« March 3, 2008 - March 9, 2008 | Main | March 17, 2008 - March 23, 2008 »
Will Barack Obama go down in history as a man who could have been a contender, but was exposed as a great pretender?
The controversy surrounding the incendiary remarks of Obama’s flywheel pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, could well become a mortal wound for the Obama campaign. Coming on the heels of a minor controversy over strange remarks by Obama’s wife about the United States, the Wright matter severely damages Obama by shattering the illusion of the Illinois Senator as a non-extremist.
Since Rev. Wright has been one of Obama’s closest friends for over two decades, the public will naturally wonder how much of Wright’s social vision Obama shares—and whether Obama is really a far-left candidate wearing a moderate mask. Some folks have already come to the not-unreasonable conclusion that Obama is, in fact, a clone of Wright: on March 13, Rush Limbaugh asserted that Obama “…is leading a double life. This pastor [and] this church [are] representative of the life that Barack Obama used to live before he arrived in the United States Senate and started his presidential campaign.” The next day, Limbaugh argued that Obama is supposedly “…going to unify us. He is going to unify America. He is going to unify all of us. We are going to come together, and we are going to see a new sun, a new future, one of hope and excitement and new challenge that will be met by a collective unity all working toward the same goal of hope and change. And yet everybody around him is just the opposite of him. They're mad as hell. Where is all of this hope and future and love, where is it in Obama's closest circle? Which is why I have been suggesting he's been living two lives. We got the life that we see when he wanted to be president and whatever went on before that, and we know that he's been hanging around with this minister.”
It’s amazing that Obama was bright enough to become President of the Harvard Law Review, but lacked the common sense to disassociate himself from Rev. Wright long before launching his Presidential bid. Did Obama think that the media were going to ignore his longtime friendship with Wright? If so, doesn’t that reveal how naïve the man really is?
With all the heat over Rev. Wright’s claims about America’s “responsibility” for 9/11, Obama should consider himself lucky that the press has yet to point out that another close friend of his, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, also made a fairly dopey remark last September about 9/11: he perversely labeled the attacks “a failure of human understanding.” In fact, Obama should thank God that the national press has yet to highlight the numerous similarities between his Presidential campaign and Patrick’s 2006 gubernatorial contest.
Geraldine Ferraro has been severely criticized for suggesting that Obama’s Presidential momentum is directly related to the color of his skin. Her words were inelegant, but her sentiments were valid. To a certain extent, Obama’s momentum is fueled by the desire of some voters to finally see a black person in charge of the White House. However, considering Obama’s recent gaffes, it appears they’ll have to wait a little while longer.
Despite my political disagreements with Obama, it’s a little sad to see him self-destruct in this manner. By not washing his hands of Rev. Wright years ago, Obama has let down those who truly believed he represented something better, something beyond politics as usual. Just as Patrick has shafted his strongest supporters with his bizarre conduct as Massachusetts Governor, so too has Obama abused those who honestly felt he could lead America to greater heights as President.
From a certain perspective, it’s hard to understand why the hate-filled harangues of Obama’s pastor have raised so many eyebrows. Sentiments similar to those voiced by Wright have been expressed for years on the op-ed pages of the New York Times and the Boston Globe, to say nothing of the progressive blogosphere. Throughout the United States, you’ll find tenured college professors whose views of America and the world are indistinguishable from Wright’s. In Hollywood, Michael Moore has made millions with documentaries reflecting the Wright vision.
Obama, of course, was supposed to be better than all of that. He was supposed to heal the partisan breach and represent both red states and blue states. His association with Wright has exposed this image as fiction—which means that if he does win the Democrat nomination, John McCain will beat him to a pulp.
Barack Obama washes his hands of flywheel Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Something tell me this controversy is far from over. More from the New York Times.
UPDATE: More from Matt Margolis, Hugh Hewitt, the Washington Times, Ronald Kessler and Abigail Thernstrom. If Rev. Wright's "America sucks" rantings cost Obama the election, it will prove that Obama is not as smart as he thinks he is--because a truly wise politician would have left this dude's church years ago.
