Wednesday, April 30, 2008
|
|
Some Thoughts on the Wright Debacle
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
12:08 PM
|
As most of the sentient American population knows by now, Barack Obama distanced himself definitively from his pastor and one-time spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright.
It's hard not to feel some sympathy for Barack. I have no doubt that he knew (or had a pretty darned good idea) of what Wright's views were -- Barack is anything but stupid, and one would have to be beyond stupid to have no clue about the opinions of someone as outspoken as Wright clearly is, especially after 20 years of close friendship (with all the attendant meals and social occasions they must have shared).
Even so, it's clear that Barack looked up to Wright as a father figure, and must have felt betrayed in a very fundamental way upon realizing that Wright was willing to gratify his ego even at the cost of Obama's campaign. And that's sad (although he will, no doubt, have the satisfaction of seeing Wright mauled by the MSM, many of whose members are beyond angry with him for the damage he's inflicted on their darling).
As I have written before, I don't think that Barack shares in any way Wright's racist and hate-mongering views (although I'm less sure about his wife, Michelle). He's a huge lefty, but not a hater. The episode gives me misgivings about Barack nonetheless; it's a warning sign that he'd even be willing to tolerate those views (just as he was able to tolerate Ayers/Dorn). It's a sign of a life lived too much amid the radical chic in the faculty lounge -- which, in turn, is poor preparation for dealing with someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Finally, Republicans had better be careful what they wish for. In my view, it's not to the GOP's advantage for Barack to lose the nomination now. All that would mean is a race against Hillary "The Energizer Bunny" Clinton -- and the certainty that Barack would be back on the scene four or eight years from now, with Jeremiah Wright far, far back in the rear view mirror and with a legislative record designed specifically to enhance his chances at the presidency.
If Hillary loses this race, she may well try again, but not with much chance of success. Not only has she alienated a substantial portion of her party by her treatment of Barack, but the Democrat party loves new faces. That's a tendency that Barack could overcome, but not Hillary, given the endemic "Clinton fatigue" that exists already.
|
|
I was on HuffPost yesterday while Obama was giving his speech and the comments that followed were quite surprising. People that normally supported Obama were questioning the sincerety of this whole event. It was immediately clear to me that all of Wright's appearances and statements were part of a larger plan. Obamas "heartfelt" speech was just the final act. His attempt to put this issue to rest once and for all. But, I never supported him, so it was easy for me to see it this way. What does it say when Obamas own supporters see through this act?
As for your observation that Obama does not feel the same as Wright and that Michelle does. I have to wonder how one stays married to someone with such militant feelings toward their country? I'm not buying it. Obama is a politician and he knows he will not win any higher level election if he shows these beliefs, they work fine in selected company, such as the SF crowd. He is not who he is claiming to be. |
|
|
is probably to lose the nomination to Hillary, then she loses to McCain, then he runs again in 4 (or 8) years, having bolstered his resume. Not so good I think for him if he gets the nomination, because I think McCain will probably defeat him--although I guess you never know. I have to say this is probably the most interesting election I have seen in a long time. |
|
Barack acts like Wright hurt him by hurting his candidacy. Whatever motivates Wright, ego? fame?money? black power? he is undoubtedly a true believer of his own message.
It is he who feels betrayed by Barack. How could Barack act like a son, use Wright's church as a poltical stepping-stone, sit in the pews like a bobble-head, give a ton of money--and then throw Wright and all his "work" overboard in such a public way? After relegating him to the basement on announcement day?
Whatever Obama gets from Wright, he has it coming. Obama betrayed Wright for political gain. Obama betrays his own character.
Obama will probably be the nominee. Super-delegates are endorsing him as I write. They know that if Hill were to win, blacks would defect to Mack.
Mack's character (see Rove's article in Mack in the WSJ)will win over Obama's. Who will be the cast of characters in 2012? Mack will be too old. Hill and Barack will be old hat. The bloom is off their rose already and neither have any real record of accomplishment.
