Dream Team No More: Identity Politics Melting Down Democrat Party
Forget Eliot Spitzer, the entire Democrat Party is melting down before the nation’s very eyes. Last week, America was both introduced to the electoral cure for white guilt in the form of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and reminded by Geraldine Ferraro why Walter Mondale lost 49 states. The Democrat Party and its two competing Presidential candidates have been hoist by their own petard of race- and gender-identity politics.
Feminist icon Ferraro, a Hillary Clinton-backer, was branded a racist by the Obama campaign for curious statements about the “concept” of Barack Obama. Ferraro essentially argued that if Barack Obama were different, he wouldn’t be the same.
In defending herself against the Obama-mainstream media complex’s backlash, Ferraro conceded on Good Morning America that had her name been Gerard Ferraro (presumably implying that had she been a man) in 1984, she would not have been selected as her party’s ill-fated Vice Presidential nominee that year. So while Ferraro identified race as that which only distinguishes Obama, she at least volunteered that it was solely gender that distinguished her.
Meanwhile, back at the mothership, while Clinton was offering pro-forma denunciation of her comrade-in-arms, team Hillary finally got around to pushing out their special edition “Best of Rev. Jeremiah Wright” DVD collection of selected anti-American ravings and black helicopter conspiracy theories from the good reverend, Obama’s long-time spiritual advisor.
If you think George W. Bush controls the media–yes, that President, the one with the 70% disapproval rating; if you think Israel is a state-sponsor of terrorism; if you think black Republicans are sell-outs; and if you think that America is a racist country that should be damned by God, then you are just going to get the biggest kick out of Rev. Wright’s gyration-filled, pulpit pontifications.
It turns out that Michelle Obama is not the only one who saw no reason to be proud of America prior to her husband’s political ascension.
The other Obama attempted to square Wright’s affinity for hateful demagoguery with the post-racial “One America” vision of his campaign offering to ABC News the rationalization that Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.”
You know what the difference is between Louis Farrakhan, who Obama was quick to categorically repudiate, and good ole Uncle Jeremiah Wright? Louis Farrakhan plays the violin.
Both Democrat campaigns have now been reduced from pandering on the basis of race and gender to polarizing on those bases in order to make their best case to Democrat superdelegates that their opponent is unelectable in the fall against McCain.
Before this is over, they will be both be right.
Comment by kofi the and nobody listens to tapes of their crazy old uncle either on 17 March 2008 at 2:42 pm:
Nobody picks their crazy old uncle. Barack Obama picked that church and that pastor. He’s been a member at least since law school, where he apparently listened to sermons on tape. Barack is either lying about not knowing, or he must be a complete moron to have stayed ignorant for so long. His campaign had better be looking over every video tape ever made of a sermon with a fine tooth comb, because if John McCain finds a video of him singing along to “God Damn America” the election and political Barack’s career will be over immediately.
Comment by tet on 17 March 2008 at 4:29 pm:
Wow, he didn’t know about that?
It seems…it would be outrageous to think that he was set up as a shill to make Hillary’s “come-from-behind” drama more interesting, wouldn’t it?
Nah, that’s conspiracy theory nonsense. The news media would have had to ignore all of Wright’s sermons for years in order for that to be the case. Oh. Wait. They did.
Tom
Comment by kofi the his name is wright. the wright brothers invented airplanes. airplanes fly in the air. helicopters fly in the air. some helicopters are black. aha! there's the proof! on 17 March 2008 at 5:18 pm:
Here comes Tom with the black helicopters.
Honestly, at this point I’m open to the theory. What other options are there? I know our resident Obamamaniacs touched on this issue already, but they didn’t even put up a half hearted attempt to explain it. Obama either knew, and was okay with it, and is lying now. Or he’s literally didn’t know.
