Barack the Politician With a Smokescreen to Block
Barack Obama's speech was amazing, mesmerizing, and historical. Indeed, it did tackle an issue in very blunt, honest terms. No doubt, Obama was speaking from his heart. Undeniably, race is an issue worthy of our attention. It requires a strong and robust dialogue. And the time for that dialogue is long overdue. Nobody denies that Obama seized a moment and brought many of us to tears.
The problem is that in seizing that moment, Barack Obama twisted logic and pulled off a very clever bait and switch. In short, Barack Obama acted like a politician. Nothing wrong with that but for the fact that Obama's whole political narrative (his "story") sold to the American electorate is antithetic to such behavior.
Yes, ironically, Obama's refreshingly open, candid speech on race actually served another entirely different purpose: that of a smokescreen to distract the American public from the core of his current dilemma -- his long, deep, and formative relationship with an extremely divisive figure named Reverend Wright.
Conveniently, Obama has taken something that is an absolute and undeniable truth (race relations are a problem in America) and attached it to something that is flawed and wrong (Wright's hate speech). It's called a play on logic. His attempt is to confuse people and get them to agree with him on overriding theme (it's time to be open and honest about race relations) and, therefore, tacitly and inadvertently approve of and forget about the very reason of what brought us all there in the first place (his questionable and close relationship with Wright.) You know what that technique is called? Political spin. You know who uses it? Politicians.
True, the complexities and history of our nation's race relations do help to explain Reverend Wright's anger, bitterness, and hatred towards "white America." However, race relations neither help to explain nor quantify the effect that such detrimental exposure had on Barack Obama -- a current candidate for President of the United States.
Look, I will give you Wright's hate speech. I will condone it in context and parse it in proper perspective. I will give you all of it because of Wright's "black experience."
But I will not grant you a pass on the impact such incendiary language and thoughts might have had on a very young, troubled, and impressionable Barack Obama who by his very own admission also turned to drugs to help carve out his place and identity in the world. It is indeed troubling.
So where exactly should I find solace in the "blank slate" of Barack Obama -- as a lost young man trying to figure out who he was in the world -- finding himself at the knee of Reverend Wright?
A facet of Obama's personality -- indeed a part of his core being -- has now been revealed and should be examined and considered. It is fair to do so. It is responsible and necessary to do so. And, it is certainly not racist to do so.
For me, it is disturbing to think that Obama chose such a man to be his mentor. Why would he? And perhaps, most importantly, to what effect? That is the question that Barack Obama is trying so desperately to distract us from asking ourselves.
I don't know what concerns me more: the fact that Barack Obama thinks that after listening to such hate-speech for 20 years, Reverend Wright didn't leave any damaging impression on his personality and character or the fact that Obama supporters are willing to "hope" for the best, gamble the White House, and trust that Obama does not harbor any belief in any of Wright's disturbing and divisive rants.
Look, there were plenty of other black churches on the Southside of Chicago that Obama could have attended. Obama and his wife knowingly chose to attend and stay at Wright's church. Just like he chose to have Wright officiate his marriage, baptize his children, help lend the words to the title of his book, and until recently serve as an advisor to his campaign. Why would anyone allow someone so divisive to so totally permeate their lives?
Why would Barack Obama -- the candidate of feel good hope -- want a man who preaches such hate, anger, and bitterness around him?
Why would Barack Obama -- the candidate of change -- want a man so allegedly mired and parked in the past to mentor him?
Why would Barack Obama -- the candidate of unity -- want a man so divisive in nature to work on his presidential campaign?
Why hasn't Barack Obama -- the candidate of openness and transparency -- given the media access to Reverend Wright?
None of it makes any sense. None of it adds up. All of it makes me uncomfortable -- and that lack of comfort has nothing to do with our nation's flawed race relations and everything to do with Obama's growing hypocrisy as a politician (something he was not supposed to be).
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
Too many comments here attempt to deflect what is solely Obama’s issue with false equivalences or seemingly genuine attempts to defend the indefensible. Barack cleverly gave a speech about race when in fact the issues around the reverend’s comments are about hate.
Perhaps Barack needed a father figure when he moved to Chicago, but that in itself is not the issue. Obama’s mentor and teacher is a globally known leader of a theology based upon an ideology otherwise known as Liberation Theology. (The wiki has been edited recently so you may need to go to the library or check a real history book for the details). This movement was and continues to be a derivative of the activist South American Marxist activity. For a Harvard law student to not understand in detail what the preacher and teachings stood for is not credible in the least. In addition, he must also know how the various branches of the faith/ideology have evolved over the past 30 years or so. A couple of the variations are alive and well right there in the south side of Chicago. Folks should look and judge for themselves if they do not have an opinion or do not know the actual details since you cannot count upon the media for a real investigation.
Obama’s record in the Senator is to the left of even Sanders who is a socialist whom Obama helped get reelected in 2006. When investigating this militant ideology, a great many more questions are raised than what was addressed in the speech cleverly deflecting the issue to race as opposed to the tenants of the Theology itself that prompted the speech.
Next Obama has not fully rejected both Farrakhan or the preacher, which of course is his right to do so. What is amazing is that the political spin expects us to believe that this is a race issue alone and benign in every other sense, which it clearly is not. Indeed further investigation reveals that just as the reverend issue was politically calculated in advance by the Campaign, we no longer can read Michelle Obama’s senior thesis, since it has been pulled from the public until the day after the general election. All this contributes to the many questions that need to be answered about Obama, his beliefs and how he would govern in advance. So far, the facts do not look good and the spin is asked to stretch beyond typical responses to the reverend and all that comes along with Liberation Theology.
Only someone who's uncritically echoing Fox News could call Rev. Wright's sermons "hate". Hate against whom - white people? Well that would make no sense; he has white parishoners, and white people speak at the very same church that he does, to the very same audience.
I see him making some over the top statements about AIDS and about 9/11, but "Hate speech?" It just isn't there. When you keep this slander alive, you're increasing the chances of President McCain. I hope that isn't what you want.
Speaking of smoke screens and bait-and-switch, we're supposed to believe that because we know about Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" (to use Maggie Williams' delightful phrase), that Hillary Clinton is vetted.
She isn't. There hasn't seen a single news cycle that gives her anywhere near the scrutiny that Obama has been under. Nothing about her donors, her past relationships, the ties between the Clinton library and her campaign, her church, her tax returns, nothing. Ask yourself why Tony Rezko has been the story in multiple news sources, but Norman Hsu may as well be "Norman who?"
Frankly, I'm not willing to commit political suicide by making a total blank slate who the media hasn't even begun reporting on the nominee.
Your thesis is nonsense. What you hear in Wright's speech is anger, not hate.
When someone, in successive breaths says "God damn America...
When a teenager storms out of the house, yelling at their parents, "you're ruining my life I HATE you!", you'd be a fool for concluding that they really do, in fact, hate their parents. The meaning of their statement is anger, not hate. They're angry. It's the people--and countries--that we love most which have the greatest ability to hurt us. I'm sure the same is true of Wright.
Jeremiah Wright has good reason for his anger; the country he was born in--and the nation he became a marine to defend--has also done him real harm, and done it solely because of his race. That this occassionally finds bitter expression should surprise no one; that's how humans work.
Telling a black man of Wright's generation to 'get over' Jim Crow is like telling someone with numbers tattooed down his arm to 'get over' Aushwitz. The Jim Crow regime he grew up under left its mark on Wright, as it did thousands of others. These maybe less visible than an Aushwitz tattoo, but they're no less real: teaching an enduring lesson about race, after all, was the entire purpose of the Jim Crow system in the first place.
Yesterday Barack Obama told Wright and told America that this anger is as unwise as it is understandable. If you think that an insufficient response, I suggest that you, too, would be wise to try and do as Obama does, and understand Wright's anger before condeming it.
You'll be amazed.
We have all heard the stories of Bill Clinton’s long history of extra marriage sexual relations. A simple Google of Bill Clintons “women” will provide all the details – not necessary to repeat it all here. Whether all or most are true, or not, is just speculation. Whether Hillary knew about all or most of them is just speculation.
We do know that rumors of these extra marital relations were rampant. We do know that Hillary at least knew about these rumors. We do know that Bill Clinton, despite his earlier statements to the contrary, and lies under oath, did have a sexual relationship with at least Monica. We also know that he settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with Paula Jones. We know that Hillary was publicly humiliated by the Monica scandal. Whether we believe that Bill’s behavior was just “boys being boys” or abusive behavior toward women by a powerful man is a matter of personal perspective, or perhaps law, in the case of Jones.
Despite all this, Hillary has stayed married to Bill – now 33 years. Do we accept her explanation that she loves Bill, despite his outrageous behavior towards her (lies and deception) and other women in the past? Do we still acknowledge that Bill Clinton has achieved much good, despite some inexcusable actions?
Why is it so hard to accept the Barack Obama has affection for his pastor that brought him to Jesus, that in many ways was his black father or grandfather that he never really knew? Why is it so hard to accept that the vast majority of those sermons Obama heard over those 20 years were of love, acceptance, and tolerance? Why is it so hard to believe, with no evidence to the contrary, that the hate language Reverend Wright used on those couple of occasions were limited to those occasions – occasions when Obama was not present?
As a matter of fact, Brite Divinity School, on the campus of Texas Christian University, is about to honor Reverend Wright. Having reviewed the Reverend’s comments that were recently exposed, they had this to say:
>>Dr. Wright served as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago from 1972-2008. During this period, Trinity UCC grew from 87 adults to over 8,700 members. Today this south Chicago congregation provides numerous ministries ranging from Food Share, Dance and Math tutorials to small groups. The church tithes its annual revenues to support other churches, denominational missions, and agencies supporting mission work in Liberia, Haiti, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ghana, Brazil, and South Africa. Trinity has also birthed four new congregations of the United Church of Christ--two in Atlanta, Georgia, one in Gary, Indiana, and one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In 2001 Dr. Wright was the Wells Preacher for Brite’s Ministers Week, a continuing education event that draws pastors and lay leaders from across the nation. No Wells Preacher in recent years has been better received than Dr. Wright.
Contrary to media claims that Wright preaches racial hatred, church leaders who have observed his ministry describe him as a faithful preacher of the gospel who has ministered in a context radically different from that of many middle class Americans. A retired white Disciples of Christ minister recently wrote:
"When I heard Jeremiah Wright at Ministers Week a few years back--before I had heard of Obama for President--I thought Wright one of the best preachers I'd heard and certainly not just among Black preachers. His content was orthodox Christianity with much scripture focus on justice, peace and compassion--a call to be like Jesus in concern for the poor, the downtrodden and despised among us. . ."
Why is it so hard to believe that Obama can reject those limited hurtful/hateful actions of Rev. Wright, yet still have affection for the man? Is this a flaw in Obama’s character or strength? That Obama is able to talk openly and honestly about it demonstrates strength of character and is testimony the diverse backgrounds that have made this country great, as well as the flaws that still hold the country back from being greater.
I agree with your larger point, but this distinction has to made - Rev. Wright is not a bigot, and doesn't say bigoted things. It's probably helpful if we try to stop that lie from spreading.
why is it that whenever an Obama supporter reads something they don't like about him, they have to trot out something about Clinton, even when it as nothing to do with the other? How can you attribute discussing Bill's affair with Rev. Wright?
When a husband has an affair, who does it hurt? The wife and kids. If they choose to forgive him, what business is it of anyone else? When you have a minister spewing hate from the pulpit, who does it hurt? All those who hear him and those he spews the hate about.
I am sure Rev. Wright has done many good things in his life. I don't deny Obama's right to stay with his church. I do think though, that a minister preaching hate in his church - no matter how may times it happens - has a more far reaching effect on the world than an cheating husband.
Spewing hate? The church has both white pastors and white parishoners. Accusing someone of bigotry with no evidence is bad enough, but it's what we've come to expect from the campaign that brought us "as far as I know...."
Clearly you didn't read the post you're responding to, because if you had you'd have read the last paragraph which speaks directly to the issue - Rev. Wright does not "spew hate". That's another lie by Sean Hannity, of "Liberal Hate Speech" fame.
It's his ilk that want to stretch the definition of "hate speech" beyond all meaning - to the point where there's no difference between Reverend Hagee and Reverend Wright, and there's no difference between the AFL-CIO and the KKK.
As a true blue, white American born in Los Angeles I have bad news for you. Much of what Reverend Wright said is right. Our country has always been a terrorist nation. Interfering in other countries with no regard for the well being of the people who live there. Killing innocent people, women and children, as if they were animals. And now in the absence of the Soviet Union we are becomeing the Soviet Union. Stripped of our civil rights, with a propogandists press and the manipulation of our scientific community. Our government working for the benifit of the rich at the expense of the poor. I am embarrased to be an American. God Damn my government.
Yes, sss, the government, that makes all Real Americans look bad. Boycott the Olympics!
Isn't there a small double standard in play here?
