I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do have a significantly different take on Reverend Jeremiah Wright than those currently being disseminated on cable-TV and mainstream news media. Pastor Wright is nobody's fool, and his media tour, including Bill Moyer's Journal and the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., involves a shrewd calculation to help his congregant, Barack Obama.
Any pastor is immersed in the watchword of Christianity, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and if Reverend Wright thought the publicity generated by his media tour would hurt Senator Obama, he never would have undertaken it. He knows that he is dredging up an issue that was fading away, and as a Christian, he would have willingly suffered persecution and mis-representation for the sake of someone else, as that is the model Jesus left for us.
No, Pastor Wright made a conscious decision to unfreeze the current situation, albeit without Senator Obama's coordination. The loop of his anti-American snippets had become embedded in our collective consciousness, and Mr. Obama was firmly linked to it. By re-opening the issue, and making more outrageous statements in the process, Revered Wright showed how helpless the Obama campaign was to control his actions. This effectively unlinked his congregant from the 30-second excerpts, and though it may cause some additional short-term damage to Senator Obama, in the long run, it will do him a world of good.
At the same time, of course, Pastor Wright is defending himself, but he would never sacrifice the possibility of the first black President for his own reputation. Just ponder the situation. Reverend Wright has been a public figure in the church for years, and his community outreach is widely acclaimed. He has been following the political debate as closely as anyone, and the most logical explanation for his behavior involves self-sacrifice not aggrandizement.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Obama/Clinton versus Carter/Kennedy
As the media continues to drive the story for an ultimate victory by Barack Obama, it is instructive to look at the dynamics of some previous Democratic primaries.
Ted Kennedy, a media darling, contested the Democratic nomination against sitting President Jimmy Carter and was much further behind in pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. Yet he rolled into the convention as a major force, with victories on the Democratic platform, raucous demonstrations and inspiring speeches.
Hillary Clinton is around 100 delegates behind out of a total of more than 4,000. The race is NOT statistically, or even practically, over as Barack Obama cannot reach the total required without superdelegate votes. If Kennedy was allowed to continue his campaign, shouldn't Hillary be granted the same courtesy?
Yet it is precisely because of the influence she is wielding, that everyone is pushing the story about getting her out of the race. And with the dynamics of round-the-clock cable coverage, they may just succeed at doing so.
But the underlying reality must be faced. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has captured the hearts of around half of the Democratic Party, and that must be acknowledged in some way to satisfy her supporters.
Ted Kennedy, a media darling, contested the Democratic nomination against sitting President Jimmy Carter and was much further behind in pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton. Yet he rolled into the convention as a major force, with victories on the Democratic platform, raucous demonstrations and inspiring speeches.
Hillary Clinton is around 100 delegates behind out of a total of more than 4,000. The race is NOT statistically, or even practically, over as Barack Obama cannot reach the total required without superdelegate votes. If Kennedy was allowed to continue his campaign, shouldn't Hillary be granted the same courtesy?
Yet it is precisely because of the influence she is wielding, that everyone is pushing the story about getting her out of the race. And with the dynamics of round-the-clock cable coverage, they may just succeed at doing so.
But the underlying reality must be faced. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has captured the hearts of around half of the Democratic Party, and that must be acknowledged in some way to satisfy her supporters.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Democrats Acting Like Republicans
Republicans are famous for avoiding debates on the issues and instead distorting statements by opposing candidates or mischaracterizing their personality.
Last week, we saw two examples of this approach by Democrats. As the media magnified Hillary Clinton's statements about sniper fire in Bosnia, Barack Obama stayed mute, letting the drama play out. Hillary's plane did undergo a jarring emergency landing, and everyone acknowledges there were snipers in the hills. But as the media pushed the story of her "exaggeration" ad nauseum, Mr. Obama should have entered into the fray and said the issue was a non-starter; we should be debating national healthcare, Iraq and the economy instead. If he had done so, he would have been seen as a gentleman and the "new type" of politician he claims himself to be. Instead, he let the story play out with no comment.
The second example, Mr. Obama's characterization of "small town" voters has been distorted to portray him as an "elitist" and "anti-religion." I do not believe this is Senator Clinton's doing. Rather, it is a vestige of the type of campaign organized by Mark Penn who had a decided inclination to go negative, a self-destructive policy if there ever was one. This tactic will not rebound to her campaign's credit in the long run.
It is regrettable that Senator Clinton's advisors have chosen this course of action. The campaign is most successful when they just let Senator Clinton be Senator Clinton, not a typical pol who is behind in the race. As an example, think about the results in New Hampshire, when Senator Clinton found her "voice." The current approach is not Senator Clinton's true voice; it is not the type of person she is, a caring, forgiving, compassionate type. Every time, she yields to her political advisors, she suffers a setback.
