Another day, another conservative attack against Barack Obama over his religious influences, specifically Rev. Michael Pfleger, whose sermon a week and a half ago seemed to catalyze Obama’s resignation from his church. This time it’s The Wall Street Journal. Notice how the new Pfleger-based line of attack has migrated from right-wing talk show land (Michael Medved) to the web (Real Clear Politics) to the conservative establishment (WSJ) in just a few days? With the entire conservative movement leading the charge for him, why should McCain worry about dirtying his hands by attacking someone else’s spiritual guides?
From the Wall Street Journal:
There is also the matter of judgment, and the roots of his political character. We were among those inclined at first to downplay his association with the Trinity United Church. But Mr. Obama’s handling of the episode has raised doubts about his candor and convictions. He has by stages moved from denying that his 20-year attendance was an issue at all; to denying he’d heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary remarks; to criticizing certain of those remarks while praising Rev. Wright himself; to repudiating the words and the reverend; and finally this weekend to leaving the church.
Most disingenuously, he said on Saturday that the entire issue caught him by surprise. Yet he was aware enough of the political risk that he kept Rev. Wright off the stage during his announcement speech more than a year ago.
A 2004 Chicago Sun-Times interview with Mr. Obama mentioned three men as his religious guides. One was Rev. Wright. Another was Father Michael Pfleger, the Louis Farrakhan ally whose recent remarks caused Mr. Obama to resign from Trinity, but for whose Chicago church Mr. Obama channeled at least $225,000 in grants as a state senator. Until recently, the priest was connected to the campaign, which flew him to Iowa to host an interfaith forum. Father Pfleger’s testimony for the candidate has since been scrubbed from Mr. Obama’s campaign Web site. A third mentor was Illinois state Senator James Meeks, another Chicago pastor who has generated controversy for mixing pulpit and politics.
The point is not that Mr. Obama now shares the radical views of these men. The concern is that by the Senator’s own admission they have been major moral influences, and their views are starkly at odds with the candidate’s vision as a transracial peacemaker. Their patronage was also useful as Mr. Obama was making his way in Chicago politics. But only now, in the glare of a national campaign, is he distancing himself from them. The question is what in fact Mr. Obama does believe.
5
posted June 4, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I hope the WSJ also raised the same questions about Sen. McCain and Hagee…just what does McCain believe? Does he believe that God wanted to kill the good citizens of New Orleans because they were about to hold a parade? Does he believe that the Catholic Church is a whore? Why did he seek out the support of Hagee? But maybe Obama is able to not simply put people in the boxes that many who are concerned about this seems to. Did Wright say some naughty things about America? Yeah, he did. Just like, by the way, Revs. Robertson and Falwell who said that 9/11 was retribution by God against America for our evil ways.
Wright said some controversial things over 20 years…20 years. Does anyone really think he did so every freakin week? Isn’t it reasonable that he said many things that were completely acceptable? Isn’t it also possible that he did many good things? Is everyone either all good or evil? The WSJ says that, “The concern is that by the Senator’s own admission they have been major moral influences, and their views are starkly at odds with the candidate’s vision as a transracial peacemaker.” They could easily been moral influences and very good moral influences. Maybe he was able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Isn’t that what each of us do? My parents taught me many good things, but their views on race were influenced by their times. That didn’t make me a racist. I was able to separate the two. Their views may be at odds with the candidate’s vision as a transracial peacemaker, but as far as I can see, his actions and his beliefs don’t seem to be.
posted June 4, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I wonder when the right-wing WSJ is going to start at least pretending to be even-handed and take a look at McCain’s long time association with Richard Quinn. Quinn has been involved with McCain quite a few years, going back to McCain’s days in the Arizona legislature, when he voted against a holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Richard Quinn…why is it that McCain gets a pass on a white racist but Obama gets pilloried over being associated with a black one?
posted June 4, 2008 at 11:21 pm
“Obama Detractors Keep Pastor Attacks Alive”
I love it. This would, of course, include you, Dan.
A few weeks ago, I heard a CNN pundit exclaim, “How long will this Wright thing last?”
My immediate response was, “As long as you, the media, keep raising it.”
The public doesn’t really seem to give much of a rat’s patootie, if your combox count is any indication. No offence.
posted June 4, 2008 at 11:54 pm
So Murdoch’s stripes are beginning to show! Murdoch is simply using the former credibility of the WSJ to make his flawed case. This may be when the WSJ has jumped the shark, turned the corner and into a door, slipped a cog, and skipped a beat. And Michael Medved has No – none – zero – credibility. The guy couldn’t even hack it as a movie critic – he was obviously too easy on some films (produced by “friends” of Medved) and unduly and unreasonably harsh on those who might compete with or offend his friends. His new conservatism is as shallow as his intellect. So if these two characters of dubious repute and questionable integrity are all that is chasing Obama’s tail, he should have fewer worries than some might expect.
posted June 5, 2008 at 4:40 pm
“So Murdoch’s stripes are beginning to show! Murdoch is simply using the former credibility of the WSJ to make his flawed case.”
Remember that Murdoch was a strong supporter of Clinton in the early stages of the primaries. No doubt because he felt she would be easier for the GOP to defeat in the fall. Anything that comes from the WSJ editorial page should be considered unsuitable for the bottom of the birdcage. Once the father of FOX News, Temptation Island, and the Page 3 girl got control of the newspaper, it’s days as a credible news source and meaningful opinion piece became numbered.
And Beliefnet isn’t far behind. Take a look at how many Conservative Christian Republicans grace the front page with their blogs. Where is the diversity if spiritual belief that this site used to be known for? Gone…right down the toilet, apparently.
posted June 8, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Very true post R Johnson. I hope that this wonderful site becomes more open to all as it first was supposed to do.
That’s why we come here.
It’s also a very dangerous thing when a site about faith wraps itself around too much political commentary.
posted October 1, 2009 at 5:46 pm
still waiting through to see through the smoke screen where the messiah was born