I particularly liked when Wright in numerous answers said that Obama "denounced' him becuase he's a politician and he's just doing and saying what politicians need to say.

I told a few friends last week, when I saw the preview of the Moyers interview, that we would be hearing this from righties.

I particularly liked when Wright in numerous answers said that Obama "denounced' him becuase he's a politician and he's just doing and saying what politicians need to say. I though Obama was above politics as usual? Just crazy ole uncle Wright at it again...

Not sure where you got this from, FB, as I've heard Wright say specifically that Obama did not denounce him (Wright), but rather was saying what politicians need to say. I never thought Obama wasn't a pol, but I think Wright saying a few of the things he said would be like me on the podium introducing you just prior to your announcing your candidacy for President of the Against Child Abuse League and talking about how you thought that 18 year old that passed us on the street last night was really, really hot. It may be true, and few don't have those feelings from time to time, but it sure doesn't help, now, does it?

I particularly liked when Wright in numerous answers said that Obama "denounced' him becuase he's a politician and he's just doing and saying what politicians need to say. I though Obama was above politics as usual? Just crazy ole uncle Wright at it again...

Poor Obama. He (along with most of his worshipful Obamaniacs) have got to be wishing that crazy uncle Jerry would just shut the hell up and go away already. But it looks like uncle Jerry has no intention of just being ungracefully shoved off to the side. He's in the national spotlight now, and he intends to enjoy it!

And really, why shouldn't he? He probably feels as though Obama owes him, big time, and of course he would be correct.

This is going to be one hilarious good cop/bad cop political routine we're all going to be subjected to over the next several months. Enjoy the ride!

It's all part of the calculus David. If it costs less money, and less human suffering and death to send candy and flowers, maybe it's not the worst idea.

I'm so glad we live in a binary world where the choices, nuke Iran, or send them a Candygram, keeps it simple. Imagine how confusing things would be if we tried serious, tough, negotiating without any interest whatever in appeasement! It would just make my poor head explode.

They are a reasonably modern and have elections, political parties

Well, they have elections, but only the very religious and ultra religious candidates are allowed to run. I don't know if i'd call those real elections.

I particularly liked when Wright in numerous answers said that Obama "denounced' him becuase he's a politician and he's just doing and saying what politicians need to say.

I told a few friends last week, when I saw the preview of the Moyers interview, that we would be hearing this from righties.

Well, this is an honest question: do you disagree with that interpretation? What do you think Wright meant by the comment?

For those who need a memory refresher, Wright's comment to Moyers was this:

Asked his response to the senator's speech, Wright said, "He's a politician, I'm a pastor."

"I do what I do. He does what politicians do," Wright said. "What happened in Philadelphia, where he had to respond to the sound bites, he responded as a politician."

Poor Obama. He (along with most of his worshipful Obamaniacs) have got to be wishing that crazy uncle Jerry would just shut the hell up and go away already.

Not really. If Wright never said anything, people would still get his name out there say, "Obama shut him up for political reasons."

This is going to be one hilarious good cop/bad cop political routine we're all going to be subjected to over the next several months. Enjoy the ride!

This sounds kind of you like you and Nieporent on BTF.

This is going to be one hilarious good cop/bad cop political routine we're all going to be subjected to over the next several months. Enjoy the ride!

Sorry... which one is the bad cop, again?

Well, this is an honest question: do you disagree with that interpretation?

No, but it assumes that "politician" is a dirty word, and the implication from some is that "See, Obama believes what Wright does and is just covering up" which after watching the whole interview, including that part of it, is not at all I got out of it (not that I thought there was any chance of that anyway).

"New kind of politics" does not mean "no politics."

Moyers also asked Wright if had ever heard Obama say anything that indicates he shares Wright's views. Wright's answer was "No, absolutely not" and he said it the way people say it when they tell a six-year old there is no monster under the bed.

So, I think he meant--and he has/said suggested in other places--that they are in some ways in two different worlds.

nycfan -
You mean we let non-religious people run in the US? Oh, I guess we do - they just don't get elected (city council excluded).

From the CIA fact book:

active pro-reform student groups include the Office of Strengthening Unity (OSU); opposition groups include Freedom Movement of Iran, the National Front, Marz-e Por Gohar, Baluchistan People's Party (BPP), and various ethnic and Monarchist organizations;

That's not to say your point is factually incorrect - but it's not a 1-party state (like, say, Mexico)

"We're all good cops here, ma'am."

"Oh, I had no intention of playing the good cop..."

That people are worried that the U.S. might nuke someone means that people believe the U.S. is willing and able to use nuclear weapons, and that means that they're still an effective deterrent.
</i>

WRT Iran, I see this as a negative. All the chatter on major US news networks about the option of nuking Iran seems to fuel anti-US sentiment among the youth population, which really seems like the base we want to be encouraging to go pro-west with sensible talk that frames their older/traditional leadership as regressive and culturally stifling. As I pointed out above, the problem is that post-Iraq any non-nuclear threat of force just looks hollow- now that we've taken out the sword, everyone knows how short and ineffective it is. Of course, we can still level any nation we choose even without nuclear weapons, but the US people know they were sold a false bill of goods on Iraq and therefore won't support another preemptive war. Pretty much everything the left was suggesting would happen as a predictable consequence of invading Iraq has come true (it has actually turned out worse in a lot of ways than even the most pessimistic were suggesting), including Iran being drawn into the conflict. A lot of the hawks have suggested that Iran needs to be paid back for acting against the US efforts in Iraq, which to me is only daring them to step things up. Iran seems to be in a very good position right now to politically upstage the US (so long as they don't do anything that blatantly provoking to the US itself), and taking the diplomatic road right now would make them look like the aggressor. A lot of people on the right seem to take the attitude that paying attention to international perception is a sign of weakness, but that sort of go-it-alone attitude is what got us here in the first place....

I think if there is one thing that the Primary Season has taught us - that Obama IS a politician, and always has been. My Dad (ex-member of the People's Liberation Party, long time Jesse Jackson supporter, etc.) was even convinced that he's not going to lead us to the promised (Ultra Left Liberal) land.

Zenbitz, I think I know quite a bit about Wright and Obama, but I'd like to hear some more about your fascinating Dad. What branch of the "People's Liberation Army" was he in? What did he do, rob banks, shoot cops, or just write a lot of manifestos? What made him join, and what made him leave? Does he still pine for "the good old days" like a left wing version of some unreconstructed Dixiecrat?

And whatever would make you, him, or anyone else think that a sitting U.S. Senator who's a serious candidate for President of the United States would ever NOT have been a "politician?" As if that job description in itself is inherently any worse than "businessman," "labor leader," "baseball player" or "movie star."

But I guess if you can lump Richard Branson with Kenneth Lay, or Walter Reuther with Jimmy Hoffa, or Cal Ripken with Jose Canseco, or Jimmy Stewart with Tom Cruise, then I guess yeah, all politicians are alike.

Well, this is an honest question: do you disagree with that interpretation? What do you think Wright meant by the comment?