Finally, what's going on with Bill Clinton? Bringing up the Bosnia story again when it was about to die down...I don't think this was such a big mistake as the media says it was. The characterization of her "stretching" the truth was out there and accepted, uncontested. Even though the news stories about it were decreasing, it had to be addressed. President Clinton's "blunder" meant that his entire statement was promulgated, about how the news media went crazy about this non-issue, and it also re-introduced the theory about bias in the news media against Senator Clinton and in favor of Barack Obama. This is not a bad thing.
Last week, we saw two examples of this approach by Democrats. As the media magnified Hillary Clinton's statements about sniper fire in Bosnia, Barack Obama stayed mute, letting the drama play out. Hillary's plane did undergo a jarring emergency landing, and everyone acknowledges there were snipers in the hills. But as the media pushed the story of her "exaggeration" ad nauseum, Mr. Obama should have entered into the fray and said the issue was a non-starter; we should be debating national healthcare, Iraq and the economy instead. If he had done so, he would have been seen as a gentleman and the "new type" of politician he claims himself to be. Instead, he let the story play out with no comment.
The second example, Mr. Obama's characterization of "small town" voters has been distorted to portray him as an "elitist" and "anti-religion." I do not believe this is Senator Clinton's doing. Rather, it is a vestige of the type of campaign organized by Mark Penn who had a decided inclination to go negative, a self-destructive policy if there ever was one. This tactic will not rebound to her campaign's credit in the long run.
It is regrettable that Senator Clinton's advisors have chosen this course of action. The campaign is most successful when they just let Senator Clinton be Senator Clinton, not a typical pol who is behind in the race. As an example, think about the results in New Hampshire, when Senator Clinton found her "voice." The current approach is not Senator Clinton's true voice; it is not the type of person she is, a caring, forgiving, compassionate type. Every time, she yields to her political advisors, she suffers a setback.
Finally, what's going on with Bill Clinton? Bringing up the Bosnia story again when it was about to die down...I don't think this was such a big mistake as the media says it was. The characterization of her "stretching" the truth was out there and accepted, uncontested. Even though the news stories about it were decreasing, it had to be addressed. President Clinton's "blunder" meant that his entire statement was promulgated, about how the news media went crazy about this non-issue, and it also re-introduced the theory about bias in the news media against Senator Clinton and in favor of Barack Obama. This is not a bad thing.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
The fallacy of demographic political analysis
After each primary in the continuing campaign for the Democratic nomination for President, we are treated to an analysis by pundits based on the voting behavior of specific groups. This approach does a disservice to the issues debated, not to mention its dubious relevance to the campaigns for future strategic decisions.
On rare occasions, we can admit some groups do vote as a block. There is a small Orthodox community in New York State, and it always votes 100 percent the same as its Rabbi's recommendation. However, groupings based on race, gender and origin have fluctuated widely during the course of the campaign, an indication that analysis based on these characteristics is inaccurate.
There are some tendencies, but they are rather obvious ones. Of course, women and blacks would be inclined favorably to the first person from their group to become President of the United States.
However, when you look at other groups, the analysis falters. How could white men in Wisconsin favor Barack Obama while the same demographic in nearby Ohio voted for Clinton? The answer is quite simple. Demographic groups react to the overall momentum, media coverage and events in the campaign. So what looks like a shift in one group may be mirrored by similar movements in ALL groups.
And when you drill down to the detail used by some of these pundits to justify their time, you get little real enlightenment. I refuse to believe there is a common dynamic among Hispanic women over 30 years of age, with varying degrees of education.
While it would be easy for us to shrug off some of these pundits' statements, there is an inherent danger as well. Just like the arbitrary division of our country into red and blue states creates an impression of splintering, demographic political analysis does the same.
It would be far better to concentrate on the issues in the campaign, an approach political commentators seem to avoid like the plague.
On rare occasions, we can admit some groups do vote as a block. There is a small Orthodox community in New York State, and it always votes 100 percent the same as its Rabbi's recommendation. However, groupings based on race, gender and origin have fluctuated widely during the course of the campaign, an indication that analysis based on these characteristics is inaccurate.
There are some tendencies, but they are rather obvious ones. Of course, women and blacks would be inclined favorably to the first person from their group to become President of the United States.
However, when you look at other groups, the analysis falters. How could white men in Wisconsin favor Barack Obama while the same demographic in nearby Ohio voted for Clinton? The answer is quite simple. Demographic groups react to the overall momentum, media coverage and events in the campaign. So what looks like a shift in one group may be mirrored by similar movements in ALL groups.
And when you drill down to the detail used by some of these pundits to justify their time, you get little real enlightenment. I refuse to believe there is a common dynamic among Hispanic women over 30 years of age, with varying degrees of education.
While it would be easy for us to shrug off some of these pundits' statements, there is an inherent danger as well. Just like the arbitrary division of our country into red and blue states creates an impression of splintering, demographic political analysis does the same.
It would be far better to concentrate on the issues in the campaign, an approach political commentators seem to avoid like the plague.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
