|
|
April 29, 2008Clintons behind Wright/media saturation? UPDATEDAJ Strata has an interesting link up over at his site - one that, if the thing pans out - suggests that it was a Clinton operative who invited Jeremiah Wright to (disastrously) address the National Press Club. AJ wonders if Wright has been bought off by the “old school” black democrats - paid to essentially destroy Obama’s campaign - and what the price was. I initially did not believe that. I thought of Wright as a simple exhibitionist unable to resist the lure of bright lights and headlines - a guy wanting to breath the rarefied air of “power and influence” currently enjoyed by those stale-but-still-strutting barnyard cocks, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton . But now, it seems like perhaps Wright really has been bought and paid for; Obama’s team says they had no warning about this media-blitz, and that Wright has actually rebuffed them. It seems the coup is in fact, Clintonian. The question is - does Obama have the guts and the cujones to make that charge against the Clinton campaign - that they’re exploiting the vast weaknesses of his father-figure for their own gain, and have apparently promised him the barnyard? Upon the palpable implosion of his campaign, it may well be the only hand he has to play right now, and I’m not even sure how strong a hand it is. As I’ve written before, Obama has clearly established that he loves Wright, that there is a whole replacement-father thing going on there; “they dared to show you my daddy-figure full on and unedited” is not really a winner if he whines it. And since Obama does love the man, he’s bound to be feeling a bit raw and shell-shocked about it all. So, what happens now? Does Obama lie down? Does he expose the cynical-but-brilliant scheme of the Clintons, and if he does, will America be revolted by the Clinton’s move or will they sit back rather admiring it and declaring “all’s fair in love and war?” Do the Clintons continue the media blitz? Something to think about is whether the Clintons have factored in what this exposure will do to the Democrat party itself - moderate Democrats can’t rest easy with what Wright is spouting, which is why the Clintons have operatives do their work for them and keep their distance - but if the Democrats try to denounce this sort of mindset, they expose themselves as the purveyors of it for the last 50 years (both in terms of race and gender) and demonstrate the party’s own end-of-the-line emptiness Of course, Hillary could use Wright to sabotage Obama, and then - with the party roiling - set herself up as the candidate of “unity” by offering the badly injured Obama the veep spot. Which would be profoundly ironic - she’d have taken the party to the brink of destruction in order to steal the “unifier” tag from Obama. This is almost a thing of beauty in its perverse way - if it can be pulled off. If it can’t, well…we always knew that if the Clintons couldn’t control the party any longer, they would destroy it. UPDATE: AJ suspects that the Wright media blitz is doing double duty; it both takes out Obama and focuses the press’ gaze on the “Fall of the Messiah” story, while diverting attention from the fact that Hillary is being forced to testify in a fraud suit involving her husband, the presumed “First Gentleman” but…she won’t have to do it until AFTER the election. To do it before the election would surely sink her chances - it would remind America that we were fully sick of the scandals and the reek of corruption from that team by 2000. And we’re not going to be allowed to remember that, if it’s at all possible. Can you imagine the president-elect testifying in a fraud case concerning her husband? It would never happen. This ball just got kicked down the road to an eventual oblivion, by a judge who told Clinton lawyer David Kendell to “say hello to my friend, Bill”. Meanwhile, in a testament to the upside-down nature of this campaign, some are begging Obama to take Karl Rove’s advise! And I don’t know how either candidate is going to handle the SCOTUS saying dead people can’t vote! Hugh Hewitt, of course, has all the audio you want. WELCOME: Hugh Hewitt readers. While here please take a look around. Today I’m also wondering, where the hell this version of President Bush has been hiding. If you’re interested in Catholic stuff, we’re tossing around the withholding communion issue. http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/04/29/clintons-behind-wrightmedia-saturation-updated/trackback/ 31 Responses to “Clintons behind Wright/media saturation? UPDATED” |
April 29th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Talk about breaking the bonds of fellowship, if true. Not just the actions (ostensibly) by the Clintons, but the fact that a friend, a pastor, and a mentor thought so little of such bonds.
Can a Leftist truly have true friends?
April 29th, 2008 at 11:12 am
To be fair, I think loyalty in politics - whether right or left - is pretty rare. It seems only to exist within the two political families - the Bushes and the Clintons. However, there the loyalty is mirror-imaged. The Bush’s loyalty to their friends usually bites them in the end, while the Clintons, loyal to no one - rarely see a Bill Richardson among their laborers.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:13 am
[...] Oh, if I could only write as well as The Anchoress - her take on all this is so much crisper than mine. [...]
April 29th, 2008 at 11:31 am
[...] But all is not lost… here’s some helpful advice from an unexpected source. (via HotAir) After all, we certainly don’t want to risk the alternative. The Anchoress has a complete roundup. [...]
April 29th, 2008 at 11:43 am
[...] Bookworm Room Our World as We See It The Anchoress The Strata-Sphere [...]
April 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am
It’s incredibly disgusting and venal - and brilliant - and it’s exactly the kind of thing the Clintons would do and do well!
