group of people who forget that they all originated from elsewhere, a group who thinks it is ok to constantly use military force against nations that have never attacked us for there own selfish ends.
Obviously, the Japanese committed atrocities against us. Why did they attack? Do you remember? Did I agree with their resulting slaughter of so many innocent people? Of course not. Not any more than I agree to the slaughters perpetrated my this country against innocents, however large or small.
So, I think your article is naive and muchraking and demonstrates an ongoing willingness for Americans to look in the mirror and make corrections. We have done much that is wrong. Visit an Indian reservation lately? So, nothing is as black and white as you would like to pretend. I don't see anything wrong with the reverend making his observations, even though his timing might have been bad (when should he have commented about 9/11?) or the way he voiced it might not have been perfectly politically correct. We are supposedly in a country where free speech and dissent are welcome. What the hell is your problem? Obama OBVIOUSLY does not speak with the vitriol the reverend expresses, neither does he condone it. What is your problem? Your deceptive essay is as narrow minded as I would expect from your average, egoistic, uneducated American - quick to believe anything, quick to judge, quick to push away instead of embrace, quick to draw conclusions, quick to insist that innocent people have to continually prove their innocence, even though, hypocritically, we believe in innocence until proven guilty.
Pure crap.
I am Native American, and I know that "God damn America!" won't get you elected to the office of the presidency. My uncles and father fought in WWII, and I know that they would have been really pissed off by that phrase. Even on the "reservation," people know better.
It's extremely naive for these posters to believe this won't cost him the general election.
With all respect, your relatives who (like Rev. Wright), fought for their country were fighting for the right of all of us to say, "God damn America." In fact, I would suggest that those of us from African-American and/or Native-American (being a multicultural, Heinz 57 sort of person, I'm both), backgrounds have more than earned the right to say what we feel about America.
Ta n'isi.
the attack on Rev. Wright for a correct analysis of american imperialism supplies momentum for the coming effort to smear any discussion of american foreign policy as unpatriotic, untrooplike, too fast for old "maverick" john, and what have you. Wright's well-stated critique updates the views of stokley carmichael, h rap brown, malcolm x, eldridge cleaver, franz fanon, bayard rustin, and other intellectual luminaries of the civil rights-social justice thinking of the 1960's. it's sad to see that critical social ethics thinking has declined to the scoolboy flagwaving of the chicken right.
Mr. Posner:
Are you suggesting that (1) recruiting Usama bin Laden to go to Afghanistan, (2) propping up Israel, and (3) propping up the Saudis -- who beat women for revealing their arms in public and subsidize the Wahhabis that menace the world with their religiosity -- did not cause the 9/11 attacks?
The right-wingers in this country still cling to the big lie, the theoretical basis for the "War on Terror": i.e., that nothing that the U.S. does creates terrorists. Invading countries, torturing people, propping up regimes like Israel and Saudi, playing footsie with the tyrannies in Egypt and Kuwait -- none of it creates terrorists. No, terrorists, they say, simply materialize from the air, like rain; and some parts of the world get more rain than others. The Republican's "War on Terror" is simply to have soldiers wherever the rain falls, to shoot them when they land.
The jihadiyiin that were created to fight the war in Afghanistan are the same ones that attacked us on 9/11, and are attacking us today. The war in Iraq continues to prove that tyranny creates religious terrorism. Cold War ghouls are now back in the White House, playing games with people's lives. The 9/11 attacks were a direct result of this bloodthirsy -- and racist -- imperialism; and from the way it is going now, another 9/11 seems inevitable, unless we change our ways in the Middle East.
The only way out now is for Barrack to stand in the pulpit of his Church and denounce the Hate of Wright. I fear Barrack is finished as a national pol and will end up a bitter and hateful man like Al Sharpton..
Preachers and Popes have said far worse. Didn't jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say that 9/11 was our fault because of the ACLU and homosexuality? What about Robertson calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez? Didn't the Pope quote some medieval text implying Muslims were evil. Wtrghts' comments sound sane to me compared the those. Wasn't Ted Haggard George Bush's spiritual adviser?
