- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The fact that Wright was the subject of a lengthy interview on a major network - a situation patently designed to allow him to answer/expand upon/provide context for the earlier controversy regarding his remarks makes it utterly reasonable that Joan (or anyone) revisit this issue. I don't see any conspiracy.
Also, I think the comparisons with Hagee and McCain are missing a point. For anyone who isn't a fundamentalist already, that relationship reflects very poorly on McCain, partly because of McCain's shameless double standard in what he purports to stand for, but also because most people think Hagee's a venomous nutbag. That the media doesn't deal with it fully or fairly, while true, doesn't really fool anyone with even a grain of skepticism.
But I think it's utterly naive to assail Joan for this column, as if the issues she raises are ridiculous or imaginary, when they instead they point to a very real problem for any politician seeking the broad mandate necessary for high office. No one's going to get elected president trumpeting the views of Rev. Wright. Period.
To which the natural rejoinder is, "Obama isn't trumpeting those views in his candidacy", and no, of course he isn't - but that sort of makes Joan's point, because those views are associated with him, whether any of us like it or not, and the idea that the Republicans are going to leave this alone is crazy. Every sound bite will be chopped to its most corrisive form and blasted into every red and battleground state until our ears bleed. I think Obama's responses so far have been reasonable, but this is hardly going to be the end of it. He's been put in a place where he has to answer for the "extreme" wing of his party - and fairly, really, as this is where he comes from, despite his attempts now to run from the middle. I might actually agree with much of what Wright says (though, a lot of it I also find reactionary and childish) but in terms of election rhetoric, it's an albatross around any candidate's neck.
Clinton and her own awkward associations are beside the point. If Obama gets the nomination, this will be even more of an issue, not less. Democrats need to figure out how to talk about it broadly - which also is to say, about progressive issues in general, not just the Goverment's plan to create AIDS - without being condescending or sullen.
