The Wrong Defense

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Via Ambinder, the Trinity UCC (the Wright church in Chicago) issues this statement:

[T]he Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.s character is being assassinated in the public sphere because he has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children, and men in America and around the globe.

(Emphasis supplied.) In my view, this is the wrong approach for the church to take, as it is false and fails to condemn Wright's offensive remarks. I defer to Barack Obama:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday denounced inflammatory remarks from his pastor, who has railed against the United States and accused its leaders of bringing on the Sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism.

. . . Obama wrote that . . . he's been pained and angered to learn of some of his pastor's comments for which he had not been present. . . . "I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," Obama said. "I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue."

(Emphasis supplied.) The Trinity UCC appears unwilling to reject Rev. Wright's offensive comments. Instead it chooses to falsely smear those offended by the Rev. Wright's remarks, including Senator Barack Obama. I find the Church's statement unacceptable. I stand with the sentiments expressed by Senator Barack Obama regarding Rev. Wright's remarks.

Update (TL): Comments at 200, thread now closed.

< Obama's "Throw The Kitchen Sink" Tactics: The Strategy Of A Shoo In? | Newsweek Examines Eliot Spitzer's Life >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • The "women" part (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    I think I heard him say in one of his sermons that (PARAPHRASING!!!) "Hillary has never had to work twice as hard for half as much".

    Um, based on that, I don't think he quite understands women's status in society.  Not really an authority on THAT subject.

    Do you think that (none / 0) (#46)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:01:39 PM EST
    the "woman thing" is exclusive to Wright?  I saw a post on a blog that had a quote from an AA man that said that he's voting for Obama because "no woman should have so much power".  The misogynistic sentiment spans further than Wright.

    Agreed! (none / 0) (#96)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:25:36 PM EST
    I was addressing the Church's statement about Wright's work helping oppressed women.

    are we (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:19:11 PM EST
    discussing this now?

    Obviously yes (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:21:23 PM EST
    But we discuss what is in THIS POST - the Trinity church's reaction to the criticisms of Rev. Wright.

    FYI (none / 0) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:41:52 PM EST
    There are other comments on Politico.

    I just watched the YouTube... (none / 0) (#163)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:19:58 PM EST
    ...of Wright's sermon at Politico and what's as shocking as his racial divisiveness is his overt campaigning and mention of Clinton and Obama by name.  I'm no tax lawyer, but the IRS generally frowns on tax-exempt institutions campaigning for candidates:

    WRIGHT:  "It just came to be within the past few weeks y'all, why so many folk are hating on Barack Obama.  He doesn't fit the mold.  He ain't white, he ain't rich and he ain't privileged.  Hillary fits the mold.  Europeans fit the mold...Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color.  Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car... I am sick of negroes who just do not get it.  Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home.  Barack was.  Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture which is controlled by rich white people."

    That's the lead up to "Hillary ain't never been called a n***er"

    Aside from being racist and divisive, I don't see how this puts Obama's church afoul of campaign finance laws and the IRS.


    I Believe They Are Being Investigated (none / 0) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:11:21 PM EST
    by the IRS.

    LOL (none / 0) (#9)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:21:37 PM EST
    maybe because we "behaved" so well in that other thread.

    Indeed we did (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    And we expect it to continue.

    OPPRESSED WOMEN!!!! (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:20:09 PM EST
    They can hear me yelling in the next county!!!

    AFter what he said about Hillary!!! How she doesn't know what it is like to have to be twice as good!!!

    My first reaction to that "sermon" was, there is no consciousness here of what it is like to grow up female. Obama doesn't show me any either.

    i recommend listening to the words (none / 0) (#58)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:07:34 PM EST
    from rev wright at least on audio. you miss the full flavor of the sermon without it. yes, rev wright is a person that catches your attention in a speech, but it is hard to miss the hatred that pours out also. that is why i find their defense to be lacking.

    And of course this gem... (none / 0) (#175)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:38:32 PM EST
    ...from Otis Moss:

    ""We have listened and watched as the wonderful work of our church has been vilified this week,"... "This week should be special for us because I guess we know a little something about crucifixion."

    Moss' sermon was entitled "Why the Black Church Won't Shut Up"


    I imagine Jesus is, (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:55:16 PM EST
    as always, rolling in heaven.

    Question? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:20:22 PM EST
    Is it character assassination to repeat what someone said or to show tapes of them saying offensive things? How does that work?

    If one dishonestly (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:23:43 PM EST
    asserts that a third person agrees with those things then it is.

    Precisely (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:25:03 PM EST
    Unlike the church, Obama has forthrightly denounced these offensive remarks.

    I'm shocked that you would say this (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:30:15 PM EST
    We cannot buy into this way too late denouncement in the face of his 20 years of attendance, closeness to WRight and fulsome praise of him as a spiritual adviser.

    I do not accept Obama at is word. I do not understand how you could.


    I don't agree with your reaction (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:31:44 PM EST
    but it's the one Obama is going to have to deal with. He needs to "reject and denounce" "god damn America."

    That is your perogative (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:32:33 PM EST
    What you can not do is falsely say he did not denounce Wright's offensive remarks.

    true, but it just be too late. (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    he had twenty years to denounce it not when it comes out as he is running for the presidential nomination. it carries no real weight with anyone but his supporters now.

    I think this is cutting too close to (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:13:06 PM EST
    that moment in the debates where the definitions of "reject" and "denounce" were parsed.  

    Here's the situation, though:  Farrakhan's words/political views are hateful.  Obama seems to have no personal ties to Farrakhan, so it's easier for him to "denounce" and "reject" Farrakhan.

    Wright's words are hateful, too (and now people are starting to "see" a connection between Wright and Farrakhan/see why Wright's church would give the guy an award).  But Obama is going to have a hard time "rejecting" Wright because of his close personal ties with him.

    I believe that moment in the debate really set it up to be impossible for Obama.


    I agree (none / 0) (#142)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:59:27 PM EST
    Being in church every Sunday for 20 + years must give you some idea what Wright is like.

    Or did he just start being a "shocking" last month?


    Obama's 'denunciation' is couched and weasely IMO (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:07:19 PM EST
    It's buried and brief among considerably more rhetorical wind power given over to his me Me ME WONDERFUL MEEEEE schtick and moist-eyed nostalgia about his mentor.

    Given that TeamO has blamed HRC and/or demanded that HRC personally apologize for any and every difficulty the BO campaign has faced -- including that of their own and other critics' making -- it's more of a non-apology apology.

    If BO's a Peacemaker, he's about as much an improver of society as that Uniter guy.

    And that's without even being held responsible for egregious crap that would have sunk other campaigns were they attached to the candidates. (eriposte at The Left Coaster is cataloguing examples of The Clinton Rules.)

    I'm still out on whether these tactics are from him personally or his consultants and handlers, but since he personally promised a new approach, he needs to be out in front rather than hiding behind. Remember, his supporters (including his lovesick media) went after HRC for a fraction of a second in saying "that I know of" about a comment she may or may not have heard.

    Yet BO is commonly allowed to let the most appalling gratuitous slams on her bounce around for days before getting around to denouncing them or being held personally responsible.

    Far cry from the affirmatively positive leader of a new style of politics, who'd be holding supporters and media to a different approach were he sincerely about change.

    One woman's opinion, if you don't count my multiple personalities.


    Yes (none / 0) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:22:03 PM EST
    If said person is an Obama supporter..

    Considering the reaction from the (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:25:23 PM EST
    audience during his sermons--does this come as a surprise?  It would be kinda disingenuous to pretend they didn't approve of their reverend's message.  Doing so now would only be political, which a church shouldn't be in the first place.  

    Either way, BO is definitely b/w a rock and a hard place...  

    Franky, I could care less (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:29:42 PM EST
    about Obama's dilemma about a rock and a hard place.

    I care about the Democrat's prospects right now for the presidency in 2009.  And they look very shaky because of a frontrunner who has strong ties with a "mentor" who has cursed America.


    For an outlook on how those prospects (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:57:53 PM EST
    will be effected.  Here's an editorial from the OC Register that is dispositive.




    That Reaction Doesn't Surprise Me At All (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:09:24 PM EST
    I believe we will see a lot more of that if Obama is the nominee.

    double ouch! i am waiting for the (none / 0) (#67)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:12:43 PM EST
    right wing religeous folks to pick it up and the chorus will be loud. it won't be long! that will cost the democrats the religeous votes that obama said he was going to bring in i think.

    I noticed the (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:44:41 PM EST
    same thing.  He has distanced himself from the pastor but repeatedly embraced the congregation.  The church and the congregation are very supportive of the message.  I don't know how he can distance himself from the tone without leaving the church and that would just be for political reasons.

    I don't want to quote Obama approvingly (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    on this.

    His comments are way too little way too late. He shouldn't be given ANY credence. He only said what he said when he absolutely had to and he simply is not credible. I didn't know about it, I never heard it, simply not believable.

    He really does think he can talk his way out of anything.

    doesn't that sound familar? (none / 0) (#69)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:13:17 PM EST
    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:32:40 PM EST
    how can the TUCC denounce Rev. Wright?  He IS the church.

    It is like asking the Catholic Church to distance themselves from the Pope.

    The church is not going to place Barack Obama's candidacy above its own conscience as an institution.  While this may be unfortunate for him politically, I can't imagine what else they would do.

    He obviously is NOT the church (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    There's a new pastor, Otis Moss III, who sounds like he is, like Obama, trying to find ways to acknowledge the anger of the past and present, accept it, and not let it derail moving on to more positive ways of dealing.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    I think it would be quite silly to expect the church, within weeks of Wright's retirement, to suddenly start denouncing the things he said over the course of his 36-year history where he built the church from nothing.

    You may argue, if you like, that it would be perfectly reasonable for the church to denounce Wright's past sermons, but then you will have to address what it means when they refuse to do so.  What I am arguing is that their refusal to do so is meaningless, because they have no other real option.


    Let me also say (4.66 / 3) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:34:25 PM EST
    that if Wright's comments reflect the view of that church, Obama best leave it immediately.

    BTD... (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    Wright's comments DO reflect the views of that church, and I just can't buy Obama's sudden denouncement of them. Wright has been spouting this stuff in Hyde Park for years and years, Obama has donated thousands to the church, is friends with Wright, calls him his spiritual advisor, etc etc.

    Obama's comments now are simply disingenuous, imo.


    So do you really think (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM EST
    Obama believes "God damn America"? I don't believe he believes that, and I don't even much like Obama.

    I don't think he believes it either (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:06:02 PM EST
    Of course, I have no way of knowing and must qualify my statement like Hillary did in the Steve Kroft interview on 60 Minutes, "....as far as I know."

    I think he probably joined the church to help with his political aspirations in my old neighborhood, the South Side of Chicago.  The issue, to me, is that he claims to have good judgment and this, plus Rezko, casts grave doubt on that assertion.  Additionally,  while the Dems aren't going to make a big deal over this, the Republicans will have no such compunctions.  


    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:16:47 PM EST
    Frankly, I find it surprising that Obama - who is a smart, intellectual guy - would even be a member of this church. I'm sorry if it's offensive, but Wright's sermonizing is ridiculous, tin foil hat, kind of stuff a lot of the time. And it's been going on for years and years.

    And, it's way more than just "God Damn America" - you may be shocked (or maybe not) if you do some research into the sermonizing that Wright's done over the years. That's some hateful, nasty stuff.


    I don't know but (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:23:54 PM EST
    I theorize that at one time in the early days of Obama's political career being a member of that church was politically advantageous to him.

    It does surprise me that he couldn't see how politically disadvantageous it would be when running for a national office. I don't know how he couldn't see this coming. But maybe because it wasn't an issue in his senate run he thought it would never be an issue, or at the very least thought a simple denouncement was all that would ever be needed and voila problem solved.

    I find it bizarre, though. It does make him look incredibly naive.


    Exactly true (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:31:28 PM EST
    Yes, I'm sure that his membership there has a lot to do with Chicago south side politics, no question. Trinity Church is very important in Chicago politics. It's coming back to haunt him now, though, at the national level.

    But it also seems to be more than just politics - at times, Obama has talked passionately about what he's gotten from his spiritual mentor, Wright. I have found that part really surprising because Obama seems so much smarter than that to me. I guess the man has many sides.


    But you pretty much have (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:43:58 PM EST
    to talk about how much inspiration and what-not you got for your spiritual leader to be president today. That's especially true if you want to be the centrist, reach out to Republicans and Independents candidate.

    It's that he didn't switch to a more mainstream church a few years back that surprises me.


    That is Yglesias' theory (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:25:48 PM EST
    I don't think he joined the church (none / 0) (#204)
    by badger on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:40:28 PM EST
    to pad or build his political resume. My guess (and maybe if I read his book I'd know) is that he went through quite a struggle growing up mostly in a more racially mixed and accepting Hawaii, having a white, single mother, going to Columbia, then being immersed in the problems of Chicago's black community (many of which he didn't face with the same intensity and pervasiveness before that), then back to white, upper-class Harvard and then back to Chicago.

    My guess is that TUCC started out as an experiment or exploration and that he found something there that filled in a hole in his identity or need for community, especially a community that looked like him and had more experience with the kinds of problems he didn't face as much growing up.

    I think he saw Wright and the church as filling some need and didn't necessarily buy into all of the rhetoric or politics that Wright preached - no more than college kids who wear Che t-shirts, or me having a picture of Mao as my computer's wallpaper for a few months. Neither of the latter means that someone buys into the total philosophy and record of either of those symbols - both Che and Mao were objectively monsters, to use a term that's been tossed about loosely. I still liked The Motorcycle Diaries.

    But Che and Mao and perhaps Obama's church and pastor help resolve a kind of cognitive dissonance between America the beautiful and America the reality that all of us face from time to time and must be more intense if you're not at least white and middle class. That doesn't mean you advocate communist revolution or actually hold the views that Wright holds, but you identify in some part with the motivations for those things.

    But politically it's incredibly stupid and self-indulgent for Obama to have hung onto that once he made the decision to run for the Senate, much less for President, just like if I were running for office I wouldn't advertise my Mao wallpaper or wear a Che t-shirt.


    The problem... (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:58:40 PM EST
    ...is that we're even debating whether that's what Obama believes.

    He's working hard to maintain empty vessel status.  Says he disagrees with Wright but won't outright throw him under the bus.  Thinks Reagan changed the trajectory of American politics and Repubs were the party of ideas but... hey, I didn't say that was a good thing...

    He's vague by design.  He's black yet post-racial.  He's a uniter but fights for change.  He's wealthy yet he struggles.  When you try to stand for everything, you end up standing for nothing.


    I sometimes think (none / 0) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:05:44 PM EST
    "God Damned America," myself (e.g., Nov-2000, Nov-2004, Iraq mis-adventure), so if Obama felt that way too, I wouldn't fault him for it....

    However, purple states don't see it that way, so it's enough to turn an election.


    Yes (none / 0) (#63)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:11:15 PM EST
    But that's a different issue. The outrage I see in this thread seems to be based on the idea that Obama actually agrees with Rev Wright.

    I don't even think Wright (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:08:42 PM EST
    Believes "God damn America" in the most literal sense.

    And Ann Coulter doesn't sincerely believe (none / 0) (#70)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:14:02 PM EST
    her own hateful message.  In a way, I find that more despicable than the rantings of a true believer b/c it's just so cynical and calculated to get money/ratings/support.

    I don't think that's the case (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:27:10 PM EST

    At least not as far as Wright is concerned.


