Question for Obama

(Note: In my below question, I thought I had closed off all of Obama’s escape routes, but he is a clever one. The approach he takes in his speech, which we discuss here, is that Wright’s statements are wrong but tolerable given the history of American mistreatment of blacks, and that now it’s time to heal these historic divisions by electing Obama. And to think that some readers got irate at me for saying that Obama is talented.)

As we approach Barack Obama’s important speech today, here is the question that I’ve previously suggested ought to be posed to him that cuts through all his evasions:

“Why have you been following an anti-white, America-hating pastor for the last 20 years?”

The question cuts though the “I wasn’t in church when he said these things” evasion. It cuts through the “This is just the way black people talk among themselves and it doesn’t mean anything” evasion It cuts through the “I’ve denounced his statements and he’s retiring anyway” evasion. It cuts through the “He’s just an old uncle who has funny ideas from the Sixties” evasion .

The question confronts Obama with the simple, unadorned reality, which is that he’s been following an anti-white, America-hating pastor for the last 20 years, and it forces him to give an accounting of it, or—more likely—to acknowledge that he can’t give an accounting.

I suppose Obama’s best answer would be, “He wasn’t an anti-white, anti-American pastor to me. To me he was the pastor who led me to Jesus Christ.” But that answer leaves us with the conclusion that Obama was completely unaware of what his pastor was vociferously saying for 20 years. A man so inattentive to repeated hate statements coming from an important person in his life is disqualified for the presidency, because he won’t know what’s going on around him as president. He won’t notice, for example, anti-Americanism among his own staff and supporters or do anything to stop it.

Obviously any president, let alone a president who promises to lead the country beyond racial divisions, has got to notice gross expressions of race hatred among his own associates and either put a stop to them or terminate those associations. Obama’s demonstated total inability to do that invalidates the main argument for his candidacy.

- end of initial entry -

Karen writes from England:

He has been in this Church for 20 years. Moreover he was married by this Pastor, had his children baptised by this Pastor into this Church and had special private prayer sessions with this Pastor just before his election campaign started. Of course he knows exactly what is going on and he is evidently an eager accomplice. The Church is primarily a black political organisation and not a religious one. There is manifestly little of the Christian spirit. Osama is a black Messiah set to spearhead a black revolution against white America. Are Americans beginning to see that?

Kevin S. writes:

This seems to be a blind spot for Obama. Evidently he fails to perceive the nature of the problem with this association. Does he really believe it sufficient to claim not to have been present when “those statements” were made, to condemn just the offending proclamations, and to state none of it really matters now anyway due to Wright’s imminent retirement? He is far too gifted a campaigner to be making those types of public announcements had he correctly apprehended the root of this problem. Or, maybe not?

Behind closed doors there is no doubt frank discussion not only of the true nature of the problem, but a detailed plan for how to approach it which is exactly what we are seeing pursued in his statements so far. The media have been threatened in no uncertain terms that any questions along the lines of, “What’s with the 20 year association?” or “What about all the times IN WRITING you describe how formative this man was to the personal and POLITICAL figure you are today?” will not receive a response and you can kiss further access good-bye forever. Knowing himself the anointed one in the eyes of the media allows such brashness. And the media will continue to play along. And no one will ever explore those questions at the ABC level; especially no one from the McCain campaign who should be keeping it on the front page until actually addressed which is not possible.

The public is too stupid to understand being “formed” by someone like Wright should be a disqualification for any public office. Obama has always known the public really is that dumb. McCain is too deranged to point it out. Clinton is too worried about perceptions of race and religious intolerance (again, beautifully played here on the part of our “non-race” candidate) to point it out, but surely at least a few of her aides are advising we are out of time and this may be the last bullet we have. Given the position she is in and all the blood already on her hands I am at a loss as to this reluctance.

Richard F. writes:

I’ve just finished reading your commentary on Obama vis-a-vis his behavior and his Black nationalist church affiliation. Shelby Steele has an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning closely paralleling your thoughts that should be of interest to VFR readers.

RS writes:

Let me put a different spin on your question. Given that Obama is half white, why didn’t the “white part” of him object? Surely he could have reasonably said that the pastor was disrespecting his Mom, and this is a serious offenses in that part of the world. People kill each other for this sort of thing.

Might suppose that his “whiteness” plays a minimal role in his personal identity. Or, he believes that his political future lies in being 100 percent black despite his obvious white background.

To my knowledge, nobody has raised this obvious point. I would love to have seen Obama get up and say, “Stop dissing my mother, m——ker.”

E. writes:

” I SMOKED IT BUT I DIDN’T INHALE”

David B. writes:

I was just thinking about how often we get to this question with politicians. Is he a liar, or a fool? It seems that this happens with Presidents and Presidential candidates, especially. For a recent example, Ron Paul declared that he did not know that a newsletter originating from his office said bad things about Martin Luther King.

Sometimes, the politician claims that he didn’t know what his subordinates were doing. Other times he denies what is obvious to everybody. Such as, “I did not have sex with that woman.” McCain, Bush, and others are forever saying that they are not supporting amnesty for illegal aliens when they are doing exactly that. With Obama, it’s “I wasn’t there when he said it.” Today, I suppose he will come up with something else. They will use weasel words, parsed sentences, and lawyerly evasions. Politicians always think they will get away with it.

In an earlier message, I compared Obama to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Carter also portrayed himself as a transcendent figure to end the North-South divide. He even said, “I will never lie to you.” This was his first lie, many have said. The best thing you can say for Obama is that he is just another slippery, evasive politician with a dubious background. I believe that he is even worse than that. But that is only my opinion. So-called “transcendent figures” are supposed to be better than the usual politician. Usually, the opposite is the case.

Mark K. writes:

Hold the presses, I’ve got a response for Obama’s church membership that he can use! And it is utterly Biblical: “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she made me do it.” Blame the woman!

Adela Gereth writes:

I’m afraid this question “Why have you been following an anti-white, America-hating pastor for the last 20 years?” gives Obama way too much wiggle room.

I’d bet that his answer would begin, “The Reverend Wright is not anti-white or America-hating. He is anti-racism, as are all people of conscience and good will. Nor is he an America-hater. He hates the vestiges of racism still visibly present today in our otherwise great country…. ” and then he’d go on to promote himself as the agent of change—able, with the help of his fellow citizens, to banish the last vestiges of injustice and inequality that keep our nation from being truly great. Etc., etc., etc.

Paradoxically, liberals are always on firmer ground when they can deal in abstractions rather than concrete reality. Obama could and no doubt would therefore slither easily from the implied condemnation of his pastor as anti-white and America-hating to condoning him as anti-racist and hating racism in America. He would then draw himself and his audience into that righteous hate (for to hate evil is righteous) and remind them that he is the uniter, the candidate of and for change (from worse to the better).

If I can do it speculatively first thing in the a.m. after only one cup of coffee, he with his legalistic training and many advisers should, after days of considered thought, be able do it masterfully.

This is not a criticism of your question, just a gloomy prediction based on years of observing how liberals can slither out of the most outrageous situations and even more outrageously, turn the blame back on their accusers.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 18, 2008 08:04 AM | Send