There is a separation of Obama and Wright that is taking place based on the latest comments of Obama's campaign people, including Axelrod himself. Separations between such people are necessarily painful and will take time to heal, especially since Dr. Wright was instrumental in the development of Obama as a person. While Obama will not directly throw Dr. Wright under the bus by not attending his church, what is happening is that there is a growing distance between the two men, as evidenced by Dr. Wright's media tour and the fact that Obama's own people are saying that his tour did not help the campaign.
What we have to remember is that that both men have strong progressive credentials. First of all, we have to understand that Dr. Wright speaks for himself -- he does not represent the Obama campaign in any way, shape, or form. As such, what he says stands or falls on its own merits and should not reflect on the Obama campaign. Secondly of all, we have to stick together -- we have to remember that we are campaigning for Obama, not Dr. Wright.
But there are major differences between Obama's approach and Dr. Wright's approach. On the one hand, Dr. Wright is a fiery prophet in the mold of the prophet Jeremiah, excoriating this country for the sin of racism. But a lot of his work anticipated Obama -- the fact of the matter is that he has created a multiracial church that has thousands of people of many different races and backgrounds attending Trinity. As such, Trinity is a model for inclusion and tolerance, standing out as a witness against the racial divisions that still rack our land.
But trying to mix Obama and Dr. Wright is like trying to compare apples and oranges -- it simply doesn't work. Dr. Wright and Obama have two different objectives. Dr. Wright's goal is to define the problem of what is wrong with America. As a pastor, his job is to speak out against what he sees as the failings of this country. Pastors of every political persuasion do this every Sunday morning. But on the other hand, Obama is a politician -- and the job of any politician of any party is to bring the country together. Thus, frequently, a pastor's job is inherently polarizing; after all, Jesus said he came to bring the sword, not peace. Dr. King elaborated on this all the time during his ministry. On the other hand, the job of a politician is to deal with many divergent interests and form coalitions.
So, there are inherent philosophical differences between Obama and Dr. Wright that created the kind of friction that we see now. So, politically, Obama has to create a distance between himself and Dr. Wright in order to do his job of bringing this country together.
There is another difference between the two men. On the one hand, as Wright rightly says on a regular basis, racism is alive and well today. On the other hand, Obama is a man with a clear and consistent vision -- one cultivated by being at Trinity all these years. Obama's vision is one of a post-racial America where we are able to bridge our racial differences, bury them in the ground, and solve our problems. During his speech in Philadelphia, he himself said that in order to solve the problems of healthcare, Iraq, and other such problems, we had to be able to bridge our racial differences. And in order to do that, Obama sees himself as having to reach out to people -- hence, for instance, his appearance on FOX News Sunday.
There is no need to claim that Dr. Wright is somehow out to get Obama -- the fact of the matter is that there are big philosophical differences between the two; the fact that these differences come out does not mean that Dr. Wright is somehow out to get Obama. This separation is painful, yes -- but that does not mean that Dr. Wright is somehow out to get Obama. And there is no need for people to demand that Obama leave Trinity -- that is a decision that can only be made by him alone. It is a personal decision that only he can make, and demands that he leave Trinity are not helpful in any way. Trinity is a lot more than just Dr. Wright; it consists of thousands of people of all races and backgrounds. And it is totally unreasonable to demand that Obama leave Trinity for another reason -- the fact of the matter is that Dr. Wright was instrumental in Obama's development as a person and for Obama to leave Trinity would mean a complete and total denial of who he is as a person.
And Dr. Wright in no way is an enemy of Obama or the campaign. The fact that they are creating a distance between each other does not mean that Dr. Wright somehow becomes the enemy. It just means that the two men have two different paths created by their two different vocations and that they are going separate ways as a result.
What we have to do is point out that Dr. Wright speaks for himself and does not represent the Obama campaign in any way, shape, or form. Obama speaks for himself and should be judged on his own merits, not the merits of some other person. If Dr. Wright says that the government caused AIDS, then that should reflect on him and not Obama. Dr. Wright is not supposed to be a politician -- he is supposed to speak his mind without regard to the political calculations that dominate any campaign.
Then, what we have to do is to turn the discussion to the issues that matter. Do we really think that Dr. Wright is more important than where we want to go in our lives for the next four years? The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton is too negative and John McCain is too radical for this country. Hillary Clinton has not played up the merits of her campaign and her campaign has consisted of one attack after another on Barack Obama. And John McCain is too radical because he would abolish the Minimum Wage, keep us in Iraq for the next 100 years, attack Iran, and raise the deficit by $400 billion a year through even more tax cuts for the rich and through making the Bush tax cuts permanent. And on top of that, John McCain would appoint radical right-wing judges who would roll back Brown, Roe, and Griswold so that our basic freedoms would be threatened.
And this should reflect on the media as well. Why should we trust anything that the media says when they have lied to us about Iraq? Why should we trust anything that they say when it is clear that there are too many people within the corporate media like the ABC debate moderators who would substitute their own personal political agendas for what really matters?