From the Wire

Tag : Wire System

Is Obama Entering His Sista Souljah Phase?
Posted on July 1, 2008 at 11:18 AM.
The "Sista Souljah Moment" has become a cliché without peer incontemporary politics. And like any phrase that is so often used,its value is necessarily diminished over time.
When Barack Obama delivered his Philadelphia speech on race, makinghis first full-frontal effort to solve the problem of JeremiahWright, it was widely hailed as his "Souljah moment." Then, when helater fully severed ties with Wright, Obama was said to haveperformed the "full Soulja." McCain has also engineered severalsuch "moments" while trying to secure his maverick persona -- somany that writers for both the New York Times and and conservativeNational Review have called his entire political career one big,long Sista Souljah moment.
Now, as Barack Obama's recent raft of moderate moments (on FISA,Wes Clark, and the "threadbare" arguments of MoveOn.org) seemspoised to prompt further exclamations of Souljah-ing, it's worthre-examining what the original moment entailed -- and what it didnot. Because while Obama certainly seems to have absorbed some ofthe lessons Bill Clinton taught Democrats in 1992, Souljah-inghardly accounts for all of his centrist political instincts.
But history first.
In 1992, then Gov. Bill Clinton strode to the podium at a gatheringof Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition with the knowledge that he wasabout to serve a political ace.
One day before Clinton spoke, the longtime civil rights leader'sgroup had invited controversy by giving a platform to Sista Souljah-- an unremarkable rapper whose name would otherwise have been lostto history -- and who had previously suggested in a Washington Postinterview that, as something of a break from the daily cycle oflamentable black-on-black violence after the 1992 Los Angelesriots, "why not have a week and kill white people?"
While other Democrats of the era might have panicked and canceledany invitations to follow Souljah's act at the Rainbow Coalition,Clinton recognized an opportunity. The Southern governor could notonly "do the right thing" from a moral perspective and point outthe proper goal of eliminating violence altogether (instead ofsimply race-shifting the impact), but he could also stand up toJackson's stewardship of African-American activism that manyindependent -- and, yes, largely white -- voters believed had theDemocratic Party cowed.
When Clinton spoke to the group and compared Souljah's tastelessbroadside to comments by white supremacist David Duke, he may havestung Jackson, who felt betrayed, though he also assured hiselectoral viability in PC-averse southern states.(African-Americans were hardly united in support for Souljah'scomments, either.) Thus the political cliché was born: the "SistaSouljah Moment." In retrospect, it was a freebie pivot. Unlikeother triangulations, one could hold onto previously-heldprinciples while taking advantage of the issue du jour in order toscore political points.
So what does that incident tell us about the politics of themoment? Not as much as some commentators would have you think.
Reacting to Obama's Tuesday remarks about the role of faith inpublic life, the Bush administration's former point man onfaith-based initiatives told the AP that the speech had thepotential to become "a major Sista Souljah moment." The onlyproblem with such analysis is that Obama has long talked about therole that faith-based institutions should play in the publicsphere, even writing about it in "The Audacity of Hope." And as acommunity organizer, much of Obama's work centered around workingwith church groups on Chicago's south side.
So despite their centrist spirit, Obama's remarks today do notrepresent a sudden shift, nor do they seize on any particular aucourant controversy as did Clinton's unwelcome surprise in front ofJackson's group. Nor is Obama's position a "move to the center" somuch as it is a recapitulation of a moderate-style position Obamaappears to have always held. (As Andrew Sullivan noted, "you couldsee this coming a while back.")
Speaking on background, a source in the Obama campaign admitted toa certain frustration with the current narrative of their candidate"moving to the center" on issues where the Illinois Democrat hasalways staked out moderate ground. When talking about a gradualwithdrawal during the primary season, for example, Obama took someabuse from the "immediate withdrawal" crowd for his repeated mantrathat "we should be just as careful getting out" of Iraq as we were"careless getting in." (And indeed, as represented by the"Responsible Plan" website, that kind of talk is firmly in themainstream of activist anti-Iraq war sentiment anyway.) In theaftermath of Obama's FISA repositioning, the Obama campaign's fear,however, is that every subsequent moderate noise will beinterpreted as a cynical centrist tack.
As for their distancing from Gen. Wesley Clark's criticism of JohnMcCain's national security experience this week -- seen by someliberals as a Souljah-style betrayal --- the Obama camp notes thattheir candidate always has always gone out of his way to honor theArizona Republican's military service, and discouraged attempts todo otherwise. And when it comes to yet another potentialSouljah-moment -- Obama's implicit criticism on Monday ofMoveOn.org's infamous "General Betray-us" ad -- his campaign notesthat he objected to the ad at the time of its publication as well.(Well, sort of. After at first refusing to take an explicitposition, Obama did eventually vote in favor of aDemocratic-authored Senate resolution that sprung up in the wake ofthat controversy.)
Still, Obama's Monday pounce against MoveOn -- in which hedescribed their tactics as "threadbare" during a speech onpatriotism -- seems to fit the Souljah mold most clearly, at leastout of the ranks the many purported Souljah-moments of late in thecampaign. Just as the original Souljah moment was a critique thatmany African-Americans could get behind, there's precious littleliberal love for MoveOn's "Betray-us" ad.
"I would guess that if you polled the members of MoveOn, a majorityof them would also reject the language of the headline of that ad,"progressive writer Todd Gitlin told the Huffington Post. "I would,and I was a contributor. I supported the concept of the ad, andgave money for it, but didn't give money for that [betray-us] text.... I thought it was stupid. So, I mean this is a freebie."
Just like the original Souljah moment.
Read the full story »