Christopher Hitchens gets to a question I've been mulling for a while but really hasn't received much discussion: what role did Michelle Obama play in the family's twenty-year history of absorbing Jeremiah Wright?
Let's be honest: it's not an uncommon thing for one spouse to heavily influence a family's church selection. If Michelle Obama was the driving force for staying at the church it would square the dichotomy between Obama's stated view of the world with his decision to listen to (or perhaps suffer through) Wright's rants.
This is just a theory, but it's entirely possible Barack was indeed indebted to Wright for serving as a catalyst for his spiritual growth and awakening. At the same time, he may have seen Wright's faults yet stuck around at Trinity United more because of his wife's comfort zone than his own. Such a circumstance would be understandable, even if not defendable.
That would explain the dichotomy. And it would explain why Obama still doesn't have a good answer for this whole situation (it's not as if he would want to throw his wife under the bus if this possible theory is true).
Honestly, few church-going folks buy that Wright's bizarre views are a recent surprise to Obama. Thus, either he's a not being honest - not a redeeming quality for a Presidential candidate - or his wife, with her now established history of having a oddly negative view of life, is the root of his long-term choice of churches.
That would get Obama off the hook. But, it would mean embracing that his wife preferred attending a church run by what many Americans consider to be a nutjob. Pick your poison.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 05, 2008 09:49 PM | Email ThisObama is about to learn the hard way just how true the following adage is:
"Show me your friends, and I'll show you your future"
I say take the muzzle off of Michelle O. and just see how rabid she truly is......I saw it on the 60 minutes interview several months back. Obama's wife is a hater, his pastor's a hater and his friend Ayers is Terrorist/Hater.......tell us Senator, with all that hate in your life, how can you present yourself as an agent of "hope for America"?
Bottom line: YOU CAN'T
Posted by: Rick D. on May 5, 2008 09:59 PMYou keep bringing it up, yet no mention of Hillary's defense work for 60's radicals. You don't mention the fact that out of law school she went to work for a SF firm defending the Black Panthers and who have two partners that were members of the communist party. Quite the double standard there, Rick.
Posted by: tc on May 5, 2008 10:10 PMYou're deflecting. Tired old liberal dance step. The question remains to be answered, by you. Well?
Posted by: barrackslawyer on May 5, 2008 10:40 PMAs for Obama being a Muslim...that can't possible be true. Afterall, he's an avid lover of "pork" as we've found out.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 5, 2008 11:00 PMAuthor of the above piece heard Ms. Obama give the same speech four times, and noted tht the content was ''admirably consistent''; i.e.: This was not a one-time slip-of-the-tongue.
Here is the key parapgraph from that long article:
''Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we're a divided country, we're a country that is ''just downright mean'', we are ''guided by fear'', we're a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. ''We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,'' she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. ''Folks are just jammed up, and it's gotten worse over my lifetime.''''
While the above is not even close to the wild and weird ''hate America'' rantings of Rev. Wright that have been all over the airwaves recently, somehow it's not much of a leap to think that Ms. Obama might not feel uncomfortable sitting in the pew listening to Wright; i.e.:
Things are bad; they're getting worse; somebody is to blame; and somebody has to pay.....
Even if Senator Obama does not share the opinions of either Wright or his wife in this case, what IS clear is that he has been comfortable with both of them for a very long time....
Maybe I need to expand my previous acronym about Senator Obama's problem; i.e.:
WARFM instead of just WARF:
Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Farrakhan, and Michelle.
.... and I say the above as someone who thought same as Michele @ #3: I thought Michelle Obama would be an asset to her husband's campaign. Much less so now: I can't think of even one person out of the several 100 that I know reasonably well, who would even think of saying that America is ''just downright mean''.
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 5, 2008 11:28 PMeverything in totality to date about these two can't be a series of random, coincidental, unconnected foibles & quirks;
or those double-image drawings; step back & see 2 things; the MSM is great at focusing many on the particular dots or close-up to the drawing; rarely do they have us step back for the entire effect;
my new slogan: "It's the dots, stupid!"
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on May 6, 2008 05:55 AMDidn't she also say how hard it was paying for their daughter's swimming lessions or something like that?? I find that hard to believe when you look at what she was making.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 6, 2008 06:19 AMHoward Dean did a rotten, totally rotten job of vetting Obama. Eric hit the two scenarios on how to perceive Obama. Taking the least offensive point, how can anyone want someone as president who has a wife with the views she has?
Did someone say Ayers? What about Rezko? He is the worst of the three- when you add in Wright.
And no one has really explained what the job description of 'citizen organizer' entails.
Posted by: swatter on May 6, 2008 07:11 AMPosted by: ROCKETMAN on May 6, 2008 07:12 AM
Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.
It's an unusual stance for a presidential candidate. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 6, 2008 07:12 AMSo, what you are saying is if Hillary was a front runner, you would be hitting her with her legitimate past associations instead of hitting Obama with some meaningless and trivial fundraiser question and community board question. The fundraiser at least as a bit of legitimacy. The board issue is a total red herring. The board was a cross section of community members, not some far left, radical association. The real question may be why the board asked Ayers to serve on it. One might ask the bankers and other high profile community members that served on the board their opinion of why Ayers served on the board.
With regards to the wife issue that Eric brought up, I wasn't ready to answer last night. I had to think about it a little. I do think Eric might have a legitimate point on this subject. Michelle would have been more involved with the church these past few years, since Obama was commuting back and forth to DC the past few years, and before that he was commuting back and forth to Springfield. His past comments about not being in church on the Sundays the sermons were preached, fit with the fact that he was away from his home a lot due to his legislature and Senator responsibilities. I am not sure what Illinois legislature season is like, but I assume it isn't like Washington's. I know Wisconsin's legislature wasn't this part-time and ton of special sessions crap that Washington State has. Now do they need to be full-time? No, especially since they don't get that much done in their current seasons.
Wives do have an influence over a family's spiritual practice, unfortunately, since so many men abandon their spiritual duty. I don't know, however, because the Obama's have kept their private life private, how much Michelle's involvement has been with the church. For this reason, while Eric's premise is a valid one, I wouldn't necessarily agree it as being supported.
Posted by: tc on May 6, 2008 07:22 AMIn order to have the ego necessary to be in politics, it really equates to, its all about me. I think spouses, children, and pets cope the best way they can. There seems to be a lot of family collateral damage in both parties. I know they send the family out there, but many of these comments are out there as well.
Posted by: WVH on May 6, 2008 08:07 AMYou sure you want to go down that road, WVH? Seems that Mr. Obama had his own problem with drug abuse. Since Cindy McCain isn't on the ballot and Obama is, I think people would be more interested in his drug abuse than hers.
"...In his (Obama's)first book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/24/news/dems.php
It's pick your poison with Obama.....bad decisions have defined his life. Drug use, associations with haters (Wright,Michelle O), associations with racists (Farrakhan),associations with Criminals (Rezko,AAAN), associations with domestic terrorists (Ayers, Dohrn). This man is not ready for prime time.
That being said, I hope he is the Dem nominee...it will be a landslide victory for McCain in November if he is.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 6, 2008 08:23 AMShe made those comments to a group of factory workers in Ohio. She also basically said that if Barack hadn't hadn't made the millions from those books, she didn't know how they would have been able to make it financially with how expensive everything is.
They galling thing is that if not for those books, their combined income before he was elected to the U.S. Senate was between $250k-$500k a year. She was complaining about how hard it was to live on almost a half million a year to a bunch of factory workers probably making $15/hr. The woman isn't only a whiner with a lousy outlook on life, but she's absolutely clueless as well.
Which brings up a good question... if his family would have trouble living on nearly a half million a year, how is he going to handle the national budget?
Posted by: Mike H. on May 6, 2008 09:23 AMOf course you don't. Neither you nor any other Obama supporter are going to allow any issue to dissuade you.
That, of course, is why you're engaging in deflection on this issue.
MO is someone who despises her country. She's a classic self-victimizer. She hates this country and how badly she's been oppressed here, even though 95% of America would love to be as "oppressed" as anyone that's a Harvard-Princeton grad making $300K+ per year.
What would the leftist reaction be if she had come out and talked about the greatness of America, a country that has provided her with the freedom (that she has done what, now to earn?) to become an extremely well-educated and well paid black woman?
How would that fit into character? How would her fellow travelers at moveon, Kos, Huffington and, more importantly, Hamas, view those kinds of sentiments?
The problem here is that she sold herself out to help nail down the fringe left (which was after all, her job) but in so doing, she alienated the mainstream and independents.
Barry O recognizes what a damaging force she is: have you seen much footage of her alone, lately?
In fact, one of the huge problems the left has is their CONSTANT bitching, whining and moaning over how this country, the country that protects them and allows them the freedom to abuse their home, never does ANYTHING right; about how the view of this country by every fringe and terrorist element around the planet is absolutely, 100% accurate; and that anyone who disagrees with that view is completely ignorant... to put it mildly and compared to most characterizations the left uses to label those wise enough to disagree. All in the name of diversity, you understand.
Clearly, racism is at play here. Blacks will vote for him entirely because of his skin color, a form of racism not only tolerated, but encouraged in the black community. Vote AGAINST him because of his color, and you'd be savaged from the highest mountain top. (The WRIGHT kind of racism is perfectly OK. The wrong kind will not be tolerated.) His defenders of the progressive ilk will not look past his color and his ultra-leftist positions. They will never seriously look at how he will attempt to do what he claims, they will never look at the despicable image of this country his wife has and will continue to portray.
They don't care, because they want Barack HUSSEIN Obama to become the president so he can PUNISH anyone that doesn't share their view.
It's PAY BACK time, boys and girls. There's gonna be a new sheriff in town, and BO is his name.
Except BO has about as much chance of wining the general as Duffer and Wiz have of facing political reality: in short, none.
Posted by: hinton on May 6, 2008 09:26 AMWright/Hagee are not the ones running the country (thank god), making the budget, selecting Supreme Court justices, proposing & implementing public policy, and ordering military action abroad. These things are dictated by the President and staff, not by the religious folks they associate with. They may turn to them for spiritual guidance (Billy Graham seems to have a knack for that) but in the end it's the PUSA who makes the end decision.
Guilt by association does not win wars (or help our troops), public policy as dictated by the President and Congress does.
Bring on gender, skin color, kiddies, pastors, and any other identifier so that they can finally decide who's "more liberal than thou."
Sorry, I meant blue collar, working class, progressive.
Posted by: Camille on May 6, 2008 09:46 AMIsrael is an American/European ally and have bought numerous advanced weapons systems from us and are likely a nuclear power. They we're attacked from all sides in 1967 and yet managed to fight back and even grab hold of vast swaths of enemy territory.
I support Israel and the right for them to defend themselves. I have no doubt America and Europe would eagerly jump in if another such war occurred. Despite what my rabbi claims I personally don't believe that Israel is a defenseless country. Does that make my character flawed as well? Doubt it, just another weak straw man argument by people who would not be voting for any candidate the Democrats put forth.
Yup. Just look at what Gladys Knight said at a Michelle Obama rally in Asheville,NC last friday.
Before Obama's speech, singer Gladys Knight gave a rousing rendition of "America the Beautiful," her voice echoing across the campus.
"Never did I dream in my lifetime I would be able to campaign for a presidential candidate and first lady that look like me," Knight said. "America is ready for this. It's time for a change." *
What an informed voter she is right? It proves that racial identity politics is at play rather than the substantive issues that I hear the Obamaphiles squealing that aren't getting addressed in this campaign.
*-http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880502177
Posted by: Rick D. on May 6, 2008 10:09 AMHe doesn't like my country. Many of his supporters don't either. Why am I being asked to prove this when it is they who say it all the time? Just listen to them.
Is there *any* personal association he could have chosen that would disqualify him in your eyes? Any at all?
Posted by: Gary on May 6, 2008 10:15 AMhttp://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,354203,00.html
Posted by: thehim on May 6, 2008 10:48 AMFirst, let me emphasize that I have a great deal of respect for both Mrs. Mc Cain and Mrs. Obama, both are smart accomplished women. Mrs. Obama's comments would not play well at the sound events on the left side of the page, but, I hate to stereotype, you could probably hear similiar comments at a dem or progressive fundraiser. She wasn't playing to this audience.
Mrs. Mc Cain's drug useage came about because of the failure of medical pain management. Many people who have operations experience this difficulty. Regarding Senator Obama's admitted drug usage, I bet that some of the folks here in their wilder youth might have experimented with many substances which they moved beyond. Senator Mc Cain is of a different generation, so the comparison is not relevant.
I don't know the name of the first candidate who drug a spouse onto the stage, but we aren't electing either spouse. The styles of a potential spouse may be interesting, but I don't look to them for policy. A couple of posters here have indicated that they reside in split decision households where one is labeled conservative and the other liberal, whatever that means. By all accounts they folks have managed not to kill their partner and hold on to THEIR beliefs. I suspect it is the same in the candidates' households.
Posted by: WVH on May 6, 2008 12:00 PMThe point about his wife, is that she echoes all of the other people around him who hate the country. Is he the only member the circle of people he *chose* to hang out with who doesn't hate his country? Why can't we judge him by his associations? I certainly do.
Posted by: Gary on May 6, 2008 12:18 PMRootball, that may sound intelligent, but since all politicians lie, how can you vote intelligently? You have to have some other basis.
Posted by: swatter on May 6, 2008 12:47 PMHmmm, Lets see. Who had easier to access to drugs?
John McCain ,a very young man in the 1960's when the drug culture was the norm rather than the exception or Barack Obama, who was of the "say no to drugs" and DARE program generation.
Apparently, young McCain had a much stronger will than young Obama when it came to eschewing the drug culture.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 6, 2008 01:34 PMHeck, all the kids I knew who went through the DARE program were much better informed about which drugs did what so they avoided many of the harder ones when they were in HS.
The DARE kids from my brothers Elementary school went on to HS and smoked Pot, dropped Acid and occasionally dabbled in cocaine. I'd say it was around 95% of them smoked pot at one time or another. Now some of them are lawyers, architects, and one even worked as a staffer for a prominent 8th Dist. GOP politician.
Wasn't he at Harvard in "83?
Maybe his message should be that if those fine social engineering programs were in place when he was in grade school, he wouldn't have had to experiment with drugs--he'd have known which ones to use because he'd have been educated about them.
Posted by: Camille on May 6, 2008 02:42 PMI seem to recall Dubya admitting he did drugs and the GOP still rallied around him and his elitist family. At least Sen. Obama has the common sense not to drink and drive like our current Pres. & VP.
When in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Posted by: Rick D on May 6, 2008 03:44 PMhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/20talk.html
Posted by: Mike H. on May 6, 2008 04:15 PM"I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."
Being the same age as Obama, I can say that the late 70's was every bit the sixties and more, with regards to drugs. I didn't partake, but even in the Midwest, the Friday night keggers and parties in farm fields had plenty of pot present. This was before the big crack down of Nancy Reagon's Just Say No campaign. I would say that probably 60-75% of a High School class had tried drugs during this period, with 20-25% being regular users. For alcohol, this was Wisconsin with drinking age of 18 and a tavern on every country road intersection. The percentage there was probably 80-95% had tried alcohol in high school. Wisconsin was so famous, it made references in a few SNL alumni movies, like the line in Stripes where Bill Murray states "slipping into Czechoslovakia is as slipping into Wisconsin." This was a reference to the common border hopping. Obama grew up in Hawaii, which I sure had its own teenage culture. Almost all the bands of the late seventies were famous for their partying. So, to fault Obama for drug use in the late seventies is to fault a generation. There isn't any evidence however, that Obama carried the teenage habit into adulthood. People need to get over adolescent behavior. We all made mistakes when adolescents. It is part of growing to be an individual. The key is to learn and grow from the mistakes.
Posted by: tc on May 6, 2008 04:34 PMTell that to Jim West and Richard Curtis...they should not have admited to being gay because darnit some Spokane kids may become gay now. Just think how many gay kids there will be in Spokane now that they know that their politicians were gay.
"Hmmm, Lets see. Who had easier to access to drugs?
John McCain ,a very young man in the 1960's when the drug culture was the norm rather than the exception or Barack Obama, who was of the "say no to drugs" and DARE program generation."
For the record, this is Senator Mc Cain's biography:
QUICK FACTS
Born: August 29, 1936 (Panama Canal Zone)
Lives in: Phoenix, AZ
Zodiac Sign: Virgo
Height: 5' 7" (1.7 m)
Family: wife Cindy, 4 sons Douglas, Andrew, John IV, and James and 3 daughters Sidney, Meghan, and Bridget
Parents: Admiral John Sydney McCain, Jr. (from Indiana) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (from Oklahoma)
Religion: Episcopalian
Education:
Graduated: United States Naval Academy (1958)
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9542249
He entered the Naval Academy in 1954 and was in high school from 1951-1954 at Episopal High school of Virginia.
Clearly, he is of a different generation. Unless he was hanging around with Alan Ginesberg and Jack Kerouac of the 50s "Beat Generation" he probably did not have the same pressures to experiment with drugs. See, this paper:
0 items in My Clipboard | Add record to My Clipboard
Result Details
Full-Text Availability Options:
Not available from ERIC
Click on any of the links below to perform a new search
ERIC #: EJ037488
Title: Drug Usage and Attitude Toward Drugs Among College Students
Authors: Cross, Herbert J.; Keir, Richard G.
Descriptors: Antisocial Behavior; College Students; Drug Abuse; Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; Marihuana; Student Attitudes
Source: Transaction, 8, 9/10, 9-15, Jul/Aug 71
Peer-Reviewed: N/A
Publisher: N/A
Publication Date: 1971-00-00
Pages: N/A
Pub Types: N/A
Abstract: Results of the data presented suggest that there is considerable experimentation among college students with illegal drugs, especially marijuana. Their attitudes toward other drugs still seems cautious. Marijuana, however, seems-to be accepted and generally positively evaluated. (Author)
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
Note the date, 1971.
Sorry, WVH......The excuse train isn't running on schedule today. Keep your boarding pass close to your person though.
"Hmmm, Lets see. Who had easier to access to drugs?
John McCain ,a very young man in the 1960's when the drug culture was the norm rather than the exception or Barack Obama, who was of the "say no to drugs" and DARE program generation."
At that point, he was a commissioned officer in the military. He is of a different generation.
Now regarding the academic article, any response? Thought so. Facts are not excuses, they are facts.
For your crowd, the phrase isn't got milk, it's got a clue?
Now, this is what Ms. Rand, that very, very, very interesting lady said about truth:
The truth or falsehood of all of man's conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions.
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 65.
Now this is what Ms. Rand, that very, very, very interesting lady thought about her ideas:
"But Ayn Rand's propaganda -- and she insisted her ideology was propaganda"
Walker, The Ayn Rand cult. p. 288.
So, Rickie, it is the propoganda cult giving excuses.
Not a different generation, just a stronger willed person.
Game, Set, Match...
Cheers!
Posted by: Rick D. on May 8, 2008 12:07 PM