Michael Barone touches on what really offends conservatives about Obama’s choice of church.
Readers of Obama’s gracefully written autobiography, “Dreams of My Father,” have been surprised to find that it is the story of a young man who wants to embrace rather than transcend his blackness. Joining Wright’s church was part of that embrace.
That a young man that was raised by his white mother and white grandparents would betray his inner white oreo stuffing for his outer black cookie crust, is something suspicious and intolerable. It’s as if he deliberately set out to make things hard for himself just so he could have something to complain about. But, why complain when he had that nice Ivy League education?
And observers of Obama’s political career will note that joining that church gave Obama political connections in the all-black South Side that he lacked as guy who arrived in Chicago from Columbia and Harvard Law, and gravitated to the mostly white university community in Hyde Park. The 76 percent black state Senate seat he won in 1996 (after getting his opponents’ names removed from the ballot) included Hyde Park, but most of its voters were on the all-black South Side.
His decision to embrace Christianity and to join Rev. Wright’s church must have been nothing more than pure political calculation. This is the argument that the right is making. Obama is a traitor to his race who could have been white, but chose to be black. And his choice to be black was politically motivated. And now it is Obama, not anyone from the Clinton campaign or anyone on talk radio or cable news or the print punditry, that is shoving his cynical black identity into our faces and trying to make white people feel guilty for the sins of their fathers.
Barone goes on to suggest two seemingly mutally exclusive things. First, that Obama is trying to be the voice of a new black generation, and then that the new generation will reject him for trying to represent them.
Obama portrays Wright as the voice of black America for one generation, one generation that is pretty much on the way out, and himself as the voice of black Americans and of all Americans for a new generation…
… A newspaper story on Obama’s pastor is not going to affect [Millenials’] view of him — they don’t read newspapers except when a friend emails a link to a newspaper Website. A YouTube video is another thing. The Wright videos — angry when Obama is soothing, racially divisive when Obama is inclusive, anti-American when Obama proclaims a new generation’s version of patriotism — are something else…
…The hypothesis forms that he has been losing to some extent the support and to a more important extent the enthusiasm of Millennial voters.
Barone conveniently ignores the ridiculously huge popularity of the YouTube of Barack Obama’s speech on race. He does so because he is a typical conservative commentator who is not at all interested in the merit (only the partisan effectiveness) of what he is saying.
The Millenial generation is instinctively attracted to Barack Obama and his message. They are not turned off by Rev. Wright’s speech; they are turned off by people that would use Obama’s race against him. If Michael Barone were to go out in the streets and talk to voters, he would realize that young voters don’t need any convincing on Barack Obama. Seven…eight times out of ten, young voters are already sold on Obama’s campaign and turned off by the media’s and the Clintons’ racial politics. They don’t want to get beyond racial politics…they already are beyond them.
Where Obama is being hurt is among older white voters. His biggest loss of support is among older white voters that have been ethnically or religiously discriminated against in this country. Go into any Italian, Polish, or Irish neighborhood and see how they have received the news about Pastor Wright. It isn’t pretty. Obama is now seen as just another urban black pol that acts like the only discrimination suffered in this country was suffered by blacks, and that whites (regardless of class, ethnicity, or religion) have all been keeping them down.
But, then, that was the whole point of repeatedly injecting race and racial stereotypes into this nominating process. If the Clintons could make Obama just another black pol, he would drop down into the low 30’s in support among whites in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. The Republicans will try to do the same thing.
It’s good that this all came out now, after Obama wrapped up the nomination, because it gives him a chance to push through it and makes the same charges less potent in the fall. Barone concludes:
So is Obama a transcendent leader or just another politician? Millennials who have fervently believed he is the first may, after watching Wright on YouTube, wonder whether they have been wrong.
My own answer is: both. He embraced Wright for 20 years, out of something like idealism, and got something out of it. Now he is making a generational pivot away from him, with notes of idealism, and is getting something out of that, too. I’ll be watching the Millennials in the next exit poll. I suspect that Democratic super-delegates will be, too.
