Obama responds

Obama has just posted a blog entry on the Rev. Wright matter over on The Huffington Post. It's pretty good, at least on first reading, but not as good as a speech would be.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

I'm glad to see that Obama is not going the route of rejecting Rev. Wright outright. I'm getting tired of the "shunning" response to these kind of controversies that have become all to common and are, frankly, indicative of weakness. Instead, Obama focuses on Wrights political statements as separate from his spiritual statements.

... Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

Obama also avoids the trap of belittling the concern this issue has raised.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. ...

I appreciate Obama's ability to understand that an effective attack, even if an attack is meant to be a smear, plays upon people's legitimate concerns (e.g., Clinton's 3am ad asks the legitimate question of who we should trust to protect our children in a scary world.) You don't respond to the attack by making people feel stupid for being concerned. You simply point out, in emotional language, how they don't need to be concerned. This response is notable for the fact that it does not use the "crazy uncle" frame that Obama has used previously. I actually think he should keep it. It would create sympathy among those who are disturbed by the comments but have personal experience with having to deal with a loved one that they have a serious disagreement with. It's a good frame, but it needs expansion and Obama does that in this response. I don't think this response will make the issue go away, but it is a good step in the right direction. Also, apparently Obama is going on "Hannity & Colmes" to talk about this. I normally oppose Democrats going on FOX because it is a Republican propaganda outfit. But in this case I think it might be the perfect place for it. Hannity is a good surrogate for the crowd who might be persuaded by this stuff and Obama can, I think, handle his particular brand of distortion. It has dangers, of course, but the payoff could be huge.

Murder in slow motion

TPM Reader MS foresees this line of attack:

Imagine this 30 second ad, run heavily next October. I think it would be devastating among undecided and swing voters.

"What does Barack Obama really believe in? His spritual teacher for 20 years has been Jeremiah Wright. Wright wedded Obama & his wife. Obama named his book from a sermon of Wright's. [insert video of favorable comment about Wright by Obama]. What has Jeremiah Wright taught Obama? [Insert rabid clip of Wright capped by "God Damn America!! God Damn America!!"] We need a solid patriot to lead our nation. Someone we can trust. Vote John McCain 2008."

Can anyone seriously doubt that the GOP already has this commercial in the can? Can anyone seriously suggest that it won't hurt Obama?

Don't laugh this off folks. It will be murder in slow motion.

Speechless

Bush, on the soldiers in Afghanistan:

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

Bush has a real magic about him. He seems to know just the right thing to say to leave the everyone speechless.

Embracing Controversy

I don't think Obama should outright "reject and denounce" Rev. Wright. Pulling a Sister Souljah on him would (1) seem like a sign of weakness (run away! run away!) and (2) be divisive (since a lot of people agree with what Wright said). I think political campaigns today spend to much time running away from a controversy instead of embracing it as an opportunity to make a statement that elevate our politics.

Obama needs to use his "crazy uncle" talking point as the kernel of a speech that hits on (1) the fact that we all have people in our lives that we love and cherish but who also do and say things that we disagree with and are sometimes disgusted by, (2) that many people agree with Wright and that national unity means we simply can't reject those people because they have ideas that we find disturbing, and (3) that the greatest thing about America is its ability to absorb the positive things from people, even if we reject some of their ideas.

This speech would hit on the importance of family, community and the nation and how all three survive and thrive because of the diversity of opinions within them, not despite them.

That's the kind of emotional appeal I would like to see coming from Obama (or any other leader for that matter).

"crazy uncle talk" won't cut it

Polimom at The Moderate Voice:

I firmly believe that Barack Obama’s feelings and views about race are precisely as he’s presented them — both on the campaign trail and in his books. However, I also think Obama’s going to have to draw very strong, clear distinctions between himself and Jeremiah Wright for the citizens of this country — much more than he’s thus far done.

I think this is spot on. Obama attended Wright's sermons for twenty years. That does not mean he became a disciple of Wright's views. Indeed, it appears that Obama has come to reject the entire philosophical foundation of identity politics. But you simply can't pretend that people won't question just how much of Wright's views Obama has absorbed. Especially people who don't know Obama very well and have to rely on the (often unreliable) news media coverage of his background.

Obama cannot simply dismiss this as "crazy uncle talk". His supporters cannot simply waive it off as unreasonable to conclude that Wright's views are Obama's views.

Politics is about emotion, not reason. And many people, upon hearing that Obama's minister of 20 years chants "God Damn America" from the pulpit, will immediately conclude, at an emotional level, that Obama feels the same way. Obama needs to respond to this with an emotional appeal of his own that lays out precisely how he does feel about America. And he is certainly capable of giving a speech that would assuage people's concerns.

If he doesn't then this will hurt him. If he doesn't then the GOP will smell the weakness on this point and will hammer him for it. And then it will be even harder to respond.

This is not silly folks. This is it. This is the moment that could define whether Obama has what it takes to face the full onslaught of the right wing noise machine.

Proof of concept

I think the Rev. Wright situation demonstrates the point I was making in my post below about what would happen if the Clinton/Obama situations were reversed. Consider that Wright made his comments at a time just after the New Hampshire primary when it looked like Clinton might retake the momentum in the race. Wright, as the above linked post at TPMCafe discusses, was almost palpably frustrated in his comments.

