The Obama Problem: Not Fit To Be President
OttO on Mar 17 2008 at 11:36 pm | Filed under: Election 2008: Jihad Watch, Politics, Radicals
I've spent a significant amount of time defending the candidacy of Barack Obama. I've complimented his rise from improbable challenger to inspiring front runner. I've criticized attacks made against him, whether those attacks have been from the Clinton campaign or from conservatives. I've even made the daring suggestion that Obama should be elected based on his merits rather than his skin color - we don't need a president elected through affirmative action.
That's not to say I haven't had my criticisms of Obama as well. There is nothing wrong with being a bumper-sticker candidate so long as the candidate has some substance to back it up. Obama is a nice smile and a nice voice. But scratch beneath the surface and we have a candidate who has accomplished absolutely nothing as a political leader. If Obama were to drop dead tomorrow, his legacy would be his campaign - he will be remembered for nothing more. He is the consummate cult of personality.
Which is why the Reverend Wright controversy could prove to be fatal to his political future. Suddenly the 'personality' has a dark side and this flap has people doing what the Obama campaign desires least: wondering what's behind the smile and the voice.
Democratic politics has completed it's long transformation into the politics of "who are you gonna believe? Me? Or your own lying eyes?"
This is observed in response to the bizarre excuses and defenses that his supporters have come up with for both Obama and Wright. Democrats have become the party of people instead of principles. I am convinced that there is absolutely nothing negative that may be attributed to Barack Obama that will not be defended, even if it is indefensible.
The only way to actually get a Democrat to do the right thing in a scandal is to convince them that it will further their political career.
Google "mccain" and "100 years" and it pulls up 349,000 hits. Why? There was nothing controversial about it and what he was indicating was pretty obvious. Yet there are thousands of sites out there right now creating a hoopla over this statement. Many, mind you, aren't addressing the issue of why a long term presence will be necessary (ala South Korea) but rather how McCain wants to have a hundred year war in Iraq (Google "McCain" and the more hyperbolic "1000 years" and you get 56,000 hits). When a Republican speaks, there is no question in what he said and meant - only through convolution are the words controversial.
In December of 2002, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott resigned his leadership position (and any presidential ambitions) after praising former segregationist Strom Thurmond at his 100th birthday celebration. Lott made a glowing reference to the Dixiecrat presidential campaign Thurmond conducted some half-century earlier. Within two weeks of making this single, off-the-record comment, Lott was giving up his position - with the Republican Party and the White House showing him the door.
To put it in some context:
- Lott said one controversial statement about a man based on something that happened over 50 years earlier
- Obama has looked the other way while Reverend Wright has made vile comments multiple times over the years
- Thurmond had long since rejected his controversial former views
- Wright was in his prime up until his recent retirement
- Lott said a couple of nice things about the controversial Thurmond
- Obama has supported Wright as a leader, a mentor and for having an intricate and personal role in his family and faith
- Obama has supported Wright as a leader, a mentor and for having an intricate and personal role in his family and faith
So why exactly is it okay to throw Lott to the dogs and yet give the old kitchen sink defense on behalf of Obama? One showed some passing support for an ancient and disgusting (and reformed) position of a long time senator; the other has expressed 20 years of inspiration and admiration of a racially divisive America-hater. Basically, both Lott and Obama have expressed respect and gratitude for racists. Just a bit of a double standard here?
John McCain recently blasted talk show host Bill Cuningham, who, while speaking at a McCain rally, made several insulting references to Obama by injecting his middle name (Hussein) multiple times in an introduction speech for McCain. Although this pales in comparison to the caliber of Wright's comments, McCain didn't need polling or focus groups or late night campaign meetings to determine that Cunningham was tactless and out of line and that his campaign would not benefit from this kind of association.
Likewise, Hillary Clinton's campaign staff has seen numerous firings, resignations and disassociations due to inappropriate comments and tactics by people representing her campaign. Again, these offenses pale in comparison to the Wright controversy. Yet Hillary knows that she will be judged by the kind supporters she endorses.
Though this is foreign to some people, that is what a campaign is. The voters judge the candidates based on many qualities, one of which is 'who does this candidate represent and who represents this candidate?' Ron Paul supporters couldn't figure this one out - Paul's ties to and support from a whole host of racist organizations and personalities was inconsequential to them.
Let's say the Klan becomes vocal supporters of McCain (for whatever reason). McCain expresses admiration for IKA Grand Wizard Ronald Edwards, cites his service to the community and his opposition to violence as a means to an end. Edwards shows up along side McCain and McCain attends speaking engagements by Edwards. When confronted about certain perspectives of Edwards, McCain says that he's not that familiar with Edwards controversial views or he says that he disagrees with or rejects them, yet Edwards is a mentor and moral leader outside of the controversial things he's said and when Edwards isn't wrong, he's quite inspirational. And they both believe in Jesus!
Obama supporters - are you saying that we should just shrug this off? Do we ignore the macro and twist and stretch various micros in efforts to give McCain the benefit of the doubt? Or do we simply judge him by who he associates with?
We want to know who we may be giving the keys to the nation to. Barack Obama's connections to Reverend Wright are very much a window into his soul - the first real thing we've learned about Obama in some time.
Wright is a man, by Obama's own accounts, who impacted his life and shaped his philosophy. Obama has spent most of his adult life under the moral and spiritual guidance of Reverend Wright. How do Obama supporters get the nerve to think that they can just dismiss that and recreate an Obama justifiably ignorant or indifferent to Wright's troubling sermons?
This story now reintroduces the recent "proud" comments by Mrs. Obama. If Obama rejects anti-Americanism, then why does it seem that the most important people in his life all have a beef with this country? And that's what we want to know - who is going to be whispering in President Obama's ear? Who is he going to surround himself with? People who think that "AmeriKKKa" deserves to be attacked? That it is a racist country? That there is little to be proud of America? Will his "mentor" of 20 years have any sway over the Obama's?
I have been making the point that Obama needs to essentially fire Wright from his life. Thank him for what he's done for him but their relationship is over. Then Obama needs to find himself a mainstream church. I said this with the notion that only then will people get over it. If his interest in this church is purely religious, then he should have no problem doing that.
Now frankly, I don't think that should cut it. Obama has made it apparent that the rhetoric of the preaching cliche and charlatan Wright wasn't too radical for him. Obama has had years to renounce his pastor and put it behind him. He chose not to. And now that his seat is in the frying pan, we're supposed to respect any denunciation he expresses in efforts to turn down the heat?
This isn't on the same level as Trent Lott who was punished for a careless remark. This represents a life-time of adulation for a troubled mind.
I've never taken Obama too seriously, but suddenly I find myself questioning who this man really is. If he's not sympathetic to his mentor's public views then he is an enabler or at the very least, not troubled by them. Whatever he is, he's not fit to be president.
Damn…now you’ve made me stop and think. It does bother me that Obama did not renounce Wright and his rhetoric a long time ago. I was willing to accept his explanation. Mainly because I sooo want to believe that there is someone out there that can begin the healing from the pain of the Civil War. He is the only one that I can remember being so out front with it. I sooo want to believe that he wants this presidency enough to accept and make all of us accept the responsibility for our own actions where this racial divide is concerned. This controversy has certainly given the American people an insight into Obama that we might otherwise not have gotten. Now we just have to stay aware and come November, decide. I’m just not willing to go as far as you did and say he’s not fit for the presidency, he’s as fit as anyone else and more than most.
RACIST AMERICA AND ITS DOUBLE STANDARDS MAKING WRIGHT WRONG!
Obama’s preacher has said that America brought 9/11 on itself, but first consider:-
1. In 1979 did the then Soviet Union invade Afghanistan?
2. Did the C.I.A give monetary and military assistance to resistance fighters that fought the Soviets under a banner of Islam?
3. Did the same fighters funded in what some have called “Charlie Wilson’s war” not morph from Mujahadin into the Taliban?
4. Since the Mujahadin and Taliban were trained with US help then is it illogical for Wright to focus on the original monetary source of the funding, with bin Laden being a beneficiary, himself accused of being behind the 9/11 attack, to conclude in by reference to those interrelationships that – in a certain sense America did bring the 9/11 attack upon itself? Having fanned the flames of militant Islam with the C.I.A’s money, then the militancy was unleashed on America – is Reverend Wright so wrong about that?
With America having marched into Iraq for its oil, it is now the Iraqis to be blamed for resisting the illegal invasion and US occupation – not Bush and his misguided foreign policy.
With true double standards so many are up in arms about what Reverend Wright has to say about America, but just consider from 19th March,2008, ABC’s Good Morning America just how much VP Cheney cares:-
CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.
RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.
CHENEY: So?
RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?
CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.
But, back to Reverend Wright, just look below at how in actuality he squares with and decide whether there aren’t double standards and racism. But also link to http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646 to consider the top 40 reasons to doubt the official version on September 11 –2001 - huh?
The White Preacher Double Standard: How Hagee, Parsley and the Rest Get Away with Everything
Posted by Cenk Uygur, Huffington Post at 12:03 PM on March 19, 2008.
Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam.
Rudy Giuliani’s priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of molesting several children and covering up the molestation of others. Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works with him.
Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them. He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.
Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university’s commencement.
Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the “Great Whore.” He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil’s army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee’s endorsement.
Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an “anti-Christ religion” brought down from a “demon spirit.” Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.
John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his “spiritual guide.”
What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama’s? You guessed it. They’re white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it’s not racism that’s causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?
I’m willing to listen to other possible explanations. And I am inclined to believe that the people these preachers go after are more important than the race of the preacher. It’s one thing to go after gays, liberals and Muslims - that seems to be perfectly acceptable in America - it’s another to accuse white folks of not living up to their ideals.
I think there is another factor at play as well. The media is deathly afraid of calling out preachers of any stripe for insane propaganda from the pulpits for fear that they will be labeled as anti-Christian. But criticism of Rev. Wright falls into their comfort zone. It’s easy to blame him for being anti-American because he criticizes American foreign and domestic policy.
If Rev. Wright had preached about discriminating against gay Americans or Muslims, there probably would not have been any outcry at all. That falls into the category of “respect their hateful opinions because they cloak themselves in the church.”
But one thing is indisputable - the enormous disparity in how the media has covered these white preachers as opposed to Rev. Wright. Have you ever even heard of Rod Parsley? As you can see from what I listed above, all of these white preachers have said and done the most outlandish and offensive things you can imagine - and hardly a peep.
If the disparity in coverage isn’t racist, then what is it?
Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the “Great Whore.” He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil’s army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee’s endorsement.
Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an “anti-Christ religion” brought down from a “demon spirit.” Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.
John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his “spiritual guide.”
What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama’s? You guessed it. They’re white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it’s not racism that’s causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?
I’m willing to listen to other possible explanations. And I am inclined to believe that the people these preachers go after are more important than the race of the preacher. It’s one thing to go after gays, liberals and Muslims - that seems to be perfectly acceptable in America - it’s another to accuse white folks of not living up to their ideals.
I think there is another factor at play as well. The media is deathly afraid of calling out preachers of any stripe for insane propaganda from the pulpits for fear that they will be labeled as anti-Christian. But criticism of Rev. Wright falls into their comfort zone. It’s easy to blame him for being anti-American because he criticizes American foreign and domestic policy.
If Rev. Wright had preached about discriminating against gay Americans or Muslims, there probably would not have been any outcry at all. That falls into the category of “respect their hateful opinions because they cloak themselves in the church.”
But one thing is indisputable - the enormous disparity in how the media has covered these white preachers as opposed to Rev. Wright. Have you ever even heard of Rod Parsley? As you can see from what I listed above, all of these white preachers have said and done the most outlandish and offensive things you can imagine - and hardly a peep.
If the disparity in coverage isn’t racist, then what is it?
Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, the first liberal radio show to air nationwide.
Denise - I completely respect your position. My decision that Obama is not fit to be president was formed in the last week and explained in the article. I never saw him as a substantive candidate and that adds to my concerns about his past with Trinity/Wright.
Courtenay - I’m obviously not going to respond to everything (whew!) you posted here, but I’ll make a couple of general responses:
The difference, as I see it, between everyone you listed and the Obama/Wright controversy is this:
1. Obama could very well be the next president. You cite Guiliani, but…Guiliani (former frontrunner) fell flat on his face. If that’s what you have in mind for Obama as well, I’m sympathetic to that.
2. I don’t expect Obama to denounce every controversial person who endorses him (which could be every person who has defended Wright’s rants). His relationship with Wright and Trinity is on a completely different level than McCain’s with Hagee. Hagee’s mere existence doesn’t contradict any rhetorical platform of the McCain candidacy. Wright espouses racial division and hostile anti-Americanism while Obama is supposedly the candidate of unity. This isn’t a matter of Wright endorsing Obama - it’s a matter of Obama endorsing Wright while campaigning as something completely different. If Obama can’t do in his own life the things that would heal the divides in this country, what he thinks the country should do, then his candidacy is a sham. His credibility in dealing with racism will be nil.
3. If you are going to bring up outrageous things said by other (I guess “white” is your point) religious leaders, then do you apply that as well to Reverend Wright? I don’t support nor care for any of these people you listed and hope that McCain and other Republicans would distance themselves. Will you apply standard that to Obama?
This controversy is unique compared to all of the examples you have provided. I think most Americans are more troubled by anti-American statements than they are by one religious figure offending another religion. Don’t get me wrong, I fully support Reverend Wright’s desire to incite whatever he wants to his congregation. My problem here is with a follower and admirer of his sitting in the White House and not being forthcoming about where he stands.
Finally, with the media: they don’t get the same coverage because they aren’t the same kind of controversy. You want to play the race card (and believe me, I’m no defender of the mainstream media) but this is literally the first time in the last year and a half that Obama has found himself in the frying pan - and that’s because in this case, he deserves it. Why can’t a story simply be gaged on it’s content rather than be some kind of racist conspiracy? Obama is a candidate, he may be the Dem nominee and he might have a shot at the WH - you seem to suggest that he should be untouchable. I disagree. He has a history here that deserves to be examined and he should have dealt with this long before he ran for president.
Excellent post. I thoroughly agree with you. I share many of your views and observations in much of what I have written on my site.
Thank you Layla. I see we share some concerns. BTW, I love your Hall of Shame in the sidebar.