The Media Double Standard on Obama and Wright …

Barack Obama’s Philadelphia speech (replete with Founding Father symbolism in the City of Brotherly Love) gives him a win-win, so to speak.  First: he gets a moment to look iconic again, after several weeks of looking very politician.  Perhaps it’s the type of message that can energize the left of the Democratic Party: a “unity” message that can put peeps back on the path to a movement.  We’ll see. 

 But, here’s the win-win in this: If he wins this thing all the way to the White House, he can look back and say: “See – the tipping point in this race was my speech on race across the street from the birthplace of this great Union.  It was there that I brought this country together.”  He can, literally, paint himself as the authentic “uniter.” 

If he loses either the path to the nomination or to the White House, he can also say: “Well – the moment of fate for my campaign was this controversy with Rev. Wright.  And I responded to that moment with a unifying message.  Obviously, it was politically risky.  But, it was, morally, the right thing to do as somebody had to do it.”  Basically, he loses with mad grace and becomes a permanent, iconic fixture in American politics.

That’s our analysis on Obama’s brave, admirable speech on Tuesday.  It left a lot of folks on both sides of the aisle in awe of him.  His critics could only keep reaching on what they thought he didn’t say or what they believed he should’ve said.  Thing is … he said it all.

Now on that double standard.  Oh – and it’s a big double standard.  The kind that keeps poking you in the eye.  The way the media rides this Wright controversy is awfully telling indeed.  For one: there is little, if any, analysis on “Black Liberation” theology, which is what Wright had been doing throughout the course of those 4,000 sermons he delivered as head pastor of Trinity.  We suspect it’s because folks are scared of that analysis and the ugly realities it may present.  That Black churches are venues offering Black people an opportunity to vent their frustration once a week. 

Many talk about Wright’s sermon, but few dare discuss the call-and-response action to it.  Few dare touch the fact that his congregation loved it.  We’re certain quite a few media analysts, pundits and prognosticators had ancestral Nat Turner flashbacks on that one.  How ironic that as “Black anger” flashed on every American TV screen this week, the Supreme Court argued over the constitutionality of individuals arming themselves with guns.  Hmmmm ….

Anyway, more on the double standard.  The double standard appears in the fact that every major Black politician is called to task for the irate, controversial or otherwise despicable comments of some prominent Black activist or theologian who commands respect with the larger African American community.  That has to be annoying for the Black political establishment, but they sign on to it.  Sometimes, they wish they could say: “would ya’ll give it a rest?” But, of course, there are too many, so many social and very vocal commentators and critics of the Black experience who ride their coattails into the public domain.  Much like Wright has done with Obama; no one beyond Chicago really knew of Wright like that until this controversy.  Now, he’s a celebrity.  You think he’s all torn up about this, remorseful that he may have ruined the Senator’s bid for the Presidency? Did he really care about how it would impact his protege/friend who happens to be running for President? 

Minister Louis Farrakhan always appears as the media litmus test for Black public figures, even if they have absolutely nothing to do with him or the Nation of Islam.  Hence, a similar situation with Wright. The game is played time and time again.  It’s tiring since it has absolutely nothing to do with nothing.

But, there is little mention or critique of Texas mega-church minister John Hagee’s endorsement of presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain.  No one rides McCain to repudiate Hagee, the fiery Southern evangelical who rails against everything Islam and blames New Orleans’ sins for Hurricane Katrina, to name only a couple of really interesting statements. 

Forget about Geraldine Ferraro for a moment – a long moment.  That was nothing, really.  White Republican or conservative politicians who get endorsements from or are affiliated with bigoted White evangelical ministers never get called out for those associations.  The argument is made that McCain doesn’t attend Hagee’s church – as Obama attends Wright’s.  That’s splitting hairs; the fact is that these firebrand conservative White ministers or ”family values” advocates - the Pat Robertsons and Tony Perkins’ - find their way into the White House and are able to articulate or influence policy in such a way that dangerously impacts millions of people at a time.  White evangelical commentary on Islam and terrorism feeds policy decisions on Iraq and the Middle East.  It also drives Bush Administration policy in Africa, where much of that HIV/AIDS prevention money has found its way into the coffers of Christian relief organizations. 

As warped as Wright’s comments may have been perceived, at the end of the day, he’s not shaping major national policy.  He’s not in the White House influencing a President’s decision. He is merely one of a countless number of Black ministers in any major city, town or suburb on any given Sunday who simply provide rhetoric on the issues faced by African Americans on their jobs, in their neighborhoods, in their schools and elsewhere.  Certainly, their commentary, and the reflections of others in the community, poses a problem for the race-neutral Obama’s campaign.  But, he took it on yesterday with that same coolness he addresses every other issue. 

It’s a vexing issue, the reality of being Black in America. If Black people can’t talk about it in church, where can they?   