I would assume Wright is trying to defend himself.

In any case, since Wright isn't running for president, I am at a loss why we are still talking about the man.

No, but it assumes that "politician" is a dirty word,

Well, it is, but I still don't really see any benign way to read Wright's comment, and I don't see (?) that you've offered anything specific along those lines.

Moyers also asked Wright if had ever heard Obama say anything that indicates he shares Wright's views. Wright's answer was "No, absolutely not" and he said it the way people say it when they tell a six-year old there is no monster under the bed.

Yes, I saw that part. But I think people (*) don't quite buy that because they're still wondering what Obama was doing there for 20 years if he didn't subscribe to Wright's underlying views.

(*) Not me. I'm happy to conclude that Obama was probably just there for the street cred.

Andy - he was just an old San Francisco Commie. Not "PLA" Liberation ARMY - PARTY. They had newsletters and leaflets and organized marches and protests. I think he once got his head cracked by a cop in the 70s. He also taught daycare in the inner city of SF for about 20 years. He has always had a "thing" for black politicians, and he probably just bought into Obama more than he should have... but I guess he just hopes that "change" is not just empty rhetoric.

I guess he had a bad experience with the PLP during some anti-aparthied stuff at UCB in the 80s.

We all mellow out, I suppose. Now he owns apartments in Vallejo! Just a run-of-the-mill left winger now. He helped Jerry Brown campaign for mayor of Oakland...

In any case, since Wright isn't running for president, I am at a loss why we are still talking about the man.

You don't really mean that. You know why we're still talking about him...it's the same reason we had round-the-clock coverage of the Anna Nicole story- the MSM doesn't inform, it entertains, and Wright is an entertaining character. The problem is that a lot of people confuse these entertainment shows with news and think that if they're covering a story it must be important. Wright is an interesting guy, but his views aren't really that extreme or unique. But they don't get a lot of mainstream airtime, so they look pretty radical compared to what's regularly presented.

In any case, since Wright isn't running for president, I am at a loss why we are still talking about the man.

I can think of more than 4,000 reasons why the Republicans and their fellow travelers here on BTF would rather talk about Rev. Wright than about Iraq or the state of the economy. This isn't rocket science.

Well, it is, but I still don't really see any benign way to read Wright's comment, and I don't see (?) that you've offered anything specific along those lines.

Wasn't trying to. Wright said what he said, and my post was a hit-and-run post. The point was that I thought some righties would latch onto it as a way to bash Obama as a "politician" and to imply nasty things about him, as in fact they did and will. Had Wright said, "Obama is far above all other politicians, and the speech was a masterpiece that transcends political rhetoric" they would go after that even harder, saying it "proves how close Wright is to Obama."

So, you could also say that the fact Wright says Obama is just "a politician" shows that they are not that close, after all, so America has nothing to worry about--except Obama's being a Demo, which is a debate Obama will be happy to have with McCain if he gets a chance.

But I think people (*) don't quite buy that because they're still wondering what Obama was doing there for 20 years if he didn't subscribe to Wright's underlying views.

If that is the case, so be it. I think most people who believe that would vote Repub anyway, and the Democrats can nominate Hillary Clinton if they think it's a problem. Personally, I think that would be pretty stupid, because I think she'll lose, but it's not my call. I am doing what I can for Obama.

I'm happy to conclude that Obama was probably just there for the street cred.

Sure. But reality is gray. I think he did it partly for political rasons and stayed with it because he really likes some things about Wright as a man--just like he said in the speech.

I'm happy to conclude that Obama was probably just there for the street cred.

Sure. But reality is gray. I think he did it partly for political rasons and stayed with it because he really likes some things about Wright as a man--just like he said in the speech.

I don't know which is more risible, the thought that either Hillary and the Republicans have even a 1% sincere interest in the views of Rev. Wright, or that they have any idea what might cause a black person to attend his church. The cynicism of their joint effort in this campaign is beyond breathtaking, and I thought I'd seen everything in the last few elections. Guess not.

These people can pretty much rationalize away almost anything that a "conservative" politician might say or do, no matter how offensive it might be to black people, but the second that any black person reacts to life in this country with any real anger, then all of a sudden we're all supposed to act as if the world's coming to an end.

The bottom line here is easy to calculate: There's a whole lot more white folks than colored folks here in America. This, too, isn't rocket science. It's merely the American version of Lenin's famous "Who....whom" question, which apparently is the only one that matters.

And here's Andy again, dismissing everyone who has a different opinion on an issue than he does as having ulterior or insincere motives.

EDIT: Or being naive.

And here's Andy again, dismissing everyone who has a different opinion on an issue than he does as having ulterior or insincere motives.

No, here's Andy once again cynically imagining that neither you nor Hillary Clinton have enough real interest in Reverend Wright to keep talking about him for six weeks, unless either of you had an ulterior motive. Yeah, cynical old me. I'm sure that black liberation theology has been a lifelong interest of the both of you, and that it'll continue long after November 4th.

No, here's Andy once again cynically imagining that neither you nor Hillary Clinton have enough real interest in Reverend Wright to keep talking about him for six weeks, unless either of you had an ulterior motive.

Or unless Reverend Wright made further comments on the subject.

Which he did.

Which is what I talked about.

After other people were already talking about it.

Especially after listening to the Rev talk at the National Press Club, and were I religious, I'd really enjoy having Wright as my pastor. The guys's smart as a whip, thoughtful as heck, says some thought-provoking things, and since he can reason, would be a blast to argue with.

What could be better than that?

In fact, count me as part of the 6% who see Obama more favorably as a result of how he's handled the Wright business.

In fact, count me as part of the 6% who see Obama more favorably as a result of how he's handled the Wright business.

Me, too, but as Hugh Price pointed out tonight on The News Hour, for Obama not to be hurt by Wright in the long run, he's going to have to seize the initiative and (paraphrasing Price) "challenge Hillary, challenge McCain, challenge the media, challenge everybody" to debate the real issues instead of letting the agenda be set by Hillary and her Republican allies.

Of course as Price also noted, it's not in Obama's power to change the campaign chatter unilaterally (duh), but if he does what Price recommends and sticks to it, he'll be much better positioned than he'd be otherwise. He's going to have to take a certain leap of faith, and gamble that the majority of voters in the long run have more important things to worry about than Rev. Wright's views of 9/11. I have no doubt that he can win that gamble, but he's going to have to deal the cards first.

In fact, count me as part of the 6% who see Obama more favorably as a result of how he's handled the Wright business.

Me, too

Ah, the happy situation of a conservative and a liberal -- Arkitekton and Andy -- in full agreement.

but as Hugh Price pointed out tonight on The News Hour, for Obama not to be hurt by Wright in the long run, he's going to have to seize the initiative and (paraphrasing Price) "challenge Hillary, challenge McCain, challenge the media, challenge everybody" to debate the real issues instead of letting the agenda be set by Hillary and her Republican allies.

It's kind of tough to "challenge everybody" to debate the issues when you're refusing to have any more debates between now and Indiana.

