The Wright issue at the Wrong time?

Today is big showdown day in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love. At 11:00 a.m., Barack Obama will be delivering his speech about Jeremiah Wright and racism, and it's do-or-die time:

Democrats who worry that Barack Obama is untested can put their concerns to rest.

The inflammatory rhetoric of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has confronted Obama with the most severe test of his presidential campaign and, quite likely, of his public career.

He is now facing a full-blown and fast-moving political crisis in which his reputation as a leader with a singular ability to transcend racial divisions and unite Americans is in jeopardy.

A convergence of factors -- a media firestorm, a Democratic rival eager to exploit his stumbles and, most of all, a Republican opposition eager to rough up the man they expect to face in the general election -- have raised the stakes to new heights for Obama with the speech he will deliver in Philadelphia on Tuesday morning.

A successful address would go a long way toward answering Hillary Rodham Clinton's complaint that Obama has never shown he can handle the rough-and-tumble nature of modern political combat.

A failure could leave many of the white independent voters -- a key group behind Obama's swift rise in national politics -- doubting whether he is really the bridge-builder and healer he has portrayed himself to be.

Excellent analysis. Read the rest.

While Richard Cohen wants to know what took Obama so long to address the Wright issue, what I want to know is:

What took the Clintons so long to bring it to the forefront?

Old video footage can hardly be called "newly discovered evidence" and the Clintons and their operatives are seasoned pros, who've surely known about this for a long time. Why now? Why not months ago, when Obama could have been derailed before his solid winning streak?

I don't know. But as timing is everything in politics, I suspect the Clintons did not want to give Obama a "Sister Souljah" opportunity which might have made them look bad and made him look good. As it is now, Obama looks like a backpeddling imposter, so the damage to him is incalculably worse, yet too late. Might they be trying to ensure his loss against McCain in order to ensure their spot at the top in 2012? Is a Democratic defeat now in loser Hillary's interest, just as a Kerry defeat was in her interest in 2004?

Or might the forever-stalled release of Clinton library documents and tax returns have something to do with it? From the Examiner:

....Clinton is uniquely positioned to demonstrate good faith by delivering on her promised openness now, instead of after the election. Her first step should be clearing the path for journalists, academics and other researchers seeking access to the millions of key Clinton administration documents hidden in the Clinton presidential library.

The documents can shed needed light on her role during her husband's administration in such controversies as the White House travel office firings, her health care task force's flouting of federal public meetings laws, and her directives in the aftermath of Vince Foster's death.

Since Foster's death is a closed issue no sane person is allowed to discuss, I won't. But I'd still like to know what exactly happened to his once "accidentally destroyed" then magically "reappearing" hard drive. I'll bet Hillary's campaign director Maggie Williams knows -- as she's the one who removed records from Vince's office on Hillary's orders.

The Examiner continues

Also, she should let the sun shine now on documents concerning her weekly meetings with officials from the White House counsel's office and the Justice Department to vet judicial nominees. And she should open access to all documents on her role in foreign policy decisions concerning Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Northern Ireland and Rwanda.
Rwanda? I've heard talk of how she brought peace to Northern Ireland, but is Rwanda another one of Hillary's foreign policy accomplishments? I'd like to know more....
Step two is to release all of her tax returns, as is customary for serious presidential candidates. Step three is to make public all donor names to the Clinton library and foundation. Anything less than these three immediate steps, and Clinton's open government promises won't mean a thing to anybody except gullible journalists who accept them at face value.
As things stand right now, no one will be interested in asking Hillary about open government, much less gullibly accepting her answers at face value.

All eyes are on Obama to do the "Wright" thing.

Sigh. Another day, another national media pageant. And another cynical blog post.

(I almost feel like accusing the script writers of having a dark sense of humor, but that would be wrong....)

posted by Eric on 03.18.08 at 08:52 AM


Does anyone really expect the Clintons to release any information that could, in any way, be used for additional questions concerning their questionable ethics?

Why not just engage a class action lawsuit against Herself! to release her tax returns?

SeniorD   ·  March 18, 2008 9:50 AM

One of the few strange things is to hear Andy Sullivan take a similar position to HRC that I took previously. The question isn't about Vince Foster, per se, but the entire set of unfulfilled promises by Bill to actually look at things like Iraqgate and really put the screws to Saddam, etc.

Then we come to one of the nefarious supporters of Barack Obama, Nadhmi Auchi and his BNP-Paribas dealings. It turns out that one of the individuals central *to* Iraqgate was... yes... Nadhmi Auchi. Kenneth Timmerman looked at it best in 1996, seeing indications that the Clinton work on BNL-BCCI was to cover up for their connection to part of the overall scandal.

That takedown of BNL-BCCI would have been huge, at the time, and led to uncomfortably high places in both parties, which is why Bill Clinton made sure both were swept under the rug. The name of Marc Rich is one highly associated with those scandals, Iran, Angolagate, Nadhmi Auchi, the rising Red Mafia and the Clintons, which is why he got a pardon at the last minute: if the FBI or Treasury could get their hands on him the entire thing would start to unravel.

Similar protection has been gotten in other Nations as these connections to allow Nations to carry out policy on the sly implicate multiple parties and multiple governments over the past 30+ years. I can reliably put Nadhmi Auchi at one removed from nearly every head of major western governments since the 1980's... he didn't get there by accident. But try and point this out to the Left and Right and their favored parties?


ajacksonian   ·  March 18, 2008 10:49 AM

I think it's simple to understand why Clinton and her evil minions didn't raise the issue of Wright before. It's the same reason she never went negative on Obama about anything else. She was afraid she'd be branded a racist, and she thought she had the nomination in the bag so there was no reason to to do it.

Now, it's too late. Obama will give a pretty speech today and that'll pretty much be the end of the story at least as far as the Democratic nomination goes. The story will be kept alive by the GOP side and will continue to be an issue going into the general election. But, Obama will maintain his lead in delegates and the popular vote going into the convention and he'll be the Democratic nominee.

Eye Doc   ·  March 18, 2008 11:08 AM

Just how is a President Obama going to take on those who's intentions are genuinely evil, when he can't confront the softer prejudice and misunderstanding in the church he has been attending for some 20 years ?

Talk about a lack of leadership, and that's the bottom line.

Neo   ·  March 18, 2008 1:01 PM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits