This Rev. Wright debacle could very well turn into a catastrophic moment for the Obama campaign if Obama doesn't take the reigns quickly. There's a lot riding on how Obama is perceived to pull through this episode.
In my opinion, this has been a slippery slope for Obama from the outset. Obama is smart enough to know 3 principals that are constants in politics and in the Black community: (1) At the end of the day, all you have is your word; (2) people don't forget the favors you do for them, or; (3) the promises you break with them. Atonement for any transgressions will always be paid. Period. With these aphorisms as the backdrop, I submit that the timing is right for Obama to swiftly, deliberately, and completely cut the ties publicly AND privately with Wright. Here's why:
When the media snatched up this opportunity to discredit Obama by questioning his relationship with Wright, Obama had to tread very lightly for fear of backlash from the Black community - which has overwhelmingly proved has his back. I mean, we've all seen the symbolic lynchmob pursuit the conservative media has displayed as it has chased down OUR champions (albeit mortal, imperfect champions). Martin Luther King Jr., Bill Cosby, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Malcolm X, etc. Obama could not "disown" Wright because Wright was clearly caught off-guard, taken out of context, and being "strung up for the world to see." If Obama turned his back on Wright at that point, this race would have been over already.
Instead, Obama did the right thing, and elevated the focus to a more noble, unifying theme that used Wright's rhetoric as the fodder for a much more serious discussion on race. This approach on March 18th, along with his eloquence, resonated well and discredited those who still held the position that Obama and Wright were philosophically yoked. It was risky, but calculated. The speech hit the mark. Some critics (who don't know how this Black culture works) said that his words weren't strong enough in denouncing Wright, but Black America could discern where Obama stood. Middle America also gave him the benefit of the doubt.
But now, Wright has taken an inconceivable position of suggesting the true target of the attacks from the media were not him but the "Black Church." What is he thinking? First of all, the media has proven over and over again that they don't understand, really don't care, and place little value on the "Black Church." All they've got to go on is a very boisterous, politically-charged, and obviously charismatic preacher who happens to be "the man sittin' next to the man (Obama)." Without Obama, Wright and Trinity Church are meaningless on the national stage. However, Wright became a huge, ugly, hairy, and discolored pimple on the tip of the nose of the otherwise fresh-faced and endearing Obama who has a message of uplifting change and unlocking all that America holds in promise for its people.
Furthermore, this self-assigned martyrdom of Wright for the "Black Church" brings the discussion dangerously close to a discourse on race, and by acclimation makes Obama the Black Candidate. Talking about race definitely needs to occur in America, just not before your most famous parishioner is about to get the Democratic nod. Is Wright's media blitz over these last few days more about self-serving publicity before the media bandwagon totally dis-engages this story? After all, it was almost completely out of the headlines. Until now.
What Obama needs to do now is show some emotion - get angry, get passionate, and show some teeth. There is a critical mass of voters across America (in upcoming primaries and the general election) who will use this moment as their gauge of his fortitude. He can't punk out now. He must come out with a final, clear, harsh, definitive, and absolute statement of total disavowal. It's clear that Wright has no regard for the bigger picture of Obama's candidacy, and his defense of the honor of the Black Church falls flat in juxtaposition to the biggest potential moment in the history of Africans in the western hemisphere. Wright's suggestion that Obama's earlier words of dissociation are disingenuous and politically motivated should be the final straw. Moreover, Obama needs to assemble a coalition of highly respected clergy (multi-racial would be best), who will co-sign the disavowal and go on record that the Black Church stands on it's own, across multiple denominations with no single representative except the Christ.
Then, Obama needs to stop entertaining questions about Wright once and for all. He should clearly spell out that he doesn't have any more ties to Wright, and questions about the relationship have no place in his platform. Reprimand the press on this until they get the message.
And finally, all private ties to Wright must be cut. Because in actuality, there is no more privacy for Obama. If the media gets wind of contact between the two, Obama will definitely be painted as two-faced and dishonest. And you can bet they'll be watching.
Obama has to show the world that he can be clear, decisive, strong, and bold when he needs to be. Turning the other cheek when the Clinton campaign slings mud is one thing, but this whole Wright episode is the real gut check.
Just one man's opinion......
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Rev. Wright - Not now, please!
I didn't get to see the Wright speech last night, but I did see his address to the National Press Club this morning. In my opinion, I think this will ultimately hurt Obama's campaign. While his comments had substance, validity, truthfulness, and gravity, I think his delivery has as much to do with the message as does the content. And in a media world (run ultimately by right-wing conservatism) where imagery trumps substance, those who are easily offended when the truth is dumped in their lap will find it repulsive when it's accompanied by a flippant "middle finger". I think part of the problem with Wright is that he never learned (or has rejected in his elder years) the "bi-lingual and bi-cultural" skill set that most minority people in (majority circles) have learned. You don't do the FAMU dance to indicate your enthusiasm, you don't do a combination Q-Psi-Phi/Military salute after dissing Chaney, and you don't talk about "Playing the Dozens" on a national platform called the NATIONAL PRESS CLUB. It will always be taken as intellectually inferior, and dismissed as buffoonery.
Wright should be smart enough to know these points:
1- Don't give your detractors fuel to continue the assault on their target(s) [Wright's character, the Black church, his relationship with Obama, whatever] - by "seasoning" your comments and delivery with incendiary remarks that add absolutely 0% value to the message. Case in point - his answer to the Farrakhan question was 'OK', but completely discredited by the ending remarks about "Farrakhan isn't my enemy, he didn't put me in chains.....or make me this color." True but irrelevant, unnecessary, and flippant.
2- If you really want Obama to win this thing, sit down and shut up. Wait your turn at the mic.
3- Obama is forever tethered to Wright - like it or not, directly or circumstantially. We all know that. So Wright has to prioritize the "big pictures". I say this in plural because there are several that are separate, although not mutually exclusive. They are: getting Obama into the White House as Commander-in-Chief; achieving a more equitable distribution of opportunity and participation in the multi-cultural American diaspora; having a substantive and productive conversation on race; and clearing your name. I might have missed some other "big pictures", but I think the point of prioritization is clear.
4- There is a time and place for everything. Why would you choose this time to go on the offensive for the "black church?" I use quotes here because Wright has made himself eponymous to it, and I beg to differ. Synonymous with Black Liberation Theology - yes; the Black Church - no. There is no doubt that Black Liberation Theology is a vital component of how we uplift our people. (White folks have Tony Robbins, we've got Malcolm X, King, Farrakhan, Wright, Iyanla, Les, the barber shop, and Big Momma). But, how does any of it help the broader, more important objective of achieving the ultimate measure of equality? That measure made tangible by electing a decent, competent, and dignified Black Man to the highest office of the land and the most powerful position in the free world. Surely that will do a lot more for elevating equality. Couldn't Wright wait until Nov 5th? Granted, whether Obama wins or not, the conversation on race needs to happen. But if he wins, the conversation will go forth with substantially more merit and gravitas. Certainly in a world of imagery, Obama's election would trump all.
In Wright's choice to go to the national stage at this time, he clearly does not hold these things in importance. Different does not mean difficient, but timing is everything.
So, in the end, what does Wright's media blitz do to the Obama campaign? I think all it does is:
1- Give Obama more distractions to have to sort through and explain away. In the meantime, valuable hours of press coverage and punditry will be spent chopping up this rhetoric instead of focusing on the main issues of our distressed nation. And the conservative media will definitely keep the "ball" out of Obama's hands with their nonsensical analyses. By doing so, he can't put political points on the scoreboard. In basketball, we call it "bleeding the clock."
2- Give fence-riders (the undecided) something easy to be "against" rather than something principled to be "for". The exit polls in Pennsylvania revealed that 19% of all voters said race was a factor. Four percent said it was THE most important factor. Of the 19%, those who voted in favor of Hillary were 3:1 over voting for Obama. To steal a passage from an OpEd piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Apr.27th....."When one-fifth of Democratic party voters admit taking race into account in the ballot booth, it shows the nation still has hurdles to overcome. If a candidate's race is as important to some voters as [their views on substantive issues], then something is being lost in the debate over how to move the country forward."
3- Tighten up an already tight race that will be determined by the margins. And that makes me nervous because the margins aren't usually friendly to the minorities in a majority-rule tradition.
Piling on the subjective matters of Black theology and the criticism of American foreign policy in a liberative religious context only serves to stall out the momentum of a movement whose time has come. In the truly prophetic words of Kenny Rogers "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run. You NEVER count your money when sittin' at the table. There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done."
Rev. Wright, please wait 'til the dealin's done.
Just my opinion....
Wright should be smart enough to know these points:
1- Don't give your detractors fuel to continue the assault on their target(s) [Wright's character, the Black church, his relationship with Obama, whatever] - by "seasoning" your comments and delivery with incendiary remarks that add absolutely 0% value to the message. Case in point - his answer to the Farrakhan question was 'OK', but completely discredited by the ending remarks about "Farrakhan isn't my enemy, he didn't put me in chains.....or make me this color." True but irrelevant, unnecessary, and flippant.
2- If you really want Obama to win this thing, sit down and shut up. Wait your turn at the mic.
3- Obama is forever tethered to Wright - like it or not, directly or circumstantially. We all know that. So Wright has to prioritize the "big pictures". I say this in plural because there are several that are separate, although not mutually exclusive. They are: getting Obama into the White House as Commander-in-Chief; achieving a more equitable distribution of opportunity and participation in the multi-cultural American diaspora; having a substantive and productive conversation on race; and clearing your name. I might have missed some other "big pictures", but I think the point of prioritization is clear.
4- There is a time and place for everything. Why would you choose this time to go on the offensive for the "black church?" I use quotes here because Wright has made himself eponymous to it, and I beg to differ. Synonymous with Black Liberation Theology - yes; the Black Church - no. There is no doubt that Black Liberation Theology is a vital component of how we uplift our people. (White folks have Tony Robbins, we've got Malcolm X, King, Farrakhan, Wright, Iyanla, Les, the barber shop, and Big Momma). But, how does any of it help the broader, more important objective of achieving the ultimate measure of equality? That measure made tangible by electing a decent, competent, and dignified Black Man to the highest office of the land and the most powerful position in the free world. Surely that will do a lot more for elevating equality. Couldn't Wright wait until Nov 5th? Granted, whether Obama wins or not, the conversation on race needs to happen. But if he wins, the conversation will go forth with substantially more merit and gravitas. Certainly in a world of imagery, Obama's election would trump all.
In Wright's choice to go to the national stage at this time, he clearly does not hold these things in importance. Different does not mean difficient, but timing is everything.
So, in the end, what does Wright's media blitz do to the Obama campaign? I think all it does is:
1- Give Obama more distractions to have to sort through and explain away. In the meantime, valuable hours of press coverage and punditry will be spent chopping up this rhetoric instead of focusing on the main issues of our distressed nation. And the conservative media will definitely keep the "ball" out of Obama's hands with their nonsensical analyses. By doing so, he can't put political points on the scoreboard. In basketball, we call it "bleeding the clock."
2- Give fence-riders (the undecided) something easy to be "against" rather than something principled to be "for". The exit polls in Pennsylvania revealed that 19% of all voters said race was a factor. Four percent said it was THE most important factor. Of the 19%, those who voted in favor of Hillary were 3:1 over voting for Obama. To steal a passage from an OpEd piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Apr.27th....."When one-fifth of Democratic party voters admit taking race into account in the ballot booth, it shows the nation still has hurdles to overcome. If a candidate's race is as important to some voters as [their views on substantive issues], then something is being lost in the debate over how to move the country forward."
3- Tighten up an already tight race that will be determined by the margins. And that makes me nervous because the margins aren't usually friendly to the minorities in a majority-rule tradition.
Piling on the subjective matters of Black theology and the criticism of American foreign policy in a liberative religious context only serves to stall out the momentum of a movement whose time has come. In the truly prophetic words of Kenny Rogers "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run. You NEVER count your money when sittin' at the table. There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done."
Rev. Wright, please wait 'til the dealin's done.
Just my opinion....
Friday, April 11, 2008
Campaign Financing
Here is a reprint of an OpEd piece published today in the WSJ. I'm not well-informed about the rules or pitfalls of campaign financing, so it's on my To Do list. But, for the sake of looking at all angles of this race, I think it's important to understand multiple perspectives. I'm not supporting or defending this editorial, but merely posting it here to bring awareness to what the establishment is saying regarding this very important aspect of the campaign. As we move forward to November, the opposition will be pulling out all the stops. We can't allow ourselves to be overly influenced by the perceptions of others (no matter how credible the source), so I submit that we as supporters become well educated with all of the rules of the game.
-------------------------------------
Obama's Switcheroo
April 11, 2008
Barack Obama declared this week that he has created a "parallel public financing system." Come again? Let him explain: Under parallel public financing, "the American people decide if they want to support a campaign, they can get on the Internet and finance it."
Up to this moment, "public" financing has meant taking money from the federal government for the general Presidential election. Senator Obama's new system is public, because "the public" sends him the money.
Here's the translation: In November, Mr. Obama said he would accept public financing for the general campaign if John McCain committed to public funds. Now he doesn't want to be tied down by the spending limits attached to public funds. This is embarrassing. Solution: Call his Internet contributors a "parallel public financing" system.
What he is proposing sounds pretty much like what the system would look like if campaign-finance restrictions didn't exist. But they do exist, thanks to reformers like him. Shortly after the candidate made his remarks, a spokesman hurried to say it "was not a policy statement," but merely a description of the nature of his donor base. Barack Obama raised $40 million in the month of March – twice the $20 million Hillary Clinton's campaign took in. His totals are now more than $230 million.
Good for him. But Mr. Obama is unmistakably talking about abandoning the virtuous world that campaign finance reformers have in mind. The reformers' agenda has always been to limit "the influence of money" in politics, and do so by capping the amount candidates can spend. This naturally appealed to Mr. Obama when he was the underdog. But now that he's top dog, standing on principle isn't as appealing as the prospect of a colossal war chest.
Mr. Obama has also made much of his campaign's pledge not to accept money from political action committees, raising the majority of his funds from small private donations. PACs typically make up less than 1% of overall election donations to Presidential candidates, so that's no sacrifice.
Industry PACs may not give directly to his campaign, but employees of industries may do so, and many of his contributors have come from executives and their spouses. For example, Mr. Obama leads all candidates in donations from the pharmaceutical industry and commercial banks, among other industries. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks fundraising in elections, Mr. Obama has received $528,765 from people in the pharmaceutical industry and $1,380,108 from commercial banks. He comes in second to Mrs. Clinton in donations from lawyers with $13,690,170, just over a million shy of her total.
There is in fact a real parallel financing system already in place and ready to support Mr. Obama. It's called George Soros and so-called 527 groups such as the Democrat-supporting Fund for America or the newly named Progressive Media USA. Progressive Media recently announced plans for a $40 million, four-month campaign against Mr. McCain, and that's only one group in the game.
Mr. Obama once said he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." Mr. McCain has already taken steps toward public financing in the general election. So now Mr. Obama wants to preserve his reputation as a reformer while exploiting his new financial advantage. We are all beginning to learn how expansive the meaning of "change" is.
-------------------------------------
Obama's Switcheroo
April 11, 2008
Barack Obama declared this week that he has created a "parallel public financing system." Come again? Let him explain: Under parallel public financing, "the American people decide if they want to support a campaign, they can get on the Internet and finance it."
Up to this moment, "public" financing has meant taking money from the federal government for the general Presidential election. Senator Obama's new system is public, because "the public" sends him the money.
Here's the translation: In November, Mr. Obama said he would accept public financing for the general campaign if John McCain committed to public funds. Now he doesn't want to be tied down by the spending limits attached to public funds. This is embarrassing. Solution: Call his Internet contributors a "parallel public financing" system.
What he is proposing sounds pretty much like what the system would look like if campaign-finance restrictions didn't exist. But they do exist, thanks to reformers like him. Shortly after the candidate made his remarks, a spokesman hurried to say it "was not a policy statement," but merely a description of the nature of his donor base. Barack Obama raised $40 million in the month of March – twice the $20 million Hillary Clinton's campaign took in. His totals are now more than $230 million.
Good for him. But Mr. Obama is unmistakably talking about abandoning the virtuous world that campaign finance reformers have in mind. The reformers' agenda has always been to limit "the influence of money" in politics, and do so by capping the amount candidates can spend. This naturally appealed to Mr. Obama when he was the underdog. But now that he's top dog, standing on principle isn't as appealing as the prospect of a colossal war chest.
Mr. Obama has also made much of his campaign's pledge not to accept money from political action committees, raising the majority of his funds from small private donations. PACs typically make up less than 1% of overall election donations to Presidential candidates, so that's no sacrifice.
Industry PACs may not give directly to his campaign, but employees of industries may do so, and many of his contributors have come from executives and their spouses. For example, Mr. Obama leads all candidates in donations from the pharmaceutical industry and commercial banks, among other industries. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks fundraising in elections, Mr. Obama has received $528,765 from people in the pharmaceutical industry and $1,380,108 from commercial banks. He comes in second to Mrs. Clinton in donations from lawyers with $13,690,170, just over a million shy of her total.
There is in fact a real parallel financing system already in place and ready to support Mr. Obama. It's called George Soros and so-called 527 groups such as the Democrat-supporting Fund for America or the newly named Progressive Media USA. Progressive Media recently announced plans for a $40 million, four-month campaign against Mr. McCain, and that's only one group in the game.
Mr. Obama once said he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." Mr. McCain has already taken steps toward public financing in the general election. So now Mr. Obama wants to preserve his reputation as a reformer while exploiting his new financial advantage. We are all beginning to learn how expansive the meaning of "change" is.
Thoughts on Obama's absence from the Memphis MLK memorials
Please review the link from the good brothers at i10Media.
http://i10media.com/news/?p=154#more-154
This is a tremendous article, and very thought provoking. I appreciate any endeavor to raise the consciousness of our people. We know the gravity of this moment in history - a moment that our forebearers sacrificed themselves for to ensure that the generations that followed could recognize their highest potential. I must say that although I revere the good Dr. Cornel West, and consider him one of the important minds of the last 100 years, I think this particular position he has taken is short-sighted.
As we have seen over and over since Iowa, the opposition has sought to turn Obama into the "Black Candidate" and marginalize his campaign accomplishments by insinuating some "herd-like" instinct on the part of Black people to follow him. Taking this approach is much easier than trying to explain the $120+ million he has raised in contributions from ordinary Americans. The $40 million raised in March 2008 was from 442,000 people at an average of $96 per person. Of these people, 218,000 were first time donors - and I dare say a White majority.
Moreover, his attendance at the MLK memorial observance would have been just the "photo op" that the opposition wanted to underscore and promote their suspicions of some Black agenda they think Obama is harboring. Instead, he was out in America, actually living the dream that MLK espoused. That was to be talking to all Americans about our common good, asking to be held accountable for the content of his character, and not recognized because of the color of his skin.
We should never lose sight of our history, nor should we ever discount the contributions of past leaders who fought vehemently such that we have the opportunities for achievement that make up our modern-day reality. But we've got to pick the most appropriate ways to acknowledge and use the memories to manifest that vision. In my opinion, I think Obama did the right thing.
http://i10media.com/news/?p=154#more-154
This is a tremendous article, and very thought provoking. I appreciate any endeavor to raise the consciousness of our people. We know the gravity of this moment in history - a moment that our forebearers sacrificed themselves for to ensure that the generations that followed could recognize their highest potential. I must say that although I revere the good Dr. Cornel West, and consider him one of the important minds of the last 100 years, I think this particular position he has taken is short-sighted.
As we have seen over and over since Iowa, the opposition has sought to turn Obama into the "Black Candidate" and marginalize his campaign accomplishments by insinuating some "herd-like" instinct on the part of Black people to follow him. Taking this approach is much easier than trying to explain the $120+ million he has raised in contributions from ordinary Americans. The $40 million raised in March 2008 was from 442,000 people at an average of $96 per person. Of these people, 218,000 were first time donors - and I dare say a White majority.
Moreover, his attendance at the MLK memorial observance would have been just the "photo op" that the opposition wanted to underscore and promote their suspicions of some Black agenda they think Obama is harboring. Instead, he was out in America, actually living the dream that MLK espoused. That was to be talking to all Americans about our common good, asking to be held accountable for the content of his character, and not recognized because of the color of his skin.
We should never lose sight of our history, nor should we ever discount the contributions of past leaders who fought vehemently such that we have the opportunities for achievement that make up our modern-day reality. But we've got to pick the most appropriate ways to acknowledge and use the memories to manifest that vision. In my opinion, I think Obama did the right thing.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Rev. Michael Pfleger
Tonight on The O'Reilly Factor: Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger defends Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. Louis Farrakhan.
I must give props to O'Reilly for choosing to post the whole interview on his website (www.billoreilly.com).
Check out this video. It's about 12 minutes long.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=1fd1c0cf-5c80-4d75-996f-bd53b2461ae0&sMPlaylistID=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)