    He should have done that years ago (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:01:43 PM EST
    when this hatemongering first became apparent.  Now is far too late.

    Are you prepared (none / 0) (#137)
    by kid oakland on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:56:27 PM EST
    to make the same demands of a Roman Catholic Democrat?

    I can guarantee you that the Bishops in the majority of the dioceses in the United States hold, profess and support views that most of the readers of this blog would politically reject on topics as wide ranging as:

    Abortion. Patriarchy. Stem-cell research. Gay Equality.

    What is the standard we hold a Roman Catholic Democrat to? And what has Senator Obama done?

    Btw, as an aside, I think talking about "where you baptize" your children as some have done on this thread is a deeply personal matter. It's been brought up repeatedly by FOX. Just as a heads up, there are really foul undertones to that line of attack.


    I think there is a difference... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:04:44 PM EST
    ...between the broad doctrine of an organized religion having hundreds of millions of members (ie the Catholic Church) and the personal preachings and beliefs of the pastor of your church which you have attended for decades and with whom you consult for spiritual and political advice.

    I happen to be Catholic, but you'd be hard-pressed to condemn me for something the Pope said.  Were it the beliefs of my good friend and pastor of the church I attend and support to the tune of $22K last year...you have a good case.


    By The Standards (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:07:20 PM EST
    Going on here, you should be roundly condemned for belonging to the Catholic Church.... just saying.

    Possibly... (none / 0) (#171)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:28:48 PM EST
    ...if the Pope was my close friend and spiritual adviser.

    Not By The Standards (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:45:18 PM EST
    Trumpeted here. Why should Obama be judged by the standards of bad things his priest has said? He has rejected them and never shown any similar behavior.

    But you want a pass because we are suppose to believe that your priest does not share the view of the Pope? And oh the recent scandals....

    What does that say about you? That you support criminal enterprises? Are a criminal yourself or worse?

    Hardly. And the same goes for Obama.

    I do not see how you can escape being called a hypocrite for bashing Obama because of the bad things Wright has said, or done.


    not the point (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:05:44 PM EST
    we're trying to choose the person who can win in Nov and go on to be a good president.

    don't know if you're into the whole Christian thing, but I am, and I can tell you that baptism is kind of a big deal.

    if you have a choice of who's going to hold up your child and name her before God and the people, you go with someone you know and respect.

    this isn't like barack's getting blamed for something his priest did. he's getting looked at for long, meaningful and deep association with a man capable of the things wright said repeatedly and enthusiastically.

    many americans will see this, believe me, and they're not going to like it.  not sying it's fair, even, but it's a reality.


    Yes (none / 0) (#197)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:11:22 PM EST
    And that is hypocritical. I do not trust people who believe in fairies to be of sound mind. OK, given that I have to suspend that as a criteria and judge a person by their actions.

    It is not out of the question, in my mind, that someone can be religious and also be a smart and moral person. Yes it is tough but I have gotten there, so can you.


    Whether or not (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:12:45 PM EST
    he SHOULD be judged by Wright's remarks, the fact is he WILL be. This is a problem for Obama.

    Personally the only thing I judge about Obama from Wright's remarks is that he's not quite the astute politician that they would have us believe.


    I Know (none / 0) (#202)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:21:09 PM EST
    But for some here to act like the GOP, bothers me.

    Call me naive but I still thing either of them will beat McCain.


    Because this preacher (none / 0) (#187)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:56:02 PM EST
    is his close friend and mentor of 20 years duration, if you believe his earlier statements and his book.  If you compare that to a catholic not leaving the church because he doesn't agree with the Pope, the hypocrite may be you!

    Huh? (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:06:00 PM EST
    I am talking about the priest, and the commenters relationship to the priest. Same as BHO and Wright IMO. The commenter should not be held responsible for the words or actions of his priest, even if the priest believes that the Pope is infallible and the Church final word regarding morality.

    If I were the only voter (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:04:56 PM EST
    and only my concerns mattered, I would like to see a candidate who would reject and denounce religion, yes.

    I would (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:18:13 PM EST
    Do you have any remarks from a Roman Catholic bishop in mind?

    It's a damned if you do/don't faith cluster bomb (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:22:02 PM EST
    This will go off in the GE and Obama's "I'm a Christian, no REALLY!" faith offensive has helped lay it down.

    Remember Kerry's communion watch? Remember the wurlitzer going off on him for NOT saying he'd use public office to hate gays and criminalize abortion?

    He was characterized as a phony by God's Man in the White House because Kerry said that he wouldn't advance his church's agenda. (Selectively, of course, only the hard right policies that gibed with the Rethug agenda -- not the anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-poverty stuff that really did preserve lives.)

    However this didn't stop the wingnut flying monkeys from ALSO attacking him for his message of personal conscience and belief in separation of church and state (eg, being personally against abortion but vowing to uphold the right of women to make their own private medical and moral decisions.)


    Speaking of foul undertones (none / 0) (#153)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:14:31 PM EST
    the comparison of an individual preacher who happens to be a ranting hatemonger to the Roman Catholic Church is pretty foul.

    Just As I Am Sure Not All Black Churches (none / 0) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:28:30 PM EST
    preach sermons like Rev. Wright's, not all priests in Catholic churches spend their time preaching about abortion, recommend patriarchy or against stem-cell research or gay equality. There are very liberal Catholic churches, moderate Catholic churches and very conservative Catholic churches.

    Which type of church within a particular demonination you choose to attend is a personal choice that can be changed at will.

    I would hold any person of faith to the same standard.


    The problem is... (none / 0) (#181)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:45:41 PM EST
    ...is that the TUCC isn't the ONLY black church whose ministers spout this sort of stuff.  AAs know this, and they believe it's part of "being black" (if we're to believe anything the congregation says itself...such was said by one AA woman during an interview about this mess).  

    How can you expect Obama to leave the church, having been a member for over 20 years?  After having had married Michelle there, after having had his kids baptized there?  It's part of his fabric as a black American, and it'd be absurd for him to just "pick up and leave".  What all of us have to do is accept the ugly truth that this is what his faith is, and to many non-blacks/non-AAs, the stuff that comes out of the church (including what the ministers say) is unacceptable (thus, it would be inappropriate for him to be the Democratic nominee).  There's lots of unacceptable things the Mormon church condones but no one was screaming for Romney to leave it.


    But (none / 0) (#201)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:18:39 PM EST
    that's all fine and dandy for us more enlightened liberals, assuming it's true. We SHOULD tolerate this, just as we were all told we had to tolerate McClurkin because black people are all, sadly, homophobes.

    But even if what you say is true about black churches, this issue is way bigger than McClurkin. How will it play in Peoria?

    Btw there is a comment somewhere here by a member of the same church in Seattle who disagrees that Wright is typical of pastors in the UCC.


    If they care about O (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:33:37 PM EST
    they should probably say very little.

    CNN now reporting (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by DaleA on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:17:26 PM EST
    that a number of black clergyman are all over Obama for denouncing Rev Jeremiah Wright. They are calling for black Christians to stand in solidarity with Wright. Looks like a whole new front is opening in this mess.

    eek (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:25:05 PM EST
    This is why we have superdelegates. . .

    Earlier I had heard that some other (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:37:14 PM EST
    black clergymen were denouncing Wright.  Who knows what's real out there?

    This Is Quickly Becoming A Disaster (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:42:57 PM EST
    Blacks appalled at Obama for denouncing Rev Wright and others appalled at Obama attending a church where Rev. Wright preaches such devisive sermons.

    This will not go away. It will be played out from now until November if Obama is the nominee.


    Nonsense (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    He was a pastor.

    He is not the church.

    Indeed, the BEST thing would be for Wright to apologize for his comments.


    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:42:03 PM EST
    He is an iconic figure.  He built the church from virtually nothing into a hugely successful enterprise with thousands upon thousands of congregants, over the course of 30-odd years.  He has long been regarded as one of the greatest black preachers in the country.  He's not just a guy who drops by to give a sermon once in a while.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:42:52 PM EST
    then, we have a problem here.

    From everything I know (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:52:30 PM EST
    you are asking Focus on the Family to denounce Dobson...

    heh more like Dobson to denounce Dobson (none / 0) (#49)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:03:03 PM EST
    chicago, we have a problem! (none / 0) (#83)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:17:51 PM EST
    It is the largest (none / 0) (#161)
    by DaleA on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:19:16 PM EST
    and most active UCC in the whole denomination. The UCC is probably less liberal than the Unitarians, but not by much.

    Hmm.. (none / 0) (#71)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    While that maybe the best thing, I still don't think he can credibly do that. From all accounts he is a very activist pastor and holds strong political views. Even from what Obama said during the so-called "friday night mea-culpas" one could tell that these are really the views of the pastor.

    Then again, the pastor could get the benefit of the doubt in the lovely media.

    I just think this is political disaster from start to finish. If the Democrats nominate him and this comes back to bite, which it will, they will only have themselves to lame.


    I think (none / 0) (#131)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:51:34 PM EST
    it is too late for Wright to apologize. There is the fact that the timing of such apology would be just too convenient. There is also the fact that if you hear interviews with him; he really seems to feel he has nothing to apologize from; his beliefs are deeply rooted. I don't know enough about them from a theological view point but he cites the writings of people going way back.

    I've seen others trying to defend his words (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:39:31 PM EST
    It won't work. On some level, his anger is understandable, but his words are hateful nonetheless. There is no positive way to spin "God Damn America". I'm going to try to say this with as much sensitivity as possible, and I'm sure you will delete if I cross the line.

    Some very negative ideas have taken hold among various segments of American society. People who have experienced the worst that America has to offer express their sentiments with a general hostility toward America rather than focusing on specific instances and balancing them with the many good things this nation has to offer. It is difficult for people outside of these communities to understand the hostility, since they have not directly experienced the attacks that led to the anger. For example, some people in the South hold onto memories of their ancestor's treatment after the Civil War and use their anger to fuel anti-American sentiment.  The attitude of Wright is typical of how this is expressed in portions of the African American community.

    It is understandable that people would be angry about past and current injustices, but it is not acceptable in society at large to express those sentiments the way they are often expressed. People may recognize the anger for what it is, but at the same time feel that it is unfair to focus on the bad and ignore the good. In the case of people who expressed anger at the U.S. after 9/11, we get angry because they seem to blame us for the  attacks while ignoring the good we have done in the world. It offends many white Americans that well-intentioned people like Wright seem to blame American white society at large for the injustices of racism without balancing it with recognition that many white people worked along with various minorities to achieve social justice. This is a great divide that will be difficult for Obama to bridge.  

    American's want to see themselves as the good guys, not as perpetrator's of injustice. We would like to believe that we have done away with social injustice, that racism is relegated to isolated corners of the deep south. In truth, we have come a long way toward redressing the grievances of minorities, but the battle is not over. This campaign is highlighting this fact, and Wright's words are highlighting the gap between the perceptions of most of white American and many in the black community. Obama can't address this in a way that will please both white Americans and black Americans. Whether he gets past this or not depends more on how effectively he has expressed his post-racial message until now than on how he handles this particular issue.

    Yes, but... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:52:01 PM EST
    "American's want to see themselves as the good guys, not as perpetrator's of injustice."

    Yes, but we also live in a quite insidious and pathological form of denial.  Our malevolent folly in Iraq, for instance, is an act of mass murder and violence for which we are all responsible, since we have that freedom to change our government and redress grievances, etc.  Were we to see, on a daily basis, the actual bloodshed and terror and suffering we have inflicted there, we would never sleep again.  Denial is the key.

    Same with domestic racism.  Of course certain strides have been made, great ones sometimes.  But when TV News shows can still send out a black couple and a white couple to rent an apartment, as they do to this day, and find such obvious and depressing discrimination ALL ACROSS THE LAND, then we haven't come as far as we think.  Far, but not nearly far enough.  Not even close.  We always have to do better, be better.  That, to me, is what should set America apart: always striving to be better.  


    One final point (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:06:39 PM EST
    Remember when Obama refused to denounce Donne McClurkin? Remember the mountains of BS about how McClurkin was supposed to be "brought into the tent" or whatever? Where is that rhetoric now? Does Obama think he can antagonize the rest of the Democratic base the way he did with gays?

    Who can forget? It was the beginning (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Joelarama on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:15:03 PM EST
    of the end of the "reality-based" community. It was when I switched from being an Obama supporter to Hillary.

    I haven't seen any of that (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    rhetoric yet in defence of Obama, but I have been waiting for the first "He doesn't agree with Wright, he was just reaching out to the America haters by attending Wright's church for the past 20 years".

    Lemme know if you see that one.


    Yep (none / 0) (#124)
    by Robo on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:47:16 PM EST
    I've seen it on another board.  Pitiful!

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:51:32 PM EST
    If he couldn't win Wright over after 20 years of reaching out then maybe 4 years of President Obama is a bad idea ;-).

    See mbuchel (none / 0) (#86)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:18:45 PM EST
    below. Not quite, but getting there.

    Pushing limits (none / 0) (#136)
    by DaleA on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:55:49 PM EST
    this is what Obama always strikes me as doing. He got away with it over McClurkin. Many liberals and progressives are all too willing to ignore gay concerns. That was where he learned he could get away with right wing pandering. I am surprised that more has not been made of his ties to Friedmanite type economists.

    Forgot (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:15:41 PM EST
    to mention that here have been YouTube videos of Wright's sermons for about a year...

    Still the pastor had a political post in Obama's campaign until last week.

    Something doesn't jive here...

    actually he had a post till last night. (none / 0) (#94)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    i saw his resignation on faux while surfing.

    jiBe Andy (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:24:22 PM EST
    I will take it as an honest mistake this time. I see it again and I will assume the worst.

    oops.... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:28:38 PM EST
    I did mean jibe: as in are not in accord, don't agree. My mistake is embarrasing. If you can edit my comment. Please do so !!

    Sorry. Ahj...


    No way to win !!! (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Sunshine on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:19:08 PM EST
    It's too late for Obama to apologize now, after using this pastor to slander his opponent, help change to appoval rating of his opponent to near nothing, using this to build contributions to masive amounts...  Now that he is carring the black vote 92% and is exposed, he wants to say he didn't know...

    Magnitude of this (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by MaryGM on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:42:52 PM EST
    I find this entire situation extremely disturbing.  Not just the Reverend's comments, but their resonance.  Taking off my "liberal, let's-all-try-and-understand-each-other" glasses and putting on my "average-American" ones, this is a lot more terrible than the MSM and the dem-blogs want to make it out to be.  Hillary may not touch this story with a 10-foot pole, but you can believe that Republican 527's will make sure every single voter in the country has seen every last second of those videos, and all those coalition forces that Obama has put together will unravel.  Maybe not publicly out of fear of appearing racist, but in the voting booth, many will express their disdain for this.

    I'm a "Dem in the White House" supporter long before I'm a Clinton supporter.  If the heads of the party, including Nancy "anything goes in San Francisco" Pelosi, don't take off their glasses and look at this from a potential McCain voter's perspective, we're in serious trouble.

    yeah. . . (none / 0) (#119)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:45:37 PM EST
    but let's leave San Francisco out of this.

    If you're going to San Francisco... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MaryGM on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:47:42 PM EST
    Didn't mean for that to sound so "Bill-O," but you know what I mean.

    I'm in the UCC (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:58:27 PM EST
    in Seattle WA.  I was appalled by JW's words and especially by his dry humping his lectern during one sermon.

    My church has been a leader in our city in many social justice initiatives, and our parking garage is full of cars bearing anti-Bush stickers; we're unabashed liberals.  I've NEVER heard a pastor in 22 years get vulgar, no matter how angry he or she was.

    I can also tell you that --at least for us-- a contribution of $22,000 in a single year would be huge.  My family consistently supports our ministries, and because I've chaired stewardship drives I know that our annual pledge is in the top 10% of the rest of the membership.  It's a fraction of Obama's.

    It's not clear to me how the fact that this is a black church makes JW's language and tone okay.  "riding dirty" is just so far from what belongs in the context of worship, I can't even get my head around it.

    I think Obama's in trouble with this, and I just cannot imagine that it won't be used against him in the fall if he's nominated.  This man baptized Obama's kids, which for most of us is a pretty big deal -- he's not a random supporter.  And I don't think it will wash to say that he's old generation and Obama's just trying to embody a new approach.

    There are lots of churches in Chicago, I bet, where you can go to worship without being treated to the sight of your pastor imitating sex.   Obama was apparently not bothered.

    Can Obama Sister Souljah his own church? (4.66 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:12:45 PM EST
    I think he probably has to, if the conversation I had with my  Suburban Philly grandparents this afternoon is anything like the conversations going on in the rest of the country.

    I think the Church is leaving him (4.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:17:54 PM EST
    little choice.

    They are embracing Wright's comments.


    My social butterfly grandma (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:22:23 PM EST
    says that the entire retirement community is for Hillary. Lots of people will supposedly not vote if Obama is the nominee. I don't have to tell you the November implications for PA if that happens.

    Sorry for veering off topic, but the Unity Shtick apparently didn't stick.


    What if he distanced himself (4.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:23:39 PM EST
    from the Church's defense of Wright? Would that make a difference?

    Depends how much emphasis there is (3.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:25:50 PM EST
    No one will be interested in further questions about Hillary's tax returns: to this group she has proven her readiness; Obama not so much.

    My prescription: he should emphasize his relationship with his mother.


    That won't work. (none / 0) (#41)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    For one, his mother's been dead for years.

    Two, he hasn't brought up his mother much because I'm almost positive that he knows that if he did, people would go back to his book, "Dreams from my Father", and pick out exactly what he said about his mother and his mother's race (which is really, really NOT a positive thing).


    no, the cattle have left the barn. (none / 0) (#72)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:14:58 PM EST
    if he did this at the beginning of the campaign, i'd agree that he could. not now! this late? naw!

    I think the Hillary voters are rock solid now (none / 0) (#107)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    I believe that in the last week, in Penna at least, the Hillary voters are not going to change their mind. So, no, I do not think the Wright thing will matter to them, it just confirms their vote. But, he might lose more of his voters because of it unless he rejects Wright's church.

    IMO Not For A Lot Of People (none / 0) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:44:05 PM EST
    A day late and a dollar short. Don't think people will be fooled that after 20 years he is finally distancing himself from this church. Most will see it for what it really is. A political move.

    This will become a gotcha in the GE (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    It's not being hugely megaphoned because Team-O, his fans in blogs and media, and the RW are still dividing their focus on their favorite enemy, HRC.

    If/when she's taken out, it'll be the ineffectual alternative rinky dink fighting the familiar tag=team of corporate media being fed rancid table scraps by the Drudge-to-Prime Time (in mere hours) baloney machine of Hate.


    How credible would that be? (none / 0) (#139)
    by DaleA on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:57:50 PM EST
    Don't know what he can do. Might just say this is how some black people see things. Don't agree but know where they are coming from.

    The looming question... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:49:51 PM EST
    ...that, of course, I haven't seen anyone ask is whether Obama will continue to patronize Wright's church.

    Of course he'll claim it's no biggie to keep going since Wright is retiring.  But it does beg the question of why Obama would continue to associate himself with a church and congregation which has, at best, implicitly endorsed the kind of commentaries made by Wright.


    Implicitly? (none / 0) (#162)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:19:57 PM EST
    Can't be any more explicit than in that statement of support for Rev. Wright.

    What kind of a person (none / 0) (#143)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:59:29 PM EST
    Denounces and rejects their own church?

    Doesn't Obama draw his strength from his Faith?


    I find it amazing (3.75 / 4) (#2)
    by zfran on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM EST
    that Sen. Obama renounces sermons which perhaps he hadn't personally heard, but did know of. He himself has stated that at the beginning of his campaign, Rev. Wright suggested that Sen. Obama might have to distance himself from the Rev. because of things he has said. Not only did that come to pass, but now, I believe, Sen. Obama is downplaying his role in remaining in that church. Perhaps Mrs. Obama's words should be looked into as spreading the same sort of quasi, anti-america logic in her speaches. I believe that in America, we should be able to say anything, however, in if the media is going to report it, it should report all aspects of it, not just what is suited to its agenda.

    I would also observe (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:30:47 PM EST
    that this seems backlash from the phase when Obama was answering the phony charge that he wasn't "black enough."

    I just do not get the outrage... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:34:34 PM EST
    Certainly, in previous elections, the racial and religious bigotry of white protestantism has not received the same level of outrage and denunciation as Rev. Wright now faces. I do not recall seeing that Hagee's church needed to disavow him. Or Falwell and Robertson, re. their 9/11 statements. Perhaps, liberals hope that the denunciation of Rev. Wright will make it more likely that the true problem, bigotry of the religious right, will also be held accountable. I for one doubt this will be a useful strategy, for Obama or Democrats.

    All this denouncing and rejecting is being carried to far. I said this with Ferraro, and now also Wright. Russert is ruling our world. If black empowerment or Afrocentric speech is politically silenced during the course of this election, then it will work to the benefit of conservatives and Republicans. It is not like any of the discourse in African-American religion from the past 30-50 years has produced any discernible organized black-on-white violence in America. Rev. Wright's sermons are nothing more than historical memories for his parish. The time for this kind of sermon to end is when American truly becomes post-racial--but I think we should not jump the shark on the power of white male supremacist racism in 21st-century America (which is also one of the reasons I do not support Obama's campaign).

    So much for Obama's post-racial (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:37:27 PM EST
    campaign, no?

    He has to reject and denounce; QED.


    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:06:02 PM EST
    Personally, I'm not the least bit outraged by Wright's remarks. Similarly, I don't believe Obama really agree with Wright's remarks. Indeed I find it amusing that a unitary centrist like Obama could believe for a second that God should damn America.

    But politically this is entirely negative for him and he has to denounce it. That's how the game is played.

    BTW this incident reminds me of a youtube video I saw on atrios and dkos a long time ago of a choir singing God Bless America with the lyrics changed. The choir was black but they were singing for a right wing church, and the lyrics were changed to say basically God damn America because it tolerates abortion, etc. Anyone recall this video or have a link to it?


    I genuinely am (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:16:52 PM EST
    outraged by his remarks.

    I found them shocking.


    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:26:25 PM EST
    I can certainly see how people would be so I accept that some people genuinely will be shocked and offended by them.

    You are thinking of (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:20:28 PM EST
    the Value Voters debate from about six months ago.  Most of the leading Republican candidates skipped it, although Huckabee was there.

    That rings (none / 0) (#128)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:48:40 PM EST
    a bell.

    I do remember that video (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:10:06 PM EST
    don't know where to find it, though.

    Taylor Marsh (none / 0) (#105)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:33:26 PM EST
    I haven't been there before but visited this morning.  There is a video up.  I didn't look at it as the views seems pretty strong, but it had gospel singers on it.  I'm not up to looking at something at a site so one-sided.

    No (none / 0) (#125)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:47:38 PM EST
    that's not it.

    No it wasn't (none / 0) (#151)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:08:44 PM EST
    I looked, it was actually a nice performance.

    Can it be all bad (none / 0) (#73)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:15:02 PM EST
    to see some truthful words in the WSJ for a change even if it is mixed in with teh crazy?:

    We've got more black men in prison than there are in college...We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there...We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic.

    it is that bad! listen to them. (none / 0) (#89)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    i am sure if obama is the nominee, you will get many opportunities.

    Ron Paul says many of the same things (none / 0) (#167)
    by DaleA on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:22:45 PM EST
    and he is dissed as a nutjob. As are his followers.

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:48:12 PM EST
    "The time for this kind of sermon to end is when American truly becomes post-racial"

    Um, no -- the time for Wright's kinds of sermonizing (and I mean all of it over the years) to end was somewhere in the Middle Ages (or last before the Age of Reason). The dude is a nutjob - sorry - and it helps no one to spread that kind of hatefulness. Never has.


    In addition (none / 0) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:02:03 PM EST
    Wright's type of sermon doesn't do anything toward a post-racial society.  It just fuels hate and separatism.

    I know that whites go to his church, but as far as I'm concerned they are brave.  I would honestly fear for my life after such a high energy sermon....and yeah, if the tables were turned and the pastor was white and I was AA, I'd still fear.


    So would you reject Obama's claim (none / 0) (#77)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:15:40 PM EST
    that the clips of Wright's sermons that were shown on the teevee on Friday are not representative of his usual preaching over the weeks/years?

    I think that is an important point.


    Yes, I do reject them (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    I work in Hyde Park and I know the Wright schtick pretty well. His remarks are characteristic of his sermons over the years. Which is not to say that he doesn't also pepper his irrational rantings with some words about love and jesus as well.

    It has from me (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:35:24 PM EST
    If it did not from you, well you need to explain yourself.

    What Oje may be saying ... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:03:31 PM EST
    is that Wright's views are being presented as "totally unacceptable," while equally unacceptable views of some evangelicals are not as roundly condemned in the MSM.

    I think this is true to some degree.  


    That's on the MSM (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:17:18 PM EST
    Thought that's what he meant ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:31:06 PM EST
    when he said "Russert rules our world."

    If he's just talking about liberals, progressives or the blogosphere then I don't see.  I certainly see enough comments denouncing extremist evangelicals, and I've see a broad range of opinions about Wright.  From complete acceptance to outright rejection.

    In fact, one of the reasons the progressive blogosphere is more vibrant than its conservative cousin is that we so rarely agree on anything.  Even when we agree.

    If ten progressive jumped out of the way of speeding truck, they'd give you ten different reasons for doing so.


    Russert.... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:35:35 PM EST
    It was intended as snark to suggest the origins of all this denouncing and rejecting, but did include progressive blogs as who is being ruled by Russert right now. I have had a couple posts deleted recently when I was (too?) critical of other sites use and abuse of accusations of racism.

    But, it is pretty obvious which bloggers made "denounce and reject" a part of their political lexicon in recent weeks. They seemed to think Clinton should be held accountable for Russert's badgering (these unnameable blogs also seemed to think 1) Clinton is risible when she defends herself against the MSM and 2) Clinton is racist when her defense of Obama against the MSM does not meet their rhetorical gold standards.)


    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:48:33 PM EST
    I have been a vociferous supporter of Clinton on TalkLeft and push back on Obama Talking Points Memos  in nearly every post. So, I hate to verge from that trend...

    But, in some versions of U.S. history, America does not begin with a Declaration of Independence. It begins with Slave Codes passed in the legislatures of colonial South Carolina and Virginia. It endures even after the Civil War in public lynchings that created mass disenfranshisement of freed blacks and facilitated the Jim Crow laws of the 1880s and 1890s. I do not see how you erase "rich white people" from that memory of history.

    In essence, there is an act of injustice at the origin of American freedom and wealth since colonial times that continued well into the 20th century. Our popular histories often talk about English tea parties and northern emancipation proclamations. So, the memory of alternate U.S. histories in religious sermons or civic organizations is central to many other communities that made the U.S. what it is today.

    I will say, his sermon on Obama and Clinton exhibits the kind of disregard for women's history that marks the media coverage and the blogging of Obama surrogates in this primary season. Ferraro's comment tried to draw an equivalence between race (Obama) and gender (herself) in America, while Wright tries to create an incomparable experiential difference between white (Clinton) and black (Obama), race and gender. That suggests to me one reason that the Obama campaign went over the top in its denunciation of Ferraro. The idea that Ferraro could speak about race defies the logic that Wright seems to possess (I would need to know more to say with certainty). I see the usefulness of that kind of discourse to form a parish's insider identity, but it has poisoned the primary. While I am not outraged, I do hope it changes the way that most (other) blogs and the media have been covering race and gender.


    one clarification... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:54:11 PM EST
    "The idea that Ferraro could speak about racial oppression defies the logic that Wright seems to possess (I would need to know more to say with certainty).

    I agree with you, Oje. (none / 0) (#155)
    by canso on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:16:11 PM EST
    Dennis Perrin writes about this today:
    Amid all the righteous noise made about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it was David Gergen on Anderson Cooper's show who made the most pertinent observation. The veteran GOP operative with bipartisan ties informed the audience that black America is having a different conversation than white America, so one cannot apply the CNN, Fox, or MSNBC framework to African-American concerns.

    Thanks... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:28:17 PM EST
    I saw Gergen's comment and I thought it might get some play in later coverage. I guess not. I do not know Perrin's writings, but it captures what I am thinking (caveat: based on one quick read).

    I had heard about that (none / 0) (#185)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:54:42 PM EST
    but I really hadn't expected David Gergen to be the one to get it!  While I think he's a very reasonable Republican, I guess I still wasn't giving him enough credit.

    I've heard these types of things said-- (none / 0) (#172)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:32:04 PM EST
    I'm not shocked. We as a nation began with a terrible problem of how to resolve our ideals and our actions. Slavery was a problem getting the Constituion written and passed--and remained one. It's legacy is our problem. Many believe the CIA did bring crack cocaine into the black communities.

    However, not many voters accept these ideas about our history--and they will find these remarks shocking and disturbing. Perhaps frightening. The oppressor group seldom rests easy when thinking about shoes being on the others' feet--perhaps thinking about the oppressor's boot being on their own neck.

    When Ward Churchill said things remotely similar about the WTC attacks he was attacked. Some defended what he said and meant. Some may have felt he was correct. It didn't help much with his tenure hearing.


    Churchill, another good example... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:38:44 PM EST
    The problem is not that Churchill and Wright blame America, the problem is which America they blames:

    PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

    JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

    PAT ROBERTSON: Well yes.

    JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

    PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system..


    Yes, thanks for the clarification--pagans and (none / 0) (#184)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:51:09 PM EST
    liberals, feminists and gays, along with the other usual targets of rightwads, can be charged with just about anything.

    That's why (none / 0) (#191)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:03:14 PM EST
    I mentioned that video above, which Steve M correctly remembers as being from the Value Voters convention last fall. The right is every bit as quick to say things like "God Damn America", but it's ok when they do it because God would be damning America for being too liberal. (E.g. see Phelps, Fred)

    However, this doesn't save Obama from the fact that the rules are different for Democrats, even for a 'media darling' like Obama. He HAS to defuse this. He can't just say the right does it too so what's the big deal?


    So are we allowed to talk about the Wright thing (none / 0) (#40)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    now?  I missed the "Open Thread" and I think that there should be another one because for the very reason that's stated in that open thread.  "For the past week..." there was a moratorium, so conversation has been building up and for there to suddenly be ONE open thread, there's going to be more than 200 comments wanting to come about.  Just saying, and I hope to see another OT that will allow comments.

    So far (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:00:02 PM EST
    as a community, we are handling the discussion well. If that continues, you'll have more chances to discuss this issue.

    Okay, thank you (none / 0) (#200)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:13:28 PM EST
    for the clarification.

    I'm wondering whether (none / 0) (#43)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:58:50 PM EST
    this will cost Obama some AA voters.  I read somewhere (CNN maybe?) that black ministers would denounce Obama for denouncing Wright.  

    He's got the black vote locked up (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:04:37 PM EST
    he can afford to say whatever he likes about Wright now. He should.

    I guess now we'll see (none / 0) (#64)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:11:22 PM EST
    what he's made of. Nothing I've seen in Obama thus far leads me to believe that he'll "reject and denounce".  IMO, it's too little, too late in any event, since this is not a casual association but a mentor relationship of 20 years.  

    Those who would take offense (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:39:51 PM EST
    Would accept it as a price to pay for winning the election.

    Much like the gay folks who stuck with Obama after McClurkin.


    Someone said that the guy in the sermons that (none / 0) (#55)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    keeps running up to Wright and laughing during the sermons whenever Wright made some huge statement is in fact the current preacher?? If so Obama needs to get out of there immediately....

    oh he is! (none / 0) (#91)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:22:29 PM EST
    it was amazing to me that obama didn't stop and think this out ahead of time. bad judgment again!

    And that is a big problem (none / 0) (#144)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:59:45 PM EST
    One bonehead mistake can get by, but a whole bunch of bonehead mistakes will start adding up and resonating among voters. It might be too late but you never know. Penna voters are pretty much decided, but those other states might have second doubts. How many times can you have bad judgment before people start thinking is this the guy who will be in charge for the next 4 years? We have no leadership right now because of George's bad judgment and people are talking economy again. They are becoming afraid. They know we have no mistake room left after George.

    i agree. i don't care if obama is the (none / 0) (#159)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST
    media darling, i personally believe he will do a poor job. i can't go along with that.

    I heard the same (none / 0) (#145)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:01:20 PM EST
    thing, the man in the back, to Wright's left that slaps him in the back is the new pastor.
    But I cannot remember where did I read that.

    Can't two things be equally true? (none / 0) (#65)
    by mbuchel on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:11:45 PM EST
    1.  That Obama, like many African Americans in our country, understands and can to a certain extent identify with the frustrations of those that came before him - those that grew up and out of segregation
    2. Be carving a new path going forward, one that continues the struggle but without the anger.

    It was fascinating watching This Week and Meet the Press this morning and both Donna Brazille and Michelle (sp?) Norris commented that Wright's comments weren't all that out there for a black church, but no one expanded on their comments.  There is a black-white experiential divide here and the conversation is one that is good for us, not bad.  Anyone else agree?

    Have no idea what this is responding to (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:15:36 PM EST
    It certainly is not responsive to my post.

    Obama's (none / 0) (#66)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    problems are many with this issue. It is impossible to address them all here. But let me try three:

    First is the fact
    that it is not credible he hasn't heard any of this for 20 years despite how tight he is with hi pastor.
    remember he even got rights to "The Audacity of Hope" sermon for his book, marrry him, blessed his new home, baptized his daughters, pray in proivate with him at the launch of his presidential run.
    Wright sermons were known to many (me included) for a while. Wright relationship with Farrakhan was widely known.

    Second Obama is on record (NYT, RS, Chicago press) admiting he knew about Wright "rough sermons".

    I knew about about his 9/11 comments. His sermon
    in January 2006 at the Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel in Washinton DC, when he claimed that the
     "government created AIDS to infect and kill black people" was well known. Still Obama
    donated $22,500 to Wright's church (the single largest charitable donation Obama has ever made.).

    Nothing wrong with the donation per se. But
    Wright's sermon was out there then.

    Third, Obama now tries to reject the words while still embracing the man. This is impossible.
    1000 good deeds do not erase hateful speech these become part of who the man that pronounce them is.

    It is very hard for me to see how can you stomach the words and tolerate a man that speaks these words without at some level believe in them and in him yourself.

    It is very problematic.

    I agree (none / 0) (#199)
    by sleepingdogs on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:12:45 PM EST
    Obama needed to address his concerns with the pastor and with the church and then if they were not addressed, he needed to leave.
    I was in a church for five years.  When they started getting politcial, I raised my conerns via a letter to the pastor who was making political comments.  After my concerns were ignored, I wrote a letter to the church board, then when my concerns were still ignored, I left the church.
    You are correct, if this was the pastor's feeling, it was spreading through the attitude of the membership.  This is reinforced by their refusal to reprimand the pastor or to call him to task and request he never speak that way again.  That clearly didn't happen.
    I agree, the church cannot allow the behavior and then denounce and reject this far after the fact.  Therefore, Obama gets no pass either.  He needed to leave as soon as he discovered this was going on and never return.  As someone who has had presidential ambitions for years, he has to have known his ongoing association with this pastor would be a problem.  
    If the situation were that he was at a party and there were illegal drugs and hookers, would he leave immediately or would he stay adn explain, " Well, you  know, it's just some adorable but crazy friends that I've had for a long time.  They say and do things I don't approve of, but I still hang around because of the history I have with them."  How does that sit?  The charm does not work for me.    

    Michele Obama's past comment (none / 0) (#84)
    by Paladin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:18:15 PM EST
    I wonder if on some level there's a small connection between these controversial sermons and Michelle Obama's comment that "hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country."

    Remember how that statement created a firestorm?  There is a certain undercurrent of "victimness" in these comments.  Possible connection? I'm still formulating my own opinion on this, but thought I'd throw that out there.

    This is off topic (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:23:32 PM EST
    and inaccurate.

    Please do not do that again.


    I do see that it's OT (none / 0) (#102)
    by Paladin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    And I apologize.  Feel free to delete so that it doesn't veer others off.

    also the distain and out right almost (none / 0) (#100)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:27:33 PM EST
    hatred i heard the reverend talk about hillary and bill clinton fits in with the obama's distain for them and campaign rhetoric. i was amazed to even hear rev wright attack bill for helping the aa community. that was very ugly.

    If trying to "find himself" as (none / 0) (#108)
    by zfran on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:35:47 PM EST
    he has stated in the past (in his book, I believe) and he found himself in this church 20 years ago how can he now say that the Rev. Wright is a product of the 60's and still believes as they did back then and still stay with a church he finds out of date with his "own" thinking. A little too convenient.  He indeed might not think the way of his Reverend, however, he staying with that church, thought it was important enough to be married by Rev. Wright and have his children baptized by a man who he know says he disagrees with? And we shouldn't doubt his judgement????

    A few misspelled (none / 0) (#109)
    by zfran on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:37:05 PM EST
    words, but ya get the gist (I hope).

    My thoughts on this (none / 0) (#110)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:37:46 PM EST
    Exist in the form of a conversation I imagine Obama having with himself.

    ..... this is not entirely a problem of my making. Some of these battles that I am going through right now are the result of some pretty unfair attacks on me. But this history exists, and so, yes, I believe I will not be able to bring the country together in the way that I thought I could.

    Still (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:37:52 PM EST
    However a demon Wright may be, I do not see what this has to do with Obama as nominee.  For all the fainting spells that are going on here about his being associated with a hatemonger for 20 years, Obama sure doesn't seem like a hatemonger to me. Quite the opposite, in fact. Isn't the biggest thing he is criticized for here that he is not a fighter but a uniter?

    Where is all the hate, if Wright has been such a big influence (and stain) on Obama's life.

    If Obama had built up more a more clear public (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:19:09 PM EST
    image, some of these problems would not mean much. But since people don't really know much about him, except for his hope and change speeches, this new reporting on Rev. Wright is somewhat jarring.

    (BTW, there has been reporting on this since his announcement that he would run--this is hardly something the Clinton oppo research just dropped on the press, even if Josh Marshall thinks it is. I wasn't aware of it, but googling for Rev. Wright's quote on being unhappy about being disinvited to Obama's announcment brought up serveral articles on the fiery nature of Wright's sermons and the Obama campaign's concern about them.)

    "Who is this guy?"--or person--is an important question for a candidate to answer for voters. Obama's campaign has created a transcendent image which doesn't have much concrete in it, so he doesn't have a solid image for people to hang on to when something like the NAFTA mess comes up or now the Rev. Wright statements.

    Anything at odds with his public good government, straight arrow type image is disconcerting.

    When Obama himself goes out on damage control and is changing his story over the several shows he appeared on Friday night it is even more disconcerting.

    Bob Somerby says the problem for Obama will be that, with his thin resume, he is more than ready for "Dukakising," meaning the ReThugs will define and describe anything about him he hasn't made clear and solid to the public. And they have no problem dealing in lies and half-truths. Beware, Senator!

    Say what you will about Sen. Clinton, the public has definite ideas about her--for good or ill. But it is more difficult to rebuild her image. Altho' the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is trying to undermine her image by going after her claims to foreign policy and legislative experience.


    What A Load (none / 0) (#168)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:24:28 PM EST
    Save yourself the trouble and stick to talking points they are more concise.

    He is no different than HRC, except for two things.


    Two? (none / 0) (#178)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:40:40 PM EST
    Are you really trying to claim that Obama has been attacked and defined by the right wing for 16 years?

    If Obama is the Dem nominee, I fear how well he (none / 0) (#182)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:47:37 PM EST
    really known will be a problem for taking the WH--and that's my goal. Not the Wright statements, not the NAFTA stuff--but that he has not built up political capital in terms of being someone people feel they understand and know.

    I wanted Edwards as our nominee--not gonna happen. I would have loved Gore getting in the race. Didn't happen. So, looking at our choices, it's Obama or Clinton.

    I don't have any talking points on this subject--would have been easier to copy and paste, but couldn't.

    I guess I might be taken as a concern troll, but I really am concerned about this.

    I fear losing this presidential race for the WH--and I fear for our nation if we lose. I fear for women's rights and right to choose. I fear for our civil liberties under a Supreme Court with more Republican nominees, even those who would have to get through a Democratic Senate. I fear for our economic fairness.  And I fear there will not be universal healthcare coverage under a Prez. McBush. So, winning the WH is, well, existential in many ways.


    Don't Worry (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    McCain is a loser, the war is a loser, torture is a loser. Both HRC and BHO can defeat him.

    May this be so. (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:56:18 PM EST
    Still, Dukakis was far ahead at one point in polling.

    A Dem must win.


    How do we know???? (none / 0) (#116)
    by zfran on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:43:30 PM EST
    That's the problem with Sen. Obama, we don't know!!! He's gotten pass after pass. He's managed to get his own network....he preaches to his "congregations." We don't really know what he thinks, except he's trying to give up smoking, he's stinky in the morning (according to Michelle), he attends a church that preachds hate-speech for 20 years, he has some dealings (some unknown) with a guy who's now on trial, he used some drugs as a youngster and that's about all we know, oh yeah, except his voted "present" over 100 times in the Illinois Senate. Please tell me where the judgement is in all that.

    We Know (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:54:32 PM EST
    Because he has not advocated any of the hateful things Wright has. We know because he is a main stream democrat. If he were anything different we would know about that.

    Two people so far, Rezko and Wright, well what about all the great people that he associates with?  

    Oh that's right, I forgot, they are no good any more because they associate with Obama. And besides the GOP will rip him for associating with them too, because they are mostly democrats.  

    Sounds like a cult to me, and I do not mean an Obama cult.


    What I know about Obama (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:20:06 PM EST
    is that he is a man who wants to be President.

    You're taking that on faith (none / 0) (#146)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:02:40 PM EST
    For a lot of people, that's not good enough.  They'll believe their lying eyes over the rhetoric.

    Faith? (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:22:06 PM EST
    I do not your point here. It is a leap of faith to expect any candidate will deliver the promises of their campaign rhetoric.

    The only one I trust is McCain, and I trust that he will put the finishing touches on the destruction of America as I knew it.


    I can't understand (none / 0) (#114)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:42:22 PM EST
    why Obama, having the political ambitions he has had for some time, did not choose to attend a more mainstream church.  Wright has a long history of being controversial and the statements that have been covered may be some of the more extreme yet certainly are part of a recurring theme that Wright puts forth.  Even Oprah has quit attending the same church.  It is going to be difficult for Obama to use the church as a defense of his christianity and then distance himself from it when it becomes politically expedient.  Wright didn't found the church but he took it from a membership of less than 100 to over 8000 members today so separating the influence of Wright and the church is equally as challenging.  

    IMO I'm sorry to say that (none / 0) (#122)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:46:44 PM EST
    as worked up as we are about this situation, it will be forgotten in a week. We have a short attention span in this country. I truly believe Obama is the teflon candidate, and BTD, you are right that he will be the nominee. I can't even express how unfair I think this whole race has been(can't believe it's only been a few months) but politics ain't bean bag. People in this country don't vote their own self interest as 8 years of Bush has proven. It's about style and perception. We have to have what's "new". Not saying we shouldn't keep trying, though.

    I can write the 527 ad myself (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:49:36 PM EST
    enter with white on black text:

    "Barack Obama's Pastor in YYYY"

    Video of Wright:

    "God damn America [etc.]"

    end of ad

    This is a problem that won't go away.


    Oh, and Obama should (none / 0) (#133)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:52:24 PM EST
    change churches right now and stop the dithering. Then McCain can't use it because it will seem like ancient history( to our short attention spans).

    I don't even know why McCain changed religion (none / 0) (#154)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:15:40 PM EST
    He went from Episcopal to Baptist. I believe being a Catholic and going while visiting friends to a Baptist Church in Mississippi, that there's some difference between the two churches. It's not like going to a different Episcopal church down the street.

    Obama needs to change churches. He should have denounced these sermons long ago. I could be wrong but I believe to some people, this only brings attention to a hidden agenda which I do not believe Obama subscribes. It may not be true but it does plant the seed.


    considering... (none / 0) (#123)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:47:02 PM EST
    that the church is hardly surprised by these statements by Wright, all of this serves to point out the problem Obama has because he was a member for so long and had a close and warm relationship with Jeremiah Wright.

    The problem is not the AA community but rather that the white community and the main stream media simply can't deal with this at all.

    It seems clear to me that the strategy was to get Obama out in front on this, make his statements and then Obama's campaign is simply going to circle the wagons and trust that this eventually goes away unless his numbers start tanking.

    I Seriously Doubt That It Will Go Away (none / 0) (#189)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:56:25 PM EST
    It may calm down for a little while but I would bet that there are already other shows in the works using slightly different videos, tapes and writings.

    i have listened to the audio of (none / 0) (#138)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:56:44 PM EST
    that sermon. difficult to miss the vitriol pouring out, it practically scorches the ear. sen. obama was right to rebuke him, and distance himself as far as possible as quickly as possible.

    unfortunately, this will be heard again and again and again come the fall, should sen. obama be the dem. nominee. not sure what, if anything, he can do about it.

    Too much damage to overcome. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:18:37 PM EST
     I think the Wright damage is irreparable.  Too many people have heard it. Although he rejected Wright, very few people will find it hard to believe he did not know about Wright's incendiary  remarks during his 20 year membership.  BTW, throwing someone under the bus for political expediency is politics as usual.  I honestly believe his campaign hold on that I am going to be different from the politics of the past has been compromised.  Will be curious to see what the Gallup Poll will show by the  end of next week.

    I agree (none / 0) (#194)
    by Robo on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:08:21 PM EST
    There is nothing he can do to fix this.  Leaving the church now will do no good.  He cannot win the general election.  I just hope those who still can will turn this around and HRC wins the nomination.  That is the only chance for a Democratic presidency this time.