Barack Obama: Horrid or hollow?

Finally the press are doing their job and actually looking at what Barack Obama is about.  He's had a nauseatingly easy-ride of it so far, as celebrity endorsements and empty non-sequitur-filled speeches ('yes we can'?) showed an apparent lack of belief in anything but himself.

Now finally with the pastor issue we're getting somewhere.

Further to Tim's post below, can I strongly recommend that people listen to what Obama's mentor thinks about Israel and its connection to 9/11.  That's right - Mr Wright can reel-off this kind of terrorist-absolving, anti-Israeli, self-pitying, racism-stirring clap-trap to hundreds of congregants on numerous occasions and Barack Obama never knew anything of it?  Well, that leaves only two routes out for Barack Hussein.  Either he can admit that he knew this about his close friend.  Or he can keep maintaining that he never heard Wright say this stuff.  Which would imply to me that he didn't go to (or even near) his church all that much.  Which leaves Obama's whole 'born-again' routine looking more than ever like a campaign trick.  Who'd ever have thought that he'd turn out to be either horrid or hollow?

Comments

[Tony Hannon]

Douglas, please remember you are dealing with British Conservatives rather than the pitifully ignorant US variety.

You seem to relish the idea that Obama can be attacked by default.

Are you aware of the comments made by Jerry Falwell and how 9/11 came about? Did that harm any Republicans?

I don't usually play the troll but your post is such MORONIC, cynical, partisan hackery that I felt compelled!

[Malcolm Dunn]

Blimey, I find myself in agreement with Tony Hannon!
As far as I'm aware the American people will be electing Obama and not his priest.He has handled the raise issue with dignity and skill so far.
Douglas posts like this will do your cause absolutely no good at all.

[Malcolm Dunn]

My God! I did of course mean to write race not raise!Duh!

[Tony Hannon]

I'm sorry Malcolm - I'll try not to let it happen again!! ;-)

[Andrew Young]

Umm...Doug, I think you'll find he mentioned all this in his speech and answered it quite thoroughly.

What was the point of this post exactly???

[James Hickling]

Tony, Obama chose to become a member of this church in 1988, just before he went to Harvard Law School - and yes, Jeremiah Wright was in the pulpit back then. The fact that he consciously chose to associate himself with this kook does not speak volumes for his personality, beliefs, or judgment.

"British Conservatives" are unfazed about this sort of thing are they? Well, perhaps thats why David Cameron's their leader.

[ChrisD]

"What was the point of this post exactly???"

I think he simple wanted to portray Obama as horrid or hollow, but I would apply both those words to this article.
I heard Obama's speech on skynews and came away with a different view entirely, as I suspect most other fair minded people will too.

[A Lib Dem]

"Horrid or Hollow" - a blogger asks that of Obama in a thoroughly immature comment on the US election. I can only comment on today's Tory party "Horrid and Hollow" !

[Gege]

I do not support Obama because of his left wing policies.

However, I must admit that his response to'pastorgate' was excellent.

[John Leonard]

To me, the key issue in this episode is not Obama's beliefs but his actions.

Obama has based his candidature on a platform of hope, new politics, change and unity. Those opposing him have questioned his experience and judgement.

I listened to his excellent speech today but based on the characteristics I mention above he only scored positively on one of the six characteristics.

There is no question (and there has never been during this furore from any serious commentator) that Obama rejects the views of his pastor.

During his eloquent and flowing speech today, there was one short and curt admission. Obama admitted he has known, full well, of his pastor's more extreme and divisive views. He genuinely disassociated himself from those offensive views and I have no doubt that Obama genuinely believes in the unity he talked of.

Nevertheless, the belated admission of knowledge of his pastor's views are not fully aligned with what he and his campaign have said in the days prior to this.

At first the campaign denied Obama was aware of Wright's more extreme views. Then it claimed he had only recently heard of one such instance and then this changed from Obama's own mouth to 'once or twice'. People were expected believe that, in a 20 year relationship with Wright, Obama had little or no knowledge of the flagrantly public extremist views that Wright held.

In this latest speech, Obama finally admits his knowledge but goes no further (no sign of regrets of his previous explanations).

In reality, this could have been pre-emptively dealt with months ago by Obama's campaign. They were clearly aware of it. By giving such a speech as he did today, early on, Obama could have averted any issues.

This was the first real issue that his campaign has faced and when faced with a difficult issue, it first ignored it, then dithered, obfuscated and misled (who else do we know like that?).

Finally, when it became clear that few accepted these previous accounts Obama was forced to come out with the (whole?) truth.