The guys's smart as a whip, thoughtful as heck, says some thought-provoking things

It takes an especially thoughtful man to stand by the assertion that AIDS is a government conspiracy for the purposes of black genocide.

At this point it's not really about Obama anymore in my opinion, btw. It's about what a vile person Wright is. Is this a sideshow to the election? Without a doubt. But it's still notable enough.

In fact, count me as part of the 6% who see Obama more favorably as a result of how he's handled the Wright business.

Me, too

Ah, the happy situation of a conservative and a liberal -- Arkitekton and Andy -- in full agreement.

I've read enough of arkitekton's posts here to say that while I don't always agree with him, I have no problem agreeing with him on many occasions. Just as you apparently have little problem agreeing with the guy I quoted at length in #2174, who sounds a bit like some of your pals here after one too many beers.

but as Hugh Price pointed out tonight on The News Hour, for Obama not to be hurt by Wright in the long run, he's going to have to seize the initiative and (paraphrasing Price) "challenge Hillary, challenge McCain, challenge the media, challenge everybody" to debate the real issues instead of letting the agenda be set by Hillary and her Republican allies.

It's kind of tough to "challenge everybody" to debate the issues when you're refusing to have any more debates between now and Indiana.

Yes, that last "debate" in Pennsylvania was SO enlightening, if your idea of "issues" consists of Rev. Wright and why Obama doesn't wear a flag pin. I can see why Hillary wants more of that.

It's about what a vile person Wright is.

Did you watch the Moyers interview? If you think this is now about Wright's "vileness", and you have not done so, I would suggest doing so. Electorally, it's irrelevant to you personally, since you would not vote for Obama anyway, of course. But if you want to pass moral judgment, then you should listen to the guy in more detail.

If you have done so, and have concluded based on that that he is "vile", then so be it.

Black liberation theology seems pretty vile to me.

Black liberation theology seems pretty vile to me.

You are a pretty good source on that.

I watched the entire Moyers interview and concluded that Moyers was serving up softballs on a tee and Wright was answering them disingenuously - actually lying about his prior statements and the theology of his church - without breaking a sweat. Not only did it NOT make me think better of Wright, rather it made me realize that he was even viler than I had previously suspected. Before the Moyers interview I figured he was just a (quasi-archetypical) bitter bigoted preacher, the kind you find both black and white, spewing ignorance at the other side to a church full of people willing to lap it up as consolatory myth. But as I watched him smile and lie, smile and lie, it dawned on me that this was no naif seized with spur-of-the-moment 'inspiration' and 'rage'. No, Wright is genuinely dishonest, willing to say hateful things to one constituency (his parishoners), but self-aware enough to understand how terrible those things were and thus willing to consciously misrepresent himself later on to another constituency (the white Americans who watch Bill Moyers). As for Moyers? A mere enabler, as he has ever been. He should have known better - he should have asked tougher questions about Wright's professed theology at the very least, given his own background - but this is the sort of mollycoddling we've come to expect from ol' Bill in his partisan dotage.

Thankfully more of the true Jeremiah Wright came out today during the National Press Club Q&A;. The mask slipped once again - which is telling because the prepared speech before it was actually reasonably thoughtful, unlike the racialist swill the night before at the NAACP get-together - and we got to see how toxic this guy really is.

I do suppose that this resurrects the question of how Obama could choose to hang with such a person, but I really don't care too much about that anymore. There are so many other reasons to vote against Obama that it seems beside the point to harp on his association with Wright. Wright, however, is loathsome in and of himself, and on those grounds is still eminently worthy of comment.

The most amusing thing, really, is how Wright seems dead set determined on torpedoing Obama's candidacy. Because while I don't particularly care about the Wright/Obama connection anymore...you can be damn sure that lot of other people will.

. Not only did it NOT make me think better of Wright, rather it made me realize that he was even viler than I had previously suspected.

I liked this quote from a commenter over at Volokh Conspiracy:

One of the things I think is interesting is the way that my liberal acquaintances are responding to Rev Wright. As soon as he proves himself to be a man of sophisticated thoughts, they think it throws him into a whole new light, and they are a little befuddled that others of us are still quite offended by his controversial remarks. You can see a YouTube video of Rev Wright's sermons in their wider context, with the same attitude: "Here's what the mainstream media shows you," and "Here's the context." And I respond, "okay, he says some nice things, some moderately offensive things, and some very offensive things. I never said the man hated his mother and skinned cats."

Ah, the happy situation of a conservative and a liberal -- Arkitekton and Andy -- in full agreement.

Ray, you seem easily confused on this subject. Please review post 1515. Here--I'll make it simple for you:

Perhaps some of your confusion will dissipate if, instead of considering political beliefs to fall entirely on some sort of crude, two-dimensional spectrum, with that model's imposition of a false dichotomy, you adopt a frame exceeding two dimensions. I prefer a torus, which has the benefit of implying areas where politics cannot go, even as it does not prohibit what you think of a "conservative" and "liberal" from, variously, meeting.

That statement no more shows you to be a conservative now than it did when you posted it in 1515.

And, as far as I can tell, nobody here thinks that the "political spectrum" is only "two-dimensional," so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

Some people seem to think that since Wright wasn't screaming and yelling during his Moyers interview, that alone "throws him into a whole new light." But of course, it's irrelevant.

Well, personally, I can't wait to see who the BT KKK of F anoints as their man.

I watched the entire Moyers interview and concluded that Moyers was serving up softballs on a tee and Wright was answering them disingenuously - actually lying about his prior statements and the theology of his church - without breaking a sweat. Not only did it NOT make me think better of Wright, rather it made me realize that he was even viler than I had previously suspected. Before the Moyers interview I figured he was just a (quasi-archetypical) bitter bigoted preacher, the kind you find both black and white, spewing ignorance at the other side to a church full of people willing to lap it up as consolatory myth. But as I watched him smile and lie, smile and lie, it dawned on me that this was no naif seized with spur-of-the-moment 'inspiration' and 'rage'. No, Wright is genuinely dishonest, willing to say hateful things to one constituency (his parishoners), but self-aware enough to understand how terrible those things were and thus willing to consciously misrepresent himself later on to another constituency (the white Americans who watch Bill Moyers). As for Moyers? A mere enabler, as he has ever been. He should have known better - he should have asked tougher questions about Wright's professed theology at the very least, given his own background - but this is the sort of mollycoddling we've come to expect from ol' Bill in his partisan dotage.

Thankfully more of the true Jeremiah Wright came out today during the National Press Club Q&A;. The mask slipped once again - which is telling because the prepared speech before it was actually reasonably thoughtful, unlike the racialist swill the night before at the NAACP get-together - and we got to see how toxic this guy really is.

I do suppose that this resurrects the question of how Obama could choose to hang with such a person, but I really don't care too much about that anymore. There are so many other reasons to vote against Obama that it seems beside the point to harp on his association with Wright. Wright, however, is loathsome in and of himself, and on those grounds is still eminently worthy of comment.

The most amusing thing, really, is how Wright seems dead set determined on torpedoing Obama's candidacy. Because while I don't particularly care about the Wright/Obama connection anymore...you can be damn sure that lot of other people will.

Well, there is no point in my talking about Wright further here. I actually knew that going into this part of the thread but got sucked in when Ray asked me a question. I'll try to be smarter about it next time.

RR, I see you're out of this now, so you don't have to respond, but I just watched the entire Moyers interview. While I appreciated the background material they presented about Wright -- particularly the clips from the 1987 Frontline story -- it's hard to see the interview as anything but a softball one. I don't really see how anyone could disagree. Moyers didn't ask him about many of the controversial statements -- for example the AIDS/drugs statements -- and Moyers didn't press him on a single question. Wright, for his part, was personable, but at the same time was simply disingenuous (IMO) with some of his answers. He also did things like apologize for Farrakhan. So I don't see that this really changes my opinion of Wright.

Incidentally, I don't get the defense of Wright that some have offered, that he was simply quoting Edward Peck (which I'm not sure he was, exactly) during his "America's chickens are coming home to roost" statement. How does it excuse Wright that he was quoting -- with approval -- someone else's anti-American statements?

Obama has said the Wright issue is a "legitimate" one to discuss.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/transcript-obama-on-fns/

So much for the rightwing conspiracy consisting of raising a sideshow to center stage.

Wright also said that the recent focus on him is not an attack of him, but on the black church as a whole. I thought not all churches believed what Wright said? Where are the black leaders saying that Wright doesn't speak for them? Is the black church really a monolith or is there complexity and differences between churches? Sounds like Wright isn't saying he just speaks for himsef, but for the black church as whole.

Ray,

I wasn't claiming it was a tough, hard-hitting interview--(I am sure Wright has been invited to appear on FOX News and it will not surprise me if he does so) just that it may have shown other sides to the guy, and I don't think the whole thing was phony. The voters can decide.

Obama has said the Wright issue is a "legitimate" one to discuss

I quoted this earlier in the thread.

I thought not all churches believed what Wright said? Where are the black leaders saying that Wright doesn't speak for them? Is the black church really a monolith or is there complexity and differences between churches? Sounds like Wright isn't saying he just speaks for himsef, but for the black church as whole.

Refer to my post 2203. NOT all predominantly black churches subscribe to the twisted theology of James H. Cone, not even close, and anyone who claims the contrary is a liar. It is true that almost all predominantly black churches tend to lean liberal politically and are deeply concerned with issues of social justice, but the overwhelming majority of them are not anywhere near this hateful and virulent. There are plenty of black preachers throughout America who could confirm this, but by and large the media ignore them.

Someone in the press yesterday actually had the gall to compare Wright to Martin Luther King Jr., if you can believe it, which made me sick. The poisonous Wright isn't fit to shine King's shoes.

now that I finally read the NRO article.....

I agree with the premise and the specific items the author cited. Of course, none of it was actually groundbreaking, and he REALLY should have mentioned that the best baseball=conservative connection is about preservation of status quo, resistance to change (examples too numerous to need citing). He could have also linked the storng morality side of conervatism with baseball's tendency to insist on the 'right' way to go about certain tasks, and how those players who don't play the 'right' way are less worthy. And then when the 'right' players have flaws (P*** R***), we crucify them. And I say this as a social conservative.

Obama has said the Wright issue is a "legitimate" one to discuss.

Which it is, up to a point. But the only pertinent question is the extent of Wright's influence on Obama as it relates to Obama's worldview. The number of years Obama "associated" with Wright is also a legitimate question, but again, its pertinence to the election is limited to the demonstrable extent that all those years of association have had on Obama's policies.

There seems to be a general consensus about Wright that he's a "smart" man who's done much good work within his church and the surrounding community. All but his worst critics seem to acknowledge that.

But there's also a pretty strong mainstream consensus, shared by both Obama and his critics, that many of his statements are at the very least, divisive and inflammatory. If Obama hasn't gotten his view on that across by now, it's only because certain people aren't listening.

And as to any evidence of Wright's "influence," in terms of Obama's worldview, there is none whatsoever, only speculation.

Has Obama ever made one speech, even in San Francisco, where he says "God DAMN America"? Has he ever said that 9/11 was a case of "the chickens coming home to roost"?

Has he ever said anything REMOTELY like that? Of course not.

And yet Hillary and her Republican allies act is if none of this matters in the slightest.

The Republicans I can forgive, because that's what they do. You can't blame them for playing the phony guilt by association card any more than you can blame a mad dog for foaming at the mouth. They have no substantive issues to run on, only fear, and they hope that the Wright "issue" can scare enough ignorant people into thinking that Obama is going to appoint Wright as Secretary of Everything, or something to that effect. McCain can issue all the denunciations of this he wants, but these people have too many demons inside them to listen to McCain.

But Hillary is another story. About the only happy ending she can have at this point would be to drop dead of a heart attack, because if she lives out her normal lifespan, her conscience is going to be torturing her forever over what she's done to poison the political atmosphere, not to even mention the damage she's doing to her own poliical party.

The ultra-cynic in me says nah, that woman has no conscience and she never has, and so the only proper punishment would be for Indiana, North Carolina and the superdelegates to drive a stake through her heart.

But my more charitable side says that in her few reflective moments, she has to be realizing the price she's paying for her obsessive ambition, and she has to be realizing how she's going to go down in history for her sorry performance. And that's why it almost seems like an act of mercy to wish that she'd just drop dead.

I wasn't claiming it was a tough, hard-hitting interview--(I am sure Wright has been invited to appear on FOX News and it will not surprise me if he does so) just that it may have shown other sides to the guy, and I don't think the whole thing was phony.

Oh, I agree that it showed other sides to him (of course, I always knew there were other sides to begin with). But it doesn't get him off the hook from the statements in question.

The voters can decide.

But I thought Wright wasn't running for anything :-)

But it doesn't get him off the hook from the statements in question.

Obama doesn't think so, either, IMO.

There seems to be a general consensus about Wright that he's a "smart" man who's done much good work within his church and the surrounding community. All but his worst critics seem to acknowledge that.

I think that's a fair point about him. I also think it's fair to question whether his underlying racist/anti-American message detracts from the good work that he does.

But there's also a pretty strong mainstream consensus, shared by both Obama and his critics, that many of his statements are at the very least, divisive and inflammatory. If Obama hasn't gotten his view on that across by now, it's only because certain people aren't listening.

Or that they're not satisfied with his answers.

And as to any evidence of Wright's "influence," in terms of Obama's worldview, there is none whatsoever, only speculation.

There is "evidence": the fact that Obama stayed there for 20 years, made Wright an integral part of his life, and told us that Wright had a lot of influence on him.

That said, it's not enough evidence for me, and so I don't hang Wright's views on Obama.

Which it is, up to a point. But the only pertinent question is the extent of Wright's influence on Obama as it relates to Obama's worldview. The number of years Obama "associated" with Wright is also a legitimate question, but again, its pertinence to the election is limited to the demonstrable extent that all those years of association have had on Obama's policies.

