It Begins…
The smear of Barack Obama begins even before he’s nailed the nomination. Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama’s church, is now the target of an IRS investigation, generated by concerns that Obama used the church for political purposes. Oh Please. After Falwell and the good Doc Dobson have skewered Dems from the pulpit for more than 30 years, they’re waking up and going after Obama’s church? Right.
A much bigger problem for Obama, at least in the general, is Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr., pastor of the Chicago church, Obama’s “spiritual advisor” and apparent good friend of Louis Farrakhan. According to CBS News:
“Wright also told The New York Times in an interview published March 6: “When his (Obama’s) enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to visit Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, “a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”
“The roughly 8,000-member church has often championed liberal causes, from gay rights to opposition to the Iraq war. It also emphasizes its African roots and asks parishioners to accept the “Black Value System,” which includes tenets such as “commitment to the black family,” “dedication to the pursuit of education” and one critics have seized upon - “disavowal of the pursuit of ‘middleclassness.”‘
Farrakhan was also feted by Rev. Wright as man of the year in 2005.
When Farrakahn came up in last night’s debate, I got that queasy feeling that there is more to it than anyone is letting one. All well and good that Obama denounced and rejected Farrakahn, but what does he do about Wright? Should he even do anything about Wright? How does his implicit support of the “Black Value System,” and Michele’s foolish gaffe over her lack of pride in America not feed that nasty funhouse called the Pug attack machine? The wingnuts are all over this and expect it to last longer than the usual 48-hour news cycle. Googling Jeremiah Wright or Trinity United Chruch of Christ will turn your stomach.
It sure didn’t take them very long. This is the kind of stuff we all hate, the kind of sleaze that even McCain, if we take him at his word, finds personally repugnant. But it’s politics 2008. Does Obama ignore it like Kerry did the Swifboaters or does he take them head-on and support Wright, who is on the record with statements that will most clearly undo a lot of the good will that Obama has accrued? I just don’t have an answer.
UPDATE: Not the only one thinking this way. Here’s a post from Josh Marshall today:
Money quotes:
“The core is to drill a handful of key adjectives into the public mind about Barack Obama: Muslim, anti-American, BLACK, terrorist, Arab. Maybe a little hustler and shifty thrown in, but we’ll have to see. The details and specific arguments are sort of beside the point. They’re like the libretto in a Wagner opera, nice for some narrative structure. But it’s the score that’s the real essence of it, the point of the whole exercise.”
“If McCain really wants to repudiate this stuff, he can start with the Tennessee Republican party which dished all the slurs and smears about Obama being a Nation of Islam-loving anti-Semite, just today. And once he’s done talking to the people who will be running his Tennessee campaign, we’ll have a number of others he can talk to, like the head of his Ohio campaign, former Sen. Mike DeWine, who gave that Cunningham guy his marching orders.”
“Let’s just not fool ourselves, not lie to ourselves about what’s happening here and who’s in charge.”
Â
Posted: February 27th, 2008 under Obama, Racism, VOTE!.
Comments: 14
Comments
Comment from John McCreery
Time: February 28, 2008, 1:07 am
The IRS investigation is fresh news. Everything else came out in the debate and was dealt with by the “reject and denounce” moment. Nothing gives crap like this traction more than panicky responses from the candidates’ supporters.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: February 28, 2008, 7:44 am
A couple of observations. One, this isn’t about HIM and he had the smarts to take Hillary’s parsing “challenge” on “reject and denounce”. He got major points for that one, and he did the right thing. All he needs to do for now is keep repeating what he said and at some point just say that he has nothing to add to what he has already said. This is no where near the Swiftboating charge that went at the heart of WHO Kerry was as a person and the claims that Kerry made about his record.
Two, he should point out that no one is responsible for the actions of another, unless that person is part of his family, campaign or administration. He could point out that Bush doesn’t take responsibility for what people do and say in his administration and that he will do that. This goes at the issue of fairness and it should resonate. More could be said about this point.
Three, it is better to have this conversation now than a month before the election.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: February 28, 2008, 12:13 pm
John, I have asked you indirectly, now I’ll ask you directly to stop characterizing my concerns, personally. It does nothing to further the dialog. Once again, let’s stick to the topic without killing the messenger.
The issue was not dealt with in the debate. First only a sliver of Democrats heard it, and despite the record turnouts, only a fraction of the overall electorate are really paying close attention. If we choose to ignore the issues and the severe challenges surrounding Obama’s campaign we do so at our peril. Obama is going to be vilified like no other candidate in US history, if for no other reason, he not like any other candidate in US history. To put a number on it, right wing talk radio broadcasts more than 40,000 hours per month of its hatred. Cunningham’s spew is not an isolated incident, and is one that is likely to be replicated day-in, day-out. By contrast there is about 3,000 hours of “liberal” talk radio. It’s a powerful medium that can create groundswells of misinformation and character assassination–just ask Kerry and the Clinton’s.
Right wing strategy is becoming clear. Isolate Obama from the mainstream. No matter what Obama says, he’s a Muslim in Christian clothing–a black separatist and a hardcore liberal who going to take every last dime you have. The Right (not necessarily McCain’s campaign–there is a difference) is going to try to make Obama look like the second coming of Malcolm X, or worse, Huey Newton. Having a guy like Jeremiah Wright as the campaign’s active “spiritual advisor” doesn’t help. The litany of Rev. Wright’s speeches directly undercuts Obama’s message of unity. Wright is a separatist–that’s not an opinion, it’s in black and white in years of his speeches.
My point is that Obama, more than any other candidate, has to be extremely careful not to feed the beast, which is why off the reservation comments like Michele’s are so dangerous. To Josh’s point, it’s far better to have this conversation now when it’s containable, than ignore it and allow the right to pull the trigger on Obama’s campaign right around Labor Day…
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: February 28, 2008, 12:38 pm
Lefty, for what it is worth, I did not read John’s comments as applying to you but to surrogates of Obama.
It seems to me that the Clintons tried this Right wing strategy and when they did there was a backlash that resulted in his string of 13 primary victories by an average of 33 percent greater than Hillary and it brough him support from the Hispanic community and other groups that had favored Hillary.
Now I grant you that the Clinton use of this Right wing strategy did not have the intensity that you have laid out, but these issues are not new. I can’t imagine anyone who listens to these Right-wing radio talkshow hosts voting for Obama in the first place. And I for one am impressed with his quick response: witness his quick and sharp comeback to McBush yesterday about Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: February 28, 2008, 1:09 pm
Josh, Clinton’s attacks on Obama are so far removed from anything Cunningham did, it’s silly. Clinton’s team may try to be Republican light, but they don’t have the stomach for it. I’m impressed with Obama’s response too, but it’s what he doesn’t see and hear that concerns me. Apparently it concerns Josh Marshall, as well–see my update and read Marshall’s post. It’s not a trivial problem…
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: February 28, 2008, 2:05 pm
Actually, Lefty, Clinton’s attacks on Obama–with the same aims–are not “so far removed from anything Cunningham did.” Consider the source. Cunningham is a known commodity. As I read through the Marshall link, DeWine said throw them some meat, he did not give him a script, as is implied in the post above. Cunningham talks shit like this day in and day out on his radio show. What was unexpected here is how McBush handled it: that surprised everyone, especially Cunningham.
However on the Clinton side of the street, Bob Kerry, a former governor and senator, now president of The New School and a Clinton supporter, was the first major Clinton surrogate to bring up Obama’s middle name. Charles Rangel called Obama “stupid” (as in stupid nigger). Bill Clinton was no saint in South Carolina, either. Mark Penn repeated and amplified the drug charge by using the word “cocaine” that is more readily associated with the dark side, so to speak, of the Black community. And so on.
Your other point is that Obama “doesn’t see and hear” this. Maybe the more accurate statement is that he is choosing to deal with this stuff his own way, a winning way so far, and that you object to the way he is dealing with it. But as I read Obama, nothing has gotten by him yet, nor is it likely to. I don’t recall the name of the columnist who said it, but he or she said that Obama has the fastest learning curve of anyone he or she has ever seen in politics.
I say, let’s get past next Tuesday and if Obama wins Texas it should be all over (Bill Clinton said so) and then he can start to focus on things you say are not seen or heard. And if he looses Texas and/or Ohio then Hillary will be embolden to open the flood gates, after all Harold Ickes is loitering in the hallway.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: February 28, 2008, 3:03 pm
On further examination it also looks like Josh Marshall, from the same link above, has a loaded name for Obama: “flash-in-the-pan pretty boy”. I’m sure calling a Black man “boy” has a certain ring to it that has to be intended. What’s up with that?
Comment from suzanne
Time: February 28, 2008, 4:09 pm
Are we not overlooking the obvious here? Barack Obama is a firm supporter of a church that promotes a “Black Value System”. Not surprisingly, so is Oprah. Is this not of some concern to his supporters? If Clinton or McCain supported a “White Value System” a lot of people would have something to say about it. Are these values appropriate for a future President of the United States? It seems to me that this is a direct contradiction to his message of unity. Am I missing something?
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: February 28, 2008, 5:01 pm
Suzanne, I have started reading about this and I have some more work to do. But in the meantime, Obama, Clinton, and McCain do not campaign on their religion as Huckabee does. Whatever their individual church and religious preferences are, none of them are missionaires for their faith as Romney was. Obama does not seek converts to his church.
The “Black Value System” has been around in some form for 100s of years. There are also other churchs with similar value systems for their ethnic congregations. In fact, white churches have a defacto value system for whites, especially in the South. More importantly, Black churches have traditionally served a broader community mission than white churches, and Trinity United Church of Christ is a good example.
I don’t see any contradiction with his faith and his message of unity? Where do you see the contradiction?
