Obama Repudiates Wright

Congratulations, I guess, Karen.

I congratulate the media in pushing this story as hard as they have. A reverend has been repudiated by a presidential candidate.
Victory!

Hasn't Obama learned anything?

All he has to do is say the magic word "Nonsense!" five times, and the media will magically forget anything about Reverend Wright.

I mean, that's how it works, doesn't it?

And that sound *I* hear is a collective sigh of self-satisfaction coming from the media, proud to see that, once again, they have the power to police public discourse and keep it constrained within a Procrustean status quo of safe, bland, rightward-leaning, anti-populist, and so-called "mainstream" opinion.

KT here--

Sorry, guys. I think this was a pretty big development. This thing was killing Obama, and not just because the media had invented a narrative. I've talked to any number of his leading supporters in the last couple of days, and they were very, very worried. Not just about this controversy in particular, but about what Obama's handling of it suggested about how he would treat all the other stuff that is going to get thrown at him. That "dirt off my shoulder" approach wasn't going to be enough. One former Bill Bradley strategist yesterday said it was reminiscent of what focus groups had been telling them about their candidate in 2000: If he won't fight to defend himself, why should I think he would fight for me?

"All he has to do is say the magic word "Nonsense!" five times, and the media will magically forget anything about Reverend Wright."

Ralph, that only works with white reverands not Reverand Wright.

"and not just because the media had invented a narrative"
Well that's certainly an honest description of your collective part in this.

This was BIG Karen! It certainly was what Obama needed to do and I think he did it well.

Obama supporters spent the last few days on here defending Wright to the teeth and saying that anyone who found him offensive yesterday was a racist. Now Obama has thrown them under the bus as well by rightly saying about Wright's statements at the Press Club,

“They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally today.”

I've talked to any number of his leading supporters in the last couple of days, and they were very, very worried.

I'm sure they were, because they're savvy enough to know that the media would rather report on this kind of BS than on the candidates' policies-- ie, the things they would do that would actually affect anything in the real world.

Karen Tumulty - Quick editorial note: The last sentence is a repeat and is unnecessary.

"Sorry, guys. I think this was a pretty big development. This thing was killing Obama, and not just because the media had invented a narrative."

So, Ms. Tumulty, you're basically admitting that the media DID invent this narrative?

I'm glad to see that our perceptions don't diverge on this point.

To be sure, the media doesn't have hypodermic-needle progaganda power. But the opinions they "invent" have at least some power.

And, according to the third-person effect of media scholarship, I bet it was the possible effects of that narrative invented by the media that made the Obama supporters nervous.

(The third-person effect is basically, "It's not YOU or I who will be affected by these media messages, but I bet a lot of OTHER PEOPLE will be.")

That was a very impressive, clear and constructive re-framing of the core message of his candidacy; and a moment given to him by Wright. No one will ever be able to say that Obama threw his father-figure and pastor under the bus. We all know that the reverse happened. We also know that this clear repudiation of Wright's toxic, indeed "ridiculous" views on AIDS, 9/11 and permanent immiseration of people of color could not have happened unless Wright had made it necessary. Skeptics may wonder whether Wright actually deliberately did Obama a favor. I doubt it. But a favor it unintentionally is.

Maybe God does bring good out of bad. Maybe these racial and cultural divides can help us understand how better to move beyond them. Cynics may scoff - and certainly will. They will parse every nuance and try to paint Obama as another cynical, positioning pol. I don't believe it. He has more sincerity and integrity than the vast majority of politicians, more honesty, and more resilience in a very tough spot.

And today, we found that he can fight back, and take a stand, without calculation and in what is clearly a great amount of personal difficulty and political pain. It's what anyone should want in a president. It makes me want to see him succeed more than ever. It's why this country needs to see him succeed more than ever.

Okidoki, that´s a good start. Now let´s win this thing, Senator.

From the post directly below-
"Huffington spends a fair amount of time laying out a brief not against the Right but against the media"

Karen above "This thing was killing Obama, and not just because the media had invented a narrative."

It's really too perfect.

Interesting...how will Wright-defending Obama supporters react to yet another clear rejection of Wright's philosophy from their candidate?

Great speech, but the delivery could have been better. And was it too raw? I can't immediately think of another speech given by a politician that felt so uncomfortably honest. Maybe it will be like Clinton's NH tearing up. I found the whole thing heartbreaking. It is such a personal betrayal.

I also feel that his pain overshadowed his anger in the speech. Which is completely understandable - he only saw the Q and A last night, and it's natural that his first reaction would consist mainly of pain and shock. But do people want a politician to show that much pain? Yet they did vote for Clinton in NH. There is a difference though in that Clinton also showed a lot of raw ambition and confidence - that turned a lot of people off of course - and those are more "presidential" qualities.

Anyway, I wish him the best in this. I want Clinton to win on Tuesday, but I don't want Obama to lose because of Wright's ego.

From Obama Rips Rev. Wright at CBS News:

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference.

Obama sought to distance himself further from Wright.

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good. ... But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. ... There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced."

Is this Obama's "Sista Souljah" moment?

The other sound I think I heard was a big sign of relief from some of Obama's leading backers, who have been distraught in recent days by what they believe is his unwillingness to show anger and passion when he needs to.

That's a great sentence, Karen, but not so great that you need it twice in one post. ;)

KT: Obama finally made the break with his former minister.

Well, finally again. Hopefully, the third time is enough of a charm for the talking heads on the teevee.

I think this was a pretty big development.

Yes. Obama's pastor is effectively off the table for the general election, which probably was the idea all along. Everyone is tired of hearing about it, and now there's a public break that clearly separates the two. Brilliant.

This thing was killing Obama, and not just because the media had invented a narrative. I've talked to any number of his leading supporters in the last couple of days, and they were very, very worried.

Which came first? The narrative or the concern?

Not just about this controversy in particular, but about what Obama's handling of it suggested about how he would treat all the other stuff that is going to get thrown at him.

And Obama hasn't handled all the crap thrown at him to this point?

...Sorry for the fisking, Karen, but I'm in that sorta mood today.

I think the Rev. Wright story needs nore attention.

Glenn Greenwood states all the reasons why at http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Rose: Anyway, I wish him the best in this. I want Clinton to win on Tuesday, but I don't want Obama to lose because of Wright's ego.

----------------------------

I'm not sure that I care anymore who wins on Tuesday, but I agree with you that I would hate for Obama to lose because of Wright's ego. That is why I said yesterday that I thought Wright was "selfish." I got attacked by Elvis and other Obama supporters for saying that Wright's performance at the Press Club was truly awful, but it was.

