Suppose that one of McCain's close advisors--also a person who presided over his wedding, baptised his children, and inspired a famous book that he wrote--was a neo-nazi. it seems like that would be prima facie relevant.

Perhaps the difference is, we all already know Hilary is a liar. We know that's what we're getting if we elect her. So a story like that dies because really, its hard to maintain the outrage over a Clinton lying. Obama on the other hand had a carefully crafted message and image of hope&change being above the fray. There are those who take pleasure in knocking that kind of image on its ass, because really, no politician gets where he is and maintains that kind of shiny happy hopefulness. And that's the kind of story that has legs. For better or worse, American media and its willing lemmings.

/end cynicism

Mark,
Both Prescott Bush (Bush Sr's dad and W's grand dad) and Joe Kennedy (JFK's dad) supported the Nazi party back in the 30's. That didn't seem to give their kid much problem when it came election time. AND THOSE WERE THEIR PARENTS!

Besides, McCain already actively sought out the support of Rev. Hagee, who has said things much worse than Wright has, and he hasn't bothered to denounce Hagee. Or Pat Robertson's for that matter.

My take: It's not so much that Obama's former pastor is saying crazy stuff. It's more about what he says, and how it informs Obama's own statements.

Both Barack and Michelle Obama have made statements that suggest a certain negative attitude toward their country. I am a sensible enough person to appreciate what they were trying to say, and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are forced to defend their statements.

The problem with Jeremiah Wright is that he also has this negative attitude about the country. And he doesn't apologize for it, or back away from it. This leads the cautious observer to wonder whether the statements made by the Obamas were in fact how they really feel.

tRJ,
"Willing to give them the benefit of the doubt"?

I...

Words fail me.

New Guy,
It seems like you agree with my point.

Presumably you think that people gain valuable new information about McCain when they learn for the first time that McCain is 'allied' with Pat Robertson. Given your post, you seem to also think that the McCain-Robertson thing is on par with the Obama-Wright thing. Thus, I assume you agree that people gain valuable new information about Obama when they learn about the Wright thing. And that is just what I was claiming.

I take your point to be that nonetheless people and the media do not respond to such information in a fair and rational way. I agree with that in general. But I can understand the white-upper-middle class voter who responds very differently to the following information: McCain allies himself with an overly religiously conservative pastor; Obama allies himself with a pastor who claims that America sucks and that white people are the devil.

My problem with all of this - who the hell decided that "prima facie" can now be used in regular speech? Not on my watch, pal. And if the rest of you didn't cringe when you saw that, shame on you too.

As to the actual issue in question, sure it's relevant, to a small extent. The way you're raised and the things you're raised to believe have a profound effect on your decisions (in this case, policies).

But to make it relevant, you have to look at the candidate's policy positions, and see if there's any evidence that the candidate shares these particular viewpoints. Do Obama's policies and speeches reflect the views of his (former) pastor? If not, that should probably be the end of the inquiry.

Otherwise, it's just fodder for gasbag political commentators (cough cough, Glenn Beck, you fucking chode, cough cough) to blow out of proportion and rally the support of whichever political group they cowtow to. Is Obama a hate-spewing racist? Is McCain an abortion clinic-bombing fundamentalist?

No. What else needs to be said?

vice: I mainly agree, pal--especially about the 'prima facie' thing.

but just look at the candidate's policy positions? just look at what the candidate says? Is that supposed to give us better evidence about what the candidate would do once in office than what the candidate's closest advisors really think should be done?

(i'm not saying that this is any important reason to be against obama--not by any means. only that this is clearly relevant.)

Mark,
That's a good point, but it's slightly different than what happened here, I think. First off, was Wright really one of Obama's "close advisers"? From what I can tell, Obama went to the man's church and, because his wedding and the baptisms of his children happened there, the man performed those services. And it appears that they had a somewhat friendly relationship, too. And, yeah, Obama's book title comes from a sermon Wright delivered. But I'm not sure if the phrase "close adviser" is really warranted.

But, even assuming that it is, I'd concede the point that it's "relevant," but that still doesn't justify the media attention the story's received. Let's add these facts to your hypothetical: let's say McCain's close adviser kept his neo-nazism relatively quiet until relatively recently and that, as soon as it became evident that he was a bigot, McCain repudiated both the man and his ideas. For me, that would be the end. Nothing in McCain's history suggests that he is a neo-nazi, so the fact that he associated with someone we now know to be a neo-nazi is relevant, but also not terribly informative.

It seems to me that it's the same sort of situation here. Sure, Wright is kind of a crazy fuck, but Obama came out immediately and clearly explained that Wright's comments did not in any way reflect Obama's beliefs. That's good enough for me given that Obama doesn't have a history of blaming America for, say, everything.

butterflyfish,
I see what you're saying, but this seems like the completely wrong tool to use to knock Obama down because his only sin is associating with someone we later learned was fucking nuts.

tRJ,
Can you list some of the supposedly anti-American statements the Obamas have made?

The difference between Obama's affiliation with Wright and Clinton's lie about sniper fire is the potential depth of misinformation. Clinton told a politically expedient lie and it was quickly debunked. If she did this all the time, it would be a bigger deal than it is. She admitted the relatively benign lie, took a political hit, and that was it. The fear with Obama, on the other hand, is that his affiliation with Wright may later manifest itself in a much more insidious and troubling manner.

Ismael: I agree with everything you say, except that I think there is a small reason to doubt whether obama is honest when he says "I don't agree with any of the stuff Wright said"--especially given other 'elitist comments' by obama (as the media calls them).

Ismael, this has been a recurrent issue for the Obamas. Michelle said she'd never been proud of this country until Barack became a real contender. Barack called working class voters bitter, and blamed that attitude for their guns, their God, and their xenophobia. Etc.

Like I said before, sensible people can accept that the Obamas did not mean to be insulting, and that the media (especially blogs) make more of those statements than necessary. But recall Kinsley's famous quote: "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth." When a theme keeps reemerging, it's harder and harder to dismiss it as just poor phrasing.

I am not especially shocked that this is such a big issue on the cable news circuit or that regular people are getting their panties in a bunch over it. When I first saw the clips of Reverend Wright, my first thought was "Wow, that guy is a fucking loony bird," and my second thought was, "Wow, everyone is going to make an unreasonably huge deal out of this."

I moved on from it because I, like Vice, compared these statements to everything I know about Obama and decided they more than likely did not reflect his beliefs. However, I can understand why cable news did not move on - they make bigger piles of money by yelling like jackasses than by engaging in reasoned debate. I can also understand why lots of regular people won't let it go - they get most of their political information from the blowhard jackasses on cable news.

What I do not understand is why it isn't a bigger deal that McCain has aligned himself with people like Pat Robertson. Saying that "McCain allies himself with an overly religiously conservative pastor; Obama allies himself with a pastor who claims that America sucks and that white people are the devil" is putting quite a spin on reality. Pat Robertson is just as big a nutjob (if not bigger) than Reverend Wright.

Robertson has said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians," that gay people want to thow blood on everyone and give them AIDS, that Hindus, Muslims and atheists shouldn't be allowed to hold government office, that Arabs are solely responsible for American slavery, that white people deserve more votes than minorities, that abortion and the secularization of America caused 9/11 as an example of God's wrath, and that "liberal American government" is to "evangelical Christians" as "Hitler and the Nazis" are to "the Jews."

The biggest reason I think the Obama-Wright thing is ridiculous is that it is on the news and the things I listed above are not. If this was really about the way the statements of people we ally ourselves with reflect our own values and potential policies, people would be on John McCain like herpes on Paris Hilton. But it isn't - it's about people tearing down a candidate they don't like using every means necessary, whether it is ethical or rational or not.

cheers, kristen

It looks like lots of people here share my disdain for the whole Wright/Obama scandal and the double standard at work against him by some conservative talking heads and assorted wacko nut jobs.

I have a friend who posts all this 'Fuck Obama' shit on his Myspace that always pops up on my newsfeed. I finally answered one of his rants (a video compilation of Reverend Wright's statements) and decided to comment. I brought up the whole Pat Robertson/[insert pre-2005 Republican candidate here] similarity. After that he took the video down. I gotta believe it was because he saw the truth in my and others' statements, and not just because he wanted to censor opposing viewpoints.

it really is embarassing having to try to explain things here in France. I was very impressed by the French elections last year, in the fact that even though the news was not completely unbiased the voters did not fall for the bullshit that americans can't seem to avoid. I have a newfound respect for the everyday French citizen that is more aware of real issues than the slime that the media reports.
I wonder, me being a catholic, should I stop going to church and renounce my religon because priests of the catholic church molested innocent children? I think no one would expect that of me, because apart from the scandal, i go to church out of personal faith in that religion. So Obama should be expected to turn his back on his religion based on the comments of one person? Religion is a community not totalitarian.
Plus, when you listen to the full sermon (the damn america one) you can see where the pastor was coming from. He was talking about not having faith in gov't because they can do things that are unjust (the indians, slavery, civil rights, etc) They were strong maybe shocking comments but please, what about the trash bill o'reiley spews everyday on cable tv. Wright did it in church and the reason people make a big deal about it is because they have nothing else to critique barack on. There is an excellent interveiw with Wright on PBS.com and I think he does an excellent job of proving he's no more nuts than the rest. I'll look for the link.....

estefanita:

I can't claim to know a lot about French politics or elections, but didn't a nationalist, holocaust-denier recently garner a huge number of votes in the French presidential election only to ultimately lose in the final round of voting? Man, the French sure are enlightened!

No one is arguing that Obama should abandon his religion. People think he should abandon his pastor. When this whole "controversy" erupted, and Obama was first asked about it in a debate, he specifically did not renounce Wright, the person. He only renounced some of his rhetoric, which I think is an important distinction.

And of course you shouldn't stop going to church or renounce your religion. But you should, perhaps, stop and think about what your religious leaders stand for and demand a high standard of conduct. Further, if your priest was found guilty of child molestation, I think you absolutely should stop supporting a church that employs him and should refrain from attending any events or services administered by him.

i am far from an expert in French politics and am speaking from what I have seen and experienced in my two years living here. You are speaking of Lepen in 2002? He was beaten by Chirac who took 80% of the vote. And as I wasn't here in 2002 I don't know how the media reacted then. But what I meant in my post was I truly appreciated the way the elections and the candidates were presented in the news. I remember seeing reports on each candidate and what their plans for the country were. Plus every candidate no matter how popular or ahead they are in the polls, is garanteed equal coverage by the media. They calculate the time spent on each, so even the unknown underdogs get a chance.
I don't think the French voters are smarter or more enlightened but like I said before, they were not bombared with the bullshit that Americans get everyday. And I seriously doubt what a candidate's pastor said, or whether he wears a pin or not, would get a fraction of the attention here as it does in the US. This is part of the reason the world just gwaks at us. Our politics are closely followed around the world and from the outside it seems like a three ring circus.
And Obama could not renounce Wright as a person. He has seen his good side. Relationships are sticky complicated issues and I think one of the positive qualities of Obama is that he does not have the Bush way of looking at things: Either you're with us or you're against us, We don't negotiate, period. Obama can weigh a whole issue just not a snippet.
Obama has said that disagreeing with someone is not a reason to stop talking. There is no black and white and I think to handle diplomatic and international relations one has to see that and Obama does.