This does not seem like 'new politics' to me. His campaign quickly reverted to type using what is unfortunately standard political practice. Is there any change there then?

Obama is a gifted orator but other than that is he any different from his peers? On this performance it seems not.

Furthermore, where was the experience and judgement (in the face of strong and persistent reporting of this issue by Conservative commentators) that should have told him that such questionable, weak and subsequently failed explanations just would not work and would just exacerbate the situation?

Where was the experience and judgement that should have told him that being less than open and frank on such matters could put the credibility of his candidacy in question?

Given these indicators is any real hope offered?

Ultimately without the experience and judgement so clearly lacking in this episode, whilst Obama is intent on unity, will he actually deliver it? Just because he thinks he can doesn't mean he will.

It will be interesting to see whether this issue will further develop or will now fade away and whether Obama's core message is now diminished as a result of his and his campaign's actions (or lack of them)?

[cjcjc]

Was Falwell Bush's personal "spiritual advisor"? I don't believe so.

And Obama's attempted patallel between the disgusting Wright and his grandmother is frankly pathetic.

[Citizen Grim]

I have to agree with Douglas, and point out what most of the commenters here seem to be missing: Obama has been attending and donating to this church since the late 1980s, and in his speech today, he acknowledged awareness of its extreme positions. He tried to explain the vitriol away by pointing out that the church also helps the poor and downtrodden.

That's like saying we shouldn't be upset about the Inquisition because Cardinal Ximenes also built hospitals and universities.

If McCain had attended, say, the late Jerry Falwell's church for the past twenty years, we would never hear the end of it. And rightly so!

People keep saying, "Well, you can't judge him for something his preacher said," but they are overlooking the fact that when you attend church, you do so voluntarily, and to a church of your choosing! Why wouldn't you leave a church that said such horrific things?

If your pastor/rabbi/imam is saying inflammatory things and you continue to attend, it can be reasonably deduced that you either agree with those statements (Horrid), or, if you are a politician, you are merely there for image reasons (Hollow).

[Steevo]

"There is no question (and there has never been during this furore from any serious commentator) that Obama rejects the views of his pastor." A very good post John but I believe this is an assumption. He and his wife have felt very comfortable in their commitment to 20 years of choice with this man, its only in his time bidding for the presidency where he now has regrets. He may not be the Rev. Wright but just how much does he 'sympathize'.

His speech is a little more acceptable if one believes the claim he really didn't know Wright said or believed this stuff. That's hard for me to believe. In spite of thousands of 'sermons' these things should stand out in anyone's mind if they care about healing and change. This is raw hatred one does not put aside and/or excuse.

Now he says we need to discuss race when its more than apparent this new concern is only because of his association. The black and white man was so much of a change he was above it before. Furthermore he's saying its up to whites to put up and do more. No responsibility for blacks. His big change argument is prototypical left-wing class warfare of the haves and have-nots. Lets all unite under him against "big business".

He his a smooth talker, we'll see how it goes over. One thing people should notice is those claiming yesterday he was a man of honor, today he's not and I bet most likely, tomorrow he will be. Those who want a left of center America and those who want a change-crusade ultimately will be happy if he's the nomination.

[Citizen Grim]

"There is no question... that Obama rejects the views of his pastor."

I question it! As I've said elsewhere, actions speak louder than words.

Obama can speechify all he wants about how he rejects his pastor's rhetoric, but his denials are undermined by the fact that he attended the church for twenty years.

[Steevo]

You're right Citizen Grim.

A correction to my post John. He has now finally admitted knowing of Wright's views. I was too negative on him and dismissed the acknowledgment. He is typical and a manipulator tho.

[Doug]

Douglas you're a moron. I'm ashamed to have to share support of a party with you. You're comments have nothing to do with the centre-right just the far-right.

I only wish we had someone like Obama in Britain with the balls to tackle many of the same issues in such an honest manner. Our problems with angst about immigrants among the indigenous population and the segregation between the ethnic communities in Britain.

Cameron take note.

[John Leonard]

Steevo:

Points accepted. However, whatever views he has previously held, unless some categorical contemporary proof can be found (and if there was some currently available I suspect it would be all over the US conservative media) I think any assumptions questioning what he has publicly said today on this would be viewed as speculative and contentious and could be manipulated in the usual manner by the left.

I also agree there are many questions about the timing, consistency and impartiality of what he said in his speech today and previously on this matter.

However, in my post, I purposely chose to stay away from the political content because there are so many intepretations that could be made and likely the reality of his attitude would only be proven should Obama win the Presidency.

