If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.
- Jeremiah Wright, April 2007
Today, former Reverend Jeremiah Wright is nationally infamous as the controversial former head of President Barack Obama's former church. During the primary campaign, tapes of Mr. Wright's sermons did deep damage to Mr. Obama's candidacy, to which Mr. Obama later responded with a unique and heartfelt speech about race. To this day the Wright affair remains the most damaging scandal the president has encountered.
ABC's news report, however, was not the first time that a news organization reported about Mr. Wright's controversial statements. Take, for instance, this fascinating New York Times story - a report written a full year before the Jeremiah Wright scandal exploded.
One of my very best friends has hated Obama from the very beginning, especially since the Rev Wright controversy erupted. He's not a far rightie, I would describe him as a moderate conservative that frequently will vote for the Dems on a state and local level. We've been having a fairly friendly debate on the presidential race. Finally, I sent him a list of 10 reasons why he shouldn't vote for McCain, issues that I know he doesn't agree with McCain on. Including anti-abortion, anti-SCHIP, tax cuts for rich, privatize Social Security, and a few more. Here was his answer:
I do not vote for policies. No one implements their campaign promises, neither those you fear, nor those you cannot wait for to arrive.
I vote for character; I see little of it w/ BO and a lot of it w/ JM.
How do I answer something like that? He sees little character in Obama? I think it's because of Rev Wright, he's brought that issue up several times.
I'd rather not do it the Rove way, by mentioning McCain's adultery, flip-flops, ambition, lobbyists, etc. And I don't want to screw up our friendship, it is only 1 vote. And the rest of his family will be voting for Obama to more than offset his vote. But I can't stand to think that my friend is voting against his own best interests like so many Americans continue to do because of personality, not issues. He's very smart, very well informed (although he does get too much information from the right wing noise machine). I feel like if I can't convince him, there isn't much hope of convincing many other intelligent voters in this country either.
Any suggestions? Or should we just agree to disagree and move on?
With the season now officially over, let's take a look back at the primary campaigns' most notable casualties--those boosters lucky enough to have resigned, been fired or publicly chastised by one of the Presidential campaigns.
In this edition of the Scalp Count:
Barack Obama's foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, pastor Jermemiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ.
McCain campaign staffers and federal lobbyists Douglas Goodyear, Doug Davenport and Tom Loeffler. Plus: Bonus spiritual baggage toted by pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley!
Clinton New Hampshire chair Bill Shaheen and '84 veep nominee Geraldine Ferraro.
See how the mighty have fallen. A timeline awaits you in the extended entry ...
For quite some time now, there's been a rather large contingent of concern trolls pushing the line that Democrats have to get themselves religion, just like the GOP, or else they're DOooooOMED! Chris has repeatedly returned to refuting this nonsense, mostly by way of citing statistical evidence showing that white Christian proportion of the electorate in shrinking, while the non-white, non-Christian proportion is growing.
But the recent Wright/Obama brouhaha suggests another sort of problem with the "Get Religion!" nostrum. It reveals a hidden assumption that should have been obvious, that religion was somehow like soft drinks, and all the Democrats had to do was get their brand to compete against the Republican's. Coke or Pepsi?
Of course this is utter nonsense. One cannot simply plug in a peripheral in the Democratic Party's religion port. Things just don't work that way. The Democratic Party is a secular political party. This doesn't mean it's anti-religious or anti-religion. It simply means that it respect the fundamental logic of our political system-we are a democratic republic, based on the consent of the governed, not a theocracy based on the will of God, as interpreted by one state religion.
The Republican Party used to be a secular political party, too. But somewhere along the road, that just sort of dropped away. No one can say for sure just when that happened. But one thing is certain-the change has made the Republican Party into an anti-American institution. And the Democrats simply cannot imitate the Republican's embrace of religion unless they, too, wish to become an anti-American institution.
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?"
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.
Note: I have to apologize for late and light posting this weekend. I've had a series of calamaties, leaving me, at one point with no car, no computer, and--seemingly, at least--no electricity. My prep work for several diaries is on a copmuter I'm just about to take to the shop, and a good 8 hours of lost time means, well, like I said, light posting this weekend. But I did save the beginnings of this in draft form just before my electricity went off around 3 AM, and I've just whipped together the rest...
Reverend Jeremiah Wright appeared on Bill Moyers Journal (video and transcript), and proved yet again-as if we needed it-how utterly disconnected from reality our politics has become. I've defended Reverent Wright on this website before, but what was fundamentally refreshing about Wright's appearance with Bill Moyers was how far beyond all that he was, how utterly undefensive, how open, and how centered he was.
