Jeremiah Wright, SOB

What Andrew said, and good for him, though I take Noah Millman's point that any further distancing by Obama is more or less just theater at this point: We know who and what Wright is, we know how Obama thinks about their relationship (or how he wanted to think about it; he may be thinking different thoughts right about now).and it's hard to see what more there is that voters need to hear in order to make a judgment about whether and how the Wright-Obama connection ought to matter. But I will say this: Whatever one thinks of how Obama's choice of pastor should bear on his qualifications for the Presidency, it's hard to feel anything but pity for the junior Senator from Illinois after watching Wright's disgustingly narcissistic display over the last few days. Obama has compared his pastor to a crazy uncle, but I suspect - based on how he's talked about his minister, how he's written about him, and how people tend to think about their spiritual mentors - that if he were being completely honest, he'd describe Wright as closer to a father-figure instead. And now, as if being abandoned by his biological dad wasn't bad enough, he's lugging a quintessential Bad Father through his Presidential campaign - a pure creep straight out of an Augusten Burroughs memoir, who's happy to sabotage a younger, finer man who might just be the first black President of the United States in the hopes of feeding his own ego and becoming ... what? The next Al Sharpton? The next Willie Horton? How vile and pathetic.

Obviously I'm not rooting for Barack Obama to win the Presidency, but if he does take the election this fall, there will be some compensating pleasures - not only the thrill that will accompany seeing a man ascend to the Oval Office who could have been bought and sold in a different, more unjust America, but the pleasure of knowing that Jeremiah Wright's attempt at self-aggrandizing sabotage fell flat on its face.

Comments

Ross posts on Jeremiah Wright: about a dozen.

Ross posts on what he thinks about Iraq, Afghanistan, unemployment, and the debt combined: about zero.

(Movies about Iraq were not counted toward the total).

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | April 28, 2008 10:40 PM

Really, Ross? Really?

I took a look at that transcript of what Wright said and it seemed perfectly sensible to me. Perhaps it's just an indication of how far apart we are politically.

Does Mr. Sullivan really think it was a _bad_ thing that Rev. Wright praised the Sandinista regime? of course he praised it- I praise it all the time, and most people that I talk to about Nicaragua are at least qualifiedly supportive of the Sandinistas and ashamed of the way our government subverted them. As one of my best friends once said, the Sandinistas vs. their enemies shouldn't be a matter of right vs. left, it's a clear cut division of good vs. evil.

As for Rev. Wright's comments about black vs. white culture, they're a good deal less offensive than the type of thing Steve Sailer routinely posts on your blog. At least Wright has the good grace not to imply that the black way is superior.

What, exactly, did Rev. Wright say that was so offensive? I'm genuinely not seeing it. He backed off the HIV remark, you know.

Posted by Hector | April 28, 2008 10:53 PM

Hector, I don't think this is really about ideological disagreement. It's about the personal relationship between Obama and Wright. Obama, in the course of this controversy, has gone out of his way to respect and explain Wright's remarks and his outlook. Wright has derided those attempts as the predictable pandering of a politician and threatened to antagonize Obama should he be elected. Whatever else Wright has been trying to do, he's not returning the respect and friendship his parishioner has tried to show towards him.

Ross, I don't often agree with you, but I think you've basically nailed this one. Thank you.

I hope (against all hope) that this ugly scene will serve to show Obama's antagonists on the right that he is, in fact, very different from Jeremiah Wright. And that whatever personal relationship they have, it is not one that implies ideological or political alignment.

Posted by southpaw | April 28, 2008 11:27 PM

Elvis E writes: "Ross posts on Jeremiah Wright: about a dozen.

Ross posts on what he thinks about Iraq, Afghanistan, unemployment, and the debt combined: about zero. "

Ross is a crypto-racist pal of uber-racist Steve Sailer, and he's also committed to a lifetime sucking jobs and dollars out of the massive conservative movement teat. Almost every single one of his posts serves his master, and I don't mean "Jesus," who really is just the movement's mascot.

It's hard to imagine an issue that would concern Ross less than unemployment, now that you bring it up. What could be further from the mind of Douthat than individuals or families struggling to make ends meet? He SWAM WITH BUCKLEY, goddamnit! The travails of plebeians are mere trifles to one such as he!

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, heck, he's still young enough to join up and take part in the Great Crusade Of Our Time, but there's no way that's going to happen, since it would violate the Young Republican creed. He can't spend much time critiquing the war, since that might offend possible employers, and he can't express much support for it, because Dumbya Bush will probably be branded as a liberal so that conservative can maintain its sparkling record of perfection, so he'll remain as neutral as possible.

So every movie where a woman has a baby will be reviewed as pro-choice, and "Negroes with Big TVs" will be called "welfare duchesses," and any day now McCain will be called "Reaganesque." This is the career conservative's version of the Magical Mystery Tour.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 28, 2008 11:28 PM

Wow, it sounds like it's really hard for MoeLarryAndJesus to deal with Ross's alleged careerism and cowardice. But evidently not hard enough to keep coming back and posting comments day after day after day...

P.S. Thanks for the rich, nuanced caricature of the modern conservative movement. No doubt Ross is reading your comment in his Knights Templar pajamas as we speak.

