An "Attack" On The Church

“It’s time for us to say ‘no’ to these attacks and declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends.”

Do they really want to go there? Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? This church exists to serve thier narrow political and/or ideological ends which are mix of Marxism and Black Nationalism.

Posted by Scott | March 16, 2008 2:37 PM

THANK YOU for featuring this!!!

I live in Chicago, and I know a number of people who are members of Trinity. They are heartily sick of being attacked and mischaracterized by the media. This is a congregation that does a TON of good in a community that REALLY needs it.

There needs to be a major pushback on this attempt to smear Obama by trashing this congregation. This is completely unconscionable!!!

Posted by Tungsten | March 16, 2008 2:41 PM

Scott:

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! I would respectfully characterize your statements as baldly idiotic.

How much do you ACTUALLY know about this church and the community it serves? How about you take a little trip to the South Side, sit in the pews at Trinity, and see what it's really all about.

I am not a churchgoer, but am outraged by the smear on this congregation. I've seen the good work they do firsthand.

Posted by Tungsten | March 16, 2008 2:46 PM

This church exists to serve thier narrow political and/or ideological ends which are mix of Marxism and Black Nationalism.
You you say this based on what? The church is more than Wright, and Wright is more than the snippets you've heard. Try this for starters.

Posted by bjd | March 16, 2008 2:47 PM

What about freedom of religion?

There are many things that religions do that would be, um, questionable if it were not for the separation of church and state.

Priests and other religious leaders have a certain freedom to preach, and that often means they tweak us with unpalatable or unpopular views. They are suppose to lead us, and sometimes, in exercising this leadership, they can go astray as well.

I don't think one has to agree with everything said in every sermon to be a member of a Church (or Temple, or Mosque, or whatever) but there is going too far. This old sermon by Wright perhaps went a bit too far. But who is he to know that one of the members of his Church would become a Presidential candidate?

Having said that, if we were do do the identical exercise for every major politician --- looking up things said by their pastor, etc. in sermons for something somebody don't like, it would be quite the gold mine.

Let's leave the Churches out of this political contest and preserve the separation of Church and State.

Posted by D | March 16, 2008 3:00 PM

The sense of persecution is always something that politicians and preachers play on. It's always an ace up the sleeve with their constituents. It's the same string the Republicans play on when they talk about how their "family values are under assault" by those EVIL secular humanists! This is merely just a rallying cry; boiled down, it's "Poor little us!"

What do they really expect is going to happen? The more they thrash and fight the media coverage, the more of a spectacle it will all become. This only serves to invite more scrutiny. Dumb.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 3:02 PM

Attacks??? This is justifiable public outcry. That "pastor" IS an Anti-American, Black Supremist. He has to be mentally ill to actually say such insane things. Hi congregation including Obama, must agree with his racist, Hitleresque Hate speech, or they would not attend. It is so called churches like this that continue to fuel racism and hatred in America. Obama is finished as a candidate and every sane American must condem
the TUCC hatred.

Posted by clint j | March 16, 2008 3:02 PM

Scott, you do realize that UCC is a predominantly white, mainline Protestant Denomination?

UCC traces its roots back the Congregationalists, ie. the Pilgrims. UCC is not going to abandon TUCC, even as people criticize, and rightly so, some of the rhetoric of Rev. Wright. Attacking a church like this, as FOX and Good Morning America have, and in such an decontextualized manner, is not good for anyone.

It could well backfire.

Posted by kid oakland | March 16, 2008 3:05 PM

D - that's a pretty crappy argument. Ethically, we should probably avoid digging up a bunch of smear material through old church sermons. But to argue it from the "separation of church and state" angle is silly.

How, exactly, is the state infringing upon this church's ability to do what they do? The Fourth Estate - the media - may be infringing or obstructing a bit, but it isn't the government of the United States that's doing so. Nothing illegal is going on with this.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 3:05 PM

Tungsten,

I know that Pastor Wright has accused the US Government of creating the AIDS virus to inflict harm on the black community. I know there are children listening to this madness.

I know Pastor Wright is a vulgar preacher who has been known to curse during his sermons and has simulated Bill Clinton's transgression from the pulpit. Of course there is the US of KKK, etc.

That said, I'm sure they do some good work for the community. My point was that the church is a perfect example of existing to advance narrow political/ideological ends which the statement accuses others of doing.

Posted by Scott | March 16, 2008 3:07 PM

clint - Exactly what was Anti-American or Black Nationalistic about his sermons?

I don't expect you to actually respond to that in a reasonable manner; you're just a troll.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 3:08 PM

This idea of going after Obama's pastor was really a dumb idea. Does anyone remember the idea of the separation of church and state? I think we as a nation have lost our moorings.

Posted by Micheline | March 16, 2008 3:09 PM

I'm glad the church is standing up for Rev. Wright. His remarks, as inflammatory as they sound in 30 second sound bites, actually argue for the US to live up to its promise of freedom, equality and justice for all. We as a country have not yet achieved this goal -- there is still an enormous amount of racism in the world. Rev. Wright is perfectly within bounds to argue that our foreign policy still bears the marks of racism and imperialism. We fail to take seriously any criticism of the US, as if we were above reproach. The oppressed among us -- the poor, the disenfranchised, and minority communities, particularly black communities, know this better than any of us.

Posted by laura | March 16, 2008 3:16 PM

(G D America) You can not get any more Anti-American than that. He preaches that blacks are being held down by the whites...Not true, have you ever heard ov Affermative Action?

HIV was invented to kill black men??? Mentally Ill if you ask me.

Preaching:

Black work ethic
Commitment to the Black Family
Commitment to the Black Community
Black Ethics
Black Value system

That is Black Supremicy no matter how you slice it.

Sincerely, a troll as you called me.

Posted by clint j | March 16, 2008 3:17 PM

What does this do to the Obama campaign? I know its sunday, but can i get a little context?

Posted by kim | March 16, 2008 3:20 PM

Obama Pastor, friend and spiritual leaders is a racist, teach hatred and resentment agaisnt white, Jewish and America. OK it should be perfectly fine that they exist but please bringing this message to the national campaign. Come on. This is not helping the African American community to move forward from resentment, this is destructive and this is destructive for the Country. I understand the african american vote, and I understand what kind of sentiments are behind it. I think every American should denounce it. I really concern about Obama and question his judgement, his views, his words, etc. He will be destroyed by the Republican attach machine. And a large portion of the Democratic base will have to support McCain to stop this guy to raise to power.

Posted by Maria Isabel | March 16, 2008 3:21 PM

If this is what this campaign becomes about Barack Obama just disqualified himself from being elected president.

Posted by Tim K | March 16, 2008 3:21 PM

Obama Pastor, friend and spiritual leaders is a racist, teach hatred and resentment agaisnt white, Jewish and America. OK it should be perfectly fine that they exist but please bringing this message to the national campaign. Come on. This is not helping the African American community to move forward from resentment, this is destructive and this is destructive for the Country. I understand the african american vote, and I understand what kind of sentiments are behind it. I think every American should denounce it. I really concern about Obama and question his judgement, his views, his words, etc. He will be destroyed by the Republican attach machine. And a large portion of the Democratic base will have to support McCain to stop Obama to raise to power.

Posted by Maria Isabel | March 16, 2008 3:22 PM

What it does to his campaign...FINITO. Obama
is finished as a candidate, and if he has any moral compass, he should resign his Senatorship.

Posted by clint j | March 16, 2008 3:23 PM

clint j - the HIV/AIDS thing is ridiculous, and it's something I've always heard growing up, which only serves to breed resentment and distrust of white people. So I agree on that. I hadn't heard that he repeated that idea.

I think the black ethics/work ethic/value system thing is just trying to get his congregation - predominantly blacks - to live up to their own standards. It's not supremacy.

As a whole, I think we're entirely too uncritical of our foreign policy, so I don't get all worked up about him talking about Nagasaki and Hiroshima and some of our other escapades overseas.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 3:24 PM

Thanks, bjd, for the link to Rev Wright's Audacity of Hope sermon. I was very moved upon reading it. I've been to several African American churches in Chicago and to Trinity UCC twice. The black experience and expression of Christianity is distinctly different in my view from what you find in a suburban white community of mainstream protestant and Catholic congregations. Black Christianity is also more complicated than the media snapshots suggest.

I suspect the Afrocentrism that shows up in the sermons of Rev Wright, Father Michael Pfleger of St Sabina's and many other popular ministers has to do with energizing the congregation to do something about their situation vs enduring their plight or waiting it out, where life in heaven will be better.

The smear campaign against Trinity and Rev Wright lead by Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk is designed to incite fear and suspicion. They might all be a bit surprised at how many white people attend these services who feel just as marginalized by "rich white men" as their black neighbors in the pews. eklees

Posted by Eileen Klees | March 16, 2008 3:26 PM

"That 'pastor' IS an Anti-American, Black Supremist. He has to be mentally ill to actually say such insane things. Hi congregation including Obama, must agree with his racist, Hitleresque Hate speech, or they would not attend. It is so called churches like this that continue to fuel racism and hatred in America."

I suspect this is pointless, but I feel compelled. There is nothing in any of the snippets of Wright's sermons circulating that is anti-American in general. Every time he mentions America, it is in the context of a particular set of actions or ideas that he is condemning. I think you meant to say "black supremacist," and again, at no point does Wright discuss the relative superiority or inferiority of any races. The only comparative statement he makes is that those of a privileged class cannot truly know the experience of being in a persecuted one. A black person knows the experience of being black better than a white person; he doesn't argue that that makes the black person better. "Hitleresque" is as offensive as anything Wright says in these clips. Does he advocate violence? An authoritarian state? Does he advocate blind allegiance to a leader? No. Quite the contrary, he explicitly condemns the elevation of state power to the divine level.

I am disturbed by the violence in many of the responses I've read to Wright, but now that the surprise is wearing off I find myself really curious to know: where do you see "hate" in Wright's words? Where, specifically, do you see racism? I understand that the phrase "God damn America" might be shocking to some, but isn't it clear that he's applying it to particular things the government does? Isn't it a preacher's job to point out unchristian actions and ideas, whichever ones he would describe in that way? Given the fact that everyone who actually attends the church or even just lives nearby seems to see it as a clear source of good for the community, shouldn't we assume that the bits of sermons we've seen out of context don't really represent Wright's ministry, that he's oriented more toward transformation than anger? I'm really asking, but I've been doing so for a few days now and I haven't yet heard an answer based on evidence and explanation.

Posted by professordarkheart | March 16, 2008 3:27 PM

clint j - Resign his "senatorship"? Uh... why? He "rejected AND denounced" the guy immediately and decisively.

I was going to give you a chance, since I prematurely labeled you a troll, but you clearly are just a hack.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 3:28 PM

Well, we can agree to dissagre then. Thanks for your civil
exchange, socctty.

Posted by clint j | March 16, 2008 3:29 PM

This is not helping the African American community to move forward from resentment, this is destructive and this is destructive for the Country.

Maria Isabel,

What would be detrimetal to the country is whites and blacks avoiding having a frank discussion about race. Pretending that something doesn't exist will not solve the problem.

Posted by Micheline | March 16, 2008 3:29 PM

This is not helping the African American community to move forward from resentment, this is destructive and this is destructive for the Country.

Maria Isabel,

What would be detrimetal to the country is whites and blacks avoiding having a frank discussion about race. Pretending that something doesn't exist will not solve the problem.

Posted by Micheline | March 16, 2008 3:30 PM

I'm glad someone is saying this. Obama himself can't, of course, but it would be a shame if the whole discussion of this began with the premise that Wright's remarks were awful and indefensible.

Posted by Brendan | March 16, 2008 3:31 PM

Scott;

Again with the nonsense. For sure, Wright has said some wacky and over-the-top stuff. NEWS FLASH: Preachers do this a lot. I'm sure whatever religious leaders you pay attention never do, of course - at least if you attend the United Church of Disneyland. Read Wright's "audacity of hope" sermon (posted on Sullivan's blog). Oh, no, I guess this would require some actual open-mindedness.

Makes for good 30-second sound bites, doesn't it? But the more important point is to examine the ministry in toto. Which, of course, you and "clint" refuse to do. I'm sure it's your fantasy that the few out-of-context remarks getting play in the MSM are what the church is all about, but that is baloney. This anti - TUCC smear is outrageous, disgusting, and anti-American.

Martin Luther King is a modern day hero, no? If you like, I could assemble a bunch of 30-second sound bites from his speeches that would make Wright look tame. Minus the obscenity, but plus a hell of a lot more radical language.

So, I advise you and "clint" to open your minds a little. Oh, wait. I guess that's probably too much to ask.

I say, to all right-thinking Americans, it's time to man the barricades to stop this insane smear against TUCC!

Posted by Tungsten | March 16, 2008 3:34 PM

professordarkheart - Well said.

As a "militant agnostic", I find it a bit hard to muster up the energy to defend a preacher, so I instead find the energy to support reason and rationality, something clearly missing from a lot of these knee-jerk opinions of Rev. Wright.

Perhaps I am indifferent to it. I grew up in a predominantly (80% or so) black neighborhood in Houston, so I do have some understanding of the context in which Wright's arguments are being made.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 3:35 PM

I guess I spoke to soon on the civil part. Yes he denounced the remarks. But only after it became public. If he truly dissagreed
with Mr. Wright, he would not have attended the church for 20 years, or called him is spiritual leader. It is easy to say Im sorry
after your caught. Obama must feel the same about America as
his Hitleresque pastor does, and he has no place in any public office.

Posted by clint j | March 16, 2008 3:35 PM

Could we stop - on both sides of this argument - using the phrase "anti-American"?

That's such a loaded term, and the idea of America is such a complex one, that virtually anything can be construed as anti-American. I mean, you're one step away from saying "They hate us for our freedom!"