There may have been a media narrative about Wright (although I think Obama got plenty of media love after his great speech on race in Philly), but what Wright did yesterday transcended any narrative. It was the equivalent of someone pouring lighter fluid over themselves and setting themselves on fire. Kinda hard to ignore.

Obama was right in saying that Wright
made himself into a charicature yesterday.

I am looking forward to what the GOPs will run on. See, Obama is a teflon and he tends to shine under pressure.

stuart_zechman - I didn't watch yesterday's performance but I have said that I think Wright has been too harshly judged. And in reading the comments yesterday, I didn't see a lot of defending of Wright so much as saying that he wasn't as bad as he was being portrayed and the media narrative was unfair (okay, there may have been a few exceptions).

Obama did what he had to do. When the issue came up at first he did not want (and tried to avoid) this kind of "denounce, reject and distance" dance. Wright, by re-inserting himself into the race (with a big assist by the media), made that impossible.

But here's my question - are we now done with Wright? Or will McCain and Clinton find some way to resuscitate that corpse? And how about their supporters on this blog? How do you plan to spin this one?

Oh Boy...do you really think Rev. Wright is going to take this lying down? I may be wrong but, boy oh boy.

I am sorry to say but I am watching the re run on CNN as we speak and it is irksome. Obama's high and mighty posturing is really bothersome. I understand he had to do this, but his sense of superiority is just too difficult to swallow.

But as I said previously, the press will eat it up and Hail Obama.

KT here--

Enceladus and Crust: yargh! I was typing fast and moved the sentence up and then forgot to delete it. Welcome to the world without editors.

Kt here--

Oops, that was Terra I should have directed that to.

KT here--

Also, guys, did you SEE Wright at--of all places--the National PRESS Club yesterday? I think that narrative didn't have to be invented. Wright was writing it. He was acting purposefully and destructively.

Hasn't the media narrative for months been an effort to join Obama to the hip of this guy? Only recently did Bill Moyers (not the corporate media, of course) actually think to interview the most controversial man in America. When we finally heard him speak for himself, as no journalist outside of PBS wanted him to do, he attacked Obama and promised to "go after him" if Obama became President.

So, not only has the narrative, yet again, been totally manufactured and off-base -- why am I supposed to be upset about this again? What is it supposed to say about Obama, exactly? I don't know any more.

Now with Hagee of "God drown New Orleans" fame, there's no doubt he's in bed with McCain -- he dialed it back and did whatever the McCain campaign asked of him, after they got his endorsement and had him appear on stage with McCain to dupe the fundamentalists into thinking he didn't mean what he said in 2000 to earn his "maverick" label.

I'm telling you, whatever McCain's base claims he had "in the bank" for his gaffe in 2000, that he spent the rest of the campaign and last eight years trying to undo, has long since been turned into a deficit.

Thank God. I guess this means that the troops will be coming home, that we all have health insurance, and that the financial crisis has been averted.

Give yourselves a pat on the back, media members!

Obama once said that people look at him and read into his face what they want to see.

Comments here seem to bear that out.

For me, I see a guy with personal integrity who really does find the way our politics has degraded to a spectator sport to be both personally offensive and potentially greivously harmful to our national future.

In a situation like this, it's got to be doubly hard for him to react publically.

That said, I noticed something evolving in Wright over the weekend. His Moyer's interview was actually reasonable and illuminating. I did see the core of the church and its appeal to a community organizer. I also saw that the man was completely grounded in a different generation. After that I thought, okay, he's probably done a lot to rehab his image which was badly damaged by the cut and paste of his most inflamatory statements.

But with each opportunity before the microphone, I saw him morphing in a comic book character and relishing the limelight in a much too clear way.

I'll bet he follows Hillary onto Bill O'Reilly's show.

But Obama did what he had to do, because that sideshow kind of politics is better left to the people who seem to develop a glow from the taunts of a crowd. There are no shortage of relics looking to reclaim the spotlight...

Obama has a more important agenda.

Also, guys, did you SEE Wright at--of all places--the National PRESS Club yesterday? I think that narrative didn't have to be invented. Wright was writing it. He was acting purposefully and destructively.

KT, you guys having been telling us for months (without interviewing the man) that this was Obama's "spiritual mentor", doing everything you could to tie them together as one and the same. And you guys were completely blind to the pattern -- first, trying to make Obama disassociate with every black man in America (Farrakhan, Ayres, Sharpton) who might give the white people the willies, no matter how tenuous the connection, until they finally got the insinuation to stick with Wright. They're trying to say Obama is every black activist you've ever heard on TV because he's black. Yet -- he has no control over the man, and the guy obviously feels no compulsion to do Obama any favors. So, everything we've read and seen is a total fabrication -- they hate each other, obviously. Had you interviewed the man, you'd know that.

"Also, guys, did you SEE Wright at--of all places--the National PRESS Club yesterday? I think that narrative didn't have to be invented. Wright was writing it. He was acting purposefully and destructively."

Yeah, but I saw Bush's press conference today, too, so I'll be waiting to hear an equivalent amount of outrage and high dudgeon from the TV gasbags this evening.

But all I saw this morning was the same old deference to his frat-boy clowning. I guess it's OK if you're not one of those "uppity" types.

(On second thought, I think I'll pass on the TV gasbags and watch Spongebob instead. Or read some more "elitist" books.)

There is nothing new here. Despite the fact that Barack Obama had already renounced the controversial comments of Rev Wright the message had apparently not gotten through to those people who, well, were not paying attention. And despite the fact that Obama had already stated that those comments were not familiar to him in the context of his relationship with Rev Wright, the message had not gotten through because, well, it is advantageous for those people to not hear it.

Nothing new has happened here. Nobody is going to be reasonable enough to accept this information. FoxNews is making too much money playing those clips of those sermons.

TeresaKopec - I do not recall anybody calling you a racist but if they did they were wrong to do so. The point that people were trying to make to you was that the Black Seperatist theology preached by Rev Wright might be unfamiliar to you but it is not as scary as many people think it is - or as scary as it is being presented by the likes of FoxNews. At its heart it is actually a very conservative philosophy that preaches self-reliance, strong community and a deferment of conspicuous consumption. That last part is the 'anti-middleclassness' that so bothered the commentor David on a previous thread - he was convinced that that term meant being content with being poor but it actually meant an ethic of frugality in the choices one makes with money.

This entire episode could have been an educational and constructive examination of what it means to be black in America as seen from the inside of the African-American community. Sure, we could watch BET or Tavis Smiley or listen to Bill Cosby or Spike Lee or Chris Rock. But we don't. And that is why we do not understand what we are seeing when we are suddenly presented with a clip from a sermon that is controversial even within the black community, but initiated from a point of view that is completely foreign from the outside.

Ask anybody who is not Irish how many people in Ireland were allowed to starve to death by the British during the Irish Potato famine.

Ask anybody who is not Mormon how many Mormons were massacred on their journey to the Great Salt Lake.

Ask anybody who is not Chinese how many people were killed at Nanking or about the laws established in this country against the legal immigration from a drought ravaged homeland.

We are a people content to not understand the histories of our neighbors. And worse than that, we enthusiastically twist the behaviors that result from those histories into a narrative of character flaw and diffuse, nebulous danger. Barack Obama offered a glimpse into these parallel but unshared histories in his speech on race but nobody listened the first time. Nobody will listen this time either.

Our long national nightmare of having a presidential candidate who is friends with an opinionated preacher is finally over.

This is truly a historic day for all Americans. It's right up there with the day we discovered that astronaut wasn't really wearing diapers while she was stalking her boyfriend.

We can all breathe a huge sigh of relief and go back to tut-tutting Miley Cyrus about those naughty pictures.

Memekiller--I heard that some black guy in New York City or San Francisco or somewhere killed someone.

Do you think Tim Russert will ask Obama if he repudiates that guy's actions?

Good for Obama.

Bad for Hillary.

Well, Karen, what on Earth was Wright doing at the goshdarn National Press Club to begin with? I don't want to hear about Obama's former pastor, or Clinton's supposed anti-blue collar voters from 15 years ago, or McCain's temper or ugly divorce or whatever. I really don't. I would honestly prefer that media coverage be about issues.

It's easy enough for me to make that stand, I guess, because I'm a Democrat, but it really is a matter of principle. If the American people decide to vote for McCain because they want to stay in Iraq indefinitely and to run up the debt by continuing Bush's fiscal policies, fine. But that can only happen if the media actually covers issues.

This dedication to distraction and dime-store psychoanalysis was almost arguably possibly defensible in 2000, in an era of peace and prosperity. Not now.

As always, your willingness to engage in discussion with commenters is greatly appreciated.

I got attacked by Elvis and other Obama supporters for saying that Wright's performance at the Press Club was truly awful,

No, ma'am, you were not.

I pointed you to hilzoy's refutation of the argument, which originated at NRO and which you offered here, that Wright was embracing The Bell Curve.

I don't think anyone said that the Wright's Q&A at the National Press Club was super awesome for Obama, the media, liberation theology, politics, race relations, theology, media coverage of politics, reverends, clubs, or really much of anything.

But that's not the point. The point is, regardless of what Wright said, all reasonable people can agree that the coverage of the original clips and the ensuing controversy has been way, way over the top.

-I heard that some black guy in New York City or San Francisco or somewhere killed someone.

San Francisco? So he's not only a murderer and black, he's also gay and elitist. He probably killed the guy by sodomizing him with arugula.

Obama better act quickly on this one.

Recovering wingnut John Cole has a very sane take here:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10235

Also, guys, did you SEE Wright at--of all places--the National PRESS Club yesterday

No. No one did. The entire world had to take it on faith that Wright did all the craaazy things that like totally detonated the Obama campaign.

The guy just told the press they're incapable of asking reasonable questions. I'm inclined to agree.

billiecat:

I watched (and DVR'ed from C-Span) Wright's appearance at the National Press Club carefully more than once.

I listened to a number of people (at least around the blogosphere) tell anyone who would listen that A) he wasn't as bad as he was being portrayed, B) the media narrative was unfair, and C) there was a lot with which to agree about Wright's philosophy.

I, for one, am perfectly happy to hear Barack Obama say loudly and clearly in his own words that he finds totally abhorrent Wright's statements A) that AIDS was a US government creation specifically to inflict genocidal suffering on the African American population, B) there is an absolute equivalence between our military's actions and those of the forces of international terrorism, C) Louis Farrakhan is an important voice for the prior and this new century, and D) that his own (Barack Obama's) previous denunciations were mere political posturing. I am completely satisfied by this explanation.

I must wonder, though, at how this further clarification of Barack Obama's utter rejection of these concepts, and his reiteration of his own contempt and offense on behalf of all Americans at Wright's enunciation of a revolting political ideology will be received by those who apparently found some comfort and vindication at their expression.

It appears strikingly familiar to me; Bill Clinton had such a moment in the 1992 campaign in which he denounced a (relatively) famous African-America public figure Sister Souljah:

Origins

The term originates in the 1992 presidential candidacy of Bill Clinton. In an interview published May 13, 1992, the hip-hop MC, author, and political activist Sister Souljah was quoted in the Washington Post as saying,

“ If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?[1] ”

The remark was part of a longer response to the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The quote was later reproduced without the context of the complete interview[2] and resulted in wide criticism from the media. In June 1992, Clinton responded to the quote while giving a speech to the Rainbow Coalition, saying,

“ If you took the words ‘white’ and ‘black’ and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech. ”

Reactions

Clinton's response was criticized by members and leaders of the Democratic Party's African-American supporters, such as Jesse Jackson,[3][4] and Clinton was accused by Sister Souljah of being a racist and a hypocrite.[5]

It will be interesting to see if and how those of Barack Obama's more strident supporters who are have been so inclined to sympathize with the public expressions of Rev. Jeremiah Wright (and others echoing that rejected political and religious ideology) can come to terms with Barack Obama's own Sister Souljah moment.

What ireneinmass said. If Wright had left it with the Moyers interview on Friday, or at least been equally reserved in his subsequent speeches, this would have had a different ending. The difference I think was between the one-on-one with Moyers and playing to the crowd. Amy Sullivan noted that Wright's Q&A devolved into a performance and unfortunately, many pastors are frustrated performers. I just hope some leaders in the Black community will sit Wright down and tell him to stop injecting himself into the situation.

"He probably killed the guy by sodomizing him with arugula."

Is that what people mean when they ask for a 'tossed salad'?

"San Francisco? So he's not only a murderer and black, he's also gay and elitist. He probably killed the guy by sodomizing him with arugula."

But that was only AFTER he waterboarded him with Chablis while singing Judy Garland showtunes.

Teresa, you are typically Clintonian in the way you try and push a story far beyond what it will bear. It is clear that there are racist overtones in the way some of the commentators have tried to make Wright into a symbolic angry black man, as they have tried to do with Obama. Saying this does not mean that Wright is immune to criticism, but it does mean that the media cannot get a free pass either. That's an important distinction, and one which makes your post about Obama throwing supporters under the bus by rejecting Wright look rather silly and unpleasant. It's also very cliched.

