The other aspect of this relates to Obama's platform - he stresses harmony and condemns "divisiveness" yet Wright's rhetoric is divisive within the context of the larger American community.
But Wright isn't talking to the larger American community. That makes a world of a difference. A President needs to talk to the larger American public. A community leader building up a specific community working with a specific history does not and should not. Context means everything.
If Obama were to espouse that rhetoric, then it'd be something different and wholly inappropriate for his political position.
How many presidents have been friendly with Evangelical churches (even to the degree that Obama is to Wright)? The content of their messages is different, but the inflammatory rhetoric is the same, because its fundamentally directed at a specific (very narrow) audience. Unless a candidate runs on that message, I don't see why it has anything to do with the larger public. We like to think that churches have nothing to do with politics, but this is simply not true. The shock here is that instead of Wright's remarks being right-wing politically inflected, they are left-wing. This is clearly not something we're used to, add to that the race element (to which America is doubly sensitive) and it puts people on edge.
Plus, that this man was close to Obama, does not necessarily mean that all their conversations and activities were along the lines (or limited to) of his incendiary messages or that Obama just nodded his head.
the difference is the attention the media pays.
Interesting, because I got the sense that the media went crazy over the Obama thing precisely because of his previous position as the darling. The clip of the Reverend has been playing on the news (Fox, CNN)non-stop since it came out.
Not to mention that most articles I've read definitely go for a similar angle and even a couple of liberal blogs I frequent are highly critical. I found around two or three in a mess of ten or fifteen that tried to look at the other side.
I don't think this is something the media is overlooking or going to overlook any time soon. I don't get a sense Obama is getting any special treatment because of it--I see no imbalance in this specific incident. The only thing I would weigh in on is that Clinton's side should have put a lid on the Ferraro thing immediately. Had they done so, that would have been more minor than it turned out. Lucky for them, this takes the cake. I wouldn't be surprised if it crushed Obama's chances myself.
So I would argue that because it happened right after the Ferraro thing, the glare might be a few notches up on Obama and certain pundits and especially conservatives are loving it. They've been waiting for a long time to pin something on him. I imagine it must feel like Christmas.
alcyone