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 3:39 PM

Tungsten,

outrageous, disgusting, and anti-American....descibes TUCC perfecly.

Posted by clint j | March 16, 2008 3:40 PM

Remember this: the Clinton campaign does not care if they throw under the bus the entire institution of the black church.

This church, as has many many black churches, has done so much good for their communities. Only the tabloid like media, along with the Hillary camp, along with people like Rush Limbaugh, manage to use a few comments by one individual to try to smear an entire church.

By this standard all churches are denigrated, as one can find in any church history some controversial comments by one pastor.

Before criticizing this church, ask yourself if you have done as much to serve your community as this church has?

Posted by cm | March 16, 2008 3:40 PM

clint j - He spoke about them months ago! How was he supposed to denounce comments he never heard until recently? I'll grant you that it's a bit of a stretch to assume Obama never heard those comments over 20 years, and that they were just made in the times that Obama didn't visit; nevertheless, he did speak about some of the comments several months ago. The story never caught legs until now.

And you're still repeating that "Hitleresque" nonsense, and proposing that Obama must feel exactly the way his pastor does, presumably hoping that if no one calls you on it, or if you ignore it when someone does, then it will just get accepted as truth.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 3:47 PM

I bet this church and yes, even pastor Wright, has done more to help people in the most profound ways than people like Rush Limbaugh ever have.

This church has done far more for people than the corrupt Clintons.

Let's spend more press time and effort trying to get Hillary's tax returns. That has true relevance to us all.

How much have foreign govts and interests given to the Clintons, expecting favors in return? Can we trust Hillary to truly fight for energy independence, given the Clintons own financial dependence on Middle Eastern oil interests?

Bush and Cheney took over, and we see how they've rewarded their oil friends. Well, the Clintons have the same type of ties to the oil industry, only theirs stretch to the Middle East.

Posted by cm | March 16, 2008 3:49 PM

clint j,

In case you didn't see my questions for you above, since I didn't begin my post with your name: can you help me to understand where you're coming from?

Posted by professordarkheart | March 16, 2008 3:49 PM

Just as a clarification, it's not like Wright made all of his incendiary comments at the church. He has done extensive speaking outside of the church, and many of these comments were made at those other venues. It's not like Obama follows this guy around and attends every speech he gives.

Posted by cm | March 16, 2008 3:52 PM

clint:

Whatever. Nanny-nanny poo-poo to you too. I find your trollish responses amusing.

May I ask, what is your opinion of Martin Luther King? Naturally, I'm sure you're intimately familiar with his rhetoric.

But keep up the bad work, kiddo. We always need reminders about how foul our national discourse has gotten. Helps motivate the troops!

Posted by Tungsten | March 16, 2008 3:53 PM

'"...many of these comments were made at those other venues." -cm

If that's true, I think that's a good point. Of the videos I've seen, they were in his church, but that was only two videos, and frankly they weren't offensive (one was the "Hillary's never been called a nigger! video). So if that is the case - that these weren't made at church - it's something that's going unsaid.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 3:57 PM

professordarkheart,

I don't know how I could be clearer. Pastor Wright Hates America, wants to continue fueling racism, and his comment are so far out there that only a mentally Ill person could make them.
He speeches were very Hitleresque in the hatred he was spewing. Obama and everyone who sits in a pew at the church
must be held accountable.

I would be just as outraged if this were a white candidate and a white pastor, Color doesn't matter to me at all. I would gladly vote for a Black president if he, or she, were the best person for the job.

Does that answere your question?

Posted by clint j | March 16, 2008 4:00 PM

Tunsten,

Mr. King talked about bringing us together and tearing down
racial barriors. Mr. Wright is dividing and fueling hate.

Posted by clint j | March 16, 2008 4:04 PM

Um, no. You've been quite clear about your opinions, but not about what you're basing them on. To hate is to think very badly of someone or something. Can you quote me a line in which such a sentiment is expressed? Can you tell me how you define racism and what specific ideas of Wright's you find racist? Hitleresque, again, I think is unreasonable (and according to Godwin's law, it's lost you the debate), but prove me wrong. Hitler's beliefs and actions are well-documented. What particular belief of his do you relate to one of Wright's?

In my original post, I responded in quite a bit of detail to specific words used and ideas expressed in Wright's sermons. I also referred to information from beyond them, such as the opinions held by people who have actually attended the church, and the community work the church has done. I can provide links to much more on any of these if you'd like.

So, at a similar level of detail, can you show me why you've arrived at these opinions?

Posted by professordarkheart | March 16, 2008 4:07 PM

I'm not here for a debating contest.

I'm right, you're totally wrong, and Obama is
finished as a polititian.

end of story

Posted by clint j | March 16, 2008 4:14 PM

Tungsten,

I have read the sermon on Sullivan's blog which was good and I could see how Obama would be insprired by that.

I also understand that there are cultural differences to be accounted for. Being white and Catholic, I'm not particularly well disposed toward the frenzied preacher type yet I understand that many others are.

But..Simulating a sex act from the pulpit, cultural differences aside, is pretty revolting. G-d damn America show his hatred for our country. Teaching his congregation that the US invented AIDS in an attempt to acheive black genocide is RACISM! It's a lie used to make blacks hate whites and does nothing to further the betterment of race relations.

It's a stretch to believe that Obama did not know these things or the general tone of a church which directly contradicts Obama's message of transcendence with regard to race and America in general. Mrs. Obama slips here and there to show us her contempt for her country and now it shows up again with Wright. People naturally want to know if Obama is affected too.

Stories about the lapel pin are not what he needs right now. He'll probably lose independents and a good portion of white working class folks over his judgement of belonging to a church where the pastor fans the racial divide. Race baiters need to be called out whether they are on the left or right.

Posted by Scott | March 16, 2008 4:18 PM

clint j,

Sorry, I thought your abundant posting meant you were actually interested in exchanging views. I guess you just like to repeat yourself. I did the best I could to try to take your opinions seriously, but since you're not interested in defending them, I can only assume you don't have a defense.

So, yes, end of story.

Posted by professordarkheart | March 16, 2008 4:18 PM

If you're a Democrat, the last thing you want in a presidential election year is a "frank discussion" about race.

Posted by Tim K | March 16, 2008 4:18 PM

I've been blogging about this topic over the last several days at http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com

Excerpt:
I've blogged about the unbalanced scrutiny the media is devoting to Wright versus it's examination of John McCain's "spiritual advisor" Rod Parsley. I wonder if we'll see, on a future "This Week", video clips of Parsley calling for a holy war, a new Crusades, to destroy Islam and the panel discussing the implications for McCain's candidacy. Perhaps a debate of the political implications for McCain of John Hagee's hate filled anti-gay or anti-Catholic screeds. Or will we just crack them up as crackpot fundamentalist ministers and understand that these dimwitted views don't reflect John McCain's moral base?

Posted by Jay McDonough | March 16, 2008 4:19 PM

I live in Chicago and voted for Obama in the primary because I have a huge dislike for Hillary. Now I learn that his pastor of 20 years says "God Damn" my country?! And this traitor was even on Obama's staff? What an idiot Obama is. Was I suckered!

I can't believe it but I'm going to vote Republican for the first time! God BLESS America!

Twan

Posted by Twan | March 16, 2008 4:24 PM

I live in Chicago and voted for Obama in the primary because I have a huge dislike for Hillary. Now I learn that his pastor of 20 years says "God Damn" my country?! And this traitor was even on Obama's staff? What an idiot Obama is. Was I suckered!

I can't believe it but I'm going to vote Republican for the first time! God BLESS America!

Twan

Posted by Twan | March 16, 2008 4:25 PM

I live in Chicago and voted for Obama in the primary because I have a huge dislike for Hillary. Now I learn that his pastor of 20 years says "God Damn" my country?! And this traitor was even on Obama's staff? What an idiot Obama is. Was I suckered!

I can't believe it but I'm going to vote Republican for the first time! God BLESS America!

Twan

Posted by Twan | March 16, 2008 4:25 PM

Part of the message of the Rev. Mr. Wright is that we should say "God Damn America" instead of "God Bless America." The only other minister I'm aware of with a similar message is Fred Phelps and his "God hates America" (and "fags" and everyone else that doesn't belong to his church, apparently).

If "God Damn America" is an acceptable message, then defend the message and don't hide behind the excuse of that the church does good works. Jerry Falwell's church, the Nation of Islam and others do lots of good works, but that doesn't improve the content of their frequently hateful messages.

And don't patronize black people by holding them to a lower standard than anyone else. Black people are not children or savages and the claim that the US government created AIDS, etc. is just as stupid coming from a black person as a white person.

Posted by Bill | March 16, 2008 4:25 PM

I appreciated it, Prof DarkHeart. I've heard the conspiracy theories for the Aids virus in many places, from many people. It's wrong, and betrays a willingness to look for conspiracies. But that willingness didn't arise out of some vacuum; it arose out of the Tuskeegee experience. If they ask for scientific funding, I have a problem. If it's raving about someone's plot--you can find a million of those on the internet, and still, we aren't all making little tin foil hats to protect ourselves.

And, to broaden out: I heard many people, in the wake of 9/11, say in effect "I don't think we even have a foreign policy, but if we do, I'm sure it's a nice one." Of course 9/11 had a lot to do with the US's foreign policy. It wasn't justified. It wasn't a decent response. But we do have a foreign policy, it has done both much good and some evil, and most Americans don't have the slightest clue what goes on far from our shores. For someone on the left or right to condemn America's foreign policy in strong terms is not unheard of.

Bill, Fred Phelps screams through bullhorns outside the funerals of fallen soldiers because he believes that 9/11 and the Iraq war were sent as deserved punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuals. I don't see Wright screaming to drown out remembrances of the dead at other churches. I don't see him stating that the US is being punished by an angry God for our sinful nature. I hear him condemning some actions of the government he finds shocking, and calling on God. I may not agree with him, but conflating him with Fred Phelps is not fair or justified.

Clint, if your response to repeated requests for a specific quote that supports your position is "I'm right, you're wrong," that says a lot about your position.

Posted by Deborah | March 16, 2008 4:40 PM

Bill,

I already defended the message in my first post in the thread. I think it's very clear from the context that he is not damning the country but condemning certain of its past actions and attitudes. I'm not patronizing black people, I am one; thanks for your defense, though. I know the black church, which has its own very distinct rhetorical traditions, and my effort is to help people to see the message behind a style of oratory that is meant to shock people out of complacent thinking (its original purpose was to question the unquestioned contention of most of the southern clergy that slavery was ordained by God).

It is of course not true that the government created AIDS; I don't condone the spreading of that particular falsehood. Rumor has historically had a peculiar place in black discourse, conspiracy theories especially. There's quite a bit of scholarly work on how, despite not being true, such rumors point to shared political beliefs and skepticisms within a community. Interesting stuff, but I don't think that makes it OK to repeat such things as fact from a position of authority.

I can say with confidence, however, that if I had heard a couple of disappointing errors like that from my pastor if my church, like TUCC, has been completely trailblazing in the black community as far as HIV/AIDS ministry and an active fight against homophobia, it wouldnt even occur to me to condemn or leave the church.

My references to the church's good works are not an excuse; they're an attempt to begin to fill in some of the context of Wright's ministry, and in this case the point is that his anger toward injustice is only the starting point for a very compelling message of taking responsibility for combating injustice in our own minds and where we encounter it in our lives.

Posted by professordarkheart | March 16, 2008 4:41 PM

Interesting historical perspective in that press release and, also, here:
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/barack-obama-condemns-reverend-jeremiah.html

Posted by TC | March 16, 2008 4:41 PM

Scott;

I'm glad to see you've tempered your views, or at least your rhetoric. Being white and atheist, I tend to look at all religion with a jaundiced eye, and I put a high premium on the works I see coming out of a given congregation. I'd ask: do you agree 100% with everything a given priest says both inside and outside of the church? With everything that priest will ever say? I've been in a lot of churches, and have heard some unbelievably stupid and incendiary stuff.

That Wright has occasionally gone over the top is not at issue here. The vast bulk of his ministry is pretty good stuff, and does NOT encourage Black racism. Perhaps it's instructive that the TUCC members I know don't even remember the HIV-USA bit that's getting so much play. Mostly, people kind of roll their eyes and say, oh, there goes Pastor Wright. Please, don't tell me this has never happened to you.

Obama is demonstrably above all of this crap. He's always been, and his rhetoric has been consistent. You might disagree with him for other reasons. But please realize that this attack on his pastor and church is just wrong. Do we really want to start going after people's religion?

clint, as for you, there's really nothing to say. Go study MLK. He was widely hated in America during his short life, accused of being "anti-american". But he said "I'd rather die than hate you". And, die he did.

Posted by Tungsten | March 16, 2008 4:42 PM

clintj: Congratulations! Your posts on this forum are hands down the most misinformed and intellectually absurd I've seen on any political blog today. And, believe me,that's really saying something.

Posted by just a person | March 16, 2008 4:45 PM

Let's see:

He said "God Damn America", that the US deserved 9/11; that the US invented Aids to kill blacks, etc etc etc....

This is all great, isn't it? Wright has made a grearnumber of antisemitic and hate-speeches that were known to many for a long while.

Do you really believe Obama didn't know?

1000 good deeds, do not erase hate. Hate is hate and if you can tolerate it, if you have the stomach to
sit idle by it for 20 years; well then at some
level you believe these words to be true.
That says a lot about who you are.

There is no way around this. To reject *now*
the hate-speech kwnon to be spoken for years because it caught up with the public
yet still embrace the man who so forcefully delivers them is just not credible.

Even if you believe that in 20 years he never ever heard these sermons from Wright or form any
of the members of the church;
Obama is on record (NYT, RS, Chicago press) to be aware of these sermons were known to the people for at least a year. There are even YouTubes videos of these form a year ago.

In 2006, Obama donated $22,500 to Wright's church : that was single largest chariatble donation Obama has ever made. This was for the same year in which Jeremiah Wright gave that famous sermon claiming that the
"government created AIDS to infect and kill black people" among other hateful things about the US. He delievered it at the Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel in Washington on Jan. 15, 2006.
That speech was widley known: I knew about it. And Obama didn't?

It is disgusting at ever level. To say that this
is typical of balck churches is an insult to the african american community.

Posted by Rodn | March 16, 2008 4:47 PM

obama is done. Its very saddening to see all the hopes i had on him and for our country crumble like this. I really dont think he can recover from the wright controversy. It will be hell of a long time before I get enthusiasm in politics again.

Posted by sandy | March 16, 2008 4:50 PM

Good for the Church. Why shouldn't a black minister, channelling the historic misery his people have endured at the hands of an oppressor, cry foul on America? American hasn't been all good for black people, to say the least. The rabbis I know don't have a lot of nice things to say about the oppressors of the Jews. But anyway, it's all beside the point. Obama doesn't espouse this stuff, has no history of espousing it, and doesn't show any signs of espousing it in the future. So unless we're going to get McCarthyite, who cares? This is a take down effort, pure and simple. Since they can't find anything to terrible about the candidate, they go after people who know the candidate. It's pathetic, and a responsible press should say as much.

Posted by alex | March 16, 2008 4:50 PM

These right-wing trolls are hilarious. Yeah, Obama should totally resign over remarks everyone has known about for years and he's denounced many times in the past just because the right-wing noise machine decided to put them on infinite loop this week.

You know what I think, McCain should resign as a senator and drop out of the race after enthusiastically accepting the endorsement of Rev. Hagee, a nutjob who believes all Catholics are evil and who provides material support to those trying to start an Arab-Israeli war. Agree or disagree?

Posted by John M. | March 16, 2008 4:54 PM

McCain also called preacher Rod Parsley a "spiritual guide." Parsley has said the following:

"I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

This is not insane, how?

Posted by John M. | March 16, 2008 5:00 PM

Alex,

Mostly I agree with you, but I wanted to play devil's advocate for a minute about your "who cares?" I think it's clear as day that Obama has taken to heart the aspirational message of his church and left behind the anger and disappointment of the previous generation; as you say, there's no reason to imagine he's been hiding some militant agenda. But on the other hand, if I had reason to believe that Wright's sermons always sounded like the clips we've all heard or read about, and not just that they were the most incendiary 3 minutes Fox News could find from among all the footage they combed through, and if I knew that they represented the primary message of the church a candidate had attended for twenty years, I think it would be fair to assume he shared some of those feelings. So to me, it's important to put Wright in context as well as to make sure we remember that he is not the one on the ballot.

Posted by professordarkheart | March 16, 2008 5:01 PM

The funniest part is the faux outrage. These goofballs keep saying, "OK, this is it, guys. This is really it. Obama's finished now. It's over. The Wright thing is the worst thing I've ever seen in my life and an affront human decency everywhere. The guy should be quarantined. No, listen, give up, ask for your money back, throw out your buttons. Trust me, I'm coming to this with an open mind, I would have liked Obama to win, but this, THIS? No, forget it, it's over."

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Posted by alex | March 16, 2008 5:03 PM

20 years of preaching and Obama says it's news to him! I think Obama's "chickens are coming to roost." However all the starry eyed reporters and leftist Democrats want to put a positive spin on this, it just "ain't" going to work. Not even a good try. If a candidate's preacher belched forth this hate but was exactly opposite in political persuasion (that is a white man saying lies and hate about blacks) this would be the end of a political career for that candidate. It should also be the end for Obama. Now, I really wonder about his explanations about not saluting during the national anthem and his decision not to wear an American flag lapel pin, don't you?

I don't even need to get into Wright's Zionist (can you spell anti-Semitic?) ranting.

Posted by Mike | March 16, 2008 5:06 PM

Mike,

Have you read the rest of the thread? You should find all the deprogramming you need there.

Posted by professordarkheart | March 16, 2008 5:09 PM

Obama named his principal literary work after a phrase uttered by the racist preacher. This man has obviously been central to Obama's coming of age, and his maturation as a public figure. Most Americans will recoil at the prospect of electing as our president an acolyte of this racist, extremist, America-hating rabble rouser.

Posted by Maximom | March 16, 2008 5:13 PM

Professor darkheart,

Your point is well taken. I would add that context cuts a few ways. We should also consider, for example, the context in which this Fox article appeared, less than an hour after Olbermann's Special Comment in which he forcefully denounced the Clinton campaign's unfortunate pattern of allowing race to insinuate itself into the conversation about the candidates. Someone was clearly trying to create a reply to the Olbermann piece. And without question, the overwhelming need to find something incriminating in Obama's history colored the reporter's interpretation and presentation of the minister's comments.

Posted by alex | March 16, 2008 5:13 PM

All this stuff about Wright has been out there a long time. If Obama is "surprised" by it, he is either hopelessly naive, stone deaf, or lying through his teeth.

Posted by robert ethan | March 16, 2008 5:16 PM

As an Obama supporter, I too was dismayed at the repeated showings of clips of Pastor Wright's speeches/sermons. I have set about learning more. So far I have reviewed the sermon of Dec. 25, 2007 where the clip seems to indicate he was attacking Hillary Clinton. Even though I am an outsider (62 y/o white female), it was evident to me that these remarks, which were at the end of his sermon, were directed to black people (or African American, if you prefer), who distrusted Obama as he was not "black enough". Remember that this sermon was given before the first primary when many black people were still unsure of Obama and were supporters of Hilary Clinton. The pastor was reminding them that Obama, as a black man, would have to have had experiences that Hillary Clinton as a white woman would not have had and so how could people think he wasn't "black enough". And Hillary would never get asked if she was black enough (his final comment). He didn't say anything about who should vote for who, only that black people should not judge Obama on the basis of whether or not he was "black enough".
This is not to say that there weren't other remarks in the sermon that could make white people uncomfortable. He certainly talks about "rich white people" being in control of things. But there is some truth in that! But basically the sermon is about recognizing the black experience and being proud of one's accomplishments, whether or not one is black. ( He certainly was proud of the black lawyer in the 3 inch heels and fur coat. She had made it, despite being black. So yes, he is still rooted in the experiences of his youth and all that means to us today. But hatefull--no, I didn't see that at all.

Posted by dblue | March 16, 2008 5:19 PM

My sense on Jeremiah Wright is that there is a lot of good, a lot of talent in the man - as well as Leftist crap and being someone that panders to the black racism of his audience.

If you want blame, it has to start with the people that truly shaped black attitudes and class resentments. Who made anti-Americanism and identity politics and victimization "the" thing black intellectuals did. That would be the communist Jews that set up the NAACP and other "Fronts" mainly as black grievance vehicles they would control behind the scenes. And black socialists like WEB Dubois, nourished by the Euro and NYC crowd - who wanted government-forced equality in all spheres. They won against the forces that emphasized self-reliance, and had created booming black metropolitan areas. That was the "self-education, hard work, family stability, and Uplift will come Naturally" approach of Booker T Washington and that school of thought.

Jeremiah Wright is a man of great achievements. Probably 95-98% of what he has done with his life is for the good. Juxtipose him with Billy Graham - who you can say was a force for huge good but if you look at his associations and sermons you can pull out some anti-semitism, toadying up to corporate wealth, groveling obsequiousness to the "greatness" of Presidents he pal'ed around with, like LJB and Nixon. Or Saint Martin, Himself. Whose quite odious side is discretely buried from view with his elevation to part-diety and perfect man and Greatest Head Negro, ever.

Wright was an accomplished scholar, with grad degrees not just in theology, but English. He has written 5 well-received books. He is a better-educated and smarter Mike Huckabee. He served with distinction in the Marines before becoming a preacher. Shifting from a GI to be a medical corpsman and the Valedictorian of his 1963 Marine medic class.

Along the way, he found himself preaching to an audience of grievance-nourishing blacks and tailored himself to that audience. Part of that is the recent black history where blacks fought for and got self-determination of the black civil rights movement and political control of black voters away from the control and manipulation of Jewish Leftists.

For the past, Jews are especially unpopular nationwide with african-americans..well-meaning in some ways, but guilty of economic exploitation of blacks and emasculating them, politically. Wright's preaching reflects that - but clings to the Leftist boilerplate that blacks were taught by Jewish communists leading the NAACP, SCLC, etc.

His anti-Iraq war Q&A is standard Lefty speak:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Iraq-IQ-Test-Wright23feb03.htm

For Obama, his problem is not Wright so much as all these associations with Left-radicals in his past that keep coming up, along with an extreme liberal voting record and lack of bipartisanship that suggests he is more like Jesse Jackson than a "person who transcends all race and petty politics". They keep popping up.

1. Wright is not like Mike Huckabee getting an endorsement from a Fundie Whacko he doesn't know. Obama knew Wright for 20 years after Michelle led him there, and called Wright a huge inspiration to him and his family. If he is to be believed, he knew nothing about some of Wright's views for 20 years, but listened enough to somehow be "transformed" and to show Wright's influence in the 2 books he wrote.

2.His "speech of superior judgment" turns out to be done at the direct request of a radical Jewish ex-SDS member (Marilyn Katz) who was to link Obama up with 4-5 Jewish Mega-Rich donors like Bettelu Saltzman, The Crown Family, Penny Pritzger - and to David Axelrod - all vehemently anti-Iraq war, as was the Mayor and the State's other Senator, Dick Durbin - who Saltzman was chief of staff for earlier.

3. His speech of "superior judgement" was delivered at a Jesse Jackson rally against the racist evil war, attended by 300 hardcore Left and various NOI, Chicago black activists. It was not daring because he was actually helping his re-election chances in his solid Left District and was just what the other Senator was saying and being anti-war opened up millions in funding for his Senate run from radical to liberal wealthy Elites.

3. He writes of his "mentor black" who substituted for his long-gone Biodaddy who turns out to be a flaming communist with a big FBI file.

4. We find out that Obama used NOI officers as part of campaigns. Shakir Mohammed was Obama's community rep in his state Senate campaign. Muslims Cynthia Miller served as his Senate election Treasurer, and Jennifer Mason as his current director of hiring and constituent services.

5. We find his sugar daddy, Tony Resko, didn't contribute 30,000 to Obama's state senate runs, but 150,000. A huge sum. And we find that Resko is partners with Elijah Mohammed's son, made 26 trips to the ME since 2002 for mostly undisclosed "business", and that former Saddam Hussein arms merchant and Iraqi billionaire Hamdi Auchi has apparantly paid for a lot of Obama campaign funding and part of Obama's house via "pass-through" money Resko handled.

6. We find that his mother elected to stay in Indonesia for 30 years after her divorce and only return when she was dying. That while in Indonesia, she made many Leftist, up to - anti-American remarks. Obama in his book described his "discomfort" with a mother with a serious case of jungle fever who sexualized strong black men she saw, while maintaining a rebellion against "white culture and white values."

This idea of going after Obama's pastor was really a dumb idea. Does anyone remember the idea of the separation of church and state? I think we as a nation have lost our moorings.
Posted by Micheline

The only persons who have lost their moorings are silly, vapid people like you devoid of logic who insist there is some magical church-vs.-state separation with religious nutballs like Wright, Phelps, Al Sharpton, Ayatollah Khoumenei, bin Laden and more "accepted" preachers like MLK, Pat Robertson who blend the religious and political.

Posted by chris ford | March 16, 2008 5:20 PM

You know, if I had any doubts about voting for Obama, the inveterate stupidity some of his critics on this thread would promptly cure me of it.

Posted by alex | March 16, 2008 5:20 PM

You know, if I had any hesitation about voting for Obama, the inveterate stupidity some of his critics on this thread would promptly cure me of it.

Posted by alex | March 16, 2008 5:21 PM

My jaw is dropping that anyone on this blog would actually be attempting to defend Wright. His sermons were recorded and are available on YouTube for all to see. Just how stupid do you think people are???

The Church of Christ should have dropped this man 20 years ago and let him join Farrakhan's ministry where he seems to be most at home. Obviously you people totally don't get the harm this is causing and will continue to cause not just for Obama but for any future black candidate for any public office. This (wrongly) validates the secret feelings of ANY white voter who had previously had doubts about voting for Obama based on his race--now all of Middle America can say 'I told you so' and pull the lever against him without a trace of guilt. 'It's the blacks who are the racists, not us.' Don't you get that???? Wright has singlehandedly set the cause of African-Americans back to the 1930s. It's like watching paul Robeson all over again.

Posted by Hope Muntz | March 16, 2008 5:22 PM

Thank you, Hope Muntz, for setting the record straight, I don't know where my moral compass would point without the likes of you, robert ethan, and the rest to adjust it. Phew! I think you're probably right that Wright "has singlehandedly set the cause of African Americans back to the 1930s." That is to say, pre-Civil Rights movement. We'll probably have black people sitting on the back of the bus any day now. I would actually go further and say that the guy is the Anti-Christ, and that Armageddon is nigh. Which is good, because I have a couple library books I'd prefer not to return.

Posted by alex | March 16, 2008 5:30 PM

alex,

Now who's spreading conspiracy theories?

No, just kidding. Yeah, the timing seems pretty suspicious (read: obvious). Actually, Politico is currently running a story about how hard "opponents of Obama" have been pressuring them to run Wright stories for months now. So presumably the news organizations were all hearing from these "opponents" (who could they be?) and had their stories on tap for when they suddenly decided to recycle Wright. Wonder what could have made Fox choose that particular moment?

Posted by professordarkheart | March 16, 2008 5:32 PM

Mike,

To be fair, there's no hard and fast rule about holding one's hand over the heart during the anthem. And Obama has given, I believe, a plausible answer as to why he doesn't wear the lapel.

I think it hurts him politically but he's given an intellectually honest answer as to why he chose not wear it anymore. (It came to be a pro-war symbol in his eyes.)

There is a certain kind of snobbery on the right with regard to being a "real" or "good" American which is evident by listening to talk radio. They congratulate each other over how good of an American they are based on their political views. Think Hannity, Rush, etc.

I still have lingering questions about Obama's patriotism but that's due more to Michelle's opinions and Wright's. I wonder if he really is that far divorced from their attitudes or, properly speaking, what I perceive their attitudes to be.

Posted by Scott | March 16, 2008 5:36 PM

After Reading this tread it's clear that Hillbilly finally found something that is going to stick to Obama. Who cares if it was pumped out of the sewage pipes and is going to not only fracture but also actually destroy a major US political party in the process?

Posted by SC Rose | March 16, 2008 5:37 PM

Cue the scary music and thunder and lightning track. The Repubs and the Clintons are a-scared of Obama!

He's a secret black nationalist Muslim sleaze-machine with ties to al Qaeda and Satan with a Secret Plan to overthrow America with his communist wife, Michelle, when and if a naive population - hypnotized by his rhetorical skills and oceans of Obamamania Kool-aid spiked with Hope and Change - votes him into office.

He MUST NOT be trusted. He has, after all, been a member of the same church for 20 years, where he assumed the posture of a passive idiot and sat in a pew ingesting and tacitly agreeing with the torrents of anti-American propaganda issuing forth from his radical, ex-Marine preacher. You just wait for all the tapes to surface of this pastor's anti-American sermons and all the other church members who will testify THAT OBAMA WAS RIGHT THERE TAKING DICTATION! And even though similar anti-American commentary is not present in anything Obama has ever said, written, or supported, HE WAS THERE AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT! I predict World Net Daily is ALREADY beginning its thorough AND LEGITIMATE investigation.

And then there is this SLEAZY Rezko character. A developer of low-income housing projects (WINK, WINK - always a first sign of a money-rapacious mercenary), who Obama KNEW FOR 17 YEARS. It doesn't matter that Obama has never been charged with anything - in spite of the Chicago press devoting reams of paper investigating every tedious nuance of their relationship and still coming up with nothing. THIS ISN'T ABOUT FACTS, FOLKS! This is ABOUT HIS CHARACTER! That's right. The candidate of hope and change has been revealed! NEWSMAX IS ON IT - already interviewing people who know people who know people who know people who live in or near Illinois!

AND DON'T YOU TRY TO CALL ME A RACIST, like all you Obamabots are programmed to do whenever you're faced with our half-truths, phony arguments, and excitable!, sky-is-falling!, inflammatory rhetoric! We're onto you people and your boring facts! We've got a candidate to smear and we're not going to let you and your new politics get in the way! No way! And just to prove it, I AM LEAVING MY CAPS LOCK KEY ON UNTIL NOVEMBER!

TAKE THAT!

Posted by nepat | March 16, 2008 5:42 PM

I think you're all a bunch of Chicken Littles with this "he's DOOMED!" talk.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 5:44 PM

Obama keeps saying these "bad judgements" don't reflect a pattern. Not only with Wright, who he was CLOSELY INVOLVED WITH FOR 20 YEARS, without "being aware of his radical views", but also with TONY REZKO who (it now turns out) was A CLOSE FRIEND, (who it now turns out) raised 5 TIMES AS MUCH MONEY FOR OBAMA AS ORIGINALLY ACKNOWLEDGED. It isn't until Obama gets CAUGHT RED HANDED IN HIS LIES (Wright, Rezko, NAFTA) that he RELUCTANTLY TELLS A PARTIAL TRUTH.

It is A PATTERN, and a DEEPLY DI8TURBING PATTERN.

The man is nearly 50 years old, he isn't some pimple faced adolescent who you can give a lecture to and HOPE THAT HE LEARNS FROM IT.

Posted by robert ethan | March 16, 2008 5:44 PM

I don't agree with either but how was Wright's post 9/11 sermon any different than Robertson & Falwell remarks on 9/11? All 3 were using 9/11 to push their own agenda. I think they are all wrong but to be outraged at Wright and not at Falwell & Robertson is just pure hypocrisy. When you wingnuts disavow the religious right, then I'll listen to your opinions on what's un-American.

Comments from the Thursday, September 13, 2001 edition of the '700 Club.'

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

Posted by Nuff Said McGreavey | March 16, 2008 5:44 PM

nepat,

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Now if you had used triple exclamation points in a few places and maybe capitalized the first letter of some random nouns and adjectives in the middle of sentences...then maybe I'd concede that you have a point.

Posted by professordarkheart | March 16, 2008 5:46 PM

AND DON'T YOU TRY TO CALL ME A RACIST
Why would I use the word racist when idiot would suffice.

Posted by bjd | March 16, 2008 5:47 PM

Don't judge the damage on Obama's campaign by the responses on this thread. They are made by the same dozen desperate nutjobs/Hillary supporters posting over and over and over on every blog on the Internet. Look at what happened yesterday (post Wright) in Iowa: Obama picked up 9 delegates and Hillary lost one.

One union in Oregon also switched from Hillary to Obama. These are the real people. The people who vote, the people who see that Hillary is willing to tear this party apart for her own selfish gains and want to be rid of her. People who themselves perhaps attend churches while disagreeing with 30-50% of what goes on there and don't want to be held responsible for things said by their associates.

The UCC has given a passionate and plausible defense and I think this will not harm Obama in the long run.

Posted by NCYvonne | March 16, 2008 5:56 PM

Thanks to the many of you for your postings. For two days now, I've been disturbed by the eruption of intolerance online.

To those who reject and attack Obama, simply based deeply-edited sermon excerpts, I also expect you to reject any candidate who accepts the support of the likes of Pat Robertson or John Hagee.

The first two minutes of this clip includes Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell explaining 9/11 for us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zkaQXHS

Here's Hagee on Katrina:

"All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that. . . . I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

Posted by Judy | March 16, 2008 6:01 PM

NCYvonne - I don't think Iowa is a fair reflection of the impact of this. It hasn't fully developed; by Tuesday, we'll have an accurate assessment of the damage. I doubt it will bring him down much, though. But, still, the Sunday shows get to discuss it, and bring up more "points" to the MSM, and the talking heads get to chew on it a bit.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 6:01 PM

Over and over we hear the same bullshit from people who KNOW that they KNOW all about Rev. Wright and his ministry because they've seen a few artfully edited clips amounting to less than 5 minutes from the 200,000+ minutes of his Sunday sermons over 36 years. Nothing that anyone says is going to add anything to their complete knowledge because it is already complete - they can stop listening now because they know it all. Well they might be convincing each other that they know something in their little circle-jerk echo chamber, but from where I stand I can tell that they don't know ANYTHING!

Posted by Stephen1947 | March 16, 2008 6:06 PM

For those making the Robertson/Falwell argument: it's not the same thing, because McCain wasn't married by or attending the sermons of those people. McCain did actively seek the endorsement of Hagee, so that's fair game, although not of the same scale as Wright (as far as personal relationships go). Parsley is comparable, as he is McCain's spiritual advisor, but it's not a perfect match.

chris ford - Rezko didn't donate that much; he raised that much from other donors.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 6:08 PM

When I look at the heroic, patriotic opus of robert ethan, the passionate outpourings of chris ford, the ferocious pamphleteering of Hope Muntz, and the lyric wisdom of clint j, I lie awake at night, blessing God and loving America more, because these lone, brave souls vigilantly patrol our borders, defending us against such dangerous qualities as judgment, tolerance and humanity. I have one nagging question, which leaves me unable to sleep: would it really have hurt them to get a highschool diploma?

Posted by morzer | March 16, 2008 6:18 PM

Hey morzer!

You left me off the list!

I tried to get a high school diploma but they told me I am overqualified.

So I never graduated from Grade 12 or got a GED.

Posted by D | March 16, 2008 6:24 PM

D, you simply don't rise to the level of the little band... but do keep trying, ok?

Posted by morzer | March 16, 2008 6:26 PM

There certainly is a lot of comment about how patriotic certain bloggers are, and how unpatriotic Obama must be for going to a church where the minister preached sermons that were critical of the United States. Well, guess what, there are some serious problems in the United States and a lot that needs correcting. And if we try to silence anyone who points them out, even if they get stirred up about them in a sermon every once and awhile (and it is now clear that what we're hearing doesn't represent the tone of every one of Rev. Wright's sermons--some are absolutely uplifting). Guess what, Jesus got stirred up once and awhile too. Threw the money changers out of the temple. Challenged the power of the Roman empire, the "proper authority" of his day. But we shouldn't be surprised by the present attacks. Look where being critical got him. Meanwhile, to all the rock-ribbed "my country right or wrong" brand patriots on the blog I leave you with words from Samuel Johnson:

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. [as in the false patriotism that involves jingoistic idolatry of country that brooks no dissent or criticism or cannot recognize when and where it has need to correct its ways]

We call patriots those who rebelled against England. They were called traitors by King George [I mean the one in the late eighteenth century]. I'll go with Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, Sam Adams and the like.

Posted by scoundrel? | March 16, 2008 6:28 PM

I think this is a brillant tactical ploy by Team Obama. They have offloaded all the dirty laundry. Look this Wright issue was always out there. It didn't come as a surprise, i'm glad it did though. Obama as smart as he is will handle it. This is his big test.
At least we know he is not a Muslim. That smear is now buried.
We can move on. Look the same will be said when the Repugs find all the millions of money the Arabs have donated to the Clinton. That will be a BIG scandal.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 16, 2008 6:30 PM

I thought the issue was Rev. Wright's inflammatory sermons and not the United Church of Christ. I have no reason to doubt the Trinity congregation does admirable community service. My son attended a compassionate and loving preschool sponsored by the UCC in a different city. However, through the candidacy of Obama and Rev. Wright's former association with his campaign, Rev. Wright's sermons predictably are under the microscope. Rev. Wright is entitled to his perspective, and the electorate is entitled to assess how his perspective impacts their view of Obama. With relatives I periodically attended an African American church years ago and participated in their community service efforts. I would not have attended had I heard sermons comparable to Rev. Wright's. Presidential candidates are responsible for their associations, and Obama is responsible for his association with Rev. Wright.

Posted by Jan | March 16, 2008 6:40 PM

Kelly Pierce - I think that's a valid point... in that, there is a silver lining to this. Too bad it brings up the Michelle Obama "first time I really am proud of my country"/lapel pin/Pledge trifecta-of-absurdity. Would you rather have your candidate be labeled as an unpatriotic black nationalist, or an unpatriotic Muslim insurgent? Maybe the right-wing will spin them together and make more out of the Farrakhan endorsement.

To an extent, I'd say the Hillary campaign is working out pretty well. She has convinced people she still has a legit shot at the nomination... including her donors, who keep funding all this. But she won't actually get it, barring Obama being found in bed with a dead girl or a living boy...

What will happen, though, is that Obama really will be fully vetted - Clinton will have served her purpose to the fullest extent - and there will be no surprises in the general. I think.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 6:41 PM

Loser of the week? That would be Fox News. And today? Chris Wallace of Fox News.

Fox has been exposed as racist. ABC News' Brian Ross was cited by Media Matters for what he left out of his pieces, slanting the view against Trinity and Wright. The AP has been exposed as favoring Clinton ('automatic' versus 'super). The NYTimes tried running another Obama hit piece which I did not see in print...probably because of how it got shot down on the web. So we're seeing the veils come down as to which outlet has what bias. If ever we doubted.

Wright is deeper than Fox can accept. Have you ever noticed the decibel level of pretty much any Baptist church is higher than any Catholic church service for starters? Then, have you noticed that the church is usually where many community events are centered? Pastors see what happens in their community. The biggest offense in the Wright tapes - when played in longer segments than Fox or ABC or any other outlet has played them - is no one has captured the sentiment around the words beyond the Noise Level. Wright is talking to a community that feels like America has left them behind - economically, politically, socially, demographically. As Jimmy Boegle put it a couple days ago, "Why do you think it's impossible to love your country, yet still be ashamed of it?" Which a poster on Reddit added "I remember Trent Lott saying something like "It's possible to support troops while opposing the president." Which are variations of exactly what Wright was saying in that speech.

Why the media chose to add fuel to that fire, I can only understand this one way.

Not knowing enough black commentators or columnists on who could explain this in press rooms to provide better clarity. Certainly, Fox has no major black commentator on its staff. And I've never applied there!

I offer as one example Michele Norris on Meet The Press today, speaking with columnist David Broder. Perhaps you might want to check out that transcript of the March 16 2008 show.

Wright is asking 'who in this room has felt like this' when we see only the Fox edit of "God Damn America." Roger Ailes and Karl Rove have Fox on their side in this blatant attempt to smear Barack Obama. But now Fox is only looking like a lot of white guys whose girlfriends were stolen by the hot black guy.

The conditions Wright discusses are real to the lives of people in his community. Our country has had racial profiling, redlining, illegal loan discrimination. He's talking about the disconnect or chasms between the rich and poor societies. About the obvious gap. I hope any one of us could figure if you ask a hundred people in an area like the south side of Chicago, or similar - versus one hundred in Greenwich, CT - "Do You Feel America Includes You?" That probably wouldn't do well in that section of Chicago. But ask on the Gold Coast, that answer probably matches Greenwich. Ask in poorer areas of New Haven, and it's probably closer to the south siders. When a speech concerning the lower class is chopped into bits, and only the most incendiary portions are played and replayed on a wealthy man's media outlets, it can be labeled a classist act. When the intent is to inject race to frighten white people away from a black man by playing to fears they have about black men, this repeated attack can be rightly called a racist act.

