The Now-Permanent Jeremiah Wright Imbroglio

I am absolutely astounded by the continuing firestorm over Barack Obama's willing 20-year association with radical anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright. To me, it's a complete non-issue. After all, it has been obvious for a long time that Obama is nothing like the transcendent beacon of hope that his mesmerized followers perceive him to be. Instead, he's just a standard liberal politician who has maneuvered his way to the top the way that all politicians do, and associating himself with Wright was just a politically convenient step to take along the way (which is fine by me). Wright's views would alienate a lot of people, but you have to remember that Obama hails from the far left, and such people are lot less put off by anti-American ranting and raving (even if they don't fully agree with it) than those on the right usually are.

On March 19, Obama gave a speech that was supposed to put the issue to rest. Many on the left gushed over it, and Jonah Goldberg summarized some of their glowing reviews here:

Thank God for Barack Obama. For until his "More Perfect Union" speech last Tuesday, it seems it never occurred to anyone that America needed to talk about race. "Maybe this'll be the beginning of a conversation," Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan proclaimed on "Meet the Press." According to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, just the fact of Obama's address proves that a "national dialogue on race" is "essential." The Chicago Tribune reported that "many voters, black and white, say they were moved by Obama's speech ... which they see as a long-awaited invitation to begin an honest, calm national dialogue about race." Newspaper editorial boards agree. In the words of the San Diego Union-Tribune: "Prodding Americans to confront their racial differences is, by itself, an accomplishment of historical proportions."

However, even excluding reactions from the right, it wasn't a complete love fest. Here, for example, is ABC News weighing in:

Buried in Eloquence, Obama Contradictions About Pastor

In Speech, Obama Contradicted More Than a Year of Denials About His Knowledge of Rev. Wright's Sermons

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons.
...
Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.

"I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," Obama said at a community meeting in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month.

"He has said some things that are considered controversial because he's considered that part of his social gospel; so he was one of the leaders in calling for divestment from South Africa and some other issues like that," Obama said on March 2.

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

No kidding. And Hillary Clinton is not going to let it rest:

Clinton: Wright 'would not have been my pastor'

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor made.

"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

This, of course, is the key point that many on the right have taken issue with. The relevant part of Obama's speech was this:

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children...I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe..

Nice try, but he's not your family, and you can, indeed, choose to disown him (or freely choose to adopt him, which is basically what you did). Here is Ed Koch weighing in on this issue:

Senator Obama in his speech acknowledged that the rantings of his minister are "inexcusable," but stated, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community..."

Before we discuss his grandmother, let's examine the impact of Rev. Wright's statements on the Senator's two daughters. Nothing says it better than a song from the musical "South Pacific," to wit, "You have to be taught to hate and fear...You've got to be carefully taught." Few dispute that Rev. Wright's sermons are filled with hate.

Why didn't Senator Obama stand up in the church and denounce his hateful statements or, at the very least, argue privately with his minister? It was horrifying to see on a video now viewed across America the congregation rise from the pews to applaud their minister's rants.

I completely understand the cynical political calculation that prompted Obama to embrace the anti-American radical in the first place, but I am not sure I understand his attempt to make him a blood relative (which he need not have done, but it's too late now). All that did was to ensure that the issue will live right through November. Along the way, it will probably be bundled with his refusal to wear an American flag on his lapel for what will seem like silly reasons to all but the far left:

Obama Dropped Flag Pin in War Statement

Obama Stops Wearing Flag Pin, Says He'll Show Patriotism Through Ideas

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.

"Instead," he said, "I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

Well, he could wear that pin AND tell the American people what he believes will make this country great. Instead, having initially chosen to wear the pin (a free choice, presumably), he then conspicuously removed it to make some sort of statement. In the months to come, I suspect that his decision to do that will be juxtaposed with his willing 20-year association with an anti-American radical who is not, despite what Obama implies, a blood relative. And in his debates with John McCain, I can imagine this issue coming up (if, for example, McCain is proudly wearing that pin). It is not really an important issue to me -- not at all -- but I suspect that it is going to partly define Obama. And all of this fits with his willingness to accept an American defeat in Iraq. Many on the right are not prepared to accept defeat at the hands of al Qaeda in Iraq now that things are going so badly for them over there, as the Bush administration accurately points out:

The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around -- it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. For the terrorists, Iraq was supposed to be the place where al Qaeda rallied Arab masses to drive America out. Instead, Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al Qaeda out. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his murderous network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated.

But Obama will have none of it. And the fact that he willingly associates with and takes spiritual guidance from an anti-American zealot while at the same time choosing to conspicuously remove a symbol of patriotism from his lapel (to make himself stand out from other politicians in that respect) will make people wonder if his far left views on Iraq match the far left views that others have expressed, such as the views once expressed by James Carroll in the Boston Globe:

For all of the anguish felt over the loss of American lives, can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted? Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it? This time, can we accept defeat?

If you are a fan of Barack Obama, you already know the answer: "Yes we can!" I don't actually believe that Obama himself would express views like this, but I do suspect that, being the far left liberal that he is, he finds such views to be less objectionable than most would (which is also why he was able to tolerate Jeremiah Wright for so long). Barack Obama is just about as liberal as a politican gets, and even the New York Times is finally beginning to puzzle over the question of how a man of the far left can be the transcendent uniter he claims to be:

Obama’s Test: Can a Liberal Be a Unifier?

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.
...
But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?
...
Mr. Obama’s rise has been built in part on the idea that he represents a break from the established identities that have defined many of the nation’s divisions. To many, he embodies a promise to bridge black and white, old and young, rich and poor — and Democrats, Republicans and independents.

Even so, Mr. Obama does not come to the campaign with a reputation as one of the most accommodating bridge-builders in the Senate. And while he promises a very different politics from Mrs. Clinton, their voting records in the Senate last year were not strikingly different.

A recent analysis of key votes by The National Journal concluded that Mr. Obama had the Senate’s most liberal voting record in 2007; Mrs. Clinton ranked 16th. But of the 267 measures on which both senators voted, the National Journal analysis found that they differed on only 10. One of their major differences came on an amendment that called for the designation of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran as a terrorist organization; while Mrs. Clinton supported it, Mr. Obama missed the vote, but said he opposed it.

Congressional Quarterly said Mr. Obama voted with his party 97 percent of the time on party-line votes last year; Mrs. Clinton did so 98 percent of the time.

Well, it might come as a shock to Obama supporters, but he is just a liberal (though an impressive one), and the fact that he embraced a man like Jeremiah Wright for 20 years pretty much ensures that he does not have what it takes to bring everyone together.

What effect has all of this had on the polls? The results are somewhat inconsistent, but the Rasmussen tracking poll suggests that, among Democrats, there has been a slight shift in the direction of Hillary Clinton. Among the general electorate, there has been a larger shift away from both Democrats and toward John McCain. The Jeremiah Wright flap first began to appear on the radar screen on March 13 as best I can tell. Obama gave his speech on March 19, which seems have thrown gasoline instead of water on the fire. Charted below are the results of the Rasmussen daily tracking poll (here and here) since early March (with the red line marking the onset of the Jeremiah Wright story):


What was a clear lead for Obama on March 13 is now a small lead for Clinton. The matchups against Mccain show even clearer trends:



On the other hand, the daily tracking poll from Gallup shows all three of these comparisons to be statistical ties, with nothing much having changed over the last few weeks. The difference may be that Gallup polls registered voters, whereas Rasmussen polls likely voters. Likely voters are probably paying much closer attention to all of this than the larger group of registered voters.

A political eternity lies between now and November, and events from the recent past suggest that unpredictable twists and turns will be the norm.