Pat Dollard | Young Americans

Wright story: What took so long?

The controversial reverend’s 20-year relationship with Obama was left to simmer for a year. In our 24/7 media age, how could this have happened?

By Don Campbell

Barring some really strange math or a lot of second thoughts, the Democrats seem poised to nominate for president a man with the fewest credentials and least familiarity to the American people of anyone in modern history. It’s just one more way that Barack Obama is breaking the mold, and barring a major shift, he should give some of the credit to the news media.

Presidential nominees have almost always been people who have run before and lost, or who have served as vice president or who have had years of experience as members of Congress or as prominent governors.

The only one I can remember who came close to Obama in the slim résumé department is Jimmy Carter, and his rise predated YouTube, ideological talk radio, the Internet and millions of bloggers. He also emerged at a time when political journalists still had and acted upon the instincts of a bloodhound.

The vetting of presidential and vice presidential candidates has long been a responsibility that journalists took seriously:

Two reporters won a Pulitzer Prize for disclosing that George McGovern’s short-lived choice for running mate in 1972, Thomas Eagleton, had been treated for mental illness.

In 1984, news exposure of the financial dealings of Geraldine Ferraro’s husband after she became Walter Mondale’s running mate threw that campaign into a tizzy.

In 1988, reporters discovered that Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush’s obscure running mate, had used family influence to land a cushy desk job in the Indiana National Guard and avoid service in Vietnam.

In this election, alas, most of the bloodhounds have lost their sense of smell. For the most part, they’ve relinquished that space to bloggers and radio talkers who have an ideological agenda, not an obligation to root out the facts and present them fairly.

Wright coverage

Thus, the coverage of Obama’s spiritual relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ is disturbing. True, Wright sounded so unhinged on his recent ego tour in Washington that it might generate sympathy for Obama. But the issue still hanging is how a man who played such an important role in Obama’s life for more than two decades drew so little scrutiny from reporters covering the Obama campaign. And since Obama himself has said the Wright controversy is a legitimate issue, I’ll take that as an invitation to weigh in.

First, it took much too long for major news media outlets to appreciate the importance of the Wright connection. (Not that they all do yet; the pummeling of ABC News by commentators for raising this and similar issues in the Pennsylvania debate further illustrated how out of touch some commentators are.)

The record shows that publications such as the Chicago Tribune newspaper and Rolling Stone magazine had detected the controversial nature of Obama’s church about the time he entered the presidential race, in early 2007. Soon after the announcement speech, moreover, Wright himself volunteered to The New York Times that he had been disinvited to give the invocation at Obama’s presidential launch because of the baggage he would bring to the podium. That set off conservative bloggers and talkers, but little or no follow-up in the regular or so-called mainstream news media.

More than a year passed before ABC News’ Brian Ross had the clever idea to purchase videos of Wright’s sermons to review them. The most incendiary clips quickly landed on YouTube, and the rest is history. The news media were dragged into the controversy holding their noses, but by then Obama had the goal line in sight.

Second, the Hillary Clinton campaign should have done the opposition research that would have exposed the dark side of the Obama-Wright connection. Nobody’s better at this line of work than the Clintonistas. My guess is they didn’t take Obama seriously enough, or they were reluctant to take on a black minister, or they figured the news media would do it for them. Silly them.

Third, Obama’s aides should have seen this train wreck coming and tried to derail it months ago. Clearly, they recognized the threat that Wright posed. My guess is they were so dazzled by the reception Obama was getting on the campaign trail that they decided to gamble that the Wright connection would be dismissed as a distraction fueled by right-wingers.

It was a gamble, because if they had faced it head-on, Obama might have been bruised enough by the fallout to lose some of the early states he won. On the other hand, he might have finessed the issue well enough that it would now be a fading memory in the closing days of his battle with Clinton.

Obama’s challenge

Speculation aside, Obama has been ill-served by a press corps that seemingly was mesmerized by the large, frenzied crowds who turn out to see the Democratic rock star. Crowds can be deceiving: McGovern, nobody’s idea of a rock star, attracted huge and exuberant crowds throughout the fall of 1972 — on his way to losing 49 states to Richard Nixon.

Better that Obama forget the crowds and concern himself with the several million older, moderate Democrats and independents whom he’ll need in a close general election. They won’t just listen to what he says, they’ll try to peer into his soul. That’s why the Wright story is important in assessing his candidacy.

More than two years ago, at a Gridiron Club news media dinner in Washington, Obama poked fun at his meager accomplishments when he told his audience: “I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you’ve given me in anticipation of a successful career. When I actually do something, we’ll let you know.”

But the joke was on the journalists then, and now that Obama is about to actually do something, it still is.

(USAToday)