I wish I could draw, because the image I have in my head right now is of my candidate, Senator Obama, sailing through the clouds in a hope- filled balloon and his former pastor, the ever humble Reverend Wright, all smiles and bile, taking out a bazooka and popping a big hole in my man’s balloon.
Obama has gamely and I think honorably tried to walk the tightrope that lay between denouncing the Reverend’s most incendiary comments and fully disowning a man who has been an important person in his spiritual life.
The Reverend however seems to have the scissors out and wants to force his spiritual mentee to take sides, between his own political future, which very much hangs in the balance, and his relationship with the Reverend in particular and his black church in general – in a sense between the Reverend’s view of America the flawed and Obama’s view of America the hopeful.
It is an interesting place for a man of mixed parentage to be in, for a man who long sought a community to be a part of, but who also deeply cares that people from long-estranged communities come together – to be forced by his spiritual community and the leader that gave him a spiritual home – to have to essentially defend that community and possibly sacrifice his own political future, or alternatively decide in favor of his own political fortune and thereby earn the enmity of those who took him in – which seems to have already happened. Maybe its not that clear-cut, but certainly Reverend Wright is giving Obama little room to maneuver.
I almost wonder if the Reverend wants Obama to lose because his victory would serve as the clearest repudiation of his ideology and bias. Who knows what drives the man although ego is no doubt a big part of it. But how then could Obama disown him, the man who married him, baptized his kids, and whose to say it would work with the voters – it may just smack of politics and be seen as insincere. It would almost certainly set off the Reverend to make worse hay no doubt.
The choice Obama makes now, how skillfully he handles this (if there is a way to handle it), whether to disown or not to disown or to find a workable middle ground that I think may not be there anymore, could have a big impact on his hope to reach the White House and achieve his vision of a more unified America (or then again, maybe people will just vote for a gas tax holiday?)
Maybe I’m making more of this than should be made of it. Maybe the public has already heard enough and thinks the Reverend is just a quack, the more he speaks, the more he seems nuts and this does the distancing from Obama itself. Any views on that – how does this play out, because I got the Reverend’s cannon fire in my ears?
This is a crisis for the whole country. Will we as a nation accept this as an opportunity for truth-telling and healing? Or will we hide our eyes from the past and present divisions and spiral into permanent polarization along racial, cultural, and class lines.
Barack Obama can’t be expected to navigate this alone. The courage shown by Americans and, right now, the Democratic Party leaders will be indicators of which way we go.
Pessimism, now, is not an option.
says he piece now and be done, new coverage of Rev. Wright instead of his message is not good. But in the grand scheme of things it’s better now than later. Obama will go back and focus on his message once this is done and he will bounce back fairly quickly.
Unfortunately Obama’s amazing speech (I hope we can all agree on that, regardless of who we support) would have been a fantastic way to close the issue. Wright is obviously making that impossible.
<
p>How many times can Obama say “I have lots of friends/family I disagree with on a variety of issues.” That is, in my mind, the best response.
<
p>The media will not accept that as an answer any more but will continue to give McCain a free pass on Hagee.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, beyond the incident that started the whole thing to begin with. Has he said additional things, or called Obama out or something? I need a little background.
This just in on the Globe Website (but the damage is done):
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/pol…
<
p>
for example this in TPM
Smile, we’re all tools.
I understand Rev. Wright is being offered around by Barbara Reynolds, a noted minister and press biggie and loyal Clinton supporter. Check to see if Rev. Wright has thirty pieces of silver in his pocket!
<
p>Lighten up, ya’ll, its just the politics making souls so cheap.
BMG and Newt Gingrich coming to the same conclusion:
<
p>http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit…
The Very Reverend Jeremiah Wright is the bludgeon that will be used to doom Obama. Historically it is not uncommon that the vehicle used as a rise to power is the same vehicle by which the descent is made.
<
p>One would have that at the press club the VR J Wright would have toned things down. Indeed, he ratcheted up the debate (such as it is) One would also have thought that Wright is the most sincere of allies. Obviously that is not the case. One wonders what is actually going on in Wright’s mind. He strikes me as the same genre as Sharpton and Jackson: once they have the limelight, they will not share it with anyone else, then they use it to further financial gain.
<
p>Barack Obama sailed into the perfect political storm. Whether he gets the nomination or not, the democratic party and certain party loyalists/voters will assure that he is not the next president.
Like you know of what you speak. More shadows for the SDs. Oooow, scary. Obaaaaaama might looooose.
I’m wondering out loud, and I have no good reason to believe this other than my imagination, that this is an orchestrated event, that Wright is purposely polarizing himself even more and taking small jabs at Obama in order to widen the chasm between he and the candidate. Obama’s now in a position to say “Obviously I’m not that close to the guy – we don’t even get along!” I still think Wright remaining silent would have been best for Obama, but on other message boards and other parts of the nation people have been relentlessly targeting Wright as a means to tear down Obama. I wonder if this latest verbosity is doing a favor for Obama to give him the window to further distance himself from Wright once and for all? Is Wright falling on his sword by making himself more outspoken, perhaps because of some back channel deal, for the longer good of the Obama campaign?
<
p>Probably not, but stranger things have happened.
From the Globe
<
p>Among other comments:
<
p>
Cock-a-doodle-doo.
Of course, that makes Wright into Jesus, but never mind.
News flash: Slavery was a fact of life here until less than 150 years ago. America has not yet been absolved of her sins, as much as we might like to think she has. Hilary did an excellent job of blaming sexism for her early losses-now she’s benefiting from America’s other great ism, courtesy of a too-black-for-prime-time preacher. Per Sean Hannity and Wolf Blitzer’s request, with help from countless psedo-liberals of all shapes and sizes, Obama is finally caving in to demands that he apologize for someone else. The whole thing is rotten to the core, like the New York Post printing Miley Cyrus’s titillating photo on the front page yesterday along with her “apology” for the same. “We’re gonna show you an undressed minor, but gasp! isn’t it shocking, how dare she? She better apologize!!” America is a sick, stupid, ignorant country that is just not smart enough, collectively, to undertand the definition of hypocrisy. The learning curve is just too slow. Hence Bush 2000, because his daddy was president, Bush 2004, because “Saddam caused 9/11”, and now God help us, because “His pastor said America isn’t totally awesome all the time? ? How dare he? Where’s that photo of Miley Cyrus, I gotta get this moralistic indignation out of my system…”
Call the platform committee, we need to insert a line about how sick and ignorant everbody is!
simply need to power down the social engineering think tanks of the Bilderburg Group and their other Illuminati subsidiaries.
among Obama supporters to gloss over the facts in front of their eyes and instead settle for a narrative that either absolves Obama of responsibility, or better yet, somehow blames Hillary for every misfortune that comes Obama’s way.
<
p>What no one seems to be taking into consideration is that this may just be Wright’s attempt to rehabilitate his reputation. In just a couple of months, he has gone from being a repected leader in his community to a pariah who is represented as some sort of cross between Louis Farrakhan and Saddam Hussein. He must be devastated. Yet all Obama’s supporters can do is wonder why he doesn’t just sit back and let his character be destroyed for the sake of Obama’s campaign.
<
p>I’m a Hillary supporter, and I certainly take issue with some of Wright’s comments. But he doesn’t seem like an evil guy, and he certainly didn’t deserve to have his whole life’s work destroyed. It’s unfortunate that Obama has been so clumsy in dealing with the issue, and had the arrogance to think he could just sweep it under the rug and it would never come back to bite him.
<
p>And in response to Political Inaction, I won’t go into all of the reasons why, but you can count me as one of those who didn’t find Obama’s speech “amazing.” It was very well done, but the circumstances in which it was delivered, as well as the way over the top response, took quite a bit of the luster off of it for me. I’ve seen it compared to MLK’s Dream speech, but as far as I recall, MLK didn’t give the speech reluctantly to try and save his campaign, and he didn’t end it with a pitch for votes. Oh yeah, and he also didn’t design the speech as misdirection from tough questions he was being asked.
who just might owe her recent surge to her idiotic, “macho” pledge to obliterate Iran (women, children, and all) with our big, bad nukes if Iran were to attack Israel. Of course, we would react in such a situation. But obliterate?
Wow, what a badass!
Obama could just have easily have said something hideous like that, but he’s never struck me as that kind of politician.
..said not such thing. She said such a response for the US would only come in response to a nuclear attack on Israel. A different thing entirely.
<
p>That has been the essential policy of the western nuclear powers since there have been western nuclear powers.
since Hillary didn’t say anything like what you’re claiming. She said “they have to know we can obliterate them,” meaning our nuclear arsenal will be a deterrent. She never said “I will obliterate them.” It’s a little annoying hearing Obama supporters whine about Obama’s San Francisco comments being taken out of context, while at the same time skewing Hillary’s comments to sound as if she threatened nuclear war.
All the blather making Wright the victim, so transparent.
<
p>Though just saying, ‘Obama can’t handle the vetting!’ is overt and amateurstic.
<
p>Sublime your point ain’t!
by saying simplistic things like “Sublime your point ain’t!” I do my best to actually include some substance in my posts, and support what I’m saying woith facts, when possible. You might try it sometime.
You are slightly better with the written word then your peers.
<
p>Parroting is parroting. Polished or not.
is a rules violation. Please review them. This is not Daily Kos.
<
p>Consider yourself warned.
You are a serious blogger. Me, not so much. However, is it not easy to tell the difference which dairists speak from the gut or which ones embed campaign talking points in their posts.
<
p>We have pundits and campaign strategists to put out “the line.” Everyone is guilty of parroting, on occassion. Would you not prefer that diarists relate their personal stories to the current discourse or bring some arcane insight to the discussion?
<
p>BMG is a decent blog, but this is not my place. I swing through here to keep up on Mass stuff and to tweak the Hilbots. Now, there are many Clinton supporters here that don’t simply disguise the vetted opinion, but please don’t tell me I can’t call a spade a spade.
<
p>OK, OK I figured out how to call out parrots. I’ll try to find Wolfson or Bill using the same frame and post that up next to their “insight” on the matter.
<
p>The mimicry will be exposed and I won’t have to be so blunt.
<
p>I don’t mistake your commity for weakness. I just get wack from all the pretense, the faux indignation and regurgitation.
No room for another burr under this saddle, cowboy?
For saying someone is just parrotting an argument? Or was the warning for saying he writes better than the rest of us?
<
p>I don’t see how it was worse than other comments made on the site. Especially since he was asked. Is there a crackdown coming? If so, fine, it wouldn’t be unwarranted.
<
p>I don’t get the Daily Kos reference, since I don’t frequent it the way I used to. (time restraints, not taste judgement)
…don’t believe that is what was said. There is a difference between saying “I think that argument reads like a mere parroting of Clinton’s platform” and “You’re a Clinton Parrot”. Do you really not see the distinction? The former suggests that the reader is unimpressed by the argument and finds it to be derivative, and the latter is a direct insult implying that the writer possesses no capacity for original thought in this regard.
<
p>For example I could say, “do you feel it wise to change someone else’s words when you choose to defend them” or I could hurl an insult implying that you are an apologist with a negative spin. The former fosters debate while the latter seeks only to insult.
<
p>That’s the difference.
I’ve never seen those hairs split here before. Certainly not with a warning from one of the site managers.
<
p>Just trying to clarify exactly what was so offensive. I’ve seen (and maybe done) worse. many have, I think.
…nothing about that comment that was redeemable. It was just insulting. If it were merely one part of an otherwise reasonable comment perhaps it would not have drawn attention.
then a plain insult.
<
p>Lessig speaks of a free culture, so derivative works are fine by many.
<
p>I, personally, am tired of the campaign. More specifically bloggers that put a new facade on a vetted talking point. Now maybe I erred in this specific case, but you see this sin all the time.
<
p>I have no problem with forwarding a campaign concept, but bloggers should stay away from riggin the line to look like they thought it through and this is their honest take on the matter.
<
p>Derivatives allow for examination and critique. If the blogscape turns into an echo chamber, then the magic is lost.
I think his original comment including the sublime it ain’t was part of a more reasonable comment. Then the questioning about the one line started with a comment I don’t see to be worth much more than what follows. So why the warning to one, but not the other?
I just can’t use any of the arguments her campaign is using? I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. Of course, your use of the term “Hillbots” tells me everything I need to know about the rigorousness of your analysis.
me yuze hilbots too drive home mi pointe. I ain’t rigorousness enuf.
<
p>You can frame dude, you can. I have seen your stuff before, its good. But don’t think for a minute you can slide in with salient talking points.
<
p>I do have a bias against using packaged campaign talking points. I do it myself, but loathe just pushing the line.
On my MyBo page, my sig is.
<
p>”A consensus built from the echo of parrots, is no consensus.”
<
p>This is my advice to fellow Obama supporters. Echoing back or repeating mindlessly is not a good practice. That is not how true solutions are formulated. That is not what the OfA movement is about.
<
p>I shared my belief with you and your cohorts. I was just rude about it ’cause your “them”, for now.
