WHAT DO MICHELLE OBAMA AND JEREMIAH A. WRIGHT TELL YOU ABOUT BARACK OBAMA? ALL THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW!
WHAT DO MICHELLE OBAMA AND JEREMIAH A. WRIGHT TELL YOU ABOUT BARACK OBAMA? ALL THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW!
By
Ken Eliasberg
Some time ago I did a column pointing out how the Democratic candidates spouses were not helping them very much; indeed, each seemed to be doing his or her very best to sabotage their spouse’s campaign. In that column I pondered whether Michelle Obama was either not too astute(in light of the angry remarks she made while her husband was endeavoring to pass himself off as Mr. Wonderful) or merely being very truthful. And, in all events, was it not possible that her angry remarks might just be a window into the soul of the real Barack Obama. And then along came Pastor Wright to provide an answer to the question I was pondering, i.e., does Michelle’s bitterness provide an insight into her husband’s real nature?. Rather than be who the L.A. Times described as “the Magic Negro,” it turns out that Obama is really Jesse Jackson in Ivy League drag — just another ghetto grievance peddler, with a softer tone and a manner that was more reflective of Harvard than Chicago’s south side. Michelle Obama’s remarks require very little elaboration; quite simply, she indicated, before her husband’s candidacy, she had never been proud of her country — this despite having received a very privileged education that her country gave her despite the fact that academically she did not merit such favorable consideration. She made a few other statements that were no less revealing — e.g. the United States is a “mean” country - and, all in all, came across as possessed of an anger that was quite out of keeping with the angelic image her husband was trying to project.
Then we heard from the Obama’s Pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright, and the source of her anger became more apparent — as possibly did the true nature of her husband. There is no need to go into too much detail about some of the Pastor’s sermons because I’m sure that, by now, most of you are familiar with the sentiments expressed therein. But for the record, here are some of the Pastor’s more spirited comments in abbreviated form: “Not God Bless America — God Damn America; The U.S. of K.K.K.A.; the Government (that’s the U.S. Government) had introduced the HIV virus into the black community ; and that 9/11 was America’s chickens coming home to roost (i.e. we had it coming).
On hearing of the public airing of the Pastor’s remarks and the ensuing displeasure that they occasioned among many members of the public, Barack took the easy way out — he lied, stating that he was never in church when the good Pastor unleashed this torrent of patriotism. That is, he wanted us to believe that the Pastor was really a good guy whenever Barack was in attendance (with his family), but reserved his “bad hair” days for those sermons that Barack just happened to miss. When advised that this was not going over too well, Barack came clean with his Philadelphia speech, using his rhetorical flourish and command of the language in a moving effort to persuade us that he should not be tarnished by the sentiments expressed in his Pastor’s sermons; that these unfortunate comments did not constitute the sum and substance of Pastor Wright; that he could no more sever his relationship with his Pastor than he could the black community at large or his white grandmother who, while adoring him, had herself been guilty of making some insensitive racial remarks; and, finally, in typical Democratic fashion — when caught with their hands in the cookie jar (metaphorically speaking) — get over it; you know move on, we have bigger fish to fry. Do we really? I don’t think so. Given his popularity and the very real possibility that he could become our commander-in-chief, I can’t think of any bigger fish that we have to fry!!
Almost immediately thereafter some among the Democratic punditocracy came out to advise us that even suggesting, let alone concluding, that any of these vicious, racist, hateful pronouncements of Barack Obama’s Pastor of some 20 years should be imputed in any way, shape, or formto Obama is to render Obama “guilty by association.” Some others informed us that the good Pastor’s comments were being taken out of context (that before judging him, we should review the totality of his sermons — or at least the ones from which the unpleasant language emanated). And then there were those who suggested that either the language in question didn’t really mean what it sounded like it meant — that you had to understand “the black experience” to appreciate the significance of these comments, and that the people in that church did not look at those comments in the way many of us were now taking it. Looking first at the language-really-didn’t-mean-what-it said argument, why didn’t it? We are talking about plain old English, where words mean what the dictionary tells us they mean. As far as the “context” critics are concerned, tell me, in what context does Goddamn America have a pleasant ring to it? How about the US of KKKA? Am I missing something here — help me out guys.
Now, let’s take a look at the substance and nature of that “association” and see how guilty, if at all, it makes Obama look. One thing is quite clear; this was not a casual association — Obama’s ties to the Pastor are long, deep, wide, and very, very tight!!
1.As noted, Obama has been a member of Wright’s Church, the Trinity Church, for some 20 years.
2. This was not a choice casually made; Obama, a bright and well educated fellow, could have chosen any of a number of Churches in Chicago, but he chose this one — by his own admission because of the impression that Minister Wright had made on him (and also, in the opinion of some, to give him street creds and make him seem more authentically black).
3. While he may have missed any number of Wright’s sermons, he was in regular attendance at Wright’s church over the course of these 20 years. That being the case,he would he have us believe that Wright only picked those occasions on which Obama was not in attendance to utter the Obaminations in question? This would not satisfy either the smell test or the laugh test).
4. Obama and his wife were married by Wright in his Church.
5. Obama and his wife have had their 2 children baptized in this Church by Wright.
6. These children have been in regular attendance atWright’s Church
7. Obama has spoken often of his great respect for Wright, crediting him with bringing him to Christianity and attributing one of Wright’s sermons as the inspiration for the title of his book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
8. Wright and his Church had honored Louis Farrakhan, a vicious, hate-mongering bigot and racist, with its “highest social achievement award” an award intended “to honor socially conscious giants who commit their lifes’s work to saving the lives of Africans on the continent and in the Diaspora.” Certainly his Church’s honoring this despicable bigot had to be known by Obama, since it was no secret; how then could he rationalize his continuedChurch attendance without addressing this disgusting racist action on the part of “his” Church?).
9. Finally, in a N..Y.Times column of April 30,2007 (almost a year ago), Wright is quoted as follows: “If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me ‘Mr. Wright said with a shrug’ (apparently to the columnist in question, Jodi Kantor) “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” Query? Why would it be necessary for Obama to distance himself from Wright if there were nothing in the nature or scope of the relationship that might prove damaging to Obama, i.e. something that would require such distancing, like, say, Obama remaining passive in the face of, if not in agreement with, Wright’s fiery and disgusting rhetoric?
10. Now, long after the unfortunate language was uttered; a year after the 2 had the discussion of the possible need for Obama to distance himself; and a short time after Wright’s sermons received extensive public exposure; Obama comes out, acts surprised, and denounces the language. And (a) first said that he had never heard of Pastor Wright’s comments before; (b) then, owning up to an awareness of Wright’s fiery stand on certain issues, suggested that that is not the totality of the man (Pastor Wright); (c) that Wright has stepped down from both the ministry and his position as an Obama consultant and advisor; and (d) finally he asks us to believe this story. His request seems like a bit of a stretch, but let’s take a closer next week.