The problem is that I don't believe you believe this -- I think it's a desperate attempt at damage control on your part for someone you like -- and I know nobody else believes this.

As I mentioned last time we had this discussion, that's the same defense that some paleolibs (or desperate libertarians) tried to apply to Ron Paul -- "So what if he allowed all sorts of racist things to be published in his newsletter under his name? Even if he believed them himself, since he's a libertarian he isn't going to enact them into law, so it doesn't matter."

But it does. It isn't okay to associate with racists as long as you don't personally let them influence your policies in office.

And as to any evidence of Wright's "influence," in terms of Obama's worldview, there is none whatsoever, only speculation.

Has Obama ever made one speech, even in San Francisco, where he says "God DAMN America"? Has he ever said that 9/11 was a case of "the chickens coming home to roost"?

Has he ever said anything REMOTELY like that? Of course not

Absolutely. One of the weird fears being played upon by those who hype the Wright issue seems to be that Barack Obama, your basic center-left Senator of the inclusive rhetoric and bland legislative record, will become President and suddenly turn into the BASN Blackbox Blogger. However, I guess everyone is entitled to live in their own reality :)

There seems to be a general consensus about Wright that he's a "smart" man who's done much good work within his church and the surrounding community. All but his worst critics seem to acknowledge that.

I think that's a fair point about him. I also think it's fair to question whether his underlying racist/anti-American message detracts from the good work that he does.

Of course it does, at least if he ever wanted to reach many new people other than those who already buy into his (ahem) "philosophy."

But there's also a pretty strong mainstream consensus, shared by both Obama and his critics, that many of his statements are at the very least, divisive and inflammatory. If Obama hasn't gotten his view on that across by now, it's only because certain people aren't listening.

Or that they're not satisfied with his answers.

Which is fine, but by this point you'd think that they'd just say "I'm not satisfied with his answers, and so I'm voting for Hillary or McCain," and let the matter go. And as for the media, do they really think that they're going to get anything new out of asking the same "questions" for the hundredth time?

And as to any evidence of Wright's "influence," in terms of Obama's worldview, there is none whatsoever, only speculation.

There is "evidence": the fact that Obama stayed there for 20 years, made Wright an integral part of his life, and told us that Wright had a lot of influence on him.

That said, it's not enough evidence for me, and so I don't hang Wright's views on Obama.

Fair enough, but I hope that you might understand that by "evidence," I mean evidence of "influence" that goes beyond "association," since that "evidence of association" has been known to the world for several months by now, just in case anyone hadn't noticed.

But again, my main quarrel here is not with Obama's ideological opponents, but with Hillary and the media. These are three entirely different entities, each with an entirely different set of professional obligations, and I don't judge them by the same standards. Ho Chi Minh comparing US policy in Vietnam to Hitler is one thing---what would you expect? Jane Fonda making the same Hitler comparison while standing in front of a microphone in the United States is far worse. But Jane Fonda doing that from Hanoi is beyond the pale. Allowing for the obvious differences of degree, if you put the Swift Boaters in Ho Chi Minh's place, the media in Fonda I's place, and Hillary in Fonda II's, I think you can get a pretty good idea of my view of their relative degrees of moral culpability.

But the only pertinent question is the extent of Wright's influence on Obama as it relates to Obama's worldview. The number of years Obama "associated" with Wright is also a legitimate question, but again, its pertinence to the election is limited to the demonstrable extent that all those years of association have had on Obama's policies.

The problem is that I don't believe you believe this -- I think it's a desperate attempt at damage control on your part for someone you like -- and I know nobody else believes this.

I most certainly do "believe this," unless all you're talking about is "its pertinence to the election" as empirically reflected in the polls. Of course I'm not denying that.

As I mentioned last time we had this discussion, that's the same defense that some paleolibs (or desperate libertarians) tried to apply to Ron Paul -- "So what if he allowed all sorts of racist things to be published in his newsletter under his name? Even if he believed them himself, since he's a libertarian he isn't going to enact them into law, so it doesn't matter."

But it does. It isn't okay to associate with racists as long as you don't personally let them influence your policies in office.

Maybe I just hang around with the wrong crowd, or maybe my standards are too low, but I've hung around racists my whole life---and I'm not talking about people who disagree with this or that policy, I mean people who've thrown around the "n" word, and in some cases still do---and I don't think it's rubbed off too much on my own views. Believe it or not, not everyone restricts his choice of friends and associates to those who pass his little political litmus test. I've argued many a time with my (far bigger circle of) non-racist friends about this, and we've simply agreed to disagree. Life goes on.

And you can make of that whatever you want, but then I'm not running for office and I don't really care.

I'm sure as heck no fan of Hillary Clinton, but for the life of me I can't figure out what in the world she has to do with the fact that Jeremiah Wright is going on his nationwide Unplugged tour, calling in his favors, and letting everyone know what his idea of the pecking order is.

Andy, I think you're starting to go off the deep end.

Just as a reminder, Wright has already been on Fox, and that's the interview where IIRC, Hannity says something to the effect of "Why do these blacks live in these segregated communities?"

It's a good thing Hannity is not associated with one end of the spectrum, cause that could be electoral death for all of those candidates.

I'm sure as heck no fan of Hillary Clinton, but for the life of me I can't figure out what in the world she has to do with the fact that Jeremiah Wright is going on his nationwide Unplugged tour, calling in his favors, and letting everyone know what his idea of the pecking order is.

Clinton supporter invited Wright

Barbara Reynolds described Wright as a "towering astute father of progressive social and global causes" on her blog last month.

Obviously Hillary must now denounce and reject Reynolds.

Me, too, but as Hugh Price pointed out tonight on The News Hour, for Obama not to be hurt by Wright in the long run, he's going to have to seize the initiative and (paraphrasing Price) "challenge Hillary, challenge McCain, challenge the media, challenge everybody" to debate the real issues instead of letting the agenda be set by Hillary and her Republican allies.

Debate the real issues, like constantly calling her corrupt and dishonest? Demanding to see her tax returns? The Demmocrats are very close to each other in nearly every policy area, so there hasn't been much substantive policy debate for awhile. But there's no way Obama has been more about "debating the real issues" than Clinton.

I'm sure as heck no fan of Hillary Clinton, but for the life of me I can't figure out what in the world she has to do with the fact that Jeremiah Wright is going on his nationwide Unplugged tour, calling in his favors, and letting everyone know what his idea of the pecking order is.

Yeah, Hillary has nothing at all to do with fanning the Wright flames. Absolutely nothing. Poor little Hillary has been an innocent bystander in all this.

Absolutely. One of the weird fears being played upon by those who hype the Wright issue seems to be that Barack Obama, your basic center-left Senator of the inclusive rhetoric and bland legislative record, will become President and suddenly turn into the BASN Blackbox Blogger. However, I guess everyone is entitled to live in their own reality :)

I'd quibble with the notion that Obama is "center left," at least compared to other senators.

