The Wright thing - how much effect will it have on Obama 08?

As in, the timeline was:

- Wright was invited to give convocation at Obama's announcement that he was running for president (January 2007)

- Rolling Stone article came out, about Wright and his more out-there stuff and Obama's relationship to him (February 22nd issue which seems to have been published February 7th, 2007)

- Obama disinvites Wright, citing the Rolling Stone article, and makes the "rough" comment (as per Wright, anyway) (shortly before Feb 10th, 2007)

It gets less plausible the more statements there are, though. (I haven't actually seen the video -- how many?)

We're all used to hyperbole about those around politicians. Remember the "Clinton is a serial rapist" stuff from sixteen years ago? Those who already don't favor Obama will claim this is a big deal. Those who favor him will ignore it. Those on the fence will have an excuse if they were already leaning away from him. In the end, it will matter for naught.

So if didn't agree, why was he still going? Why tolerate it?

The Paradox of Electability

Political journalists, being journalists, tend to focus on campaign happenings and controversies as a key determinant of election outcomes. Research, however, indicates that most people vote as dogmatic partisans and that most of the election-to-election variance can be explained by macroeconomic trends. Some elections, obviously, are very close and thus "the campaign" turns out to have been a decisive figure, but even in these cases a very close election like the 2000 election featured so many "important" campaign factors (Bush's coverup of his DUI citation, Gore sighing in the debate, Bush not knowing the names of foreign leaders, the press insisting that Gore claimed to have invented the internet, etc.) that it's hard to believe that any one of them was actually all that important.

Primary campaign voters, by contrast, are more fickle because there's much less underlying difference between the contenders. And one thing primary voters look at is electability, and another thing they look at is elite support and elites look a lot at electability. Voters and elites alike, meanwhile, like reporters, tend to wildly overestimate the importance of contingent campaign happenstance on election outcomes. Consequently, a primary season campaign gaffe that's seen as potentially harmful during the general election is arguably more likely to hurt you in the primary because of the perception that it'll hurt you in the general than it is to actually hurt you in the general election.

Mame wrote:

So if didn't agree, why was he still going? Why tolerate it?

I'm not a Christian so maybe I dont get the idea, but I'd say probably because he really disagreed with some of the stuff Wright was saying, but really agreed with some of the other stuff, and overall found it to be interesting. Sort of like going to A2K. :wink:

Plus, of course, if that was the church where a lot of interesting and kind people went and there were many links with the community in which he worked, that alone can be reason enough to go to a specific church - even if you wouldnt agree with the pastor.

've been contemplating why I'm more disturbed by James Hagee's diatribes ...

I think it comes down to this: Wright sounds to me like a black man who is expressing anger and frustration at the continuing racism in this country. Sure, he may have used intemperate, even extreme language, and I wouldn't say that I agree with everything he said (the AIDS thing is just nutty), but on the issue of racism I think he has a legitimate gripe.

In short, I think one of these guys is angry and intemperate while the other is completely batshit crazy. I'll let you figure out which is which.

More importantly, I suspect (and fear) that Hagee would have more influence on a President McCain than Wright would have on a President Obama.

Bill Kristol's New York Times column about Barack Obama this morning contains a major, prejudicial error.

Paragraph five:

But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright's ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That's when Wright blamed the "arrogance" of the "United States of White America" for much of the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright's preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

The error is in trusting the source without checking.

The truth is that Obama did not attend church on July 22.

He was on his way to campaign in Miami.

(Here is some video evidence.) This was before he signed an agreement forbidding himself from campaigning in Florida.

Here is the original, false, Newsmax story:

Obama Attended Hate America Sermon. One of his correspondents allegedly attended a service last summer where Rev. Wright preached on the "United States of White America." Kessler writes that Obama "nodded" his head while Wright preached along these lines: Addressing the Iraq war, Wright thundered, "Young African-American men" were "dying for nothing." The "illegal war," he shouted, was "based on Bush's lies" and is being "fought for oil money."

Now, a simple Google search suggests that Obama spent most of the day in Miami. But a simple e-mail or telephone call to Obama's campaign might have cleared things up.

MJ Rosenberg wonders:

In 2000, when Joe Lieberman ran, do you recall articles about the political views of his rabbi? [..] Lieberman is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-feminist, all the things Orthodox rabbis tend not to be. [Yet] Joe's rabbi, whoever he is, was never an issue. Obama's is. Why is that?

Sadly, the answer is pretty simple. The hypothetical extremism of an orthodox Rabbi is similar to the extremism of Pat Robertson, or the neoconservatives. It's a normalized extremism. Fundamentally, the bloodthirsty imperialism of Normal Podhoretz is much crazier than the Libertarian/Marxist skepticism of Noam Chomsky, but Chomsky's extremism is considered out-of-bounds, while Podhoretzs extremism has an honored place in the conversation. [..] Similarly, the Biblical extremism of a rabbi or a pastor is an acceptable extremism, while the racial anger of Jeremiah Wright is disallowed.

Wright's comments are a huge problem for Obama. They strike at the heart of his candidacy, which has been explicitly pitched as the vehicle by which we'll get beyond exactly the sort of anger and bitterness and historical memory and accurate power analysis that Wright offers. And it will be hard for Obama to distance himself from his pastor. It was Wright, after all, who contributed the title of Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, and it is Wright who gets an admiring chapter in Obama's first book, Dreams From My Father. As Kate wrote over at the Motherblog, more and more Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim. This will be another way that Clinton, or McCain, or whoever, cement their nagging sense that Obama belongs to "the Other," and isn't one of them -- is too Muslim, or too foreign, or too post-patriotic, or simply too black.

The sense around town seems to be that the odd emergence of this old video of Wright was part of a Clinton oppo dump, and that's likely correct. But it doesn't matter. Wright is a public figure, and these sorts of things will come out. It won't even help Clinton, as the last thing the superdelegates can do is give her the nomination because she was able to paint Obama as a Scary Black Man. But it can hurt Obama nevertheless. These are the tensions his campaign has to navigate: It's not easy to remake race into a unifying force, nor a ideological internationalism into an American value. Traditionally, internationalism has been used to question patriotism, and race has been used to divide. In his speeches, Obama likes to say that "I know change isn't easy." And he's right, it's not. This won't be an easy election. And whether the force of his message will overcome the pull of our history is, for now, an open question.

joefromchicago wrote:

've been contemplating why I'm more disturbed by James Hagee's diatribes ...

Is "James" a form of "John"?

Yes, the continual repeating of the phrase, "God damn America!", is obviously just a black man expressing his anger and frustration. Re 9/11: "America's chickens are coming home to roost" -- yep, just racial frustration.

Ah, yes ... I'm sure only one of these two religious figures actually believes the New Testament. The other one is just in the racket so he can spew his racist agenda.

And that suspicion and fear is based on what? Some bizarre notion in your head that "Republican spiritual advisors have a tendency to become political advisors, while Democrats tend to call in the clerics only when they need cover for their extra-political indiscretions." That's ridiculous, and on par with something I'd expect to hear from the likes of Roxxxxanne..

What is the connection between Hagee and McCain? Hagee endorsed McCain, and McCain accepted the endorsement. That's it ... there is no relationship between the two.

What is the connection between Wright and Obama? Let's see ... a 20 year relationship ... Wright is the pastor of Obama's church. Wright married Obama and his wife, and baptized their children. Obama considers Wright to be "a spiritual mentor and a role model." Obama has said that rather than advising him on strategy, Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated. Wright is the man who inspired the 2004 keynote speech that put Obama into the national spotlight. Apparently, Obama checks with his pastor before making any bold political moves. Wright had an honorary position on Obama's campaign.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right ... clearly Hagee will have more influence on McCain than Wright would have on Obama.