Collateral Damage

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:56 AM

Has Barack Obama been swift-boated?

Journalists, like political operatives, tend to fight the last war. We all assumed that the 2008 version of the Swift Boat Veterans assault on John Kerry would come from a rival campaign, outside group or a shadowy 527 group. But what if it's a candidate's own former pastor who does the damage through not-so-friendly fire?

After being immersed in the media coverage for days, it's clear to me that Jeremiah Wright had become a huge albatross for the Illinois senator. Many liberal commentators had joined those on the right in ripping the reverend. But it didn't matter--Wright is obviously enjoying his 15 minutes and either doesn't care whether he hurts Obama or is ticked off and trying to take him down.

At the moment, when you think of Obama, you don't think of Michelle or Oprah or David Axelrod. You think of Jeremiah Wright.

That is what prompted Obama to speak out strongly against his former pastor. No more of this namby-pamby "he doesn't speak for me" or that some of his remarks were "objectionable." Finally, Obama said he was shocked and angry and denounced the "outrageousness" and "destructive" and "ridiculous" nature of Wright's false "rants," which he said contradicted his whole life and career. Before that, you had the impression he regarded Wright as a mere distraction that he could brush off his shoulders like lint.

This isn't necessarily over. Obama remains a strong favorite to win the Democratic nomination, but in the fall, the creeping doubts sowed by Wright's performances could exact their toll.

And here's what's odd: Almost no one believes that Barack Obama shares Jeremiah Wright's views on damning America. It's more a question of how he could have tolerated such angry views (whether he heard the most inflammatory words or not) in his church. But then, most people believed in the end that John Kerry was a war hero. It was the way he responded to the attacks that sunk his candidacy. Which is why Obama brought out the heavy artillery yesterday.

"Senator Barack Obama broke forcefully on Tuesday with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., in an effort to curtail a drama of race, values, patriotism and betrayal that has enveloped his presidential candidacy at a critical juncture," says the New York Times.

"In tones sharply different from those Mr. Obama used on Monday, when he blamed the news media and his rivals for focusing on Mr. Wright, and far harsher than those he used in his speech on race in Philadelphia last month, Mr. Obama tried to cut all his ties to -- and to discredit -- Mr. Wright, the man who presided at Mr. Obama's wedding and baptized his two daughters."

The Boston Globe questions the timing: "After Obama's uncategorical repudiation yesterday of the man who presided at his wedding and the baptism of his daughters, voters and other political observers will inevitably wonder what took so long - and how Obama could have misjudged someone to whom he was very close . . .

"Wright, with his defiance in three consecutive appearances over the weekend, made Obama look foolish. And not least because it took him so long to face Wright down."

The New York Post plumbs the depths of the reverend's thinking:

"The Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be happy to see Barack Obama's presidential campaign derailed because the pastor is fuming that his former congregant has 'betrayed' their 20-year relationship, The Post has learned. 'After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn't know about Jeremiah's views during those years, that he wasn't familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn't hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal,' said the source, who has deep roots in Wright's Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter."

Maureen Dowd plumbs the depths of the senator's thinking:

"Barack Obama has spent his life, and campaign, trying not to be the Angry Black Man . . .

"On Tuesday, the Sort Of Angry Black Man appeared, reluctantly spurred into action by The Really Angry Black Man."

Before the news conference, Andrew Sullivan, a big Obama booster, said of his man:

"I have long given a pass to Obama on Wright, because I don't believe in the politics of guilt by association and I understand the difficulty of repudiating a pastor of long standing . . .But the Press Club display on Monday changes things. It was an attack on Obama; it was divisive and bitter and racist. Embracing Farrakhan at this point was a provocation . . .

"Wright has given Obama no choice. I believe he has to publicly and clearly and irrevocably disown him and say in words that are clear and bright that Wright is now anathema to the campaign."

Afterward, Andrew was back on the bandwagon:

"That was a very impressive, clear and constructive re-framing of the core message of his candidacy . . . We found that he can fight back, and take a stand, without calculation and in what is clearly a great amount of personal difficulty and political pain. It's what anyone should want in a president."

The New Republic's Michael Crowley has a reservation:

"The one thing I wonder about is whether Obama showed enough passion. With the caveat that I did not see his initial opening statement, there was a certain coolness to his remarks. I know it's not so hip to cite David Gergen, but I thought the man had it right on CNN last night when he said Obama needed to show real, visceral anger at Wright--and I didn't see much evidence of that."

By Obama's standard, though, he was pretty PO'd.

Atlantic's Marc Ambinder takes a stand against mind-reading:

"Already, though, the cable news coverage of Obama's speech is off on a different tangent: psychological pornography. They're scrutinizing the thoughts behind the thinking; whether Wright felt Obama was an ungrateful upstart; whether Obama felt betrayed by Wright; whether Obama is more embarrassed than ashamed."

Has the story peaked? That's the question posed by National Review's Byron York:

"Now that Obama has further distanced himself from Rev. Wright, I think you'll see a determined effort on the part of his campaign and its advocates in the press to declare the matter over . . .

"Watching Rev. Wright for the last few days, watching the fluidity with which he moved from educational theories to musical theories to racial theories, it's hard to believe that that material hasn't been in the sermons Obama has heard Wright preach over the last 20 years, so I'm skeptical about Obama's new outrage over Wright's words. At the very least, I'd like to know more about what Wright taught Obama."

At Power Line, Paul Mirengoff wonders what took the senator so long:

"Obama's concession (finally) that Wright is beyond the pale arguably raises more acutely than ever the question of how this hatemongering crackpot could have been Obama's spiritual mentor for nearly 20 years."

Salon Editor Joan Walsh admits error in sizing up the reverend:

"I regret that I hedged my observation about Wright's narcissism. He may be wounded, but this is a man of enormous self-regard, and he's clearly trying to hurt Barack Obama. His national rehabilitation tour started fairly sympathetically with the Moyers conversation, but it's devolved into self-pity and self-glorification ever since. His Sunday night talk to the NAACP was mostly silly, from the questionable science behind his insistence that black children are right-brained (creative) while white children are left-brained (logical and analytical) to his mocking the way white people talk, dance, clap, worship and sing.

"I understand and agree with Wright's notion that 'different is not deficient,' but mocking white people, including JFK and LBJ, doesn't seem like the best way to get his point across (yes, he was talking to the NAACP, but he knew -- and relished -- that he had a national audience). At his Monday speech he insisted attacks on him were really an attack on the black church, a typically Wright-centric view of the world, while his security was reportedly provided by the Nation of Islam.

"Let me say that I don't believe Barack Obama believes any of the offensive things Wright said or reiterated on his revenge tour: that the government gave black people AIDS, that the black and white children are different in the way Wright says, that 9/11 was an example of Jesus' teaching 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' But questions will dog Obama about how someone with his expansive view of racial justice sat in a pew listening to Wright for 20 years.

"Unfortunately, Obama's best defense is probably a politically unpalatable truth: He didn't pay that much attention."

If Wright is the missile launched at Obama's swift boat, he was launched by a partisan, as Errol Louis reports in New York's Daily News:

"Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds.

"A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister).

"It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club 'who organized' the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter."

The Press Club is disputing the account, saying Wright was first invited two years ago--but was deemed insufficiently newsworthy.

At the Weekly Standard, Dean Barnett seems to believe that liberals are in Wright's camp:

"The left's reaction to the still continuing crisis has drifted into high comedy. With one full-throated political primal scream, Obama defenders will insist that Reverend Wright doesn't matter, and suggest that Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos should be drummed out of the punditocracy for wasting precious debate time on such a frivolous distraction. Yet with the next breath, Obama supporters will champion Jeremiah Wright, noting his supreme form of patriotism (as David Gergen did) or comparing him to Frederick Douglas or Martin Luther King as numerous prominent bloggers have.

"Obviously lost in the emotion of the political moment, the people making the latter case don't see that they're contradicting their earlier stance that Reverend Wright doesn't matter. By defending him, they implicitly concede that he matters. By defending him in such an over-the-top manner, they suggest that Obama should be embracing his connection with this angrily verbose hero among us rather than seeking distance from him."

But Barnett misses the boat on this one. While a few liberal bloggers may be rooting for Wright, another conservative, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey accurately notes that Bob Herbert, Gene Robinson, E.J. Dionne and the WashPost editorial page have all slammed Wright:

"Amazing how this Road to Damascus moment all came at the same time, although to differing degrees. All of these commentators came to see Wright as a narcissist, egotist, provocateur, and a shameless self-promoter in the last 48 hours. Why? In reading the pieces, their ire and scorn come exclusively because of the damage he does to Barack Obama, and with the exception of the Post editorial, not because what he says is ridiculous."

Roger Simon is a bit tongue-in-cheek in analyzing what's gone wrong for Obama:

"Having had the national media at his feet for more than a year, Barack Obama now finds them at his throat. The fault is his. He has disappointed us. He is not winning every voting bloc in every state. He cannot close the deal. Running against an older, white candidate, Obama has been losing the older, white vote.

"Zounds. What did we ever see in this guy? . . .

"Americans don't want presidents who are too brainy. (Obviously.) We would rather plunge into foreign wars or fall off economic cliffs than have presidents who know too much. That is because braininess is elitist, and being an elitist is the worst thing you can be if you want to be president. Obama now gets this. Since his loss in Pennsylvania, he has been emphasizing his non-elitist roots. At a recent news conference at a gas station in Indianapolis, he said, 'I basically buy five of the same suits and then I patch them up and wear them repeatedly.' (I guess Obama thinks this is supposed to appeal to the working classes, but my father was a truck driver, and he would have thought that owning five suits was a lot.)"

Think relations are strained between the Clinton camp and Chris Matthews? Courtesy of Media Bistro, here's Terry McAuliffe on John Gibson's radio show:

"I say this to Chris Matthews face: he is delusional. He has wanted Senator Obama from Day 1. If he wants to go work for the Obama campaign, he ought to get off the air and go work on the campaign, but luckily no one really pays attention to what he has to say."

Country singer Mindy McCready says the Daily News is right that she had a long-term affair with Roger Clemens. The Rocket's lawyer says they were just friends.

Finally, Brian Williams turns media critic on his NBC blog, questioning (without quite saying so) whether the New York Times is out of touch with mainstream America:

"It's tough to figure out exactly what readers the paper is speaking to, or seeking. Consider this: the Sunday Styles section lead story on April 13th was 'Scavengers on the Urban Savannah' (people buy things at flea markets!), and promoted on Page One was 'A Sex Chair Becomes A Battlefield.' Alrighty then.

"This Sunday's lead story was 'Through Sickness, Health, Sex Change . . . ' in a section that included the essay, 'Was I On A Date Or Baby-Sitting?,' and 'Let's Say You Want To Date A Hog Farmer' (and who among us hasn't?).

"The magazine cover story this week was 'The Newlywed Gays!' (happy gay men in Massachusetts who are married outdoor grilling enthusiasts!) . . .The lead story in the Travel Section? The rise of vacation resorts catering to nudists."

All the sex that's fit to print.

But if you want a really sleazy story, there's a report on the surfacing of a Jimi Hendrix sex tape that I dredged up in . . . oh, it's the New York Times.