The Clinton campaign, which normally is eager to hit the Obama campaign from every possible angle, is firmly refusing to make any comment on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright matter. Asked about it on a conference call a few moments ago, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson answered, “That will be something for voters to assess, and I don’t have any comment on it beyond that.” Asked a second time, Wolfson said, “I would give you the same answer. Voters will have to make an assessment about that and come to a judgment.”
Yesterday, during another conference call, Clinton strategist Mark Penn said that Obama faces a number of “difficult issues.” Penn listed the Austan Goolsbee matter, the Samantha Power matter, and the Tony Rezko affair. No word on Wright. Asked later in the call to elaborate, Penn also demurred.
Some Clinton supporters will no doubt see this obviously coordinated effort not to use the Jeremiah Wright sermons against Obama as a classy move. I wish I could see it that way myself.
The fact is, I think the Clinton campaign has been cast as “racist” so many times by Obama’s campaign that they are afraid to say anything about an issue with as many racial overtones as this one. They are refraining from using a perfectly good opportunity to draw a contrast between the two campaigns in terms of how they intend to approach the issue of racism in this election because they’ve been browbeaten by Obama surrogates, media mavens, and progressive bloggers since South Carolina.
There’s a serious double-standard in operation here: When Obama brings up race, we’re having a “discussion” about racism. When Clinton brings it up, she’s “racist”. I suppose the double-standard itself isn’t what Obama supporters consider worthy of discussion, however.
Ah well. Even without the deft hand of Mark Penn to guide them (chortle, chortle), the Wright revelations will take their toll. Rasmussen again:
The story became big news in the past several days and has had at least a temporary impact on public perceptions of Obama. Last Thursday, 52% of voters nationwide had a favorable opinion of Obama. That figure has fallen to 47% on Monday… Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters say they have read, seen, or heard news stories about Wright’s comments.
As Jim Geraghty points out, that’s a loss of five points of favorability in five days.
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Jeremiah Wright, Politics, Race
It’s possible too that the Clinton camp doesn’t want to alienate the 1.3 million members of the United Church of Christ, a fairly progressive denomination full of folks like me who would be livid if she jumped into this fray. (I’m a UCC seminarian, so I’m a tad sensitive on this issue.)
Peace,
Tom
Tom,
I’m curious (honestly — not stirring the pot): Would you perceive a Clinton campaign entry into the Jeremiah Wright fray as an attack on the UCC?
I ask because I see the matter as an issue with Wright and Obama, not with the church.
The old adage is: “when your opponent is destroying himself, step back and let him do it”.
This is potentially campaign destroying for Obama. How he could not have foreseen this speaks to just how inexperienced and naive about politics he really is.
I’m a little disappointed because I am one of the few who thought, and still thinks, that he is the weaker candidate.
And its proven by this very episode. Clinton’s strategy was to hang around and wait until the harsh glare of the media, which would naturally focus on the frontrunner, caused him to predictably self-destruct, because she knew he was not ready for prime time
Clinton is a brawler, and could very well well. I’m relying on the common sense of the American public to reject her.
Obama would have been a McGovern-like figure, being completely crushed in the general. The only down side to this is that he has destroyed himself and alienated and embarrassed those who supported him, and Hillary is in no way to blame, so there will be little bitterness against her, so his supporters may largely be fungible to her campaign, which is exactly what I’d hoped for to really damage her in the general.
Now, he would have to consider it a favor to get the VP nod, which would assuage his erstwhile supporters and make her seem magnanimous.
It was fun while it lasted, but now that he is fatally damaged, it seems like a no-brainer that someone as inexperienced and untalented and unaccomplished as Barry would self-destruct.
“Clinton is a brawler, and could very well well”
“win”
should complete that sentence.
He’ll find a way to minimize the damage with his speech tomorrow. He’ll break out with one of his Teflon excuses, the media and the Obamessiah deciples will eat it up, and we’ll all live happily ever after on the road to “Change” and “Hope.”
[...] opponent destroying himself <a href=”“>Joe Tobacco over at Cadillac Tight wonders why Team Hillary! has so far kept mum on the entire Jeremiah Wright fiasco: Some Clinton supporters will no doubt see this obviously [...]
This is all so clear now.
