Rev. Wright = Bad News For Obama
This news analysis was written by CBS News Senior Political Correspondent Jeff Greenfield.
If you had a chance to listen to Rev. Jeremiah Wright - at his NAACP appearance in Detroit, or in his talk at the National Press Club - you came away with two impressions: first, Rev. Wright is a learned, compelling, often hilarious speaker; second, he is a genuine threat to the presidential hopes of Barack Obama.
His NAACP speech was shaped around the theme that "different does not mean deficient." He talked about how blacks and whites were "different" in everything from language to music to religious worship. He interposed his speech with snatches from speeches, songs - at one point, brilliantly imitating the sharply different styles of marching bands. Michigan State, he demonstrated, simply did not move on the field the way the Grambling Band did.
He also offered a highly inclusive vision of the change America needed - rejecting exclusionary thinking whether it was white vs. black, black vs. white, straight vs. gays, Christians vs. Jews. There was nothing in that part of the speech that was objectionable or offensive.
So what's the problem for Senator Obama? In his National Press Club speech, we saw another side of Rev. Wright - utterly unrepentant about any of the things he has said, and insistent that the wave of criticism aimed at him was really "an attack on the black church."
That argument is familiar - even pervasive. When a visible member group that has suffered exclusion is challenged, that individual is frequently heard making that argument. Senator Huey Long argued that attacks on his honesty were really attacks on the poor for whom he spoke; Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton both argued that attempts to hold them accountable for misconduct were really attacks mounted by their political enemies.
In wrapping himself in such an argument, Rev. Wright never even seeks to confront the core of the criticism: What did you mean when you said what you said? Why tell your congregation that AIDS was a government conspiracy to commit genocide on African-Americans?
More broadly, Rev. Wright's counterattack reframes the argument in starkly racial terms: "Attack me, attack the black church." It is exactly the opposite what Senator Obama has been arguing throughout his campaign; that it is past time for the United States look beyond race. Indeed, Wright's vision of this controversy strikes at the heart of Obama's view.
Rev. Wright, Obama said, cannot see an America that has advanced beyond the blatant racism of earlier times. What Wright seems to be saying is: "If you call me out on what I have been saying, you are calling out the whole black church." (When Wright adds that Obama is only saying what a politician has to say, he seems to be suggesting that perhaps Obama doesn't believe that Wright has said anything offensive; file that under the "not helpful" category.)
It may well be true that most white Americans do not know or understand the nature of the black church in America; that it was formed and grew in response to the fundamental evil of slavery and oppression. But in his comments, Rev. Wright seems not to believe that the United States has in any serious way come some considerable distance - and one of the surest signs of that is the plausible presidential candidacy that Wright's comments have so seriously harmed.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. If you had a chance to listen to Rev. Jeremiah Wright - at his NAACP appearance in Detroit, or in his talk at the National Press Club - you came away with two impressions: first, Rev. Wright is a learned, compelling, often hilarious speaker; second, he is a genuine threat to the presidential hopes of Barack Obama.
His NAACP speech was shaped around the theme that "different does not mean deficient." He talked about how blacks and whites were "different" in everything from language to music to religious worship. He interposed his speech with snatches from speeches, songs - at one point, brilliantly imitating the sharply different styles of marching bands. Michigan State, he demonstrated, simply did not move on the field the way the Grambling Band did.
He also offered a highly inclusive vision of the change America needed - rejecting exclusionary thinking whether it was white vs. black, black vs. white, straight vs. gays, Christians vs. Jews. There was nothing in that part of the speech that was objectionable or offensive.
So what's the problem for Senator Obama? In his National Press Club speech, we saw another side of Rev. Wright - utterly unrepentant about any of the things he has said, and insistent that the wave of criticism aimed at him was really "an attack on the black church."
That argument is familiar - even pervasive. When a visible member group that has suffered exclusion is challenged, that individual is frequently heard making that argument. Senator Huey Long argued that attacks on his honesty were really attacks on the poor for whom he spoke; Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton both argued that attempts to hold them accountable for misconduct were really attacks mounted by their political enemies.
In wrapping himself in such an argument, Rev. Wright never even seeks to confront the core of the criticism: What did you mean when you said what you said? Why tell your congregation that AIDS was a government conspiracy to commit genocide on African-Americans?
More broadly, Rev. Wright's counterattack reframes the argument in starkly racial terms: "Attack me, attack the black church." It is exactly the opposite what Senator Obama has been arguing throughout his campaign; that it is past time for the United States look beyond race. Indeed, Wright's vision of this controversy strikes at the heart of Obama's view.
