Posted by Damozel | Poor Barack Obama. The youthful mistakes of Mr. Ayres and the current ones of the Rev. Mr. Wright are being imputed to him by some of his opponents and he doesn't seem to know what to do about it. In re: the Rev..," “He does not speak for me; he does not speak for the campaign,” [poor] Mr. Obama said Monday." (NYT) That's right.
This whole 'surrogates' thing was always annoying, but now that statements made by Wright off his own bat are being attributed to Obama --- whom I still dislike and distrust --- it's just becoming ludicrous.
Should Wright's his latest controversial statements be imputed to Obama? As The NYT
says, he's suddenly all over the place. He's everywhere, talking and
talking and talking.
In the NYT article, Alessandra Stanley says that Wright's "monomania" (her word) "has helped prove the point Mr. Obama made about his former pastor last month in his speech on race, in which he described Mr. Wright as “imperfect” but having also been “like family to me.” Mr. Wright revealed himself to be the compelling but slightly wacky uncle who unsettles strangers but really just craves attention."(NYT) He's basically just in love with the sound of his own voice, she concludes.
Mr. Wright’s demystification process began on PBS on Friday. Bill Moyers, the host who knows and obviously admires Mr. Wright, gave the pastor every chance to elaborate on his bona fides, including two years in the Marine Corps and four as a Navy cardiopulmonary technician. Mr. Moyers showed old footage of Mr. Wright in surgical scrubs monitoring President Lyndon B. Johnson’s heart after his gall bladder surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1965. (Mr. Moyers, who was then the White House press secretary, stood behind Mr. Wright.)
He showed Mr. Wright’s service to his community throughout the years — tutoring programs, women’s groups, H.I.V. ministries. And he also gave Mr. Wright a chance to deconstruct the fiery sermon that seemed to blame America for the Sept. 11 attacks and clarify that he was quoting a former ambassador and intended to condemn the American government, not the nation itself. Mostly, he gave his guest a chance to show his softer side: in a dark suit and gray tie, Mr. Wright was courtly, genial, and something of an egghead, tossing out academic citations, literary references and words like “hermeneutics.”
He pumped up the volume on Sunday in his keynote address to the N.A.A.C.P. in Detroit, delivering a thundering lecture about cultural differences and historical biases that sought to explain that his more controversial remarks were taken the wrong way by white viewers who are unfamiliar with the traditions of the African-American church.
“I come from a religious tradition where we shout in the sanctuary and march in the picket line,” he said. “Different does not mean deficient.” He lectured on differences in music, learning styles (left brain vs. right brain), and he mimicked President John F. Kennedy’s Boston accent and also mocked Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s speech. “Nobody says to a Kennedy, ‘You speak bad English,’ ” he said. “Only to a black child was that said.”
By the time he took the stage on Monday at the National Press Club in Washington, Mr. Wright was on a tear, insisting that “this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright, this has nothing to do with Barack Obama, this is an attack on the black church.” He delivered a rambling disquisition on race, African tradition and theology, and he was clearly enjoying himself, frowning in concentration as the moderator read written questions from reporters, then stepping up to the lectern with feisty rejoinders and snappy retorts, looking as pleased with his replies as a contestant in a high school spelling bee who has just correctly spelled the final word.(NYT)
Eh, a lot of what Wright says is true and a lot is hyperbolic and inflammatory or just plain ridiculous. But none of it has much to do with Barack Obama. According to the reports I've read, he's worked hard all his life to help the urban poor and the more I think about what it must be like to stare into that abyss, the more I am willing to forgive him. By their works you shall know them, etc.
I can't understand why people, even Obama's opponents (and I am one of those) think it's significant. Ministers aren't extensions of their parishioners. Before I left the Episcopal Church, I attended one for several years where I loved the priest for his commitment to his calling, charisma, and concern for the poor of the community, but I didn't agree with him otherwise on almost anything else: political, theological, sociological, or geometrical. He didn't speak for me and I'd have been furious if he or anyone else had inferred that he did.
Even when we had a priest I didn't like or agree with at all, I kept attending because that church was in my community and of my community. In fact, it was my community. I assume Obama went to Wright's church for the same reasons and also because he admired the genuine good that Wright has done for the urban poor of Chicago.
At WaPo, Eugene Robinson is offended that Wright is holding himself out as "something he's not: an archetypal representative of the African American church. In fact, he represents one twig of one branch of a very large tree." (WaPo) I can see why African-Americans are annoyed that he's going around talking as if he had been appointed to speak for all of them.
Like me, Robinson is prepared to separate the wheat from the chaff (and there is a lot of chaff):
I'm through with Wright because his response [to criticism] was so egocentric. We get it, Rev. Wright: You're ready for your close-up.
[H]is basic point -- that any attack on him is an attack on the African American church and its traditions -- is just wrong. In making that argument, he buys into the fraudulent idea of a monolithic, monocultural black America -- one with his philosophy and theology at its center.
In his speech Sunday at the NAACP dinner in Detroit, Wright spoke at length about how "different" does not mean "deficient." He talked of how European and African musical and rhetorical traditions are different, and how that doesn't mean that one is better than the other. The point was that there is no one way to preach the Gospel. In this, Wright is right.
Where he overreaches is in claiming, as he did at the Press Club, that the criticism he has suffered "is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church" -- and in claiming that this episode "just might mean that the reality of the African American church will no longer be invisible."
The reality of the African American church, of course, is as diverse as the African American community.....
He also claims universality for the political aspect of his ministry. It is true that the black church, writ large, has been an instrument of social and political change. But most black churches are far less political than Wright's -- and many concern themselves exclusively with salvation. (WaPo)
Anyway, the only reason Wright is getting all this attention is because people want to argue that his remarks/beliefs/philosophies can be imputed to Obama. And Wright knows this very well. As Robinson concludes:
Politically, by surfacing now, he was throwing Barack Obama under the bus.
Sadly, it's time for Obama to return the favor.(WaPo)
Can I hear you say "Amen!"?
Read a lot more about the Reverend Wright at memeorandum (here)
Other BN-Politics Postings
Obama Helped Donor Get State Grant
ABC Ignores Obama's Misleading Message about Lobbyists' Money
Olbermann's Hillary Derangement Syndrome Takes Him Over the Top and Right Across the Line (Updated)
Eugene Robinson's piece is quite interesting, and basically, I agree with most of what he says. However, I think he is slightly missing the mark in his central thesis, that being:
"[Wright's] basic point -- that any attack on him is an attack on the African American church and its traditions -- is just wrong. In making that argument, he buys into the fraudulent idea of a monolithic, monocultural black America -- one with his philosophy and theology at its center."
Now, I agree with that statement in principle - black America is not monolithic, and Wright certainly does not speak for it. Fundamentally, Robinson is right. But that's not the whole story.
The flip side of this is that entire Wright story, and the way it is conflated with Obama's candidacy, IS BASED ON THAT EXACT IDEA. The subtext of the Wright controversy is that Wright's comments represent black America, and Obama comes from black America, therefore Wright's comments reflect Obama's core beliefs. It is, at its core, an appeal to white fear and white prejudice.
This is why Hagee's remarks don't stick to McCain the same way - everyone knows that some random crazy white preacher doesn't speak for white America. (Well, that, and the fact that the left doesn't stir up dirt on leading Republicans with the same vigor that the right stirs up dirt on leading Democrats.)
Posted by: Adam | April 29, 2008 at 03:08 PM
I don't really have an issue with Wright parading around defining himself on his own terms, for two main reasons:
1) It's April, not October. While the media's appetite is insatiable, the public appetite for Wright information presumably is finite. The more Wright stuff that gets outed now, the less it will matter in the general election. Ditto for every Ayers story or Rezko story. (Is it just me, or is the amount of coverage those stories get inversely related to their newsworthiness?)
So yes, the primary campaign has "vetted" Obama to a significant degree.
2) As Wright talks more and more, the distinctions between Wright and Obama become more clear. He becomes his own man, and less of an "angry black man" caricature that can be stuck on Obama.
The worst news on the Wright front this week was the line by Obama in the Fox news interview where he acknowledged that it was a "legitimate issue". It was really the only thing he said in that segment that I thought was stupid, because it adds fuel to the fire.
Posted by: Adam | April 29, 2008 at 03:12 PM