Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I agree with Balko's take on the controversy over Obama's pastor and the screaming about his controversial statements from the right:
Do we really need to start digging up all the nutty things Christian right pastors have said in sermons over the last 20 years? I seem to remember Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell & Co. blaming 9/11, Katrina, and all sorts of other calamities on the gays, the womyns, and Grand Theft Auto. And yet GOP politicos still pilgrimage to the doorsteps of these idiots to seek their blessing. There are plenty of things for which one could criticize Obama. That his pastor says things rational people find silly only puts him on par with 90 percent of the rest of Congress.
More importantly, it puts him on par with every single Republican candidate for president - especially McCain, who has actively sought the approval of many religious right leaders who've said absolutely insane things. He went to give the commencement address at Liberty University even after Falwell famously blamed 9/11 on gays and the ACLU. He's still refused to back away from Rod Parsley, who he has called his "spiritual mentor," for his many absolutely insane statements on a wide range of issues.
And to make things worse, we know that McCain knows all about those crazy statements. Why? Because he's cited them himself. Back in 2000, when he was running as a moderate and trying to distinguish himself from Bush, he declared Falwell and Robertson to be "agents of intolerance" on the basis of such crazy statements. Now that he needs the support of the religious right, he's frantically kissing the ring of every loony preacher he can find.
Jeremiah Wright has said many objectionable things. There's much there to criticize. But religious right followers are the last people who should be using such an argument. And here's the big difference: Jeremiah Wright has no discernible influence or power, while the likes of Robertson and Dobson carry enormous influence and power.
Comments
Also, aren't the wingnuts ignoring that Obama disagreed with the pastor's comments? (Or am I misremembering the news report - I thought I read somewhere that Obama repudiated those statements in some form or other...)
Posted by: Vic | March 18, 2008 10:36 AM
Yes. As Atrios would say, this has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
With McCain chumming it up with Rod Parsley, John Hagee, et al, their comments should be fair play and in the media every day.
Posted by: BrianK | March 18, 2008 10:47 AM
I'm not sure it puts Obama on par. Wright doesn't represent a core constituency of Obama that he is going to seek to accomodate politically. Wright's views on AIDs or America being damned aren't going to have policy implications, where as the views of the Religious Right have clearly left a mark on the GOP.
Here's another must read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
That's former RR activist Frank Schaefer on how his dad became a Republican hero after he wrote books about America being Hitler and good Christians needing to prepare themselves to war with America.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | March 18, 2008 11:29 AM
"Jeremiah Wright has no discernible influence or power, while the likes of Robertson and Dobson carry enormous influence and power."
Underscore that. The Christian right whines about its own persecution from a position of power that it uses to persecute others. Wright has no such power to persecute. Wright's congregation descends from a long history of genuine persecution and Wright himself reached adulthood during a time when demeaning, abusive treatment of African-Americans was commonplace and accepted by many people. When I hear right wingers crying about their persecution, all I can think to say is cry me a river.
Posted by: Dr X | March 18, 2008 12:00 PM
I'm not sure it puts Obama on par. Wright doesn't represent a core constituency of Obama that he is going to seek to accomodate politically.
You know this how?
Posted by: tehghey | March 18, 2008 12:01 PM
The fatal difference between the Rev. Wright's comments and those of wingnuts like Hagee, Robertson, Fawell, Parsley, et al., is that Wright appears to be attacking America while the wingnuts are attacking the perverts, liberals, homos, wiccans, and atheists that are undermining America's moral superstructure. Had I experienced the racism motivating the Rev Wright's outrage, I'd have difficulty speaking with restraint as well. "Be still when you have nothing to say," wrote DH Lawrence, "when genuine passion moves you, say what you've got to say, and say it hot."
Posted by: BobbyV | March 18, 2008 12:04 PM
I was watching MSNBC last night and Obama was not really criticized because his former pastor made some offensive remarks. Instead the criticism was about how he handled those remarks. The argument was that this provides some insight into how he would react if he was President and someone, let's say in his cabinet, said something offensive.
The consensus was that he didn't handle things very well.
They also made the argument that Hillary Clinton didn't handle her husband's comments in South Carolina very well; neither did Hillary handle the comments made by Geraldine Ferraro very well.
