As to the first question, if Obama maintains as he did yesterday that he's never heard Wright express certain outrageous opinions such as those which are being discussed, then he's dodging. As I said, it is simply beyond credulity to insist he was unaware of Wright's views. If he claims he was then he is simply lying, and everyone will know it. If he claims he continued attending Wright's church because of any other reason - political and social connections, the occasional effective and inspiring sermon, a sense of loyalty to a man who had meant much to him when he was younger - then we have reason to question his judgement. And judgement has been one of his talking points in this campaign. The central issue (the only issue?) among Democrats during this campaign season is the vote on the Iraq war. Hillary voted for. Obama was not yet a Senator so he didn't have to vote. Obama has yielded this single vote like a hammer against Hillary throughout the campaign, maintaining that he would have voted against the war, which shows he has better judgement on the issues than she. Obama's continued attendance at Wright's church, especially with his children in tow, would lead one to question that judgement. That he did not distance himself loudly and clearly from Wright many moons ago also reflects badly on him. I'm not sure there is a good answer to this question that will limit the political damage to Obama's campaign.
As for the second question of whether Obama shares Wright's views, this is more difficult to answer. Certainly is not unreasonable to ask the question in light of the facts. Would a true post-racial presidential candidate sit silently through Wright's rage-filled sermons against America and the privileged white people who run it at the expense of blacks? Obama has run a post-racial campaign to this point. His campaign transcended race, and this was one of his appeals - the candidate who could heal the racial wounds of the past and unite us all behind a single vision. But the Wright issue blows that conceit up.
Then there is Michelle Obama and her comments last month that 'for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.' She had made similar comments previously. When asked to explain herself, she didn't, really. That this privileged woman could not find a single thing about her country to be proud of in the past twenty-five years is telling. It is not unreasonable to come away with the opinion that Mrs. Obama is part of that segment of the left which considers America to be fatally flawed, and which instinctively seeks to blame America for all the world's ills.
Add to this that Obama's mother was a member of the far-left during her lifetime, "a fellow traveler," according to her friends. Add to it also that Obama was introduced to Chicago elite society at a party hosted by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, former members of the radical Weather Underground terrorist group. Here is a segment from Ayers' Wikipedia entry:
Ayers went underground with several comrades including Brandy Diekman, after their co-conspirators' bomb accidentally exploded on March 6, 1970, destroying a Greenwich Village townhouse and killing three members of the Weather Underground (Ted Gold, Terry Robbins, and Diana Oughton, who was Ayers' girlfriend at the time). He and his colleagues invented identities and traveled continuously. They avoided the police and FBI, while bombing high-profile government buildings including the United States Capitol, The Pentagon, and the Harry S Truman Building housing the State Department. Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn raised two children, Zayd and Malik, underground before turning themselves in in 1981, when most charges were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct during the long search for the fugitives.
In an interview that appeared in the New York Times on the morning of September 11, 2001, Ayers said this about his past involvement with the Weather Underground: "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough." He is also quoted in this interview as saying he found "a certain eloquence in bombs."
Now, for Obama, this only adds up to guilt by association. We cannot say that because many of those close to him have either explicit or suspected anti-American views that he shares those views. He certainly has said nothing on the campaign trail to make one think he does. But the questions arise and are not easily answered. Even if Obama comes out with an explicit I-Don't Love-Wright-I-Do-Love-America speech, the questions will still hang over him. Why? Because people instinctively understand that they themselves would not surround themselves with others who views were odious. I know I would not continue to attend a church - and bring my children - were the views expressed from the pulpit offensive to me. I would not have married who I married if she had opinions on large issues which differed substantially from mine and which caused me to question her judgement (I know, I know, the very fact that she would marry me should cause others to question her judgement.) It all has to do with the company you keep; if you surround yourself with suspicious people, people will consider you suspicious too.
So how does it play out in the Democratic presidential horse race? As I said, I think this is probably a fatal blow for Obama. I'm not even sure he can get the nomination at this point, and if he does, he probably can't beat John McCain in the general. Hillary's whole strategy since South Carolina has been to make Obama 'the black candidate.' That's been done now. First the Clinton's stripped off the halo and got him down in the gutter with them, now they have made race a major issue in the campaign. He wanted to be the post-racial candidate - it was the only way he could win - but he's turning into Jesse Jackson.
So what happens if Obama gets the nomination? Who will vote for him? Of course, he has the black vote locked up along with the far-left and the anti-war voters. That's not enough to win the presidency. Previously it was assumed that the Hillary-leaning Democrats would vote for Obama in the general. But who are those people? Older, white, blue-collar folks. These are the very people who might reject a candidate who is perceived as the 'black candidate.' These are also the same people who would find a non-ideologue war-hero like John McCain palatable. I think they switch sides in large numbers and vote for McCain.
So does this benefit Hillary? Without a doubt it benefits her in terms of getting the nomination. But it hurts her in the general. Due to her position of being behind in the elected delegate count entering the convention (not to mention behind in the total popular vote) she was always going to have trouble holding on to the black vote. Her goal was to convince enough of the super-delegates to come over to her side to secure the nomination. No matter how she did it, there was going to be damage. But if it is perceived among African-American voters that a 'black issue' is what brought Obama down and gave the nomination to Hillary, the damage will be even greater. Blacks will stay home in November, and a Democrat can't win without the black vote. McCain wins again.
The prospects for the Democrats electing one of their own as president in November grew even slimmer this week.
No comments:
Post a Comment