Well, if the Obama campaign wants to continue to talk about Jeremiah Wright, I can certainly oblige them. According to the NYT, Obama’s camp provided them a photo of Bill Clinton shaking hands with Wright at the White House, so Obama clearly wants to discuss this further.
End of my self-imposed moratorium on Wright posts, then.
Let’s first talk about Wright’s glaring hypocrisy in attending a prayer breakfast at the White House, shaking hands with President Clinton:
During one of the most difficult periods in the presidency of Bill Clinton, he addressed a group of clerics at an annual prayer breakfast in September 1998 just as the Starr report outlining his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was about to be published.
Then bleating out the following during his one of his infamous diatribes at Trinity:
“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty,” the clergyman boomed.
We’re supposed to believe, then, that Wright didn’t know about the Lewinsky affair during that breakfast? Why attend a meeting with a man who’s been “riding dirty” on your people? Why shake his hand and grin?
The Obama campaign, of course, has a response as to why they shopped this photo to the Times:
After their top surrogates pushed this story line and Senator Clinton’s campaign outlined this as a central strategy in her plan to overturn the will of Democratic voters, I can see why they wouldn’t want a photo out there that shows the kind of hypocrisy we’ve all come to expect from their campaign.
Which top “surrogates” would that be? If I recall correctly, the Clinton campaign has been silent on the Wright matter.
(Inline Update: Ah. Joe Wilson, I see. And there was Lanny Davis yesterday, I believe. Duly noted.) And show me, please, where the Clinton campaign outlined the Wright affair as something they’d use to “overturn the will of Democratic voters”? Oh, I’ve heard pundits bat that about, but I haven’t heard a peep from the campaign.
This, then, is Obama’s “politics” of change, laid bare. It’s a nice slogan, but when the candidate is actually forced to respond to an issue that doesn’t reflect well upon him, he dives into the mud just like any other politico. I have, of course, noted the less frequent occurrences of his touting this “politics of change” mantra since Obama has started to receive some scrutiny, but I note as well that it’s a bit late in the game for both the scrutiny and the reduced emphasis on that portion of his promise book.
Ah well. The release of that photo was another “boneheaded” move by Obama, in any case. Now we’ll see a renewed round of print about Wright and Obama, and furthermore, he’s all but demanded the Clinton camp get involved in the discussion…and now he won’t be able to complain about the “racism” of their doing so, as he’s provided the impetus himself. As SurveyUSA notes today, more Wright discussion certainly isn’t what Obama should want.
Update: Oh, these politics of change…they’re so uplifting!
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Jeremiah Wright, Politics, Race
[...] Update: Welcome, Instapundit readers, and Thanks, Glenn, for linking. I had reluctantly imposed a moratorium on Wright posts around these parts after Obama’s speech, but given the Obama campaign’s shopping a photo of Wright with Bill Clinton to the NYT, I’ve lifted the moratorium this morning. [...]
Ahh, a bittersweet farewell to a fleeting moratorium.
Joe: “Which top “surrogates” would that be? If I recall correctly, the Clinton campaign has been silent on the Wright matter.
(Inline Update: Ah. Joe Wilson, I see. And there was Lanny Davis yesterday, I believe. Duly noted.) And show me, please, where the Clinton campaign outlined the Wright affair as something they’d use to “overturn the will of Democratic voters”? Oh, I’ve heard pundits bat that about, but I haven’t heard a peep from the campaign.”
The N.Y. Times reported this yesterday: “Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election. That argument could be Mrs. Clinton’s last hope for winning this contest.”
And this today: “Despite the complications and risks of engaging on the issue, some allies of Mrs. Clinton said they were privately pushing the issue with key party members to lift her candidacy.”
The politics of change need not entail renouncing the counterpunch or ceding the fight — otherwise, the roughest candidate just wins by default. I think Obama’s thoughtful speech on the subject of race and politics was a good example of his different approach to the campaign.
Interesting NYT quote, twc…if you have a link, I’ll put it up in the post.
I’m not sure what kind of counterpunch providing a picture of Wright and Clinton to the Times is, though. A photo op is supposed to be equivalent to a twenty plus year personal relationship? In any event, it’s certainly had the effect of keeping the Wright discussion going. Politics of change or no, that wasn’t a brilliant move.
