Preacher Wright understands Obama:
LGF informs us that Bill Moyer's interview with the meddlesome priest will be airing on PBS tomorrow.
And, "imagine my surprise; he claims his words were twisted."
According to the article on the NYT Politics blog, Wright appears to accept Senator Obama's public renunciation rather sanguinely:
“... so he had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician....
“He’s a politician... he says what he has to say as a politician.
... He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician.”
I asked the question many times before, and I ask it again now:
Why do Obama's more radical constituencies keep supporting him, in spite of all the renouncing and rejecting that he has done, publicly? What do they think they know, or understand about this man?
So Rev. Wright thinks he understands and knows Obama better than others, better than Obama knows himself, apparently. These statements by Wright smugly and implicitly suggest that Obama is a smooth operator, a liar, who says what he thinks his audience wants to hear, not what he really feels.
In Ryan Lizza's article in The New Republic, we are told Wright is a former Muslim. No doubt his style of preaching is very reminiscent of the way Mullahs preach and inflame their flocks during Friday morning prayers, easily ignoring history, facts and good sense in favour of radical religion and political theories (that's a euphemism for conspiracies). I've seen black preachers preach with much fervour but not the kind of amalgam of politics, religion and hatred that characterizes the Wright's sermons. So I wonder how much of the former Muslim is still animating and motivating the sentiment and feeling of this preacher for Jesus. Moreover, seeing the ease with which he excuses Obama's apparent denunciation of his words and positions as merely keeping up appearances for a political end makes me wonder even further about his Muslim ethos. Isn't dissimulation permissible in Islam as a legitimate tactic, if it furthers a certain political end?
This blog also speculates about these issues:
(1) Wright uses the pulpit as Muslims do in mosques, to preach politics and hate.
(2) It may explain why Wright hates America so much, strongly opposes the Iraq war, and is viciously anti-semitic.
(3) It explains why Wright's newsletter supports Hamas.
(4) It explains why Wright conferred honors upon the Muslim extremist Louis Farrakhan in December, 2007.
(5) In times of conflict, Muslims are permitted to falsely "convert" to Judaism or Christianity. They can remain in this state indefinitely until called upon by other Muslims to return to Islam.
(6) It is hard to explain why neither Obama or Wright have been accused of renouncing their religion (apostasy) by Muslim leaders.
Well, these are legitimate questions and I doubt Bill Moyer asked them of his guest. The only way to know the answer is to wait until Obama gains the presidency and see what he does and whom he honours at that time. For those who simply have to know what all of it means there is no other way of finding out, but through tasting the pudding itself.
I have my own understanding of Obama, who is, I think, at the very least an agnostic who does not have a genuine religious sentiment in the way Bush does. It is quite possible that Rev. Wright has read the measure of the man more deeply than he realizes. If Obama is dissimulating about his denunciation of Wright's position, it is just as conceivable that he was dissimulating when he had chosen him and his church as his power base. He was an ambitious politician then, no less than he is now. If all politicians do is speak deceptively and appeal to their immediate audiences in the hope of gaining their trust, who is to know when a politician is sincerely expressing his true feelings and when he just says things that will please an audience?
Ryan Lizza's article is worth a read. It observes and follows young Obama's intellectual and political roots, how his decisions were made, who and what motivated him. He seems to have had three "fathers" whom he had to renounce, or forget, at one time or another, in order to make progress, and Wright was the last of the three.
Update: Pajamas Media Tom Blumer digs deeper:
Thus far, Barack Obama and his campaign have only specifically condemned the inclusion of the Palestinian terrorist’s op-ed. I am not aware of any condemnation of the other three items noted above.
It would appear that if Obama wishes to put the Wright controversy behind him, he needs to convince the voting public that, as he claims is the case with Wright’s sermons, he was not aware of any church bulletin content that would, if he had known about it, have caused him to leave TUCC.
Works and Days' Victor Davis Hanson:
Speaking of [Wright], the snippets from his interview with a fawning Bill Moyers were about as disingenuous as they come. He claimed they were out of context and his critics divisive, but never disowned what he said. He claimed he was a pastor outside of politics, but his attraction apparently hinges on his political views about everything from the AIDs conspiracy to apartheid. And on and on. The problem with Rev. Wright is, well, he loves the attention, makes a profit on it, and won’t shut up. And as long as he is not disowned by Obama, the more Obama has to explain why he continues to worship in that church, whether Wright is or is not really retired, and what exactly did Obama know and when did he know it. A fair reading of the Obama memoirs suggests he knew exactly what Wright was saying and heard a great deal of it.
For a stupid commentary on the above, read here:
"And yes, as an example, being a different kind of politician means condemning Wright's comments but sticking by the man"
Only of course Rev. Wright did not say "Obama is a different kind of politician". He said: Obama is a politician" the implication being that there is only one kind of politicians and this kind is always about lying, pretending, playacting, obfuscating, etc etc. Wright seems to hold a rather dim view of this member of his church.
Here is one commenter view with a counter point to the "he is a politician" credential:
I was willing to give Obama a pass for Rev. Wright. I chalked it up to his desire for “street creds” among the Chicago constituency he was trying to court. Not too admirable, but hey, he’s a politician. What do you expect? I refused to believe he actually bought into the jive the rev was talking.
But then, from his own mouth came the phrase “typical white person”, directed at his own grandmother. It was then that I knew, that after 20 years some of the bigotry propagated by the rev had taken root in Obama’s brain. A shame, since I did have hope for him.
"Civilization is not self-supporting. It is artificial. If you are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization -- you are done." (Ortega y Gasset)
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Preacher Wright understands Obama: