The Reverend Wright

So glad you are here Joe. Did you watch the Moyers interview?

Hacktacular post, Mr. Klein! The linking to an article by the ultimate hack, Nedra Pickler, rates your post an 8 of of 10 on the hacktacular scale.

"(His) purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself"
Seems? You have opined quite a bit about him. Have you spoken with him?
Just read reports and watched sound bites?
Not being snarky I am curious.

Joe,

Did you watch the Moyers interview? This is seems like the quintessential cycle of a small amount of actual reporting being done for the original story (Wright's sermons), and then there are reactions, followed by the reactions to the reactions. Moyers interview with Wright was the first actual reporting to take place since the ABC story.

And no, not all black churches are like Wright and UCC, but he does represent a significant theological stream.

You need to do better on this, Joe. Your moral certitude is, in this case, misplaced.

The liberation theology is just an excuse. This is the real reason why Wright is scandalous:

http://halfricanrevolution.blogspot.com/2008/04/reverend-wright-is-liability.html

It wouldn't matter if it was Martin Luther King saying eloquent things on Bill Moyers. The press (especially Nedra Pickler) would still be going at the whole thing like a school of sharks.

That said, Wright should lie low and let Obama run his campaign. Hopefully someone is going to talk to him.

(But Joe, are are you actually going to comment on what he said in the Moyers interview in detail? Or would that put a crimp in your kneejerk left-bashing schtick?)

And worse, Wright's purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself--the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton--and destroy Barack Obama.

Not to put to fine of a point on it, but your profession already did that, long before Mr. Wright's tour.

Saying New Orlean's drowned because of a loving God does not reflect on the man who sought his endorsement. In your journalistic judgement, it is newsworthy that Obama does not wear a lapel pin, as you don't wear one, and Hillary and McCain don't wear one.

Why is it newsworthy that Obama's pastor is not as extreme as McCain's, or that Obama doesn't not wear a pin, like the other candidates?

Because the questions Sean Hannity says are on Democratic voters' minds "keep popping up".

Bashing Joe is not helpful. One needs to ask why The Reverend chose this time to do his pr thing. It detracts from Sen Obama's efforts to consolidate his gains, to restore momentum and proceed to close the primary race with a win. All this does is feed the usual gargantuan appetite of the media for garbage. Rev Wright can seek to explain himself after Nov 2; until then a period as a cloistered monk would be useful for him to refine his ideas and present them to us whether it is palatable or not. I don't deny his right to free speech. I question his timing. I don't think Sen Obama needs this. He is a decent man and so will say nothing; and pay a price for that.

First Joe: Why do you insist on confusing passion with anger? At what level should Rev. Wright be speaking so that you won't be so scared and unable to listen to his message or engage any type of intelligent conversation with your readers?

You can focus choose to forever focus on how he delivers his messages if you choose. But I will remind you that Rev. Wright did not force these videos on to Youtube and then force you to write about and show them out of context. You and your friends in the media choose to do that. So save your concern about him destroying Obama for someone who believes in the end that it would be Wright and not the media's wrong headed focus on this entire event that will be Obama's down fall.

You know it just amazes me that when McCain fumbles about giving incoherent answers to complex questions you guys in the media can figure what he is really trying to say and explain it to us. Even if you have to invent his real meaning.

But some how when Wright speaks you guys suddenly don't understand plain english.

Joe:

Believe me, I'm no rabid Obama partisan.
Neither am I an apologist for the repugnant theories of Jeremiah Wright.

That said, aren't you concerned that this story is by the credibility-and-standards-challenged Nedra Pickler?

Aren't you at all mystified as to why the piece she filed doesn't actually quote Wright at all?

Doesn't this little bomb fail to pass even basic journalism 101 muster--unless you're Matt Drudge, that is?

Joe, this election is too important to rely on characterizations of quotes, instead of actual words in context. I'm not saying that it's impossible for Wright to have done what you're suggesting, I am saying that we need to be patient, let the entire National Press Club speech become available and then make a judgment, instead of racing to conclusions solely on the say-so of Nedra Pickler (and her editor).

That would be the responsible thing to do, wouldn't it, Joe? Let's not sound like Andrew Sullivan blogging about Hillary, OK?

Whoops. Sorry about that first sentence in the second paragraph.

Seriously? Come on Joe, Wright is a thousand times more eloquent then Sharpton. His answers to the questions posed to him were direct and appropriate (and could be funny at times). I agree that the controversy over Wright is not necessarily an attack on the institution of the black church, but there is certainly an element of that in the criticism.

I mean basically, at least on some level, critics of Wright are challenging the narrative of the black church - which uses religion as a lens to offer social criticism and as a tool to challenge amoral institutions.

Many white people like a happy Christianity (forgiveness and absolution) that takes the whole live in the world, but do not be of the world in the wrong direction - justifying institutional harm as long as one privately repents. The black church challenges the institutions, it's not a sermon many are comfortable with, although (in some ways) it more closely reflects the message of Jesus.

Or at least that's my opinion.

I humbly submit that your readers would be better served with discussion of our mammoth debt, the never-ending occupation of Iraq, our health care system.

All the GOP has is distractions. Please don't go looking for MoveOn ads and angry black men that distract from the actual issues facing the country.

And what everyone else said about watching the Moyers interview, and about Nedra Pickler. Dunno if she'll be following John Solomon to the Washington Times, or if she's an all-purpose hack, but she is one of the hackiest hacks in hackytown.

I think the problem is not what Wright is preaching but the group he is preaching too. I guess I am Caucasian and so I don't understand the black people's plight but seriously, If these so called reverend's would start preaching about rights in general and leave out the race, we wouldn't have stupid news like this being plastered all over the place. And just maybe, things might change and race may become a non factor.

Just my two cents, I know I am going to be called a racist but I am the exact opposite. I don't want race to be involved in the conversation.

"I have very rarely, if ever, heard the kind of rants that are part of Reverend Wright's canon."

But keep blaming McCain for bringing that up, Say Joe.

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.

I agree with Joe that it is ridiculous of the media to say that Wright represents mainstream black churches. I have been to lots of them and never heard things like what Wright has said.

"...the obscenity of the war in Vietnam..."

Oh good.

Say Joe's speaking for those worthless BOAT PEOPLE again.

= DOUCHEBERRY ACCOMPLISHED =

Joe,

Here you go again, this where i get frustrated with the media. You only take a section of the whole Q&A and ignored the rest. Screw you guys.

Perhaps, it is time to unsubscribe from Time magazine

"...Wright's purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself..."

YOU would know.

Has anybody compiled a list of the people who have regularly attended the church of Reverend Wright?

I realize that the idea of such a list is repugnant on many levels (which leads me to suspect that the list is probably already floating around in conservative circles) but in this instance it will serve a higher purpose. What the list would likely show is that this church was attended by a cadre of notables in the African-American community. This is not a fringe/radical institution - it is a vibrant community of intelligent and capable people that are able to engage in a conversation that white America refuses to even acknowledge. They may not always agree with him but they went because the conversation was the most important thing.

So, please Joe, ask your African-American colleagues whether they have attened. I believe Clarence Page has already admitted it. And stop demonizing Reverend Wright out of the fear for how he will be perceived and start engaging in the discussion that he is asking for. If you continue to write about the perception then you are only serving the purposes of the sleazy fear-merchants like McCain.

Joe,
I'm a six foot tall blond white guy and I can tell you you certainly have had less experience in black churches than you think. In Cincinnati Ohio one of the largest black congregations is in a Baptist church under Rev. Damon Lynch. His church is an activist church. Politicians meet with him regularly.
He's been described as a separatist and a racist by some of his detractors. He started a group called the Cincinnati Black United Front.
I suspect there is probably a popular black church in nearly every mid to large city in America where the preacher will say things beyond what my Euro-American experience finds comfortable but they aren't Euro-American churches.
Here's a quote to inflame some of your commentors:
[I]f black people were to say, "Let's build Blacktown," white people would say, "You are separatists and militants. Why do you have to have your own town?" The idea is, "Don't we treat you all well? Why do you have to have your own school system? What more do you want?"

"Black people have to get to the point where they say, "Because we want to. I don't give a sh#t what you think. We're going to do it."

....but she is one of the hackiest hacks in hackytown.

Funny

I posted this at TPMCafe
-----

My morning humor was provided by Mika Brzezinski and Willie Giest. Mika was hosting Morning Joe this morning. Mika made the point that different parts of the viewing audience viewed Rev Jeremiah Wright differently, indicating White/Black and possibly age differences in reaction.

The "Morning Joe" producer chimed in that most of the e-mail responses the show had received was positive. The snapshot sample thought that Wright's message had been a good one.

We next had analysis of Wright by two people. The first from Rev Eugene Rivers III of the Azuza Church in Boston. Rivers, an African-American preacher, felt Wright should not have made any comments until after the election. Wright's comments were too fiery, according to Rivers. The second analyst was Pat Buchanan. We don't have to wonder what Mr Buchanan's sentiments regarding Wright would be.

The interesting thing about Rev Rivers as an analyst is that he was a supporter of the White House's Faith Based Initiatives outreach program. He left the program after John Dilulio left.

http://www.publiceye.org/defendingjustice/resources/profiles.html

Two glaring facts present themselves. We know Buchanan's Conservative bias. Rev Rivers is a relative unknown to most viewers. His Bush WH association should have at least been mentioned. We had two Conservatives attacking Wright. The viewers never had their viewpoint expressed in the segment.
--------------------

Many may feel that I stress race issues, but on Morning Joe we get Joe, Mika, and Willie. Morning Joe brings in John Ridley, who does not represent the viewpoint of most African-Americans on many issues as the "Black" voice. Now we have a Bush WH toady commenting on Rev Wright. This is the MSN norm.

I then come to Swampland where Time lets Joe Klein opine on Wright. There is no counterbalance with someone of a different ethnicity expressing a different point of view.

From MSNBC to Swampland, Black folks have their culture defined by an out of touch mostly Caucasian elite along with a higher than their representative percentage in the population Black Conservative analysts. It is ridiculous and frustrating. When race is the issue, we get institutionalized bias not news analysis. Thanks Joe.

"In a defiant appearance before the Washington media..."

First line says it all. How dare Rev. Wright attempt to disrupt the media's established narrative, which is to tarnish Barack Obama with this endless harping on his former minister.

JK: ..the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew..

Wright is only an issue because journos such as yourself keep saying Wright's an issue, Joe...And what part of Wright's comments are 'racial spew'? Like the reporter in the WaPo article, did you even bother to read the whole thing?

I AM MALCOLM EXCEDRIN.

I AM MALCOLM EXCEDRIN.

I AM MALCOLM EXCEDRIN.

I AM MALCOLM EXCEDRIN.

I AM MALCOLM EXCEDRIN.

I AM MALCOLM EXCEDRIN...

All of it is racial spew. You bloggers this morning just want to be upset to be upset. I am more upset that we are reporting this BS because it happens all over America everyday from every race. Still, J.K. is telling the truth. It is racial spew. Racism goes both ways folks. Again, take the race out of the conversation.

Wright said he's told Obama that if he is elected in November and is inaugurated in January, "I'm coming after you." He said that's because his differences are not with the American people, but U.S. policies.

Seems to me Obama can use this as a talking point. "Pastor Wright himself has said there a serious differences between his politics and mine. He's even "coming after me"..." etc etc

Enough is enough...Obama is his own man. In fact , your conclusion regaridng his candidacy is ludicrous. Are you now saying the people of this country are so foolish to the extent that they cannot separate facts from non-facts.

Well, if that is the case, i am afraid this country is going down the drain. Thanks to MSM.

To repeat my comment from the last thread: "And the apparently clueless Jeremiah Wright seems determined to bring down his protege, and thereby prove himself right that a black can't be elected president." Since Wright doesn't think Barack can be elected president, he probably doesn't think he's doing him any harm. And or, he's fallen into the Bill Clintonism of thinking you help matters by explaining inexplicable comments. In either case, he's certainly self-referenced if not self-aggrandizing, and I don't think you need to have talked with him to recognize that.

He is also a complex and interesting preacher. Jesus' comments to the rulers of his day would cause an uproar in this day in this country.

carsick - I am not sure what point you are trying to make in your comment but if you are attempting to inflame white fear with the words of 'black seperatist' preachers then I suggest you do a little more thinking about what the 'black seperatist movement' really means. You have probably been instructed to believe that the goal of the movement can be distilled down to a simple and memorable 'Kill Whitey' but that would be ridiculous and completely incorrect. By believing such a thing you are merely projecting onto the black seperatist movement what is the often-stated goal of many white-seperatist movements.

Black seperatist movements are about self-improvement, self-empowerment, self-sufficiency. About the formation of a community of people that do not need to be beholden to anybody. These are supposedly the characteristics that conservatives embrace but if you are too busy trembling in your little corner of race-based fear then you will never realize it.

This article says it better than I can:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/the-undeniable-virtue-of_b_98659.html

If people really wanted African-Americans to build communities that were not black-only then they ought to shut-up and start allowing African-Americans into their own communities.

Joe. Please. Return to your journalistic roots. Simply report what the man is saying and then let *us* decide whether it's good or bad for the Obama campaign. Or at least wait, oh, 24 hours to see how ordinary people might react before prognosticating. To date, Wright hasn't bumped Obama's numbers very much. Why don't you calm down a bit and just wait.

It's funny -- advertising builds demand for a product and then says, "Look, all these people want this product!" Here, you're building a case that Wright isn't going away, yet by writing about it endlessly, it's not going to go away. Are you an ad man, selling a theory and then building demand for it, or a journalist?

TeresaKopec, well said. The Q and A was the problem. And I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

rmrd0000, great point about how the media's bias and racism is shown even in their selection of non-white commentators. It's similar to how MSNBC has their Republican contributers - like Buchanan and Scarborough - be the ones who defend Clinton, which makes it look like she is not supported by Democrats. Judging by MSNBC no Democrat supports Hillary Clinton.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. This is an attack on the black church,"

This is what the man actually said.

Joe -
That is a creative variation on the "I'm not a racist, I have 2 black friends" argument. No doubt you've been to "dozens" of services over the years, but you are not now nor have you ever been a regular attendee of a black church. Your very limited anecdotal experience doesn't really correspond to the many, many statements by those who do regularly attend black churches that such rhetoric is not unheard of. The fiery statements repeated by the media, while objectionable, were not even common.

Final question - did you watch the interviews or read their transcripts, or did you just rely on one poorly written article that didn't even quote the man himself? By the way, there are many other prominent African American public figures besides Al Sharpton, it is ridiculous that any time a journalist makes a comparison they are unable to come up with another one. I guess they all look the same, huh?

rmrd0000 Many may feel that I stress race issues, but on Morning Joe we get Joe, Mika, and Willie. Morning Joe brings in John Ridley, who does not represent the viewpoint of most African-Americans on many issues as the "Black" voice. Now we have a Bush WH toady commenting on Rev Wright. This is the MSN norm.

I then come to Swampland where Time lets Joe Klein opine on Wright. There is no counterbalance with someone of a different ethnicity expressing a different point of view.

I don't think there is anyone in the Swampland Four who could counterbalance and comment. As I said over the week-end, I was thrilled to hear Wright on Moyers. I went to a small, Presbyterian-related women's college in the late 60s. We were required to take a course in Old Testament and New Testament. We learned from the same theological perspectives that Wright learned from. Lo these many years later, I still remember that OT course as one of the best I took.

Later, I was lucky enough to find a church with a minister who gave intellectually challenging sermons as does Wright. There was a definite anti-war theme in those days, but there were lots of other challenges to us and to the government. We felt a mission to do things for the community, as well. Not to "convert the heathen" but to live what we said we believed. I find that part missing in many of the megachurches today. If I were in Chicago, I would go to Wright's church.

I'm appalled that Joe heard racial extremist spew. It must be lack of listening. Perhaps lack of background, but I expect him to have the intellectual ability to understand what Wright is saying.

Someone asked who attended that church. I heard Clarence Page on Here and Now (NPR) say that Mayor Daley goes there frequently, he named a rapper that I don't remember, said he (Page) went often and many notable people in Chicago went.

Another person said that there are similar churches and ministers in most large cities. In Philadelphia they were Father Paul Washington (who ordained the first women in the Episcopal church in his church) and the Rev. Leon Sullivan (who began the OIC for training a black workforce.) They both spoke out as political activists, but that was in the pre-You tube days.

[In this news cycle's edition of ACT THE e-FOOL, the part of The Honorable Elijah Mohammad will be played by Billary Clixon, subbing for the mentally joyous Reverend Wrong.]

BTW, I actually dig Michelle and her poodle, er, spousal unit, uh, husband, ahem, Buffalo Soldier, er, junior Senator.

They'll make great new neighbors for Bill & Hill when Barack decides after popular Rezko polling to move the kids to Cheataqua, for his run as the next carpetbagging crumb picker from New York -- once Schumer's busted by John Spitzer's level replacement, for rifling the credit files of black GOP candidates from Maryland.

= MALCOLM EXCEDRIN ACCOMPLISHED =

Terrapinion
I stated, "He's been described as a separatist and a racist by some of his detractors."
I'm not a detractor, nor do I believe Rev. Lynch is a separatist. He's a community builder trying to empower his congregation. He's trying to empower them because he doesn't want them to expect a hand out or hand up from other groups.

I was intending (obviously failed) to show Joe Klein ("I have very rarely, if ever, heard the kind of rants that are part of Reverend Wright's canon") that many, many pastors and preachers across the nation confront racism and poverty everyday in ways that are not always comfortable, and sometimes very uncomfortable, for the those who don't have life experiences like their congregate.

Say Joe has many black friends.

None in the foreseeable future, but black just the same.

Ah, I now understand what was said many posts ago about the way the html tags work on paragraphs here! The second paragraph in my post was also quoting from rmrd0000.

"He [Wright] jokingly added, drawing laughter from the audience, "I am hoping to be vice president."

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ohhh....
I might as well vote for Hillary now.

Obama's in deep doo, and he has not repudiated the crazy, constant remarks of Wright anywhere close to the alleged extent to which Klein alludes, to date.

Time (sorry) is of the Essence (sorry):

Obama MUST totally, and without equivocation, REJECT the rantings of Wright, Sharpton, Jackson, the New Panthers, ACORN, and the rest of the professional Howard University not so classy quiet riot warfare shake down set, to stand any chance in November.

And that's just according to the Clinton cadres.

Never mind dragging McCain behind your media mutt pickup truck, Joe.

I have yet to watch the Q&A from this morning but I watched the speech and it seemed to me that Wright delivered a very intelligent, enlightening and thought provoking theological argument. I didn't hear anything racist or divisive. I'm an atheist so I can't get into all of the religious aspects of it all, but I know some things about Christianity and it seems to me that this was a Christian minister presenting a sounds, reasonable, CHRISTIAN theological argument.

As for the Q&A, well, if he was defensive and angry, maybe it's because everybody in the media has tarred him as a racist crazy man without knowing much about him outside of the 30-second Hannity clips. After listening to him this AM and watching the Moyers interview, I now know for certain that he is not that and is, in fact, a very interesting guy. You know what's really crazy?....Watching Hagee pointing to a picture of an evil looking woman riding some beast implying that this "whore" of Revelations actually represents the Catholic Church. But it's always less scary when it comes from a white guy, isn't it?

Joe - Were you at the address today or did you watch it? Did you watch the Moyers interview? I think most Americans who watch both or either will come away with a very different impression of Wright than the all-knowing seers of the establishment media.

Also, as an Obama supporter, I'm far from upset that Wright is out there now on this PR tour. The cat was already out of the bag - were the wingers going to lay off simply because Wright kept his mouth shut? No freaking way. At least his appearances humanize the man, make him a familar face, let people know that he more than a 30-second sound clip angry, yelling black dude.

OGLIB -- You better watch the Q&A before you defend Wright. It was awful. He was preening, joking, feeding off the crowd who were whooping and hollering, saying Obama was merely a politician who would say anything to get elected...

Marc Ambinder who has good sources in the Obama campaign said this:

"## The Obama campaign knows that Wright is throwing Obama under the bus, and they're of two minds about the political repercussions. On the one hand, they want him to shut up, knowing that the press is likely to repeat the Crazy Uncle soundbites more than they are the intelligent, learned theologian soundbites. The public associates Obama with Wright; the more they think of Wright, the more they think of Obama. They do not believe that the tour will rehabilitate Wright's image with those voters who were offended by the comments.

## On the other hand, Wright's decision to publicly break up with Obama by essentializing him as a politician may well generate some distance between himself and Obama; perhaps the public may perceive the distance; the more outré Wright becomes, the easier it is for Obama to say -- look at what he says, and look at what I say. The campaign is also thankful that Wright decided to speak out now, rather than in, say, October.

## The Obama campaign is also watching racial prejudice angle carefully. The backlash generated by overtly/covertly racist appeals using Wright will burn a line between valid and racist that the media will carefully patrol."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/

It was clear that Wright went up there to destroy Obama. Richard Wolff from Newsweek said on MSNBC that there was some jealusy on behalf of Wright towards Obama. I think that came out during the Q & A.

This thread needs some serious levitation.

Lacking another post from Klein or KT today, here goes...

/////////

Rejected titles for the new INDIANA JONES movie:

~~ Raiders of the Lost Car Keys

~~ Indiana Jones and The Temple of Roughage

~~ Star Trek 23: We Accidentally Beamed Up Some Dirty Old Dude In A Brown Bomber Jacket

~~ Me & Mrs. Jones Do Pinellas Park

~~ Bambi

~~ Dinosaur Smackdown: Indy Versus Hillary

~~ It's A Wonderful Hip Replacement

~~ Culver City Blues

~~ Indiana Jones and The Last Bottle of Botox

~~ Harry & Steve's Excellent New Movie

~~ The Bourne Serenity

~~ The Color Of 401K's

~~ HELP (no, really, HELP)

~~ Quarter Before Cable

~~ Indiana Jones Soda Factory Tour

~~ Dancing With The Gray Panthers

~~ One Flew Over The Prostate Exam Table

~~ Indiana Jones and The Last Call At Applebee's

~~ 24 Minus 23

~~ Marion Grabs A Wheel Chair & Pushes It Thusly

~~ Dinosaur Smackdown II: Indy Versus Imus

~~ They Died With Their Depends On

~~ Catherine Zeta-Jones To The Rescue

QH - You wrote: "Obama MUST totally, and without equivocation, REJECT the rantings of Wright, ..."

How much of a rejection do you need? He rejected and denounced Wright's statements in a televised speech given explicitely for the purpose of, wait for it, rejecting and denouncing the beliefs of Reverend Wright! Exactly how short is your attention span?

He specifically said that he rejected those statements by Rev Wright and did not share those beliefs BUT he did share an understanding of the reasons (the black American experience) that could lead a person to them. He then stated his wish that we have a discussion about that experience as well as the experience of the working-class white American who feels no special benefit from his skin color. Apparently, you and your conservative friends are not up to such a mature discussion.

He has rejected the statements and professed his devotion to this nation and the Christian God. The sad thing is that you are probably smart enough to realize this but you have decided to push this issue for your own disingenuous reasons.

carsick - You wrote: "I was intending ... to show Joe Klein ... that many, many pastors and preachers across the nation confront racism and poverty everyday in ways that are not always comfortable, and sometimes very uncomfortable, for the those who don't have life experiences like their congregate."

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I guess you could say I was preaching to the choir!

Hoooo! Thankyathankyaverymuch.

Hm, interesting: So I'm watching MSNBC while I eat lunch because, alas, something more enlightening like Spongebob is not on TV yet.

And I see that all the TV and print gasbags are in complete agreement that Reverend Wright's going public is nothing but bad news for Obama.

It's really amazing how they can all be in unanimous agreement about campaign predictions that are nothing but speculations and guesses.

Which, of course, originate only from their own butts.

"How much of a rejection do you need? He rejected and denounced Wright's statements in a televised speech given explicitely for the purpose of, wait for it, rejecting and denouncing the beliefs of Reverend Wright!"

That's just it there is nothing Obama or Wright can do or say that will satisfy Joe or QH and those who think just like them.

TeresaKopec - The Wright of the Q&A does seem like a different person than the Wright who gave that very intelligent and thought provoling theological address. I think he did well defending himself in some of the answers and there were some good answers in there, but yeah, there was a bit too much bite in his replies, a bit too much playing to his supporters in the audience. The good answers he provided will be mostly lost because of his tone, especially since his ire was directed at the people who are going to report on this - the press. That said, the media mostly created this mess so I can see why he would be angry with them.

One thing is clear, if Wright is to be believed - I don't think Obama was a very regular churchgoer. So his claims that he didn't hear a lot of Wright's more controversial sermons might be the whole truth.

"Star Trek 23: We Accidentally Beamed Up Some Dirty Old Dude In A Brown Bomber Jacket"

OK, that wasn't bad...

Joe Klein

Black liberation theology is not the Black church.
--------------------------
In many, if not most African-American churches God/Jesus is depicted with dark curly hair like sheep's wool and with dark pigmented skin.

All cultures define God in their own image.
---------------------------
Finally how does Klein's "dozens and dozens" of church services, likely in more affluent areas reflect what goes on in an activist urban church?

How would the Joe Klein of today report on MLK? Answer: Klein would have treated King just as he is treating Wright. Ditto Mika, Scarborough and Buchanan.

TeresaKopec, thanks for the excerpt from Ambinder. It's very interesting. But of course there is absolutely nothing stopping Wright from speaking out again in October...

The problem for Obama is that Wright is basically saying that he thinks Obama is distancing himself from Wright for purely political reasons, which obviously suggests that he personally agrees with Wright's comments. If he were saying that Obama is just another out of touch person who can't see the truth and validity of Wright's comments, that wouldn't be a problem. In fact, that might actually help Obama's campaign.

Unfortunately, that's not what he's doing. By suggesting that Obama is essentially lying about his deep opposition to Wright's controversial comments, he is reinforcing the racist paranoia about Obama. And, perhaps even more damagingly, even if most voters don't think that Obama shares Wright's views, his Q and A today made it a lot easier for people to think that Obama is at least much more comfortable with those views than most people are. Plus, there is the problem of implying that Obama is being dishonest.

I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I just feel terrible for him because of all this. What an unsupportive pastor! He just came across as incredibly self-obsessed.

What amazes me is that many African American are actively encouraging--by attending--Wright's display, as though they consciously aim to destroy Obama.

Joe,
Do you think it's good for our country for a candidate being worshiped and idolized by the press?

Do you realize that YOU guys in the press ARE his base.

Double Standard!

I've been to dozens of Southern Baptist church services over the years, and it's "funny" what white people can get away with thanks to identity politics. Eat your heart out, Chris Matthews.

Double Standard!

P.S. Did Joe Klein change the link without noting an update? Yes, he did. So much for ethics in journalism!

It is not surprising that the media – both electronic and print – having so grossly maligned Pastor Wright by their distorted reports and representation, would become defensive when he seeks to defend himself

Since we tend to make judgments on a visceral rather than a rational basis, I suspect that Rev.Wright's comments, no matter how valid or at least deserving of respectful consideration, will be filtered through our net of prejudice (For most have formed their prejudices on the basis of the notorious and now discredited soundbites) and thus dismiss his thoughts out of hand.
This prejudged conclusion may or may not include rejection also of Barak Obama.
Too bad we can't filter our thoughts through the mind rather than through the spleen.

If Wright's appearances hurt Obama it is not because Wright is a divisive racist, but that both media pundits and their viewers are dismissive racists. (Submitted by white Korean War veteran)

Joe Klein. Telling black people how they should feel about slavery and racism in America. Nice.

It's painfully obvious what a hack Joe Klein is. The Rev. MLK gave similar speeches and sermons, which Joe Klein (hack) acknowledges, but somehow the very same language is "spew[ing] racial extremism" when Obama's pastor says it. Joe Klein is a cultural conservative that cannot relate to normal black Americans so he is offended by what they think. Joe Klein does not respect black culture so he clings to fairy tales (e.g. Joke Line knows some good negroes and therefore the Rev. Wright is wrong to claim the mantle of the black church--Joe Klein knows the black church and he can speak for the black church community better than Rev. Wright).

Joe. You are spewing racial hatred. You are the one that is telling the black community and its pastors (including the Rev. MLK) how they should feel about race in America.

30 years ago you would have been advising MLK to tone it down as well. I have no doubt you would have said the same things about MLK "spewing racial hatred. " Really, the racial hatred comes from you and the republicans you get your talking points from.

Every black citizen should wake up to what their white betters in the media think about them. Joe Klein is a perfect example. He likes his negroes docile and thankful to the white man for giving them so much. Like their freedom. If it wasn't for white "liberal" like Joke Line giving the negroes their freedom and rights, wher would they be? Now the negroes should just shut up and be thankful for what they have.

Did Joe Klein change the link without noting an update? Yes, he did. So much for ethics in journalism!

Busted, Joe. Where is the Nedra Pickler article with the too-enthusiastic-looking NAACP people backslapping each other?

Although I am an Hillary supporter, I feel bad for Obama. Rev. Wright can easily be misinterpreted but if you listened to his speech last night, he made a lot of sense. His main point is that people from other races tend to misinterprete people from the other race.
His example about how past presidents spoke was in no way harmful but could easily be misinterpreted as him making fun of whites.

It is a sad lose-lose situation for Obama.

Am I wrong or is the narrative on this changing.

First it was he out and out said the attacks on me were attacks on the black church.

Is not the article now linked to toning that down or trying to change it to put in better context of what he actually said?

Joe Klein's "dozens and dozens of black churches" sounds to me an awful lot like the old line "Some of my best friends are Jews" or "Some of my best friends are Negroes"

I'd like the Wright/Obama apologists to engage in a brief thought experiment:

McCain's longtime pastor gives a nationally televised speech in which he mocks the accents of various historical figures, talks about the different brains and aptitudes of blacks and whites, and then had the gall to insist that "it's a white separatist thing, you wouldn't understand".

Of course, you'd be rightly indignant.

So, here's the rub. Nobody is saying that Wright, or Obama for that matter, can't have such repugnant views. We are saying that such views are incompatible with leading this country. What critics are saying regarding Obama is, given his minimal accomplishments (2 autobiographies notwithstanding), we MUST judge him on his character. We can of course take into account what he SAYS his character is, but we must also look at his choices. Americans are pretty forgiving. I doubt that one nutty associate would be enough to derail Obama. However, when you have a black separatist preacher, a wife that can't seem to appreciate the good in the country, the denigration of small town values, and the unrepentant terrorist colleagues, well, then you've got a pattern. And a problem.

An unbiased observer can reasonably conclude that Obama's self-description of his character and goals is at odds with the story that is told by his associations. In short, he is starting to look more and more like a slick fraud.

If Christ returned today, and said what the Gospels have him saying, you can be certain that the GOP would call him a dirty Marxist hippie, who was unpatriotic, blasphemous and divisive. That says more about the perverted nature of much of "Christianity" in the US than it does about Christ. Too many churches are social clubs, with "nice" people telling each other that they are bound to get to heaven because they are American. In the meantime, they continue to lie, cheat and betray their neighbors. Hardly impressive.

Sure, some of what Wright says is open to question in historical terms - but given the history of how white people and government in this country have behaved towards the black community, I don't for one minute blame him for the things he said. He was right to say that Christ would have condemned many of the actions of the US, and many of its so-called Christians. He's right to say that he isn't a politician, and to say that many of the white commentators and community would love to go after the black church and the black community.

Nothing makes hypocrites more uncomfortable than a genuine attempt to say something meaningful about faith. Wright is imperfect, but he is trying to say some important things about Christianity, the black community, and the real state of the modern USA. It would be more honest, and more Christian to take him seriously, rather than playing gotcha games and trying to force him into the mold of a dangerous black extremist. Remember what Christ called the Pharisees, the hypocritical power-brokers of their day? He called them whitened sepulchers - all nicely prettied up, but empty on the inside. What do you think he would call the country club Christianity which is being peddled to the modern USA today?

David,

I'm not an apologist for Obama or Wright, but I'll answer your question. Your little morality test (wherein you hypothesize what would happen if McCain's pastor was a white separatist), is the wrong "character" test for a candidate. First of all, one cannot compare black "separatist" churches with white separatist churches. I understand why you THINK it is intellectually consistent to conflate these two viewpoints. But it's wrong. Black people have a different history of literally being slaves to white people in this country and are still, as a group, suffering from the vestiges of slavery and segregation. Therefore, as someone mentioned up thread, it's only natural that black people will be a bit more angry about racial issues. I'm actually surprised black people are as docile as they are in the face of black men being incarcerated at the highest rate of any ethnic group in the world. If I were black I would be angry and I would be extra angry at white media guys like Joe Klein telling me that mainstream black churches are outside the bounds of acceptable discourse.

So, in sum, this is not a good test of character. Obama is a member of a pretty mainstream black church. His church is not much different from many other black churches. If you are going to disqualify Obama from the presidency because he belongs to this church that makes conservative white guys uncomfortable then you are going to disqualify about 3/4 of black men in this country from higher office. Your little test may be effective politically--a lot of white people can be scared and frightened--and you will do your best to make Obama seem like a scary black man. But it is intellectually dishonest to take a great deal of stock in Obama's "character" from all this.

KEEP ON TALKING REV. WRONG THE MORE YOU TALK THE WORSE OBAMA LOOKS. THE MORE THE REV TALKS THE MORE I RELISH IN THE MOMENT. AAHH FEELS SO GOOD. I GIVE IT A TWO THUMBS UP! HOW ABOUT ANOTHER SPEECH BY FRIDAY? WAKE UP AMERICA! DO YOU WANT REV. LOONY TUNES IN THE WHITE HOUSE SIPPING BITTER TEA AND CRUNKETS WITH PRESIDENT B. HUSSEIN OBAMA TALKING NUKES? HILLARY 08!

What is being overlooked is that the Obama candidacy is one man's courageous, heroic effort to transcend the past and to bridge the chasm that separates the races. On reflection this is clear when reflecting on his Constitution Center speech.

I gained new insight into this during Pastor Wright's Q$A this morning, where all of his efforts to live up to his best understanding of "transfomation" and "reconciliation" were damned to failure by the residual pain and bitterness of being reared in a JimCrow society.

The sad sad thing, is that so few -- black and white -- seem incapable of escaping the scars of history. Result: We will be doomed to the same old, same old cycle of distrust, fear, rejection spiraling in coils around us. Guess it's in our DNA

David,
Clearly you could also look at McCain repeatedly referring all insurgents in Iraq as al Queda and deem him within his right to have that view but not to lead national security.
Or, his reaching out to Minister Hagee and employing the (former?) owner of the Southern Partisan Quarterly Review, you could say he's allowed to cozy up to religious and racist bigots but not qualified to lead all of America's citizens.
Or, you can claim he has every right to hide his marital assets behind his wife's skirt but that level of non-disclosure makes him unfit to be elected.
Or, you could say it is fine that he was raised attending private schools and the Officers' club and graduated by marrying into the millionaire's club but that does not qualify him for understanding the average American's cultural and financial situation.

I want to thank David for previewing the GOP spin against Barack Obama should he win the nomination. Of course it is a 'character' argument and it is one that does nothing except knit together misleading or downright false events into a fictional narrative.

I regret that black Americans scare you, David. It is a shame that you are so out of touch with the struggles of that community. It is a shame that you are not aware of the boisterous nature of the Black Baptist congregations. It is a shame that you can be led to believe that Obama denigrated small town values when he was reciting the thesis from What's The Matter With Kansas? to somebody that asked him what motivates working-class people to vote for Republicans who will only make them poorer. It is a shame that you so easily take an off-hand comment from Michelle Obama as an indictment of her feelings for the entire country. It is a shame that you think that serving on a board of trustees for a charity suddenly makes you indistinguishable from the other members of that board.

In short, it is a shame that you, a person intelligent enough to write a thoughtful comment on this board, would fall for this sort of narrative-driven character attack.

OK, I liked him on Moyers, but Wright should probably give it a rest.

SFH,

I'm amused that you characterize voters as "scared". What's the range on you powers of emotional detection? Can a rational person not look at this an decide a man who was drawn to such a pastor would be suspect? Can I not look at the long and inglorious history of separatist movements and conclude that the one proposed by Wright would be actively damaging to the citizens of the US, regardless of color?

I don't find the tenets of black liberation theology scary, but I do think they are ultimately a recipe for disaster for blacks who subscribe to them. The Trinity church website was scrubbed, but you could previously find among the tenets of the Black Value System the "disavowal of pursuit of middleclassness". We can agree to disagree, but a value system that tries to keep its believers from individual success, that strives to keep them tied to an authority figure and institution for all of their needs, in my book is a plantation by another name.

Oh, and Wright apparently "disavowed" middleclassness and went straight to upperclassness with is new home and notoriety. I look at him and see a darker-pigmented Falwell, a demagogue, willing to terrorize (CIA created HIV) his parishioners and trying to convince them that they can't get an honest shake in this country. That doesn't scare me. That pisses me off.

Hey! I like Joe Klein...even when I don't agree with him. So lay off! Just because Mr. Obama is having a couple of off days you don't have to take it out on Joe.

Don't worry you guys, the media will dig up some horrible thing about Hillary and try, again, to knock her out. He (Obama) is their (your) candidate, right?

So chill, plus, Obama will manage to speech his way out of this one or the Blackwell thing and the media will be all over it, "ooohing and awwwing" all over the place. That's just the way it is.

About Blackwell...oh, read it in the LA Times.

See ya.

David, but a value system that tries to keep its believers from individual success, that strives to keep them tied to an authority figure and institution for all of their needs, in my book is a plantation by another name.

Where did you get this idea? Would appreciate a link. Also the "middleclassness" that you quote.

David:

I actually don't take very much issue with a decent amount of what you're saying, except for this:

Can I not look at the long and inglorious history of separatist movements and conclude that the one proposed by Wright would be actively damaging to the citizens of the US, regardless of color?...Can a rational person not look at this an decide a man who was drawn to such a pastor would be suspect?

Why is Barack Obama still "suspect" to you?
Why wouldn't you take Barack Obama at his word, since he seems to so clearly agree with your opinions:

...we've heard my former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation, and that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy and, in some cases, pain. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's efforts to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems — two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change — problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television sets and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. 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...

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing to do would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America — to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

David:

Since Barack Obama apparently shares your opinions on separatism and and the destructive value of those particular comments of Wright's, and since he goes well out of his way to address your concerns, why exactly are you so keen to brush off Barack Obama's eminently reasonable explanation for his association with someone who makes "simply inexcusable" remarks?

After his overt condemnation and giving this kind of perfectly understandable rationale, why is Barack Obama still "suspect" to you?

Well David, then I propose you shouldn't vote for Rev. Wright for president. If he is so repugnant to you. But I also propose that if you find Wright so repugnant that you demand that every negro in polite company repudiate him that you have a problem with ALL black people. The vast majority of good, honest, American, black people would not like having white conservatives demand that they renounce their mainstream preachers to be taken seriously. Seriously. Consider the fact. You and Joe Klein would not vote for Rev. MLK because he is too racially divisive. Look in a mirror. Whose views on race does that say more about?

And scared is the only rational basis that I can think of for why some people have made such a big deal of this issue. Yes, maybe you and Joe Klein know what better for black people than black people themselves. Maybe. But to claim that the majority of the black community is outside the bounds of acceptable because they are angry about the racial history in this country is extremely patronizing.

And is Barack Obama a separatist? Why are you trying to pin this belief on him when he as expressly disavowed it? Wait. Don't answer that. Because your goal is to demonize Obama regardless of the facts. You would not be happy until the black community thinks like you want them to think. You think it's unacceptable that a black person would be a ticked off that his country treated him LIKE A SLAVE. In your mind, a good negro is a negro that doesn't complain about this fact.

Once again. This whole character test you and your right-wing buddies and the complacent media (see e.g., Joe Klein) have set up for Obama is ridiculous.

The "middleclassness" was from Wright's Trinity United "Black Value System". It has since been removed from their website, but it is saved at various sites on the net.

Hey, what's up will all of you call me white?

Are you saying that a black man can't think or write what I have written? Isn't presupposing the thoughts a person can think based on their race the essence of racism?

It's been fun, gotta run.

David

Well David, then I propose you shouldn't vote for Rev. Wright for president. If he is so repugnant to you. But I also propose that if you find Wright so repugnant that you demand that every negro in polite company repudiate him that you have a problem with ALL black people. The vast majority of good, honest, American, black people would not like having white conservatives demand that they renounce their mainstream preachers to be taken seriously. Seriously. Consider the fact. You and Joe Klein would not vote for Rev. MLK because he is too racially divisive. Look in a mirror. Whose views on race does that say more about?

And scared is the only rational basis that I can think of for why some people have made such a big deal of this issue. Yes, maybe you and Joe Klein know what better for black people than black people themselves. Maybe. But to claim that the majority of the black community is outside the bounds of acceptable because they are angry about the racial history in this country is extremely patronizing.

And is Barack Obama a separatist? Why are you trying to pin this belief on him when he as expressly disavowed it? Wait. Don't answer that. Because your goal is to demonize Obama regardless of the facts. You would not be happy until the black community thinks like you want them to think. You think it's unacceptable that a black person would be a ticked off that his country treated him LIKE A SLAVE. In your mind, a good negro is a negro that doesn't complain about this fact.

Once again. This whole character test you and your right-wing buddies and the complacent media (see e.g., Joe Klein) have set up for Obama is ridiculous.

Well David, then I propose you shouldn't vote for Rev. Wright for president. If he is so repugnant to you. But I also propose that if you find Wright so repugnant that you demand that every negro in polite company repudiate him that you have a problem with ALL black people. The vast majority of good, honest, American, black people would not like having white conservatives demand that they renounce their mainstream preachers to be taken seriously. Seriously. Consider the fact. You and Joe Klein would not vote for Rev. MLK because he is too racially divisive. Look in a mirror. Whose views on race does that say more about?

And scared is the only rational basis that I can think of for why some people have made such a big deal of this issue. Yes, maybe you and Joe Klein know what better for black people than black people themselves. Maybe. But to claim that the majority of the black community is outside the bounds of acceptable because they are angry about the racial history in this country is extremely patronizing.

And is Barack Obama a separatist? Why are you trying to pin this belief on him when he as expressly disavowed it? Wait. Don't answer that. Because your goal is to demonize Obama regardless of the facts. You would not be happy until the black community thinks like you want them to think. You think it's unacceptable that a black person would be a ticked off that his country treated him LIKE A SLAVE. In your mind, a good negro is a negro that doesn't complain about this fact.

Once again. This whole character test you and your right-wing buddies and the complacent media (see e.g., Joe Klein) have set up for Obama is ridiculous.

The media tells us what to talk about and what to care about. Is there political impact over Wright's soundbites?

Sure, but any impact there is is driven by what The Talking Heads at the wheel deem "news."

Talk about a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. I've been surprised every time I've been in a black church for a service. It is just a completely different vibe. It's much less reserved and hushed.

The music rocks, too.

"Can a rational person not look at this an decide a man who was drawn to such a pastor would be suspect?"

I agree with this statement.

But the problem is, all three candidates have ties to questionable religious figures/groups. I don't like any of it. So, since these factors are equal, I am forced to choose a candidate based on other considerations, and I still choose Obama.

What amazes me is that many African American are actively encouraging--by attending--Wright's display, as though they consciously aim to destroy Obama.

Or perhaps they're happy that these issues are making their way into maintream discussions. Look, this is what Obama said he wanted. TK's Ambinder quotes (thanks for those) may well reflect what Obama's strategists think, but I believe that Obama's knows this is coming, and is rolling the dice that he can ride this wave.

The issues Wright has raised are real issues. The blot on the American character of slavery and Jim Crow and white violence in opposition to the Civil Rights Act are all real.

The segregation in church pews that Obama pointed out is real. One of the things that is happening here is unfamiliarity of white church goers with black church preaching styles.

This is the conversation Obama said he wanted. It's good that it's happening now. I hope Rev Hagee will join in.

. It has since been removed from their website, but it is saved at various sites on the net.

Links, please.

This is like the scurrilous emails that say "confirmed by Snopes" when they, um, are not.

Well, if anyone doubted the distance between Obama and Wright, this should sufficiently demonstrate that Wright and Obama do not have the same views or agenda and are in no way working together on anything.

Wright told Moyers how he viewed the plane crashing into the second of the World Trade towers from his hotel room in NJ where he was then grounded, of course. He wondered what comfort he could give those he knew in NY and Chicago...and this was what he came up with? Cold comfort and sorry solace.
He's obviously not stupid and it is his job to be a good speaker, "folks." It's not his slip that's showing, it's his attitude. Well, maybe a few slips.

"...this should sufficiently demonstrate that Wright and Obama do not have the same views or agenda..."

That's optimistic of you. The two do not equate in your mind; but, how DO you explain their association? Isn't this Obama's crazy uncle and advisor? This is a clarification of his viewpoint for everyone, presumably the same one he held throughout those 20 years. Isn't that the problem?

Commenter "jayackroyd" says that Wright's comments today are an example of "black church preaching styles." Set aside the, um, questionable and rather insulting generalization. (Is there a "white preaching style" too? How about a "Hispanic" one? Guess I didn't get the memo.) Set aside, too, the conflation (as Obama would say) of style and content. I suppose there is a "KKK preaching style" as well, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it.

It isn't just "jayackroyd" engaging in some fascinating spin, though. The level of denial on this thread is impressive. Wright has clearly got himself a willing new flock in these commenters, and based on the timing of his spectacle today, he clearly desires that outcome more than he wants to see his parishoner Senator Obama in the White House. (Might undermine the Reverend's status as a Victim, you know -- albeit one who lives in a McMansion.)

Express double-standard disbelief all you want, folks, but those of us not raised on a steady diet of Noam Chomsky and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" find the show very indigestible indeed.

I always value the nature of the dialogue going on on this blog. I am not sure how many other folks read through all of this, but I always come away with something to chew on to clarify my beliefs or muddy them up.

I am disinclined to believe Rev. Wright's comments represent Obama's thinking. This is something that quite a few of you have already mentioned. The two cents I offer is Obama's speech on race mirrors a lot of what he wrote in his first book. During his time in Chicago as a community organizer, he talked of working with a dude who was affiliated with the Nation of Islam (I believe). What impressed me was he thought over what the Nation of Islam was offering before offering his critique. He did not go into a great deal of detail, but his thinking is there to behold. Emphasis on thinking. Running the ramifications through his head. And deciding that there was not enough to the philosophy to make the level of social difference desired. (I am not intending the slam the Nation of Islam, by the way. Just reporting my understanding of what he wrote. ) The sum total of his book, the tone and sincerity, matches the tone of the speech he gave on race. I never doubted he was telling the truth. The heard the man of 33 speak to me that day the 46 year-old Obama spoke in Philadelphia.

I appreciate Obama because he does not run away from ideas. To me, he demonstrates that he is a very liberal thinker. He takes in information from a variety of sources and makes up his own mind. And does not engage in policing of beliefs. There is too much truth to be had to be engaged in dithering over the packaging.

Wright is his own man. So is Obama.

Finally, I'd like to add that I felt the attacks Wright experienced (and navigates at this present moment) was also an attempt to "other" Black folks, no matter the way an individual Black person decides to worship God. I was freaked out by how weirded out White folks were (and are). And became angrier the more people DEMANDED that we be explained. While holding onto dramatic hypocrisy.

I'll end there.

5un5hin3:

Thanks for your contribution.

I'd be curious to know how many of the press that find Wright objectionable are well-off white men and women who prefer not to think about slavery, Jim Crow and the fire hoses and dogs set upon the Civil Rights Marchers. Anyone who thinks the black community does not have many justifiable and ongoing grievances has not considered the history of the US, or its current social realities. One simple test: which scares you more at night? A black guy walking towards you, or a white one? And why? Is it your experience - or what you've seen or heard in the media? I think if you are honest, the answer to these questions is quite enlightening.

Note: Equally self-aggrandizing, small and unbalanced are the other two players....

YouTube video: Destroying Obama (clinton legacy of lynching update)

by Mia T, 4.26.08

YouTube Honors for this video:
#4 - Top Favorites (Today) - News & Politics
#20 - Top Rated (Today) - News & Politics
#38 - Top Favorites (This Week) - News & Politics
#83 - Top Favorites (Today)

"What kind of people are the clintons?" (Bob Herbert, The New York Times, Jan. 26, 2008)

THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT?
clinton legacy of lynching update

by Mia T, 7.23.05

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." (Martin Luther King)

Ironically, the logic of this pronouncement by Martin Luther King would, in short order, be refuted by the reality of his own lynching. King's hope was misplaced and his reasoning was circular. The resultant rule of law relied on by King presumed an adherence to the rule of law in the first instance.

Adherence to the rule of law is not something normally associated with the clintons. Moreover, racial and ethnic disrespect, intimidation, exploitation and hate have always been a fundamental clinton tactic and the reflexive use the "N"-word and other racial and ethnic slurs, an essential element in the clinton lexicon. When the "first black president" and his wife ran Arkansas, the NAACP sued them for intimidating black voters at the polls.

Conversely, the clintons' refinement of the DNC drag and drop is, arguably, one of the more insidious and repugnant applications of their special brand of race-hate politics.

Calculating a black man's worth to be 5/3 of a vote is no less racist, and arguably more so, than calculating his worth to be 3/5 of a white man; the latter is demeaning, but the former is dehumanizing.

But it is even worse.

Listen to Randall Robinson in this video. (Indeed, listen to bill clinton in this video.) Listen... watch... read below... about Rwanda. Only one conclusion is possible: A clinton legacy of lynching.

Bill Clinton felt their pain. Retrospectively. In 1998, on his Grand Apology Tour of Africa, a whirlwind tour of whirlwind apologies for slavery, the Cold War, you name it, he touched down in Kigali and apologized for the Rwandan genocide. "When you look at those children who greeted us," he said, biting his lip, as is his wont, "how could anyone say they did not want those children to have a chance to have their own children?"

Alas, the President had precisely identified the problem. In April 1994, when the Hutu genocidaires looked at the children who greeted them in the Tutsi villages, that's exactly what they thought: they didn't want those Tutsi children to have a chance to have their own children. So the question is: when a bunch of killers refuse to subscribe to multiculti mumbo-jumbo, what do you do?

"All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices," continued Bill in his apology aria, "who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

Au contraire, he appreciated it all too fully. That's why, during the bloodbath, Clinton Administration officials were specifically instructed not to use the word "genocide" lest it provoke public pressure to do something.

Documents made public last week confirm that US officials knew within the first few days that a "final solution" to eliminate all Tutsis was underway.

SteynOnAmerica
CLINTON, CLARKE AND RWANDA: TEN YEARS ON

goldencrumpet,

Well, according to Jesse Jackson, the black man is scarier. Of course this oversimplifies, but rates of violent crime do differ by the ethnicity of the perpetrator. This is not racism, this is statistics.

My point is not to minimize the sufferings of blacks in this country, but to point out that I think men like Wright, by picking at the scab on the wound of slavery, do more harm than good. Really, does it help or hurt his congregation to be told that the CIA, not personal behavior, is responsible for the AIDS virus? Does it help or hurt to insist that whites have all the power, rather than point out that hard work and diligence can lift a Sec. Rice, a General Powell, a Justice Clarence Thomas, to some of the highest offices in the land? Instead, these success stories are "inauthentic" (I don't know if Wright has called Rice, Thomas, and Powell inauthentic, but it is a common enough criticism from the liberal African American community that I wouldn't be surprised).

If those example don't work, how about entrepreneurs like Oprah, or B.E.T. founder Robert Johnson? Heck, his own parishioner is on the verge of the Presidency, for crying out loud. A man in Wright's position could do much to heal and help his community. Sadly, his approach will be more likely to keep them in a physical and mental ghetto.

SFH,

You wrote much that was specious, so I just pick out a few items:

“I also propose that if you find Wright so repugnant that you demand that every negro in polite company repudiate him that you have a problem with ALL black people.”

“Negro”? Dude, you need to get out some this century. And, no, I only need to hear from the “negros” running for President who have been listening to Wright for 20 years.

I do not take it as given that Wright represents the “vast majority” of black religious thought in this country, as you contend. Also, I’m not asking anyone to renounce their faith. I’m simply saying that a person’s worldview is a legitimate criterion on which to judge his or her candidacy for President. It is not the only one, but for a man like Obama, will a much shorter career in public life than McCain of Clinton, it gets extra weight.

Finally, I take extreme umbrage at your suggestion about MLK. His “I Have a Dream” speech is one of the two greatest recorded speeches I know of (along with Churchill’s “We Will Fight Them” speech). King spoke about all of us "joining hands together". He did not call for “Black Values”, he called for universal human rights. Let's be honest. In this conversation, I’m the one judging Wright on the content of his character. You’re the one saying “it’s a black thing”. Who’s being more faithful to King’s vision?

David, first, it is simply false to argue that statistics on crime prove the higher criminality of a given group. It has more to do with the type of crime, the likelihood of jury or judge being biased, and the way in which the justice system is configured in terms of goals and achievements, i.e. clear-up rates. Added to which, the poverty and educational level of a given community affects conviction rates. Your approach is a classic Republican one, which neglects context and blames a community for the unequal circumstances under which it labors.

You would find many legal commentators who consider Clarence Thomas to be a disaster as a jurist, while Rice has been anything but distinguished in the field of foreign policy. Powell, sadly, looks more like a tired old former soldier with each passing day. You miss the point of the criticism of their rise. It is perceived by many as tokenism - in itself a recognized strategy for keeping a disadvantaged community down by pointing to a small number of carefully selected counter-examples. The point is not that no black person can succeed, rather, that the odds are tipped so that it is harder for one to do so, rather than say a white person or an Asian.

Yes, it is important that the black community fights to redress social and economic injustice. Trying to evade the very real issues with token successes and manipulated statistics is exactly what maintains the divisions within the USA, and prevents them from healing. Citing a few token figures simply will not do as a means to ameliorate these issues.

Stuart Z,

You ask a reasonable question. My answer is, essentially I don't think Obama is being honest with me. I'm not saying he is a dyed-in-the-wool separatist, just that I think he is far more comforta