The Anchoress

I started doing this back in April, and for some reason people like this Q&A format and keep asking for more, and more, so…here’s more.

Q: Anchoress, you wrote a frivolous piece about your soul and coffee; does that mean you’re feeling better?

A: Praise God, yes, I am finally emerging from my exhausted fog and my numbers this morning were markedly better. Thanks for your kind notes and prayers (which always leave me touched and humbled.) If this is the worst thing going on in my life, my life ain’t bad at all, and I know it.

Q: Is that why you changed the end of this piece, which originally had a snarky line about how Jenna Bush was not working for a hedge fund?

A: Oh, you caught that, did you? I took the line out because it was a cheap, easy shot at Chelsea Clinton, who seems like a very nice young woman; I try not to do the “cheap, easy” thing here, and I didn’t like myself writing it. That said, I will say the snark was precipitated by reading several obnoxious press accounts of Jenna Bush’s upcoming wedding and thinking about how - were she the daughter of a Democrat - her choice to teach inner-city school children would accompany every sentence written about her, and every article about her would not include the obligatory revelation that while she was in college, she acted like most college students. I just get damn tired of the needlessly spiteful way the press writes about anyone connected to a president with an R after his name, while anyone connected to a president with a D after his name is a paragon of virtue, intelligence and unselfishness. I say that as someone with an I after her name.

I mean, God-forbid a little balance? Can you imagine, fer instance, the press actually noting which party has members saying things like “I have the votes of hard-working white Americans?” and referring to “white n-words?” How come the press will sneer (and cry about “church-and-state”) when Christians gather to pray for peace (and for our troops) but they don’t have the same conniption when Code Pink takes their charms, spells and boas to the street?

Why no balance, that’s all I’m asking. And I ask it even as I admit, I have an affection of sorts for those amusing Code Pink Performance Artists.

Q: Well, but the Republicans are all privileged people; it’s the party of the rich, so the press would naturally be harder on them, than on the middle-class loving, blue-collar-respecting Democrats, right?

A: Hmmm, that’s a good question. Betsy Newmark wonders which is the party of the rich:

It’s funny. The Democratic politicians like to portray the Republican party as the party for the rich. Yet the rich are going with the Democrats this year. The Democrats don’t seem to think it’s as odd that those wealthy donors are voting against their supposed economic interests as they do when Kansans vote for Republican candidates.

As near as I can tell, the Democrats are heavily supported by the rather wealthy folk who own the coastal enclaves you and I can’t afford, but if you google rich republicans and wealthy democrats you see that the press has a one-way narrative. That is possibly because, hanging out at Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, Malibu, Southampton or Myrtle Beach, with their kids in the same private schools the children of politicians attend, the folks in the press are simply so out of touch they think they are not wealthy democrats…or something.

This is another reason I momentarily succumbed to a temptation to the ignoble snark referenced above, which I quickly regretted. A lot of people like to say “Jenna Bush should be in the army fighting her father’s war,” but they never say Chelsea should be in Bosnia or Rwanda working with the Peace Corp to restore those areas. They don’t suggest that since Hillary enthusiastically supported and voted for the war and Bill Clinton (in 1998) initiated the policy of Regime Change in Iraq, Chelsea should be doing her part over there. It’s just damned tiresome. Chelsea Clinton is not a bad person for choosing to work in hedge funds, but there is an irony there, that shouldn’t be ignored.

Q: Ironies supporting Bushes or GOPers or Conservatives are always ignored; find one people will listen to.

A: Umm, people are all plugged into their iPods or their echo chambers, so they don’t listen to anyone, and certainly not to me, but another important irony might be that those “gun-free cities” that are supposed to be havens of safety? The police want assault rifles to function within them. Not getting much coverage.

Q: You don’t like the press much, do you?

A: Hush you, I love the free press - it is the hardy spine of liberty:

“…Liberty lives only when the press is free and unencumbered - when it is detached from events instead of entwined in them. That Liberty lives when people refuse to be intimidated into silence or acquiescence, whether in the workplace or within the community.