Posted by Paddy | April 28, 2008 11:42 PM

southpaw writes: "I hope (against all hope) that this ugly scene will serve to show Obama's antagonists on the right that he is, in fact, very different from Jeremiah Wright. And that whatever personal relationship they have, it is not one that implies ideological or political alignment."

There is no hope that this will happen. The right will be throwing everything they have against Obama, without the slightest concern about fairness or decency, right through the election. Which is why I think it needs to be pointed out as often as possible that Cindy McCain is a HOMEWRECKING WHORE and that John McCain was nicknamed "Songbird" by some troops in Vietnam because of his radio broadcasts on behalf of the North Vietnamese. Just google "John McCain" and "songbird" and have fun.

The right made swiftboating a part of electoral politics with John Kerry, and Songbird McCain and his HOMEWRECKING WHORE surely can't complain if they get the same treatment.

Two wrongs may not make a right, but if the second one sinks the right they had it coming.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 28, 2008 11:54 PM

1. Elvis is right, and my frustration grows and grows. Stop ducking the most important issues of our time, Douthat. It's cowardly and pathetic.

2. This would never be an issue if Obama were not black. It simply wouldn't. Do we know anything about Hillary's clergyman? About McCain's? Do they exist? How would you know?

Posted by Freddie | April 28, 2008 11:54 PM

As one of my best friends once said, the Sandinistas vs. their enemies shouldn't be a matter of right vs. left, it's a clear cut division of good vs. evil.

Hector, by 1984 the Sandinista's enemies (or, at any rate, adversaries) included nearly every non-Sandinista political party in the country whose formation was not orchestrated by the government's intelligence services - old-line Conservatives, Christian democrats, social democrats, and orthodox Communists; included the country's non-Sandinista trade union federations, included three of the four non-Sandinistas who had served on the country's national executive board, and included the most prominent figure in the Sandinista army during its insurrectional period. The Sandinistas proceeded to lose three successive national elections to opposition tickets led by three very dissimilar figures and may have won the fourth only becuase their most formidable rival dropped dead of a heart attack during the campaign. I take it you define the 60% of the Nicaraguan electorate who did not vote for Daniel Ortega as being among the forces of evil. Too bad.

Posted by Art Deco | April 28, 2008 11:57 PM

Paddy writes: "Thanks for the rich, nuanced caricature of the modern conservative movement. No doubt Ross is reading your comment in his Knights Templar pajamas as we speak."

I see Ross wearing the bunny suit from "Christmas Story" instead. And there's no need to caricature the modern conservative movement since the caricature is all that's left.

I do appreciate how so many of the deluded Reagan-worshipers are scrambling to distance themselves from Dumbya, though. What a pack of opportunistic scumbags. I like how Reagan's geisha Peggy Noonan went from column's praising Dumbya's "pair" - she was fondling his testicles in print - to abandoning him completely.

The conservative movement has crawled up its own ass and died.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 12:05 AM

Re: Moe, etc.

I thought Ross banned this seventh grader. "Crawled up its own ass and died?" Well, up your butt with a coconut. Go to bed, Jim Keane.

Posted by Aaron | April 29, 2008 12:14 AM

1. Elvis is right, and my frustration grows and grows. Stop ducking the most important issues of our time, Douthat. It's cowardly and pathetic.

Get your own blog and discuss what you prefer to discuss or write his editor and attempt to persuade him.

2. This would never be an issue if Obama were not black. It simply wouldn't. Do we know anything about Hillary's clergyman? About McCain's? Do they exist? How would you know?

Both Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton have belonged to mainline Protestant outfits. In my experience, homiletics among mainline Protestant pastors tends to be ruminative and obscure. I would put a hundred bucks on the table that neither of their pastors is likely to say anything distinct or specific enough any given week for any of the parishioners to care to make sense of it.

John Kerry worshipped at the Jesuit Urban Center in Boston. This actually was of interest to a small community of orthodox Catholics paying attention, but that does not include the mass media and dissenting and heretical exercises in Catholic worship do not generate the kind of theatre that Rev. J. Wright has.

That Michael Dukakis was excommunicate over his canonically-invalid marriage also generated little comment because the newspapers hardly noticed and passed on the press agent's flapdoodle that he and the missus had 'raised their children in both traditions'. Again, not taking communion generates rather less theater than bellowing 'God damn America' into a microphone.

Posted by Art Deco | April 29, 2008 12:17 AM

Ross, Obama has brought this on his own head. He knew what Wright was like. He chose him. This isn't tragedy, dude, it's karma. Or maybe it's both, but it's definitely karma.

Posted by Shoshana | April 29, 2008 12:17 AM

This isn't really the point since a government's true legitimacy doesn't come solely or even primarily from elections. But even by the woefully inadequate standards of bourgeois democracy, the Sandinistas won a fair election in 1984 that included six different opposition parties ranging from Christian democrats to communists. (the true reactionaries didn't participate after the U.S. government paid them not to participate). By 1990 the campaign of U.S. backed terrorism (plus the embargo) had no doubt convinced a fair number of Nicaraguans that the U.S. was both willing and able to make their lives highly unpleasant if they continued to vote for a socialist government. They voted their fears not their hopes. It's no accident that President Ortega was voted back into power at a time when it was clear that the US was too busy in the Middle East to meddle much anymore in Latin American affairs.

It's inevitable that a good many people that had participated in the insurrection would have fallen away by 1984. One should not that established trade unions and orthodox Communist parties in the LA region have not traditionally been revolutionary or even seriously leftist- partly because they represent the upper ranks of the working class and partly because they bought into the Stalinist line that Latin America was a feudal society not yet ready for revolution. As for the centrist opposition, they supported the Sandinistas opportunistically when they were fighting against the tyrant, and then they fell into opposition when they started to fight for socialism. Why wouldn't they? The middle classes and higher were not interested in socialism in the first place- they were interested in the overthrow of Somoza.

Posted by Hector | April 29, 2008 12:25 AM

Jim Keane/MoeLarryAndJesus: Your psychiatrist needs to up your meds.

Posted by Philip Marlowe | April 29, 2008 12:31 AM

Ross, Obama has brought this on his own head. He knew what Wright was like. He chose him. This isn't tragedy, dude, it's karma. Or maybe it's both, but it's definitely karma.

I really hope I never have to live in a country where a politician has to focus group their church and everyone they know a full 20 years before they decide to run for office.

Posted by Dave | April 29, 2008 12:39 AM

Hector, Arturo Cruz declined to participate as a candidate in the 1984 elections because he had objections to aspects of their administration and because the government was bobbing and weaving in negotiations with him. If he was a 'reactionary', he was one the Sandinistas considered worthwhile enough to sit on their national executive board in 1980 and 1981.

I cannot help but notice you are dismissive of successive demonstrations of political preference on the part of the Nicaraguan electorate even though these included the full spectrum of political parties and were conducted in a state of civil peace and were not conducted in circumstances where people were dependent on ration cards issued by local Sandinista satraps.

You don't mention La Pinata.

Daniel Ortega won a minority vote over an opposition divided three ways after his most vigorous opponent died of a heart attack during the campaign. The Sandinistas failed to win a majority in the country's legislature. That has nothing whatsoever to do with American policy in the Middle East.

Posted by Art Deco | April 29, 2008 12:55 AM

I really hope I never have to live in a country where a politician has to focus group their church and everyone they know a full 20 years before they decide to run for office.

Where he attended church at age 27 has not been at issue. Where he has been attending church over the last twenty years is.

Posted by Art Deco | April 29, 2008 12:59 AM

Ross, Obama has brought this on his own head. He knew what Wright was like. He chose him. This isn't tragedy, dude, it's karma. Or maybe it's both, but it's definitely karma.

Karma? Since when does a man have to constantly apologize for the stupid politics of his pastor? How many times does he need to apologize for comments that he himself has said that he doesn't believe in? Once a week? Once a day? Three times a day?

How often were white Catholic politicians asked to leave their Church when it became shown that there was an organized conspiracy to cover-up pedophilia by their priests? How many times were they asked to renounce their church?

This whole thing is sad and tells us so much about the media and the country and some of the people in it.

Posted by Vik N | April 29, 2008 1:01 AM

How often were white Catholic politicians asked to leave their Church when it became shown that there was an organized conspiracy to cover-up pedophilia by their priests? How many times were they asked to renounce their church?

Vik, sexual misconduct is not a teaching of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is not the Diocese of Dallas or the Archdiocese of Boston, and adjudicating complaints against priests is a difficult task.

Here in the Diocese of Syracuse, about half of the 98 complaints against priests filed through 2002 were filed after 1999. However, about half of the incidents alleged occurred prior to 1975. Which is to say that the median lapse in time between incident and complaint was about 25 years. There is commonly little or no forensic evidence againt the accused, just the word of the accused versus the word of the accuser. If that is what you have to go on, it is difficult to make satisfying determinations as to the guilt or innocence of the parties involved. The policy here was to take the accused priests out of circulation by putting them in nursing homes or administrative jobs or retiring them. You could make the accusations public (and therefore not 'cover up'), but often the statute of limitations will have run out or the case would never stand up in court or you run the risk of ruining the reputation of someone you have reason to believe may be innocent.

Public school administrators have faced these dilemmas as well. People still send their kids to school.

Posted by Art Deco | April 29, 2008 1:22 AM

Where he attended church at age 27 has not been at issue. Where he has been attending church over the last twenty years is.

It's all the same church, and why would he leave? Just to run for office?

I have to say I admire a man who doesn't abandon his local faith community for the sake of political expediency.

Posted by Dave | April 29, 2008 2:22 AM

"Aaron" says: "I thought Ross banned this seventh grader. "Crawled up its own ass and died?" Well, up your butt with a coconut."

I guess Aaron didn't leave his ass while I was posting as "TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus."

That's a long time to spend in an ass, but most movement conservatives spend all of their time burrowed in such environments.

I guess they love the food and the atmosphere.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 3:03 AM

Douthat - it's hard to feel anything but pity for the junior Senator from Illinois after watching Wright's disgustingly narcissistic display over the last few days.

Not really, Obama could have had a range of mentors...he selected a Communist for his Hawaiian mentor and Wright for his Chicago one out of many dozens of potential mentors in black churches in Chicago.
His choices. And Barack should be held accountable for his errors in judgment, not pitied, just as Bush was for picking Harriet Meiers and "Brownie".
(And I hope you don't think for a minute that Obama spent 20 years in that church ignorant and oblivious to Wright's sentiments and what he said. All while thinking it was a great idea to be there and lionize Wright in his political speeches, at Chicago dinners, in his books - because it all helped Obama build his black voter creds. And for all we know, given the little elbow-rubbing Barack ever did with "the unwashed black masses", he might have thought that all "real blacks" like Jeremiah and his wife Michelle talked and thought that way.)

****************
MoeLarryand Jesus - As for Iraq and Afghanistan, heck, he's still young enough to join up and take part in the Great Crusade Of Our Time, but there's no way that's going to happen, since it would violate the Young Republican creed.

I must have missed the great mass movement of Lefty faggots demanding to serve if they could lay down their lives for the "noble brown peoples" in the Congo, Darfur, Nicaragua, and East Timor.

Posted by chris ford | April 29, 2008 6:16 AM

Hi

I am new to this forum but I had to chime in because I am appalled at the level of discourse at a forum such as this.
Douthat has stated a personal opinion. So far as I know (and u can read Klein over at the Time magazine too), McCain has refrained from taking cheap body shots at Obama. So I cant understand how calling Cindy McCain a whore makes your candidate or your opinion about the opposition any better? How by dragging LEwinsky into the matter ad infinitum makes HILLARY clinton unfit to lead? How by exonerating Wright's swaggering drivel as ' Thats Black Prophetic Tradition, take it or leave it' makes you more tolerant when you have shown shocking intolerance to hearing the other guy's views?
Over and over, I have read comments that start name calling the columnist - X has a lousy mother, Y's wife left him for another woman, Z's daughter is a Girl GOne Wild (sorry, make that McCain's daughter) - which have NOTHING to do with the column.
Fact is Americans are willing to support a black candidate. They want change. They also want the next president to showcase his Harvard creds by behaving like a leader, which means calm, patient, open-minded but at the end, no pushover. In other words, a credit to the country and a walking advertisement of what it means to be an American. Obama had shown everything so far. Unfortunately, he's letting his arrogant, educationally elite, superior-minded surrogates highjack his campaign.

Posted by sumpingrey | April 29, 2008 6:25 AM

Bare in mind Hector I didn't see the whole speech.

The problem I had with the Sandinista segment is that he mentioned the Miskito Indians. I thought this was rather peculiar. True the Sandinistas improved clinics and what not for them, but they also killed many Miskito as revenge for the members who joined with Contras. The Sandinistas record on the Miskitos was, at least, mixed. I think even some admirers of them say that.

Also you seem to be sympathetic to a mindset of Latin-American Leftism, without maybe being aware how strange and alien it'd sound to most Americans. Not just the Ross Douthats of the world either. Do you think the average Democrat in Missouri or Colorado believes, or even understands, a revolutionary transformation of societal structures based on prophetic grounds?

From what I saw of Wright I think he is brilliant. However I think he's brilliant in a potentially dangerous and disturbing way. He equates himself with the entire black church everywhere. He favors an almost millenarian level of upheaval and historically nothing is more dangerous than millenarians. Hearing him speak I began to be grateful for Pope John Paul II weakening Liberation Theology. (Well, Romero was okay but he was more moderate)

Posted by Thomas R | April 29, 2008 7:06 AM

I am new to this forum but I had to chime in because I am appalled at the level of discourse at a forum such as this.

Why? It's hilarious! We have a over-educated right wing pompous pundit giving us his opinions, a handful of left-wingers making fun of said opinions and calling him up on his hypocrisy and a bunch of right wingers trying to defend his opinions. It's top notch comedy material!

I must have missed the great mass movement of Lefty faggots demanding to serve if they could lay down their lives for the "noble brown peoples" in the Congo, Darfur, Nicaragua, and East Timor.

I missed the great mass movement of lefty faggots calling for wars in any of those places based upon lies and greed.

I cannot help but notice you are dismissive of successive demonstrations of political preference on the part of the Nicaraguan electorate even though these included the full spectrum of political parties and were conducted in a state of civil peace and were not conducted in circumstances where people were dependent on ration cards issued by local Sandinista satraps.

And the recent memory of the creation and support of the Contras by the US, the civilian massacres and terrorist acts committed by the Contras and the belief that if the Sandinista were reelected, the US would rearm and let loose upon the population their pet terrorist.

Posted by Don Quijote | April 29, 2008 7:37 AM

Fuck it. Instead of another speech, Obama should write and perform a rap and deliver it on the floor of the Senate. Sideways baseball cap and all.

Posted by Bill | April 29, 2008 9:17 AM

I agree that Wright just needs to shut the hell up. Regardless of the merits of what he says (and some does have merit), he needs to shut up. It's clear that he doesn't care whether his former friend wins the presidency, and he may even want Obama to lose. Then he can spend the next 4 years behind various podiums, ranting about how America was too racist to elect a black president.

Posted by TH | April 29, 2008 9:24 AM

Setting aside Ross's psycho-babble about daddies, is it really a surprise that Wright is doing this to Obama? Didn't Wright say that if Obama got elected, he would attack him, presumably because Obama would be a tool of the rich whites? That may be part of the reason why Wright is going after Obama now.