Jerry Falwell said that 9/11 was America's fault, due to allowing abortions to take place.
Pat Robertson said:
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians
and also blamed 9/11 on America, for not allowing prayer in the schools.
and yet, all the Republican nominees all courted his support, and no politician was forced to renounce Robertson as a person.
Tell me why?
"Yet didn't George Bush and other Republican politicians accept the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades." -- http://www
This is what the Repubs are thinking about Obama's speech.
Uh, yes he did. He also invited them into the whitehouse.
Take your blinders off and recognize swiftboating when you see it. Because if Hillary Clinton is ever a candidate for president, it can, and will happen to her.
The difference is the proximity Obama has to Wright in comparison to McCain's proximity to Robertson, Hagee and the later Jerry Falwell. Also, I think the Falwell and Robertson comments were reported in depth. I walked around with a news clipping in my pocket with the Falwell-blame gays for 911 quote for almost a year.
And so it's fine for John McCain to not only accept the endorsement of people like this, but seek it out?
The political reality is that Democrats have always had to live up to a higher standard when it comes to this sort of stuff. Everyone understands that; Wright's clips are played 24/7, but McCain's link to Reverend Hagee, who is far, far worse, goes unreported. The only difference this time is that it's *other democrats* enabling this double standard.
As Hillary likes to say: let's get real.
There is no evidence that Wright's anti-black and 9/11 conspiracy theories permeated more than the occasional sermon. The people jumping to that conclusion are doing so for political and/or racial reasons.
Most importantly, Wright's views are relatively harmless compared to those of the politicos playing with our country like its some end-times chess piece, which is a prevalent component of conservative politics. And Hillary is connected to that.
What is end-times philosophy but hate speech against life in the here and now? That's hate that's a heckuva lot more dangerous and important than getting pissed off at America from time to time.
Take a closer look at Hillary's relationship with The Family, a hierarchical end-times fundamentalist group that uses religious participation as a political power brokerage. You'll find The Family is comprised primarily of top conservative politicos and power brokers in DC around the country.
Start with Barbara Ehrenreich's article here on HuffPo.
http://www
The comments there are loaded with links to a lot of interesting material, including Tom Delay gushing about how psyched he is about the end-times.
And if you want to talk about smaller, everyday hate speech than The End-Times, take a closer look at Dobson, Robertson, Hagee, Bob Jones (and the late Falwell) and the rest of the evangelical movement that McCain is cozy with.
Then we can talk about Wright.
Until then, folks aren't being intellectually honest when they talk about Wright.
As an Obama supporter I DO wonder why Obama remained so close to the Pastor. I read as much about Obama as I could. Both his books are remarkably revealing about him. And when I look at Baracks schooling accomplishments at Harvard, his work in organizing on the Southside streets of Chicaga, his move into politics, and his overall service and pattern of helping others and motivating towards the good, I see no reason to condemn or be concerned about him.
I honestly see a man drawn towards wanting to heal, rectify and inspire great movement in people. I see Barack as someone who married a woman who also has no history of militancy or anti-American behavior. Both Barack and Michelle have a history of walking a path of caring openly for their children and working hard to make a better life for them and others.
When Obama was trashed and portrayed as naive when he suggested meeting with all leaders and enemies of our country it confirmed for me the willingness of a man who's history and future cannot be compromised.
Some people have extraordinary open-minds and open-hearts. They can process other peoples hate, anger, emotion, and negativity without fear, over-reaction, abandonment, and condemnation.
Unfortunately, I don't think a majority of Americans are ready to face their fears. Now people are considered unpatriotic or racist if we are close to someone whose words are judged to be so. Americans appear "hopeless" when "hopeful" is at their doorstep.
FDR said, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." The truth at this moment is we have nothing to fear but fear will give us nothing.
We are being manipulated into being as fearful as Pastor Wright. What a vicious circle of fear. We are racing towards nowhere fast.
To Ms. Breitweiser and the rest of you who JUST DON'T GET IT: you just don't get it, OK? It's alright, the rest of us are not going to spend the rest of our lives trying to explain it to you. But, for your own sake, please just try to GET OVER IT, while WE get busy moving this country in a new direction! Senator Obama clearly deliniated the fork in the road; obviously, you want to stay on the same old path. See ya.
