« Guest Voice: What IS The Role Of Superdelegates?
Saudi Arabia to convene interfaith summit »



Hillary Clinton and the Wright Controversy: Into the Fire

March 25th, 2008
By PETE ABEL, Managing Editor

Print Print

Hillary Clinton had almost won my respect in the last week for not jumping directly into the Jeremiah Wright debate. So much for that, according to RCP.

UPDATE: Steve Benen offers some thoughts on this development, concluding:

… we now have a situation in which John McCain defended Obama against Wright-related charges, and Mike Huckabee defended Obama, but Hillary Clinton sat down with editors of a conservative newspaper to reignite a fire that had already largely gone out.

Less than a week ago, former Mondale campaign manager Bob Beckel said, “Many liberals like myself, who would be happy to support Hillary Clinton if she earned the nomination, would abandon her if her campaign seeks to exploit the Wright controversy either in the remaining contests or with superdelegates.”

Now, it appears she’s doing both. I’d hoped Clinton was above this.



This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 25th, 2008 at 11:09 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, As Yet Unassigned. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 26 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Well for what its worth I 100 percent totally agree. That has been the issue all along.

    Poor judgment on his part. He sat in the pews for 20 years and either:

    1. Daydreamed and contemplated what he was going to do when church let out or
    2. Shouted hallelujah with the rest of them.

    I tend to think he is a typical church goer who goes to church on sunday and after the dinner when you ask them what the pastor talked about it was

    God.

    Which brings into question his faith. He just can't win. No matter what spin you try to put on this he just collapses under the weight of bad judgment or suspect faith. Could it be his faith is not as strong as he is pretending.

    I hear the hush come over the crowd. No we all know hes a very faithful christian. Then if thats the case why wasnt he listening. Well he was but he didnt inhale. If thats the case then why did he sit there for 20 years silently........and on and on and on the vicious circle goes.

    He is in a cut his loses and run situation right now. Its like everyones trying to call Hillary a liar for saying suspect things about a single incident in Tuzla 13 years ago. One incident 13 years ago vs. sitting in the pews for 20 years.

    The two do not equate. Nice try though.
    • ^
    • v
    Whocares,

    Like Caroline Glick, you assume there was 20 years of bad behavior on Wright's part. But there's no evidence that was the case.

    In fact, by all accounts, bad behavior was NOT the hallmark of this church nor of Rev. Wright, which was precisely the point of one of my posts yesterday.

    Or maybe I'm overly complicating this. Maybe you're a member of the "double standard squared" club?
    • ^
    • v
    I am not sure what Sen Clinton's comment intended to accomplish. It just seemed petty and small just as Samantha Power's comment about Clinton was petty and small, and Carville's comments about Richardson as Judas was petty and small.

    I give the benefit of the doubt to Obama that the part of Rev Wright's personality with which he did not agree was tiny compared to his capacity for inspiration.

    Everyone, under scrutiny, is tainted.
    • ^
    • v
    "Everyone, under scrutiny, is tainted."

    Wow. That's a great line, Paul. Your own? Can I quote you on that?
    • ^
    • v
    The thing about Billary's comment is the cavalier use of a military situation. Many on the Left complain about Iraq and W's use of military photo-ops. Could Billary's administration be four more years of Jessica Lynch and politicalization(sp) of GWOT?
    • ^
    • v
    Barack Obama's church is scrambling to undo the impression it is a ministry for blacks only with a radical message. The Web site of the Trinity United Church of Christ has been purged of a section which spoke of the church's endorsement of — "black ethics" that — "must be taught and exemplified....wherever blacks are gathered."

    Among those black ethics are "commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, disavowal of the pursuit of middleclassness and allegiance to all black leadership who espouse and embrace the black value system."

    The Media Research Center notes that in place of these words now are video clips from church members, including one from a white church official who said she feels at home at Trinity.

    Britt Hume.

    The Web site for the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago had described its congregation as “unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian” but has made changes to the “About Us” section.

    The section no longer contains the “Black Value System.” It has been replaced with videotaped testimonials by church members.

    I can go on and on and on. I can actually go back to the days of their original website in which it was pretty rough and pretty much

    http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

    People will believe what they want to believe. I for one do believe that this church has always preached these types of messages based upon the extremely professional makeover they have recently received.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree with Whocares' point about the TUCC website getting scrubbed- doesn't pass the sniff test.

    There's also the fact that TUCC produced the DVD's as a montage of Wright's best sermons- the selection of the sermons that produced the YouTube clips wasn't by one of Obama's political opponents, it was by the church.

    And, when Wright went on Fox, his main defense was to ask the interviewers whether or not they were familiar with the writings on black liberation theology by James Cone. He doesn't distance himself from that entire theology, in fact he uses it to defend his preaching as part of a larger movement.

    Plus, there's something really troubling about the way the audience reacted to the more controversial statements, like when he talks about AIDS in the context of the Tuskegee experiments. I found it uncomfortable to note how the congregants reacted, as though it was a foregone conclusion that his conspiracy theory was factual. And then when I saw a comment on another blog that pointed to this:
    http://www.prb.org/Articles/2005/ConspiracyBeli... I was frankly, outraged. How can it possibly be condoned for a man to fearmonger about this when it is so obviously spreading ideas that are harmful to the black community? I think most people agree that it's troubling that so many Americans believe that there was a direct relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda, and people attribute varying degrees of responsibility to the Bush administration for putting that idea in people's minds. How, then, can Rev. Wright be absolved so easily for his campaign of misinformation that is so harmful?
    • ^
    • v
    CStanley,

    Web sites are updated all the time. I think you and Whocares are looking much too hard for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Furthermore, as I recall, Cone has acknowledged that TUCC followed his philosophies, but did so in such a way that was conductive to bridging racial divides. In fact, from what I've read of Cone's philosophies, the overwhelming majority of it is about instilling pride in "oppressed" peoples, in this case, Blacks. While some of it could be construed as destructive, so can some of the Koran, so can some of the Judeo-Christian Bible. It's how you act on the philosophies that counts, and again, the track record of this Church in terms of being a positive force in South Side Chicago affairs is very impressive, very productive. Finally, on the AIDS myth, I'd agree its irresponsible and foolish -- but hardly more foolish than believing the current Administration's abstinence-only preference for sex education will do anything to promote healthy sexual behaviors. Besides, the AIDS conspiracy foolishness of Wright's is the least important "soundbite" in this entire discussion -- that's the cranky old Uncle talking, nothing more.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't understand your last sentence at all. Given that information, that the CDC and other experts clearly think that the conspiracy fears among blacks are contributing to the high rates of infection for blacks, and hampering their ability to educate about prevention, I don't see how you can be so dismissive of that particular "soundbite".

    Yes, it's how you act on philosophies that matters- and here's an example of how Wright acts on his beliefs by preaching a dangerous message- one that even has deadly consequences. That's beyond defensible, IMO.
    • ^
    • v