Posted by: RandyC | March 18, 2008 12:32 PM
Ed Stated:
"Jeremiah Wright has no discernible influence or power, while the likes of Robertson and Dobson carry enormous influence and power."
Other than being the "spiritual mentor" of possibly the next President and at least Vice President of the United States! That is tremedous influence. I wish I could know who the President was going to be in 30 years and be able to mentor him.
With that said, your overall point is valid. I do think that while this is hypocrisy for sure, that it is relevant. We should examine this. It is part of who Obama is and where he comes from.
I read the statements and what the Wright said is probably true though unpopular to say. I also know from experience that what you say can be taken out of context. It has been with this guy. I preached for about a year. I travelled all over. I am sure I said some things that came off the wrong way. We need to study the man here in totality and look at what influence he had and has had on Barak.
With that said, I have had a lot of interaction with "Black Liberation Theology" proponents. I think they have some very valid points. I also have seen some real racists. I heard Willie Williams (Spiritual Advisor to Marion Barry) speak at a school I taught at one morning. I was the only white guy in the room and it was intimidating. He made some very racist comments. Most of it is audience though. His main goal was to get the kids proud of the heritage that was stolen through slavery. So I gave him a pass for some of the more blatant statements and think that he does more good than harm overall.
This Wright guy seems the more mild version. He even brings whites into his church. I would have some issues with him on his interpretation of the Bible but other than that I think he is harmless. The dude people should really start to wonder about is Sean Hannity who said, "Obama is not fit to be a Senator or President" if he went to this guys church. Look man some seriously strange stuff was said at some of the places I went was at. Does that make me unfit to never hold office? This is crazy. I would be more worried about the "Jesus Camp" types. Many would relate to a guy like Hagee.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 18, 2008 12:34 PM
I was watching MSNBC last night and Obama was not really criticized because his former pastor made some offensive remarks. Instead the criticism was about how he handled those remarks. The argument was that this provides some insight into how he would react if he was President and someone, let's say in his cabinet, said something offensive.
The consensus was that he didn't handle things very well.
They also made the argument that Hillary Clinton didn't handle her husband's comments in South Carolina very well; neither did Hillary handle the comments made by Geraldine Ferraro very well.
Posted by: RandyC | March 18, 2008 12:34 PM
Ed Stated:
"Jeremiah Wright has no discernible influence or power, while the likes of Robertson and Dobson carry enormous influence and power."
Other than being the "spiritual mentor" of possibly the next President and at least Vice President of the United States! That is tremedous influence. I wish I could know who the President was going to be in 30 years and be able to mentor him.
With that said, your overall point is valid. I do think that while this is hypocrisy for sure, that it is relevant. We should examine this. It is part of who Obama is and where he comes from.
I read the statements and what the Wright said is probably true though unpopular to say. I also know from experience that what you say can be taken out of context. It has been with this guy. I preached for about a year. I travelled all over. I am sure I said some things that came off the wrong way. We need to study the man here in totality and look at what influence he had and has had on Barak.
With that said, I have had a lot of interaction with "Black Liberation Theology" proponents. I think they have some very valid points. I also have seen some real racists. I heard Willie Williams (Spiritual Advisor to Marion Barry) speak at a school I taught at one morning. I was the only white guy in the room and it was intimidating. He made some very racist comments. Most of it is audience though. His main goal was to get the kids proud of the heritage that was stolen through slavery. So I gave him a pass for some of the more blatant statements and think that he does more good than harm overall.
This Wright guy seems the more mild version. He even brings whites into his church. I would have some issues with him on his interpretation of the Bible but other than that I think he is harmless. The dude people should really start to wonder about is Sean Hannity who said, "Obama is not fit to be a Senator or President" if he went to this guys church. Look man some seriously strange stuff was said at some of the places I went was at. Does that make me unfit to never hold office? This is crazy. I would be more worried about the "Jesus Camp" types. Many would relate to a guy like Hagee.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 18, 2008 12:36 PM
Due to this would-be controversy over Jeremiah Wright, over at WorldNut Joey Farah is declaring today that Obama's candidacy for president is dead, and Hillary Clinton is now the heir apparent for the Democratic nomination.
Ah, Joey. We can always count on you to live in your own reality, such as in this case, forgetting that Hillary's chances for landing the nomination in Denver are all but mathematically out of reach.
Is there a webpage somewhere listing a history of similar political predictions made by Farah over the years?
I suspect reading it would make for great entertainment.
Posted by: CHV | March 18, 2008 12:52 PM
"Jeremiah Wright has no discernible influence or power"
This is not true. He is spiritual advisor to possibly the next President and at least Vice President of the United States. I wish I could know who the President is going to be 30 years from now and go mentor him. Not a balanced statement Ed.
Your overall point is correct though. This is hypocrisy. Plus, most of what the guy said is true in my opinion. He is pissed about slavery and I would be too. But it is a valid line of questioning for Obama since this gives us some insight into who he is and where he comes from. He has invoked his faith as part of who he is so it should be examined.
I have had a lot of dealings with "Black Liberation Theology" proponents. Mr. Wright seems to be the more mild version. Overall, I think his goal is to restore pride in the African heritage that was stolen through slavery. I commend him on this but think his rhetoric hurts his goal. I would have some issues with some of his doctrinal theology but other than that I think he is harmless as far as politics goes.
I am more concerned with Sean Hannity stating, "Obama is un fit to be a Senator or President" based on his attending this man's church. I am more concerned about "Jesus Camp" type people than this Wright guy. The former do relate to and support such types and Hagee. Finally, If I was disqualifed from office for listening to sheer and utter bullshit in a church I would be the most disqualified man in history.
Valid point but unbalanced statement that he has no influence. I also agree with the one guy who posted on another thread when he states that he wonders why the Wright type stories do not make it on here but the Hagee ones do? With that said, you did have a great post about Frankie Shaffer so I will cut you some slack.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 18, 2008 12:53 PM
"Groundhog Day" - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 18, 2008 12:55 PM
Somehow, I posted three comments that all say basically the same thing. I did not think the others got through. Ignore the first two. The third one captures my point the best.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 18, 2008 1:03 PM
Until Vatican II, the official liturgy of the Roman Catholic church was anti-Semitic. That didn't make John F. Kennedy an anti-Semite.
Posted by: Bill Poser | March 18, 2008 1:24 PM
KoI - Yes we all seem to be a little hyperactive this morning. :)
The diffence between Senators Obama and McCain seems to be that the former has the guts to say "My (former?) Pastor says this, and while I disagree, he is perfectly within his rights to say any crap he wants to", the latter is too afraid to alienate his right-wing allies, knowing that he'll get done like a thanksgiving turkey, so he hangs fire until the polls come in.
This strike me, personally, as rather cowardly and weak. Is this what America needs and deserves? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 18, 2008 1:33 PM
"The diffence between Senators Obama and McCain seems to be that the former has the guts to say "My (former?) Pastor says this, and while I disagree, he is perfectly within his rights to say any crap he wants to", the latter is too afraid to alienate his right-wing allies, knowing that he'll get done like a thanksgiving turkey, so he hangs fire until the polls come in.
This strike me, personally, as rather cowardly and weak. Is this what America needs and deserves? -DJ
I am not a Mc Cain fan. I am not a Religious Right fan. American deserves better than this crap for sure. With that said, the issue here is "spiritual advisor" comments. Mc Cain is open to this too. Rod Parsley scares me and always has with some of his views. I look at this stuff from two angles as a born-again Christian: 1. Is what they are teaching biblically true 2. As people that have gotten into politics, what value do I place in there views in this arena. The first one I think they are both off their rocker. The second one I would more tend to think Wright is correct. What bearing each has on the candidate they support depends on the personal influence. I would say that Wright has more personal influence over Obama than any of these guys has over Mc Cain.
This agrees with your overall point I hope you can see. Mc Cain is cosying up to people he clearly cannot stand just for votes and trying to nail Obama for associations that are similar. But I think Obama is selling out his "mentor" in that this guy really did have some influence over Obama. Who is the bigger hypocrite? On this one it seems to be Mc Cain. I agree and like I said I think Ed's overall point is valid and correct. But Obama comes out stinking in this one too.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 18, 2008 1:47 PM
The whole thing is irrelevant. The only folks who will not vote for Obama over this would be lost during the main campaign anyway. Does anyone here really believe that McCain's campaign is not going to be banging the race drum all the way through the election?
As for Hagee and Parsley, their support for McCain is crucial to his campaign, as they give cover for the Dobsons and Robertson's to come out for him even after saying he was the Antichrist (or something like that). I expect the price is putting Romney on the ticket.
