Guilt By Association: The Obama-nation of a Wright Connection

Perhaps it's a foregone conclusion at this point that mass media outlets don't assign a great level of credibility to the intelligence of the American voting public. In unarguably the most landmark presidential race in the history of the nation, it seems astonishingly impossible to wade through the murky depths of political associations designed to manipulate American voters. The strategy of winning "by any means necessary" is nothing new to politics -- one of the few arenas where mudslinging is deemed far more effective a device than presenting the relevant issues facing the country.

Associations in politics have always been a useful tool.  Celebrities and politicians aggressively campaign for their preferred candidate, and their endorsements accrue value through increased fund-raising potential and the level of prestige garnered from being allied with a familiar face.  In the election of 2008, however, guilt by association has seemingly emerged as the weapon of choice for those who have no other means of attack. 

Reverend Jeremiah Wright is perhaps as much of a household name as any candidate running for office in the 2008 presidential election, and by now needs no introduction.  Wright, the presiding pastor over a thriving congregation, has been thrust into an unforgiving media spotlight -- though perhaps not unjustly.  Reverend Wright's initial comments from a December 2007 sermon situated him upon a national platform, replete with media attention that seemed more focused on the content than the context of his words.  Even until now, no media outlets have considered it sufficiently breaking news that much of Wright's words were paraphrases or quotes from other sources, and certainly don't replay his recent rebuttal as often as the initial excerpts of his sermon were televised.

Unbiased, balanced journalism has never been a requirement for any network, news program, or newspaper, and public opinion is almost entirely shaped by what limited information is meted out to the masses.  It does, however, seem unfortunate that respected news entities haven't considered it necessary to present all sides of controversial issues.  Still worse are the political opposition who have had no problem boarding the bandwagon already at full steam.

Senator John McCain thought it necessary to mention that Barack Obama is the presidential candidate supported by the militant terrorist organization Hamas -- despite the fact that most Hamas leaders (whose primary goal is to establish an Islamic Republic in Palestine), do not hold American citizenship and therefore are ineligible to vote in the upcoming election. McCain's unwarranted observation is perhaps a result of his lackluster media coverage, which up to this point has done due diligence in suggesting that something as personal as the reported bad temper of this senior citizen may directly influence United States foreign policy.

It also seems to go largely unnoticed that Senator Hillary Clinton's ties to her own husband speak volumes for the collective character of the Clinton household.  Or even the fact that her fallibility as a "human" is sufficient excuse for egregious fabrications of her own experience arriving in Bosnia.  Not to mention Hillary Clinton's plea to blue-collar workers promising much needed jobs despite the fact that years ago she aggressively upheld the importance of NAFTA, a trade agreement that would lead to a lack of American jobs, with substantial benefit to corporations. I guess Clinton's former position, and her recent decision to be identified as a "longtime critic" of NAFTA, are not considered sufficiently newsworthy to be subject to interminable televised repetition in an effort to associate her with her own inconsistencies. 

Senator Barack Obama is left to be unjustly condemned by the views, beliefs, and comments of another individual.  Obama is certainly no stranger to his own haunting comments, and his observation of the "bitter" plight of the blue-collar Pennsylvania workers has been effectively used to his detriment. His comments, however, were not framed as an observation that could easily be placed in the a socioeconomic context, which may support the argument that organized religion has long served as a distraction to promise hope to the masses who are discontent in their current situations.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is entitled to his every viewpoint, opinion, belief, and ideology. The timeliness of his public comments could be better, but Reverend Wright's agenda is to act "as [a] servant of God...to address that problem [of color lines] and eradicate it in the name of Him who came for the whole world by calling all men, women, boys and girls to Christ"* That's far more specific to a religious agenda than Barack Obama's political agenda to bring change to a nation through government and economic reform. 

Of course many American politicians have been closely related to individuals with whom they disagree.  It's certainly possible to be a friend or fan of someone and not be of the exact same mindset on every issue and perspective. 

We get it. Every candidate wants to win. That's why they're here, and no one has any intention of going home a loser.  Fair enough.  The question left is which political candidate approaches this campaign with the integrity and value that would seem to best lend itself to become the future leader of a nation.  Perhaps history doesn't tell the best tale of candidates who approached the political machine with honesty and integrity, leaving the salacious mudslinging, degrading references, and grimy campaign ads to those who have no other leg to stand on. Hopefully the American public is as intelligent and savvy as I'd like to give them credit for and are wise and capable enough to tell the difference.

*excerpt from Trinity Church mission statement