In fact, he was so centered, so equinanimous-which is not to say self-satisfied or smug-that at first I was disappointed. I had fully intended to blog about his appearance, but it was all so normal that it seemed there was nothing to blog about at first: "News Flash! Jeremiah Wright appears on Bill Moyers-He does not have horns!" But, of course, that's the point. We've become so accustomed to phony-controversy, junk-food tv that plain, old-fashioned honest truth-telling bores us, or at least makes it difficult to find a place to engage.
In retrospect, though, here's an excellent place to start, because it shows Wright recalling an incident, which was, in one sense, a typical reminder that blacks are constantly under suspicion. Yet Wright did not tell the story to make that point, nor did he recall it in bitterness. He was, in fact, a bit bemused by it. And yet, it was there. And that simply fact of witnessing to what is so-ultimately that has been Wright's great sin in the eyes of the Versailles media. He has not become complicit in his own brainwashing, and that is something that Versailles simply cannot forgive:
BILL MOYERS: He served six years in the military: two as a marine, and four in the Navy as a cardiopulmonary technician. That's where our paths crossed for the only time.
That's Jeremiah Wright, behind the I.V. pole, monitoring President Lyndon Johnson's heart as he was recovering from gall bladder surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital. And right behind him is a very young me. I was the President's Press Secretary.
REVEREND WRIGHT: As you know, the President had to be operated on and out of surgery by 9:00 when the stock market opened. And talking and wide awake. So, we scrubbed in, like, 3:00 in the morning.
When he awakened, unlike other patients, you did not move him to recovery. You didn't move him to ICU. They kept him right there for security reasons. Secret Service all around, there was secret service in the whole operating suite and nobody else allowed in the operating suite except Secret Service.
So, after about an hour and a half, I went to get some coffee. And as I was coming back from the lounge where the coffee was, going back to monitor, I saw the guys talkin' into their wristwatches and I was nodding, speaking to them. So, I turn to go into the room to check the pace. And secret service guys standing there grabbed me, knocked the coffee outta my hand, burned me with the hot coffee, twisted my arm up behind my neck and screams into his phone, "I got him." And I was, "Got him?" And I'm screamin' in pain. And my assistant comes running out of the booth. He sees me jacked up and he starts laughing. I said, "Joe, don't laugh. Tell him who I am." And he said, "He's been here all morning."
BILL MOYERS: Standing above the President.
REVEREND WRIGHT: Guy looked at me, pulled my mask up over face, "Oh, yeah." And that was it.
But, of course, what Reverend Wright can afford to be bemused by is but the tip of the iceberg that can casually crush a young child in his congregation. And so he is not complacent when it comes to saving the lives of those entrusted to his care. This makes him even more unforgivable....
While Barack Obama's speech on race last Tuesday was widely hailed, even by some conservatives, it was hardly flawless, nor will it put an end to race playing a role in this election. To the contrary, it will almost certainly come to be seen as an inflection point, a place at which the nature of the racial discourse changed, not where it ended or began.
The right's continued racism has been noted this weekend by both David Neiwart and Glenn Greenwald. While Greenwald treats it more tentatively, reflecting his lawyerly background and temperament, he sticks to his guns against "balanced" tut-tutting that would characterize what he's doing as "guilt-by-association" no different than that practiced on the right. Neiwert, however, quite literarly, wrote the book (Rush, Newspeak and Fascism [PDF]) on the orchestrated transmission of hard right (typically, but not always racist or anti-semetic) memes from the fringes into the mainstream, though that isn't his focus in this weekend's post. It's just something that everyone should be thoroughly familiar with by now. Trust me, we're going to need it.
I'll have something to say about both posts on the flip, but first, there's this, from Mel Reeves at Black Agenda Report:
When did Black liberation theology and the prophetic tradition of the black church become "hate speech"? When did asserting that racism was and remains foundational to the nation's settlement, development and culture become itself "racist" and "anti-American"? When did advocacy on a wide range of fronts and issues begin to take a back seat to the advancement of political figures who build careers and multiracial electoral coalitions by convincing whites that they have repudiated what Barack Obama famously called the "excesses of the sixties and seventies."
And, indeed, if one looks at the paragraph of Obama's speech in which he distances himself from Wright, it is clearly troubling from a reality-base perspective...
ABC News asks Hillary Clinton if her campaign is pushing Jeremiah Wright to superdelegates:
ABC News' Eloise Harper Reports: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has strictly maintained a public position not to comment on Sen. Barack Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Many times, questions have been answered with -- "you will have to ask Senator Obama about that."
