The Mere Sight Of Wright

Both Mark Halperin and the NYT call out the Obama campaign for circulating this photo.  It features Reverend Wright at the prayer breakfast where then-President Clinton apologized to and for Monica Lewinsky.

The photo has an interesting composition.  The fact Bubba swerved to make a point right at the snap creates the impression he's not that engaged.  And all the better now, the picture offering Bill avoiding direct eye contact with this future pariah.  What's a little buried, otherwise, is the right hand action, and a pretty friendly shake.  Of course, Wright's expression confirms a more connected moment.

But whether there was more connection there or, as the Clinton spokesperson said yesterday, "Bill Clinton met with, corresponded with and took pictures with literally tens of thousands of people,” the facts are no longer the issue.

Sadly, in spite of Obama's eloquent snapshot of Wright the other day, the pastor has come to symbolize the racist stereotype of the scary, angry, unpredictable and anarchistic black man.

Strange turn of events, I'd say.  A few months back, the idea of Bubba's infidelity being referenced in the media sphere in any way at all would have set off a three alarm fire in the Clinton camp.  But instead, Bill's "sin," which is what he was airing that day at this ecumenical breakfast, is completely overshadowed by the sight of a man who has come, somehow, to represent some far deeper stain.

(slightly revised: 12pm PST)

Rev. Wright Was Clinton White House Guest (TIME/Halperin)
Photograph of Bill Clinton and Rev. Wright Surfaces The Caucus
Trying Times for Trinity  -- Features what has become the "gotcha" shot of the campaign (Newsweek)

(image: truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com)

Comments

[weisseharre]

urpredicats

[Sage]

Are we condemning the man's life work on the basis of a video taking snips of two or three statements over a lifetime? Where is the rage for Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and John Hagee if we are going to use this approach? All have made similar statements against segments of our society.

I admire Senator Obama for not throwing Wright off the cliff. Instead he chose to criticize those aspects with which he disagrees and respect the rest. I see that as a new style of leadership that has potential to benefit us all.

Our country is deeply divided over differences and we seem unable to find ways to respect the good in each other while working through our disagreements. I have had enough of leaders who slam the door when their are differences, make demands instead of dialogue and go to war instead of first trying to find ways to work through the differences.

[tekel]

Sage, there was a great diary at dkos about this a day or two ago by Pastordan. He correctly noted that Wright's crime in the eyes of the Villagers is that he is a true populist, instead of a hypocritical sham like the dirtbag evangelicals who typically are thrust onto the national stage.

Falwell and Robertson and all of their heretical, hypocritical ilk spent years gently massaging the balls of establishment corporate leaders and the US Federal government and then spitting in the upturned faces of the poor and destitute. They gave their blessings to the dominant power structure, and criticized minority elements of American society for creating so many problems for the wise leaders in Washington to solve. And that's perfectly OK by Village standards- after all, what is religion but another way to dupe stupid voters into thinking you give a shit about their problems?

Wright's great offense is that he dared to criticize the establishment and give hope to the unwashed masses. He got Falwell exactly backwards, and that's why the Village is trying to hang him like an albatross around Obama's neck.

[futurebird]

I've been writing about how Wright is seen in media here:

http://community.livejournal.com/debunkingwhite/668713.html#cutid1

The more I read about him the more I find out that he seems to be a pretty well respected person. Not a perfect person, but a person who has respect and who has done a lot of good. He seems to be too much of a left/socialist for my taste-- but, he seems like a good hearty rabble rouser. Not a "minister of hate."

And there are not many white people, except those on the far left, who have said much against these kinds of attacks on Wright built on fears and soud bytes. Many white people just don't see that the kind of attention this is getting is out of proportion to the content and delivery of Wright's words. I don't not agree with Wright's politics, and he's just plain wrong about some facts. He's provocative-- but not THAT provocative! It's not worthy of a week long orgy of mockery and huff-puffing indigence. Wright has become the whipping boy of the repressed racist fears and anger of some people in this country, and as they flog away they are trying to get people, who might have better sense, to join in. They almost got me. And not enough people are saying: STOP!

[futurebird]

What media are doing to Wright is so WRONG. And I'm angry about it.

[polzoo]

Hi there,

I read your blog and I think you're a good writer. I'd like to invite you to join our new online community, polzoo.com. We're a user generated political editorial and social network site. We also choose from amongst our own bloggers to be featured on the front page. Come check us out. I think your voice would be a great addition to our site.

[margaret]

The Clintons are proving to be first class[sic] hypocrites when it comes to race. Their behavior during this campaign has revealed them to be, at heart, old-fashioned Southern racists. That stuff lies buried within every native Southerner, and it has to be beaten back whenever it comes bubbling to the surface. Even educated Southerners are not immune to it, unfortunately. I say this as a native Southerner, and it is our tragedy. Time and generational distance will help reduce the frequency of this bigotry, but, in the meantime, it erupts in subtle and not-so-subtle ways all the time, in polite society, not to mention, the other kind.

[Johanna]

Future pariah! funny phrase. I agree w/Margaret that the clintons are first class hypocrites. The photo reveals the same about Wright, however, who in the presence of the Big He has such an eager, beseeching look. Clinton saw someone of more importance in the distance. He does not look like someone turning away to make a point, but rather to initiate a more useful contact. Of course out of Clinton's presence Wright castigated him to the flock, and the rest is history.

[futurebird]

Johanna , before Clinton started race bating in the campaign Wright spoke of him as "a friend in the White House" in the same sermon where he says "Goddamn, Amreica!" --you should watch the whole video.

Wright only turned on Bill when he started race-baiting to help Hillary win.

[MonsieurGonzo]

ref : “Reverend Wright at the prayer breakfast where President Clinton apologized to and for ‘Monica Lewinsky’.”

. . !

absolution : [Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation] “When a person confesses their sins, demonstrates true repentance and readiness to change their ways, the [religious leader] is authorized to grant absolution, or “pardon of sins”, after which the person remains in good standing with the ‘Church’ [ = community]”

interesting how benign, utterly banal the image is without any caption, text-context, conceit implicit of intent; or [American culture] presumption of relevance to The Conversation as it was then, or is today. i mean, if you didn't know who any of these people were, how would we amateur, visual cultural anthropologists deconstruct the ‘symbolisms’ apparent within the image? Further, if we were future historians, to which ‘Conversation’ timeline ~ then and/or now ~ would we ordinate this image as found news = then current event artifact?

The Conversation = ‘Monica Lewinsky’ : The image is supposed to illustrate = document a ritual = religious/cultural ceremony of Absolution. . . The tall, distinguished-looking man is clearly the central figure of the image; he is also the only active [gesturing] figure, indeed he is directing. imho, the ‘director’ appears to be welcoming the secondary subject figure ~ he, who is himself focused upon the central figure ~ is assigned the rôle of subordinate, thus.

Strangely, all other figures within this image are self-absorbed = as if unaware in that instant of either the central or the secondary figures, and what they, themselves are doing. By their nonchalance we, ourselves perceive that whatever ritual these two figures are engaged in is banal to such an extent that it can be entirely ignored. Yet : because the image, itself exists we know that the image-maker was motivated to document this [instant] acknowledgement of an inter-action between the central and subordinate figures.

In that regard we realize this image, thus: as the banal action of an important central figure recognizing a subordinate figure who is just another merely he of many others, not equal in status to Him. For all intents and purposes, the image would appear to be important only to the subordinate figure, as "image proof" being : the documentation of a ritual in which his stature was that which was being elevated.

We can impute no other meaning of the greater purpose of this gathering, what its ceremony was; ie., there is nothing to suggest any ritual of ‘Absolution’ process, inherent ~ certainly not a forgiveness of the central figure by anyone; And, if by image caption advised that an Absolution was the purpose of this congregation ~ it would be reasonable though unreal to conclude that it is the subordinate figure who is, himself being absolved, welcomed / being re-directed to his place back into The Community directed by Him, the religious leader = director apparent.

The Conversation = ‘Reverend Wright’ : We know that the image was originally benign; that its reality was the documentation of a banal ritual in which the stature of the subordinate figure was that which was being elevated ~ by this "image proof" evident ~ of his association with = acceptance, apparent by the central figure of higher status.

Further, given some hint of past text-context, that ‘Absolution’ was the original intent of this gathering ~ we can see that this propaganda draws upon the original ambiguity of the image (in which it is the director, Mr. Clinton who appears to be elevating the stature of his subject, Rev. Wright) to evoke in the viewer a logical fallacy of moral equivalence . . .

. . . not of Mr. Clinton = like Rev. Wright, but of Mr. Clinton = Mr. Obama : the image of whom does not exist in the image, but in our own mind's eye; That, if Mr. Obama owns this preacher as his teacher, and Mr. Clinton owns this preacher as his absolver, then Bubba = Obama, Q.E.D.

Yes, the interesting thing about this image (to me) is that it is in reality meaningless to Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama; Yet : in The Conversation then, and The Conversation now, their message was their conceit (about us) that this image should be meaningful to you :)

[Cactus]

Wright's words may seem over the top and inflamatory. But so is the high dudgeon of the talking (white) heads on TV. I wrote a 2-page rant about this for my blog and from what I saw of his remarks, they were based on the truths middle patriotic America doesn't want to face. But LSS, here's the condensation.

Blacks his age remember the Tuskegee experiment. Is it any wonder that they find it easy to believe that the government gave AIDS to blacks? There was even a movie about (white) doctors in the Congo who mailed out vaccines that may have been contaminated. Then there was that CIA thing about selling drugs to Los Angeles inner city blacks which resulted in hearings with Diane Watson. Kinda makes one wonder why tucker and hardhead don't do some googling.

As to 'why they hate us,' 173 military bases around the world, protection of brutal military dictators in South & Central America for the united fruit company, repeated interference in other countries all over the world? When the 'chickens come home to roost,' that makes more sense than they hate us for our freedom.

It's also generational. Wright is old enough to have lived through a lot of unforgivable racism, as have most of his parishioners in the south side. As many of us do in old age, we tend not to notice how much the rest of the world has changed.

As for his oft-repeated damning of America, I find it remarkable that no one, except Rachel Madow, has noted the singing of a negative version of "God Bless America" where the words were changed to god won't bless America, at the beginning of one of THE REPUBLICAN DEBATES ON TV! I find that much more egregious.

While I found most of Wright's comments were based on facts of some credibility, what about the republican's favorites: Hagee, Falwell, Parsley, Robertson, et al. Their racist, sexist and homophobic rants are legendary and not even challenged any more by the M$M. And what about the Bushes, pere et fils, and their close ties to the second coming great savior and emperor of America the Rev. Moon? Google it.