Condemned if controversial
Mickey Kause writes at Slate about Obama’s recent repudiation (where applicable) of Minister Wright’s sermons:
This seems to be the General Rule of Obama–if it’s going to damage him, he condemns it! And rejects and denounces. Vehemently! The Rule would seem to apply to all past and future controversial statements–his campaign could get that sentence printed up on little laminated cards and hand them out to reporters, or include them after the statements of all Obama surrogates, like those fine-print ‘void where prohibited’ waivers. “Condemned if controversial.
Seems awfully “conditional” - The listener can apply his condemnation for him where they feel will make them feel better about him.
Personally, I don’t care what kind of sermon Wright gives, nor how his congregation deals with it. What it does tell me is that Obama is very comfortable with the 60’s style vilification of the federal government.
It makes you wonder what Obama thinks he’s going to do if he wins - put people like Wright, or Ayers, or Rezko, or Power in charge of the engines of government? Or maybe he’s so good, he’ll come in and cast out all the money changers and make a clean sweep of government.
Or would the picture be more acceptable if we said he’ll come to Washington to clean out the augean stables of corruption?
Obama’s Rules: “Void if controversial” - By Mickey Kaus - Slate Magazine
