Judgment (Updated)
If it took Barack Obama over 20 years to finally realize that Reverend Wright was espousing black liberation theology on a regular basis, how exactly is he planning on managing the country? His sluggish comprehension would certainly explain his naive plan to sit down and talk with Iran. Perhaps it’ll only take him a couple of terms to realize that Iran is devoted to becoming a major regional power, and to promoting anti-American theocracies throughout the Middle East.
UPDATE: The same point was made today by Taranto:
So, was Obama sincere? Did he spent 20 years as an intimate of Wright and a parishioner of his church without ever having an inkling that the guy is a wacko hatemonger?
If so, can you think of anything more terrifying than sending such a naïf to the White House while there’s a war on?END UPDATE
Of course, as many, many people have pointed out (including, apparently, Reverend Wright), his explanation of a sudden revelation based on Wright’s latest diatribes is completely unbelievable. He’s not that stupid.
What he is, is a politician cast in the mold of William Jefferson Clinton. Glib, loose with the truth, willing to say anything to make people happy and avoid trouble, poll-driven, and with no concept of America’s place in the world. Certainly the Revered Wright debacle showed that he has been exposed to extremist views to the point that they don’t perturb him, but it has also shown how facile he is.
And like Clinton, he has mastered the art of faking sincerity. He is the perfect candidate for his fans, who want someone who makes them feel good. He is the perfect candidate for Europe, who wants a docile America. He is the perfect candidate for the Middle East countries, who want a weak America. And he is the perfect candidate for Russia and China, who want a tentative America.
But for America itself? Not so much.
April 30, 2008 at 11:35 am
Here is what I don’t get: What is wrong with “Black liberation theology”?
April 30, 2008 at 12:43 pm
If you don’t mind a healthy dollop of racism in your religion, then nothing at all.
May 1, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Wow, was she serious?
May 1, 2008 at 2:04 pm
But you’re right. He is absolutely Clintonian when it comes to slickness.
You could call him the first American black/White President.
May 2, 2008 at 7:28 pm
What is racist about Liberation??? I heard Wright’s speech at the Press Club, where he explained that his is a religion of liberation and transformation, and I don’t think there is anything racist about that.
May 2, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I heard Wright’s speech at the Press Club, where he explained that his is a religion of liberation and transformation, and I don’t think there is anything racist about that.
I don’t recall him giving a lecture on the history of black liberation theology, including the rabidly racist statements of Cone et al. Nor did I hear a decent explanation of his own racist statements. The bottom line is that Wright has vilified an entire race for crimes none of them committed.
Liberation in and of itself is not racist. But in the context of black liberation theology, which demonizes whites, it certainly is.
May 14, 2008 at 11:59 am
I get that this is essentially a political criticism of Obama, but regarding how perturbed he may be by Wright’s crackpot views….I don’t see anything in Obama’s background or actions to indicate he shares Wright’s views, so I take Obama at his word when he says he denounces the views and finds them repellant.
But I also think it’s possible for a candidate to be sympathetic to why blacks might embrace some of Wright’s views, without agreeing with the views himself. In fact, I’d say a candidate who can articulate this nuance is way more in tune to the realities of race relations in the US than one who fumes that he/she would have “stormed out of the church” as soon as Wright began to spill his bilious ideas. In this regard, Obama does represent something new in American politics/government — the viable black candidate (novelty enough in itself) who’s not an angry “son-of-MLK” (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson) or a reactionary water bearer for the right (Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas) or any of the other permutations we’ve seen so far.
I know what you mean about his perceived slickness, but I’m not as sure as you are that he has “no concept of America’s place in the world” or that he’d be as weak and tentative as you predict. But just in case you’re right, I hope the upcoming campaign provides the crucible in which we find out…should be exciting!
May 14, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Could be, but I can’t think of a single Obamian statement on foreign policy that I agree with, or even think is competent.
I don’t see anything in Obama’s background or actions to indicate he shares Wright’s views
I look at it as a fish being unaware of the water in which he swims. In my assessment, he’s “Wright-lite.” He believes, but he’s not angry.
I was particularly disgusted with the way he handled the Wright situation. He changed his story twice, coming up with 3 versions of why he was so close to Wright, but unaffected by Wright’s views. Finally he claimed (in his 4th version) that they weren’t really that close. I don’t know why you’d believe anything he says on the subject.
Alan Keyes is a loon, but I think you’re being quite unfair to Clarence Thomas. Have you read any of his decisions? The ones I’ve seen have been pretty good. I also wouldn’t put Colin Powell in either of your categories.
May 14, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I agree that his flubbing of the issue didn’t show him in the best light, but I’m willing to put that down to inexperience on the national stage — and since I don’t believe for a second that he agrees with Wright’s conspiracy theories and other rantings, then I really think it’s all kind of a non-issue (although it’s great wedge material for the GOP).
It so happens I recently finished listening to a book-on-tape of Anita Hill’s memiors (when you commute in NJ, you’ll eventually work your way through every BOT in the library) and with that so fresh in my mind, maybe I am being unfair to Clarence Thomas. But — the media circus notwithstanding — I do remember his confirmation hearing performance as unimpressive compared to others I’ve seen (Roberts, Bork, Alito, Ginsburg, Souter). I’m less familiar with his SCOTUS voting record, though I’m pretty sure he and I disagree on Roe v. Wade and how much power the executive branch should have.
Good point on Colin Powell — I’m not crazy about his role in the second Iraq war, but you’re correct that I wasn’t thinking of him when I created my categories.
May 14, 2008 at 2:53 pm
…inexperience on the national stage…
I don’t think I can dismiss lying as inexperience, but you’re certainly right about his experience level.
May 14, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I don’t actually doubt that Anita Hill’s testimony was accurate. But I do find it amusing that the same people who are so exercised over Thomas’s behavior are entirely willing to give Bill Clinton a pass.
May 14, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Justice Thomas may not be flamboyant, but he is the only justice who consistently rules according to what the Constitution actually says rather than what he wants it to say. Even Justice Scalia will occasionally let his prejudices inform his rulings. Gonzales v. Raich is the first example that comes to mind - Thomas dissented according to his famously narrow reading of the Commerce Clause, regardless of his opinion on pot, while Scalia sided with the majority; but later, in Stenberg v. Carhart (I think), Scalia joined with Thomas, despite the fact that Thomas’s concurrence was similarly based on the reading of the Commerce Clause which Scalia had apparently rejected in Gonzales v. Raich.
Obama reminds me more of Bill Clinton than anyone else, particularly in that each had an absent father and a difficult relationship with his mother, and both are seeking the validation that neither received from their parents.
May 15, 2008 at 5:12 pm
“But I do find it amusing that the same people who are so exercised over Thomas’s behavior are entirely willing to give Bill Clinton a pass.”
Hello? Clarence Thomas harassed a woman who worked for him who did not want to be harassed. Bill Clinton played around with a girl who was perfectly willing to play with him. Big difference.
May 15, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I knew somebody would be stupid enough to say that.I was afraid that somebody would take that unproductive but all-too-traveled path in the discussion.
[comment modified after deciding I was a bit harsh]
May 15, 2008 at 5:53 pm
But just to help you escape the mire of your mind-numbing ignoranceIn the interests of moving the discussion forward, read this.[comment modified after deciding I was a bit harsh]
May 16, 2008 at 9:40 am
First off, I agree that the actions of both Thomas and Clinton are examples of sexual harassment, and that the hypocrisy of those who condemn one and tolerate the other is indefensible.
And as someone who’s watched this blog for awhile, I’ve learned that one sure way to trigger Geoff’s invective is to respond with a point that misses the argument he’s trying to make…and if your point happens to be an obvious one, look out! (I myself have made these types of points, but Geoff spares me in deferrence to family ties.) And I think that’s what got marcys in hot water with her comment.
But she does raise the point (however obvious) that there’s a qualitative difference between Anita Hill (serious, religious, unwelcoming of Thomas’s advances) vs Monica Lewinsky (flirtatious Bev Hills bimbette, ready for action) — so my question is, even given that both men are sexual harassers, is there still a corresponding qualitative difference between the actions of Thomas vs. Clinton? i.e., setting aside the legalities, from the man-woman point of view, is Bill any less “guilty” than Clarence?
And if we were to perform a subgroup analysis, would answers to the question tend to skew along lines of gender or political leaning? e.g., would a guy, lib or con, be more likely to let Bill off the hook than a woman? would a liberal woman, otherwise predisposed to like Clinton, despise his actions as much as those of Thomas because of gender associations?
May 16, 2008 at 12:50 pm
There are other differences as well:
C/L: 25+-year age difference; T/H: 10-year age difference
C: married; T: unmarried
C/L: many, many rungs apart in the power structure; T/H: one rung apart
C/L: actually had sex; T/H: only talked about it
The simple fact is: Clinton as a senior statesman used his position to have extramarital sex with a very young, very subordinate lady. Thomas as a relatively young horndog asked a subordinate out an obnoxious number of times, and made her uncomfortable with graphic sexual conversations.
Clinton was a scumbag, and Thomas was an asshole. If Hill had been receptive, there would have been no legal or moral iniquities. Even though Lewinsky was receptive, there were legal and moral iniquities.
Conservatives think that the sexual harassment laws & policies reach too far, are too ambiguous, and are weighted too heavily in women’s favor. But we expect everybody to be treated equally under those laws and policies.
May 16, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Trenchant response, as usual…one additional question: would it change your answer if Monica L. was better looking? (just kidding)
One thing I’m not sure of is the no legal iniquities w/ regard to Thomas — does the harassment clock start when the advances and lewd comments are initiated or when when/if the recipient is offended? Depending on the answer, the exact same behavior could or could not be harassment — perhaps this is part of the ambiguity that conservatives decry (and I can see why).
May 16, 2008 at 1:57 pm
when when/if the recipient is offended?
I believe that it starts when the recipient expresses, verbally and hopefully in writing, that these comments/behaviors are unwelcome and make them feel uncomfortable.
That’s part of what makes sexual harassment policies so difficult to enforce: almost nobody wants to drop the harassment hammer on a co-worker early on, so they give them ambiguous “noes”. The harasser, of course, hears what they want to hear, which is only the “maybe” part. Further down the road, when things come to a head, the harasser thinks this is a bolt out of the blue, while the victim thinks this is the culmination of a continuing pattern of abuse.
Even tougher is the welcome vs. unwelcome part. The harasser sees the victim welcoming behaviors from people she likes, but considering the exact same behaviors to be illegal when he tries them. This sort of thing is why conservatives think that sexual harassment laws are poorly conceived and implemented.
May 18, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Clarence Thomas’s behavior wasn’t just “unwelcome”, the guy was creepy and deranged, IMO. Pubic hair on Coke cans? I’ve worked for men a lot in my life, and I would have laughed off Clinton, but I would’ve been really creeped out by Thomas.
However, since you guys, ie Geoff, play dirty–ie, making it personal, saying my comment was “stupid,” I won’t be discussing this any further here.
May 18, 2008 at 1:41 pm
saying my comment was “stupid,”
You’ll note that in the preceding comment you started off with a snarky “Hello?” which I took as the first shot across the bow. And when I wrote the earlier comment about Clinton I said to myself “Should I put in the rote statement about the irrelevance of her being a willing party? Naw, surely everybody’s gotten past that by now.”
So when you stepped up, with your introductory snark, I unloaded on you. I’d do it again in a heartbeat, and this time without the retraction. There’s nothing more irritating than somebody who’s completely illiterate on a subject giving you a lecture while assuming a holier-than-thou attitude. As an aside, to help with your reading comprehension, I didn’t say your comment was stupid, I said you were stupid. And then I retracted it, an act that was apparently both pointless and mistaken.
Here’s your sign.
May 18, 2008 at 11:08 pm
wow - dude, that was pretty harsh
(got me wondering whether I’ve ever been just one sister away from a similar pasting in the past)
May 19, 2008 at 12:37 am
wow - dude, that was pretty harsh
Sorry if you found that offensive. What do you suggest I change?
Note, however, the content of her follow-up comment, where she completely ignores the core arguments and simply uses the thread as a platform for her own emoting. And then she acts as if I didn’t retract my original statements (which I only left up in strike-out form as an admission of my wrong-doing).
If she had said that she disagreed with the points made in the link I provided, I’d have been perfectly civil. If she’d addressed them at all, I’d have been civil. Instead she chose to blither, which frankly has actually been her modus operandus since she first commented here.
But if she wants to give it another go, I’m game. I’ll wipe the slate completely clean from my end, and I’ll even apologize for all offenses given.
(got me wondering whether I’ve ever been just one sister away from a similar pasting in the past)
You’ve always managed to redeem yourself within a comment or two.