Will Glib Be Good Enough?

I assume that part of Sen. Obama's reasons for not making an earlier cleaner break from Rev. Wright does have to do with maintaining constituencies he's forged and built upon through his political ascendency. I have no doubt that this association (as well as that with Mr. Rezko) has aided him in his remarkably astute maneuvering through the Chicago machine while delivering on his promise in the state legislature of practicing a more pragmatic and responsible politics. As a supporter of the senator, however, my hope (surprisingly resurrected) is that once those necessary ties are safely severable, he will not only personally transcend them, but work to destroy their ongoing crippling of effective, efficient, and equitable governance. THIS is the true test.

The last time anyone convinced me that there was at least an opportunity to break through some of the preposterously anti-democratic aspects of our debilitatingly corrupted institutions of governmental administration and party politics was Bill Clinton's first inauguration. Alas, that administration (perhaps by necessity, I'll admit) did little but retrench the power of self-serving interests. And the subsequent one has made (and been allowed to make) an utter farce of even the idea of good government.

It may be, given our election cycles and the imbalance that has infiltrated the three branches of our federal government, that it is simply not possible for the two parties to deliberate in good faith to arrive at good [or least-bad] national policies. It may be that an administration has to grasp onto each last bit of its politicized and situational advantage to achieve even modest progress on the causes it promotes.

That may well be true, but if it is then I believe we will remain utterly impotent to address the real dangers to our exceptional standard of living: the ensuing economic crisis and resulting decline of American influence in global financial markets (which the current system exacerbates) and the effects of climate change (which the current system has no framework to even begin to approach).

aba - thanks. I fear that we're thinking far too deep for many - but it really is the essence of what we should be looking at when we're deciding upon a leader. What we also get down to, though, is preferences and responses: some people just prefer a different style of leader and some just respond differently to different styles of leadership. Which is why we have had so many candidates this year and STILL not a ton of satisfaction, if you take the entire eligible voting population.

One thing everyone should remember, or at least understand, is that Obama is a development of the Chicago political machine. He started off as a 'street organizer', then a state legislator, then a Senator. In Chicago, you cannot organize a block party without the backing of the democrat machine. You sure can't be a state legislator ,much less a Democrat Senator, without the backing of the machine. And to have the backing of the machine, you need a power base you can deliver when and where they want it delivered. So, I don't know but I will bet you a donut that Wright and the church was a very important power base for Obama in his advancement up the Chicago political ladder, and the 'close, personal' relationship to Wright was part of the appeal of Obama to the machine. And of Obama to Wright. And of Wright to Obama, for nothing bad can happen when one befriends a rising politico in Chicago. I worked my adult career in Chicago, from Hizzoner Daley thru Bilandec, Jane Byrne, Harold Washington, and finally with Hizzoner II Richey Daley, during which I viewed Chicago politics portrayed as a blood sport. It is wishful thinking to believe that a Chicago politician didn't know what was going on with his friends and enemies, for the 12 years of his being a state legislator, which was only about a year and a half ago. Of course he knew of the previous statements of Wright. And of course, he did not say anything then or now about how those statements disturbed him, until forced by politics to do so. You don't mess with a power base until you are forced to, and even then, you glide over it as smoothly as you can.

The thing is, during this political cycle, always remember that Obama, as bright and articulate as he is, he is still a political creation of the Chicago Democrat machine, which is every bit as rough, tumble, and dirty as the Arkansas Democrat machine that Hillary and Bill cut their teeth on.

All that being said, I am a first time visitor, and poster, on this blog, and I am deeply impressed at the various postings for their civility, clarity, and thoughtfulness. They are a breath of refreshing, reasonable discourse in the world of manic posting. And it's nice to see others cursed with the same disability of being able to see both sides of an issue and actually admitting it.

Elrod...

I agree. Obama has never said anything racist and wacko like Wright. That's why this is not fatal.

But Wright is VERY close to the candidate. Plus, the videos are dramatic, and the media love drama.

To give Senator Obama his due...he is handling this as well as can be expected. But we both know we have not seen the last of those videos.

Macan,
Every example you cited were remarks from the candidate's own words. Unless you find evidence that Obama actually shares the politics of Jeremiah Wright, you have nothing. By addressing his relationship with Wright right now - fully and without spin - he prepares himself well for the inevitable Fall onslaught. Voters will say, "Yeah, we heard about that jerk. But Obama doesn't agree with him so what's the big deal?" If this had come out in September Obama would be in serious trouble.

elrod — "Casual, The question is: what sticks?"

The dramatic moment that defines a candidate.

The Gift, as Karl Rove called Kerry's: "I was for it before I was against it."

Or George Bush Sr's famous last words.: "Read my lips...No! New! Taxes!"

As Bush Sr. comment illustrates, it does not matter how far off is the election.

"Goddamn the United States of America...the U.S. of KKK!" does have that dramatic impact that media love.

As many have noted, Wright is no mere endorsement like Hagee. Wright has been central in Senator Obama's life for two decades.

The Democrats might request that the GE be fought on the issues, and politics of "Guilt by Association" be put into the past (the DNC canning their planned commercial clips of McCain with Hagee and Bush to the Memory Hole to maintain this new politics of virtue) but the surrogates and 527s are going to hammer Senator Obama on this.

Short of evidence of personal misconduct, this is as bad as it gets.

I say 'amen' to Polimon and Elrod.

I really dislike words like 'glib'. Whether we are talking about Hillary, Obama or any other public figure, this sort of characterization implies that the opiner has special powers to just KNOW what isomeone else is thinking and feeling.
More often than not, this sort of insight is based simply on whether or not we like the person.

I would say the same thing about inspirational speeches.though Great speeeches do inspire,, and that has great value. of course, but they are only speeches. No speech ever transformed the orator into a divine prophet. He is still just a flesh and blood human being, with strengths and weakensses.

I don't worship Obama, but I do support him. From what he has said and done, and regardless of which church he has attended, I think he could move the country in a direction I hope to see realized.



I support Obama, but I don't worship him. I'm deeply troubled by some of the things Wright said, but I don't think he is the devil incarnate. Who knows, maybe he was terrific at marriage counseling.

Jill and Polimom, I very much appreciate your comments on Sen. Obama's remarkable ability to work with all willing participants on important issues, placing rigid political divisions to one side. (I base this opinion on accounts from legislators with whom he has worked). His campaign is right to highlight this attribute, which does, I think, really distinguish him as a politician--it is a trait that goes beyond just "reaching across the aisle," which Sen. Clinton has also demonstrated in the senate. I also think Jill's point about it coming down to a question of trust is highly salient here because the values of the agent we elect to negotiate on our behalf make all the difference to the ultimate outcome.

This is why I wish he would (could?) be more forthcoming with what's really going on as to his undamental assumptions and analyses on any number of issues. I realize that's another difficult dance to pull off during a presidential campaign...as well as problematic if you show too many cards prior to the negotiations inherent to solving our problems. Understandable, but frustrating.

Casual,
The purpose is not to score points at this point. It's to push back against a potentially destructive story. Obama will definitely take a short-term hit. But will it be a long-term slide? That's the question. Fortunately, there is no election until late April and he has plenty of time to turn the story around.

elrod —30 minutes ago
Casual,
The question is: what sticks?

Hey, if I really knew the answer, I'd be prepping for my Meet the Press interview tomorrow.

Absolutely he had to respond. And I think he was true to his established style of doing so last night. But in my take, unless the response is one of those uniquely memorable events, e.g., Reagan's retort to Carter, Reagan's retort to Mondale, the response is ultimately still secondary in effect to the original event itself.

All past election outcomes I have witnessed seemed to have been determined based on a combination of the positive image the candidate tries to paint themselves and, with apologies to Paul Silver's view of the world, the negative the opposition or events paint, whether done via issues, judgements or character focuses.

The responses, with rare exceptions, seem to have had no real impact. As long as Obama (or any candidate) is responding, that is not good for their candidacy. These are, de facto, off message.

Obama's explanations last night were not gaffes by any means, but neither, IMO, are they scoring him any points with anyone but his supporters.

Completely agree. I think both Obama AND his "people" so to speak must be very very very careful in unleashing all those skills he appears to have, because otherwise they are going to get these accusations of being smarmy or whatever when really, he is using a necessary skillset - and I mean that in the most positive way possible.

The problem is trust - we need to be able to trust that WHEN he employs that tool, he IS doing it for our benefit, not for some ulterior interest.

