Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:25:41 AM
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but Senator Obama attended an Ivy League school, attended an Ivy League law school, was elected to the Illinois senate and then the US senate. Presumably, these traits would belong to someone who possesses a modicum of intelligence. I think we can all agree on that.
Yet, somehow, we are also expected to view him as some sort of uber-naif (if I may mix foreign languages). He managed to associate with someone for 20 years, yet have no idea that they espoused racist rhetoric. He failed to notice that his church sold videos showing such racist rants as the "best" of the reverend's sermons. He failed to notice that he was attending a church which describes itself as black separatist. And he failed to notice that his mentor of 20 years was obsessed with racial conspiracy theories.
I doubt I would accept such claims from my three year old son (perhaps I would, but I am too indulgent), and I certainly wouldn't believe them from an adult, even one of limited intelligence, much less a clearly clever man such as Senator Obama.
Of course, he obviously did notice. The fact that he provided multiple excuses shows it. First, he did not hear anything, then it was just "crazy uncle Jerry", and finally it was an understandable response to past racism. People who make honest mistakes do not come up with multiple contradictory explanations, that is the hallmark of someone trying to avoid telling the truth.
So, what is the truth?
Well, two possibilities come to mind. Perhaps three.
First, that the senator joined the church for political reasons. Wanting to gain support in a largely black district, he joined a militant church. Being only half-black, perhaps he thought it would help cement his credentials in the black community. Perhaps he worried his education and mainstream manner would not appear "black" enough to some voters and sought authenticity this way. I can't speak to the specifics, I am just speculating, but it is quite possible Senator Obama attended this church purely for political reasons.
Second, it is possible that he actually believes some of what Reverend Wright says. His far left voting record, his association with people such as Billy Ayers, and his somewhat unclear relation with groups such as the New Black Panthers raise the possibility that he is a kindred spirit to Reverend Wright. I doubt he believes all of the conspiracy theories that Reverend Wright espouses, but it is still possible that, on the big picture, he is in agreement. So, while he is denouncing (some of) Reverend Wright's statements to keep his campaign afloat, it is also possible that he really does agree with some of them.
A third possibility has been suggested by some, thought I am not sure I buy it completely. Some have argued that, being half-black and raised by mostly white relatives, the young Obama was conflicted over his identity and gravitated toward the msot extreme of black militants to feel "authentic". It is not impossible, as I have seen similar behavior when I was in college, middle class blacks and hispanics, raised in basically mainstream American families, were accused of being "white" and adopted extremely militant attitudes to avoid such criticism (I later saw similar behavior among Chinese, Indian and Arab students as well, when working at a university rather than attending one.).
Then again, that was the behavior of 18 to 22 year old individuals, and most seemed to outgrow it at some point. So to attribute that motive to an intelligent adult seems a bit unlikely.
Whatever the reason, the fact remains that Senator Obama decided to associate with reverend Wright, to call him his mentor, to bring his wife and children to that church to hear Reverend Wright, and only denounced him after it became a political liability. The fact that he can give a speech and woo the converted does nothing to change that fact.
------------------------------------------
Note: As the post was some time ago, some may not know the reason I prefer "black" to "African-American". The original post can be found
here. To make a brief explanation, I find the word awkward and ugly. Besides that it confuses issues incredibly. For example, is a black man from Britain "British African-American" as I heard some reporter say once? Well, if you are curious, read the original article. I simply find the term black much more informative, and much less ugly. If it offends, then I do apologize, but I see no reason for such a neutral word to upset anyone.