The Consequences of Obama's Wright Denunciation

by: Matt Stoller

Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:54


Jerome Armstrong noticed something really interesting.  "What seems most noticeable about the polling is that Obama didn't start tanking until after he 'denounced' Wright. Why is that?"

Could it be this?

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 30% of the nation's Likely Voters believe Barack Obama denounced his former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, because he was outraged. Most-58%--say he denounced the Pastor for political convenience. The survey was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday night. Obama made his statements about Wright on Tuesday.

Wright held a mini-media tour last weekend capped by a press conference at the National Press Club on Monday. Only 33% of voters believe that Obama was surprised by the views Wright expressed at Monday's press conference. Fifty-two percent (52%) say he was not surprised.

Fifty-six percent (56%) say it's at least somewhat likely that Obama "shares some of Pastor Wright's controversial views about the United States." That figure includes 26% who say it's Very Likely Obama holds such views. At the other end of the spectrum 24% say it's Not Very Likely that Obama shares such views. Just 11% say it's Not at All Likely.

So voters think that Obama pandered by denouncing Wright, that he was not surprised by Wright's views, and that he probably shares them.  This can be fixed, but I bet if you looked at the numbers of denunciations of surrogates in general, it doesn't look good unless it's quick and aggressive or not done at all.  Stupid media politics is about being on offense, not defense.

This could be turned around into an attack, and it should be, but it wasn't.  And so the controversy is on Wright, not the media or McCain's various controversial associates.

Matt Stoller :: The Consequences of Obama's Wright Denunciation

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Consequences of Obama's Wright Denunciation | 74 comments
Tracking lags (4.00 / 2)
Those numbers are worrisome for the general, and Obama will have to find some way to get the negative perceptions down.  But I think the explanation of the timing of the shift is simply that its a multiday tracking poll and so there tend to be lags between major events and shifts in poll numbers.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
The Only Explanation (2.00 / 2)
is that people are not dumb.

If anyone here sincerely thinks for a second that Obama who attend Wright's church for over 20 years and said he never heard the Wright's anti-White, anti-American, pro-Black rhetoric before then you have really drank the kool-aide. No person of reason in America now believes that as Wright has now proven after the fact that the "sound bites" were not random sound bites at all. So Obama lied when he told all of you and the rest of America that he never heard such words in 20 years. It is now obvious that those kind of words are in Wright's DNA because he is using his new moment in the spotlight to reiterate all that he said in the videos and more.

The Gallup poll trend in not false. Even a another recent head to head Gallup Tracking poll for the same period shows Obama going from a 3 point lead to now losing ground to McCain by 6 points, a nine point negative swing. While Clinton is holding ground with McCain and is in a statistical tie only down by 1 point.

Obama didn't not handle the original aftermath of the sound bites well and in fact covered up the truth of what he heard in his 'church of choice' hoping that video of him attending such sermons did not surface. Instead Wright re-surfaced and started preaching the same rhetoric to the world showing that it was impossible that Obama never sat in church hearing this before.

And for that Obama is now paying a price.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106...

[ Parent ]
I am glad people are not dumb (0.00 / 0)
Then they will see through the gas tax holiday BS
[ Parent ]
Again people Are Not Dumb (4.00 / 1)
First is that one cannot equate Wright to the Tax Holiday because they are not even the same. Wright goes to the 'judgment' of an ambitious politician attending such a church when he had many other choices. It also goes to his 'denial' and then getting busted big time which magnified his denial. But worse it shows that Obama is the the forthright person he tries to say he is. That he is not above the politics he says he deplores. He cannot change that now as Matt suggests. And if he tries he will only be digging a bigger hole for himself.

The Tax holiday, on the other hand, goes to a politically expedient proposal that speaks to the concerns of the voters. People know that a Tax Holiday will never happen by summer. But that is not the point. The point is that Clinton is recognizing that voters are hurting at the pump and is a least trying to think of solutions to relieve them from the prices at the pump and getting the oil companies to pay for it. Plausible or not it addresses voter concerns and talking to voters concerns is always smart in any election. Lying about your choice of the church you attended when some of what was preached in that church was offensive is not smart especially when you get busted afterward.

[ Parent ]
There are so many absurd things in your post (4.00 / 1)
that i think it is better to let it stand on its own for people to judge.
[ Parent ]
There Is No Trend in the Nomination (4.00 / 1)
The general election match-up does have meaningful movement, but there is 0 "poll trending" in the Democratic nomination; Obama is at the same level of support he was the day before Wright went crazy at the Press Club, and Clinton is up one percentage point.  That does not constitute a "trend," or, if it does, the "trend" is "Obama and Clinton holding steady, no movement."
[ Parent ]
Gallup Said: (0.00 / 0)
"Most-58%--say he denounced the Pastor for political convenience."