The larger point is that even if Obama truly is inclusive, bland and politically moderate himself, presidents are not god kings, micromanaging the US from their throne of omniscience. By necessity, they delegate a tremendous amount of power and authority to other people, and who those people are could matter a great deal. The Wright flap tells us that although Obama may or may not share Wright's beliefs, he certainly has no problem making somebody with those beliefs an important part of his personal and professional life. It's legitimate for people to be concerned that Obama would tolerate or even encourage the presence of other Wrights in his administration.

Yeah, Hillary has nothing at all to do with fanning the Wright flames. Absolutely nothing. Poor little Hillary has been an innocent bystander in all this.

Andy, she gave one comment, weeks ago, along the lines of "I'd have left the church." She gave another comment in the past couple of days, in response to a reporter's question, which was basically "Yeah, a few weeks ago I said I'd have left the church." She said the same thing in the last debate, when asked.

She has hardly been hammering away at this. It's not even necessary for her to do so in the age of new media -- there are plenty of people all over the place doing it for her.

I really don't get what your complaint is of her here, or why you think it's so outrageous that she took the opportunity to comment on a weakness of her opponent. Politicians have been doing this approximately forever.

It's legitimate for people to be concerned that Obama would tolerate or even encourage the presence of other Wrights in his administration.

Yeah, the old Tom The Dancing Bug scenario. The flip side of McCain's secret plan to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age by February. No real evidence required in either case to say "you never know."

Ray, if you can't see what Hillary's done to inflame the Wright issue for her short range advantage, you're like a guy who's trying to describe a ballet from behind a thick glass wall. The music is pretty loud once you get onstage.

Of course since you're not a Democrat, it's not your responsibility to call her on this, and I wouldn't ask you to. But there are other perspectives on this than yours.

Yeah, Hillary has nothing at all to do with fanning the Wright flames. Absolutely nothing. Poor little Hillary has been an innocent bystander in all this.

I'm sure it's common knowledge to you, or you can weed through the nuance and such. But I'm a Clinton supporter, but like to think I can be objective, so if you have particular dirt, I'd be interested.

McCain's secret plan to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age by February

It's legitimate for people to be concerned about that too.

Yeah, the old Tom The Dancing Bug scenario.

Personally, when a guy has a close, 20 year relationship with somebody who publically advocates crazy, offensive things, I'm inclined to think that guy has no problem associating with people who believe those particular crazy, offensive things. I must be a nutty conspiracy theorist.

Ray, if you can't see what Hillary's done to inflame the Wright issue for her short range advantage, you're like a guy who's trying to describe a ballet from behind a thick glass wall. The music is pretty loud once you get onstage.

She commented on it. (The. Horror.) Either she meant what she said, or she just took the opportunity to use the issue to her advantage. Either way, I don't see how she did anything noteworthy or deserving of contempt. It's what politicians do.

You haven't offered a specific reason why I should be upset about this. You've made some noise about her "fanning the Wright flames," but how is that any different from anything any candidate does in any election?

villainx [EDIT: and Ray], Hillary could have addressed the whole Wright issue in about five minutes, by saying something along the lines of "well, from what I've seen on these sound bites, I have to question Senator Obama's longtime association with this man." And then accepted his explanation, and moved on, adding that "we all have many people we're close to whose views we don't agree with." She could have then told her surrogates to lay off, on the grounds that this isn't advancing the interests of our party.

That would have been gracious. It would have been true. And it would have defused the issue until the general election. At that point either Democrat would have had the advantage of a united party to fend off whatever mud the GOP might have slung. But if Hillary wins after all this, there's no chance she'll have that now. She has about as much chance of being the next President as Ron Paul. I don't usually make predictions, but that one you can take to the bank. Do you wonder why Republican operatives like Kristol and Rush are piling on this Wright issue, and egging Hillary on? Do you think that these characters are going to help Hillary in November?

Personally, when a guy has a close, 20 year relationship with somebody who publically advocates crazy, offensive things, I'm inclined to think that guy has no problem associating with people who believe those particular crazy, offensive things. I must be a nutty conspiracy theorist.

You mean, like John McCain and Trent Lott?

Then again, if mere association is enough for the smear, then what do we say when McCain seeks out the political endorsement of nutty pastors like Hagee and Rod Parsley, and appears at public campaign events with each of them, and praises them? You have to be inclined to think he has no problem associating with people who believe crazy, offensive things. Things like: God sent Katrina to punish New Orleans because it was planning a gay pride parade (Hagee). Or things like: America was founded, in part, to destroy the "false religion" of Islam (Parsley).

Hillary could have addressed the whole Wright issue in about five minutes, by saying something along the lines of "well, from what I've seen on these sound bites, I have to question Senator Obama's longtime association with this man."

Or, as someone noted about a million posts upthread, she could have said what Mike Huckabee said.

And then accepted his explanation, and moved on, adding that "we all have many people we're close to whose views we don't agree with."

But Wright was more than someone Obama was "close to." That, in a nutshell, has been Obama's problem here, and is why the issue continues to dog him.

Anyway, the notion that Hillary should be helping out Obama is pure fantasy on your part.

She could have then told her surrogates to lay off, on the grounds that this isn't advancing the interests of our party.

While I'm sure her surrogates are taking advantage of the issue, she could tell them to all stand down right now and there would still be plenty of people hammering away at the Wright issue. Last I checked, Bill Kristol was not a "Hillary surrogate."

But it does. It isn't okay to associate with racists as long as you don't personally let them influence your policies in office.

Maybe I just hang around with the wrong crowd, or maybe my standards are too low,

Sounds like it, on both counts.

but I've hung around racists my whole life---and I'm not talking about people who disagree with this or that policy, I mean people who've thrown around the "n" word, and in some cases still do---and I don't think it's rubbed off too much on my own views.

Which is the same strawman issue that we're not talking about.

Believe it or not, not everyone restricts his choice of friends and associates to those who pass his little political litmus test. I've argued many a time with my (far bigger circle of) non-racist friends about this, and we've simply agreed to disagree. Life goes on.

I have plenty of non-libertarian friends; people don't have to agree with me on every issue. But whether to use racial slurs (and to mean them -- I'm not talking about people who merely speak uncouthly) is not an "agree to disagree" sort of issue.

And you can make of that whatever you want, but then I'm not running for office and I don't really care.

But that's exactly on point: you're not running for office, so you don't need to care. The worst that happens is that you need to choose between the decent friends and the indecent ones.

And then accepted his explanation, and moved on, adding that "we all have many people we're close to whose views we don't agree with."

But Wright was more than someone Obama was "close to." That, in a nutshell, has been Obama's problem here, and is why the issue continues to dog him.

No doubt about that, from an empirical standpoint. But the question is why an ostensible Democrat should be actively trying to take advantage of it, especially since there's not one chance in a million that she actually believes that Wright has any serious influence on Obama's worldview. This is the purest act of political cynicism I've seen in many a year, and it's showing up in her record negative numbers among the general public.