You know what I mean?

Jill, that's an *excellent* observation.

The ability to "see" (and disagree with) where another is coming from -- without discounting or demonizing the person him/herself -- is not only a negotiating tool, though. It's also how the most successful communicators manage relationships.

And I'd venture to say that it's also a trait of political moderates as well.

What we're seeing his Obama's skills as a uniter in action, though not in the getting a law passed setting.

What do uniters do? They hold issues to be important, not the specific position. That enable them to speak about the issue from a variety of perspectives, and offer up finessed views that help those who do have differing perspectives hear what the speaker needs to say in a way that the listener can hear it.

That requires spin in its most classical sense: trying to re-phrase the same thing in a a way that someone else can understand it.

But the problem with this approach - this uniter tactic - in this candidate realm is that it looks much like the way people are describing it here - and that's not in a positive light.

This is the double-edged sword for how negotiater's negotiate. And I would posit that this is an excellent way to get a glimpse of what exactly Obama would "do" in difficult situations.

(Whether you like it, agree with it or have some other reaction about it isn't what I'm addressing at this point.)

Casual,
The question is: what sticks? If Obama fiercely condemns the remarks from his pastor, then he can establish distance in the minds of non-partisans. If he remained silent, he would be tarnished with it. The reason Bush and McCain will be tied together is that they genuinely agree with each other on the major issues of the day.

Is Hillary Clinton tarnished with Marc and Denise Rich? I don't think so, but I bet after the GOP 527s push it many non-partisans will see her as hopelessly corrupt.

tjproudamerican —33 minutes ago
Isn't there a Bottom Line? To me there is and it is this: NOTHING in Senator Obama's life has shown that he is a negative or hateful person.

With all due respect to your point of view, it is not the bottom line, because it does not extend beyond the end of your own nose.

What partisans take of this means diddly squat. What non-partisans take of this, combined into a mosaic of other character reflecting issues, means the election outcome.

Just like moveon.org will most certainly run a collage of any photos showing McCain and Bush together, a 30 second 527 spot which collages the Pastor's rhetorical gems will be the aspect of this that has the most impact.

Well said, Polimom. My sentiments exactly.

I said on another posting here that the real issue is judgment, not patriotism. Why did Obama never leave this church? There are two interrelated answers. One, the totality of Wright's ministry is not encapsulate in these sermons. One can hear those sermons, disapprove vehemently, but still value the man's spiritual (if not political) guidance. I think Obama has done that by refusing to throw Wright, the man, under the bus, but condemning the sermons. The second answer is that Obama had not, in fact, heard these peculiarly incendiary sermons so I didn't know just how toxic Wright was. Obama knew that Wright was "fiery" and he probably assumed it was just in the realm of the social gospel and caring for the poor. But he probably never assumed Wright went so far on 9/11 or Amerikkka or the truly bizarre like AIDS created by the government for blacks. I think that's plausible, especially as TUCC has multiple services and Obama probably went to the tamer family services. But Obama has definitely put himself out there in saying he didn't know of these sermon. If true, he's fine. You can't nail Obama on guilt by association. But if not true, and Obama did in fact hear these sermons and voiced no disapproval of them, then you have a case against his judgment.

Isn't there a Bottom Line? To me there is and it is this: NOTHING in Senator Obama's life has shown that he is a negative or hateful person. I also note that Pastor Wright served in the Marine Corps.


I am a Catholic. I love attending Mass, and I pray every day as much as I can. My Church has not been scandal free (you may have heard....). My Church has an attitude towards Homosexuals I think is illogical and wrong (love the 'sinner', hate the 'sin').


But I hope if you knew me, you would feel I heard Jesus and his message of love. I think Obama, and President George W. Bush and Senator Clinton and Senator McCain also, are loving people.


I really think there is no lasting issue here. If a person is looking for a reason to dislike Obama, look to the man and his own words and actions. I see an extraordinary and young man with such a huge possibility to reach out across racial, sexual, economic, class, and cultural barriers and be the visible presence of a new growth of American Unity. I beg people not to give into their fears and tar Obama by association, especially since Pastor Wright, whom I find too caught up in his own oratory in the segments I have seen and too harsh and I think silly, served his country proudly as a Marine when it called.