Journalists were my first heroes. I simply deplore the fact that our free press seems to be no longer free, and that they have not been overtaken…they’ve simply handed their freedom over to their own agendas. For heaven’s sake, this worries me so much, that I even fret about it when I am over-medicated:

I personally think every American should be concerned with her press - the great and remarkable treasure of her free press - which is being subsumed by advocates and partisans who do not seriously question anyone whom they do not hate, and who therefore betray the public trust (and themselves) and leave the whole nation wide open for something which by the prickling of my thumbs something wicked this way comes.

Some days, now, I’d rather read the Onion.

Q: Well, thank God, you’re at least off the Bush/Clinton rant. What WILL you write about in 2009? It does feel, though, like we’re never going to get out from under these two families, doesn’t it?

A: No, they’re never going to go away. Eventually you’ll see Chelsea running against George Prescott Bush. I have officially declared that we should have no more Bushes or Clintons in the White House because it renders the country mad-beyond-saving, but no one will listen because I am not an influential conservative - which makes sense, since I’m a classical liberal, and we have no home. I do think Ed Morrissey should have been on that list, though.

Also, apropos of nothing, except that someone sent me the video clip - I have always admired the class, intelligence and dignified mien of Dem operative Donna Brazile, even though I hardly ever agree with her! She’s a bright, cool customer, and if I were anyone important, I’d want her on my side. Don’t you watch that clip and wish she could just reach through her screen smack that watery smile off of Paul Begala’s face?

Q: Hmm, you don’t like Paul Begala, and you sound like you have a girl-crush on Donna Brazile.

A: Well…Brazile is gorgeous. And I love her hair. But I love her manner, more - I wish I could be that collected. I completely believe that she’s had more beers with those “working class whites” than any of her white counterparts. And I must say, as a little aside, I winced to hear Begala call the GOP “monochromatic” but that is still largely true, and if you notice, he just casually subsumed the Latino vote into the Democrat side, which is probably wrong…but the GOP has not done anything to ingratiate itself with the largest-growing voting bloc in the nation.

Q: But which ones are smarter? Republicans or Democrats?

A: I won’t say Democrats are smart; they do too many oddball things like scrapping trade with our allies in Colombia while helping the thug Chavez. But…having said that, the GOP really is stupid-beyond-saving. Gateway Pundit here spells out an enormously winning tactic for them for ‘08, and they are either too stupid, too spineless or too beholden to lobbyists to follow the lead. And count on it, they won’t have the testicular fortitude to call Al Gore on his opportunistic attempt to hijack a human tragedy for his own agenda. Like there were never tornados, typhoons, tsunamis or catastrophic floods before manbearpig made its appearance. Going green may kill people but it sure is profitable, so it is credible, right? Hoo-hah.

Q: Okay, so, who are worse, far-left folks who want to stomp on free speech and silence any opposition to their beliefs, or far-right folks who freak out when a teacher performs a magic trick and have him fired for wizardry?

A: They deserve each other, and our nation can and should do better than either of them. They both embody and re-inforce the worst stereotypes on both sides. But perhaps we need them, if only to shine a light on the fact that zealots always - ultimately - weaken their “own side.”

Q: So, this miserable ranter of a post…this is what you’re like when you’re feeling better?

A: I’m not wholly well, yet. A little grouchy. Sorry. I’ll be better soon. As Queen Victoria said when she was an eleven-year old Princess confronted with her future: “I will be good.” Here, I’ll even end on a generous happy note and tell you that Laura Ingraham has adopted a baby girl! Congrats to Ms. Ingraham.

Q: I thought she called you a termagant, once?

A: Well, that’s what I was told, but I don’t know it, and anyway, she wouldn’t have been the first. I wish her all good things and many blessings on her daughter, Maria Caroline. Lovely name.

UPDATE: When I wrote this I had not heard Hillary’s “hard-working white Americans” blurb. Very stupid. I said earlier that her persistence might mean she was a psychopath - that was meant as a throwaway joke - but, well, as Peggy Noonan points out, this whole thing has become psychodrama. I am pulling back my “bravo.” “hard-working white Americans” is either very stupid or deliberately divisive. It cannot be cheered. ::: END UPDATE :::

I rarely read something that I really, really wish I’d written, but this is one of those times.

