Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
By JUAN WILLIAMS
June 6, 2008
Now what? How does Barack Obama, fresh from claiming the Democratic nomination, put Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger behind him, before they ignite yet again and blow up his general election campaign?
How does he pre-empt advertising images, sure to be circulated by his opponents, that link him to outrageous racial rhetoric and fears that he is open to the most radical left-wing ideas – including using the power of the White House to exact racial vengeance?
There is no doubt that Rev. Wright's inflammatory racial rants hurt Sen. Obama badly during the primaries. His once-ascendant popularity with white men faded in a flash after Rev. Wright emerged as a walking contradiction to the candidate's claim to be above the old racial divides. Even this week, at Mr. Obama's moment of historic triumph, a quarter of voters in Montana and a third of voters in South Dakota said the senator's 20 years of membership at Trinity United Church – the scene of racial rants by Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger – was an important issue for them. In both states, more than half of these voters voted against him.
Since Rev. Wright became an issue in March, the senator's favorability rating, according to a Pew poll last week, has dropped eight percentage points. The sharpest slippage was among white women who explained that their problem with Mr. Obama has to do with "personal attributes," more so than his race. The major personal attribute unveiled during that time was the senator's close relationship to Rev. Wright and the likes of Father Pfleger. Now, with the general election contest beginning, there will be more white voters, including the all-important swing voters. They'll have to decide whether they are willing to see beyond race and invest their trust in the young, biracial senator who seeks to be their president.
Mr. Obama's strategies for dealing with the racial demagogues in his past have failed. The first strategy for dealing with Rev. Wright's proclamations – including damning America and offering baseless charges that the government was spreading AIDS among black people – was to say he was absent from church. Then Mr. Obama equated Rev. Wright with a crazy uncle to be found in every family. Then he asked for a pass, saying that everyone has heard their pastor, priest or rabbi make statements they don't agree with.
When this didn't work, the senator made a major political speech on race relations – a subject he'd avoided, to prevent being boxed in as the "black" candidate. The Philadelphia speech in March was most notable for what it did not do. Mr. Obama did not condemn Rev. Wright as a racial provocateur. Instead, he made it a point of virtue to stand by his minister of 20 years. He said Rev. Wright was a member of an older generation of black people still stung by their years of humiliation under segregation.
Incredibly, the speech was celebrated by supporters and most of the press. Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, said it would "go down as one of the great, magnificent and moving speeches in the American political tradition." The New York Times editorialized that "Mr. Obama's eloquent speech should end the debate over his ties to Mr. Wright since there is nothing to suggest that he would carry religion into government."
Well, that speech didn't end the controversy, either – because Mr. Obama never spoke honestly about Rev. Wright's sermons as destructive and racist. Instead he offered soaring talk about the nation, as a matter of faith in God and one another, needing to "move beyond old racial wounds." His only criticism of Rev. Wright was to chide him for a "profound mistake," of speaking "as if no progress had been made" on race.
And his poor judgment in remaining a member of Rev. Wright's church? Mr. Obama skated by with appeals for other people to have serious conversations about race.Instead of turning his fire on racial pandering in his own church, he criticized those who would "make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with [Rev. Wright's] most offensive words."
Allies rallied to the senator's side, arguing that the controversy was really all the fault of TV news programs that played the reverend's bellicose "sound bites" too often and out of context. But in a matter of weeks, Rev. Wright went on another rant, this time at the National Press Club in Washington. Only then did Mr. Obama condemn him for racially offensive jeremiads. And last week, Father Pfleger – with his mocking of Sen. Clinton and claims that whites all over America are crying because they feel a black man has stolen the nomination – has renewed the bitterness. His rant has also called a new round of attention to Mr. Obama's long ties to unsavory racial characters both inside and outside the church. In response, the senator has resigned from the church.
He has to do more.
The heart of Mr. Obama's problem is that he risks being defined by Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. Most American voters know him only as a fresh face with an Ivy League education, an outstanding credential – editor of the Harvard Law Review – an exciting speaker, and a man who stands for much-desired change. Beyond that he is a political mystery with a thin legislative record. But when voters look at his past for clues to the core of his character, they find religious leaders calling for God to damn America and concluding that America is the greatest sin against God.
To deal with this controversy effectively, Mr. Obama needs to give another speech. This time he has to admit to sins of using race for political expediency – by knowingly buying into divisive, mean messages being delivered from the pulpit.He has to say that, as a biracial young man with no community roots, attaching himself to Rev. Wright and the Trinity congregation was a shortcut to move up the ladder in the Chicago political scene. He has to call race-baiting what it is, whether it comes from a pulpit or calls itself progressive politics. And he has to challenge his supporters, especially his black base, to be honest about real problems at the heart of today's racial divide – including out-of-wedlock births, crime, drugs and a culture that devalues education while glorifying the gangster life.
Mr. Obama also has to raise the bar for how political criticism is handled in his camp. Step one is to acknowledge that not every critic is a racist. His very liberal record and his limited experience, like his association with Rev. Wright, is a fact, not the work of white racists.Just as he calls for the GOP not to engage in the politics of fear over terrorism, Mr. Obama needs to declare that he will refrain from playing the racial victim, because he understands such tactics will paralyze political debate and damage race relations.
Only by admitting to his own sins can Mr. Obama credibly claim that he has seen the promise of our country, in which Americans of all colors work together. Only then can he convince dubious white voters that he is ready to move beyond racial antagonism and be their president.
The problem is, Obama has been speaking out against gangster life styles, out of wed lock marriages in the minority societies, crime, drugs, etc. For some reason, people like Juan Williams don't pay attention that he does talk about these issues. All they say is, "why doesn't he talk about these issues?" Jeez! Get the wax out of your ears and listen, Mr. Williams! Read his books, listen to his speeches, become informed before you write he's not doing something he's already doing!
__________________ KOC Rules!
Yuma's Dad RIP 03/22/07
I still have a gut feeling Shaq will be better next season (2008/2009) after our docs have a full off season to work their magic on the Big Saguaro!
You are actually buying this crap... Obama has not used race in his campaign in the way set forth by Williams.
I know you hate Obama LAJoe, but you have lost all objectivity on the issue and seem to buy into the right's talking points whenever it supports your hate of the man.
You are actually buying this crap... Obama has not used race in his campaign in the way set forth by Williams.
I know you hate Obama LAJoe, but you have lost all objectivity on the issue and seem to buy into the right's talking points whenever it supports your hate of the man.
Williams is on our side...sorry. Long standing democrat. You are right in that I don't like the man but i don't hate him. I am just pointing out my views conveyed by other Dems that feel as I do. It's called "expression".
If anyone is using talking points... from a far-left website, it is you. If anyone questions Obama's motives they are right wing talking points...right? C'mon Liac, don't resort to that. Do not diminish my opinion or William's opinion...we are both Democrats who feel the same way.
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
If anything I think Obama has stayed away from the race card because of how it could become twisted. The only time he had to truly comment on it was when the Rev Wright issue needed a response, and he knocked that out of the park. I don't think they want to play up his race, we all can see his ethnic decent, now is the time to focus on policy
I'm a dyed in the wool McCain supporter, and even all of this Rev Wright business is pissing me off. Seriously let's move on. Everybody's point has been made a long time ago, and nothing new has been added to the debate.
I'm a dyed in the wool McCain supporter, and even all of this Rev Wright business is pissing me off. Seriously let's move on. Everybody's point has been made a long time ago, and nothing new has been added to the debate.
Williams is on our side...sorry. Long standing democrat. You are right in that I don't like the man but i don't hate him. I am just pointing out my views conveyed by other Dems that feel as I do. It's called "expression".
If anyone is using talking points... from a far-left website, it is you. If anyone questions Obama's motives they are right wing talking points...right? C'mon Liac, don't resort to that. Do not diminish my opinion or William's opinion...we are both Democrats who feel the same way.
I'll vouch for that. Williams is a regular on Fox News and they usually sandwich him in between two conservatives. He more than holds his own and he isn't afraid to go toe to toe with them. I have a lot of respect for this man. Too bad he didn't get the nomination. He isn't a politician.
Another guy I like on Fox is Bob Beckle. He doesn't have to resort to talking points so you always get a fresh perspective from him.
It takes a lot of guts for these guys to go onto a predominantly conservative format and fight for their ideals and beliefs.
I'll vouch for that. Williams is a regular on Fox News and they usually sandwich him in between two conservatives. He more than holds his own and he isn't afraid to go toe to toe with them. I have a lot of respect for this man. Too bad he didn't get the nomination. He isn't a politician.
Another guy I like on Fox is Bob Beckle. He doesn't have to resort to talking points so you always get a fresh perspective from him.
It takes a lot of guts for these guys to go onto a predominantly conservative format and fight for their ideals and beliefs.
I love Juan Williams and everything he stands for. That man is an "old school" democrat and yes, if her were running, I would vote for that man in a second.
Not sure about Bob Beckle. He stands his grounds but seems a bit angry. He comes off as "bitter".
I usually watch the re-run of Fox News Sunday on Fox news @ 3pm to see the last 1/2 hour of their table discussion. Williams usually goes after Hume & Kristol more often than not. Good debates from both sides. Great stuff!
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
Williams is on our side...sorry. Long standing democrat. You are right in that I don't like the man but i don't hate him. I am just pointing out my views conveyed by other Dems that feel as I do. It's called "expression".
If anyone is using talking points... from a far-left website, it is you. If anyone questions Obama's motives they are right wing talking points...right? C'mon Liac, don't resort to that. Do not diminish my opinion or William's opinion...we are both Democrats who feel the same way.
Resort to what? I think his view on this is right on line with the boys over at Fox. I find his premise completely preposterous and like yourself, Williams will Damn Obama if he does or Damn if he does it when it comes to the Wright junk.
If Obama does not respond with his race speech everyone accuses him of agreeing with Wright or is lacking courage. When he does respond, he is a pandering liar.
The fact that WIlliams accuses him of playing the race bait is totally unfounded and skewed in my opinion.
You can try to diminish by opinion as "far left" all you want, but it does not change the fact that--in this opinoin piece--Williams is full of crap as are you...
Resort to what? I think his view on this is right on line with the boys over at Fox. I find his premise completely preposterous and like yourself, Williams will Damn Obama if he does or Damn if he does it when it comes to the Wright junk.
If Obama does not respond with his race speech everyone accuses him of agreeing with Wright or is lacking courage. When he does respond, he is a pandering liar.
The fact that WIlliams accuses him of playing the race bait is totally unfounded and skewed in my opinion.
You can try to diminish by opinion as "far left" all you want, but it does not change the fact that--in this opinoin piece--Williams is full of crap as are you...
...and anyone that has a different opinion than yours right?
I find it funny that you would say such a thing when 99% of everything you post is another's opinion from far-left websites. I find it funny that you post more negative and petty stuff about McCain (website rip-off) than anyone and yet you get riled up about an article that someone posts on Obama coming from the Dems. You simply write them off as right wing talking points because they have an opposing view. I just don't get it but what do I know...
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
C&L far left? Factcheck.org far left? NYT far left? AP Far left? Rueters far Left? In what in your world is something not far left? Please tell me, or is it simply far left because I post it?
Cosmic Defender Champion!
Linear Mode