Whilst he is still the clear favourite to get the Democratic nomination, by allowing this issue to fester for as long as his campaign has his chances of becoming President have potentially been significantly reduced in my mind.

To me, aside from his politics, which I disagree with generically, in many ways it is his judgement and experience (or rather lack of it) that are likely to be the critical issues in the longer term.

His campaign's performance over the Wright issue highlights this and unless further information becomes available will possibly be the longer term debating point that extends the life of this issue.

[Jack Stone]

I thought Obama`s speech was terrific and I hope he goes on to become President and brings U.S. troops home from Iraq.
I just wish David Cameron would pledge to bring our troops home and end our involvement in the occupation of Iraq.

[Tony Hannon]

This is where people fall out.

I personally have no doubt that the majority of Conservatives are decent fair-minded people. I’m thrilled some people have called this foolishness what it is.

Moronic, parsing, assuming, wretched, baseless attacking, foolish, point-scoring, playing-to-the-gallery-of-stupidity political commentary from whatever side of the political spectrum makes us hate one another.

This post is an example, Douglas, and your grubby hand-rubbing at the further deterioration of conversation between intelligent adults demeans pretty much anything else you have to offer.

[North East Tory]

Normal rubbish being spouted by Douglas Murray.

Same old same old.

[Steevo]

I'm not surprised by your views John and well considered. Our differences no doubt are presumptions concerning some political realities but which will include, moral judgment of his motivations. I'm American so I'll take this more personal anyway. He's now a proven liar. The woman he's married and the minister he's chosen, for all intent throughout his adult life, tell me this has not been a matter of tolerant disgust. One other thing too, he is considered the most left-wing voter in our Senate. He speaks of change implying he will bring us together, I think that is very disingenuous - it is possible he will drive a wedge even deeper. He's trying to persuade, even mesmerize through charisma. For sure he's convinced a lot of people :)

[John Leonard]

Steevo:

I've kept in touch with this US election since January and am aware of the numerous questions underlying Obama's message. Being so detached it's difficult to get a sufficiently clear view but I can see the concerns you highlight.

In 1997 Blair triumphally marched into Downing Street to the refrain of a song called "Things Can Only Get Better" following a campaign that used hope, change and a new type of government (anti-sleaze).

The song was prophetic, 11 years on and 'things can only get better' once we have got rid of this 'New' (sic) Labour Government. As you comment on here fairly regularly you will be aware of what exactly Labour has broken in that time. Pretty much everything they have touched.

There seem to be some distinct similarities between Blair's rise to power and the campaign Obama has put together. If he does get to the White House I hope the similarities stop there.

[John Leonard]

Steevo:

I've kept in touch with this US election since January and am aware of the numerous questions underlying Obama's message. Being so detached it's difficult to get a sufficiently clear view to make a judgement but I can see the concerns you highlight.

In 1997 Blair triumphally marched into Downing Street to the refrain of a song called "Things Can Only Get Better" following a campaign that used hope, change and the promise of a new type of government.

The song was prophetic, 11 years on and 'things can only get better' once we have got rid of this 'New' (sic) Labour Government. As you comment on here fairly regularly you will be aware of what exactly Labour has broken in that time. Pretty much everything they have touched.

There seems to be some distinct similarities between Blair's rise to power and the campaign Obama has put together. If Obama does get to the White House I hope the similarities stop there......

[Igirisu Jin]

Firstly, the pastors views are the pastors views. There is no evidence Obama holds them. There is no evidence that this is what the church is about either. When looked at the sum of the church's role in the community, the pastors political or racial anger may turn out to be a small portion.

Even though the pastor is wrong with some of the things he has said in most of our opinions, by not rejecting people like him, Obama is able to understand and tackle their way of thinking in the US as a whole. He is in a better position to be able to bring angry people together on each side and help them to resolve with each other the differences they have. There are no doubt many black Americans that feel anger towards their government and the whites they see as running it, just as there are lots of white people who will be angry about some black peoples' attitudes, crime or welfare statistics. But if these people and these views are ignored or rejected, people will still think and feel them. If that were to happen, how could they be debated? If they are not debated, how can they be addressed and how can the people move on?