I think that narrative didn't have to be invented. Wright was writing it.
Posted by Karen Tumulty | April 29, 2008 3:32 PM

"This thing was killing Obama, and not just because the media had invented a narrative."
Posted by Karen Tumulty | April 29, 2008 2:59 PM

Really, my head is spinning.

KT: I think that narrative didn't have to be invented.

Bull. That narrative has been in place for a long time, started well over a year ago in right-wing rags:

Obama falls under the spell of a leftist black nationalist preacher, Jeremiah A. Wright, who preaches African-American unity through antipathy toward whites. Reverend Wright remains a major influence on the presidential candidate.

Like all this stuff sprang up just over the past week or so.

Sorry, that should be "...who are or have been so inclined..."

Let's count the Wright threads started by these Swampland reporters and than go back and count the post started about the generals.

KT will do all she can to say this is what people are talking about and this is what people want them to write about. Its not media driven. But it is and saying it fives time really fast does not make that go away.

I think this whole mess is way more personal than it's been framed by the media -- and I use the word "framed" deliberately, because no one is asking about Hillary's church attendance or McCain's Hagee beliefs. It's been a very ugly show.

Wright is a showman, among other things. He's used to having cheering audiences, and he plays to them and works them. I'm also pretty sure he isn't used to personal criticism of any kind.

I think Wright was hurt and offended by Obama's referring to him, in Philadelphia, as an old uncle who is tolerated, rather than as a bold and charismatic community organizer, which is how Wright no doubt sees himself and which is also the truth though not the whole truth.

I didn't see the PBS interview, but it was apparently quite reasonable. One on one, he comes across as a learned and intelligent man, which is also the truth though not the whole truth.

But when he got in front of the audiences at the Press Club, his "inner showman" and his anger both came out. I think he's out to trash Obama now. I think quite a few black scholars and leaders (though not ordinary black people) are out to trash Obama now.

FWIW, I'm an old white woman. I voted for Obama in the Ohio primary, and will vote for him in November if he's the nominee.

But, ugly as it sounds, I think maybe Spike Lee's old comment about "crabs in a barrel" has some merit. It's too bad.

KT here--

P-NNTO: Sorry, syntax again. That earlier comment should have been worded to say that this was not entirely a media-invented narrative.

Not entirely. Indeed.

Of course now that he has "repudiated" his CHRISTIAN pastor how long before the "see,he really is a Muslim" campaign restarts?

superterrificdelegate - You wrote: "I just hope some leaders in the Black community will sit Wright down and tell him to stop injecting himself into the situation."

Which leaders would one choose?

I ask this not to put you on the spot, but to illustrate that we will get vastly different responses depending on the leader we choose. The Black community is not monolithic and is currently undergoing a generational upheaval as the old-guard Civil Rights leaders and the growing African-American middle- and upper-class attempt to come to terms with eachother. Throw in an even younger generation that seems even more isolated from this struggle and you have the makings of some very interesting conversations.

This entire episode could have been a vibrant and constructive discussion of the black experience at the start of the 21st century. But it wasn't.

And has anybody considered that John McCain probably spends more time listening to Rush Limbaugh than Barack Obama has spent listening to Rev Wright but that nobody seems to want to challenge McCain with any of the truly insane ramblings of that devious little draft-dodger?

...he [Wright] comes across as a learned and intelligent man

There is no doubt about that. This man is no un-sophisticate, no Pastor Parsley. He should be publicly debated, preferably by someone of equal caliber, perhaps like Dinesh D'Souza debated Christopher Hitchens on the value of religion.

...and let's not forget that the "anger" on display at the National Press Club was almost exclusively directed at the national news media.

not entirely a media-invented narrative.

What else could it be? No one but the media saw it. The press took it personally and framed the whole thing as really bad for Obama. As if Wright spoke to 40,000 people and told them Obama invented AIDS.

Maybe it's not "media-invented" but it's about the media to an extent that no one will admit.

Terrapinion: The point that people were trying to make to you was that the Black Seperatist theology preached by Rev Wright might be unfamiliar to you but it is not as scary as many people think it is - or as scary as it is being presented by the likes of FoxNews.
---------------------------------

No where did I criticize Black seperatist theology nor do I find it threatening. (ALthough I think it is rightly called Black liberation theology). I completely understand where it comes from and its origins in Central America during the contra days. My husband was observing elections in Nicaragua in those days. I have a lot of sympathy for and understanding of liberation theology.

As KT says, those of you defending Wright apparently did not see Wright yesterday at the Press Club. You need to see the video of his performance there before you say anything else in his defense. That is what I wrote about yesterday, although I also stand by my critique of his efforts in front of the NAACP to spew racist garbage about how black children learn differently than white children. Ridiculous, racist, biological arguments for differences among racial groups is offensive whether it comes from the KKK or from Rev. Wright. And I say that as a person with a masters in Anthropology, not as a Democrat.

Which leaders would one choose?

George Washington Carver, Jo Jones, Clyde Frazier

stuart, you know I have a lot of respect for you and appreciation for your comments here, so I hope you'll forgive my lapse into sarcasm to respond to you. As you point out, loads of Obama supporters were arguing just hours ago that Wright should be made VP, or at least Secretary of Religion. It'll be real interesting to see if they can come to terms with today's momentous events. Let's all hold our breath until we find out.

Aw, man, Crust, I was just gonna post that link.

OK, here's an excerpt instead (profanity disguised):

First and foremost, I guess I am no longer the delicate fainting flower that most other bloggers and media commenters are these days. I spent several years in the early days of this blog being all sorts of outraged about petty bulls*it. I spent days calling Ted Rall an as*hole (he still is, I think), days opining about what an as*hole Michael Moore is, and so on. I got my panties all in a bunch about Ward Churchhill (also a di*k), and stupid things Bill Maher may or may not have said, and so on.

And you know what? They may be as*holes, or jerks, or whatever term you want to use, but they sure as he*l didn’t run this economy into the ground. They aren’t responsible for for turning a huge surplus into a several hundred billion dollar deficit. I have yet to read any memos from Barbra Streisand detailing how we should spy on American citizens.

And so it is with Jeremiah Wright. Is he a jerk? I don’t think there is any argument to be made that lately he hasn’t in fact been one big, giant, puckered as*hole. His ego tour the past few days was all about him, but so what? I blame the media as much as I blame him. Is it an offensive notion that the government created aids? Absolutely, but I refuse to get all bent out of shape about it, because the government that tortures people and ran the Tuskegee experiment and wiretapped MLK for years opens itself up to crazy accusations like that.

