Obama and Wright

Much has been made in recent days about the crazy remarks made by Obama's pastor and "spiritual leader," Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ron Paul, and many others, Wright blamed 9/11 on the U.S. Then he gave a speech, in 2003, with the following quote:

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people...God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.

He also accused the government of lying about creating HIV "as a means of genocide against people of color." (If I believed that, I'd be saying God damn America, too!)

I think there are two questions here. First, do these moments offer a representative sample of Wright's body of work? And second, what does it say about Obama that he looks up to and supports such a man?

To answer the first question, I'd say they don't. Obama's critics have used the fact that he adapted the title of his book, The Audacity of Hope, from one of Wright's sermons to demonstrate how strongly Obama has been influenced by Wright. But if you actually read Wright's "Audacity to Hope" sermon, you'll find nothing like the inflammatory comments I mentioned above. It's all about hope and prayer and God and family.

(I wrote about my feelings regarding Obama's religiosity here, for all those wondering why this Jewish Atheist supports someone as profoundly Christian as Obama.)

Now to the more important question. What can we learn about Obama from his association with Wright? First, does Obama agree with Wright's inflammatory statements? All evidence is that he doesn't. For longer than he's been a national politician, he's eloquently and passionately pushed for understanding and unity rather than the sort of racial divisiveness endorsed by Wright. He's strongly denounced Wright's comments on several occasions. And everything about his tone and message is exactly the opposite of Wright's, when Wright is on his craziness.

So what's the deal with his supporting Wright? He's continued to be a member of his church, continued to call him his spiritual adviser, and continued to donate money to the church of this guy who is at least partly crazy and divisive.

I think the answer lies in Obama's most unique quality -- his ability to see the good in everybody and everything. This is the man who implores us to understand our political opponents, the man who preaches unity and an end to divisiveness, the man who constantly seeks common ground, the man who has won over the unlikeliest of opponents on several bills (e.g. his bill requiring the taping of police questioning in Illinois.)

I think that Obama took what he liked from Wright -- the inspiration, the message of hope -- and simply set aside the rest. Recently, he has described Wright as "like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with," and that strikes me as perfect. Who here doesn't have a racist parent or grandparent or uncle that they generally look up to and want to be like, other than that whole racism thing, and maybe their views on gays? How many of my Orthodox readers look up to rabbis, past and present, who believe things as offensive (racism, homophobia) and crazy (young-Earth creationism) as Wright does?

Simply put, there is no evidence that Obama agrees with any of Wright's craziness, and lots of evidence that he does not. That he can support such a character and draw so much from their friendship and spiritual relationship while so fundamentally disagreeing on such important issues speaks to his unique ability to understand and form meaningful relationships with people he doesn't see completely eye-to-eye with.

Many of us, especially many of us bloggers, prefer not to associate with people that say things we strongly disagree with. I know I couldn't attend a group whose leader said the kind of things Wright does. In general, I'd be pretty wary of people who did. People like us tend to be either blind followers (like many of my religious readers and Dawkinsites) or else ideological loners (like me and a few others that haven't found a box they could wholly subscribe to.) We've had far too many blind followers in positions of power, and people like me couldn't get elected because we aren't comfortable being part of a group we don't completely agree with, and it shows. Obama is the rare kind of person who can both be of a community and apart from it. I think that's exactly the kind of person that America needs right now as president.

Vote Obama!

For Super Tuesday folks.

"Sometimes There Are Nights Like This"

Electrifying. Nobody else on either side has his ability to inspire.

Obama Takes Iowa!!

This thing might actually happen!

For the first time since Bill Clinton, we might nominate a guy who can inspire, who has charisma, and who has guts. Gore is a good and decent man who has devoted his life to service, but he lacked both charisma and guts. John Kerry, as far as I can tell, was an attempt to call the bluff of all those who declared they'd vote for anybody but Bush. Barack Obama is the real deal. And he might actually win this thing.

I like Hillary and Edwards, don't get me wrong. But she'd never get more than 50% of the people behind her as president, and Obama would have closer to 60%. Edwards is a good, decent man with some charisma, but I don't see the gravitas or ferocious intelligence I'd ask for in a president.

Links for the Day

• littlefoxling has been blogging up a storm: he tells his story in parts I, II, III, IV, and V. He also has a handy list of Biblical anachronisms.


• At Obsidian Wings, a conservative case against torture.


• A commenter at Andrew Sullivan's links to this poll from before the 2004 Democratic primaries.


• Bitter about being circumcised without your permission? Ever wanted to know what having a foreskin is like? You're in luck. (Warning: besides being a website about artificial foreskins, music plays.) For the alternative Christian, a Jesus tongue piercing.


• Finally, these are 9 cool sets of stairs.

Andrew Sullivan on Obama in The Atlantic Monthly

Of the viable national candidates, only Obama and possibly McCain have the potential to bridge this widening partisan gulf. Polling reveals Obama to be the favored Democrat among Republicans. McCain’s bipartisan appeal has receded in recent years, especially with his enthusiastic embrace of the latest phase of the Iraq War. And his personal history can only reinforce the Vietnam divide. But Obama’s reach outside his own ranks remains striking. Why? It’s a good question: How has a black, urban liberal gained far stronger support among Republicans than the made-over moderate Clinton or the southern charmer Edwards? Perhaps because the Republicans and independents who are open to an Obama candidacy see his primary advantage in prosecuting the war on Islamist terrorism. It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.

What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

The other obvious advantage that Obama has in facing the world and our enemies is his record on the Iraq War. He is the only major candidate to have clearly opposed it from the start. Whoever is in office in January 2009 will be tasked with redeploying forces in and out of Iraq, negotiating with neighboring states, engaging America’s estranged allies, tamping down regional violence. Obama’s interlocutors in Iraq and the Middle East would know that he never had suspicious motives toward Iraq, has no interest in occupying it indefinitely, and foresaw more clearly than most Americans the baleful consequences of long-term occupation.

This latter point is the most salient. The act of picking the next president will be in some ways a statement of America’s view of Iraq. Clinton is running as a centrist Democrat—voting for war, accepting the need for an occupation at least through her first term, while attempting to do triage as practically as possible. Obama is running as the clearer antiwar candidate. At the same time, Obama’s candidacy cannot fairly be cast as a McGovernite revival in tone or substance. He is not opposed to war as such. He is not opposed to the use of unilateral force, either—as demonstrated by his willingness to target al-Qaeda in Pakistan over the objections of the Pakistani government. He does not oppose the idea of democratization in the Muslim world as a general principle or the concept of nation building as such. He is not an isolationist, as his support for the campaign in Afghanistan proves. It is worth recalling the key passages of the speech Obama gave in Chicago on October 2, 2002, five months before the war:

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war … I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

The man who opposed the war for the right reasons is for that reason the potential president with the most flexibility in dealing with it. Clinton is hemmed in by her past and her generation. If she pulls out too quickly, she will fall prey to the usual browbeating from the right—the same theme that has played relentlessly since 1968. If she stays in too long, the antiwar base of her own party, already suspicious of her, will pounce. The Boomer legacy imprisons her—and so it may continue to imprison us. The debate about the war in the next four years needs to be about the practical and difficult choices ahead of us—not about the symbolism or whether it’s a second Vietnam.

It's the cover story. Read the whole thing.

Personally, I'm not so sure his face matters as much as Sullivan argues. His reasoned opposition to the war and ability to bridge the cultural divide? That matters.

Obama on Gay Marriage and Self-Doubt

Barack Obama made an interesting statement in his book The Audacity of Hope:

It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I might be seen on the wrong side of history.

It reveals a man with a healthy dose of skepticism about his own beliefs but perhaps lacking the courage to take the step he knows he should. Is that better or worse than someone who is sure gay marriage is wrong and always will be?

Right now I'm going with better, since he at least has the courage to ask the question. I'd prefer a president who makes mistakes with the understanding that he is fallible to one who makes mistakes with 100% certainty. Presidents can't publicly precede the people to the right conclusion on every issue, but Obama has at least done so on one major issue: the Iraq war. If he merely rides the public wave of support for gay rights as it continues to grow, it's at least better than most of his rivals can be trusted to do.

Obama does, for the record, support laws against discrimination and for civil unions. He must also have an innate sense that the public can be wrong about questions of civil rights and marriage -- his black father and white mother were married in 1960, when miscegenation was illegal in half the states in America.

Barak Obama: The Reagan of the Left?

Mr. Sullivan attended an Obama event this week.

Here are some of his impressions:

The overwhelming first impression that you get - from the exhausted but vibrant stump speech, the diverse nature of the crowd, the swell of the various applause lines - is that this is the candidate for real change. He has what Reagan had in 1980 and Clinton had in 1992: the wind at his back. Sometimes, elections really do come down to a simple choice: change or more of the same?

Look at the polls and forget ideology for a moment. What do Americans really want right now? Change. Who best offers them a chance to turn the page cleanly on an era most want to forget? It isn't Clinton, God help us. Edwards is so 2004. McCain is a throwback. Romney makes plastic look real. Rudy does offer something new for Republicans - the abortion-friendly, cross-dressing Jack Bauer. But no one captures the sheer, pent-up desire for a new start more effectively than Obama.

At a couple of points in his speech, he used the phrase: "This is not who we are." I was struck by the power of those words. He was reasserting that America is much more than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and Katrina and fear and obstinacy and isolation. And so he makes an argument for change in the language of restoration. The temperamental conservatives in America hear a form of patriotism; and the ideological liberals hear a note of radicalism. It's a powerful, unifying theme. He'd be smart to deepen and broaden it.

Read the rest.

Candidates on the Issues

According to this test, here is how the candidates match my personal "ideal" candidate:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Barack Obama (80%)
3. Dennis Kucinich (80%)
4. Joseph Biden (72%)
5. Hillary Clinton (72%)
6. Wesley Clark (70%)
7. Al Gore (69%)
8. Christopher Dodd (68%)
9. John Edwards (68%)
10. Bill Richardson (63%)
11. Mike Gravel (54%)
12. Elaine Brown (50%)
13. Ron Paul (49%)
14. Kent McManigal (41%)
15. Rudolph Giuliani (29%)
16. Tommy Thompson (25%)
17. Mike Huckabee (25%)
18. John McCain (18%)
19. Mitt Romney (17%)
20. Chuck Hagel (15%)
21. Sam Brownback (10%)
22. Tom Tancredo (10%)
23. Fred Thompson (9%)
24. Jim Gilmore (8%)
25. Newt Gingrich (8%)
26. Duncan Hunter (6%)

In reality, these are my current preferences, in order:

1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Gore
4. Clinton

Focusing solely on the issues doesn't take into account whether I believe someone would be an effective president (Kucinich) or would, for example, lead to an even more divided country (Clinton, through no fault of her own.)

Why Doesn't the Right Want Obama to be Black?

For a couple weeks now, I've been wondering why people on the right appear to be obsessed with the fact that Obama is only half-black.

Rush Limbaugh:

Hey, Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican American actress Halle Berry. "As a Halfrican American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans," Obama said.

He didn't say it, but -- anyway, there are those out there -- greetings.

And then, more recently:

Okay, back to our Barack Obama Audio Sound Bite Marathon. What are we up to now? Let’s see. Oh, yeah. Obama just said he wasn’t sure that he decided he was black, that if you look African-American in this society, you’re treated as an African-American, and when you’re a child in particular that’s how you begin to identify yourself. If you don’t like it, you can switch. Well, that’s the way I see it. He’s got 50-50 in there. Say, “No, I’m white.”

After discussing this online in various forums with people on the right, I think I've figured it out. Because they're blinded by partisanship, they don't get Obama's mystique. They latch on to the one thing they can think of that makes him unique and think he's popular because he's black. If they can take his blackness away, they think he'll just be some ordinary one-term Senator and the press will shut up about him and nobody will care.

They're wrong, though. Obama's a political rock star. He's a young Kennedy or Bill Clinton, combining a first-rate intellect with uncommon charisma. (Reagan had the charisma too, if not the intellect.) Kennedy wasn't a great candidate because he had been a Congressman and Senator and it wasn't Clinton's experience as governor of Arkansas that made people sit up and pay attention to him. Ronald Reagan didn't make it because of his acting ability or even experience as governor. Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton simply had what it takes to make people love them. So does Obama.

Obama's blackness makes for a great story, of course, and the press is bound to get caught up in that. But even if he were white, he'd be a major player in the Democratic primaries.

The only difference is we wouldn't have to worry about whether America is ready to elect a black man.