Commentary

In Defense of Hillary

Peter Wehner - 03.26.2008 - 3:18 PM

Yesterday (as Jennifer noted) Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke for the first time about the association between the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Sen. Barack Obama, saying “getting up and moving” would have been the right response to hearing Wright’s sermons. According to the Washington Post:

Wright “would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said during an interview with the conservative editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review… “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend,” she said. Obama refused to disavow Wright even as he said he disagreed with some of his sermons…. Clinton, speaking in Pittsburgh, cited her earlier condemnation of radio host Don Imus, after he insulted the Rutgers‘ women’s basketball team, as an example of how Obama should have reacted to his pastor’s words. “You know, I spoke out against Don Imus, saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that,” the paper quoted Clinton as saying. “I think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving.”

In response Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, said this:

After originally refusing to play politics with this issue, it’s disappointing to see Hillary Clinton’s campaign sink to this low in a transparent effort to distract attention away from the story she made up about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. The truth is, Barack Obama has already spoken out against his pastor’s offensive comments and addressed the issue of race in America with a deeply personal and uncommonly honest speech. The American people deserve better than tired political games that do nothing to solve the larger challenges facing this country.

Actually, what Senator Clinton said is perfectly reasonable. You don’t choose your family but you do choose your church–and it’s reasonable to ask why Senator Obama chose to attend Trinity United Church of Christ. It’s even more reasonable to ask why Obama, once he was exposed to the worldview of Reverend Wright, never confronted him over his anti-American views and never left the church. That was the obvious and right thing to do. For Obama not to have done so was, in part, a failure of courage and judgment on his part.

Nor do we know what “fierce” and “controversial” things Wright said from the pulpit that Obama now admits to having heard and with which he strongly disagreed. What did Reverend Wright say, and when did he say it? Those questions are certainly legitimate and answerable.

There is nothing “low” in what Mrs. Clinton said. What is unfolding is a transparent attempt by the Obama campaign, in conjunction with some in the media, to declare the Wright matter off-limits–to argue that (a) Obama’s Philadelphia speech put the matter to rest; (b) Obama is the victim of a smear campaign; (c) he should be left alone so he can lead our desperately important national conversation on race; and (d) those who continue to press the Wright matter are attempting to swiftboat Obama.

These complaints are not logically sustainable. Try as they might, Obama’s defenders in the campaign and the media will not succeed in putting an end to this matter. If it can be done, only Obama himself can do it. And so far, he’s failed. His long, close association with the hate-spewing Jeremiah Wright remains, and rightly so, a stain on Barack Obama.

»Back to Contentions

»Back to Commentary

del.icio.us

Google

Facebook

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 26th, 2008 at 3:18 PM and is filed under Contentions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

lewH Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Sen. Obama has campaigned as being above race; a post-racial identity. However, it would seem that, as a neophyte politician in Chicago and, gasp, part white, he had to establish his “street cred” in the black community. He did this by joining a Black Church that seems to reflect a vicious attitude to the Untied states, Whites in general and Jews in particular. This attitude seems to be the paradigm for Black Churches in Chicago, if Rev. Meeks is any indication.This relationship got him to the U.S. Senate. It is when his aspirations went nationwide that his relationship became a detriment and not a benefit.
There have been a number of people making comments like this, but people do npot seem to want, Sen. Obama to be another grubby petty politician. No one wants to admit that he is not what he seemed to be. They want a tragedy of a special person brought down by one mistake, instead they got another race hustler.

Dan Fish Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 3:44 PM

“Obama’s defenders . . . will not succeed in putting an end to this matter.”

Your lips to God’s ears.

Dead_Ender Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Here’s an Obama-Wright scenario for the gang to ponder.

Wright continues to make his hateful & racist statements — like his despicable comments about the Italians — and thus gives BHO an excuse to now formally “reject” him.

Of course, in this scenario, the rejection would be basically for public consumption only.

In this way, BHO looks “manly,” and he does not incur the anger of the black community because now Wright will have been seen as hurting the brother after he was warned by his earlier public exposure.

Neat, huh?

CK MacLeod Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Dead_Ender: I recall Amy Holmes going into more detail on just such a stunt for Obama regarding Wright. She suggested that it should come closer to November in order to have maximum beneficial effect, but I think you could go either way on the best timing for it.

Of course, with Barack’s now famous “I could not more reject him…” formulation, anything he does now will stand as a flip-flop. Furthermore, the identification with Wright and the deeper problem of the association has set in. If Obama is the nominee, and loses, exit pollsters may not record large numbers of voters saying that Wright was on their minds, but higher suspicion and closer scrutiny of all of Obama’s pronouncements and connections may still play a role.

It should be inconceivable for Obama to win the presidency, but it should have been inconceivable for him ever to have become the leading contender for a major political party’s nomination. For that reason, it’s a little easier to excuse the Clintons and their overpaid operatives for having been poorly prepared for this campaign.

Ellen S Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Dead Ender,

The comment by Wright was clearly retaliation against that Italian American Geraldine Ferraro. So, really, Wright’s hateful comment was the result of Ferraro’s hateful comment, so again liberals will excuse him.

This game can go on and on and on and….

Jay McDonough Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 4:44 PM

The Clinton campaign had been on the offensive for the last several weeks.

from http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com

“Until Bosnia, sniper fire and ducked heads. Hillary Clinton’s dumb insistence on grandly embellishing her visit to Bosnia bit her in the butt. The media has picked up on the story, splicing together video of her recounting the harrowing ordeal with actual footage of her very peaceful arrival at Tuzla. Embarrassing, to say the least. The story has prompted some closer investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s executive experience claims, and it looks like there’s more “big fish” tales from Senator Clinton waiting to be investigated more fully: Northern Ireland, Macedonia, SCHIP legislation, Family and Medical Leave Act.

Not good news for a campaign trying desperately to sell itself as the experienced candidate ready on day one. So…..what do you do? Do everything/anything you can to change the subject.”

Jon S. Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Peter: McCain gave a major speech on foreign policy today, as of course you know, and while this post is interesting, it’s very much more of the same that we’ve been reading on Contentions for a few weeks now. I’m surprised that hours after delivering it, we’ve had 4-5 posts but nothing on the big speech. So if you and the other bloggers are reading this, let’s see some instant analysis of McCain’s speech today to the LA World Affairs Council.

Ellen S Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Hey Guys and Gals,

Marty Peretz just accused all of us of doing Hillary’s dirty work. And Obama really does love Israel. We know that because the court jesters (and Jews) at the New Republic say so.

What a relief.

Ted Turner Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 5:21 PM

What a splendid post by Mr. Wehner, particularly the observation about the Obamaphiles in the media are ruling criticism of Obama vis-a-vis Wright out of bounds. What’s especially marvelous is the idea that only Obama is permitted to talk about this; no one else is, so the conversation must be held on Obama’s terms.

Dead_Ender Says:
March 26th, 2008 at 5:40 PM

“The comment by Wright was clearly retaliation against that Italian American Geraldine Ferraro. So, really, Wright’s hateful comment was the result of Ferraro’s hateful comment, so again liberals will excuse him.”

Thank, Ellen. I should have seen that.

The plasticity of the Left in defending one of its own is renowned far and wide. I mean, if they could rationalize Stalin, BHO’s racist pastor should be no problem at all.

In Defense of Hillary

14 Responses to “In Defense of Hillary”

Leave a Reply

Commentar