The Barack Obama campaign disappointed me for the first time in the last week. It had to do with Geraldine Ferraro.
Ferraro, as you no doubt have heard, came out about a week ago with some comments that Obama would not be in the place he is if he were a white man or a woman of any color. I am not sure if I agree 100% with her statement. In fact, I think if he were a woman - maybe even a woman of color - than his campaign would even be more tranformative than it is already. However, I do not think her statement is outlandish at all. Part of Obama's appeal - and not most of his appeal, but part of it - is the historic-ness of his candidancy, and part of that has to do with his race(s).
The statement was not racist. I don't even think it was race-baiting. It was a cranky old woman stating something that was pretty much, in my view, a simple fact: part of Obama's success does come as a result of his race. Now, if he were a white man, with the same charisma, the same message of hope, the same guts, would he be that successful? I don't know. Probably. But is it wrong, is it demeaning, is it condescending, to say that his success was partly due to his race? I don't think it was.
I admit I might be missing something, and I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I will say this: the media's reaction, as well as the reaction of a lot of people on the left, to the Ferraro comments was the first time all campaign that I've been really disappointed in the Obama campaign. Their takedown of Ferraro - who, let's not forget, is a trailblazer - was politics-as-usual. Her attack could have been part of the kitchen-sink strategy, but I doubt it; it was an old lady being honest. It certainly was not racist. The left's spin on this and inventing meanings for the words smacks of defensiveness.
I like Obama's personal general statement - that the comments were divisive (they were) and ridiculous (some of them were) and not racist.
But to say they are offensive and racist (Axelrod used the word "offensive," but plenty have, quite ridiculously, said "racist"), well, that's going too far. Axelrod shouldn't have gone for Ferraro's head on this one. It made the whole race thing bigger than it was, and was the sort of slice-and-dice politics that Obama usual does so well to criticize, not participate in. Attack ideas, not people.
He says it himself (paraphrasing): "this is the only country where a guy with a funny name and a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas can be a candidate for President." I agree that Ferraro's comments were not politically savvy, and that I hope none of Obama's supporters come out and blatantly say that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be where she was if she weren't the President's wife, even though it's true. But to come out and say they are racist and offensive is just too much.
So, I do disagree with Ferraro's basic point that this couldn't have happened if Obama were a woman. And I would hate to think that this comment was done calculatedly to use race as a wedge issue in the campaign, even though that might be the case. But racist? No. This is why our country is so afraid to talk about race. But I don't disagree that Obama's position as a biracial guy with roots in midwestern white, Hawaiian west, Africa, Immigration, etc, led partially to his success. Again, Obama certainly hasn't veered from this image of himself.
I want the Obama candidancy to mean an escape from trying to add meaning to people's comments that isn't there. When Obama came out and said that Reagan was a politician of ideas, Hillary tried to twist his words and make them into something they weren't. Now, Obama's campaign director seems to be doing the same to Ferraro.
That all being said, I hope the Rev. Wright stuff doesn't get worse. I don't understand judging someone by their pastor's views - this, perhaps, is racist, considering most of the message I heard was one of black pride - and hopefully the "story" stops where it is with Obama's swift condemnation of the comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their “softball” reporting on Barack Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn’t!
As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep.
Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary’s largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media.
Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California’s anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law.
Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary’s attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures.
Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary’s biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit’s allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary’s Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill.
The media - except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary’s last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary’s campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary’s campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report.
In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul’s $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul’s partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money.
Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the “overly critical” media!
Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary’s role as a witness in Bill’s fraud trial for defrauding Hillary’s largest donor- and Hillary’s refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970’s before her first Senate election in 2000?
Let the truth be told, see the video of Hillary commiting crimes at www.hillcap.org
And to those that like to get brainwashed by the media, like CNN (Clinton News Network) lets be real. We know churches are not 20 years talking about the same thing, the media gathered up those few clips. Do I think the pastor is a bit racist, there’s no doubt about it. But to link Obama with the Pastor, No. First of all, people are forgetting (Maybe because of his color) that OBAMA is WHITE and BLACK! As much as people want to make Obama un-American…. he is not. Youtube videos showing him not Pledge to the flag? First of all he and the audience were the only smart people that knew that was not the pledge of allegiance, plus was the only one singing it when Clinton and the others didn’t even know the song. I friend of mines I knew for 23 years murdered two people, I hate him for doing such stupidity, but he was part of the family, and I see him like twice every year. But that doesn’t make me a murderer. I never knew or seen my cuz do anything criminal. It didn’t make my wife switch her mind on being with me, that because I’m my own person. People should pay attention to what Obama says and not his pastor, so as much as you want to make it look like Obama is un-American. That is such a Clinton!!! in other words such a LIE! I mean just look at her latest lie about her experience with Children health care, BUSTED!!! The Clinton were forced by the real people in SCHIP and they weren’t ready, and now they are taking all the credit that they created it.
VISIT WWW.HILLCAP.ORG TO CHECK OUT THE VIDEOS OF HER COMMITTING CRIMES
Anyone who attends services conducted by a racist preacher for 20 years and calls that man his mentor and spiritual advisor has poor judgement.
Disagree, if the racism is isolated or Obama didn't know about it, both of which he says. I see no evidence of either and will give him the benefit of the doubt:
The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.
Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.
Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.
As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.
Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.
With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.
Post a Comment