In which Kevin misses the point. Probably not accidentally.

Kevin, he sat his kids in front of that guy. Every Sunday. At the most impressionable age he set Wright up as an authority figure for them.

What does this say about Obama's beliefs and attitudes?

It's my understanding that Wright is also effective in calls for social justice, and also effective at instilling senses of personal responsibility. Those sound like good influences on kids.

I avoid cable news and never see network newscasts. However, when at the gym after work one of the TV's is invariably tuned to CNN. While watching ESPN I'll glance over and I have to tell you Wolf has turned that nightly broadcast into all Wright all the time. Not sure if this goes for MSNBC, (surely it's true for FOX), but there's your answer. Despite the hypocrisy of it all and the utter irrelevance as relates to Obama's leadership and judgment those SOB's hammer this to death. WTF is it with these people? They're like the snobby clique in high school that wallowed in their contempt for the riff-raff (everyone else on the planet). Fuck'em.

Did Obama go and seek out his public endorsement, knowing his views?

Also, it would be very interesting to know exactly what he said that is demonstrably false. I mean, I know that angry black man = !scary!, and that everyone *must praise USA! USA! USA!, but I don't know anything that he said is factually wrong. Certainly nothing along the lines of right-wing preachers comments about Katrina, Catholics, etc.

Let's see how long it takes before it is somehow Hillary's (teh devil!) fault. Over at TPM it only took about 3 posts.

What do you think it says, am?

Seriously, I'm curious. Do you think that it indicates that Obama hates America? Do you think that exposing children to religion is brain rot? Or what?

Obama's policies, speeches, voting record, and life story show zero indication that he hates America or white people or whatever it is you're fantasizing.

Whereas John Hagee finds John McCain's policies towards gays and the Middle East congenial to his delusions.

Kevin, he sat his kids in front of that guy. Every Sunday. At the most impressionable age he set Wright up as an authority figure for them.

And just exactly how representative of his sermons are the couple of excerpts that are getting so much attention now? And are his statements really all that bad, especially given their context? Methinks it's just a lot more scary for your average white person when they hear black men shouting something negative about America. Ron Paul was even more direct about saying the US brought 9/11 on itself and most people didn't bat an eye (and he was the actual candidate for the presidency).

Evangelical American was more or less fine when Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blamed Liberals for 9/11 and gays for hurricane Katrina. That's far more vicious and divisive than Wright's comments about America's collective guilt for nuking two cities. But Wright said it raised voice and while black, so apparently it's far more shocking.

But it's no surprise - Bill, Hillary, and their subordinates have managed to make a lot of hay over the fact that Obama won a few states because of his overwhelming support among African-Americans (apparently they think black people's votes don't count as much as white people's, that black people are voting their emotions or voting their race rather than the issues... when Democrats have always been happy to defend receiving the same disproportionate level of support from African-Americans in elections... oh, and somehow almost NOBODY seems to have noticed that whites voted overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary in those same Deep South states... but apparently that's okay, because white people's votes matter and white people vote the issues... unlike black people).

If Obama were white, he would have long ago wrapped up the nomination. If Hillary weren't white, she wouldn't have received 75% of the white vote in the Deep South and would have been knocked out of the race long ago.

Hillary and her camp are destroying the Democratic party by alienating and demeaning arguably the single most important voting block for the party: African-Americans. The Clintons seem to regard the Democratic party as their own - it will either serve their interests or be destroyed in the process. Well done.

am, I assume you also think allowing a child to view FOX NEWS on a regular basis is grounds for an accusatory wagging of the finger and questioning of parental skills? I can't see as Brit Hume, Krauthammer, Barnes, Kondracke or Kristol constitute any less of a danger to impressionable minds than a firebrand African American preacher.

courtesy Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/wright/index.html

the Bush White House, in addition to consulting with Robertson, also consulted with the anti-American Jerry Falwell, including on the question of whom the administration should nominate to the Supreme Court. It even appointed a White House liaison for Falwell. When Falwell died, President Bush "said he was deeply saddened by Falwell's death, calling him 'a man who cherished faith, family and freedom.'"

Shouldn't we be very concerned about American children hearing our President praise an American-hating radical who believes that our country is a sick and wicked land that God wanted to be victimized by the 9/11 attacks? Again, the issue here is number (2) above, not number (1).

AND:

Frank Schaeffer, son of highly influential Religious Right figure Francis Schaeffer, writes:

When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

The center of any good church is not the pulpit, and the congregation knows better than to worship the preacher.

Is cable news still flogging this Wright story even after the Fed had to bail out Bear Stearns?

Pathetic.

This could be the most important speech Obama has to make in this campaign.

Why were they not more ready for this? That's a good question. My only supposition would be that the snippets we have seen are rare in Wright's sermons, and thus unexpected strung together out of context in the manner presented.

If it was such hate rhetoric, would Oprah Winfrey have been a regular at the church? Something doesn't make sense here.

Actually I have long suspected it was oppo (what were the chances both ABC and FOX had reports ready on the issue the same day).
Remember that when Wright broke we were at the end of the Ferraro cycle and right at the time it was verging on backlash territory for Hillary (Olberman).
My suspicions were confirmed with Mike Allen's retelling of how the story broke on Politico.com.
Go read it but the bottom line is that the Clinton campaign had been pushing HARD for reporters to revisit the story which they did not want to do because they, too, felt it had been covered earlier.
Draw your own conclusions from the anecdotes told in that article.

*

PS: It is not about anti-Hillary paranoia btw. I actually give them credit for that story which is, from their point of view, very potent and while I think it is silly stuff (does anyone really believe Obama is anti-American ?), it goes to show that they are right when they say they play dirty better than anyone else.
I don't like it but can't say it would be a bad thing if that oppo is successful. which I doubt it will be.

@mhr

They didn't simply walk in the church.
Somehow Fox and ABC found out (how ?) about the church selling some of the sermons online *at the same time* (Coincidence right ?).
You are right on the core point though which is it is the videos that make the story more potent.

It's funny (in the weird sense) that folks have been all distressed about the smear that Obama was a secret anti-american Muslim, and are now having a fit about him having an angry black Christian pastor....all while loudly insisting that this country doesn't have a religious litmus test for office. Of course not!

There are large swaths of America who sit in front of preachers each Sunday who preach hatred of Catholics, eliminationist rhetoric of Muslims and gays, violence towards abortion providers and supporters and many other distinctly un-Christian positions.

A long time ago, the very smart Bill Clinton noted that the most segregated time of the week was Sunday mornings. And now you see the result of that. I challenge the readers of this blog to go spend a month at an African American church listening to the rhetoric. Anger at the social injustice, at its persistence, at the ways that Americans continue to be complicit in this are a staple. But, then, African American churches have been the place to address African American concerns since there has been America.

I do not say that what Reverend Wright said was factual. I do say that when you get a bunch of black folks in a room, you hear much the same. Reverend Wright's sin is that he is suddenly connected to a parishioner who is running for President, and there are STILL a ton of people in the USA who are quite uncomfortable with the spector of a very angry black man. An angry black man who has spent a lifetime trying to make right the promise of America for alot of folks via his ministry. An angry black man who fought to safeguard our religious and other freedoms by serving as a Marine and who is now being demonized for actually exercising his right to free speech; his freedom to practice his religion.

Quite unlike the treatment of McCain supporters Hagee (extreme Catholic bigotry) and Parsley (eliminationist rhetoric against Muslims), right? How is it that McCain is not being hounded into denouncing these fools whose intent is to truly hurt people?

You can probably go right back to the most segregated time of the week for your answer....

What I can't figure is whether this is the worst possible time for the Wright stuff to come out, or the best possible time.

Worst: it's coming just as Obama truly is emerging as the inevitable nominee, when it's too late for the Democratic party to switch to Clinton and (for the sake of argument) Obama is finally revealed as unelectable. But early enough in the general election campaign that it colors the rest of the race against McCain, branding Obama as the scary black candidate.

Best: it's coming just as Obama truly is emerging as the inevitable nominee, when it's too late for the Democratic party to switch to Clinton. It's five weeks before the next primary vote, giving the story plenty of time to play out and die down, and it's early enough in the general election campaign that it becomes "old news" for the rest of the race.

You attend someone's church, you endorse all his views, is that the new standard?

That's funny as Pat mentions...

Well if there is any good side to this, Obama's middle name is probably not going to matter that much anymore: He undoubtedely has a Pastor! He believes in Jesus!

Jeremiah replaces Hussein.

I don't think Clinton had anything to do this stuff coming out now. It looks like a typical right-wing/Fox News hit job., but you do have to wonder why they'd release this now....perhaps to help Hillary win the nomination?? But even then, you'd think they'd launch it a little closer to Pennsylvania or other important primaries, so who the hell knows...

On another note, isn't it absurd how for a long time the question around Obama was "Is he black enough?" You had people claiming Bill Clinton was more black than him, people emphasizing that he is bi-racial or not an American black who descended from slaves etc. Now all of a sudden, woah, he hangs out with Wright, maybe he's too black.....

What does this say about Obama's beliefs and attitudes?

And what does it say about your beliefs and attitudes that you can get so upset about the 3 words "God Damn America" yet say nothing about the incarceration of many young black men for crimes that whites get only probation and treatment?

Maybe the Rev has a point?

While I disagree with Kevin Drum somewhat comparing Rev. Wright to Il Papa, at the same time I have to reach across the aisle and admit that the liberals above do have a point. There really wasn't anything that bad in Wright's speeches, and there's nothing in there that's demonstrably false. In fact, right after he gets the nomination (or perhaps in October), Obama should hold a second speech with Rev. Wright right by his side, perhaps announcing the major role he'll play in the Obama administration just as he's played in his life for the past twenty years.

Those steeped in the Evangelical Mega Churches find it hard to comprehend a pastor who is not a sociopathic tyrant, judging from my thankfully brief encounters with such "Men of God".

There are a few options I see as to why the story dropped when it did, and there are three parties that may be behind it.

Hypothesis One: The Republicans did it. You'll note that the day the story moved George Bush said what could arguably be the single worst thing he's ever said in office, which thoroughly tarnished any hope he had at passing the Commander-in-Chief threshold. He said he wished he could be in Afghanistan, that a combat tour could be "romantic." Coming as it did on the five year anniversary of Iraq, the timing of such an idiotic comment could not have been worse. But hey, look at that scary black man, and like that, the story's over.

Hypothesis Two: Hillary did it. Obviously the Clinton campaign needed some distractions from the Ferraro fracas as one of their major fundraisers and someone actively stumping for Hillary was caught in an ever nastier web of racist comments. Once again, they needed a Samantha Power moment so they could say "Both sides are doing it!" And right on cue, they had the scary black man saying terrible things some years ago.

Hypothesis Three: Obama did it. Knowing that Hillary was sitting on these videos and that she was going to drop them the Friday before voting in Pennsylvania when they could do maximum damage with minimum time for rebuttal, Obama decides to seize the initiative, get them out there, deal with them and still have a solid month to campaign. This would also eliminate what the Clinton's thought was there best weapon against him. Note that also this weekend, Obama went through his other supposed major liability in tremendous detail with the Sun-Times, Rezko. Perhaps, this was his strategy to negate what he saw as his biggest vulnerabilities.

But I'm no Columbo. I just see three very interested parties each with their own motives, I don't know who done it. I would believe any of them were behind it, and I have to say I think the major beneficiary with the timing of it now is Obama. Had this come out earlier in the race where there were contests every week or every other week, he might not have had enough time to overcome it. I think he has plenty of time now. That and the meltdown of Wall Street and our economy is going to push this story out of the news coverage very quickly.

mhr: The story still hasn't been on the front page of either the New York Times or the LA Times which are fulfilling their function as liberal mouthpieces.

lol, yeah, how dare they focus on smaller issues like the looming recession and war. Don't they know Drudge put a siren on this story?

Who hasnt said such things when they recieve their tax bill?

God Damn America is not damning the people, which is America, but the government.

In another way, though, they should hurt him less. After all, which is worse: the very human desire not to humiliate a longtime friend because he occasionally crosses a line...

Kev, bro, I hope you have a plan. If you got some corner you are trying to bait the wingnuts into, more power to you. But if you are throwing this shit out willy nilly...well, you disserve the bitchslapping coming like a freight train with no brakes. Remember, they are watching...

Why is this happening now? A couple reasons (from my perspective):

1. The right is pushing this HARD and the media tends to follow their lead.
2. For the tv news, there's nothing until the PA vote and they'll talk about anything. This is just something that fits easily into their news template; divisive, race-based, Dem-bashing. They know this format and can talk for weeks about it.

All but calling your "longtime friend" the crazy uncle in the family attic isn't humilating him? Anyway, the problem isn't that Wright has been saying a few incendiary things recently, it's that he's been a radical and a racist his entire career, and that maybe that's part of what attracted Obama to him in the first place.

Augustus wrote "Ron Paul was even more direct about saying the US brought 9/11 on itself"

NO! I've seen this all over the place. Ron Paul said that, as a practical matter, US policies made something like 9/11 more likely. That is an entirely rational and defensible point. Wright seems to be saying that the US morally deserved 9/11, because we bombed Japan. That's neither rational nor defensible.

One thing is for sure, nobody thinks Obama is a Muslim anymore.

Seriously, I am not sure this isn't the best time for this issue to hit. Five weeks until the next primary. He has weeks to put the issue to bed. After it is put to bed it will be old news.

Obama has a chance to make a generational/religious Kennedy style speech. He has already given hints of tomorrow's talk. If he hits he will dominate the news cycle for the rest of the week.

Wright, and by implication Hillary, are captives of the culture wars of their youth. They are still fighting the racism and sexism of their youth. Obama is a beneficiary of the good that came from their mighty struggles. Time to move forward and consolidate the victories they achieved and bring America together.

Maybe this issue has come to forward right now because from the point of view of the Obama campaign this is the best time for it. Better now than in the middle of the fall election.

Heck Pat Robertson thought America [San Fran should be God Damned by bombs. Hagee thought gay parades GOD Damned America.

This is a non story served up by the controversy crowd.

The Rev. Wright's comments were not very inflammatory. More people should verbally express their outrage about America's sins and examine the source of so many other people's hostility towards them. Sen. Obama, of course, has to distance himself, but there was nothing incorrect about what the Rev. Wright said. The article did not finish Wright's sermon, but I bet he mentioned something about forgiveness somewhere. While Obama distances himself from an iconoclast, McCain moves closer to Hagee, a real destroyer.

What does this say about Obama's beliefs and attitudes?

To me, it says "Obama's opponents will do anything to bring him down".

I think Wright made a lot of salient points that don't sit well with people who live in denial about what a racist, violent and plutocratic society America continues to be. While the statement, "God damn America" is a little over the top, Wright was dead on correct about Hillary Clinton coming from a privileged background. She did. Live with it.

Conservatives will be making Obama apologize for comments his barber made, before you know it, since they don't want to talk about the stinking, cancerous mess they have left behind after controlling the American government for a decade.

As it happens Hillary Clinton is a monster, Barack Obama is winning the Democratic primary because he is black, and America has it in for black people.

Questions?

Obama has a chance to make a generational/religious Kennedy style speech.

I agree. He gets this right, the nomination is his. But if it comes off as fake, or plagiarized, or any of the other things that could make the speech come out half ass, He's doomed.

It's not one sermon, it's at least six that were on Fox. In one of them he rails about the U.S. government creating the AIDS virus, by implication to destroy black America. This is somewhat understandably a suspicion some African Americans have, but for an educated man and a pastor to be promoting this idea to his congregation is pretty appalling.

Sean Hannity's people dug these up for a "special" of some sort he did on Fox over the weekend. ABC, not wanting to be left behind, followed suit on Monday. Hannity's been railing about Rev. Wright for months.

Can we dispense with the conspiracy theories now?

It doesn't matter what you and I and Kevin think about the substance of what Rev. Wright said or whether it's "fair" that McCain has gotten away with far worse with almost no media attention.

What matters is the use the Republican 527s are going to make of these tapes, combining them no doubt with Michelle Obama's thoughtless comment, in the general election campaign. Our almost certain Democratic presidential nominee has by his own bad judgment put the party and the country in the almost certain position of handing the White House over to John McCain. Hey, thanks a bunch, Barack!

Obama thought he could innoculate himself from all this forever simply by fondly characterizing his pastor as a "crazy uncle" several months ago. And now he's totally unbelievably denying he had any idea Rev. Wright held these views until day before yesterday.

Obama put himself-- and us-- in one hell of a box, and it's entirely of his own making. He's supposedly going to give a "major address" on race shortly, but it's not going to matter to gullible white GOP and independent voters when those 527 ads come down the pike in October.

The infuriating thing is that he wouldn't be in this position if he hadn't knocked himself out to avoid talking about the issue of race in America from the get-go in order to present himself as the "post-racial" personification of change.

I'm not an Obama supporter for a whole bunch of reasons, but I can hardly bear to think about 4 or 8 years of President McCain, so I will without question vote for Obama, since he looks like he'll be our nominee. But now I think there's only a vanishing chance we'll be able to avoid President McCain.

There is no controversy - it's all made up by the McCain news media. What's odd, is that the pastor's that support McCain have given Obama cover on this issue.

McCain is the one who needs to explain why McCain went out of his way to fine pastor's that spout hate about America. Falwell and Roberston constantly blame America on all attacks that befall the U.S. - It's those gays and lesbians, and other sin that America does that makes God attack the U.S.

Kevin, it looks like, has fallen for this McCain trick - and parrots the same silly stuff about some Obama controversy about Wright.

Look at the bigger picture, Kevin.

I see nothing wrong with any of Wright's statements. And I've always considered myself middle of the road. The fact is despite what 80% of the population believes America is not a nation that can do nothing wrong. We've arrogantly done a lot of bad things. It should be a national scandal that we can't talk about these things in polite company. Only by first admitting that we are not in fact without sin, do we have any hope of changing our ways. I find the fact that Obama's background means that he understands this a gut (not just academic) level, just how much of the world sees us as an very big plus. Unfortunately in order to pass muster with the majority of Americans who let national pride get in the way of critical self analysis, he has to hide from having had such experiences.

gyrfalcon

If this were an ordinary year I might agree, but this isn't an ordinary year. The Republicans have all but trashed their brand for a generation. There is a fear stalking the land that no amount of Republican double talk can touch.

McCain hasn't got a chance. I am truly shocked at how tone deaf truly is. The only chance he and the Republicans had was to separate themselves from GWB. He has embraced the most unpopular President since Herbert Hoover.

This year people wont just ignore the Republican 527 groups they will deride them.

What Obama is risking is his nomination not the election.

Questions?
Posted by: God

Yes, why do old folks lose their minds?

Click here for the best tune ever written about our current government.

Only by first admitting that we are not in fact without sin, do we have any hope of changing our ways.

Hal a fuckin luya!

As mentioned lots of times above, Kevin, you're kind of missing the point. The problem is that Obama doesn't appear to have been shocked or upset by Wright's comments. As a matter of fact his defense is that he wasn't aware of them. Since the guy clearly makes a habit of talking this way, it kind of sounds like Obama is saying he didn't find this stuff particularly memorable, let alone objectionable.

Which, if that is in fact the case, is a problem, because at least 58% of Americans -- me, for instance -- do.

Could it be that people are pissed that they are still being accused of being racist when they are not.

That we are all trying hard to do the right thing and never get any acknowledgment of progress.

The message sounds as if Wright thinks is still 1930. It isn't, so stop speaking like it is. A half black man is on the verge of being a major candidate for President, ergo the U.S. has made great progress.

Stop acting like we haven't.

The reason the Wright flap appeared at this point in the campaign is because Hillary desperately needed it. Obama slam-dunked Wyoming and Mississippi, leaving HRC staring at a very long 6-week interval until the Pennsylvania primary. That's what you call a politican's nightmare.

And then the bloggers started crunching the delegate numbers and made it clear that there is no mathematical possibility that Clinton can overcome Obama's lead. So, the only viable strategy for her to pursue is to tear Obama down and make him appear to be unelectable.

Three news cycles? The only news story here is that the mainstream media wants us to be as scared of black men who speak in robust voices and who have opinions as they are.

And if your opinion happens to be that sometimes the United States hurts innocent civilians when there is no excuse for it, and that it makes sense that people might get mad at us for it, then of course they want us to think "To hell with that."

Larry, I take it you have never attended a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson sermon condemning America for anyone of a number of sins. Clearly you have never been to a black church the Sunday after one of the young men has been killed resisting arrest, nor you have never heard a Catholic priest rail against abortion.

Larry, Sunday is Easter. Go to a Christian Mega Church, maybe the one lead by Rev. Hagee, the week after next. You might be surprised what you hear.

A lot of fundamentalist Christians I have talked to about Rev. Wright are scratching their heads trying to figure out what the controversy is all about.

Which, if that is in fact the case, is a problem, because at least 58% of Americans -- me, for instance -- do.
Posted by: larry birnbaum

Its not a fact larry, its your opinion and opinions are not facts. Its projecting your opinion of a person, upon said person, then believing it to be fact.

larry birnbaum seems to approve of McCains repudiation of Hagee, who did not find Hagee objectioable enough to distance himself from, yet agrees with Hagees view of catholocism, and if that is in fact the case my opinion is validated because thats my opinion wether the case is proven or not. Yet Obama did distance himself so it must be objectionable where as McCain did not.

Mental masturbation larry. Good luck selling that bit of shimmy.

"About our firing on Miami Beach... I think the best way to put it is that it was what you might call "ill-timed". It happened on what they call in the newspaper business a "slow news day", and as a result got a lot more coverage than I think it deserved."

- Bob Newhart, "The U.S.S. Codfish".

OFF TOPIC:

Hmmm, turning the channels yesterday, someone sees a few seconds of a program on Book TV with some apparent Neocon asshole named Ronald Kessler. Then that person sees that the Wikipedia page on this dude, whose full name is Ronald Borek Kessler and who was born on December 31, 1943, is pathetic. So this unknown person edits, corrects, and expands the Wikipedia page on Kessler. This unknown person does it carefully, he does it fairly, he does it judiciously.

He carefully identifies criticisms in a "controversy" section as coming from "liberal" sources. He evens changes the identification of NewsMax from being "right-wing" to being "conservative," which seems more even-handed and less slanted--something that Ronald Kessler has never bothered to correct.

And now today there has been more material added, and Ronald Kessler has been a busy little bee, and it explodes onto (well, appears on) Talking Points Memo.

HAW-HAW-HAW. It's fun being a national news story. It's just like when I got attacked by NBC or MSNBC years ago for comments about Kenneth Starr.

(Well, little things amuse little brains.)

Anon,

I saw that piece as well. Earlier Countdown called on the NY Times to fire Bill Kristol It seems Kristol picked up a non-fact from a Kessler post on Newsmax. Neither Kessler nor Kristol did any fact checking. The Times has fallen to a new low.

I once tried to read a book of Ronald Kessler's. Not only is he a neocon asshole, as busy Wiki editor Anon notes, but he is apparently wholly unacquainted with the English language, as was his editor. The book was virtually unreadable. Some "journalist."

"There really wasn't anything that bad in Wright's speeches, and there's nothing in there that's demonstrably false."

I suppose it's not "demonstrably" false that the CIA invented AIDS to kill black people, but it is a pretty nutty view that most reasonable people would consider to be false.

The timing is interesting. From where I sat, the nomination was tipping away from Clinton when this video appeared. The Ferraro thing had hurt her. The polls were trending towards some of Obama's biggest leads ever. And the state of the race was becoming clarified as it has not up until now: namely that Clinton had zero shot at catching up on elected delegates + that the supers would not overturn the elected delegate lead without cause ==> Clinton's only shot was to make Obama unelectable. But once that's in the open, her candidacy is over. (I think Chait put this out most clearly, but the basic insight was starting to spread). Clinton had to be getting serious pushback from insiders for the negativity (Ferraro) and the increasing tendency to say the emperor has no clothes on the rationale for her continuing her candidacy.

Maybe not her. But she's the big beneficiary. And she needed it now. Why wouldn't she have pulled the trigger earlier? Cause this is a very dangerous trigger. If Obama loses the nomination for this, there will be hell to pay in the African-American community. Indeed, if this metastasizes as it might, our country is looking at a pretty serious meltdown. Because if you are not following, this video is unleashing an amazing torrent of Obama hatred all over the web. And I can only imagine what that looks like to African-Americans.

The Republicans would have held the video until the fall. Unless they are extraordinarily vested in a Clinton nomination.

Although the timing is right for an Obama reveal, the medium is all wrong for it. That video is edited to make this out to be much worse than it really is. Whoever spliced together that string of moments wanted a maximal shot at provoking the outpouring of revulsion in middle America that it has produced. It's almost certainly not a fair representation of Wright or TUCC. So I don't see the Obama camp as being behind the promulgation of this video.

The roads lead back to Clinton, I'm afraid. Indeed, I'd say she's the most likely bet to win the presidency right now. Unless Obama can give a very good speech, the tape has given a lot of latent racism an excuse to come roaring out to the surface. If his speech can't defuse it, there's a pretty good shot that he'll appear patently unelectable within a week or two. Throw in an economic meltdown and you have Clinton sailing past McCain to the white house. The only thing that can stop her is the reaction if it is seen that she has won because Obama could not overcome a deep-seated American racism that only needed this video to be revealed as uncontrovertibly just below the surface.

For my part I find it very sad. The depth and breadth of the vitriol provoked by this story in the comments section of any MSM story on the subject is really depressing.

For a rational electorate, this Wright controversy wouldn't be an issue. But then you could say the same about the swift boat stuff on Kerry. The fact is that McCain can defeat Obama with this stuff.

He can't so easily defeat Hillary -- after all these years in public life, she has no skeletons left in her closet.

I'm sure Hillary's done lots of bad things. It may even be true that she's a monster. But she's our monster. As always, vote for the smooth-talking liar who will put through at least some left-of-centre policies. That's the best we can do in national elections.

This affair is as much a mystery as it is a scandal -- why would Obama, who in every other time and aspect of his life has shown not the slightest trace of black racism or paranoid extremism, hang with this guy for so long?

I'm beginning to suspect a possible answer -- partly on the basis of Wright's original "Audacity of Hope" sermon ( http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html ). It's a damn good sermon on an extremely important spiritual and moral subject -- namely, the importance (repeatedly emphasized by Chesterton) of never giving up on the intention to try and improve this world, even when ALL the evidence from this world says that your endeavor is utterly hopeless -- and in which I could not find one word I disagreed with politically or can regard as extreme. I suspect that Obama had a genuine, honest-to-God "born-again" spiritual experience as a result of his first encounters with Wright; those happened at just about the time that Obama (given his early Chicago political experiences, as described by the Chicago Tribune) could be starting to get cynical and despairing about the possibility of ever really improving the world at all, even a small local patch of it. And I know from personal experience how extraordinarily emotionally powerful the born-again experience can be, no matter from who or what it comes; I had one at age 15 as a result of reading C.S. Lewis, and while I soon departed from Christianity I remain eternally grateful to the man.

Now, for a VERY long time after that, Obama apparently had no strong intention of ever running for any office outside his local neighborhood in Chicago. If you read the biographies of him, it becomes clear that he got more or less backed into that position. As a state senator from his district he rapidly gained in popularity statewide (even among the state Fraternal Order of Police, despite the fact that he successfully bucked them and the Democratic governor on getting a requirement to videotape all interrogations!) It was apparently only around 2000 that he started to seriously consider running for statewide office at all, and even after he got elected US Senator he didn't originally plan to run for President until 2012 -- he got more or less nudged into doing that early, as well.

I suspect that he stuck with Wright -- and stuck with him, and stuck with him -- for years despite his belief that in many respects Wright had a screw loose, out of both personal friendship and a feeling of genuine personal gratitude to the man for enormously improving his own emotional and spiritual outlook on life. And when he started to consider running for anything other than local office, he figured it was too late to detach himself from Wright and his church -- he'd been associated with it for so long that he would probably get tarred with that association even if he did quit at that late date, and as I say his early plans even at that point seem to have been limited to running for US Senator, in which it wouldn't make as much difference as in a Presidential run.

As I say, it's only a theory. But I think it explains a genuine mystery as well as anything I've seen so far.

To the notion that this is somehow a Clinton operation, why wait until she is so far behind that many people think she has lost already? That makes no sense whatsoever, if her side was going to use something that has this level of potential to derail him why not do it when it could have a much greater impact on the race instead of when 80% of the States have already been heard from? Get real people. I find the idea that everything that goes wrong for Obama is somehow the Clinton's fault more than a little pathetic to be honest. One of the things that most annoyed me back in January here was the massive amount of telepathy people had because they were mind reading the Clintons and then projecting that as proven fact and if anyone questioned it they were being foolish/ignorant/naive/etc. Now I see that happening again with something that is clearly no one's fault but Obama's.

Obama KNEW Wright was a potential problem, as Kevin noted in his post and I did the other day in a comment I left in the proxy thread, he kept him away from the announcement of his Presidential candidacy because his sermons could be "a bit rough". This shows an awareness by Obama that at least some of Wright's language was politically sensitive to offensive for his candidacy, especially given his core message of being beyond the typical black politics/anger of the 60s and being the new post partisan candidate. So why did he not start disassociating from Wright from the moment he started this race instead of when it started to cause him political problems last week?

Wright is not just another preacher making extreme statements, he is the man Obama credited with bringing him to Jesus, as a powerful influence on his growth as a person over the past couple of decades, someone he has spoken very highly of and as his mentor and used many references from for his writings and speeches. This is a man whose relationship to Obama in Obama's own descriptions is highly close, personal, a mentor, long term and nearly on a par with being a spouse (calling someone like your uncle is comparing him to a first degree relationship which in my books is only exceeded by spouses) and who was a part of his campaign staff (regardless of how much he was or not doing he held the position) until this all broke loose. That is what makes this such a problem for Obama, and it is Obama who failed to recognize the political sensitivity of this or worse thought he could manage to keep this from causing him problems same as he has managed to have his campaign paint the Clinton side as race baiters early on once he lost NH.

This is also something that when combined with his refusal to wear an American flag pin, place his hand over his heart for pledge of allegiances and his wife's lack of pride in America until her husband was running for President successfully can be shown to show that for all Obama claims to be not in agreement with Wright that in truth he is. Whether that is actually the case or not will be irrelevant, as one of the oldest rules in politics is that perception is AT LEAST as important as factual reality in how a candidate is perceived. That makes Wright a major problem and more than simply being endorsed by a controversial preacher, this is a major long term close relationship we are talking about.

It also goes to Obama's judgment in both that relationship and how he has handled the issue once he started running for President. His first action was to try to downplay the connection, just like he tried with Rezco by claiming in a debate that relationship was a few hours of legal work when it was a 17 year friendship as he has now admitted publicly in the last week to a Chicago paper. Then he tried to throw him under the bus, and now it looks like now that he sees that won't work he is trying yet another approach, how again is this any sort of "new politics"? Obama is running his campaign on his self proclaimed good judgment and his ability to move beyond race, Wright undercuts both of those themes/premises for him, which is why this has the ability/potential to be fatal in the GE for him as I also noted the other day.

This is exactly the sort of thing I was worried about in January when I worried about what he would have to offer if his message was undercut/neutralized as well as what I saw as insufficient vetting. One of the staples of American politics is how aggressive it is; indeed it took me a long time to fully understand just how much so it was because I come from a far less combative political environment here in Canada. I also learned that in American politics whining/complaining about things being unfair not only tends to not work but tends to work against the side saying so, because it shows a lack of toughness which in the American political psyche is clearly important which is why the GOP has done so well to exploit by painting the Dems as weak whiny unserious on national security and therefore unable to be trusted for the past 30 years now. What Obama now represents plays to that frame very well, and the way his campaign successfully smeared the Clintons as race baiters to racists will come back as proof of how he will do and say anything, and when combined with Wright will be a godsend for the GOP.

If they can turn Kerry's war record against him like they did to defeat him with where there was nothing to back any of it up with this is a gold mine, regardless of how fair or unfair it actually is. American federal politics is a very nasty arena and for all the comments I hear about the American people being tired of it I have heard those for decades now and yet the GOP still have held the WH except for WJC and Carter who got in more because of the fallout from Watergate than anything else IMHO. I am not sure there is going to be any way for Obama to effectively neutralize this, and I think it is going to be an uphill battle for him to weaken it enough to not cost him the GE if he gets the nomination. It will be interesting to see what he says tomorrow, although if he takes that opportunity to try and attack Clinton with I think he may find it majorly backfiring on him because now that he looks like a racial polarizing candidate with the latest primary results from MS it will not have the same effect as it did in January/February IMHO.

There is also the unpleasant reality that he has run away from race and racial issues at every turn in this nomination race until the Wright affair blew up in his face, there is a real chance it will be seen as nothing but damage control and nothing more, and if he tries to get too pious on the issue it may also backfire for him. The reality of how racially charged this race has already become in no small part because of his campaign's actions since NH and his refusal to address racial issues directly until this Wright blowup undercuts his credibility on the topic I suspect to many that are not already Obama supporters/fans, and may ever undercut his support among those early supporters. He may also pull it out and have a miracle recovery, the possibility exists, but I suspect it is not a large one, but if he can manage to deal effectively with this then he will have shown remarkable political skill (this is of course if the media do not decide to act as his surrogates again as they have throughout most of this nomination race since the voting started until SNL came back and mocked them for it) and that should help him for the GW despite this fallout.

Keep in mind a core strength of Obama's in dealing with crisis and controversy in this race has been his word/explanation is rarely if ever questioned and taken at face value (his supposedly being such a different kind of politician and all that) while his opponents word on anything controversial/damaging to their side have been nothing but questioned, especially in the case of HRC. It is not typical for people (especially Americans and particularly regarding Dem politicians over the past few decades) to trust the word of politicians seeking the top offices of their nations without question, and this has been an enormous boon to Obama, but if that is not available to him in this matter and from this for the rest of the race I would argue he has lost a critical tool he needs to win the GE with.

Having Wright as your pastor and treating wingnut Republicans with a (seemingly undeserved) measure of respect: two sides of the same coin.

Obama can't say this, but we can all say this on his behalf: the stuff Wright says isn't half as poisonous as the things that come out of the mouths of men like Robertson, Hageel, and Coulter; nevertheless, the latter haven't been expelled from the Republic; so why should Wright? Nor have their casual politician friends suffered from the relationship; so why should Obama?

If you're going to grab one of the third-rails of American politics, you might as well grab two, of opposite polarity, and let the currents empower you.

Hillary has no skeletons left in her closet, someone says? Why shroud those tax returns in secrecy, then? Good god, my senator has nothing in her closet but skeletons and yellow pantsuits. I'm afraid one morning she's going to get dressed without turning on the light and end up walking out to a press conference wearing nothing but bones.

I will read Scotian's full post once Kevin agrees to increase his font size from 6 points or whatever it is to something more legible.

After all, which is worse: the very human desire not to humiliate a longtime friend because he occasionally crosses a line (Obama and Wright), or the cynical courtship of a powerful endorsement even though you already know the person in question has some odious public views (McCain and John Hagee)?

What a jackass!

So, if McVain gave Hagee over $20K in a single year, and also abjectly kissed his ass for 20+ years (married his wife in Hagee's church, Baptized his children in Hagee's church, titled his autobiography after a "Hagee sermon", called Hagee his "spiritual mentor, had Hagee on his campaign staff, referred to Hagee as merely his "crazy uncle", etc.)- I'm quite sure all you "leftists" would surely excuse this "longtime friendship"?

For those of you, who like me, had never heard of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, here is a good description of the 'largest' United Church of Christ congregation (8,000) in the country by Martin Marty at the U of Chicago. Wright's sermons are (were) broadcast on TV in the Chicago area. (Shouldn't have been too much of a problem to find those videotapes.) First a quote, then a link:

"Trinity reorients. Wright and company have had tussles with more traditional members and, at times, some in the UCC. I've known "Jerry" Wright since his student days, have often agreed and disagreed with him, and have found him never to be a preacher of peace when there is no peace — but "walkin' the talk" for him is also a message of peace."

Keeping the Faith at Trinity United Church of Christ

Kevin, if you research this you will find out that Hannity and the Fox News cabal originated this Wright "scandal" and pushed it hard. CNN and others took the ball and ran with it. Hillary was only a beneficiary.

Now think about why: The Republicans want Clinton as the nominee.

All that's happened here is that Republicans have figured out how to make race the major issue, without having to come out in the open with it.

Christopher Hitchens had it right: Religion Poisons Everything.

Just speculation but: Obama was attracted to this church when he was a young man struggling with his bi-racial identity and it helped him identify as black; and because it was an asset in local politics.

The problem with it is Obama wants to play a double game with race. Use the "teachings" of his pastor when it helps him gain black votes: the litany with the same ole okey doke, hoodwinked and bamboolized with reference to the Clintons just being the same old bad white people keeping the black folks down; or my personal favorite, Hillary's tears if you dissect them properly, prove her racism; but he claims to be above it all, and to be the victim of race trash talk, when it suits him. It's about time this double game has been revealed.

As for it all being Hillary's fault of course it is. And if it's not Hillary's fault it must be Bill's. Isn't everything?

Obama has a chance tomorrow to revive his chance to become president (now, very low) and, more important, do something very good for the country.

He needs to express his love and appreciation for Reverend Wright, but reject Wright's presentation of black liberation theology as too often a hostile, vicious, anti-white and at times anti American concept. The way for him to do it is to accept personal responsibility for being unable to see it, blinded by his love of Wright and the good parts of Wright and the Trinity Church. He should apologize for being blind to it and offer a stirring call for blacks to leave that baggage behind - endorsing the good hearts of most non-black americans and, regardless of whether it is fair or not, placing the burden upon blacks to step up and help overcome any racial hostility still in American society by love of this country and their fellow citizens. It would do a world of good for the country for a person of Obama's stature to shine a light on the problem of black leadership like Reverend Wright.

I doubt that he will do anything close to it. I wish he would not try to calculate what is considered best for him politically and focus entirely on what is best for the country (which actually would benefit him politically).

I am pessimistic because so far he has been at best been parsing in trying to duck responsiblity for it. Everything he has said so far has been very calculating -- "I have not personally heard these particular comments while seated in the pews," "out of context," "cherry picking," and how Wright is a former marine and retiring. He even has tried to blame the people pointing out the problem as causing racial problems.

On the plus side for him, the maintstream media loves him and will give him a good grade on his speech so long as he gives them a few good soundbites. But the media cover for him will not hold up among the general electorate in today's 24/7 cable and internet age. He has to step up and really say something of significance.

Now think about why: The Republicans want Clinton as the nominee.

Close. The Republicans don't want a quick resolution to the democratic race. The also want to weaken the winner.

After all, which is worse: the very human desire not to humiliate a longtime friend because he occasionally crosses a line (Obama and Wright), or the cynical courtship of a powerful endorsement even though you already know the person in question has some odious public views (McCain and John Hagee)?

No one asked me either but I can't see how the latter isn't far more cynical, and soulless. The latter was for VOTERS - period. I don't think I could have stayed in Wright's church but I don't attend church very often, period. I think it's understandable he'd had a strong attachment to the man who brought to Christianity.

I also think he, or someone in his campaign, should have seen this coming, a long time ago. This is a society where talking heads yap about a $400 haircut or a scarf Pelosi wore for DAYS.

But it does seem like an excuse for attacking him from people who already don't like him, for whatever reason. (The screamers at "leftists" help back up thaty idea, thank you very much..)

In the scheme of things, can we really afford to spend so much time on such matters?

Does anyone still read brian's posts?

I am struck by some of the inability to understand this issue on this site. It is obvious that many of the commenters know nothing of religion or what "membership" in a church is all about. It is not membership in a professional organization, It is involvement with people who share deep, moral feelings.

Kevin, by even comparing the Obama-Wright relationship to the Hagee-McCain relationship you either are doing major spin or showing extreme stupidity. Your choice.

Wright is not some guy with incendiary views who endorsed Obama, or even a guy that Obama courted for an endorsement. He is the one Obama calls his mentor. Obama has claimed for 20 years that he has depended on him for spiritual guidance.

Let's face it. The "Hagee" non-issue is just a smokescreen to deflect this real problem. McCain did not relate to Hagee on a parishoner-pastor level.

Given the close association ( married him, baptized his kids, was his pastor ) that Obama had to Wright over a very long span we are faced with a chilling choice.

Either Obama endorses these views, or he has walked a lie for 20 years for political advantage in a certain community. These views of Wright are not close to mainstream. They belong to the American hating crowd. They definitely do not line up with the Obama that has been presented to the people as a candidate.

So the question is, "Who is the real Obama?" If he truly is for racial healing and unity, he could have not spent his time in this man's church. His soul would have felt polluted by the pouring out of hate from the pulpit.

By choosing to fellowship in this church for such a long time, and yet presenting himself as the "unity" candidate, he has demonstrated that he is duplicitous in his very core. Either he is an empty soul who has no true center and can bend to every whim, or he is an America hater who has well-disguised it in order to be presentble.

This issue is not about, some politician's play of the people. It is about that we may elect as POTUS someone of no real substance. That is scary.

You know...

Kevin, by even comparing the Obama-Wright relationship to the Hagee-McCain relationship you either are doing major spin or showing extreme stupidity. Your choice.

If someone is as deliberately insulting as this is, why should anyone take the rest of it seriously? Have people lost the ability to disagree without attacking?

And you make very limited choices in the rest of your post. It doesn't seem like the best way to persuade people.

bonds,

you'd apparently be surprised to konw that there are a number of people on this blog who are willing to read my posts and to engage in a respectful and intelligent dialouge. others are close minded and unwilling to engage respectfully on the merits.

...what's struck me the oddest about the whole thing has been the timing. Why now? Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ have been on the radar screen for months...

Maybe because questions about Obama's faith have recently been much louder and insidious. Which caused some to reexamine of the basis of his faith, whether in an attempt to defend or find fault. Which invariably led back to Wright (who had recently released a video/audio compedium of sermons?) Not to mention that when the issue last received much press over a year ago, Obama had just begun his campaign and was not the front-runner.

Thanks for the comment T4TN. Maybe I should pull back a little on the arrogance. But I just think that Kevin, is smarter than to think that the McCain-Hagee non-relationship compares in any way to Obama's 20 year relationship with his mentor and pastor. It just does not make sense.

Good analysis by Shelby Steele (and I think it also supports that Obama could turn it around with acceptance of his responsibility for being blind to the problem):

"Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday -- for 20 years -- in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage ("God damn America").

How does one "transcend" race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?

What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to "be black" despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn't this hatred more rhetorical than real?

But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.

No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself."

Concern troll, quoting Uncle Tom.

Only after I considered this for a while did the thought cross my mind that makes the difference.

Wright did not endorse Obama.

No for 20 years, Obama has endorsed Wright.

That in a nutshell is the issue.

the stuff Wright says isn't half as poisonous as the things that come out of the mouths of men like Robertson, Hageel, and Coulter; nevertheless, the latter haven't been expelled from the Republic; so why should Wright?

Short answer is, he shouldn't. But he ain't white. I am an ardent Hillary supporter, obviously, but shit is what it is. I want race to be a non factor, but I'm a fool. I like being a fool, though.

Barack, you got your stage tomorrow, make it count you sum-bitch. Because if you knock it out of the park, we go a long way to putting this shit behind us. If you whiff, we lose decades of progress...

Hansen, I have to disagree with you that bringing ip McCain's courting of religious bigots doesn't make sense. It makes sense for me. But I'm not saying I own the answer. It make not make sense for others - I thought Drum made that clear, also.

I'm not black, my experience with black churches is limited. I know the services tend to be much more passionate than what I'm used to. So there's a cultural divide here and I'm not willing to rush to judgment about Obama and this relationship.

And frankly, I don't understand why the news is nonstop about Obama and McCain gets a pass for seeking out the endorsement of a really outrageous religious bigot. There's no emotional bond there. McCain used to reject these kinds of people. Now he was vying with Huckabee over their endorsements. There's no personal attachment as I said - it's about votes and it seems cynical as all hell to me.

I agree Obama hasn't handled it very well so far. But I don't get the view that's it's overwhelmingly important on the face of it. I dislike the clips I've heard of Wright, but surely there's more to him that just bombastic statements.

I read the same web as the rest of you. I haven't seen the outpouring of anti-Obama hate some of you keep talking about. Outside the media keeping it going to pump ratings and the usual wingnut suspects, just where is this giant anti-Obama surge? Near as I can tell he went up in the polls just today.

From Obama's comments tonight, it looks like he is going to cover enough of the kind of issues that I suggested he needed in order to at least get a good review from the friendly media - now if he would only add acceptance of his own blindness, it would be a home run:

"I think we’ve got to talk about it,� he added. “I think we’ve got to process it. But we’ve got to remind ourselves that what we have in common is far more important than what’s different and that if we’re going to solve any of these problems, we’ve got to come together and bridge our differences in ways that we just have not bridged them before.�

“To the extent that, you know, the conversation over the last couple of days has been dominated by some stupid statements that were made by Rev. Wright, but also caricatures of Rev. Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ — which, by the way, is part of a denomination that is overwhelmingly white — you know, I think that that has distracted us from the possibilities of moving beyond some of these arguments,� Obama said.

“I think that, you know, when you look at somebody like a Rev. Wright who grew up in the ’50s or ’60s, his experience of race in this country is very different than mine,� Obama told Ifill. “Now, we benefit from that past. We benefit from the difficult battles that were taking place. But I’m not sure that we benefit from continuing to perpetuate the anger and the bitterness that I think, at this point, serves to divide rather than bring us together. And that’s part of what this campaign has been about, is to say, ‘Let’s acknowledge a difficult history, but let’s move forward in a practical way to get things done.’�

T4TN - The news is non-stop about Obama/Hillary because there is only suspense in the Democratic primary. No one is fighting McCain right now.

For better or for worse, McCain will not get much coverage right now.

John Hansen: Either Obama endorses these views, or he has walked a lie for 20 years

Wow, that's the lamest false dichotomy I've read in a long time.

Possibility three: Obama understands certain controversial views held by his pastor but either does not endorse them or frames them differently.

Maybe it's just me..Shelby Steele?

Good God. Thomas Sowell and Armstrong Williams were busy?

And why didn't Obama have a more vigorous defense ready when it did hit? It's not as if he didn't know Wright was an issue just waiting to explode in his face.

(1) Obama didn't know that Wright made some statements which were off the charts: (a) Obama has been candid about his knowledge of Wright's statements; and (b) he was naive for not doing a better job of due dilligence.

(2) Obama knew that Wright made some statements which were off the charts: (a) Ohama has been less than candid about his knowledge of Wright's statements; and (b) he was naive in thinking Wright would fade away.

I imagine it's probably some of both, and you can draw any number of conclusions about his suitability for being POTUS from that. I'll reserve judgement until Obama has his say tomorrow.

The news is non-stop about Obama/Hillary because there is only suspense in the Democratic primary.

It's reminding a lot of non-stories that get close to 24/7 coverage but I'm reminded particularly of the madness for the Gary Condit scandal. That was the sensationalized story of the day until 9/11 blew it out of the water.

The seems like that kind of "what the hell were we thinking..giving so much attention to something so insignificant?!" moment. I have questions and I wonder why Obama seems to have to caught flat-footed. But I keep thinking..this is the man who brought Obama to Christianity. I don't think that element's power can be dismissed or ignored.

Personally, I'd much rather hear what the candidates have in mind for China or for the bank bailout situation. Or any number of other issues.

The race speech is a mistake. Obama should instead make a speech on the economy. And another speech on the economy next week too.

It's the over riding issue of most elections and in this one especially it is even more dominant. He needs to connect his theme of change to bread and butter reality and jobs. Race/shmace, if he can be seen as Barack "Jobs and lower oil prices" Obama, no one will care about Wright or any of that.

He needs to stop bickering with Hillary. Stop treating it like a "pick me, the other person sucks!" contest and start talking about the concerns of the voters. Not just once but consistently.

And I say this as someone who has been pulling for Obama for some time now, but he's making tactical blunders lately.

Also, on another issue but an important one, I'm at a loss to understand why he doesn't press for regularl weekly debates. He is far more effective in debates - where he always comes across as presidential - than he is in his much-praised oratory.

This is the kind of brain dead stuff that leads us to elect people like George W. Bush.

We hyperventilate about Wright but yawn about the 1000 real tragedies that occur every day.

There is a reason our country is going down the tubes. It's not idiotic leadership. It's the idiotic citizenry that elects the leadership.

America is a nation of idiots, losers, and sociopaths. We should knock down the statue of liberty and replace it with a cheeto.

We have learned nothing from the last eight years.

Brian, you rock. I think your analysis is right on the mark. And if Obama can make the kind of speech you suggest, it could go a long way towards dealing with this, at least with voters inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Whether that would be enough for the general I don't know.

I think y'all are missing the most important point from this blog discussion from the past 8+ years:

It's O K If You Are A Republican.

Maybe Obama should Officially switch parties. (Unlike Clinton and Lieberman, who still allow that "D" by their name, you know, like Senator Foley did.. . )

I think if this episode teaches us anything it makes clear that the problem "values voters" have with democrats is not they are hostile to "people o faith" its that religiosity is only valid if it comes in the form of lily white fascism, militarism, misogyny and greed. Obama has been attending the same church for 20 fucking years. He was married there and had his children baptized there. According to the way faith has been framed by Republicans, and the Democrats who love them, Obama should be considered the perfect example of a Democrat who "gets it". But no, his congregation promotes ideas that don't fit into the mold of God, Guns, and Gays, so his faith is somehow illegitimate.

It's complete and utter bullshit. And if the establishment of the Democratic party wasn't so keen to hand the nomination to Clinton, this wouldn't be an issue at all, because Democrats as a whole would stand up and defend Obama's faith, and his right to practice it as he sees fit. But the DLC needs their candidate, so Democrats will willingly do the biding of racist, fascist, authoritarian Republicans, as long as it get their candidate a little closer to the Whitehouse.

enozinho: ...because Democrats as a whole would stand up and defend Obama's faith...

I'm less interested in his faith per se, and more interested in his humanity. While there are attractions to having an implacable machine as POTUS (and sometimes I fear that is the bar we have set for our candidantes) all other things being equal, I'd prefer flesh-and-blood.

Barack Obama should be trentlotted and hoist on the lib petard.

Why should only so-called minorities be able to use the phony hypersensitivity power play, otherwise known as the race card? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

As enozinho says, it's complete and utter bullshit...but also the next logical step in the "show us your faith!!!" game that for better or worse all political candidates seem compelled to play these days (the very game, in fact, that Amy Sullivan is so keen on playing). For my money, Howard Dean's been the only candidate of recent note who has had the right idea of how to handle it.

As I told my sister, who doesn't follow anything as closely as I do, when she called me and started breathlessly relating what Mormons believe (this was back when Romney was still in) and asked, "isn't that ridiculous?" and I replied, "well, there are other people who believe that a woman who had never been touched by a man got pregnant by a spirit and gave birth to a god...is that really less ridiculous?" And she had to admit that no, it really wasn't any less ridiculous or unlikely just because people had been believing it for longer.

The way to make this go away, once and for all, is for some statesmanlike figure, respected by all sides but not officially connected with any campaign, to step forward and make this point, perhaps even by pointing out the beliefs of different faith communities that people not in that community would find ridiculous...a statement that every person listening would nod along with in agreement up until the point their particular ox was gored. The very mild ridicule of aspects of each faith in turn would virtually guarantee wall-to-wall coverage for several days at least, since the media loves to cover nothing more than "let's you and him fight" but I think the message would sink in: yes, anyone who doesn't follow your flavor of woo-woo is going to see some things in it that strain credulity, just as you're going to see the same in theirs...and this is why it shouldn't be a political issue in the first place. Because if it is, we're going to quickly arrive at a place where NO candidate is acceptable to a majority of people, simply because the beliefs he or she has that cannot be proven do not match up with the beliefs a lot of individual voters have which cannot be proven. And isn't that the very DUMBEST way to decide who's best fit and qualified to lead - on the basis of everyone agreeing on something no one can PROVE? Yes, yes indeed it is.

As Amanda Marcotte says, WTF do I even know the name of Obama's pastor? Seriously, if we're going to vett candidates on this basis, let's get to work and talk about all the times other candidates may have been in the pews when the leader of their particular church said something sexist, or homophobic, or xenophobic, and so on. Lord knows there's ample evidence it goes on in to some extent in virtually every church. And all but the most brain dead fundamentalists know that they've heard things from the pulpit that they either found offensive or disagreed with from time to time, but just as you don't dump people because no single individual ever agrees with you 100% of the time, that's not a great reason for dumping an institution with which you have long and enduring ties, either. If it is, we're going to quickly find ourselves with lot of churches standing empty every Sunday. And as for those most brain dead fundamentalists who won't get the point, they aren't going to vote for us anyway so no point in worrying about pissing them off. So let's make the "faith homes" of all the other candidates an issue as well. What about their responsibility to denounce their personal minister and sever all ties because he preaches that women should do what men say or that god hates queers above all else? Let's get to work and spread the fun around. If the Republicans want to play that game, in all seriousness, bring it on.

I guess my point was that by every objective measure, Obama is actually an honest-to-goodness Christian. Whether you think that is a positive or a negative is your own business, but he clearly isn't faking it. He dutifully sat in the pews, long before Tim Russert was watching, and long before being friendly to the religiously-inclined was an imperative for Democrats running in this country.

He cleared every hurdle, far before they were ever laid out in front of him. And his only sin, as far as I can tell, is that the faith he chose to attach himself to didn't fit the mold laid out by Republicans, and thus the Media, and the thus the spineless strategists in the Democratic party.

All of this is to be expected. But what surprises me is that progressives would ignore the fact that none of his proposes policies, none of his speeches, none of his writings are tinged with the negative baggage that secular Democrats associate with religiosity, and yet, they are perfectly happy to drag him over the coals because he sat by idly as his pastor said things that are offensive.

Has Obama proposed that we ban abortion? Has he proposed that we define marriage as between a man a and a woman? Has he proposed that all Blacks move to Liberia? Is he proposing reparations? Forty Acres and a mule? Where are the negative repercussions of Obamas faith reflected in his policies? Where is the pandering to moralists? Where is the pandering to black nationalists? It's not there.

But because we're in the middle of a nomination fight, half of the Democratic party is quiet while the Republican party defines one of the most promising Democrats since Bobby Kennedy as a black separatist, anti-American, jive turkey. And for what? What do Democrats gain for letting this happen? Four more years of vanilla DC bullshit. Count me out.

Only by looking at it through Republican eyes can we with any degree of accuracy assess the extent of Obama’s Wright/Trinity Church problem. At this stage of the game, the only question that counts for Democrats is: How damaged do the super delegates think Obama has become as the Democratic Candidate in the general election? It is clear by now that Republicans think they have hit pay dirt with the Obama/Wright/Trinity connection. So, regardless of what Democrats may wish or think or try to explain away, the Republicans WILL NOT LET THE MATTER DIE and will make the most of it, in every conceivable way, in the general election.
If you read the Republican blogs, or watch Fox News, you soon begin to realize and understand that Obama’s church problem is not limited to the inflaming words and problematic sermons of Pastor Wright. Rather, Obama’s Wright/Trinity Church problem extends to the very tenets and teachings of his church and the mission and values of the congregation from which he cannot and/or declines to divorce himself. The Republican view (which is apparently also shared by many traditional Democrats) is that the Trinity Church is a communist-like liberation theology driven, crazy, scary, cultish, ‘60ish-style black racist, pro-Africa, anti-American congregation that is a deeply unacceptable association for an American President.
The word the Republican blogs are trumpeting is that “Obama is Toast.� The question for us is, to what extent will the super delegates be hearing that trumpet at the time of decision, if Obama is unable to silence it.

Brian:

When is John McCain going to publicly renounce the teachings of his bigoted spiritual advisor, Rod Parsley?

TCD

Go on over to rawstory.com

There you will see that Republicans are now voting in large numbers in the primaries for Hillary as they feel McCain can beat her but not Obama.

I would suspect that either the Repubs or Hillary decided to turn a spotlight on this.

I don't at all agree with what Wright preached. But I feel there are scare tactics being used here. I don't see anything in Obama that is anti-American or inflammatory. I just don't buy it.

Just as I never bought Iraq when everyone said he had WMD.

His long association with Wright speaks to his judgment. The fact that a candidate for the presidency sat in the pew of a minister who ranted against America is news. And his tepid response is troubling.

Like it or not, this is going to hurt him in the general election.

"Like it or not, this is going to hurt him in the general election."

Like it or not, this is going to hurt us in the general election.

I find it incredible that Obama did not dump Wright immediately when he got a whiff of ambition for higher office.

this post by a fledging Obama supporter demonstrates just how delusional Obama supporters are. Your brushing aside of the issue Kevin is such an affront to credulity and common sense that one doesn't quite know what to say - unless it be: you Obama supporters are insane! It's like you've all gone Jonestown. Look what's happening in world: economy in meltdown, brewing international crisis with China over Tibet, engaged in two intractable wars while military needs serious rethink and upgrade, Russia evolving into an unpredictable oligarchy, Iran pursuing nuclear weapons - and you maniacs want to elect Obama? It's flat out delusional, insane, you people are insane. One thing for sure the Wright controversy demonstrates is that Obama's opposition to the war was meaningless - listening to the rhetoric coming out of that church of his there was as much chance of him voicing support for the war as there was of Michael Moore shedding a couple hundred pounds and enlisting in the Marines. So you idiots can stop with that bogus 'better judgment' crap - Obama did exactly what Rev Wright would have expected him to do.

And why didn't Obama have a more vigorous defense ready when it did hit? It's not as if he didn't know Wright was an issue just waiting to explode in his face.

how much more vigorous a response do you need than: what the man said was irresponsible, and incindiary, and i don't agree with it. and if i'd heard him say those things, i'd've said something to him?

honestly, Kevin, what more should Sen. Obama have said? "oh, you're right, Hannity, Rev. Wright is an evil, unpatriotic man and I'll never talk to him again"?? what about the thirst for Democrats to stand up for themselves, not to bow to pressure from the Republicans on every minute thing that happens.

Ron B, first, we weren't talking about the sins of the Christian right but to be clear I don't approve of Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, et al. And maybe pointing out the long-standing Republican embrace of their antics will actually work as a defense against the Wright issues in the general election. I don't think so for a bunch of reasons. In any case it doesn't address the problems Wright raises for me and others about Obama's core beliefs.

Jet, not sure exactly what your, uh, colorful response to my comment was intended to question. The claim that 58% of Americans have a problem with Wright's beliefs? This comes from the poll that Kevin posted (add up "somewhat unfavorable" and "very unfavorable"). The assertion that this is more of a problem for Obama than Hagee, say, is for McCain? First, that isn't something I even addressed in my comment. Second, now that you mention it, it probably is. The fact that McCain is obviously being a grotesque hypocrite in accepting Hagee's support is oddly insulating. Obama can't (and shouldn't) take that stance with respect to Wright.

Kevin, he sat his kids in front of that guy. Every Sunday. At the most impressionable age he set Wright up as an authority figure for them.

Your concern about "the children" and pearl-clutching sensitivity for their well-being are very admirable, but all they really do is prove you have probably never been to church and are good at repeating right-wing spin.

You see, "the children" are shuttled off to Sunday School while the adults attend the sermon. "The children" generally spend their time coloring pictures of Jesus and hearing stories about Noah's Ark. Then, after the sermon, Mommy and Daddy go pick up the kids and head for breakfast at Denny's. That's how it work.

You should try attending church some time. You might be better informed if you did so and someone there might tell you judge not, lest you be judged.

I agree with Bob that Hannity and Fox News helped promote this whole controversy but the beneficiary is McCain. He has no money and could not withstand a full scale assault by the Democratic nominee this far ahead in the game. The GOP needs to keep the Democraticc primary going as long as possible. So the tapes were thrown out there, it not only sets the Democrats at each others throat, but takes the Hagee and Parsley rans off the tube. More and More I'm begining to think Mr. Hunderds Year War with be the next president.

The affair says more about Wright than Obama. It was more important for Wright to vent than to get Obama elected. That's someone to look up to?

Pitiful!

Larry

If you don't approve of the Republican fundy elite ministers embraced by John McCain, why are you still going to vote for him? It is still clear you know nothing about the modern Christian church.

Trust me Larry, fundamentalists all across the country are about to break from the Republican party. They have had it up to here with gay marriage, gun rights and silly promises about Abortion. Lots of them have bigger fish to fry. They are losing their homes. They can't pay their credit cards. They are losing children in Iraq. Those fundamentalists don't live on another planet. They are folks who you encounter every day. Most of them have had the same experience Obama has had with their minister. Most of them have squirmed as their minister said something provocative. They aren't going to hold Wright against Obama. They don't spit on their minister because sometimes he gets a little out of control.

I think this event has been in the works for a long time. Obama is just about to peal a whole lot of evangelical Christians away from the Republican party.

Nobody is listening to me, but I think in the long run this story is going to help Obama. More importantly I think it is going to help Democrats, at least those Democrats smart enough to see the opportunity.

Only the media and the casual Christians are going to find much in the Wright story. There are going to be some dog whistles blown in an hour or so they won't even understand, but church going Christians will.

Barak Obama could maintain his Muslim background or philosophy and claim also to be a Christian.
Muslims believe that Jesus was a great prophet – just not as great as Muhammad.

I'd wondered how long it would take you guys to get to that. Longer than I'd expected. Y'all are slipping.

The source of all this is none other than the Right itself-- Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Laura Ingraham have been drumming up the Wright story for weeks. Why? They want to run against Hillary-- she's good for business, regardless of whether she wins OR loses.

The other reason why is that IF Obama gets the nomination they can uses Wright's "hate speech" to say things like "the Obamas HATE AMERICA" and "secretly hate White People" and the "Obama is SCARIER THAN THAN HILLARY." They're trying to strike a nerve in white Americans that any reservations they may have about a black man as their president is JUSTIFIED because he secretly hates them. Rush constantly wonders outloud, "just what do you think he's going to do [to us white people] when he gets to the White House?" So much racist innuendo it makes your head spin.

In a nutshell, they are covering their bases. They either knock out Obama so they can run against Hillary OR they have great fodder to use against Obama-- they're just going to chant "Obama HATES AMERICA" until they're blue in the face.

Fun times.

zoe

I have no doubt that Limbaugh and company have been on the story for weeks. I argue that the timing of its festering to the top right now is ideal for Obama. It's going to boil up at some point. The earlier the better from the perspective of Obama's campaign. I think history will show that they intentionally allowed this story to bubble up now to deal with it a month before the next primary.

One thing is for sure, the speech is going to get great play on the media.

Why now? Who cares "why now". It was absolutely inevitable that Obama would be attacked for his association with this religious nut-case at some point.
Obama should have definitely disassociated himself from this nut-case years ago. Hope he has a good counter-attack because "slicing and dicing" this problem is not going to work.

The most important thing that he needs to say in his speech this morning is that, on balance, African-Americans ought to be grateful to be Americans right now.

My grandfather was a preacher. He preached at a small Evangelical church in the country in South Carolina. I would spend weeks in the summer staying with them and attending his church 3 times a week. On more than one occasion as a child I heard him use the N-word in a sermon. Was he racist? Certainly. Do his comments from the pulpit while I listened somehow make me racist? Of course not. I still go to church, albeit a different denomination, but I learned at a young age that Preachers are people with all the same insecurities, faults, prejudices, and vices as anyone else. My grandfather came from a different time, when racism was instilled in him from birth. I don't defend his beliefs based on that, but I do use the environment he grew up in as a context for what he believed and what he preached. In the end, I've always felt sorry for him. It must be a difficult ball of hate to carry around for people like him and Rev. Wright. Some of my grandfather's best hunting and fishing buddies were black, and by my observation he seemed to genuinely love them, however if they'd try to come in his "white" church he'd been first in line to escort them out. I'm thankful his daughter chose to raise me differently, and even though she still has some of the same prejudices burned into her psyche that he passed down, she made sure they ended with her. I guess my point is, there was a time when anger and hate was virulent in this nation and Rev. Wright, as well as my grandfather, came from that era. It's a new era now and I'd hate to see someone who seems poised to lead this country into a great leap of progressiveness and post-racial reconciliation torn down because of the "old hate". I certainly would consider it unfair if I was judged for my grandfather's words.

The timing of the controversy is ideal for Obama! Do you really think one more warm and fuzzy speech on race, more can’t we all get along rhetoric can overcome years of hidden fears and prejudices that are barely under the surface. Your statement assumes that there won’t be more race slime or sludge out there to be thrown to the public by the right. In the African American community the biggest controversy regarding Reverend Wrights statements are that they were said in a church setting. Blacks and whites see the world through different eyes on the subject of race and people shouldn’t be so shocked. We are only 40 years away from the eradication of Jim Crow. Half of the living population in the South grew up under a system of legalized white supremacy. So you can hardly expect African Americans to not have some skepticism that the views of the still living white majority changed overnight with the passage of the Civil Rights laws (think Trent Lott)that were forced on them. Didn’t Lyndon Johnson predict the South would be lost for a generation. We purposely avoid these discussions to coexist peacefully. The more Obama raises these issues the more his ratings will fall. I’m not dismissing how far this county has come on the subject of race but I’m not deceived as to how much further on both sides of the racial divide we have to go.

I'm absolutely amazed that anyone holds Obama somehow responsible for what his preacher said! Preachers sometimes say provocative things to get people's attention and to get them to think. Big deal.

This is nothing more than the operation of the media cycle. The press build up candidates to gain readership. Then they tear them down to keep their attention.

If you are not tearing down your opponent and feeding the press negative stories about your opponent, the narrative will be all one sided. The media will attack you and give your opponent a free pass.

Gore and Kerry made the same mistake. By contrast, 1996 was a running joke about how old Bob Dole was. The Obama message cannot survive the general election unless he is willing to get in the trenches and turn McCain into an out of touch hypocrite that is one step away from the nursing home. Better to have a candidate implode during the primary than lose the general election.

I'm appalled by many of the so-called progressive reactions to the "Wright" issue.

1) Chicken Little 1: "This is going to sink him." Well, with that kind of spineless attitude, I suppose it could.

2) Chicken Little 2: "Obama should have quit his church because presidents are held to a higher standard!" Oh really. And what is that standard exactly? Seems might convenient, this so-called standard. Because the last time I checked Obama might have listened to Wright, but he's never publicly advocated any of Wright's so-called venom. Oh, I get it, the next time you go to a violent movie, I should hold that you are a violent psychopath. After all, you were there. You paid. You sat there and didn't walk out.

3) Chicken Little 2: "The repub attack machine will make mincemeat of him because of this." Again, spineless. I'm getting sick of all of the pansies out there that spend their time quivering at the thought of what all those mean repubs are going to do. Since when did the republicans get to pick our candidate!

4) Typical anti-religion: "Since Obama went to this church for so long, his beliefs are identical to Wrights." People that say this have ZERO understanding of what it means to belong to a community that is based on Christian principles of forgiveness, acceptance of difference, and looking for the best in all imperfect individuals.

5) Racial ignorance 1: "OMG this church is a seething mass of anti-white vitriol." Yeah right, that's why it has such a large non-black congregation.

6) Racial ignorance 2: "OMG, Shelby Steele says that this church proves that Obama is filled with anti-white vitriol." Puh-lease. Since when did Shelby Steele become the voice of the progressive movement? The voice of Confederate history, I grant him, but the voice of racial harmony??!

7) Racial ignorance 3: "Blacks and Obama hate america." Look, blacks have to deal with "science" purporting that their IQs are just naturally lower. Do you? Yes, the CIA did sell drugs to predominately black communities in the 80's to fund the Contras. Blacks are incarcerated at much, much higher rates than other racial groups. Blacks are on average poorer than most other racial groups. Now, out of thousands of minutes of sermons, WHY wouldn't a minister address this? Gasp, could it be that institutionally, the US still has problems that need fixing? Problems that are sufficient to produce anger?

8) Double-standard: Oh, so it's o.k. for the Hagees, the Robertsons, etc. to rail against the immorality of america, but not for a black minister? It's o.k. for liberals to get angry over George Bush over his policies of torture, but not a black minister?

Ron, good heavens, what made you think I was going to vote for McCain??? I am a staunch Democrat.

Orwell: Barak Obama could maintain his Muslim background or philosophy and claim also to be a Christian.

Man, that's the silliest shit I ever heard of. If you were a secret Muslim "passing" as a Christian, wouldn't you choose a more subdued church in which to conceal yourself?

Plus, if you're going to hijack the name of a great writer for Allah's sake learn to use the English language.

I mean "for Christ's sake."
Crap, I've outed myself!

C'mon people, pick up the white courtesy phone, political reality is calling.

Of course there's a double standard. Of course Hagee's awful. Of course Wright is probably inspirational a huge portion of the time, and abc cobbled together 10 mins of crap over 30 years. Beside the point. (Though why in hell the church website would have that stuff on DVD is beyond me...)

Point is, it's a gift for the GOP, the MSM is legitimaizing it as Wolf apparently has it on a running loop, and these are the type of 527's BO is going to be up against this fall. That is going to be tough for Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7fiM1LqNL0&eurl=http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/17/174241/119

The question it begs for me is judgement. Why the hell were his advisors not getting distance and finding another church as soon as he was contemplating a WH run? You had to figure this would come out eventually (perhaps better now than in October).

Even Oprah left that church for God's sake.

Who could've predicted that after 400 years of slavery and racism black people would be angry?

"Gore and Kerry made the same mistake. By contrast, 1996 was a running joke about how old Bob Dole was. The Obama message cannot survive the general election unless he is willing to get in the trenches and turn McCain into an out of touch hypocrite that is one step away from the nursing home. Better to have a candidate implode during the primary than lose the general election."

Yup. If I'm a super I'd be telling him, "you have to show you can fight" before we give you the nod.

But his negs are rising. HRC's are high but at least appear to be known and more stable.

She feels a lot less risky to me right now.

Sarah writes:
The question it begs for me is judgement. Why the hell were his advisors not getting distance and finding another church as soon as he was contemplating a WH run? You had to figure this would come out eventually (perhaps better now than in October).

Um, maybe because he understands that commitment to a community transcends personal aspiration? Oh, you're right, wouldn't want that characteristic in a president. And once again, why are you so determined to have the republican party determine the democratic nominee (e.g., all of those nasty 527's are going to sink him)? That's up to you. Me, if the 527's are full of it, then they need to be fought, not caved in to (without their ever having fired a shot).

on balance, African-Americans ought to be grateful to be Americans

African Americans should withdraw their deposits from US banks.

Even Oprah left that church for God's sake.

Proctor and Gamble, GM, EXXON, etc. expect the most establishment persona of American television, Oprah, to distance herself from anything that does not wrap itself in the flag of corporate America. Oprah works for the richest and whitest people in America. She would give Hagee an open mouthed kiss if it should please the CEO of P & G. Oprah steals the eyeballs of gullible Americans and sells them to the highest corporate bidder.

Obama should repudiate Oprah's commercialism, not the sermons of his pastor.

8) Double-standard: Oh, so it's o.k. for the Hagees, the Robertsons, etc. to rail against the immorality of america, but not for a black minister? ….: 8 at 10:58 AM

… maybe because he understands that commitment to a community transcends personal aspiration? ….Posted by: at 11:44 AM

And to think I voted for the hypocrite in the primary! I for one will not support someone who sat in the pews listening to such filth. I ignored the remarks by his wife as just one of those "ooops" that will occasionally occur on the campaign trail. But there is no way to condone 20 years of listening to such filth. How could he befriend such a nasty old man? I do know that Barrach will win the Democratic primary. This should have came out in time for me and others to vote on Hilary. As it is...I will now vote for the honorable McCain over this guy who has proved by not leaving such an awful congregation that he truly cannot be trusted with the nation.

Mike, I bow before your logic. You'd make George Orwell proud!

1) Do you go to church, because parishioners are not "supporters" of their ministers. You can call a minister a "nut job", but to generalize that to a congregation is just more ignorant, bile-filled stereotyping.

2) In another thread you accuse the Obama folks of victimhood. Huh, I guess that's why you're so upset about how _obviously_ the media has it in for Hilary. Oh, I see. She's the _real_ victim. How silly of me.

3) I forget, are we talking about Democratic primaries or Republican primaries? Ah, now I get it. All of that "republican" support for Obama you are talking about is from republican democrats...or something.

4) And related to #3, you got me. My argument really turned on me! Fear of what all those mean ol' nasty republicans are going to do _should_ determine my vote. Better yet, since we should be so afraid, best just to stay home and hide in the closet.

Mike says:
The candidacy of Obama has been aided and abetted by our anti-Clinton media who is now turning for their favorite, McCain. You may not have noted, but Obama has the most Republican support in the primaries, so your argument turns on itself: why are you so willing to have Republicans determine the Democratic candidate

I will now vote for the honorable McCain

God will not forgive you for voting for a war pig. Sen. Obama's pastor spoke the truth, not filth. If you want filth, listen to the crap that comes out of the Rev. Hagee's mouth. Hagee wants to kill millions of people with nuclear bombs. Barrack's pastor wants God to damn slave owners and lynch mobs and racist bigots like you, something God should have done a long time ago.

The question to the Rev. Wright should be why hasn't God damned the slave owners and lynch mobs and racists. He won't like the answer, because there is no god. Justice is a man made concept. African Americans have to do the damning of American racists without divine help.

Brojo: "If you want filth, listen to the crap that comes out of the Rev. Hagee's mouth."

I'd have to agree.

I think it's self-evident that the Rev. Wright's theatrically righteous but still real anger is rooted in his highly attuned sense of social injustice, which leads him to rage against the machine, as it were. The Rev. Hagee's anger, in contrast, appears far more personal in nature, and leads one to wonder whether or not it stems from a deep-seated, irrational fear of something within his own psyche.

But then, the Rev. Hagee isn't John McCain's pastor, and there is no evidence that McCain ever even really knew the guy from Adam prior to the current flap, let alone solicited his endorsement.

That said, I'm not going to say anything more on the matter, because the Rev. Wright is no longer part of the Obama campaign.

Suffice to say that any further venture into this issue can only lead one to begin questioning the nature of Sen. Obama's personal spirituality, which in my opinion is completely out of bounds. Such a topic really has no more relevance to a political debate than does speculation about a candidate's qualifications based upon his or her like or dislike of the color orange.

Aloha.

Brojo wrote: "The question to the Rev. Wright should be why hasn't God damned the slave owners and lynch mobs and racists. He won't like the answer, because there is no god. Justice is a man made concept."

Few are prepared to accept the ultimate moral truth: "Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law."

Donald from Hawaii wrote: "... there is no evidence that McCain ever even really knew the guy from Adam prior to the current flap, let alone solicited his endorsement."

That's incorrect. McCain met with Hagee and actively solicited his endorsement. McCain appeared with Hagee on stage at the rally where Hagee endorsed him, and praised Hagee as a "spiritual leader." And McCain has refused to "reject" or "denounce" Hagee's hateful and repellent views, only vaguely saying that he doesn't agree with "all" of them.

ShameonBarack: >"As it is ... I will now vote for the honorable McCain over this guy who has proved by not leaving such an awful congregation that he truly cannot be trusted with the nation."

If you vote for John McCain, then that's your choice. But you really have no business passing judgment upon an entire congregation in that peremptory manner, unless you desire that they enjoy a similar privilege regarding how you choose to express or not express your own personal spirituality.

SecularAnimist: "McCain met with Hagee and actively solicited his endorsement. McCain appeared with Hagee on stage at the rally where Hagee endorsed him, and praised Hagee as a "spiritual leader.""

If that is indeed the case, then I happily stand corrected. I've made a point of not following the GOP this year, since there are others who can do it for me, and I'm not going to vote for any of them, regardless.

Further, while such political comparisons between Wright and Hagee are indeed validated, I think the real issue here, as it was during the public discussion about whether or nor Hillary Clinton is getting a fair shake from the press, is the media's selective employment of a clear double standard in its coverage of the candidates and campaigns.

Why now? Probably because we're in the holiest week of the year in the Christian calendar, which gave it wayyy more impact in terms of Christians' visceral reaction. To use an analogy from another religion; insult Islam=bad, insult Islam during Ramadaan= way more badder. Plus, the drumbeat that Hillary can't win, but only split the party is taking greater and greater hold. This may have been another way of freezing superdelegates in place.

The more interesting question is where did it come from? Are Rev. Wright's sermons routinely televised, in which case all somebody had to do was dig up some clips, have the news agencies routinely had a cameraman at Trinity every Sunday because they heard Wright was a fire eater, did somebody pay somebody at Trinity for some video that would normally just be "in house", or what? The answer to this might give us a fairly good idea of what force or forces are most interested in derailing Obama's campaign in this particular way.

In the end though, it doesn't matter. If it wasn't this, it would be something else.

Always been a Democrat, couldn't wait for the 2008 primaries.....then King Obama came along....John McCain, I hope you are the new President, you will have ten votes from this family. Then the Democrats can keep discussing the "racial" issues and get up to Illinois to Obama and Oprah's churches find their "dream".....

I attended an Easter service at a big box nondenominational Pentecostal church five years ago. That is when I realized Christians, especially these type of Christians, were people who should be condemned. While the US was dropping bombs on civilians in Iraq, these Americans were waving their arms in some kind of trance because they thought their god was shining his grace upon them.

Instead of appealing for forgiveness for their sins and the sins of their nation, these Christians were convinced they had already been saved and assured a place at the side of their god, the god of the New Testament. The Americans at this church were no different than the American slave owners who worshipped in their churches secure in the knowledge they too would be going to heaven. They were no different than the lynch mob members who dutifully went to church and took communion after torturing, hanging and desecrating the body of a Black man the night before. Religion may help people become better human beings, but religion is usually used to justify and rationalize inhumananity, to forget the sins committed or to escape punishment for wrongs done.

The Rev. Wright is correct to damn Americans like kj.

Micro-flap? Only in PC America could a black man be allowed to be associated with a clearly racist, wacky minister and it's OK! If Obama was white in the same situation, this would be the dominant story until he was done. AIDS was created by the U.S. government? 9/11 was our fault and "the chickens came home to roost" (a quote from Malcolm X referring to the reason JFK was assassinated). Obama is clearly lying about not knowing who this minister (who married him and his wife) and his views.
Why is this coming out just now? As a 20-year newspaper veteran, the liberal bent of the national press is so clearly obvious by this that if you don't laugh, you should cry. This man was almost a presidential contender. Now, we know him and anyone with half a brain would no longer consider him.

Hey RB - Amen, brother. If Obama was white, say like John McCain, and associated....or, heck, better yet, asked for the endorsement of a wacky minister, he'd be toast. Yes siree! Um, but wait, why isn't McCain toast again? He's white, and Hagee has some very "wacky" views. And that was barely picked up by the liberal media at all. Gosh, this is getting so confusing. I'd almost think that you have it completely backwards from what the actual real-world data suggests. But hey, you keep preachin' on the truth!

Getting yourself pastored for 20 years by a radical hater shows bad judgment. Lying about it when asked by the media shows dishonesty. Now we know the real reason why you refused to wear a flag lapel pin and why your wife has never before been proud of America. If we take you at your word, you spent 20 years in the company of a man, and never once figured out that he was a virulent racist. A president of the United states cannot afford to be that obtuse. Request for presidency denied.

--klqtzzz

I do not agree with the comments he made that are being shown over and over again on FOX and other right-wing media. But if I took three sentences from my pastors' many sermons together I am sure I could smear them too. It is an injustice. Rev. Wright is not running for president. But he deserves a fuller, more open-minded consideration as a man, a preacher, an intellectual, and a leader. Many, many pastors look up to Rev. Wright, not only in the "black church" but in many white churches. Rev. Wright has received many awards from Divinity Schools and elsewhere. Are all of these people just "crazy?" No, there is more to this man than what is being shown on tv. He is a distinguished, patriotic, Christian and loving man, worthy of admiration. The poll posted on this article about "public opinion" of Rev. Wright demonstrates how much this man has been smeared in the media. How many people know he's an ex-marine? How many people know much more than the few controversial statements he's made, which were taken out of context? This is a classic smear campaign, "swift boat" style. It's shameful.

As followers of Jesus Christ empowered by the Holy Spirit, true Christians say and pray: “God Bless America,” and many are now saying and praying “God Please Help the US.”

However, the Holy Spirit of God would never inspire a true follower of Jesus Christ to say or pray “God Da_m American” in any context, much less as part of a taped public sermon.

Holy Scriptures say to test the spirits (1 John 4:1). Reverend Wright obviously has a fiery spirit that is condemning at times, particuarly when he curses our nation in public sermons. It is certaintly not Christ-like or characteristic of the Holy Spirit.

Sentor Obama apparently does not say or pray “God Damn America,” but most of his life has trusted and tollerated this particular pastor. Although Reverend Wright is retiring, he will remain as Senior Pastor, and his replacement essentially agrees with him in spirit and truth.

There is reason to not trust the spirit in which Reverend Wright said the things he said, and so there is reason to question the spirit leading the youthfull Senator Obama as a professed Christian and prospective president of our nation. May God’s Holy Spirit be our guide.

Hope Page: itsallaboutjesusnotme.blogspot.com

What I don't understand is the rush to make excuses for Obama whenever a controversy arises as if he was incapable of being on the wrong side of any issue, especially such an important one as race.

I'm white and have friends who are very prejudiced against blacks but they know to never start their hate speeches in front of me because I've been very loud and very vocal in my total disgust with that type of behavior. It wasn't up to an organization or a "leader" to do that for me. A one public event, it was up to me to say "if you want to have a KKK meeting, then post a sign so the rest of us can stay away".That brought a long silence, then other whites stepped up to say, "Yeah, Trish speaks for me, too".

I was sitting in an area where this hate stuff was going on and my silence would have been considered condoning it.

Had I sat there and listened to that vile language, then donated to the KKK, wouldn't I be as guilty as those spewing the racial slander? Yes,I would have.

Obama donated $27,000.00 last year to the "church" where bashing "whitey" is loudly endorsed and brings happiness to those who seem to need a reinforcement of their victimhood. Obama is no better than the person who donates to white groups that spew their "victimhood" spiels.

This is a man people want to elect as president. Isn't it worth at least thinking about instead of immediately trashing any person who just doesn't blindly accept his viewpoint, his opinion? Obama is just a man. He isn't infallible, he isn't righteous, and he can be on the wrong side of things just like any other person.

It's extremely troubling to see so many Obama backers, especially whites, who have used such hatred in trying to shut out any opinion that questions Obama. This is a dangerous, slippery slope but I don't think any amount of reason will be heard.

It seems the Obama campaign has been made the "in thing", it's "cool" to people who are sick of the situation in this country and are determined to risk this nation, once again, on an untested person. You would think 8 years of Bush would make us ask more questions but apparently not.