The Wright ad. Too little. Too late. But I give them credit--they're trying everything in the book. In other news the ATF just stopped a band of skinheads from trying to kill Obama.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
It's going to be another long century.
Thanks for letting me ride with you, T.
Well, I'll be the one to say it:
they're
A source I read said they also planned to kill 102 other people first: 88 shot and 14 beheaded. The story said these numbers are significant to these nutjobs. I don't have the courage to research this. Anybody know what that significance is?
Maybe there's someone out there who needed this ad to make their decision to vote for McCain. But I still think it's a waste of money. Especially since it's being blasted in states that Barack apparently no longer needs.
And re: the skinheads -- I'm more concerned about the fact that they planned to attack a predominately black high school first. They didn't think they could actually get to Obama.
Depressingly, google makes that research pretty easy- '14 88' gets you right here. (link is to urban dictionary; safe for work and will only make you think a little less of these yahoos, assuming you already think very, very little of them)
This is great; we should really be bringing this shit out in the open so it can be discredited in the best manner possible. Like blasting a homer after the guy before you got HBP.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Trevor J,
Evidently there are 14 words in some kind of white power slogan, and 88 stands for "Heil Hitler", (H is the eighth letter in the alphabet).
As far as this ad goes, the fact that they would use a picture of Obama's kids just pisses me off.
@Kat: Good point about the kids. The candidate's wife and especially children are rightly considered off limits. Honestly, you should be able to extend that logic to cover pastors.
They could just as easily have put that picture on a desk in an office, if they wanted to use that same sort of shot. In fact, it would've made more sense to do that, to show that Jeremiah Wright affects Obama's work.
Raise the N-word shields. This week they are going to come in handy.
Would someone PLEASE ask Sarah Palin if these guys are terrorists?
I saw the plot as a big headline on my local paper's website, sfgate.com. And one of my first thoughts was "2 people"? I mean, 2 wackjobs can ruin your entire day ... but that's really a pretty small group for a "band" or a "plot".
My second thought was "The ATF"? Aren't those the nuts in government who hype everything to the clouds as a massive threat?
Don't get me wrong; I'm profoundly grateful that Obama is safe, and double for the kids that might have been hurt, but I'm gonna start from a position of skepticism about this particular bit.
@John Henry - YES! Does plotting to kill a presidential candidate plus 102 people of color qualify you as a terrorist? These are white guys - probably not!
I'm keeping my Louisville Slugger handy next Tuesday, just in case.
What's the over/under on assassination threats against Obama over the next 4 years? 100? 200?
The way Palin and Rush and the rest have the dumbshit hicks riled up neither number would surprise me.
Whatever the over/under is, Moe, chances are we won't hear of more than a small fraction of them.
Looking at this ad by an independent group I am wondering if McCain really wants to win this election.
Attacking Obama's association with the church early on would have probabley been his most effective attack.Let's face it Republicans can't win on the issues with the current economy and Bush's 22 percent rating. Instead he tried to focus on Bill Ayers.
Political advertisments and attacks are suppose to be credible.
No serious thinking swing voter is going to believe that Obama supports Bill Ayers past actions bombing the US Capitol when he worked with the man on an education board.
On the other hand it is entirly credible to believe that Obama supports Rev. Wright's view of America that most voters find abhorrent when he has attended his chruch for over 20 years.
@ bresq I agree that a candidates children especially under 18 and out of the public eye should be off limits. But a candidate's spouse and pastor is fair game. If Hilliary Clinton were the noiminee, I think it would have been fair and justified for the Republicans to focus on the scandels off her husband's adminstration. Also, a spouse or a pastor is very close to the candidate and can provide very strong insights to the candidates thoughts beliefs and attitudes.
Didn't McCain's pal G. Gordon Liddy want to kill ATF agents? Now we know why.
It worries me how the McCain/Palin campaign has stirred a tremendous level of paranoia in the Rep. base. Went to Miami this weekend and it is unbelievable how (mostly older) Cubans there are absolutely terrified of an Obama administration. An older guy, whose wife works for a friend of mine at some point started screaming at me: Go back to Cuba if what you want is what we got there! Some of my Cuban friends are totally scared. It wasn't like that 1 or 2 months ago.
Please, avoid insulting my friends' intelligence: they are not idiots. They have their scars (as I do, I am super anti-Fidel, Chavez and the whole etc) and fear blocks understanding.
Obama will have to have a brutal opposition. But I think he has what it takes.
I meant Obama will have to face a brutal opposition instead of "will have to have"
@IV: I agree that one's spouse or pastor can have huge influence over someone, as could their parents or friends or professors. I disagree that a great deal of focus should be put on these people in a campaign. Ultimately, it comes down to your record, your stated policy goals, and the people you choose as political advisors. The Clintons are obviously a different case, as Bill did essentially choose Hillary as a political advisor. Barack has done the same with Michelle.
Argh. Meant, "Barack has NOT done the same with Michelle."
As I recall there were 2 plotters in the Murray Federal Building bombing. And two for Columbine. Don't discount what two wackjobs can do in terms of terror--if anything, stopping the ones and twos is a lot harder than the big groups. Fewer people to keep the secret.
This ad seems to count on the viewer already knowing all about Wright. Like, "hey, remember Jeremiah?" But it isn't as if people forget, they just don't care that much. An ad with audio of Obama speaking favorably of Wright would be a lot stronger.
Just a little quibble: 'skinheads' aren't necessarily racist, and are frequently anti-facist (See SHARP, ARA, AFA, RASH and others). I wish the media would stop using neo-nazi and skinhead as interchangeable terms.
Independent Voter,
What part of Rev. Wright's "view of America" do you have a problem?
Please outline, beyond mere soundbytes, what constitutes Rev. Wright's view of America and why you feel his "view" is problematic or troubling or whatever (i.e. come with a collection of things he has said that paint a full picture of how he views America up to and including whatever drove him to join the military and make sure to take a stab at why he views America the way he does since you're already making some assumptions).
Obviously, that was supposed to be:
What part of Rev. Wright's "view of America" do you have a problem with?
I think Pastors are fair game. I certainly don't have any problems with Rev. Wright, but I think these things are fair to be brought to the table. I mean, if McCain dealt with a pastor that thought Hurricane Katrina was a punishment for a gay pride parade, or Palin's pastor supported the conversion of Jews through prayer, I want to be able to bring that up.
Oh, wait...
"Governor Palin, does your husband love America as much as you do?"
For the millionth time, Rev. Wright was criticizing the American gov't and its policies, not the country itself.
Re: Nato - why don't the non-Nazi skinheads just call themselves something else? I've never understood why someone would want to identify with something that's clearly never going to lose the negative connotation.
That's a bizarrely incompetent ad.
The visuals are sweet. The colors are friendly. The voice isn't quite gentle, but it's softer than almost any negative ad. By zooming in so close on Wright, they've lost the force of his movement around the pulpit. The voice-over is louder than the sermon.
It's as though someone on the inside, forced to make an ad, managed to deliberately make one we could all forget.
@dan: Skins are, generally speaking, proud of being skins, proud of their (sub)culture, and regard their fellow skins in the light of an adoptive family. They aren't about to let some nationalist posers who know nothing about what being a skinhead means to come steal the skinhead legacy unopposed.
They aren't about to let some nationalist posers who know nothing about what being a skinhead means to come steal the skinhead legacy unopposed.
I had friends and a roommate who are skinheads (the anti-racist type) and this is how he told it as well. I can understand since the skinhead = racist narrative was something created by the media. Fairly nice guys too, the only people they didn't like were the neo-nazi racist skinheads.
@Nato- Thanks for the explanation. That makes a lot of sense.
( Kind of reminds me of Michael Bolton in Office Space. "Why should I change my name, he's the one that sucks!")
Have read that while the neo-Ns hadn't gotten very far with finding Obama, they seem closer to chaos at the school.
Probably not in coincidence, I got a notice tonight that my daughter's school will be practicing lockdown procedures in the next week. Yes, I know all schools have had serious public safety drills since 9/11 and then that awful string of school shootings, but I can't believe the timing is wholly incidental.
Here's the thing -- the ad says that Wright spewed hate for 20 years while Obama said nothing. Wright's sermons are all publicly available on video. I'm sure hordes of republican elves have watched every minute of them and all anyone has been able to find are brief excerpts of 3 (I think) sermons. Whatever else you might say about Wright, the claim that the YouTube clips are broadly representative of the things Wright said on weekly basis for 20 years is just plain false.
Picture of the kids hugh? The line from the Obama campaign should be that these lowlifes should never have used the kids in an ad. Not cool at all. Also a last pathetic attempt at race baiting. I guess they are hoping for a Bradley Effect.
I'm keeping my Louisville Slugger handy next Tuesday, just in case.
I picked up a mossberg 500 a few weeks ago. I find myself wishing they found their balls and acted up some way other than pounding on their keyboards. It's probably more fantasy than anything else, but I like my new toy.
@Nquest:
I do not think Rev Wright is un-American he should be honored for serving his country in war time. He deserves credit for serving when many others did not. Despite this, I think most voters would strongly disagree with the views of Rev Wright and it would hurt Obama at the polls.
Rev Wright represents an old time worldview common among many members of the old time Civil Rights establishment that this is inherently racist country and we have made very little progress in terms of equality since the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. The guy has continually expressed the view the US govt was responsible for spreading the AIDS virus to the African American community. As Obama said I can understand how Rev Wright came to his views after growing up during this time.
Obama has tried to paint himself has a new era post racial candidate who does not blame racism entirely for the problems facing minority communities. Remember, he received an earful for many members of the old time civil rights establishment for his speech on Father's Day.
The emergence of Rev. Wright complicates this narrative and hurts him among voters.
The emergence of Rev. Wright complicates this narrative and hurts him among voters.
Does it?
I've got a pretty low opinion of the American electorate, but if this even moves the polls a point I'd be surprised. I wouldn't be surprised to see this in heavy rotation moving polls the other way.
We are in a deadly serious moment in the nations history and if anyone out there gives a damn what Jeremiah Wright thinks vis a vis Obama they are already voting for John McCain and they have skulls thicker than bricks.
What you won't hear covered by the media is that wright's positions are viewed the same way by a significant enough slice of America to make this a meaningless controversy. The fact it didn't sink him in the primaries is proof enough of that.
McCain didn't pursue this because he saw it barely registered back in March plus his own religion bonafides did not need anymore scrutiny by the press.
McCain didn't pursue this because he saw it barely registered back in March plus his own religion bonafides did not need anymore scrutiny by the press.
It also contradicts the Obama = Muslim terrorist narrative they've been trying to push. He can't be a Muslim terrorist and heavily influenced by his Christian pastor of 20 years.
Rev Wright represents an old time worldview common among many members of the old time Civil Rights establishment that this is inherently racist country and we have made very little progress in terms of equality since the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.
And you base this on what?
As Obama said I can understand how Rev Wright came to his views after growing up during this time.
Obama is a freakin' idiot for saying bs like that. Obama doesn't apply that bs "generational" tag to anyone else. Not to John McCain. No one (which is rather rich since pundits are now saying out loud that McCain's "tax and spend liberal" theme is so old school). Plus it's the more ignorant idea that there is some "old time Civil Rights establishment" with a certain born-on and expiration date that falls along generational lines.
It simply does not. But maybe the reception Wright got from his congregation -- and, indeed huge slices of African America (prior to the National Press Club Q&A) -- reflected this idea of how Wright's views were outmolded and the stuff of the older generation.
How exactly Rev. Wright's "view" is so sloppily grouped into the "civil rights establishment" idea is beyond me. I didn't know Malcolm X (affinity) and African-centered teachings were the hallmark of the "civil rights establishment."
Obama has tried to paint himself has a new era post racial candidate who does not blame racism entirely for the problems facing minority communities.
Talk about weaksauce... You have fallen short on listening to what Obama has said about Wright:
"Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change."
But maybe in your worldview advocating and practicing "self-help" on issues up to and including AIDS prevention, something Wright is noted for, is evidence of "blaming racism entirely for the problems facing minority communities."
Weaksauce, indeed, and that line is tired. But go ahead and find where Rev. Wright ever stipulated to the racial calculus you and Obama try to put on him because he doesn't do what Barack Obama has done and that's try to paint the picture of Whites as victims, particularly middle-class or poor Whites, almost "entirely" due to no fault of their own.
He did it in his race speech. He did it with that "bitter", "guns and religion" remark.
Back to Wright... List the problems in the Black community Wright has blamed entirely racism. That or just come out with what your real issue is which, apparently, has something to do with painting a fictional picture of America as a "post-racial" nation (whatever the hell that is).
Now, regarding Rev. Wright's "view of America."
Did we or did we not kill innocent people in Iraq?
Explain how "expert" after "expert" received all kinds of TV time to talk about BLOWBACK regarding U.S. foreign policy prior 9/11 and the eventual Bush position to change foriegn policy course to democracy and "nation building" instead of the old way, propping up puppet regimes or funding "freedom fighters" that, like Al-Qaeda, come back to bite us... Explain how those "experts" were allowed to say what they did without the fallout but the second Rev. Wright echoed Malcolm X, it was a matter of a bad "view of America."
