- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Obama was a member of the church for 20 years - it's no stretch at all for anyone to "associate" him with Wright's views. I'm not saying they're necessarily Obama's views at all. Personally I find his distancing himself from Wright problematic both because I think it's disengenuous, and also because I wish it wasn't necessary. I don't blame Obama for either of these things - I don't really think he has a choice, and he's trying to with a situation that has to be very awkward for any politician (but especially one who's done so much to position himself as a cross-over to the other side of the aisle candidate).
But to pretend this isn't an issue helps no one - especially not Obama. As the comments here have made clear, many, many people espouse an agreement with some or all of what Wright has said - and, indeed, many of those positions are part and parcel of the progressive left. Even as Obama the candidate is deftly edging away from the political implications of Wright's words, many Obama supporters are, in fact, trumpeting their agreement with Wright.
It's not "joining the right-wing chorus" to suggest that this is an issue. My point is that it doesn't have to be an only negative issue, and it doesn't mean Democrats have to allow Republicans to frame it (however much they'll work to do so) - because, to me, the conversation is really about radicalism and centrism. The fact that, as you say, Obama is distancing himself from positions so many of his supporters (and, frankly, a lot of Clinton supporters) subscribe to is that much more evidence of how compromised the situation is.
I find a lot of what Wright says simplistic. But what I'd appreciate as a Democrat wanting to win in November is less shouting about how this doesn't matter and anyone who brings it up is stupid. Because it is going to be brought up - it's going to be brought up if Hilary Clinton concedes this very afternoon - and pretending it isn't is just foolish. It's especially foolish because it's actually a legitimate question - one that ought to have been aggressively raised with Bush on the "faith-based" element of his presidency. A progressive agenda isn't going to be broadly articulated when supporters stick fingers in their ears and shout to drown out criticism any more than it will be by candidates who sidle away from those positions. I think Joan is right to characterize some of the difficulty here as the problem of a Hype Park liberal running for an office where he can't appear to be a Hyde Park liberal - or at least doesn't believe he can. I would prefer he found a way to at least split the difference, and that means being prepared for this question in the general and using it to the Democrats' advantage.
