Bear with me. Or don’t.

When I started out in AA, I did a lot of listening, both to speakers at meetings, and to my sponsor. My sponsor seemed to assume that I needed to hear him talk more than he needed to hear me talk, and I assumed he was right. A lot of times, he’d tell me stories about different old-timers in the program, some of whom were legends in our fellowship, many of whom he had known personally. Some of these people had outsized egos; almost all were idiosyncratic in some way or other. Often times, my sponsor would conclude his stories with words something like: “Some people didn’t like some of the things he did (or said), but he helped a lot of people.” I came to see “helping people” as kind of a gold standard within AA, and even in life.

Since I was both an alcoholic and a crack addict, I tended to hit a lot of meetings that I knew were attended by people like me. Living in the city, sometimes I was the only white person in the room. I meant Toby at a meeting like that. He was a seventy-something African-American. He was always friendly to everyone. However, some of his comments, while not quite at the level of Jeremiah Wright’s sound bites, could sound pretty racist. I even occasionally heard other black folks call him out on something he'd said, or on his language, but he was unapologetic. He didn’t see anything wrong with the things he was saying. It never really bothered me—he was always friendly to me, and I felt his comments reflected his experience generally. I never heard him say anything to me or anyone else that was meant personally.

I started to notice something as I continued to attend meetings. Many, many times, as I listened to people with a few years in the program tell their stories, they mentioned Toby as the guy who had first come to see them, whether at a treatment center, in jail, or at home because of a 12-step call. There was no question about it; Toby had helped a lot of people.

When my turn came to chair meetings and invite speakers, Toby was one of the people that I asked to speak for me. When I called his name, he began to get up and come to the podium. “Here’s Toby”, I said. “He’s helped a lot of people.” He was almost startled—he shot me a quick, penetrating look. Not sure why; that wasn't news to most of the people in the room. He told his story as he had on many other occasions.

He had always been pleasant to me, but from then on, he greeted me warmly, and made a point of asking about me and my family. He died about five years later. His funeral was very well-attended—just as you would expect for someone who had helped so many people.

I might not have voted for Toby for president. But the fact that someone else knew and liked him would have been, for me, a positive about them, not a negative.

I’m not going to vote for Obama—I like him third best of the available choices. I’m just enjoying an election where the top three out of all the candidates from both parties are the ones still in contention. If anyone but McCain had won the Republican nomination and Obama were the Democrat nominee, I’d have voted for Obama without hesitation.

The one thing I’m sure about is that Jeremiah Wright never has been, and never would be, a factor in my decision.

it is axiomatic that "obsessions" are irrational and counterproductive. Since you already deem the Wright Stuff immaterial to Obama's nature and qualifications, it's hardly akin to "Japan Surrenders" for you to announce we should all "move on".

The continued significance of the Wright Stuff is that Obama is either astonishingly deficient in discernment and judgement (unlike his wife, who seems to have inculcated much of Wright's resentful, race-solidarity worldview), or, as Wright suggests, that Obama's just another Janus-faced politician holding wet finger in the air, willing to turn his back on long-standing but now inconvenient ideological alliances---in public, at least. I lean to the latter---if not for Internet video, Wright would remain an advisor to Obama's campaign, and a likely component of an Obama administration along with similar ersatz "civil rights" figures.

Are we really expected to believe that were Obama cruising to the nomination, with Wright never much of a story to begin with, as he and his mainstream media flacks wished all along, that if someone had happened to show him the key Wright texts privately, Obama would nonetheless have called Wright into his office for an explanation, then denounced him Immediately and Publicly in Surprised Shock? I think not. They tried to bluff him through all along, and now the cries of "shame" directed against Wright from Obama supporters are not because of his worldview, but because Wright impolitically declined to help Obama finesse his ideological allegiances and socio-political obligations until safely after the election.

What is the major difference between Rev. Wright and Rev. Hagge? Both have said some pretty disgusting things, especially Rev. Hagge.

So why is Rev. Wright a 2 month story and Rev. Hagge a 2 day story?

Obama has denounced the things Rev. Wright has said plus there is no endorsement. McCain has fully accepted Rev. Hagge's endorsement. So what gives?

Ah, a white man's lens is being focused on both cases and that pretty much explains the different reaction to the two cases. Obama simply isn't white enough to be acceptable when viewed by the white man's lens whereas the Rev. Hagge is.

Said another way, this is Obama's Willie Horton moment. Nothing more, nothing less. Soft racism clouds the white man's lens. America is relearning what level of racism is tolerable and the answer appears to be that it is still quite a bit of racism is acceptable to this very day.

"The continued significance of the Wright Stuff is that Obama is either astonishingly deficient in discernment and judgement (unlike his wife, who seems to have inculcated much of Wright's resentful, race-solidarity worldview), or, as Wright suggests, that Obama's just another Janus-faced politician holding wet finger in the air, willing to turn his back on long-standing but now inconvenient ideological alliances---in public, at least. I lean to the latter---if not for Internet video, Wright would remain an advisor to Obama's campaign, and a likely component of an Obama administration along with similar ersatz "civil rights" figures."

I don't see it that way at all. (Still not Japan surrenders, I know). I think that there are times in our lives when we are able to see the good in people, and can look past their flaws and appreciate the good that they do, especially if those people are providing needed help through a rough spot in our own lives. I also find credible Obama's distancing himself from Wright now. People grow, but it still takes a lot to publicly separate yourself from someone to whom you owe a personal debt.

I don't think any of that means Wright was going to (would) be a significant policy influence in an Obama administration.

You're right that I think it's high time we move on to discussions of what kind of policies our candidates would attempt to implement, whether those policies would be successful, and the probability that the candidates would be able to implement them.

however you nailed it...

In all of this I still believe that Obama did something that was very difficult for him. Either that or an Osacar is in order.

jo

“Here’s Toby”, I said.

You can't call a Black man Toby. That's a racist term, didn't you see Roots?

Jack

but I'm not the one who named him. Given his age, it's a safe bet that his mother hadn't seen Roots.

I don't think it can be racist to call somebody the name by which they introduce themselves. Do you?

progressives' analogy to the likes of Hagee, Falwell, and Robertson. Even if you win the argument, what are your parting gifts? Equivalency of Wright with Falwell et al, except this time a far cloder and longer-term relationship? Congrats, you win the Pyrrhic Trophy. Praytell, were you this sanguine about the influence of Falwell and Robertson back in the day? Dobson and Hagee today? The same Obama/Wright apologists who today bemoan "guilt by association" had no scruples about casting Pat Buchanan, e.g., as osmosis coordinator of "extreme" right-wing groupthink, with Oklahoma City the backdrop. Remember the phrase "deep ties", uttered darkly, in connection with conservatives? Now Wright comes as an equal by your own admission---actually, more than an equal, given that until a few minutes ago he was Obama's mentor and spiritual advisor---and you want to talk context when I read a shocking percentage of blacks actually believe the white government is poisoning them with crack and HIV.

Your closing words reveal why Obama gets a pass---because Wright gets a pass---because they are black---and because of slavery. Yes, nobody knows the troubles they've seen. No one (white). No argument. But are future attempts at reconciliation to be based on socio-political integration, or on angry resegregation? If the latter is justified, in your view, just say so. And let Obama explain himself on the subject. Didn't he share many of Wright's views for years? Which ones, and why? What's changed from a few minutes ago? Let's hear Obama explain HOW Wright is wrong, specifically, factually, morally, not just "I deplore what Wright said". Already the copies of his Second Gettysburg Address in Philadelphia are being used for scratchpaper---let's have us a Third.

of Olbermann and Matthews---what difference does Wright make for real issues and policies, aside perhaps from a small potential blot on Obama's "judgement"? First off, it's not a small blot, if in fact Obama never shared Wright's black liberation theology views. More likely he did, and still does to an unknown extent. But to the point you raise. The "Black Value System" credo praisefully and explicitly adopted by Wright and Obama's church---years ago---but for some reason unexplored in detail by the mainstream media, has frightening and specific implications across a wide range of domestic and foreign policy questions, from the definition and rejection of "black middleclassness", to a conception of American society at home and iits place in the world.

Why hasn't Obama been asked about each bullet point of that credo, the explicit long-term socio-political template of Obama's church of twenty years? What about black liberation theology, and its proto-Marxist views of capitalism and America the nation-state? May be some policy implications there. There's always the general election campaign.

so to sum up . . .

if you're a white republican, you can't belong to an all-white country club (like ashcroft)

but if you belong to an all black church where the pastor screams his racist hateful views from the pulpit week after week, its no big deal?

gotcha!

the double standard comes in waaaaay handy. i keep forgetting there are separate rules of behavior.

John McCain did not sit in Hagee's church for 20 years and call Hagee his mentor. Hagee did not marry McCain and his wife and did not baptise their children.

Also, Hagee expresses an opinion on how scripture addresses the issue of homosexuality. Hagee has not sprewed Anti-America sentiment and espoused hatred for those of other races.

But you didn't need me to tell you that. You know what the fucking difference is. If you don't then I was wrong about you and you are no better than the Leftists pogues on this board, who purposely lie for expediency.

Jack

Two excellent posts in a row, IB and you summed it up quite well.

Jack

but your example isn't one.

Obama's church doesn't exclude white people. It also, unless there is more that we haven't heard, advocate specific policies or take actions that harm any particular group of people.

None of this makes Wright right. It just doesn't add up to think that Obama shares Wright's extreme views.

not_abel wrote the following post at 04/30/2008 3:36 PM: but I'm not the one who named him. Given his age, it's a safe bet that his mother hadn't seen Roots.I don't think it can be racist to call somebody the name by which they introduce themselves. Do you?

It was a joke.

Jack