THURSDAY,  MARCH 20,  2008

THE FALLOUT

The fallout from Senator Obama's speech on race continues. The tracking polls have not yet picked up public reaction, but should within the next few days.  So it is left to the pundits to pund, which they're doing. 

James Taranto, who edits Best of the Web Today, has a superb column on the speech, and the sometimes disturbing reaction to it:

When Barack Obama yesterday condemned the most invidious remarks of his "spiritual mentor," Jeremiah Wright, National Review's Byron York was there. The auditorium at Philadelphia's National Constitution Center, York reports, "was filled mostly with guests invited by the Obama campaign." Unsurprisingly, they "thought he delivered a great speech." Disturbingly, several whom York interviewed didn't understand all the fuss about Wright:

"It was amazing," Gregory Davis, a financial adviser and Obama supporter from Philadelphia, told me. "I think he addressed the issue, and if that does not address the issue, I don't know what else can be said about it. That was just awesome oratory."

I asked Davis what his personal reaction was when he saw video clips of sermons in which Rev. Wright said, "God damn America," called the United States the "U.S. of KKK A," and said that 9/11 was "America's chickens . . . coming home to roost." "As a member of a traditional Baptist, black church, I wasn't surprised," Davis told me. "I wasn't offended by anything the pastor said. A lot of things he said were absolutely correct. . . . The way he said it may not have been the most appropriate way to say it, but as far as a typical black inner-city church, that's how it's said."

Hmm.  The problem, Mr. Davis, is that Obama's whole gimmick is that he transcends race, is going to unify the country, and will make the angels sing in Heaven.  Maybe a good place to start up that road is to stop justifying inflammatory sermons on the grounds of, "that's how it's said."

And...

Newsweek's Lisa Miller reports on WashingtonPost.com that black religious leaders take a similar tack:

Last Friday, in an effort to gauge just how "out there" Wright's sermons are in the context of the African-American church tradition, Newsweek phoned at least two dozen of the country's most prominent and thoughtful African-American scholars and pastors, representing a wide range of denominations and points of view. Not one person would say that Wright had crossed any kind of significant line.

"An effort on the part of Christians--both clergy and laypersons--to critique the United States in light of what they understand as biblically based moral and ethical guidelines isn't new," explains Anthony Pinn, a professor of religious studies at Rice University. "There is a dominant style in black churches and Rev. Wright's preaching is a prime example of this. . . . Some of what Rev. Wright says is controversial, but that doesn't make him unique."

And the Rev. John H. Thomas, general minister and president of Wright's denomination, the United Church of Christ, issued a statement yesterday excusing Wright on the ground that it was wrong to remove Saddam Hussein from power:

Many of us would prefer to avoid the stark and startling language Pastor Wright used in these clips. But what was his real crime? He is condemned for using a mild "obscenity" in reference to the United States. This week we mark the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war conceived in deception and prosecuted in foolish arrogance. Nearly four thousand cherished Americans have been killed, countless more wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered. Where is the real obscenity here? True patriotism requires a degree of self-criticism, even self-judgment that may not always be easy or genteel. Pastor Wright's judgment may be starker and more sweeping than many of us are prepared to accept. But is the soul of our nation served any better by the polite prayers and gentle admonitions that have gone without a real hearing for these five years while the dying and destruction continues?

Whatever one's opinion of the Iraq war, this is a complete non sequitur. Wright is not responsible for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, and in any case there is no reason to think he has exercised any influence on it by virtue of striking an obnoxious tone. He is responsible for the spiritual sustenance of his congregation. Does he serve that responsibility well when he uses his pulpit to stir up parishioners' hatred and anger?

As for "the soul of our nation," we have heard a lot of late about America's need for racial reconciliation. Thanks to the Obama-Wright episode, we also have learned that racial antagonism and anti-Americanism are much more common than we would have guessed among predominantly black congregations in America.

Is this not an obstacle to reconciliation? In 21st-century America, does any greater obstacle remain?

Very well said, Mr. Taranto. 

March 20, 2008.  Permalink

KONDRACKE ON OBAMA

Mort Kondracke also has some lucid observations the Obama speech:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is absolutely right, as he said in his Philadelphia speech on Tuesday, that Americans are "hungry" for his "message of unity."

But his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- and not only that, but his whole liberal-populist agenda -- raises profound questions whether he is capable of delivering on it.

By choosing -- and sticking with -- the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as his spiritual adviser, Obama has damaged his ability to heal the nation's racial wounds. And his agenda offers nothing that will attract Republicans and end political polarization.

And...

Whether Obama was in church the day that Wright declared "Goddamn America" for systematically infecting blacks with drugs and HIV, or when he said that America's "chickens were coming home to roost" on Sept. 11, 2001, surely Obama had to have heard about it.

Surely, he heard about Wright's pilgrimage to Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and his "lifetime achievement award" for Louis Farrakhan.

Now, Obama says, he rejects and abhors what Wright said and did. No doubt, he does. But, he could cite no instance when he ever intervened with Wright to protest his hateful nonsense. Reportedly, Oprah Winfrey quietly left Wright's church. Obama did not.

And...

Were he to be elected, if he truly wanted to foster unity and end polarization, he would have to reach out to Republicans to reach a series of "grand bargains" on entitlement reform, health care, education funding and energy and environmental policy.

Yet, there is nothing in Obama's agenda that a Republican could remotely be attracted to. It is liberal from top to bottom. His proposal for Social Security reform, for instance, is to raise taxes -- period. No shaving benefits, no private accounts -- no "bargain."

Well reasoned.  The only problem I have with Kondracke's argument is that it doesn't weigh the help Obama will get from a compliant media.  To some in the press - not a small number, I fear - Obama is the fulfilment of a dream.  He's the "difference" they wanted to make when they became journalists.  Nothing must be permitted to stand in the way.  It's the least they can do for their journalism professors. 

The way the press covers the campaign will affect the vote.  Watch for every little gaffe McCain makes to be news.  Watch as Obama is presented as something beyond and above an ordinary candidate.

And watch for the subtle strain of intimidation:  What will it say to the world, especially the Third World, if this man Obama is rejected?  Don't have we have enough image problems?

You wait.  I told you so.

March 20, 2008.  Permalink

HILLARY'S LAMENT

With all of Obama's troubles, you'd think he was a long shot for the nomination.  No, he still remains the heavy favorite, and Hillary Clinton's maneuvering room, according to The New York Times, seems to get smaller and smaller each day.  She appears, to some observers, to be approaching desperation:

Despite Mrs. Clinton’s last-minute trip to Michigan on Wednesday, Democrats there signaled that they are unlikely to hold a new primary. That apparently dashed Mrs. Clinton’s hopes of a new showdown in a state she feels she could win, and it left the state’s delegates in limbo.

The inaction in Michigan followed a similar collapse of her effort to seek another matchup with Mr. Obama in Florida, where, as in Michigan, she won an earlier primary held in violation of party rules.

Without new votes in Florida and Michigan, it will be that much more difficult for Mrs. Clinton to achieve a majority in the total popular vote in the primary season, narrow Mr. Obama’s lead among pledged delegates or build a new wave of momentum.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers had hoped that the uproar over inflammatory remarks made by Mr. Obama’s longtime pastor that has rocked his campaign for a week might lead voters and superdelegates to question whether they really know enough about Mr. Obama to back him. Although it is still early to judge his success, the speech Mr. Obama delivered on race in Philadelphia to address the controversy was well received and praised even by some Clinton supporters.

And...

It is in the interest of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign to portray the contest as being highly competitive. Her campaign is intent on combating Mr. Obama’s efforts to pick off superdelegates. And it is increasingly concerned that any sign that the window is closing could lead a Democrat like Al Gore or Speaker Nancy Pelosi to step in and urge Democrats to back Mr. Obama in the interest of unity.

In truth, in interviews, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said that task was tough and growing tougher and that the critical questions were what would happen with Florida and Michigan and the possibility of developments involving Mr. Obama’s relationship with his spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

One of the problems with the primary system, of course, is that voters who cast their vote in February may have a very different view in June.  But it's too late.  The Democrats may wind up nominating damaged goods because millions of voters, early in the primary process, thought the goods were pristine, and just out of the carton.