As to whether or not Barack Obama knew about his pastors views or not, I'm not sure it really matters. If it does, then I don't recall him admitting that he did during his speech as some have said above. I recall him saying he's heard the pastor saying controvertial things, but all of us do that. I for one don't see why being anti-Israeli is a bad thing. It is a state, not a people, and one I think should never have existed and I stick by that. I know it is controvertial and I know people who don't agree tend to cause a huge fuss about it and try to gag you and not let you argue it, regardless of how well you justify it. Not all of the pastor's views are wrong, many are. Where he goes wrong is letting his anger and resentment make him say and think hateful things. His emotions even lead him to paranoid thoughts, but that is also the case with most of the American public. But at the route of all these thoughts and words are genuine concerns. And if you rejected everyone's anger, frustration and genuine concerns, whether right or wrong, how can you begin to address the issues surrounding them? How can you create a situation where by there are no longer festering misunderstandings between social groups?

I cannot see how anything Obama has said is horrid or hollow, but referring to him as simply Barack Hussein, does appear to be. And Obama White House will not be ultra left wing, it is America not Europe. Everything in their politics is shifted to the right. Whilst I am a member of the Conservative Party, and support most of its policies because they are better for Britain than what we have, if I were an American I would vote for Barack Obama, because he is better for the United States than either of the other options.

P.S. I apologise for the large number of typos I usually make!

[linda]

jeesh! Guys, your supposed to be center-right and then go babbly on about multiculturalism and other lefty causes. Maybe your center-right is American's center-left.
Obama speech was awful. It never addessed his failures regard the very racist and base Black Nationalist Pastor Right. If you are going to run as a candidate beyond race you best not be spending 20 with the Black KKK. This church is in no way typical of most Black churches. Go to U-tube and check out the not very Reverend Jeremial Wright.
You'd be happy to know that the left went ape for the speech today. The moderates and conservative found it self-serving and dishonest.(in the main)

[linda]

sorry about that. I should have spell checked but my show is coming on. Hope you can deciper.

[Tristan Downing]

I just listened to the words of the pastor on Israel.. I cannot see what was so bad there. It was a fairly simple observation that is debatable but nothing more. The idea that US foreign policy has nothing to do with 9/11 is insane. It is also true that the existance of Israel and the support of its policies and actions causes a lot of anger in the Middle East. It is therefore highly likely that the level of anti US sentiment would be significantly lower if the US did not support Israel. Thus, the probability of the 9/11 attacks may have been conceivably reduced if America had different policies. There is nothing outragous about that line of argument. As to whether or not it is true, that is a different matter, but thats why it is called an opinion and not a fact. But if all people spoke were facts, humans would have very little to say.

As far as his comments on why America supports Israel go, the implication that it is to do with race, does sound like an unsupported accusation, but religion and money certainly appear to be factors in there. The conduct of the state of Israel and some of its own policies do appear to be racially motivated in some cases, even if the root causes are more complex.

I reject entirely, the notion that Israel should be protected from scrutiny, and that some how they are above the judgements that are passed on every other nation. The FOX News report started by saying, "...he seemed to take a shot at Israel." So what? Does that mean he must hate jews? Of course not. Perhaps people should tone down the dramatics and if we are to debate this guy's comments, lets leave out fairly held matters of opinion, because otherwise you are just trying to add to and warp genuine issues.

What else he has said about anything to do with the US and Israel, I don't know. My comment is more related to the utterly moronic part of the intro that reads, "...can I strongly recommend that people listen to what Obama's mentor thinks about Israel and its connection to 9/11. That's right - Mr Wright can reel-off this kind of terrorist-absolving, anti-Israeli, self-pitying, racism-stirring clap-trap to hundreds of congregants on numerous occasions..."

No one is forced to agree with what this man says (much of which I believe I dont), but the reaction to it that is outlined above implies that we should be forced to hold the opposing view, else we face a barrage of personal insults and the assumption that any number of out friend's have made an error in being so.

The real problem is the anger in his messages, but I suspect that whilst some of his views are warped, in reality he is mostly just rubbish at expressing his thoughts in a logical and rational way.

He clearly preaches many things without any rational argument, without much clear evidence, and with little obvious basis for believing them, but isn't that the purpose of a religious leader?!

[old school tory]

I'm often left with the feeling that Douglas was bullied as a child at school and this is his way of rebelling.

His article perfectly highlights a very nasty right wing conservative strand.

[John Scott]

I believe Douglas Murray has made the right judgement about Barack Obama. The only reason he made the Philadelphia speech was to save his Presidential campaign. Why didn't he make this speech last week or the week before? Obama is very good at crafting excellent and clever speeches. Evoking his "white grandmother" was as moving to some as it was utterly cynical to others. But not to condemn outright a man such as Wright who has called on God to "damn" America and has said HIV was an invention of the US government in order to destroy the black community was a failure of judgement. Wright should be treated as any preacher of hate - he should be condemned roundly and Obama's failure to do so opens up even more serious questions about his credibility to run for the highest elected office in the world.