Rev. Wright, Obama said, cannot see an America that has advanced beyond the blatant racism of earlier times. What Wright seems to be saying is: "If you call me out on what I have been saying, you are calling out the whole black church." (When Wright adds that Obama is only saying what a politician has to say, he seems to be suggesting that perhaps Obama doesn't believe that Wright has said anything offensive; file that under the "not helpful" category.)
It may well be true that most white Americans do not know or understand the nature of the black church in America; that it was formed and grew in response to the fundamental evil of slavery and oppression. But in his comments, Rev. Wright seems not to believe that the United States has in any serious way come some considerable distance - and one of the surest signs of that is the plausible presidential candidacy that Wright's comments have so seriously harmed.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 429 Comments
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 170 Comments
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 120 Comments
- Senate committee approves immigration bill
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado 84 Comments
- Former IRS chief: "I can't say" what led to IRS targeting
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 1185 Comments
- IRS scandal highlights leadership vacancies
I, for one don''t give a rat''s behind what he thinks or says. There are much more important issues facing America today.
Also, I''d like to see more of us mirror Obama''s idea of learning how to disagree with one another, without becoming vulgar or disrespectful in the process.
I don''t think Obama is racist or unpatriotic or nutty (which is what some people seem to think about Reverend Wright) so how about we look at other attributes or problems with the candidates. I don''t think any of the candidates are racist, unpatriotic or nutty -- but I do think some have better plans and ideas, and some will be better at making things happen, i.e., making their dreams a reality.
Who gets things done? Out of the three candidates, which one is the most likely to accomplish good things for us? How are we supposed to figure that out if we don''t get any real news?
We Americans are not stupid, but we are a bit ignorant because we''re busy and the media seems to think we are interested in trivial nonsense rather than the things which keep us up at night.
ARE YOU KIDDING???
"Blacks didn''t know anything about hateing (sic) and bigotry when they got here?"
Tribes in Africa fought and killed each other for eons (and still ARE!!)--heck, they even ATE their kill--they were called "headhunters" or "cannibals!!"
And, also, do you not realize that they also are the ones who CAUGHT and SOLD people to the slave ships??
Perhaps you need to study a little more "history."
BTW, people do not need to be "taught" to hate and kill. It''s the fallen nature of mankind--that''s why we need a Savior to forgive us!
Can we not get some real news. Which candidate can really help with the mortgage crisis? (Even if we own our home, the homes around us are going into foreclosure, bringing the value down of the other houses and reducing the tax base for the town.)
What the heck are we going to do about Iraq? Who will help with that? It''s costing us our FUTURE to stay there. We need to keep social security and medicare and have good schools and lots of cops and firemen. Who will tell me how we are going to get that? What about our debt to China and the price of oil??
GIVE ME SOME NEWS!
Right now, McCain''s ideas look like Bush''s ideas (so if they''re different, please tell me CBS) and Hillary''s ideas and Obama''s ideas look basically the same (if they''re different, please tell me, CBS).
Right now, I like Obama because his ideas make sense to me and I don''t think Hillary can get elected (no matter how many shots of whiskey she takes and guns she shoots). But, I''m open and right now, I could really go for some solid info with some real suggestions about what we can do because I am worried about the future for my children. REALLY REALLY worried!
+ report abuse
Stop listening to the same media that covered for Bush''s mistakes!!!
Clinton compared Obama''s success in South Carolina to JEsse Jackson...YOU KNOW WHY?!
Here''s WHY!
If Obama didn%u2019t want to be compared to Jesse Jackson, maybe he shouldn%u2019t have put R&B in his SC advertisements, shouldn%u2019t have sent black-only emissaries to the Black SC community, and should have put Wright, who was doing the rounds, on pause. The message in South Carolina put out by Obama%u2019s campaign, whether the media wanted to ignore it or not, was %u201CVote for me I am Black.%u201D To then come back and smash Bill Clinton for mentioning Jesse Jackson, that%u2019s audacity; Axelrod made this clear through his surrogates, while he had Obama say that what the Clintons%u2019 said was %u201Cunfortunate.%u201D
So who was painting whom as "the black candidate"
Why, Obama himself! Maybe that''s why he goes to a church that''s focused on BLACK BLACK BLACK...
Gee, who''s the racist?
I dare you to show me where the Clinton''s have been "racist" you dummy.