However at a Thursday press availability in Terra Haute, Indiana after a report surfaced that the Clinton campaign was pushing the Wright story to superdelegates arguing that the relationship hurt Obama's electibility -- Clinton refused to deny that her campaign was pushing the story.
When asked, Clinton ignored the Wright portion of the question and said "well my campaign has been making the case that I am the most electable that I have said that for a year or more that I am the person best able to make the challenges that our country faces as commander in chief."
When Clinton was then asked specifically if her campaign was pushing the Wright story -- she shrugged and took the next question, ignoring the reporter.
Well, I just returned from my ward meeting tonight in University City, Philadelphia, and two Clinton staffers made an appearance. When one spoke on behalf of Hillary Clinton, he specifically listed Jeremiah Wright as an example of why Obama would be less electable in the general election. The context of his argument was that the Wright story demonstrated that Obama had not gone through the rigors of a presidential election before, and it was possible that more damaging stories like that would come out as the campaign progressed. Aka, the Wright story is demonstrative of how Obama is less electable.
While we are not superdelegates, we are committee people in Pennsylvania, so the campaigns consider us very important right now. Maybe not superdelegate important, but important none the less. Also, the staffers were aware that I was a committee person in Ward 27, and so they must have known that there was a good chance I would report on what they said to the blogosphere.
Now, whether or not you consider using Jeremiah Wright in an electability argument off-limits might be another matter. The story has obviously hurt Obama in the polls on at least a temporary basis, and even I have argued that the story has hurt Obama's chances to become President (although I also think he is still the favorite). However, since I was in a position tonight to gather real news on an issue the press is discussing, I thought I would report what I found. Yes, the Clinton campaign is arguing to party officials, including me, that the Wright story demonstrates Clinton is more electable. Take that for what it is worth.
Update: Just to be clear--which seems exceptionally difficult in any online discussion of the presidential campaign--I didn't say it was good or bad, I just said it was happening. And yeah, when I can confirm a story because it happened in public and in my neighborhood, then I'm going to report it. I guess that is part of my ethics.
Most political pundits agree that Barack Obama’s speech on race yesterday was exceptional. However, it was not a simple speech and one criticism of it is that the nuance in it would be lost in a television news environment where short sound bites rule. In fact, taken out of context, Obama provided several sound bites that could be used to confirm the narrative of “angry black man.” Hillary Clinton may not use those sound bites. Even John McCain may avoid them if Obama is the Democratic nominee.But “Swift Boat” style groups supporting McCain are a different story.
The speech aired on a weekday morning. Normally, this would mean that a very small percentage of the electorate would ever see it; most would only see short clips on the news or short quotes in the newspaper. But this campaign may be different.So far already, this YouTube version (also available directly from the Obama site) has been viewed 1.6 million times. Links to this video have been prominently posted at most major political blogs. Will this make a difference?
Many people think so. There is also some data to back up this point. A recent report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project (2008) found that almost twice as many people reported regularly learning about politics from the Internet since 2004: about a quarter of those surveyed overall. For younger people, not surprisingly, the Internet is now the number one source of campaign news. And there’s this:
Compared with the 2000 campaign, far fewer Americans now say they regularly learn about the campaign from local TV news (down eight points), nightly network news (down 13 points) and daily newspapers (down nine points).
Nevertheless, traditional media still claim a dominate position and certainly television advertising remains a powerful way to reach those voters who are less politically attuned. We don’t have to look back very far to see what creative editing and creative use of facts can produce. What do you think?
Barack Obama has definitely taken a pretty big hit over Jeremiah Wright, as demonstrated by his declining position in national polls against both Clinton and McCain. Now, this isn't the first time Obama has taken a hit, and it is entirely possible that this current downturn is yet another in a series of entirely temporary negative stretches for his campaign. However, in this particular case, I think it is more likely that Obama has suffered some lasting electoral damage.
I supported John Edwards earlier in this campaign. When he dropped out, I became a probable Obama supporter. I liked him enough, I was excited about the... excitement, and I think Hillary Clinton, who would make a decent President, is sort of a war monger.
So, I had this whole post written in my head, where I was going to go through the thought process whereby I was picking Obama. There were his positives, his negatives; Clinton's positives, Clinton's negatives. It felt a lot like how I came to weigh all my choices and vote for Philly Mayor Mike Nutter last year. Obama would have my vote and I would root hard for him in the primary, but there was not a whole lot of investment from my perspective.
The whole Rev. Wright controversy started March 1 with Sean Hannity at Fox News -- not with the Hillary Clinton campaign, although they have surely been beneficiaries of it. Hannity has been peddling the "black-separatist" narrative since last June, and he and his cabal continue to pump it like a penny stock. Of course, Fox News sets the agenda for the other cable news channels. Wolf Blitzer is "all Jeremiah, all the time."