There really is a divide between black America and white America and instead of discussing and understanding that, ( which is the real meaning of this story) everyone is just offended and shocked because of the inflammatory way in which the sermons and story were presented by the news media.
It's all very disheartening
The statements were not "inflammatory". Did anyone go out and blow up shit because of what Wright said? Other than that, ds, right on.
Inflammatory killed a ton of Black folks.
Good point, the Pope's statements on Muslims (also taken out of context) nonetheless resulted in riots and at least two deaths as I recall. Yet, I am still a devout Catholic and no matter how shortsighted I think Benedict was not to anticipate his remarks would be misconstrued, I still think he is a brilliant religious scholar.
The criticism over Wright is miniscule compared to what he will face once the media starts talking about how William Ayers doesn't regret the Weather Underground planting bombs around the country some decades ago.
People are going to want to know why these "VIEWS" are the type of people Obama's friends with.
The fact that he is BLACK means he will automatically face WHITE SKEPTICISM during the General Election.
Combine that with his middle name being "HUSSEIN" and the comments of Wright and Ayers, and Obama won't even win 10 states in November.
Democrats had better realize this out soon and bring back John Edwards, or they can forget about November.
Edwards will be on Leno on Thursday. Let's see how he's doing.
John Edwards said that he didn't want the votes of those who were voting against Senator Obama's ethnicity or against Senator Clinton's gender. Shouldn't we take Senator Edwards at his word?
http://you
Oh please, that story is so last week.
We're all focusing on the tornado that hit CNN headquarters now!
Next week we'll have a new sex scandal and it will be like this never happened.
Pennsylvania is dozens of hooker exposes away.
You probably won't get your wish about this story going away anytime soon....it has a few cycles to go.
Enough of these ignorant comments! Reverend Wright has a ministry for BLACK people who have been victimized by racism, discrimination, poverty, etc. etc. His rhetoric is not directed to people outside of this particular community. Why the hell would you even care about what he says INSIDE OF his own church for these particular people? It's a ministry for god's sake! Now you want to tell ministers how to minister to their own flocks?
Yup, I guess you do! How arrogant!
The reverend is free to say anything he wants to, just like we are free to draw conclusions from what he says. It's the American way.
I just can't get all worked up over this. Obama has talked at length about his church in his books (including comments about not being on board for parts of it) . I take him at his word.
Mr. Obama may not have 40 years in politics but he has a long well documented history (not to mention all his writing). His message has always been one of healing and finding common ground not differences. Deciding he is some sort scary ticking time bomb for black extremism and secret agenda is some KKK type fantasy that is being helped along by various enemies who are not really worried about it but want to take him down.
I was offended when the Bush people tried to portray McCain as a walking sleeper cell. I am not big on McCain be he didn't deserve that. If you don't like where people are on the issues fine but these people with their personal attacks are just noise. They devote their lives to noise. At some point I hope the American people are tired of all that noise.
The fact you can't get worked up about this is why the dems will lose in the fall. You are out of touch. This reminds me of last time....Pe
As a radical, most of the people I know disagree with me. Most Americans have been programmed into conservatism relative to the rest of the world. That doesn't make America correct. Far from it.
Progressives opposed the theft of the election in 2000, the guilt-by-a
We're well-acquainted with narrow-minded, cynical resistance to change and yet, we keep working to transform the system. That's what it means to have the courage of one's convictions.
Sage advice, how about you follow it as well?
I think the vehmence with which Wright say these things are distubing but I dont understand why some of these things are seen as radical. There is a kernel of truth in them and I've had White professors in college talk about America's Foreign policy prior to 911 and their fears about what will happen if it continues. I've read books by former CIA agents that talk about some of the stuff Wright refers to not the race part but the Foreign policy particularly after WW2. This is different imo from the relgigious right that said Katrina was punishment for Gays or even AIDS is plague for Gays or the Catholic church is a whore. That kind of stuff is just out there and in another realm. So its OK to blame this stuff on sin and God punishing people but its not OK to blame it on some of America's foreign policy choices. Which is more testable it seems to me the latter is. Some of the stuff Wright said is downright paranoid but I dont know if I'd say all of it is.
Carol
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
