Lanny Davis Jabs Obama On Wright (Updated)

Lanny Davis, meet Ward Connerly. I think you'll have a lot in common. Race-blind society? We're almost there...

Posted by DSG | March 19, 2008 4:53 PM

Lanny Davis? The guy who falsely accused the liberal blogosphere of being anti-Semites because they dared to challenge his buddy Joe Lieberman?

Is he really going to make this dumb argument? A black person using the "N word" is completely different from a white person using it. Everyone other than racists realizes that.

Posted by Mike | March 19, 2008 4:56 PM

An authorized hit on Hillary for sure. Old Airy anus knows no other way. Huff'n'puff Retort is a veritable Guantanomo of Loony Left Cult Zealots.

Posted by robert ethan | March 19, 2008 4:57 PM

Why does he ask? Are they forming a new campaign strategy?

Posted by k-0s | March 19, 2008 4:58 PM

I can't wait till ambinder gets back with obama's answers/dodges to those 2 questions.

Just like lanny says:
"I hope my message gets to someone in the Obama campaign -- or to a reporter traveling with the Senator -- who can persuade Senator Obama to answer them directly. As I just wrote, he will have to do so -- either now or perhaps in the fall."

Posted by hadenough | March 19, 2008 5:00 PM

This makes me sick to my stomach. I'm officially down for thinking Hillary is despicable, and my view of Bill is ruined too. They clearly are responsible for the race-baiting, and if this is how they win, I'm leaving the party. And it's safe to say I'm not going to be alone.

Posted by alex | March 19, 2008 5:01 PM

It's starting to look like Hillary might have a religious issue of her own that is a lot more sinister than Obama's:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-nasty-pastorate_b_92361.html

Posted by zorro | March 19, 2008 5:07 PM

alex, grab a brain.

The Clinton's have made a point of steering clear of this issue. Why dirty your boots in the slime if you don't need to?

But 'Airy'anus Huff'n'puff is virulently anti-Clinton, so obviously she could eventually find someone NEARLY AS STUPID AS WRIGHT to offer up some poison to harm Hillary.

No surprise there.

Posted by robert ethan | March 19, 2008 5:07 PM

Actually, the Senator did answer Question #1 on Nightline last night by rightly pointing out that the parallel is so flawed that it's irrelevant. Rev. Wright wasn't preaching black supremacy or exhorting his flock to commit violence against white people.
The analogy simply doesn't work.
As for Question #2, I suspect that the Senator would make a judgement based on more than five minutes of a forty-year career. And maybe that's the lesson we should all learn here. Taking five minutes out of a man's four-decade career and attempting to extrapolate that out to some negative conclusion about a whole other man strikes me as reductive nonsense. Just blathering to fill time and column inches.

Posted by James Foster | March 19, 2008 5:10 PM

hadenough - As somebody's already pointed out in the HuffPoo comments, Terry Moran already asked Obama "if I went to a church where white supremacy was preached, what would you think of me?" Different phrasing, less leading, but aimed at the same target.

Lanny Davis's only function is as the answer to the question "Who is a more offputting Hillary spokesman than Howard Wolfson?"

Posted by DaveW | March 19, 2008 5:11 PM

Okay, so can an Obama fan, in a calm and reasonable tone, explain why Lanny shouldn't ask these questions?

Oh to hell with it, nevermind. "Race baiting!" "Destroying the party!" "Dogs and cats living together!"

Perhaps the Obama fans here might want to answer Lanny's questions themselves? My answer to both is "No".

Posted by sbj | March 19, 2008 5:14 PM

All that methane being produced by the bigger than life 'Airy'anus over at Huffing'compost, is giving Fat Albert Gore II a run for top spot in the "Big Foot" Adverse Environmental Impact Race.

That backstabbing, turncoat, gold digging, full time Gossip Hag has all the time and the money in the world to EXERCISE HER ENVY on the woman who was voted Most Popular in America.

Posted by robert ethan | March 19, 2008 5:20 PM

sbj,
See my remarks above.
And while we're on the topic of Obama supporters (I am one), let me take this opportunity to say, I don't think all criticism of Obama is racist any more than I think criticism of Clinton is sexist. That would be a cop out. Also, I'm not young, black, naive, or convinced that Obama is some sort of savior. I'm not opposed to a Hillary Clinton presidency. I don't blame America for everything. I'm not a one-issue Democrat. I don't believe that Senator Obama should be elected because he's black any more than Senator Clinton should be elected because she's female. I'm not a socialist or a corporation-bashing populist (my wife's in the financial industry, for Pete's sake). And I don't feel, as the oft-heard accusation goes, one iota morally superior to those who support Senator Clinton. You can stereotype us Obama supporters all you want, but it doesn't add anything to the debate except anger. What good is that?
I believe that the fundamental difference between Senators Clinton and Obama is one of style. Do you prefer consensus to combat, and which do you think will be more effective? I am war-weary and ready for a consensus builder. Maybe a majority of my fellow Democrats want more combat. We'll see. I'll vote for whichever Democrat wins, barring an unprecedented revelation of immorality or criminality about the eventual Democratic nominee.

Posted by James Foster | March 19, 2008 5:28 PM

Objectively, Lanny Davis is a tiny little sleaze.
And a disingenuous one at that.

Huffington Post is really full of crap.

Next.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | March 19, 2008 5:35 PM

HILARY PAPERS SHOW SHE 100% SUPPORTED NAFTA
WHO DO YOU TRUST A PERSON WHO PULLED THE HOOD OVER OHIO???

Posted by TAMICKA | March 19, 2008 5:36 PM

sbj,

Obama shouldn't have to answer these questions because they are not questions that deal with his ability to preside over this nation and tackle the issues facing it, such as the economy, the occupation, social security, etc. He has informed us of his view on this and he is now addressing other more pertinent issues. Anyone wishing to decide based on this issue alone has the information they need to do so.

I will take a stab at answering the questions.

1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?

My answer: It depends on the circumstances under which the words were used and whether the candidate denounced that speech.

2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidential campaign?

It depends on the circumstances of why he chose that person to serve. Perhaps, despite their flaws, they had some value to bring to the committee.

Were these answers helpful to you?

Posted by Mxt | March 19, 2008 5:45 PM

“The problem was with Bill Clinton, the scandals and rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting [Hillary] was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.” -Louis J. Freeh, FBI Director

23 August 1995: a hot day in the nation’s capitol. But on the California Central Coast, a constellation of events was about to unfold. Bill Clinton picked up the telephone, Vandelay Industries, Art Vandelay speaking. It was White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, calling from a payphone in Monterey. Vandelay, huh, I’ll Art Vandelay you, muttered Panetta. Bill held the receiver at arms length and gazed at the tasteful floral arrangements that adorned the Oval Office. Leon’s disembodied voice filled the room. What now, asked Hillary. It’s that damn college, mouthed Bill. Hillary nodded; just tell Leon he’ll get whatever he needs. For the record, there was no getting out: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 19, 2008 5:46 PM

I'll vote for whichever Democrat wins, barring an unprecedented revelation of immorality or criminality about the eventual Democratic nominee.

Posted by James Foster | March 19, 2008 5:28 PM

I can't and won't do that! It would make me sick to my stomach. I seem to be one of the few people who actually remembers that Bill Clinton beat a full blown impeachment by playing partisan politics. Hillary will try the same thing with her lame brain moratorium on sub prime mortgages economic package. All that will lead to is more Bear Stearns pennies on the dollar buy out when they go broke.

Hillary care part-II will fail in congress time after time.

I'll take my chances with John McCain and his voting record that is almost identical to Both Obama's and Clinton's but he's more willing to compromise.

Posted by SC Rose | March 19, 2008 5:50 PM

Listen and listen hard.

White people weren't slaves, they were SLAVE HOLDERS! White ministers had no logical reason to be so profoundly disheartened by the way they were treated by anybody. We, that's you and me, treated blacks as others. At least that's what my parents taught me to do.

I had an uncle who said "hold your breath, we're going through the blackie part of town" while riding in the car. I had a mom who said "Oh, those people drive nice new Cadillacs because they can't buy houses in good neighborhoods".

AMERICA I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE NOT GOTTEN IT. YOU'RE STILL LOCKED IN THE 50'S OF WHITE AMERICA.

Grow up and meet your neighbors, your countryman your countrywomen. Get your S@@@ together. We are one nation under God!

We had an opportunity in the late 60's and missed. Let's not let it happen again.

Posted by McClum | March 19, 2008 5:50 PM

To offer a parallel:

I'm white. I lived in Africa for a couple of years as a Peace Corps volunteer. In the US, it doesn't make sense to attend an avowedly "euro-centric" church, because the surrounding culture is euro-centric. But when living abroad, little "people like me" communities spring up--American ex-pats being the easiest example. Within this community, there are some people you adore and some people you tolerate and some you avoid, but you don't leave the community because of them.

A similar tale: a friend's sister, a not-too-observant Jew, became an active Hillel member when she went to college. It was the first time she'd encountered anti-Semitism.

So, yes, I understand why a minority facing discrimination--or just constantly standing out--would seek out a community of similar people, and tolerate some extreme stuff from elders of the community if the balance was positive. We have about 4 minutes of extreme stuff from an old guy with decades of good works in the community. Other ministers, people who've worshipped there, have all said that those 4 minutes are not representative.

Trent Lott's experience is instructive: if he'd sat at a dinner where segregation was spoken of fondly, it would have caused muttering. He could have nodded along, cheered, risen to his feet, and still kept Senate Majority Leader. It was the words coming out of his own mouth, yearning for the better days that might have been if a segregationist had only been elected, that did him in.

Posted by Deborah | March 19, 2008 5:50 PM

Listen and listen hard.

White people weren't slaves, they were SLAVE HOLDERS! White ministers had no logical reason to be so profoundly disheartened by the way they were treated by anybody. We, that's you and me, treated blacks as others. At least that's what my parents taught me to do.

I had an uncle who said "hold your breath, we're going through the blackie part of town" while riding in the car. I had a mom who said "Oh, those people drive nice new Cadillacs because they can't buy houses in good neighborhoods".

AMERICA I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE NOT GOTTEN IT. YOU'RE STILL LOCKED IN THE 50'S OF WHITE AMERICA.

Grow up and meet your neighbors, your countryman your countrywomen. Get your S@@@ together. We are one nation under God!

We had an opportunity in the late 60's and missed. Let's not let it happen again.

Posted by McClum | March 19, 2008 5:51 PM

What are you trying to say McClum, STUPIDITY RUNS IN FAMILIES?

Most of us already knew that, I think.

Posted by robert ethan | March 19, 2008 6:00 PM

Thanks, James, for the polite reply.

You claim that Obama answered #1 - by not answering and instead saying that the analogy is inapt. So I don't think that's an answer, is it?

"If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK"

You retort that "Rev. Wright wasn't preaching black supremacy or exhorting his flock to commit violence against white people."

He does teach black liberation theology though, doesn't he?

The question has nought to do with violence - please read it again. It has to do with the N-word and RHETORIC similar to that used by the KKK. Most people would agree that some of Wright's rhetoric was ... troubling.

If Obama is going to be our first black President then he needs to answer EVERY question about race. Think of Jackie Robinson having to put up with tremendous bullshit. It was necessary due to the ignorance of white America.

We're still ignorant so he can't dodge these tough questions.

"As for Question #2, I suspect that the Senator would make a judgement based on more than five minutes of a forty-year career."

What a strawman - and coming from you, who seems sensible, this is out of character. "While Sen. Obama was not in church for the incendiary and offensive statements of Rev. Wright ...yesterday ... he acknowledged that over the course of 20 years, of course he heard statements from Wright that could be considered controversial."

So, it's not a judgement based on five minutes but a judgement based on 20 years. But you knew that. You're smart enough to realize that Wright is a proponent of black liberation theology and Obama continues to attend his church. That's his right but it's also my right to find that troubling.

And that's Lanny's point. Independent white voters want these questions answered, even if people like you do not. He has not answered these questions, apt or not (which is really beside the point).

Posted by sbj | March 19, 2008 6:01 PM

this is kinda funny actually. it's like some white people are having this realization that Black people have a more complicated relationship to America than they do and are downright surprised. wow.

the KKK terrorized people. the equivalency of what wright said to the actions of the Klan says more about the profound lack of understanding about the American experience in general and the Black experience in particular that plagues mr. davis than it does about anything else he may have wanted to point out.

Posted by Marcus | March 19, 2008 6:02 PM

Mr. Davis the answer to both questions is YES.

Posted by joseph marcucilli | March 19, 2008 6:04 PM

Mr. Davis the answer to both questions is YES.

Posted by joseph marcucilli | March 19, 2008 6:04 PM

Whenever anyone uses this 'shoe on the other foot routine' to compare obnoxious 'white' behavior to obnoxious 'black' behavior, just remind them which side is reacting to a history of oppression, and which side is trying to revive and continue to profit from that history - there's a lot of difference in the motivations as well as the relative power.

Posted by Stephen1947 | March 19, 2008 6:07 PM

Does it matter that the Clinton camp denies they approved of this? It's not like the Clintons have a history of being honest. And either way this is vile from one of their main surrogates. They should be expected to speak out against him, if all were fair.

It also shows astonishing ignorance from Lanny Davis. There is a huge difference between his example of white racists, who would preach a doctrine of supremacy and oppression over blacks, and that of people like Wright, who are black people fighting against oppression and trying to only achieve equality, not superiority.

Get it? On the one side of the example you have white racists fighting for oppression of blacks and superiority, on the other side you have blacks fighting against white oppression for equality.

Maybe Lanny Davis really is a closet racist...who knows?

Posted by cm | March 19, 2008 6:28 PM

No, I think it's deplorable that Jackie Robinson had to put up with everything that he did, and I don't see why Senator Obama should have to deal with it either. I don't see why the statements of Rev. Wright should be the jumping off point for a series of slanted hypothetical questions, that's all. I don't think that he should have to answer that kind of question because the question assumes a parallel that is false. We might as well, based on Senator Obama's success at internet fundraising ask the Senator which side he'll take in the imminent war between humanity and Skynet. I don't see how the ignorance of white America makes it incumbent upon the Senator to put up with what is essentially a partisan attempt to assassinate his character by proxy.
And I disagree entirely with the notion that we are discussing twenty years of behavior here. Rev. Wright's comments (and I'm speaking of the few that I have seen on television, I can't speak to the rest) are incendiary, but I think they constitute anger and bad analysis, not hate speech. I was dismayed by them, but not offended. He's blaming the right people for the wrong things, certainly. But, castigating Senator Obama for not betraying a man he's known for two decades, by simply disowning him, seems to me to be attacking Obama for having the kind of nuanced judgment that, for instance, George W. Bush lacks. We are a culture, as Rev. Wright's comments and those of so many blog commenters illustrate, that is quick to damn, and slow to understand. Nuance doesn't seem to be our thing, which is, in part, why Senator Obama's speech yesterday was so striking and risky.

Posted by James Foster | March 19, 2008 6:40 PM

Lanny Davis is a great American who speaks truth to power. And who loves his country. Unlike some racist ministers I've heard of. He's also proud of his country. Unlike some aspiring first ladies I've heard of.

Posted by Maximom | March 19, 2008 6:40 PM

SC Rose,
If McCain were even willing to entertain the idea of universal health care, and if he talked about ending the war in Iraq, instead of some ill-defined notion of victory (whatever that means in this context), I might consider voting for him. In fact, I don't think it'll be the end of the world if he wins. He's just choice number three, for me.
I have a laundry list of complaints about Senator Clinton (I won't bore you with it), but McCain's maverick pose doesn't pass muster with me. Just because he's the only Republican I see who seems sane on immigration doesn't make me forget he's a Republican. The distinction I draw between Clinton and Obama is about style. The distinction I draw between McCain and either Democrat is one of core values.
I believe he's principled, honorable, honest, and wrong about a great many things.

Posted by James Foster | March 19, 2008 6:47 PM

So, in response to the greatest political speech on race in 40 years, the Clinton strategy is to put Lanny Davis on Huffington Post to goad Obama donors to give more?

I guess that's how the Clinton campaign got where they are today.

Posted by neilrlca | March 19, 2008 6:58 PM

Q. How can you tell when Howard Wolfson is lying?
A. His lips are moving.

Posted by John B. | March 19, 2008 7:25 PM

I don't use ad hominem attacks, but here, it's appropriate.

Lanny Davis, you are scum.

That is all.

Posted by Fox | March 19, 2008 7:40 PM

Maybe Lanny Davis can finally answer just one simple question:

Lanny, why did you go on TV for over a year and lie to the American people about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski?

Posted by Pug | March 19, 2008 7:58 PM

Some people on this forum have said that it's not fair to judge people on just a couple comments that they made during a few minutes. I agree. But Obama clearly had no problem condemning Don Imus for as much.

Posted by Sam | March 19, 2008 8:06 PM

This is from the guy who wrote "Scandal: How "Gotcha" Politics Is Destroying America"?!?! Well, maybe it takes one to know one.

sbj, Lanny's use of 'KKK' was similar to other people on Team Clinton repeating the word 'cocaine' over and over again. I agree with you that inserting the word 'rhetoric' makes it technically nonviolent, but that isn't what the intended audience will remember. And that was NOT done by accident.

maximom, take a break from posting all over the place and learn more about Michelle Obama. Then maybe you'll stop embarrassing yourself by posting slurs based on a simple misstatement. (Which we all do at times, our current President more than most. Buy you know what? I don't pretend I don't know what our President means to say. I cut him some slack, and not because I agree with him. It's because I see no point in being gratuitously mean and nasty. You may want to give that some thought.)

neilrlca and John B. - I agree with you!

Posted by Tom J | March 19, 2008 8:14 PM

Okay, so can an Obama fan, in a calm and reasonable tone, explain why Lanny shouldn't ask these questions?

Umm, because Wright isn't running for president, so what he thinks or says usbly particularly germane?

Posted by justinb | March 19, 2008 9:41 PM

For anyone interested here's Wright's Audacity To Hope sermon that inspired the title of Obama's book. If you take the time to read it instead of scuffing and throwing insults you'll find that Wright isn't as one dimensional as he's been portrayed.

Posted by bjd | March 19, 2008 9:55 PM

Are you kidding me??? The Clintons going out UNSCRIPTED?? Lanny on his own?? Give us readers/political junkies some credit for BRAINS. Geez...anyone remember the 90's??? NO ONE IS UNSCRIPTED when it comes to team Billary!! Howard Wolfson says " nope ". Okay good enough for us. Are you kidding me???

Posted by Karenmg | March 19, 2008 11:30 PM

I found this at Prometheus6

A Talking Point For Obama Supporters
Posted March 19th, 2008 by ptcruiser

Many of the alleged pundits and so-called analysts who appeared on television and radio yesterday to offer their interpretation of Obama's speech were quick, in fact, too quick, to decry the analogy that Obama drew between his relationship with his maternal grandmother and his relationship with Rev. Wright. Many of the talking heads and far, far too many of the black males and females who appeared on these programs dismissed this connection because, as they stated, one can easily choose to find another minister as opposed to finding a replacement grandmother.

This line of argument has a certain logical appeal because the church one chooses to join is a matter of choice. That is, one can choose to belong to this church or that church or no church at all. Whereas one has no choice over selecting one's grandmother. People are continually born into a world that is always older than they are and they have no choice as to who is their grandmother. Natality and chance rule over this process.

The problem here is that this way of looking at Obama's decision tree ignores the very specific circumstances of his life and biography. When Obama likens Rev. Wright to an uncle and describes him as being a member of his family he is quite sincere and, more importantly, he is, psychologically speaking, correct. Obama's biological father was virtually absent during his formative years and he was dead by the time Obama became an adult. In addition, Obama had no substantial contact with his father's male siblings and adult male cousins. In other words, he had no older adult black males in his life with whom he could form close and enduring bonds until he met Rev. Wright.

Consequently, when Obama says that Rev. Wright is like an uncle to him and that he could no more disown him than he could disown his maternal grandmother he is expressing a deeply felt and psychological true statement. Rev. Wright may or may not be crazy (I don't believe that he is crazy or intemperate although I disagree with him about the origins of the AIDS epidemic.) but he is someone who Obama has chosen to be his uncle.

What Obama did is no different from what tens of thousands of gays and lesbians have had to do when they were rejected by their families because of their sexual preferences. They went out and over time created their own families. I met a young sister, for example, in graduate school who later came out to me. She and I became very close friends and when she unexpectedly died several years ago I felt as if I had lost one of my own biological sisters. I miss her a great deal. She considered me to be a member of her family because her own family looked askance at her sexual preferences. The human need for familial association and acceptance is an evolutionary fact.

Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright should and must be seen in this context instead of through the superficial and grossly over simplified choice of simply switching ministers. His bond was with Rev. Wright and the community he found at Trinity United Church. Expecting or demanding him to sever those bonds would be tantamount to asking him to exile himself. Cutting off all of his ties to Rev. Wright would be exactly like asking him to cut off contact with his maternal grandmother. Blood may be thicker than mud but the ties that are created when you choose to call someone family are no less thick and lasting.

Posted by rikyrah | March 19, 2008 11:38 PM

It was, in many ways, a brilliantly written and delivered speech—something we've come to expect, of course, from Barack Obama. It did an excellent job of providing context for the black experience in America, explaining how the average African-American could gravitate to a controversial church like Jeremiah Wright's, and how those experiences might understandably be misunderstood by white America. It took a stab at uniting the black and white American experiences under the common problem of economic anxiety, brought on by the real enemy of working people in our country: unfettered corporate greed. In this regard, the speech still should have gone much further. More on that in a minute.

It was a brave speech. Barack Obama has been running as a post-racial candidate this entire election cycle. Today, he turned into the wind, and tackled the racial crimes, conundrums, and tragedies that have buffeted our nation since its inception. Obama challenged our country to deal with the race issue in the here and now, to no longer keep this conversation tucked away in our racially homogeneous tribes, where our separate white and black safety zones allow us to say what we really think about the other.

He did so knowing that after today, there is no going back. As an unnamed Obama adviser was quoted as saying, "Race is now officially on the table. It’s not going away after this,”. Race will be a part of his candidacy for the remainder of the primary, and, if he is so lucky, the general election. This is not something Obama wanted to happen, but at this point in the midst of the Wright controversy, it is obvious he felt he had little choice. Even braver, rather than offering banalities on unity and togetherness, he picked at some of the ugliest scabs in our national discourse, in effect claiming that his candidacy possesses the unifying power to do so without making the wounds worse.

That said, while I feel that the speech was a rhetorical victory, I am worried that in certain ways, it was a missed opportunity, and possibly a political failure.

The speech can be judged by who its intended audience was, and who it ended up becoming. His intended audience should have been the white blue collar males that, after the Virginia primary, were flooding towards his candidacy, but after Ohio, and Jeremiah Wright, have been flooding away from it.

Instead, the speech seemed more tailored towards the media, and Obama's base. Political journalists have swooned over it all day long. Chris Matthews probably had to change his pants twice on Hardball tonight, calling it "the greatest speech on civil rights in our nation's history".

It's a fine civil rights speech, and deserves much praise, but Barack Obama is not running to make a point, or win the argument about race in this country. He is not running for Civil Rights Leader of America. He is running for President of the United States. In a country with a still-white majority population, the two are unfortunately incompatible.

Fascinating frames like the following are crack for the media:

"I can no more disown him (Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Brilliant, honest, touching, hard-hitting stuff. But is it really helpful to his political prospects? I love the parallel. The entire blogging unit of The Huffington Post loves the parallel. His base of young white liberals and African-Americans loves it more than anyone.

But I've since heard more than a handful of other white folks—on both the left and right—say things like, "that wasn't a very nice thing to say about his poor old grandmother." Instead of getting the intent of the story—to remind people that Obama's experience is actually as a black and white man—a lot of white blue-collar folks hear that anecdote and think how rude it was for this young black man to say that about that poor old white woman. Plus, they're reminded about how they too, sometimes get scared around young black men. And soul-searching introspection on those feelings is likely not their next step.

As Obama himself said today, "I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own." So why is he attempting to do that very thing at its greatest crisis point?

I've even heard from some Democrats—yes, Democrats—who say maybe it was Obama's resentment of his white grandmother's attitudes towards blacks, that led him to a racially charged church like Jeremiah Wright's. I think such arguments are absurd and deeply narrow-minded. Unfortunately, so is the state of typical white racial thinking in this country.

What Obama also did not do with the speech was explain why he spent 20 years listening to a pastor condemn America, hate on white people, and spit on Israel. That's not what's really been happening the last 20 years in the Trinity Church of Christ, of course, but it effectively is what much of white America has come to believe.

Yes, Obama described Wright's outlook as "a profoundly distorted view of this country". And yes, Obama explained that Wright is more than the sum of these snippets of controversy: "The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor."

Fine. The retort I hear then is why does Wright say the U.S. government gave AIDS to black people?

What the speech really needed to do today was, at length, directly address the economic considerations from on high that have intentionally spurred the racial divisions in our country since the American Revolution. It needed to be, in many ways, his Howard Zinn speech.

It was good for Obama to start by empathizing with lower-income white Americans who feel robbed by affirmative action, who see no special value in their own white skin, who "don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race." But the argument stopped with empathy. It is absolutely critical that if you venture into why lower-income whites are resentful of affirmative action, you must complete the circle by explaining how our corrupt economic system requires whites to focus their anger on tiny programs like affirmative action, rather than the massive, non-racial corporate forces that are taking away black and white jobs, black and white health care, black and white homes.

The reason Obama must focus primarily on economics, rather than race, is that with two wars being fought abroad, a looming recession, a housing crisis, trade deals shipping our entire manufacturing base overseas, blue-collar white Democrats really don't feel the urgent need to solve this race problem in America. It is, unfortunately, probably the last issue on the plate—if it's even on the plate.

With one candidate focusing his attention on a controversial topic, which, though eloquently discussed, isn't at the top of voters' concerns, which other candidate is poised to jump right into an opening on the economy? Yep.

But, you say, Obama had to address this Wright controversy—it was eating his candidacy alive! I completely agree. The way in which I believe he would have been better served is by unifying the discussion of race more fully with the economic pressures that have caused these racial fractures in American life in the first place. It was still a brilliant speech. He has retaken the news cycle—no small feat after what he's been through the last couple of weeks. But it's just a news cycle, and the questions will continue to linger among lower-income white voters about Obama's racially questionable church-going.

It's not fair that Barack Obama should be judged by what Rev. Wright has occasionally said. But as life is not fair, many white voters still will do so.

He is still the front-runner for the nomination, and will still likely obtain it. The problem isn't with getting the nomination—it's how does he defeat a cultural icon like John McCain in the general election without grabbing a big share of independent white votes in swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Missouri.

His current base—young, affluent educated whites, and black voters—can't bring him over the finish line. And if he is ever going to silence the critics who say he is all hope and no results, he is going to have to throw some serious economic red meat on the table—sooner, rather than later. If he cannot get away from the race discussion, he must drag it over to the economic one.

My advice? Call John Edwards, and start the rewrites. Pennsylvania is a month away.

Posted by Will | March 19, 2008 11:42 PM

The same could be asked of US support for religious leaders and pols who ignore US Resolutions and are committing apartheid. OR who support pols who advocate killing innocent citizens as in 'kill all the Arabs'?

You want to have that discussion, Mr. Davis, or will you scream the empty anti-semitism slur?

Posted by MRW | March 20, 2008 1:31 AM

Someone should ask Lanny if Hillary should not reject and renounce Bill for sexually harassing those women. Should she turn her back on him? It is time to grow up.

Posted by williamg | March 20, 2008 2:18 AM

sbj,

You wrote:

"If Obama is going to be our first black President then he needs to answer EVERY question about race."

Why would the first black president be more answerable about questions of race than any other (i.e. white) president? Please think about your assertion for a few moments.

Posted by drh | March 20, 2008 4:27 AM

All the obama supporters are defending him staying at the church, ALL the black ministers are defending Wrights preaching, that simply tells ALL Americans they also support his feelings of anti- America and white hatred that the church preaches. No one says Obama cant attend the church for 20 years, or raise his daughters to be racist like his wife, what we ARE SAYING is that HE CANNOT REPRESENT ALL OF AMERCIA AS U.S. PRESIDENT! Rev Wright was and most likely still is a paid advisor on Obamas campaign??? Obama and David Axelrod insisted that Obama be the black candidate early in SC when they tried to spin it on Bill Clinton, it worked for the biased tabloid media like CNN cronies, since then, we ALL have come to realize Obama has problems with the truth and we learned this week for sure where his faith and true beliefs are, its obvious THERES ABSOLUTLY NO CHANGE WITH OBAMA, HE WILL DRAG U.S. BACK TO THE 60'S RACIAL DIVIDE at a time our country needs to unite. He cannot do that, no matter how many black news casts tell you he can

OBAMA STANDS BEHIND SPIRITAL ADVISOR WRIGHT!
“Wright is like an uncle you love and respect” As imperfect as he may be, he has been family to me for so many years, I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community, said Obama. The man who believes and preaches the U.S. government formulated the HIV AIDS virus to commit genocide against blacks also preaches “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye on 9/11. This is the same man Obama had as advisor on his Presidential staff until this week. Rather than break ties with his demagogic, anti-American pastor, Obama used a speech on the non-back race to excuse his behavior and sweep the controversy under the rug. Passing the buck. Obama supposedly condemning Wright's shocking verbal assaults against the U.S and White Americans, but April last year; Obama was the first and quickest to demand Imus' ouster for making a racially insensitive remarks. His opinions and issues change with the weather, he is too UNSTABLE and proven he cannot make a decision or stay with one. Next we have ALL corrupt campaign financers, business and personal friends as indicted Rezko, former Dallas Mayor Hill, Rep. Rick Renzi and Mr. Auchi, leading supplier of arms to Saddam's regime convicted for corruption in France, the same British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions and millions of dollars to Obama all coming out of the woodwork. ALL this from the half black ex-Muslim who touts change and claims to be a uniter of all people? Proof he is just another in-experienced Washington politician that the media has like CNN has given a free pass at the great risk of our great country! There will soon be allot more video of Rev Wright and Obama coming, all this has proven without doubt if he is the nominee the democrat voters he cannot win the general election, just the black vote will not do it. Its time for Obama to leave this race and take his not so proud of America racist wife, spiritual advisor and anti white church with him..