SECOND UPDATE: The New York Times on Obama's mother.
Former Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum, perhaps best known as one of Clarence Thomas' chief antagonists during the latter's 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, passes away at 90.
Tucker Carlson is forced out of MSNBC. Hope he finds another gig soon; he's one of the brighter talking heads on cable TV.
The Wall Street Journal, Monica Crowley, Timothy Carney and the New York Times on scandal-scarred New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.
Instead of complaining about the decline in the quality of Boston talk radio, how about giving some respect to those still trying to maintain a standard of excellence on the air?
There has been much griping over the past few years about the collapse of talk radio in Boston—the passing of legendary stars, the mismanagement of prominent stations, the willingness of too many hosts to pander to the lowest common denominator—and too little praise for those who remember how great talk radio once was in this region, and are doing their best to keep the tradition of quality radio alive. This shortsightedness is a major reason why WBZ-AM star Dan Rea has yet to receive the praise he truly deserves.
Six months after being selected as the permanent replacement for the late Paul Sullivan, Rea has clearly elevated the Boston talk-radio game, demonstrating a commitment to a fair, objective and insightful analysis of controversial issues. He has already achieved a difficult task: providing an alternative to the dominant template of modern talk radio while being just as good as those who are successful in that template.
Rea has received some online grief for not being an adherent to an explicit ideology. The criticism makes no sense: not every prominent talk radio star has to be a strong supporter of one political party. Boston has several radio stars who are tremendously talented and solidly conservative; just because Rea is not as ideologically driven as those stars doesn’t mean he is not their equal in terms of talent.
Strangely enough, Rea has also received some heat from Internet commentators for supposedly being too ideological: one gentleman has flooded a prominent Boston radio site with accusations that Rea is too hard on Hillary Clinton. What nonsense. Rea’s criticisms are grounded in reality, not ideological bombast. One wonders if this particular critic is even bright enough to comprehend Rea’s arguments.
Listening to Rea requires intelligence—the intelligence to understand that not everyone agrees with your view, the intelligence to recognize that people of good will can come to different conclusions. Rea panders not to the lowest common denominator, but to the highest common denominator—and that quality will make him an iconic figure in Boston talk radio.
Rea has immediate credibility as a host: listeners familiar with his past as a WBZ-TV reporter know that he is a man who is reliable, knowledgeable and humble. In an era of talk-radio self-aggrandizement, it’s nice to hear a host who doesn’t think that he’s the lone genius in a world of idiots.
Those who are accustomed to ideological flag-waving on the radio will have to adjust to Rea—but once they do so, they will be rewarded with a show that seeks to grow the intellect, a show that seeks reason instead of blind passion. Rea understands that he is not playing to conservatives or liberals, but to wise listeners of all political persuasions. He manages to do what so many politicians cannot: reach across the boundaries of partisanship to find common ground.
When Rea was hired for the job, there was a fair bit of speculation as to whether he could fill the shoes of Sullivan and David Brudnoy. He doesn’t need to; he has created his own shoe brand. It would be a foolish effort to try to imitate previous successes; it’s a far wiser initiative to establish one’s own success, something Rea has chosen to do.
Rea is like a film producer who is still devoted to quality productions long after his contemporaries decided to cash in on mindless garbage. Surrounded by hosts who hurl racial insults at women’s basketball teams, hosts who smear former governors for not blocking the implementation of Supreme Judicial Court rulings and hosts who (literally) spew crap at callers with opposing views, Rea stands out as a bold name on the small list of outstanding Boston talk-radio stars.
Rea will never satisfy his small-minded critics; the only way he could do so is by lowering the quality of his program. I can’t imagine him ever doing that. He is demonstrating the same commitment to excellence that defined his work as a Boston reporter, the same devotion to fairness that motivated him to cast a spotlight on wrongdoing in the criminal justice system. Sometimes, he says things I agree with. Sometimes, I strongly disagree with him. At all times, he has earned my respect—because he clearly believes in quality.
Dan Rea should never drop to anyone’s level. He should compel some of his competitors to rise to his.
Recent Comments