If you consider that a good thing then what can I say?

If you think that 58% of people forming a NEW negative opinion is a good thing then what can I say?

If you think the swing of Obama 51 Clinton 42 - to Clinton 49 Obama 45 - is not because of Wright then Obama is really in trouble isn't he? Because that swing would reflect a general shift in preference not tied to just one thing that some say could be rehabilitated.

You would have been better of arguing that it was Wright and that it would blow over in time. But instead by default you are saying it is other numerous factors that you cannot identify - like say, people are now seeing that Clinton has a better chance against McCain. Both Matt's poll and the link I provided to the other poll bare that out. As do other polls. And when you look at the important Electoral Map projections Clinton also does better than Obama by a significant margin. And this is all about winning the WH - not about giving Obama a chance to lose as all indicators are showing would probably happen if the elections was held today. That is something Obama supporters should wrap their minds around.

Either way your guy is losing ground and the momentum shift is there, like it or not.

[ Parent ]
It Wasn't Wright (0.00 / 0)
First off, that was a Rasmussen poll, not a Gallup poll.  And that is a troubling poll, though there were troubling polls when Wright first hit and Obama still ended up 11 points ahead in the tracking polls a couple weeks later.

Second, it would certainly be better for Obama if this was Wright related, but it isn't; it's momentum from Pennsylvania.  In today's tracking poll, Clinton and Obama are tied at 47%, which is exactly where they were on April 25th, immediately before Wright reemerged on the scene, and immediately after PA (the 25th was Gallup's first entirely post-PA polling).

I suppose I would be better off arguing it was Wright-related if my point was to canvass for Obama, but that's not what I'm saying here; I'm saying Jerome is wrong, Obama hasn't "tanked" post-Wright denouncement, and that the movement over the past two weeks toward Hillary has little to do with Wright and more to do with winning PA, if anything.

[ Parent ]
I will raise you one better (0.00 / 0)
Not only I dont think the movement back to a tie has to do with Wright (since it started in PA), I would argue it doesn't even have to do with PA but with the coverage of the next few days which suddenly started arguing there might be a chance for Hillary to convince the Sds because of the cant win white blue collars BS.
There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy and the more people repeat that canard the more it worries electability voters AND it excites Hillary supporters who had gone to undecideds because they thought she could not win.
[ Parent ]
It's Gallup (0.00 / 0)
put on your reading glasses. It's right in the graph itself.
[ Parent ]
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Read the graph.
Obama ahead.
PA ===> Obama-Clinton tied.
Wright ====> Clinton ahead for a couple days

and today they are back to being tied. So that's his/her point.
While Wright was a bump in the road, the major move in numbers was linked to the run-up and PA primary itself.

[ Parent ]
Yup (0.00 / 0)
You just keep watching that bump move on down the road to NC where a few weeks ago Obama has a solid double digit lead. Emphasis on HAD.
[ Parent ]
My reading glasses are on... (0.00 / 0)
And I have yet to see a Gallup poll that showed 58% of people say he denounced his pastor for political convenience.

Also I should draw your attention to the phrase "A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found..." right at the top of the block quote.

[ Parent ]
Try google (0.00 / 0)
and you will see about 4 or 5 polls that support that 58%.

Rev. Wright polls - will get you a whole host of polls and articles citing polls.

It definitely has hurt Obama because if it didn't Obama would not be doing damage control as he has been.

[ Parent ]
please get it right (4.00 / 1)
i've heard nothing from Wright that is either anti-White or anti-American.
[ Parent ]
Yeah (1.33 / 3)
"God damn America" is not anti-American. Although it sounds an awful lot of like what Ahmadinejad would say.

Certainly saying White guys had a role in spreading the AIDS virus in the black community is not anti-white.

[ Parent ]
Sounds =/= IS (4.00 / 4)
Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows how roughly God treated Israel.  So was God anti-Israel? The Hebrew prohpets condemned her injustices and prophesized her downfal.  Were they anti-Israel?

This is precisely the context out of which Wright spoke.

Was Langston Hughes anti-American when he wrote "America was never America to me?"

Where's your lapel pin, anyway?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
but comparing what GOD did to what Wright said is absurd. You are comparing GOD to a racial rant? Think about that one again Paul.

Hughes? He was polite compared to a loud and dancing (if you saw the video) and almost theatrical God Damn America following a laundry list of complaints reverberated in the audience with glee.

You have mad better arguments.

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (4.00 / 1)
It takes several days for events to be reflected in the tracking polls. He is rebounding again which confirms that he handled the Wright situation well. He also got a couple of days of good media appearances with Michelle. That will push him back where he was before PA and Wright.

He was on fire last night at the NC JJ dinner. He countered the gas tax bullshit wery well. He also addressed the last couple of weeks, Wright and patriotism. He was back on his game. Oh, and he called on the Democratic party to stand up for the next generation. It was his most direct appeal to supers to wrap this thing up. At least, that's how I understood it. The crowd was with him all the way.  

[ Parent ]
Here is the thing (4.00 / 1)
Either they are right and then there is nothing we can do about it.
Or, as I believe, this will fade away by Tuesday (Unless something happens by then) and Obama ends up winning NC by double-digits and IN by a squeaker and then all of this will serve us right in terms of expectations.
Remember ... this is the first time ever that Obama goes in a primary with the lowest expectations. people think IN is in the bag for HRC and that NC is tightening.
If history repeats itself, NC will end up as it was always predicted to be and IN should be closer the media expects.
In both cases, expectations could - for the first time - play in his favor.
[ Parent ]
Indeed. (0.00 / 0)
Good points about the expectations game.

Anybody with two brain cells knew that PA was impossible for him. Still, it got reported as a big win by Hillary.


[ Parent ]
Clinton is pushing back on the expectations. (0.00 / 0)
Markos has a good post up about her double standards.
[ Parent ]
Ridiculous (4.00 / 4)
This conclusion is ridiculous.

1) Those poll numbers bounce around a lot. I'd say it's more reasonable to conclude they respond to the overall tone of the press coverage rather than the specifics. And the press has been attacking Obama relentlessly for more than a week now.

2) The notion that people are closely watching every little development and then carefully calibrating their opinions based on evaluation of evidence is completely out of touch with reality.

3) Association is not causation. Right-wing politicians like to show graphs of increasing societal ills and then point to when prayer was taken out of school. That's just as ridiculous as this.

Hold on there (0.00 / 0)
2) The notion that people are closely watching every little development and then carefully calibrating their opinions based on evaluation of evidence is completely out of touch with reality.

Well, surveys suggest that 81% of the electorate has followed the Wright issue somewhat or very closely and it appears to be something people actually care about.  As a political scientist who studies voting behavior, I would say that the hypothesis that the flap caused a handful of people out of 100 to defect from Obama to McCain seems very in touch with reality.

3) Association is not causation. Right-wing politicians like to show graphs of increasing societal ills and then point to when prayer was taken out of school. That's just as ridiculous as this.

Yes, correlation is not causation.  But we usually infer causation from a combination of correlation and plausible causal mechanisms.  In this case, we have a plausible causal mechanism and what appears to be correlation, although our ability to explore that with more advanced statistics is limited.  So while we cannot say for sure that the Wright flap caused Obama's poll numbers to decrease, it appears to be by far the strongest hypothesis.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
This is more of Jerome Armstrong working for the Clintons (0.00 / 0)
Armstrong, a Clinton supporter, wants nothing more than to analyze the Jeremiah Wright story until August. The same goes for the corporate media, who've been rehashing this trash for the past week. (That's why the poll numbers are moving.) The more Armstrong and others write about it, the more the media covers what people are saying, the more Jeremiah Wright stays in the news. It's called an echo chamber.

Same thing happened with Dean's Scream -- it wasn't news, but the media made it news. Bloggers should be smarter than this. We've seen it before.

The messages we should be echoing across the progressive blogosphere should have to do with McCain's asinine foreign and domestic policies and his habit of flip-flopping on almost every issue.

Echo that.


[ Parent ]
Obama's not tanking.... (4.00 / 1)
Obama isn't tanking -- as of today he's actually at the same point (46%) he was the day before Wright made things so bad.  Clinton has simply gained, although even she is only one point higher than she was the day Wright made his damaging appearance (at 48%), which could easily be statistical noise.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106...

It depends where you look (0.00 / 0)
His Rasmussen numbers are down from 49 to 44 over a six day period.  Meanwhile Clinton is up from 41 to 47.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
[ Parent ]
That's a Good point (0.00 / 0)
Then why are Matt and Jerome talking about Gallup, which shows 0 movement in either direction?
[ Parent ]
Because Rasmussen tracking poll (0.00 / 0)
is generally considered less reliable.  
[ Parent ]
Why Gallup? (0.00 / 0)
I can't read minds, of course, but I'm assuming that Jerome is using Gallup because it's the one that best serves his pro-Clinton position.  

The "denunciation" occurred in the afternoon on Tuesday April 29, and was reported throughout the evening.  The first polling that could reflect its impact would have taken place on April 30.  The following polls are listed on pollster.com:

National (Tracking)

Rassmussen  4/28-5/1    Clinton 46 Obama 44
CNN         4/28-4/30   Obama 46 Clinton 45
Gallup      4/28-4/30   Clinton 49 Obama 45

Note: None of the national trackers are without polling from "pre-denunciation".  In any event, Gallup shows the "best" result from the pro-Clinton perspective.

North Carolina

Zogby  5/1-2/08   Clinton 37 Obama 46
Rasmussen   5/1/08   Clinton 40 Obama 49
InsiderAdvantage   5/1/08   Clinton 44 Obama 49
ARG    4/30-5/1/08  Clinton 41 Obama 52
Research 2000   4/29-30/08   Clinton 44 Obama 51

Obama holding his own here; the only narrow gap is from the Republican firm, Insider Advantage; and this 5 point gap is UP 7 points from a 4/29 survey that showed Obama down by 2.

Indiana

Zogby  5/1-2/08   Clinton 42 Obama 43  
ARG 4/30-5/1/08 Clinton 53 Obama 44
InsiderAdvantage   4/30-5/1/08 Clinton 47 Obama 40
Downs Center   4/28-30/08  Clinton 52 Obama 45

All over the map, not sure what to make of it. Obama seems to be down by 5 to 7 points.

I really don't think that the numbers that are out there, as a whole, bear out Jerome's hypothesis.  I think that as more days pass from last Tuesday, Clinton's bounce will be nullified.  I think that Chris' prediction will be right on:  Obama wins handily in NC and Clinton wins handily in IN, though the delegate count in IN will likely be close.

[ Parent ]
we don't know (0.00 / 0)
We are, after all, talking about 5% to at most 10% of Democrats  changing views.  I tend to think that the Wright interview did hurt Obama, and the condemnation reinforces that in the short term because it confirms that Wright is wrong.  But it may well be that not condemning Wright would hurt more in the polls over the long term.  I'll confess that I woke up this morning feeling very bad.  

In any case, I'm skeptical that the numbers above mean very much.  Of course, the public thinks the condemnation is primarily political -- what else could it be when you ask directly?  It's a poll question that answers itself.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Or it's the gas tax or it's noise (0.00 / 0)
There's no way to tell. My view of the election is that things haven't really changed since Super Tuesday and the demographics where Obama and Clinton do well are constant +/- a few points.

I think Obama thinks he has the campaign won and is gearing up for the general election. Obama isn't going to get caught in delegates, popular vote, and superdelegates so it's not a bad idea.  

John McCain

RE: Or it's... (0.00 / 0)
I'm not convinced that it isn't the gas tax issue.  I haven't seen any polling on the issue at all.

People who spend too much time watching cable TV news and reading political blogs just seem to take it as a given that only Wright is the issue.

[ Parent ]
Leave it to a spinster like Jerome Armstrong... (4.00 / 1)
...to call three point statistical noise "tanking."  
And today (0.00 / 0)
I see Gallup tracking is at 47-47; the blurb says this is 10 days in a row they have been tied.

So, I'm still not convinced there has been any change at all.  But if Clinton wins NC or Obama wins Indiana that'll convince me the dynamic has changed.

[ Parent ]
I am confused (0.00 / 0)
So let me get this straight. If people turn on Obama just because they think he was not sincere about denuncing Wright, it means that Wright was not a problem in itself and they just disliked the supposedly perceived as political move.
So why is Jerome A. arguing Wright is the end of Obama's candidacy ? I mean if Wright didn't matter then there is no problem, right ?

And now a link to (4.00 / 2)
Jerome??

Matt - take a vacation - clear ya head!

If not NOW, when?

I didn't want to say it (0.00 / 0)
But I thought the same thing.

I was like when Matt starts linking to mydd you know he is getting REALLY cranky in a way that hurts his credibility

[ Parent ]
Seeking confirmation for his bias (0.00 / 0)
Armstrong is using a daily tracking poll to confirm his bias, that's all.
Funny he never lost faith in his candidate when the same poll showed her "tanking" in early April.
At least Matt didn't link to Blumenthalesque rabbit hole that is Correntewire.
[ Parent ]
Even A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day (0.00 / 0)
So I wouldn't pile on here.

Of course, I think he's wrong this time.  It's just not his time of day.

But, still, the stopped clock principle shouldn't be forgotten.

