Here’s an idea for Barack Obama.
Put up or shut up.
For weeks people have been telling the heir apparent to the Democrat throne that he had a problem on his hands. His beloved pastor and official campaign spiritual advisor was a blatant racist. Instead of responding to the allegations, he dismissed the numerous examples presented as taken out of context, and declared that the good Reverend had the official Barack Obama seal of Approval because he himself had never heard such rantings when he was in the pews (Apparently it was pure dumb luck that they were on every single DVD that the church had for sale; Barack attended every Sunday and never heard them).
Unfortunately for him, the media isn’t taking Mr. Obama at face value anymore, and they kept pushing the issue and pushing the issue and pushing the issue until his defense of “I don’t know what you’re talking about” reached the point of it being unbelievable. So what does he do? Does he change his policy? Does he actually accomplish something and make a change?
Hell’s no. Instead, he comes out today and does what he does best.
Talk.
A few points from his speech really rubbed me the wrong way, though.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
A coalition of white and black people? 78% of black people in South Carolina voted for Barack Obama while non-blacks fell in the low 40’s, but for John Edwards. In fact, non whites over the age of 30 were overwhelmingly for John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. What the hell kind of coalition is that? It sounds more to me like the black voters voted straight down racial lines and white voters were split with half going to a guy who eventually lost and dropped out anyway. If that isn’t purely a racial vote, nothing is.
This part of his speech, however, is the single most important part. It’s a long clip but it doesn’t work edited:
On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
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.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. 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. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
The first thing I take issue with is his assertion that we’ve all had issues with the words spoken by our religious leaders. The problems with this comparison are so apparent that anyone who doesn’t call him out on them is ignoring the obvious.
I’ve had numerous disagreements over the years with my priests and with the church. I even recently walked away from the church because of a stance I believed to be hypocritical in the extreme on a few different issues. I have not, however, named a book after a quote from my priest. I’ve never let any of my priests into my home. I’ve never called a priest to serve as my direct paid spiritual advisor, and I’ve never donated $25,000 to my church. If I did, I’d be damn sure that I knew every inch of my church’s stance and my pastor’s history particularly if I was going to install my priest as my advisor when I take up residence in the White House.
Obama’s continued assertion that the remarks of his mentor and spiritual advisor are wrong but not the entirety of his character ring hollow for me. In all of the DVD’s that were for sale from the church, Reverend Wright made similar statements ranging from anti-white to anti-American to anti-Israel. Apparently, with the exception of the times Barack Obama was in attendance, Reverend Wright was prattling on about the evils of white america, and even now, Obama calls for unity while defending a divisive racist monster.
Rings hollow to me, how about you?
His defense of Wright amounts to a few points.
1. That his whole character isn’t evidenced by the hatemongering he does from the pulpit.
2. That despite his close ties to the Reverend, this would be no different than you not liking something any priest at your church says.
3. That because he helps some people with AIDS and was once a soldier, his character is beyond question.
If those three things are true, Senator, then why dump him from your campaign? Your actions don’t match your defenses of your pastor, Senator. The “crazy uncle” defense doesn’t apply here, Senator. You were fine with the man until you couldn’t take the heat anymore, and when you couldn’t deny his racist and hatred-filled rants anymore, you dumped him from the campaign altogether.
Way to stand by this man whose character you just spoke volumes of.
Obama’s speech was primarily about race, though, and the need for healing. He brought up the comments of Geraldine Ferraro multiple times. If you forgot what she said, here it is:
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he’s going to be able to put an end to partisanship. Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that’s the way our country is.
Of course, she immediately had to quit the Clinton campaign, apologize, say a Hail Mary, and run for the hills because God forbid you speak the obvious. Since Barack Obama started his ascent to fame, we’ve heard nothing but love from the mainstream media for this man, and we’ve heard again and again about how historic his run for the White House is. I’ve seen people who would never even consider voting Democrat admit to voting for Obama at least partially because he is, in fact, black:
Obama is a Black man Yes, I know, overstating the obvious, but it matters to me. NO, not because I’d vote for him or against him because of his race, or because anyone else would, but because in winning he would be sending a message loudly and clearly to one and all in this country that it IS possible to be black and male and be elected President of the United States of America.
Indeed it is, as we’re seeing right before us. When Barack Obama talks about his campaign making history, there’s only so many ways you can look at it.
1. He’s making history by being the first man with at least one parent who isn’t from the US to win the Presidency (although I think George Washington and a few others might have an issue with that claim).
2. That he’s the first liberal to win the Presidency (again, people like Clinton, JFK, and others may have a problem with that one)
3. That he’s going to be the first Democrat president..
4. That he’s making history by being the first viable black candidate for the office ever.
If we accept that the first three reasons are obviously not the case (and you’d have to be on some serious hallucinogens to not) then we can conclude that when Barack Obama says he’s going to make history, it’s all about his race, and he’s obviously correct. In my lifetime we’ve seen four black candidates for the office. Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Barack Obama, and Reverend Al Sharpton, but none of them are viable candidates with the ability to come out of their party’s primary and win a general election the way Barack Obama can. This is a given and is indisputable.
It is also indisputable that a large swath of people voting for this historic candidate are doing so for the historic reason we all have come to understand. When Barack Obama talks about history, he’s talking about race. He’s not wrong to do so, but he’s not being 100% forthright when he comes out and says that Geraldine Ferraro’s statement belittles his accomplishment. As we’ve already seen, Geraldine Ferraro’s statement is probably most offensive to Obama and the Obama camp and supporters because it follows along with his claim to history; his race.
Witness, if you will, the comments by a blogger I know talking about her biracial son and his reaction to Barack Obama:
A reporter from a TV station in Austin saw me with my mom in the press room and asked me why I was there. I told her that I was helping my mom and also writing for my school newspaper. She asked me what I thought of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I told her I liked both of them but that I cannot vote this year. She asked me who I would vote for if I could vote and I told her probably Barack Obama. I don’t really know who would make the best president. I like Barack Obama because he is biracial like me. I sometimes feel like I don’t fit in and people ask me my race. I tell them that I am mixed and they don’t know what that means. My dad was black and my mom is white. I think Barack Obama is like me because I can relate to my mom, who is white, and also to my dad, who was black. My mom told me that makes me fit into both races but I sometimes feel like it means I can’t fit in anywhere. Barack Obama makes me feel like I can fit in and maybe one day be president, too.
At one point, she wrote that he brought a tear to her eye in saying so.
And that brings me to my final point. You can’t bring your race into the race as a historic thing and then assault people who call you out on it. Ferraro’s claim that people are caught up in the idea of having the first black President is no more or less true because she said it as a white woman, yet despite the truth in what she said, the Clinton campaign, who themselves are doing something pretty historic despite it never being reported that way, chose to distance themselves from Ferraro and instead placate the Obama camp and black voters.
Instead of standing up and challenging Obama on his use of race when it’s convenient for him, they backed down granting him ultimate moral authority on all race issues. In not pursuing the Presidency in the same way as Barack Obama by declaring how historical the campaign is, the Clinton campaign has effectively relegated itself to just another campaign, despite the fact that a woman running for the office would be equally if not more historic than a black man doing the same.
Since the beginning, Barack Obama’s campaign has been about race. He’s made it the focal point of his campaign in every opportunity he’s been given to do so. His historic campaign isn’t historic if you take race out of it. His blathering about change and hope and all the other buzzwords really wouldn’t be any more than a John Edwards candidacy if he wasn’t black. After all, Edwards has spoken on many of the same themes for years and we know how far he’s gone (hint: he’s watching at home right now hoping someone picks him as Vice President).
Only someone truly naive would argue that a black man winning the race would be historic. Only someone exponentially more naive would argue that race isn’t a factor, an attraction, and could ultimately be the deciding issue in this race. Considering how close he and Senator Clinton are on an issue by issue basis, it’s hard for me to swallow the idea that people are suddenly so issue-aware and can see those fine differences in the two candidates, and if Barack Obama really wants race to not be an issue he needs to stop interjecting it into the campaign, particularly when talking about how historic his campaign is.
That would go a long way to proving that he’s more than just a “black” candidate.
Back in August, when the “Subprime Meltdown” was just getting underway and people were trying to figure out what to make of it, I read an article on a blog I visit daily (which one? I don’t remember, honestly, I just remember the article pretty vividly) that talked about a man in the midst of a crisis.
I’m not denying the existence or problem of the predatory lenders who turned the mortgage industry into their own little game of Russian roulette. Hell, I worked in the real estate business for a short time and I can tell you first hand that we often would justify people as a “good risk” based on very little just to close the deal. Were they all? Luckily, a lot of them were, but we often made loans (through our partner mortgage company) that were risky for us as far as the client’s ability to repay them. In the end, though, Countrywide and others didn’t have their loans pan out so well for them, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and that’s why we’re in the spot we’re in today.