Anyway, the notion that Hillary should be helping out Obama is pure fantasy on your part.

Just to keep the discussion on the plane of pure political calculation, the chance that this will gain Hillary the nomination is slim. The chance that this will hurt Obama in the general election is considerable. The chance that Obama can make up for it in other ways is also considerable. The chance that Hillary the nominee could win back enough Obama supporters to make up for the generic Hillary haters is fast approaching zero. And in the end, all she's going to be left with is a tattered reputation, perhaps a statue in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and the eternal gratitude of John McCain. Some legacy.

Me, too, but as Hugh Price pointed out tonight on The News Hour, for Obama not to be hurt by Wright in the long run, he's going to have to seize the initiative and (paraphrasing Price) "challenge Hillary, challenge McCain, challenge the media, challenge everybody" to debate the real issues instead of letting the agenda be set by Hillary and her Republican allies.

I stick by my belief that if it wasn't Wright, Obama was going to be smeared by association with some other "fiery," "controversial" black man, irrespective of ... well, anything. Better for him to get it all out of the way now when (1) he's still way ahead; and (2) November will be at least 5 cycles later in the media circus barker cycle. By then, half the electorate won't be able to distinguish Jeremiah Wright from Henry Winkler, other than the hopeless ones who know one's black and one's white, none of whom are going to vote for Obama anyway.

As much as I'd enjoy having Wright as my pastor (exiting the church: "Great sermon, Rev. But what was that crazy #### about the govt and AIDS?" "Hey, ark, did you miss Tuskegee?" "Point taken, Jer, but c'mon, there's a scale issue here..."), at this point, if I'm Obama, I break with him. If the last few days is how your pastor behaves when you most need him in your corner...
.

David, I'm glad for both of us that we apparently have different standards for choosing friends and associates. My best friend in the civil rights movement, Harry Boyte, used to spend hours talking to a guy named Hoss Manucy, who was the head of the Klan in St. Augustine, Florida (and who was also a Catholic with little apparent sense of irony). This was during the Summer of 1964, when gunfire was in season in the aftermath of the wade-ins in the Atlantic Ocean (white only beaches were a fact of life back then). By the end of the Summer, he hadn't converted "old Hoss," but he'd planted a seed of thought in him, which was all that you could do. I used to do the same thing all the time back at Duke, and with better long range results, since I was only trying to convert Goldwaterites and Dixiecrats, not Klansmen.

The point is that you can either write people off, or see the glass as being half full and try to work on the empty part. The standards for personal friendship aren't always so easy to measure as they are in politics. But then of course that's just my own way of looking at it, which apparently Obama shares and you don't. Fair enough.

Then again, if mere association is enough for the smear, then what do we say when McCain seeks out the political endorsement of nutty pastors like Hagee and Rod Parsley, and appears at public campaign events with each of them, and praises them? You have to be inclined to think he has no problem associating with people who believe crazy, offensive things. Things like: God sent Katrina to punish New Orleans because it was planning a gay pride parade (Hagee). Or things like: America was founded, in part, to destroy the "false religion" of Islam (Parsley).

The criteria was "close, 20 year relationship", as you would know if you actually read my post. I fully expect politicians to pander to objectionable types in search of votes or money. Democrats kiss Al Sharpton's ring. Republicans make nice with Pat Robertson. They're both loathsome characters, but typically the relationship is perfunctory. Politicians show up, say a couple of nice things, grab the money/votes, and move on. Obama's relationship with Wright was personal and went way beyond a photo-op, or a couple of campaign meet and greets, and that's why it's still an issue.

Democrats should certainly feel free to bring up McCain's ties to wacky christian fundamentalists, but they won't get any traction because people realize the relationships are different.

But my more charitable side says that in her few reflective moments, she has to be realizing the price she's paying for her obsessive ambition, and she has to be realizing how she's going to go down in history for her sorry performance. And that's why it almost seems like an act of mercy to wish that she'd just drop dead.

It's been a despicable performance by her and her race-baiting henchfolk since January.

Beyond that, it borders on depressing to see the mess into which our institutions -- particularly the media -- have descended. Their role in society now is essentially that of carnival promoter and one wonders how things got this way.

I stick by my belief that if it wasn't Wright, Obama was going to be smeared by association with some other "fiery," "controversial" black man, irrespective of ... well, anything.

So the issue is not that Obama held a close relationship with Wright for 20 years; the issue is that everyone who questions this association is racist.

Got it.

I'm sure as heck no fan of Hillary Clinton, but for the life of me I can't figure out what in the world she has to do with the fact that Jeremiah Wright is going on his nationwide Unplugged tour, calling in his favors, and letting everyone know what his idea of the pecking order is.

It woudln't surprise me if Hillary's people were behind getting him out there.

EDIT: Two posts later confirmed. Should have waited. Of course it was Hillary's people.

Things like: God sent Katrina to punish New Orleans because it was planning a gay pride parade (Hagee).

Well in that case, McCain says the idea's nutty and everyone moves on. After all, white people each have their own views. Black people, well you just know they think mostly alike regardless of what they may say.

And McCain, as everyone can tell, isn't black.

While I'm sure her surrogates are taking advantage of the issue, she could tell them to all stand down right now and there would still be plenty of people hammering away at the Wright issue. Last I checked, Bill Kristol was not a "Hillary surrogate."

Better check again, because your first check missed completely.

Obama's relationship with Wright was personal and went way beyond a photo-op, or a couple of campaign meet and greets, and that's why it's still an issue.

That's the fig-leaf to distinguish the two situations, but hardly enough to make it still an "issue." It's your quintessential distinction without a difference.

Just to keep the discussion on the plane of pure political calculation, the chance that this will gain Hillary the nomination is slim. The chance that this will hurt Obama in the general election is considerable.

And this simply doesn't make any difference to her. Hillary was willing to throw Iraq under the bus in 2002--compared to that, the Democratic party is chump change.

To clarify, if I'm Obama I now break with Wright not because of the particular content of what he's saying this week, but because Wright has demonstrated he's incapable of acting as a good friend.

To clarify, if I'm Obama I now break with Wright not because of the particular content of what he's saying this week, but because Wright has demonstrated he's incapable of acting as a good friend.

He should just leave it alone. At this point it is what it is, and it was always going to be something like this anyway. The Clintons weren't going to lose without these kind of smears, and neither are the Republicans.

If Jeremiah Wright didn't exist, he would have been invented.

The whole argument about what he should do presupposes rationality in both the reasons why it's an "issue" and in what he can do to "neutralize" the issue. Neither is present.

It woudln't surprise me if Hillary's people were behind getting him out there.

EDIT: Two posts later confirmed. Should have waited. Of course it was Hillary's people.

According to that blog post, "Hillary's person" first floated the idea of having uncle Jerry at the Press Club two years ago, and apparently the idea got rejected because he wasn't seen as being newsworthy back then. Needless to say, he's a lot more nationally noteworthy now, so it got accepted this time around.

