Obama, Wright, and The Hypocrisy Parade

Great article in the Chicago Tribune by a white man whose black wife almost didn’t marry him until Rev. Wright personally intervened:

“Somewhere between the ring and the altar, my wife had second thoughts and broke off the engagement. Her decision was grounded in race: So committed to black causes, the daughter of parents subjected to unthinkable prejudice over the years, an “up-and-coming” leader in the young black community, how could she marry a white man?

Rev. Wright, whom I had met only in passing at the time and who was equally if not more outspoken about “black” issues than he is today, somehow found out about my wife’s decision. He called and asked her to “drop everything” and meet with him at Trinity. He spent four hours explaining his reaction to her decision. Racial divisions were unacceptable, he said, no matter how great or prolonged the pain that caused them. God would not want us to assess or make decisions about people based on race. The world could make progress on issues of race only if people were prepared to break down barriers that were much easier to let stand.”

Totally agreed re the hypocrisy about MCcain and most of the conservative guard et al.

But one wonders how wise it was for Obama to disassociate himself so quickly from Wright’s words. In his speech Obama rightly clarified the many reasons he undertood Wright’s position, and condemned him not so much for his words than for Wright’s supposed emphasis on inflaming that “what is wrong” rather than in furthering what is right. Most of know that for “change” to happen usually it is the dynamic pull between the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary over the status quo. If no one sees the glass as half empty, and everyone always sees it as full, the glass will be a fantasy and in reality won’t be replenished until it is evidently too drained. Would Obama have done this speech without the Wright problem? One assumes, yes. Another conflict would have happened at some point to necessitate it. Would he have utililized a speech about race as a pre-emptive? Guess we won’t know if his team would have seen it as strategicly tansparent or not.

Re Ferraro. I don’t understand the fuss there either. She was stating a truth. Her words–“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” Obama’s bi-racial/blackness has come at a time that is ripe in America.Must we name all the celebs and media darlings here? It is a great thing that America is finally opening up to our differentedness. But on the same token, what other 1st term senators have run for president? kennedy was rare and was in the midst of his 2nd. Part of Obama’s appeal is his race, his youth, and his experience as a multi-cultural person. Would he have survived the past year if he was just a younger Biden?
The other side of the coin is of course that Clinton, being a woman, also having had to navigate the world differenly from white men, has acheived where she is becasue of her husband’s political successes (with, of couse, her planning, educated like Obama as an attoney, she admitted her strength was not in being much of a cookie baker). Being a woman on her own would probably not have gotten her so far. (Is she a “monster”? Who knows? Was that cause alone for Samantha Power to dismiss herself as Obama’s aide if the British TV Iraq war pull-out comment hadn’t been mentioned? One presumes worse has been said of Clinton and will continue)

Does this all mean that for Campaign ’08 being black trumps being a woman and both over being a white man? Part of the reason is yes, for this year. In my very liberal way of seeing things– to deny these socio-visual associations as part of the formula-magic for both Clinton and Obama is blind and somewhat hypocritcal of Americans not to admit.