Posted by
Andrews on Monday, March 17, 2008 11:13:20 PM
Here is a quote from
the New York Times:
In the interview last spring, Mr. Wright expressed frustration at the
breach in relationship with Mr. Obama, saying the candidate had already
privately said that he might need to distance himself from his pastor.
But perhaps the two could repair things, said Mr. Wright, pointing out
that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, had faced worse.
Please read that and think about what it means.
If Obama told Rev. Wright that he may have to "distance himself", does that not mean that Obama was aware Wright was a political liability? And, why would Wright be a political liability except for his inflammatory rhetoric and beliefs? So, it appears Obama was well aware of Wright's beliefs last spring, but he now claims to be unaware of what the Reverend had said? The only way I can see for any of this to make sense is to assume that Obama is lying.
Of course, there are other explanations offered, but those have problems as well. For example, the idea that Reverend Wright is just getting a little dotty in his old age. Well, for those who claim the Reverend Wright is going senile and just started making such statements (a claim partly based on Obama's image of Wright as “an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with”), I would remind you that Wright made these statements as long ago as the weekend following 9/11. Not to mention that the church's website claims the church believes in "black liberation theology" and I have trouble believing this one doddering old uncle managed to completely alter the church website on his own without anyone noticing.
As black liberation theology, as described by James Cone
1 (of whom Wright speaks favorably), believes that G-d must "[identify] completely with the goals of the black community" and "participate in the destruction of the white enemy", and as the church officially endorses black liberation theology, it stretches credulity to breaking and beyond to think Obama was completely unaware of the Reverend's beliefs. If you attend a church which claims to embrace a divisive theology, and you have a minister spouting the same divisive rhetoric, to claim you were unaware of your minister's beliefs seems a bit far fetched.
Let us leave it at this: Wright has been making statements of this nature since at least 2001. The church's web site officially states it supports black liberation theology. Obama has been a parishioner for 20 years and has been close enough to Wright to use a line from one of his sermons for a book title. Yet we are expected to believe that Obama has failed to hear one word of black nationalist rhetoric from Reverend Wright? As I said before,
I am skeptical.
Of course, as with any political scandal, it is only important until the next one. It is quite possible that Wright, Rezko, and all the other baggage dragging Obama down could vanish in an instant, should Hillary manage to step into something worse. But, for now, I think Obama need not spend much time planning how to decorate the Oval Office.
2
--------------------------------------------------------
1. See the quote from Cone
here along with some more material about Wright's interest in Cone.
2. Of course, even if Obama does win the nomination, he can still forgo any decorating plans, as I don't see either Obama or Clinton beating
McCain given the current circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: A hat tip to
Best of the Web for providing some of the quotes I used. Always a good for a laugh, and often for a few interesting ideas. Also, for an amusing take on this, which also indirectly supports
my concept of Obama as a mirror for
his supporters, see
The American Thinker.
UPDATED 03/17/2008
Oops. Obama should have made sure not to put anything in writing, and remembered to check the public record. Apparently there is some evidence which, while not damning, makes his denials a lot less convincing.
First,
a mention of one of Wright's anti-white sermons in Obama's (sort of) autobiography. Of course, it doesn't sound as inflammatory as some of Wright's stuff, but it does prove that a young Obama heard Wright blaming the ills of the world on white people, which certainly doesn't square with Obama's claims that he was unaware of Wright's beliefs.
Second,
a reporter notes that Obama was in attendance and nodding in agreement while Wright launched into a much more venemous sermon in 2007. That is much more damning, and certainly does make Obama's claims sound like nothing but a standard politician's evasions and outright lies.
So much for Obama being a new type of politician. Seems he is just the same old corrupt, lying politico we know all too well.