Kurt
Posted by: kehrsam | March 18, 2008 1:57 PM
Isn't about time we had a president who wasn't raised on the standard right-wing flag-waving jingoistic BS?
Posted by: Ray C. | March 18, 2008 2:31 PM
While I agree with you KoI on the influence these "spritual" advisors have over their respective politicians, I have to say at least Sanator Obama has the stones to say "your wrong" to his, can McCain say the same? (Bearing in mind, as a matter of course, I could, or may, be wrong) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 18, 2008 2:35 PM
"Jeremiah Wright has no discernible influence or power"
This is not true. He is spiritual advisor to possibly the next President and at least Vice President of the United States
Okay, I'll bite: No he isn't.
Posted by: Coin | March 18, 2008 2:43 PM
...stupid HTML.
Posted by: Coin | March 18, 2008 2:47 PM
Ed,
Why are you trying to compare apples with oranges? Obama made a decision to be part of Wright's church, donate money to help spread Wright's message and to put Wright on his campaign. McCain did not choose to be part of Robertson's church. He also did not put Robertson on his campaign. I do not know if McCain has given any money to Robertson's church, but I doubt that he did. Based on this, your comparison is irrational.
Posted by: Mike | March 18, 2008 2:50 PM
From what I've read, the issue with Obama and his (former?) pastor is that Obama didn't publicly repudiate the pastor's wingnut-type rantings until he was running for president. That's common enough practice among most politicians in similar situations, no big deal--except that it's significant in a candidate who claims to be practicing a different kind of politics. And when you look closely, it's not so different after all.
Posted by: gary l. day | March 18, 2008 2:55 PM
"Okay, I'll bite: No he isn't."
What is this supposed to mean?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 18, 2008 3:39 PM
Mike wrote:
You're missing the point. What's the difference between Wright and all those right wing ministers who say equally crazy things? The difference is that Wright is an isolated figure on the fringe that no one, even Obama, is defending. Robertson, Dobson, Hagee and the rest, on the other hand, are major power brokers in the Republican party. Every single Republican candidate has to curry their favor, pander to them in office to keep their support, and kiss their ring if they have any hope of winning the nomination. Even McCain, who 8 year ago called these folks "agents of intolerance," has had to bow and scrape before them. That's the real apples and oranges scenario here. Jeremiah Wright has no influence at all in the Democratic party. No one in office is going to have to pander to Wright to keep his support in order to win reelection. His own parishioner has bluntly disowned him. But those right wing pastors who say equally insane things have long been, and will continue to be, in positions of enormous influence over public policy. Yet Wright is the one getting all the negative media attention.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 18, 2008 3:41 PM
"Jeremiah Wright has no discernible influence or power"
Obama has been a regular patron of Rev Wright's vile, racist preachings for twenty years. I'm sure none of that hateful philosophy has rubbed off on him.
What if it were learned that John McCain had been a member and regular attendee of the Westboro Baptist Church sermons for twenty years? Could we all confidently proclaim that "Fred Phelps has no discernible influence or power". Please....
Oh and there is a huge difference between John McCain paying lip service to conservative Christians for political reasons and Barack Obama regularly attending a racist church for twenty years.
Remember, McCain criticized conservative Christian leaders such as Pat Robertson during his 2000 presidential run. His 180 degree embrace of Rod Paisley is nothing more than a cheap political ploy to carry the important swing state of Ohio.
Posted by: Ken J | March 18, 2008 3:52 PM
What is this supposed to mean?
The statement, "[Jeremiah Wright] is spiritual advisor to [Barack Obama]", is factually incorrect. Wright is Obama's ex-pastor, and until this last week held an honorary position on the Obama campaign's "African American Religious Leadership Committee".
Posted by: Coin | March 18, 2008 3:52 PM
The statement, "[Jeremiah Wright] is spiritual advisor to [Barack Obama]", is factually incorrect.
Really?
"The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. ... As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children." - Barack Obama, 3/18/08
Sure sounds like a spiritual advisor to me.
Posted by: Kevin W. Parker | March 18, 2008 4:03 PM
"I'm sure none of that hateful philosophy has rubbed off on him."
Indeed. We wouldn't want the first uppity negro in the White House to be convinced that racism is still deeply entrenched in American society. That, my friends, would be a problem.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 18, 2008 4:04 PM
"uppity negro"?
