Under for Fire for Pastor's Remarks, Obama To Give Major Speech on Race
| Mon Mar. 17, 2008 2:05 PM PDT
I was at a fancy Washington party of politicos this weekend and the No. 1 topic of conversation was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright--that is, what could Barack Obama do about Wright's assorted controversial statements. (Was Jesus really black?) With Fox News and others leading the charge--the cable news network had found videos of Wright's over-the-top sermons for sale at his church's gift shop--Obama quickly distanced himself from his onetime pastor's more provocative statements. ("No one ever said it was going to be easy to elect a black man president," an Obama supporter told me at this party.)
But Obama is not just hunkering down. Today his campaign announced he would deliver a "major address on race, politics, and how we bring our country together at this important moment in our history." Do you think this was scheduled prior to the Wright dustup? Not likely. Will it do anything to counter whatever political damage has been (or can be) done by Wright's remarks? Probably not. Still, it might be necessary. Then again, Obama has done rather well so far by not emphasizing matters of race. With the racial divide apparently growing starker in the recent Democratic primaries (with whites voting for the white candidate and blacks voting for the black candidate), one can only wonder if addressing race explicitly in this rather political manner is to Obama's advantage. But when a preacher speaks, sometimes you have no choice but to take action.
And the dog that didn't bark: There's been no Hillary Clinton campaign conference call in which Clinton aides decry Wright's remarks and push reporters to devote more attention to this matter. After the South Carolina primary and after Geraldine Ferraro, the Clintonites certainly realize they must treat gingerly any matter that involves race. And why yelp when there's already plenty of noise?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
David Corn wrote: "With the racial divide apparently growing starker in the recent Democratic primaries (with whites voting for the white candidate and blacks voting for the black candidate), one can only wonder if addressing race explicitly in this rather political manner is to Obama's advantage."
I think that's pretty off, considering that if you put Obama's votes up against Hillary's and then compare them to percentages of African American and Anglo American people that make up their part of the general population, by that assessment, Obama would have a much smaller support pool than he does. Obviously Obama has plenty of 'white' support, as well, David. But I'll give you points for helping to polarize issues, as has become the work of so many journalists today. Way to go!
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Mon Mar. 17, 2008 2:33 PM PDT.
"with whites voting for the white candidate and blacks voting for the black candidate"
Blacks represent about 12% of the electorate - so how is Barack ahead?
I think BHO has plenty of white voters - it is just HRC lacking people of color or BHO would not have such numbers?
Why portray it as black versus white so far off the mark?
Yeah, but I posted first, so you owe me the beer! One day we'll meet in person, I just feel it - perhaps side by side at the front ranks of the Revolution! [okay, my talents would probably be best suited for KP, but still....]
Submitted by poetryman69 (not verified) on Tue Mar. 18, 2008 7:02 PM PDT.
Getting yourself pastored for 20 years by a radical hater shows bad judgment. Lying about it when asked by the media shows dishonesty. Now we know the real reason why you refused to wear a flag lapel pin and why your wife has never before been proud of America. Request for presidency denied.
--klqtzz
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
