Obama Will Speak On Wright, Race, Future

Good for him.. I wonder what time..

Posted by Ann | March 17, 2008 2:39 PM

If done well, it could be similar in effect to Kennedy's catholicism speech.

Here's hoping this helps heal some racial wounds.

Posted by Chris | March 17, 2008 2:40 PM

Do we at least know what time?! and cable channel?

Posted by Kim | March 17, 2008 2:41 PM

Wright accuses America of a conspiracy to invent AIDS -- how can he possibly be unfairly charicatured?

Posted by Rusty | March 17, 2008 2:44 PM

Commentary: The Wright Dust-Up Shows and Proves That Many Whites Don’t Know Black People at All

By: Deborah Mathis

Date: Sunday, March 16, 2008

The eruption of outrage, shock and fear that is flowing over Barack Obama’s campaign like hot lava because his pastor has preached some strident sermons tells us one thing for certain: Many white people don’t know black people at all.

If they did, they would know that Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago is hardly the only black minister who uses the pulpit to rant against racial duplicity and injustice. The black church has always been the place for letting our hair down and speaking our peace -- a safe haven from the criminations outside. It’s how and why the black church became the nursery for the freedom and civil rights movements. Not every minister seasons his or her sermons with political commentary, and not every one who does is as fiercely spoken as Rev. Wright, but there is nothing unusual about the black clergy as social agitator. Guess the shockees didn’t know that.

It seems they were also clueless that, when race, racism and discrimination do invade the pulpit, it is not always in the context of forgiveness and humility. Much of black America is resentful, angry and distrustful -- rightly so, some of us would say. Did the uninitiated honestly believe that slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, white resistance and flight, economic and educational duality, hyper-incarceration and yawning disparities in wealth, health and longevity have had no lasting effects; that all of that is really no big deal -- something we can kick off as easily as our Sunday shoes?

Surprise.

This could be a teaching moment for the society at large, which would do well to pay closer attention to 35 million of its members and to give heed to their accounts of their own experiences. Unfortunately, and typically, the alarmists are threatening to make it a Waterloo for Obama.

The candidate has denounced Rev. Wright’s statements about America’s treachery, honest as they were.

Obama has even removed his Wright from his ministerial council. That had to be painful for Obama, who has otherwise spoken devotedly of the preacher who “brought me to Jesus,” performed his marriage ceremony and baptized his daughters.

Those pounds of flesh are not enough for the alarmists, however. They and frothing pundit after frothing pundit want the candidate to rebuke Wright categorically -- mind, body and soul.

Obama is in the unenviable position of having to court a large and diverse audience -- the American electorate generally and Democratic voters particularly -- that includes a good number of people who have no knowledge of, curiosity about, nor sympathy for the black experience, while, at the same time, remaining true to what he knows about Rev. Wright specifically and the black church generally.

It’s a delicate balance, and Obama has tried to strike it, explaining to journalists that the anger and disdain expressed by Rev. Wright reflect common themes in “the black memory,” albeit not sentiments he shares.

In a fair world, Obama would be able to elaborate about the black perspective and thereby give some context to Wright’s comments and the facts of black expression.

But, then, in a fair world, there would be no racial divide to bridge. Of course, Obama’s detractors would never consider that.

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/dmathis317

Posted by Bookwert | March 17, 2008 2:46 PM

Rusty -

Should the whole of your being be judged by a handful of positions you've taken in your life? Is it possible that Rev. Wright is complicated figure, who while holding certain marginal positions, has also done many good deeds in his life?

Remember, judge not, lest ye be judged...

Posted by neilrlca | March 17, 2008 2:48 PM

Why should he keep defending his former pastor. Will this help the economy, or bring the war to an end? NO! This is very sad and the media keeps harping on it. I've heard this hatred from White ministers such as the late Falwell. Racism will never end and as long as the media keep this in the news it will never end. I did not agree with the Minister and I don't blame Barack for his actions either. He who casts the first stone.....? REMEMBER THAT!

Posted by Why | March 17, 2008 2:53 PM

What neilrlca said.

And if that didn't work for you, Rusty -- try it this way. The only thing I know about you is what you've posted here. I conclude that you are a judgemental, close-minded person who doesn't want to try to understand his fellow man.

I have to believe that if I met you in person, I'd come to find that you are a fully human person with many admirable qualities, and that your post here really doesn't reflect the truth about you.

God this politics of gotcha is so tiresome.

Posted by Maggie | March 17, 2008 2:58 PM

It will be interesting to hear about the future from someone who doesn't have one.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 17, 2008 3:03 PM

or just follow the directions that were intimated to him by the Sunday "talking heads" ...

Posted by Bing! | March 17, 2008 3:04 PM

Maggie,
That's perfect! Bravo.

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 3:06 PM

Oh puleezzzz. Obama has been attending (20yrs) a church that espouses that Jesus was Black. What percentage of majority Black churches preach that. Not many. They teach that Black people are the Chosen and Whites are of the Devil. How many Black churches do that? He openingly swears from the pulpit and uses base and disgusting terminology. This is definitely NOT your typical Black church.
It's fair to say that their whole belief system is founded on racism. Call it what it is and quit trying to make excuses for it by using racist arguments.
We should overlook this because it is a Black Church, and what? They don't have to behave like everyone else.
It won't fly.

Posted by linda | March 17, 2008 3:06 PM

It's fine that Obama is doing this speech, but I continue to maintain that he has nothing to explain. What his preacher said is irrelevant unless someone can produce a shred of evidence that Obama holds the same views. I also believe that all this issue has done is give people who were already looking to find a way to hesitate about Obama something to point to for their hesitation. Fox is seeking to boost its ratings, which have been slumping as the republicans fall out of favor. The Wright issue allows Fox to manufacture some outrage, thus, with a little luck, returning the country to the polarized dynamic that suited Mr. Murdoch (and the Clintons, his new friends) so well. The news is not Jeremiah Wright, the news is Fox's decision to use Jeremiah Wright to attempt to blunt the stinging message Keith Olbermann delivered about the Clinton campaign's low moral stature.

Posted by alex | March 17, 2008 3:07 PM

Linda,

That's perfect.

Brava!

Posted by Axey | March 17, 2008 3:08 PM

I LOVE OBAMA HE IS REALLY A GREAT GUY...

Posted by TAMICKA | March 17, 2008 3:08 PM

Actually, I think this is the opportunity Obama has been waiting for to address the whole issue of race in this campaign. I doubt this is the way he anticipated dealing with it, but this could be a very important moment in our history, political and otherwise.

I can see why Obama would be drawn to a fiery figure like Rev. Wright, even if Obama doesn't agree with his approach. Obama is building on that legacy and taking his generation past it, the same way I'm taking my generation past the bigotry of people like my grandfather, whom I loved despite his flaws.

My sense is that a lot of the reaction to Rev. Wright's comments is fear, i.e., the fear of whites at hearing comments like the ones the Reverend made. I don't fear them, or the way they were made. I'm white, but I've attended numerous church services, black and white, in the South and in the Midwest. Rev. Wright's sermons are infinitely less frightening to me than those I've heard at some Pentecostal mega-churches in Orlando and elsewhere, where I was accosted by some of the congregants because I didn't go to the front of the church to be "saved" when given that opportunity.

Maybe Obama will be able to get people to see what's frightening them and help them get past it. Maybe he'll at least get us to discuss race and the role it plays in dividing our country. Maybe he will crash and burn, but just to get the discussion out there has got to be worth something.

Posted by Amy | March 17, 2008 3:09 PM

From Obama this Saturday:

...the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again”

and

We’ve got a lot of pent-up anger and bitterness and misunderstanding. But what I continue to believe in is that this country wants to move beyond these kinds of divisions.

Does Obama think his own minister is one of the ugly forces of division? Does he believe that his own minister wants to move beyond anger and bitterness?

From neilrcla, above:

Should the whole of your being be judged by a handful of positions you've taken in your life? Is it possible that Rev. Wright is complicated figure, who while holding certain marginal positions, has also done many good deeds in his life?

Good question - why not ask Don Imus, whose Kids for Cancer fundraiser was cancelled due to the 'nappy-headed ho' outrage?

For my money, Minister Wright is a great American whose list of good deeds wears me out just reading it. But that doesn't mean he is any kind of an emblem of racial reconciliation, from which I infer that Barack is a bit of an opportunist and poseur, either in his church or with the rest of us.

Posted by Tom Maguire | March 17, 2008 3:10 PM

neilrlca, Maggie

We're not judging Wright "by a handful of positions you've taken in your life?", we're judging Obama.

And "Lest us be judged?" We HAVE to judge him...he is running for President. We have to understand his and Hill's and McCain's character as deeply as possible because it is a crucial decision we undertake when we vote for the guy in charge of the US Executive branch.

And with that in mind, you have to ask yourself that even if Wright believes he is truly being sincere when he says the Govt brought on 9/11 and GD America and the govt knew about Pearl Harbor and all that stuff...what does that say about OBAMA that he stuck by this mans side and made him an important part of his life, that he sat there with his wife for 20 whole years taking this in of free will, that he made his KIDS take it in?

And above all that, what kind of judgment does it show that Obama has for running for President and not thinking this would be an issue?

Up until now he had no problem with it. At least Oprah had the scruples to leave the joint for an extended period of time from what I understand when she got offended by Wright's diatribes.

Wright is Wright, but this is about Obama. And it shines a light on the character of the man who just 2 weeks ago probably had their nomination wrapped up. And what that light shows is pretty disturbing.

Posted by Lance | March 17, 2008 3:11 PM

Linda, I would probably agree with you if anything you wrote had any basis in reality. However, since it doesn't I can safely disagree with you.

Posted by John M | March 17, 2008 3:11 PM

PHILADELPHIA IS A GREAT PLACE TO HAVE THAT SPEECH. I'M BLACK AND NEVER WENT TO SCHOOL WITH WHITE'S.THIS IS ONLY MAKING THE BLACK'S SUPPORT OBAMA EVEN MORE.I HOPE WE CAN ALL COME TOGETHER..

Posted by TAMICKA | March 17, 2008 3:11 PM

So how does this work? Obama goes home after church and tells his children he doesn't really agree with the Reverend's hatred of white people? And the cursing is not something we should do in public, girls, even if the preacher used the word sh*t, you can't? Just how does this not agreeing with your preacher and attending his church for 20 years work?

Posted by Axey | March 17, 2008 3:11 PM

"If done well, it could be similar in effect to Kennedy's catholicism speech.