Mississippi Post-Mortem …

Obama won two expected back-to-back wins by impressive margins, which gives him 29 wins to her 14. In addition, he continues getting overwhelming support from African Americans while simultaneously pulling in cross-over White voters, something critical for him for the general election should he win the primary. His lead is still solid – still, his biggest challenge going into Pennsylvania is perception and momentum. 

It’s highly unlikely that any Democratic nominee would win Wyoming and Mississippi in the general election, but his primary performance in these states suggests that his candidacy could help Democratic state races and contenders, making them competitive in places where they never were.  It also forces Republicans to spend money in states they didn’t have to defend before. 

Already, there are many legislators in such states who are mulling the potential of ballot initiatives if Obama wins the nomination.  They feel like they can gain broader support.  For example, on our XM Radio show “Blackpolicy.org” last week, guest Erik Fleming, former Mississippi State Representative and now African American candidate for the U.S. Senate suggested that Sen. Obama had coattails that could help him in November. 

Fleming won the Democratic primary again – repeating his primary win from 2006 – and is putting up another energetic bid against a senior Republican Senator, Thad Cochran.  Fleming lost against former Sen. Trent Lott (R) in the 2006 general Senate election in Mississippi.  Later, he lost his State house seat against Kimberly Campbell and there is speculation that Lott arranged quiet funding of Campbell’s campaign in a bit of petty political vengeance against Fleming for running against him.  Against Lott, Fleming managed a 36% share of the state vote.

How Clinton Played Obama & What’s Ahead …

Obama got punk’d last night.  There’s no way to spin it, no way to parse words.  He got punk’d and he got played, while getting a royal slapping.  He allowed Clinton to best him and pull him down from his iconic status.  She framed his as just another politician, dogging him to the point where he didn’t look as though he walked on water anymore.  Using a very volatile mix of racial, religious and generational code, plugged into the “experience” issue, she dominated the discussion. 

The media also played us, too. She was down, but she was never out. She was simply playing possum, looking limp as a way to both fool Obama while getting sympathy from White female voters who love their girl so.  We thought it strange that while she was so behind and he looking inevitable, she managed to get more media play than he did over the past couple of weeks.  As they say: any media is good media.  It worked.

On the Republican side, McCain gets a rare political double paly.  He gets the nomination and he gets to watch the Democratic race on the sidelines since it will be in flux from six weeks to the middle of june.  So, now he’s got betwee4n 7-14 weeks to craft his message and image without getting hit by the Democratic nominee becase there isn’t one. He also has the opportunity to shore up his base, because Clinton and Obama will have to continue veering to the left in an effort to attract Democratic primary voters.

Clinton set the mark and then hit it since she got 3 ourt of 4.  There was a confluence of factors helping her – a tipping point of events. From the infamous Farrakhan question and “3am ad” to the strangely timed photo of Obama in Somali garb to the reports about Obama’s economic advisor meeting with the Canadian embassy on NAFTA – these were all carefully laced with a volatile mix of racial, religious and protectionist code that tapped into the insecurities of working class white voters and white female security moms.  

She won at least the primary, with the caucus - as of press time – finding him still leading.  The problem for her is delegate math: he’s still ahead in delegates and she can’t catch him unless she wins every single contest to follow with a 65% – 35% margin. 

The problem for Sen. Obama at this stage is perception and momentum. For one, she was successful in playing him: she made him look more like a politician than the movement he had become.  She deflated his iconic status to a degree.  So, he has no choice but to win Wyoming and Mississippi.  He then has 6 weeks to turn Pennsylvania into Iowa.  

Obama has a hard choice to make.  He must decide if he, too, can sling some mud – the trick is how he does that without getting dirty. He has to walk his talk and hang tight on the the line of this “new politics” approach he’s been pushing, the new school of thought where you are above the fray and focus on the issues without getting bogged down in petty campaign tricks. But, how does he attack a woman?  And how does he do it as a Black man attacking a White woman?  It will be a very compelling balancing act he’ll have to play.

Still, Obama has two points in his favor.  One: The delegate math Two: when he has lots of time – like the next 7 weeks – to go into a state and campaign, he typically does well in persuading voters to go his way.  Over the next 7 weeks, he’ll need to touch voters; he does well in town hall formats. 

In Ohio, he lost because of machine politics,  Entrenched, labor-dominated, Democratic party machines that have been around for years can roll out and place pressure on folks and precincts. It’s hard to crack that.  He’s going to have to figure out how to do that in a city like Philadelphia; he has to find a way to integrate himself into the city machine while at the same time attracting the Philly voter that is traditionally suspicious of that machine. 

Clinton, on the other hand, has to be very careful not to get too arrogant in the wake of these wins.  She’s got a long way to go still and if she becomes too dismissive and arrogant, she’ll risk turning off many Pennsylvania voters. 

The larger political picture finds Democrats struggling to figure this out since McCain has free reign between March 5th to June 3rd. They can’t allow him that much time.  So, now the party has to re-examine this; they need a nominee soon before they lose what’s seen as their best shot.