<
p>We’re blogging. Wha’? Should my pinkies be up, yo?
I think sometimes Reporters forget that these are lives that they’re ruining with their Pentium processors. It would be so much better if we could settle these elections on the issues – the Rev Wright/fake bullets stuff should have been nothing but a side show this entire election, yet the two “issues” have been the things that have dictated momentum since they’ve popped up. I’ll be the first to admit that this election, at this point, has even me turned off – and there aren’t very many junkier political junkies than me, but my attention would probably still be caught if these two were bickering over health care instead of former pastors.
<
p>The good thing is this issue is coming out now. Thank god for the lengthy primary, because the Republicans probably would have sit on this kind of crap until September.
Obama and Clinton are so close to one another in their stances on subsantive issues – a classic debate on ‘the issues’ would sound like an argument on whether to paint the walls – eggshell or cream.
Nobody mentioned this yet, unless I read to quickly, but I thought Rev. Wright did a good job explaning himself on PBS the other night.
Here
We could see that on Bill Moyer’s program. The two had a very thoughtful discussion.
<
p>Let us not forget that while Cheney had 5 deferments, Rev. Wright enlisted first in the Marines and then in the Navy Medical Corp – 6 years of service to hiw country. He received high honors for his work and attended President Lyndon Johnson when he was recovering from surgery in 1966.
<
p>I mention all this because this is a side of Reverend Wright that is never mentioned by the media in their obsession with inflammatory snippets of sermons.
<
p>The Republicans and the Clintons have successfully demonized a patriotic American.
…like Obama’s finally decided it was time to throw the good Reverend Wright under the bus…time to “disown” him. The Reverend certainly isn’t helping Obama’s poll numbers, that’s for sure.
…at the national Press Club, Wright kinda threw himself under the bus. Anyone with half a brain (and Wright certainly has that) would know that Obama would do what he did today after what Wright said yesterday.
In retrospect the Wright thing got away from Obama the moment the incendiary comments were discovered on YouTube. Although it appeared, for awhile, that Obama was going to be able to put the matter to rest with an eloquent, thoughtful, and courageous speech, the events of the past few days force us to view this entire mess through a different lens, a lens that focuses on the past, not the future. We can see now that Wright could not be stuffed back in the attic, that Obama’s speech was inadequate, even naive, and that Wright is now and probably always has been the crazy uncle that won’t shut up at the dinner table. One has to wonder on what planet has been Obama been dining for 20 years?
<
p>Obama’s comments today were solid, only, sadly, too late. The political vision at the moment is in the wrong direction–backwards. We are forced to put everything Wright initially said as well as Obama’s initial responses through a different calculus–and the result does not favor Obama. No matter what he does at this point, the spin–both from the Republicans and from the Clinton supporters–will be that his response is political expediency of the most desperate sort. That is no position to be in as that posture renders him chronically and debilitatingly vulnerable. The good Rev. Wright has dealt Obama a catastrophic blow from which Obama has little chance of meaningful clinical recovery.
<
p>Clinton is in the cat-bird seat. Because she possesses a boldness, albeit at times of a reckless variety, she continues to stride along trying to convince people she’s Colossus when, in fact, her footprint is of truly human proportions. She is likely to overplay, as is her wont, and only time will tell if her stridency will be validated and rewarded by voters. I’m afraid, however, that we’ll be stuck with her for all the wrong (or is it Wright) reasons.
<
p>What a clusterfuck. It’s times like these I’m ashamed of the Democratic party, which, collectively, could screw up a wet dream, and the American electorate, which, collectively demonstrates the critical thinking skills of a schnauzer. I’m ever hopeful, however, that both the former and the latter will prove me wrong before I’m too senile to appreciate it.
…poetic as all of that was…
<
p>…Obama’s problem is that he has spent his entire campaign pretending not to be a politician. This of course, is not true. He achieved his first political position by enforcing a non-compulsory candidate limitation so that he could run unopposed. He then glommed on as the “lead” legislator to a number of pieces of legislation that he did not spend any real time developing in the Illinois senate because the rules their allowed the president to designate him as such which increased his political capital for his federal senate run. Then there were all those voting abstentions in the Illinois Senate(so many more than the small handful of abortion right abstentions). He is, and has from the start, been a politician who practiced politics.