It’s our fault because we just don’t understand the complexities of race and black culture in America.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/obama.speech/index.html
Red: it strikes me that one thing Sen. Obama definitely did *not* do in this thoughtful speech was cast blame. He’s not looking to assign fault, he’s focused on solving problems. It sounds trite, I know, but consider the possibility that it’s accurate.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/The_speech.html
In trying to convince us race doesn’t matter, he broke out just about every race card in the book.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.html
The original Constitution didn’t treat women as citizens and allow them to vote, either. But who cares, it’s all about slavery, right? Perhaps Mr. Obama needs to retake US History, since he is forgetting that black men recieved the right to vote with the 15th Amendment in 1870, while women had to wait for the 19th Amendment in 1920.
Their children didn’t inherit any of his white blood?
You mean the way Oprah did after she got a dose of what Wright was all about? Or maybe Oprah just isn’t in tune with what the black church is all about.
So you see. America’s schools are just falling apart and stealing the future of children of all races. Yet, there is a huge gap between there is a huge achievement gap between white and black children. How does that work? Are black kids unable to learn in the same enviroment as white kids? I don’t think so.
And here is the kicker. We’ve just read 6 pages of excuse concerning why Wright says the hate-speech he says, and then we get this gem:
Wait a minute. I thought it was this way:
So he is forced to give a speech on race because of the hate-speech spewed by his pastor. He defends his pastor by saying basically, his words are a product of his time.” And he finishes the speech off with a story about an old black man who “is here” supporting Obama because of a young white girl.
If that old man from South Carolina could do it, why does Obama not expect, and demand, that same attitude from his “spiritual advisor?”
Sorry, I’m not buying a word of it.
And let’s not ignore that Obama is now an admitted liar.
Today:
Oops
Last Friday:
Of course, I am sure this would be defended by a copout similar to “I said I never heard him make THOSE statements. I didn’t say I never heard him make similar statements.”
Here’s another gem from that speech today. They just never end.
un·e·quiv·o·cal – 2. absolute; unqualified; not subject to conditions or exceptions
Sorry, but that is not unequivocal condemnation. Looks like Obama needs to retake English 101, as well as US History.
I ended up doing a post based on my comment here.
Joe does that to me a lot, provokes me into thinking so hard about something I end up with a post length comment.
I hope I credited him, I think I did.
You just credited me to the n-th degree with your comment, Doc. That may be the nicest thing anyone’s ever said about my writing.
Thank you.
“Sorry, I’m not buying a word of it.”
What do you mean, Red? Do you think Barack Obama is a closet racist? Do you think he actually harbors the more extreme sentiments that Rev. Wright expressed in the now-famous clips?
“Perhaps Mr. Obama needs to retake US History, since he is forgetting that black men recieved the right to vote with the 15th Amendment in 1870, while women had to wait for the 19th Amendment in 1920.”
Come on, Red. Do you really think that this man, this former editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review, this black United States Senator and former constitutional law professor, ever forgot for one second that black men in America received the right to vote in the 15th amendment (and then had it effectively taken away in the South for roughly another 100 years by Jim Crow laws and ways), but that women didn’t get it until the passage of the 19th? The passage you quoted doesn’t contradict that in the slightest. What did he say that makes you think he “forgot” that? Why would he discuss women’s suffrage in a speech about race and politics? You’re picking nits — and invisible ones at that — rather than approaching it with an open mind.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/18/191324/949/514/479504
twc: In the portion that comment applies to he is discussing how the Constitution was incomplete because of slavery. Then he talks about the Constitution and “equal citizenship under the law.” Again, as it applied to slavery.
There have been lots of Americans who have not been given the equal rights that all Americans deserve, including our most cherished—the right to vote. But he didn’t mention any of them. Only the slaves.
That’s a race card.
And the real irony is that he is running against a woman.
Do I truely think that Barack Obama doesn’t know basic US History and Government? No. I think he was playing a race card. But I enjoy sarcasm.
And yeah, I admit I no longer have an open mind about Barack Obama, and I will nitpick him until he goes away. I’ve seen and heard way too much to turn back now. That’s what makes politics and blogging fun. We nitpick because we can.
“and then had it effectively taken away in the South for roughly another 100 years by Jim Crow laws and ways”
By the Democratic Party :)
“What do you mean, Red? Do you think Barack Obama is a closet racist? Do you think he actually harbors the more extreme sentiments that Rev. Wright expressed in the now-famous clips?”
I don’t know how to answer that.
I think it is a possibility.
There is an old saying. “Preaching to the choir.” As you know, it means you are telling people what they already know, or what they want to hear. Is that not the very definition of what Rev. Jeremiah Wright was doing? Preaching to the choir.
Red, you think it is possible that Barack Obama, the son of a white mother who was raised by his mom and his white grandparents, a man who is evidently thoughtful, moderate and reasonable in the way he lives his life and conducts himself in public, a man who has himself never been shown to have said or done anything racist or particularly racially divisive during a life lived for some 22 years in the public eye as a community organizer, lawyer, law professor and state and national politician who has written two widely-read books, one a memoir on his life as a the son of a biracial marriage, subtitled “A Story of Race and Inheritance,” written before he started his political career, who came to national prominence with a speech celebrating the fundamental common unity as Americans of our diverse citizenry, and who has been for more than a year now running a successful national presidential campaign built on the concept of using that fundamental unity of purpose as the foundation for ensuring progress in this country, you think he’s actually, secretly, a racist? Or that he secretly hates his country, the nation he is busting his hump to try to win the right to lead?
And you reach this startling conclusion about his innermost character based on … some things that someone else said, that weren’t about him?
Red, that’s a real stretch.
“twc: In the portion that comment applies to he is discussing how the Constitution was incomplete because of slavery. Then he talks about the Constitution and “equal citizenship under the law.” Again, as it applied to slavery.
There have been lots of Americans who have not been given the equal rights that all Americans deserve, including our most cherished—the right to vote. But he didn’t mention any of them. Only the slaves.
That’s a race card.”
Playing the race card?!
Red, it was a speech on the subject of race and politics in America, which he needed to give to address a firestorm of criticism surrounding racially divisive comments made by his former pastor and what they might reveal about his own views on race and politics, in order to address concerns and criticism that he may actually be a racist himself — by critics including you!
Red, you and others loudly accuse the man of being a racist and when he responds by discussing his views on race you accuse him of “playing the race card!” This is surreal. You’re way down the rabbit hole on this one.
I understand that you don’t like Sen. Obama and you don’t want him to become the president of the U.S., and you believe that this controversy hurts his candidacy. But this is bizarre.
To me a “closet racist” is someone who holds racist-type views, but keeps them to himself. So with that said, if he were a closet racist, you wouldn’t know by what he says.
His actions are what speaks to me. And his actions for the last 20 years are to frequent a particular church that has been proven to spew hatred and division.
Hatred like that doesn’t just appear one day. You don’t think Wright has spoken like that for 20 years? Obama could have turned and ran the moment he heard it, well before he became close to the man. He allowed himself to become close, to the point he defends him as family.
What comes out of Jeremiah Wright’s mouth is secondary to the fact that Obama has allowed himself and his family to listen to it for the last 2 decades. And it would seem to have had obvious effects on his wife. At the least it has continued to feed her feelings toward this country.
There are more than 1 race in this country. Obama didn’t give a speech about race, he gave a speech about one perspective of the black race.
To his credit, he did mention black mothers and fathers needing to take more responsibility for their families. IMO, that should have come near the beginning of the speech rather than near the end. It would have set the tone a bit better by distributing the blame for troubles faced by black people in America today.
I think most of us political junkies are missing a big fat point.
No politician ever talked his way out of a jam with a speech since Nixon’s Checkers speech.
Most people didn’t see Obama’s speech. They might have heard about it, big deal, politicians give millions of speeches.
What will stick with the Average White Voter (as opposed to AWBand) is the God Damn America, and the AIDS and 9-11 slanders.
It puts Obama right in the category of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and we know what white middle class America thinks of them.
If they did hear the speech, the meme “you’re with me or you’re racist” seems to be the dominant message, and that won’t garner a lot of votes.
I think the polls will soon show Obama tanking. This is a death blow. He’s now exactly exposed as what he exactly didn’t want to be: another victim card holder playing the “whitey owes us” game. He claimed to transcend race, and turns out he doesn’t at all. And in fact, we’re expected to vote for him because we owe it to blacks for all our past racism.
Electing a president isn’t about the drama in Obama’s fucked up family., who according to him, all hate each other and are black and white racists right down the line.
I’m not a racist, my parents aren’t, and I feel no need to atone for his psychological problems with the most important job in the universe.
McCain in a landslide, I’m guessing now, because they can’t afford at this late date not to give it Obama. I bet he would be glad for the VP slot now, he’s so damaged, but Clinton would be a fool to offer it.
Obama is now done as a national candidate. I haven’t seen a precipitous a fall like this since… well since Spitzer last week.
“To me a “closet racist” is someone who holds racist-type views, but keeps them to himself. So with that said, if he were a closet racist, you wouldn’t know by what he says.
His actions are what speaks to me. And his actions for the last 20 years are to frequent a particular church that has been proven to spew hatred and division.”
So, I take it from that, Red, that you think Barack Obama is a “closet racist.” You believe he secretly hates white people?
“Electing a president isn’t about the drama in Obama’s fucked up family., who according to him, all hate each other and are black and white racists right down the line.”
Not at all, doc. He’s not saying his family are “fucked up” and “racist.” He has said on many occasions that his family gave him love and hope and a good education — the most important things a family can give a child. He clearly loves his family. But he is simply saying that he once heard his own grandmother — a person he knows “loves me more than she loves anything in this world” — say that she was afraid of black men on the street.. What he was saying is: “this race thing is complicated. Let’s not choose sides and hate each other. Let’s talk to each other, openly and honestly, and give each other the benefit of the doubt.”
Doc, I honestly don’t understand how you can have heard or read Obama’s speech and come away thinking that his message was “you’re with me or you’re racist.” Where do you see that in his speech?
[...] top “surrogates” would that be? If I recall correctly, the Clinton campaign has been silent on the Wright matter. And show me, please, where the Clinton campaign outlined the Wright affair as something [...]
Joe, you really needn’t have worried about the Clinton campaign being too “classy.” Here’s the candidate herself desperately flogging the issue yesterday — to Richard Mellon Scaife, Dungeonmaster of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy himself, no less!
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/185608.php
“that’s a loss of five points of favorability in five days.”
And, after two weeks, Obama’s favorability rating has plummetted a grand total of two points:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx
That depends on who’s numbers you’re looking at.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/03/25/polls-show-obama-damaged-by-reverend-wright.html
These show a 5% drop in favorability and a 6% rise in unfavorability for Obama in the last 2 weeks.
Hey Joe,
Sorry for not responding to you earlier, I missed your response til now. Though the question of whether or not Clinton will come into the fray is obviously moot at this point, your question of whether I view this as an attack on the UCC is good – and to clarify, no, I don’t. But I do view it as a desperate attack on Obama, at the expense of Rev. Wright and his congregation – both of which are beloved and familiar entities within the UCC. Going to seminary in Chicago, I have friends and professors who attend Trinity, so I’m extra pissed at Clinton’s willingness to contribute to the media’s out-of-context attacks on this man and his church.
Peace,
Tom
I don’t see where Wright’s comments concerning “the chickens coming home to roost” originally coming from a white man has any more bearing on the issue than Obama using his racist white grandma to excuse his pastor’s racism.
As for the context of Wright’s “G_D America,” most of us already knew the entire context of that sermon. But we first have to believe that the whole of America puts itself ahead of God. Including those who visit the United Church of Christ.
Context would have been Wright saying “G_D Americans who put themselves above His Word.” He didn’t. Instead, he lumped everyone into the same pile.
The problem here is that the media chose to deliberately cherry-pick a few of Rev. Wright’s remarks from several sermons, string them together, and put them on a non-stop loop – in order to attack Obama. As a result, good and innocent people are suffering the consequences.
Thanks to the ugly caricature the media created of him, Rev. Wright, who nobody claims is perfect, has had his name and reputation unfairly assaulted, and now lives under death threats. His former congregation has been equally tarnished by association, and today attends church in the face of bomb threats, made by idiots who bought into the media’s portrayal of Rev. Wright and his church.
Worst of all is how well this worked – there’s absolutely no reason it won’t happen again, because We the (uncritical) People evidently love to be spoon-fed.
Peace,
Tom
I agree, it is unfortunate that people’s lives have been threatened over this. But is that the fault of the media, or is that the fault of those who are making the threats? This goes to the heart of everything Obama says lately. It seems people are not responsible for their actions. There is always an excuse that revolves around someone else.
Media cherry-picking is certainly nothing new, and Obama nor Wright are the first to suffer from it.
I am curious about something, though. If Wright has only spoken his hate-filled rants periodically over the last 30 years, why aren’t we seeing any of his loving sermons? Why isn’t Obama defending his pastor, and his own association with him, by showing the world the sermons he says kept him there for 2 decades? Instead, we are now hearing from Obama that the only reason he stayed is because Wright was going to retire.
The entire Wright scandal really tells the world more about Barack Obama than it tells about Jeremiah Wright. It shows that Obama will tolerate hate-speech by people close to him, and he will not admonish them for it (until it is too late, and clearly ingenuine). It shows that he uses poor judgement in his long-term associations with people. And most of all, it shows that he, like any other politician on Earth, will say whatever it takes to get elected. His claim of being different is only superficial.
And none of that is the fault of the media. It is Obama’s fault. To use the words of Jeremiah Wright, “the chickens have come home to roost.” Obama has made his own political bed. Now it is time for him to lay in it, for better or for worse.