I'm a little bemused by the discussions regarding Obama and the observations made by his pastor. I have to be careful here, because of the two Democratic hopefuls, he's the one I prefer; I don't want to cut him slack that I wouldn't give to Clinton.
It seems to me that he's probably being honest when he disavows the statements made by the pastor. That the pastor can say whatever he wants should be perfectly obvious. The concern is a) does this reflect what Obama actually and secretly thinks, and b) given the track record of black candidates in aligning themselves with the words of their spiritual leaders, will Obama, if elected, feel that he has to be guided by them. Going deeper, there's got to be the question: is this a Manchurian Candidate question? Is Obama, despite what he's said, actually a Muslim saboteur aimed at the political system?
The problem with words is that you can always deny them, always take them back. You can claim that you were misquoted (and perhaps you were); you can say that you were quoted out of context (which certainly happens). You can say that your opponent is slanting the issue, skewing it like a Swift Boat -- and thats possible. Its also possible that its all true, and only coming to light now.
It may not be a fair question, but its an honest one: is Obama hiding something that would affect his electability?
I think that he is not. I think that in the realm of words, he has done everything that you can reasonably expect in rejecting the inflammatory words of the pastor. I'm reminded of the time when President Johnson, attending a public mass, got to listen to the minister harangue him about the injustice of the Vietnam War. Surely, he was raging inside, and vented that when he was safely, privately alone. I would suspect that Obama is doing the same thing, raging about his candidacy being tarred by this brush. The question is, is there something to it? Beyond the suspicion, is there substance?
Given that nothing that he has said supports it, I would say no. Given that he has vigorously rejected it, I'd say no. The question will still come up, in various styles and flavors, and I'll listen to see if there is anything new, anything substantive -- but failing that?
No.
4 comments:
I agree - but I'm still going to milk it for all it's worth! (And yet, I still don't see how he can claim that he didn't the know the guy was so, well, out there!)
Oh, totally unrelated, here's one you might enjoy:
Overheard In The Office. :-) (I got it from Caprice's Glob).
Carolyn Ann
I thought that his explanation to the effect that everyone has someone in their family who is a little odd, but you like them anyway, was interesting. (I THINK thats what he said, anyway!)
I'll check out that page, thanks. There's a whole series of 'Overheard' sites that are usually pretty funny.
On a series on the History Channel a few years ago called "the Rise of the Religious Right in America", they covered Kennedy's election, and the question was asked him (in and by the House of Representatives) point-blank whether he would take his guidance from them or from Rome. He said at the time that his religion had no bearing on his being a servant of the people. (zzzzzt...wrong answer Mr. President....grin!) Mr. Falwell stated in an interview much ("much"!) later that after Kennedy had been assassinated, and was being brought in State to Arlington, he and his followers lined the route, armed with bottles of holy water because they fully expected Kennedy to rise out of his coffin and take his place as the "anti-christ".
I suspect (but of course don't really know) that unelected right wing religious personages still seem to have a powerful influence on American politics. This might even be a good thing...but it is certainly fin to watch from up here on the sidelines!!!
Hope you are feeling better Bill....oral surgery...Have had that...didn't like it.
Stag
I remember Kennedy's statement. I was too young to realize the significance of the question at the time, but I remember thinking that it seemed reasonable. Apparently, reason had nothing to do with faith, then. Or now -- there are Catholic prelates who today want to deny religious rites to politicians who act in ways of which they do not approve, or people who support such politicians. Proving that though fundamentalists such as Huckabee and Falwell can say the most amazing things with a straight face, they're not the only ones. Rigidly doctrinaire Catholics can be just as whacko. Hadn't heard the AntiChrist thing, though. Now, that would have been spooky.
As for hidden ubermasters -- the older I get, the more plausible things like that are. Hearing that story of Bush's grandfather doesn't help.
Post a Comment