Fox, therefore, has revealed itself to be a racist network. And it can't run from that now.

Fortunately, we can fix this mess. It starts to change in the homes, and in schools, where many baby boomers did not have black history in their text books. Even honors students of the late seventies did not get these courses in my high school. Which is why Barack Obama as president would not just be a strong indicator that "Yes, America Includes You," but offers a challenge for everyone - on all sides of the problem. We have to deal with our simple ability to want change and make change. That's the scary part. We can't just write the check. A presidency under Obama means we are going to have to actually Do It.

And yank Fox's license when Obama guts the FCC.

Posted by kravitz | March 16, 2008 6:42 PM

This might be helpful for those wanting to understand why some of us here and lots of Americans are/will be uncomfortable with the mix of race and Marxist politics that Rev. Wright has taught. We should be concerned, in my opinion, to what extent Wright's influence has had on Obama.

From the American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/barack_and_michelle_keeping_th.html

Posted by Scott | March 16, 2008 6:50 PM

Well monzer, I am insulted.

I am going to demand quotas for disadvantaged people like me and you are going to have to take me.

Posted by D | March 16, 2008 6:55 PM

Deny it as much as you like, but Obama's close association with a minister who says the U.S. invented AIDs, who says "God damn America", and the whole rest of the sorry quotes, is a problem. Maybe not for you, but you people are his supporters. It's people who are on the fence about him that will have a problem.

I don't think people really believe Obama thinks this way, but it does call his judgement seriously into question. I find his remarks about being unaware totally disingenuous.

Go ahead, use your usual ad hominem attacks, but nothing I've seen written here undermines the truth of this as a problem. Why do you think he appeared on at least three different television networks? Even if you don't recognize a problem, he sure does.

Posted by TimC | March 16, 2008 6:58 PM

And yet, the Bush administration granted federal funding to the unification church, and nobody said a word about it. Federal funding went to a church which says that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the messiah. Politicians--including US Senators and Congresspeople of both parties--attend ceremonies at the church. The church also calls for its members to have sex with pictures of Moon hanging on the wall, and for them to wipe their genitals with a church supplied cloth after sex, to label and store it, and to never launder it.

And the federal government hired this church to do welfare work? And Senators and Congressmen appear in this church? And no one cares?

Extremist religion is silly--on all sides, including Wright's. That said, Jesus more or less said the same thing as Wright did in his day--he damned the Republic of Rome. And I don't think anybody could argue that our Britney Spears obsessed society (she's on the cover of the Atlantic?) has some serious problems, which God isn't happy with.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | March 16, 2008 7:04 PM

The political atmosphere in America is so poisonious, it's damn so scary. People stand up and others just entire days and nights writing unbelieable lies abput them. This is a 'gotcha' political culture, I'm not at all comfortable with.

The economy is tanking, the currency is not the piece of paper its printed on and our image is destroyed and republicans drones have the nerve to come here and spew 'fear' hatred.

Posted by KathyL | March 16, 2008 7:12 PM

http://blog.beliefnet.com/jwalking/

Above is a link to David Kuo blog Beliefnet.
He offers some very good insight - and praise - for Sen. Obama's ability to separate the "sin" from the "sinner"

Anyone who bothers to research Sen. Obama's writings, read any of his books understands that when he went to Chicago as a community organizer at 27 years of age - not a as a child -- he was advised to join the Church to understand the plight of the black man. That this would help him do a better job in the community.

Obama came to Chicago with a black face but as a white man.

The multiple culture and as Obama says "little bits of America" in him are what makes him truly unique. He stayed at the Church for the good works they did for the community. This is not in dispute.

That over the course of 20 years Rev Wright said some deplorable things is also not in dispute.

What is most upsetting about this whole episode is that if thinking people are willing to abandon a cause and a movement based on a few minutes of targeted, isolated video - how commited were they in the first place?

Obama is the same man he was before FOX and co started incessantly replaying the same clips over and over again.

Was what Wright said about 9/11 vile? Yes but I hate to tell you what my Rabbi said at the service after 9/11 and am glad for his sake no one videotaped it

Obama is to be commended not derided for being able to separate the messenger from the message --
Maybe if we had people in government who could do this we would not be having the fifth anniversary of a pointless war this week

If we allow ourselves to be manipulated by YOU TUBE then shame on us all

Posted by alison | March 16, 2008 7:14 PM

http://blog.beliefnet.com/jwalking/

Above is a link to David Kuo blog Beliefnet.
He offers some very good insight - and praise - for Sen. Obama's ability to separate the "sin" from the "sinner"

Anyone who bothers to research Sen. Obama's writings, read any of his books understands that when he went to Chicago as a community organizer at 27 years of age - not a as a child -- he was advised to join the Church to understand the plight of the black man. That this would help him do a better job in the community.

Obama came to Chicago with a black face but as a white man.

The multiple culture and as Obama says "little bits of America" in him are what makes him truly unique. He stayed at the Church for the good works they did for the community. This is not in dispute.

That over the course of 20 years Rev Wright said some deplorable things is also not in dispute.

What is most upsetting about this whole episode is that if thinking people are willing to abandon a cause and a movement based on a few minutes of targeted, isolated video - how commited were they in the first place?

Obama is the same man he was before FOX and co started incessantly replaying the same clips over and over again.

Was what Wright said about 9/11 vile? Yes but I hate to tell you what my Rabbi said at the service after 9/11 and am glad for his sake no one videotaped it

Obama is to be commended not derided for being able to separate the messenger from the message --
Maybe if we had people in government who could do this we would not be having the fifth anniversary of a pointless war this week

If we allow ourselves to be manipulated by YOU TUBE then shame on us all

Posted by alison | March 16, 2008 7:14 PM

Scott - I love how, whenever someone mentions class, and the rich versus the poor, they are accused of being Marxist. Sure, those are key pieces to Marxism, but Marxism is a lot bigger and more complicated than that.

It's a loaded label that people were whispering against Edwards, and now it's being applied to Wright. Ridiculous.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 7:23 PM

Do voters mean Super Delegates but not voters in primaries and caucuses?

This is Clintonspeak after all.

Bill Clinton, in an exclusive interview with Robin Roberts, said he thinks Democrats are torn between two candidates they like, and that it's time to "chill out" and let the voters decide who should be the party's presidential nominee.

"The voters get to decide. I think we should just celebrate this," Clinton said. "If we just chill out here and let all the voters have their say, my gut is it's gonna come out all right."

Posted by D | March 16, 2008 7:31 PM

obama is a false patriot wearing a democratic robe and a liar masquerading as a decent man bringing a message of change , hope and unity.
While attending a disive racist church.

Using his own language Laspes in Judgement/Bonehead Mistakes= Change= Rev Wright spiritual advisor/mentor/sounding board/angry black ex-marine of the 60's/20 yr friend. Change= William Ayers radical terrorist/20 yr friend. Change= Rezko extortion/fraud/money launderer/17 yr friend. Change=Michele Obama has never been proud of her country before/spoke at a university in Ohio "Americans have become synical and mean and have broken souls" huh/ thesis based on racial issues/angry black woman.
You are known by the company you keep, especially the company you've kept for many, many, many years excluding your wife you are stuck with her.
Obama should resign the 527 ad's from the replublican party will play 24hrs a day 7 days a week he will be easy to defeat.

PIECE OF CAKE.

Posted by marie | March 16, 2008 7:33 PM

In contextualizing Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America,” it might be worth remembering another Jeremiah who expressed similar sentiments: namely, Jeremiah. As in, the prophet of the Hebrew Bible, or the “Old Testament,” if you prefer.

Why does that matter? Because it reminds us that a core function of one who attempts to speak in a prophetic voice is to remind us that we are in this together and that we’ll both prosper and suffer together. Many evangelical Christians speak of a “gift of discernment,” not unlike the “gift of tongues.” Us democratically-minded folk might do well to remember that that core concept of a democracy is that we all have some gift of discernment. So let’s use ours and consider the prophetic statements on offer:

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

For my money, my Bible, and my democracy, that last sentiment has the ring of truth, and I’m not even a religious man.

That doesn’t mean it’s a sentiment for a campaign trail. But it does mean that in framing this, we might want to turn our anger toward Fox and the NY Post and all those denouncing Jeremiah Wright rather than the man who says we suffer because of racism. Here is a pastor trying, perhaps not successfully, to preach accountability for hate, not for tolerance. And here is a media that is demanding that we NOT be held accountable for hate.

That is, mainstream media is telling us we must tolerate hate — Hagee — but not those who don’t believe we should tolerate hate — Wright.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 16, 2008 7:34 PM

Yes how dare we and the media (not just FOX btw, everyone is showing these videos) quote someone's actual words and judge them.

My question is if Obama can't make the two adult people closest to him (his wife and his pastor) hopeful and positive about America why should Americans, who don't know him, believe he can make us hopeful for the future of our country.

According to Michelle she hasn't been proud of America her entire adult life and finds her country mean. Obama's pastor is full of anger and resentment about the USA.

I'd say Obama has his hands full with these two!

Obama, cheer Michelle and your pastor up first, then get back to us and make another run for POTUS when those two are more hopeful and have been changed.

Posted by sheryl | March 16, 2008 7:35 PM

The problem for Obama is not that people necessarily think he shares many of those specific views and opinions. The question persuadable voters (not people like most of you, and I) are going to be asking is: "why would Obama belong to a church like that?" Why would he call this man a "spiritual adviser?" This man married him and Michelle and baptized his two girls. This a long-standing and close relationship with an extremist pastor.

Michael Dukakis was hit hard for being card-carrying member of the ACLU... this is much worse.

Michael Dukakis was slammed for not supporting the pledge of allegiance... and Obama has the so-called "lapel pin" controversy, and the "not soluting the flag" controversy.

John Kerry had his eccentric wife Theresa. Barack has his out-spoken wife Michelle who says America - a country she hasn't been proud of until this year - is "just plain mean", has a "broken soul."

Can you guys, honestly, not see a picture taking shape here?

Posted by Tim K | March 16, 2008 7:39 PM

socctty,

[When sanctification is defined as a commitment to the historical struggle for political liberation, then it is possible to connect it with socialism and Marxism the reconstruction of society on the basis of freedom and justice for all."]

These are Cone's OWN words. Rev. Wright refers to Cone as a scholar. Obama has said that he has consulted Wright on both political and spiritual matters.

This is a legitimate subject of inquiry and I don't see it as a "whispering" thing because Wright will talk up the supposed wisdom of Cone to anyone within earshot.

Posted by Scott | March 16, 2008 7:48 PM

This matter won't hurt him with the left or Blacks but it's going to kill him with moderate Dem's and Independents who have been favorable toward his candidacy mostly because they haven't warmed to Hillary. This is a diaster and he should have seen it coming.

Posted by linda | March 16, 2008 7:49 PM

socctty,

You reminded me of a quote

"When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor were hungry they called me a communist." - Dom Helder Camara

Posted by Cee | March 16, 2008 7:54 PM

sheryl - You've got to be kidding me with the Michelle Obama thing. Her comments were obviously taken out of context.

Tim K - I'm not sure of what your argument is... is it that Obama will go down as Dukakis and Kerry did? Dukakis got smeared with the Horton bit, Kerry was labeled as a flip-flopper. The ACLU membership and Theresa Heinz were minor.

Scott - So... Obama's pastor, who he sought spiritual advise from (I haven't seen anything suggesting he received political advise from him), quotes another guy (Cone) making reference to yet another guy (Marx)... and we're supposed to assume that means that Obama is a Marxist? Pretty flimsy.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 7:56 PM

I suspect that Wright's commentary is a hit to Obama, but not a fatal one.

McCain is far from "thoroughly vetted" himself. It'll be easy to derail the "Straight Talk Express" once we get down to business.

Above all here is that right wing pastors like John Hagee who have said things like "Hurricane Katrina is God's judgment on New Orleans for homosexual activity", and endorsed John McCain, are not getting nearly the scrutiny that Wright (and by association, Obama) is under.

I don't know if it's a good or a bad thing that the MSM doesn't even take people like Hagee seriously anymore, but I certainly think the flap over Wright's remarks is exponentially larger than it should be and Obama's responses have been more than sufficient.

Posted by SonnyL. | March 16, 2008 7:57 PM

Oh my God Oh my God, Obama is TOAST everybody. I didn't think so before but this, THIS, this clinches it. (And if this doesn't clinch it I'm sure something else will.) Anyway, be afraid, Obama supporters. BE VERY AFRAID. No self-respecting white person will ever vote for him now. Don't you see? There's a chance Obama will attack white people once in power. He will persecute us and force us to watch the youtube clip of Wright over and over until we become treasonous sociopaths. ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE. You might as well give up now. Just forget it. Do something else. Go for a run. But Obama is finished. It is as if he never existed.

By the way, the fact that he went up in the tracking polls today, several days after the controversy, is utterly and completely meaningless. Trust me.

Posted by alex | March 16, 2008 8:00 PM

About the AIDS being invented by the US gov't, does anyone remember the Tuskegee Experiments? Thirty some years ago, a story broke out about 400 poor African American men who were being used as laboratory experiments to study syphilis. I can kind of understand why some African Americans would think that it was invented by the government. Edward Hooper, author of The River, believes that HIV virus could be traced back to a polio vaccine given to Africans in Congo during Belgian colonial rule. There are all sorts of theories out there but many minority groups have a right to be suspicious about their government based on the way the American government has treated them.

