I must say, Obama's speech was quite good. After all, that's what he does. He makes pretty (albeit sometimes hollow) speeches and he's brilliant at it.
However, he didn't address the questions I would have asked him. He skimmed over his tolerance for Wright and his church, how he could have known the man for 20 years and yet only now be exposed to his views, and why, if he stands for racial harmony and comes from a multiracial background, he joined an afro-centric church instead of one with a more diverse congregation. Was he trying to prove his blackness?
If you ask me, his speech was an attempt to re-mezmerize those whose Hope-ium and Dreamamine highs were wearing off, being replaced with the lucidity that only true hate-speech can invoke. He was under pressure and he performed extremely well, but it marked the beginning of his attempts to bury this snag in what was (and essentially still is) a nearly flawless campaign. It wasn't the response I was looking for in regard to the allegations against him and his reputation, having associated himself with such an extremist. And he didn't just associate with him, this man was arguably a father figure. Barack's father left him as a child, and he has described Wright as the "uncle" with whom he didn't always agree.
He compared Jeremiah's comments to his white grandmother's stereotyping of black men, which he says made him cringe. I don't doubt that, as I'm sure he's had to deal with a lot of discomfort growing up and being of mixed-race. But while his grandmother may have had some personal racial hurdles of her own, Wright accuses the government of creating the AIDS virus to systematically murder an entire race of people. There's a huge gap between those two.
You could argue that Bush and other Republicans have accepted and embraced support from the likes of Jerry Falwell (who also blamed 9/11 on America and its own degeneracy), but the difference is that Bush & Friends didn't give money to these churches or sit complacently in them for years.
And, given that the media is completely "in the tank" for your candidate, you might imagine what would happen if a conservative (or any politician other than our new rock star) was found to have repeatedly listened to sermons of an equally radical and hateful nature (Christian or not). If a conservative's pastor released sermons (on DVD, no less) attacking the United States and an entire race, wouldn't the media (and the American people) say that the candidate who attended this church "lacked judgment," and that their financial contributions to the church were nothing more than a subsidy for hateful extremism?
Yes they would, and they would be completely justified.
I don't think Barack Obama hates. I honestly don't, and I don't think any but the most ignorant of Americans would think he shares the whole of Wright's views. But there's something you should know about me, and other Obama-skeptics:
"Jeremiah-Gate" is still near the bottom of the list of reasons why I wouldn't vote for Barack. I don't possess (nor do most Americans) a presidential phobia when it comes to race or cultural perspective, and while I do have expectations in the area of "judgment," I have no expectations from a man's surrogates, because they serve no tangible role in his presidency. This is precisely the reason why Mitt Romney's Mormonism never bothered me.
But if a man keeps my taxes low, secures the border, ends our dependence on Saudi oil (rather, the First Bank of Jihad), enforces our immigration laws, cuts federal spending, obliterates earmarks and the forces of special interests, gets the government out of our lives and our paychecks, reconciles our trade deficits and crumbling economic status abroad, rescues our failing currency, and upholds the values of our constitution, then that man has my vote, regardless of his skin color, and regardless of where he sits on Sunday morning.
Labels: Election 2008, Obamamania