All it takes is a few minutes of listening to this guy's act to see what he's really up to. He's all about inflaming racial tensions, nursing grievances, and sowing hate. Of course he's going to sabotage Obama's efforts to assuage those tensions. And how could a guy like that miss a chance to do his act on the big stage?

Finally, he knows that Obama lacks the balls to take him on.

That Obama associated himself so closely with this man for so long, and lacks the guts to take him on, is a serious indictment of his judgment, character, and moral courage. He brought this on himself.

Posted by mike | April 29, 2008 9:41 AM

Then he can spend the next 4 years behind various podiums, ranting about how America was too racist to elect a black president.

Well, a solid thirty percent of them are, anyway.

Posted by Bill | April 29, 2008 9:41 AM

That Obama associated himself so closely with this man for so long, and lacks the guts to take him on, is a serious indictment of his judgment, character, and moral courage. He brought this on himself.

As I survey the field of presidential hopefuls, I frankly don't see the sort of moral courage or character to make Obama weep. So by all means, vote for whatever person you think has more fiber.

Posted by Bill | April 29, 2008 9:46 AM

Yeah, I don't get why you feel sorry for Obama. True, he *seems* like a decent guy, but c'mon, he's made his capacity for transcending our various and sundry divisions the centerpiece of his campaign - and the strongest "proof", as it were, of that capacity is purely biographical. So when a central pillar of that biography, his participation in an important Chicago religious community, shows up to be, well, less than wonderful, it doesn't seem to me that we should feel sorry for him. Rather, we should recognize that the rhetoric and ideas of Rev. Wright ought to illuminate something about Obama's character, views, and the like. At the very least, they illuminate what he thinks within the bounds of "reasonable" discussion. Obama's a very intelligent, mature man who's made his own decisions. Treat him like one and not like some victim.

Posted by Michael Simpson | April 29, 2008 9:53 AM

At the very least, they illuminate what he thinks within the bounds of "reasonable" discussion. Obama's a very intelligent, mature man who's made his own decisions. Treat him like one and not like some victim.

I have every confidence that you apply the same standard to Republicans and their various associations.

Posted by Bill | April 29, 2008 9:57 AM

Thomas R.,

Re: True the Sandinistas improved clinics and what not for them, but they also killed many Miskito as revenge for the members who joined with Contras.

Sandinista soldiers killed about 34 Miskitos in two massacres in 1981 and 1982 in retaliation for Sandinista soldiers killed by Miskito insurgents. This wasn't a huge number, it wasn't official policy, it was condemned by the Nicaraguan government, and the men responsible were punished. Is the United States military as a corporate body responsible for the abuses that have happened in Iraq? I don't think so, I would prefer to blame the individual soldiers responsible like Charles Granier. Nicaragua actually banned the death penalty throughout the Sandinista era.

The charges of 'cultural genocide' against the government were largely based on the fact that the government was forcibly evacuating the Miskitos from their homeland. There was a war going on- that was why they were evacuated. It would seem to me that forcibly evacuating people from a free fire zone would actually be _saving_ lives, but then what do I know. Nicaragua was in fact one of the first countries in the hemisphere to include rights for indigeneous people in its 1987 constitution.

Posted by Hector | April 29, 2008 10:27 AM

"As I survey the field of presidential hopefuls, I frankly don't see the sort of moral courage or character to make Obama weep. So by all means, vote for whatever person you think has more fiber."

Yes, Bill, standing up under torture and refusing an early release from a POW camp -- no moral courage there. At least not that would impress a man like you and nothing to compare to being president of Harvard Law Review.

No moral courage in McCain's taking other bi-partisan stands that earned him the enmity of many in his own party. It's talking about doing that while voting the party line that's courageous.

And as much as I hate Hillary, at least she's got the balls to get nasty and hurt feelings.

I would kinda like to see some of that steel in the person who's going to lead the country. I prefer it to the sort of "openness" that is do devoid of content and so unable to draw moral distinctions that it leaves you unable to take a stand against a Wright or a terrorist state like Iran, and wins you an endorsement from Hamas.

Posted by mike | April 29, 2008 10:30 AM

Thomas R.,

Yes I am sympathetic to a strain of Latin_American leftism, and I'm quite aware that many Americans are opposed to it. I don't think the average Democrat in Missouri _believe_ in prophetic socialism, but I also don't think they particularly care what sort of government Nicaragua has. And that's fine with me. I'm not saying that a prophetic revolution is right for America, I'm saying it was right for Nicaragua.

To be fair, your views on contraception and pre-marital sex are probably not shared by most Americans either*. And that's fine. Have at it- you're not running for president, nor am I, and of course neither is Reverend Wright. He's entitled to say what he believes and in fact I rather prefer his candor and honesty.

*I believe the latest polls suggest that about 30% of Americans consider premarital sex a sin, and 5% think the same about contraception.

Posted by Hector | April 29, 2008 10:36 AM

mike:

I'm aware of the media's ever-so-friendly spin on McCain's political courage, so no need to regurgitate it.

I would kinda like to see some of that steel in the person who's going to lead the country. I prefer it to the sort of "openness" that is do devoid of content and so unable to draw moral distinctions that it leaves you unable to take a stand against a Wright or a terrorist state like Iran, and wins you an endorsement from Hamas.

Here's cowardice for you: voting for a president based on what Hamas or Iran think. We are not impressed. Unable to draw moral distinctions? But that's exactly your problem with Obama: that he draws moral distinctions where people like you want to see black and white. Or "steel" are you put it. If ya think the people with "brass balls" should be our moral authorities, you deserve the adolescent-brained country we'll get, or rather, already have.

Posted by Bill | April 29, 2008 10:50 AM

I may as well have added, any courage cred McCain possessed went down the drain when he embraced GWB in 2004.

Posted by Bill | April 29, 2008 10:54 AM

Ross, I don't often agree with you, but I think you've basically nailed this one. Thank you.

That goes for me, too.

Posted by Kathy | April 29, 2008 11:23 AM

"To be fair, your views on contraception and pre-marital sex are probably not shared by most Americans either"

TR: Those views have no political element for me though. I'm not interested in banning contraception, even if such a thing were possible. I'm not even favoring a universal cultural revolution as such. Protestants can continue on using birth control, Taoists can continue doing the sexual techniques they consider necessary for good health, Unitarians can continue marrying gay couples, etc.

It's a bit difficult to hear Wright and think there is not a larger political context involved. Black Liberation Theology has a clear fusion of politics and religion. You like that kind of fusing. I think there might be times and places it makes sense, but for here and now I think it's a bad idea.

Posted by Thomas R | April 29, 2008 11:43 AM

This post is right on. Wright's charm offensive constitutes a staggering betrayal, and is particularly vile considering Obama's sympathetic and even tender treatment of Wright in his Philadelphia speech. For shame.

Posted by Will | April 29, 2008 12:06 PM

I suspect that the Wright affair will not change much this time. He said nothing new, although he did replay a few foolish phrases. If anything, it may well help Obama to make clear his differences with Wright, and that will probably be a good thing. Better to get this over with before Obama faces McCain.

As for the future: the key issues of the day are the economy and Iraq. We now know that McCain is economically illiterate, and has flipflopped on Iraq as well. Ironically, the latest flip or flop has left him solidly on the wrong side of the issue, and making matters worse the more he goes on. November is far away, folks, and Obama still has the big advantages on his side for the general. Look how scared the RNC are of an ad using McCain's own words. McCain is a much weaker candidate than you think - and the examination has only just begun.

Posted by kass | April 29, 2008 12:23 PM

What is the deal with people feeling like they have a right to Ross's thoughts on any particular matter? I mean, if you don't like what you're reading, don't read the blog. And for damn sure don't whine about Ross not commenting on topics that are of interest to you personally. My guess is you can find plenty of commentary on whatever subject your heart desires out there on the interwebs.

Posted by Mike S. | April 29, 2008 12:37 PM

Um, if this guy wasn't Obama's pastor, wouldn't some of you defending Wright think he was creepy? Come on, be honest. There are these guys on the corner of my street who are always protesting something with a bullhorn and placards, usually bring the troops home stuff, but sometimes they mix it up. If you bother to talk to them they will tell you all kinds of funny conspiracy stuff. Funny-wierd conspiracy stuff. Wright sounds like that. 'Have you read so-and-so's book' is his answer when asked about the government and HIV? That is garden variety crankery and paranoia. Sad is the only word to describe it.

The Audacity of Hope! Sheesh.

Posted by Anon-Anon | April 29, 2008 12:47 PM

Well, a solid thirty percent of them are, anyway.

Where did that particular datum come from, Bill?

Posted by Art Deco | April 29, 2008 1:03 PM

Wright's charm offensive constitutes a staggering betrayal, and is particularly vile considering Obama's sympathetic and even tender treatment of Wright in his Philadelphia speech.

Give me a break. As if Obama didn't have 20 years to figure out that Wright was a narcissistic fool, while deciding to have his daughters baptized there and to give substantial financial contributions to the church. The issue is not whether Wright "betrayed" Obama - it's whether Obama is so clueless that he doesn't see the problem with what Wright is preaching, whether he's so cynical that he sees the problems but ignored them to further his Chicago-based political career, or whether he agrees with Wright's ideology. Any of the three ought to disqualify him from the presidency.

Posted by Mike S. | April 29, 2008 1:07 PM

"Give me a break. As if Obama didn't have 20 years to figure out that Wright was a narcissistic fool, while deciding to have his daughters baptized there and to give substantial financial contributions to the church. The issue is not whether Wright "betrayed" Obama ..."

maybe it's whether Obama betrayed Wright -- after acting like he was in his flock and his mentee for so long.

Posted by Steve | April 29, 2008 1:15 PM

He said nothing new, although he did replay a few foolish phrases.

You mean like claiming that the US government invented the HIV virus specifically to target blacks? What kind of statement would you consider beyond foolish, into the "outrageous" or "insane" or "deranged" categories?

Posted by Mike S. | April 29, 2008 1:15 PM

Obama could not have been bought and sold in an earlier America--his descendants were not slaves. Just because he's "black" doesn't mean he would've been a slave. Who do you think sold the slaves to American slave dealers, anyway? Oh, right. Native Africans.

Posted by barry allen | April 29, 2008 2:36 PM

Where he attended church at age 27 has not been at issue. Where he has been attending church over the last twenty years is.

Yes, but I seem to recall where he attended school at age 7 seemed to be of great, great importance.