Perhaps the most depressing part of all of this is to watch otherwise good people sitting on the sidelines with bags of popcorn, watching to see how effective the racial attacks are…never once condemning the racial attacks. Add Michael Barone to a group that already included the Clintons and their whole campaign team.
actually, i think the reason the wright story has an impact is because it links obama to “the angry black man.”
remember earlier in the race when you argued that obama had to run an optomistic campaign because if he were branded the angry black man a lot of americans wouldn’t tolerate it? how if obama accidentally read one of edwards’ anti-corporate speeches, it would seem to be a lot more threatening to white america than when edwards says it? well, i think that’s what’s going on here. until now obama has successfully avoided a lot of baggage that comes with most black politicians because he didn’t appear to be “culturally black” (aka “too ghetto”) to the white audience. as a result even people who have a bit of racism found that they could vote for him. indeed, he got the benefit of being a token black person they could point to and argue their support for obama proves that they’re not anti-black, just anti-snoop dog, or whatever. obama benefited from being perceived as not that kind of black person. just as tiger woods and colon powell have also benefited from a similar phenomenon.
but the reverend wright thing completely undermines that. wright comes across as the angry black man, the kind that white america finds so threatening. obama’s closeness with wright is damaging, because it associates obama with the sereotypical trap that he has been able to escape so far.
i’m hoping this passes, and it is good that this is coming out now rather than later. but still, wright cuts to the heart of obama’s appeal for a lot of people in this country. so it is a serious problem.
I agree totally. But I think I am saying the same thing. I am just identifying the demographics of the people that are most influenced by this.
Every time someone, these days a Clinton supporter, mentions Reverend Wright, I mention “The Family,” Clinton’s creepy sex-segregated prayer group. I think most Clinton supporters see her as a reflection of themselves, generally “liberal,” forward-thinking. It must be a shock to see her in her own faith-based community.
The effectiveness of the smear against Obama, all while the story of “The Family,” the same name that Charlie Manson used for his group, goes to how the media is functioning in this race. And for all of the bizarre bellyaching about how the press is picking on Hillary, something very different is happening.
My 82 year-old white mother, who was going to vote for McCain anyway, turned on a dime in one week in her opinion of Obama. It’s not even about logic. It’s about scaring people. If you can’t scare ’em with the new model of Islamoterrorists then scare ’em with the angry black man. You just got to scare ’em.
A good while ago (last year)My father was telling me that this election was going to be the nastiest in our collective memories. It’s pretty sad to see that being played out pretty much according to que.
All this hand wringing. We loose focus of the fact that in 21st century America, a 1/16 black in your dna and you’re considered 100% black. Where on the census forms do you make a mark? I leave it blank.
“wright comes across as the angry black man, the kind that white america finds so threatening. obama’s closeness with wright is damaging, because it associates obama with the sereotypical trap that he has been able to escape so far.
“
so let me share a few links:
See why anger abounds? No matter the accomplishments, we’re black while driving; in the OR assisting or doing surgery; riding the shuttle into space; CEOs of some of America’s fortune 500 companies…only to be asked: “what did you come to deliver?” or “you’re overqualified”
There’s more to angry black men…and women. The ceiling is still low – inches from the floor – our heads are crimped but it’s expected we need to be 4x better.
Whether Obama wins or looses this election one thing will remain; our deep racial prejudices. Sadly, we missed an opportunity to air and heal the racial divide. Some will opine, humans being humans, it’s not that simple. But the 2008 election cycle will speak loudly about the kind of people we are.
Black is a powerful color but we all bleed red.
40% white & 40% black?
29% white it appears.
it’s still not majority white though and since Barone said that I find his piece suspect. If you’re not going to get your facts right then you’re just writing a hit piece.
I mostly concerned about how this will effect the November election. Folks arn’t going to change their mind about Wright and this is all anyone is talking about. I’ve seen zero in the media about Obama’s speeches this week about Iraq and the economy. Meanwhile McCain is looking very presidential as he visits foreign heads of state.
McCain is looking very presidential only for the fact he’s been hand-held by Lieberman correcting his gaffes – here are two on the same trip:
McCain foreign policy gaffe No: 1
McCain foreign policy gaffe No: 2
Wright’s rantings will not sink Obama, now or later.
Come August, we’ll be so focused on the unfolding severe recession – who can’t buy bread – and that the government is now the world’s biggest landlord… in its attempt to bail the banks, it had to resort to mass purchases of mortgages.
I hope you are right, but his gaffs were largely ignored or excused by the media (jet lag I suppose).
Making it once was one thing, twice is very telling. Getting it all wrong about who’s who in the Middle East is what got us into the mess there.
But the airwaves have been covered with discussion of one word: “Typical”.
But I hope you are right
This type of insight is why I read BoomanTrib. I bet that you won’t read any such recognition in the liberal/progressive blogosphere.
I’m White, Southern, Liberal and male. I’ve been having a running email exchange with a friend of mine who seethes with rage at what he considers the Black racist treatment that he received while working for a local government agency. He rants about the basic unfairness of affirmative action and “reverse discrimination.”
In my friend’s view, Rev. Wright’s “liberation theology” is blatantly racist and Obama’s tolerance for it makes Obama just as guilty of “race baiting” as Black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
I’ve pointed out that Rev. Wright probably endured far more and far worse bigotry and discrimination than he has. That line of reasoning is essentially a weak and ineffective apology– not a winning argument for people that believe themselves discriminated against.
Convincing people that they should accept discrimination against themselves– much less race-based animosity– because of historic economic or political exploitation of another segment of society is a non-starter in politics. The GOP has exploited this (as well as, outright White racism) with its Southern Strategy for 40 years.
Until progressives/liberals can square this circle, winning working class Whites will be a stiff challenge.
Well, we can all thank our brain-dead MSM for the public perception because Obama’s speech did address just this issue. In fact, I found it refreshing that any African-American political candidate would have even addressed the question of resentments which white Americans could legitimately have. All too often, African-American polticians decide that it is too difficult to speak to this issue that large swathes of white America have not benefited from any purported growth in the economy, because it would somehow diminish the arguments which the African-American community need to make. Obama’s decision to focus on that very nexus of resentments I believe offers him an opportunity to expand on this discussion in the remainder of this political year. Trying to craft solutions which could resolve the legitimate resentments of both African-Americans and white Americans who have found themselves left behind by the economy would do much to demonstrate that Obama has picked up the mantle which Edwards needed forfeit when he abandoned his race. After all, it was precisely to working class whites that Edwards had been addressing.
You picked up on one of the reasons that I found great hope in Obama’s speech. I give him great props for pointing out the discontent of whites.
Since, at least, the failure of Reconstruction populism has veered into racism rather than uniting working class Blacks and Whites in their own economic interest. There were several reasons that Edwards failed to get traction. Obama, as is his style, may light afire with a cool laser the very issues that Edwards couldn’t ignite with a waving torch.
I think that Obama is deliberately soft-peddling economic issues. He’s got the race issue chain saws to juggle without alarming the investing class.
Obama is almost too perfect. A casting agent couldn’t have called for a more fitting candidate to bridge the chasm that he dared to name instead of glossing over. If he can keep those chain saws in the air while maneuvering a campaign bus through a political mine field then we might see the first act of political genius in the 21st Century.
I dare to hope that this deceptively smooth guy might recognize– after the nomination process ends– a great opportunity to use economics to unite the races rather than divide.
Another thing: thank God we may have a candidate with some subtlety and smarts.
I think back to Dean’s ham-handed comments about pickup trucks with a shotgun and Confederate flag. But, at least Dean recognized the necessity to reach out to working class whites.
I cringe at John Kerry’s assorted stoned deaf gaffes like windsurfing off Martha’s Vineyard or, most recently, claiming that Obama could encourage moderate Muslims because he’s a Black man.
How Wright’s sermon snippets 1) negate the considerable number of hours he’s given sermons and speeches and 2) boil down to “I-hate-Whitey”. I read and listened to the snippets and I’m at an utter loss as to how it even sounds racist. Is it the comment on Zionism? He said it was “white racism” and I’m left trying to figure out how that’s not true and racist itself. Maybe it’s my own filter, my own biases, but I don’t get it. I don’t see what was so racist about his comments. I don’t think they were helpful, though in the larger sermon totally made sense (not that anyone else would bother to actually listen or read the entire thing, when 15 seconds out of an hour-long sermon is clearly a great synopsis).
It looks like a case of projecting, where “America” means “white” and people are running with that. Personally, I think that says a lot more about them than Wright’s statements say about him.