The Rev. Jeremiah Wright won't go away.
That's what's so wrong about Rev. Wright, as far as Barack Obama is concerned.
In America, everyone is free to believe what he/she wants to believe, and everyone is free to say (just about) anything he/she wants to say.
Our laws do draw the line at certain points. But it's our freedoms that allowed Jeremiah Wright to stand in the pulpit of his church and call upon God to "damn America."
Rev. Wright is entitled to his opinions, and he has expressed them frequently. But Obama, who apparently does not share Rev. Wright's views even though he spent many years as a member of Wright's congregation and listened to Wright's hate-filled messages Sunday after Sunday, is being weighed down by the minister's words.
"When I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it," Obama said. "It contradicts everything I am about and who I am."
What seems contradictory to me is the relationship between Obama's words and his actions. Is Obama saying he finds Wright's words "appalling" now that he wants to be president and needs the support of white blue-collar voters to make it happen -- but those same words were acceptable when Obama represented a mostly black state senate district in Illinois and heard Wright utter them as the pastor of his church?
Obama has no shortage of defenders for why he spent nearly two decades in Wright's church -- where he remains a member after Wright's retirement.
"Having been deserted at age 2 by his father," writes Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, "Obama has now been deserted by the father-figure in his church, the man who inspired him to become a Christian, married him, dedicated his house, baptized his children, gave him the title of his second book and theme for his presidential run and worked on his campaign."
Dowd is a diehard supporter of Obama's campaign, and that is something she is certainly entitled to be. But even the most devoted supporters can do only so much for a candidate. At some point, the candidate can no longer allow his surrogates to make his apologies for him.
Obama still needs to explain to a dubious public why he remained in the church for two decades and listened to Wright's assertions that the federal government manipulated AIDS to apply a "final solution" to blacks in America and that God permitted the September 11 attacks to happen because America had been practicing its own brand of terrorism abroad.
That's something Obama did not do at a news conference in Winston-Salem, N.C. And, try as she might, Dowd cannot apologize for Obama's lapse in judgment -- if one can call it that.
"Tuesday was more than a Sister Souljah moment," writes Dowd, "it was a painful form of political patricide. 'I did not vet my pastor before I decided to run for the presidency,' Obama said. In a campaign that’s all about who’s vetted, maybe he should have."
That seems a rather tame defense to me. Obama didn't need to investigate Wright. Obama was a witness. He sat in the pews of Wright's church for two decades and heard the minister's sermons himself. How much vetting did he need?
And how's this going to play with the blue-collar white voters?
(I assume they're the same voters Obama accused of clinging to their religion in times of crisis.)
The Amazon nuclear project
34 minutes ago
3 comments:
I hate to tell you, David, but Wright is hardly out on a limb within the black church community. And, I would venture to say that he doesn't give "hate-filled" sermons every Sunday.
You have to remember, Wright is a man from a generation that was literally spit on, told to get off the sidewalks when white women passed, had to use different entrances to buildings, drink from different fountains, and that only scratches the surface. Oh, and then he went into the Marine Corps and fought in Vietnam for this country. So when he says God damn America, it is a from a different perspective.
However, from a Christian standpoint, there are lots of reasons to call for God to damn America: Entrenched poverty; wealth inequities; disappearing middle class in order to bolster the wealthiest among us; continued racism (which is rearing its ugly head in the form of the embarrassing immigration debate -- God damn Lou Dobbs -- and this issue on Rev. Wright); an unjust health care system; an absolutely atrocious and unjust war that is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and thousands of our troops all the while depleting our resources; and that depletion of those resources means that we are shifting money away from the taxpayer and toward the war mongers who profit from this endless war. And the list goes on and on.
It frankly is alarming that you and the media want to focus on Rev. Wright. It is absolutely ridiculous and a huge smoke screen on the real problems facing the country.
What is of a concern for me in this issue is that people like Wright and Tavis Smiley are trying to bring Obama down. There is an ongoing jealousy phenomenom among leaders who are black; when one rises and doesn't give props to the others, they will quickly and hurtfully denounce him. Keeping this an issue (which Wright, Smiley, media, Clintons and McCain certainly want) fans that, and could ultimately lead to the destruction of a very good person who happens to be running for president. It is a sad day, and another reason for God to damn America.
Kyle,
I don't suggest that Wright is on a limb with the black community. If I gave the impression that he gave "hate-filled" sermons every Sunday, I apologize. However, I have seen enough clips from his sermons to know that such statements have been made many times (unless Wright was in the habit of changing his clothes in the middle of sermons, which would account for the different wardrobes).
He has a right to his opinion, as I have said, and I am well aware of his background. There were still elements of segregation in my small hometown until the year I enrolled in elementary school, so it isn't something I know of only from reading history books. And I know he served in Vietnam -- so did the last two Democratic presidential nominees and this year's presumptive Republican presidential nominee. It's commendable.
The media may wish to focus on Rev. Wright, but I don't. I write about it because it's what others are talking about, to illustrate what I've anticipated all along -- that the public would be deprived of a real discussion of real issues.
I'd rather not be writing about Rev. Wright, or "bitter" voters, or the Weather Underground. I'd rather talk about plans to end the war or plans to deal with gas prices or the mortgage crisis. But Obama's own words and his own actions raise questions about his judgment that aren't going away. For a man who has centered his entire campaign around his good judgment, questions about his judgment are valid and need to be satisfactorily answered.
It's why I have been and continue to be skeptical about both Obama and Clinton. Both are vulnerable to charges that really aren't important, and these charges can consume either campaign and deprive it of precious time to discuss things that matter.
Yes, but it appears you are skeptical of Obama's words and judgment on crap issues of gotcha, like the media are. You are allowing the media to set your agenda; and Obama has to answer to the crap agenda rather than the real issues.
What you have to ask yourself is this: On issues of importance (health care, economy, immigration, war, etc.), what about Obama (or Clinton for that matter) makes you think he (she) doesn't have good judgment? When it comes to helping the poor and downtrodden, he (and she) has built his career on that in Chicago (and elsewhere).
Now, has he been president before? No, and neither have the other candidates. So we have to look at other indicators, like what their careers have encompassed. For me, the problem with Clinton is that she is tainted with 15+ years of hate speech from the GOPers and she represents politics as usual, which we need to change desparately in this country.
What any pastor says is hardly an indicator. One time, I had a pastor (not mine, but a pastor) ask me why I thought I was going to heaven when I die, and I told him "because I didn't jump up and debate you today."
Point is, so many times we don't agree with people with whom we associate. Hell, when I was in Texas the vast majority of my friends were conservative Republicans and I didn't agree with them on anything. But to taint me with their views would be ridiculous. Which is why this issue is absurd and doesn't need to have any more time wasted on it.
Unfortunately for all of us, this is what is presented to us via media and the blogosphere. The fact that the blogosphere tends to run with the crap issues shows just how pervasive the media are at agenda setting -- even to those who despise media and their power.
There was a day, not long ago, when the blogosphere was supposed to thwart the banality of mainstream media. Instead, the web has turned out to be a forum that amplifies the banality and distributes it around the world at light speed.
Post a Comment