I just told my husband last night, “I would never, ever in a million years vote for her…but I must say I’m beginning to actually respect Hillary; she’s a tough little boat, and she’s not going to stand down or be controlled by anyone. It might be because she’s a psychopath, of course, but it might also just be because she’s a woman who believes she knows what she knows and will not ’stand down’ simply because it’s getting rough. You have to respect that. Dare I say, in that sense, she is reminding me a little of George W. Bush; he and Tony Blair had the entire world telling them to stand down, shut up and get off the stage. They plunged forward, at the risk of their political capital, because they believed in their mission - to depose Saddam, liberate Iraq and form an Arab democracy in the Middle East. Hillary’s mission is very different, of course - the acquisition of power (and a place in history) she believes is her due - but, she’s not letting the press, the pundits or the mood-warriors stop her. And you know, she actually looks like she’s loving the battle.”

My husband said, “of course she’s loving the battle. She’s a woman.”

Bingo. There was my lede, but I was too tired to write it.

Turns out, I didn’t have to, because Kyle-Anne Shiver (who also will never vote for Hillary) has written a piece that - almost word-for-word - expresses how I’m feeling about Hillary Clinton today. It is an appreciation of Hillary Clinton’s testicular ovarian fortitude.

Writes Shiver:

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in November, no matter what.

Unlike Ann Coulter, I deem the makeup of the Supreme Court for the next 30 years of the utmost importance, and I know a little about what the “Progressives” want to do with the Constitution through the Court. I have (with my husband) raised children, unlike Ann, and I don’t play around with their futures.

All of those disclaimers are out of the way now.

And I’m so proud of Hillary Clinton right now that I could burst. Seriously.

If there is a single shred of grown-up quality left in the Democrat Party, it is only evidenced by Hillary Clinton’s refusal to let the Party blindly nominate a thoroughly wet-behind-the-ears, know-nothing candidate, who has gotten to this political height on the strength of a cowering, blind media elite (as Bill Clinton said earlier in this campaign), a bunch of hormonally driven college students, and the color of his own skin.
[…]
She started out feeling entitled and above our questions and has become now the candidate who is actually interviewing for the job. Fighting for it.

And she is actually demonstrating the kind of mettle needed in a President and Commander In Chief, while he, on the other hand throws inconvenient folks under his arrogant male bus. She has made it abundantly clear that Iran will be annihilated if it attacks Israel.

Bravo, Kyle-Anne, and yeah, bravo (little-b) Hillary, too! You’ll want to read the whole thing. H/T Larwyn

AJ 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.

More coverage:
Baldilocks gives us the view from under the bus
Tom Maguire feels bad for Obama’s Grandmother
Bulldogpundit is too.
Jonah Goldberg: Wright’s gonna need a bigger bus!
Ed Morrissey covers most of the major columnists on Wright
Classical Values finds an interesting old picture.
Dana Milbank with Wright video
Gerard Vanderluen covers the astonishing Wright-declared “information” on the difference between white and black brains
Michael Goodwin says Hillary is a Bully
Kim Priestap at Wizbang
Bookworm at The Bookwormroom
Allahpundit on Gingrich on Wright
Patterico on Andrew Sullivan on Wright

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.

My Li’l Bro Thom had a virus last week that kept him miserable and sick for about a week - seems I have it too - there is a whole clammy, room-spinning, can-I-just- puke-now component to the thing, too. Makes the idea of sitting up and reading for more than a few minutes unpalatable. Hopefully tomorrow will be better.

I did get up in the wee small hours because of a nightmare - thought I’d read a little to clear my head and ended up reading something that made me forget about nightmares.

I found the story because I was reading Cobb’s take on a piece by Victor Davis Hanson and where Cobb thought the racial-tension train was next headed. The comments are interesting, too.

As I said over at Cobb I don’t know that the horrific story of rape and terrorism at Dunbar Villiage is sexual or particularly “racial” either, although clearly some think so; the story is about power.

That a place like Dunbar Village exists outside of a wealthy coastal enclave is pretty much par for the course. If you move beyond the edges of The Hamptons, or Malibu, you will find poverty and crime, and it is the same in all of the great cities; just beyond the beautiful boulevards of Paris, one finds what some might call “near third world” squalor, ditto Rome, London, Vienna. Lately, in those cities the poor have changed from native to immigrant (African, Asian and Eastern European). In Vienna the further you walk from the city center, the less Wienerschnitzel you see, the more Shish-ka-bob, in Dublin, you can find as much Tandoori chicken as mashed potatoes, as immigrants settle in and bring their energy and talents to start businesses.

In America, unfortunately, while our immigrants routinely prosper, the poorest neighborhoods remain the African-American ones and the folks in those neighborhoods are the embedded pawns in a socio-political tug-of-war in which it seems like nobody actually has the best interests of the people in mind and opportunists simply wish to exploit their plights to further their own agendas. Witness Al Sharpton’s rush to distort the Dunbar Village issue and make this horrible story more about himself and his agendas as he stirs his usual pot.

It seems to me that the folks living in places like Dunbar Village, where they are terrorized daily by marauding fiends, are in a similar boat as the people of England who dare not leave their houses after dark for fear of the yobs who have taken over their streets, thanks to the ineffectual police who are themselves restricted in how they may respond, due to loose policies. In both places and cases the absence of intact families, coupled with a dependency-mindset actually encouraged by government, have wrought something which ought not be tolerated in a sane society. The behavior should not be tolerated, nor should the social-conditioning that fosters it. And in that sense, we have all helped create yobs and Dunbar Villages, when we have handed over our control and our common sense to government, and not insisted upon common standards of acceptable behavior.

One wonders why it is that in the cases of the Yobs of class-conscious England and the Dunbar Villiages in America, these native-born folks cannot pull themselves ahead as the poorest of immigrants routinely manage to do. I think perhaps it is because the immigrants have never been told by their new countries “you can’t, so don’t even try. You’re limited in what you can accomplish so we’ll just take care of you.” That “compassionate” and spirit-killing message has been taken to heart by too many; it has been destructive.

And perhaps that is why “yes we can,” chanted over and over (with nothing substantial behind it) is managing to sway people. Part of the American Dream is the notion of personal empowerment. If the message you have absorbed for several decades is one of “low expectations” then whether you are a black American or a “lower class” white Anglo you’re going to look for power where you can find it, and if someone says they’ll help you attain it, well that’s attractive-sounding.

All of this reminds me that I meant to link to Villainous Company and her piece on race relations, last week. It’s a good read.

Rachel Lucas has more about Sharpton and the Dunbar Village story.

And sorry but I must head back to bed. I hope this is not totally incoherent.

Barack Obama has made a strong statement of repudiation as regards the extreme sermonizing of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, which has been the subject of much attention, particularly here on the internets.

Spake Obama:

I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.
Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.
[…]
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

You’ll want to read the whole thing and make up your own mind about it. Jay asks is it enough?.

For some, yes. For me, yes. For others, nothing ever will be enough.

I was in the car today and flipped on Sean Hannity and heard him really carrying on, saying that because Obama “sat in those pews for 20 years,” even if he repudiated Wright it would not be “credible.”

That’s baloney, and as a Catholic, Hannity should know better. We Catholics have more than spent our fair share of time listening to priests with whom we disagree. I don’t know how it is with Protestants - maybe their relationships with their pastors are different from ours (I do have a few Protestant friends whose families seem to shift churches whenever a pastor doesn’t 100% reflect their feelings and opinions) - but as someone who has been sitting in a particular pew for over 20 years, I know that a church is more than a pastor; it’s a community. We can say, “well, this priest or preacher doesn’t agree with me all the way - or even “I am ashamed of this priest” - but the community is my home, I love the people and programs and the worship here, so I stay.”

Is Hannity suggesting that a politician must review a pastor’s sermons each week and run around denouncing and deserting those preachers who might cause him a little bit of political heat? Wouldn’t that be both extreme behavior and a bit dis-crediting?

I think all the “denouncing” and “demanding that denouncements be made” and “denouncing whoever doesn’t denounce” and “disbelieving the denouncing” is beyond absurdist theater - it is an intellectual wasteland of expedient “gotcha-ism” that is utterly shredding our political process.

Things are getting out of hand; and I am concerned that some flames are being recklessly fanned in a way that could be very, very detrimental to the country. It seems some - both on the right and on the left - are looking to help along a perfect storm of politics/religion/race which could wreck more than mere political careers. Rather than being horrified by the prospect, some seem almost giddy with anticipation.

I denounce them.

Wright’s rhetoric is extreme, but it’s just rhetoric. After 9/11 he said “the chickens have come home to roost?” Yeah, well, so did Pat Robertson and - I think -Jimmy Swaggart. Either Ruth or Billy Graham once said “if God doesn’t punish America, he will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.” For that matter, just last Tuesday, completely buying some badly reported nothingburgers from Rome, Jimmy Swaggart’s Wife announced that Pope Benedict XVI was espousing witchcraft.

On her show “Frances and Friends” with Francis Swaggart she was answering listener email…she just announced to the world that Tae kwon do was evil and not a good thing. The second email was “Francis can you please talk about these new “Social Sins the Pope has added?”.

Well, One would think that Frances Swaggart of all people would be careful of how the secular media reports religion and Christianity…However she was off to the races…Francis announced that Pope is talking about sins relating to the Environment and if you threw a wrapper down on the ground you could be damned!!! That the Pope was basically promoting witchcraft and that all this Pagan Mother Earth stuff was coming from the Vatican now. She ended her commentary by going ” Well You Catholics know what your Pope is doing now!!!!”

How is that for ignorant and inflammatory? And a look at - ferinstance - oh, say the September 2006 issue of her magazine suggests this was no mere blip in her radar. That’s from a nice little Christian middle-aged lady, not from an angry black Christian man who has served in the military of a country that has not always done itself proud in matters of race, and his politics originate stage left, rather than stage right.

And don’t kid yourself, “stage” is also an operative word, here. There is a bit of theatricality in all preaching - at least if it is meant to stir.

Rev. Wright is a Christian preacher from the left wing. He’s going to preach to left-wing sensibilities, overfocusing on some of the touchier parts of American history (because every nation and history has its darker moments, and it is stupid to pretend otherwise).

Some Christian preachers on the right do the same in reverse, glossing over issues that perhaps could stand some constructive criticism, and overfocusing on the shinier pages of history.

(The extreme hate-and-madness of the Westboro church goes beyond either example. For all that Wright may piss some off, he is basing a good deal of his stuff on history and perception and his perspective as a black man in America; he is not standing outside of AIDS funerals with signs saying “God hates fags;” he is not out disrupting soldier’s funerals).

I wrote yesterday,

What a way to run an election, or divide a nation. This is using a massive and annihilating cannon to destroy an opponent when something much less destructive could do the trick.

If someone wants to defeat Candidate Obama in this election, there are plenty of ways to do it that don’t involve messing with his church and igniting an issue that can flare into a conflagration uncontrollable. You don’t defeat the candidate by scorching the earth, unless you don’t give a damn about the nation and care only for your own voice, your own sensibilities or your own acquisition of power.

I say let’s get back to talking about real issues - let’s get back to the real game of politics instead of the secondary game of illusion, misdirection and character assassination, which serves more to run out the clock than to move the ball. Let’s stop - for heaven’s sake let us stop - this endless goosing and gotcha-ing which has become a substitute for substance in this horrid election cycle. We all deserve better than this.

I’m sure many will disagree with me - I seem to be out of step with everyone, everywhere, lately - but I really do believe that you don’t destroy a candidate because of his pastor - I think this is a place we don’t want to go.

Rich Lowry read a bit of Obama’s book and again, I don’t see anything so awful. “White folks greed?” You don’t have to be black to say that, if you’re on the left - or even on the right, sometimes. Again - Wright is a preacher of the left. The right may not like his message, but he’s not saying much that most extreme leftists - white or black - would not agree with. Obama, let us remember, is (like Hillary) a guy on the left. The folks on the left are entitled to their preacher’s too.

Richard Miniter says it much better than I do. H/T Instapundit.

Also writing:
Jim Geraghty
Ed Morrissey
Stop the ACLU
Transterrestrial Musings, who also writes here.
Patterico
Allahpundit
Just One Minute
Politico
Powerline
Protein Wisdom
Ace
Andrew Sullivan
TNR

Okay, got lots of emails from folks decrying the “racism of Barack Obama’s pastor,” Jeremiah Wright, in this video.

I watched the video twice, and I don’t know if I’m seeing racism. I think I’m seeing anger, some of it reality-based and quite justified, some of it politically expedient for emotional manipulation, and some of it just strange.

“Jesus was a poor black man who lived in a country and in a culture that was controlled by rich white people [Romans rich and Italian, therefore European/white]”

Well, we can’t really know Jesus’ skin tone, can we? I’d expect it to be rather olive, but who knows? I’d also expect the Roman’s skin tone to be “olive” as well, so this is a strange extrapolation. Wright has to stretch to make his point (Italians=European) so I don’t find it particularly convincing. It’s one of those constructs and connections that you really have to want to make, I guess.

“Barack doesn’t fit the mold…folks are hating on Barack Obama [because] he ain’t white, he ain’t rich and he ain’t privileged.”

Well, rich, white and privileged has been “the mold” for many American presidents, but not all of them. John Adams did not come from wealth nor did Richard Nixon or Harry Truman, or Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton. But they have all been white, and (at least in terms of education) some of them were “privileged.” (And one can argue that there has, historically, been a measure of “privilege” in being white in America, just as there has, historically, been some “privilege” to being Protestant in Northern Ireland; if there were three jobs, and four men looking for them, the Protestants would be hired before the Catholics.)

Obama may only be half “European”, but he is wealthy he and his wife have had the privilege of being educated at ivy-league universities, which open big doors. Hillary is white, and she’s wealthy too, and she’s attended those same schools of privilege, so this seems a wash.

“Hillary fits the mold…Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color, Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong neighborhood…Barack knows what it is like living in a country controlled by rich white people…Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger; Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons; Hillary ain’t never had to work twice as hard to get accepted by the rich white folk who run everything, or to get a passing grade…”

There is no denying that Wright is describing a shameful truth here, and much of this is sadly a “current” truth in America. Hillary has been called plenty of names, though, and she has seen her sex belittled as inferior to the male sex and women of her era probably felt just as challenged as minorities to be “twice as good” as their bosses and professors. The daily experience of any black American probably is harsher than the experience of a white woman, but I am not really sure why that is supposed to matter, and so this is striking me as less a racist rant than a sort of duel to see who can claim the greatest victimhood.

“I am so glad I have a God who knows what it is to be a poor black man in a country and a culture [controlled by whites etc]. He taught me, Jesus did, how to love my enemies; Jesus taught me how to love the hell out of my enemies and not be reduced to their level of hatred, bigotry and small-mindedness. Hillary ain’t never had her own people say she ain’t white enough…Jesus…never let their hatred dampen his hope…

Well, Hillary has certainly had her enemies say she is not “feminine” enough, but I still don’t know what it has to do with anything. Do I believe that Wright believes Jesus has taught him to love his enemies? Sure. That stuff tends to be pretty complicated and mysterious so I won’t gainsay it.

So, do I think Wright is being racist, here? To be honest, no I really don’t. I think he is highlighting some truly egregious truth in the United States while exploiting some legitimate grievances to encourage a victim’s mindset; he’s playing to the cheap seats with some of this, to be sure, but so did Gloria Steinem when she supported Hillary by writing that if Obama were a woman with his resume, he’d never be where he is.

What is going on here is a profound slight-of-hand, or an illusionist’s expert misdirection. You are being told to think you’re seeing one thing, when you’re actually seeing another. Except for the fact that whoever released these tapes has played it, this sermon would not be an example of a “race card” being thrown. It’s a victim card. This is about the Primacy of Victimhood over all else. And frankly, I think if white America falls for this and starts freaking out over Wright’s “racism” then they will be submitting to a HUGE and insidious manipulation by the Clinton team, who, as Instapundit suggests, may reasonably be assumed to have brought this forward.

Both Democrat candidates have been playing victim cards in their turn, for months. Yesterday Geraldine Ferraro upped the ante by playing the gender and reverse-racism victim card.

These are not “racist” or “sexist” gambits being played by Wright or Steinem, but appeals to emotion, and appeals to emotion are too often used to gloss over a lack of substance, or so I have been told by my correspondents on the left, lo these many years, as they accuse the GOP of governing on “fear,” (because terrorism is not a real threat).

And while the victim card appeals to emotions, it tends to noisily set off rage in those who listen and perceive themselves as being identified as the “enemy.” So everyone gets emotional, everyone starts yelling, and no one is listening or making any sense.

The victim card is an odd card to play in a presidential race; victimhood in and of itself seems like a strange theme for either presidential candidate to embrace. “Vote for me; I’m the bigger victim and this qualifies me to…”what, exactly, lead the wailing?

Maybe if the next president can say to AlQaeda, “don’t fly into our buildings or bomb our subways, because I’ve been ill-treated by the man,” our enemies will put away all their flight manuals and bomb-belts and the world will finally “live as one,” yeah…that’s the ticket!

What a way to run an election, or divide a nation. This is using a massive and annihilating cannon to destroy an opponent when something much less destructive could do the trick.

Read Rick Moran’s very interesting thoughts on Hillary’s “scorched earth” campaign and what it can mean for America:

By exacerbating the racial divide in the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton may indeed make Obama unelectable. And there’s no guarantee that the strategy will sway the Super Delegates and make her the nominee especially since she will probably be trailing in the delegate count and popular vote. But none of this seems to matter. As far as the Clinton campaign can see, this is their only avenue to the White House and by hook or by crook, whether they bring the Democratic party down or not, they’re going to take it.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air wonders why these tapes are surfacing now, and by whom?

Instapundit, who saw the Clinton/Burkle/Enquirer connection has more links here.

Patrick O’ Hannigan sees the Democrats as tying themselves up in knots.

Jay has a roundup. I’m very afraid that a Pavlovian bell has just been rung and a huge portion of America is running like good dogs toward something that could tear the country in half…which will be just fine with those who crave power by any means.

Bookworm believes I err in a bit of this, and that’s certainly possible.

Instapunk also disagrees. But he likes me! He really likes me!

WELCOME: Instapundit readers! While you’re here please look around; today we’re also talking about some interesting archeological finds, how Europe is killing itself through a failure to love, the question of dogs and bananas, the muddy river of American racism, if your soul needs a little soothing this might do it, and oh yeah, the Catholic Blog Awards.

Also:
Victor Davis Hanson
MacsMind
Just One Minute
Jules Crittenden
Gateway Pundit
Protein Wisdom
Politico
Fausta
Sundries Shack
Allahpundit
Sister Toldjah

The two big stories of the last 48 hours have been the Spitzer fiasco and the “new sins from the Vatican” nonsense. Priests and Prostitutes? No, mostly prostitutes and the press.

Yesterday I got an email from a reader which read in part:

Has liberal cretinism permeated their minds? I mean, at a time when Christianity is under attack from Islam and secularism, is this a way to unify Christians and save Western Civilization? Am I nuts; aren’t all the saints in heaven shaking their heads over this move?

She was writing about the boneheaded coverage of the Vatican thinking outloud about sin. I referred her to Rule 27: If the news story is from the British press and involves the Pope….DON’T BELIEVE IT.

I suggested to the reader that there would be clarification of all of this coming down the pike, but that she’d probably have hard time finding it in the press.

Today, both Deacon Greg Kandra and Fr. James Martin did a better job explaining what was actually going on:

Greg, who works over at CBS when he’s not deaconing, writes on this from a veteran newsman’s position:

I was assigned to write that story for last night’s CBS Evening News, and the more I read about it, the more it sounded like something else that pollutes the environment: horse manure.

Every story on the wires told a different version. There were seven. No, there were six. It included abortion. No, one of them was stem cell experiments. It mentioned pedophilia. The guy who issued the decree was a monsignor. No, he was a bishop. He was the pope’s right hand guy. No, he was a Vatican spokesman. And on and on and on. It made my head hurt.

Finally, in the afternoon, I spoke with the CBS News religion consultant at the Vatican, Fr. Thomas Williams. He confirmed what I expected: there’s nothing new in the “new” deadly sins — and they aren’t necessarily deadly, and they don’t number seven, and it’s all one person’s interpretation of moral failings that are as old as time itself. The pope had nothing to do with it. It doesn’t change doctrine or dogma one iota. There was no there there.

