Obama's Achilles heel

I wonder if there isn't an inappropriate standard being applied here by those used to a more hierarchical polity to a congregational body where the theological opinions of the janitor carry as much weight as the opinions of the pastor? In the latter each congregant has the liberty to accept, reject or modify anything he hears from the pulpit.

"Obama's deep personal connection to the Rev. Wright challenges that assumption, and makes people wonder who Obama really is, and what he really believes in -- and whether or not he can stand up to racialist demagogues and special-pleaders."

More than that; it makes people wonder how much he may be a racialist himself. People distrust Republicans who speak at Bob Jones U. because it could mean they secretly support what that place stands for, no matter how much they claim they don't. Obama should be treated no differently.

Obama stand up to racialist demagogues and special-pleaders? I'll be impressed if he doesn't appoint any of them to anything. (Of course, I'd say the same about McCain or Clinton.)

The Bob Jones standard covers a VISIT, not continuing membership and attendance. If a McCain or a Bush sent their little girl to Bob Jones, it'd be a whole different ballgame than popping in for a speech. If a Bush or a McCain were to call Bob Jones a mentor and title their book after one of his sermons, we'd never hear the end of your wailing, Daniel.

Exactly what does Obama disagree with Wright about? Whatever happens to give him bad press that day? I don't know what he buys into and what he doesn't, and, really, neither do you.

And we don't know what Wright "buys into" either.

Well, we know he loves and honors Farrakhan and doesn't much care for the Jews.

Once again, the soft bigotry of low expectations strikes. White people who take the tenants of their faith seriously are signs of a creeping theocracy. When brown people do it, it's harmless and charming because they have such great choirs and that's just what "those people" do. They are a very passionate people, and so muscial, haven't you heard?

I've used the same term (Obama's Achilles Heel) to describe Michelle Obama and how her tone and manner are reminicent of a spiritual child of Rev. Wright.

Victor Hansen Davis at NRO has written that she Mrs. O is a loose cannon. I agree. While Barak Obama seems able to transcend race, Michelle seems to bring an emphasis back to it by her more agressively angry style and worldview.

The more that surfaces, as it has a few times over the last week, the more it points attention the Obamas' connection to Rev. Wright/Louis Farrakhan/extreme leftists, etc.

It may not have proved troublesome in a Democratic primary but could really turn off much of America in the general election.

COULD Obama's church's teachings hurt him? Absolutely.

Why? Because a big part of Obama's appeal is to white moderates of both parties who like the idea that he could help America transcend race and bring us together, in a world where blacks no longer had to fear bigotry and well-meaning whites no longer had to worry about being called racists.

Obama's stance as a reconciler would definitely be in jeopardy if his followers knew the things that his church has taught.

Daniel may very well be right- all this may be uncontroversial old news to black Americans, but do you really think the suburban white soccer Moms who currently adore Obama would like him as much if they heard the angry rhetoric that comes out of black nationalist churches?

As someone who is to the left of many people on this blog, Daniel, I worry that many Obama supporters may soon experience "buyer's remorse."
I truly hope I'm wrong, because Obama is likely to be the next POTUS.

Obama does have WHITE family members ...or am I missing something?????

And we bring up the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson issue. Both these clowns, both of whom McCain has courted, have said we deserved 911. They said this openly just in the weeks following the tragedy. They said it in no uncertain terms.

Once again, the soft bigotry of low expectations strikes. White people who take the tenants of their faith seriously are signs of a creeping theocracy. When brown people do it, it's harmless and charming because they have such great choirs and that's just what "those people" do. They are a very passionate people, and so muscial, haven't you heard?

Precisely right.

Daniel: I think white Soccer moms have a more sophisticated understanding of race in this country than the conservative pundit class.

You think that white soccer moms aren't going to have trouble with a pastor claimed by Obama as his spiritual mentor, who characterized the 9/11 mass murders as a "wake-up call" to whites that they'd better stop "ignoring Black concerns"? This might actually sound like plain reason to you, Daniel, but most people don't have your views.

Hmmm, the perpetual Republican politics of making elections into referenda of resentments, sugarcoated in talk of "valences".

I think the problem with that strategem this go-around is that the Obama run is itself based in a powerful fuel of resentments. Which might be quite a bit more and stronger than what Republicans can get out of the fields that Bush/Cheney/Rove have spent 8 years drilling and draining as if there were no tomorrow- and have run nearly dry.