Posted by Morg | March 16, 2008 8:05 PM

socctty:

Well it wasn't just Horton that sunk Dukakis or the Swift boat veterans that sunk Kerry. A single attack rarely sinks an entire candidacy. The Republicans know they cannot win an election on domestic issues like health care and the economy, so they seek to do two things: 1) Emphasize national security issues over domestic issues, portraying the Democrat as unable or unwilling to keep Americans safe, and 2) Portray the Democrat as somehow unAmerican: not 'patriotic', not sharing 'traditional values' or 'mainstream' views, not sharing a typically 'middle class lifestyle.'

At this point, we have already seen enough ammunition provided by Obama to the Republicans and their allies to make this case against him, and they will. And who knows what else there is out there we don't even know yet.

Posted by Tim K | March 16, 2008 8:05 PM

Morg:

The Oral Polio Vaccine hypothesis for HIV is not the mainstream view of the medical community. Even if it were, the hypothesis is that it was an accident, not a deliberate conspiracy by the US govt and CIA.

Posted by Tim K | March 16, 2008 8:16 PM

Content-free anti-Obama buzzwords: Rezko, Rev. Wright, flag pin, Muslim, madrassa, unpatriotic, anti-Christ, Hussein, Pledge of Allegiance, inexperienced, present votes, cocaine, drugs, anti-Christ.

Posted by nepat | March 16, 2008 8:19 PM

HUFFINGTON POST

Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" but When my Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero

Frank Schaeffer, 03.16.2008

When my late father, Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer, denounced America and called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

Posted by alison | March 16, 2008 8:27 PM

Buzzwords matter.

Bob Shrum accounts for George McGovern's campaign being doomed due to the Eagleton controversy and the fact that McGovern's candidacy was tied to three words: Amnesty, Acid and Abortion.

Obama has quite a few of these buzzwords and phrases and that may be attached to his candidacy, including three that weren't mentioned by nepat:

GOD. DAMN. AMERICA.

Posted by Tim K | March 16, 2008 8:29 PM

Obama was well ahead of McCain not so long ago. Now he trails him, nationally, and in the upcoming states. And the VETTING OF OBAMA HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN.

I don't think the Dems can win with Obama. Period.

Posted by robert ethan | March 16, 2008 8:29 PM

TimK - Then you had poor examples (Theresa, ACLU).

I agree that is their strategy, and I concede that some of this stuff will stick, but I don't think this is a show-stopper, even combined with the other (baseless) stuff.

alison - You know, I wish guys like that would go on the Sunday circuit instead of preaching to the choir on Huffington Post.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 8:36 PM

Nepat, your list of overt buzzword is pretty well on the mark:

"Content-free anti-Obama buzzwords: Rezko, Rev. Wright, flag pin, Muslim, madrassa, unpatriotic, anti-Christ, Hussein, Pledge of Allegiance, inexperienced, present votes, cocaine, drugs, anti-Christ."

You forgot the subtext: "uppity N-----" That's about where this is going. Pathetic. It really stinks.

Posted by dippity-do | March 16, 2008 8:37 PM

socctty:

My view is that this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. When you add this latest controversy over his pastor to the things that are already out there and are true, like Michelle Obama's statements, together with arguable things like the 'lapel pin' and the Farrakhan endorsement, and then the totally untrue allegations involving Madrassa's and being a Muslim, a sense of unease can develop among persuable voters.

Posted by Tim K | March 16, 2008 8:44 PM

TimK -

We'll see, I suppose. Hillary and Obama aren't done. Some have speculated that this was "released" in response to Olbermann's comment on Hillary. Perhaps. But the Ferraro story was almost dead anyway, so I wonder why the Clintons just didn't wait until a week before PA, to take attention off the taxes, and to doom him there. So I really don't think the Clintons dropped this bomb.

I also doubt that it was intentionally tabbed by the Clintons, because with the 5 year anniversary of the war starting coming up this week, Obama's going to be banging that drum soon enough. That might just be enough to kill this story. I dunno.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 8:55 PM

Should be a paragraph break between "suppose." and "Hillary..."

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 8:59 PM

Yes socctty, listen to Tim K, a sober and dispassionate observer of political happenings since last week. In Tim K's sober and dispassionate opinion, the name Barack Hussein Obama was, so far from being an obstacle, a veritable boon to our candidate. As was the color of his skin, nonsensical criticism of Gerry F. notwithstanding. According to Tim K, this is really, really it. Now, Tim K's tireless railing against our candidate should not affect the way you take his verdict. He is an impeccable juror in the court of public opinion. And if Tim K says Obama is finished, he who has wrestled and wrestled with the facts and details of the record like few of us can imagine, then you can go to Intrade right now and put every cent of your 401 k on Clinton. Because it's over, baby. When Tim K, the extremely sober, extremely dispassionate Tim K says it's over, it's over.

Posted by alex | March 16, 2008 9:00 PM

The vetting begins when I see those GOD DAMN TAX RETURNS!

You know, the ones that have been filed for 7 years already.

don't forget to visit
robertethanisatool.blogspot.com

Posted by swarty | March 16, 2008 9:01 PM

alex - I've seen TimK make some comments in the past that approached Robert Ethan's, but he's being pretty rational and agreeable today, or at least on this topic today in this thread, so I'll feel free to engage him as long as that remains the case.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 9:08 PM

Black nationalist? Funny that all those white people are down with the church then.

Posted by Jay | March 16, 2008 9:18 PM

Some of you are actually arguing that doing some good things for the community justifies planting seeds of racial hatred, anti-Semitism, and profane attacks on our own country.

This is like arguing that the KKK built a day care center somewhere, or the Nazis provided housing for low income Germans -- so they are actually great folks. Such arguments are utter nonsense.

Obama has been forced to condemn Wright's remarks for a reason -- most Americans find them repulsive. Nobody is saying the government should ban hate speech like Wright is delivering -- except the liberals who are pushing hate speech laws. It would be ironic if the first one brought up on charges were such laws to pass was Wright himself, sputtering racial hatred and tin foil hat theories.

Posted by DaMav | March 16, 2008 9:22 PM

Jay - The term "black nationalist" is used as a backhanded attempt to conjure up images of the Nation of Islam, and Farrakhan. But that's my cynical opinion.

If I remember correctly, one of the videos actually had Rev. Wright say, "I know there's quite a few white people here, but..."

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 9:24 PM

DaMav - Except that Wright didn't propose that blacks were superior to other races; he didn't sponsor or encourage violence against others.

And who, on this thread, has suggested that his speech be banned?

Exactly how did you find your way here? Is the Limbaugh website automatically forwarding itself to this blog?

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 9:27 PM

Wright's unfortunate language only matters in the context of this campaign if, in some way, the language reflects Obama's views. Without proof that it does, continued dwelling on the story is really just propagating a smear.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 16, 2008 9:32 PM

socctty:

I don't really feel like re-litigating the Ferraro controversy. She shouldn't have said what she said precisely because it is nearly impossible to make the point she was making without sounding ignorant.

Alex knows, you know, I know and everyone here knows, that I do not support Barack Obama for Democratic nominee. That, in and of itself, does not make my point of view either superior or inferior, more or less objective, than anyone else's. Of course I am biased on this, and of course, so is Alex.

Until this week I have been saying that I thought both Senators Clinton and Obama had strengths and weaknesses in terms of electability, but on balance I sided with Clinton. I did so because of the relative appeals of the two candidate to certain key groups of voters in swing states.

Due, in large measure, to this most recent controversy I have changed my opinion. More and more I believe that Senator Obama is dangerously close to disqualifying himself. This is not based on one incident, but on a collection of incidents and statements that I and others have mentioned today.

I no you probably do not agree, as and I know Alex and others do not agree. That being said, it's what I think is likely to happen and we'll have to see how events unfold.

Posted by Tim K | March 16, 2008 9:43 PM

socctty -
If you find nothing objectionable in his remarks,
that's your right in this great nation. It apparently puts you at odds with Barrack Obama, who condemned his remarks.

If you are unaware of efforts to curtail freedom of speech through "hate speech" laws, you might want to read up on them, especially if you value the right of Wright to continue to spread his message of hatred.

Where I came from? You better check under the bed for Rush Limbaugh. You think the Atlantic is hard to find? The answer, to satisfy your narrow minded curiousity, is a link at mememorandum.com.

Posted by DaMav | March 16, 2008 9:45 PM

DaMav - So you skirted acknowledging that Wright's comments and actions weren't of the same nature as Hitler's or David Duke's.

I didn't say they were harmless. I don't think they are what people with a vested interest in seeing Obama go down wish they were, that is, Duke or Hitler type comments.

Again, no one was mentioning hate speech laws on here or any other government-implemented form of curtailing free speech.

And "narrow minded curiosity"...? Seriously? That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 9:54 PM

socctty -
So you again skirted acknowledging that Wright's comments and actions might fun afoul of hate speech laws.

Because they weren't mentioned here, they don't exist, is that the idea? The fact that Wright might be prosecuted under them puts him in the same general category as Nazis and the KKK, so it's clear why you want to avoid the topic.

It is quite possible to be curious and narrow minded. Consult your mirror.

My points are made. Have a pleasant evening.

Posted by DaMav | March 16, 2008 10:10 PM

Black people in the United States over a certain age all live with a specific kind of pain. All find different ways to deal with it. Some ways look prettier than Wright's, and some look worse. Regarding commenters here in the Hannity vein, I find myself asking how much they really know about this, and how much they really care to know. That pain is, after all part of America's history. I'm sorry but, in my estimation, simply standing back and calling Wright's recorded remarks 'hate-filled' is lazy. It's lazy not because it is incorrect (it isn't; some of the remarks ARE hate-filled); it's lazy because it is incomplete. The message from that crowd, at root, is: I don't need context, I don't need history, all I need is a universal standard of behavior, the breaching of which places a person outside the pale; and no further analysis is needed. This stance will then be erroneously defended by pilfering MLK for his "content of character" axiom, as though the content of a person's character could be summed and decided upon once and for all by viewing 12 minutes of YouTube footage.

Obama's statement that he strongly condemns Wright's comments - but will not repudiate the man himself and the totality of his life's work - is the honorable path. It is also the path that, as is typically the case with Obama, takes the risk of actually trusting the American people to be understanding instead of trying to corral them into believing some particular thing.

There was never any getting around the fact that, to consider Obama for president, America as a whole was going to have to have this encounter, at least peripherally, with the anger that is a real part of the black American experience. Obama, being a man of character, will not attempt to extirpate that aspect of the black experience from reality, because it is reality, and a bigger part of it than many care to admit . There is no 'transcending race' without first understanding the real history of race and its social fallout, just as there can be no real hope without a firm grip on reality. Obama has told us clearly, in detailed terms and in great specificity, what he believes. The way America comes to grips with the darkest rhetorical moments of the Pastor Wrights of this country during the remainder of this campaign will reveal a lot, but it will reveal far, far more about America at large than it will about Obama.

Posted by biomuse | March 16, 2008 10:11 PM

DaMav - Frankly, I'm amazed at the fact that you consider yourself reasonable and logical.

I mention that no one brought up hate-speech laws, because you proposed that some of us - or all of us - support them. My point was that that assumption is baseless, and that the only person who even made reference to them was you. Hate speech laws were never a topic until you rolled on the scene.

Frankly, I don't give a shit if his comments run afoul of hate speech laws, because I don't support them - his comments or these supposed laws. Nor do I think that if they do run afoul of them, that that means they are as equally detestable as Hitler's or the KKK's.

You are something else.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 10:16 PM

biomuse:

Electing Barack Obama president is not some kind of test Americans have to pass to prove it they are not racist.

No one is entitled to the presidency, no matter the reason or the history.

Posted by Tim K | March 16, 2008 10:18 PM

My uncle by marriage was in the KKK up until the early 1970's. He and his family were all very warm and generous, and he would stop in the pouring rain to help a black man change his tire. Though it is hard to grasp today, the KKK was actually very similar to Rev. Wright's church, in that the rhetoric did hold together an organization that had evolved into more of a charity and social club than an actual enforcer of that rhetoric (and an organization that proudly traced its roots to the resistance, not against freed slaves, but against carpetbaggers and Union stooges). It also (like the Mafia) kept popularity in the community by punishing wife-beaters and others who the Law had a hard time prosecuting. This was right before it went completely out of style and the KKK brand was coopted by a cartoon version of itself (one that Robert Byrd would not dream of associating himself with). All this parallels the history of the radical African-American church. But, like the KKK, its time is indeed over -- and the good deeds of such organizations are no longer an excuse to hold a respectable place in American society.

Robert of D.C.

Posted by Robert | March 16, 2008 10:19 PM

My uncle by marriage was in the KKK up until the early 1970's. He and his family were all very warm and generous, and he would stop in the pouring rain to help a black man change his tire. Though it is hard to grasp today, the KKK was actually very similar to Rev. Wright's church, in that the rhetoric did hold together an organization that had evolved into more of a charity and social club than an actual enforcer of that rhetoric (and an organization that proudly traced its roots to the resistance, not against freed slaves, but against carpetbaggers and Union stooges). It also (like the Mafia) kept popularity in the community by punishing wife-beaters and others who the Law had a hard time prosecuting. This was right before it went completely out of style and the KKK brand was coopted by a cartoon version of itself (one that Robert Byrd would not dream of associating himself with). All this parallels the history of the radical African-American church. But, like the KKK, its time is indeed over -- and the good deeds of such organizations are no longer an excuse to hold a respectable place in American society.

Robert of D.C.

Posted by Robert | March 16, 2008 10:19 PM

My uncle by marriage was in the KKK up until the early 1970's. He and his family were all very warm and generous, and he would stop in the pouring rain to help a black man change his tire. Though it is hard to grasp today, the KKK was actually very similar to Rev. Wright's church, in that the rhetoric did hold together an organization that had evolved into more of a charity and social club than an actual enforcer of that rhetoric (and an organization that proudly traced its roots to the resistance, not against freed slaves, but against carpetbaggers and Union stooges). It also (like the Mafia) kept popularity in the community by punishing wife-beaters and others who the Law had a hard time prosecuting. This was right before it went completely out of style and the KKK brand was coopted by a cartoon version of itself (one that Robert Byrd would not dream of associating himself with). All this parallels the history of the radical African-American church. But, like the KKK, its time is indeed over -- and the good deeds of such organizations are no longer an excuse to hold a respectable place in American society.

Robert of D.C.

Posted by Robert | March 16, 2008 10:19 PM

Sorry, I have no idea why that posted three times!!

Robert of D.C.

Posted by Robert | March 16, 2008 10:20 PM

Robert of DC - That's a very nice story and all, but it's a piece of shit comparison: there's no evidence that Wright supported or funded or suggested acts of violence towards other groups of people. A claim that the KKK - at no point in its history - could ever claim.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 10:23 PM

socctty,

Seriously, that is an urban myth. The KKK only rarely advocated acts of violence - the few times that renegade bands of the KKK did this are repeated ad nauseum in the history books. On the other hand, if someone were to preach to me that the U.S. invented and spread AIDS, and I actually believed it, I assure you that I would spend all my days hunting down and murdering the perpetrators. AIDS has hit very close to home. Since Rev. Wrights congregation has not moved to that action, then I suspect that his church is more like the KKK .. bonding rhetoric that no one really believes.

Robert in D.C.

Posted by Robert | March 16, 2008 10:33 PM

socctty,

Seriously, that is an urban myth. The KKK only rarely advocated acts of violence - the few times that renegade bands of the KKK did this are repeated ad nauseum in the history books. On the other hand, if someone were to preach to me that the U.S. invented and spread AIDS, and I actually believed it, I assure you that I would spend all my days hunting down and murdering the perpetrators. AIDS has hit very close to home. Since Rev. Wrights congregation has not moved to that action, then I suspect that his church is more like the KKK .. bonding rhetoric that its members do not really believe.

Robert in D.C.

Posted by Robert | March 16, 2008 10:34 PM

socctty,

Seriously, that is an urban myth. The KKK only rarely advocated acts of violence - the few times that renegade bands of the KKK did this are repeated ad nauseum in the history books. On the other hand, if someone were to preach to me that the U.S. invented and spread AIDS, and I actually believed it, I assure you that I would spend all my days hunting down and murdering the perpetrators. AIDS has hit very close to home. Since Rev. Wrights congregation has not moved to that action, then I suspect that his church is more like the KKK .. bonding rhetoric that its members do not really believe.

Robert in D.C.

Posted by Robert | March 16, 2008 10:34 PM

Aargh! Okay I can't post any more .. it appears three times.

Posted by Robert | March 16, 2008 10:35 PM

If one were to take you at your word (that the KKK was essentially harmless - although I don't, for a second, believe that), then what is the point you're trying to make?

And I must have missed the reports of the masses of black men murdering scientists and government officials for their assumed roles in the dissemination of AIDS.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 10:37 PM

Robert in D.C.,

I would like for you to list your sources that substantiate your assertion that was posted @10:33 PM.

Posted by Micheline | March 16, 2008 10:37 PM

Deny it as much as you like, but Obama's close association with a minister who says the U.S. invented AIDs, who says "God damn America", and the whole rest of the sorry quotes, is a problem.

I have relatives that think that the US faked the moon landing. I also know people that believe in the hollow earth theory.

I subscribe to neither of these ideas. Your guilt by association is silly.

Posted by justinb | March 16, 2008 10:44 PM

I have read Sullivan's blog for the full account of the sermon and contextually speaking, I do not believe that Wright is a bona fide racist by any means. However, as an Obama supporter, we need to be realistic. Things he said are so inflammatory (EVEN if they are just 30 second sound clips) that they make us white people really angry. For example, I honestly don't think that black people (please note, I am refraining from using the term "African-American" due to personal comments from west indies friends who disagree with the term), understand the reality that some white people are facing. Someone like me, who is 2nd generation (20th century immigrants, etc. [LOTS of white Americans]) and NEVER enslaved, oppressed, etc. We feel guilty and angry at the same time. I hate being told that my culture is somehow oppressing the black community. Regardless of the historical truth for certain white ethnic groups, it makes us angry and we thus feel slightly guilty since popular culture deems it so. When someone like Rev Wright gives this kind of speech, someone like me says "Are you serious? Well fuck you too buddy!" I am not saying my gut reaction is right, but it is a knee-jerk reaction that is shared by MANY. The Obama campaign/supporters have to realize why this is so serious. Middle class Americans live in the here and NOW, we don't REALLY care about past oppression in the sense that we are going to do something crazy (not that we don't condemn past oppressions or care about consequences), we just want good standards of living and equal opportunities for ALL Americans. Part of that is improving communities that have been affected by past racist oppressions without labeling all of us white people as racist oppressors. Seriously, it does you or I no good. We have come this far, we cannot allow JERK, IDIOTIC (AND YES RACIST) comments by Rev. Wright (REGARDLESS Of the good he has done!!!) undermine this campaign. I'm glad Barack has repudiated such comments...that is good enough for me and shows he knows how serious this could be.

Posted by martel | March 16, 2008 10:47 PM

I think mainstream America believes it has achieved racial unity. I think these cherry picked comments that wingnuts are focused on speak to the deep-seated, yet rarely spoken, "If we give them freedom, equal rights, equal pay, etc, they're (African American people) are going to take over!" I think Americans don't like to be reminded how awful black people have been treated in our history. And the ultimate fear of "taking over" would be the first black president, would it not? This outrage is just a moral commentary on how far we still need to go. And if this ends here for Obama, THIS conversation is a conversation long overdue. I live in Chicago, on the South Side--and I'm white. I will always be supportive of this man for his courage and his message. No matter what you haters say, we do not condemn one man for the words of another. And as far as him staying at his church for 20 years? So? There is no basis for assuming he shares this pastor's views in his personal or political life. Walk a mile in his shoes, before you seek to judge him so harshly. Or is that something others churces don't believe in?

Posted by Anna | March 16, 2008 10:49 PM

@ TimK

"Electing Barack Obama president is not some kind of test Americans have to pass to prove it they are not racist.
No one is entitled to the presidency, no matter the reason or the history."

Tim, i'm afraid you're just illustrating the problem. Entitlement to the presidency is not even on the table. The question is simply that of proper judgment of a candidate. Racism is not the primary issue. Ignorance is; and by that i mean having the experiential tools with which to decide, based on all of what is known about Wright, whether Obama is, by belonging to that church during his tenure, implicated in some substantial way in a deeply anti-American sentiment that should make him undeserving of your vote.

I put it to you that, when you know enough about why black churches are sometimes more *tolerant* - and tolerant is the best word to use here - of this kind of discourse, your answer will be "no, mere membership by Obama in this church does not implicate him in that sense."

The question is whether that education process can be quick or broad enough so that enough people with doubts, like yourself, can understand why this turn of events is neither surprising nor should it be a big issue for Obama's campaign. There is absolutely no evidence, at all, in any of his actions nor body of written and public speech, that Obama personally holds the views held by Wright that many find offensive.

If an observer posits that a thin and insubstantial engagement with a community is all that is necessary for judgment of both it and every member of it, including those who have stated diametrically opposed views, then it is difficult to see how individuality has any meaning to that observer.

Posted by biomuse | March 16, 2008 10:53 PM

Michelle, here's one:

http://reactor-core.org/original-kkk.html

If Robert Byrd, the highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, had been an officer of an actively violent organization, he could not hold his office today. The KKK was widespread and respectable (and with a noble, romantic history, not originally anti-black .. indeed, its very founder attempted to disband the KKK when some members turned its attention to freed slaves as legit targets on the pretext that those blacks were Union puppets.). My overall point is to defend Reverend Wright's church because the history behind the stark rhetoric is as complex as that of the once mighty "Invisible Army". Its just that the rhetoric is anachronistic to the point that past history no longer justifies continued existence. The fact that there are NOT masses of black men murdering scientists for the their assumed roles in the dissemination of AIDS is proof that the words of the Reverend are theater and not taken seriously .. not unlike the mainstream KKK before it dissolved.

Robert of D.C.
(who attended an African American service just this past Sunday .. yes I'm a hobby-historian of all things Southern).

Posted by Robert | March 16, 2008 10:53 PM

I think this incident reflects the conflict between black ministers who choose not to forget this country's very recent racist history and the white outrage against being reminded of it. Wright grew up at the time his fellow young black students were being barred from attending schools with white students and receiving death threats. He was a 27-year old man when MLK was killed. So while his statements may sound extreme to white people who were born more recently or have forgotten our country's recent history, they don't sound extreme to me. What I'm outraged at are those who seek to show their outrage at his words while ignoring the history of this country.

Posted by Mike | March 16, 2008 10:56 PM

I think this whole episode has done nothing more than expose how unready many Americans are for a black President.

Robert,
You don't understand the history of the KKK. The first KKK was founded not just to attack "carpetbaggers and Union stooges." It was the armed wing of the Democratic Party formed to remove all black people and their allies from political life.

The second KKK, founded in 1915, was even more vitriolic and hated all non-white Protestants. Their ideology was pure white supremacy.

Rev. Wright does not believe in black supremacy. He believes in racial equality. But he believes that in order to achieve, that black people are going to have to work hard themselves.

Posted by Elrod | March 16, 2008 11:02 PM

If Robert Byrd, the highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, had been an officer of an actively violent organization, he could not hold his office today.

Robert Byrd has received considerable flak for his past membership in the KKK, and the only reason he still holds office is because he has actively and continually expressed his regret for being a member of such an organization.

Robert, here's one: http://www.iupui.edu/~aao/kkk.html

Wright's comments reflect a degree of angst black Americans have towards American society as whole, as well as his disapproval of American foreign policy. They don't propose supremacy, they don't support violence, and they don't advocate terrorism. From virtually Day One, the KKK couldn't make those claims.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 11:02 PM

Mike,

I have yet to hear anyone doing that. Those expressing outrage have, if anything, provided more support for their stance than those who have expressed agreement with Rev. Wrights assertions. Do you have any evidence that the AIDS epidemic was a U.S. plot against the black man? More likely a plot against homosexual urban white men and hemophiliacs.

Robert of D.C.

Posted by Robert | March 16, 2008 11:05 PM

I really hope this discussion does not become a debate about the Klu Klux Klan, which is as indefensible an organization as Hezbollah or Hamas. Many organizations do good works, including racist or terrorist organizations.

I do not think Jeremiah Wright's comments are really comparable to the KKK, but they are at the very least extremist and out of the mainstream. They are clearly racial and possibly racist.

I think the question is: why is Obama a part of this church? Does he hold the same kind of resentments against white people as Wright? Does he have a chip on his shoulder about having to "work twice as hard" as white people in order to do well? I think these are among the questions this episode raises among many working class whites who will view these remarks.

They also make me wonder whether Michelle Obama's controversial statements last month were a moer saccharine version of the divisive philosophy Wright was expounding.

Posted by Tim K | March 16, 2008 11:12 PM

socctty,

The point is that if the defining feature of the organization that Byrd helped to run was violence and murder, he would not be allowed to be a Senator today, regardless of his current feelings on the matter. The bigger point is that an attempt to defend the Reverend Wright's rhetoric based on the arguments of a complex history and good deeds is exactly as fruitless as my attempts to defend the KKK on the same grounds. What your are saying sounds to my ears like my points do to yours. Time for both organizations to be put to bed.

Robert in D.C.

Posted by Robert | March 16, 2008 11:13 PM

Tim K, are you still pretending to wonder as a cover for beating your tired little racist drum? How many times have we heard you express your paranoia about Obama? How many times have we grown sick of your utterly disingenuous pretence of intellectual neutrality? Tim, for the sake of human decency, shut up, grow up and get some sort of understanding of human nature. You aren't even from the US, but from Canada. What the hell qualifies you to understand our politics, our racial issues, and our politicians? Go, in the name of God, and be done with you!

Posted by markusd | March 16, 2008 11:28 PM

TimK - I think Obama needs to be more upfront about why he joined the church in the first place. When he arrived in the South Side, he was, as others have said, a white guy with a black face. He never really was exposed to black American culture, and as a community organizer in that area, it benefited him to expose himself to a church that was active in the local community. That's what I've read, anyway, and it sounds plausible.

He needs to explain why he is a member of the church, I agree.

To suggest that he has the same sort of resentments against white people is absurd, though. HIS MOM WAS WHITE AND HIS MOM RAISED HIM. And I doubt he feels he has to work twice as hard as white people; he's been very accomplished everywhere he's gone. I don't think he has a sense that he himself was held back in any systematic manner.

If you're presenting your questions from the angle of a undecided voter, then say so. Otherwise it appears as if these are questions you are unsure of the answer to.

And the Michelle Obama thing... give it a rest. Her comments were taken out of context. Unfortunately they made for a convenient sound bite.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 11:37 PM

markusd:

I've never professed neutrality in the race between Clinton and Obama.

Sorry to tell you but your politics aren't that tough to understand.

But I appreciate how obsessed you clearly are with me to know where I am from.

Posted by Tim K | March 16, 2008 11:37 PM

If you're presenting your questions from the angle of a undecided voter, then say so. I should have instead typed, If you're presenting your questions as questions that an undecided voter has, then say so.

