Charles Krauthammer is not impressed with Obama’s Philadelphia speech, which he calls “A Brilliant Fraud”. Some of the key points are made towards the end of the column.
But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright’s rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?
It is the contrast between Obama’s message of a new era in which earlier racism and hatred can be a thing of the past, and his willingness to embrace a pastor representing just the things Obama wants to put an end to, that is so damaging. His speech, though often brilliantly phrased, contains just the kind of empty dishonest political rhethorics that he claims to be above. And finally, the fact that he found the environment of this particular church to be a good place for his children to grow up in, suggests that he identifies with the ideas of his pastor — or at least does not find them as objectionable as they are.
With most of the primaries over, the impact of this matter on the Democratic race is a bit difficult to predict. Perhaps it provides the super delegates, who will pick the Democratic nominee anyway, an excuse to go against the outcome of the elections and pick Clinton.