Comment from Sasha
Time: February 28, 2008, 6:50 pm
Well, Josh, when you start looking into that church stuff you might glance at Snopes here. I admit I am surprised to see that charge here. Until today I have only seen it on hard-core right wing, typically Southern web sites.
Comment from suzanne
Time: February 28, 2008, 11:40 pm
Josh, thank you for your insightful response. Though I’ve shown my ignorance in the comments section a few times (Sasha will back me on this one) I am greatly heartened that you have taken the time to respond and not just dismiss. After reading the link provided by Sasha, I was sickened to see that Sean Hannity and I have a similiar take on the “Black Value System” touted by Obama’s church. I just hope I am looking at this from a completely different angle. Yet it still doesn’t seem right that if you are, for instance, an asian person who attends this church - how can you not feel somewhat disconnected when the minister speaks of “Black Family Values”. Why not just “Christian Family Values? If you were to go to a Polish Catholic church (though I’ve never been to one) I am certain that the emphasis would be on “Catholic Family Values”. That is all I am trying to say. There are Black Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc. - but this particular church puts the emphasis on race rather than religion. This is what bothers me. It just seems to me, that a place of worship should be emphasizing the connectedness of its members (and humankind in general) and not their differences.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: February 29, 2008, 7:01 am
Suzanne, all churches can’t be all things to all people. When I go to church I like the formal churches represented by the old-line Presbyterian, preferably in a gothic cathedral. Keep in mind that my father was a hell, fire and brimstone Baptish preacher. Today a lot of Presbyterian churches have an early service with gospel campfire type songs and folks come with babies, cups of coffee, and dress in jeans. The 11 o’clock service is complete with organ music, choir, and everyone tends to dress up. Some churches are totally charismatic, hold absolutely no appeal to me. Now the theology may be the same or almost the same, but the form and style of worship is completely different. The beauty about freedom of religion is I can choose where I want to go and even if I want to go.
One more thing for now. The brand of religion that George Bush practices is the most pernicious, just as bad as the Muslim faiths: if you don’t believe like him, you are going to hell. He and his brand of Christianity make no exceptions. In hell, your soul is tortured for eternity. The only good news here is that they don’t allow waterboarding in hell, because, you know, the fire would go out.
Comment from I.B.Lever
Time: February 29, 2008, 7:55 am
I think folks, what we have to ask ourselves in all of this is, are we confident enough in Obama’s beliefs, to entrust in him our support, for the honesty and integrity he has already portrayed. He is after all, equipped with firsthand knowledge of both white and black issues and he has expressed to us all, his polite and well thought willingness, to correct all that is wrong with “our” broken policies and nations challenges.
( It must be my nature to reach out to someone if I sense they are headed for trouble.)
It is because of the character Obama has projected up to this point, that I consider him an honorable man and I am willing to grant him my acceptance and have no trepidations, knowing solutions will be weighed and lead to him making the right decisions.
We are exchanging thoughts here that pertain to Obama’s “experience” for a change. This is about ground already covered in his resume and in my opinion it can only benefit us all.
At the moment, individuals, the likes of Farakhan and Pastor Wright, are hitching their wagons to a star but in retrospect, they are both known to have directed insults - “sell out” or “Uncle Tom”- at any man of color, who shows signs of fairness when dealing with non blacks and I don’t think Obama is fooled by their back slapping antics.
If my intuitions are correct, they’ll both turn on Mr. Obama before this chapter in history has been written. (Farakhan and Wright are shallow and insignificant in my mind.)
Because I now live in Canada, my wife and myself have already thrown caution to the wind and made our choice. I will not tell you our persuasions though. I think we are well represented and a
Russ Feingold (Veep), would pop the buttons off my shirt, anywho. VOTE
P.S. To those attending the secret meetings : That’s my Too Sense
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: February 29, 2008, 12:59 pm
I think Obama is handling this reasonably well and it’s much better to deal with this “Hussein” thing now than it would be in September. That’’s not the point of the post. I posted this as a cautionary tale and to point out that there are cross currents under Obama’s campaign that can turn what is a high-level dialog into a racial shitstorm.
I appreciate your comments about the positive roles of black churches historically and about the “black value system.” The difference however is that Jeremiah Wright is not a conciliatory figure–he’s incendiary and divisive. A quick glance at his quotes support that. I can’t speak for Josh Marshall, but I share his instincts and his concerns. Facts don’t matter, historical perspective doesn’t matter, once words are formed and stick to a candidate they stay forever. Hillary Clinton has been vicitimzed by this, John Kerry was victimized by this as was Al Gore until he won the Nobel Prize–and even then, if he were running, he’d be haunted by the urban legend that has him saying, “I invented the internet.”
The point is that Obama is incredibly vulnerable here. He’s going to have to do more to mitigate the attack, even to the point of repudiating Wright. Not an easy decision. Let’s see how this plays out…
Write a comment