[Tristan Downing]

You can dismiss and reject everyone that is angry about something if you don't agree with them, that is of course one option. You can then chose to feel secure in the knowledge you stood by your principles.. But in reality you need to decide what it is you want for your country. Do you want to muddle through as you are, putting up with the social problems and violence and wasted money that comes with it all, but being able to say you have morals that you stick by no matter what. Or do you want things to progress, society to gel, people to work together etc, but at the same time having to think more rationally than emotionally and putting the morals to one side at time in favour of doing what is specifically needed to achieve a certain goal? Does believing yourself to be morally right (morals are of course make believe inventions of man) matter more to you than having things running smoothly, reducing hate, and letting people be on the same side? The fact is you cannot have it both ways. I am generally right wing, but I also know that being smart is more important than sticking to that political stance. It is nothing to do with going "babbly on about multiculturalism and other lefty causes" as suggested above, but recognising the smart thing to do to get what we want. Britain has a long history with managing societies all over the world and one of the many things we learned was that if you give angry people a voice, they are far less likely to cause real trouble later on. If you then tackle their ideals head on in open debate, you can easily overcome them. None of this means bending over backwards for people, none of it means giving in, or handouts or anything lefty. A smooth running society means less waste, more money, more progress. All Conservative values.

[John Scott]

Tristan - I think that somewhat misses the point in Obama's case. He is putting himself forward to be US President and I think we all need greater assurances about where he is sourcing his moral purpose. He did after all sit at this guy's feet for several years. Now we understand he was secretly furious with what he was hearing. So furious that he went back week after week.

His entire campaign has been built on the foundation of well organised rallies and beautifully crafted speeches. When his judgement has been tested it has been found wanting. Talk of 'hope' and 'change' will get you only so far in politics. You need substance to back it up.

[Tristan Downing]

I think my point was more about how we should regard the pastor and people like him. There is a lot of anger about the issue of him not being cast aside early on. Some of which has come out in comments on this website.

As to Obama's moral sourcing, the only possible option is to either choose to take Obama's word for it, or to not. But if you choose not to, then you have to come up with a better alternative. That will be different for everyone, but I believe that Clinton doesn't require association with a questionable character, because she is questionable enough on her own. Several times she has shown that under pressure she becomes emotional, violent and aggressive, irratic, she flips between this acting hard and the incredilby fake acting caring. She is a megalomaniac. At least Obama can be convincing, and when dealing with other world leader, that can't be a bad thing. The other option is another Republican White House, and whilst I am conservative and definately right of centre, I could never vote for a party with such tight Christian control. If all religion was kept out of politics in every way, I'd possibly vote for McCain. Though even then I might chance it with Obama on the off chance his claim of not being bought by big business is true. I think the issue of his pastor is a fairly non issue in the grand scheme of things. I would like to see America build a better relationship with other countries and I feel Obama is the one to do that.

[leon]

http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/03/20/will-mccain-and-conservatives-disown-this-bigot/

[John Scott]

I think we will disagree. Obama is an actor-politician and his record as a Senator in Illinois is questionable. Issues like the Pastor Wright affair shine a light on someone's character and in that sense is a useful tool in determining someone's fitness for office. In my view (and yours is obviously different) Obama has failed this test by relying on his power to persuade rather than to answer the serious questions levelled against him.

In respect of Clinton, I do not recognise the caricature you paint: she has been an outstanding Senator in New York, has worked for over 30 years on policies to deliver a more equitable America, such as universal healthcare and rights for women and has demonstrated in this campaign that she would be an outstanding Cammander in Chief. She is someone who is substantial and doesn't always get the PR right - but being President isn't about speeches, it's about having good instincts and judgement, and a capacity to make tough decisions and follow them through.

Obama is what Americans call a 'blowhard'- hot air but no follow through.

[Malcolm Dunn]

She's also fundamentally dishonest,unprincipled and no friend of Britain. Other than that she's absolutely fantastic!

[Malcolm Dunn]

She's also fundamentally dishonest,unprincipled and no friend of Britain. Other than that she's absolutely fantastic!

[Igirisu Jin]

One of the things that really bugged the hell out of me was her Northern Ireland claims. Even when exposed as garbage, she denies it. She is fundamentally dishonest and not even a good liar at that. The turn around in Northern Ireland came at the end of 2001 and it was nothing to do with the Clintons.