Posted by Horst | April 29, 2008 3:09 PM

Yes, but I seem to recall where he attended school at age 7 seemed to be of great, great importance.

That's because a) he's stated that he was never a muslim, but others in a position to know have stated openly that he was a practicing muslim which goes to his credibility, and b) if he was a muslim and has converted to christianity then he is an apostate in the eyes of muslims. That might have a bearing on his relations with muslim countries, no? (Being an apostate is different from being an infidel.)

Um, if this guy wasn't Obama's pastor, wouldn't some of you defending Wright think he was creepy?

Of course they would. What if McCain had attended a white supremacist church for 20 years. Would that be made into a campaign issue? To ask the question is to answer it.

Posted by Mike S. | April 29, 2008 4:03 PM

...but others in a position to know have stated openly...

I was blind - but now that others in a position to know have stated openly - I see.

Posted by Horst | April 29, 2008 4:46 PM

I agree that Rev. Wright is being pretty awful to Obama. However, I thought the image of Obama being sold into slavery was pretty outrageous. Obama has an African, Muslim father from Kenya. In an earlier time he would be taking and selling slaves. In fact, to really put the nail in the coffin of this meme, Obama would be our first President who could have ancestors who both sold slaves to America and kept slaves in America but could not have been a slave in America.

Posted by jjv | April 29, 2008 6:12 PM

"In an earlier time he would be taking and selling slaves." jjv

TR: Umm no. Obama's ancestry is Luo. What I know from a missionary in Kenya the Luo were the poorer class. I see no evidence that they were much involved in the slave trade. In addition Obama's grandfather was not originally a Muslim, but a convert from Christianity. This means his ancestors further back were probably animist or polytheist.

In addition to that East Africa was not that major source in the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade. If Obama somehow did have slave trading ancestors they would've been most likely selling to neighboring tribes or possibly the Islamic Mideast. Although considering the Luo are something of a poorer/weaker tribe it's not entirely impossible, albeit extremely unlikely, that historic relatives of Obama could've been sold as slaves to America.

There's no need to overcompensate on poor history with another form of poor history. You can't slough off all the blame to Africans or say they're all descended from slave traders. For one many of them are of tribes or peoples who were isolated from the whole thing. For another slave-traders was just one element of their society. Lastly the demand for slaves was a big factor and that demand came from Europeans and Arabs. (Also Persians)

Posted by Thomas R | April 30, 2008 3:29 AM

Re: That Michael Dukakis was excommunicate over his canonically-invalid marriage ...

Please expand on the above as I have never heard this mentioned even in Orthodox circles (not even by rightwing Orthodox). Was Dukakis on his fourth wife? Was the lady a non-Christian? Those are the only two factors I can think of that would render a marriage categorically uncanonical in the Orthodox Church (other than things like bigamy and incest that are also illegal).

Re: Obama has an African, Muslim father from Kenya. In an earlier time he would be taking and selling slaves.

Go far enough back in time and many of us probably had ancestors who were involved in the slave trade-- as well as others who were slaves themselves.

Re: In addition to that East Africa was not that major source in the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade.

Almost all slaves in the New World were taken from the coastal regions of West Africa since the distance was shortest and slaves were more likley to survive the horrific passage. The Portuguese did bring some slaves to Brazil from Angola. To the extent East Africans were enslaved they would have been sold to the Arab countries.

Posted by JonF | April 30, 2008 6:55 PM

JonF,

Doesn't the Orthodox church only grant divorces on specific grounds such as adultery, heresy, abuse, neglect, etc. (I may be completely off on this, this is based on some vague memories of 19th century Russian fiction). Can you get divorced just because you don't like each other anymore?

I'm pretty sure that the Coptics don't allow divorce, apparently it's a growing practice in Egypt for Christians to 'temporarily' convert to Islam to have a divorce and then convert back.

East Africans were sold to the Arab countries, I think, and were more of a luxury good than a labor force. Ethiopia had domestic slavery up until 1926 I think, although I would imagine that its cruelty was somewhat tempered by the power of the church. Madagascar was also a significant slave entrepot but served South Africa and Mauritius rather than the New World.

Posted by Hector | April 30, 2008 7:34 PM

JonF,

Apparently yes, Governor Dukakis' wife was Jewish. I'm not sure if she has since converted or not but it appears there was some controversy at the time regarding whether he was a member in good standing of his church.

Posted by Hector | April 30, 2008 7:41 PM

This is a small and somewhat tangential point, but ... The America in which people like Barak Obama were bought and sold was not "more unjust." It was "more evil."

Posted by Rob | April 30, 2008 8:10 PM

Re: That Michael Dukakis was excommunicate over his canonically-invalid marriage ...

Please expand on the above as I have never heard this mentioned even in Orthodox circles (not even by rightwing Orthodox). Was Dukakis on his fourth wife? Was the lady a non-Christian? Those are the only two factors I can think of that would render a marriage categorically uncanonical in the Orthodox Church (other than things like bigamy and incest that are also illegal).

Mrs. Michael Dukakis (nee Katherine Dickson) was not baptized in the name of the Trinity, which is an impediment to canonical marriage in the Orthodox Church. The Governor has thus been prohibited from taking communion since 1963.

An aside,

An Anglican Rector in Grand Rapids, Michigan solemnized the marriage of Gerald Ford in his church in 1948. The Church of England and the Episcopal Church in the U.S. had fairly strict marriage canons at that time and Betty Ford's memoir offers no explanation as to why the canon was not enforced nor any mention of an ecclesiastical tribunal examining the validity of her previous marriage to William Warren. I am not sure I have ever seen anything in print either about how Gerald Ford reconciled simultaneous membership in a Masonic lodge and a local Episcopal congregation. The media just don't ask too many questions absent conflict or sleaze.

Posted by Art Deco | May 1, 2008 12:19 AM

Artie Deco claims: "I am not sure I have ever seen anything in print either about how Gerald Ford reconciled simultaneous membership in a Masonic lodge and a local Episcopal congregation. The media just don't ask too many questions absent conflict or sleaze."

In that case they should be asking about Cindy McCain, the HOMEWRECKING WHORE who was fucking John McCain while he was still married to his disabled first wife. He traded his wife in for a two-decade younger beer heiress who was his mistress.

But apparently that's not sleazy enough and "family values" voters don't mind the idea of a HOMEWRECKING WHORE as First Lady.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 1, 2008 1:51 AM

"HOMEWRECKING WHORE"

TR: I really doubt he paid her. She apparently has more money than him so why would he?

Democrats message on things like this seems to be "have the mistress and the wife." (FDR, JFK, Clinton, etc) A kind of European variant of polygamy. Whether polygamy or open marriages are a preferrable family value is open to debate. I can actually see the argument that it is better than divorce, but I'm not sure it's totally persuasive. I think it's going to be a tougher sell for most people.

Anyway what you're neglecting to mention is that McCain's disabled first wife has forgiven him. He's also said he did wrong by her. If the actual parties involved in this have moved on what gives you the right to call someone a whore?

Posted by Thomas R | May 1, 2008 4:28 AM

Thomas R asks: "If the actual parties involved in this have moved on what gives you the right to call someone a whore?"

I'm just doing what the "family values party" would do if a prospective Democratic 1st Lady had done what Cindy McCain did, Thomas. I think that's quite apparent.

But if the GOPers are okay with a HOMEWRECKING WHORE in that position, so be it. Either they've (gasp) evolved or they were full of shit in the first place.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 1, 2008 9:39 AM

Silly me, you're just a jerk. Forgot that.

Posted by Thomas R | May 1, 2008 11:37 AM

In that case they should be asking about Cindy McCain, the HOMEWRECKING WHORE

I do not wish to endorse divorce-and-remarriage. In the interests of precision and in fairness to Cindy McCain I believe John McCain and his previous wife were in the midst of a trial separation at the time he met his second wife, and that that was not the first trial separation they had been through in the years running from 1973 to 1980. Not good standards, but higher standards than those you attribute to them.

Posted by Art Deco | May 1, 2008 5:10 PM

Thomas R.,

No I think that adultery is definitely a lot worse than getting an actual divorce and remarrying. I don't think people should be allowed to have your cake and eat it too. If you really don't love your wife anymore then fine, get a divorce, but when you're married your married and that means no cheating. One man, one woman.

You can imagine someone who at various times in his life is a Hindu, a Christian and a Zoroastrian, and at each particular time in their life really believes that their faith is the one true religion. But it's not possible to imagine someone who _simultaneously_ tries to be, say, a Muslim and a Christian.

Posted by Hector | May 1, 2008 7:12 PM

Artie Deco says: "I do not wish to endorse divorce-and-remarriage. In the interests of precision and in fairness to Cindy McCain I believe John McCain and his previous wife were in the midst of a trial separation at the time he met his second wife, and that that was not the first trial separation they had been through in the years running from 1973 to 1980. Not good standards, but higher standards than those you attribute to them."

McCain's kids by his first wife boycotted his 2nd marriage, so perhaps they disagreed. In any event the point is not how I view the marriage (I don't give a rat's ass, in fact) but how the FAMILY VALUES PARTY and their ignorant loudmouthed radio hosts would be playing this if the WHORE was in the other party. If that's not too subtle for you, that is.

John McCain married his mistress. That's a fact. I suggest that this would be an issue for the FAMILY VALUES PARTY if they actually ever meant any of their buybull-thumping bullshit for a single moment, but I never thought they did, anyway. It's just one of the tools the filthy warmongering torture-loving greedheads use to win elections.

So I'm going to have fun with it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 2, 2008 12:03 AM

The "family values" stuff is more about policy, and avoiding scandal, than personal lives.

If a Republican is serving the interests of social conservatives he's free to have threesomes with actual hookers so long as this is kept private enough to avoid scandal.

And before you scream "hypocrasy", the Left is the same way. If a Democrat serves a Leftist agenda he can sexually harrass women to his heart's content and be defended. Likewise he can be a member of an all-white golf club or whatever.

They're all hypocrites and phonies. The goal is to get the hypocrite or phony that serves your interests.

Again though she's not a "whore" because that would require that she got paid. She's not even "a homewrecker" as he was ready to dump his wife anyway. She's a former drug addict and model. Get your facts straight.

Posted by Thomas R | May 2, 2008 2:21 AM

rngdfwj bznvrtp dfgy rujmkpl brlipw xqsjmbu dwshi

Posted by cihwmtp pwtceylf | June 16, 2008 10:12 PM