Since when does relevance matter to Kristol, Rove, the RNC or Fox News? Fox News will scream about this until the other networks cover it because of their "where there's smoke..." attitude.

For people who consider this a legitimate demerit against Obama, it's a matter of guilt by association. Obama chose to be mentored by someone with noxious views, therefore Obama shares the stigma. It's the same thing as when he was reported to have met with former Weathermen bombers.

They take the association as a de facto endorsement of the politics; no amount of denunciation and repudiation will be enough.

And it will have an effect because most of the American public are low information voters who still think Obama is all style and no substance. So all they'll hear is that he's a member of a church whose pastor holds unpalatable views and they'll think they know something about Obama as a result.

Ezra, I think the point is a bit more meta here. The problem I see (full disclosure, I'm a Hillary supporter) is that Obama has been riding a wave premised on the fact that he is a unique figure, unburdened by the "politics of the past" (as he puts it). Sure, he risks losing the racist vote who'll be scared of his 'angry black' preacher. But worse, I think he risks losing the *idealist* vote who, completely naively and ridiculously, really believed that Obama was above any type of pandering whatsoever. I think this episode shows that while running in a majority-black district in Chicago, Obama has to know and be approved by people like Rev. Wright, and now he needs to distance himself. I'm not particularly shocked by it, but there are people out there thinking "there are nasty old politicians and then THERE'S BARACK OBAAAAAAAMMMMAAAAAAA!" like he's immune to this sort of stuff. Those are the people who he needs to worry about, and I'm happy it's happening sooner rather than later.

Obama will be anb incredibly divise figure. If he's the next President, I bet he goes down as a unifier anyway. That's the myth he's built for himself, and if he's successful, that's the myth they'll tell.

Does anyone believe that Barack Obama shares Jeremiah Wright's political views?

About AIDS? No.

About white and black America? About 9/11? Probably. He has little real personality of his own, and just soaks up the views of those around him. So he was a combination of classic liberal pap, coupled with black anger. After two years pretending to be a centrist, he probably has swallowed his own story.

But it doesn't make much difference whether he believes it or not.

For those who want to make this into a huge issue, they should have to explain why it's a huge issue.

No, they don't. American voters can do whatever they want, and they don't have to explain a single thing.

However, here's why it's a huge issue:

Obama has made his "spirituality" a central issue of his campaign and his life story for fifteen years. His whole notion of "transcending race" is linked in large part to his spirituality, of learning to move beyond his anger at white America for being black.

In this story, Wright was the entire impetus for his transformation into a spiritual person, for his willingness to let go of anger and transcend race, and as such a central element of Obama's story.

Then Wright, the soul of his spiritual conversion, is revealed to be diametrically opposed to transcending race, to be an ugly merchant of hate and lies, a man who loathes white America and seeks to convince blacks to reject it.

In my view, Obama simply can't answer this paradox. There is no answer. It is quite clear that Obama's entire story of a transformation is a lie. As such, he can't disavow it and can't recover from it.

He can only hope that Americans forget it. This is an unlikely hope.

I believe the problem to be that Wright's words are associated with Obama now. It's called pigfucker politics. Something unsavory gets associated with your candidate - it doesn't matter whether it's true or not because when an uninformed voter is doing his civic duty and voting - he only recalls that Obama is associated with someone who has damned the US and and said that the government created AIDS - this uninformed voter than says to himself, well - I don't know if Obama really believes that stuff, but I can't be too careful that Wright guy is his pastor and someone he admires and pulls the lever for McCain.

Pretty basic political operations. I admire Obama wanting to overcome these types of tactics, but to believe that they don't exist and don't work - is naive at best.

"But if no one believes that Obama agrees with them, then they're just the views of some dude who knows Obama, and talks to him about spirituality. The controversy rests on everyone's ability to treat it as something no one seems to believe it is."

It's all in the invisible antecedents of the pronoun, "no one," isn't it?

"If no one believes Obama agrees with them..."
If "no one" is indeed no one, there won't be a problem; but if "no one" just means "no one I know," or "none of the commenters I read," then there could be a problem, one we're just not seeing here.

I'll be crass about it. The AIDS and 9/11 statements will be trotted out over and over and over to reinforce and sustain the "black people sure have crazy ideas" theme.

Remember after Katrina how it was just so over-the-top, crazy, victimhood when people dared say "uh, we were treated differently because we are black?" Truth of the statement be damned, it just went to show that black people are conspiracy minded crazies who blame all their problems on white people including crack, AIDS, etc.

Oh, and they all support Obama, so anyway, vote for who you want to, I'm just sayin.....

That is what this is about, deeply ingrained ideas and suspicions, just that white people's ideas and suspicions are of course reasonable and rational, while the suspicions of black people, no matter how well-grounded in fact are just proof that they are nuts and probably shouldn't be in positions of leadership.

Anyway, that is what it looks like to me.

Ryan,
It took me about 25 seconds to find that your view of Obama is false. Why not try looking for facts before posting. He joined the church in 1985, five years before running for public office.

Let's do a little thought experiment and ask yourself how easy it would be for you to forgive a white politician's long-term association with...say...David Duke.

Would you say it was Duke's views that were reprehensible or would you charge the white politician with bad judgement at the minimum and harboring white supremist attitudes at the most?

Somehow, you wish to make a black candidate not responsible as you would a white one.

To say that the attacks of 9/11 represented America's chickens coming home to roost is not the same thing as saying the attacks were "merited", which I haven't seen any evidence that Wright has said. Jesus, god-damned Ron Paul says pretty much the same thing. It WAS our chickens coming home to roost. American policy and actions are at least partly responsible for the hatred we inspire in many. That is not the same as saying we deserve whatever we get.

I think this is real similar to something we see a lot on blogs. I very often read people confess to a small or narrow impulse and all the commenters jump on that person for doing wrong. It is as if they don't trust the person confessing to have a thought he or she isn't proud of, and also have the self-awareness and self-control to act with integrity against their own impulse.

Perhaps people don't believe that Obama can be in the presence of nasty vitriol and hold the two contradictory impulses of respect for an occasionally incendiary pastor who has also done good work, and refutation of the nastiness. That takes, you know, holding more than one thought at a time and using one's own moral framework to decide how to negotiate Two Thoughts! I firmly believe it can be done, however. I am even willing to go out on a limb and think that a former law professor is capable of that.

Fahey, I think you missed my point. I think the idea that Obama was pandering to extreme elements of the black community to get elected *is the most generous way to view the situation* from a pro-Obama perspective. The alternative is that he actually is drawn spiritually to the ideas of Rev. Wright. I suspect that in preparation for entrance into electoral politics (and yes, that could mean five years before he actually ran for anything specific), he probably thought he needed to associate with someone like Rev. Wright. I DON'T BEGRUDGE HIM FOR THIS AT ALL. He was probably correct in his thinking. My point is that I have a suspicion that some of his voters will not accept him pandering in any way, because they have set unrealistically high expectations for him and don't seem to think he's actually a politician at his core. Which he is.

So in order to run for president, it is no longer what you say or you believe, it is also everyone you've ever known and what they say and what they believe?

It's too bad we don't have all of Rev. Wright's sermons over the last forty years so that we'd know what percentage of the time he preached an "incendiary" sermon. I think Sen. Obama went there for spiritual fulfillment and not political ideas. He certainly has instituted or promoted any of these ideas in his 8 years in the Illinois State Senate or 3 years in the U.S. Senate.

In the end, this might be a positive net for Obama. (emphasis on 'might')

My feeling has been that until this point Obama has done precious little to emphasize how his faith informs his politics. I've read his books and viewed numerous vids of his speeches/sermons and he is incredibly thoughtful, practical, inclusive and nuanced on these matters. (And I say this as an agnostic who generally doesn't like the convergence of religion and politics.)

But I would guess that voters know almost nothing about this side of him, and some don't even know he's a Christian.

It's too bad that it took this negative matter to make him speak up ad i think he should have been more vocal from the get-go.

There are two ways to consider Wright's remarks: as an internal matter, between the Reverend and his congregants; and as an external matter, something that will have an impact on Obama's candidacy.

On the former, I couldn't possibly care less about what Wright has to say. Because, as Ezra suggests, I don't believe that Obama believes in most (maybe any) of Wright's most controversial rhetoric. And, at the same time, that rhetoric has a context and history that has been ignored by most media outlets. Which context, it should be said, mitigates some of the apparent outrageousness of the man’s remarks.

As an external matter, though, it doesn't really matter whether one thinks that Obama subscribes to any of Wright's ostensibly whacked-out beliefs (no offense, Ezra). What does matter is whether Obama's association with Wright will hurt the candidate in the primary or the general. And on that issue, the answer, for the moment at least (things really might change), seems to be yes.

How will it hurt Obama? Stipulating that we don't know for sure, the answer is that the Wright association with undermine Obama’s credibility with the following groups: working class whites, perhaps Catholics especially; Jews; and centrist, often low-information, Independents. Two of the three groups were already skeptical of Obama. Now all of them have more to worry about.

In the primary, some members of the above groups will likely now vote for Hillary. Would they have done so already? For many, the answer probably is yes. Will more now do so? Who knows? The same is true for the general. And that's likely where the issue will really matter. Or not. And so, the question becomes, will Obama's association with Wright drive enough people into McCain's or Hillary's arms for it to hurt. And the answer is: we'll see.

That's just a long way of saying that I'm not sure that I see the point of Ezra's question. At least in the context of the horserace coverage of the campaign. I guess he's trying to move beyond that coverage. But then, again, I revert back to point one: this is an internal matter between a religious leader and his flock. And I’d also say this: how many people believed that the Clintons were, in any way, complicit in the death of Vince Foster. My guess would be very few people believed that. Still, the whisper campaign further diminished the Clinton’s good standing, just as L’affaire Wright will tarnish Obama’s previously excellent reputation. And, believe it or not, I’ve written all of this without directly addressing the issue of race. Which is a whole other story.

Sorry for the long comment.

Great post, Ezra. There is definitely a tendency to worry more about how Obama seems than what he says. Very few people claim that Obama is himself a racist. Instead, they criticize him for, effectively, not having been more politically savvy in choosing a pastor. It says a lot about the state of our political discourse that we care less about what a candidate actually says and does than we do about how he or she appears to the lowest common denominator of the electorate.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR OBAMA!!!

And how. Also, at least everybody knows he's not a Muslim now.

I think this is another case where a month from now everybody will be talking about how smartly Obama played this.

Another thing, Obama's the only major politician who even belongs to a church. McCain isn't even sure what denomination he is!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091600864.html

"Another thing, Obama's the only major politician who even belongs to a church."

Is this supposed to be a good thing?

Thank you, Ezra. And well said, alex.

The fact is that no one is seriously arguing that Obama holds any of these views. This is guilt-by-association, pure and simple. America!

Oh, and hey, HRC supporters, way to get down in the muck of a racially-charged media frenzy! You gotta be proud of yourselves.

citation please
words matter

This is basically a Willie Horton moment in the election cycle that always happens. You talk about the disconnect that others have for not being able to logically see this for what it is, but then, I find that a little bit naive. Not completely, because you do admit you expect it. But, why did you ever think this wasn't going to go down the way its going down? What country do you live in that you could ever think that logic would overcome racial animus? Since when is this election or any other based on logical processing? For the record, I agree,, this is guilt by association. I don't like it. I think its unfair to Obama, but that's not the point.

You have the better of the argument, Ezra, but Ross is pure identity politics all the way down on something like this. Obama is all scary and black, and Ross just can't stop quaking. He won't address your point.

He rarely does offer his actual thoughts on anything. He likes to tiptoe up to the edge of saying that black people are dumb welfare queens, but he just implies it and heaps praise on Steve Sailer instead.

Ding! It's about making an issue out of Obama's race without coming out and saying it. Racism is a weird thing---you have to trigger the negative associations sometimes. The racist has varying degrees of racism in the subconscious at various times, and this is about making sure potential Obama voters have their racism subconsciouses turned up to 11.

akaison, anonymous, and Amanda all have it. It's nothing more or less than: "SCARY BLACK MAN! SCARY BLACK MAN!" Which works.

Well I can't believe I'm going to do this, but I'm also astonished nobody here has answered the question.

Regarding Obama, nobody sane believes he shares Wright's most controversial views. It's also worth pointing out that there is some evidence to support Obama's claim that these types of things are more the exception than the norm from Wright. Look at his "Audacity of Hope" Sermon (posted by Andrew Sullivan over the weekend). It's a beautiful sermon. Not one crazy thing in it. He even spends a fair amount of time discussing a painting of (OH MY GOD) a white woman, without a hint of racial animosity.

This is an issue for Obama because it plays well to sound bites from the right. That's about it. So the 27% of the population who never would have voted for him anyway now have something they can point to as justification.

The only point with any merit, though, is that this speaks to a lapse of judgment on Obama's part. He probably should not have kept the Reverend on as an honorary member of his committee on African American Leadership in Religion (or whatever it was - basically a committee designed for Wright for Chrissakes).

It's a pretty minor point in the grand scheme of things. But one with some validity, in as much as Obama's not a perfect pol. I'm sort of glad he's not though, to be frank.

The other thing is, I think he could have handled the initial response better. I think he should have simply admitted that he's aware that Wright can give some heated sermons from time to time, and that he's discussed the issue in person with Wright. Perhaps he'll touch on this tomorrow.

The amazing thing in all of this is the CNN poll taken over this weekend of Democrats (HELOOO PETEY!) showing Obama up significantly over Hillary. So this might be a big deal for the blogospher, and not so much for Joe Average.

PS

One thing-- I think the way to address these issues is to come out forcefully calling a duck, a duck. Call the GOP on their shit for once. Make it about them, rather than about Obama. Don't try to change subject like you got something to hide. That's what they feed off of. The perception where there is smoke (association) there mus be fire (guilt). I don't know exactly how he does this, but frankly, if he truly wants to be the "change" candidate, this is a way to start to do that. To redefine the conversation altogether. The GOP is playing out a very familar dance. This is something we should have been preparing to face for a very long time. The trick is to not make the moves they expect us to make and shake them up so that the dance is to our rythme not theirs. Again. I am not sure what Obama can do, but definitely don't become defensive is my first thought because nothing says blood in the water like that.

tomorrow, i think barack obama is supposed to address the issue.
i think that it may be a momentous opportunity to have what could be our first authentic public discussion on race.
.......i believe that if anyone can do this, it is barack obama.
recently, i heard someone say that it is very difficult to create a yoke for oxen, because they are each different, and in order to help them to work together, each part must be created for their own measure and musculature.
it reminded me of the great task before him.
i think barack obama is already accomplishing extraordinary things and we are so fortunate to have him.

akaison,

Good point. Obama should not apologize for this. He should just be honest.

I want to point something out that many of Obama's critics are eagerly assuming: that Obama, his wife, and his children were listening to this every week for 20 years.

I've read the phrase "every week" more times than I can count in the responses of Obama's critics.

The assumption is that this type of rhetoric happens so often that it is integral to Obama's church and Obama condones it (and may even secretly agree with some of it). Otherwise, Obama would have marched right on out of that church years ago, because what right-thinking American wouldn't feel revulsion after hearing those comments?

People see this as a question of moral values. I think almost all of the assumptions of these people are illogical and pretty stupid, but Rev. Wright illicited a visceral reaction from some people, and that's as far as it goes.

The reason no one seems to be addressing your questions is because they don't feel it necessary to ask themselves those questions. It's frustrating to watch the rush to judgment.

To add another voice to the choir of sanity, the visceral reaction to Wright- which somehow didn't occur with anything like this intensity among all our stalwart "patriots" when Falwell and Robertson said 9/11 was God's punishment for our "immorality"- is all about melanin.

Let's do a little thought experiment and ask yourself how easy it would be for you to forgive a white politician's long-term association with...say...David Duke.

One thing working against Obama right now, is he has the whole right-wing machine going against him and half the Democrats.

Right now, passions are high enough - on both sides - that normal allies of Obama will stay quiet or allow the meme to go unchallenged. It's too bad.

It's the part of the process where I wish the people that make-up the Democratic party would have the courage of their convictions and call B.S. on this whole thing.

One of the downsides of the ongoing primary battle I guess...

I'm wondering what took so long for this to happen. Wright has been making controversial stagements for a long time. The media was all over Romeny for quirks in his religion right from the beginning. What I found from the interviews with Obama this week was his hestitation and difficulty in answering questions that weren't part of his stump speeches. He hasn't been pushed like this before. That reveals something more of Obama. I find it difficult to buy that he had never heard incindiary remarks from Wright before.
I have often wondered about the separation of church and state as far as tax status goes. We have a pastor who is doing political stuff for Obama and compares Obamba favorably to Clinton in his sermon. What is the line that has to be crossed?

What I found from the interviews with Obama this week was his hestitation and difficulty in answering questions that weren't part of his stump speeches. He hasn't been pushed like this before.

Well I'm not sure which interview you watched Sally but he was about as cool as one can be in front of the Fox cameras.

I agree that he hasn't been scrutinized like this before. But has any candidate? Do you expect Hillary to have to answer who baptized Chelsea on national television anytime soon?

"The only point with any merit, though, is that this speaks to a lapse of judgment on Obama's part. He probably should not have kept the Reverend on as an honorary member of his committee on African American Leadership in Religion (or whatever it was - basically a committee designed for Wright for Chrissakes).

It's a pretty minor point in the grand scheme of things. But one with some validity, in as much as Obama's not a perfect pol. I'm sort of glad he's not though, to be frank."

I agree with Jake about this, but it's actually the one thing I haven't heard brought up by anyone who thinks Wright is a problem. It's definitely the "scary" angle and not the "politically ill-advised" angle that's getting the most play.

What I hear over and over is "why would he sit there and listen to this stuff for 20 years?" The implication is that he must be in sympathy not with any particular opinion but with the impulse to a) name villains and b) be angry at them. (Meanwhile, I would give my right arm to see that cat angry just once.)

I'm doing armchair psychology here, but I feel like I've heard two strains in the anger. The first is "I knew it! He IS a con artist!" Never mind if you said he was an empty suit and now you think he's some sort of Sandanista. The point is, he LIED! I guess I just chalk this up to a jaded idea that no politician is better than any other politician and to sell a different kind of politics is always and only snake oil. Why it makes people so angry that anyone would want to believe in a different kind of politics is beyond me. I'm mean, it's hardly like America regularly gets burned by going out and voting for some charming rogue from out of town who's gone when we wake up in the morning; but for some reason there's a chorus shouting "I TOLD you he was no good!" like a bunch of bitter cassandras.

The second strain I hear, and it worries me more, is more like "You betrayed me!" Not because I believe anything different about him now, but because he held out the promise that I could vote for an African American and feel good about him and proud of myself and my country and not have to confront any of the ugliness and hostility that has always marked racial discourse in America. And now, there it is.

To me, the "betrayal" theme is the only one that accounts for what's clearly some serious shock (the cynics knew it all along), and because, as you say, Ezra, there's not really a plausible account of how anyone's opinion of HIM could have changed so deeply, it's got to be what you think about when you think about him...it's no longer"celestial choirs" but the same old depressing American nightmare.

I think it's becoming clear that his candidacy got attached to a fantasy that we could suddenly be "post-racial." And with no bad feelings! And since I don't think that's the actual reason he's been succeeding, I think there'll be a moment of letting go of a dream we never acknowledged and remembering the candidate we chose.

But what do I know?

The problem is that if Obama was truly a person who was about bringing people together and unity, and moving beyond the divisions of the past; then he would not be associated with someone whose message is as extreme and antithetical to that vision as Wright's is. I don't believe Obama share's Wright's views, but he tolerates rather then opposing them for political advantage. This proves Obama is nothing but a political opportunist who preaches unity when it gets him votes, whow tolerates hate when it gets him votes, and worse of all has the audacity to criticize his opponents for being too calculating and politcal when he is all of the things he accuses them of. Obama is no Wright, he may be worse. He is a hypocrite who agrees with whoever he has to in order to furthter his ambition. At least Wright is not a hypocrite, he strongly and clearly states what he believes. He doesn't falsely present himself like Obama does. Obama will do and say whatever he thinks will get him power. He needed Wright's church to supplement his support in the African American community at first, but obviously couldn't put that message forth when seeking a higher office. Obama is a phony is the issue. He will tolerate anything to get political advantage.

See Glenn Greenwald's essay today at salon.com. Ezra, you're framing this in such a way that starts out by putting Obama or any Democrat on the defensive. First, you're conceding the point that Wright was saying the US deserved the attacks of 9/11. Second, you're ignoring the fact that right-wing Christian fundamentalist types actually HAVE said that the US deserved the attacks. And third, you're failing to point out that the ties between said right-wing fundies and Republican candidates for office seem to generate no comment and represent no problem for Republican candidates, while Obama's links to Wright are a huge issue. What all of this amounts to is a feckless surrender to the Republican narrative, which is to say you're helping them win the election. Stop it.

Get ready for the real attack on Obamanow. It's been fairies and puppies but now it'll get uglier.

I loved the deluded acolyte who wrote into Andy Sullivan saying it's great that Obama took the words of a loose-cannon like Wright and made them his own for the better.

That's one crazed way of looking at it. I'm sure one could do the same with Mein Kampf?

christian,

I invoke Godwin's law. You're out.

Get ready for the real attack on Obamanow. It's been fairies and puppies but now it'll get uglier.

I loved the deluded acolyte who wrote into Andy Sullivan saying it's great that Obama took the words of a loose-cannon like Wright and made them his own for the better.

That's one crazed way of looking at it. I'm sure one could do the same with Mein Kampf?

Annymous:

I have tolerated your bullshit arguments only because I wanted to focus on other issues with other people regarding how Obama needed to have long ago integrated all of this into his discourse.

Let me now turn my attention to you. You are the worse kind of analysis that politics has to offer. There is nothing new here, and it hasn't been new since the GOP started it back when Nixon ran the Southern Strategy. It has continued on up through Willie Horton and only changed slightly with the gay marriage amendments of 2004. It's a supremely nasty bit of politics.

It is truly galling to read someone claim that because Obama listens to people with whom he disagrees that means he isn't for unity. What the hell is your definition fo the word?

Indeed, although, I don't support him, the opposite is shown here. By your own argument, you don't believe Obama believes what Wright believes, but you run with his association with right as a sign of something evil or nefarious. The same thing that pisses me off about Obama supporters treating Clinton as evil is the same thing pissing me off about your comnetary.

It's truly bizzare to read you say that by toleratinh other views this means he is therefore not for unity. So when he comes to listen to Christian conservatives, people with whom I disagree with it, or for that matter if Clinton does it, is that also a sign that one isn't interested in unity? That its political opportunism. What if McCain does it? What about his statements to the far right? Its fascinating that its only opportunism when its for a certain group, but not for others. Talking to someone on the further left, and then its opportunism. Talk to someone who is on the far right, and then its unity. The truth sign of unity is where you talk to both, not one or the other.

This situation proves the exact opposite of what you claim. You are being very Rovian in your analysis. Not, that I suspect you care.

Let's see, first he was not black enough, then we got to South Carolina, and he was too black. Two weeks ago he was a Muslim featured wearing a turban, now, currently, he is a black militant who hates America.

And if the right wing or the Clinton campaign thinks that playing those Wright sound bites over and over again on television is going to help their respective causes, they should take a look at the concept of "desensitization."

And believe it or not, many mainstream American Christians, in all kinds of protestant churches, know and love looney ministers.

Furthermore, the national denomination of United Church of Christ (to which Obama's church belongs) is the only mainstream denomination that sanctions gay marriage.

Wait 'til we get to that whole discussion.

I notice Godwin's law doesn't apply to talking about tactics of fascism in the modern age?

I notice Godwin's law doesn't apply to talking about tactics of fascism in the modern age?

professor darkheart,

Very provocative comment. You seem to bemoan the idea of a post-racial president. I agree! As long as there is race, nothing will ever be post-racial. Personally, I never saw Obama like that, and I've supported him for a long time. That's why I would strongly defend his choice of Wright as his pastor. Obama needed to have a place to go where the intense emotions, fears, and hopes that are unique to the experience of American blacks could find a voice. Religion is not about reason, it's about catharsis. If Obama hadn't confronted this part of identity, he would be a somewhat haunted figure. Ultimately, Obama needed Wright so that he could become absolutely clear about how he was different from Wright. Without Wright, Obama can't speak as compellingly about unity and race in contemporary America. If Obama seems calm and unflappable on questions of his identity, it's because he found a productive outlet for his emotions in the safe haven of a sympathetic church. To this atheist, it's as good an example as any of how religion can benefit society.

sorry for the double postings. ezra's captchas are the meanest i've ever encountered...

Let's see, first he was not black enough, then we got to South Carolina, and he was too black. Two weeks ago he was a Muslim featured wearing a turban, now, currently, he is a black militant who hates America.

I don't believe Obama agrees with Wright on these things, but I have to say it's hard to understand how such an intelligent and decent-seeming man can derive mentorship from an idiotic demagogue like Wright -- which, whatever else he might preach, is what he must be to promulgate the kind of Jesus-was-black counterknowledge and victimological shuck 'n' jive he has become notorious for.

If the post imprtant thing you got from that pst was a debate over the color of Jesus, that says a lot about from where you already coming.

John-Paul,

Your comment is willfully obtuse and offensive.

professor darkheart

i couldnt disagree with you more.
even through the conversations that we have had here....the candidacy of barack obama has been been one of the healthiest things that could happen.
....this is a wonderful quote from a fine author named thomas moore:

"genuine catharsis requires the emotions of shame, dread, fear, puzzlement and even hopelessness.
anything less is too superficial. the avoidance of these feelings, which beg for attention, makes people numb and foggy and therefore incapable of the necessary empathy. the poet Wallace Stevens said that the death of one god is the death of them all. this applies to emotions as well. suppress the uncomfortable ones, and all the others will go into hiding too."

from dark nights of the soul

First, you're conceding the point that Wright was saying the US deserved the attacks of 9/11.

Wright did say that. He said that 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost, which means America's foreign policy created 9/11.

Your comment is willfully obtuse and offensive.

Awwww. Your Wet Wipes are in the mail.

If the post imprtant thing you got from that pst was a debate over the color of Jesus, that says a lot about from where you already coming.

I guess, in that it says I esteem truth over emotion-conjured counterknowledge. I didn't get it from a post, though, the reference is to a sermon of Wright's where he babbles about Jesus being a black man struggling against the oppression of Europeans (the Roman "Italians").

Alex, doesn't pay to feed the trolls.

First, you're conceding the point that Wright was saying the US deserved the attacks of 9/11.

Wright did say that. He said that 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost, which means America's foreign policy created 9/11.

Even if, dear child, saying that 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost is the same as saying America's foreign policy created 9/11, neither statement is the same as saying the US deserved the attacks.

I know that many of you cretins believe that 9/11 was history's first harvest that had never been sown, but then, you're cretins.

Not to mention that I didn't hear any calls for Ron Paul to resign his Congressional seat when he (not his minister!) said the same goddam thing. (And I agree with him, but since I'm white I guess I can get away with saying it too.)

"What I hear over and over is "why would he sit there and listen to this stuff for 20 years?" "

Because we are listening to 15 soundbites culled from a career of 40 years, without the context of anything positive.

"As a leader, Wright defied convention at every turn. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune last year, he recalled a time during the 1970s when the UCC decided to ordain gay and lesbian clergy. At its annual meeting, sensitive to the historic discomfort some blacks have with homosexuality, gay leaders reached out to black pastors. At that session, Wright heard the testimony of a gay Christian and, he said, he had a conversion experience on gay rights. He started one of the first AIDS ministries on the South Side and a singles group for Trinity gays and lesbians—a subject that still rankles some of the more conservative Trinity members, says Dwight Hopkins, a theology professor at the University of Chicago and a church member."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/123604

and:

"“Dr. Wright has preached 207,792 minutes on Sunday for the past 36 years at Trinity United Church of Christ. This does not include weekday worship services, revivals and preaching engagements across America and around the globe, to ecumenical and interfaith communities. It is an indictment on Dr. Wright’s ministerial legacy to present his global ministry within a 15- or 30-second sound bite,” said the Reverend Otis Moss III, pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ.

Trinity United Church of Christ’s ministry is inclusive and global. The following ministries have been developed under Dr. Wright’s ministerial tutelage for social justice: assisted living facilities for senior citizens, day care for children, pastoral care and counseling, health care, ministries for persons living with HIV/AIDS, hospice training, prison ministry, scholarships for thousands of students to attend historically black colleges, youth ministries, tutorial and computer programs, a church library, domestic violence programs and scholarships and fellowships for women and men attending seminary."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9062.html

I meant to say, "a few 15 second soundbites" above.

Herschel,

You're right, obviously, but I'd add one thing. When he says this, Wright is quoting the same comment made by Malcolm X about JFK's assassination (similarly received).

So I'd say that the import is not just "our foreign policy makes people hate us," but also "here we go again, America; you're going to act like this is the first harvest never sown too, aren't you?"

Even if, dear child, saying that 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost is the same as saying America's foreign policy created 9/11, neither statement is the same as saying the US deserved the attacks.

Don't call me "dear child". What are you, Bea Arthur? Of course it's the same thing. If I smack some thug in the face and he shoots me and you say, "That was chickens coming home to roost", you mean to say I had it coming. If a woman in a miniskirt walks through a park at night and is raped and you say, "That was chickens coming home to roost", you mean to say she had it coming. If an Afro-Centric preacher-demagogue says 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost on behalf of the Palestinians and South African blacks, he means to say we had it coming.

You may extenuate after the fact by claiming, hands-in-the-air, that "He was just sayin...", that he's not claiming they "deserve it", but it's unconvincing. The only reason he or you would say any of these things is to emphasize a causal relationship you feel should be duly noted. But only a useful idiot accepts the narrative of these kinds of perpetrators, and that's mainly because he has sympathy for them.

And we sure don't want to hear THAT, do we. After all, we;re the world's first and only perfect, perfectly innocent nation!

That was in response to the professor, not the troll.

akaison-
Listening to people you disgaree with is great, tolerating their hatefulness and venom is not. Listen to what they have say, then make clear you will not associate with people who are hate filled and seek to divide us. Do not engage in a 20 year relationship with them and give them a free ride on their harmful behavior. Being tolerant of intolerance and hate are not unity. Obama is not a bad man or person, but he is not what he claims to be which is a step above everyone else or a new kind of politican. It is one thing to be a political animal, another to be that, claim you aren't as the central premise of your candicacy, and moralize to those who you claim are for your own political purposes. Obama is not evil, but he is ruthless and hypocritical. You can't help but be those things to some extent in politics, but to absolutely claim you aren't and condem others who are no more that than you are is unacceptable. Obama has run the Rovian/Orwellian campaign and his chickens are coming home to roost. This has nothing to do with race, it has to do with honesty. Obama is a politican with an act, not a saint. He may very well be a good man, and might be a good president, but his hypocrsiy is disgusting. His ends may justify his means, but his holier than thou act is dirty and ugly. If he had saved it for the Republicans I wouldn't mind- I would do the same thing to stop them from continuing to damage this country. But when he uses it against fellow Democrats he is just furthering his own immense ambition and arrogance. I would vote for him in a second over McCain, but I won't be fooled by him like his venomous supporters who are so assured of their own moral superiority that they viciously attack anyone who dares disagrees with them. That is the danger of Obama's game and people need to speak the truth about it.

jdw,

No kidding. It's amazing how it seems to come so naturally to people to ask "how could he listen to this for 20 years?" and not "if he (along with lots of other non-pathological people) attends that church, can this really be what it's all about?"

I've been especially impressed by Wright's activism against homophobia; since the black church in general is pretty reactionary on that issue, to me it's a reminder that a willingness to go "beyond the pale" can't be condemned out of hand.

The only reason he or you would say any of these things is to emphasize a causal relationship you feel should be duly noted.

But you see, lost wanderer, that emphasizing a causal relationship is not the same thing as asserting that a just punishment has been inflicted. That I may have incited someone to some brutal action against me does not make the action righteous nor my suffering condign. I may call you a worthless piece of shit, and you may haul off and punch me in the nose. Were you justified? Did I deserve the punch? No, and no. Did I provoke the punch? Obviously.

Now go and think about this a little more carefully.

If anything, this whole Wright flap has shed light on how clueless I am about what African Americans think and feel about important issues. And it also has made me realize that we, blacks, whites, browns, or whatever race you are, could benefit from a president like Obama. Someone who has listened to the thoughts and feelings of others and who then challenges us to look at something a different way. Obama has challenged my way of thinking about the world and he has challenged Wright's way of thinking about the world. You can't challenge and provide solutions if you don't listen.

Were you justified? Did I deserve the punch? No, and no. Did I provoke the punch? Obviously.

You scored a 1 out of 3. The correct answers were Yes, Yes, and Yes.

The problem is that people like Obama the same way they liked Reagan and Bill, at a gut he's-a-good-guy level.

And it is tough for people to square that notion of Barack as a good guy with the fact that he stayed in that church for 20 years.

Anyhow, this will show if Obama has a glass jaw or not. Reagan and Bill overcame more than this issue to get elected.

A better question to ask right now might be: would we like and trust Obama more if he had blond hair and blue eyes? I'm guessing the answer to that question is yes. If he looked like Edwards he'd be *way* ahead. And if John were the politician Obama is, he'd be way ahead. Take that Geraldine and mentally munch on it, if you can, you simple-minded old party hack.

But you see, lost wanderer, that emphasizing a causal relationship is not the same thing as asserting that a just punishment has been inflicted.

I understand that, Yoda, but people like you and Wright are interested in certain causal relationships at certain times because you have sympathy for certain narratives. People like you never dwell on the causal relationship between, say, Palestinian civilian deaths and the tactics and nature of Hamas, or Afghan civilian deaths and 9/11 -- "Obliterated Afghan wedding party? I'm just sayin'...". The only time you show up to party with your blowback kazoo is when events allow you to retell the parable you believe in.

Many progressives would no doubt agree that no white person, man or woman, as president could adequately understand and sympathize with and represent the black community given its painful historical and present-day experiences of injustice (not even the "first black president" Bill could do this adequately, as many now realize).

The issue here, of course, is identity politics. And if such an identity politics is to be our guiding star, then why should the US ever have a black president at all? Note that some 88% of Americans are non-black. How could a black man (even a half-black man) adequately represent and understand and sympathize with all of them, or even a majority? He/she would be limited to his/her own racial milieu. Now, this may sound harsh, but then that's democracy for you, and especially when comingled with the triumphalistic politics of racial identity.

Obama was trying to transcend liberal identity politics but then someone had to go and discover that one of his significant personal relationships is with a black-identity fetishizing, conspiracy-spouting, demagogic dope. Woops, now we know that Obama is just another (somewhat) black guy--no transcendence, no post-race inspiration, no nothing. To have such a person serve as president would be a terrible injustice to the other 88% of Americans. Hedonistic calculus trumps.

I understand that, Yoda, but people like you and Wright are interested in certain causal relationships at certain times because you have sympathy for certain narratives.

Simple soul, I'm sure I don't know what category of people you imagine that Mr Wright and I jointly belong to, nor can I speak for him. I'd never heard of him till the day before yesterday, and don't have much use for all that God stuff anyway.

What I do have a lot of use for is the truth, and that US policy has provoked and continues to provoke a lot of shit that's nasty for the US is simply the truth. Take the ongoing occupation of Iraq. That's goin' real good, huh? What a good idea.

You scored a 1 out of 3. The correct answers were Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Ah, then, you would be the worthless piece of shit in question. Thanks for ringing in.

"And it is tough for people to square that notion of Barack as a good guy with the fact that he stayed in that church for 20 years."

What an absolute load of bunk. A couple of 15 second comments out of years of sermons, with no considereation given to any good having been done by the church.

Any of us that attend church disagree from time to time with what is preached, yet we still go. We might have a family member we love dearly, yet they may say some pretty unconscionable things.

Get over yourself. If you are really interested in BO's views on his faith, I suggest reading his book or his website section on faith or the numerous videos of his speeches in churches.

cal said it all, above. This is about Obama alone and why he wants us to vote for him-- and not Wright or race or patriotism or the 60s, etc.

"Such views are supposed to be troublesome because they signal that Obama agrees with them."

Same application to McCain and Hagee?

I think both McCain and Obama have a bit of a problem even though no one thinks they agree with their crazy friend. In neither case is it that big of a deal though.

Don't call me "dear child". What are you, Bea Arthur?

John-Paul: Best. Retort. Ever.

I believe Obama believes in the basics of black liberation theology.
I believe he sees some truth that America is not that great or unique a nation and he believes the Ahmendinejadh, Castros, PLOs' of the world have legitimate grips with America even thought they are tyrannical illegitimate dictators who abuse their power and their people.

The issue isn't does he believe in every single false fact spewed by Wright, but as President, you bring your life experience and life history to your judgement on thousands of issues and have to make critical decision often without complete information.

I believe Obama will, even if just subconsously, fall back on these teachings in times of difficulty and stress.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

One should read Shelby Steele

I don't believe Obama believes the objectionable things Wright says. BUT, he did lend his prestige, his aura, and himself to the project of DISSEMINATING these views in the community by attending that church, and supporting it financially. If the idea that AIDS was disseminated wilfully by the government, that the United States should be damned, etc, are bad ideas, then he shouldn't have been a part of their propagation. Many people in history have been in that position -- while not themselves believers in inflammatory propaganda, they have been associates of its spreaders, and even benefitted from it. I like Obama, and I hope he has an answer for all this, but it's serious.

It is not about whether Obama believes these things, it is much simplier. As explained by an African American, former Hillary supporter.

Obama to whites is a Tiger Woods black, not an Al Sharpton black, meaning he was not offensive or threatening to white people.
The Reverend Wright problem is it makes Obama look like his Tiger Woods persona is false.
This is what the Clinton campaign was trying to do in South Carolina, make Obama a Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton black and not a Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods black.

The Clinton campaign is counting on the remaining super delegates believing that poor, white Democrats will abandon Obama in favor of McCain if he is seen as an 'offensive' black.

To what extent should Hillary Clinton, as a follower of Billy Graham, have to disown his past anti-semitic comments?

To what extent should she have to disown her close ties to Douglas Coe's "Fellowship," which she has close ties to through her participation in right-wing prayer breakfasts? Should she disown the praise he has heaped upon various vile dictators?

Let's not have a double standard, Clintonites.

I haven't read the whole string of comments so it might be that this has been said, but the issue is this, in my opinion. Obama has presented himself to the American people a certain way. That he wishes to use his position as president, the legislative power and the megaphone of the office, to help heal the divisions that have been largely laid bare by the last 8 years of Bush (and to a lesser extent Clinton). Obama uses his rhetoric (to great affect) to make all of us feel that his presidency would be a departure from the sort of identity politics and, well, animus, that have been the defining characteristics of politics for the better part of the last two decades.

Obama’s race has served as a bit of a promise (and perhaps a tease) to voters that when he talks about bringing people together and healing the political divide, he also means the racial divide as well. I mean, he hasn’t even needed to speak explicitly about his race (though he has) to get people to zero in on this aspect of his potential presidency. Just one look at the man is all that’s needed.

But now, that aspect of his potential presidency has changed. He cannot plausibly say that Rev. Wright’s fiery hatred of America has come as a surprise to him. He’s been going to church there for 20 years! He cannot plausibly say that he is offended by those statements of Wright’s, because he has repeatedly spoken (and written) of Wright as a mentor, and profound influence on his life. What? Are we to assume that Obama remain seated with his arms crossed as the whole congregation danced and hooted at the mention of God “damning” America? Please.

So what does Obama believe? Can you say for sure that you know what’s in his heart now, Ezra? No. You can’t. No one can. Perhaps he believes that America is a horrible place that is unredeemable in it’s racism and unfairness. Maybe he believes that the whole undertaking is a lost cause and should be scrapped. Maybe he believes that America is illegitimate. Whatever he believes, I accept his right as an American to believe it. But I don’t have to vote for him to be my president.

"so what does obama believe?
can you say for sure that you know what's in his heart now, ezra?"

can we say for sure what is in your heart?

we should all take the planks out of our eyes, before we cast judgement on others.

Does anyone really think that the superdelegates will overturn the will of the people based upon queasiness over THIS controversy? That would be absolute suicide for the Democratic Party. They just can't do it.

"we should all take the planks out of our eyes, before we cast judgement on others."

unless it's "The Clintons," right, jac?

I wish Obama's politics had been MORE influenced by Wright. Then we'd have a genuine progressive in the Dem race instead of two corporate-oriented centrists.

Anonymous Racist said:

I believe Obama will, even if just subconsously, fall back on these teachings in times of difficulty and stress.

1. Many people believe that Obama shares many of Wright's opinions. Me, for instance.

2. Many people consider Wright to be hateful, and wouldn't listened to a single one of his sermons. A person who admires a man who lives and breathes this hatred is unfit to be President.

I don't know why it's so hard for pundits to accept that most people accept these simple conclusions from the facts of the situation. There's nothing to explain, and no mystery. Too much analysis makes you stupid.

Can we talk double-standards here?

No matter how many times Clinton denies that she believes Obama's a Muslim, the Obamabots won't believe her.

But they'll accept Obama's word that he doesn't believe Wright's hate, despite 20 years of guidance and inspiration.

fh

we have to make decisions based on the Actions of others.
obama has acted honorably throughout this entire election.
....i see barack obama as a kind and honorable man.
i do not feel that the clintons are honorable people, based on their Actions.
when there is an urgent issue, barack obama reacts immediately.
he did so
with samantha power and also with this firestorm.
hillary clinton has run an unkind campaign, and has not taken right action concerning geraldine ferraro, her 3 am ad, the words she has used against barack obama, the withholding of her tax returns, the way she is dealing with the michigan and florida primaries,her late apologies for her husband's conduct in the campaign, her vote on the war in iraq, the manner in which he handled health care policy in her husband's administration and many other issues as well
....the only measure we can use is that of right action and compassion for others. i do not see examples of that in the actions of bill and hillary clinton.
i cannot hold either of them as examples of right action or goodness.
that is what matters most to me.

you judge as you wish...don't claim you don't is all I ask

I'll chime in with Herschel in reiterating that claiming a causal connection between events does not imply that the subsequent events were justified. Person A may give Person B a weird look, which may lead Person B to run Person A over with a car, but that doesn't mean Person B's actions were justified or that Person A somehow got what he deserved. Now, maybe everyone knows Person B is a crazy whackjob and that you should never, ever, look at him weird. Does that change the moral quality of the events? Absolutely not, but it could make the events somewhat more predictable.

And I have plenty of good friends who hold an odious trait/belief or two. That doesn't mean they're not loyal friends who would be there for me if I was in need or that I don't criticize their beliefs/traits when they express them. Friends don't agree on everything.

Don, what support do you have for you first point? Obama has specifically said he doesn't believe the terrible things Wright has said but took a lot of the good ideas Wright has had. Do you have a brain wave device that can get at some truth we're not aware of?

jacqueline-
Barack Obama reacted immediately to this when it became a political liability for him. He has spent 20 years refusing to stand up to Wright's excesses and only does so when he might lose an election if he didn't. Obama has run a disgusting campaign villifying the Clintons, who while imperfect people, have fought their entire adult life for liberal causes. The Clinton Global iniative has done immeasurable good and literally saved countless lives around the world. I am sorry that is not enough to overcome the sin of not seeing that an inexperienced, dishonest, overly ambitious politican is the second coming. Your moralizing is as disgusting as Obama's dishonest campaign. We all understand you want you little golden boy to become President and have thrown Bill and Hillary Clinton under the bus to achieve it. Stop the santimonious moralizing and accept you guy is just another politican like the rest, but even worse because he and you refuse to admitt it. What goes around comes around, and don't expect anyone to rush to your defense when you and your kind have betrayed good people to further your own selfish ambitions.

"obama has acted honorably throughout this entire election."

Really ... so he told off Jesse Jackson Jr. for being a sexist and dragging race into the discussion during Jackson's appearance on MSNBC the night that Clinton won in NH?

You see what you want to see ... and are perfectly willing to demonize those who aren't backing your guy, Jacqueline.

Personally, I do agree with Obama on this topic. Reverend Wright should be judged by the entirety of his life not just bits and pieces lifted from speeches. And Obama should not be held accountable for every thing Wright or anyone else connected with his campaign do or say.

Too bad you and the rest of the Obamabots haven't been able to extend the same courtesy to Bill Clinton or Geraldine Ferraro, however.

And too bad, the Obama fanatics who chased their precinct chair through the streets of Dallas on election night or the people who have spit on and harrassed black Clinton supporters in the grocery store seem unwilling to extend the same courtesy.

Dear Anonymous,

I smiled at your comment, "Obama has run a disgusting campaign villifying the Clintons." Maybe it works both ways.

We should be heartened by his "more perfect union" speech this morning when he exonerated Geradine Ferraro. Its a step ... in the right direction I hope.