We'll do this whole thing again in four years, but I believe it will be with a bunch of fresh faces. |
|
For a lot of voters in a general election, character matters and character is significantly reflected by the company one keeps.
Barack Obama's emergency press conference is another reflection. It is patently disingenuous of Obama to "unequivocally" denounce his ex-pastor, Jeremiah Wright, after, and only after, Wright re-stirred the pot. |
|
You're right. There is no way to spin the pickle. Barack started off with lies in The First Speech and what did momma tell you? A little lie will turn into a big lie.
As horrified as I have been over Wright,in a strange way, I have more respect for him than I do for Obama. At least Wright is a stand-up guy, even if he stands for the wrong things. He has the courage of his convictions.
Does Obama even have any convictions? |
|
Ok Carol. Let me spell this out for you as simple as possible.
The hatred you all have for Wright pails in comparison to the publics feelings about the War in Iraq.
Here's what will happen in November.
A citizen walks into the polling booth to vote for the President.
"Do I want for more years of war in Iraq?"
A. Yes: McCain
B. No: Democrat
The Democratic candidate will win by a percentage similar to the percentage that disapproves of the war in Iraq today.
The Democrats could run Lizzie Borden as a candidate and she'd still beat McCain as long as she promised to withdraw from Iraq.
To Bush and McCain, leadership means ignoring the will of the people when it comes to war. People generally don't like being ignored in a Democracy.
Only a fool would go, "You know, I hate the war in Iraq, but the President is a leader and more qualified to make this decision than me so I think I'll vote McCain."
The irony of course will be neither Hillary or Barak will pull out of Iraq and both will prove yet again that all politicians are nothing but phony hacks.
To wit, there is nothing for Republicans to be careful about. They are going to lose in November, even if Al Gore decides to take the nomination. The only thing that could change that is if McCain decides to change his mind about Iraq.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! I just made milk come out my nose.
|
|
"Does Obama even have any convictions?"
You know, there is this expression that goes those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.
The question needs to be rephrased:
Does any politician have any convictions? I mean really, are you suggesting that some politician in Washington is not corrupt? I just want to here you say it. I could use a good laugh.
And, as Mark Twain aptly stated on numerous occasions: no.
The notion that someone, somewhere in this day and age can lament that a politician is a lying, double-crossing, backstabbing, SOB says our education system is sorely in disrepair.
All politicians are contemptible. That's just the way of it. As Plato pointed out in "The Republic", good sensible people won't compromise their ethics and hence will never enter political life.
The naivety of people expressing contempt for Obama is amusing. It also speaks to some underlying naive assumption that they believe
Americans voting for Barak believe he's something other than a typical politician.
Now that's funny. |
|
From "Obama opens a can of worms" by Mary Mitchel of the Sun Times.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/923055,CST-NWS-mitch3 0.article
"So, when Obama says America was "offended" by Wright's harsh language, he isn't speaking for or to Black America. He is speaking to White America."
Wright was right, Obama is just saying what he needs to, not what he really believes. He is just reassuring those awful, clingy, typical white persons.
Obama is toast.
|
|
Funny how you left this part out.
"There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people."
|
|
Don't hurt yourself but I want you to think and tell us all of the Dem/lib Prez's who have quit a war. (Jeopardy Theme Music Playing)
If you don't have a lifeline try this one:
What current Congress swore they'd get us out of Iraq if the people voted them into office?
bonus question:
Are we still in Iraq?
"I just want to say, 'Goodluck and we're all counting on you.'" |
|
While many factors favor a Democrat takeover of the White House, Republicans can always hope that Democrats will, once again, nominate perhaps the only candidate that cannot win the general election.
At this point, Republicans would be wise to hope for Obama to survive this primary and win the nomination. Right now, he seems the least likely to be able to win over an easily defeatable John McCain.
|
|
|
|