Barack's Running Mate

From what we've seen so far, there are two forces that will weld Jeremiah Wright to Senator Obama for the duration - our McCain-loving, back-slapping, wannabe heartland America regular guy national media...and Rev. Wright himself. While I do not think it's fair to ascribe Wright's strange and twisted vision to Barack Obama, I do think there is an unfortunate structural reason why Wright matters in the Obama story.

Barack Obama ran on a slender political resume decorated with a rich palette of rhetoric and image and vision. To his eternal credit, that vision has brought more people to the process, particularly young people. But that slim CV is the steel weld holding Wright to Obama's campaign; in the absence of experience in the public arena, Wright becomes an essential part of who Obama is. It's clear that the young politician's embrace of the older minister was part spiritual, and part strategic - bringing the kind of street cred needed to rise to the top in Chicago. I will say nothing about Obama's religious doctrine, except to note that the Senator himself has made his beliefs - and his journey in acquiring them - central to his life story, to his political brand, to his very reason for running to change the country.

Simply said, Jeremiah Wright - whatever his strange motivation in dragging his spiritual protege down so badly - is central to Barack Obama because there isn't too much more to go on; Wright is one of the key figures in Obama's life story.

In practical terms, Rev. Wright is - for now - Senator Obama's virtual running mate. He is to Obama (in media terms, not in moral equivalency) what the failed presidency of George W. Bush is to John McCain, the albatross he can't shake off.

UPDATE: I think Digby had the best description of how strange Wright's show-boating this week has been, and why he may not be going away: "Wright's latest round of media appearances have not seemed to me to be any kind of defense of liberalism or the black church or even Black Liberation Theology so much as one man's desire to deny a rival his destiny. This was personal and I find it very creepy." And Walter Shapiro makes the point that Democrats who trumpet their faith as driving them to politics (Clinton included) are whistling past the churchyard.

Comments

[Redstar]

Excellent point.

[Cm Sinclair]

Wow. This morally repugnant and dishonest rhetorical slieght of hand (your word, I guess, is "logic") is sad.
Simply said--despite the fact that Obama's resume, such that it is, is much more impressive that Hilary's and despite the fact that most of what he says is true--Rev. Wright has nothing to do with Obama or anything else of minimal importance in this campaign.

Shorter version of your argument--Obama's slim C/V forces me and other Hilary supporters to interrupt our on-going attemts at trying to change the rules of a game that we've lost already to engage in an overtly racist smear campaign.
p.s.
Tom, remembering your description of Hilary's frontrunner press, does what is happenning to Obama w.r.t. Wright right now count as a "media lynching?" If so how comfortable are you with your participation?
c.m.

[Tom W.]

Actually, CM I don't think this helps Clinton at all - and you can see from her safe, tepid responses on it that she agrees. This is more about the general election. I wish I saw him shaking Wright, but I don't.

As for my perhaps unfortunate use of the term "lynching" it's not the same at all. Rev. Wright is saying the things he's saying - you can argue that the mash-up of short snippets was unfair, but over the last few days Wright's been presented in full, on his terms. My point on Hillary then was that the media was overtly sexist in their coverage - I think that's still true.

And I think your statement that "Rev. Wright has nothing to do with Obama or anything else of minimal importance in this campaign" is not quite accurate. Wright's been at the center of Obama's story. Is it all overplayed? Yeah, it is. That's what these campaigns do, though and nothing's going to change that.

[Susie]

Digby makes a lot of good points but reading the most recent posts on Wright reminds me that it’s not only Obama who had to make a 180 degree turn the other day. The Obama supporters who defended Wright because Obama did are now having to announce their own abrupt change of heart, as if Wright shape-shifted overnight. Wright is not a loon or a monster, and I rather doubt that he is any different from before, except for being very angry at his former parishioner and mentee. (Why Obama never had a sit-down with Wright early on about what might come in the campaign is one of those questions.)

I regret to see Obama weighted by this, and my sympathy is limited only by my recollection of the way he stood by when it looked as if raving misogyny was going to take Clinton down by New Hampshire.

The only people who think the Wright matter is irrelevant are liberals posting on Obama blogs. I understand the sentiments, but it strikes me as wishful thinking.

[Judith]

I have been wondering the following for awhile - does the taping of Wright when he made all those crazy comments in the past have anything to do with him actually saying them? Like, lust for the limelight? It would explain why Obama never saw that behavior "in Church" if he is being truthful. He may have known the guy wasnt the most well educated person, but not the extemes he would go when a mike was put under his nose.

And I too think Wright is absolutely grooving on the attention. All for his ministry, of course.

[Mutaman]

"despite the fact that Obama's resume, such that it is, is much more impressive that Hilary's"

Where can I get a copy of that resume?

[jazzerelli]

Obama's resume more impressive than Hillary's?

Um, sure, Redstar, right.

[Cm Sinclair]

Tom...
Your polite response to an unecessarily harsh comment is truly appreciated. That said the response is, again, crafted in a manner that offends my too-delicate ears. To begin with, you are certainly savvy enought to know that Hilary is being "tepid," not because she doesn't think this mess helps her, but because she is secure in the knowledge that Obama is getting hammered sufficiently by the right wing smear machine/MSM and isn't stupid enough want to muddy those waters. Obama was able to (and did) speak out against the media's "outright sexism," but this cannot reasonably be seen as evidence that he didn't think it hurt Hilary at times in the race. The sickening thing is, now that the media is being "outright racist," Hilary 'truthers' like yourself (who clearly know better) have traded in your justified outrage for a chance to front as rubes in the media's parlour game; you know the drill: "thinking of what's best for the party," as you've all suddenly and passionately embraced the wisdom and political acumen of Chris Mathews. (b.t.w this, really, is how Dems and liberals leave elections close enough that they get stolen). You know damn well that the mishmash of snippets on CNN are miles past "arugably unfair." As a Hilary supporter (before she lost) I felt nothing but contempt towards Obama backers who played this game: pretending to worry--rejecting the sexist smears themselves, of course--but anxious nonetheless about "what they said about HER leadership, electablility, or character" before plastering over the guilt that accompanies this implicit defense of misogyny-based progamming with gems like: "thats what campaigns do though, and nothing's going to change it." Obama's racist treatment is every bit as shallow, every bit as vile, every bit as prejudiced as the sexist treatment that Hilary was subject to. Stop feigning ignorance when its convenient for your candidate. When the killers in low places attempt throw this bullshit at a democrat or progressive the response should be absolutely unified and never tepid.

[jinbaltimore]

"Obama was able to (and did) speak out against the media's 'outright sexism,' but this cannot reasonably be seen as evidence that he didn't think it hurt Hilary at times in the race."

He did? I'd love to see that link; it would really improve my outlook on his candidacy.

Thanks.

[kateNC]

Tom, this post is right on target. I especially like the second paragraph.

To add, last night Gov. Easley on Charlie Rose said that people constantly talk about all of the young people and African-Americans whom Obama is bringing into the party. When they talk about Clinton they discuss how she'll get us out of Iraq and how she'll get health care passed.

All of the discussion about Obama is PRIOR to the election. All of the discussion about Clinton is AFTER the election. Anyway, Easley's point is that Clinton gets things done. I agree with the governor.

[Joseph Cannon]

I think Wright said what he said not to upstage Obama -- at least, not JUST for that reason. Wright probably believed that America was going to embrace his message.

One notable aspect of the progressive community is its insularity. Progressives have no concept of how people think and react outside of progressive-land.

In that brief period between Wright's National Press Club appearance and Obama's disavowal, quite a few voices on the Obamablogs expressed sentiments like these:

"I watched his speech to the NAACP last night and wonder why the "media" calls him a liability."

"Senator Obama can sweep this nation with the largest landslide in US History."

"I wonder if we can carry Idaho!"

All three quotes came from Democratic Underground commenters. The final two quotes were in direct reference to the massive boost that Obama was supposed to get in the wake of Wright's commentary!

So I don't think Wright saw Obama as a rival. I don't think he intended harm. The guy probably thought he was helping the cause.

[Tom K]

*When they talk about Clinton they discuss how she'll get us out of Iraq and how she'll get health care passed.*

Whoever they are, they must not have spent much time looking at her history of demonstrated failure on both points.

[John Petty]

I thought the great Digby kind of blew it with that line. "Deny a rival his destiny"? What the hell does that mean? Obama is Wright's rival? Obama has destiny? Please.

[DukeLaw]

As a person who's been on the hiring committees of two law firms, I'll say Obama's resume is right up there with Hillary's if not better from a legal perspective.

Hillary wasn't on the Yale Law Journal but one of the secondary journals. Obama was on Harvard Law Review. She was a partner at a small regional firm in Arkansas, which really isn't that impressive. She was a First Lady (sorry, that's due to Bill). And she was a Senator from 2000. She failed a bar exam in DC and she taught at the School of Law in Arkansas. Let me repeat the shocking part, she failed the DC Bar Exam (I imagine that's not on her resume since she hid the fact for 30 years).

Obama was on Harvard Law Review, which is very prestigious. He also became the President of the Harvard Law Review. His JD was magna cum laude (again very prestigious). He taught at the University of Chicago (again quite a better school that Arkansas). He's been a Senator since 2004.

So, unless you're giving extra credit points for Hilllary's First Lady days, yes Obama's legal resume is better than Hillary's.

[Ralph DeMarco]

I think that Hillary being the wife of an Arkansas Governor and President is much more impressive than anything Obama has done. Come on! How sexist can you be? And don't forget, unlike Obama, she's much more in touch with the working class and poor. This whole Rev. Wright controversy just takes attention away from Hillary's love fest with the salt of the earth in Indiana.

[DukeLaw]

Yeah, I apologize. I'm a sexist misogynistic Asian lawyer who somehow pulled an A in his gender law class :). Which by the way, I think it's considered anti-feminist to blame the "other women" for your husband's indiscretions. Granted this was before Hillary's time so maybe feminist thinking has changed on that issue....

Oh and I guess all those professional economists (from either party) are so wealthy that they don't have to worry about filling up their gas tanks. I mean making sure that folks get 18 cents of relief on gas and stripping the highway funds for bridge repair is SO economically prudent. Seriously, she goes up 10 points for the crowd that isn't college educated and she's calling out people with actual economic degrees for "not getting it". I'm sure glad that I voted against my economic self interests the last 20 years, for affirmative action, for the environment, against Iraq so that one of the Democratic candidate can espouse more gas usage during the upcoming summer months (and talk about obliterating innocents in Iran).

"I find it, frankly, a little offensive that people who don't have to worry about filling up their gas tank or what they buy when they go to the supermarket think it's somehow illegitimate to provide relief for . . . millions and millions of Americans," Clinton indignantly told a town hall meeting in Brownsburg, Ind., on Thursday morning.

If this is the divide that the DNC wants, between the lunch buckets and the elites, between those that care about social issues (and against their economic interests) and those working poor that are working paycheck to paycheck, it has that problem right now and that's not good. I won't even go into the racial or gender elements (suffice to say that my Asian mother has outright said she won't vote for a black man in any election).

[donna darko]

His academic record makes him less electable. The average voter does not relate to the academic elite. Historically, they lose. Stevenson, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry lost.

[Ralph]

Um.. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and he won twice. Gore did win int 2000 but the Supreme Court decided on partisan grounds. Soooo, I don't think that smarts prevents anyone from occupying the White House. And don't kid yourself, Hillary Clinton is smart, she is an intellectual and that's a good thing.

Now for all you Obama haters, I am afraid that Rev. Wright's opinions will NOT seriously hurt Obama's chances at the nomination. I know that you don't want to believe that. But calling him Obama's "Running Mate" sounds kinda desperate to me. The average open minded voter is not going to assume that Obama holds the same opinions as Wright without a shred of evidence. Now, those who will hold it against him would probably never vote for him anyway.

[Juju]

DukeLaw, I would like to point out, we are not hiring at a law firm, we are looking for a president. I am sure what you say about hiring an attorney is true, but how much of that aspect is relevant for the presidency? I do realize you used the phrase, "from a legal perspective", but I think that your point of view in this regard is overly narrow. I would also like to point out that Senator Clinton went to law school in an earlier era than Senator Obama. The attitudes about such things were different. I am the same age as Senator Obama, so I have an idea of what things were like when he went to college and graduate school. They are both impressive people, however, and neither one's achievements should be pooh poohed.

The small regional law firm, of which you write, is actually the most prestigious firm in Little Rock. When President Clinton was the governor of Arkansas, the salary for the governor was only $10,000 a year. The bulk of the Clinton's personal income came from Senator Clinton and her work as an attorney at the Rose Law Firm. She did this while also carrying out the duties of First Lady of Arkansas.

I‘d also like to point out that President Clinton might not have been a governor, or the president without his wife's help. She worked very hard for his achievements.

As for failing the D.C bar exam, Senator Clinton wrote about that in her book, and lawyers fail bar exams all the time. John Kennedy Jr. failed the NY bar exam two times, and people were still talking about the possibility that he should run for the senate. I don't know whether she told friends about her failure, but I didn't realize she was obligated to tell you or anyone else.

I also have to say good for you; you made an A in your gender law class. That doesn't necessarily mean you have any insight to what you were studying.

I also don't recall that Senator Clinton ever blamed the other women for her husband's indiscretions. Perhaps you remember something that I don't.

You have misrepresented, or don't recall what Senator Clinton has said about the gas tax. She has said she wants to suspend the gas tax and get the missing funds for highways and bridges from her proposed windfall profits tax of oil corporations. Will that work? I don't know, I tend to agree with Paul Krugman on this issue. I don't believe Senator Clinton has espoused more gas consumption, just a slightly lower price. Gas will still be expensive even if the price has been lowered by 18 cents.

As far as the Rev. Wright issue goes, I don't care what the man has said; though it does sort of bother me that Senator Obama threw away a long-term friendship over this issue. As Ralph has said, "the average open minded voter is not going to assume that Obama holds the same opinions as Wright. If this is the case, why dump Wright? What does that say about Senator Obama and how he values long-term friendships? What I also want to know is, how does the average open-minded voter differ from the average voter?

[Tom K]

*The small regional law firm, of which you write, is actually the most prestigious firm in Little Rock.*

This seems to me as sensible as correcting someone by saying, "That chilly sensation you refer to is actually coldness."

While it seems clear to me HRC would have had a stellar career in Washington, or anywhere else (failed bar exam being just a small bump in the road), she elected for a career path where her competence would never be tested on its own. Making partner as the G'vnrs wife was not a great achievement, especially as the Rose Law Firm did the State of AK's bond work, which an important source of its revenue.

In fact, she probably would have made partner at far better firms, on her own, had she chosen that path. She chose a more traditional path, which is her right. And I don't hear her rely too much of any supposed achievements in AK -- probably because, as a self-respecting and intelligent person, she knows that it would only diminish her to do so.

Her supporters are right to praise her intelligence (as Obama's are to praise his.) But her "achievements" in AK are no stronger proof of her ability to be President than her "wise investements" in the commodities market are proof of her ability to manage the economy. Winning a rigged game is no achievement to boast of.

[Ralph]

I challenge all of you to look at Abraham Lincoln's experience before being elected President. (Go to Wiki to look at the details.) Here are the highlights:

1) Four terms in the Illinois House of Representatives.
2) Taught himself law and passed the bar.
3) One term in the U.S. House of Representatives.
4) Became a very successful lawyer.
5) Lincoln chosen as the Republican candidate for the 1860 election.

Can we stop this silly line of argument now?

[Mutaman]

"From a legal perspective", as one who has done a little litigatin', it was clear to me after watching the first few debates that I would take my chances with Obama in a courtroom (not agressive enough, not quick on his feet, too nice a guy) whereas if Hilary was my adversay, I'd be talking settlement. For whatever that's worth.

[Tom K]

Mutaman:

Your analysis is spot on from this litigator's perspective. Though I still far prefer Obama, and will likely vote 3d party, I won't let that confuse the fact that both your conclusions and your reasons deserve full agreement.

I might possibly take Obama for an appeal (depending on the issue and the panel), but give me Hillary before a jury every time.

He reeks of reason (that is, considering the possibility that the other side has a point). She, well, doesn't.

[zuzu]

I have been wondering the following for awhile - does the taping of Wright when he made all those crazy comments in the past have anything to do with him actually saying them? Like, lust for the limelight?

He's been taping his sermons for a long time; Obama took them to law school with him. And it's not uncommon for preachers to do such things; centuries ago, popular clergymen would publish volumes of their sermons.

Ralph: Yes, reducing Clinton's experience as simply being married to Bill is sexist. I know you'll never admit that, and you're one of those guys who always thinks that feminists are just looking for things to be outraged about. But this "just a wife" business

DukeLaw: You're sure as hell leaving out a whole lot of relevant legal experience of Clinton's, from her work on the Watergate hearings staff to her work setting up the first rape crisis hotline in Arkansas as well as legal clinics serving women and children, to her work with, inter alia, Legal Services Corp.

His JD was magna cum laude (again very prestigious).

That's nice for him, but it doesn't prove anything vis-a-vis his comparative qualifications to Clinton. Yale Law School abolished grades in the 60s. No class rank, no honors, no GPA. So it's a bit disingenuous to claim that he did better than she did in law school when her school -- which is consistently ranked 1 or 2, just like Harvard -- doesn't grade in the same way.

[zuzu]

But this "just a wife" business

My comment got et.

This "just a wife" business devalues the work that she *did* do as First Lady, both of Arkansas (i.e., bringing microcredit to the state) and of the US (i.e., her work with a variety of women's groups around the world and her speech at the Beijing conference on women.

And before you object that these are fluffy girly issues, they're not. Women make up half the population of the world, and as she said in her speech at Beijing, women's rights are human rights.

[Judith]

zuzu - I was talking about being videotaped with a mike under his nose. Americans get crazy about being famous like that.

[donna darko]

Obama's father attended Harvard graduate school. Obama attended Harvard Law School.

Stevenson's grandfather was 23rd Vice President of the US. His father was a strong contender for the VP nomination in 1928. He went to Princeton and Harvard.

Dukakis' father went to Harvard Medical School. He attended Harvard Law School.

Gore's father was a former US Senator. Gore attended Harvard.

Kerry is related the wealthy Forbes family.

Neither of the Clinton's forbears attended Ivy League schools, were public servants or were descendants of wealthy families. This along with Bill Clinton's lower white class roots make the Clintons more relatable to Americans.

[donna darko]

Yale Law School abolished grades in the 60s. So it's a bit disingenuous to claim that he did better than she did in law school when her school -- which is consistently ranked 1 or 2, just like Harvard -- doesn't grade in the same way.

YLS is consistently ranked number 1. YLS is better than HLS. More of their graduates go into public service and pro bono work.

[Ralph DeMarco]

zuzu - I was being ironic. I was, with heavy hand, responding to the idea that Hillary Clinton's professional resume is superior to Obama's (ie: more qualified to be President). I know Hillary has a stellar background in public service and her commitment to liberal causes is admirable. My point is that it goes both ways. You can't make someone's qualifications suspect and then not open yourself up to scrutiny. You may call it sexist and that's fair. But I was really trying to make a point about what they had accomplished on their own.

There is no doubt that Hillary was a huge asset to Bill Clinton. But make no mistake: she has never had the national approval ratings that Bill Clinton has. Bill is a much more gifted politician than she ever will be. And she made some blunders which cost the Democrats politically. But, I like Hillary. Always have. I would vote for he in a heartbeat if she were the nominee. Not so sure a sexist would say that.