Here's hoping this helps heal some racial wounds.

Posted by Chris | March 17, 2008 2:40 PM"

Did that speech come a few days after the Pope's vicious rants against whites, protestants and the US were exposed?

Posted by Buzz | March 17, 2008 3:12 PM

This is good news. When Obama first responded to the Wright stuff, I was a little disappointed because I thought he could have been a little prouder of the past role of black anger in effecting necessary social change, even if the era of conflict is now over. Wright and TUCC have been major "change agents" in their community.

But then I realized there was a real tactical reason he needed to explain Wright and their relationship. The hysterical raving about "that kind of pastor" and "that kind of church" wasn't stopping. It is downright offensive that so many people feel entitled to judge a man's life and work by a few minutes of his most intemperate speech; those who do so embrace a fallacy. But as Obama himself has said, "If all I knew were those statements I saw on television, I would be shocked."

Well, that's all most of America knows. Those who are open-minded enough to realize that there must be more to the story now have a right to know what the rest of the story is.

Those who've already decided they know the whole story should probably stop vomiting their outrage; it's beginning to look an awful lot like you're just relieved to be able to say a whole lot of malicious things about a black man, as if perhaps you've spent the whole primary season waiting for someone you were allowed to say them about to come along (this means you, Rusty).

Posted by professordarkheart | March 17, 2008 3:14 PM

Wright said - five days after 9/11 - that the "chickens were coming home to roost," and the people in that church applauded.

Some of you may remember Malcolm X using that same slogan after the assassination of JFK.

This is patently unfair to chickens everywhere and a statement designed to divide the species.

Keep poultry out of politics!

Posted by Jonster | March 17, 2008 3:14 PM

Obama is a good speaker and he's running a great campaign.

I really wish he were doing this in a middle-size town in front of a white, working audience. Thats who he needs to see, as he speaks.

Posted by Kim | March 17, 2008 3:14 PM

MY PASTOR SPEAKS THE SAME WAY ASK ANY BLACK PERSON..I HAVE BEEN PART OF A CHURCH FOR 15 YEARS BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN TO CHURCH FOR 2 YEARS I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MY PASTOR HAS SPOKE ABOUT BECAUSE I WAS NOT THERE..

Posted by TAMICKA | March 17, 2008 3:16 PM

Obama is making a big mistake her. First, he thinks this is still January when everyone was hanging on to very word of his. The environment has changed and his credibility is lower now. Pretty speeches don't have the same currency now.

Second, he cannot get past his 20-year relationship with a racist mentor with one speech. He had plenty of opportunity and time to denounce his pastor's racist comments. He chose to get married by this pastor, baptize his children by this pastor and gave money to this church. Now that he is running for president, he rejects his views.

This issue is about his judgement. This is a guy whose entire candidacy is based on his supposed good judgement in giving a speech against the Iraq war. Why has he showsn such poor judgement associating himself with some really bad characters?

Obama thinks we are fools. He thinks he can fool us by giving a set speech written for him by someone else delivered using tele-prompters. Not anymore. We have crossed the rubicon as for as trusting what Obama says.

The speech will hurt him by keeping this issue alive for several more days and will figure again in the week-end shows.

Posted by Tom | March 17, 2008 3:18 PM

Maybe he'll use his speech to explain how the US invented AIDS! I'd love to hear more about the Pearl Harbor cover-up as well.

Seriously, even if all this crap were true, what place does it have in a sermon?

Posted by Howard | March 17, 2008 3:20 PM

I love Obama. You have a very contraversial situation and what do you do... confront it! You explain yourself. You keep an open mind.

If only Clinton had his character we would've already seen her tax returns and donations... and innevitably nominated Obama shortly thereafter.

Posted by Blake | March 17, 2008 3:20 PM

If Obama were a Republican in the same position, people would be decrying his ties to this minister as dangerous in the name of `separation of church and state.' Notwithstanding that Obama is pleasant and charismatic, if Obama does not agree with Minister Wrights'views, it is nonsensical that he would sit in the pews of that church for 20 years. Or perhaps he lacks good judgment.

Posted by Cesar & Julie | March 17, 2008 3:21 PM

OK everyone, get ready. The "Obama is over" train is leaving the station. And don't worry about a thing. The conductor has perfect moral insight in everything you ever wanted to know about Obama, and will steer us confidently through the troubled waters of the future. Just sit back and relax.

Posted by alex | March 17, 2008 3:23 PM

I find particularly humorous the commentator who expressed outrage that a primarily black Church has depictions of a black Jesus.

Has no one seen the European Christ whose visage has adorned most Catholic and mainline Protestant Churches for around five-hundred years?

All of a sudden we have people clamoring for a realistic picture of Jesus. Hilarious.

Posted by wj | March 17, 2008 3:23 PM

No news organ that I saw reported on Michelle Obama's rousing speech in PA last Thursday. I don't remember another First Lady candidate since Eleanor Roosevelt who could make such a rousing (and impromptu - no notes or teleprompters that I could see) case for the presidency of her husband.

And no one reported a single sound bite of it...what a pity for America. I was as roused by what she said, the testimony she gave, as I have been by Barack's many uplifting speeches.

Obama ought to let her speak to this Wright question.

Wright's invective certainly tapes into black rage and has been clearly at times inappropriate. So have the comments of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and whoever the yoyo is who said 911 was God's punishment.

It's all the same fear mongering garbage, no matter who's side you're on or who you're voting for. We need to let people rant, it is America after all, without hanging them like an albatross around somebody else's neck. If, as someone above correctly said, Obama held such views, that would be different. Who among us hasn't spent some time with and even counted as friends someone who advocated outrageous positions?

I do hope Obama can distance himself from it, since the jackals who lie in wait for just this kind of hate mongering thing will kick it around as long as they can. You can bet that Hillary "sink the party, whatever, but I must win" Clinton is in the shadows doing her best, with huzzy Bill and First Jackal Howard Wolfson, to keep this thing going.

I'll still vote for Obama. I heard Michelle speak last Thursday. She is brilliant, as he is.

Yes, many blacks are damn angry. Who can blame them? I'm 62, white, and I grew up in a household where the N word was as natural a term as tennis shoes. We grew, and changed, my family and I. We see a world now where the promise of and hope for brotherhood runs deeper than skin color or ancestral background.

That's the only way this stupid world goes forward. Not by hanging onto the fears of the past, but seeing the potential for the unity of humanity and working towards it.

So let the imperfect ragers like Wright and Falwell do their thing. It's America after all.

Let's, the rest of us, think for ourselves and trust that Obama is one of those rare politicians who comes along once a generation: a man who's willing to not only have his own mind, but allow others, even those he disagrees with, to be themselves and say so...and still be listened to.

Plus, hello? He did condemn Wright's comments. He's not a political doofus, after all. Look how far he's come in the country where it was once okay to blow up black children in church just 50 years ago.

Posted by James Lawrence | March 17, 2008 3:28 PM

You will be suprised, how many black churches that have things said about race relations and the history of the way Blacks have been treated in this country by their pastors. It was only in 1964 that Blacks were still being hung from trees. Many bloggers have proved that those "Jim Crow" days are still alive and well, though suttle. Check out the internet on all the references to him being ARROGANT. So what are they saying, he should "know his place". This "know your place" has been used to degrade Black Americans for years. The media feels that Obama is going to win the nomination and with the push from the Clinton camp they are bombarding us with this Wright mess. I am sick of this whole thing. The superdelegates need to not only stop it but give Mr. Obama the nomination he deserves. I am looking forward to his speech. It would be interesting to hear from someone who's mother was white and father was black talk about race relations.

Posted by barbb2 | March 17, 2008 3:30 PM

Tamicka,

The way to bring the races together is pretty much the exact opposite way it has been forced on the black community since MLK was killed and charlatans highjacked his cause for their own political agenda.

And that Obama stood in that church and listened to one of those charlatans for 20 years is frankly sickening. What you're going to hear is a bunch of stuff that feels really good but unfortunately doesn't work as advertised when you read the small print.

When MLK said he dreamt of a colorblind society where his kids would be judged by the content of their character and that blacks were no better or worse, exactly the same, as whites or anyone else, how can you possibly square that with an ideology that says blacks are seperate, better, and in constant need of help? It is literally the exact OPPOSITE of what MLK believed in, and that there are certain black 'leaders' who sit there and spew that drivel to a society of blacks who unfortunately suck it all up just makes me wanna cry.

And when folks like Bill Cosby speak up and try to change things for the better and they get shunned like (gasp! black conservatives!) an achiever like Clarence Thomas or Michael Steele or Condi Rice or Colin Powell who had the audacity to not pay attention to the fact that they were 'never gonna make it because they were being held down' and who dare to openly break with the hegemony that Wright and Co have over their fellow black man...well, that just makes me boil.

Posted by Lance | March 17, 2008 3:31 PM

Right on, barbb2. White people have no standing to judge Reverend Wright's comments. This is a man who has almost certainly done an enormous amount to improve race relations, and who no one accuses of inciting anyone to violence or hatred. The people who go to this church are good citizens, not sociopaths, who probably need a place to let off steam. A lot of the comments here jumping to conclusions about Reverend Wright are just despicable, and reveal nothing more than a certain glee in propagating a right wing hit job on an exceptionally able democratic candidate.

Posted by alex | March 17, 2008 3:36 PM

Brace yourself America, here comes another pretty speech from Obama the slickster. He can say anything at this point...but the only thing I will remember is his preacher yelling "God Damn America!"

Posted by lionred | March 17, 2008 3:37 PM

Brace yourself America, here comes another pretty speech from Obama the slickster. He can say anything at this point...but the only thing I will remember is his preacher yelling "God Damn America!"

Posted by lionred | March 17, 2008 3:37 PM

Obama is DONE. I understand that liberals must battle through a long period of denial, but, just to help you begin the process; It's over.

BHO, no matter how much he excites ivory tower leftists in academia, or Hollywood libs, or Manhattan lawyers, or young mush-brained college students- He never had a chance without capturing a significant number of the traditional wage-earning union shop, beer and a shot crowd. That hope is gone. Even though they are traditional Democrats they will never brook the crazed anti-American racist philosophy of Rev. Wright, and they will never buy that BHO was not completely aware of his sentiments.

Over. Done. Stick a fork in him.

Posted by Alamo | March 17, 2008 3:39 PM

James Lawrence,

"""Let's, the rest of us, think for ourselves and trust that Obama is one of those rare politicians who comes along once a generation: a man who's willing to not only have his own mind, but allow others, even those he disagrees with, to be themselves and say so...and still be listened to."""

Not to be combattive, but what exactly makes you think he is really going to be bipartisan and uniting and all that jazz when he hasn't demonstrated one single whit of it yet in the Senate? He's got the number one most liberal rating of any Senator last year. He's been as willing to reach across the aisle as Jim DeMint (R) of SC...which is to say it's never happened.

Posted by Lance | March 17, 2008 3:42 PM

See what I mean about the "Obama is over" train? You have to wonder: if he's so "DONE," why do you feel the need to keep shouting that he's "DONE"?

Posted by alex | March 17, 2008 3:42 PM

Um, Jesus probably was 'black'. At the minimum, he was 'brown'. Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, Sweden, was he? Didn't think so.

Posted by Ron Hussein | March 17, 2008 3:44 PM

There are too many misjudgments of Rev. Wright. He does NOT hate white people! In fact, TUCC has white members. It is the most affirming, inclusive black church on the South Side of Chicago. One of its largest ministries is to people living with AIDS. The church is deeply involved in social issues, not political ones. In fact, the most politically fiery minister on Chicago's South Side is a white priest, Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina's.

I highly recommend this piece today on Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

Posted by Judy | March 17, 2008 3:44 PM

Lance,

How are you so sure about what you are going hear tomorrow? If you have a copy of the speech, I'd love to see it.

Have you read Obama's two books? Is there anything that he has done or said that makes you think he thinks the same way as Wright on these issues? Has he said or written something that indicates that he thinks black people are separate, better, or in constant need of help?

In fact, he's made every indication that preferences like affirmative action should be class-based, rather than race-based. As a community organizer, he sought to get people on the South Side to help themselves.

I mean, if you think the guy had bad judgment to hang around with a guy like Wright, without considering if there are any positive aspects to Wright's person, ministry or career that might draw someone's admiration, fine.

But to assume that Obama's own views and words on the subject of race can be quickly distilled from his church membership is, quite frankly, a little scary.

Posted by neilrlca | March 17, 2008 3:45 PM

I can't get over the number of people who, after seeing a few clips Fox picked out on the Reverend, assume that

a) the spin Fox has put on the story is the truth
b) that's all the Reverend ever talked about
c) Obama, who has a white mother and was raised by white grandparents, must hate whites as a result

So incredibly shallow.

There's a large aspect of this that's so ugly, and that's the willingness of so many to try and knock someone down, regardless of any merit for doing so. Grow the fuck up people.

Posted by Jake | March 17, 2008 3:51 PM

"This is definitely NOT your typical Black church."

Linda,

How the hell would you know what a typical Black church is like? Most Black churches do believe that Jesus Christ was a man of color and many White churches now accept this as well.

Posted by DTD | March 17, 2008 3:51 PM

Obama isn't done in the least bit. In fact, this is the turning point where Obama begins to be President of the United States of America. We will look back on this speech as the decisive moment where he went from being an impressive campaigner to leader of the free world.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 17, 2008 3:54 PM

Barbb2 - I agree with you that it will be interesting to listen to Sen. Obama talk about race, being the son of a white mom and black pop. I think he'll do a good job. But I disagree with the tone of your posting. If you want pastors to uplift you, why have them keep taking you back to the past, urging you to marinate in your victimhood. Nazis shoveled Jews into ditches - alive - at the same time. They didn't sit around mewling about respect. They perservered and prevailed. I think it's time black america stops striking out at white america and starts looking inward to the racism you foment within your own. And I also think it's time black america looked at their own crime figures before they start talking about lynching and past injustice. That is the crux of what a lot of white people won't say for fear of offending those black people who are law abiding citizens. The crime figures.

Posted by Jonster | March 17, 2008 3:54 PM

I'm truly amazed at how much controversy this is causing, especially the hypocritical comment being said within this forum.

Was it not President Bush whom said that "God spoke" to him and said that invading Iraq was just? So what's up with his faith and how come he was privy to receive such a malicious order to strike against another country with crappy evidence? How can he be allowed to arrogantly denounce "radical Muslim fundamentalists" which in term is code for "any Middle Eastern person we deem a threat?"

This is why I am agnostic and leave religion out of politics. Supposedly America is a free society but inadvertently advertises itself as fundamentally Christian. Nothing against you Christians except I find a lot of things hypocritical that you say, do and represent. So what's next? Who is McCain's "spiritual leader?" Are we going to sit in ever service along side him in order to figure out the validity of the sermons? What about ole Hillary? She changes congregations along with Bill whenever a good photo op comes up. President Bush? Don't get me started. Everyone jumped on the "He's a good spiritual guy" bandwagon years ago and look at the state of this Union.

Obama still remains, in my eyes, one of the most viable candidates in this race, not because of his skin color, but because he does represent the changing of the guard that we need. Then again, what do I know? I'm afraid not enough as I will watch this smearing campaign continue and either usher in 4 more years of Clinton, or 4 years of McCain who supported the current administration and will be a lame duck thanks to the faltering economy of this wonderful Christian nation. We've got more crusades in store!

Posted by Mr. B | March 17, 2008 3:54 PM

White people have no standing to judge Reverend Wright's comments. This is a man who has almost certainly done an enormous amount to improve race relations,

That may be the two stupidest statements in tandem I have ever seen.

As a US citizen weighing my choice for the Presidency, I have every right to judge statements made by a candidate's professed spiritual and philisophical mentor.

Please present one tiny shred of evidence that Jeremiah Wright has done a single thing to improve race relations. If you can, I'd say given the evidence of his more prominent vitriolic race-baiting efforts, he is profoundly schizophrenic, and needs medication.

Posted by Alamo | March 17, 2008 3:54 PM

Lance, clearly you have a terrifically busy life, so it's understandable that you can't keep on top of everything. From the time he entered the U.S. Senate, Obama sought Richard Lugar as a mentor (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.larson.html) and have worked together to secure loose nukes and WMDS (http://obama.senate.gov/press/070628-obama_lugar_sec/).

Obama has also developed a personal, as well as professional, relationship with one of the most conservative members of the Senate: Tom Coburn from OK. Together they successfully passed the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006).

Glad I could enlighten you on Obama's ability to work across the aisle!

Posted by Judy | March 17, 2008 3:57 PM

Despicable. Obama's going to lecture me tomorrow about the AUDACITY of believing my lying eyes — that his "spiritual mentor" is an ugly racist. Replace the words "white people" and "whites" in his awful, awful speeches with "black people" and "blacks" and then imagine that he's a white spiritual mentor of a white candidate saying those things. Get the picture? Think a pretty speech would make it all go away? Please. I know all I need to know about Obama and his minister's views on race, and it is about the most divisive, racist point of view I have ever experienced in my lifetime. As Obama once said in a plagiarized speech: Words. Have. Meaning.

Posted by Anonymous | March 17, 2008 3:57 PM

I'm looking forward to the speech greatly.
Only Obama can do something like this.

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 17, 2008 3:58 PM

I find it hysterical that anyone would ever think Jesus was any 'color'. Shouldn't Jesus be beyond all of that? Shouldn't WE be beyond all of that?

Regardless, the guy was Jewish for gods sakes (pun intended). He was a radical Jewish philosopher that the Romans had hunted down and killed, his disciples were inspired to pass along his teachings and thus was born Christianity.

But guys, keep it real if you're going to go there. Jesus was an ethnic jew. Not black or Euro-centric or whatever.

Posted by Lance | March 17, 2008 4:00 PM

I hope from this that Obama Team leaves no lingering doubt at all with where Obama stands. At least we can say that he is not a Muslim. I fear the hit pieces will intesify unless Obama does a McCain and co-ops a leading Jewish leader maybe someone like Benjamin Netanyahu and gives him a leading role in his campaign. He needs to be more forcefully pro-Israel than either McCain and Clinton.

Jews don't for some reason trust him; He needs to work very very hard in this and yes that means too being patriotic.
Why doesn't he wear the flag. He is running for President here not for a congressman seat in Illinois. There can be NO more lingering doubts from Obama. Team Obama needs to step on it.

Posted by SonnyL. | March 17, 2008 4:06 PM

Judy,

For all that 'working' they he didn't actually 'do' anything bipartisan...

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/

"""Glad I could enlighten you on Obama's ability to work across the aisle!"""

'Working' and 'doing' are two different things. I can try to cut down the big oak tree out back with a spoon for a year but how much am I actually going to get 'done' for all the 'work' I've put out?

Judy...I appreciate it, but you've got to look at what a man DOES, not what he SAYS or the pictures he poses for. And Obama hasn't done anything but vote the party line yet. That is the very opposite of bipartisanship.

Posted by Lance | March 17, 2008 4:06 PM

I'm looking forward to this. I want to hear how his speechwriters 'contextualize' accusations that the government smuggles drugs and invented AIDS to kill black people. I look forward to hearing about how Wright's rhetoric is a style of the black church and how these metaphors should not offend non-blacks because they are not intended to offend.

I look forward to hearing about how Wright's angry rants are more akin to performances intended to empower rather than sermons intended to convey facts and opinions. I look forward to hearing how these words have different meanings in the context of the black church than they do in other areas. I'm sure that will go over very well with voters. I know I love it when politicians tell me that words don't mean what they seem to on their faces.

Posted by Thomas the Wraith | March 17, 2008 4:14 PM

The problem isn't whether what Wright has said is true or false or racist. Many liberals feel that he speaks the truth and he did not say anything that was racist. This is mainstream liberal thought (as evidence by the posters here). With few exceptions, many Obama fans here agree with Wright.

It's unfortunate that Obama does not agree with you.

So why are you fans of Obama? Why doesn't his rejection of Wright's words that offend make you feel as if you've been betrayed? Why doesn't that matter to you?

Perhaps Obama fans feel as if he courted this relationship merely because it was politically expedient -- and you think that's perfectly fine.

How do you square that, then, with Obama's claim to be a new type of politician?

It's intellectually dishonest to continue to support Obama but to deny that there are some inconsistencies here. Better to say that he got caught in a big fat one but you're still gonna support him. That would be, at least, be defensible.

The question is how this plays to folks who are not entrenched already. In other words, not me and the posters here but the vast swath of white middle America.

If you honestly think that white middle America is going to elect a President who continues to go to a church that preaches this stuff (the apprentice pastor - whatever you call him - has not rejected ANY of Wright's statements), then you are so far removed from the average American your opinion about how they will feel is without any value. This is a problem and it can't be defended by saying, "But it's true!" If you don't understand that the truthfulness of Wright's remarks don't matter, then you really don't understand what's going on here.

Posted by sbj | March 17, 2008 4:16 PM

White people have no standing to judge Reverend Wright's comments.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that we aren't judgment the Reverend. We are judging a man who wants to be president of the United States, not black America, not white America. And then we find out he is a member of a church that hates America. Or at the very least, hates whites in America.

Posted by Axey | March 17, 2008 4:20 PM

neillrca,

"""Is there anything that he has done or said that makes you think he thinks the same way as Wright on these issues? Has he said or written something that indicates that he thinks black people are separate, better, or in constant need of help?"""

That's just IT guy, what HAS he done?

"""In fact, he's made every indication that preferences like affirmative action should be class-based, rather than race-based. As a community organizer, he sought to get people on the South Side to help themselves."""

Not what he's SAID, but what he's DONE?

I could care less about speech-ifying because the standard holds true: to truly know a man, look not at what he says, but what he does. Actions DO speak louder than words, far louder with politicians.

So I ask you what has he DONE?

No idea?

I'll tell you what he's done.

He knowingly and willingly steeped not only himself, but his children in that exact kind of "separate, better, or in constant need of help" rhetoric and he as much demonstrated that he at least tacitly accepts it. He had 20 years to get offended, and it didn't happen until someone brought it up to him in the national light and embarrassed him about it. And THEN he lied about not knowing of it.

THAT is what he's DONE. THAT tells me what he really believes in. He has demonstrated through his own actions that he indeed does subscribe, at least tacitly, to the observations of Wright, that he'd pass those beliefs on to his children, and that he understands he needs to hide those particular beliefs.

THAT is what OBAMA has told us he believes with his ACTIONS.

Of course, his words say something different, don't they?

I don't know if it's more sick or more sad.

Posted by Lance | March 17, 2008 4:21 PM

Not sure I'm getting the whole racist vibe from Wright. Is saying that rich white people control America racist (which is true, btw)? Or that God will damn American for its wrongs on the world? Or even what he said about 9/11? You may disagree with what he said or find it repugnant, but just because a black guy is angry or aims to uplift his race, doesn't de facto make him racist. Or a separatist. Folks who think this will absolutely sink Obama need to take a step back, or they might be really disappointed to find him still standing. If this first came out in October, he might be toast. But more than seven months before the election? That's an eternity in politics.

Posted by NHCt | March 17, 2008 4:21 PM

I'm glad Sen. Obama is giving the speech tomorrow. I think this Wright matter has been blown out of all proportion.

If I had a dollar for every time I've sat in various pews and have felt offended, turned off, and generally manipulated, I'd be a rich woman.

It's too bad the MSM isn't doing a better job of presenting the Pastor's hot comments in context -- instead, they are just framing him and Obama.

There's little sense of history presented and no acknowledgment of different styles of worship and preaching--and why it is that certain modes have developed over time.

I don't believe for one moment that Barack and Michelle Obama are racists or out to destroy the USA -- and find it incredible that we now live in a country where so much phony baloney "patriotism" is considered the only true and acceptable brand. This is the kind of mindset that got us into this ghastly war that is bleeding the country dry on every conceivable front.

I hope he knocks it out of the park. At this point, those who aren't persuaded to trust him are going to change their minds. But, for the sake of our young people, I'm really glad he's taking this one on. The man has courage and character.

Posted by charlotte | March 17, 2008 4:24 PM

Axey:

"We are judging a man who wants to be president of the United States, not black America, not white America. And then we find out he is a member of a church that hates America. Or at the very least, hates whites in America."

Right. Obama hates white America. He hates his mother, the grandparents who raised him, and all his extended family in Kansas. The only relative he doesn't hate is probably Dick Cheney. But Dick Cheney's not actually that white.

Posted by alex | March 17, 2008 4:29 PM

So why are you fans of Obama? Why doesn't his rejection of Wright's words that offend make you feel as if you've been betrayed? Why doesn't that matter to you?

I don't think that people are going to automatically make the assumption that everything Barack Obama has said is a lie based on the rantings of his preacher. If I become convinced that Barack believes as his preacher does, it will of course matter a great deal to me.

I find it hysterical that anyone would ever think Jesus was any 'color'. Shouldn't Jesus be beyond all of that? Shouldn't WE be beyond all of that?

Uh, Jesus was an actual person, with skin. LOL!

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 4:32 PM

It may be unfair to declare Obama guilty by association, but it is wholly fair to say that the "Wright connection" is proof that Obama is a a typical politician: relationships are forged for political reasons and severed when no longer expedient.

I am offended that Obama's relationship with Wright and his church is likened to JFK's Catholicism. Protestant Americans feared the influence of the Pope - that somehow all Catholics must abide by the Pope's teachings, which, in the 1960s were far from hateful. In fact, I would challenge anyone to find any Catholic mass containing any message of hate.

The biggest problem with Obama and his relationship with Wright is that unlike JFK or Mitt Romney, he was not born into that religion or into that church as the other two were. He CHOSE that church, that pastor. Anyone suggesting that this somehow doesn't reflect on Obama's judgment is delusional. I expect non-thinking or non-courageous people to stay in a church that preaches hatred. I expect better from would-be leaders.

Posted by Nick in CA | March 17, 2008 4:36 PM

Alex,

"""Right. Obama hates white America. He hates his mother, the grandparents who raised him, and all his extended family in Kansas. The only relative he doesn't hate is probably Dick Cheney. But Dick Cheney's not actually that white."""

ALL of you who are going here are missing the point.

Do we really think he HATES America?

of course not. He may hate some of the institutions, the republicican ideals, etc and he obviously wantsd to rejigger it in his own liking, but that isn't HATE.

What the POINT IS is that he'd have the absolutely horrible judgment to associate with someone like that for SO LONG of his own free will! That he'd expose his KIDS to that! That he'd at least tacitly ACCEPT the mans premises! THAT is the point...the man has absolutely no good judgment and sense of decent morals to have sat there for TWENTY YEARS and swallowed that sludge without leaving.

GOOD JUDGMENT. UPSTANDING CHARACTER. He ain't got it. That is the point of it all.

Posted by Lance | March 17, 2008 4:37 PM

DTD: "How would you know what Black church are like" Duh! By having visited a 100 or so in the past 30 yrs. I don't recall ever hearing a pastor swear from the pulpit, or swear period. I have never witnessed a black pastor declare that
Jesus was Black or that Blacks were the chosen people or any AIDS nonsense, or any of the kind of creepy stuff Rev. Wright is into. I am aware that there is a small minority of black churches who took the radical Black liberation theology of the 50's and 60's. If they want to beleive nonsense, it's their right. There are plenty of nutty religious groups around. I do, however, prefer that my president does not belong to one. That is my choice.
It will be Main Street that decides this election and Main Street will find this association repugnant even if you don't.

Posted by linda | March 17, 2008 4:56 PM

AKBY:

"I don't think that people are going to automatically make the assumption that everything Barack Obama has said is a lie based on the rantings of his preacher."

You is missing my point. Obama rejects his own Pastor's remarks, while many here defend the same remarks. The question to them and you: Why doesn't Obama's betrayal matter?

Posted by sbj | March 17, 2008 4:58 PM

And with all that being said: whom is a better candidate? Who will run this depression-bound country for the next 4-8 years that demonstrates such integrity, morals and ethics? None of you all can answer it, especially everyone scoffing at Obama and has minister.

Who is demonstrating this bold character and leadership? Matter of fact, name someone in the past 20 years who has.

Posted by Mr. B | March 17, 2008 5:00 PM

Obama is the Reagan of our age.

Poll: Majority of Democrats prefer Obama
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/poll.democrats/

Posted by SonnyL. | March 17, 2008 5:21 PM

"I think we have to honestly admit that the problems in the world today, as they relate to the question of race, must be blamed on the whole doctrine of white supremacy, the whole doctrine of racism, and these doctrines came into being through the white race and the exploitation of the colored peoples of the world."

--Martin Luther King, Jr. (London, 1968)

Posted by Colin Hicks | March 17, 2008 5:23 PM

It may be unfair to declare Obama guilty by association, but it is wholly fair to say that the "Wright connection" is proof that Obama is a a typical politician: relationships are forged for political reasons and severed when no longer expedient. It would be "fair" to say that, if it were true.

Problem is, Obama isn't throwing Wright under the bus or "severing" the relationship like many (most) think he should. He sees the good in the man and forgives the sins. Much like how he sees America.

This all boils down to guilt by association. Anyone who thinks Obama can't slither his way out of this one hasn't been paying attention to this campaign -- after tomorrow, everyone will think Wright is just another passionate Christian who occasionally says controversial things.

Bottom line is, people like and trust the guy - "plagiarism" or no "plagiarism", flag lapel pin or no flag lapel pin, Somali garb or no Somali garb, radical preacher or no radical preacher.

Posted by John Q. Public | March 17, 2008 5:27 PM

How in the hell can a pastor be linked to a campaign? I really don't understand this. My father was like Archie Bunker but am I like him, no way! Did I love and support him -- yes! Did I take his advice -- yes! Did I spend more then 20 years with him -- yes.

Does this make me like him, no. Hahaha, the fact that this is even an issue is very laughable. My father and I didn't share the same views but I loved and respected him none the less.

The fact that he was ignorant is the reason why I'm so tolerant today.

Hahaha, so tell me again, explain this to me. What's the issue?

Posted by Laura | March 17, 2008 5:29 PM

Lance,

Until you can prove that Obama has embraced what you find offensive, you are one of the many people who will make an illogical conclusion about Obama's true stance on Wright's thoughts.

You and I have so little information on this whole issue, yet you have made an empirical and knee-jerk judgement. Surely you are better than this?

Is Obama's association with Rev. Wright worse than anything that will be brought to the public's attention during the general election between McCain and a possible Clinton nomination.

Does anyone think that Hillary can escape her history or even her husband's history? Will John McCain be able to escape his ties to a political party which has given this country the worst managed years in recent memory?

I would take a preacher problem over any of things Clinton or McCain will have to deal with.

Posted by Mikelx | March 17, 2008 5:29 PM

To understand why Rev. Wright would come to the conclusion about AIDS that he did, one would have to understand The Tuskee Experiment and a host of other instances where black people have be Mengele like subjects in American "medical experiments."

If you care to be more than a knee-jerk reactionary and want to understand the why of such beliefs please listen to Harriet Washington on Democracy Now!: http://www.democracynow.org/2007/1/19/medical_apartheid_the_dark_history_of

In addition, some of those so outraged by Rev. Wright who is a private citizen who's not an elected official and never has been and never will be, should consider why they are not similarly outraged by people like:

J. William Fulbright-Bill Clinton's mentor

Pat Buchanan-who continues to have a national forum for his hate speech on MSNBC

Albert Gore, Sr.-Is all his father's son? No one interrogated Al Jr. about his beliefs with regard to his Dixiecrat Daddy

Robert Byrd-Sure he apologized but I don't believe him and neither do most black people

I could go on and on about current elected officials to US government who have expressed less than savory racial views yet continue to influence policy in our country.

To all those outraged by Rev. Wright, you all seem very selective in your indignation.

I would ask each of the outraged to have an honest discussion with themselves about what whiteness really means and what it truly means to be white in America.

If you are of the Irish, Italian, Eastern European, or Jewish persuasion please know that you are not white in the true definition of the term.

Please examine why that would be and then try to imagine just for a minute what then, it must mean to be black in America.

Posted by MNC | March 17, 2008 5:40 PM

All the denunciations of Wright and Obama because of his connection to Wright, his membership at TUCC, etc. are premised on the assumption that Wright preaches hate and that Wright is a racist.

So, before we get to the conclusions of these posts, that Obama is a fake, a charlatan, and his campaign is over, etc., let's stop and question the premise. Where is the hate that Wright supposedly preaches? Where is the racism?

His Hillary clip, where he points out that Hillary's never been called a nigger? Hate? Hardly. Racism? Clearly not.

How about his blaming injustices on "rich white people"? Maybe that's the part that's bothering you all. But hate? I just hear him stating a fact; there's no incitement to do violence or to despise white people but instead to hold a group that can be accurately characterized as rich and white accountable for its actions as a class. And in a country and a world in which race and wealth are not independent of power, those are not trivial or meaningless characteristics.

How about the AIDS business. Well, as someone who works in public health services and now research in inner-city Baltimore, the legacy of the Tuskegee syphilis study and the ongoing exploitation of poor blacks for medical research go a long way to explain the currency of such conspiracy theories.

So again, I ask, where's the racism and where's the hate?

Posted by Peter | March 17, 2008 5:47 PM

"What whiteness really means"....you got to be kidding me! You have sit through too many college classes or been in too many office encounter groups sessions.. Jeesh, don't you know that all races hate that stuff?
OK, I'll just go off and contemplate my "whitenss" but I don't see how that makes it any better for Obama to sit in this loon's church for 20 yrs and he just can't explain it away in a 30 minute speech that doesn't directly address the issues involved here.
In case you think I'm a Hillary fan, I'm not. I had a good opinion of Obama but was just waiting for him to say something concrete. Right now, the more he talks the worse he gets.

Posted by linda | March 17, 2008 5:58 PM

"White people have no standing to judge Reverend Wright's comments"

Un-flipping-believeable. Excuse me, but white people certainly do have standing to judge his remarks. Moreover, they are absolutely justified in judging him as a racist, and in eliminating Obama as a potential leader of all Americans because of his close association and relationship with Wright.

I am so angry at Obama for pretending to be someone that he is not. Those of us who are proud to be multi-racial have been ill-served by this man, who put himself out there as a symbol of change, while playing the okey-doke all along.

Posted by Priscilla | March 17, 2008 6:04 PM

Prediction: Obama will announce tomorrow that he is leaving the church. Why? He is tanking in the polls:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"Obama... is viewed favorably today by just 47% of voters nationwide. That’s down five points since last Thursday (see recent daily results). The number with an unfavorable view of Obama has risen from 44% on Thursday to 50% today. Among White voters, Obama is now viewed favorably by 43% and unfavorably by 54%."

"Obama’s overall favorable ratings peaked at 56% on February 21, ... Since then, Obama’s net favorability ratings have fallen seventeen points."

For the latest in anti-semitic ravings from Wright, see Ace at http://ace.mu.nu/. But you'd better hurry! Wright videos are disappearing from YouTube at an alarming rate. I wonder why? Seems strange if you believe they contain nothing but the truth ...

And for a sample of the kind of sermon delivered by Obama's New and Improved pastor, see http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2FiZTBkZjRmNDQ3NzAxNzllZTFjNzU0ZGRjMjZkYjU=.

"But then something happened in 1984 at the same time that Time Warner/AOL and SONY and MCA realized they could make money off of this music, guess what, we will give you a contract and distribute your song if you put in the N-word, if you put in the H-word, if you put in the B-word...so when we talk about gangsta rap, we are not talking about something that came from the street, we are talking about what came from the corporate boardrooms...

"And the same time that gangsta rap rises, we also have crack hitting the streets...I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it's mightily strange that gangsta rap and crack hit the same time in our community..."

And, of course, the predictable response, "Everything he said is true!"

It doesn't matter folks - most voters don't believe this.

Posted by sbj | March 17, 2008 6:05 PM

One of the best things about the Wright fiasco is that it's revealed who is worth listening to and who is a Republican troll.

linda is a good example of the latter. Unfortunately, "she" will just get a different pseudonym, but it's still good to have confirmation that the trolls have truly been released in earnest on the Left blogosphere.

Posted by Zephyrus | March 17, 2008 6:12 PM

When you're losing the argument .... attack the messenger! (avowed troll)

Posted by sbj | March 17, 2008 6:27 PM

sbj, you will only win the argument when you can prove that Obama has embraced the ideas that have offended the easily offended.

Other than that, you are just another anti-Obama person on the Internet hoping that this minor incident is the BIG THING that will make your candidate more electable.

Posted by Mikelx | March 17, 2008 6:41 PM

Wright accuses America of a conspiracy to invent AIDS -- how can he possibly be unfairly charicatured?

Posted by asada | March 17, 2008 6:52 PM

I believe that most of what Wright said was false or misleading and simply designed to enrage the audience and create a mob mentality. Let's start with Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

1.) The Axis Powers started WW II, not the U.S. We entered the war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

2.) Hundreds of cities, with civilians, were bombed with conventional bombs during WW II. Japan bombed cities in China, Australia, Philippines, Korea and much of Asia. Germany bombed cites in England, Russia, Poland, France, Netherlands, etc. The Allies bombed cities in Germany, Japan and Italy.

3.) War Crimes - the Japanese military murdered most probably 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others.

4.) Two weeks prior to using the Atomic bombs the Allies issue the Potsdam Declaration that gave Japan the choice of surrender or destruction. Japan never responded.

5.) The decision to drop the Atomic bombs saved countless lives, both American and Japanese. Estimated United States casualties rose to over a million, while unknown for Japan if amphibious assaults were launched. If you compare that statistic to the one hundred ten thousand killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would probably say that the casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just a small fraction of what the casualties would have been if an amphibious assault was carried out.

6.) An order given by the Japanese War Ministry, ordering the execution of all Allied POWs, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place.

7.) Japan also had an Atomic Program during WW II. The U.S. intelligence knew of its existence and took the possibility very seriously.

No reasonable person will ever dispute that Germany or Japan would have bombed U.S. cities with either conventional or nuclear weapons if they had the capabilities, resources and opportunity.

Posted by Tony | March 17, 2008 6:52 PM

Exactly what has Obama done. Obama was trying to help the old ranting man. Obama is always helping people.

Posted by kelly Pierce | March 17, 2008 6:53 PM

Divide and conquer. From a losing delegate position, the Clinton Campaign offered a Vice Presidency to Obama, but when he stood up strongly and refused it, they brought out one card that could scare white America to the quick, The Race Card. As Darth Vader said to Luke Skywalker, "Join me or die!" Now Hillary swings her race lightsaber for a fatal blow -- very reminiscent of government attacks on civil rights in the 60's. Strange... and disconcerting. They attack a minister who is showing inequity between black and white in this sadly racist society (although it makes many like Ferraro feel better to pretend we're not, white guilt) without putting his sermons in context. Why? Because context makes the arguments more complex... more real... Every time in our history that whites and black have come together, the white establishment has been threatened and tried to detroy this coalition of brotherhood. Now we are seeing these attacks from the Clinton Campaign, and I now see that the Clinton Campaign is the establishment... not change... not progress... not brotherhood... not coalition. Obama is our only hope of moving toward an America where political parties are secondary to our place as Americans... where our leadership is strong and has vision... where any man or woman with integrity, principles, and beliefs can lead a coalition of brotherhood. Is Obama perfect? No. Is Clinton worse? Yes. She is unfortunately proving this daily.

Posted by Kai_in_LA | March 17, 2008 7:02 PM

mikelx:

If you'll read my comments you'll see that I never accused Obama of holding these beliefs. He has said that he doesn't, so we'll take him at his word.

That does create a problem, however, for Obama fans: Obama rejects his own Pastor's remarks, while many here defend the same remarks. The question to them and you, "Why doesn't Obama's betrayal matter?"

How will this play to folks who are not entrenched Obama or Hillary or McCain fans already. This is a problem and it can't be defended by saying, "But it's true!"

"Obama’s overall favorable ratings peaked at 56% on February 21, ... Since then, Obama’s net favorability ratings have fallen seventeen points."

That's the issue, mikelx - getting elected in November. Don't get caught up in the truth of Wright's inanity - it doesn't matter. What matters is how this association and Obama's PR offensive is going to play to independents and Democrats who are rapidly losing faith in Obama. So far not so good. Let's see what happens tomorrow when he has to leave his church.

Posted by sbj | March 17, 2008 7:07 PM

How can Obama be racist, when his own mother is White. The mother who raised him. These sick rumours said that Obama was a muslim. While that would be hard with a pastor, wouldn't it.
I believe Obama was trying to help the ranting old man. That's why he was there.

Posted by Sharon W | March 17, 2008 7:08 PM

Obama loved his Preacher and Knew him Well Chicago Tribune
http://www. chicagotribune. com/news/custom/religion/profiles/chi-070121-relig_wright,0,5184608. story?page=1&coll=chi_news_custom_religion_promo

Obama says that rather than advising him on strategy, Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.

"What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," Obama said. "He’s much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I’m not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that’s involved in national politics

In his 1993 memoir "Dreams from My Father," Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation

Posted by Angel | March 17, 2008 7:28 PM

My (former) Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. I believe this is bigotry. Despite other good things that Church may teach I quit because to remain a member meant to embrace bigotry. My Mama always taught me that you are known by the company you keep.

Posted by Pat | March 17, 2008 7:42 PM

Of course we shouldn't hold a person responsible for a single outburst, that would be crazy.

Michael Richards dropped the N-Bomb once and we all forgave him right? Same with Imus...he only said nappy headed ho once right...I remember Obama supporters flocking to the defense of his verbal faux pas? I mean, we wouldn't be so daft as to hold Wright to a different standard than we've held other people who have made controversial remarks.

I only ask for color blind consistency in how we judge what people say...but then again.

Posted by Just Sayin' | March 17, 2008 7:47 PM

sbj,

I am one of the people that finds elements of truth in the things Wright is be critiqued on.

You wonder why supporters like me don't feel betrayed. Well, I have associated with people who express ideas that revolt me. A few of those people have had a positive impact. Sometimes the positive aspects of a person's character surpass their negative aspects.

Since Obama has not given me any indication that he has embraced any of the negative aspects, why should I immediatly assume that Obama has incorporated this thinking into his worldview?

Obama has given me every indication that he has a heart of gold. He has given me no reason to think otherwise. Perhaps it would be wise of people like you to be open to the possibility that Reverand Wright has played a key role in devolping Obama's positive traits.

So until you can prove to me that Obama has embraced the worst of Rev. Wright, I will not feel betrayed.

It is being fairly argued that Obama's relationaship with this man reflects his judgment. This will weaken his judgment claim with Hillary and McCain in regards to the war, but it is clear to me that ALL of us do things that raises questions of our judgement. Barack Obama is just a man.

Posted by Mikelx | March 17, 2008 7:57 PM

Ten to one Obama's wishing people still thought he was a Muslim.

Posted by Jonster | March 17, 2008 8:19 PM

Jonster, yes you are right because that was a lie.

Posted by linda | March 17, 2008 9:21 PM

More glossy words from Obama. America has tuned him out. There is no coming back from this for him. I was voting for the guy, but not now. He showed at the very least unpresidential judgment. He didn't occasionally attend this church or barely know this man. He supported Wright and the church for 20 years...which means even if he doesn't agree with Wright, he helped to spread those views. That is simply not ok. It's reverse racism. It will be more soaring words--written by brilliant speechwriters that changes nothing. He has lost all power to heal. We can't believe a word he says.

Posted by Jersey | March 17, 2008 9:31 PM

As the economy worsens people will flee to Clinton, the candidate they know. People don't want change that is uncertain in uncertain times. Obama has scared people and a speech won't change that. She represents change that they know, goods and bads. She will end up ahead in the popular vote now. He was naive to think this wouldn't happen.

Posted by SPJ | March 17, 2008 9:40 PM

mikelx - thanks for responding.

You say that you believe some of what Wright says. You say that you don't believe that Obama believes any of the negative aspects of Wright's worldview.

So, are you saying you agree with Wright's skewed worldview and you are voting for Obama because he doesn't agree with it (or you)?

I don't think that makes sense. I think you want to vote for someone who believes these things but you know that makes them unelectable. That's why you defend Obama now even while he is rejecting the words of a pastor with which you agree.

Obama defenders who believe that crack was intro'd by the CIA and AIDs was developed to use on the black man have been betrayed because Obama does not believe those things. He has been attending a church run by a leading proponent of black liberation theology, but he doesn't subscribe to those beliefs.

"Perhaps it would be wise of people like you to be open to the possibility that Reverand Wright has played a key role in devolping Obama's positive traits."

I have no doubt that he has. In fact, Obama's defense all along should have been about how Wright brought Obama to Christ and how that meant he couldn't break the crazy guy's heart. Alternatively, he could have admitted that he didn't believe any of this crap - he just wanted poltical legitimacy and votes. But he hasn't done that - I hope he does tomorrow.

"ALL of us do things that raises questions of our judgement. Barack Obama is just a man."

We ARE voting for President of the free world here. I think it's fine that you still support Obama. I will keep an open mind and I urge you to do the same.

Posted by sbj | March 17, 2008 9:48 PM

Almost everything Barack Obama has said about his relationship with Wright is untrue. He is hardly ‘not particularly controversial’. No one needs to “cherry-pick” his sermons to find in them hatred; in some speeches that venom is the entire theme. Obama mentions Wright’s AIDs work—never that Wright blamed America for the AIDs epidemic. Obama mentions Wright’s positive work on apartheid, not that Wright claimed the U.S. put Mandela in jail. And on and on
Obama knew of his extremisms as evidenced by past interviews in which he mentioned Wright’s flair (cf. especially his encomium on 6/5/07), by his church attendance for more than twenty years, by his mention in his memoirs of Wright’s take on Hiroshima and other controversies, and by his admission he took Wright’s tapes to Harvard for inspiration.
So here we have it: a candidate who professes racial transcendence is comfortable with a racist; a candidate who preaches a new candor and transparency reflects the worst of the old Chicago politics of dissimulation, and a candidate, after Ohio, in need of displaying moderation to woo white male voters from Hillary, has almost ensured that he will lose them by his very inability to distance himself from someone who by his own testimony despised just that constituency.

Posted by Clive Stubblefield | March 17, 2008 9:59 PM

Unfortunately, Reverend Wright's reprehensible comments will cost Obama the nomination. This is going to snowball. I donated money to Obama's campaign. If I had known that he attended a church where such hate speech was so common, I never would have supported him. Attending such a church shows a profound lack of judgment. I feel my hopes have been dashed.

Posted by Bob | March 17, 2008 10:13 PM

Clive,

1. Read MEDICAL APARTHEID.
2. Um, the CIA DID help the South Africans capture Nelson Mandela.

Posted by rikyrah | March 17, 2008 10:15 PM

sbj,

"So, are you saying you agree with Wright's skewed worldview and you are voting for Obama because he doesn't agree with it (or you)?"

The negative aspect is the passion and the anger in which Rev. Wright. I would hope that Obama realizes that actions of our government will incite anger around the world. I would hope that Obama realizes that this country is run by rich white people. I would hope that he understands that black people in this country are still angry. That is the truth in Rev. Wright's comments. If you don't understand this then you have no credibility with me in having a rational discussion.

There are clearly some things that Rev. Wright said that I do disagree with, mostly with the AIDS and crack comments.

"I think you want to vote for someone who believes these things but you know that makes them unelectable."

So I should stop supporting a man I believe in because he strikes fear in the minds of rightwing assholes? I think you are saying that because you WANT him to be unelectable for your own interests!

"That's why you defend Obama now even while he is rejecting the words of a pastor with which you agree."

How can you say that when you know so little about the issue? Are you basing your judgment on the tiny bit of information provided to you by a sensationalistic media? Surely you are not this simple.

"We ARE voting for President of the free world here. I think it's fine that you still support Obama. I will keep an open mind and I urge you to do the same."

For someone who claims to be keeping an open mind, you appear to have made judgments based on very little information.

Hillary would have to consider herself fortunate if this was the only garbage that the Republicans would hurl at her. If she does get the nomination, Obama's preacher problem will be insignificant in comparison to what they have lined up for her.

The Republicans and independents who have been crossing over to him will not be there for Hillary in the general. I believe that most of these people will be smart enough not to vote for a third term of George Bush.

Posted by Mikelx | March 17, 2008 10:30 PM

This has no place in a political dissuasion!The Media was unfair to Clinton and now they have a new firestorm which will sell papers and boost ratings.All the rhetoric on this page not withstanding,this nation has serious issues. Now, I love my country but any logical, intelligent, American can see that is so vary far from being perfect. And if there is anyone who can honestly say they are proud of the direction this nation has taken over the last decaded, then God help us all.
That said This Paster does not speak for the majority of forward thinking, baptist of color. He is locked in a primitive sort of thought, which will only yield hostility from both Caucasians and Peoples of Color. If we are truly the nation of freedom, let us not be quick to focus on those that would assuage real economic issues by a fickle profit driven media where "true stories" have no more of a home then integrity.

Posted by UPenn University Student, Philadelphia | March 17, 2008 10:48 PM

Bob,

Black people have earned the right to be angry. They go to these churches to express this anger so that you and your life of priviledge won't have to experience this reality.

It is possible that Obama will lose the nomination or the election over this, but I think white people in America are going to learn a lot about the black experience before this is over.

The presidential campaign of Barrack Obama will impact the future of our country for decades to come. We are just seeing the beginning.

Posted by Mikelx | March 17, 2008 10:51 PM

"He is locked in a primitive sort of thought, which will only yield hostility from both Caucasians and Peoples of Color."

UPenn, surely you wouldn't be suggesting that racial inequality experienced by the black community is something that should NOT be discussed since it might make white people angry?

The only thing that is primitive are the thoughts and actions that keep racial inequality a reality.

Posted by Mikelx | March 17, 2008 10:59 PM

Recently I picked up "The Audacity of Hope" and read the first page. A young Barack Obama states he would sit on the stoop of his East Harlem brownstone with his hip hop neighbors and make fun of the rich white folk who would bring their dogs from their adjoining neighborhoods to do their business on his block. Since it was appropo of nothing, it made me wonder why he didn't just say "rich folk" from the adjoining neighborhoods.

I ended up buying "The Color of Water" which I'm really enjoying.

I too have to admit that I feel betrayed, really almost hurt by these revelations. I really didn't want to vote for Hillary. But the poster who talked about the economy is right. America will vote in the Clintons again, Hill will give Bill a stack of Playboys and a calculator and we'll have bookend administrations.

Posted by Jonster | March 17, 2008 11:10 PM

As someone who has worked to spread the message of hope and change that is Obama's campaign message, I feel seriously disillusioned by his having been so close to Min. Wright for so long.

Posted by Keith LeBlanc | March 17, 2008 11:14 PM

Jonster, it's good to know that you have never referred to other peope by their ethnicity. You have the ability to do something that few people can do.

Posted by Mikelx | March 17, 2008 11:17 PM

"As someone who has worked to spread the message of hope and change that is Obama's campaign message, I feel seriously disillusioned by his having been so close to Min. Wright for so long."

Keith, has Obama ever used the language that you find offensive? Hasn't he used language that is just the opposite?

Do you find any of this worse than what Hillary Clinton will be dragged through the mud over? Perhaps John McCain's lifetime of conservative politics is easier on your sensitive disposition.

Posted by Mikelx | March 17, 2008 11:22 PM

Mikelx,
This is my point, in this regard that Paster has virtually inshored that a previously flourishing campaign in which a man of mixed race could become president will wither and die. All due to the rants of a man who, regardless of what was actually said, is being made to look like a flaming racist; unfortunately tied to Obama.
So he will further racial inequality by destroying the man who might have been able to temper it. Also, the paster is not primitive only his lack of foresight and ignorance toward the political struggles of another individual so close to him.
And please, if you wish to inform a woman of color about such struggles of my parents, during the time of Emitt Till and The massacre of The Black Wall-Street in Tulsa Oklahoma, and countless other events of this nature, I welcome more information on this subject. But the people of this nation need to know about it's history,and the perceptions of reality between ethnicities, not have it thrown in there face. This makes people defensive, and it is far to hard to listen if your only thought linger on protection and counters attacks.

Posted by UPenn University Student, Philadelphia | March 17, 2008 11:26 PM

Mikelx,
This is my point, in this regard that Paster has virtually inshored that a previously flourishing campaign in which a man of mixed race could become president will wither and die. All due to the rants of a man who, regardless of what was actually said, is being made to look like a flaming racist; unfortunately tied to Obama.
So he will further racial inequality by destroying the man who might have been able to temper it. Also, the paster is not primitive only his lack of foresight and ignorance toward the political struggles of another individual so close to him.
And please, if you wish to inform a woman of color about such struggles of my parents, during the time of Emitt Till and The massacre of The Black Wall-Street in Tulsa Oklahoma, and countless other events of this nature, I welcome more information on this subject. But the people of this nation need to know about it's history,and the perceptions of reality between ethnicities, not have it thrown in there face. This makes people defensive, and it is far to hard to listen if your only thought linger on protection and counters attacks.

Posted by UPenn University Student, Philadelphia | March 17, 2008 11:26 PM

In regards to the first page of "Audacity of Hope", I still take my dog to his neighborhood to poop. Cheers

Posted by 7.62 NATO | March 17, 2008 11:35 PM

Like many folks - including the Kennedy's - I see something remarkable in Barack. I am not alone in this assessment. His ability to inspire patriotism in the depths of the atheistic and cynical left is truly amazing and still is awaiting a story in the NY Times.

Despite all of my biased hopes, I've never managed to convice myself that Barack's coalition would be sufficient to beat the Republican nominee: anger, fear, race, crime, and guilt have built a wall between US and THEM and voila, the Rev. Wright has poked a hole smack in the middle for all of us to see and it ain't pretty.

Here's my thesis: by avoiding race, Barack probably would do pretty well in a general election. But come the swing states, and economic insecurity and immigration...On the other hand, by tearing down the wall and the excuses, lies, pain and fears with his gift of touching the American soul, he would be literally unstoppable.

Barack's unique experience as a biracial American gives him standing to speak to both sides of the wall and to offer both sides a chance to stop this mad dance evidenced by Ferraro and now Rev. Wright. While Hillary and McCain will make good candidates, it's hard to argue that they can create the kind of change that's needed on the race front in America.

Can he do it? Time will tell.

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | March 17, 2008 11:50 PM

wow, the clinton sock puppets are really working overtime tonight. nice try though. "i feel betrayed, hurt by his revelations." waaahhha. you're hilarious. tell your boss that we want to see her tax returns!

Posted by Karen | March 17, 2008 11:50 PM

To see this quote posted:

It is downright offensive that so many people feel entitled to judge a man's life and work by a few minutes of his most intemperate speech; those who do so embrace a fallacy. But as Obama himself has said, "If all I knew were those statements I saw on television, I would be shocked."

makes me realize how much our society has deteriorated. We know more about American Idol contestants than our Presidential candidates. Obama has run his campaign on change and the fact that he's not your typical politician. Yet, easy research on the 'net reveals flip-flops on issue, politically convenient votes and absences, and speeches with no substance. I can stand at a podium shouting buzzwords that American Idol fans...err, Americans want to hear. "Change!!" "Hope!!!" I can turn every attack on me and my record around to state, "this is the type of politics that Americans are voting against! The people have spoken!" Yawn.

Luckily, I'm not a sheep. I understand socialism, taxes, and the economy. I've read three translations of the Quran. I've researched critical points in history to know that a comparison of George Bush to Adolph Hitler is laughable, yet there is a movement and idealism in the Middle East that one could compare to Nazi Germany.

Rev Wright is an ignorant, foul-mouthed hate peddler. Yes, you can judge Obama by his friendship with Wright. I was raised by a strong woman to do the right thing--it's not always been the popular choice, but it's been the right thing. Obama know Wright and having spent 20 years listening to the man, he knows this rhetoric is not new. If he knows this, and yet doesn't walk out, then he's part of the problem.

It's just like trying to point fingers at "Islamic extremists." If "moderate" Muslims don't speak out or even go so far as to help these "extremists" then who's the real terrorist? How about the actual members, supporters, sympathizers, or those Germans that didn't care about Nazis? The Christian faith was filled with violence, greed, and corruption--and a documented history of continual admission of guilt and healing.

Anyone with sound morals would have walked out, unless they agreed with the Reverend. Unless of course, they just never went to the sermons and they're just using religion to garner more votes for office. Either way, Obama is not the man he's trying to tell everyone that he is. The liberals want to cry foul and "focus on the issues" now, though there are no issues to focus on--Obama hasn't accomplished anything. Bobby Jindal has done more at 36 than Obama has done in his entire life of public service. *He* has a record that can be scrutinized. Obama is a polished speaker, nothing more, nothing less.

The only souls he touches are souls of sheep. I don't want to be read a story, I want a leader. I can't stand Hillary, but at least she doesn't run from being a politician. If you campaign that you above it all, but consistently flip on issues and lie to the people, you're a dog like the rest. I'm not a sucker for sweet talk--obviously some people here are.

Let the herding begin...

Posted by Jeremy | March 18, 2008 12:34 AM

As a young African American woman living in the United States, it is quite refreshing to hear the dialogue that is being discussed on race, the black church and African-Americans living in this time and not in the '50s and 60's. We definately need more of it.

Being raised in Baptist churches from Texas to Iowa, there were alot of racially 'charged' sermons that my pastors preached on a Sunday afternoon. They are used to get us, the Black people, to unite and stop bickering amongst each other and start uplifting our communities.

Black churches have always been the nucleus of the proper rearing of the black family. We look to our pastors to evoke sound and uplifting words to inspire us, to get us out of present situations and give us encouragement. While sermons can get 'out of hand' at times and the pastor may say a few 'colorful' statements, these statements are to uplift not destroy.

The context of Rev. Wright's statements have been completely taken to the nth degree. If you heard the whole message, one would understand that he does not preach hate or discrimination of white people. He just wants us to understand the plight of African Americans in the United States and the struggles that have been waged in the past and even in the present tense.

I am not saying these things to praise what the pastor has said, but to help people understand that this is not an attack that Wright has on others not like him. Many a sermon that my pastors spoke were not agreed upon by all church members. The choice of language may not always be right, but the message that he is saying is accurate. Many things that our government has done, do not benefit the American people nor the world as a whole. He is trying to evoke a conversation.

I consider myself a Christian who is compassionate about everyone, not just some. My career path in medicine shows this. The rhetoric of my former pastors do not define who I am.

Give Sen. Obama the same respect and chance as the first transcending American to be president of the United States. Don't judge his pastor, judge Sen. Obama's character which has been consistent throughout his campaign and throughout his life as depicted in his two books and those who know him.

Full disclosure--I am an Obama supporter and would question the man's ethics not his pastor's sermons. His pastor is not running to be your president he is--Barack Obama.

Posted by Ophelia | March 18, 2008 1:15 AM

Jeremy,

You come across like someone who voted twice for George Bush.

I hope your candidate is able to meet or surpass the high standards you expect of Obama.

Posted by Mikelx | March 18, 2008 1:18 AM

Ophelia - excellent post.

For all those raging about Rev Wright's 'racism', check out this article that quotes a sermon Rev Wright gave at Christmas.

The good news that's coming is for all people! Not white people—all people. Not black people—all people. Not rich people—all people. Not poor people—all people. I know you'll hate this... not straight people—all people! Not gay people—all people. Not American people—all people. ...God's good news isn't just for Americans, it's for all people. Say "all people"! Jesus came for Iraqis and Afghanis. Jesus was sent for Iranians and Ukrainians. All people! Jesus is God's gift to the brothers in jail and the sisters in jeopardy. All people! The Lord left his royal courts on high to come for all those that you love, yes, but he also came for all those folk that you can't stand. All people!

Yeah, he's such a racist. If only a few of the white posters on this forum could be so 'racist'.

Posted by sharon | March 18, 2008 3:28 AM

WHAT MEDIA IS NOT REPORTING: RE: TRINITY CHURCH!
Rev. Thomas (Pastor of Mainly White Congreation of UCC) denounces e-mail smear campaign against UCC’s largest congregation - Written by J. Bennett Guess, Jan. 11, 2008

Obama, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, has been a member of Trinity UCC for 20 years." "Trinity UCC is rooted in and proud of its Afrocentric heritage," Thomas said. "This is no different than the hundreds of UCC churches from the German Evangelical and Reformed stream that continue to own and celebrate their German heritage, insisting on annual sausage and sauerkraut dinners and singing Stille Nacht on Christmas Eve. ." While Trinity UCC is predominately African American, it does include and welcome non-Black members. The Rev. Jane Fisler-Hoffman, Illinois Conference Minister, who is white, has been a member of the congregation for years.
"Trinity is a destination church for many members of the UCC, a multi-racial, multi-cultural denomination that is largely Caucasian," Thomas pointed out. "When in Chicago, many UCC members flock to Trinity to share in and learn from its vibrant ministries, dynamic worship and justice-minded membership. Contrary to the claims made in these hateful emails, UCC members know Trinity to be one of the most welcoming, hospitable and generous congregations in our denomination." [...]
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!'"
This ramped-up smear campaign against the UCC's largest congregation and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's home church — Trinity UCC in Chicago — has raised the ire of the Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president, who called the e-mail-driven claims "absurd, mean-spirited and politically motivated."
The Main Stream Media has been filled with images and video of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial statements for the past four days, 24/7, which Obama has strongly condemned. My concern, however, relates to equal time. When Senator Obama, who, after all , is actually the Candidate, gave a speech in Indiana, addressing his faith, diversity, and unity, and Invoking Robert Kennedy, it has gotten such a tiny percentage of coverage in comparison to Rev. Wright's controversial statements shown every hour in the hour. The main stream media has asked the questions how is Obama to deal with this controversy and when he does they give very little air time to his Answer, which he spells out beautifully in this Indiana Speech. This is just not Right.

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

May be this is part of Obama's mission, since he is a Unifying Force. In order to be a Unifier, one must get the people talking about those issues which stand and impede unity and discuss those issues so one can understand and overcome these issues.

Posted by Angellight | March 18, 2008 6:34 AM

Rev. Jeremiah Wright was speaking in no less a prophetic voice than the prophets of ancient Israel. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, Elijah, John the Baptist, and even Jesus of Nazareth railed against the corruption, hypocrisy, gluttony, abuses of power, and murderous ways of the kings, spiritual leaders, and people of Israel. Their messages were not ones that could be called "gentle." They used harsh, no-holds-barred, incendiary words, in tones and language that were offensive to the listeners. For this, they were ridiculed, persecuted, and even put to death. Today, people of faith and even those with no faith revere these prophets for speaking Truth to power, even in the face of such danger.
But, when a minister, especially one who is African-American has the audacity to call America to task for its equally corrupt, gluttonous, abusive, and war-mongering ways, even people of faith take umbrage, believing that this nation is above such criticism or being called to task for its national hubris. Quick to condemn other nations for their failures and sins, America is suddenly stricken with a national case of hurt feelings when confronted by such a message.
The real issue is not about Rev. Jeremiah Wright or about Barack Obama, though that is what the media and those who oppose Obama's message have painted it to be. It isn't even about whether or not all of Rev. Wright's statements are correct. It's about the continuing unwillingness of Americans to face up to their national bloated sense of superiority, their continuing failure to address lingering, festering issues of racial and economic equity, and to seriously examine whether or not we can continue to exist as a nation in the face of our continuing unwillingness to heed th words of the prophet Micah "to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God," and those of Jesus of Nazareth who counseled: "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Posted by Paul | March 18, 2008 9:08 AM

This comment is particularly for Linda. If you do some research on the geography and people in the biblical day and age. It is a fact that Moses and yes, in fact Jesus Christ was closer to African descent than any other race, especially anglo-saxon or caucasian. To say Jesus Christ was caucasian is obsurd. All modern history is written by caucasian people so of course, the facts are going to be "skewed" a little (alot really). But, recently (to my astonishment) scientists have admitted in fact, all man came from African-descent. So, the first human beings came from the African Continent. Tribes migrated north and because of the climate and less sunlight, their skin lightened, thus becoming white. The same goes for Native Americans, Asians, etc.

Posted by Martin | March 18, 2008 11:13 AM

Eloquent. But I don't think it will save him. Shame.

www.drudgereport.com

Posted by Jonster | March 18, 2008 11:26 AM

Drudge Report. A truly reliable source of accurate and informative information. Sigh.

Posted by Paul | March 18, 2008 2:05 PM

Wow Paul. It was a verbatim transcript. Sigh.

Posted by Jonster | March 18, 2008 3:47 PM

I read a "verbatim transcript" on Drudgereport. They had it first. You know what "verbatim" and "transcript" means? Sigh.

Posted by Jonster | March 18, 2008 3:59 PM

Mikelx,

I find it offensive that just because I happen to be white I somehow have led a "life of privilege". No, I was raised in a single-parent family with my brother and sister. We didn't experience privilege. We didn't get the benefit of affirmative action or any such privilege.

The irony is that most whites want to have an open mind about working past racial inequality. Whites have been essential to Obama's campaign. Starting in Iowa, and through many many primaries.

Why is that many african americans refuse to see this? If any group needs to "get over" the racial problems in this country, I think you should first consider your own house, before casting any more stones.

Posted by Bob | March 18, 2008 10:18 PM

Obama was eloquent in his racial dialogue, but unfortunately he was preaching to the choir. The American black community at large has voted for him as a veritable block and will most likely still vote for him on down the line. On the other hand, those red-neck cowboy types that put him over the top in the mountains and plains states are now sorry as hell they ever supported a candidate that put a "black" theocrat's/insurgent's friendship before patriotism and racial unity. Come November these white voters will switch party horses as sure as God made little green apples and prideful preachers full of sin. This emotionally charged but redundant rebuttal only reinforces Clinton's argument that Obama will fail to hold the line against McCain in the final leg of this election battle.

Posted by arisdemos | March 19, 2008 4:22 PM

Jonster,
Well, yes, I actually do know what verbatim and transcript mean. But I also know how to admit when I may have made an error. I thought you were referring to Rev. Wright's comments when you posted the url to drudge. Were you? Or was it to Obama's speech? Apologies if I was in error.
However, no apology for the comment about the Drudge report. It is a slimebucket, not a credible news outlet, that very occasionally reports an accurate story and great at creating "news."
Paul

Posted by Paul | March 19, 2008 11:44 PM

jonster,
I just re-read your post and I admit I was completely stupid. You were obviously referring to Obama's speech and I stand corrected. At least Drudge reported something honestly for once. Have they perhaps caught onto Obama's message of change?
Paul

Posted by Paul | March 19, 2008 11:49 PM

Paul

No need to apologize, but tks. (It did look like I was just posting the Drudge link and not the speech link.)

I did, however, post some wrong information -- I mentioned that on page one of Audacity of Hope, Barack makes fun of white people. It was actually in Dreams of my Father, on page 2.

Your posts are intelligent and provocative. As far as your remarks on America's superiority complex, I say "Bull." It's not as simple as Americans walking over the world like giants squashing anyone who doesn't agree with us. I understand why this image persists, but it's unfair. Let's boil it down regarding the War in Iraq.

Truth: It really IS about oil. We are there to make sure that the world's usuable oil reserves are not co-opted by a ragtag group of ski-mask-wearing, AK-47-toting, Jihadists. The world would simply stop. We will do anything we have to do to accomplish this. The West (and by this I mean our country) will not allow anarchy to disrupt the flow of oil. Where Europe, esp. France and Germany initially opposed us, we now see them electing new gov'ts that agree with us.

I gather your solution is that we all get in a circle, sing Kumbaya, teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, and everything will be all right.

Truth: Race is obviously too complicated for us to address right now. As we speak, it's bringing down one of the best political speakers in many years. Sen. Obama came to my firm and spoke to some of the bigshots here, one of whom is my boss. He came out of just one meeting with the senator saying "He could be president. I'd vote for him." It IS racism that has disrupted Obama's campaign, though, just not the racism of white people.

Posted by Jonster | March 20, 2008 2:32 PM

I disagree totally with the last posted opinion as to why the US became and remains mired in Iraq. Jihadist threats to western oil interests did not constitute the reason for invading Iraq any more than it was the cause to invade Afghanistan. The oil of Iraq under Saddam Hussein was flowing according to US dominated UN mandates, and could be increased or decreased at any time simply by reaching some accord with Hessein. The Jihadists held little or no power in Saddam's Iraq, and if they had any standing there it was to follow only Saddam's Bathist agenda. Oil is not what America needed in Iraq, and in truth it didn't matter a hill of beans what the ordinary people in this country needed or didn't need in Iraq.

The American people and many of their polititians where stampeded into Iraq to take possession of a mythical atomic arsenal that supposadly threatened the world. This of course was another red herring as to why the American military occupied Iraq, and still does. the primary reason to invade Iraq was to enrich the political backers of the Bush 43 government and keep both Israel and the Arabian gulf oil safe from Iranian aggression. You see it is what Saddam could no longer be trusted to do that cooked his goose, and that was to after post Kuwait hold American trust while acting as a balance of military power against Iran. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was less than useless to us, and his country and it's potential civil war would make our military locally (in the mid east)more powerful and our corporations wealthy beyond their wildest dreams.

Unfortunately for the US population at large this whole agenda did not really do much of anything positive for them, and now they have to figure out how to make the corporations back off their plan for 95 more years of war profiteering. With the likes of Obama, Clinton or McCain I say fat chance.

Getting back n track, Obama will be about as much of a racial healer as George Bush is capable of growing feathers on his behind and morphing to a dove of peace between Shia and Sunni religious nuts. America needs to get their head out of the clouds and do what is possible to make the world better not just follow some establishment pipedream facade hiding corporate/political greed or even chasing after some black nationalist Disney style clone of Abraham Lincoln.

Posted by arisdemos | March 21, 2008 12:12 AM

Arisdemos - Well of course you are right. This right here:

"You see it is what Saddam could no longer be trusted to do that cooked his goose, and that was to after post Kuwait hold American trust while acting as a balance of military power against Iran. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was less than useless to us . . ."

Very true.

How many of us found it hard not to retch when we hear over and over again about the windfall profits of the big oil companies?

And Halliburton. Ridiculous. Either way, they will benefit. If for some reason we are able to pull most of our troops out of Iraq, Halliburton and the oil companies will still go on making lots of money. Bush's own Daddy wrote about the perils of pushing to Baghdad. . .in 1998:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. . . . There was no viable `exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post–cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nation's mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

In the end, it still boils down to civilization vs. terrorism and the rule of law governing what is the most essential element of our natural resources. Oil is critical to every aspect of our daily life. If we don't erect a security force around the oil fields of the mideast, and leave the region, it is likely that Iran itself might just try to snatch 'em. Imagine the power they'd have then.

Posted by Jonster | March 21, 2008 9:15 PM

Obama is as good or better than many who have run for and/or won the Presidency in a great, great, great many years. Along with his brain power, he has evidenced and is a better bet for sustaining and being compelled by an enlivened heart and soul to “do the right thing”, and inclusively. Obama has more compassion in his little finger than does Hillary and McCain in their entire beings. What angers Rev. Jeremiah and me is good—people, places, things-- being trashed. STOP DOING THE ANGRY, KNEE-JERK DENIAL OF RACISM** WHICH IS WHAT KEEPS AMERICA’S RACISM GRIEVOUSLY ALIVE ALL THESE HUNDREDS OF YEARS; CAUSING A HOLOCAUST OF MISERY, DOMESTICALLY AND GLOBALLY.
Be decent, human, and be mindful in prayer for the safety from harm, injury or worse to Obama and/or his family throughout this pursuit and in his, hopefully, victorious tenure as President. Do good and be part of that which is good; not being otherwise and on the outside hoping the feebleness of lying denial does really cover up truth and successfully fakes, instead, as being just.
**Racism known, planned, accepted, praised, etc., in homes, corporated offices & board rooms, churches, parties, organization startups & activities, in the focus & conduct of societal systems of courts & justice, education, social services, religion, housing, employment, etc., ad infinitum. . . .

Posted by Balzie Galle | March 22, 2008 1:40 PM

Obama Will Speak On Wright, Race, Future

Comments (132)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives