Still Scary

email this story
read comments (17)
post a comment

"A new poll from Fox News, the first major poll taken since Barack Obama's big speech on race relations, shows that the effect of the Jeremiah Wright flap might not be so bad after all. By a 57%-24% margin, registered voters do not believe that Obama shares Wright's controversial views.

The internals show only 17% of Democrats saying Obama shares Wright's ideas, along with 20% of independents and 36% of Republicans."

It's still a little bit scary that almost one fifth of Democrats -- 17% -- believe, they're saying, that Obama is a closet sympathizer with Wright's wackjob proclamations. That's pretty damn ignorant and rednecky. Plus those 20% of independents who say they believe the same thing. Earnestly. Whew.

Living on Another Planet<< previous | next >>Bush, Brolin, Stone

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 21, 2008 at 4:43 PM

comment #1

nemo says ...

This is a replay of the whole Monica Lewinsky business.

Step 1: The inside-the-Beltway in-the-tank Washington press corps and pundits and finger-waggers say this is terrible, this is going to sink this guy.

Step 2: The rest of America couldn't care less. They basically like the guy and think this nonsense doesn't have anything to do with his job.

Posted by nemo at March 21, 2008 6:17 PM

comment #2

Dsizzle says ...

Be sure you watch them in their entirety

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/20/224958/631/841/481227

before you call them wackjob proclamations. The "Chickens coming home to roost" statement isn't even his words... he's quoting a white commentator on Fox News. And his statement, God Damn America, is referring to a completely understandable sentiment among certain extremely disenfranchised groups that we have treated in a way which would invite damnation from any God.

Posted by Dsizzle at March 21, 2008 6:22 PM

comment #3

Josh says ...

Average white people who dont are about politics will be horrified when this starts making the rounds during mid summer.

The guy hates white america? Why not just say "honky be devils"?

The Hispanic vote will all go to McCain.

This is going to be a McGovern type loss.

Posted by Josh at March 21, 2008 6:28 PM

comment #4

George Prager says ...

IN 1980 they thought that Ronald Reagan was going to get his ass kicked.

Posted by George Prager at March 21, 2008 6:51 PM

comment #5

dangovich says ...

This is going to be a McGovern type loss.

Right. Because the economy and the Iraq occupation will be going so well, people will definitely want four more years of the same.

Posted by dangovich at March 21, 2008 7:02 PM

comment #6

George Prager says ...

I'm reading Pictures at a Revolution Five Movies and the Birth of the New Hollywood by Mark Harris. Here's a delightful tidbit:

At the same time , there was no shortage of white commentators who were eager to use Poitier as a vehicle to peddle their own noxious stereotypes. "Where is the Negro American life depicted in movies as it's lived by American Negroes? Where's the child desertion and illegitimacy, the policy games and bag women.?" wrote Burt Prelutsky in the Los Angeles Times. "do you think for a moment that you will ever go to a movie and see Sidney Poitier father an illegitimate child, live off his woman's earnings or mug an old Jew on the subway?" Concluding that "the pendulum" had swung too far, he labeled Poitier a "Negro in white face."

Burt Prelutsky "Hollywood's Negroes Mired in Stereotypes." Los Angeles Times, February 19, 1967

Posted by George Prager at March 21, 2008 7:09 PM

comment #7

Emmanuel_Goldstein says ...

jeff, why the hell aren't you or really anybody making a bigger deal out of bill Richardson endorsing obama today? Its huge, I was at the obama rally in Portland today when Richardson announced it and it should be huge for obama and his chances with Latinos... Where's the big announcemet for that?

Posted by Emmanuel_Goldstein at March 21, 2008 7:21 PM

comment #8

Emmanuel_Goldstein says ...

Posted by Emmanuel_Goldstein at March 21, 2008 7:21 PM

comment #9

Emmanuel_Goldstein says ...

Posted by Emmanuel_Goldstein at March 21, 2008 7:21 PM

comment #10

Emmanuel_Goldstein says ...

Posted by Emmanuel_Goldstein at March 21, 2008 7:22 PM

comment #11

Emmanuel_Goldstein says ...

wow sorry for posting that like a zillion times my iPhone was confused... Or I was I'm not sure

Posted by Emmanuel_Goldstein at March 21, 2008 7:24 PM

comment #12

DarthCorleone says ...

Yeah, it's one thing to critique him for hanging around the church that long. I can imagine that percentage being about right for those who have a problem with that. But actually sharing those particular views? Pretty surprising, I think.

Posted by DarthCorleone at March 21, 2008 7:34 PM

comment #13

D.Z. says ...

Emmanuel: "jeff, why the hell aren't you or really anybody making a bigger deal out of bill Richardson endorsing obama today?"

I imagine it's because Richardson should've done it sooner when Obama was running against Hillary in Cali and Texas.

Posted by D.Z. at March 21, 2008 8:40 PM

comment #14

nemo says ...

"This is going to be a McGovern type loss."

The best thing about the Wall Street Journal is that they maintain a high wall between the real world, their news coverage, and their beating-off-to-dirty-pictures fantasy life, the editorial page.

Right now you're on the WSJ editorial page side of that wall.

Posted by nemo at March 21, 2008 9:45 PM

comment #15

iamwhoiam says ...

Come on Jeff, don't lie to yourself, the damage is huge. Just look at the new polls from Pennsylvania. Fear will always be the winning factor, and this fucked up reverend may have single handedly killed Obama's campaign. How depressing.

Posted by iamwhoiam at March 22, 2008 2:10 AM

comment #16

Major Calloway says ...

...By a 57%-24% margin, registered voters do not believe that Obama shares Wright's controversial views...

Most voters reconsidering over this matter aren't doing so because they think Obama shares Wright's views. Many of them are actually willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (and quite a few think there is no doubt) that he doesn't, but they are bothered by his reluctance to address the swampy land on that particular bank of the river over which he must build his bridge of hope.

Yes, views such as those Jeremiah Wright expresses should be considered understandable....and also worthy of some serious & thoughtful contemplation. But then again, human nature being what it is, in a court of law the most aggrieved parties (some benefit of the doubt here as well) are usually not considered the most reasonable and fair-minded, and can usually be counted upon to devolve fairly consistently -- and again, understandably -- to an overly subjective and inflexible position that will dictate quite inhumane and unjust terms if given the opportunity. (A reminder for the neo-intellectuals: "subjective" equals "truth"...unless you disagree with it.) Of course, in the court of public opinion, these days most everyone jumps in the mosh pit along with them if the others in their circle of influence are also doing so. The word "justice" -- in any real sense of the word -- has about as much relevance to their worldview as "peace and understanding" does to Pat Robertson's (despite what Philippians 4:7 says). It's a cynical framing tool.

If one in four voters are going so far as to believe he actually shares Wright's views, and almost one in two aren't able to say he doesn't -- despite his eloquent and commendable speech, and the obviously bent and disempowering nature of Wright's views -- that is the starting point of the damage, not the extent of it. (Actually, among the 17% of the democrats who believe this, many of them will likely hold it against him if he doesn't.)

Posted by Major Calloway at March 22, 2008 2:45 AM

comment #17