Obama Threads the Needle

Hi Pete - here's an interesting thread at NPR with a few blogger opinions (Andrew Sullivan of Daily Dish, Marc Ambinder etc.) and comments.

But do you think it will work?

I have only read the text, not seen the speech delivered. Will the delivery be enough to counter the clearly dramatic video of Wright's sermon?

Jillmz -- thanks for the link.

Marlowecan -- I don't know. I like Obama and was willing before this speech to give him the benefit of the doubt. If I try to remove that filter and look at it objectively -- the most I can say is that it was a reasonal, rationale comment on an emotional subject, and I would hope reasonal, rationale people would respond accordingly.

I'd like to hear McCain make a big deal that gender and race should not be the basis for voters to decide the best candidate.

Jill -- well, I thanked you for the link, but now I can't follow the embedded version of it for some reason. Could you provide -- either in comments or by email -- the actual URL? Sorry for the hassle.

Transcript here, too, for the curious:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/18/polit...

pabel your response reminded me of:
“During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Mr. Stevenson 'Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!' Stevenson called back 'That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!'”

I read someone that said they thought the speech was great but that now Obama needed to stop going to that church and distance himself from Wright before they would vote for him...almost as an act of contrition.

I have to say that I'm not unsympathetic to that feeling. Obama did the right thing by not throwing him under the bus and in fact using what he learned from Wright to frame the whole speech. But the President is more a symbol than a man, and at some point all great leaders understand this and need to make extreme personal sacrifices to maintain the office.

I think that now Obama has not rejected the importance of Wright, he maybe should reject him now and state that Wright is no longer a mentor or spiritual pillar, but that he will always be open to Wright recognizing that the US can be what Wright always hoped for and will take him back.

After all, the best teachers aren't those that just impart knowledge or skill, but are so good that they create students that then can make the teacher realize their potential too.

He needed a double and hit a grand slam.

It was a courageous speech and a great speech.

Someone characterized it as coming as close to a presidential speech as is possible, and that's exactly right.

Now it's up to the public.

I watched it live and was struck by how honest it was. Here was a man unafraid of lifting the lid off of America's racial past. He refused to run from it and even tied Wright to his white grandmother as people he loved but who said horribly divisive things.

I also loved his challenge to some of his trendies supporters when he said that people cannot vote for him thinking it's some kind of "racial reconciliation on the cheap." That was bold because it went right after white liberals who might be projecting too much onto him. When he said that, I thought to myself, "Never have I ever seen a more honest speech from a major politician in my life." Either America will recoil from the honesty, or this will put him in the White House. It was that powerful.

I was moved to make an online donation to his campaign.

This is sad.

Yes, masterfully delivered. Lofty. Inspirational.

But essentially, he's giving Wright and himself a pass. You see, he could no sooner disavow Wright than he could the entire black community or his occasionally errant grandmother.

Um, excuse me, but why not? Ah, it's because of his good deeds! But does that excuse Wright's egregious poisoning for decades? Ah, it's because of the spiritual value Wright has provided! Um, that's not been available elsewhere, like in the majority of black churches that don't promote the intensely ugly beliefs of Black Liberation Theology? Ah, it's because Wright comes from a generation which suffered great racial injustice. This is an excuse for perpetuating even worse, right up until the present?

And isn't it troubling that Obama does not have a problem with, does not find irreconcilable, spiritual guidance from a source of such hatred? And why would a father want his young children educated in a belief system that maintains that the "entire reality" of America is white-supremacist, a rich-white conspiracy against the poor and black?

And I guess no one noticed that he finally admitted what he has denied repeatedly, that he "wasn't there" and that he "didn't know." And does it matter that, after repeatedly disingenuous dodging and minimizing, even though knowing Wright would be an issue from the outset - he only *now* addresses the issue, after this Wright affair is a threat to his campaign?

This speech will appeal to those who have endorsed him, and to those who want to believe. Doubtful that it will convince those who have had the difficult unanswered questions about his relationship with Wright.

Personally, I'm not interested in stirring rhetoric. I'm looking for forthright candor and honesty - not minimizing after being arm-twisted. I think we may be looking at the most gifted politician in a generation - but it's still old manipulative politics.

Creole -- With all due respect, I couldn't disagree with you more.

First, Obama did NOT say he was there when Wright made the specific comments running endlessly on YouTube; but that he (Obama) was there when he (Wright) made some, undefined controversial statements.

Second, I think this was possibly the greatest example I've ever seen of candor and honesty in a politician, the very things you say you're looking for. And I'm certainly not the only one who walked away with that impression.

I will concede one point to you, however: those who are determined to dismiss Obama will not be swayed by this speech. But then again, I doubt they'll be swayed by anything he might say or do.

This speech showed me several things I like that have been touched on. First, I think just about eveeryone else in this race would have sold Wright down the river 30 seconds after talking to their pollsters. Hell this site even just had to mention the 8% approval rating of Wright as if that mattered. Instead, he turns it into another time when his response not only answered the questions but made me think more about it myself.

Second, I think it showed balls and an understanding of whats going on. Two traits that I think are sorely lacking in today's leadership. He could have thrown the man under a bus but instead decided to remind us life is a bit more complicated than we'd like to make it sometimes.

pabel -

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."
"None of these statements were ones that I had heard myself personally in the pews."

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes"

Are you then coming back to his earlier argument that he really didn't know that Wright held these views until last week? Do you really think that he does not know and has not heard the tenets of Black Liberation Theology in all of 20 years, which are the basis of Wright's religious belief framework and in which are embedded the views Wright articulates? Not to speak of being familiar with Cone, and Hopkins (a close associate of Cone's) who is also a member of the TUCC? (Hopkins argues that Wright is the "true patriot.") In Dreams of My Father Obama cites hearing Wright preach about Hiroshima and white greed (that book by the way carries a distinctly different tone that The Audacity of Hope, written after entering politics) .

I think perhaps that the very strong disagreement I have with most of you posting here, is based upon a familiarity and experience with Black Liberation Theology, and religious leaders such as Rev Wright, that you do not have. I was actively involved in radical politics in '69 in the San Francisco/Oakland area. I saw the birthing of Black Power first hand. I've sat in the pews. I've seen it at work. BLT is, as Cone himself puts it, the theological arm of the black power movement (the Panthers were its military arm; the shared foundation is anti-American extremism). People have looked at the YouTube videos as though they are sound-bite aberrations. They are not. They are representative. To read some of what Rev Wright teaches more expansively, I suggest the May 2006 issue of TUCC's Trumpet magazine. I find it distasteful that Obama minimizes Wright's poison by making a lengthy comparison to faults in his grandmother that cannot in any way even begin to approach the hate preached by Wright.

What most are responding to is Obama's presence, his perceived candor and honesty, his soaring message - which juxtaposed to years of venom in DC, the current campaign, and fears about America - are admittedly compelling. I would suggest however that a dispassionate analysis of the words, against the backdrop of the regrettable truth about Obama's trusted advisor and the poison Wright has fed the black community (especially focused on the children) all these years, paints a different picture.

Before we anoint this new grand Healer, I think we all need to know a whole lot more about the particular medicine he intends to administer.

Creole: what is your fear about how it will affect his governing?

Yes, Creole, the speech was a masterful piece of misdirection on Obama's shifting story on that score. I noted this in re comments to Jill's transcript post, and as you noted, his comment in this speech contradicted his initial comment on Wright on Friday:

Friday: "None of these statements were ones that I had heard myself personally in the pews."

Today: "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes"

I suspect he and/or his team realized he might do a "Gary Hart" as reporters would be scrouging for video that would place him at a Wright controversial sermon in contradiction to his Friday comment.

So he bit the bullet, and changed his story. Most folks seem not to have noticed or cared.

Whether he has "innoculated" himself successfully or not is another story.

I think it's fantastic, a watershed moment in race relations. Just imagine, the next time a white (let's say conservative for kicks) politician for example is caught having an (extremely long and personal) association with a vile, anti-Semitic, anti-American racist, all he'll have to do is, through a *fantastic* race relation speech of course, "repudiate" the man (not outright unabashedly reject him, cause apparently *now* that would be *bad*), "explain the "overall" contents of said friend/mentor's "difference of opinion", the "complicated" history behind his "beliefs", how of course said association should *not* reflect badly on him, ask for "understanding" and of course, how he "vehemently" "disagrees" *today* with said friend/mentor despite you know, an extremely lengthy and personal association, and dontcha know after all, he's like a "crazy uncle"...shucks. Bingo.

And the enlightened self-loathing, self-flagellating liberals who live and breath identity politics, will be praising him for his courage and bravery and what a wonderful man he is for not throwing his dear ( vile, racist, anti-American, anti-Semitic) friend under the bus that day, much less ALL THESE FRIGGING YEARS OF TOLERATING THIS VILE ANTI-SEMITIC, ANTI-AMERICAN RACIST. What courage, what spine, what balls, what complete and utter bullshit.

The soft bigotry of low expectations...

If he was white, he would have been toast, finished, DOA by now. Period. Oh no, is that a "racist" thing to say? Oh my...How shall I atone for my and my ancestor's sins? Oh wait. Support Obama, that's how! A ticket to salvation, peace, love, changiness, hopitude, ponies, rainbows and all that jazz...

Hypocrites.

"The soft bigotry of low expectations", that phin08 refers to c
an not be derived from the speech or from anything Obama has said or done. That's a separate argument entirely.