We need to remember the source, because we are being played like fools. This is especially true of the Clintonsupporters, who have joined the Republicans in the Jeremiad against Obama, repeating all their memes, frames, and talking points.
It's not hard to figure out the strategy, and it's brilliantly simple: Take out Obama in the primary, then Clinton in the general election. Why does it work better this way, instead of the reverse?
Face it: Today, it's a lot harder to play the race card than the gender card. Racism gets called out quickly and loudly. Genderism is barely noticed, if at all, except by the gender group, and they are marginalized as feminists. That's Obama's advantage, if he's the nominee.
But the race card can be played in the primary, before the nominee is selected, because the the card holder can claim they don't as yet have a horse in the race. When Fox News does a big number on the connection between Obama and Wright, they don't get accused of attacking Obama's race because Obama isn't the opposing candidate as far as the Republicans are concerned. Not yet. The Fox News reporters can appear to be journalists chasing a legitimate story. Had they done this after the convention, assuming Obama is the Democratic candidate, their agenda would be obvious. It would be called out.
Because it's so easy to prey on gender biases without being noticed (and for several other reasons), the Republicans would rather face Hillary Clinton in the general election. Taking out Obama now would ensure that desired result. To show you just how easy it is going to be, consider this hypothetical commercial:
(Clip of child sleeping.)
ANNOUNCER: When the phone rings at 3 a.m...
(Clip of White House at night.)
ANNOUNCER: ...who will answer?
(Clip of Hillary Clinton 'cackling.')
(Clip of John McCain looking serious, like a commander-in-chief.)
I am not offended by Jeremiah Wright. In fact, Wright is actually one of the reasons I have always liked Obama. And no, that is not because I am religious (I'm not) or that I actually liked the comments that have caused a controversy about Wright (I don't). Instead, Obama's upbringing, including the church he attends, provides him with a perspective on a large segment of America that is rarely represented either in popular American culture or in the executive branches of state and federal governments. If you live in a large American city, but not in one of the expensive / gentrified areas of those cities, you know that there is absolutely nothing shocking or even unusual about Jeremiah Wright. For example, in West Philly, where I live, anarachists are still common, Republicans receive less than 10% of the vote, the median annual income is only $24,000, and whites are only 20% of the population. Wright would fit in perfectly with my neighborhood.
Before the media and Republicans get themselves all in a tizzy over someone like Jeremiah Wright, maybe they should actually learn about places such as the South Side or West Philly. Quite frankly to be "shocked" or "offended" by Wright is to be shocked or offended by places like West Philadelphia. It is all perfectly normal here:
Rev. Wright has not said anything that has not been said or is not being said in bars, poolrooms, barber shops, hair salons or anywhere else more than three black people gather.
And don't fool yourself. It's not just the black urban poor, those without jobs, education or hope, who express these comments. Many members of the black middle class have the same sense of history; the same sense of anger.
And it ain't illegal to be angry.
Since the beginning of time, large numbers of poor people and cultural minorities have been angry at their governments. One of the reasons of this is that they are compartively shut out of the national power structure. Rarely, if ever, does someone from a poor neighborhood and / or from a cultural minority group rise to become a head of state. While Obama's rhetoric marginalizing progressives ("anti-military, 70's love-in"), that he comes from a, urban, community organizing, African-American religious left background is a clear indication that he understands areas of the country like West Philly better than any other major Presidential candidate in history.
Some of our past presidents have come from modest backgrounds, but places like the South Side and West Philly have never produced Presidents. In fact, David Paterson is one of very few Governors who represent a comparable area (Harlem). While clearly it is not helping Obama on the electoral front all that much, that perspective is a huge net positive for how he will perform as President, not a negative. There is, after all, a reason why people who live in the South Side, or Harlem, or West Philly sometimes get pretty pissed off at their country. One of those reasons is that the people who have always led the country have not governed in a way that includes places like the South Side, Harlem or West Philly. Personally, I think it would be a big step forward to finally have a President who does understand those parts of the country, which might in turn lead to the future generations in those neighborhoods being a lot less angry at America.
Obama's "major speech" on race in America tomorrow morning should be worht a listen.
Jeremiah Wright is a bad, bad man. He said mean things about America, how God should punish America. Nobody says that.
Nobody except Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and John Hagee.
Yup, all sorts of people say God should (or already has) punish(ed) America. The only difference lies in just what they think we've been doing wrong....
I know that most of the Black readers on here understand that the attack on Trinity is basically an attack on the best traditions of the Black Christian Church. For our non-Black readers, here is my take on Trinity UCC.
STATE BLOGS