I’m not sure which is more outrageous. I guess I’m used to politicians - Chicago Democrats especiailly - lying. I’m a lot more frightened that someone who could be so apparently blind, deaf, and dumb is a favorite for the White House. And they mock Bush’s intelligence? He may not be able to articulate it but he at least seems to be aware what has been going on around him for the last twenty years. Which is it Obamamaniacs? Is your man a liar or a fool? Or are we going to blame it on the black helicopters?
Comment by Brian on 17 March 2008 at 5:40 pm:
Kofi,
Why is it outside the realm of possibility that he’s, you know, telling the truth, and that Wright didn’t make a habit out of preaching using this kind of incendiary language, and therefore Obama had not heard it before?
More importantly, why the hell does it matter?
Equally importantly, why the hell doesn’t anybody care about the fact that the Republican Party AS A WHOLE is to at least some degree influenced by people whose religious views are just as if not more radical than Wright’s?
Comment by kofi the if a republican said phelps was a model for their life i'd throw them under the bus; if barack did you'd have some excuse or explanation ready on 17 March 2008 at 8:01 pm:
It is not outside the realm of possibility that Wright rarely - rarely - used this language and that Barack was unaware of it. It is, however, extremely unlikely. And the fact is Wright has used this language repeatedly. He has used it recently, but more recently he was an official advisor of Barack’s campaign. The odds of Barack never, ever hearing even a passing mention about the sermons are extremely remote - to the point of being negligible.
It matters because Barack specifically chose this church and this pastor. It matters because Barack has felt so close to this man that he was wed by him and had his children baptized by him. It matters because Barack has said he tries to live by this man’s religious interpretations. It matters because Audacity of Hope was inspired by this man. If this was a clergyman that was at the church before Barack attended, or who came to the church after Barack stopped attending regularly, then it wouldn’t matter. This isn’t the case. This isn’t a smear campaign about a tenuous connection to someone controversial. This is an intimate connection, an incredibly close relationship.
It is different from your liberal perception that Republican party “AS A WHOLE” is influenced by radical christians because that is a tenuous association at best. George Bush being a conservative Christian and Fred Phelps being a conservative Christian isn’t indicative of anything. George Bush attending Fred Phelps’s church, listening to his sermons during graduate school, keeping him as a close advisor during his campaign for President, stating that his sermons were a model for his own life? That would be an issue. The connection between Barack and Wright is significantly stronger than any connection between the most conservative Republicans and the radical Christian right. You (as you state and as we have all read) have a huge problem with the connection between Republicans and the radical Christian right, and yet you have no problem with a much stronger link between Barack and this militant racist? How do you explain that Brian? Are you really deluding yourself into believing Barack ‘might not have known,’ hanging out to some shred of a possibility, or are you simply turning a blind eye because you’re already so heavily invested in Barack?
Comment by Brian on 17 March 2008 at 8:19 pm:
It’s really pretty easily explainable. On the one hand you have a party that is clearly influenced by and which embraces figured in the religious right. And I’m not talking about Fred Phelps here, I’m talking about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and James Dobson, all of whom have said things that are radical and offensive and totally out of line. On the other hand you have Barack Obama having a pastor whose controversial words he has explicitly condemned and rejected as totally out of line.
You’re not wrong that Obama and Wright don’t have a tenuous personal relationship. But you are clearly, totally wrong if you think that because Wright has been personally close to Obama and Obama shares Wright’s ideas and that therefore Obama would be a bad President. Do you really think Obama is taking political advice from this guy?
The difference becomes easily understandable when you stop trying to attack Obama as a person and start trying to make an argument about what this means for Obama as a political leader. I think I have a pretty conclusive argument that the religious right wields a great deal of power in terms of what policies Republicans push for. I don’t think you have any shred of an argument making the same point about Obama and Wright.
Comment by Brian on 17 March 2008 at 8:20 pm:
Eek. That sentence should read:
“But you are clearly, totally wrong if you think that because Wright has been personally close to Obama THAT Obama shares Wright’s ideas and that therefore Obama would be a bad President.”