With all due respect (and I hold a great deal of it for both bloggers and commenters here), I'm stunned by how many folks here think that someone might not find value -- immense value -- in a church and pastor, while simultaneously rejecting or being disturbed by some of the beliefs held by that church's leader.

I wrote a long post at my own blog this morning (far too long to post here), basically describing my own experiences in my life. The short version, though, is that I, too, have belonged to churches -- and stayed there with joy, for the most part -- even while some of what was preached offended my very core.

Likewise -- the comparison made in this post to Rev. King is the author's own. Nowhere did Obama try to draw such a comparison. Furthermore, Rev. King, as you might recall, had an approach that was radically different -- so much so that today we have a national holiday in his honor.

His way of dealing with the system that caused him such pain and anger was laudatory indeed. But to suggest that everyone would, or should, be able to surmount the rage of the prior generation, is hardly a fair yardstick.

Obama didn't try to set the bar that high. Why would you?

I have gone to many churchs in my lifetime. I have found some I like and some I do not like. The congregation almost always reflects the views of its pastor. Especially a pastor who has been there a long, long time.

Those who disagree. Leave. Move on. Those who agree and find comfort in their church stick around. How many of you lefties could hang in a church where the preacher was slapping you in the face every sunday? How many of you RIGHTIES could hang in a church that was slapping you in the face every sunday?

No Barak Obama's vehement rejection of his pastors views is nothing more then political cover. He agrees with them in his heart or else he would have left a long time ago.

However Obama has done nothing Illegal. He can believe what he wants. He can associate with whatever church and people that he chooses to. He has done nothing wrong. All this does is cast doubts about the genuineness of his message.

But Hell. How many politicians are saints? Zero. That is why this is so hard for the Obama people to deal with. They have in my opinion attempted to portray him as a saint when in fact he is nothing more then a politician.

Yes, glib is one interpretation. Equivocate is another, and that is what Senator Obama is doing.

So he did not "hear" Wright's "Goddam the U. S. of KKK" speeches...perhaps he and Michelle made sure to exit the church before the "rough" sermons started?

But did he actually "know" of these speeches? Senator Obama is careful to never say this. He is equivocating.

There were a lot of people in those congregations in those videos, and none of them looked surprised at what they were hearing. Obama knew nothing of this?

Democrats and leftists used to mock President Reagan viciously for years for not remembering associates etc.

Turned out: Reagan had Alzheimer's.

What is Senator Obama's excuse?

Paul: to me it's not a matter of whether or not Obama himself agrees with these views, it's instead similar to how most folks here feel about radical right wing white Christian leaders. Do you feel that those folks ought to be more marginalized instead of their endorsements having clout? I do, and I think most people who aren't on the right wing extreme do. So it's not enough sometimes to just say "I don't agree", you have to also be willing to say that those kind of politically extreme religious leaders are not to be so tolerated or legitimized, even if SOME of what those leaders say or do might be based on good intentions or even if SOME of wha they say/do has good results for improving social conditions in their communities.

I think this principle has to be equally applied to right wing Christians as to left wing ones.

It is unfortunate that Obama has a relationship with a sometimes divisive pastor. But all indications are that Obama has always rejected that anger. It appears that for Obama Wright is a warning not an example on certain issues.

Likewise with Rezko, that tainted relationship seems to be isolated and may have been the loss of innocents that woke up Obama to the risks of certain kinds of associations.

Obama may yet demonstrate judgment unsuitable for the Presidency but for me he is still far from that threshold and well within the standards set by his opponents.

Glib is one interpretation. To invoke the worst of Wright and best of King Jr is hardly a helpful comparison - if only the world were truly 'black and white' (yes, pun intended). But tis truly never quite so simple.

Martin Luther King: "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government"

Jeremiah Wright: "The good news that's coming is for all people! Not white people—all people. Not black people—all people. Not rich people—
all people. Not poor people—all people. I know you'll hate this... not straight people—all people! Not gay people—all people. Not American people—all people. ...God's good news isn't just for Americans, it's for all people. Say "all people"! Jesus came for Iraqis and Afghanis. Jesus was sent for Iranians and Ukrainians. All people! Jesus is God's gift to the brothers in jail and the sisters in jeopardy. All people! The Lord left his royal courts on high to come for all those that you love, yes, but he also came for all those folk that you can't stand".