As in the Ferarro situation, Wright's frustration doesn't excuse the stupidity of the comments made. But it explains where they come from.

Whistling past the graveyard

Oliver Willis argues that the attempt to make Obama look like a militant black by playing up the words of his pastor will fail because people just don't see Obama that way.

Well, a lot of people don't, but some do and stories like this could increase the margins of those who do. Not a lot, but certainly enough to make a difference in the Fall.

Lincoln was wrong when he said, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time". Not wrong on the logic. He was correct on that point. But wrong on the emotion. For, you see, the GOP understands that you don't have to fool all the people all the time. You just have to fool enough of the people enough of the time.

All it will take is for them to hear "Barack Obama's pastor says 'God Damn America'" and enough of the people could be fooled to make all the difference in the world.

Just remember John Kerry circa 2004: "No one will pay attention to the Swift Boat ads because its obvious that I'm a war hero so they don't need a response."

That strategy worked really well.

Danger! Danger!

Stop trying to use logic in dealing with things like this. It doesn't matter that no reasonable person could blame Obama for the (idiotic) thoughts of his former pastor. But what matters is that a LOT of people will only hear "Obama's pastor says 'God damn America'" and that will be enough to hurt him.

Dismissing this as illogical is only burying yourself politically. I certainly hope Obama isn't so stupid as to act like this won't be a big deal. If he does then this will be his Swift Boat moment.

"Clinton wouldn't be winning if she weren't a woman"

Just a few years back, before the Boston Red Sox won the World Series, there was a strong possibility that both the Sox and Chicago White Sox would go to the World Series in the same year. This meant that one of them would finally break their bad streak and the other would be left fuming at yet another lost opportunity.

Fortunately, for the peace of the baseball world, this didn't happen. The Cubs didn't make it and the Sox, while they lost that year, did eventually go on to break the streak. The world-ending showdown to end all showdowns was avoided.

Would that the same thing had happened in the race for the presidency.

The dream of a woman president and the dream of a black president are both powerful forces in America. They are dreams that many people who lived through the worst of the civil rights and women's liberation movements maybe never thought they might see in their lifetime. So it is natural that both constituencies would be excited at the prospect of the first serious candidate to fulfill each dream.

What nobody expected was that both would happen within the same campaign. It was a situation guaranteed to produce a lot of hurt feelings and, justified or not, a lot of ill will.

It is that, more than anything, that I think is fueling the bizarre behavior of Geraldine Ferraro (and other Clinton supporters). Being of an earlier generation, she may suffer from latent racists tendencies that her palpable disappointment has brought to the surface. It doesn't mean that she *is* a racist. She is just letting her disappointment override her reason.

But those in the Obama camp who are quick to jump to the conclusion that Ferarro is a flat-out racist (and that Clinton, by extension, shares the same guilt) might benefit from asking themselves what would be happening now if the roles were reversed. What would the their reaction be if the dream of the first black president were falling to the dream of the first woman president?

We simply cannot say how Barack Obama would react to this development. Would he be more gracious in the face of mathematical defeat than Clinton has been? Impossible to tell.

But, statistically, we can be sure that some members of Team Obama, including Obama staffers, might not be so gracious. Just as their may be latent racism in Ferarro's subconscious, there is most certainly latent sexism within the minds of some Obama people. Given a similar but opposite situation, those supporters might be equally tempted to make comments like, "Clinton wouldn't be winning if she weren't a woman."

Anyone who is honest about the human condition has to admit that this would be happen. Disappointment is a powerful emotion that even the strongest would have difficulty controlling.

(And the possibility that some Obama supporters might make similar statements is no more a sign of inherent sexism in Obama than are Ferarro's comments a sign of inherent racism in Clinton.)

I say this in the hope of talking people out of going to far in their accusations of racism (possibly already to late). Obama himself has talked about the need for people to understand the hopes AND disappointments of people who are opposed to us. Our ability to empathize with the disappointments of others is what makes us better than the cockroaches who are the real enemy. I know that Democrats, both Obama and Clinton supporters, are not as divided as this campaign makes us appear. But we will begin to match our surface appearance if we allow ourselves to lose sight of the greater fight before us.

Walk a mile in the other gals shoes and ask yourself how would you feel. Then maybe you can honestly assess Clinton's motives.

(disclaimer: I support Obama. It shouldn't be necessary for me to say that. But we all know that it is.)

Stupid Stupid Stupid

Yeah, this pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

Would it help if some people would just engage a neuron or two every now and then?

Is SNL in the tank for Clinton?

I find it odd and telling that quite a few Obama supporters, upon watching the above video clip, see it as SNL giving tacit support to Hillary Clinton. Even nominally non-partisan journalists, such as the local political report Jeff Mapes, seem to think it is sufficiently anti-Obama that they have to give a warning to Obama supporters ahead of time.

Now, the clip does contain a disparaging portrayal of Obama. But a lot of people seem to have missed the point that the sketch is meant to be a Clinton commercial about just how bad Obama would be. In other words, the over-the-top nature of the Obama portrayal is an satirical exaggeration of Clinton's "Experience before Hope" argument.

It is a sketch that knocks both candidates, but Clinton even more so because it shows just how absurd that argument is.

Maybe I benefit from not being an ardent Obama partisan (though I do support him over Clinton). Maybe that is why I can see the obvious direction of the satire while a lot of Obamazins fail to get the joke.

What do others say?