Posted by socctty | March 16, 2008 11:39 PM

Deny it as much as you like, but Obama's close association with a minister who says the U.S. invented AIDs, who says "God damn America", and the whole rest of the sorry quotes, is a problem. Maybe not for you, but you people are his supporters. It's people who are on the fence about him that will have a problem.
I don't think people really believe Obama thinks this way, but it does call his judgement seriously into question. I find his remarks about being unaware totally disingenuous.
Go ahead, use your usual ad hominem attacks, but nothing I've seen written here undermines the truth of this as a problem. Why do you think he appeared on at least three different television networks? Even if you don't recognize a problem, he sure does.
Posted by TimC

The real issue is not Rev Wright, but Obama's judgment. Wrights message is perfectly suited to an audience of black racists and condoned by the local Leftists of S Chicago. It is not suited to reflect well on the judgment of the guy who was married by Wright, had his kids baptized by Wright, credits Wright with his "Transformation" when he is running on a very thin record of claimed "good judgement" for President of the majority of voters who are nothing like the pack of black racists Wright caters to.

And, as TimC said, Obama is smart enough to understand this.

The media and now-opponents in the Democratic Party did the American public a tremendous disservice by mentoring & gold-plating Obama as a vindication of 40 years of Democrats and Jewish Left media heavily pushing identity poltics and affirmative action.

It is only now, when Obama looks close to locking up the Presidential monination and likely the Presidency that the negatives that were concealed from voters since 2004 are finally emerging. They are not "small matters".

His mothers anti-American, anti-white attitudes. His frequent Hawaii visits to "his mentor" Frank Davis, a communist and member of "Chicago Progressivism". Shady money from the Middle East coming into his election campaigns and part-paying for his house. His famous "Anti-Iraq" speech being done at the behest of a former SDS member with connections to Leftist Wealthy Jews Obama sought as donors and political network door-openers - at a rally to show solidarity with anti-war Muslims, Vladimir Putin's speech denouncing any intervention in Iraq..
Nation of Islam Muslims heavily involved in all his campaigns - including his Senate run where he had a NOI Treasurer and a NOI woman in charge of hiring and constituent services who is still there - Jennifer Alaston.
Like Wright, all that is damning not taken alone, but in a culmulative way. His Muslim roommate at Columbia. His training to be a community organizer after graduating Columbia by Nader's PIRG. His refusal to release his stubject studies transcript as an undergrad. His work with black separatists, Hard Left, and NOI in his Chicago community organizing. His NOT being a bipartisan player in the Illinois Senate but uncompromising hard left other than an affinity for donations "moderating" him.

The media and the Democrats has 4 years to introduce the real Obama. Who he hung with, what his actual voting record is. Theu didn't because from Hillary down, they didn't wish to discredit identity politics and afformative action putting an unqualified person up as a Rising Star given huge support like being Dem Keynote Speaker as just a local Rep with no executive leadership accomplishments.

They didn't do it. Now voters will get that opportunity to learn the full Obama record from those outside the "Coming Black Messiah" media and those Democrats silenced by PC and beholden to hard Left PACs and wealthy lefty donors. Unfortunately, they will do so long after losing several qualified candidates for President and with Obama on the verge of taking Hillary out. Leaving American voters with a choice between an Obama that has real issues and a Party they have every reason to vote for outside Him - and a qualified, centrist, red-blooded American of the Other Party which should lose because of the mess they and Bush created.

This could be worse than when they chose to run the unlikable and militarily dishonored John Kerry. (Which isn't a matter of "Swift boat lies" - Kerry's meeting with N Vietnamese, denouncing America and its soldiers with baseless smears in Congress and at rallies is documented on film. And one of his purple hearts was clearly obtained by duplicity after his Commanding Officer rejected his request, through misrepresenting circumstances to the new CO 4 months later.)

Posted by chris ford | March 16, 2008 11:44 PM

@ TimK:

Those are all legitimate questions in my opinion. I think the answer has to do with the goal that Obama came to Chicago with: which was to become part of a SSChicago black community that was poor, hurting and to see how he could help to improve it. Along with that came the church of which Wright was pastor - which is among the largest congregations in Chicago. Other congregation members have stated - like Obama - that the inflammatory tone evident in the YouTube sermons truly is not the usual order of business for that church. Some anger bleeds in, yes. Michelle Obama grew up in southside (not in Hawaii and Indonesia as did Barack). As you can well imagine, that experience, like most peoples' formative environments, is enveloping and sets some of your basic assumptions about the world - the reality of blackness is poverty and struggle, among many other things. Adulthood and experience tempers and mitigates those early perspectives; but but remember that Wright is more than 20 years older than the Obamas; a significant span of time in terms of civil rights in this country. The demographics still to this day do not favor the average black child. Responses to these truths are varied and complicated among black people in America, and complicated further by their own varied experiences of what America is. Jeremiah Wright is not running for president. An adopted son of that community, who exists both inside and outside of it, bringing his own broad perspective, is. My feeling is and understanding for the fact of his connection to that community should trump suspicion, given that Obama's words and deeds provide ample first-hand evidence of his thinking on these matters.

Posted by biomuse | March 16, 2008 11:45 PM

TimC wrote:
"It's people who are on the fence about him that will have a problem. I don't think people really believe Obama thinks this way, but it does call his judgement seriously into question."

I completely fail to understand the framing of this as a "judgment" issue for Obama (outside of a cheap attempt at HRC tit-for-tat).

I mean what do you think becoming part of a socioeconomically heterogeneous black community whose members' lives have not uniformly been post-civil-rights-era lollipops and roses means?

So Obama should have just done what you would have, i assume; he should have just taken the high powered firm job; he should have milked his promising law career for all it was worth so as to stay among "respectable" folks whose biggest grievances relate to how the next partner is making more than they are for the same caseload. Then there would be none of these angry folk hanging around in Obama's past.

Is this what constitutes "better judgment" to you?

Posted by biomuse | March 17, 2008 12:00 AM

Robert,

To portray the KKK as a boring, unassuming lot which got tagged in the unfortunate pages of history as a quasi-mainstream outfit tarnished by a few cross-burning radicals is ridiculous!

I'm concerned about the over-reaction on the part of an aggreived and wildly angry and paranoid Pastor Wright with respect to past wrongs which affected the black community. I also don't like his philosophy which tends toward Marxism and far left ideological remedies which use the Gospel in order to further a political agenda.

However, attempts to whitewash the KKK, only invite the anger of those who have memories of burning crosses in their psyche revived in living color.

I really did have some hope that Obama and McCain could transcend Rovian Red/Blue state-51/49 mash-ups.

Posted by Scott | March 17, 2008 12:00 AM

Hahahaha.... it is quite amusing to watch bigots like chris ford, robert ethan, tim K and the rest of the knuckle-draggers flailing about trying to find something - ANYTHING - to smear Obama with.... Face it guys, this is a once-in-a-generation politician - NOTHING will stick to him. He is teflon. His charm and grace will lull the rubes to sleep while he and his liberal cohorts surrender in Iraq and enact Canada-style socialized healthcare. This is what the new generation of voters wants.... I suggest you start figuring out NOW how you're going to deal with it....

Posted by John Q. Public | March 17, 2008 12:10 AM

The Republicans have for the past 30 years pandered to people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and any number of other pastors and religious leaders that have made hugely controversial statements. Yet the public largely has not held them accountable? Why?

The Republicans have openly pandered to these crazy religious leaders.

Obama has never pandered to Wright; his only sin was noticing all of the good, non-controversial statements and work of this man, and not getting caught up in Wright's more radical views.

Many great black leaders of the past have made controversial statements, including Martin Luther King Jr. Many great religious leaders of the past have made controversial statements, including St. Augustine, and yes, even Jesus of Nazareth.

This is such a trumped up controversy; and people wonder why we don't solve our real problems like healthcare, the economy, foreign affairs, etc.

If we want to descend permanently into the Rush Limbaugh mentality in this country, we do so at our own peril. Fortunately, I don't believe we will, and that a vast majority of Americans will reject this type of smear.

Posted by cm | March 17, 2008 12:36 AM

Of directly relevant interest to this whole discussion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

Posted by biomuse | March 17, 2008 1:16 AM

The problem is not that Wright's comments railed against "rich white people". The problem is that he spoke on behalf of poor black people, not poor people.

I know this is an assassination attempt but the following narrative is being painted against Obama:

"Barack Hussein Obama"
"Madrassa email"
"Farrakhan"
"Muslim photo"
"Wright railing against rich white people"
"Pledge of Allegiance story"
"Flag lapel pin"

Our campaign is not countering this character assassination sufficiently.

Posted by yiannis | March 17, 2008 1:23 AM

It's not racist to criticize a black politician or his black pastor.

Let's get clear about that.

As far as I'm concerned the lack of concern of some Obama supporters here about what damage this could cause to their candidate is yet another example of their political naivety.

Posted by Tim K | March 17, 2008 2:00 AM

yiannis, I think when you said *our* campaign, you hit the nail on the head.

You're out here on the net countering the arguments nicely. So are many others.

It's is OUR campaign and only WE can decide if these politics of yore are going to define it.

I don't think they will. I think thinking people all over the nation will begin to seriously talk race through and do the introspection necessary to rise above this sort of nonsensical judgmentalism.

Keep posting...especially where folks don't agree with you. Start the conversation and keep it going!

Posted by G Davis | March 17, 2008 2:09 AM

G Davis:

That was just creepy.

Posted by Tim K | March 17, 2008 2:16 AM

I think the image is settling in to public consciousness of Obama as a fraud, and a bit of a con artist, who only "comes clean" when all the other options are exhausted. It won't happen over night, but the bubble is definately punctured, and there will be a steady decompression from here on in.

Posted by robert ethan | March 17, 2008 2:27 AM

The emotional frenzy these people whip themselves into is truly deserving of the condescension of all civilized peoples. I feel like these people are getting ready to lynch me! Why so hysterical? Is it genetic? Probably not: I know quite a few blacks personally who belong to Jehovah's Witness, who have extrenmely sober services. But this is madness. Is this the gathering of the field Negros? Whassup, Holmes?

Posted by mugged and burgled | March 17, 2008 2:38 AM

Good for the UCC. This is only an issue because Obama and Wright are black. There are plenty of white preachers who say much much worse. It's time someone puts together a collection of the worst from Falwell and Robertson and Hagee and even Huckabee and starts floating it around Youtube.

Posted by Joseph | March 17, 2008 3:50 AM

oil hits $112
worst economy crisis since WWII( says Greenspan)
nearly 4000 american soldiers dead in Iraq.

and you are talking about a pastors sermons?

you americans are more interested in side-shows then in fundamentals. and so your are ending with people like George W. Bush.

How many more BS can you handle?
I can only shaking my head.

Your great country is in decline, but you are debating shiny objects.

The world is watching this election very closely and i cant believe what i am seeing.
Please end this cycle of distraction.

4more years with McCain and the same Bush-policy are like showing the world the middle finger.
Your image will never be repaired.
So please show some leadership.

Still hoping in a small country abroad.

Posted by bunzler | March 17, 2008 6:15 AM

Guys -- the right wing hackery will be onto something else once this story dies.....first BO was a fundamentalist muslim plant now he is a radical christian.....my goodness what nonsense will they come up with next?

Posted by LM | March 17, 2008 7:31 AM

Tim K. is a riot and one of many responsible for a meme that's emerged over the course of the weekend and this Wright flap. It goes something like this:

I'm a Clinton supporter who's wavering (or an Obama supporter) and was seriously considering voting for Obama until, shucks, this unfortunate business with Obama's pastor came out and now, after listening to a 3-minute YouTube video and wrestling with my conscience for a nanosecond, and spending some time watching Sean Hannity's totally objective and non-partisan analysis, not only can I no longer vote for Obama, which really disappoints me, really it does, but I think that this race is over for him, and, gosh, that just stinks. Oh, well, I guess we're just going to have to vote for Hillary by default, which really, honestly just sucks.

Tim K., Robert Ethan, Chris Ford, how about saving the Atlantic servers some bytes of memory and just saying "Vote for Hillary" - instead of all the phony earnestness and hand-wringing? You're making asses of yourselves.

And, btw, the marriage of convenience between the Clinton campaign and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has now been officially consummated. And I thought Bill Clinton going on Rush Limbaugh's show was the beginning of the end. They are really hardcore about getting out that Republican vote!

Posted by nepat | March 17, 2008 8:45 AM

nepat:

Quit your whining. Obama is in trouble. Deal with it.

Posted by Tim K | March 17, 2008 10:38 AM

Memo to Andrew Sullivan, re: Comments Section

Now you know why 60% of your readers voted against
a Comments Section.

Memo to professordarkheart:

Thank you for your thoughts and insight into the context of Dr. Wright's sermon. I re-read it this morning and your comments helped put it into context.

Memo to Americans:

Millions of people around the world utter "God damn America" on a daily basis. Most of us don't mean it, even when the US Government acts in ways that suggest it already is damned. Why just the other day I spoke those words when I couldn't make a donation to the Obama campaign. Foreigners influencing US Elections, I guess.

Posted by Robert | March 17, 2008 10:45 AM

Let's make that Robert in BC!

Posted by Robert | March 17, 2008 10:49 AM

Tim K. -

Ten new delegates in Iowa and another superdelegate this morning (bringing him up to 48 net new since 2/5). Who's in trouble?

Maybe the Clinton campaign needs to start planning yet another lawsuit to distract voters. Or start brewing another bogus scandal that brings them even closer to the right wing than they already are (if that's possible).

McCain/Clinton '08!

Posted by nepat | March 17, 2008 11:27 AM

I, like Chris Ford, blame the communist Jews for this. And for everything else. Fucking communist Jews.

Posted by J.B. | March 17, 2008 1:47 PM

An "Attack" On The Church

Comments (190)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives