February 28, 2008
Interesting that Republicans are defending Obama against smears that he is tied to “Radical Islam,” but the sogennant left wing MSM confronts him with potential ties to radical black politics.
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- February 28, 2008 at 8:47 am
- Category :
- Politics, Uncategorized
- Do More :
- You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Blog at WordPress.com. — Theme: Connections by www.vanillamist.com
February 28, 2008 at 8:52 am
This question is one that Obama is going to have to directly confront. The church he attends is quite racist and separatist and that is going to be a problem for him in the election.
His wife’s attitudes and comments aren’t helping either.
February 28, 2008 at 8:58 am
Actually, I was referring to the Farrakhan inquiry. But regarding his church: this may be an issue only with those already inclined to believe that an African-American man would hold particularist political views. However, it’s silly to simply equate his pastor’s views with his own; Obama has shown that he can hold two ideas in his head without being dominated by them.
February 28, 2008 at 9:52 am
The “Farrakhan Issue’ and the Trinity UCC issue are intertwined, since Trinity UCC strongly supports and lauds Farrakhan. Obama is going to have to address this at come point in his campaign.
I don’t believe Obama’s a racist and I believe that he can certainly hold two or more ideas in his head without being dominated by them. I know though that his relationship with trinity UCC is going to have to addressed or he’s not going to fair well in the general election.
February 28, 2008 at 10:10 am
You are raising good points. This is an issue that plays to how Obama looks to the public in the elections. Too many politicians have been tainted by a McCarthyist attitude that taints anyone who shakes the wrong hand.
Personally (and I mean personally), I feel that the defensive characteristics of minority political movements are easy, but unfair, targets for political discourse. Wright is not the only African-American leader tainted with the charge of anti-semitism. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have been thus accused at various times, and I don’t savor those aspects of their character. However, societies (not just American) tend to play minorities off one another. Even as these minorities defend themselves, they attack social and ethnic groups with whom they might share the same predicament. Looking outside the US, pre-1991 Ukraine has had such moments in which its own efforts to define itself as a nation against Russification that Ukrainians lashed out against other minorities. The dynamics of Hutu-Tutsi relations in the midst of late imperialism reveal similar dynamics.
In the end, though, Obama can’t rely on subtle explanations. Although you and I may appreciate his predicament, straddling the worlds of black and mainstream American politics, the public likes simple answers. He’ll need to be firmer, at least, explaining his relationship with his church.
February 28, 2008 at 10:11 am
Let me add: Obama has had an advantage in that he portrays an openness, that he is amenable to good council, something that the public now finds endearing.
February 28, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I don’t think Tim Russert qualifies as “liberal” and I’m pretty sure Josh Marshall was kidding about the Kaddafi thing. And I’m also fairly sure that he’s right about McCain’s strategy in these matters.
What I’m finding interesting, at the moment, is the extent to which politicians are held responsible for each and every one of their associates in toto, and wondering whether this will lead to a total breakdown in political participation, a more restrained and nuanced press, or an increased tendency to bring in young, “untainted” candidates as frontmen for the existing power structure.
February 28, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Josh Marshall “got me” the first time I read it.
You raise interesting points about how associations might play into political development. Obama wasn’t the first to get tagged by radical politics. Cruz Bustamante seemed to have done well in the California Recall elections until his early membership in MeCHA came to the fore (and its promotion of Aztlan). However, these associations only seem to affect Democrats. Do Republicans suffer for their ties to reactionaries? McCain’s candidacy seems to rely on the implicit support of conservatives and fundamentalists whose views are far from mainstream, but who effectively wrap themselves in the flag.
February 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm
There’s an acronym which is common among some of the progressive bloggers: IOKIYAR, which stands for It’s OK If You’re A Republican. I’m not the first person who thinks that McCain accepting an endorsement from Hagee should be a strike against him, or that his revolving-door staff is noteworthy, but it doesn’t seem to stick.