You think that white soccer moms aren't going to have trouble with a pastor claimed by Obama as his spiritual mentor, who characterized the 9/11 mass murders as a "wake-up call" to whites that they'd better stop "ignoring Black concerns"?

No, I actually think white soccer moms are smart enough than to get sucked into stuff like this. They focus on real stuff, economic issues, security. They aren't as race obsessed as the conservative elite.

Does Mr. Dreher really believe that the afrocentrism of Obama's church is the equivalent to the outright RACISM of Bob Jones University (or, for that matter, the Mormon church up until like yesterday)? If so, he should really check out any 8th grade social studies textbook and check out the chapter on "Jim Crow". It kind of puts the whole black pride and solidarity stuff in perspective.

Bring it on, Rod. But don't kvetch when the knives come out in force against your candidate. ...
Rod has become part of the Swiftboat team, and is starting the mud tossing to see what sticks. It's part of GOP politics these days, and it should be expected.

This is truly pathetic. Do you really think Team Obama's going to be able to make it through the fall campaign by screaming "racism!" and "Swiftboating!" any time someone criticizes him? Anyway, there is no "your candidate" for me. I don't care for McCain, and prefer Obama's approach to foreign policy. McCain's got his own problems, and if the election were held tomorrow between McCain and Obama, I wouldn't vote for either. Crying "Bad Republican! Bad!" when questions about what Obama's real beliefs are on race arise might give you a certain sense of emotional satisfaction, but they do not, in fact, answer the question. But go ahead, be my guest, comfort yourself with that line. You'll see.

Ya know, if you're going to disqualify an African American for the presidency on the grounds that he has a pastor of close associate who takes an Afrocentrist view, or has on occasion talked trash about white people, you may as well put the signs back on the drinking fountains.

Translation: if you trouble yourself to notice what looks like clear racism in a black candidate, or at least in his close mentor, you yourself are a segregationist.

Wow. How self-deluded can you be?

Look, Daniel Larison makes a good point about both Obama and McCain:

The problem with candidacies defined so completely by biography, as Obama and McCain’s candidacies clearly are, is that everything in a candidate’s biography then becomes more or less fair game...

I just astounds me that people can write stuff like this. Billy Graham was the spiritual advisor of every sitting president since Truman, and he was a first rate anti-semite (as the Nixon tapes made clear). Racism and anti-semitism has been a part of mainstream American Christianity since the beginning. The idea we should hold Obama responsible simply because his church gave an award to a racist/anti-semite, and that anything less would constitute a "double standard", is so dumb it's actually funny.

Ok, first: the fact that Graham "asked forgiveness" only AFTER his anti-semitic views became public certainly suggests to me he "lacked the shame to work towards overcoming them". Unless by "shame" you mean "PR imperative".

second: afrocentrism is not the same as racism, just like black pride is not the same as white pride. It's fairly common for historically marginalized groups to adopt "racialized" theologies. Joe Lieberman believes he belongs to a tribe and race that was literally "chosen" by god. Are you worried that he might some kind of closet Jewish separatist?

Also, are you writing about this topic because you are "mystified" or because you're actually concerned or upset. Because if you're just mystified about why Obama attends an afrocentric church, or why his pastor decries institutional racism and celebrates black pride, then fine. Jews like myself have been mystified by the theological leanings of the last 43 American presidents ("what's with all the afterlife stuff"), but we didn't let our mystification get in the way of actually voting for them. But if you're actually worried about this stuff - if the unfamiliarity of some of Obama's beliefs and culture makes you uncomfortable - well, I'm sorry my friend, because the double standard is yours.

"Crying "Bad Republican! Bad!" when questions about what Obama's real beliefs are on race arise might give you a certain sense of emotional satisfaction, but they do not, in fact, answer the question. But go ahead, be my guest, comfort yourself with that line. You'll see."

Hey, we already know the lengths that the GOP will go to in order to get their candidate elected. So does the Obama campaign. That's why they are concerned about the possibility of assassination attempts, and raised a bit of an alarm when the Secret Service stopped searching the folks at the Dallas campaign appearance.

