It was a terrific speech. Clarifying, educating, profound.

Who has accused the Obamas of "cheering 9/11" because of their relationship with Wright?  Talk about your straw man -- the question has merely been how much and at what time did Obama know of Wright's views, how much he bit his tongue out of friendship for the man, and how appropriate that is.  Do whites really misunderstand the dynamic of black churches on something like "the government hatched an AIDS conspiracy to commit genocide on us"?  For all the historic injustice that whites have done to African-Americans, is this something whites need to make allowances for, or something they can fairly say demands "renouncing the individual."? It's not an easy question -- I don't demand it of Obama, but I'm not sure he clarified that much but rather expressed how anguishing it is to be in that position.  

"Wright's views on race and patriotism, whether we like it or not, are a heightened rendition of a state of mind not uncommon among black Americans."

Oh, you mean that Wright's vituperative stupidity reflects a common black mindest?  Yeah, well, I guess that's something for non-blacks to worry about, but certainly not feel guilty about.

"I've been wondering whether the dust-up over Obama and Wright was mere political hardball or based on actual misunderstanding of black community dynamics. Obama has now clarified the latter, to an extent that ought to satisfy any reasonable listener."

Oh, so not buying Obama's apologetic makes one not a "reasonable listener".  Well, this not-reasonable listener sees a marked similarity between "actual misunderstanding of black community dynamics" and the lectures we get about how we misunderstand Muslim "community dynamics" whenever we express outrage at yet another Muslim barbarism.

Ah, there's that pesky Muslim nexus again.  As if we didn't already have Farrakhan-groupie Wright to remind us.

Maniacs. Obama is a resourceful liar.

Okay, lymon, so I'm not supposed to be worried about whether Obama actually cheered 9/11, but only about how close he was to someone who did?  But since we've already eliminated the possibility that Obama actually did feel that 9/11 was justified by American foreign policy, then why should I care?  This is a serious question.  The only responses I can think of are:

1) You shouldn't vote for someone who has crazy friends.  

2) The fact that Obama allowed himself to be close to someone who will be a political liability shows he's naive and inexperienced.

Well, reason number two is too cynical for me, not to mention a bit meta.  And I just don't buy number one.  Hell, I'd vote for someone even if they were friends with jm_rice.

Oh please, lymon.  Plenty of people here have taken the position that Obama essentially endorsed all of Wright's crackpot ideas, and even the caricatured version of those ideas, -- e.e., that we "deserved" 9/11 -- by not leaving the congregation.

The question has not in the slightest been "merely how much and at what time did Obama know of Wright's views."  The question is whether that makes it legitimate to attribute those views in some way to Obama.

People say all sorts of things in social and communal situations that nobody bothers to denounce because we are members of a community.  I hear people make racist remarks of one sort or another with some frequency.  I am repelled.  I don't feel moved to denounce them.  To denounce the Rev. Wright would have been to denounce the community he leads and it hardly seems that Wright's offenses merit that, if that is you remove the political overlay.  Not even clear that the man merits that given the positive work that he does and the positive aspects of his message.  One can disagree without in effect telling some one that they cannot hold those views and belong to the community.

In a political context, it is legitimate to ask whether the candidate agrees with those views.  Obama has been unequivocal in saying no and nothing about his life's conduct gives the slightest reason to believe that he is dissembling when he says no.  That should be the end of it.  Where the relationship is political, as is the relationship of McCain and Falwell, it makes it legitimate to ask whether McCain shares those views, and if he doesn't, why he is willing to exploit the obnoxious views of Falwell for political gain.

In a nutshell, why must Obama denounce and reject Farrakhan while McCain gets to cuddle with the equally loathsome Jerry Falwell?  No answer has yet been given to that question.

Similarly, if Hillary had both rejected Ferraro's race-baiting statement and promptly severed the relationship of her campaign to Ferraro, to make clear that she will not seek to profit from the association with Ferraro and her remarks, I would have thought Ferraro an ass and taken no issue with Hillary.  It would not have been necessary for Hillary to engage in a long series of denunciations of Ferraro or tell her she must leave the Democratic party, or leave the Democratic party because Ferraro is in it.

One needs to have a sense of proportion or all moral claims turn to gibberish.

Exactly jm rice,

One can deplore Moslem fanaticism without losing all reason and ability to discern what things we ourselves might or might not be doing that cause either justified or needless offense to Moslems.  I can tell you that if I were Iranian, I would still be pissed at America's creation of and support for the Shah.  If I were from the Arabian peninsula, I would be outraged by American support for the repressive Saudi regime.  If I were a Pakistani, I would be pissed as hell at American support for Musharraf.  Not of that cuts any ice with you. You consider that we Americans can do whatever we damn please, at whatever cost to anyone else, to secure our "interests" in anything that interests us, be it oil, strategic advantage, whatever.  And if that pisses people off, then we profess to be stunned and outraged that anyone could possibly take offense at poor little us.

In a similar vein, one can deplore Wright's extreme claims and statements without losing all reason and ability to discern that there is some justice in his critique of the ways in which white America has treated blacks and in a variety of ways continues to do so.

I'll say this, however, when it comes to the offenses of people who are not white Americans, your prejudices are consistent.  The fault always lies with them exclusively.

Ratner: if you re-check my post, you'll see that your "#2" misstates what I said was the issue here -- there's a sliding scale between three factors.  Otherwise what you are saying is that there is ***nothing*** so repugnant to you that you'd expect Obama (or anyone) to disavow the church and move on.  What if we learned that Wright consistently preached virulent homophobia and Obama knew it, stayed in the church, kept giving financial support, etc. -- you'd tell a gay voter (or anyone) that they shouldn't hold that against them?  (For the record, wright/Trinity has no such record, in fact it appears just the opposite).  

Roger Simon notes that Obama never said whether he spoke to Wright about these topics.  If not, it's disappointing, because it means Obama knew they were being spread by Wright through his ministry and as Trinity's only U.S. senator in the congregation, you'd think he'd have the opportunity.  Anyway, as I said before, this isn't a dealbreaker for me, but the AIDS-as-white-genocidal-conspiracy remark struck me as something very different than "whites don't know what it's like to be black" or even the 9/11 leftism and I think Obama is trying to have it both ways: disavowal once the media shitstorm hits, but able to preserve the relationship with a man he clearly loves and respects.  As with his claim that he speaks political hard truths but actually doesn't, the reality falls short of the wonderful and inviting rhetoric.  

Roid:  Really, who has said this?  And if some crackpots have, that's hardly been the main/overwhelming focus of this controversey.  

We differ: I once had a close friend make deeply racist-remarks.  I challenged him, he didn't back down.  It didn't affect anyone in our mutual circle of friends, but it ended our friendship.  

And that, lymon, is where you need to have a sense of proportion.  Why didn't you leave your circle of friends, the one's who didn't denounce your racist former friend?  Was not their unwillingness to denounce him condoning him?  Was not your unwillingness to denounce them condoning him?  Why were you not working to see that this man was shunned by everyone?

We draw lines lymon.  It is important to have a sense of what is right and wrong.  It is also necessary to know where to draw the line.  Otherwise morality turns into zealotry, witchhunts, McCarthyism.

I've been friends with (or at least a friendly acquaintance of) all sorts of repulsive people, lymon: racists of all stripes, religious fundamentalists of both Christian and Islamic persuasion, anti-Semites, homophobes, people who want to take away the right of women to vote.  Seriously.  But I'm strange like that.

If I met a man with racist friends, I would be concerned because I would worry that he might be racist.  If he isn't, then I'm not interested in whether he rejects or denounces them.  Again, that may just be a personality quirk of mine.

But the fact is, nobody can go through life insisting that their friends be completely morally pure.  And if someone could, I wouldn't trust him.  The slippery slope goes in both directions: would you dump a friend because he made a Polish joke?  Because he hated the French?  Because he said he would throw up if he watched Brokeback Mountain?  

Roid: I didn't know I had turned into McCarthy.  Your analogy is so inapt I'm surprised you even make it.  In any event, I didn't have any other close friends in that circle (this was college, he was the only other undergrad engineer in a lounge at the Union), but I guess if he were "President of the Union Lounge Friend Club" I would have had to resign too.  That's not "guilt by association" -- Wright *was* the association.  

Yes, we draw lines.  As I said, your previous statement taken as it is written means there's *nothing* Wright could have preached/advocated that you'd find too offensive to blame Obama for holding his tongue.  

ratn: Oh come on, there's a HUGE difference between "morally pure" and "deeply racist."  As I said, we draw lines.  I'd probably be more upset by a "cheap Jew" or "dirty Latino" joke than a French joke because the history (past and current) of the groups (show me some suffering by French expats here and I'll reconsider).  And if you really are friends who are deeply anti-semitic/racist/hate women so much they truly want to take their right to vote (NOTE: I realize you qualify the term to "friendly acquaintance"), then yes I'd say you're supporting such bigotry because you're helping to define the line of what's acceptable in society.  