Fr. Martin talked on NPR about the non-story, and also write an editorial over at America Magazine:

The Vatican’s intent seemed to be less about adding to the traditional “deadly” sins (lust, anger, sloth, pride, avarice, gluttony, envy) than reminding the world that sin has a social dimension, and that participation in institutions that themselves sin is an important point upon which believers needed to reflect.

In other words, if you work for a company that pollutes the environment, you have something more important to consider for Lent than whether or not to give up chocolate.

Fr. Martin takes pains to say he doesn’t think the press’ bizarre reporting comes from a place of malice, but of ignorance. Okay. Maybe. But I am willing to bet when the stories broke as they did, many non-Catholics shook their head with a “there go those damn Catholics again,” and plenty of Catholics had a response similar to one here:

Once again I have to tell my Church to f*** off. I’m really getting tired of that.

How many of those folks will ever see any sort of correction following the sensational headline? And if that’s not a malicious intent, it is certainly sloppiness that serves something other than truth. The press knows full well the power of a headline - what’s that old saying, “a lie makes its way around the world while the truth is still getting its pants on,” . The press knows full well that if it blares a sensational headline, that headline becomes part of the collective subconscious, and the inevitably buried corrections mean nothing. I think we saw such an example in the recent Rudy Giuliani campaign.

And these sorts of things always seem to happen as we approach Holy Week - a little distraction from what we’re supposed to be doing, a little discrediting before the Vatican actually proclaims the Risen Christ. Never fails.

Interestingly, Inside Catholic has a huge symposium on the subject of a recent Pew report on the state of religion in US public life, a report that had lots of Catholics talking and wondering “why do people leave the church?” As we see in this very interesting and provocative symposium, there are a million valid reasons which may be lain at the door of the church itself (and not just the Catholic church), but I do wonder if some of those exits are not helped along by a media eager to court sensationalism over sensibility. I urge you to take the time to read all of the gathered voices over there - Inside Catholic has collected opinions from a wide array of current Catholic writers and many churchmen and churchwomen, too. It is worth your time.

Also worth your time : Bookworm links to a heartugger from Gaza and Israel, whereby we meet an Arab family being helped by Jews:

Dr. Shmuel Zangen, the director of the hospital’s neonatal unit, doesn’t care who he treats. “As a doctor, I enjoy the privilege of not having to think about it,” he says. “It certainly is odd that we take care of Palestinian children while they shoot at us. It’s the sort of thing that only happens in the Middle East.”
[…]
The father is holding the first photos of his newborn twins in his hands. He is worried about the rockets being fired at Ashkelon. He says that he would never have believed it possible that he could be indebted to the Israelis for anything. “What a confusing situation,” he says.

What was it Golda Meir said, “Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.” Maybe that can only happen one family at a time?

Back in Catholicworld, Julie at Happy Catholic gives some timely help for confession and does a nice little Catholic round-up to boot.

And in the rest of the news:

Hillary Clinton is still making excuses about releasing her tax return. Her husband the ex-president won’t cant release their White House papers to demonstrate all that experience she touts, and she won’t release her taxes, but as Mr. Garfield used to say, “what, you can’t trust a little?” Meanwhile her peeps are playing the sly race card and she is disavowing them, but a few Hillarians are growing weary of her game.

Meanwhile those Euro leaders who hate Bush? Some of them are appalled at Clinton and Obama’s talk.

Don Surber looks at a report that says no recession, after all. I still figure we’ll talk ourselves into one.

On the Spitzer front: Gateway Pundit notes that if Spitzer resigns it will be a rare thing for a Democrat to do, and he counts the ways.

Surber notes Spitzer’s repellent narcissism.

Ed Morrissey notes that 25% of our teenage girls have STD’s, which is not related to the Spitzer story except as a comment on the times, themselves.

And Heck, yes says Romney, he’d be McCain’s veep. Naga happen, I don’t think.

Finally, the press’ reluctance to identify political parties when the scandal is about a Democrat continues apace, this time in Detroit.

Amy Welborn has more.