<
p>But for his run for President he claimed he wasn’t. And now he finds himself in the distasteful posititon of having to play politics to get himself out of a sticky situation. He is learning a lesson that Hillary learned long ago. People will press their own agenda in spite of you, even people you thought you could count on, and you need to be prepared to deal with it. He wasn’t. For whatever reason, for the most part, people stayed out of his way, including the press. Reverend Wright isn’t going to. And he has no deflection in his “I’m different bag of tricks” to deal with it. He has to throw his former spiritual advisor under the bus to get around him and now he is just a polician like everyone else running for President.
<
p>He is the victim as much of his own rhetoric as anything else.
<
p>Change doesn’t happen because you put it on a poster. If Obama really were “different” I would feel bad for him. But he’s not. He’s just another politicial (for the record, in my estimation, a very good one) who has to deal with the fact that someone with their own agenda isn’t very interested in protecting his. And he needs to accept that the fall to the ground if farther becuase he tried to elevate himself above the rest.
<
p>
What Obama said here does not just make him another politician. I think he is sincere in what he said in denouncing Wright’s comments, and there is no tougher thing to do than to have to challenge someone who was close to you. Of course politics drove some of this, but it was also belief – Obama’s belief in our country and in his feeling that what Wright was doing was harmful – not just to him but to the country.
<
p>I think he has handled a pretty difficult situation pretty well, doing what most politicians never do, and that is to go beyond narrow soundbites to talk about issues of greater importance – like race in America, as he did in Philadelphia. He has elevated the debate even when others have sought to diminish him and his message. And millions of Americans have responded to that.
Three weeks ago Sunday our UCC Minister delivered an impassioned sermon here in Norwell defending Reverend Wright from the soundbite attacks; I wasn’t particularly comfortable with the sermon, as I didn’t really see a heckuva lot of difference between Wright’s comments and Falwell’s after 9/11 (and I didn’t think that a defense that his “chickens coming home to roost” was Wright quoting a US government official, not his own words, meant anything – speeches/sermons are filled with quotes – he picked ’em to put in his sermon). Our church (liberal, white suburban, progressive) clearly fits the mold of Obama supporters.
<
p>That said, I’m really interested in what Sunday brings as far as a sermon topic goes, with the golden child having repudiated Wright. The religious progressives may have some problems with Obama now (never mind the followers of the black churches). This issue hasn’t been put to bed by a long shot.
…assessment might fly if Obama hadn’t taken such a political stance toward Wright at the beginning of the campaign. He disinvited him from his candidacy announcement in a political move to distance himself, but kept him associated with the campaign. He knew this man. Knew the things he was capable of saying.
<
p>This…
<
p>
<
p>…is completely untrue. Politicians talk about issues, at length, all the time. Clinton does so in her stump speeches. She talks about race, class, gender, economy, war, etc., as does McCain.
<
p> The difference here is that Obama got himself caught up in a sticky spot because he tried to play both sides against the middle. He distanced himself from Wright to protect himself but kept him somewhat close as an advisor to his campaign to appeal the base to whom Wright appeals and to keep his Christian credentials in order. In short, to use a word that many use in relation to Clinton, he triangulated, and got burned by it. As a result he had to run damage control, so his, in my estimation laudable but hardly ground breaking speech on race relations in America, was broadcast live and replayed over and over again in the media. If the media were doing their job and showing the candidates talking about the issues (which they could easily do) instead of running the soap opera stuff his speech would not seem so unique.
It is interesting listening to Rev. Wright. The explanations and justifications are something.
<
p>Barack listened to this guy for twenty years? And he brought his family to listen?
<
p>
1.–His ealier claim that he never heard Wright say such things and didn’t know he felt those feelings was a stretch, given how closely he’s tied to him and over such a long period of time.
<
p>2.–Before responding, Obama should’ve asked directly or found out whether Wright was going to eventually respond the way he did this week or lay low and let his image be tarnished, even if unfairly.
<
p>In my mind Obama is guilty of not knowing who/what he was involved with and/or not finding out.
<
p>Don’t they research their own candidate or have any ability to anticipate both the first and second episodes? They seem to have been caught flat footed twice now.
<
p>And before the defense is thrown out that health care or the economy matters more than this Reverend Wright business, consider the reaction to Bush’s judgement on and handling of Putin.
<
p>And will Obama’s pledge to meet with world leaders, even the bad ones, fall apart if they say bad things like the Reverend did this week?
<
p>I’m a Hillary supporter, but I’m not happy that our possible eventual nominee has handled this issue so poorly.