Wallwritings

 Christian Century Impression 

An editorial in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz (April 15) sharply criticized Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert for Israel’s “boycott” of Jimmy Carter during the former president’s recent trip to the Middle East. Olmert refused to meet with Carter; Israeli security personnel were not available to assist Carter’s Secret Service detail. Editors of Ha’aretz wrote, “The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government’s history.”

    Read the entire column here

Just hours before Barack Obama’s dramatic press conference in which he separated himself from his former pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright, the New York Times ran a story which takes a closer look at former President Bill Clinton and finds him regaining some of his former control over his wife’s campaign. This may not be the best development for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. 

Both Bill Clinton and Jeremiah Wright have undermined the two Democratic candidates by drawing too much attention to themselves. Obama’s critics called on him to jettison his former pastor, which he did in his dramatic press conference Tuesday afternoon. In taking that step, Obama runs the risk that he will offend his African American constituents who respect pastors and the bond between pastor and parishioner.

But in his press conference Obama chose to take that risk because, as he put it, the Jerimiah Wright who spoke in Washington Monday is not the man he has known in the past. Obama said the Wright remarks made him angry but they also left him feeling sad.  

When Wright told the National Press Club audience in Washington that the attacks on him were attacks on the black church, the charge resonated with many African American church goers. But It did not impress the secular pundits who don’t have any idea what Psalm 137 (the text for one of Wright’s more controversial sermons) has to do with the price of a gallon of gas. So, Wright had to go. And since Wright is retiring as pastor from the United Church of Christ on the south side of Chicago, he is also leaving the congregation of which the Obama are members.

Hillary Clinton has a different problem. Clearly, she intends to hold on to her husband, even though his frequent outbursts during campaign stops have been harmful to her.

She knows voters appreciate Bill Clinton. Many still actually love him the way they love a wayward nephew. They know his behavior patterns and they have learned to live with them, just as his wife has.

The Wright phenomenon, on the other hand, was new to the voters and most did not like what they were hearing and seeing. Why was Obama’s pastor speaking in such harsh language after Obama had defended him in his highly praised Philadelphia speech on race?

The answer lies in a theological reality, which pastor Wright knows as well as any man. Wright allowed his pride to dominate his better judgment. He is a proud man, a Marine veteran. His pride was making life difficult for Obama. Wright, as he repeated several times, is a pastor, while Obama is a politician. But when Wright told the Press Club audience about his military service he added a slap at Vice President Cheney’s lack of military service.  That was a political dig, not the words of a pastor.

 Wright cannot have it both ways. He demands pastoral immunity, but violates that immunity when he uses personal and negative political rhetoric against the vice president. Before he separated himself from Wright, he had invited pundit retaliation and distressed warnings from media supporters.  

The Obama press conference, which comes after days of negative reporting on Obama and Wright, is bound to affect the North Carolina and Indiana voters on May 6. But in what way? This latest development could swing voters back toward Obama or it could cut into his strong support from African American voters.

Next Tuesday, look for Obama to win in North Carolina, but by what margin, it is still too early to determine. African American voters may resent his statement against his former pastor. And the white voters may not yet be sure if they are ready to separate Obama from Wright. Obama will, nevertheless, win in North Carolina, receiving an uncertain, but still high percentage of African American votes. He will also run strongly in the university triangle around Raleigh, Chapel Hill and Durham.

Before Obama’s decision to reject Wright because of Wright’s recent behavior, the polls were beginning to suggest a narrow win for Clinton in Indiana. But Obama’s Tuesday decision to separate himself from Wright could change that outcome.

It is important to remember, however, that in the May 6 primaries, whichever candidate “wins”, the media reports will be based on popular votes won. The delegate totals will be, again as in past primaries, separated by narrow margins, because of the proportional system used by the Democrats.

This leaves Obama with two fewer states to worry about and that much closer to reaching June 3 ahead in the delegate count, although he will be short of the 2024 delegates he needs to win the nomination. The super delegates could step in at this point with enough of them giving the nomination to Obama because he will have won the majority of the pledged delegates.

Or, they could overturn the pledged total and hand the nomination to Clinton, a nomination which would be tainted by the outrage which will be felt within the African American population. Can the Democrats afford to offend this major political base? I don’t think the super delegates will do this. Many have lived through the eight years of a Clinton White House and have already seen that movie. They want, well, they want a change.

If the super delegates think Clinton has a better chance of winning against John McCain, they might give the nomination to her. I doubt this, because many of the super delegates will be on the ballot themselves November 6. In those districts and states where the African American vote is significant, congressional candidates and candidates for governor are not going to risk losing their local races in order to give the Clintons a third term in the White House.

(For readers unfamiliar with the modern development of the Democratic Party nominating process, I have written elsewhere that the super delegate and the pledged delegate system evolved in response to the earlier white male political control of the process.  That evolution began with the 1972 convention and continues through the current 2008 nominating convention.)

by James M. Wall

Helpful details you need to know about the Guam’s caucus, offered in the Kos posting:

 (1) Guam’s population is 173,000; 
(2) people over age 65 constitute 6.9% of the entire population. The median age is only 28; 
(3) Guam’s ethnic breakdown: Chamorro – 37%, Filippino – 26%, other Pacific Islanders – 11%, whites – 7%, Asians – 6% (somewhat similar to Hawaii?); 
(4) yes, it is a caucus, which means it is not on the mainstream media screen, but it will elect delegates.
(5) moreover, it is a closed caucus – only registered Dems are allowed to vote; 
(6) Guam will allocate 4 pledged delegates as a result of its caucus; 
(7)Guam also has 5 superdelegates. So far, only 1 announced her support. For Clinton. 4 others are undecided. (Data courtesy of the Kos website). 

Major news from this past weekend involved Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill, the former president, who was quoted in a New Yorker article by unnamed aides as feeling negative about Obama personally.

Go to the New Yorker site to catch the Clinton references. If this gets more attention, it will further harm Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The former president is causing concern in his wife’s campaign for the same intensity that in the past he has used to his advantage for his own campaigns.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright spoke to an enthusiastic, supportive crowd of 10,000 at an NAACP dinner Sunday night. Earlier this weekend, on Bill Moyers’ Now PBS program Friday night Rev. Wright spoke calmly of his peaching style, which is anything but calm in the pulpit.  He noted, for example, that Psalm 137 was the text he used in his sermon right after 9/11. He says the children of Israel were in exile and they were angry at those who took them into exile. He used the text to trace the history of the US mistreatment of non whites, Native Americans, African Americans, and more recently, the people of Palestine and Iraq.

The writer of the psalm wanted revenge against their captors and proclaimed that the Israelites were ready to smash the heads of children whose parents had brought such pain to them. (Look it up, Psalm 137)  He told his congregation that it would be wrong to respond to 911 by seeking revenge. Preaching a few days after 9/11 he spoke in prophetic language of what happens to a nation when it mistreats others and ended by suggesting that the attack was an indication that “America’s chickens have come home to roost”.

In an Associated Press story of  Dr. Wright’s speech to the NAACP in Detroit he was quoted as saying, ‘I describe the conditions in this country,’”  The story noted that despite what his critics say, he is descriptive, not divisive, when he speaks about racial injustices. “I describe the conditions in this country. . . “I’m not a politician. I know that fact will surprise many of you because many in the corporate-owned media made it seem like I am running for the Oval Office. I am not running for the Oval Office. I’ve been running for Jesus a long, long time, and I’m not tired yet.”

Another man who is not tired is Jimmy Carter.  He is just back from peace missions to Nepal and Israel-Palestine.  His op ed column on the trip is in today’s New York Times