The speecc was extraordinary precisely because it did not do what the customary conservative vs. liberal statements usually do. make their case by listing what all is wrong with the opposing side.

Liberals and conservatives both have a habit of assigning guilt by association and of fusing all into a charicature of the worst example. So, if anyone has a problem with that, the grievance should be addressed to those who do it.
Obama dows not, and nothing in his peech did that.

.

Good question. A major concern I have had from the beginning of his candidacy is that we don't really know enough about Obama. His legislative record is scant, and much of what he did was piggy-backed on the heavy lifting of others. His record in the Senate is slight, and certainly is not a record of sustained significant bridge-building, nothing even remotely close to demonstrating the coming-together that his rhetoric promises. If anything, his votes have positioned him as the candidate of choice for DailyKos, which is disconcerting. One may quibble with the National Journal rating him "most Liberal" in the Senate, but clearly he is far in that direction. What he is promising compels us to ask not only for specifics of what his solutions look like, but also an explanation of how he proposes to get there. What I have seen from his campaign is an argument that in the election he redraws the political map, wins substantially enough to claim a clear mandate, pulls an insurmountable majority into Congress, providing him the means to push through his agenda. That is not bridge-building, that is steam-rolling.

I try to visualize how he accomplishes his vision. The schisms and polarity in America runs deep and wide. In my view, much of this has developed of a consequence of using mechanisms such as the judiciary to implement major social change, bypassing the deliberately slow and challenging legislative process which the Founders prescribed. This approach invariably creates a bitter loser and a lasting rift. It also erodes the integrity of our governmental system, which in the long run is even worse.

Which brings me back to Obama's troubling association with BLT and his minimizing Wright's behaviors. Frankly, the latter was probably his only political choice. His most active core constituency believes that Wright is correct and justified (which in itself should give pause); he can't just throw Wright under the bus. And were he to do so, that would raise very difficult credibility questions. He already tried the "I didn't really know" strategy, but that was too implausible to fly. Obama was able to capitalize on the public knowing little of Wright's true nature and doings, nor knowing the phenomena of BLT in black churches, plus a very friendly media and a large number of people wanting to believe it's "no big deal," people whose hearts ache for change.

Do I think that Wright's intensely vicious positions are held by Obama? No. It's likely that Obama shared some of these attitudes early in his conversion, he alludes to that in Dreams of My Father. But I think he outgrew it, both philosophically and pragmatically. The key question is, to what extent does that mental model continue to inform his views, and what form will that take? Central to BLT is activist driving of radical social change, but not through reason or persuasion or compromise (Wright sees whites as hopelessly impossible to change). So then, how? Wright's answer is separatism, and intensely divisive confrontation. This, with its view of America as "demonic", is where BLT diametrically departed from the approach MLK advocated. But what then of Obama?

Mikkel, I think you ref'd to Obama as a "rational Liberal." Someone who would be pragmatic and realistic and - patient? If so, he has taken a 180 degree turn from where he grew up politically. Has he; will he actually take the pragmatic approach? I don't know, I don't think anyone can say with confidence. Perhaps most importantly, he probably does not know himself. How can he, with so little truly relevant experience? He no doubt has ideas and advisors (some, green academics as well), but the rhetorical approach plus academic position papers, is far from the realities of actual implementation - which of course is the Clintons' argument, and it is a very fair one. He has given us an occasional glimpse, and at times shown his naivete. It is very important to note that after being elected Senator a few years ago, Obama himself explained that he could not run for President in 2008 due to lack of experience. Since, he was convinced to do so by politicians, whose interest is in winning the White House - period. As a result, he has not had sufficient time to develop far enough beyond his background in the world of Rev Wright, to develop his real-world hands-on skills of governing (as opposed to campaigning), to build a record which can give voters confidence of what he will really do and how he might approach it.

There once was a brilliant, inspirational man who rose in politics from a Party which had been barely competitive for the White House in decades. He had a core constituency that was intensely radical, and, having had a major setback to its position from the Supreme Court, was unwilling to wait on the legislative process to correct what it viewed as egregious moral wrongs. The man was sympathetic to those views, but opposed to the methods; he correctly saw the greater issue to be the resultant division in the nation. But he was inexperienced. After being nominated, at the urging of his constituents, he made a horrendous mistake, breaking with long-established tradition in his choice of running mate, resulting in an enormous unexpected backlash. He won the Presidency with only 40% of the vote. Again, his inexperience and his constituency led him to the grave error of essentially issuing an ultimatum at his inauguration. Two months later he refused to consider working towards a compromise with his opponents. His opponents wanted to take the problem to the Supreme Court; he would not wait. He bet that his opponents would not act on their warnings; he was wrong. Even so, and despite further warnings and push-back from Congress, he doubled-down on his bet, thinking that he could quell the disturbance quickly at minimal cost. Again, he bet wrong. The number of his opponents doubled, and the horrific result exceeded anyone's worst imaginings. The man was Lincoln.

Melodramatic? Probably. But personally, now that I know more about Obama's past, his constituencies, his associates, his campaign - I am left with a lot more questions. He may be everything we could hope for, or he may be - even with the best of intentions - a more divisive nightmare than we could have imagined. One thing for sure, grand speeches, while being catalytic, are only the beginning of the long difficult process of change. We need to know more, see more. He needs to do more, know more.

domajot -

You raise a valid point, although it does not rebut phin08's major point of a double-standard. Objectively speaking, Obama benefits from race and then hides behind race.

The problem with "guilt by association" is that it is not binary, it is a matter of degree.

So taking phin08's analogy farther, let's say that Wright were a Grand Dragon in the KKK. Would the media then minimize Wright? Would the voters give Obama a pass, even though there were no hard evidence of direct involvement in KKK activities? No on both counts. But Wright is black, BLT is not as extreme as the KKK, the public knows only a small fraction about Wright and the BLT as it does does the KKK. Different degrees, even a different standard (i.e., black radicalism is acceptable due to past injustices).

You indirectly make the "degree" argument yourself by saying Wright is being made into a "caricature of the worse example." A caricature is an extreme, inaccurate portrayal. That is, Wright's guilt has been incorrectly (and implicitly, unfairly) magnified. Add in Wright's offsetting good works, and you have Obama's argument exactly.

The problem is that this is not a caricature. It is a snapshot of the larger reality. When that reality is scaled to its truthful degree, it satisfies the "guilt by association" test.

Obama had a opportunity to show real courage. Perhaps by describing his journey from a young man enthralled by Wright's message to the mature leader he presents himself to be. He entirely bypassed any explanation of the progression of his views 20 years ago to what they are now, and how he did that - especially given that this puts him directly in political opposition to his mentor. *That* would have been inspirational, because it would have demonstrated how he, and others, can escape from the politics of hate to the politics of hope. He could have illustrated the contrasting forms that takes, a substantive roadmap for change. Instead, he minimizes Wright as the "crazy uncle" or the errant grandmother, banking on the power of his lofty message and the public's desire to hear that.

Creole, let me see how to phrase this:

Congress voted to take away habeus corpus for certain people. Congress voted for an AUMF that in a literal reading gives the President near dictatorial powers in regards to the military (I still say both Hillary and Obama should spend their time redoing the Afghanistan AUMF rather than campaigning so much). Congress has watched the President trample over many laws, and have signing statements saying that nullify the intent of others.....and they have just stood by. Our entire foreign policy is now centered around the actions of a few thousand people at most. There is a huge disruption in labor going on. Of course there are the religious issues too.

And a large chunk fully support those things while another vehemently oppose them and they are just talking past each other.

I guess my point is that we at the most divisive point in our history since the early 30s (on a structural level if not surface level). Lincoln surely did not cause the Civil War. Sure his decisions might have been the catalyst, but if he had gotten through his whole term the issues would have still been there. The same with FDR and the Great Depression. I've been thinking recently whether the great leaders are really great, or whether they just happened to get thrust into power at the most divisive points and would merely be competent at other times.

Your concerns are valid, but the other two candidates don't even seem to recognize the huge underlying rifts at all. If one of them is elected, there is a chance that things will be OK through their term, but I don't see any changes in the structural issues and the divisiveness will get worse if only because of the passage of time.

Based on where the economy is going, there is a good chance of extreme fear as the over riding backdrop.

I don't foresee Obama being able to fix these things in his term. But I think he will set the start of a process of their resolution...whatever that might be. He's been criticized as a "mirror" that people merely reflect their own desires upon. But that's also his strength.

I don't know if Obama can bring us together, but personally it seems many of these structural problems are relatively new --besides the racial ones, and compared to the ones that came up during the '30s and 1860s -- and airing them out now has a better chance of resolution that doesn't involve a quick and massive change that can be bad regardless of ideology. (For instance, I feel that if I had lived during the '30s I would have not approved of FDR's methods.)

Ultimately I think that Obama does get off track, he is reasonable enough to listen to the myriad of voices that tell him so. And really that's the best we can hope for if the huge issues come to the forefront because they will definitely not be controllable.

The original message was received Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:19:34 -0600
from -

----- The following address(es) had permanent fatal errors -----
<dwgallien@bellsouth.net>; originally to mingus@psmtp-send.myrealbox.com (unrecoverable error)
The mail system encountered a delivery failure, code -1.
This failure could be due to circumstances out of its control,
please check the transcript for details
----- Transcript of session follows -----
Blocked for abuse. See http://www.att.net/bls_rbl/ for information.