This hostility and anger from Obama supporters when their candidate is questioned or called to task needs to clear up by the General Election. It is he who should be honored by the position we will bestow upon him, not the other way around. This is exactly the kind of fawning over that blue-collar whites do not respond to (one reason he has not locked up this demographic and thus, the nomination yet).
It's a hostility towards a phony argument and a double standard being advanced by other democrats. We've had Clinton supporters for months pushing this story, pushing William Ayers, pushing Larry Sinclair, pushing Tony Rezko, and they're still doing it.
If you think for a moment the Ferraro Democrats would tolerate a tenth of this, then I don't know what to tell you.
I don't like to comment on these boards because all those who support candidates have their own biases, even yours Kristen. So you are basically saying he didn't answer any questions for you, and then you go on to attack him. This is the most depressing year for politics I've ever experienced. I've been voting since 1980. To see Democrats ripping apart their potential nominees is nothing more than republicanism. Ah Gender and Race politics. I guess this year for me is a great learning experience. And now I am going to tell you what I think. I think the generation of Bill and Hill, Newt and Delay, are and were jaded by the politics of the late 60's and early 70's. What works is to seek to destroy your opponent and they are all very good at that, but destruction does not bring us together as a nation. It is the reason Al Gore didn't run again isn't it, could he take another year or two or four or eight years of the name calling and the lies about him and his record? I think not. But the Clintons love this stuff. I guess for me I am just ready for another generation, that happens to be more tolerant of differences to take over. You know what I mean right, a generation accepting of gay people and their rights, not a don't ask don't tell policy of keep your mouth shut and wait your turn. I am tired of the destroy your opponent mentality. I am tired of democrats playing the game like Republicans. If democrats do not stop this behavior we end up like Republicans, looking ridiculous and stupid. When we over analyze speeches and twist them to support our candidate we look just like those little men. I thought we were better than that a better party a more tolerant party. We are not and it is depressing.
I am tired of the "If you do not agree with me 100% you are my enemy. Sounds like George Bush doesn't it.
Right on!
Earthlings Unite!
"If you do not agree with me 100% you are my enemy. Sounds like George Bush doesn't it.
Please let some Obama supporters know that they are starting to sound like this.
Right statement, wrong target.
What a darn shame that in 2008 we still have so many people filled with so much hate and are being so unfair and divisive regarding a few 15 second sound bites, take totally out of context, from someone who is not Obama, nor speaking for Obama. There are a ton of under-educated and uninformed white people who will never appreciate or understand a non-white experience in this country, especially from the 50s, 60's, etc. I'm so disappointed with many people, especially those who consider themselves good Christians, who can even begin to try to understand Wrights context or his experiences that may have shaped some of his comments. Christians should bve more understanding and forgiving and by all means not blame Obama or not vote for Obama simply because of this right-wing (Hannity, Rush, Bill'O) smear, slash 'n burn hypocritical and darn right wrong campaign that strokes those racists, bigots, and plan uneducated white Americas who are basing things on fear and misunderstanding and log held stereotypes.
If you are one of the people that would NOT vote for Obama only because of this smear, than shame on you. Look in the mirror, look at your big glass house. No wonder we are always stuck with uncourageous, "do anything, say anything" politicians. This country and our system is such a mess right now and we don't care. We are feed by the media and react like stupid sheep.
The hypocrisy, double standards and in the case so much higher standard being demanded is crazy. But again that proves how far WE HAVE NOT COME and how racism and fear is still so alibe in the shadows in this country. We have a bi-racial man who has so much to offer this country and has treated us like adults, rather than mindless sheep, who have been so much more transparent, open and honest than Hillary or McCain can ever be, and yet we still turn away. We are so weak.
America this is our chance to turn a page. I hope you all look beyond the spin, smears, hate, fears, and everything else that would cause you to be twisted by this stuff.
Kudos to you, great piece.
It is become increasingly alarming to me when so called liberals and progressives agree with hate radio talking points. What I find astonishing about this article is you have not bothered to fully research Rev. Wright and continue to assume that he is making these kinds of divisive statements in very sermon. Since this article in my opinion is almost identical to Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan’s talking points in the past couple of days am I to assume you are a dittohead. Given your post history I suppose I could give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe if you judged the candidate by his words, instead of the Nutzy Rev, you could do the same. Try not to judge people by their worst day but consider their entirety, for my part when it comes to you I will try and do the same.
Speaking as a white woman, you failed to grasp what he was saying. We won't hold it against you because, unlike you, we choose to transend your message.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
