A man's religious conviction is a very large and a very telling part of his character. This particular effect is magnified when that embrace comes after the age of reason indicating a conscious choice based on the particulars rather than a family inheritance which could be attributed more to habit or tradition. I also think that Obama is dead wrong about the Public curiosity level concerning his former Pastor.

Mentors, like anyone else are people and they can change. Their message can change, their personalities can change, their focus can change. Change is what we are asked to consider in the case of Jeremiah Wright and his philosophical ward Barak Obama. ( Let me pause here to say that I am not retracting this )

We witnessed a painful and public separation of man and mentor several days ago in front of a national audience. The words were words of disappointment and of disillusionment. Barak Obama is going to a place where his mentor's teachings are not welcomed. The question here is whether or not these things are actually news to Obama or if they were details that he simply hoped would never come to light.

It seems highly unlikely, since we do not hear any corroborating voices, that Jeremiah Wright has made any substantive changes to his ministerial message over the years that Obama has known him and listened to him although it certainly is not impossible. It leaves Obama with the unfortunate dilemma of saying either that he was clueless for twenty years or that he never thought of Wright's message as harmful until he realized what it might cost him.

Somewhere in a back room of the Obama camp surrounded by Lattes and political pamphlets during desperate strategy session his advisers no doubt came up with the plan that ""Jeremiah Wright is a changed man that I no longer recognize.""

Some people can spill wine on the king's white robes and come out of it with a Knighthood. Obama seems to be one of these although it must be said that he has currently been placed in a position that will cause him some kind of loss. His only choices here are between loss and loss..there simply is no gain to be had for him in the short run from these things and this situation. This is no doubt what prompted ( what must have been a tortured decision ) him to reinforce his message of separation from Wright publicly and in no uncertain terms. With a view to the end game here however he may have hit another home run with a larger audience even as he alienates a lesser one, all of that remains yet to be seen.

Despite the public outcry of foul...it simply is not either wrong or unfounded to examine a man's character based on a longtime association with someone who he as held in high esteem. To say this or even to suggest it is less than honest. That is not to say that it is the only thing considered and indeed Obama may be showing signs of being able to successfully separate himself from these things with a measure of impunity. What will it cost him? I don't think anyone knows that right now.

proof that you know what you're talking about.

It's an interesting (and I think accurate) point that a religious conversion during adulthood carries more weight in terms of predicting his behavior than would a faith mainly received as an inheritance of culture. And you are right that his choice of mentor can be revealing in terms of character in some respects. But coming to faith as an adult, choosing as an adult to listen to one mentor over others, also means being able to look at both with more nuance than would be expected from an adolescent or child. As a pediatric resident, I worked under doctors who were frequently, to be blunt, assholes to patients and co-workers. They modeled behaviors that I quite specifically noted as examples of how not to behave as a professional. But quite frequently, the biggest assholes were also the ones who were the most skilled at their art, and I saw no difficulty in learning from this while intentionally avoiding their personality defects.

Granted, faith is a different animal entirely from the workplace example cited above, but the principle holds. Reasoning adults are capable of holding nuanced judgments of each other, particularly so when the person one is assessing has given reason for it by previous service. I do not find it at all difficult to imagine Obama in shoes similar to the ones I wore several years ago, emulating the better aspects of a man who was skilled at his art, while leaving aside his less desirable beliefs and traits. It is the sort of nuanced judgment that an adult uses to make allowances for human failings in those who have in other areas proven themselves worthy of respect.

The kind of nuanced judgment that allows a woman to stay married to a serial philanderer because she sees his political and intellectual skills and appreciates how many doors his name opens for her.

i remember talking to a few people about the candidates. and it came up quite often that people couldn't respect hillary clinton for her decision to stay with her husband. (the reasoning seemed to go: by staying with bill, she lacks self-respect; and if she doesn't respect herself, how am i supposed to respect her?)

this surprised me. i'm not sure why this particular line of reasoning didn't resonate with me (i.e., her relationship to her husband had never bothered me at all).

i guess i wonder, if not for her support for the war (which is an automatic disqualifier for me), would i have looked to find other reasons (such as staying with bill) to reject her?

I have no arguments with any of this post...in fact it has helped me to clarify a few of my own questions on this matter.

well done...

jo

I personally don't see any problem with her staying with Bill. Even if their marriage does not conform to the traditional standards of the term, there was certainly enough mutual respect and political advantage to keep him on board (there was a very good article about a month or so ago, I think in Time, about their odd but seemingly very genuine partnership). I was just using her as an example to point out that adults can tolerate failings in those who are close to them much more easily than in strangers. And to point out that Clinton supporters don't really have too much room to talk about "choosing one's associates."

I love and respect lots of people. I have learned from any number of very intelligent folks. I'm not responsible for every dumbass thing every one of them says for the rest of my life--or theirs. If that's your standard, I don't think it'll be too hard to find a picture of McCain snuggling up to some shithead or another.

Hi, justoffal. I agree with your premise and further agree that Obama's long-time relationship with Wright is problemsome. It ought to be for even the most ardent Obama supporter, if not necessarily damning to them.

On the same basic, however, I have to look at Hillary Clinton's long-standing relationships, starting, quite frankly, with her husband. Clinton supporters tend to roll their eyes when this subject is broached in regard to their candidate, dismissing it as "old news."

It is quite true that the newness of the Wright scandal may give Republican attacks additional wallop versus those associated with the Clintons. However, I don't think that excuses them from consideration if the subject is character instead of the apparently all-consuming notion of "electablity."

Good post.

what's "problemsome" about wright?

The last time we elected a president based on "character," we got Dubya. Seems to me we ought to be basing our choices on the exact opposite of whatever we used last time. I think perhaps we should pick a president who at least says they are going to do things we might think are good ideas, rather than basing our choice on who was fucking whom, or who had a preacher who said something stupid.

. . . but for me, ALL ideological mentors and compatriots are compromises, in a sense. And that compromise becomes untenable when the quirks and tangents that I had been willing to accept blossom into something uncomfortably close to the primary mission of said ally.

When it comes to the ideologies to which I hew, there's always some explaining to do. To claim discipleship with the Marquis de Sade while insisting that I don't condone non-consensual acts of sexual violation or the annihilation at whim of weaker organisms; to cite Lautreamont as an influence while arguing for the intrinsic value of human life; to be a meat-eating Buddhist, a Democrat who doesn't believe in hate-crime laws or gun-control, an actor to hates most of what passes for theatre . . . these are all tightropes. We all walk such lines, I imagine.

Now, if de Sade were alive, and I had to defend his more outrageous theses along with the ones with which I happen to agree, well . . . I don't know what I'd do. I'd say it would depend on how public he was making those particular issues, what I stood to lose for it, and whether the things I didn't like (but had come to accept in exchange for what I did) had actually risen to the level of a morally and, yes, politically untenable position.

But I couldn't find anything in your post to disagree with.

Didn't take long to get from this:

<link>

to this

<link>

did it?

or if you were even here at the time, but a few years ago, I posted about how one of the best teachers I ever had had just been convicted of having a lengthy affair with a 15-year-old student.

Reached the conclusion that the sins of the teacher do not necessarily negate the value of his teachings.

but on the other hand, hillary's (political) mentor is bill.

not only does she disrespect the things he did in office (nafta, the economy, military), but she's about to lose the election as a consequence of her ignorance.

the exception that doesn't prove any rule - she's ignoring a political mentor most other democrats would die for.