Comment by kofi the as more information comes out barack will be completely done in by this on 17 March 2008 at 8:32 pm:
I don’t think you have any shred of an argument making the same point about Obama and Wright.
Barack has nearly no record. Just as I can’t point to evidence that he hasn’t made policy influenced by Wright, you can’t prove he never would. Are we supposed to wait until he’s President to find that out?
Comment by Brian on 17 March 2008 at 8:38 pm:
And so we circle back around to the “What do we REALLY know about Barack Obama???” argument.
The fact is, we know quite a bit. Want to know where he stands on an issue? Almost certainly you can look it up online and find out. In any case, his record is at LEAST substantial enough to indicate that he is not an America-hating supporter of terrorists, and that he does not think the government started the AIDS epidemic.
This is baseless fear-mongering and smearing at its worst, Kofi. It’s surprising that you have either bought into it or are knowingly engaging in it.
Comment by kofi the "yes we can [be completely ignorant about close friends for 28 years.]" on 17 March 2008 at 9:08 pm:
So I guess you’re going with the he’s deaf, dumb, and blind excuse. All right then.
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 18 March 2008 at 12:39 am:
It appears I’m way late to this party, so I’ll just float this and see if anyone bites:
Ok, it’s accepted that Obama was inspired by Wright and stole the whole “audacity of hope” line from him. But it was also my understanding that Wright sort of went off the reservation into crazy territory relatively recently.
Still, Obama has to answer for this. I think the Fox News of the world have gone a little overboard in trying to make Obama own all of Wright’s statements, but that doesn’t mean that Obama doesn’t have to burden to strongly and firmly separate himself from this.
Comment by kofi the barack obama - i won't damn america with you, but i'll invite you over for dinner after you do on 18 March 2008 at 9:00 am:
Well I guess we have the answer. Barack knew. It just wasn’t enough to make him disassociate with Wright.
Comment by Brian on 18 March 2008 at 9:10 am:
He HAS disassociated himself with Wright’s comments. If there was somebody this close to you in your life, but who said some crazy things, would you totally condemn him or just make it perfectly clear you don’t agree with him? If you would do the former, I question your integrity.
Comment by kofi the here's a black helicotper for you tom: did barack set this all up so he could make this speech? on 18 March 2008 at 9:32 am:
This wasn’t a one time slip by Wright. Wright didn’t wake up on Tuesday and start babbling like a nut. Without evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to believe that Wright has always behaved in this way. In that case, I question Barack’s integrity for choosing to ever become this close to Wright. Even if Wright had not always acted this way, if he had only begun acting this way during the last decade, Barack should have begun to distance himself from the man as well as the comments.
Do you cut a dear friend out of your life for a single comment? Of course not. But the the first time it happens, you tell them you don’t think it’s appropriate. The second time it happens, you again express disapproval and begin to inch away. The third time? The fourth time? The four hundredth time? If it becomes a common enough practice you may simply have to move to an arms length, if not more. This doesn’t indicate a lack of integrity. Your friend is responsible for destroying the relationship by his reckless actions.
I think you’re having trouble here, Brian, because you’re pretending this was a spontaneous outburst. A single ill advised rant that came back to bite him in the ass. It isn’t. These comments are Wright. He believes these things and he says these things and he always has. Barack essentially concedes as much in his speech - they are Wright’s “imperfections - right before he says he looks past the imperfections because of other qualities Wright has. It’s plain language.
Comment by Brian on 18 March 2008 at 10:12 am:
No, Kofi, it doesn’t have to be a spontaneous outburst. It can be a regular, predictable aspect of his personality. I have friends and relatives who regularly, predictably say things that are offensive and inappropriate. But because those friends and relatives are not wholly defined only by those offensive and inappropriate statements, I remain connected to them in real, important ways. There is nothing wrong with that. And there would be something very much wrong with that if, for political reasons, I cast off those connections because those statements became public.