Great speech. Barry O does it again. Just outclassed everybody.

If he hits the right notes, this is a great opportunity for Obama to grab the spotlight, deliver a great speech, and "appear presidential" to boot.

I just read the speech over at Huffington. Nice to see someone speaking so clearly, and taking on some risky subjects.

I'm impressed that he sat down with two different newspapers, 90 minutes each, to put the Rezko questions to bed. I have trouble picturing too many politicians under fire willing to open themselves up to questions rather than obfuscate and hide.

Good for Obama. And hopefully good for all of us as well. I like that kind of politics.

Give Wolf Blitzer a couple news cycles and we'll all learn this was some craven screed designed to placate the suburbanites in Pittsburgh.

He does more than say I understand why you're upset. He actually shows that he understands.

And I think that is because he really wants to understand. He understands the complexities of the human condition, even for those who will still whine that this isn't enough. He won't try to palcate those people because he knows that for some it will never be enough.

I have already seen a lot of "yes it was nice, but..." comments on sites. Those who say that will never understand anything beyond their own little prejudices (not necessarily racism).

I have a hunch both Clinton's camp and McCain's shuddered when they saw this.

"Barry O"???

I admit I rolled my eyes when I heard Obama was gonna give a "major speech on race", as I immediately thought of Romney's "major speech on religion" where he called atheists un-American and pandered to the religious right. But surely Obama has proven me wrong.

That last paragraph quoted is a thing of beauty. The importance of what he said and the bravery of saying it can not be overstated. With McCain stumbling around and proclaiming his ignorance in Iraq (details on Yglesias' blog), its obvious we need Obama to be the President right now.

With McCain stumbling around and proclaiming his ignorance in Iraq...

I am sure mclame will have something much more substantive to say after he finds the bathroom.

After all, it's hard to be reflective when you have a pants-load of crap and your handlers have not changed your diaper.

Wow. The last candidate who could give a speech as intelligent as this was Bill Clinton. And he's not running. Barack is.

It's important that he mentions resentments are stoked so people can avoid looking for the man behind the curtain.

He compared Ferraro's comments to those of Wrights ... the two are not equal.

This is a truly great speech, on many levels.

Up to now I have not been as much impressed or moved by Obama's "soaring rhetoric" as many of his supporters seem to be, but I really do think this is one of the finest speeches ever given by any American politician.

With this speech, I have become an Obama fan.

(By the way, I am glad to see that Obama includes "potentially devastating climate change" in his list of "monumental problems .... that confront us all.")

Brilliant speech Kevin. You left out the part where Barack pointed out that what Wright said isn't much different than what Ferrarro, Hillary's close friend, said. It was Ferrarro and Hillary's fault that race has been brought up and they deserve the blame for this not Wright or Barack.

I don't understand the outrage from Clinton fans over the Ferraro comparison. He didn't say everything about these two people is equivalent, he only said that both have made ill-thought out comments on the complicated, vexed question of race in america, in politics, in this election.

"He compared Ferraro's comments to those of Wrights ... the two are not equal."

Pick a little talk a little cheep cheep cheep pick a lot talk a little more Pick a little talk a little cheep cheep cheep pick a lot talk a little more Pick a little talk a little cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep.
Meredith Willson, "The Music Man"

Tang, you missed the whole point. The speech wasn't about the Primary or even the General Election. It was about the stuff this country sweeps under the rug and refuses to talk about even as we get so worked up by it we can't focus on the real threats to our soceity.

The point of comparison between Wright and Ferraro is also that their comments have been used to distract the public from the real problems and their solutions.

Computer chipfart. Correction:

Pick a little talk a little pick a little talk a little cheep cheep cheep pick a lot talk a little more .. Pick a little talk a little pick a little talk a little cheep cheep cheep pick a lot talk a little more ...

Obama is authentically a bridge between races. He understands the issue so well because it has been his daily burden. Where I think this leaps out as a transcendent speech is his corollary that the racial divide is propagated by economic insecurities--insecurities used by politicians to build hateful constituencies. I hope people listen to his words and take time to digest them. Conservatives defend the status quo, and by extension, racism.
Obama won me over in 2004.
I was struck by the Hillary counter blogging effort on Huffington Post where I read the speech. She has really dug in and is loosing the arsenal. Sigh.

Yes, Yes, Yes. Enough of the group and issue based politics. Real progressives and liberals should be pounding away at class issues, power concentrations, market failures, the necessary role of government, etc. Yes, yes, yes. I just hope the pundits don't "slice and dice" the message to death.

I don't understand the outrage from Clinton fans over the Ferraro comparison.

Racists that believe they are entitled to be next figurehead for the criminal cabal behind dur chimpfurher are just a little "ticklish."

After all - they want to be rakin' in billions and billions being looted from the treasury too while doin' the dirty work for the power-elite that fraudulently hoisted a smirking chimp to the pResidency with 2 stolen elections.

GREAT CRIMES DEMAND EVEN MORE CRIMINALITY and the clintons are waiting in the wings to do their part, just like bill covered up iran-contra and all the crimes of the reagan administration.

How dare that uppity black man stand between the clintons and power.

A good speech, and a remarkably clear-eyed one.

Granted, this won't stop media outlets like Fox News from continuing to blare the "controversy" over Jeremiah Wright, and it won't necessary stop the next manufactured outrage that comes from the Clinton camp. But it will hopefully inject some sanity into a campaign season that was being hijacked by the culture wars. These are serious subjects, but they are being used in nonserious ways -- as a political diversion and as entertainment. We have other things we need to deal with as a nation.

There is another thing. We -- as voters and consumers -- also need to speak up, and tell the media to stop trying to make this presidential election season another waste, consumed with phony issues and B.S. and narcissim and spin, like the last two. If we stay silent and let it happen, we'll end up with another train wreck. Time to speak up and push back. The media is nothing if not sensitive to its consumers -- and we need to tell them to knock it off.

Like Obama said -- not this time. Not this time.

-- Bokonon

tang: He compared Ferraro's comments to those of Wrights ... the two are not equal.

[Misses point entirely]

To the contrary, Ferarro and Wright (their publicized comments, that is) are equally divisive in their use of negative generalities. Obama gets it.

Obama said: Constitution stained by slavery...

And I thought that was just where dur chimpfurher used the "damn-piece-of-paper" as toilet paper.

Best. Speech. In. My. Lifetime.

"Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time."

Say what you want about Obama, but he is the only African-American politician that I know of who's said anything like this. Hell, this speech could turn the race around in Pennsylvania.

Shorter Barack Obama:

I understand about black anger. Now all of you, white, black, latino, asian, rich, poor unify with me and take upon all of us the mantle of victimhood. Let's all blame someone we can all agree to blame. The corporate culture. It's not black against white against latino for government largesse, we all need to unify together to attack the unseen enemy that causes our jobs to be lost, and our health coverage to be cancelled. Let's unite against that unseen enemy, so I can be in charge of showing you which way to go.

____________________

This is not change. Its just the same old liberal junk that has been preached for years, and is counterproductive. The job of government should not be to parcel out wealth to its favorites, but to encourage a wealth building economy. This is not accomplished by making everyone agree we are all victims.

Ronald Reagan was a different politician because he preached self reliance and the truth about this land of opportunity. I don't need to hear another politician telling me that everyone is being screwed by Mr. Corporation. That's just recycled John Edwards speeches.

HaHaHaHaHa...
HaHaHa
Mark Penn: please get angry about racism
Karl Rove: please please please get worked up about racism

Obama: for to long the man has been keeping down ordinary
Penn: Yes!!!
Obama: hard working...
rove: dark lord be praised YES!

Obama: White people.

Penn, Rove: ...
I would have given the world to see there smugg fat faces as they grabbed their jaw from the floor.

Who else would have the nerve to face this stuff head-on?

Good for him. I still worry about the general election but my admiration for Obama went up a few notches.

Ya got to love the posts by the likes of John Hansen - isn't it wonderful when the mouth-breathin' 20-percenters show up to tell us how great everything is under dur chimpfurher.

Gratefully, the opinions of these fools will be irrelevant for many years to come as long as the chimp-in-command continues to have is way.

Virtually EVERYTHING this moron stands for has been proven wrong and now idiots like hansen want to blame everyone else.

I think Obama couldn't have pulled off apologizing for or defending Wright successfully-- not because there's nothing to defend, but because the media would have been too unfair to any defense of Wright.

I'll explain why I think the criticism of Wright is unfair.

I heard an excerpt of Wright's speeches that Tim Russert offered up on his show the other morning as "offensive." Then, Ezra had a post on this subject which stated:

Does anyone believe that Barack Obama shares Jeremiah Wright’s political views? Do folks think Obama believes AIDS a biological weapon made by the American government to harm Africans? . . . That he thinks 9/11 was a merited attack that represented our “chickens coming home to roost?�

If a black person said "God damn America" in the context of America having allowed slavery for 200 years or so, would anyone think the black man was way out of line? I think American can do things that are wrong, even things that are very wrong, and it has, because America is only as good as the people that make it up, and human beings as a species are far from perfect. Anybody who thinks otherwise about that is nuts. So when America does something that deserves some damning, I think it's perfectly alright to say "God damn America" and I don't think it makes you a traitor, a terrorist, not a patriot, or someone who hates all Americans.

Secondly, I don't believe at all that AIDS was created by any government to hurt any particular people. I frankly think the idea is a little kooky, although people throughout history have done plenty of crazy and even stupid things, and still do, even regularly. So maybe a theory like that deserves a look for any evidence that can support it, and not a summary dismissal. In the end, though, it still doesn't seem to me like something someone who was capable of doing it would have been likely to do.

All that said, is it such a sin that Wright believes this might have happened, if he does? Don't conservative preachers advance nutjob, wacko beliefs like this all the time? I 100% guarantee you Armageddon or the Rapture will not come within any of our lifetimes, not matter what any nutjob preacher says, and war with Iran or any war Israel is involved in are not going to trigger the end of the world, despite what any conservative preacher says. Maybe Wright is just a little ignorant. But no matter why he claimed this, the point is there are plenty of people who believe kooky things- New Agers who believe in power crystals, and all sorts of people who believe in palm reading and astrology. And why aren't the kooky claims of right wing figures who endorse politicians or who regularly appear on CNN or MSNBC shows as guest experts similarly examined?

Finally, I think Ezra is wrong to say that Wright called 9/11 a "merited" attack. All it sounded to me like Wright was saying was that things we had done were wicked, they had made people angry, and that is perhaps why we were attacked. But it is not justified for a person to do anything they want to you in response, when you do something wicked to them. Everyone knows that, and I am sure Jeremiah Wright knows that. I think Wright was just trying to exhort us not to be wicked.

I guess it's possible he thinks that 9/11 was justified by crimes America has committed in the past either by itself or through proxies against people in the Middle East. But I think it's unfair to jump to that conclusion on him. Also I think it's really dangerous to say that although there was nothing wrong with Wright's particular words, he shouldn't have said them anyway because they were too offensive. The kind of thing Wright said wasn't offensive enough, and it dealt with real policy decisions that are important- it's certainly plausible that a smart course of action to take when someone attacks you is to stop attacking them, because you were the one who started the fight. When we get into a fight with someone, whether it be a nation or a group of terrorists, we have to be able to think and talk about how we go into the fight and how we can solve the problem. Not letting people like Wright say this basically common sense sort of opinion anyone could rightly or wrongly come to is not a helpful atmosphere to foster in America.

From John Hansen: Ronald Reagan was a different politician because he preached self reliance and the truth about this land of opportunity.

And then proceeded to break up unions and destroy the middle class. Great guy.

Wow, he knocked that out of the park.

I'd been waiting to make a donation in this race, but looks like it's time to open the wallet.

The point of comparison between Wright and Ferraro is also that their comments have been used to distract the public from the real problems and their solutions.

Kind of like the people bringing it up in this thread are trying to distract from the content of the rest of the speech. Let's not let them.

I think the comments by Hillary Clinton's supporters on some blogs show a concerted effort to make this campaign a zero-sum game -- consumed with group identities and personalities. The fact that they STILL aren't backing off -- and are actually amping up their efforts in an attempt to drown Obama out -- shows the extent of the problem.

This isn't just about Obama -- it is bigger than that. It is about finally getting beyond the same divisive stuff that has broken up the progressive coalition time and time again since 1968. Time for a different approach.

And ... Hillary Clinton needs to stop using the GOP's game plan. Really. Enough.

-- Bokonon

I must say, Obama's speeches are quite eloquent. Whether he has a hand in them or not, it doesn't much matter these days.

His recipe for success should be:

a) keep making speeches like this
b) keep outraising McCain and Hillary combined
c) Dismiss as petty these petty attacks and guilt by association attacks. Not ignore them, dismiss them with the disdain they deserve
d) Hammer Hillary and McCain withou mercy. There are so many issues of great substance over which they are both tremendously vulnerable.
e) Keep your surrogates on message.

ronnie talked about self reliance AND THEN PROCEEDED TO BORROW MORE MONEY FROM OUR CHILDREN THAN EVERY PRESIDENT THAT CAME BEFORE HIM COMBINED!

Nothin' self-reliant or "pullin' yourself up by the bootstrap" there, is there!?!?!?!?

Glad idiots like hansen stop by - if this is the "best" that the foes of REAL democracy and effective government can do - THEN PROGRESSIVE CAUSES HAVE MADE REMARKABLE GAINS IN HE PAST FEW YEARS.

Keep 'em coming, little johhny hansen - the shear smallness and hypocrisy of your proclamations undermines you and the morally bankrupt crowd you choose to support.

What? You folks who claim he compared Ferraro's statements to Wrights--he was talking aobut the news media and how they cover issues. That's how OJ was used. Just stop being so obtuse!

Man, Barry O is so far ahead of most of us.

this is classic Obama is sense it has nothing to do with what's at issue: turning it into a 'race' thing is bull shit and a cynical attempt to deflect conversation into safer ground and away from only real question, which has nothing to do with race - the opinions of Mr Wright must have been well known to everyone who attended that church, they must have been the topic of conversation on a regular basis: why did it take you so long to repudiate them and what does it mean that it took you so long to repudiate them? Do not try to hide the issue behind endearing words about race, that's just a cynical ploy. If you really found or find the minister's ideas repugnant, as most Americans would, why did you stay with the church? Political reasons? It was good for your career? Maybe in fact you are sympathetic to the ideas? It's classic Obama that instead of answering that question he decided to give a speech about race - certainly lends credence to Ferarro's claim that it's the Obama camp doing the race baiting in this campaign.

Brilliant!

"This is not change. Its just the same old liberal junk that has been preached for years, and is counterproductive. The job of government should not be to parcel out wealth to its favorites, but to encourage a wealth building economy. This is not accomplished by making everyone agree we are all victims."

Mr. Hansen don't begin tell me what you've seen from this Administration, this White House, and the government they run bares resemblences to the statmentent you just wrote. Right now, you and I both are going to be seeing the fruits of our labor going to pay off the mistakes made by very wealthy people so they don't wind up in the poorhouse with all the other "victims." If that's not socialism in some shape or form (Socialism for the rich), I don't know what is then.

Go back to Not-so-Free Republic and commisserate with the other Right Wing Social Democrats upon brillance of Ben Bernanke.

KISS Kevin
Wright is a racist Strom Thurman was a racist.
Lott praised Thurman in a paean and lost his Majority Leader post
Obama sat in Wrights church for 20 years and.....its great. Does Obama share Wrights views????

Man, it's really nice when a candidate avoids engaging the country like we're all a bunch of ADD afflicted children. Bravo Obama.

Excellent speech for anyone who bothers to read / listen to it.

This one took guts.

Go Obama!!!

anud-liud, write cannot possibly be a racist - has no power to put people down because of his views - that's the definition (course you will deny - truth doesn't matter, right?)

Thurman, on the otherhand, used economic and political power to suppress those that he saw fit to oppress - that's the definition of racism.

Try to spin it any way you like, anus, but people around here see through your talking-points and lies.

Of course, they are what we expect from lying liars...

"Why did it take so long for Obama to repudiate..."

Do you just leave the country when you disagree with something you've heard? That is what you are asking Obama to do when it comes to his church. He made a commitment to a community based on Christian principles of forgiveness, acceptance of difference, and looking for the best in all imperfect individuals.

To me, this shows remarkable moral strength.

Obama wouldn't have made this speech if he wasn't black. Think about it America.

"KISS Kevin"

Only if simplicity is warranted, which it clearly is not in this case.

"Wright is a racist"

Not based on the evidence to date. Of course, if you have new evidence, by all means post it.

This is what Barack does well, and why so many of his supporters back him. He inspires us to take an honest look at the way the world exists and dare to dream of the way we want it to be. His complex personal background and ability to powerfully communicate his life experiences are exactly what America needs in the White House today.

The most salient issue he addresses is that our nation was not formed completed and to its limits on Day One. People are not static. Ideas are not static. Our nation is not static. Rather, our founders expected us to perfect ourselves. And as such, we have become "more perfect" in the past and we can continue to perfect our union today and into the future.

Without this innate feature of our system which is nothing if not based truly on "We the People" (or as living, breathing humans with all sorts of complexities, baggage and contradictions and yes, moments of grandeur), without the ability to perfect nothing else matters. This speech is the ultimate expression of hopefulness.

Shorter Obama: All of us are better than this. We all deserve better than any of this. It is up to We the People to fix it.

Amen, my brother.

….This is very much classic Obama: I understand why you're upset. I understand your problems. But let me set out a different way of looking at things....—Kevin Drum 10:53 AM

Given the general nastiness of Obama supporters, let them.

Headline Obama refuses to disown controversial pastor.
…Obama condemned what he called controversial remarks by Wright about patriotism and race, but, tellingly, he tried to put the pastor's comments into a wider context of race relations in the US.
"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community," Obama said in his speech in Philadelphia. He portrayed Wright, 66,as a product of his time, brought up under discriminatory race laws and a fighter in the civil rights movement.
But in an extremely personal speech, Obama said that it was time for the US to move on towards a genuinely multi-racial society….A Rasmussen poll published yesterday said Wright's comments made 56% of the electorate less likely to vote for Obama.

The U.S. has been moving towards a multi-ethnic society as anyone who is familiar with youth today knows, but the Obama campaign has been exploiting race for its benefit since South Carolina and has been itself racially divisive.

…. just like bill covered up iran-contra and all the crimes of the reagan administration…..Posted by: at 11:49 AM

While I'm a Hillary-supporter (I just don't think Obama has either the toughness to win the general or the experience for the job), I'm not one of those who thinks he should be excoriated for what his preacher says. How many birth-control-using Catholics sit in church every week without feeling the need to rear up and denounce their priest? How many Christians listen to a gay-bashing sermon who don't agree with it, but stick with the church because they're more invested in the church than in that particular preacher.

America is having one of those OJ moments, when whites discover what many blacks say and think when we're not around. What, we're shocked that their American experience isn't as wonderful as ours is? Grow up.

That said, it's not clear to me that all white Americans are ready to hear what black Americans have to say. Alas.

The Prairie Angel

The last candidate who could give a speech as intelligent as this was Bill Clinton.

But IMHO Obama's political courage is to Bill Clinton's as the whale to the minnow. This wasn't just a smart I-feel-your-pain speech; this was a let's-delegitemize-the-oppo speech, something President Clinton never managed.

Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I'll be looking to see just how he makes this his Sister Souljah moment. He needs to move enough in that direction to make the media happy.

Obama is a marvel.

He just cut the guts out of at least three talking points and made a good case for support from hard working white people.

I can hear it now. "I have been working the race issue for a life time. I have passed the race threshold. All Obama has is a speech."

Mike says:This is very much classic bull. Firstly, his attempt to link Wright's long history of inflammatory rhetoric with Geraldine Ferraro's statement is reprehensible and typical of his campaigns whining victimhood playing the race card ad nauseum. They are in no way equivalent. The rest is nothing if not disingenuous. Obama listened to and strongly supported this for 20 years. The media and Swift-boat groups will continue to have a field day since Obama is still endorsing Wright and making incredible claims that he never heard Wright denigrate any ethnic group.

Man Mike, I surprised someone needs to spell things out for you, but here goes...

1. Ferraro's comments and Wright's are ABSOLUTELY equivalent in their negative stereotyping. Both deny the existence of individuals. I do not see how there can be any dispute about this. If you are comparing their histories, well one is a career politician, while the other is a minister.

2. Hmmm, back in the 90's a man I used to work for published a book, _The Bell Curve_ purporting that science showed that blacks were just not as smart as whites. Why wouldn't a minister lash out against this? Back in the 80's the CIA helped sell drugs in predominately african american communities to help fund the Contras (yes, this has been well-documented). Why wouldn't a minister lash out against this?

3. Since when is Obama Wright? I forget, where in his many public proclamations has he said anything even remotely similar to the Fox clips?

4. Since when is a commitment based on Christian values of forgiveness, acceptance of imperfection, and recognition of positive transformation "disingenuous"?

5. Obama never claimed that he never heard Wright say offensive things. Quite the opposite.

6. Go read the speech before you blather on about stuff you apparently know nothing about.

Yep, Obama is the messiah incarnate of all things great and good, no politician can hold a candle to his all consuming greatness.. Not only should Hillary drop out and kneel in submission to the desires of the all knowing and wise Obama nation, but so too should McCain, bin Laden and every other person in the world. Again, I voted for Obama; and I still don't know what the fuck is in the food and water you folks are eating and drinking. Absolutely insane.

"All that said, is it such a sin that Wright believes this might have happened, if he does?"

Um...yeah. Hell, yeah. Believing and preaching that AIDs was created by the U.S. government (controlled by rich white men) for the purposes of genocide against black people is as vile a racist slander as any I can think of. It is as bad as the Jewish 'blood libel'. It is as bad as anything used to incite those wielding machetes in Rwanda. Now obviously because this view is a fringe view and because whites aren't in a minority, there is no danger that this slander will result in violence. But the slander itself is just as vile.

I see the clip of those sermons, and I see the congregation nodding along, and I wonder--can I really vote for a man who felt comfortable in that environment for many, many years? I would not, under any circumstances, vote for Klan member who just distanced himself from his local grand wizard--no matter what eloquent speeches he gave about racial reconciliation. Can I really vote for a man who spent his entire adult life in a congregation lead by Wright?

For some people, nothing Obama can do can be satisfactory. It's just amusing to go through threads like these and see them sputter and whine.

I knew in '04, and it's solidified even more: this dude is gonna be prez, McCain and Clinton don't have a chance. Get ready for it.

This man is incredibly impressive.

Any country would be _crazy_ to not elect this guy. Any sensible country that cared about its future would.

I wonder if we will ...

Let me say that I was born a white, working class Pennsylvanian, the child of mineworkers who risked their lives and health for companies who didn't give a damn, who over a course of a lifetime have listened to many of the resentments Obama delineated in his speech. I too have cringed both at white relatives who made outrageously racist statements about blacks but also cringed at my now colleagues (university professors all) who don't have a clue what being working class (white or black) is like. To them working class whites should just get over it.

What I heard today was MAGIC. I've been tacitly supporting Obama ever since Edwards dropped out, but today I sent $100 to the Obama campaign. I will send more.

It struck me as I listened to Obama and thought about the other news -- about economic meltdown -- that is bombarding us, that Barack Obama is the only politician in my lifetime (and I am in my 60s, so this includes JFK and even RFK) who could give the American people REAL fireside chats about what is coming. He trusts US -- or at least he talks like he does. And this will get the attention and gain the respect of ordinary Americans.

Hillary Clinton ---- please end your divisive and dishonest campaign.

John Edwards --- please endorse Barack Obama before the PA primary, when it might still mean something.

Obama's campaign has been systematically working through our unspoken fears. Is Obama black enough? Is America ready for a Black President? Now we are working through the fear that a black President cannot be trusted to support white Americans.

This is amazing stuff. This is something new.

Off topic, but as for the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, I haven't seen anyone discuss his comments in the prophetic tradition of the Judeo-Christian scripture. Perhaps the US is so corrupted now that the Talking Heads can't or don't want to distinguish between religion, entertainment and political agendas. The role of the prophet was to remind the Israeli people of their covenant with God--and the punishment that transgressions would bring about. When the Israelis betrayed their covenant, the Prophets did not soften their rebukes. Israel was the "whore of Babylon" and prophets hoped that its wealthy would end up on dung-heaps. etc, etc, etc. Wright's comments are just a modern version. Conserverative preachers do this all the time--every hurricane, 9/11, forest fires, whatever--is a sign that God is punishing us for (insert sin here.) So Wright's biggest offense is really that he didn't conform to the conservative hate agenda.

BTW, Geraldine Ferraro, however, is not a prophet. She is a political operative.

What I find intriguing about the (largely white) reaction to all the Pastor Wright grainy vids showing up in the blogosphere and on cablenews channels is the utter ignorance of the salient context of it all: an African-American preacher, in an African-American church, preaching to an African-American congregation about what it is to be black in America...full stop. And because white Beltway pundits such as "Dean" Broder blather on about "the tone" - I say "the tone" - of Wright's sermons, it all comes down to "angry nigrahs" who are perpetually wallowing in victimhood, exploiting white guilt, and just simply not letting the ol' racist society meme remain under a rock. Let me put in a quote from the African-American blogger, "the field negro", on the Wright-Obama imbroglio:

"...But sadly for the "O" man, a vast amount of A-merry-cans will never understand his preacher. They will never understand him because they have never stepped foot in a black church. They will hear the good Reverend ranting against A-merry-ca and all of its ills, and implying that 911 was an example of A-merry-ca's "chickens coming home to roost ", and they will be furious. They will want to know how he can say that "rich white people run the country" (So where is the false statement there?). They will want to know how the "O" man could have sat in this man's church for 20 years and not be influenced by him. They will say that it's the "O" man's true feelings, and that his wife is a closet militant who puts her black race first. They will say that the "O" man will get into power and push only issues that effect black people. Issues like poverty, crime, unfair sentencing, and failing schools. They will say it, and I for one hope that they will be right."

http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2008/03/can-i-get-amen.html

The MSM reaction to all of this clearly mirrors the substantial racial divide that exists in the US, and a reality that Barack Obama not only has recognised, but one -alone amongst the major presidential candidates - that he is attempting to bridge by a message of inclusiveness, while not papering over the extent and depth of this uniquely American "problem". "Tone", "perception", "bitterness", these are words applied by a racial majority to a racial minority, and have again surfaced through the mechanism of Obama's national profile and ambition, where he is forced to answer for every "transgression" -so labelled - committed by his race cohorts, while white candidates get a free pass on the acts and utterances of their (white)lunatic-fringe supporters. Does not this bespeak the race issue clearly enough?

What's in our food and water? Messiah? Obamabot? After such a soul-stirring speech, those of you who are not moved are perhaps immovable. What foulness of soul would lead one to call someone an Obamabot? Progressives believe in change. Work for change. Are moved by their love of us more than "me."
I don't know if Obamabot is supposed to be a derisively cultish, racist, or simply childish utterance. But I will take that hit if it means having my kids care about the process of democracy.
My parents lived at the same time as Charlie Parker, and never knew it. They never heard that message either. What a tragedy to be born without the ability to recognize epochal shifts or virtuousity. .. .

Not being the same color, Mrs. T and I have seen and heard both sides of the racial divide at their ugliest. Obama's speech is a clear appeal to the best in all of us, which is something that is desparately needed. This is not Kumbaya, this is the reality of our times. We must learn to love one another or we will die together.

Snarky Thersites will return tomorrow at the regularly scheduled time.

From the comments on here regarding Rev. Wright's statements I must infer that you believe there isn't anything wrong with them.

But there is no difference between the hate for the United States that Rev. Fred Phelps preaches from the pulpit of the Westboro Baptist Church and the hate for the United States that the Rev Jeremiah Wright preaches from the pulpit of the Trinity United Church of Christ. If you look at their sermons they even use many of the same words to describe their hatred for America. Yet we condemn those who sit in Rev. Phelps' church and listen to his sermons but try to finds ways to excuse those who sit in Rev. Wright's church and listen to the same words. If you think it isn't true, look up the sermons and compare them.

If he hits the right notes, this is a great opportunity for Obama to grab the spotlight, deliver a great speech, and "appear presidential" to boot.
Posted by: David68 on March 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

You're thinking small.

Listen to the CONTENT of his speech again. He says it, and I agree, he's not promising to end racism in his term as president - but hell; doesn't this speech, for the first time since MLK was assassinated, re-start the STALLED national dialog on this subject?

This is huge, and it is far greater than just this one man's run for president. As far as I am concerned, Hillary could take the job now. Obama is capable of FAR GREATER THINGS.

S writes: From the comments on here regarding Rev. Wright's statements I must infer that you believe there isn't anything wrong with them.

Um, I'm not sure where you get that inference from. Putting Wright's statements into the context of what it's like to be african american, perhaps, but excusing them? No. One _can_ actually condemn the sin, while loving the sinner. Not sure what's so complicated about that.

To S @ 1:24p:

I personally don't condemn people for sitting in Rev. Phelps' church. I condemn them for Rev. Phelps and family leading said congregants out of that church carrying signs carrying "Your son is going to hell" and "God hates fags" to and screaming hate speech at those attending funerals of fallen American soldier or murdered homosexuals.

Show me proof/film of Rev. Wright leading his congregants to do something similar (and no, that does include peaceful protests against instituationalized racism/discrimination) and then we'll talk.

Sorry, for my comment above, I meant to write "no, that doesn't include peaceful protests..."

Slocum said: "I would not, under any circumstances, vote for Klan member who just distanced himself from his local grand wizard--no matter what eloquent speeches he gave about racial reconciliation. Can I really vote for a man who spent his entire adult life in a congregation lead by Wright."

Well, first, it's "led," not "lead." Idiot. And more important, your analogy is so incredibly poor that it might actually convince others of equally low brain activity, so it deserves refutation. A "Klan member" has presumably already felt and expressed allegiance to hateful ideas; being a member of a church where the pastor says some things that someone else can interpret negatively isn't even close. Obama said that he disagrees with the comments Wright made and explained why they were off the mark and divisive. But he feels close to the man who has said other things that led Obama to his beliefs--beliefs that most Americans already agree with. Disagreeing with someone doesn't require repudiating them or disowning them or betraying them. Being president doesn't require being an absolutist who pretends to perfection. It requires someone who can handle adversity and lead the country. Obama can.

Mike wrote: "Given the general nastiness of Obama supporters, let them."

With all due respect, the "nastiness" towards Obama supporters expressed in your comment far exceeds any "nastiness" from Obama supporters in their comments that I have read here.

First, I said both minister's "hate America" sermons. Unfortunately, bigotry exists and it is when we ignore bigotry where we find it that it grows. The people who attend those congregations must believe or they would find another church. Our history is filled with religious groups who broke away and formed a separate church because they disagreed with a religious ideology.

When congregations are passive, the very least we get is Phelps and Wright, the worst we get can be the Spanish Inquisition. This kind of "hate America" speech either matters for both or neither.

Secular,
Both sides have been equally nasty to the other side.

Thersites the unsnarky for today,
I think the speech was mature enough. Now we get to see if the sheeples are mature enough to discuss it in a sane manner. Without throwing poop.

Given the general nastiness of Obama supporters

First, let me validate your experience. It is true that if you go to MyDD or TalkLeft or Left Coaster and read comments, you will see some ostensible Obama supporters acting badly: gloating, trashing Sen. Clinton, offering personal insults to her supporters, taunting, trolling, posting flamebait.

But some Obama supporters is not all Obama supporters.

And it is in my experience equally true that in other comment threads on other blogs, some supporters of Sen. Clinton have also behaved and continue to behave very badly.

Is one side worse than the other? How can one hope to actually answer such a question?

A pox on flamers and trolls in both camps, say I.
Let's kick McCain's ass, and go on to expose the Bush II administration for the blinkered criminal operation it is.

And

A "Klan member" has presumably already felt and expressed allegiance to hateful ideas; being a member of a church where the pastor says some things that someone else can interpret negatively isn't even close. Obama said that he disagrees with the comments Wright made and explained why they were off the mark and divisive.

OK, fine -- I also would not, under any circumstances, vote for a person who was a long-time, adult member of an openly racist white evangelical church whose minister preached sermons about the evils of black people and promoted conspiracy theories about how blacks were trying to kill whites by spreading deadly diseases. I'm not sure it would even matter if the candidate identified this minister as his spiritual advisor and involved him in his campaign (though, of course, that would make it worse). And it wouldn't matter if this racist minister had done charitable work with poor white people in his community.

It may be that, having heard Wright and knowing the long, close association between Wright and Obama, there is literally nothing Obama can now do or say to make it OK. I'm not sure how I'll feel about it come November. Which is a shame -- since I have little use for either Hillary or McCain.

S wrote: "The people who attend those congregations must believe or they would find another church."

Wright's oft-replayed rants are a TINY portion of what he has said over the years. They are not the doctrine of his church. Belief is about doctrine, not the occasional opinion of a fallible and human pastor whose overall commitment to the congregation and the country is accepted within that congregation.

Slocum wrote: "OK, fine -- I also would not, under any circumstances, vote for a person who was a long-time, adult member of an openly racist white evangelical church whose minister preached sermons about the evils of black people and promoted conspiracy theories about how blacks were trying to kill whites by spreading deadly diseases."

I assume this is meant to imply that the United Church of Christ is a racist church. It is not. Rev. Wright's opinions are not racist. He does not think that white people are inferior by virtue of their race. That would be a form of racism. Based on what I have read of his opinions, he thinks--and I agree--that white people (OK in general, since that's who has held the power) have made many policy decisions that, even if not designed to oppress blacks, at least have had that effect. And that white people in general have been indifferent or ignorant of the effects of these policies. I also think that he shouildn't have expressed that from the pulpit, but he;'s not evil for doing so, just wrong.

A terrific speech. But I hope it actually means we don't just move on now, but instead continue to have the national conversation on race that Bill Clinton said he wanted to have, but which was lost during the impeachment mess. Racism -- black/white/red/brown -- has been an albatross around America's neck since 1607. We need to address it honestly if it ever is going to be the past and not the present.

I have a question if anyone knows the answer: These clips we have been hearing the past few days: They represent remakrs from how many sermons? It seems no more than two or three and at least one was identified as a speech at Howard University.

Since the Rev. Wright has given hundreds of sermons over the past 30 years and, according to Fox and ABC, the videos of his sermons are for sale, it seems as if more would have surfaced. If not, then perhaps the Rev. Wright went off the deep end only a few times. If that's the case, then commentators who claim it is not plausible that Obama didn't know about these remarks are wrong. Do we know for certain that these kinds of remarks, which Obama has repudiated, were made on a repeated basis every Sunday, or were limited to these handful of occasions over the course of several years?

To also add to those addressing how Rev. Wright's "hate" for America is the same as Rev. Phelps', the latter whom I saw in action when he traveled to Laramie, Wyoming, a decade ago to revel in the murder of Matthew Shepherd, I do not know that we can assume either man actually "hates" America, despite their rhetoric, any more than I "hate" my parents when I go on a rant against them from time to time. However, it is a useful distinction to recall what this supposed "hate" is based upon. Rev. Phelps objects to the very existence of gay Americans, who do nothing to diminish this nation and who, in fact, contribute a great deal to our culture and our successes. In contrast, Rev. Wright is angry -- beyond the pale, perhaps -- over nearly 400 years of racial injustice that included the enslavement and deaths of millions for no reason other than the color of their skin and ongoing discrimination that is only recently ebbing. That seems a fairly major difference.

....Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

The plantation owners similarly used the distinction between house slaves and field slaves to separate the black slaves among themselves. house slaves were used to snitch on meetings by the field slaves and were highly rewarded for such snitching, sometimes even with manumission.

All of this "divide and conquer" was perpetuated by the segregation that was established after slavery was outlawed, and has been used by the plantation owners and later the Southern factory owners to prevent effective unions from existing in the South. It also explains the resistance to any form of welfare that is also characteristic of the South. Welfare based on lack of wealth erases the status distinction between poor Whites and poor Blacks. The Southern elites in particular have used "divide and conquer" to control the lower classes for centuries.

It is amazing and delightful to me to see Obama address this directly. It may be one of the healthiest things America has seen regarding discussion of race and class status since the Civil Rights Movement. The corporatists and Republicans are going to hate it.

Since American slavery grew from the need of Caribbean, Southern and Brazilian planters to obtain free labor to operate their factory sugar, indigo, and later cotton plantations to meet the never-before seen international demand for those products, slavery was also a predecessor to much of American anti union industrial strife and lives on in the mentalities of those who today are union-breakers. Slavery in North and South America was a unique labor solution in its connection to mass market production. Slavery in fact helped the development of the Industrial age by permitting plantation owners to meet the demands of the unique mass markets for sugar, indigo, tobacco, and later cotton that were created by international shipping after Columbus opened the routes to the American continents. The "divide and conquer of the lower working classes" strategy was a required device to permit slavery to last. Segregation perpetuated it a century and a half after slavery was ended by the Civil War.

It runs below the conscious radar as simply part of the socially accepted worldview of what is "Right" and what is "Wrong" and it will last until it is surfaced and spoken of honestly and dealt with. It's going to be hard for Republicans to counter Obama as he speaks calmly of it as a Black, non-Southern Harvard-trained lawyer without slave ancestors who is running for President.

That's what the complaints about Preacher Wright as an "angry radical Black" are all about. It's also behind the attacks on Barack's wife. Coming out of the tradition of American slavery, they are vulnerable in ways Barack is not.

If not, then perhaps the Rev. Wright went off the deep end only a few times. If that's the case, then commentators who claim it is not plausible that Obama didn't know about these remarks are wrong.

OK, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that Wright mentioned the conspiracy theory that the U.S. government created and spread the AIDs virus to kill black people only once. That seems unlikely, since if you actually believed that was true, you'd also think it was quite important and wouldn't only mention it once in passing. But let's suppose it was just the one time out of hundreds of sermons.

Now in any church I've ever attended, if the pastor had stood up in the pulpit and suggested that black people had invented a deadly virus and were spreading it to try to kill whites, a couple of things would have happened. First of all, it would have been the ONLY topic of conversation -- everybody in the congregation would have known all about it (whether or not they were there at the time), and second, the pastor would have been dismissed immediately.

Obviously Wright was not dismissed, and if Obama never heard about it, it was because such a thing was unremarkable at TUCC and the congregation did not feel the need to talk about it or take any action.

mhr,

Nobody is listening to you anymore. Go home. Sit on a chair and stare at the wall. Yell at it. Raise your fist and shout your hate. Nobody is listening there either. We have all had enough. Even your family.

Moderator, don't delete mhr this time. That just gives the little twerp reason to believe that somebody gives a crap what he thinks.

White people have sat in churches justifying slavery, segregation, and the fucking Bell Curve without condemnation. And those very spiritual leaders are lauded as "great men of faith" who may or may not have said an importune thing here and there. No one has asked McCain to repudiate and cut ties with Pastor Hagee. They have not asked President Bush to cut ties with the evil bigots Dobson or Bozell.

Slocum, why do fiery black pastors scare you more than CLEAR bigots Dobson or Bozell, who have the ear of the president WEEKLY?

Don't answer that, because I know why. You do to. Stop with the bullshit acrobats trying to justify it either. You know you are full of shit. I think the senator's speech was all about us being honest with ourselves. And here you are, still dancing as fast as you can trying to justify your fucking nonsense.