I smell a rat.

lymon- You make a very good point.  People get much more upset over "cheap Jew" and "dirty Latino" than they do over "drunk Irishman" or "smelly Frenchman."  And with good reason: social context matters.  And the social context to Wright is that the crazy stuff he says is believed by a very large sector of the black community.

So imagine if half the engineers in your department said horrible stuff.  What do you do?  Do you and all the right-thinking people cut them out, shove them away, segregate them and let their racism fester?  Or do you recognize that they are people, people with crazy beliefs that they got from somewhere, and people who probably have lots of redeeming qualities to balance against their racism?

Beliefs are ephemeral things.  Most people, including myself, believe some pretty wacky stuff.  But when it comes down to it, it's not so much what you believe that matter, it's how willing you are to sit down with another human being and have a meal without attacking him.

I really have been friends with some crazy people and I didn't mean for "friendly acquaintance" to be a wishy-washy qualifier to that.  Here's a story.  When I was in Basic Training in the Army, the guy in the bunk above me was Private Rich.  He was a pretty decent guy, if a little rough around the edges.  He covered for me once when I was late to formation.  Then one day, he offhandedly mentioned that he thought giving women the right to vote was a terrible idea.

Well, he didn't think that because he was an evil person.  He thought that because that's what he had been conditioned to think.  I guess I could have disowned him or renounced or rejected him, but what the hell purpose would that have served?  

Loyalty, man.  You can fault me for a lot of things, but I'm loyal to people.  And I'm not going to judge Obama harshly because he possesses what I believe to be one of the most important character traits a person can have.

A better example: when I was living in Middle East, virtually everyone I met believed something crazy.  At some point, I came to realize that the true divide isn't between people who think America is evil and those who don't.  The truly significant divide is between people who will shoot an American and those who won't.  

Ratnerstar, I completely agree and think you make a very valuable point when you say that the truly significant divide is between people who will shoot an American and those who will not. Having grown up in Eastern Europe myself, I have my fair share of experience with off-beat, hysterical, overtly nationalistic and otherwise inflamed attitudes. Heck, I spent my formative years in the midst of a bitter war that accompanied the disintegration of Yugoslavia - and lets just say that a decade of brutal conflict tends to produce individuals who exemplify rationality gone wrong. I disassociate myself with a vast majority of crazy attitudes I grew up around but am little inclined to denounce the actual people - much in a vein of someone who disagrees with the behavior of a friend, but continues to love them anyway. What ultimately matters really is tolerance. If we could all agree to disagree and, moreover, refrain from foisting guilt by association upon people who befriend those we happen to differ from, this world really would be a better place.

Obama stands in stark contrast to the shallowness and political opportunism of Hillary Rodham Clinton. In one sense, all that really matters is that this moment in a highly charged campaign is a transcendent moment. It will have historical impact (win or lose) long after this election is over. Obama has turned an atmosphere of race-baiting and dirt-mongering into a uniquely "teachable moment." We will see what comes of it in political terms, but its real implications are far bigger than mere politics.

Words do matter.

BUT context also matters.  Different racially/ethnic/religious groups have different ways of speaking without it meaning the same thing.

People often react to me as if I am off the wall because my tone is NY Jewish and I am a woman who speaks her mind and I am also a Slav by birth so I tend to extreme rhetoric.  So what?  Well some rhetoric leads to murder and some rhetoric leads to letting off steam.  In the African-American community a lot of rhetoric has been letting off steam... otherwise we would still be having a lot more racial problems than we now do.

Obama's speech to my "hearing" was nuanced, intelligent and decent.  We need more not less of that kind of speech.  We also need to try to "hear" and to "see" through the prisum of each other's  world view, historic, tonality.  In other words we all need to cut each other some slack.  Obama's speech was a good one in that direction.

Jkolic... right you are... I too have the unfortunate Yugoslavia in my background and blessedly, the US of A is no Yugoslavia... and Obama of all people seems to know and understand the difference.

Since it’s become known that I was (and am) a supporter of Barack Obama, as indicated in this magazine