Look at Howie Kurtz and Pentagon Pundit blackout!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
As someone said above (0.00 / 0)
In any of the polls - whether national tracking polls or In/NC polls, Obama's support has actually stayed fairly steady or lost only a couple points.
It is Hillary's support which has shot up. Presumably people who had lost faith she could win but still could not bring themselves to vote for Obama and who saw the negative coverage and got reenergized again.
Cummulative effect (4.00 / 2)
It's the cumulative effect of 14 days of the Wright controversy plus a very good 2 weeks for Clinton after winning the Pennsylvania primary.
Many people trend toward who they think is winning and then find a reason to base that preference on.
The question long term is will Wright remain an excuse not to vote for a black candidate.
As for turning the attack around that needs to be done by the netroots community and the Democratic party, not the Obama campaign.
Absolutely (4.00 / 1)
You know an analyst is not a good analyst when they draw conclusions about the long-term from polling taken in the midst of a controversy.
Hillary's numbers "tanked" during Snipergate and look at her now.
Obama's numbers "tanked" when Wright first came up and then he rebounded to his largest lead ever.
Of course his numbers are rough right now. Clinton's coverage has been very positive while his coverage has consisted of Wright and "he can't win white blue-collars" non-stop for two weeks.
His main problem is that he always gets bad news cycles right before important primaries.
I see from his program today and tomorrow he intends to take control of the last three news cycles this time. We will see if it works out
[ Parent ]
both (4.00 / 2)
Obama needs to turn the attack around to help his campaign - whatever, that is up to them...

But the netroots need to attack this "religious test" bullshit.  

AND start ramping up the discussion about whether the fear of a "scary, black radical" influencing a candidate is how we want to run our national politics.

If we are serious about being

dedicated toward building a progressive governing majority in America

I understand not agreeing with how the Obama campaign is handling it - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't attack hard for the principle.

Are we not going to look at the future ramifications of a candidate (whether democrat, republican, alieninvaders,..) being crucified in the media for his/her PASTOR?

Are we going to look at how this effects us as progressives?  Its not about Obama, its about how these exact tactics will be used against us when we DO have a solid progressive running for higher office.

This kind of media bullshit and easily diverting voters from important issues is incredibly fucked up.

We don't need to attack this hard for Obama, we need to attack this hard for our principles and our future.

[ Parent ]
Overblown--But A Kernal Of Truth (4.00 / 2)
These are hardly dramatic shifts that could be described as "tanking."  But they do suggest that Obama has not handled this as well as some might think.

My own view is that Obama more or less set himself up for this by his attempt to be "post-racial" and thus not talking much about his own views on race, which makes it much easier for others to fill in this void with their own unacknowledged stuff.

IMHO, Obama's whole attempt to be "post-racial" was delusional from the start, since something like this was bound to happen sooner or later.  But, then, Americans have always preferred delusion when it comes to race, so why should he be any different?

Remember: Only conservative Republican blacks are allowed to stay "post-racial" for as long as they want, then become "black" when it's convenient, then switch back to being "post-racial" again. That's how it will always be, until we challenge roghtwing hegemonic power head-on.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Only conservative Republican blacks are allowed to be "post-racial" (0.00 / 0)
...I suppose in the same way that Eddie Murphy became "post-racial" when he painted himself white on SNL.
[ Parent ]
Part of the problem is (0.00 / 0)
what were his other realistic options, given the set of actual circumstances he faced (whether we like them or not?) A progressive black Democrat faces a completely different set of constraints that no other candidate does, something I seem to remember you referencing at some point in the past.
[ Parent ]
A Dignitarian Approach, For One (4.00 / 3)
Obama--unlike most--had numerous options.  He was handed "exempt" status.  For blacks, of course, this is always revokable.  But all the more reason to make the most of it while he has it, along with high visibility.  It was while he was being feted that he should have broached the difficult subjects.

While there were many different ways he could bave done this, one that I've repeatedly suggested is an explicit embrace of Robert Fuller's broad-based critique of rankism, and his counterposing of a dignitarian perspective.  He could have spoken forthrightly about others he had known--and even felt deep affection for, such as Reverend Wright--who saw things differently, and he could have both acknowledged where they were right, and where he differed with them.  And he could have tied this all back to a dignitarian perspective, and said, "the difference, at bottom, is that I came to see all affronts to human dignity, all abuses of rank and power, as fundamentally the same."

If he had done something like that back in 2007, and continued to build on it throughout the primary campaign, he probably would have wrapped up the nomination by now.  And if not, he would certainly be in a great position to respond to the Wright controversy.  Above all, he could have flooded the media with videotapes of his past speeches, addressing everything that came up.

It's all about being pro-active, and progressive.

Obama, I'm afraid, has not been enough of either.  I continue to think, with Robert Fuller, that Obama does have dignitarian instincts, and that there is at least some sort of progressive potential there.  But I think that most of his supporters--not all, by any means--significantly overestimate his progressive tendencies.

I'd like to see him prove me wrong.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
To be honest (0.00 / 0)
Just on your last point, I have to say that there is no national figure in the Democratic party who is a true progressive.
Even JRE's instincts were much more conservative than his rhetoric as his Senate career proved (which is not to say his evolution was not sincere but one generally knows the most about a candidate from where he starts than where he ends up. And I have to say if you look at Barack's environment in the first ten years of his career it is very liberal. If you look at Hillary you see her go from Goldwater to McGovern. And it is very telling of a certain internal tension between her intellectual liberalism and her instinctive conservatism).
[ Parent ]
Jesse Jackson (4.00 / 1)
is an obvious example of a national figure in the Democratic Party who's a true progressive.

One might quibble a good deal over others, but Kennedy, Boxer and Feingold are defensible counter-examples as well, as is Pelosi.

I agree completely that Obama came from a more liberal political environment.  That's part of why people tend to cut him more slack than his actual record and positions warrant.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Fair enough (0.00 / 0)
When I meant national figure, I meant "national figure that could be elected President". Not one of these figures could be considered a viable candidate for President.
And Don't tell people here in SF Pelosi is a progressive. You would be ripped to shreds.
Which goes on to show everything is subjective.

And I agree with your last sentence. But between someone whose instincts are liberal and whose rhetoric is more centrist and someone whose instincts are more conservative but whose rhetoric is liberal I choose the first one.
The latter has proved to be a bad idea time and time again

[ Parent ]
He got caught in the game (0.00 / 0)
I agree with what you write here Paul, I just think that his campaign didn't know what to do after his race speech gambit failed to shut up the gaping, idiotic maw of the establishment cable news media. I mean, he tried to be somewhat dignitarian, and yet the distraction machine, starting with Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, has just completely knocked him off stride. Going on Fox was another manifestation of that.

I think it takes quite the disciplined actor to write down the rules you'll abide by and then KEEP playing by them. I knew this was going bad when he refused to just get in Charles Gibson's face during the debate. Now, I also do realize he has to not be seen as the 'angry, black male', but I think it was worth the risk to just call out these fools for their never-ending distraction.

I've basically tuned it all out, and I'm going to hope he wins (still seems most likely) and focus my energy on Congressional races. Still, it's all very disappointing. I hope they learn their lesson for the fall about what happens when you feed the distraction machine by playing their game instead of confronting them, but I'm not very sanguine about that. Luckily, McCain is such a disaster-in-waiting --  hopefully they'll be smart enough to run on "Well, if you want 8 more years of occupying Iraq, you have your man in John McCain," and it won't even matter.  

[ Parent ]
The Philadelphia Speech Was ALREADY Too Late (0.00 / 0)
You make a good argument.  Which is all the more reason to think that he needed to be laying the groundwork for this 6 months ago, at least.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
The question is what to do going forward. I would have a very firm, "polite", in-your-face, no-bullshit policy from here on out if I were on his campaign (which I am not).

Turn it back on the questioner, every single time. Colbert actually already (of course) pointed out the exact way to do it.

[ Parent ]
I don't disagree Paul (0.00 / 0)
I think you're mostly right, but even if he did wholeheartedly adopt the kind of approach you suggest, he would still very much find himself in very deep waters, racially.  A couple of paragraphs down I list a random bunch of different policy proposals, but even in a thematic approach, if he were to talk about "affronts to human dignity" or"abuses of rank and power" and other such things, I fear that perceptions of his radicalism would be amplified to a greater extent than they are now, no matter how much we might love it if he did say those things.

Does anyone think that if Obama was more Edwards-esque (I use this more for perception's sake, as it seems to be perceived that Edwards was the most liberal serious candidate, with which I disagree, slightly), he would be getting the same amount of support?  The road to (relative) political irrelevance is paved in no small way by Shirley Chisholm, Barbara Jordan, Jesse Jackson,  Carol Moseley-Braun (just thinking of a few who ran for President) - not to say that they lost specifically because they were black and liberal (because context matters), but it didn't help.  Simply remember how dismissive Bill Clinton was of Jesse Jackson (to whom you refer) in this election - he portrayed a liberal black candidate who had unprecedented success in his time (among whites and blacks) as a relative nobody propped up by identity politics.  

If everyone thinks the smear campaigns and the rumors about black nationalism and Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright and everything else are bad now, imagine if Obama really came out swinging in the ways some of us would love.  Single payer.  Across the board 25% cut in defense expenditures.  Free public university education for every qualified American student.  Increases in the marginal income tax for those above $500,000, capital gains tax, and estate tax.  Massive new investments in alternative, renewable energy, and infrastructure.  An approach that openly and powerfully recognizes the malevolence of Republican government, and a promise to clean house and inaugurate a new government in defense of the marginalized.  

Even if he didn't go half as far as I've proposed, he'd be lucky to get 10% of the vote, and if he did, can you imagine what the talking heads would be saying about him then? Can you imagine how much more Jesse Jackson would have been invoked then, or that Obama was the second coming of Stokely Carmichael, of Huey Newton, of Bobby Seale.  He would just be another crazy black radical, like the one before, and the one before.  

I can't speak for anyone else when they say why they did or did not choose Barack Obama.  I chose him because he was against the war from the beginning, and that he undertook serious outreach to my generation (I'm almost 21) and all generations, instead of just paying the 18-30 age group its usual lip service.  But the fact remains that Barack Obama operates under a different set of constraints than I do.  I'm an upper middle class white college student.  If I propose those ideas, I might be called a borderline socialist every now and then, but that's about the worst of it.  If Barack Obama proposes those ideas, he's a dangerous, separatist black radical.  

I'm not saying he's right or wrong to appeal to a post-partisan, post-racial America as a central theme of his campaign, but in an age where the burden of proof for a black 'mainstream' candidate is completely different, if not much higher, than that of a white 'mainstream' candidate, the political constraints he faces cannot be ignored.

[ Parent ]
Not My Argument (0.00 / 0)
There's a lot of stuff you wrote I could quibble with, but I won't.  I've said many times before that there's a huge disconnect between what the American people want and what the Versailles media and the larger structures of conservative hegemony will allow to even be seriously considered.  Jesse Jackson did a remarkable job of going against that conservative hegemony, but that was before Clinton came along to lead the great disarmament, which has left us considerably weaker than we were then.

So, clearly, it's my view that one has to mobilize against the institutions of conservative hegemony.  And if this means strategically downplaying, even sidelining certain issues for the time being, I have no problem with that.

In fact, I've argued that Obama could have run a sufficiently progressive campaign based on just two foundations that he has not embraced.  One is Fuller's dignitarian perspective, the other is Jacob Hacker's Great Risk Shift perspective.  Neither of these gets into the sorts of familiar issues that the conservative hegemony machine has tons of ammo against.  That doesn't mean they couldn't pound him, but they would have to be making stuff up as they go along, rather than just blindly recycling shit they'd been using for the past 10 years.

The resulting sloppiness in their game would then have created precisely the sorts of opennings that a truly sophisticated well-financed campaign could have continuously exploited to keep them from ever really getting their balance.  This might not have been possible any time before now, but with Bush at 70%+ disapproval, and the GOP hemoragging voters--down 18% since 2004--and all the money Obama has had to run ads, he could have pulled it off.

If only he'd been audacious enough to try.

Here's the key point, tho:  He was fundamentally mistaken to think that such a strategy was riskier than banking on avoiding race altogether.  That was, quite simply, never in the cards.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Intriguing Theory but Wright was extraordinarliy damaging (4.00 / 1)
As others have noted reaction lags.  The cylical chatter about all the many Wright quotes he so eagerly gave the press was increasing and showing up in all kind of venues.  Wright, for whatever reasons, decided to stick a fork in Obama, and Obama had to take it out.  The results were unpleasant, but Obama will rebound if he can get  through the next several days in decent shape.

Also Wright was not a surrogate, and that made it impossible to control him at all.

Bill Moyers last night (0.00 / 0)
Bill Moyers had a great response to wright controversy last night.
Here's the link
The benefit of the doubt (0.00 / 0)
ran out.
And today (4.00 / 2)
Gallup went back down to 47-47. So much for tanking. A couple of rough days that are over. The graphic used in this entry is two days old. Why am I not surprised Jerome A. would cherry pick a graph that makes Obama look worse ?

http://media.gallup.com/poll/g...  

Ah YUP (4.00 / 1)
I had the same thought. These are not one-day samples people, they cover multiple days. So when the story was at its height Tues, the polling only covered Sat, Sun, and Mon, only one of which was a day heavily impacted by the story. Conversely, on Thurs it covers Mon, Tues, and Weds, the heart of the controversy. Not to mention that sometimes it takes a day or two for people to absorb news.

Jerome and Matt are smarter than this (especially the latter). Seriously Matt, take a vacation and visit some friends or family. Open Left is supposed to have unique, sharp analysis, not this sort of garbage that any two-bit poll watcher can disprove.

[ Parent ]
Are you calling me a two-bit poll watcher ? (4.00 / 2)
LOL Just joking.

[ Parent ]
Btw (4.00 / 2)
If Hillary was ahead 49-45 three days ago, went down a point yesterday and another point today, by the law of three-day samples, it means Obama is back on top in today's sample (if I am not too bad at math LOL)
[ Parent ]
That was my interpretation too (0.00 / 0)
And for those who will naturally latch onto the Obama-McCain matchup as sign of the elusive "Obama Crash" recognize that that's a five-day poll, and since today's numbers involve the much better day of Sunday dropping out and the numbers didn't change, he had a pretty good day on Friday since the average stays the same.
[ Parent ]
I am not happy about (0.00 / 0)
Obama-McCain but let's remember most of the coveerage this week has been negative coverage of Obama. Hillary has had merely simple "she campaigned" stories and same for McCain.
So the comparison isnt fair just like the comparison between McCain-Obama and McCain-Hillary during Tuzlagate would have been skewed as well.
[ Parent ]
If you want people to read a post (4.00 / 2)
it probably shouldn't start with the words "Jerome Armstrong noticed..."

LOL.  

The danger of writing a diary based on polls... (4.00 / 1)
...is that it's rapidly out of date.

Obama is rebounding (as he has done several times already)

http://media.gallup.com/poll/g...

I have personally found none of Jerome's comments in the last few weeks to be either interesting or objective. He also banned about twenty Obama supporters from MYDD a couple of days ago, for no other reason than their candidate

Another danger... (4.00 / 1)
The question seemed like a push poll.  I mean I'm an Obama supporter, and if you ask me, "did Obama distance himself from Rev. Wright for political reasons," I'm going to say yes.  This poll doesn't ask a follow-up question like, "do you think Obama should've distanced himself from Rev. Wright?"
[ Parent ]
The correct answer on Rev. Wright (4.00 / 1)
was "Rev. Wright is a passionate man, and I am honored to call him my friend." Period, end of comment.

We get a Democrat who can talk like that and the Republican brand is toast.

But until then ...

Montani semper liberi

Basic problem (0.00 / 0)
I think the basic problem for Obama isn't that he went post-racial or didn't denounce Wright enough at first, or too much later on or any of that stuff.

I think the problem is Obama internalized the frame that Wright represented what Obama opposed.  To me, that has always been quite backwards.  Obama's whole "thing" is the ability to work with people with whom he strongly disagrees on some things while agrees on others.  His ability to find the good side and work for the common cause.

Wright isn't a counter to this, he is an example of this.  For some reason Obama has let himself get cornered in to believing this should only apply to conservatives.  

Just think if Obama had given basically the same speech he gave in Philadelphia but pointed out explicitly those things Wright believes that Obama does not and explain where the do agree, and then explain this is exactly like how he works with Republicans with whom he disagrees.  Obama came close to this, but not close enough.

But then, we are all experts on what would work with ourselves, aren't we?

This Absolutely SHOULD Be The Case (0.00 / 0)
But, unfortunately, Wright is hardly the only exception.  Obama seems to have a lot of trouble working with people who are more progressive than he is--or simply different flavors of progressive.

I noticed this quite early on, which is one of the biggest problems I have with him.  It's not just that he doesn't try to work with other progressives, he also just makes shit up about them--like his claim (following James Wallis's line) that secular Democrats were somehow responsible for stifling the voices of religious activists.

At the time, I thought that statement was ludicrous.  Now, I think its both ludicrous and ironic, given how no one stiffled Reverend Wright.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I may agree (0.00 / 0)
But I'm not sure.  Obama didn't get along with McCain, either.  So I suspect that Obama is less than perfect and sometimes gets along and sometimes does not, regardless of political identity.  We on the left are sensitive the problems on the left and thus have a full catalog of these transgressions, but I'm not sure we have any true evidence these are unique exceptions.  In fact, the ability to get along with Wright for 20 years before this campaign show your take is probably not correct when Obama's full career is examined.

But within the context of the presidential election, I fear this may be correct.  I think he's absorbed too much of the Washington culture and feels too much pressure from the talking heads.

[ Parent ]
You Can't Get Along With McCain! (0.00 / 0)
Guy's psychotic.

You're right that we can't say if these are "unique transgressions", but they stick out a mile, since he should know better.

The problem is hardly unique with Obama, it's just a rather extreme form, is all.

Robert Frost once said that a liberal is someone who takes the other guys side in an argument.  The problem is, for a lot of folks, that's almost the only thing left of liberal culture.

God knows there are much, much worse offenders than Obama out there.  But they don't just happen to be running for President, still. (Yes, Joe Biden, I'm thinking of you!)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Obama back up 49-45 on Sunday (0.00 / 0)
What was Jerome A. saying about him tanking ?
The Consequences of Obama's Wright Denunciation | 74 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox