The problem with Rev Wright's statements is that they are overtly filled with racial hatred, targeting whites, as well as anti-Americanism as he says in church "Goddam America".
Now, let's imagine a white pastor telling his congregation that the black man is the problem and it's the black man to blame for all of our ills. Imagine this same pastor honoring a divisive racist as Wright did with Farrakkan. Now, imagine he is McCain's pastor. It would be a shitstorm of accusations of racism and a huge politica problem.

Why should Obama get a pass? Cause he's black??

I believe that this issue makes the left uncomfortable because it blows apart the assertion that blacks are incapable of racism...and is out there for all to see.

Falwell blamed 9/11 on America. McCain took back his rejection of him.

McCain embraces Hagee. So don't pretend he's innocent, Viajero.

However, this is very, very troubling. I'm not sure how to contain the fallout from this.

"The sense around town seems to be that the odd emergence of this old video of Wright was part of a Clinton oppo dump, and that's likely correct."

Put up or shut up.

Must we ceaselessly slander HRC? Why is it that every bad thing that happens to Obama is her fault?

Do you really not know that the wingnuts over at Faux News have been doing regular stories about Wright for months? Are you really so out of touch with the rest of the blogosphere that you haven't realized that this crap has been widely discussed ad nauseum by the crazies?

A good portion of the progressive blogosphere REALLY has gone bonkers. Up until a few months back, I would never have believed that Drudge et al would become a reputable source for you guys to start quoting as ammo against another progressive...

i cannot imagine what it would be like to be an african-american mother, with school-aged children, watching all of this.
i feel ashamed.
.....i cannot imagine what it would be like, to watch gloria borger, in her golden necklaces and fine appearance, and james carville and patrick buchanan talking about whether america is ready for a black president and defending the words of geraldine ferrarro and her enabler.
.....i cant imagine how i would feel taking my children to school in jeremiah wright's neighborhood, knowing it was dangerous, that we had no health care, that we may not be having heat that night.....that our pastor knows the essence of what our life is like.....and speaks angrily of our despair,, of what it still feels like hundreds of years later to be black in america.
that half of white america still buys into the worst elements of racism, and that two political figures we trusted in the guise of bill and hillary clinton were selling us down the river.
again. and again. and again. and again.
i feel ashamed.

You seem to be all over the place here (and elsewhere): if we're planning to make an issue - and a valid one, I think - of Hagee and others on the conservative side, then Wright's views become part of the question, too. By the same token, I suspect we should wonder a little more provocatively, about Lieberman's rabbi. That, too, seems like something worth a look.

At the same time, I think we need to be clear - the wild views of a "spiritual advisor" do not subsitute for a person's policies and politics. I think McCain should disavow Hagee because his endorsement is troubling. I have no reason to think that McCain shares his crazier views. Similarly, I think way too much linkage is made between what Wright has said and what Obama thinks. I think he, too, can easily clear that up... and he probably needs to. And so, by etension, would it be fair to ask Lieberman where he stands on his rabbi's views, it seems to me. This is why I think the conservative decision to bring faith into politics is so double edged; it's all fine with a vague protestantism that emphasizes stuff about being really nice to one another... after that, though, you find all sorts of perplexing stuff.

Finally, I agree with WTUD - there's nothing to suggest that this has anything to do with Hillary Clinton. If there's evidence, share it. If not, move on.

El Viajero,

Are you actually suggesting that for a black person to be angry at white racism is morally equivalent to, well, white racism?

Obama is a an empty suit with great enthusiasm and oratory skills. Without substance, this will likely make him unelectable.
A house of cards is easier to destroy than one with a good foundation.

Brendan,

Are you suggesting that blacks are incapable of racism?

It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like Louis Farrakkan.

a message was given to me from a member of synagogue, that another member said,
"if you want to come down here and start talking about the moslem running for president, dont bother coming."
.........this, from someone who left south africa, to avoid the problems there when things were looking dangerous for whites.
so they came here to live in america.
.......you know, working in the obama campaign, there was a fine couple of community organizers...the young fellow was from russia and the woman, i think, from iran. two indefatigable workers.....another young man who was latino.....the man next to me on the phone bank was chinese....the two women on the other side were middle aged women with blonde hair....
two african-american making calls at the next table.
i will not lose faith, even though ugliness and hatred sometimes prevail.
we cant give up on our dream for a better america.

No doubt many of the same voters who believe Obama is a Muslim are also disturbed by the videos they've seen of the inflammatory rhetoric used by the pastor of his church.

It's hard having a democracy when the voters are f***ing idiots. Another thing Obama isn't allowed to say.

El Viajero,

Two things.

1) What has Wright said that's actually racist?

2) Do you really hold a certain amount of anti-white prejudice against a black person of Wright's generation? Would you hold a certain amount of anti-gentile prejudice against a Jew who lived in Europe through World War II?

jacqueline - I think you should clarify what you mean by "half of white america still buys into the worst elements of racism," which appears to refer to Clinton supporters, or just as appallingly, to Republicans; it's offensive, to me, as a mixed race person to suggest that, simply bty supporting certain political candidates, one would be tarred as "racist." There has been way, way too much broad brush use of words like racist in recent times, and we all need to ratchet down the rhetoric, I think, in order to maintain civil discourse. I have no problem with Wright's anger at the poor treatment of minority communities. I think it's a step too far to accuse wide swaths of the population of racism as the cause of other people's troubles. That's no way to a) work together to find solutions, and b) face the fact that the systemic issues are much deeper than simple racism. Really, I expect better of you. I hope I'm right.

It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like Louis Farrakkan.

Conversely, if it burns like a strawman....

Honestly, I don't know who's advising HRC 'spiritually'; and I don't care. Why is this a story? White's obviously an idiot; and it's not like we have a shortage of those in this country. Let's save the outrage for something like, I dunno, the death and displacement of over a million people in a certain country.

Its rarely clear to me, when people talk about these things, if they think this is a problem because:

Its evidence that Obama really does hate white people.

- or -

They think that other people will think its evidence that Obama really does hate white people.

El Viajero is a good example of this vagueness.

I'm curious how many people simultaneously think Obama is a secret Muslim and that he secretly believes all the words of his pastor from the United Church of Christ. Who needs consistency?

As a church-state separatist, I'd love for Obama to note that one of the pitfalls of religion as a public force is a tendency to reinforce cultural resentments. He could maybe even say that it's one reason he didn't really identify with a church until adulthood... no idea if that's true, but IME it's certainly common enough among more analytical and principled types who have to learn to personalize faith instead of accepting its public face without question.

But yes, it's troubling. He's going to have to tie it to the troubling religious extremism of the Falwells & Robertsons of the world, while making the point that people are often more generous than their leaders. Then it could be an extension of his generosity towards evangelicals, which still repudiates inflammatory rhetoric.

weboy...
i apologize if my words were reckless or greatly inflammatory. i am sorry.

but when i hear geraldine ferraro, see hillary clinton not react to her words in the strongest possible way, hear the words of bill clinton, listen to the hatred espoused by michael savage, with what he says is the third most popular radio show on television, and hear james carville, one of hillary's most ardent defenders, calling any condemnation of ferraro's words as being "absurd"...listening to patrick buchanan saying the most insulting things as he share the table with a young african american woman, it becomes very painful to watch.
....i guess i thought our country was further along...and i thought this would have been one of our proudest moments.
again, i apologize.

I think it's a problem because the question of racial grievances is a deeply uncomfortable one for many whites, especially younger white people who feel that they are not prejudiced and do not, as individuals or in groups, seek to mistreat or discriminate against others. I think Barack Obama has done a masterful job, in this especially, of defusing the tension between dealing with previous injustices to one community while respecting these concerns (though, as Shelby Steele points out, he's done it by "bargaining", which is to say he's not bringing up a lot of ugly past history as an exchange for general agreement of future change). Wright, and his proximity to Obama, upends this: there will be a lot of people - and I am very much not one of them - who will find Wright's anger and his anger at America in general, troubling... and angering. It's not that people will think Obama hates white people; it's that delaing with our difficult, unpleasant racial history is something we have not addressed for a long time... or, like, ever. Bringing it up in an angry way,as Wright does, won't help. And that could, and probably will, hurt Obama, unless he distances himself from it. And I'd bet that he will.

The point is, and I've been saying this for a while on my blog, that the notion that we're having, or have had, a conversation about race in this country is largely an illusion. We don't talk about race in depth because it's uncomfortable, it leads to deep conflict, and it brings old, painful aspects of our history that many do not want to confront, or deal with. Barack Obama's candidacy is a challenge to that, and I think he's done a brilliant job, for a long time, of defusing the issues... but mostly by going around them. Questions like this were bound to come up. And Obama will have to deal with them. But I think the recipe for success is to not wade into them. Not that I think it's a healthy choice. But I think it's the only winning one.

SP, obviously Wright is a secret Muslim as well. Probably they're both also secret atheists, secret homosexuals, secret illegal aliens, secret communists, and secret members of the invasion force from Alpha Centauri.

Joe Lieberman attends a Modern Orthorox shul in Georgetown, in Washington, DC.

First of all, the Rabbi's sermons aren't taped and televised because it's shabbos.

Second, it's not like his Rabbi is Meir Kahane! While I'm sure his rabbi, if asked would be against intermarriage, I know he doesn't preach on it.

Trust me, Joe Liberman's rabbi's sermons would sound very similar to Jimmy Carter's pastor's sermons (except without all the Jesus stuff) -- in other words very liberal.

It's a bad comparison

I am surprised at how much I agree with weboy above, whose arguments in defense of HRC I have never found too compelling. But the point that Obama tends to defuse without confronting is a completely fair one. I share a more profound agreement with Jacqueline on how lamentable and, yes, unfair the attention the pastor is getting is, but Obama's response is open to criticism as well. If it were me, I would simply say I completely repudiate that kind of talk, and leave it at that. I would NOT go on to qualify the statement.

"It's not that people will think Obama hates white people; it's that delaing with our difficult, unpleasant racial history is something we have not addressed for a long time... or, like, ever." A valid point weboy.
However, it is also the point that based on the statements of his wife and close friends it is easy to conclude that Obama does hate white people or is at the very least going to appoint people to positions of power that do hate white people. I just can't see any way to support someone who is almost certain to promote policies and ideologies aimed at punishing me for my skin color.

The thing that gets me about all this is that in person, Rev. Wright & his church aren't scary at all. We white people are welcome at the church--not just as guests but as full members there. I've never felt unwelcome when I've worshiped at Trinity UCC.

Sure Wright has said some controversial stuff, at least in part as an attempt to push the envelope--to speak prophetically, if you will. He's only "scary" if you're scared of black men or have been too scared to experience what Trinity UCC is all about.

This stuff really could be Obama's undoing. However, luckily for him, McCain is on record describing a divisive reverend as his "spiritual guide" -- his name is Rod Parsley, and among his gems are the assertions that US needs to "wage war" with the "false religion" of Islam, complete with violent rhetoric: "I came to incite a riot! Man your battle stations. Ready your weapons."

I don't think there's anything unfair about brining up Jerimiah Wright, it is offensive stuff. But there's lots of offensive stuff to go around.

(link: http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/03/mccain-and-the.html)

I'm with weboy on this. This is a stellar oppurtunity for identity issues to take the forefront in the national conversation but they won't. Once again it will be shied away from because it will be divisive and probably nasty and looking at what's in the gutters is disgusting, and when the election is over the issues will be tabled. Once again people with think that they have been dealt with because it blew up. Lives will go on, the gutters will fester and build ice dams under the roof. When the leaks appear they will be patched over and painted but not taken and apart and restructured. And when the roof collapses, everyone will scratch their heads and say that the problem had been fixed.

We don't live in a post-anything world, we live in a head in the sand world of patched cracks.

Hmm. It should be noted that the HRC supporters here are the one's advocating a confrontational approach to anxieties about the role of race in the campaign. Not sure what it means, but it is striking.

july 15, 1944

"it's really a wonder that i havent dropped all my ideals, because they seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. yet i keep them, because in spite of everything i still believe that people are really good at heart.
i simply cant build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death. i see the world gradually being turned into a wilderness, i hear the ever approaching thunder, which will destroy us too, i can feel the sufferings of millions and yet, if i look up into the heavens, i think that it will all come right, that this cruelty too will end, and that peace and tranquility will return again.
in the meantime, i must uphold my ideals, for perhaps the time will come when i shall be able to carry them out.
yours,
anne"

the diary of a young girl
anne frank

From the mountains, to the prairies, to the oceans white with foam, God damn America, my home sweet home, God damn America, my home sweet home....

Here's what I think Obama should say about Wright:

"My relationship with Pastor Wright is personal, religious and of many years' standing. He is not a political adviser, and I will not discard a lifelong relationship with a man I respect just because some pundits want to make an issue of it. We do not agree on every issue, nor should anyone expect us to agree on every issue. My relationship with Jeremiah Wright is a relationship with a human being and a close personal friend.

"On the other hand, Senator McCain has courted John Hagee and Rod Parsley for purely political purposes. He is drawn to them because of their power on the Republican right. And they get that power at least in part because of their appeals to prejudice against various religious groups. He has actively solicited their endorsements, with full knowledge of their appeals to hatred and divisiveness, and there are no long-standing personal relationships involved. The real question for the American people is why Senator McCain wants to court these two divisive figures if he truly rejects their views, and presumably also the views of their followers."

But he probably won't.

It's no different than white vs. black. Wright is black, and Obama is black. They're clearly part of the same "tribe," and thus their views are considered interchangeable-- people always back up their own tribe, right?

Whereas, sure, Hagee is white and McCain is while, but, hey, isn't everyone white? You can't hold one white guy to account for what another white guy is doing.

As someone who's spent his life attending any number of heavily ethnic churches, a "proudly African American" church doesn't phase me in the slightest. Don't like it? Well, I dare those who don't to go tell the Portuguese Catholic church down the street what you think.

It's called a double-standard. Get used to it, people.

@Peter & @Tyro:

Spot on.

Spot on

OK, you're either English or gay...which is it?

The impression I get is that it doesn't really matter what Wright said, because a huge swath of white America is unable or unwilling to discern between talking about the mistreatment of African-Americans and "hating white people."

Idiots on the TV need something to talk about.

And I guess we add you to the list.

If someone cares what his pastor says, they weren't going to vote for him anyway.

We are so scared. Your little health care scare didn't stop him and either will this.

@Anonymous:

Neither.

I'm glad you were kind enough to use your real name while asking, though. "Anonymous" is your real name, right?

When I saw this video, I honestly didn't think it was as bad as its being hyped. But things are always 10x more "dangerous" when black people do it (holding a gun, running for office, etc). So, Ezra I think you are dead on about what is "accepted" extremism. Also, what about Hagee and Parsley? Parsley especially twisting scripture to say that Islam should be annihilated. What?? That's McCain's "spiritual mentor".

"However, it is also the point that based on the statements of his wife and close friends it is easy to conclude that Obama does hate white people or is at the very least going to appoint people to positions of power that do hate white people."

Are you freakin kidding me? So he hates his mother and grandparents and cousins...You obviously have no black friends. There is an anger even rage at oppression, injustice and racism which is a legitimate HUMAN feeling in the black community GLOBALLY. I'm sorry if you don't get that. Sometimes I'm just dumbfounded at how utterly estranged different races are.

It really annoys the heck out of me that black people aren't allowed to be angry at oppression. No, only white public figures can do that. That's why John Edwards could sound "angry" and get more votes, or McCain can "loose his temper". Obama has to be "cool" as he is known. You all know the moment he raises his voice it will be "evidence" that he "hates white people".

God Bless American, indeed, we need it.

~A Christian

The point is, and I've been saying this for a while on my blog, that the notion that we're having, or have had, a conversation about race in this country is largely an illusion. We don't talk about race in depth because it's uncomfortable, it leads to deep conflict, and it brings old, painful aspects of our history that many do not want to confront, or deal with.

weboy may or may not agree with me on this, but his statement makes me think about the "conversations" about race/ethnicity and gender that essentially turn into shouting matches about who is the "most victimized" and/or who is "playing the race card". As a result, people are forced to take positions that are less nuanced than what a substantive discussion would offer.

For example, IMO race matters, and it's effect is widespread, but not so obvious that it can be easily called out the way a Nazi skinhead can be. But people find it really hard to admit in the first place that inequalities still exist given that such obvious examples of racism are now considered abnormal.

This brings me back to Steinem's op-ed in the NYT. I didn't disagree with her in regards to gender, but I hated, hated, hated that she brought race into her argument. She's comparing two sets of identities that have very different dynamics in the within different contexts. It's entirely probable that, post-Civil Right, post-2nd wave feminism, post-affirmative action, a white woman and a black man can benefit from those identities. But it doesn't mean that the original set of unequal conditions that necessitated forced standards of equal treatment have suddenly gone away -- its hundreds' of years' worth of unequal treatment being hacked away slowly by 40 year old movements.

Obama has had advantages in this contest because his racial identity and his life story dovetail nicely into a post-Civil Rights vision of American multiculturalism, but by the same token, must combat fear that his foreigness and his blackness would not properly allow him to provide for and protect all segments of America.

HRC has had advantages in this race because of her connection to a popular ex-president and on the idea that female leaders are somehow more nurturing and "family oriented" than male ones. But she's also had to deal with people questioning her skill because of her "connections" and with coded accusations of ideological and moral "weakness".

And at the end of the day, this constant scrutinizing of their abilities respective only to their identities (and not, say, their actual accomplishments) is something that a white, straight man would never have had to deal with.

"that half of white america still buys into the worst elements of racism, and that two political figures we trusted in the guise of bill and hillary clinton were selling us down the river.
again. and again. and again. and again.
i feel ashamed."

You should. This and your other comment betray the same self-righteousness that so many Obama supporters seem to feel.

There are many African Americans who are working to get HRC as the Democratic nominee. Many of these folks are people who have know Bill and Hillary Clinton for decades. They know damn well that neither is a racist.

It is lovely to hear about the diverse group of people you have met on the Obama campaign. But how dare you assume that the "other side" is a group of lilly white racists.

I have black friends who have been threatened and harrassed for daring to wear a Hillary button to the grocery store! My group of HRC volunteers includes Asian Americans, Latinos, African Americans, Iraq & Afghanistan veterans, and a emigre from Northern Ireland who can tell you a lot more about what Hillary did to help the peace process **there** than the latest foreign affairs expert quoted extensively by the Obama fans i.e. Sinbad!

Get your head out of the sand and actually look at the people supporting someone other than your guy instead of projecting all of this crap onto the rest of us.

"Imperialism is normalized in American discourse, while skepticism of American intentions and capabilities is not."

Excellent point. Normalization, of course, goes beyond imperialism - to beliefs such as tax cuts result in net increase in revenue, ever increasing budget deficits can be tolerated for ever, etc., etc.
Given the havoc played on our nation by normalization, shouldn't we call it by a less euphemistic name such as delusion?

his statement makes me think about the "conversations" about race/ethnicity and gender that essentially turn into shouting matches about who is the "most victimized" and/or who is "playing the race card". As a result, people are forced to take positions that are less nuanced than what a substantive discussion would offer.

Simplified: when out-groups try to one-up each other in claims of being the most oppressed, the only group that benefits are the oppressors. We may see firsthand verification of the principle if the Democratic intra-party squabbling over "you're a racist," "no, you're a misogynist" allows McCain to waltz into the White House.

There's a very real probability that by the time the general election rolls around, and it's the GOP going on the offense with noxious tactics, that the country will be worn out by all the accusations of bigotry. And by that point, it won't really matter whether Clinton or Obama started it.

Great little essay.

There are many African Americans who are working to get HRC as the Democratic nominee. Many of these folks are people who have know Bill and Hillary Clinton for decades. They know damn well that neither is a racist.

That framing is one of the main reasons we can't talk about race in this country. Any time you do, some white person makes it about whether they're being called a racist or not, as if it was some binary thing where if you point out any sort of white privilege you might as well be accusing them of joining the KKK.

Jacqueline wrote:

"listen to the hatred espoused by michael savage, with what he says is the third most popular radio show on television"

Seriously ... you are joking, right?

This man despises both Bill and Hillary Clinton ... exactly how, in your opinion, is HRC responsible for anything said or done by a right-wing commentator?

"listening to patrick buchanan saying the most insulting things as he share the table with a young african american woman, it becomes very painful to watch"

And again ... exactly how is this HRC's fault? Buchanan is a right-wing, racist loon. He and his sister hate Hillary. Bay Buchanon even wrote a book on HRC that ranks up there with the tripe produced by Ann Coulter.

"That framing is one of the main reasons we can't talk about race in this country. Any time you do, some white person makes it about whether they're being called a racist or not, as if it was some binary thing where if you point out any sort of white privilege you might as well be accusing them of joining the KKK."

Thanks for putting words into my mouth there. It ain't about me projecting, bookworm.

I didn't put it in quotes, but I was channeling by friend Mavis. 67, African American and friends with the Clintons since she met them while working the McGovern campaign in 1972.

Her comments were pithier than what I distilled.

You were answering a talk about the effects of the Clinton administration's policies with their black friend vouching that they're not personally racist.

Under what framing is that relevant?

Hey look at that, Obama rejected and denounced Wright's comments. Can we drop this now?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html

Time for his campaign to stop playing defense and go back to making the case for why he's a better president than McCain.

His response on the controversy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html

"You were answering a talk about the effects of the Clinton administration's policies with their black friend vouching that they're not personally racist."

Really ... where was I doing that exactly? I am afraid your line of reasoning alludes me.

What this thread has been about -- mostly -- was the racism charge leveled against the Clinton campaign. Included in this thread was a garbled, gratutious account by an Obama supporter who claimed to be ashamed because the half of Dems voting for Clinton are "racist" ... no where did anyone discuss policies.

What a lame attempt to turn the conversation ... not a particularly worthy effort ... and patently not worth any more time from me.

and patently not worth any more time from me.

Well, it was worth some gay-baiting from you when someone said "spot on."

All those trying to excuse the pastors problems for Barack are missing a
huge point.

1. First, this pastor/church was specifically chosen by Barack, he
makes a point that he was searching for a church and decided this was the best fit for him.

2. This isn't some fly by night relationship. Barack has attended the church for
20 years, he was married in it, his kids baptized in it. He gave thechurch 22,000 dollars in 2006 alone. He even says the Minister gave him the title to his book. The Minister is a member of his campaign.

3. The claim that the Minister is somehow like a crazy relative you
simply have to deal with at the holidays is ridiculous. First, this church and Minster are not related
to Barack, he is not forced to associate with him because he's a relative, he could leave at any time. He CHOSES not to, he choses to stay.

4. To say this is similar to having to agree with everything the Pope
says or leave the Catholic church is also ridiculous. You don't attend the Popes
church, you don't listen to his sermons. And I would think if the Pope espoused such hatred of American, one would want to leave. He could easily find another
Christian church to worship in, with a less radical pastor.

5. Obama and his wife have willingly had their children sit in that church
and receive the teachings of this man. If they had gone alone - joined
the church as a political decision - that would be one thing. But they wanted their
children to hear this man speak. Everyone knows instinctively that what
we choose to teach our children reveals who we really are inside.

Obama is now forced to deny who he has been for the last 20 years.

And Ezra, if Liebermans Rabbi was saying God Damn the USA and the country was responsible for 911 because we nuked japan who attacked us first, I would think it would have been a huge issue.

If a rabbi or minster preaches how to conduct your personal life that's one thing, once he deiceds to be political and tell you the American public used their CIA to give black people AIDS, then that is a very public policy position. Period.

@ Andrew 4:31 PM:

Yes, it's called divide and conquer, working magic as always:

white women vs. women of color
women vs. African Americans
Latinos/Chicanos vs. African Americans
Working class whites vs. Latinos or African-Americans

Just to be clear, there are historical reasons for these grievances and I'm not advocating some giant session of kumbaya among different groups. For example, the kind of 2nd wave feminism to which Steinem alluded has often beens seen as neglecting the specific concerns of women of color, which is the context for why people were offended by her use of race in that essay.

Anonymous, what jfp points out is that trying to answer a charge of promoting ideas with potentially racist implications (e.g. "Jesse Jackson won SC twice") is not the same as calling someone racist, so it can't be adequately answered by avowing to someone's "non-racist heart". (Likewise, someone saying that they "have no problem with female leaders, I like so-and-so from my state" doesn't excuse that person from sexist intent when he/she claims that HRC is "coasting on her husband's name" without first acknowledging that a man in the same situation with a well-known spouse would probably not have to deal with those questions.) The discussion that is relevant here is whether a statement undercutting a person's political credibility is being based entirely on identity. Since Obama's only qualitative connection to Jackson is that they're both black men who campaigned and won in majority-black Democrat states, people have a right to be suspicious that BC was using race to imply that Obama will lose everywhere else. Likewise, people do HRC wrong when they say that her connections are the only reason that she is where she is. To reformulate an oft-invoked reference, Laura Bush would have quite a ways to go before she would be considered a realistic choice in any public office other than librarian. While HRC gets a boost from her ties to prominent people, those prominent people probably wouldn't help her unless she was actually capable.

What we're dealing with here are culturally embedded sets of expectations for anyone who is not a straight white male. It dictates the way we think about what people are capable of doing. (Is a black man capable of representing the interests of whites, because we're so used to seeing their interests in opposition to another? Is a woman capable of rising to the top on her own merits, because we're always used to seeing women follow men rather than lead them?) Our assumptions involving race, ethnicity, class, and gender have to be interrogated every so often or we risk forgetting historical inequalities. We may no longer be so obviously racist or sexist, but that doesn't mean that we aren't affected by the ripple effects of institutions and societal expectations that were originally founded on racist and sexist ideas.

"""It really annoys the heck out of me that black people aren't allowed to be angry at oppression. """

Black people can certainly be angry at oppression, but that can't make up fake oppressions to be angry about.

Should blacks really be angry because whites used the CIA to infect blacks with aides?

Should blacks really be angry because whites nuked the innocent Japanese and thus brought the 911 attacks on ourselves.

Should blacks be angry that we support the Democrat state of Isreal against the terrorist bands of murderers in the PLO?

This guy is simply off his rocker. No wonder Ms. Obama said she had never been proud of America in the whole time she attended this church.

And they are infecting their children with the same hatred. Do we really want a President that is going to demand the CIA spend their resources investigating why they gave blacks aides rather then fighting the enemy?

I am sorry people, but listening to Wright a light clicked on and I understood Obama, I understood why he can only give canned speeches and limited answers, he's afraid this kind of crap is going to spew from his mouth. I understand why he can have a terrorist friend like Ayers and not think twice about it. I understand why he believes he can sit down with the enemies that hate us the most and show them we are now different, because he doesn't see them as enemies, he sees them as having justified grievances.

I get it now.

If we continue waging wars and supporting oppressive regimes without stepping back and considering the implications such actions will have, then yes, more 9/11's will happen to the naive single-minded superpower who thinks of itself as having done no wrong.

We reap what we sow. It's as simple as that. A little reflection on our budgetary priorities would quickly illustrate how we are perceived around the world.

Why is it that the most incoherent and tedious statements are always written by anonymous? If he/she/it really is a Clinton advocate, I pity the poor woman.

to one of the many anonymous commenters...

i think you misunderstood me.
i do not feel ashamed for the things that i said about the way hillary clinton has responded and inflamed recent events, using them to her political advantage...
i feel ashamed by her campaign, and others.that is my opinion.
....and i do not understand how anyone, honestly, could have observed the actions of bill and hillary cinton over the past few weeks, and not have found them shameful..
the things that have been spoken, have only served to inflame and hurt people in the process.
i worked hard for bill clinton years ago to try and get him elected.
i have no respect for the campaign they are running now.
you can call me self-righteous, or whatever you want.
for people that worked so hard in the past, one would have expected a lot more from them. that is my opinion.
as weboy cogently points out, it is a difficult and sensitive enough dialogue to have, without fanning the flames of hatred and appealing to people's lowest instincts.
the clintons should know that as well as anyone.

i dont believe that you sacrifice your principals and core beliefs in life in order to win....not at the painful expense of other people.

It turns out that both leading democratic candidates have serious flaws, in spite of all the crooning about how either of them would be great, and both a dream ticket. The unspeakable sleaze of the Clinton years, culminating in the Clintons' feathering their luxurious nests by selling pardons on the one hand, and the serious lapse of judgment and common sense of Obama in the case of Wright. Because staying with this minister and running for high office in this country don't go well together. That's a fact, and you have to ask what Obama was thinking in all this. I regret the departure of Biden and Dodd, even Edwards.

Ezra called this one correctly.

That all extremisms aren't equally normalized is purely a consequence of numbers.

-A majority of Americans do not agree with Robertson, but if they are not atheist, self-consciously feminist or gay or do not belong to a religion besides Christianity, they do not feel they are in his direct line of fire, unless they happen to have a strong enough personal ideological opposition to Robertson.

But, since a majority of Americans are white, a preacher biased against whites is a threat to their self-esteem or pride, and possibly other interests as well.

Podhoeretz's imperialism, in a non-draft America, does not immediately, visibly threaten most Americans.

Chomsky's well, not skepticism, but his consistent and 100% predictable contrarianism is not a physical threat to Americans, but it threatens most Americans' pride and self-esteem. It is not a feel good message Chomsky has. So, for the broad voting public, chomsky threatens more people, even if less severely, than podhoeretz does.

So, even if being anti-American, anti-every damn bit of US foreign policy ever, or anti-white actually gets you admired in some limited circles, and even if some association with people who have those positions does not sink you in a democratic party, its a big albatross among the general votership.

As a matter of forming political coalitions, anti-white expressions are an inherently self-defeating move with majority white electorates.

The merits, the justifications for it?

Fuck being right or not, politics is about winning.

And, the anti-white card can work for you if your political ambitions are geared toward heavily black cities or gerrymandered districts, but it makes it harder to get legislative results you want or that help your constituents at the state and federal level.

For results at the state and federal level that help blacks, blacks need to point out those problems they have that whites and hispanics and other also have, and whose solution would help all (this is actually what Obama and Democrats running on the national stage actually attempt to do). Being anti-white is a costly indulgence for yourself or any friends you have who wants to get hired by a majority white electorate.

fundamentally, alot of politics is about WIIFM, what's in it for me.

On economic and spending priorities, this would lead to a natural advantage for Democrats.

But on issues of minority identity politics and patriotism, WIIFM always works against the anti-majority or anti-pride in country crowd, or anybody who has the slightest association with them.

By the way, I'm not worried about Obama as President. He'll want to renew his contract after four years, and knows that being actively injurious to the majority or criticizing the country in a fundamental way is not good for that.

that does not even mean he would have to be overcautious either. It just means that if wants to make big changes he's got to treat them as a constructive opportunity that does not make a majority of the people feel like their being scolded or they are losers

I don't think a conversation about race can actually be useful.

It will degenerate into shouting matches when its un-refereed. Sides will feel they are not being listened to, or they will feel that the other side wants a one-sided conversation with the burden of correction only on them.

Even if its refereed and people can stay calm getting to understand how other people feel........it still won't change many things related to racial disparity.

A conversation about race won't get you socialism or a leveling of incomes.

A conversation about race won't change real estate economics.

A converation about race won't change people's desire to place their children near other children likely to succeed.

A conversation about race won't, all by itself, make somebody feel different about taxes.

Denials of racism embitter one side. Confessions of racism give only passing feelings of vindication to accusers, irritate those who confess or who are being probed for confessions. So they embitter the other side.

Looking at the era of Jim Crow or slavery is not some useful elixir to help modern nonblacks become less racist. Most modern nonblacks will see the rabidity of old time white culture and notice, not parallel to today, but instead how tacky, creepy, how freaking foreign, white American behaviors were. Their sensation will be, "damn, look at that shit. We're not so bad at all compared to that."

The only way that conversation about race could be useful would be if it was held at the really analytical level to see those major life outcomes where people being prejudiced makes the key difference. Where constitutional and not in gross contradiction to other liberties, you could legislate against it. As a social movement, outside the realm of law, what nonblacks could use (and this could go the other way too) is a little checklist of signs that they might be about to make an inadvertantly racist decision. When they stop and weigh the mental checklist, they can make sure they behave fairly and know they are doing the right thing.

weboy,

this evening, barack obama spoke on larry king, with great honesty and sensitivity, trying to open up the kind of dialogue on race, that i think is the kind of open and honest exchange that you feel we need to have.
i think it was a very special and courageous interview in its entirety, and i hope you will have the chance to hear it.

srry...the interview
is on anderson cooper, not larry king...
and there is an interesting dialogue, very positive in nature, with roland martin and david gurgen.

Jeses Ezra, this story is being flogged by Sean Hannity since last year. These are DVDs you can buy from the church's website.

Yet, you want to blame Hillary for Obama's 20-year relationship with this racist, hate-mongering preacher.

You guys will go to any length to protect Obama and blame Hillary.

Shameful behavior on your part.

"the Libertarian/Marxist skepticism of Noam Chomsky"

Hack alert.

How about it Ezra? World's turned upside down called on you to put up or shut up in the third comment,and I haven't seen anything yet. On what grounds do you base your assumption? Is it because everybody knows that THECLINTONS are awful?

The more logical reason for that assumption would be that the Republicans would rather wait until late Summer to drop such a bomb -- that's why the first swift boat ad didn't run until August four years ago. But that reasoning's far from airtight for several reasons.

First off, it was easy to control the timing of the swift boat ads, somebody had to pay for them. Anybody could have posted the Wright footage.

More importantly, Wright was becoming old news. waiting until August or later to release this footage would have been gambling that people would still care about Wright. The would also be the related risk that it would be dismissed as trying to revive an old controversy as part of a desperate, last-minute attack.

Even more importantly, the Wright video is more chum in the Democratic waters. This further bloodies the Democratic nominee, whoever it is.

So how about it, are you going to put up or shut up?

It is silly to assume hat Obama would agree with one thing this pastor said about whites because Obama is part white and his family is white. It is crazy crazy crazy to think he would have approved of this type of bigotry against his own race....

This is why they will not be able to swift boat him like Kerry... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7piGy0u43c

I was glad to see that video of Obama's longtime chum Rev. Wright. At least now I know that AIDS was purposely induced into the minority community by Caucasians. My only question: how do Caucasians keep getting them to have unsafe sex to retain the HIV?

On the subject of HIV, the interesting thing is that such conspiracy theories aren't limited to the black community. Parts of the gay community also believes it at certain times too. This is a majority indifference versus minority desperation of argument thing. Weboy is right however that this won't progress that far. First because conservatives know these are effective wedge issues that white straight American doesn't full comfortable understanding. Not agreeing with, but understanding. Second, white liberal straight people don't have to undrestand either. They can feel better because they say the right things even if deep down the substance isn't alwayst here. This isn't to excuse the reverend. it's to turn this into the larger conversation that weboy wanted to discuss. but, frankly, it's something conservative could never allow to happen because they would well and truly be fucked to discuss it beyond the divisiveness of the issue. And its something liberals (white ones at least and those who tend to be straight) fear.

To be clear, the whole conspiracy part grows out of the claim that HIV was actually a product of the small pox vacine that was allowed to mutate or whatever. I've seen and read the theories in very black related publications. It won't be something thats uniqe to anyone who has heard them.

Again, it doesn't excsue it, but in a world where Katrina, Jim Crow and slavery was a llowed to happen, it can be clear why some people might just think the American government doesn't have black people's interest at heart. But hey, don't let that stop you from leaving a worse world for you kids by pretending that its black and white, cut and dry.

At least any gay community conspiracy-theorists had the sense to actually lower their spread of the supposedly man-made weapon. Anyway, using HIV statistics as well as those of multiple rape and murder, it would seem the U.S. has more interest in the welfare of black people than any African nation. Which is why the Rev. Wrights really do begin to slip below the category of conspiracy-minded-fanatics to just plain sillies.

At least any gay community conspiracy-theorists had the sense to actually lower their spread of the supposedly manmade weapon. Anyway, using HIV statistics as well as those of multiple rape and murder, it would seem the U.S. has more interest in the welfare of black people than any African nation. Which is why the Rev. Wrights really do begin to slip below the category of conspiracy minded fanatics to just plain sillies.

The Clinton campaign and its hangers-on have been doing perfectly awful things, but they gambled that doing so might just keep HRC in the race until something broke their way. New revelations about Rev. Wrong may just be the thing, possibly a big thing. It was a gutsy and nasty gamble on HRC's part, but it may well have paid off. HRC, Penn, et al. are doing a joyful jig right now (and thank god we don't have any Utube videos of that).

Obama is about to get steam rolled. Hillary camp throwing lots of mud, press refuses to run with it...

Ali Abunimah is a well-known activist for Palestinian causes. He has a harshly anti-Israel attitude. He says he met with barack Obama about half a dozen times at various Palestinian and Arab-American events, including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker (there is a photo of Said with Senator Obama and his wife).

Edward Said was a severe critic of Israel; he developed a school of study about the Middle East based on denunciation of so-called "Orientalism" that has influenced many Middle Eastern professors to take an anti-Israel view. The entire field of Middle Eastern studies has been so corrupted that Congress has raised an alarm about federal funding going to professors with an anti-American, anti-Israel agenda. These are the ideological heirs of Edward Said.

Abunimah wrote an article critical of Obama's very recent and somewhat lukewarm outreach to the Israel's supporters. He wrote that years ago Obama had been forthright in his criticism of American foreign policy and had called for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israel conflict. But Abunimah detected a change as Obama began his Senate run. He met Obama at an event that occurred in the midst of the Senator's primary campaign for Senate. Abunimah writes,

Obama said, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

Is Abunimah lying??

Could Obama's outreach to the pro-Israel community during his Presidential run just be a reprise of his actions during his Senate campaign?
The picture of Obama together with one of Israel's harshest critics in America, Edward Said, gives scant reason for comfort regarding Obama's true beliefs.

yeah I know it is fashionable to all liberal bloggers to smear Senator Clinton as racist, but you made a very precise and inflammatory charge here and since you say you are a "journalist" show us evidence or be contrite and post a retraction. Enough of this hyperbole and incessant race-baiting by Obama supporters and bloggers. At this rate the sizable portion of the people who support Hillary will not only be turned off by your anointed saint but we might sit this election out. When you smear our candidate as racist you smear us as racist as well. So once again PUT UP OR SHUT UP>

The charge of "extremism" is not fair to Noam Chomsky, in my judgment. What is extreme about what he is claiming? Is it extreme to note that nine out of ten political problems in the world can be traced back to the fact that corporate leaders get what they want at the expense of what the general population wants? If so, then a large fraction of the world's population, including the American population, is quite extreme as well. People all over the world believe just what Noam Chomsky asserts, and not because these folks buy into some fringe theories, but because they experience these realities first-hand. When we have reached the point where the (perfectly legitimate) beliefs and opinions of the vast majority of people around the world are considered to be far outside of the mainstream, we should pause and perhaps reconsider our conceptions of what is extreme, what is radical, and so on. Perhaps the reigning notion of normalcy within the intellectual class in this country could use some revision to keep up with the judgments of the folk. Such, at least, would be thought to be the proper course in a serious, democratic culture.

Obaminator,

What the hell are you talking about? FOX news has been covering Wright for months! Wright sells DVDs of his sermons, making them readily available to all. Even last year, Obama knew he'd have to keep Wright out of the public eye because he was controversial.

My God! Facts, evidence, logic, truth are not Clintonistas. Jesus Christ, you people are beyond all hope.

Obama is now unelectable to our nation's highest office. It will not happen. Blame whoever you want to, scream and cry if you must, but it does not change reality.

The sense around town seems to be that the odd emergence of this old video of Wright was part of a Clinton oppo dump, and that's likely correct.

And your evidence? Any evidence at all?

I thought we were part of the reality-based community. I guess not.

Ezra, you are out of your white Wonder Bread mind.

The sense around town seems to be that the odd emergence of this old video of Wright was part of a Clinton oppo dump, and that's likely correct.

Wow--new and improved smears, now evidence-free!

It won't even help Clinton, as the last thing the superdelegates can do is give her the nomination because she was able to paint Obama as a Scary Black Man.

Really? And Obama has never, ever portrayed Clinton as a nasty, menopausal bitch?

He's never, ever repeatedly accused her of playing the race card?

He's never, ever held her responsible for anything her surrogates say?

You have fallen victim to Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and TAPPED has just set a new low in journalistic standards.

Ezra, as you have demonstrated over the years, you are a hardballing knee jerk brain dead ambitious fucktard.

Smearing Clinton is nothing new to you, because for years now, you have been smearing all sorts of people and causes that you know nothing about, simply because your friends tell you you need to.

Lazy. Brainless. Dishonest.

You have a wonderful mainstream career ahead of you.

Shame on you.

Ezra, did you watch the ABC news clip that got the story going? They say very clearly that it was the result of a thorough (read: long) review of the tapes they ordered from the church's website. This was NOT a clinton oppo dump.

Ezra Klein and Josh Marshall and all the Washington bloggers know that this is a killer for Obama. If their guy goes down, they have to blame it on somebody. In their zip code you can never go wrong dumping on a Clinton.

To repeat previous points about the Wright videos being put out there by the Clinton campaign: Uh, Ezea, they've been available on the web all along.

Sorry that Obama's church choices have created major political embarrassment for him and that therefore in the Obamabot world view it must be due to the machinations of Hillary Clinton, but can you pleas stop making unfounded, slanderous accusations against your opponents? It's all so Partisan Politics of the Nineties.

" ... Clinton oppo dump, and that's likely correct."

ENOUGH.

Unless you have proof don't write it.

I've had it with your non-stop, mainframe media style demonizing of Hillary Clinton.

You haven't an ounce of decency or integrity remaining.

Despicable.

Oh, the scent of fear wafting up through my old keyboard--the Obamatons and Obamabots (the one group even more irrationally enthralled than the other, if that's possible) do indeed know that their Obamassiah is doomed because he's so closely connected with a raving racist dummy like Jeremiah Wrong. They'll do anything--anything--anything--short of being rational or fair in order to weasel out of this mess of their own Superhero's creation. Lots of people don't deserve to be president--probably not Billary or McCain, certainly not Bush, but then not Magic O either.

I do believe that radical voices from all spectrums are too ignored in American mainstream politics, which in turn becomes too pablum. And that's especially true on the left side of the mainstream continuum.

I think I would actually like the idea of Obama being associated with Wright if Obama were just an IL senator. I would figure that a talented guy like Obama might be able to get away with it in a liberal state like IL, and maybe a tad more variety might get into our national discourse.

I don't feel that way about a potential Democratic Presidential nominee being associated with Wright, for a very simple reason. That reason is that Obama can't win in the general election now. He might've had a sliver of a chance left if he had handled this situation arising in the middle of the campaign in a straightforward and honest manner, but he didn't, and now it's too late. He's toast.

This just in--Jeremiah Wright accepts position of cruise director on the HateBoat, says new job to provide sea air and opportunity to wear snappy outfits.

--- "The sense around town seems to be that the odd emergence of this old video of Wright was part of a Clinton oppo dump, and that's likely correct." ---

Ezra,

I discovered your blog from an appearance you made on bloggingheads.tv and I thought you were a fair-minded individual. So you can imagine how disappointed I was to read your biased statement above. If you want to accuse Clinton of being the one who released these old Wright videos, then why don't you be man enough to give evidence or a well-thought out argument for your belief. I guess now I can add you to the list of partisan hacks that are not worth reading.

Btw, has it occurred to you that the Republicans might've been the ones doing an "oppo dump?" If Obama is the nominee he will be facing McCain (not Clinton!) and it's advantageous for them to get this stuff out early while Obama is still not that well known to the general election public. It has been proven that first impressions are the most important so it would be to the Republicans' advantage to paint Obama as non-patriotic early on.

I am sick of all these hysterical Obama supporters who can't wait to vilify Clinton for every little thing. They act as if Clinton controls the universe. The more Obamaphiles vilify Clinton and her supporters, the more they shoot themselves in the foot since they won't be able to win the GE without us and each day more Clinton supporters are vowing to sit out the election. Including me!

Next time you make an accusation, back it up with EVIDENCE!!!!!

More proof of Wright's sexism:

--- REV WRIGHT attacks NATLEE HOLLOW.... ( posted on mydd.com)

Sen. Barack Obama's longtime friend and spiritual adviser trashed the memory of a missing and presumed dead American teenage girl, according to church publications reviewed by WND.

"Black women are being raped daily in Darfur, Sudan, in the Congo and in Sub-Saharan Africa. That doesn't make news," Wright said in the August 2005 edition of Trumpet Magazine, a publication of his Trinity United Church of Christ.

But, "One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and 'gives it up' while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months!" he added. "Maybe I am missing something!" ---

Tell me, why doesn't Obama confront his pastor about the sexism being spewed from Wright's pulpit? Obama has two small daughters growing up in this environment - an environment where a pastor feels free to mock the rape and abduction of a teenage girl! I don't care what race a girl is, rape is WRONG. And why doesn't Wright confront the misogyny in parts of the black community? Or in Africa? After all, it's African men, not white men, raping the women in Africa. Personally, I feel that all communities should be more active in eradicating rape and abuse of women.

I was raped as a teen and because I grew up in a religious environment, it took me years to realize that it wasn't my fault. I never spoke about it since I was too ashamed. I don't think our political leaders should give any of these hate-mongering pastors (and that goes for Hagee, Falwell, etc) the privilege of their attendance. And I would hope that the POTUS would definitely not give any reverence to such a bigot like Wright. There are plenty of loving pastors who follow in the true Christian tradition - if it's a requirement for the POTUS to be part of a church, then he/she should seek out such a church.

"The sense around town seems to be that the odd emergence of this old video of Wright was part of a Clinton oppo dump, and that's likely correct."

Still waiting, Ezra. I ask again ... where's your evidence for this?

The worst decision Al Gore ever made was to pick Liberman as his running mate.

I knew it intuitively then, his behavior since has proven my intuition.