Gingrich on Obama's message

Apparently Newt commented this week on Obama's speech. What he says is significant and should be taken seriously by the Republicans, regardless of who is put forward as the Democrat nominee.

Thinking outside the box...

... that the Democrats have put themselves in. Both candidates are working very hard to make themselves unacceptable to the general electorate and--if that's possible--to their party. I wonder which enterprising and nervy party elder will be willing to propose a short-circuit to the system, and call for a third candidate to step in to carry the party banner to the convention and into the fall campaign. I believe that there may be good arguments to be made along these lines, and that it can be done with enough transparency so that it does not have the complete "smoke-filled room" appearance. Surely there are folks already whispering this possibility about...?



UPDATE [3/28]: How odd--
Since I posted that remark on the 18th, all of a sudden there's mention in the blogs and on a couple of the radio shows of the possibility of a compromise involving the former Vice-President. That would be Al Gore. He certainly would be as formidable a candidate as the two epigones now in contention.

Truth is important

The one thing we find bothersome about Pastor Wright's positions on "the government's" historic treatment of African-Americans is not their anger. There is a right to anger, to indignation, and to a sense of radical urgency. These feelings are a legitimate patrimony of those whose history is defined by such a dreadful historical injustice as chattel slavery, forced dislocation and de facto genocide. I think this point has not been appreciated in the media commentary. Many seem to find the anger offensive, in itself. I don't have a problem with the anger. I do question the easy acceptance of the main points of the "radical mythology" whose platform we've heard before: the HIV/AIDS conspiracy; the 9-11 plot that only represents (in self-contradiction) the "chickens come home to roost," and so on. I think Mr. Obama gave some recognition to this problem in his speech. There is a duty to truth: this is one thing that is present above all in the public testimonies of Dr. King. Read a document like the Letter from Birmingham's Jail, or the "Dream" speech. The truthfulness and clarity of thought are what render these great documents. Like Dr. King, Mr. Obama is right that African-American anger and "white fear" must be dealt with in serious dialogue. I think this must be granted.

The heart of the Speech

The speech is here.

It's worth reading.

As usual, when Mr. Obama has time to prepare, his rhetoric is political rhetoric at a level that is higher than that to which we are accustomed. When he thinks, he really thinks, and he has a point of view that is significantly his own and not boilerplate partisan verbiage. He:

• addresses the problem of his relationship with Rev. Wright,
• accepts it as a problem,
• addresses why in his view it is a problem, artfully blaming the critics and the press,
• frankly discusses important negatives in the minister's ideology (which he appears to consider to be true negatives),
• displays loyalty to his own past, which includes a personal relationship with the minister that he is not willing to sacrifice (--this is not a bad trait, in general--),
• makes an effort to use that unique past to show how he understands the common American experience of racial discomfort,
• and makes his case about how this "universal" experience can move the country forward on these issues and their economic consequences.

While it's apparent that many commentators will still carp at this relationship with the radical minister, he's made an attempt to go over their heads to speak to Americans heart-to-heart, and with a degree of intelligent common sense. If he ends up as the nominee for the Democrats, then the race in the fall will truly be formidable, because of the way he can perform when the chips are down.

None of the above is meant to be construed as an endorsement. One would still have to buy the collectivist program of his party--to paraphrase the movie: "he's a Democrat like any other, only more so." One would also have to overlook several very clever rhetorical moments that again show how so many contemporary progressives build their case on a deep moral-equivalence argument. This the Republicans will have to address and expose in the fall.

"An entire orchard..."

Professor Hanson says that Mr. Obama's rebuttal of the newer news coverage of Rev. Wright's views about America, its corporate morality, its culture and its domestic and foreign policies as picking and choosing isolated, unrepresentative comments out of their homiletical context, is disingenous at best. Far from "cherry-picking," Hanson suggests that the media stumbled into "an entire orchard." Sadly, he's probably right. And the minister is probably not alone in his extremism. We know that the press have covered extreme fundamentalists of the general conservative bent who have bizarre views, too. The problem is that Mr. Obama tolerated a long exposure to these views and now is attempting a very inconsistent, self-contradictory denial of his awareness of these views. He did NOT look very good in the interview played on Fox News this morning. Today's New York Times has a long news piece covering the issue, too. I'd say Mr. Obama has to realize that his candidacy is now severely compromised. I'm a little sad, too, because he represented a new voice for the Democrats--something other than the same tired way of defending their party's positions, such as those are.

Apparently, a satisfied customer....

The reporting rules that banks have to live by betrayed him, mainly because he was a repeat customer. He must live with his conscience, his family, and his duty to do what is right by the people of New York. These all demand he resign. It's NOT a "private matter," as he said at his press conference--I'm not sure it would be even if no laws were broken. That sanctimonious attitude that he's always projected is now completely transparent. What we see through the veil ain't pretty.

Deepak Chopra

Dr. Chopra suggests three Christs: historical, theological, cosmological. There isn't a lot of detail in the article, but certainly the idea is not new. From Origen and other early scholars to Teilhard de Chardin, the sense of a cosmic, spiritual, reality of Christ as the Savior/Reconciler of all things has been present. It's not only Pauline, but fully a part of mainstream Christianity. Now the question is whether the presence of the cosmic Christ is recovered within the Christian and Catholic core beliefs or becomes the center of another modern attempt to claim a valid gnosticism.

The Monster vs. The Starr

Fox News is reporting that Mr. Bill is waltzing through Mississippi, saying that a Hillary-Barack ticket (in that order, we imagine) would be "unstoppable." That's wonderful! I'm sure the The Starr's camp is thrilled. At this point, the best assessment of anything Bubba says is that the anxiety and desperation are transparent. If the Monster camp were feeling any sort of assurance about an eventual victory, they'd be acting like the cat that ate the canary, and playing a very coy game. Now, they're closer to mine canaries, sensing real danger. This match is getting more desperate, and the stresses are showing on both sides.

Endgame: for the remaining primaries, it's all about who will blink first. Mistakes, ever more likely with the stresses, could be fatal. The Starr must play smart, hold serve firmly in Wyoming and Mississippi, and organize like a maniac in Pennsylvania. Like it did in Ohio, the race depends on the turnout of his more youthful minions, who somewhat failed him in Ohio, compared to The Monster's blue haired matrons of doom.

[By the way: speaking of coquettish fancies, can anyone explain what, if any, power John Edwards still holds over his delegates? Does their release or relegation have to wait for the convention, or can he assign them at any time? How are they bound?]