So Jeremiah Wright has acted like a jacka*s the past few days, and he may have acted supremely selfishly by hurting Obama’s electoral chances. Regardless, he may be a flawed man, but that does not undo all the good he has done over the years. I don’t know of any bloggers with thirty years of service to the poor and the indigent. Get back to me when Chris Matthews feeds hungry people for three decades. And even with all his flaws, Jeremiah Wright did give us this quality bit of entertainment, and I have to admit to enjoying someone treat the media with the respect they deserve (which is to be mocked, have eyes rolled at them, and taunted as Wright did yesterday at the Press Club).

Maybe it is because I am totally and unrepentantly in the tank for Obama, but I just can’t get worked up over what his pastor said.

I disagree with Cole about how the media deserves to be treated, but by and large, that's exactly right.

Perspective, people. This whole Wright affair has been all about the Drudge-Halperin-Fox freak show. That's great news, if you're John Harris or Osama bin Laden, but bad news if you want an engaged American public and well-considered policies.

I usually don't go to quoting Proverbs, but given todays narrative I thought it appropriate.

“Friends are made by many acts and lost by only one”

The media did not tie Obama and Wright at the hip.

1) Didn't Wright inspire Obama 20 years ago and brought him back to the faith?
2) Didn't Wright marry Obama and his wife?
3) Didn't Wright baptize Obama's children?
4) Didn't Obama use the title Audacity of Hope from one of Mr. Wright's sermons?
5) Didn't Obama say that Wright was sort of a "crazy uncle?"

The MSM touched this when they just didn't have a choice, only when they had to cover it, as it has been with anything slightly negative regarding Obama.

This is the media's guy, undoubtedly. So in this one, please don't blame them. They would have never come up with this one on their own. They really didn't want to touch this.

For the record: I find the media's behavior with all the candidates appalling.

BasilBrush: Teresa, you are typically Clintonian in the way you try and push a story far beyond what it will bear. It is clear that there are racist overtones in the way some of the commentators have tried to make Wright into a symbolic angry black man, as they have tried to do with Obama.
------------------------

B.S. I don't think Wright is a "symbolic angry black man." I think Wright is an egotistical ass. Obama rightly saw what Wright did yesterday as personally disrespecting him. Wright is the one who trys to say that he "represents the Black church." Wright doesn't represent anyone but his own kooky self.

I should link to that debate between Dinesh and Hitchens, I suppose (this being the internet, and all).

TomT: "Our long national nightmare of having a presidential candidate who is friends with an opinionated preacher is finally over."

LOL. Thanks for that!

As for Obama's moment today, he navigated a Catch-22 situation about as well as humanly possible. One of the things I really like about this man is that he always tries not to respond in ways that are destructive to larger goals. He won't respond in kind to Hillary's attacks when that would be destructive to Dem chances. He found a way to respond to Rev. Wright's divisive and fantastic statements while separating Wright from the black church generally, and praising the good works of Wright's ministry in the community ("what attracted me has always been the ministry's reach beyond the church walls").

But TomT was wrong; our long national nightmare is not yet over. There is work yet to be done. Jane Hamsher: "As long as these Elmer Gantrys were white Republicans, they never earned a one-way pass off the national stage. Nobody is ever forced to renounce them, no matter what vile, sexist, homophobic, violent, wretched or degrading thing they might say. They are always treated with the reverence of some august personage because, well, they are men of God and a bunch of snake handlers looked to them for spiritual guidance. . . . I anxiously await John Hagee's statement about the Catholic Church being the "great whore" getting the same kind of treatment. John McCain sought out Hagee's endorsement, and said he was "proud" to get it. Why isn't that the topic du jour? Hell, it even comes with Bill Donohough for amplification. . . ."
http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/29/22790/

Terrapinion-

There is nothing little about Rush Limbaugh.

Of course the Repugs will not let this thing die and will still throw it at Obama like a case of rotting eggs in the GE but I think the majority of Americans have made up their minds and Wright won't hurt Obama in the long run.

As I keep saying, it's better for Obama to get roughed up now on this (and other) issues than to have it sprung on him in the fall. Clinton was able to overcome Inhalegale, Draftgate and Gennifergate because the dirt was thrown early and often and by the time he got the nomination in June Americans had already made up their minds about those issues.

I must wonder, though, at how this further clarification of Barack Obama's utter rejection of these concepts, and his reiteration of his own contempt and offense on behalf of all Americans at Wright's enunciation of a revolting political ideology will be received by those who apparently found some comfort and vindication at their expression.

Stuart,

I've always known that Obama's political views were more centrist than my own, so I'm not surprised. I've also always known that there were elements of Wright's views that I disagreed with. There are three great national sins that shape my perspective on the place of the U.S. in the world:

1) Genocide against Native populations

2) Slavery and Jim Crow

3) The brutality of industrialization/deindustrialization

To truly love this country I believe one must understand not just its genius, but its obvious flaws. How can you truly contribute to the struggle to bridge the gap between the promise of our Constitution and the reality of our political life unless you are aware of where we have failed corporately.

Much of the criticism of Wright has been the fact that, for whatever his flaws, he forcefully exposed the GAP. Much of the criticism has come from those who would see the greatness of America without facing our failings. Much of that criticism comes from those who consider any acknowledgment of our national shortcomings, in any form to be unpatriotic. I would far rather hear the rantings of Wright than those of Hannity, or Hagee, or Cheney. On the moral spectrum, he is far superior to many whose role in shaping our public conversation seems to go unchallenged.

Certainly this was an important story to all fair minded people.

Last Night's FNC line up-

Special Report w/ Brit Hume:
Fact-checking one of the claims made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright

The O'Reilly Factor:
The comeback of Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Hannity & Colmes:
Huckabee's Take
Former GOP presidential candidate weighs in on Rev. Wright; McCain's campaign

VIDEO: FOX News contributor Michael Steele on the message of Rev. Wright's media tour

OPINIONS: Susan Estrich: Who Needs Friends Like the Rev. Wright?

John Moody: Memo to Rev. Wright: Do Souls Have Colors?

On the Record w/ Greta:
Deadly Shark Attack
Expert explains what led to Great White's attack on swimmer

Yes, the coverage of Wright has been over the top. And yes, the last debate was anti-Obama and incredibly superficial. But it seems like no one complains when Clinton has to deal media bias and superficiality. This is the media environment the candidates have to succeed in. We need to change the media environment, obviously, but let's not forget that media bias has helped Obama enormously in this campaign. Obama is not in a good position to argue that the rules need to be changed now, after they've already helped him.

And seriously, Obama has known Wright for 20 years, he gave him the title for his book, and Obama has said he's like an Uncle. The media is not inventing Obama's relationship with Wright. And when Wright spoke to the National Press club and basically called Obama a liar, it was inevitably going to be a major story.

And the next step in the story - I don't know if it will start now or if the Republicans will save it for the GE - will be why did Obama only get angry when Wright directed his comments at Obama? Of course, I don't think he was actually that angry. I think he looked much more hurt than angry, and that makes the difference between his speech today and his speech in Philadelphia completely understandable. But the media are portraying him as (righteously) angry, and that leaves him wide open for the next Rovian attack.

The media just loves to build up Democrats in primaries and then tear them down in GEs.

"There is nothing little about Rush Limbaugh."

I can think of one thing--which would explain his predilection for pharmaceuticals and Haitian adolescents.

(Sorry, I had to bite.)

I'm still waiting to hear when he will disown the black community and his grandmother....

@stuart-

I may not be your targeted audience then. I don't know much about Wright's philosophy, but I did think he was getting a bum rap on some of the snippets, particularly the "chickens coming home to roost" bit. The AIDS and Farrakhan stuff was crackpot city and it was just ridiculous for anybody to try to smear Obama with that (especially after he "denounced and rejected" Farrakhan in response to Clinton's invitation to do so during a debate).

As for the Sistah Souljah moment, I'm very much aware of the term and its origin. As the Wikipedia article you link to demonstrates, it has a very cynical connotation to it which, frankly, because of the earlier attempt by Obama to deal with this in a more restrained, substantive manner, means it doesn't apply perfectly here (or if it does, Obama's an even better political operative than the Big Dog and can move like a ninja, so it's hardly a plus for Clinton).

But roughly, I suppose, you can call this Obama's Sistah Souljah moment if you want to, and frankly, I don't think any of his supporters will care much - they just want him to close the deal and move on to McCain.

Elvis Elvisberg:

My profound respect for your commentary combined with your complimentary disclaimer compels me to laugh out loud at your brandishing of the stark fist of sarcasm. Touche.

...and thanks for that excerpt, it's excellent.

Thanks for the debate link, stuart. I can't watch it now, but I slaver with anticipation over seeing those two loathsome toads tear into one another.

Am I building it up too much?

I would far rather hear the rantings of Wright than those of Hannity, or Hagee, or Cheney.

superterrificdelegate:

Thanks for your polite, cogent response. I truly am interested in hearing reactions from those who (more or less) share your views to Barack Obama's rejection of them. For the record I find much of Obama's Centrism objectionable, myself (although I don't consider this episode necessarily an expression of Centrism per se--but can understand why you do).

I would agree with your statement, although I'd leave out Hagee, who may have the distinction amongst those three of actually believing what he says.

Am I building it up too much?

Cliff:

No.

Seriously, it's amazing entertainment.

Ms. Tumulty,

I know Obama's supporters believe this press conference did him some good and I suppose it may have in the short term but I have to wonder how the rest of the black clergy, who have been very supportive of Obama, might view things. He's basically tossed his friend and minister of twenty years to the wolves but only when it became clear that having an association with Rev. Wright would cost him politically. The Obama supporters will call this courage but they would call it courage if he had a decaf instead of a latte for breakfast. I wonder how other members of the black clergy feel. I also wonder what Mrs. Obama might have to say on the subject. I wonder if someone will ask her for her thoughts on the Rev.

billiecat:

I do apologize for over-explaining the term "Sister Souljah"; no condescension was intended, I felt it might be necessary to fully define that reference for everyone reading.

I don't think any of his supporters will care much - they just want him to close the deal and move on to McCain.

Yikes. That's a bunch of very political (as opposed to principled) people that you're describing there...

Terrapinion,

This entire episode could have been a vibrant and constructive discussion of the black experience at the start of the 21st century. But it wasn't.

I agree completely, and I don't know the answer to your question. I'm concerned that Wright will now reciprocate by denouncing Obama, and while politically that might seem like a boon for Obama, it would be a media feeding frenzy and an ongoing distraction. A well-timed call from John Lewis to Wright asking him not to continue to mix it up publicly with Obama might be effective. I've long admired Cornel West too, but according to Sullivan West was one of the people egging Wright on at the Q&A yesterday.

I also noticed, supporting your argument that there is no monolithic Black community, that in his speech to the Detroit NAACP Wright was cheered as a hero.

Karen:

You are being dishonest if you don't admit the media was the biggest loser in this whole Wright fracas. You jerks make me -- a Jew -- sympathetic to the ravings of a Farrakhan supporter. Your unwillingness to address any of the issues Wright raises shows to me that he's right in claiming these issues are ignored.

You have behaved like a pack of buffoons.

TeresaK: I've just reread the 2 threads from yesterday about this subject, and don't see where you're coming from. You yourself said on one of those threads: "I thought the speech this morning was actually pretty good and could have gone a long way to saving Wright's reputation.Then came the Q& A and I thought, "Oh no..." What a selfish, selfish, selfish guy." That was actually the prevailing opinion. Obama supporters were defending some stuff, and trying to sort through what was indefensible, which we were not supporting.

This is mainly for the TV media but I think the only word that can be used to describe them accurately now is the word "racist." This has been a public hanging in the worst sense of the analogy. Meanwhile, McCain's white, America hating pastor gets a free ride, just like the war mongering, gutter snipe McCain himself. No one has looked into the cult that Clinton belongs to in the MSM.

But what should we expect from our TV media. They only hire partisian hacks like Karl Rove, Tony Snow, Carville and so on, they don't hire actual journalists any longer.

KT - Also, guys, did you SEE Wright at--of all places--the National PRESS Club yesterday?

From a link in the Politico post mentioned in another thread --
Ironically this was the third year in which Wright has held a news conference to launch the annual Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, named for a noted religious scholar. It brings black religious leaders from across the country to Howard University every year to discuss heady topics like black liberation theology. But this is the first time that the press in significant numbers actually showed up, according to the Rev. Barbara Reynolds, a former Tribune reporter who invited Wright to address the press club.

Boy, just imagine what he said those other two years when no one was paying attention!! Talk about stories missed.

Of course, the reporters were ticked because the people going to the conference got in early and took most of the seats -- Cornel West and other rabble, who were the ones making those unseemly responses.

Obviously Obama did what he had to do and I hope the media is appeased. As I said in other threads, I don't have a problem with him theologically, I found his responses to the questions at the NPC no worse than others I have heard, and the wrong statement about AIDS doesn't make everything else he has said and done irrelevant to me. After all, the past and current Presidents of South Africa have said stupid things about AIDS more than once. They are elected leaders as opposed to a man one can choose to listen to or not.

I certainly hope at least some of the press can get over this.

"Yikes. That's a bunch of very political (as opposed to principled) people that you're describing there..."

stuart. C'mon. Politics is the Art of the Possible. That does not mean you can't engage in politics in a principled way.

Well, maybe *some* people can't.

@stuart

… polite, cogent response…

Ha, ha! Every once in a while.

I mentioned tristero's post earlier today. Digby has a terrific depiction of the media role. Having watched most of Hardball last night, I agree completely.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/just-to-follow-up-on-tristeros-piece-on.html

KathyR: Obama supporters were defending some stuff, and trying to sort through what was indefensible, which we were not supporting.

------------------------

That is not what I took away Kathy. It seemed to me that yesterday most of the Obama folks were claiming that any critique of Wright was racist, drummed up by the media, wrong, etc... etc.... They pointed to the Moyers interview as a good thing (which I think on balance it was) without having seen the Press Club event to defend Wright.

Teresa, your triangulation between Hillary supporting and Obama-defenders-crying-racism has been one of the longest-sustained and deepest delusions it has ever been my pleasure to witness.

"without having seen the Press Club event to defend Wright."

This is the point. The only people who saw the event were the media and stuart_zechman. No one ever cared except the media.

You can tell because not one press person bothered to ask Cornel West what he thought about Wright. Nope, it's right to, Obama, here's the ticking bomb, get rid of it quick!!

Somerby is phenomenal again today in "IS WRIGHT RELEVANT? We’ll stand with Obama—and Lincoln. And with the Clinton campaign."

I'm not really sure what to think about this?! One side of me is yelling "yeah!" and the other is yelling "coward!". I am happy that Obama is stepping away from a crucial campaign crasher, but I also feel that he is stabbing Wright in the back. Is he just leaving Wright behind to make himself look better or has he actually realized he does not believe in Wright?! Either way Wright is crazy.

@stuart -- I just read Somerby today as well. On the mark as usual.

About the posts from Obama supporters yesterday... All of the candidates are sometimes poorly represented by their internet supporters. Some Obama supporters were a little silly in their defense of Wright yesterday, but there are also a lot of crazy Clinton supporters.

And one of the main criticisms people had of Wright yesterday was that he was essentially accusing Obama of dishonesty. That't not exactly an anti-Obama complaint.

stuart, thanks for spelling out the Sister Souljah reference. I was only 9, so the details are all new to me...

Anytime, Rose.

Hopefully I can be of help some of the time...

Of course the Repugs will not let this thing die and will still throw it at Obama like a case of rotting eggs in the GE but I think the majority of Americans have made up their minds and Wright won't hurt Obama in the long run.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Absolutely unbelieveable!!! Please drink more kool-aide Obamabots, you are starting to scare me now!!!

Somerby is phenomenal again today

Bob Somerby has been in the tank for any DLC politician to come down the pike for quite some time. I read his site fairly regularly and I like his work in general, but you have to know his biases coming in. If Clinton were dealing with a crazy preacher problem, I have to wonder whether Somerby would think that relevant.

Acid J : "without having seen the Press Club event to defend Wright."

This is the point. The only people who saw the event were the media and stuart_zechman. No one ever cared except the media.

You can tell because not one press person bothered to ask Cornel West what he thought about Wright.
-------------------

What are you talking about AcidJ? The Press Club event was carried in its entirety on MSNBC, CNN, CSPAN, Fox etc... And, BTW, Cornell West was in the audience clapping and cheering Wright on. I saw him on camera. I think we can take his applause as support for Obama.

Sorry I meant West supports Wright.

Every comment I've seen about the Press Club event, from Gitlin to OpenLeft to everyone here--political junkies all--just didn't see the thing in real time. No one cared about it until Amy Sullivan and whoever at the WaPo said it was the end of the world.

Cornel West is a media darling--I still say let's hear what he thinks about Wright & the press club event. Then we'll see who needs repudiating etc.

AcidJ, I saw it in real time. It was obvious that the Q and A was going to be a big problem, because he was repeating most of his controversial comments, and then basically saying that Obama secretly agreed with him. I didn't need Amy Sullivan to tell me that. Knowing that Carly was voted off American Idol because she sang Jesus Christ Superstar was enough to convince me that Wright would dominate the next few news cycles.

Obama has proven that he has the ability to handle pressure. He has proven to be a good leader. Previously he condemned Wright's words without condemning the man. Yet Wright chose to attack Obama. Today Obama defended himself today very eloquently and seems to have severed all ties with Wright. Obama can surmount this and will get through it.

FastEddie:

"Bob Somerby has been in the tank for any DLC politician to come down the pike for quite some time."

If you mean by that that he's been extravagant with his examination of Al Gore's presidential run, then you might be within earshot of accuracy.

If you don't, then please educate us:

What evidence do you have that "Bob Somerby has been in the tank for any DLC politician"?

I saw it in real time as did people that I do volunteer work with at our local library. It was on every network.

I DVR'ed it.

I don't watch television in real time.

And not a moment too soon! From the TIME home page, a rehash of the Moyers interview. The money quote:

But the venting during his question-and-answer session overshadowed an important point: his attempt to articulate the so-called black liberation theology to which Trinity and scores of other mainstream black churches adhere —

Well, obviously not the scores of black churches Joe Klein has been to, but hey…

Oh yeah, and the link.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1735809,00.html

superterrificdelegate -- You are demeaning black liberation theology by trying to portray Rev. Wright as the face of the Black church. He isn't. THere is plenty of good stuff in liberation theology. There is nothing in there about the US gov't creating AIDS or US Marines being like the Roman soldiers who killed Jesus. There just isn't.

Wiki sums it up pretty well:

"This theology maintains that African Americans must be liberated from multiple forms of bondage--social, political, economic and religious. This liberation involves empowerment and seeks the right of self-definition, self-affirmation and self-determination." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology

No one here has a problem with that.

Saying an attack on Wright is an attack on the Black church is like saying that Pat Robertson represents all Protestants. They both represent a segment of a very large picture.

SuperT: You might also try reading Eugene Robinson today:

"The problem is that Wright insists on being seen as something he's not: an archetypal representative of the African American church. In fact, he represents one twig of one branch of a very large tree...

The reality of the African American church, of course, is as diverse as the African American community. I grew up in the Methodist church with pastors -- often active on the front lines of the civil rights movement -- whose sermons were rarely exciting enough to elicit more than a muttered "Amen." They were excitement itself, however, compared with the dry lectures delivered by the priest at the Catholic church around the corner. And what I heard every Sunday was nothing at all like the Bible-thumping, hellfire-and-damnation perorations that filled my Baptist friends with the Holy Ghost -- and even less like the spellbinding, singsong, jump-and-shout sermonizing that raised the roofs of Pentecostal sanctuaries across town.

Wright claims to represent all these traditions and more, but he does not. He also claims universality for the political aspect of his ministry. It is true that the black church, writ large, has been an instrument of social and political change. But most black churches are far less political than Wright's -- and many concern themselves exclusively with salvation. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802102.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

"...what on Earth was Wright doing at the goshdarn National Press Club to begin with?"

Marion Barry was in the house.

Few if any near M Street can resist that smell.

Great. Obviously it's stupid to go by anecdotal evidence to figure out what kind of audience the Q&A had. Whatever it was, it happened at 9am and was anything but an issue of national importance. Then it turned into, let's see how far to the left Wright is of GOP pieties.

I read the transcript of Wright's Q&A. Unless he was waving the severed heads of dead babies as he spoke, I'm with him.

What apparently no one realizes is that he's not just defending Farrakhan, he's defending someone who, for better or worse, is a black leader, against some lily white moderator. He appealed to this idea repeatedly, he thinks of himself as part of a collective, and sees it as his mission to help it. White people do this for other white people all the time.

Second, he didn't endorse the AIDS conspiracy, he said he reads things.

Third, he didn't presume to speak for religious black people.

Look, the guy doesn't have pollsters and aides but he's treated like he's gotta be on some imaginary script of press fellating at all times. I think Wright is fully justified in responding like he did. I think he's fully justified, period. I'm absolutely on his side. Heck, I will defend him from Obama.

Let's call this whole issue what it is: the press wanted Obama to knuckle under and admit who's the real master.

God, my head is about to explode. He's not narcissistically claiming to speak for everyone, people, it's called racial uplift.

What evidence do you have that "Bob Somerby has been in the tank for any DLC politician"?

"In the tank" was too strong and I shouldn't have used it. I like Somerby. But he has his biases just like anybody else, even as he's holding others to account for theirs.

You're almost certainly a more regular reader of the Howler than I, although I do try to read him fairly regularly, so if you can point me to any criticism he's leveled at Gore (who ran in 00 as the centrist DLC heir to WJ Clinton before tacking to the left since), Kerry, or HR Clinton over the years, I'd appreciate the chance to see it. I've seen him go after Obama, Dean, and others in the more liberal wing of the party. Not often, mind you, but more often than he goes after the DLC types.

Acid J - The meaning I got from his comments on Farrakhan (which was brought up by someone else), was the fact that, no matter how he may disagree with Farrakhan, the man has done little to him personally or to his faith to make him 'an enemy' worth rejecting outright. Not to say he doesn't disagree, but trying to force him to denounce Farrakhan makes as much sense as...Obama being forced to denounce Farrakhan.

I agree with you that watching the whole thing, I found nothing of the stuff which was supposed to be so outrage worthy.

FastEddie:

Thanks for the clarification.

...if you can point me to any criticism he's leveled at Gore...Kerry, or HR Clinton over the years, I'd appreciate the chance to see it. I've seen him go after Obama, Dean, and others in the more liberal wing of the party.

I can't really point you to much criticism of Gore, because Somerby focuses on criticism of the political press, and not nearly as much the campaigns, and rarely the candidates.

I don't actually know what you mean by "going after" Obama or Dean or anyone else in the Democratic wing of the party. I would appreciate links to Howlers that actually attacked these politicians for their liberalism (or anything else). I can't honestly recall any of his criticism of liberals being for any other reason than that they routinely fail to call out the mainstream press for its biases against liberalism and Democrats (for a variety of reasons other than congenital conservatism). Please help me out with some examples, if you wouldn't mind.

What will those die-hards "Obamabots" who supported Rev Wright do now that Obama has deep-sixed Rev Wright? Will they leave Obama? My personal answer is No.

On the Moyers interview and the NAACP speech in Detroit, Rev Wright suggested that there was a chasm in how many African-Americans and many Caucasians viewed the same events. I think that is a truthful statement.

On the Chris Mathews show an African-American MSNBC reporter who lived in Chicago for 10 years and attended Trinity said that she never heard Rev Wright make comments to the snippet when she sat in the pews. I believe Obama's similar statement.

Do I think MLK would be treated in a similar fashion to Rev Wright if King had spoken against the War in Iraq in the year post 9/11? Yes.

Will I stop supporting Barack Obama for President? No. Obama made his analysis of what he thought Wright represented to him, and now rejects Wright. Obama feels Wright has crossed the line. Fine. Obama still has my support.

Did I reject Hillary Clinton because of some anonymous bloggers on a website? No. Did I reject Clinton because of supporters like Taylor Marsh who is extremely anti-Obama? No. Did I consider the words of some of her surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro, Maggie Williams, Robert Johnson, James Carville and Bill Clinton. Yes, to a moderate degree.

Did I reject Hillary Clinton because of her Iraq War vote, sniper fire-gate, outsourcing support, and the general tenor I feel coming from her campaign? Yes. these things are what I feel are representations of Senator Hillary Clinton herself.

Overall effect of Obama breaking with Rev Wright on my support for Obama's candidacy? Zero.

"Let's call this whole issue what it is: the press wanted Obama to knuckle under and admit who's the real master." - AcidJ, Wright accused Obama of dishonesty, and Obama fought back. How is this the fault of the media or Obama?

I haven't read the transcript, so I'm not sure how it compares to watching his comments, but I think you may not be getting how strongly Wright was suggesting that Obama was lying. That was the main thing that came across in the Q and A. The Farrakhan, 9/11 and AIDS comments were not the issue; the issue was his suggestion that Obama secretly agreed with him on those topics, and was lying in his Philadelphia speech.

Wright gave a press conference and basically called Obama a liar who agrees with his controversial statements. You can argue that it shouldn't be a major story - although it's pretty obvious that it would be - but I don't understand how you can criticize Obama for setting the record straight. And I'm not even a fan of Obama's.

rmrd0000, good post. Although - in the interests of accuracy - that MSNBC reporter said she went to Trinity about 6 times.

the issue was his suggestion that Obama secretly agreed with him on those topics, and was lying in his Philadelphia speech.

i didn't see that manifest in any discussion anywhere; at most Wright said Obama