Tyler why do you have to go there? Shouldn't we be trying to build bridges and not walls?
Posted by: Ken J | March 18, 2008 4:09 PM
"Tyler why do you have to go there? Shouldn't we be trying to build bridges and not walls?"
So say the self-congratulatory white people while 1 out of 9 black men wallow in jail. But hey, I'm sure it'd all get better if they just emulated Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 18, 2008 4:12 PM
Justin Raimondo has a good article about this at antiwar.com called "Smearing Obama". It's worth a look.
I'm with King of Ireland. I don't see much pastor Wright said that was wrong. Unpopular, but not wrong.
Posted by: steven | March 18, 2008 4:14 PM
Ken J said
And this is a mark in McCain's favor... how? If it makes you feel better, Obama joining Wright's church 20 years back could be seen as a cynical political move as well. The church is ideally suited to launch and support entry into local and state politics.
But the point is, so what? Can anyone honestly say that they have disowned all the people they know who hold disreputable views? Should they have to? I personally have friends who have been in a variety of white power organizations, two who were at one time eco-terrorists, many who have committed crimes large and small (these are friends, not clients). My father is racist, sexist and a homophobe, and at 86 he's not about to change, although he's learned to keep it down when I'm in the room.
What my friends believe (or have believed at some time in the past) is a pretty poor proxy for what I myself believe. The same goes for Obama: If you really want to know what he thinks, ask him. It's a lot more likely to be right than small-minded speculation.
Posted by: kehrsam | March 18, 2008 4:26 PM
Kehrsam, you said: "And this is a mark in McCain's favor... how?" I agree with you that it is not a mark in McCain's favor. Just another pol playing the angles.
It does bother me that Obama relied on Rev Wright for so long for so much. Believe me if you or I were to hear a klansmen wax pathetically at any religious service I am pretty sure both of us would recoil and make tracks out of there fast. I think the only people who would stay for twenty years are people who dig that preacher's rap.
Posted by: Ken J | March 18, 2008 5:01 PM
Comparing Wright to Fred Phelps or the KKK is absurd. Wright has some crazy beliefs, but he's not evil. He's not preaching anyone's destruction, he's not preaching genocide. Let's not confuse crazy with evil.
I agree that Obama deserves to be criticized for this. I don't buy the notion that he never heard these crazy claims from Wright in the past, I think that's highly unlikely. More likely he heard them and dismissed them the way people often do with someone they care about. I also doubt that Obama believes those crazy things; I certainly have seen no evidence that he does. But the point still remains that no matter how crazy Wright's ideas are, he is not in a position to demand anything from anyone. No one, including Obama, has to placate him in order to maintain his political viability. No one has to kiss his ring to get the Democratic nomination. He doesn't influence a large constituency that either party has to pander to in order to win their support to win an election. That can't be said of the right wing preachers and their equally crazy and far more hateful and destructive beliefs. Those preachers are extremely powerful in the Republican party, so much so that even McCain, who has publicly criticized them in the past, has to bow and scrape before them if he has any chance of winning. Their views are far more likely to influence actual policy decisions, as they have already influenced a great many policy decisions over the last 30 years.
Politically, the Obama campaign certainly hasn't handled it well. They had to know this was going to be an issue long before it became one, they should not have kept him on as an adviser and should have made sure Obama distanced himself from him a long time ago. As usual, Obama was eloquent in his speech this afternoon in trying to make the best of the situation, but this is something they should have been prepared for and taken steps to lessen long before it came up.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 18, 2008 5:16 PM
Why?
Do you know the totality of Rev. Wright's worldview? And how it is expressed outside the pulpit?
Moreover, do you really know how large portions of black, Asian and Hispanic communities view American society and how it relates to the larger world? Because it's not really that different from what he said...and, moreover, they'd be rather insulted that you compared them to Klansmen....
Posted by: gwangung | March 18, 2008 5:20 PM
Really? 'Cause it sounds to me like he had a strong effect on Obama earlier, but that he doesn't necessarily have any input now. Having introduced Obama to his faith 20 years ago hardly makes him Obama's spiritual adviser now.
Obama has said as much:
Posted by: Skemono | March 18, 2008 5:44 PM
Where have you all been? The left has dug up all the nutty things Christian right pastors have said in sermons over the last 20 years. I'm sure you could find plenty of commentary here on ScienceBlogs alone about Falwell, Robertson, and many others. Now liberals, in a show of characteristic hypocrisy, is indignant about getting burned themselves.
Posted by: Mike C. | March 18, 2008 8:26 PM
Sorry, "are indignant about getting burned themselves."
Posted by: Mike C. | March 18, 2008 8:27 PM
My understanding is that Parsley and McCain have met face to face exactly one time and McCain has never attended a single sermon by Parsley. Parsley's endorsement of McCain is less similar to Wright's longstanding relationship with Obama than Al Sharpton's endorsement Obama. And no one has yet demanded Obama denounce Al Sharpton's anti-semitic comments or his participation in the racially divisive "Tawana Brawley" hoax.
Posted by: Mike C. | March 18, 2008 8:37 PM
Hm. How much damage has these relevations on Falwell, Robertson, etc. have caused to Republican politicians?
Posted by: gwangung | March 18, 2008 8:38 PM
It might hurt more if an individual Republican were to regularly attend one of the churches of these charlatans over the course of a decade or two, in the manner of a true believer, rather than collectively dealing with them largely as a political expediency.
In any event, your comment seems irrelevant: if liberals believe that politically convenient ties to Robertson or Falwell should be more damaging to Republicans, how they can, in good faith (no pun intended), dismiss the close friendship of Obama and his lunatic pastor over two decades -- and Obama's transparent dishonesty about his knowledge of his pastor's positions -- is beyond me.
Posted by: Mike C. | March 18, 2008 8:57 PM
"if liberals believe that politically convenient ties to Robertson or Falwell should be more damaging to Republicans, how they can, in good faith (no pun intended), dismiss the close friendship of Obama and his lunatic pastor over two decades -- and Obama's transparent dishonesty about his knowledge of his pastor's positions -- is beyond me."
Mike C, it appears as if the Left's chickens have come home...to roost.
Posted by: Ken J | March 18, 2008 9:07 PM
"and Obama's transparent dishonesty about his knowledge of his pastor's positions"
You mean this kind of dishonesty?
"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 18, 2008 9:17 PM
Ed,
Be it wrong---and it is--- for a Republican to advocate hateful things, then is it not wrong for a Democrat to do the same? You say that seeking the support of promoters of hate is wrong. I agree; but isn't it even worse to have a promoter of hate as your counsel, your adviser?
There is a malaise in the conservative Protestant Church, white and black. A miasma of bigotry and anger that irredeemably stains what good that church does. As I was typing this a pundit on the CBS Evening News said something about people like Reverend Wright speaking truth in their sermons of hate. The man is a fool. A self-destructive, self-deluded fool. Let's doubt not there is much to be addressed and corrected regarding race relations in this country, but accusing whites of being ever ready to oppress and persecute blacks is just as racist and vile as calling blacks lazy and stupid. Jeremiah Wright is a plain bigot, Barack Obama relies on him for advice and counsel; that is much worse than merely seeking the man's support.
Obama has shown that he lacks the foresight and good sense to be a competent President of these United States. His flaw is independent of age and experience, older men have shown this same flaw, men you'd think would know better. The furor will not fade away, it will continue and build. The super delegates will turn to Clinton, even the dedicated delegates will switch allegiance as they come to understand what Barack Obama's past and current behavior means. The only thing that will save him now is to separate himself in the harshest terms possible form Mr. Wright, and to condemn the man's rhetoric and invective.
This is what Barack Hussein Obama needs to do; apologize for associating with Jeremiah Wright and his curch; repudiate strongly Mr. Wright's positions; work to expose and destroy men such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, as men such as Pat Robertson need to be exposed and destroyed. Then he will have a chance. But unless he does this he will fade and his campaign come to naught.
Obama will become a footnote in history because he chose to follow a short-sighted hateful man. A man who refused to see beyond his own animosities. One day a black man will be elected President of the United States, but it won't be Barack Obama, for he won't learn to forgive.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | March 18, 2008 9:25 PM
All I know that Indiana primaries might finally mean something. Also, I'm looking forward to the science forum than Mooney is pushing for in the current issue of Seed.
Am I correct to feel that Clinton would be more rationalist than Obama, when it comes to science and such?
Posted by: Markus | March 18, 2008 9:50 PM
"My understanding is that Parsley and McCain have met face to face exactly one time and McCain has never attenced a single sermon by Parsley."
Didn't McCain call Parsly his "spiritual guide?" That hardly sounds like these two men have "met face to face exactly one time."
"What if it were learned that John McCain had been a member and regular attendee of the Westboro Baptist Church sermons for twenty years."
Good grief, you're equating Wright with Fred Phelps? When has Wright done anything comparable to protesting at the funerals of AIDS victims and the fallen soldiers of Iraq and Afghanistan? When has Wright said anything comparable to Phelps thanking God for AIDS? The comments that have been circulated about Wright are objectionable, but Phelps is on a whole different level.
"Now liberals, in a show of characteristic hypocrisy, are indignant about getting burned themselves."
When have conservatives ever gotten "burned" for embracing Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, Parsley, etc?
Posted by: daniel rotter | March 18, 2008 9:51 PM
At least Obama has said that he disagrees with Wright's offensive remarks. Giuliani never did the same about Pat Robertson. McCain never did the same with Parsley. McCain has said that he disagrees with Hagee's anti-Catholic rhetoric, but hasn't distanced himself from the latter's other ridiculous comments (e.g. Hagee engaging in the right-wing equivalent of Wright's America-bashing when he preached a televised sermon entitled "America: the Portrait of Paganism").
Posted by: daniel rotter | March 18, 2008 10:03 PM
Well, actually, apparently it won't save him, because he already did that and you're acting like he hasn't.
Posted by: Skemono | March 18, 2008 10:34 PM
I think you're misframing the question as asked: the point isn't to equate Wright's and Phelps's messages, but to observe that we can't be too willing to excuse 'personal' spiritual matters, else we find ourselves in the position of having to excuse someone like Phelps.
For instance, you wrote "And here's the big difference: Jeremiah Wright has no discernible influence or power, while the likes of Robertson and Dobson carry enormous influence and power." Phelps also has no discernible influence or power, yet any reasonable person would consider patronage of Phelps' church to be a HUGE detriment to a candidate's character. That reasoning, alone, manages to condemn a political relationship with Dobson, but forgive a personal relationship with Phelps, and that sure ain't right. If Obama's preacher *were* some left-wing equivalent of Phelps, I can't imagine excusing the relationship simply because the preacher has "no discernible influence or power" outside his congregation.
Should we punish Obama for Wright's comments in the same way we'd punish a Republican for being a Phelps congregant? I certainly don't think so. But that's because the matter is a lot more complex than one of how much political power the preacher in question may yield.
Posted by: Loren | March 18, 2008 11:39 PM
The top political news story of the day strikes me as a perfect example of how partizan politics works in our country.
In this corner from the Right we have talk radio and tv pouncing on this huge story, exposing the deep racial devide Obama is embracing with his radical hateful spiritual advisor who must be his closest confidant and probably the main influence in his life. Surly he can be brought down and it must happen!
Nevermind that the whole story of Obama's pastor is
a) Overblown
b) Represents a part of American life that conservatives all know exists and normally want desperately to ignore.
c) Below the radar of most of the right wing top issues of the day...except for this instance where it is wonderfully convenient.
d) And the right will not listen to or consider any response by Obama to be adequate and will in fact plug their ears and sing "nah nah na nah nah, Obama rymes with Osama"...
e) Will not consider whether Obama really is holding any of the pastor's positions or has ever shown any intent of causing racial devide or tension.
Now in this corner on the Left we have experts rushing in to defend senator Obama from meaningless political attack. Clearly the focus should not be on issues of race or religion--those are only fair game when lamenting the intolerant right! No way Obama would be listening to this pastor anyway because he said so all along... didn't he?
We can be sure that the Left:
a) Completely ignored Obama's pastor up until now, would have continued to do so if it hadn't come up, and assume it's not racism if a minority says it.
c) Minimize the problem because democrats are the ones who care about race and this guy probably is right in what he means even if the words are a bit off.
d) Switch the argument quicky to all the bad religious right characters who are the real cause of every evil in the western world.
e) Hey isn't this somehow W's fault?
Yes it is just politics as usual. Here is hoping the debate can get back to who will be the best leader on foreign policy, corrupt government spending, the war on al qaeda, economic recession, energy independence...
Posted by: Rich | March 19, 2008 12:11 AM
Just think: Certain morons are still saying that Obama's a Muslim.
http://www.oneimage.org/Images/pages/01cartoon261.htm
Posted by: Reynold Hall | March 19, 2008 7:47 AM
Although there have been clips from Obama's speech yesterday, no one has commented on it.
It was breathtaking. Moving. Perfect.
He finished up and I thought "Damn he's good." He took a nasty situation and made something great out of it. Not with the fiery rhetoric--he was pretty quiet--just by treating an issue with the intellectual scrutiny it deserved.
If anyone hasn't seen it, I strongly recommend watching it. It's the best political speech I've ever seen. In this section of the 'net we care about treating issues with reason, and we got that yesterday.
Posted by: Chris Bell | March 19, 2008 9:27 AM
I find it unbearable that the actual substance of Wright's comments are not on the table for discussion.
True: America's support of Isreal in the middle east *does* carry a tinge of racism. People in the occupied territories are real people who are being brutally absued and oppressed by Isreali military action. Although public opinion is moving in this regard, sympathy for ordinary people in the occupied territories is a recent phenomenon; but the opression has been going on for fourty years now. What Wright says on this matter is true. There was most certainly a time when the one Isreali who was killed by homemade rocket fire got headline coverage in America, but the 30 Palestinians who were killed by Isreali rocket fire were not mentioned at all. Things have improved only somewhat, but let's not forget the historical perspective on this issue. America's coverage of what goes on in the occupied territories has been in the very recent past enormously racist. And it still is to some extent.
True: playing in other peoples' foreign policy is likely to bring foreign policy home to roost. Would 9/11 have happened if America had not interfered in events in the middle-east? Of course not. What Wright says on this matter is also true. Whether that justifies 9/11 is an entirely different matter, but Wright didn't actually claim that it does, did he?
Posted by: er | March 19, 2008 9:56 AM
It amazes me that the black religious right is given a free pass by the left. True they have better music (I live across the street from a church), but beliefs are not that much different. Religion in politics is a bad thing regardless of the nationality of the members.
Posted by: jay | March 19, 2008 10:16 AM
Saying that to disown right is to disown the black community is divorcing himself from Wright in the harshest possible terms?
Posted by: Mike C. | March 19, 2008 12:15 PM
Chris Bell stated:
"Although there have been clips from Obama's speech yesterday, no one has commented on it.
It was breathtaking. Moving. Perfect."
I would agree that from what I heard and read it was great. He said what people have been afraid to say for decades. I think the bigger issue here is generational like he said. 20 years ago you probably had to go to that church to launch into politics. The harsh statements Wright made probably helped unify the black community. I worked in a black community for a while and understand the black church some. But no white can really understand this part of black culture. Especially, in the inner city. So we need to tread lightly.
Anyway, I take Obama at his word that the old generation was shaped by a far different world than he has been. During his adult life there has been progress. Things are different. But to say that things do not need to go further is wrong too. Go look at an inner city ghetto and tell me that slavery is not still impacting these children. The statement about them not being victims really hit home to me though.
I could never really say it as a white teacher with any force or credibility, but it is the chief problem in the neighborhood I taught in. No one expected anything out of the kids and they just blamed the white man. In many ways they should for sure. Our ancestors stripped them of their culture and dignity and it has taken years to deal with all this and will take many more. Lets not lose sight of the bigger issue while we argue politics.
I saw the same thing in Tibet. I am still waiting on an post about that. By the way Ed I missed your point about influence. I concede that the Religious Right has more influence over the Republican Party than the black church has on the Democratic. In fact the latter is decreasing as more blacks like Obama join the middle and upper middle class and attend mixed race churches.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 19, 2008 12:54 PM
I think there's a rather simple answer for why this was an issue for Obama while Parsley, etc. haven't (yet) been for McCain - Wright's crazy comments were racially charged, and Obama has been the black candidate who has "transcended race" in the eyes of much of the general public. Obama had to address this (despite trying to stay away from race issues) because it undercut that impression, and I tend to agree that his speech did just that for anyone who was willing to listen with an open mind. Unfortunately, there will be people who will discount him because of this, just like the false accusations of being a "secret Muslim" (which still baffles me).
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | March 20, 2008 5:01 PM