Dem Wimp Throws His Truth-Telling Preacher Under the Bus
If Americans were represented by an animal, it wouldn’t be an eagle. It would be a tiny shrew, nervous and paranoid and living in constant terror of being attacked by predators.
Our national prey mentality doesn’t have much basis in reality. The last attack on U.S. soil took place two-thirds of a century ago; Hawaii wasn’t even a state at the time. Before that, you have to go back to 1846–and we provoked that one. Whatever the historical basis–or lack thereof–for this innate fearfulness, U.S. voters look to their president as a Father Protector figure–someone who, if threatened, will ferociously defend what is now called, stupidly and horribly, das Homeland.
Republican candidates win elections in years when national security is a top concern. In 2004, it didn’t matter that John Kerry volunteered for, fought in, and returned with medals from Vietnam. What mattered was that he turned the other cheek to the Swift Boat ads. He held his fire in the debates. If Kerry wasn’t willing to stand up for himself, voters reasoned, how would he protect them? Bush may have been a coward during Vietnam, but his “dead or alive” cowboy movie bravado, not to mention starting a couple of wars from scratch, conveyed a comforting, if imbecilic bellicosity. The monosyllabic tough-guy act soothed a savage, terrorized electorate.
Hillary Clinton has figured this out. Her policy actions–voting for war twice, the Patriot Act, keeping silent about torture and Guantánamo–have been engineered to project Republicanesque hawkishness. She dresses butch and talks like a female prick–i.e., bitch. You don’t like her. She doesn’t want you to. She wants you to think that she’s macho enough to deal with Them the next time They pick a fight at three in the morning.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has already given away a store he doesn’t yet own. He’s the new century’s version of Dukakis.
“I would explicitly reach out to disaffected Republicans and remind them of some of their traditions,” Obama told U.S. News & World Report. “Very rarely do you hear me talking about my opponents without giving them some credit for having good intentions and being decent people.” “I think I can reach out to Republicans and independents more effectively than any other candidate,” he said on “Meet the Press,” citing his “ability to focus on getting the job done, as opposed to getting embroiled in ideological arguments.” No wonder Republican pundits love him! Not only will he be easier to beat in November–if McCain loses, they’ll get the same love from President Obama.
Obama’s attempt to transform himself into the living embodiment of girly-man wimpiness led him to throw his own priest under the bus. This latest display of X-Treme wussosity came in response to demands by Rush Limbaugh, The Wall Street Journal and other braying hounds of the right who feigned offense at quotes pulled from his pastor’s old sermons. Jeremiah Wright, long-time leader of the Trinity United Church of Christ of Chicago, officiated at Obama’s wedding and inspired the title of his book “The Audacity of Hope.”
“I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue,” Obama said in a statement.
First rule of politics: never apologize. It won’t satisfy your critics, and it makes you look weak. If Eliot Spitzer had followed that dictate, he’d still be governor of New York.
First rule of presidential politics: fight for those near and dear to you. Michael Dukakis lost points when he was asked what he’d do if his wife got raped. (Correct answer: “I would kill the rapist.”) If a man won’t stand up for his own wife–or his own pastor–how can we trust him to fight the terrorists?
Obama’s Sister Souljah act may erode his base of support: African-Americans and younger whites, many of whom agree with Reverend Wright’s “controversial” homilies.
“Racism is how this country was founded and how it is still run,” Wright said. Well, duh. The Journal‘s editorial page, which still thinks Iraq was the best idea ever, is particularly agitated about…this…this obvious fact. Who could say, with a straight face, that racism wasn’t a founding principle of a nation with legalized slavery? Who could argue, after reading countless newspaper headlines announcing the acquittal of white cops for shooting unarmed black men, or while driving through urban slums, that we’ve put racism behind us?
Murdoch’s right-wing rag, noted The New York Times, also criticized Wright for “accusing the United States of importing drugs, exporting guns and training murderers.” These things are all true (please reference “Iran-Contra,” “U.S. as top arms exporter,” and “School of the Americas”). If Obama can’t bring himself to speak the truth, he could at least support those who do.
Most damning of all, say Limbaugh et al., was Wright’s post-9/11 sermon urging his flock not to yield to the urge “to pay back and kill” or act “holier than thou.” His advice proved prescient–wars against Afghanistan and Iraq killed a million innocents, yet none of the criminals of 9/11. It also happened to be quintessentially Christian. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians [true] and black South Africans [true], and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back to our own front yards,” he continued. “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”
Chalmers Johnson wrote a bestselling book in 2000 about this phenomenon. It’s called “Blowback,” named after CIA jargon for foreign policies that result in unexpected, negative effects. Johnson wrote that blowback “is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the U.S. government’s international activities that have been kept secret from the American people.”
It is well-established that the radical Islamists who launched the 9/11 attacks were motivated by their contempt for American policy in the Muslim world and their desire to bring the war, as they saw it, to the U.S. Everyone knows that Al Qaeda has its roots in the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan, which the Reagan Administration funded and armed. Calling 9/11 a case of “chickens coming home to roost” isn’t offensive. It’s painfully, boringly obvious.
Obama found it necessary to state that “the violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification.”
Wright never said otherwise. Most of the victims of September 11th were office workers. They weren’t responsible for U.S. policy in the Middle East. Many were opposed to it. As Johnson wrote: “Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable.”
People who deny that U.S. foreign policy mishaps provoke long-term consequences are liars. People like them–people like Barack Obama–are laying the foundation for the next 9/11.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
33 Comments.
Well said, Ted. If Obama can't speak real truth to power, then his appeal vanishes. Time for him to step up for a reality check.
Ted,
I think the frustration here is that criticism of the left by leftists is spun in a damaging way, but criticism of the right by the right doesn't generally happen at all. Criticism of the right by the left strengthens the right…because they have a bunker mentality and thrive off of being hated by people they want to abuse more.
I agree with you here, but I have a problem with it because I think it's taking the eye off the ball, which is that Obama represents a massive step forward in his understanding of consequences. What he's doing right now is trying to minimize bad PR that's being used against him. Bigots are doing all they can to deny they won't vote for him because he's black; everyone else is just playing along into that.
If I had to bet the farm this November, it would be fore McCain, because I don't think the left in the United States is capable of getting behind a single candidate, and that's the name of the game. It's a sporting event, not a dialogue, and the people who are more receptive, like Obama, are going to just get sunk by everyone.
It makes me wonder if this country really just wants another civil war.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a lifetime of denial." – Aggie Dude
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." This is something that most so-called Christians forget. How can this Country's entire population be not aware of the things they defend and how we got to this place? The first step in Alcoholics Anonymous is to recognise your problem. Any denial will send you back down the path to ruin. Sheesh! Dorme bene.
Throwing him under the bus. Das Homeland! Ted you are to funny. If this was'nt so sad it'd be funny! If it were'nt so funny it'd be sad. The O man whimped out. What a disappointment. Well at least it happened before the election. And no matter what I can still vote for an old prick! Male or Female.
Anon, 4:44; perhaps the first step in Alcoholics Anonymous is to accept you have a problem, but you're making the false assumption that this country has decided to go to therapy.
The first step is always denial.
We never get past step one.
Ted,
Do you really believe that a candidate who stand by and agree with what Rev. Wright has said can be financed and get elected!!??.
The issue here is not whether what Rev. Wright is true or not true. The issue here is being elected.
Obama is between a rock and hard wall. He threw his pastor under the
bus so he is a whimp and in the mean time he cannot support him. In both situations he is in a tough spot.
IMHO Rev. Wright ruined Obama chance at least in this election.