If they can't Swiftboat him, will they ice him? How dirty will the GOP get on this election, and will the electorate fall for it...again?

ds0490: Nothing would create a greater backlash against the Democrats than the kind of attacks against McCain's war record that you have prescribed. The GOP should pray that the Dems and Soros and all their 527s will follow your advice. Should the latter "drop the bombs" which you recommend, the reaction from most Americans (and especially those swing voters in the Upper Midwest states) will be like that of famed attorney Joseph Welch's response to Senator McCarthy at the Army-McCarthy hearings, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" McCain would win in a landslide.

As for your comments in a previous post about "icing" a Presidential candidate, I recommend that beliefnet.com pass them on to the US Secret Service so that they might follow up with you regarding your unusual personal interest in this option.

Rod, don't you have a friend who can get away with saying outrageous things that if someone else said to you, you'd deck 'em? I have a girlfriend who used to be a trucker. She's a hoot, very funny, but can easily veer into obnoxious. But I know her. She's a good person, she has a genuinely good heart, she has some odd ideas about things, but she never means any harm and doesn't mind if you tell her she's crazy either, so we get along well.

A few weeks back in the course of a conversation she made some terrible joke about me and my husband. (something along the lines of, "You're the only vanilla allowed in your house huh? Cause you like that chocolate over there!") I just laughed and told her she was an idiot. One of my friends who is much more reserved and conservative was with us and was just appalled. "I can't believe you would say such a thing. I would never say something like that!" And the truth is she never would. If she did, I probably would take offense because given her temperment and personality, it probably would have been said as a pointed jab, not an dumb, empty joke. Likewise, I quite regularly insult my former trucker friend (completely in jest) while I would never, ever speak that way to my more reserved friend.

Sometimes the same words coming from different people or even directed to different people deserve to be treated differently. If I know you are a bigot and you make some comment about me liking the chocolate because of my black husband, I will take offense. Put those same words in the mouth my my former trucker friend and I'll laugh. Is this a double standard?

My point is that there are differences between black people and white people. There are differences in our experiences, our culture, our world views, etc. None of these mean that we can't work together, can't govern together or can't relate well to eachother. However, it is ridiculous to expect that we won't or shouldn't make allowances for our differences. This isn't a double standard - it's human relations 101.

Earlier in my marriage, my husband would fairly regularly come home and exclaim, "I hate white people!" When he did this it was obvious he was using hyperbole as he has a white wife and very pale mixed race children. He was frustrated and perhaps hurt by some negative encounter he had with a white person that day. At first I took umbrage at his claims to hate white people, but after a while I decided to stop being defensive and just find out what was wrong.

Now imagine for a minute that I was a white woman married to a white man who came home on a regular basis and exclaimed, "I hate black people." Completely different situation. He may well actually hate all black people. He may be expressing disgust rather than hurt. One would certainly have to wonder what was going on in his world that he was having all these negative encounters with black people. It would seriously indicate a problem with this man! Again, my point is that the same words can be judged quite differently when they come out of different people's mouths.

Is it wrong that I would judge my black husband's proclamation of hatred for white people differently than I would just a white man's nearly identical proclamation of hatred for black people? A double standard? Or just an understanding that a black and white view of what people can/should/ought to think, say, and do without regard to our differing experiences and cultures is neither compassionate, fair or helpful?

Honestly, I think that religion and politics are toxic together. Yeah, we can bring up Obama's pastor. We can also bring up Falwell and Robertson, both of whom said shortly after 911 that we deserved it (in no uncertain terms).
McCain spoke at Robertson's university, despite Mr. Robertson's support for Charles Taylor, former Liberian dictator. Taylor was brutal even by Bush administration standards.
We can also bring up Ted Haggard who said the only difference between him and Bush was what kind of pick-up they drove. Haggard, leader of 40 million Evangelicals, was getting genital massages and crystal meth from a homosexual prostitute.
Then there's Bush who said that God was communicating with him and directing him in Iraq. I wonder what God Bush follows. I wonder what God the overwhelming majority of Evangelicals follow who voted for Bush 2X.
I think that anti-Christ runs through those that would mix moral absolutism with politics.
I like Obama's notion communicated in his book that God speaks to folks in different ways. Obama's written enough and allied himself with enough good Jewish folk to fend off any attacks.
Remember, Republicans have tolerated a president that said God talked with him about Iraq.

don't worry, the race card is going to be played in every conceivable in this election. just call it the last gasp of the KKK. comming next will be the tarring of obama's mother as an atheist, communist and race traitor. and that will be just the beginning.

"As for your comments in a previous post about "icing" a Presidential candidate, I recommend that beliefnet.com pass them on to the US Secret Service so that they might follow up with you regarding your unusual personal interest in this option."

Go right ahead. I am merely expressing the same concern that some in the Obama campaign have expressed concerning his safety from potential attack. Even the host of this blog expressed concern that the Secret Service discontinued checking of attendees at his recent Dallas campaign stop.

When President Clinton was in office there were numerous rumors and lists circulating about the people that he had "iced" to protect his political career. The "Clinton Body Count" has been resurrected and is being used against Hillary now. For those who forgot, here is one iteration of it: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html

Is it beyond the pale that the rhetoric that is being used against Obama (his alleged Muslim faith, his connection to a racialist minister, the extended connection to Minister Farrakhan) might inspire a conservative extremist to commit violence against him? Is it beyond the pale to think that the GOP is not concerned about such a possibility? No more so than the thought that Bill Clinton orchestrated the death of a few dozen political opponents.

This is what modern day political campaigning has become. Forget issues and policy, let's talk about Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his attendance at a madrasa. Let's talk about his black nationalist pastor, who obviously isn't a Christian.

I sincerely hope that the Secret Service is investigating any and all threats any of the candidates have received. I have my concerns about their sincerity, however, when they seemed to be so nonchalant about the Dallas event.

reaganite, when I say "give from white people" (there's a vague statement for ya!), I'm thinking largely in terms of a greater tolerance for our differing perspectives. Right now, I think that black americans and white americans are like a couple living in a bad marriage. Both of them are so busy judging, keeping track of wrongs, taking offense whether offense was intended or not and neither trusts the other. It's a viscous cycle, although I do think we're just starting to break out of it.

It is my opinion that a lot of what is needed from white american is to be more sympathetic to the point of view of african americans. We don't necessarily have to agree with each other's perspective, but I think it is important to get to a point where we can say, "that's not how I see it, but I can understand how you would come to that conclusion about things. I hear your basic concerns and let's address those rather than bickering over particular situations."

The reason this is so important, I think is because from the african american perspective every time they raise a concern the response is generally a litany of reasons why their concern is ridiculous and how they must be demagoging or race baiting or playing the victim card. At which point, many african americans feel further justified in holding a point of view which holds that white people hate them, etc., etc.

Now obviously, many claims which are made can be ridiculous - like the people who insisted that the flooding of New Orlands was deliberate. However, instead of jumping to accusations of bad faith or scorn, it would probably be more helpful to understand that these accusations come from somewhere. The government did actually deliberately flood the poor, black parts of town to prevent flooding in the white parts many, many years ago. If we can understand that these accusations come from people who have seen too much callous mistreatment of their people and have become cynical to the point of paranoia as a result, we might be able to deal a bit differently with these sorts of claims. "We understand that in the past, something similar to what you are claiming actually did happen. That was terrible and wrong. But we have learned from the mistakes of our fore bearers and do not want to be like them when it comes to how we deal with each other. Here's what really happened" is going to strike a much different tone than "There go the black folk playing the victim card again!" You may never convince the truly paranoid, but there are a lot of african americans who are watching the conversation who are struggling with figuring out "what is my place in this society? will I ever be accepted, will I be judged fairly? If I have a problem will it be taken seriously? etc". When they see the concerns of people whose struggles they are all too familiar with treated with contempt and accusations of bad faith, there are many people who will take away a very negative message about how society sees them.

I am hopeful that things are changing. I found the conversation over Michelle Obama's comments to be particularly hopeful. While there were pockets of people (including here) crying foul, most people were able to say, "I disagree that this is the first time we could feel really proud of America, but I can understand why an African American woman would feel that way." That's exactly the sort of give which I think we need to see from white America.

Anyone who's ever been in a bad marriage and turned it around knows that one of the first steps towards recovery is to repress our defensive urges, let go of our right to be offended and actually start listening to what the other person is saying with an eye towards making it better. As a matter of fact, it was an african american woman who gave me the best advise I've ever gotten about how to deal with conflict - "would you rather be right? Or would you rather be married? Because you can be right all the way to divorce court." Sometimes there are bigger issues at play than who is right. I would say the same thing about relations between black folks and white folks here in america.

derek, people like you are a hopeless cause and will die out soon enough. I'm really addressing the rational among us. But you have fun in your ever narrowing, always right world now :)

Ah yes, Brian Horan shows up with the worn canard that George Bush said God told him to invade Iraq. Unfortunately, though the slur must fill some deep need for them to denigrate both people of faith and the president, I've never seen any record of the president claiming this. Usually when confronted the offender simply slinks away. So I issue you the same challenge Mr. Horan provide me a direct quote from the president. Otherwise its a nice day in Denver maybe you should take a walk and clear the hate from your heart.

The posters who have noted the preposterousness of attacking a candidate as anti-white who is himself biracial, and attacking him for his religion after the Republicans just "Swiftboated" another Massachusetts politician, their own Mitt Romney, for being Mormon, are dead-on.

I loved the fact that Romney was Mormon. Of course, he didn't share my politics and is an inveterate flip-flopper. But such was the distaste of the Republican primary electorate that many almost pulled the lever for Romney anyway ... except ...

(BTW, attacking Romney as a "phony" was legitimate -- just as, on non-religious/racial grounds, attacking Obama as a "phony" for his policy stands/lack of experience is legitimate too, though I would disagree.)

PS -- One clarification on Helms vs. Gantt (and keep in mind the state of North Carolina has had a demographic sea change since 1990, when Gantt came closest to Helms):

The "hands" ad worked on two levels. It worked on a raw racist level with white blue-collar Democrats. But many of them may have voted for Helms anyway.

But the reason Helms won after being behind most of the campaign is that the ad worked on a more subtle level with conservative, often Republican business types who were tempted by Gantt because they were not Religious Right members or racists. The ad reminded this key demographic that Gantt had benefited personally, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, from the FCC's old racial preference system for broadcast station ownership.

So I guess you could say Helms made the right argument out of terribly, terribly wrong intentions.

"After all Obama's maternal grandmother is still alive, and apparently quite lucid. And yet the Obama campaign has never had her as part of any event or appearance, not even to show how much his family "looks like America."

Obama supposedly hiding his maternal grandmother was a smear job by Newsmax.com.
A story posted on The Politicol.com dated March 14, 2007, had this quote from her.
"I am not giving interviews," Obama's grandmother , Madelyn Dunham, curtly interjected when a repoter phoned."I am in poor health."
She probably chooses to stay away from the media circus.
Nightline did a segment with Obama while he was campaigning in Kansas about the maternal side of his family and his sister, Maya was active in the caucus in Hawaii which can be viewed on Youtube.

[i]Ya know, if you're going to disqualify an African American for the presidency on the grounds that he has a pastor of close associate who takes an Afrocentrist view, or has on occasion talked trash about white people, you may as well put the signs back on the drinking fountains.

Translation: if you trouble yourself to notice what looks like clear racism in a black candidate, or at least in his close mentor, you yourself are a segregationist. [/i]

Not at all. Translation: as rebeccat said, if you have a few Black friends, you're not going to find Rev Wright's views all that alarming.
Further, if you've lived in Chicago's Hyde Park, you're not going to find Wright's views all that alarming - the white Lakefront Liberals tend to emphasize the racism and xenophobia in their accounts of US history as well. Brings to mind a line from the Mikado - 'the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, all centuries but this and every country but his own,' but all it means in practical terms is that they vote Democratic.

[i]Wow. How self-deluded can you be? [/i] If I was entirely missing Wright's racialism, rather than simply declining to feel threatened by it, that might be a delusion. Obviously you thought I was trying to be a troll here. I'm not. It was a short post because I don't have a lot of time. It was punchy, because I was trying to make a point. Rebeccat made it better.

Also, as Daniel said - maybe Wright's Church speaks to Obama, because it has a strong commitment to social justice for working class Blacks on Chicago's South Side. Obama's interests as a community organizer, and a liberal, coincide with that church's commitment to its own community. That doesn't mean that Obama agrees with every aspect of Wright's racialist views, although he probably sees where those views came from.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if Obama articulated which views of his pastor's he agrees and disagrees with; but I don't need him to explicitly reject Wright. If everything about the candidates' lives is fair game, okay... but we've already seen that Obama can work with white colleagues, with Republican colleagues, to get things done. It's more important to scrutinize the things he wants to get done than to force him to denounce and reject, or even 'distance himself from' his pastor.