Responses to Fitzpatrick's "Obama-dise Lost"

By: Rachel Spitler

Posted: 4/16/08

My fellow columnist, Dan Fitzpatrick, is not a bad writer.

I don't even mind who he votes for or who he encourages others to vote for, as long as his reasoning is fair and his logic is sound.

Unfortunately, last Thursday, April 10, in his column "Obama-dise Lost," Fitzpatrick wrote some things that, while clever, I find both illogical and deeply unfair.

Good faith requires me to assume that Fitzpatrick has actually read Barack Obama's March 18 speech, "A More Perfect Union," rather than just picking up quotations from other people; but if so, I am forced to conclude that he either did not understand it or deliberately suppressed the parts that were not useful to him.

As Fitzpatrick explained, Obama has a reputation among his more rabid fans that can be eyebrow-raising to those who are less (or not) devoted to his campaign. That having been reestablished, we are comfortable assuming that a skeptical criticism of Obama and his politics is forthcoming. We settle back, paper in hands, ready to be educated about the potential candidate and why, perhaps, he might not make a good president after all.

Instead, we are immediately presented with this: "Obama has two problems that give lie to his messiah-like facade - his wife, Michelle Obama, and pastor, Jeremiah Wright."

Very little actual discussion of the senator himself is to follow. As a substitute, we are pointed toward his friends and are instructed to find them unpleasant - conveniently ignoring the fact that neither Michelle Obama nor Jeremiah Wright is actually running for president.

This trick of misdirection goes even deeper.

Most of Fitzpatrick's effort to discredit Mrs. Obama is centered instead on people who work for her. To be sure, their decision to set up a camera shot with a specific arrangement of races in the background is uncomfortable to read about. But because these nameless staff members have oddly placed priorities, we're supposed to understand that Michelle herself is callous and devoid of good intentions: her "plan to fix the racial picture in America involves simply switching out who is in the frame."

I don't know about Fitzpatrick, but when I want to gauge the integrity of a political figure, I don't start with the artistic sensibilities of his wife's employees.

We then move on to look at Pastor Wright. Like so many before him, Fitzpatrick quotes only the alarming parts of Wright's sermons (which, by the way, are available in their full context on YouTube). He characterizes them as "spittle-flecked," a rhetorical technique intended to make the pastor sound grotesque based on irrelevant facts of biology - a cheap shot that I hereby reject on behalf of all people who have ever spat while talking.

Obama, we are told, has "tried lamely to separate himself from Wright's sermons by condemning them." We are not enlightened as to exactly what was "lame" about the attempt, but there is definite pressure toward feeling that it must have failed.

On what grounds? On the grounds that Obama has refused to revoke his friendship with this man. In "A More Perfect Union" - which is also available online - Obama explains the depth of this friendship in such statements as these: "The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor….

"As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding and baptized my children… He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years."

Obama also reinforces, in no uncertain terms, his firm disagreement with Wright on numerous political topics, especially the divisive statements causing this controversy - and there is no reason to suppose they have never discussed such things before.

Despite the recent uproar, he expresses abiding love for the church itself (which, remember, has more members than just the two of them), and points out that this complex dynamic of disagreement and respect is played out in the same way for countless members of other preachers' congregations around the world.

And so my question for all of those who are angered by Obama's reaction is this: What about you? Do you, in your own life, immediately disown your closest friends whenever they disagree with you? If not, how severe a disagreement does it have to be? Or do you just wait until their opinions start to make you look bad?

Frankly, I find Obama's willingness to forgive thoroughly remarkable, especially coming as it does in the face of general public hostility. This is absolutely not your run-of-the mill, image-obsessed politician. This is someone who values integrity above a few points in the popularity polls, which is virtually unheard of among public figures of this sort.

It's a strange feeling to detect more sincerity in a presidential candidate than I see in many of my personal acquaintances.

The crux of Fitzpatrick's argument against Obama is that two people as close to him as Wright and Michelle are should not be angry at America - and that their emotions are not their responsibility, but Obama's.

This is not how the real world works. I am especially alarmed by the suggestion that, if Barack were an effective leader, his opinions should have overpowered his wife's long before now. That's not "healing." That's domination.

Fitzpatrick derides the "hope and change" motto, insinuating that these words are pure fluff and that Obama has never elaborated on what exactly he means by them. But what he means is inherent in their definitions: "Hope" is belief that bad things can get better. "Change" is the process by which that happens.

As it turns out, you don't need either one of those things if you think everything in the world is okay. You only need them if you're angry and sick of injustice.

Bitter people flock to Obama's message of hope, and they do so because he is good at constructive debate, because he's good at organizing communities and because he's good at working with people he disagrees with. He has convinced these people that there is something in America worth salvaging.

Obama's campaign slogan is not "Yes, I Can," but "Yes, We Can." The overtone of hero-worship among some of his supporters is hardly his own design. Any effort to keep things in a realistic perspective is commendable, but if Fitzpatrick really wants to dispel the hyperbole of Obama-as-Messiah, "Behold! This man eats with sinners!" is probably the wrong way to go.

Speaking of realistic perspective, a Google search for "Obama more perfect union" will turn up video and text of the speech, and Wright's sermons are viewable in their full context on YouTube.

The "Barack Obama" Wikipedia article has been peer-reviewed as one of the best, and has over 200 references to other sources of information.

Anyone really interested in learning more about Obama and assessing his potential candidacy should start with something similar to these - not with blogs, not with radio shows and not with Fitzpatrick's column.

Rachel Spitler is a junior in English. The opinions expressed in her columns do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Barometer staff. Spitler can be reached at forum@dailybarometer.com.