The majority of the American Black community claims that they want to live in a society where discrimination doesn't exist, but appears they are not practicing what they are preach Obama continually pulls up to 90%+ of the black vote, it's obvious that most blacks are voting for a candidate because of skin color. CNN, MSNBC and FOX all have reported Obama camp have been calling African-American superdelegates to target, harass and threaten,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who supports Clinton. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving “nasty letters, phone calls, threats, being called an Uncle Tom. Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., also is receiving several e-mails from individuals saying they won’t vote for her if she doesn’t change her support to Obama, she should vote for him because she, too, is black. Rep. John Lewis, a black civil rights icon, sadly enough has given into the racial threatening politics of the Obama camp and switched his support from Clinton to Obama.JUST MORE OBAMA CAMP DIRTY POLITICS, LIKE BEING CAUGHT IN A LIE ABOUT CANADA MEETING! HE IS CORRUPT!

Posted by get out obama | March 20, 2008 7:06 AM

I believe Obama Can move pass this phase of Rev. Wright because Obama's views are completely different than those played of Rev. Wright, and anyone who knows him and hears him speak, can see Obama is a man who is not one to be critical or harbor anger, that is why he will be able to reach accross the asile and be civil and listen to Republicans. However, there are some like Joe Scarborough of Morning Joe, a Republican, who still wants to continue the Rev. Wright controversy. They refuse to talk about right-wing ministers who have said controversial statements and or interviewed others who have fellowshiped with Rev. Wright through the years other than Barack Obama like:

1) Rev. Steve Gray, a member of First Congregational UCC in Indianapolis (mainly caucasian), has worshiped several times at Trinity UCC and is most impressed by the overflowing sense of welcome it extends to visitors. "When you're Euro-American, (White) the people [at Trinity UCC] are so exceedingly gracious, warm and welcoming. They hug you and say, 'Welcome to our church!'"

2) Rev. Thomas, a white preacher, president of The United Church of Christ, paying tribute to pastor Wright. This is a link to his church.

3) Link to: Obama mentor's sermons could be fiery, uplifting - Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-wright19mar19,1,2197340.story

On the Other hand we have an Interesting article on Huffington Post describing how a right-wing preacher is treated with similar contoversial remarks:

When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr. Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

Posted by Angellight | March 20, 2008 7:52 AM

But, wait this morning NY Times suggests the Clinton campaign is actually arguing to the supers that the Wright flap will bring Obama down in the Fall. So, once again, we're getting mixed signals (or maybe not?) from the Clinton camp. They don't authorize their people to say these things, but then their people do say these things. They deny it, but then the Times says something completely different. Isn't it obvious that they are pushing this story, and perhaps it may backfire since many supers probably received the speech warmly and positively?

Posted by charmedcitypolitico | March 20, 2008 8:31 AM

As I'm a proud member of the "SORRY, YOU HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM POSTING" Huffington club, I have to comment that I'm hardly surprised at any effort by any Clinton, including Chelsea, to advance their own thirst for power. Not that it's sneaky and underhanded; they'd rather do it that way, like the thief who would rather steal $1 than earn $2.

Posted by Diogenes | March 20, 2008 9:37 AM

As I'm a proud member of the "SORRY, YOU HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM POSTING" Huffington club, I have to comment that I'm hardly surprised at any effort by any Clinton, including Chelsea, to advance their own thirst for power. Not that it's sneaky and underhanded; they'd rather do it that way, like the thief who would rather steal $1 than earn $2.

Posted by Diogenes | March 20, 2008 9:38 AM

Ambinder: Was this an authorized hit?

Wolfson: Nope.

Seriously - how would he answer that question? There is no official authorization attached to any of the negative campaigning that has been a hallmark of the Clinton team. That's like asking Wolfson if the "Obama is a muslim" email was approved by the campaign. Come on! wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Posted by Philly Dog | March 20, 2008 9:55 AM

I suppose if Obama were a practicing Catholic he would be accused of being a pedophile...

Posted by JimP | March 20, 2008 9:59 AM

If the Clintons think that Obama voters would ever vote for someone as dishonest as her shes sadly mistaken.

Posted by Joe | March 20, 2008 10:02 AM

If the Clintons think that Obama voters would ever vote for someone as dishonest as her shes sadly mistaken.

Posted by Joe | March 20, 2008 10:02 AM

Mr Davis,

What has Rev. Wright said that is similar to the KKK?

He has said: 1) The United States foreign policy has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, which has not bothered us as a nation. It should not surprise us that there will be "blowback" from this type of foreign policy, and to expect to be unscathed from this type of world is foolish.
2) He said that the United States is ruled by Rich White Men 3) He said the United States still has institutional racism.

Those three are all true, rational statements, although said in a less than eloquent way.

I am missing what he says that is akin to the Ku Klux Klan?

Posted by exhuming mccarthy | March 20, 2008 10:28 AM

Lanny Davis aint never been CALLED a N(word)!!

Posted by Jeremiah Wright | March 20, 2008 10:32 AM

Lanny Davis misses the point of the Black church entirely. As a black minister and progressive, I know that there is a socio-religious duality in the African-American Christian experience that is not shared by white America. It is defined in the words of James Baldwin:

""To be an Afro-American, or an American black, is to be in the situation, intolerably exaggerated, of all those who have ever found themselves part of a civilization which they could in no wise honorably defend -which they were compelled, indeed, endlessly to attack and condemn - and who yet spoke out of the most passionate love, hoping to make the kingdom new, to make it honorable and worthy of life."

That is the experiential knowledge of conscious (liberation)black theology - that is the ethos of the Rev. Wright, and that is the springboard in which Barack Obama evolves.

Posted by Rafiu Bakare Jr | March 20, 2008 10:48 AM

How is everyone so comfortable equating Wright's theology with white supremacy and the KKK? I've seen the God damn America clip and heard the accusation of the government unleashing HIV onto the black community. What am I missing? Where is he arguing that white people are inferior to black people and should be deprived of their basic human rights? Or that it's a perfectly Christian thing to do to murder a white person? Help me out, here, please. I'm confused.

Posted by Huh? | March 20, 2008 10:54 AM

Sounds like another liberal who has never even been in a black neighborhood. Old school, but we just gotta help them out mentality without ever knowing the context of the problem.

Posted by coomaraswamee | March 20, 2008 11:03 AM

I think the point that is slowly coming out, but rarely explicitly stated is this part of the statement by Davis:

"I personally regarded many of Rev. Wright's sermons as filled with hate words and bigoted generalizations base on race (in this case, all Whites)."

Does he really regard many of Rev. Wright's SERMONS as filled with hate and bigotry? Or does he regard the what, 7 or so sentences that he's seen as hate speech.

My understanding (which may be wrong) is that Fox News bought all of Wright's sermons on DVD. But those 7 sentences are all we see. If every sermon was full of hate, why not change it up little after a week of repetition?

Many people seem to believe that Obama and his daughters were sitting in pews listening to the Reverend basically repeat those 7 sentences over and over.

But the text of the Audacity of Hope sermon doesn't show any hatred.

His book of sermons' title "What Makes You So Strong?: Sermons of Joy and Strength" seems to not be particularly hateful.

A Trinity member on another blog who was even at the 9/11 sermon said that almost the entire sermon was about grief and love. http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/your-comments-on-my-obama-column/#comment-36114

I don't know what Wright's sermons are generally about. But neither do most of the people condemning Wright and Obama.

So we have a choice. We can assume the worst. We can assume the best. Or we could actually ask our media to actually do some real fact-based journalism to find out, rather then just showing opinion after opinion after opinion.

Posted by normally just lurking | March 20, 2008 11:08 AM

Lanny I may help ...here...

I want this discussion to talk about health care, the war, the economy and the fact that my house lives on a river and has now, twice in a row, for the first time in it's 50 year history flooded in the spring.

But I have to deal with an issue you all and Fox News seem to be pushing understandably in the initial discovery.

Reverend Wright...and I think I have a parable of sorts that might help with some of these sermons. Take this with a grain of salt...I am just a white, blue-collar guy originally from Saugus MA but now I live in NH. Yes, I am educated but my roots and my belief system are blue collar to the core.

Imagine a white pastor of a similar age as Rev. Wright ... Reverend White. He has been preaching for years since he decided to enter the faith after returning home from Vietnam. His father was a Reverend in Maine somewhere and being a man raised in the spirit of his church chose to try to help and understand the struggles that faced not only his compatriots returning from the war but for his country. There are probably several pastors, reverends, priests who could have similar backgrounds across this country.

When he returned his fellow soldiers were not taken care of. The country let them down. He passes vets in their flack jackets living under bridges or struggling working blue-collar jobs because they went away and could not get into college hen they got back. Imagine this gentleman watching many people about his age (they may be vets they may be someone else it is hard to tell) ...imagine he sees these people who look like his age ...the age of consent to go to war during Vietnam...struggling with drugs and crime. Imagine that... I do not think that is hard.

Now imagine a sermon that he is giving...years after fighting to make things right for his fellow vets...where he says something like..

"...and we pass them on the street and they are hungry. "
(and he pauses and we see the pain in him)
"We pass them on the street and they are crazy."
(and his volume goes up)
"We say 'God helps them who help themselves'"
(he starts to yell)
"WE say they have to pull it together... and We turn away because we have our own problems.

"AMERICA goes to our jobs and our ballgames and our birthday parties and our classrooms and they ask us to pledge allegiance or to sing God Bless America...as our fellow men starve and are institutionalized... are disregarded or worse THEY are shunned!"

"We are our brother's keeper!...they say God Bless America!" "I say no God would not Bless America for this...I say God would damn America for this!" "We need to change!"
(half of the congregation is on their feet but half are uncomfortable)

"We send these soldiers out to fight and we destroy them when they come home!"

"What God teaches us does not stand with how we treat these Americans." "That's right God Damn America...get on the ball!"

I ask you all, "if you were in that church, what would you do?"

This issue is one that needs to be talked about. Because I do not think Americans understand the parallels between this story and what Rev. Wright was doing...and no matter how thrown and revolted you were by his tone...this is almost the same story.

The reference to it being like a KKK meeting is not understanding the black community at best... and politically slimy at worst.

...but to keep harping on Sen Obama for explanations and distancing himself are not helpful unless you understand what these sermons are... and if you don't ...if the Sean Hannitys and the other pundits pushing this idea that these sentiments were so un-American don't understand that the above story has something to do with this moment in American history... then they are the one's that are going to mislead America.

That is this man's point...this man who everyone discounts because "he is a great speaker.". He is more than that I am positive...not the messiah, not the savior of our country but I think he is the leader we need NOW. He may be a politician, but I have met him and the other candidates when they were here in NH. He is sincerely a good man first...a politician second.

Now can we talk about the economy and the war and the reputation we need overseas with different countries peoples to be able to get things done.

Sincerely

A fan.

Posted by dl | March 20, 2008 11:09 AM

Just more NIXONIAN politics from sleazeball Hillary.

Wright is not a racist! He is angry abotu racism, and that is a very different thing. The KKK seeks to oppress and expel minorities. Wright and Trinity seek to empower minorities and the poor.
In fact, I'd say this is something of a "hightech lynching", if by lynching we mean a 1) rush to judgment 2) leading to severe punishment on a 3) weak minority
Black churches are not understood or repsected by white America. Now we have white pundits who know nothign about the black church or black experience condemning them.
This is a very ugly and subtly racist smear campaign. Ironically, it may perhaps be provign Wright was correct -- maybe America always was and always will be racist. The disgust and vile and venom at this poor preacher surely is a sad day in America.
Hillary and her supporters should know better than to push this filth.
SHAME ON YOU!!

Posted by JR | March 20, 2008 11:24 AM

Just more NIXONIAN politics from sleazeball Hillary.

Wright is not a racist! He is angry about racism, and that is a very different thing. The KKK seeks to oppress and expel minorities. Wright and Trinity seek to empower minorities and the poor.
In fact, I'd say this is something of a "hightech lynching", if by lynching we mean a 1) rush to judgment 2) leading to severe punishment on a 3) weak minority

Black churches are not understood or repsected by white America. Now we have white pundits who know nothign about the black church or black experience condemning them.

This is a very ugly and subtly racist smear campaign. Ironically, it may perhaps be provign Wright was correct -- maybe America always was and always will be racist. The disgust and vile and venom at this poor preacher surely is a sad day in America.

Hillary and her supporters should know better than to push this filth.
SHAME ON YOU!!

Posted by JR | March 20, 2008 11:25 AM

Oh, yeah, the Clinton campaign isn't playing this one. Riiiiiiight.

From this morning's NYTimes:

"But the audience now is as much the Democratic superdelegates, who are especially attuned to politics and questions of electability in the fall, as it is rank-and-file voters.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election.

That argument could be Mrs. Clinton’s last hope for winning this contest."

I thought the dizzy limit was when HRC said McCain was more qualified than Obama to be Commander in Chief. I was wrong.

This is disgusting.

Posted by MK | March 20, 2008 11:50 AM

Lanny Davis needs to STOP COMPARING WRIGHT TO A MEMBER OF THE KKK! There is an undeniable, indisputable difference between the root of resentment in blacks and the unfounded, unjustifiable stubborn ignorance of white supremacists. Reverend Wright never said blacks were better - he asserted they should be EQUAL and treated as such in our society. Lanny Davis never ceases to astound me with his thick headedness!

Posted by AE | March 20, 2008 1:13 PM

One of the memes that has been appearing in many corners of the web the past few days is the accusation that Sen. Barack Obama's controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is an anti-Semite, and/or that he has made anti-Semitic remarks.

However, despite extension web searching, I have not been able to come across a single statement by the man saying anything against Jewish, or otherwise Semitic, people. I'm not saying these statements aren't out there--I'm saying that I am coming across a lot of online journalists, columnists, pundits and reader comments calling Wright an "anti-Semite", without reference to a quote of any kind to back such a serious accusation up. And I can't locate one either.

The absolutest closest statement I have found is one in his Wikipedia entry, as well as dozens of other places around the web: a claim by Wright that Zionism has an element of "white racism" in it.

An interesting feature of this "quote" is that no one posts the whole sentence. Everyone "quoting" it writes the exact same thing: "Wright said that Zionism has an element of 'white racism' in it." I can't locate the whole sentence in its entirety anywhere"all anyone offers is the "white racism" part as a quote. So it's extremely difficult to pinpoint this phrase's original context, other than that which these other writers have placed it in on their own.

It's even possible that the "white racism" phrase is just some random blogger's analysis of Wright's views on Zionism, repeated ad nauseum by lazy bloggers around the globe, until it morphed into a "quote" of Wright's. I see this kind of thing happen all the time in online "journalism". If I'm wrong in my theory, I will certainly post a correction.

That said, if it is his, it's hardly an anti-Semitic statement of any sort. Those who question Israeli occupation and settlement policy are not anti-Semites, no matter what neoconservative dogma dictates, or American mainstream media, for that matter. For what it's worth, Wright's Wikipedia entry also states that "the Anti-Defamation League says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Wright."

There is no question Jeremiah Wright has made "controversial" statements about America's racial and military history, though I think almost all of them deserve more discussion that denouncement. But I have not come across any statements by him that are attacking Jewish or other Semitic peoples in any way.

Posted by Will | March 20, 2008 2:10 PM

I love this!!!! Its so funny seeing the Dems eat each other up. Keep it up and we'll be assured of President John McCain ... TRUE American Hero.

Posted by JoeJoe | March 20, 2008 2:54 PM

oh, what? we're to believe that Lanny Davis is just doing this for fun on his own and it shouldn't be construed as coming from within the Clinton campaign? even when they're actively trying to use Wright to sink Obama to the superdelegates? please. of course Clinton is trying behind the scenes to push this for all it's worth.

no, Obama should not have to answer "EVERY question about race" so that nervous white people can feel 'safe' or what the hell ever. get over yourselves! yes, the black experience in America has been different and vastly worse than the overall white experience, HOW on earth could anyone NOT KNOW this? no, not all white people were oppressors or slave owners. but Wright wasn't saying that about all white people, no matter how many conservative talking heads on TV say he was, this just isn't supported by the text of the sermons. he's being called a racist for essentially saying that white people can't know what its like to be black. and guess what? they can't. and yes, I'm white.

someone compared this to Don Imus? well, there is a long, well-documented public record of Don Imus making racist statements, often by his own admission. Imus never deserved the national platform he had in the first place. he had a huge nationwide audience for hours every day for years, and he was and is an idiot. Wright does not have a national platform, only by way of a media which thrives off of manufacturing controversy, such as they are doing here. I don't care if Obama heard offensive comments here and there from his preacher. I really could care less. people assume Obama never expressed disagreement to Wright and never challenged him. why? how do any of you know what he said to him in private?

and lastly, it is absolutely RIDICULOUS for a rich white person like Lanny Davis to say it would somehow be comparable for a white preacher to use the word "nigger" as it would be for a black preacher to use it in describing part of the black experience of racism and discrimination. this is a self-refuting comment which really doesn't require a response, as anyone posing such a question reveals themselves to be stunningly ignorant the minute it leaves their mouth.

Posted by onceler | March 20, 2008 3:28 PM

Why, exactly, are we supposed to believe Wolfson that Lanny Davis was not writing on behalf of the campaign?

Posted by lysias | March 20, 2008 3:31 PM

dl writes:

"We are our brother's keeper!...they say God Bless America!" "I say no God would not Bless America for this...I say God would damn America for this!" "We need to change!"
(half of the congregation is on their feet but half are uncomfortable)

"We send these soldiers out to fight and we destroy them when they come home!"

"What God teaches us does not stand with how we treat these Americans." "That's right God Damn America...get on the ball!"

I ask you all, "if you were in that church, what would you do?"

----
Damn, dl, you oughta be a preacher!! :-)

Your "parable" was right on the mark. In answer to your question, if I were in that church, I would think to myself, "

Lanny Davis Jabs Obama On Wright (Updated)

Comments (74)