Last week, I wrote that the tarring of Rev. Jeremiah Wright as some kind of anti-Semite was appearing to be quite less than true. In that piece, I challenged my readership to produce specific quotes and/or actions by the reverend that could be deemed as anti-Semitic. Though some tried, no one was able to produce a single instance of anti-Semitism on the part of Rev. Wright.
It appears the mainstream blogosphere may be catching up to this fact, if tepidly. Yesterday, Polk Award-winning web journalist Josh Marshall wrote the following:
"In the debate about Wright, which Sen. Clinton has just reignited, it seems to be spoken of now as an unquestioned assumption that Wright traffics in racist rhetoric or hate speech. But is that really true? I've seen some stuff that strikes me as whacky. I've heard soundbites that critics would not have much trouble spinning as anti-American. But are there really quotes that justify the charge of racism? I'm not saying that purely as a rhetorical question. I have not made myself a full Wrightologist. But I do get the sense that a lot of people believe he's so radioactive that it makes no sense to point out when others are treating as granted claims that appear demonstrably false. "
I think that last sentence really nails the problem. The Clinton campaign and their allies in the media (mostly FOX News—how fucked up is that?) were so successful at attaching the phrase "anti-Semitic" to every discussion of Rev. Wright's words, that it became almost impossible for anyone in the media to defend him, let alone deconstruct exactly why his tirades about Israel policy, or the causes of 9/11—while certainly disagreeable—were not in themselves anti-Semitic at all.
It should surprise no one, of course, that no enterprising mainstream journalist has seen fit to go back and take a long, investigative look at his actual words, and see where, if ever, the man expressed the hate he has been smeared with.
Consider the investigation open. I'm looking. Why don't you look too?
3/26/2008 9:42 PM
jim j bullo wrote:
why are u still writing about this? doesn't this just play into her hands? Reply to this
3/26/2008 10:18 PM
Will wrote:
I fail to see how correcting the Clintons' lies plays into their hands. I can certainly see how leaving them to stand unchallenged does. Reply to this
3/28/2008 5:38 AM
Steven B wrote:
I think the closest you will get in this is the fact that Reverend Wright is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, who is known to have anti-semitic views. I wouldn't be inclined to call Wright an anti-semite just because of an association to Farrakhan, but then Wright said Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness." That's a pretty horrible viewpoint in and of itself...unless you, Will, think Farrakhan is a decent man. If Wright hangs with Farrakhan, and Obama hangs with Rev. Wright, most people will find the associations between these men "in bad taste." And as you might know, something like 65% of voters vote with a "gut rationality." The gut is a pretty dumb organ.
I just want to add that it is because Obama is running for president that he is rightfully being scrutinized for every detail in his speeches, in his associations, in his judgments and in his past. Because he wants to become president, and the president is supposed to represent the people of America, his judgment in keeping allegiance with a man like Rev. Wright is—how do I say it?—not becoming of a President.