For months now I have been calling Obama a biracial Neville Chamberlain on all the liberal blogs I follow. Obama supporters should be jumping up and down with outrage every time I say this, yet I have gotten no response at all. Do they not know history, or are they just as wimpy as their hero?
I think it's the former. Neither he nor his supporters seem to pay attention to anything that happened before 2001, except in matters of race. I had hoped, at one time, to be able to support Obama myself, but when he started coming out with this nonsense about sitting down and cooperating with the Republicans, I knew he had not been paying attention for the past thirty years. And THAT means he doesn't have what it takes to be president. I don't care how much or little melannin he carries around in his dermis, he just doesn't have the chops.
I don't like Hillary and I don't trust her, but she's a fighter who's not afraid to slice off a man's balls and yank a woman's ovaries out through her nose. And that's what we need to fight the Republicans and take back this country. Hillary might or might not use her fighting skills to turn this country into something faintly resembling a democracy again, but there's a chance of it. With Obama there's no chance at all. The Repubs will chew up his bipartisanship and spit it out, just as they've been doing to Democrats for decades.
Jana C.H.
Seattle
Old Italian Political Saying: The conductor changes, the music remains the same.
If Obama were white, the primaries would have ended March 5th. He consistently took 60% in mostly-white states. He doesn't really need the black vote, except that it would look odd if he couldn't even carry them as a favorite son.
Even in the U.S., the real prejudice isn't about skin color, per se, as much as it's about that jive culture. As long as he wasn't tied to jive culture, he could be black-skinned or negroid-featured and get elected. Even if Obama denounces J. Wright's racism, the damage is substantial because Wright ties Obama to jive culture.
Now, is BHO actually jive? No — raised by two white women, private schools, Harvard educated, international traveler — doesn't quack or waddle like the jive ducks I know.
But J. Wright is jive to the bone, and he (or someone like him) is all that is needed to kill Obama's chances in the big mixed-race states in the general election. The Clintons put out a lot of bait to try to get Obama to define himself as black, but he managed pretty adroitly to avoid taking on that mantle. It turns out that they don't need to get Obama to take it on himself, the jive culture will put the mantle on him whether or no.
Throw Rezko into the mix, and the spinners could paint a pretty ugly picture of BHO as a sleazy opportunist, taking advantage of his color and connections to rip off white and black alike.
It's not a believable picture for me, but neither was the picture of John Kerry as a man who shot himself to get medals in Vietnam. It only matters what's believable to most people.
They don't even have to say he's unreliable, lazy, lying, slick, and immoral because he's black, they can just present any indication that he's any of those things and prejudice will turn him into an Eddie Murphy character.
Heck, just the fact that he's somewhat of a clothes horse is enough to paint him as 'typical', once the spin machines really crank up. I sure hope he didn't buy a Caddy first thing out of law school.
Making it look like he plays the race card every time anything goes against him is another fine way to rebrand him into "just another jive black man." Even if Obama doesn't play the race card, some jive staffer or big name supporter will, and that's all the spin machine will need.
Well, we'll see. I think the mainstream will downplay this one, too — until they need it. At this point, their whole idea is to beat Hillary in the primary. Then they'll start to work on BHO, if they decide that they actually want the White House during the biggest recession since the 1930's.
"But J. Wright is jive to the bone" needs explanation. I have no information that leads me to believe that he is "unreliable, lazy, lying, slick, and immoral." I apologize for the implication.
What I meant was: it makes no difference whether Obama throws him under the bus, because the damage is done. While J. Wright may be absolutely accurate, he comes across as being from black culture. His mannerisms tie Obama to race, when 'race' mostly means 'black culture,' not black skin.
Obama wins 60% of white votes in States with very few black people, and 40% of white votes in States with significant black populations. I can only think that is due to prejudice against black culture — his skin color doesn't change at the State Line. White Americans might elect a man with black skin, but a man with black culture is a non-starter.
If Obama were white, the primaries would have been over Mar. 5. On the other hand, if he were named "D'Andre Jackson," it would have been over before it even started.
Having such close ties to a supporter that seems so thoroughly imbued with black culture is all that's needed. Goodbye to the votes of all those people who thought, "Well, he's black, but he doesn't seem to be 'like that.'
Hallelujah!!!
TESTIFY BROTHER TED!!!
You said what I've been saying for years – if the Democrats won't stand up for themselves against the Republicans, why should we trust them to protect us from why should we trust them to protect us from the Soviets, the Iraqis, the al Quedas, the Iranians or any other boogeymen in the world?
I may be a liberal, but I can't stand most of my fellow liberals because their ivory-tower, over-intellectualizing, elitist detachment has completely sucked any fighting spirit out of them.
As I've said countless times, if I have to go into a shitty neighborhood after dark, I would probably chose one of my more conservative friends to accompany me.
I need someone who'll watch my back and who'll throw down if there's any trouble – not someone who'll try to see the other guy's point of view while we're being mugged.
Thankfully, Ted's a big exception to that rule. Keep it up.
"I may be a liberal, but I can't stand most of my fellow liberals because their ivory-tower, over-intellectualizing, elitist detachment has completely sucked any fighting spirit out of them."
….Wow. It's like saying "I'm not racist, I know several black people and always treat them nicely"….missing the mark like a retard misses the point.
Anti-intellectualism is so ingrained in our very being, as is racialization, that we can't escape it…our only hope is to accept it exists.
Unfortunately anyone who does gets run into the ground by the rest who are still in denial.
I feel myself starting to give up on the political left of this country….
Obama should use Hillary the way Bush uses Cheney. He can be the guy up on stage whose job is to spin a web of comforting big-picture bullshit that sounds good. Then Hillary can do all the rubber-apron work behind the scenes. This assumes, of course, that he actually has a policy agenda worth fighting for.
In what I think is wonderfully ironic, Obama's wife actualy sounds much better than he does. I saw her speak on C-SPAN and she makes a good populist.
Hey Aggie-Dude,
Believe me, I'm not advocating anti-intellectuallism.
But I am saying, by their rhetoric and by their actions, liberals do not have a good track record of appealing to those we're trying to help.
We need to keep our message simple, direct and to the point. We need to keep hammering it.
It's not the George Wills and William F. Buckleys that are responsible for selling conservatism to working class people. It's the Rush Limbaughs and the Sean Hannitys that are winning the war for hearts and minds for the right.
We need to adopt a more populist, Yankee-fighting man approach, which I see with people like Ted Rall, Jim Hightower and Michael Moore.
Most liberals approach politics with the average conservative like a civilized debate. Meanwhile, the average conservative approaches politics like the UFC.
Sadly, it wasn't always this way. Just look at the early days of the labor movement, the civil rights struggle or the opposition to the war in Vietnam. Those people were fighters and they did reach out more to the common man, especially in the labor movement.
But something happened. I don't know what it was, but those who didn't go over to the Dark Side and become Reagan Democrats in the 80's just seemed to have the fight taken out of them.
I was a lifelong Democrat. Like you, I'm starting to give up on the political left in this country – especially within the Democratic Party.
I've been waiting for another FDR, Harry Truman, or even a Jack or Bobby Kennedy. Instead, I've been getting Mondales, Dukakises, Gores and Kerrys.
Well, I'm tired of waiting.
Hi Ted!
I would like to know, what is your opinion on the results of the current election in Pakistan, and the swearing in of its new parliament.
Thanks
y_s
Karachi
PS I have read both to Afghanistan and Back, and Silk Road to Ruin. Your sections on Pakistan were nice, but they seemed incomplete. you described the areas you visited well, but have missed out on the overarching complexity of the Federation that is Pakistan by not visiting, Sindh, Central Punjab (Lahore is just a city), Southern Punjab, Central & Southern NWFP, all of Baluchistan ad the city of Karachi.
Please do come, you will enjoy yourself, and get a fuller picture of the entire country 🙂
Maybe you can write a book =D
Obama is an empty suit. Besides, the Republicans have nothing to worry about. When Hillary becomes President , she's gonna pardon Cheney and Bush.
H2H,
I don't have any answer for this. The potential FDRs get screened out of the system early now. Essentially, "we" lost….and by that I mean those who wanted to make government work for liberal democracy. The state got bought out by multinational corporations, and when they control the message, and the medium for delivery, they essentially control the reality in which people live.
The post WWII corporate middle class essentially became a generation of spectators that yelled at everyone else for not 'living in the real world' while they couldn't be far enough from it themselves.
In the process the ability for civil discourse and democratic rule fell apart. Now we're left with this, and I don't know what to say.
However, removing criminals from power is the least we can try to do. Ted is right when he blasts democrats, but he's also playing into right wing victories.
My point about anti-intellectualism is that it's so pervasive in this country that liberals are already being emotionally and psychologically beaten up without helping by beating each other up as well.
Why does the right wing win? because it's easy and it plays to bigotry, fear, hostility and machoism. I've been beaten down so much in my relatively short life that I'm no longer interested in fighting, I'm just interested in trying to work myself into a professional position where I can avoid associating with morons.
Do you really believe that a candidate who stand by and agree with what Rev. Wright has said can be financed and get elected!!??.
Obama will be up for election for the next 4 to 8 years. So I guess you are saying he should always be a pussy.
I think Obama saved his own ass with The Speech, though not for the most obvious reason. This debacle has drilled one thing into the American Collective Media Unconsious: Barack Obama is NOT A MUSLIM. Today, he slightly distanced himself from his preacher, while staying one degree away from somebody who pubicly speaks the truth about the reasons for 9/11. He also mentioned his white grandmother (hey, I've got TWO of those!) and addressed race, the 800 lb gorilla of America(pssst, don't tell anybody but it's actually class. We'll deal with that in 2012. He also waited a few days while the shitstorm built to a dull roar, ensuring saturation coverage for whatever he had to say in response. From what I could tell from briefly watching what passes for cable news, even Pat Buchanan thought he hit it out of the park. To continue with the awful sports metaphors that seem to have taken the population by storm, Barry Hussein hit the mat and got right back up, bloody but unbowed. I'm not counting him out until Hillary steals the nomination. Also, while looking at the oh-so-subtle American flags behind him, I couldn't help imagining them emblazoned with a certain Japanese kitty-cat.
Wow Ted. Maybe you should've waited until after the speech, huh?
Ya look pretty silly now. But I guess that's nothing new…
No, Charles, The Speech won't save Obama's candidacy, because, as you so rightly said, the 800-lb gorilla is class, not race. All the people who really preferred Obama just for himself still do.
However, there's a huge chunk of voters who are now silently rethinking their positions. They voted for Obama because he seemed to be from the 'proper' class, but just happened to have black skin.
They don't think that any more. To which class does J. Wright belong?
A long-time association with J. Wright shows Obama as being allied with the 'wrong' class. A speech saying he disagrees with Wright's opinions won't undo the new perceptions about Obama's class alliances.
Go to pollster.com and check out Obama vs. McCain for the past week. A negative hockey stick — guess what changed? Not his skin color, not his programs; for a lot of people his class changed.
Black, White, Black, White, Black, White, Blah Blah Blah Blah! Our very language promotes division. The mainstream Ameican media cannot see the forest for the trees. Political correctness has all but removed one color word and replaced it with "N-word," but Black and White, in the context of identification and comparison, are as vulgar as any other expletive.
How does a reader NOT see the same lean toward Obama that the American media demonstrated by handling the criminally-insane, George W. Bush, with kid gloves these past seven years? Obama does not come off as stupid and incompetent as Bush did from day one, but it isn't only about that. It's about allegedly educated reporters and commentators falling into line without doing any more homework than minimum, making their jobs easy, and therefore, popular instead of confrontational and honest. This is exactly how we got George W. Bush, World War THREE AND FOUR (Bush's investment in our futures), and the 'revoltin' development' we're in via Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rice/Powell/etc.
"This debacle has drilled one thing into the American Collective Media Unconsious: Barack Obama is NOT A MUSLIM."
right on!
troll anonymouse said:
"Maybe you should've waited until after the speech, huh?"
you mean this one?:
"I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue,"
Thems the cards you play by Anon, Ted lays it out there and sometimes reality torpedoes him, but I'd rather see that than, say, a certain someone (or several people) who endorsed McCain's nomination after he won it.
What's the point in being Johnny Come Lately? anyone can close the barn door after the horse has left.
What is this garbage about Ted getting torpedoed by reality?
Here's the reality: Obama has managed to "stand by" his pastor while "distancing himself" from the man's statements — that blacks should be angry that America's prisons are filled with black men from the racist application of drug laws; that 9/11 was a result of America's actions abroad; that America is "a culture that is controlled by rich white people".
In other words, Obama has distanced himself from THE TRUTH. Now we can all feel safe that such things will remain beyond discussion and we can all go back to simply winning the election as an end unto itself.
Mr. Rall got it absolutely right. The truth-teller went under the bus.
Elliot Spitzer was the fighting lefty hero we were waiting for and look what happened to him. At least he's not dead like Wellstone/RFK or jailed (yet) like Speigleman. I remember when Ted expressed gratitude that Howard Dean wasn't killed for speaking truth to power when he ran for president.
All of our progressive candidates walk a thin line between the people and the powerful. The corporate attack dogs come down hard or else marginalize those (like Edwards, McKinney, Kucinich) who express the truth.
The main difference between Dukakis and Obama is that Obama is his own Willie Horton. Obama has to allay white fear before he puts on the gloves. He has to fake it (pretend he doesn't know the truth) until he makes it. I believe Obama "gets it", but he has to be elected first.
No comments on the possibilty of a Presidential pardon for Cheney and Bush???
I miss the days when John Edwards was in the race. Who cares about a $400 haircut or a 28,000 sq ft house. (Especially when you hear about Spitzer and Patterson in NY.) The guy had good ideas and solid plans on how to solve problems, which the other candidates stole to use as their own.
Anon– I wouldn't mind so much seeing the H & O Railroad stealing John Edwards's plans if they actually meant to put them into effect. As it is, they're only stealing his words without any of his heartfelt committment to dealing with economic and class issues.
I had hoped that Edwards might become the new FDR we need so much, but the media neatly ignored him to death.
Jana C.H.
Seattle
Saith JcH: He ain't Robin Hood, but he is Little John.
If I had to bet the farm this November, it would be fore McCain, because I don't think the left in the United States is capable of getting behind a single candidate, and that's the name of the game. It's a sporting event, not a dialogue, and the people who are more receptive, like Obama, are going to just get sunk by everyone.
Sounds like you are coming around to my side on this one.
Why do you think that Democrats will ever be genuinely "tought"? Their policies are inherently weak–just so must namby pamby nanny state softness and weepiness–and such policies attract weak people.
As for racism–why go on and on about it? If there was an appreciable amount of anti-black racism in this country, there would be very few blacks, just like there is very little malaria.
What is stopping Obama from, say, promising to tax dividends over a certain threshhold, or tax transactions which are speculative?
He could brand it as a tax cut.
jana c.h.:
"I have been calling Obama a biracial Neville Chamberlain on all the liberal blogs I follow. Obama supporters should be jumping up and down with outrage every time I say this, yet I have gotten no response at all. Do they not know history, or are they just as wimpy as their hero?"
Or maybe they just aren't interested in being "outraged" by such trolling comments, no matter how much you think they "should" be outraged?