Bob_Tarlau's Blog

Certainly, very few presidential candidates have ever faced a test of the scope Obama did in confronting the racially divisive remarks of his church's former pastor.  "God damn America" was among the more outrageous statements made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

If Obama defended Wright's remarks, he surely would have lost support. But if the Illinois senator rejected Wright, he could have been seen as throwing overboard a longtime father figure for the sake of political expediency.

Instead, Obama did neither.  As the Philadephia Inquirer editorialized:  “He condemned the sins but embraced the sinner.”    The editorial goes on to cite this section of the candidate’s speech:  "Race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.  We would be making the same mistake that Rev. Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality."

Obama was strong in showing he has the capacity to explain to black listeners the frustrations of whites.   He also argued that overcoming racial divisions will make it easier for this nation to work on solutions to health care, the economy, and the war in Iraq.

Yet it appears that not many minds were changed.   Those opposed to Obama (both Republicans and Democrats) felt, both before and after his speech, that the divide between black and white is not the issue here, that what’s key should be Obama's longtime association with Jeremiah Wright.

They contend that rather than break ties with his pastor of 20 years, Obama is excusing his behavior while sweeping the controversy under the rug.   An Investors Business Daily editorial says:  this amounts to “just passing the buck and it’s not very presidential.”   In what I think is a rather far-fetched view, the paper says:  “Reacting to being linked with a bigoted conspiracy theorist by lecturing the nation on race is like disgraced ex-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer responding to his getting caught patronizing an international prostitution ring by giving a speech on the female physique.”

Reaction to the speech certainly ran the range:  a CNN analyst compared the Obama speech to Lincoln’s 1858 “A House Divided” classic.   Reuters headlined:  "Obama denounces preacher, urges race healing." The Boston Globe titled its story "Obama calls for racial unity." And the Washington Post proclaimed: "Obama Confronts Race in U.S."

There was this surprisingly tough, but sharp bit of analysis on Obama's speech from, of all people, the liberal Maureen Dowd of the New York Times:

“The candidate may have staunched the bleeding, but he did not heal the wounds. His naive and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the Rev. Wright's anti-American, anti-white and pro-Farrakhan sentiments - echoing his naive and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the ramifications of his friendship with sleazy fund-raiser Tony Rezko - will not be forgotten because of one unforgettable speech.”

My take is that Obama waited too long to deliver it, but I certainly welcomed the speech.  It was temperate and built on logic, not fiery or laden with passion.  It was meant to be calming and for those who just wanted to be reassured, I think it served that purpose.

Where it was strongest was in recasting Rodney King’s notion that we can all come together.   Where it was weakest was in explaining the very reason for the speech:  why the Rev. Wright would even make his inflammatory, repugnant comments.  Also for the first time, Obama admitted what he previously had denied: that he was present when Wright had made some of his outrageous comments.   Why didn’t he confront and condemn the pastor then?

Did he, at that point, ever attempt to get Wright to moderate or change his views?    Those are questions he didn’t answer this week and still needs to.

Speaking of views, time for yours… and I’ll be back with another THIS POLITICAL WEEK next Friday.

Cheers, Bob