Beyond that, both you and Obama have/had nothing (save the AIDS strawman) upon which to base this nonsense on:
"The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made..."
Obama's profound mistake is this "post-racial" nonsense that, ironically, coincides with today's last ditch effort to paint Obama as a "spread the wealth" socialist. McCain & Co. are playing up statements Obama made in a 2001 interview that puts to lie this "post-racial" nonsense.
America hasn't gotten past "basic issues of political and economic justice in this society" when Barack Obama himself talked about QUIET RIOTS and EMPATHY DEFICITS which have everything to do with the unresolved issues from the civil rights era, etc.
On the other hand it is entirly credible to believe that Obama supports Rev. Wright's view of America that most voters find abhorrent when he has attended his chruch for over 20 years.
Why?
What does Rev. Wright's socio-political view of America have to do with whatever Obama went to church for? You're a victim or, should I say, perpetrator of the very thing you want to accuse Rev. Wright of: having a small, limited view things.
What's "entirely credible" to believe is Obama found in Trinity a church that fit his public service mindset given how socially involved the church is from its doctrine to its ministries.
I do not think Rev Wright is un-American he should be honored for serving his country
That's exactly not what you're doing. Somehow, you've separated his willingness to "serve his country" which just so happen to have happened during the same time you and Obama claim to "understand how Rev Wright came to his views."
There is a serious disconnect. Don't pay lip service to honoring Wright for his service. That has to mean something especially considering the time Wright grew up in.
According to NPR this morning, the skinheads were going to shoot Obama in a "drive by" while wearing white tuxedos and tophats.
As Jim Rome would say "drugs and alcohol may have been involved."
Let me tell you WHY the McCain people never bothered to play the Rev. Wright card. It is simple. Among serious churchgoing Christians, I posit that in three to ten year relationship, anyone with a brain will have SOME ISSUE with their pastor. It might be over the role of women (big issues in the Southern Baptist and Catholic churches), homosexuality (Episcopal church), standards for conversion (Judaism has that issue), or universal salvation -- but an issue will come up. By emphasizing Rev. Wright's controversial nature, the GOPers reinforce three things, none of which are good for them:
1) That Obama is not a Muslim. You can't be a wacked out Christian and a closet Muslim at the same time.
2) That Obama is a serious churchgoing Christian. You can't make the "he doesn't understand you" he is an elitist argument if he goes to a fire-breathing church just like the Southern Baptists do. People who are serious church people understand sitting in the pews for 20 years even if you do not agree with everything the pastor says. Secular types don't get it.
and the most important one
3) Obama's church is important to him. This highlights Obama's religious beliefs and practice in comparison to McCain. Remember, McCain can't play the family values card since he cheated on his wife and left her. By highlighting Wright, that just reinforces the fact that McCain is not a serious believer. Because conservative Christians will agree with one thing: they have much more in common with left leaning Church of Christ parishioners than with secular people of the right or left.
Why the lack of a Rev. Wright reaction to this:
"A real-life Frankenstein started the disease. I believe AIDS has been man-made. AIDS was started by human beings - maybe even one person - in a Frankenstein sort of way to get certain people they didn't like."
But maybe Mr. Coates documented how the response to Bill Cosby in recent years was tainted by Cosby's 1991 statement about AIDS. I'm just saying I didn't hear a word about Cosby's stance on AIDS when he started talking about pound cakes and stuff. I guess the idea that Cosby didn't "blame everything on racism" made his thoughts on AIDS acceptable or easily forgotten.
B-Rob,
I actually think you've got to the heart of it here. Most Americans (myself certainly included) have had the experience of belonging to a church where they didn't agree with everything the church taught. The Reverend Wright clips never bothered me, and I don't think they will bother most Americans.
That said, you do McCain an injustice. He's a sincere Christian also. When he was imprisoned in Vietnam he memorized the Book of Common Prayer and led prayer services for fellow inmates.
Reading through the comments, I started skimming when I hit the lengthy Why Wright Matters And Okay If Not Wright What About Bill Cosby exposition.
I don't think I'm alone. No one cares anymore. I never thought I'd say it, but thank heaven for Hillary hanging on when all was lost, giving time to air all the Wright stuff until 98% of the country was bored, and allowing Obama to build organization in a bunch of states that had late primaries.
Maybe somebody can explain why it's bad to say that "AIDS was created by the CIA to take out black people", but it's ok to say that "AIDS was created by God to take out gays", which I've heard in the pews of a completely conventional, mainstream, evangelical church.
lol... Deborah. That was funny -- that blind-folded joke telling you do.