Heh-heh — well, I didn’t say it was an effective counterpunch!
Here’s the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/politics/21memo.html
Barack’s speech simulates a courageous address on race. But, as with more transparent race hustlers like Al Sharpton, he finds the engine of black faults in white racism, both in the past and (implausibly) in the present. A more courageous address would have asked for something real and substantive from blacks. But the black nationalism he and his pastor endorse does not consider blacks to have any faults, misdeeds, or need for collective action in contrast to the strenuous demands put upon whites. Real racial peace requires both sides to engage one another honestly and with sincerity. His hair trigger accusations of racism–against his grandma and Ferraro–coupled with his view of exquisite black victims and persistent white victimizers does nothing to advance such a conversation.
“A more courageous address would have asked for something real and substantive from blacks. ”
Like what, Mr. Roach?
You say that Sen. Obama expressed a “view of exquisite black victims and persistent white victimizers.” In fact, he expressed exactly the opposite. Here is what Obama said:
“For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life.
But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans, the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.
And it means taking full responsibility for own lives — by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.”
And those “strenuous demands put upon whites?” This is what he said:
“In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed.
Not just with words, but with deeds — by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.”
And somehow, Mr. Roach, you managed to interpret the invocation of golden rule as an expression of “black nationalism?” Strange. Here is Sen. Obama:
“It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.”
Here’s the problem. His speech more or less said the source of black bad behavior is existing white racism. Well there is no more white racism other than among the most marginal whites. His speech comes down to the following:
America’s basically good, but still has to work out its racial issues. Black people used to have it worse, and we need to acknowledge progress.
As for Reverend Wright, no one’s perfect. I liked some things my minister did and didn’t like others. Sure he hated white people, but he had soup kitchens too. Plus, he’s like family. As for where Wright’s wrong: black people have problems primarily because of racism, I agree, but we need to get beyond blaming whitey. Whitey’s playing ball, more or less. Further, someone like Wright doesn’t realize that white people have problems too because a lot of them are hard-working, poor, and buffeted by the forces of globalization, just like black people are.
I’ve known bigoted black and white people–including my own grandmother–and didn’t throw them under the bus for a single wayward remark (or in Wright’s case 20 years of highly refined incitement to racial arson). Also, I love my white mom, just in case anyone forgot about her.
Let’s talk plainly: for someone as nuanced as me, single-issue explanations based on conspiracies about other races are not entirely accurate, but this kind of “folk wisdom” is common among older blacks. Maybe if you all weren’t segregating lunch counters and calling us nigger every five minutes, these older people would chill out. I’m the middle man here. After all, I’m half white. These hateful feelings that I’m giving you some insight into are a bit of a generational thing, and I’m also a Gen Xer.
Ultimately, we all need to understand each other and reach some Hegelian synthesis of social solidarity. The root of that solidarity is a frank acknowledgement by whites that most black problems are caused directly or indirectly by the past actions of white people, as well as white capitulation to “fear” today; at worst, blacks merely have “complicity in our condition.”
But there is some hope: black and white people can unite around fleecing rich people, attacking corporations, and expanding government programs. This will help all kinds of poor and middle class people, and therefore both groups can achieve racial harmony by uniting around the Obama candidacy. The speech ends with a nice vignette about a tender moment between a little white girl and a nice old black man illustrating that very possibility: black and white people sometimes get along, especially when they’re working together on the Obama campaign.
An amusing interpretation, Mr. R, but one that’s only loosely tethered to what Sen. Obama actually said.
When you claim, for instance, that he essentially said: “the source of black bad behavior is existing white racism,” can you point to something he actually said that approximates that? What do you mean by “bad black behavior” there?
“Well there is no more white racism other than among the most marginal whites. ”
Wow. Well, that takes care of it, then! (Almost) all racism is black on white racism. So the problem of racism in American society is essentially blacks unreasonably blaming and hating whites.
Mr. R, channeling Sen. Obama: “black people have problems primarily because of racism.”
Where does he say this?
“A more courageous address would have asked for something real and substantive from blacks. ”
What do you think he should have asked for, Mr. Roach, if here wanted to give a “more courageous address?”