The New Republic

No question that Obama has a media challenge.

- roidubouloi

March 15, 2008 at 12:18pm

because that speech helped Romney so much?

- eweiss

March 15, 2008 at 12:24pm

i'm not suggesting that Romney give obama's speech. i'm suggesting that obama give it...

- Noam Scheiber

March 15, 2008 at 12:48pm

Yeah, except Romney's problem wasn't being a Mormon, it was being a flip flopper without any principles.  No wonder the speech didn't help him.

- Crock1701

March 15, 2008 at 1:10pm

Well said Mr. Schieber.  Having heard Obama speak about his faith, he can address the subject with a sincerity and intensity that no Democrat (or Republican) can match. It is even possible for him to reach people of faith who might not have considered voting for him before. It sometimes takes Obama a little while to "find his voice" on a given subject, and one can already hear him improve on his statements on Jeremiah Wright. A major speech on his faith and the role of faith in America would be an excellent idea. For anyone who heard or read his speech at the Ebeneezer Baptist Chuch in Atlanta knows this to be true.

- daveis

March 15, 2008 at 1:12pm

Yep, a major speech is the perfect way to jujitsu a damaging moment into a positive one.  Lots of Niebuhr/MLK, plus maybe even some JPII and search-for-meaning-and-call-to-public-service.

Heck, I'll offer my services to help write it (if old school ties mean anything).

- timteeter

March 15, 2008 at 2:17pm

the analogy (Romney) was terrible. But the issue is not really Obama's faith (as it was for Romney). It is his close relationship with a man who has said things that will scare the living hell out of reasonable people. The speech will not do anything to assuage those fears. It will only call more attention to the relationship. The more people see of Wright and the more they learn of Obama's relationship with him, the worse it is for him.

- eweiss

March 15, 2008 at 4:20pm

Noam is right, as usual.  Obama should indeed give such a speech; it has to be about not just faith but faith and race.  Obama gave a brief flavor of what the theme of such a speech might be today in Indiana.  He invoked RFK's famous remarks, in Indiana, on the assassination of MLK, Jr.  And he said forces of division have come from all quarters, including from his own former pastor.  

Obama can develop the point further by saying that hearing remarks like Wright's remarks should shock people, but he should add that, rather than allow the shock value of the remarks to send everyone scrambling back to the safety of their respective coccoons, we should use the shock as an opportunity to keep our eyes wide and take notice of the fact that, though difficulties remain, the world of race relations has undeniably changed for the better; and that  the America of a half a century ago when Wright was coming of age is radically different from the America of today.  

Obama can repeat his line that his 2004 convention speech and his candidacy both were based on his judgment that the vast majority of Americans have set aside old prejudices, and that what he has seen and heard from the people in the states he's won and the states he's lost has vindicated his intuition.  If he's willing to take the risk, he can even say that it would be a terrible irony if a campaign that week after week has been proving Wright to be wrong were derailed by Wright's own obtuseness as to the progress that has been made.  

- LDuncan

March 15, 2008 at 5:30pm

Great speech LDuncan.  I hope the Obama campaign is reading your stuff.

- roidubouloi

March 15, 2008 at 6:13pm

I don't understand why Obama didn't talk about his little dog, Checkers.

- ChanRobt

March 16, 2008 at 12:33pm

Because he didn't need to chan.  You simply are not going to get the bang from this that you long for.  C'est domage.

- roidubouloi

March 16, 2008 at 12:39pm

The real problem Obama has with Rev WRight, is that previously Obama had been generally perceived as a man who transcended race.  The Tiger Woods of politics, a hybrid model for the future of America.

But, if Obama and family have been for 20 years attending a church that is very much a black church and headed by a pastor who very much sees the world and America through the prism of white atrocities against the world and against black people, well that just doesn't square with the well honed image.

If I had of a Sunday heard the pastor of my church fulminate against blacks or Jews or Hispanicw, I would never go back.

And, in fact, I had that experience many years ago when the  Episcopal priest heading the church I then attended fulminated against the Catholics and the Catholic church down the street.

I found his outlook so narrow and parochial, I never went back.  That's pretty much what I'd expect of a highly educated man like Obama in this case.  

It's simply hard to credit that he had no idea the Rev Wright held such views as have now been revealed in these videos.

- ChanRobt

March 16, 2008 at 12:40pm

By the way, this entire affair reveals that the Democrats have ended up with two highly flawed candidates.

Dream Team, indeed.

- ChanRobt

March 16, 2008 at 12:41pm

I get such a big laugh out of all these posts that begin, "The real problem .  .  . "  As each version of "the real problem" pops like a soap-bubble, it is necessary to dismiss all those as not "the real problem" and to come up with a new one.  I think we are fast approaching the half-life of this one.

The Republicans, to their credit, ended up with the least bad candidate from a pretty miserable selection.  McCain isn't even close to good enough to save them.  When he opens his mouth on the national, not Republican stage, and nothing comes out, I shall be delighted.  Even the Republicans don't like McCain.  How much worse could it be for them on top of an unpopular war and an economy that is tanking and, given its size, cannot possibly right itself in the next six months?  

The Democrats don't need a Dream Team.  They are running against the Republicans, after all.

- roidubouloi

March 16, 2008 at 12:55pm

Good to know chan that you "would never go back."  Also a good thing that you are not running for president.  Would it surprise you to learn that what you would do in a given situation has no great bearing on the public view of presidential candidates?

You disliked Obama before.  You think you have now found justification that is going to convince a lot of people to your view.  You haven't.  It won't.  You are not even being out of character so your taking offense doesn't carry much weight.  

- roidubouloi

March 16, 2008 at 2:08pm

I hope he doesn't make a "faith speech" - I think the experience of the last 7 years ought to have established the woeful contribution of such speech to our politics.  Surely the demeaning, dishonest pandering by Mitt Romney will discourage further faith speeches from serious candidates.  

This statement by Barack Obama was all I needed to hear.  

Neil

- purcellneil

March 16, 2008 at 3:07pm

Well, roid, your saying something emphatically doesn't make it any more so than my saying something emphatically.

You think this is no big thing with no consequences for Obama.

I think there is a very good chance this will undermine Obama.  Not in a Spitzer like cataclysm.  But, by sowing doubt in the minds of many, particularly the crucial independents and crorssover people, who have believed that Obama was a "new kind of black man" who transcended race.

The irony is, Obama is not an American black in the sense we know it.  He grew up going to an upper class prep school in Honolulu, the son of an AFrican and an academic bohemian woman from Kansas.

He was not from the Bronx or the South Side of Chicago or the Deep South.  Yet, while making himself a very acceptable Ivy League pretty much mainstream type, also went out of his way to associate himself and his entrie family with this firebrand, embittered version of a black church.

Apparently he did it for political reasons to win black votes in Illinois.

If such an association could help him politically with a certain kind of parochial black population, why is it absurd wishful thinking to imagine the same association might alienate a lot of mainstream white voters?

- ChanRobt

March 16, 2008 at 3:34pm

Oh, and to set the record straight, roid, I didn't "dislike" Obama before.  I actually found him to be a likable person.  I just didn't find him to be a credible candidate in terms of his qualifications.

I have to say now that his long attendance at this church and his assertions that the Rev Wright is his most important spiritual advisor and mentor, does materially lower my estimation of him as a person.

Now, you're right.  I'm just one opinion.  But that's what every voter is.  A drop of water that in aggregate has the power of a lake backed up behind a dam.

- ChanRobt

March 16, 2008 at 3:38pm

Yes, we all get one vote chan. But it is of some value to try and distinguish one's analyses about what is happening and is going to happen from one's opinions about what one would like to happen.  

I have no idea whether you "like" Obama.  You have made it clear that you don't have any intention of voting for him.  You also freely mix your own predilections politically with very emphatic statements about what is or is not going to happen politically.  It has often seems to me that you confuse your own political hopes with the political facts.  This, I believe, is one of those cases.  

You didn't "like" Obama as a potential president before.  You like him less now.  I think that you are representative of the group that is going to think this is a big deal.  But now you would like to believe you have an argument that others, who were not already disposed against Obama, will find persuasive.  I don't think so.  No matter how emphatically you say it.

I have no trouble distinguishing those things that can cause problems for Obama, such as Hillary's race-baiting, from those things that I think don't, without regard to my own opinion about who I would like to vote for.

- roidubouloi

March 16, 2008 at 3:55pm

I have stated in these posts, roid, that I believe voters act on cumulative perceptions.  Rarely, except in the case of a dramatic scandal, and sometimes not even then, do they form their opinion on any one element of the "pixels" or mosaic pieces that form an impression.

It is likely that this election, like many recent ones, will be decided by swing voters of various types, from Independents, to moderate or conservative Dems to the old Reagan Democrats in their current form.

I am simply saying that the Wright affair is a pixel at odds with the others Obama has put in place on his behalf.  Most specifically, the idea that he is a man with African heritage (only half) who transcends the old black-white polarity because he is of a different world.  A mainstream American world.

Are you, roid, so much of a partisan that you don't see that this story mitigates in the exact opposite direction of his successfully projected persona?

I don't believe I've maintained here that the WRight affair is the killer app against Obama.  I'm saying it has great potential to plant large seeds of doubt.

Combine that with much more of what is "exotic" about Obama, and you have a potentially deal breaking political problem for Obama.

- ChanRobt

March 16, 2008 at 4:55pm

roidubouloi said:

"The Democrats don't need a Dream Team.  They are running against the Republicans, after all."

Yes, and the Republicans are drawing great comfort from the fact they are running against the Democrats.  Have you checked how well the Democratic controlled Congress has been polling lately?

McCain is no lightweight.  It's not the "Republicans" that are having a problem with McCain - it's the Conservatives.  They've had complete control of the party since 1980, and can't stand the thought that a moderate like McCain is leading the ticket.

Obviously, since Bush is a Republican, and his conduct of the war and economy are both incompetent, McCain is going to suffer from that association.  But it isn't necessarily going to be fatal to him.

- buffaloboy

March 16, 2008 at 8:06pm

No buffalo,

It will not by itself be fatal.  But presidential politics is on a knife-edge in this era.  You have to mobilize your base just to cancel out the other guys base and then win the independents.  McCain is going to have to keep working to hang on to his base and the more he does that, the more he loses independents.  You are in the strongest position when you base is secure and you can take it for granted, pitching yourself to the independents.

Beyond that, McCain will be saddled with associations with Bush, with an unpopular war, and with an economy that shows every prospect of being on the rocks in the fall.  That is not a happy combination for them.  The Democrats don't need a Dream Team, just some good politicians who know how to take advantage of the other side's weaknesses.  Obama certainly qualifies.  Not as clear to me that Hillary does although, the way the economy is going, I  am beginning to think that even Hillary could beat McCain.

McCain also is pretty much one note.  Doesn't know anything about the economy and says so.  His one note is his personal courage while in a NV prison camp.  As soon as he starts speaking about most other things, it is gobbledy-gook.  And he has flip-flopped so much, he no longer enjoys the reputation for integrity that he once had.  Like I said, no Dream Team needed.

- roidubouloi

March 16, 2008 at 9:11pm

I'll probably vote the same way roiduboulot will, but increasingly I feel the way Chan Robt does about Obama's straddle. OTOH, I can understand the immense difficulty-- social more than anything else, though it's intellectual and emotional as well for many-- that afr-amers have concerning assimilation and striving withint the white world while preserving their "blackness", ie unwillingness to subordinate their pride and righteous anger at historic wrongs to the success imperative of Go along to get along.

But there's this massive disconnect between the way Obama is perceived by one group of admirers-- as the post-racial, post-partisan, happy warrior-- and the way he's perceived by his identity-group admirers. I recognize his talents, and certainly it takes great talent to maintain both of these contradictory images at once, but my main concern is with the amount of ENERGY and TIME that this straddle takes up. Where I part company with both of Obama's admiring groups is my view on the importance of the politics of race in America: I simply disagree that race makes the cut as one of the issues that our next president must concern himself with. It is not nearly so important as our financial and f-p challenges. Not even close, IMHO.

A president can only really focus on a few things. What issue has to fall off the top tier of Obama's bandwidth in order to make room for managing the identity-group vs post-racial struggle? Asian collective security? Saving NATO? Rescuing the dollar?

- teplukhin2you

March 17, 2008 at 2:00am

roidubouloi, I do not believe McCain will have to work inordinately hard to keep his base.

They already fear and loath the Clintons.  Now, the more they learn about Obama, particularly now that they've seen and heard his scary "spiritual advisor & mentor" in action, they will have reason to fear the consequences of an Obama presidency.

All the talk of conservatives sitting on their hands come November may have had some credence six weeks ago.  Much less so now.

- ChanRobt

March 17, 2008 at 2:13am

Remember all of Clinton's distractions in his first 2 years-- esp gays in the military and Lani Guinier?

Identity politics takes up huge amounts of bandwidth. We've got more urgent fires to put out now. Two wars going badly, a currency in a nosedive, a financial meltdown, our core western alliance on its deathbed.... I'm not convinced McCain will do much about the financial issues, but I know that he'll work like hell to turn around our faltering wars, give rescuing NATO our best shot, and keep the lid on potential Asian troubles.

With Obama, I have little comfort that he will not be as distracted as Clinton was from Mar '92 to Nov '94. It's a long way to November. If Obama doesn't figure out a way to get identity politics out of sight/out of mind, I suspect many more people than are telling pollsters now are likely to tilt toward McCain. Hell, I might.  

- teplukhin2you

March 17, 2008 at 2:13am

To your point, tepluk, race as an issue--meaning the black white thing-- is going to recede faster and faster as Hispanics increase as a major proportion of the population, eventually equalling the number of whites.

Hispanics could not care a whit about blacks and their history in the United States.  (It's not as if they were treated particularly well in Latin America.)  

Hispanics will have their own concerns about furthering their own fortunes in the U.S.  They will not be wringing their hands about the events ante-bellum or even pre-1964 or post-1964.

When our children come of age, the only people paying attention to ancient black grievances will be black people and old white people.

It is an almost total waste of time continue to obsess on it.  Obama and his wife and many others have shown blacks the way out of their ancient predicament.  Education and hard work.  

Obama was looking like a candidate with few problems until it was revealed that he had involved himself-- at least  to some degree-- in the old polarization politics of black and white.  If only to solidify his black base in Illinois.

- ChanRobt

March 17, 2008 at 2:20am

Well, tep, that is exactly the point of these attacks, first by Hillary, then by whoever is pushing the Wright story -- to make race identity the centerpiece of Obama's campaign.  I think he is keeping his balance and will come through it fine.

Chan, only in your imagination and that of others of like mind Obama has "involved himself" in the old polarization even though his entire career is based on the opposite.  You will tar him with anything that is handy, whether it fits or not.  Hey, that's American politics.  Create a false frame for your opponent and hammer it.  Maybe this will spur the Democratic leadership to usher Hillary offstage a bit faster, Clinton or not, so that the party can turn its attention to McCain.  You don't think he'll have trouble with his base?  Wait until he has to start talking to a larger audience and they start squabbling about what he is saying.

Have you been reading the financial news over the past three days?  Forget McCain.  The way the economy is headed, no Republican can win in November.  I'm not even sure that the Bush administration will survive until November.  Somewhere between now and than, maybe even tomorrow, there is going to be a great, big financial panic and ChimpyBush and Darth Vader will have to be pushed way off the stage by likewise panic-stricken Republican Congressmen and Senators.  I cannot wait to hear McCain addressing our economic problems by insisting that we do more of the same, and the kleptocrat Republicans rebelling if he does anything else.

Not a Republican year Chan.  There's a perfect storm coming.

- roidubouloi

March 17, 2008 at 2:48am

roid, there is plenty to fear in the economic situation.  And it goes well beyond presidential politics.

But, as to your theory that Bush will be impeached for a financial implosion, there is no precedent for it.  Not to mention, it wouldn't be a very wise strategy, either to fight the financial crisis or to fight the Democrats.

- ChanRobt

March 17, 2008 at 11:25am

Via Ben Smith , I see that Obama's going to give a big speech on race tomorrow. Here's what Obama

- Anonymous

March 17, 2008 at 2:14pm

roid, backing up my strong conjectures in this thread, "...Most worrisome for Obama, 56 percent of the respondents in the same Rasmussen poll said they're less likely to vote for Obama because of Wright."

This comes from a new blog right here at TNR.  

It's only March.  A lot can and will happen between now and November, and this Wright thin g may well be dwarfed by other troubles for any and all of the three candidates.

But, I don't believe the Wright affair is a negligible thing and will add to the liability side of the Obama ledger.

- ChanRobt

March 17, 2008 at 3:04pm

Chan,

I don't think that Bush would literally be impeached over an economic meltdown, but he might find terrified Republicans joining with Democrats to pass veto-proof legislation that completely marginalizes him.  We'll see how bad it gets.  But in the age of modern media, you cannot have an extended period where the government does not appear to be responding effectively to a crisis.  This ain't your grandpappy's recession.

I don't believe that in the end Wright is going to hurt Obama more than Gennifer Flowers, "I didin't inhale," or draft-dodging hurt Bill.  There will surely be some who would never have voted for Obama anyway who will find it convenient to cite Wright as the reason.  There are already quite a few of them here in these blogs.

- roidubouloi

March 18, 2008 at 9:30am