Where in politics do you go for a refund?

March 20, 2008.  Permalink

SOMETHING GOOD IN SAN FRANCISCO?

We're so used to bashing San Francisco values here, and for noble reason, that we forget that decent things happen there.  It isn't an every-year occurrence, but it happens.  Now the same city that contributes Nancy Pelosi may be the scene of some partial redemption.  The Olympic torch is supposed to pass through San Francisco on its way to China, but some locals are angry because of China's crackdown in Tibet:

With Chinese troops engaged in a violent confrontation with protesters in the restive region of Tibet and elsewhere across China, the visit of the Olympic torch to San Francisco next month could leave the city by the bay with a black eye rather than the worldwide publicity bonanza local officials were expecting.

The planned run through San Francisco on April 9 is the only visit the torch is to make to America before the Olympic Games open in Beijing on August 8. The relay has long been expected to draw protests from a variety of groups with grievances against China, but the fresh violence in Tibet could produce the kind of stark dissonance that would cast a pall over the torch-related festivities.

"We would find it incredibly troubling if the torch went through while the crackdown is still happening," the Northern California director for Human Rights Watch, Elizabeth Marsh, said. "The recent events happening in Tibet have taken this debate to a whole new level," Jacob Colker, of the International Campaign for Tibet, said. "I think San Francisco policy makers are starting to feel the heat. Is this going to get a lot worse over the next 23 days? You bet."

And get this.  No, your eyes aren't lying:

Today, a committee of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors is scheduled to take up a resolution calling for the torch to be "received with alarm and protest" because of "egregious and ongoing human rights abuses in China and occupied Tibet."

Hey, weren't these the same guys who refused to have the USS Iowa as a permanent exhibit in S.F. because they thought it would promote militarism?  Have they changed?  Or is there a catch I'm missing.

Well, let's not get too overwhelmed.  Apparently the mayor doesn't share the anguish:

"I have strong concerns about human rights but I can compartmentalize that and separate that from the spirit of the Olympics," the mayor told KGO-TV.

Always be suspicious about anyone who uses the word "compartmentalize."  I've noticed in life that these people cannot be trusted.

And, sadly, the foreign minister of France, who seemed so courageous in his stand on Tibet just a few days ago, is backing down:

In a related development yesterday, the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, backed away from his earlier suggestion that he was open to the idea of protesting China's Tibet crackdown with an international boycott of the opening ceremonies at the Olympics in Beijing. "It seems unrealistic," Mr. Kouchner told a French radio network, RMC, the Associated Press reported. "There are a lot of good ideas that can't be put into practice."

Mr. Kouchner, a co-founder of Doctors Without Borders, said human rights issues sometimes have to take a back seat. "When you're dealing in international relations with countries as important as China, obviously when you make economic decisions it's sometimes at the expense of human rights," he added, according to the AP. "That's elementary realism."

In other words, yen talks, chop suey walks.  It's the same in every language.

March 20, 2008.  Permalink

POLITICAL MORALITY

Finally, we reflect on the fact that, in the course of a few weeks, New York has seen one governor, Eliot Spitzer, step down after his involvement in a prostitution ring that charged thousands a night was revealed. And we have seen his replacement, David Paterson, admit that both he and his wife have been involved in extra-marital affairs, apparently costing very few bucks. 

New Yorkers have talked and debated on our fall from grace, but some opinions are a lot more direct than others.  The New York Times, after reviewing all the philosophical meanderings of concerned citizens, reported this:

One measure of the last 10 days is that people who do not usually talk politics are talking politics. One is Jake, who is 37 and would let himself be identified by only his first name if his occupation were published.

He is a male escort.

“We’re dumbing the American people down by making politics all about girls, girls, girls,” he said. And we’re keeping qualified people from running for office because they know they’re going to be under such scrutiny.”

And then there was Ronald Martin, a homeless man sitting on the sidewalk on 42nd Street in Times Square. He was holding a piece of cardboard with a handwritten message that had syntax problems but got his point across: “I need only $4,300 so I can meet a nice girl like our Governor Spitzer.”

At least the man, with all his troubles, stays interested.

March 20, 2008.  Permalink

Be back later.

March 20, 2008.