Someone ought to haul Dick Morris out of wherever it is he hangs upside down in the dark between appearances on Hannity & Colmes and ask him if HE thinks Billzilla did this!
April 29th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
If I were Hillary (or a Hillary supporter), I’d want Wright speaking as much and as often as possible, but that doesn’t mean the Clintons were involved in arranging the National Press Club event. And they certainly don’t bear any responsibility for what Wright said. The man is capable of speaking for himself, as he pointed out. I don’t see how it’s disgusting or venal. The problem is Wright himself (and his views), not the Clintons taking advantage of his ego, foolishness or ugly ideas.
And I don’t see Wright trying to sink Obama, at least not consciously. He is who he is, and he’s proud of it. I imagine he’s not changed one bit in style or personality since Obama’s campaign began. America is getting to see the man Obama chose as his mentor and spiritual guide for 20 years.
The person we should be upset with is Wright — for holding and teaching his hateful views, for bringing discredit on the African-American church, and for setting back race relations. He has no one to blame for that but himself.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Prof. Marc Lamont Hill & Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson Debate Rev. Wright & Black Liberation Theology
As Rev. Wright throws Sen. Obama under the bus, he is chastised on Fox & Friends during a discussion.
Prof. Marc Lamont Hill and the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson took the retired pastor, Jeremiah Wright to task over his outrageous comments.
The reveren…
April 29th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Obama has questionable taste in father figures. (Let alone Michelle etc.)
**************
For brainstorming purposes, I’ll interpret the Obama-Wright relationship as fueled by self-interest:
Mixed-race preppy Ivy Leaguer Barack Obama joins Wright’s church to get street cred to kick-start his political career.
Wright identifies Obama as a potential star and allows Obama to cultivate the relationship.
When Obama runs for President and the sermons are publicized, Wright sees no continuing advantage to himself from the relationship. He does see an opportunity to move up in the race-hustling business, and he goes for it irrespective of the damage to Obama.
By Machiavellian standards, Wright is adroit and Obama is somewhat naive, i.e. not as smart as he thinks he is.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Anchoress:
Who cares if the Clintons were behind Wright’s press conference? If Obama had not set in that hatemongering bigot’s church and listened to that nonsense for 20 years this would not be an issue at all. Barack Obama is not a small defenseless child who needs to be defended against the bad mean Clintons. He put himself in this position. And if it had not been an issue now, it almost certainly would have been one in the general campaign.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I mean the man wants to be president of the United States and here we are wondering whether Hillary is playing hardball?
April 29th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Obama scares me more than Hillary Clinton. That is the truth.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Terrye, you’re right…but I believe Obama, between his inexperience, his naivete, his Wrights and Rezkos and Ayers, and his seeming inability to ever go for the jugular would have made him much easier to beat in November.
I don’t think there is anything to fear from him, anymore. You can go back to fearing Hillary!
April 29th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I do not think Obama is naive. I think he believes the rest of us are. I think he knows exactly who and what he has been hanging out with. After all these people were very helpful to him in Chicago politics. He just thought he could turn on the charm and the American people would swoon at his feet oblivious to the communists and the terrorists and the bigots in the background.
The truth is I am more afraid that conservatives will sit home and try to teach America another lesson and allow either Hillary or Obama to win the White House. McCain may not be perfect, but this is no time for either one of these Democrats to control the most powerful office in the world.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Terrye - I really do think he IS naive. But like you, I am more fearful of the “teach ‘em a lesson” conservatives who didn’t learn their own lesson in either ‘92 or ‘06.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
[...] happen. The storm continues stronger than ever. Words like “train wreck” and “implosion” are being used, and Machiavellian conspiracies are being invoked to explain the media blitz we [...]
April 29th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Well, of course we can not really know if Obama is naive or not. But I have my doubts. I think of Bush and the kind of man he is and I know that he would not have listened to one of those sermons, much less allowed this awful man Wright to bless his house, perform his marriage ceremony and be his “mentor”. That is not naive, that is just stupid.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
And I don’t think those conservatives really want to win. I think a lot of them prefer the sit back and complain kind of politics.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Pastor Jeff is correct. Both Hillary *and* the GOP benefited more had Obama “stood by his man”.
Look no further than Obama’s campaign handlers for this staged performanc… right down to the “we tried to reach out to them” stuff. It’s a win win for Wright/Obama with a “public divorce”.
Wright plays bad guy, gain notoriety and boosts sales of his upcoming book with lots of face time.
Obama can play the “victim”, wronged by long time friend and mentor (no one loves a victim who rises from the ashes more than the DNC). He does a humble and heartbreaking split with Wright, and eliminates the albatross around his neck prior to the remaining primaries and general. He could not afford for HRC to narrow the gap of popular vote, giving the DNC fuel to hand her the nomination based on electoral college strength.
In the meantime, the press plays up the wronged Obama… “did Wright hurt his chances?” Lots of empathy. Obama cult followers give him a pass on the bad “judgment” and “doing the right thing”. He may even gain some more who feel sorry for the man, duped by his pastor.
Sniffs suspiciously of a well-concocted (and desperate) BHO campaign ploy. And BHO and Wright are playing their parts to perfection.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Pastor Jeff is correct. Both Hillary and the GOP benefit from Obama “standing by his man”.
This is an inside job from the Obama campaign to effectively distance himself from Wright… with Wright playing along.
Wright gains as the notorious character, boosting sales for his upcoming book to be released before the end of the year.
BHO gains by eliminating the Wright albatross around his neck prior to the remaining primaries and general. Superdelegates can’t use Wright as an excuse to toss it to Hillary. He’s the quintessential “victim” - a phoenix rising from the ashes as the man “wronged” by his long time friend and mentor.
This is all about keeping Obama supporters from leaving the nest and ending up in Hillary’s popular vote count.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I think you’re right as far as loyalty in politics goes (heck, Wright gives this explanation for Obama’s actions just days ago), but what about loyalty in a 20-year friendship with a Reverend, a mentor? That’s what just astounds me in this case.
If some hack stabs another hack and then 20 other hacks become ‘outraged’ or ‘deeply saddened’ I’d probably just yawn it off, however cynical that action might be.
But as Obama–and I don’t mean this in a mean-spirited way, but from a sympathetic standpoint–what sort of personal disaster this would be. Maybe he’s made of stronger stuff, but I’m not sure I would be able to get over such things.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I don’t think I can buy the “comes from the Obama camp” idea.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
[...] interesting angle is what role the Clintons had in promoting Wright. The host of the National Press Club event is a Clinton backer. Wright did [...]
April 29th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
It Just Continues
My, oh my, the sickening race pimp is but the drizzling bleep atop Barack Hussein Obama’s rancid campaign sundae. Oh, we’ll come back to Uncle Jeremiah’s crazy lamentations. But there’s so much of this PR concoction to dig into, it’s…
April 30th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Anchoress, the notion that the two must distance from each other was brought up by Wright himself April 30th, 2007, in a NYT’s article.
Turns out Amy Holmes at Nat’l Review’s The Corner, predicted this in a March 18, 2008 post.
You see even now the media portrays Obama as a victim of his pastor’s betrayal. He is seen as “courageous” (Jimmah Carter). The sympathy pours thick and deep for a wounded Obama, forced into ejecting his long time friend. Wright, instead of being a liability, is now a source of empathy for Obama.
This is not a conspiracy theory. This is purely political survival and campaign strategy. BHO can’t afford to have supporters deserting to HRC in the upcoming primaries because of Wright controversy. He cannot allow the popular vote gap to narrow. If he has a healthy percentage advantage, the DNC doesn’t have a case to award Hillary the nomination based on electoral states power because it was “so close”.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Thanks, Mata, I’d missed the NY Times piece. We’ll have to see about that. If this is an “inside job” then it’s pretty Clintonian, too, don’t you think? Can TWO candidates be equally cunning?
April 30th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Well Anchoress, it is not as if the Clintons are the only politicians involved in this race.
Let us remember how astounding Obama’s luck was when his original opponent for the Senate {Ryan} saw his ugly divorce papers made public and all of a sudden sweet little Obama finds himself running against that loon Keyes. How fortunate for Obama, how unlucky for the Republican.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:04 am
The whole father and son thing is something out of Shakespeare or Greek Tragedy. Or maybe Pat Conroy.
It is also confusing like an episode of Lost.
You have to feel a little sympathy for Barack Obama over this. To have your spiritual dad stick the knife in you like this is bad. But if you are the least bit critical and objective about it you have to question what is going on. So either we have to conclude Obama is lying to us about his true feelings (and he in fact shares those beliefs of Wright) or has been going to this Church for twenty years and did not have a clue where Jeremiah Wright stood on these issues?
But as for Hillary, she is not getting the nomination. Obama supporters have come out and said if she gets the nomination, that it will “rain for McCain” (presumably in a good way for him). So if she is driving this Wright story, leaving the door open for 2012 is pretty pathetic. I do not think she is driving this story, but she is sure trying to take advantage of it. If Obama loses to John McCain, Hillary is setting herself up to take the blame for that from her party.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:13 am
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9964.html
Republicans shun Hillary as basically not worth the time? As Fonzie would say: Correctamundo!
Best Line: It’s 3:00 a.m. Senator and you just lost another Super Delegate!
April 30th, 2008 at 9:57 am
It’s not like I don’t believe the Clinton’s capable of subterfuge in political strategy, Anchoress. But it makes no sense the Clintons are behind Wright becoming vocal and substantiating his “soundbytes” at this strategic moment (ala before the last primaries). They knew this would only force a public divorce between BHO and his pastor, thereby benefiting Obama.
Clinton, on the other hand, was sitting in a much better position with Obama “standing by his man”. As long as the ties to each other’s ideology was in question, voters uncomfortable with the relationship flocked to her side.
So I stick with my first belief that this was a necessary, and planned, stage play by Obama and Wright.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
It seems to me that if Hillary was going to do this, it would have made more sense to do it a few months ago.