Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
TEXT SIZE: A A A A
Email this post | Back to Blog home
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Obama and a test of leadership

 

With respect to his former pastor, Barack Obama decided yesterday that it was no longer enough to merely reject and denounce. It had become imperative for Obama to nuke and bury.

He had no choice. Jeremiah Wright had turned into a one-man wrecking crew, and it was starting to look like Obama was just a passive bystander, a hapless witness to his own destruction, lacking the requisite guts to take the guy down. Most importantly, that kind of passivity is hardly the kind of character trait that many Americans want to see in a commander-in-chief. A real leader has to show that he can confront and isolate his adversaries. And Wright had indeed become an adversary.

So, referring to Wright's Monday rant on national television, Obama stated yesterday: "When I say I find (his) comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts everything that I'm about and who I am. And anybody who has worked with me, who knows my life, who has read my books, who has seen what this campaign is about I think will understand that it is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country...I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That's in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding. To insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That's who I am. That's what I believe. That's what this campaign has been about.

"(Monday), we saw a very different vision of America. I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw...There has been great damage (to the Wright-Obama relationship). I do not see the relationship being the same after this."

OK, maybe that wasn't exactly nuke-and-bury, but it was far stronger than anything Obama had previously said. And he had to say it. Polls indicate that Obama has lost ground in both North Carolina and Indiana, both which stage primaries next Tuesday. And while Obama had previously stated that he had not attended church on the Sunday when Wright had blamed America for 9/11, there was no way he could plead obliviousness this time, not with Wright hitting the exact same theme live on CNN.

In recent weeks, most of the commentary (mine included) has focused on whether the Obama-Wright relationship would scare off a lot of white voters. But, based on an encounter I had late yesterday, I now think that, potentially, Obama's problem has much broader resonance.

I'm currently down in southern Mississippi, working on a long-scheduled freelance assignment totally disconnected from politics, but I did run into a Democratic strategist (yes, there are still a few in Mississippi), and naturally the Obama-Wright issue came up in conversation. His concern was Obama, by failing for so long to assail Wright in the strongest possible terms, was starting to look weak.

More specifically, this strategist feared that, in the eyes of swing voters (including the racially enlightened), Obama was starting to look weak; that many voters were perhaps starting to ask themselves whether this new phenom on the political scene was really tough enough to take on the likes of Ahmadinejad when he seemed so reluctant to handle Wright with the ruthlessness that is sometimes required of a chief executive.

So the question now is whether, for many voters, Obama's remarks yesterday come too late...and whether his severing of the relationship appears less principled than poll-driven.

--------

By the way, my road work in Mississippi may well mess with my blogging rhythm for the rest of this week. If new posts show up at odd times, or not at all, you'll know why.

Posted by Dick Polman @ 11:35 AM  Permalink | File Under: Obama | 24 comments
Comments
Posted by chris duckworth 09:33 AM, 04/30/2008
I wouldn't characterize Wright's comments at the National Press Club as a "rant." If you read the transcript (available at Fox News website), you'll read what is (for the most part) a very measured and nuanced presentation. This is not a defense of his past comments, some of which indeed have crossed the line, but Wright's comments on Monday were fairly tame and intelligent. And why is it that when a black man makes an impassioned defense of himself, his ministry, and his faith, we call it a "rant"? For other - less black - folks, we'd probably refer it to it as an "impassioned defense" or "strong words" or some other positive phrase. But for angry black men we use the word "rant." Post-racial? Give me a break.
Posted by p-diddy 10:21 AM, 04/30/2008
For many people, nothing Obama says about Wright will be good enough. I think there's been an a lot of phony outrage over What Obama's Pastor Said. It's just something to smear Obama with. Come on people, who gives a damn what a candidate's pastor is saying - does anyone really think Obama hates America? It reminds me of the obsession with Michelle Obama's comment that she was proud of America for "the first time". People say they don't want candidates who are mannequins, yet they demand mannequins.
Posted by yobill626 10:23 AM, 04/30/2008
Having actually watched Wright deliver his "rant" at the Press Club, I also saw a man in complete control of his temper. What I did see was an egomaniacal nutjob --- a preening peacock. I do agree that Black men have to guard against coming across as an "angry black man" when talking about passionate subjects in public. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama doesn't have this in the back of his mind every time he talks to the Press. How does one come across as passionate without showing passion? Mika Brezinski was talking to two black clergymen (one a GOP strategist) this morning who agreed that Obama's reaction was "measured". She then holds up today's New York Daily News with the headline of "Fury" with Barack's photo underneath. Right now, no matter what he does, this guy can't win with some folks. If Obama does win, besides all the other differences, the Press will play it up as a choice of temperments between a "Cold Fish Elitist" (Obama) & a "Raving Old Maniac" (McCain).
Posted by doo dah man 11:13 AM, 04/30/2008
Obama was sunk as soon as the original clips surfaced weeks ago. Obama, his supporters, the Left and much of the press might not want to believe, but that is willful blindness. Wright is a mortal wound for Obama, and the only question is how long it will take to finish him off - before the nomination or the general election. It's so much more than racism, and screaming that those who object to Wright as racist just plain misses the point and reflects a deep misunderstanding of much of the electorate. Stick a fork in Obama.
Posted by ivb 11:32 AM, 04/30/2008
What seemed to set most people in the press over the edge was the address to the National Press Club and the fact that he didn't show proper deference to them. My goodnes, to refuse to respond to a question about a sermon the person had not heard or read -- why that would be like an actor refusing to respond to a question about a movie the press person had not seen or an author refusing to respond to a question about a book the press person had not read. That isn't the way the game is played. And, he dared to be sarcastic too...
Posted by Seed 11:33 AM, 04/30/2008
Wright did not say a single thing new for last three days. His AID comment, 9/11 comment, support for Farrah Khan and other comments are part of his sermon for 20 years. The new items in last three days are: 1. Obama is just another politician who will say one thing in public and wink at Wright. 2. Obama had Wright in the basement to pray with him before declaring his candidacy. Both of those statements are probably true and media needs to find out.
Posted by Rauol Duke 12:42 PM, 04/30/2008
Doo Dah Man, Take your fork and stick it. The democrats can nominate my dog and beat John McCain 60/40. The Neo-Con movement is dead. Go craw under a rock with Tom Delay, and soon to be join the ex power broker John Prezel.
Posted by smcclair 01:23 PM, 04/30/2008
Put a sock in it. Wright was his PASTOR, enough said. Any person would honestly agree that you don't ALWAYS agree with EVERYTHING the pastor says, and EVERYTHING said is not meant for EVERYONE. No one is discussing the abuse in the catholic churches, Hagee, Parsons, Falwell and OTHER pastors that have spoken out against New Orleans, Gays, the Government. The people are COMMENTING the MOST were NEVER going to vote for OBAMA in the first place. So you Bigotry is definitely showing. Voters will make up their own minds and it's these comments that MOTIVATES me to given another $500 donation and makes some more calls on behalf of OBAMA. Thanks for the encouragement!!!!!!!! Millions more have responded the same way, STOP THE NEGATIVES, THAT'S THE OLD WASHINGTON, TIME FOR CHANGE
Posted by yobill626 01:33 PM, 04/30/2008
First, I saw a recent poll the other day that claimed that more Americans were biased against women and Senior Citizens being President than African Americans. I'm not so sure if I think that is accurate. Second, how do those people know that Wright has been preaching these objectionable ideas for 20 YEARS? The film clip that was in rotation for the last month or so, showed an older man much like the way Wright looks now. All that proves is that he's said these things RECENTLY. I find it hard to believe that he could build the enormous membership of that Church in the city of Chicago for 20 years with none of these outlandish comments ever seeing the light of day. I'd be interested to know if Wright wasn't nudged out of his post in any way by the Executive Committee of his Church.
Posted by doo dah man 01:34 PM, 04/30/2008
It was called a "Rant" by Obama, not white commentators. His exact quote was “All it was, was a bunch of rants that aren’t grounded in truth[.]”
Posted by smcclair 01:43 PM, 04/30/2008
It's an INDIVIDUAL preception. obama said rant, you might say spoke, I say HE MADE A FOOL OF HIMSELF. Not his remarks but his PRESENTATION. This is the opinion of a middle age, professional AA. I applauded his Moyers comments, and yes the NAACP, but I thought he PERFORMED for the media at the NPC
Posted by tom - wilmington, de 01:55 PM, 04/30/2008
This is all very interesting. The extreme Obama supporters continue to cry about racism (if Wright were not black this would not be an issue) and bring up the Catholic church, Falwell, Hagee, etc.). The extreme Obama detractors want vindication (see, he supported this pastor, so he must agree with him). Those in the middle probably do not know what to think and swing both ways. I happen to believe Obama should have done this back in March. Why now can he denounce Wright when back in March he "could no more denounce him than I could denounce the entire black community". Wright's statements over the weekend, beginning with Bill Moyers and ending with the Press Club, were no different than what the sound bites had shown over the past several months. However, the only two difference are that over the weekend Wright had made it personal AND Obama had done some polling to determine which path he should take. That makes this whole eposide very disingenuous. Obama was mad not at Wright's statements, but at his characterizaton of Obama. He was not concerned with Wrights calling America a terrorist nation, but with how the poll results showed people reacted to it. This is a politically motivated move from someone promising to end politics as usual and saying he wants to chart a new political direction. I believe it shows Obama to be weak and undecisive, as well as willing to say and do anything to get elected, no matter who he has to throw under the bus (see Grandma back on March 18).
Posted by tom - wilmington, de 02:01 PM, 04/30/2008
And just for good measure, nobody in the Catholic Church, or Falwell (who is dead), or Hagee, or anyone else mentioned by "smcclair" is going around saying 9/11 was just desserts for America's terrorism, or that Aids was started by the government, or even out there publicly on talk radio or TV. So, where is the comparison? I guess the Democrat sponsored Congressional resolution back in 2002 condemning Bob Jones University was justified, according to "smcclair". If Hagee goes on Bill Moyers and says the same as Wright, then he should also be denounced. And if John McCain had attended Hagee's church for 20 years and had Hagee baptize his children, then he should do the denouncing. Without those similarities, then nothing else is relevant.
Posted by JeffA 02:38 PM, 04/30/2008
I think we should put this subject to bed and discuss how all of the remaining 3 are failing to solve the biggest threats facing our nation. Let's start with our national debt, with dollar devaluation, with rising oil prices. We have the lowest national equity in our homes since WWII. Foreign creditors own record amounts of our debt. Anybody do their homework from the last time we got checks from the Feds? The economy rebounded around that time for a number of reasons, primarily the ultra low interest rates available that drove the home equity/home buying boom. Not surprisingly, this led to the economic sub-prime debacle/bail-out we're digging out of today. The point is these checks will arrive, not coincidentally, with interest rates at historic lows again - Fed just dropped their rate to 2% today. I would be a fool for trying to predict the outcome, but anyone who studied the last Fed cash infusion has learned the effects were marginal. And lest I forget, the $1200 you'll get are funded by more debt. What joy! China will fund the money that we'll spend to buy more Chinese produced goods. So whose economy are we juicing?
Posted by CleanupPhilly 03:54 PM, 04/30/2008
Wright had a choice to make -- get Obama elected or go for that juicy book deal. Looks like "book deal" and talk show circuit was more important to him. Another case of black men as a group sabotaging themselves rather than work together.
About Inquirer and Daily News Writers

The PA Votes '08 blog brings you up-to-the-minute coverage of the Pennsylvania primary campaign.

It's written by political journalists from the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News. Send us your comments -- and news tips -- at this address.


And meet our regular bloggers:

Will BunchWill Bunch, one of the first mainstream newspaper journalists to blog regularly, writes the blog Attytood. Will, a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News, blogs about his obsessions, including national and local politics, pop music, the Philadelphia Phillies, soccer and other sports.

Angela Couloumbis Angela Couloumbis joined The Philadelphia Inquirer in 1998, and has covered government and politics in New Jersey, Philadelphia and throughout Pennsylvania, including Gov. Rendell’s 2006 race against former Pittsburgh Steeler Lynn Swann.

Dave DaviesDave Davies has covered government and politics in Philadelphia for the past twenty years. He is senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News, where he has worked since 1990. He is also a fill-in host for National Public Radio's Fresh Air, and WHYY's Radio Times. He's also worked as a teacher, a cab driver and a welder.

Larry Eichel Larry Eichel is the senior writer for The Philadelphia Inquirer, covering the 2008 presidential election. He has served as national political writer, a foreign and national correspondent, a political columnist, sportswriter, national editor and suburban editor. He is the co-author of two books and three children.

Thomas FitzgeraldThomas Fitzgerald joined The Philadelphia Inquirer in 2000, and has covered Harrisburg as well as city, state and national politics for the newspaper. He was a “boy on the bus” in the 2004 presidential campaign and during primary contests in 2000 and 1996.

Ellen GrayEllen Gray is TV critic for the Daily News. She has been paid to watch television since 1994. She first liveblogged election night media coverage in November of 2000.

Gar JosephGar Joseph, the Philadelphia Daily News' city editor, has been involved in political coverage for two decades as a reporter and editor. His column, Clout, has twice been named best column in Philadelphia magazine's Best of Philadelphia issue.

Catherine LuceyCatherine Lucey joined the Philadelphia Daily News in 2002. Since then she has written about murderous drug gangs, political protesters and Harry Potter. For the past two years, she covered the 2007 mayoral election; she now covers the Nutter administration.

StormJonathan Storm became The Inquirer's television critic in 1990, after joining the paper in 1982. Previously, he spent six years at the Rutland Herald (Vt.) and six more at the Detroit Free Press. He’s been an avid TV watcher since age 5.