Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

That Wasn't a Speed Bump Barack

Nope. That wasn't a speed bump Senator Barack Obama's campaign bus rolled over today. That was his now, apparently, former pastor the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright after the senator threw him under the bus. Not that he didn't have it coming. After all, he dared to defend himself and his ministry rather than fall on the sword for Sen. Obama.

I won't get into the specifics problems with Sen. Obama's statements today. Suffice to say he largely reiterated what and how Dana Milbank and the rest of the media establishment chose to interpret Rev. Dr. Wright's remarks to the National Press Club. I already stated my rebuttal of those interpretations in this post.

What does concern me is the deep sincerity with which Senator Obama made his statements. It is the same honest, no BS tone he uses for all of his other speeches. That worries me. This is, indeed, must be, a purely political move. His campaign staff saw no other option after yesterday. He himself may have seen no other option.

The problem with this is that:

  1. Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright's comments could not really have been that shocking to someone who has belonged to his church for as long as Sen. Obama has or

  2. Sen. Barack Obama is an incredibly naive person who is not even capable of seeing a man he has known for many years at face value, much less read what the man's real values are.


If it is number one then this is a man who can make anything sound like it is coming from the "Tree of Hope." That is, on the one hand, absolutely great. On the other hand, it is scary as all hell. When is he being earnest and when is he being expedient if he always sounds as if he is delivering us to the 'promised land', even when he isn't. His greatest differentiation from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was the belief that he wasn't full of crap and he wasn't jaded enough to throw his own values out when it was politically expedient. He may very well have lost that differentiation now. Why?

Because, otherwise number two has to be correct and Senator Barack Obama makes President George W. Bush look like the world's greatest judge of character. I don't think anyone believes this is the case.

This is a man who married Obama, baptised his children, was his pastor for a great many years and inspired the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope." Now we are supposed to believe that Obama did not know of his pastor's views? All of this is a great big surprise? Ridiculous.

I can understand if Senator Obama is pissed about the theatrics yesterday, and, from his comments, it appears that he is. But to completely repudiate the Rev. Dr. Wright? You haven't defended him. Why shouldn't he defend himself. I also suspect that there is more than a little truth to the feelings Rev. Dr. Wright implied that Sen. Obama had towards the views of the Rev. Dr. Wright. Did the reverend hit too close to home? We won't ever know because, yes or no, the campaign has to make that implication seem like a smear.

As I have said, the comments don't really need repudiation when they are viewed/listened to in context. Senator Obama and his staff have come to believe that they do, however. They have come to believe that the soundbites cannot be overcome. They have come to believe that it is more important for the Senator to distance himself from his pastor, who, "spiritual mentor" or not, obviously was a major influence on him (see the title of his book), than it is to embrace the man while rejecting the comments. Even better, defend the comments as not being seen in context, as I have done. (I do, however, realize this is far too much to ask a man to do for his pastor when he is running for president.) He almost, vaguely, defended the 'soundbites' in just such a way at the news conference. (Think that that might have been a hint at what is in his heart?) Nope, we're gonna cut bait.

This could, and most likely, to one extent or another, will backfire on Sen. Obama and his campaign. Sen. Obama is too closely linked to Rev. Dr. Wright. His protestations about "not knowing" are disingenuous at best. I think that more will see this as a failure to stand up when he is needed than will see this as a necessary step to be taken if he wishes to win in November. His best hope is that Sen. John McCain will be too embarassed by his own connections to the likes of John Hagee and Rod Parsley to attack him for abandoning his own minister. Or, maybe, McCain will do just that after not abandoning Hagee and Parsley!

I don't agree with everything my pastor says. Never will. He sometimes says some relatively controversial things. Nothing quite like the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Nevertheless, even if he did say things that controversial, and I were running for president, I would like to think I would stand by the man. I am not sure I am that strong. I do, however, now know that Barack Obama is not.

Short "Soundbite" version from the AP


Essential Elements version from MSNBC



Full News Conference Video from MSNBC



Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 10, 2008

Obama: If I'm Not Ready, Why Suggest Vice Presidency?

Sen. Obama responded today to the Clinton's repeated suggestions of a joint "dream ticket." Said the senator at an afternoon rally: "I just want everybody to absolutely clear: I am not running for vice president. I am running to be president of the United States of America."

read more digg story


I think something of a truce needs to be declared for a few weeks here. It is clear neither of these candidates is going to win completely cleanly. It's not?!

Well, you're deluding yourself if you think Sen. Obama just walks off into the sunset with all of Sen. Clinton's supporters should he win in Denver without an outright delegate victory. That type of victory is not going to happen by magic.

These two need to talk, and they need to start doing it now. Neither one of them can win a contested convention without opening 'hard to heal' rifts within the party. To suggest that either has any greater right to open those rifts is pure folly. Then again, we're Democrats. We seem to be rather good at screwing things up when we have the upper hand.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Cleveland Debate


I keep seeing a lot of comments about Hillary Clinton reaching, not being 'smooth', her 'political wake'. I am also seeing this on our local TV coverage. I am after all just outside of Cleveland.


I don't agree.


Although I agree both of the candidates were excellent and expressed largely similar points of view, I cannot agree that Barack Obama won this debate. I heard several students at CSU (Cleveland State University) express the opinion that Obama articulated his positions better. This has me even more worried about the state of our educational system in general and CSU in particular. Clinton articulated Obama's positions for him on health care and NAFTA and she probably did it better than he would have if he had wanted to articulate those positions. He was reduced to acknowledged or refuting her characterizations. I have apparently become old before the age of forty because where I come from that is called owning someone in a debate. This is what she did for at least the first half of the debate.



Obama pulled even in the second half, which surprised me, since that included foreign policy and experience. I listened to several commentators say the Farrakhan thing was odd to bring up, some blogs did too, like AmericaBlog, and it was strange. I am glad that no one seems to be bashing Hillary for calling Obama out on his equivocation. Whether it is denounce or renounce, his response seemed somewhat equivocal on whether he rejected the concept of Louis Farrakhan supporting his campaign. Hillary was right to call him out on it and I'm glad she did. I hate mud slinging but good old fashioned hardball seems to have gone the way of the dodo in the Democratic party and she proved she is willing and able to play it.

I agree with just about everybody else that, whomever wins, the democrats have a viable, strong, and supportable candidate. I seem to be in the minority in the blogosphere in my support of Hillary Clinton as the better of the two. I am sure I would have been catching all sorts of greif on my old blog from commenters. It is, however, she for whom I will cast my Ohio vote next Tuesday. Nevertheless, I rest comfortable in the knowledge that I have two candidates whom I am willing to support remaining. (I still would have preferred John Edwards.)


Comments welcome,


Pat McGovern


P.S. - Universal health care is, by definition, UNIVERSAL. Not mandating coverage, particularly of the young healthy ones (and we don't just mean the 25 and unders, Barack), not only skews the whole plan but also, by definition, makes in NO LONGER UNIVERSAL. ;-)

Sphere: Related Content