Personally, I wouldn't feed my neighbor's dog with gruel that thin. But if you guys really need to believe that uncle Jerry is now Hillary Clinton's stalking horse, whatever, knock yourselves out.

It takes an especially thoughtful man to stand by the assertion that AIDS is a government conspiracy for the purposes of black genocide.

This is what makes him a vile person? Or is it just the assorted anti-americanism. If you think being anti-american makes you "vile" - well then you have a low standard of vileness. Certainly his comments on 9/11 could be considered "insensitive"... but vile? The US has been making enemies in the Middle East for 40 years. Sometimes your enemies get a croch shot in on you.

But lets take the comment above re: AIDS/genocide.
We all know that it's HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that the US Govn't has a systematic policy of using AIDS to kill black people. We can certainly throw out the idea that the virus was created in a lab, or otherwise cultivated as a biological weapon.

BUT... this is a government and a country with a long history of oppressing black people. And still has laws aka "Sentencing guidelines" which disproportionately affect poor blacks. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Also, governments since Reagan have systemically attempted to suppress condom distribution, needle exchanges and sex education programs. Do you think these things help, or hurt the spread of AIDS? Do you think that the effects are greater among poor and black populations?

Does this make Wright correct? Of course not. He's crazy. The US Government is a noble and progressive institution, we should give it more money, not less.

I don't agree with all of what Wright says. But maybe my standard of vile is just a little higher than yours.

Like, for instance politicians who get innocent people killed for no particularly good reason.

I used to do the same thing all the time back at Duke, and with better long range results, since I was only trying to convert Goldwaterites and Dixiecrats, not Klansmen.

Hmm. Are you saying this is a bad thing, my friend?

I'll say again how much I appreciate that Barry's wisdom grew as he aged. Telling Nixon to drag his sorry carcass out of the White House, learning to favor gay rights, prefering that government not interfere in abortions... my gods, I have no doubt he'd be flamed on this site as a closet liberal!

The whole argument about what he should do presupposes rationality in both the reasons why it's an "issue" and in what he can do to "neutralize" the issue. Neither is present.

True, Bear, but my point was personal. I'd have it out with Wright face to face. Whether and how and I handled it publicly would be a very different matter.

If Jeremiah Wright didn't exist, he would have been invented.

But few people did care about him, until they saw video from his sermons -- not video that came from a political operative's cell phone, but video that came from DVDs that the church itself was selling.

The fact is that he does exist; nobody made up the fact that Obama held a close relationship with him. Again, you're trying to pretend that Obama's choices are somehow reflective of other people.

I used to do the same thing all the time back at Duke, and with better long range results, since I was only trying to convert Goldwaterites and Dixiecrats, not Klansmen.

Hmm. Are you saying this is a bad thing, my friend?

I'll say again how much I appreciate that Barry's wisdom grew as he aged.

So do I, but this was before Barry and some of his fans had undergone either the aging or the wisdom part. This was when their main debating point was comparing public accommodations laws to slavery. You almost had to be there to understand their utter sincerity in all this. To them Lester Maddox himself might as well have been chained to a plantation outhouse without even a corncob to keep him company.

MSNBC reporting that Obama "strongly denounces" Wright.

This is what makes him a vile person? Or is it just the assorted anti-americanism. If you think being anti-american makes you "vile" - well then you have a low standard of vileness. Certainly his comments on 9/11 could be considered "insensitive"... but vile? The US has been making enemies in the Middle East for 40 years. Sometimes your enemies get a croch shot in on you.

Of course it's not "vile." It was insensitive for a time -- a time that's passed in which I haven't heard Wright saying it -- and it's plainly impolitic. For someone like Wright, the sentiment is squarely within the prophetic tradition which, by the way, he should have kept in church.

But lets take the comment above re: AIDS/genocide.
We all know that it's HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that the US Govn't has a systematic policy of using AIDS to kill black people. We can certainly throw out the idea that the virus was created in a lab, or otherwise cultivated as a biological weapon.


Highly improbable. He obviously believes it though, at least to the extent he's willing to repeat it outside of church. And he's free to say it.

Obama obviously has said neither of these things nor evinced even the slightest indication that he agrees with them. The only reasonable conclusions as to why that continues so vociferously and stubbornly not to matter are, in no particular order: (1) because he's black; and (2) because the media is a joke.

Yeah, Hillary has nothing at all to do with fanning the Wright flames. Absolutely nothing. Poor little Hillary has been an innocent bystander in all this.

Hillary could have addressed the whole Wright issue in about five minutes,

Andy, what Hillary could or should have done is not the same thing as what did she do exactly that fits into your fanning the flames comment. Or is omission part of it?

The fact is that he does exist; nobody made up the fact that Obama held a close relationship with him. Again, you're trying to pretend that Obama's choices are somehow reflective of other people.

No, but it's clear that the reaction to the whole thing is reflective of other people.

"Close" is in the (mostly biased) eye of the beholder. A close or insufficiently distant relationship with some other (probably "fiery and controversial") black man would have been posited by those of a certain persuasion, whether or not Wright existed.

Picking up on JC's lead...

Obama said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."

There wasn't anything constructive about it yesterday," said Obama. "All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth and I can't construct something positive out of that."

"At a certain point if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally and then he questions whether or not you believe it, in front of the National Press Club, then that's enough, continued Obama.

"That's a show of disrespect to me, it is also I think an insult to what we've been trying to do in this campaign."

Hmm. Obama must have missed the Bill Moyers interview, which threw Wright into a whole new light...

From Ben Smith's blog on Politico, an excerpt of Obama's latest response on Wright:

"I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That’s in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That’s who I am, that’s what I believe, and that’s what this campaign has been about," Obama said.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," he said.

Obama also distanced himself from the man in a way he has been reluctant to in the past.

"The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," he said. "His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

"They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs," he said.

"If Reverend Wright thinks that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well and based on his remarks yesterday, I may not know him as well as I thought either."

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church," he said. "But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the U.S. wartime efforts with terrorism – then there are no exuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced, and that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."

"It is antithetical to my campaign. It is antithetical to what I’m about. It is not what I think America stands for," he said.

This just in: Presidential hopeful Obama strongly denounces Reverend Wright.

edit: late to the party

Hmm. Obama must have missed the Bill Moyers interview, which threw Wright into a whole new light...

Was there sufficient anger on Obama's face when he made his remarks?

Ah, but does he reject him?

I guess that is strongly.

Well in that case, McCain says the idea's nutty and everyone moves on. After all, white people each have their own views. Black people, well you just know they think mostly alike regardless of what they may say.

That has always seemed like a double standard to me, but I don't think it's entirely unjustified. One difference is exemplied by this: 90%. That's the percentage of the black vote that Obama is getting. When there's that extreme level of racial solidarity, it's not quite as unreasonable to wonder about "thinking mostly alike."

And when you've got someone who's educated, upper class, and privileged, like Obama, and he decides to lower himself to hang out with people like Wright, that reinforces that notion.

He rejects and denounces, presumably.