Galston,

I denounce, reject, and disown you.  You are no longer a member of my faith.  Wherever you go, I shall hound you with denunciation.

Feel better?

This strikes right at the heart of who Obama is. He has principles, he takes stands on those principles, but he doesn't reject people. It explains why he had one of the most liberal voting records around yet is respected across the aisle as someone who understands the other person's point of view and isn't a divisive ideologue. And it explains why he has relationships with unsavory people without feeling that he should have to explain or justify himself, or actively distance himself from views which he knows he doesn't share.

Whether this works for him or not is an open question, but I didn't wonder if Obama shared Wright's views upon hearing Rev. Wright's statements because I already understand this aspect of the senator's character, the live-and-let-live quality.

Like someone else said in another post, clearing what is required is for Obama to stand over Wright's corpse, pissing on and attacking him with a hacksaw.  Nothing less will do.

Clearly Obama's core problem is that he doesn't behave like us Jews, shrieking at each other in blogs, our synagogues, the editorial pages, political magazines and such.  He should model himself after Joseph Lieberman.

AMEN. Sanity, at last. More like this, pls.

Love the Whitman quote, too: could not be more apt, given the orgy of onanism staged by Obama's teary-eyed worshippers here at TNR these past 30 hours or so.

Interesting. I know that I would be hard pressed to reject my mentors, one in particular who has had more influence and impact on my life than some of my deadbeat and prison held cousins. He is a hard left college prof and if I were running for President - isn't that a scary thought - the media, particularly the conservative media, would have a field day with my compadre, who, like me, is Latino. Would I disown him if he said something along these lines? I would tell him that he is full of shit and to knock off this shit or my size 12 will be planted on his ever growing ass. But disown him? F that. Not to get the votes of people who would never vote for me anyway and who have spent months searching, probing, prodding for a legit reason to dismiss my candidacy.  Obama is a better man that I. My response would be...kiss my ass.

Galston may be thoughtful and well intended but what he asks is, ultimately, something that is rarely asked of other Presidential candidates.  Obama is running for the Presidency, not Wright. I cannot think of one other situation where the words of a supporter sunk the candidacy of a prominient Presidential candidate. Not one.

jaunty - cf Ron Paul.

"AMEN. Sanity, at last." teplukhin, above

"could not be more apt, given the orgy of onanism staged by Obama's teary-eyed worshippers here at TNR" teplukhin again, same post, further down.

"Sanity"  id.

moderation?

jaunty,

That's because there haven't been any prominent black Presidential candidates before. Didn't you see the video? By virtue of his skin color and the fact that he isn't Clarence Thomas or Ward Connerly, Obama is a black power extremist.

Well, at least they're not calling him a Muslim anymore.

Obama is a naif.

Standing by a friend? The First Rule of Politics: Toss the friend overboard at the first sign of trouble. Good example: Cheney tosses Libby into the drink and doesn't look back.

Show us you have the knack for treachery, Barack!

We need an amoral sophisticate at the helm, someone we can trust to distrust.

(And I love the GOP carping about the need for experience...this is the party that gave us Dan Quayle and George Bush!)

Yuck.

This post crystalized for me the basic disconnect I've felt regarding l'affaire Wright. There are two ways in which various of the snippets of Wright's sermons have been "troubling": (1) Theological arguments that sound "anti-American"; and (2) Non-theological arguments based on false conspiratorial ideas of American history and government.

The former, the "God damn America" bits, that have generated the most outrage. But, ironically, such statements are not controversial within the context of biblical monotheism. When God speaks to nations in the Bible, he speaks to rebuke, to damn, sometimes to punish, but always to call to greater fealty to a proper relationship with God and among people. White ministers of most denominations regularly discuss the degree to which America's failings (most often in terms of abortion, divorce, and homosexuality, rather than racial injustice or militarism) draw upon our nation deserved rebukes from the almighty. They may not say the words, "God damn America," but their theological point is the same.

My basic response to the outrage over Wright's "God damn America" preaching has been to wonder whether anyone actually reads the Bible anymore. Jeremiah, Joel, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah -- many of the Prophets of the Bible would today preach much the same message.

The latter, the insinuations that AIDS is a white conspiracy or that the drug scourge is a government conspiracy to keep the black man down and so forth, those are the things that trouble me. Yet I have encountered scant outrage over the paranoiac element of Wright's sermons as excerpted in the televised media this last week. However, this is the aspect that Obama addressed most directly in his speech.

CharlesFosterKane,

You wrote of Obama's "live-and-let-live quality." That's perfect--the aptly-tightened string vibrates from the tuning fork of truth.

As an imperfect human, I know a lot about live and let live. You have to, in these shoes, or you can't live with yourself. I hate what Wright said, but I have done far worse. Let us not forget whom Jesus loved. Not a perfect soul amongst them.

Every U.S. Prime-certified asshole who has ever crossed my path has taught me something, even unwittingly, often something that turned out to have great value. Don't mean I have to love the guy, just to listen, reject 99% off the top, and parse the rest.

We need every Reverend Wright, every Louis Farrakhan, every David Duke, every John Hagee, every Ann Coulter, every Bill O'Reilly, every Rush Limbaugh, that the septic fields of American discourse can throw at us. We need their precious gifts as surely as Jesus needed Judas.

If Obama is to be faulted, it is that he has been unafraid to out himself as the candidate with the most intelligent grasp of all of democracy's breathtaking implications, including the least convenient, in my lifetime, or what I remember of it.

tomeg - I ain't no moderate. Them's fightin' words, son. [psst, Jaunty - give the man a Mr Cookie for me]

Obama is a pol. As an ambitious young afr-amer pol seeking to vault himself over other ambitious southside Chicago afr-amer pols, he chose a Big Dog/Key Influencer and sucked up to him. For many years.

THere's nothing terribly surprising, or even terribly WRONG with that. It's what politicians do, whether it's in Berkeley or South Boston or the West Bank or North London. We get it, Obama.

You're a _politician_, we're adults, so stop treating us like teenibopper boyband groupies and dispense with all the BS, already.

roidubouloi you are a real screwball, you also a pest.

Unlike William Galston I don't intend to vote for Obama and not just because of Wright, but I very admired his take on the speech.

tep,

Ron Paul was "felled" - can you truly fell a thin reed? - by his own words, or at least words that were linked with his byline.

As far as I could tell, bad ass Wrigt was on that stage solo and no BO in sight, unless you count the cream dreams of the rabids who envisions BO, rocking in the pews, fist in the air, shouting, no roaring anti American epithets in fluent ebonics...

williamyard, great post. I will be happy to vibrate your tuning fork of truth anytime -- which I guess makes me a front-runner for governor of New York or New Jersey.

What? Shouting "CHANGE" and "Hillary is a racist who will stop at nothing to deprive me of my God given right to be President" are not enough?

I guess this is what Obama deserves, given that simultaneously he lives, moves and speaks in two worlds (or three), yet strictly is of neither. You might say with some justification that he is a foreigner: though born in Hawaii was raised abroad in Indonesia by a white woman, until he was 10 yrs. old.

You could say "so what?" again, with justification. Lots of Americans weren't born or raised here, nonetheless they are "100% American," entirely in sync with prevailing attitudes. Obama speaks and believes as one who is marginal among the marginal, an American among Americans (not at all to pity or curry sympathy), as he looks within and without from his viewpoint. This is one of the unique qualities that distinguishes him as American, and African-American. He claims African-American is his chosen world and world-view, but that is only half correct when viewed objectively; as it were from the outside.

So he pledges allegiance to the America of his birth; to the collective identity "African-American," and he stands for the principle that each is a part of the whole, yet also the whole itself. He rejects the notion that to be American you must choose to be American, to the diminishment or subordination of other identities. It makes sense and feels right for him, but suggesting that all Americans would benefit to consider embracing that possibility themselves. It's a tall order for many if most people to contemplate. Many if not most would (with justification) reject the idea altogether, even to the point of declaring it to be "un-American" and unworthy of someone who seeks election to the Presidency, who more than symbolically pledges h(er)imself to serve one allegiance, one people, one identity.

In other words, among many other reasons, Obama may be thought unfit for the office by virtue of who and what he is, a diversity and not an amalgamation.

"And they will wonder how a campaign built on the political centrality of unifying rhetoric can argue that good deeds somehow counterbalance divisive hate speech from a minister in a position to influence the views of thousands of parishioners?"

I don't know about anyone else here, but I do not have the choice to associate only with those who never disagree with me, even in offensive ways.  My wife, my co-workers, the friends I keep - all of them hold views, and occasionally announce them, that I find objectionable.  I assume this to be a symmetric condition.  Yet I choose to remain associated with all these people because the sum of their character is decidedly positive.  I don't see how I can do other.  And, I don't see how I can hold a public person, such as Obama or Wright to a different standard.

Shall we want a president who refuses to treat - even to enter into mutual deals with - the leader of China or Russia, because they are objectionable?  How about the leader of the opposing party?  Do we want them to no befriend, at some level, these people?

Galston wants to know what Obama did in private, to remonstrate with Wright.  What he did in private, is just that, private.  I would not insist that he divulge it, nor do I think he could ethically do so.

Obama rejects Wright's bombast.  Rightly.  Completely.  'nuff said.

tep, I get it, your no moderate and that's fine w. me, wouldn't change a thing. But I think, for some of the rest of us, from time to time, you can become too immoderate for words. In any case I was only poking fun. (I continue to learn by long experience, however, that my "fun" is frequently misguided, to my everlasting disappointment and sorrow.)

First, CFK, you are exactly correct.  Not throwing people who disagree with him under the bus is what Obama is all about.  It's what he has been saying all along.

Second, Mr. Galston, I beg you and all the others who have been faulting Obama for not abandoning Rev. Wright to please recognize that there is a BIG distinction between Rev. Wright and a hate-spewer like Rev. Farakhan.  Obama rightly denounces and rejects Farakhan outright because the Nation of Islam is an an unabashed hate group whose theology teaches that whites and basically evil incarnate.  This is NOT Rev. Wright.  Rev. Wright's comments, or at least the ones I've heard, all castigate the perceived white power structure that Rev. Wright and many blacks like him believe runs this country and is evil.  This is distinctly different than saying that whites as an ethnic group are evil.  For heaven's sake you guys there were plenty of white members of Rev. Wright's church sitting in the pews listening and nodding their heads to his perceived "racist" comments.  They and anyone who bothers to listen to what Rev. Wright says rather than assume what they think he is saying knows that his anger, misdirected and wrongheaded as it is, is directed not at any particular ethnic group but rather at the governments of the U.S. and perhaps Israel.

Therefore, the reason Obama can honestly and correctly not reject and renounce his 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright, the reason how Obama could maintain a friendship with Rev. Wright, the reason that he can continue to admire and consider Rev. Wright as a mentor is because Rev. Wright IS NOT A RACE HATE-MONGER!  Unpatriotic, perhaps.  Misguided, yes.  Overly negative about the American power structure accepting minorities, yes.  But race hatred?  Most definitely not.

Furthermore, Rev. Wright's disgust with the white power structure he perceives controls this country is based, understandably, on his years of experience with government endorsed and condoned racism.  Is it any wonder he is so angry and not prone to think the best of our government?  One of the points of brilliance of Obama's speech is that Obama recognizes that Rev. Wright's personal experience growing up in a racist nation has caused him to be overly critical of the post-segregation American government and that the correct thing to do with someone like Rev. Wright is not to conflate him with Louis Farakhan and send him to the rubbish bin, but to accept him with his warts and all and perhaps do something to change his view.  Like, perhaps... I'm just throwing this out there... becoming a U.S. Senator and then winning the Presidency of the supposedly racist government of America?  Just a thought.

But I'm not saying anything new here.  Obama made every one of these points in his speech.  

You give them ears but they do not hear.    

I think you have to consider the fact that different religious microcultures have different expectations and practices, and that extends to how much or little a particular congregation might dialog about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a sermon. Just as it sounds very reasonable for your congregation to question and challenge (to be interactive about) something you've just heard, it could also sound very reasonable in another context that the norm is the acceptance of the truth that each pastor has his own opinions, and the filtering of that information for personal use. It's the same in the educational world; at some places, in some classrooms, students are encouraged or take it upon themselves to react to what the teachers say. At others, students are expected to listen to the professor and their personal feelings and opinions about the lesson are regarded as their own.

I ask y'all to forgive my frequent lapses of grammar and syntax. For whatever reasons, writing coherently has taken a turn for the worse, where I can see a mistake but not "recognize" or retain it in memory. Frustrating.

jackson,

You're a real asshole, and more like a pestilence than a pest.

"Obama rejects Wright's bombast.  Rightly.  Completely.  'nuff said"

No he didn't, not when it was to his political advantage to suck up to Wright. This is simple. Politicians use people for reasons of political expediency, and get rid of them when the reverse is true. There is nothing wrong or shocking or weird about that. It's what POLITICIANS DO. Especially well-educated young politicians seeking to avoid the charge of being "inauthentic" in the eyes of a particular tribe.

Could we please cease with all the psychoanalysis and endless parsing of Race Relations in America?

I see the self-appointed moral scold and cyber vigilante of so many posts, roidubouloi, is back telling us who to take seriously, and thinking that somehow he should be.  

The same ass who called Ferraro a "desiccated" old woman and defends a religious fascist like Wright tries to take the moral high ground.  Humorous maybe, hypocritical most definitely.

Most of the people who post here offer reflective, intelligent, interesting comments, but like every unmonitored site we have one nut case who spends half his life here with in your face remarks that would result his being punched silly if he weren't hiding behind the safety of a computer screen.  

Don't bother to respond dubbully I won't bother to read it.  

roid, jack - chill, or take it elsewhere pls

My father disowned me because I am in an interracial marriage. I have, from time to time, over the years, attempted to reach out to him. (ironically, at the urgings of my wife).

I honestly don't believe that my attempts to have a connection with him, to honor the good things about him, to remember with gratitude some of the good things he did as a parent, in any way indicates that I support or excuse or endorse his racism. Or that I love my wife any less.

By the standards of some here and elsewhere, I should be held accountable for all the bad things about the man, because I refuse to completely reject him.

As has frequently been noted, we all have people we love who are stupid or ignorant, or mean-spirited or wrongheaded.

It was a sublime speech and he skillfully spoke honestly about how people speak to each other when the PC police aren't around. But no one was asking that question. They were asking him when he was going to leave the church? He hasn't and until he does, it's not going to go away.

He's got to leave or get Reverend HIV conspiracy to take early retirement and beg for forgiveness live on Oprah.

Anybody got any polling on how it went down?

tep, my friend, I am confused.  I know that race isn't the issue you want Obama to talk about, and neither do I.  But race is still and issue in America, a huge wound, and as the man said, we'll be endlessly distracted from the real stuff if we never talk about it.   And Obama gave us a mature, subtle and interesting speech.  Take away whetehr or not he really got rid of Wright or whatever.  Who cares?  A politician talked to us about America's deepest issue, about the problem with our country that has been there from the beginning, as if we were adults.  Isn't that in and of itself reason to be happy?  

roidubouloi, no one beats on the real asshole front, nor the fake asshole front, either.

Fell better, now?

If the American people read the Bible more, they wouldn't find Wright's sentiments so strange.

Could we also perhaps agree that it should be ok to say that rich white guys (as opposed to poor white guys, middle class black guys, rich white women, and so on) mostly control this country -- which has the advantage of being the truth?

Could we please also cease politicizing any and every noun and verb. Of course Obama is a politician, and does what all politicians do, but it's also possible he has something worthwhile and pertinent to contribute to race relations at a time when we are seriously considering nominating and electing a black man to the Presidency - and, at the end of the day, whatever anyone might say, Obama remains as black as black can be, no doubt about it - so, yeah, race relations (or Race Relations) is the topic of the day, every day. If he possibly could be other than black, we wouldn't be having this conversation, yes?

Tep- so you disagree with Joe Biden's take on the speech?

I think Obama's choice of the word "disown" - as in I will not disown Reverend Wright - well, I'm not asking him to disown him (although I certainly admit that a lot of people are demanding that or even worse).  

I would ask Obama, if he is going to affiliate himself as closely to Wright as he has over the years, to confront Wright.  Why would Obama not at least call Wright on the phone and say "You've got to stop lying to your own congregation - America did not invent AIDS to oppress the black man!  Stick to the facts - there ought to be plenty enough there to sermonize for a thousand years without making stuff up!"

I mean, if you can't stand up to your own Uncle (or even just a guy who isn't your actual Uncle, just kind of feels like one), how are you going to stand up to a nuke-wielding dictator like Kim Jong-Il?

Jack, you're not in Spineland, so show a little more respect than you are used too. Do we really have to read about assholes?

Get a grip.

bone - yes, amigo, that's reason to be cheerful, but there's this big black cloud on the horizon. No, I don't mean the $ etc, I mean the fact that the people who gave you Swift Boat and Max Cleland, Traitor ads are now salivating at the thought of all the mash-up YouTube videos that ALREADY are making the rounds.

Jonathan Martin of Politico has been doing his job, even as our resident TNR scribes have been falling all over themselves to outdo each other in tributes to the bloviator:

www.politico.com/.../9116.html

GOP sees Rev. Wright as pathway to victory

By JONATHAN MARTIN | 3/19/08 4:49 AM EST  Text Size:    

...Now, with the emergence of the notorious video showing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright damning the country, criticizing Israel, faulting U.S. policy for the Sept. 11 attacks and generally lashing out against white America, GOP strategists believe they’ve finally found an antidote to Obamamania.

“For the first time, some Republicans are rethinking Hillary as their first choice,” said Alex Castellanos, a veteran media consultant who recently worked for Mitt Romney’s campaign.

Even Obama’s much-lauded Tuesday speech, which detailed his relationship with his church and focused on the issue of racial reconciliation, failed to shake the notion that Republicans had been given a rare political gift.

“It was a speech written to mau-mau the New York Times editorial board, the network production people and the media into submission. Beautifully calibrated but deeply dishonest,” said GOP media consultant Rick Wilson, who crafted the 2002 ad tying then-Sen. Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden. “Not good enough.”

...if Michelle Obama’s ["never really proud"] gaffe caused some ripples in the right-wing pond, the Wright videos have detonated the equivalent of a daisy cutter on the conservative landscape, awakening an otherwise dispirited party base.

“I usually get three or four emails a week on Obama,” said Michigan Republican chairman Saul Anuzis Monday. “Today I received more than 10, all of them on his minister.”

Among the e-mails Anuzis received was a link to a mash-up video splicing together Wright’s most extreme comments, Michelle Obama’s statement, footage of Obama not putting his hand over his heart during the anthem at a political event and images of Malcolm X and the two black Olympians in 1968 who raised their fists in the “black power” salute, set to Public Enemy's iconic rap song “Fight the Power.”

The video, titled “Is Obama Wright?” is described as being produced by something called “NHaleMedia,” apparently just a dummy website set up to produce anonymous and homemade videos.

jackson,

I feel much better.  Because the only the that would really worry me would be somehow gaining the respect of a bigot and dimwit like yourself.  As long as you are still spitting, hissing, whining, mewling, cringing, juvenile self, I know I'm okay,

miceelf - my sincere condolences to you about your father. You're not alone; at one point during the civil rights movement when Joe Kennedy Sr and MLK Sr were getting really nasty toward each other, Bobby K took MLK Junior aside and told him, "Well, we all have our fathers, don't we?"

The Obama-Wright association was purely, 100% about political expediency for a young afr-amer pol seeking to bolster his "authentically black" cred with his southside Chicago constituency. Wright served him well during his local political career; now that Wright's a liability to Obama's _national_ career, Obama needs to get rid of him. That's how politics works. No family or other sentiment is involved here.

Which is to say I don't see any connection between this straight-up political reversal and your sad, familial and all-too-familiar situation.

Sorry teplukhin,

I regret that jacksondyer is once again hijacking a thread with his nauseating bile, but it is just not my style to allow a cretinous, jumped-up ignoramous like jacksondyer to engage in his standard abusive behavior without a response that he, despite his evident intellectual and emotional limitations, can actually understand.

Cover your ears and eyes when you see it go by.

miceelf said:

"Tep- so you disagree with Joe Biden's take on the speech?"

Joe who?

roidubouloi said:  "jackson, I feel much better.  Because the only the that would really worry me would be somehow gaining the respect of a bigot and dimwit like yourself.....blah, blah, blah,..."

Yes, we know I am a dimwit and a bigot and so is William Galston and so is anyone who doesn't pray at the Obamarama shrine.

You are one of the Obama apostles preaching the gospel of condescension:

 twit!

Don't bother reading this mhollifield.  You're a dolt.  It would do you no good.

I found Galston's comments so much nonsense, because, despite the careful conditionals, they impose upon Obama a standard of political behavior that has never been met and that in fact cannot possibly be met.  There is no practical means for Obama to follow Galston's "advice" without committing political suicide.  Not to mention that his article was intensely patronizing of Obama, a man clearly several orders of magnitude smarter and more capable than Galston.

My weapon of choice when I read something as thoroughly empty-headed as Galston's piece is sarcasm.  Well done, it usually gets to the point in the fewest possible words.  In this case, I found my own first point likely too obscure for most and so went on to "explain" that what Galston demands is for Obama to eviscerate Wright in a manner that would be (1) totally self-defeating and (2) grossly excessive given the extent and nature of Wright's offense, and (3) out of character for Obama who does not engage in the rhetorical flamefests so beloved here.

Lest the social context of Wright's rhetoric, and the sharp contrast between Wright and Obama, be lost on some in these parts, I called attention to the fact that Obama, despite sitting in Wright's congregation, does not partake of the sort of feverish rhetoric all too common on the Jewish world of which I am a member (I thought that might at least be familiar to some here who have no direct experience of a black congregattion) -- and that this might actually be something to be said in Obama's favor as an aspirant to the highest office in the land.

Nothing about my comments had anything whatsoever to do with anyone else posting here (not least because my comments were at the beginning of the thread).  I regret having to "unpack" my otherwise pithy and clever remarks for those, such as mhollifield, whose benighted, pompous sanctimony so requires.  I also regret that my comments stimulated the "bad jacksondyer" to reemerge after a considerable period during which his other, reasonably civil personality had had the upper hand.  Multiple personality disorder is tricky business.  You never quite know what is going to trigger an episode.  So it goes.

Iggy, actually Wright is retired.  They have a new minister who is much younger.

LOL- Tep. Hey, I was with you for Biden. and thanks for the kind words. Such is life, and its compensations are greater than its costs.

In terms of pastor Wright, well, if you're right about the premise of their relationship, you're right about what he should do. I guess given my own experiences of churchiness in general and black churchiness in particular, make me wonder if it's at all possible that there's a genuine bond there. Presumably, politicians have some genuine human bonds? My impression as well, is that these were relatively isolated comments and not part of Wright's usual schtick. No way of verifying or disproving that. I am inclined to attend sometime in the near future, just to get a sense for myself of what the atmosphere is like. (yes, I know Wright is gone, but presumably if he was preaching like that every sunday, that would relate to the general outlook of the church body).

Agree on the broader issue- sooner we move on to substance the better. Am hoping Obama is able to do that. He's got two Iraq speeches over the next week or so, am hoping for some specifics.

Take your meds jackson before something bad happens to you.

Anon - right, gotcha. Read my name tag. Was that pre all of this?

Tep:  "The Obama-Wright association was purely, 100% about political expediency for a young afr-amer pol seeking to bolster his "authentically black" cred with his southside Chicago constituency. Wright served him well during his local political career; now that Wright's a liability to Obama's _national_ career, Obama needs to get rid of him. That's how politics works. No family or other sentiment is involved here."

I don't know what you base that on.  In your world, apparently, no politician acts sincerely.  You're determined to deny what is different about Obama -- that he is unusually sincere and not a just another whore.  I think that's a good thing.  You either have contempt for that or don't believe it.  You can think that, but then you have to make an argument backing it up.  Cynical sneering disguised as clear-eyed political wisdom isn't an argument -- it's a posture.

Obama thinks that in order to accomplish anything important, you have to bring a lot of people on board.  As much as *you* may think various changes in policy make perfect sense, they are, in reality, hijacked by partisan bullshit that causes people to vote against what they actually want.  They are hijacked by our stupid politics that exploits racial, economic, and religious differences to distract us from the point.  That's not naval-gazing or mere sentiment.  That's, in summary, the whole problem with our politics, and what Obama is addressing, and why he said "he have no choice" but to address it.

Obama wrote the speech himself.

Does anyone know of any speeches McCain or Clinton wrote themselves, and if so, where to find them?

A few comments on this thread refer to Obama getting rid of Wright. That isn't what happened, and he wasn't vague about it. He didn't throw him under the bus, the way we like our politicians to do at the first sign of trouble.

Obama doesn't seem to be the kind of treacherous bastard America hungers for.

mice - I think at this point Obama needs to publicly get rid of the guy. Bring the hammer down. The presidency's on the line.

roidubouloi try posting something original. Your skills as a debater are non existent and I don't intend to spend the rest of the day trading predictable insults with you.

Now, screw!

God bless Mike Huckabee:

And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.

Obama for president, Huckabee for best friend.

hildner,

"You're determined to deny what is different about Obama -- that he is unusually sincere and not a just another whore.  I think that's a good thing.  You either have contempt for that or don't believe it.  You can think that, but then you have to make an argument backing it up.  Cynical sneering disguised as clear-eyed political wisdom isn't an argument -- it's a posture"

Not so, counselor. You make a case for O's sincerity. So let's examine the choices Obama has made re. the associate in question.

Wright has a pulpit from which he voices the opinion that the US government and "rich white people" are deliberately infecting blacks with AIDS in order to wipe out the black population. Prior to this week I have seen no evidence, anywhere, that Obama either criticized, or rejected, or disassociated himself from this line of argument that has been pushed repeatedly and publicly, for years, by Wright.

So that means that Obama either a) finds such arguments unobjectionable, or b) weighed the costs of criticizing/disassociating himself from Wright and found them to be less than the benefits of not criticizing, and continuing  to associate himself with, Wright.

That I opt for explanation b) doesn't make  me cynical; it means I'm an honest and sentient adult.

Again, Obama is a politician. To quote George Costanza, "Not that there's anything WRONG with that", but he and his partisans really need to stop pretending that his candidacy is magically immune to the laws of politics.

Michael Jordan had a great vertical leap, sure. Don't tell me that he could fly. It's not necessary, and it insults the intelligence of ordinary, non-smartypants sensible folks.

roidubouloi -- nothing more than a liberal version of a Paultard. If he starts talking about going to the gold standard, look out!

fou - EUREKA! You've expressed my longing better than I could. I am a full-fledged member in good standing of the Treacherous Bastards Party. Seriously, I want someone who's ruthless and cunning. FDR was. Lincoln was. Churchill was. (for that matter, FDR screwed Churchill over, big time).

Power demands the knife that cuts clean, the clenched mind that chooses, as the poet said. Not the mind that searches out the evil that bores through the world, the lever's slight flaw locking the gear of the universe.

Obama is a poet at heart. He's a wonderful person. But he's just not suited to be Commander-in-Chief.

According to wikipedia, he retired on Feb 10th.

tep,

Ok, if Obama publicly renounces Wright (and Wright's church, which will take it personally, along with >80% of Obama's African American constituency) why are we then to believe anything he has said before or from now on? What would be the premise of his candidacy if that, too, is only calculated? How would we find a genuine bone  in his body, or a moral in his character? Who would vote for him?

For better or worse, Obama has set his seal on the words he spoke Tuesday in such a way that cannot be taken back or finessed. It's better this way, for him and the people who would elect him, that he stick to the path he has taken.

I had a very interesting conversation with one of my lawyers in DC today.  Happens to be a Harvard Law-educated black woman.  She is older than Obama, younger than Wright.  In her own words, she did not have to live through Jim Crow as Wright did but came of age and the end of the period of major civil rights activism.  Naturally, we discussed Obama (and Spitzer).

She was quite clear that Obama-Wright typifies a generational divide within the black community between those who directly experienced de jure segregation and those who did not, and that those who did are respected in the black community even by their juniors who do not share their outlook.  It is understood by later generations that their elders had to endure traumatic experiences that will always mark them to some extent.  For that reason, had Obama "thrown Wright under a bus" as some of the kindler, gentler types here would wish, he would have severed his support from the black community.  Period.

I happen to think that "throwing Wright under a bus" would have been the morally wrong thing to do in any case, for just the reasons that my lawyer explained.  I am prepared to forgive Jews who actually lived through the Holocaust (not vicariously mind you) a certain amount of rage, despair, and extreme rhetoric that I would otherwise not find acceptable.  But, even if you don't believe Obama was behaving in a perfectly moral way, as I do, it is ridiculous to expect him to commit political suicide in order completely to mollify his enemies who will neither vote for him nor do anything but attack him in any case.

I thought it was a beautiful speech.  Thoughtful, respectful of the profound feelings of all, and clear-sighted about the direction the country must ultimately move, one hopes sooner rather than later.  I strongly suspect that those who are not yet mollified can never be mollified.  They oppose him for reasons they already judge more than adequate and find this a useful tool with which to beat him.  And so they do.  I am grateful that this non-controversy, as far as I am concerned, comes too late to rescue Hillary.  If the Republicans choose to make this their campaign, which would certainly be in character for them, I think they will regret it.

Tep- not sure what you mean by "get rid of"- he's already booted him from whatever committee he was a member of. he's already disagreed with the statements in the strongest possible language. perhaps say he'll never speak to him again? I am not sure that's an unmitigated plus politically.

But in terms of Wright pushing these lines repeatedly- what are you basing this on? I've seen exactly three different clips from Wright. I would imagine if there were many more I'd have seen some of them too. Is it at all possible that those statements were actually rare?

Good jackson.  Go do something else.  I have always invited you to ignore everything I say.  No time like the present to start.  I'll even make a deal with you.  Don't ever comment on anything I have to say, simply pretend I'm not here, and I will do the same with you.

On the other hand, any time you want to initiate one of your ridiculous flamefests, you'll always find me game.  Good exercise during those periods when I'm not out in the real world wrestling with Republicans for control of local government.  You will be flattered to know that I apply the "jacksondyer scale" to measure their insults.  If it's jacksondyer quality, a verbal spanking will usually do.  

caaggies, are you sure you want to get into the middle of this?  You get a pass as a first-time offender.  But don't come back for another round.

"What, if anything, did Obama do in response to what he now acknowledges he heard Reverend Wright say? Did he raise his concerns with other members of the congregation? With Reverend Wright himself?"

Yawn.

"had Obama "thrown Wright under a bus" as some of the kindler, gentler types here would wish, he would have severed his support from the black community.  Period."

I seriously doubt that. Of course it would upset many afr-amers, but do you really believe that eight months from now, they would stay home and spite the first afr-amer to ever head a major ticket for president? We're not talking about throwing Jesse Jackson overboard, just a marginal little goofball whom no one knew before last week. What does anyone outside Chicago owe Preacher Goof, anyway?

Treat the public like adults. They understand basic political logic. Especially well-educated people like your HLS friend.

nice - "not sure what you mean by "get rid of"- he's already booted him from whatever committee he was a member of"

Well, I'm no expert in the arts of sackcloth or Going to Canossa but I'd guess a good start would be using the occasion to denounce Wright's most egregious, uh, sin: the spreading of conspiracy theories about the government and HIV. You could make the case that such myths indirectly cost lives, by encouraging at-risk people to think their behavior doesn't have anything to do with the spread of the disease. Obama could make the theme of his conspiracy theories in general, do his OTOH-OTOH both-sides-to-blame shtick if he wants, but very clearly say that anyone who spreads this kind of stuff is spreading poison and should be shunned.

I said the below on a now seemingly dead thread at the Spine under the heading "Cogntiive Dissonance." I am less enthusiastic about the speech than Galston though I fundamentally agree with him. If anyone wants to quarrel with me that of course is perfectly fine, but can certain folks Pasadena the ad hominems:

"Ironyroad, let me say it was a pleasure reading your post, even though I disagree with you, because you make a civil argument.

My criterion of newness is generated by the applause lines the speech itself has received. It is supposedlly brilliant, the most important speech on race in the last 40 years, a historic document, a watershed document and so on. I did not see its brilliance, profundity or importance at those grand levels. So that is what I questioned. I found nothing new in it myself and if there is nothing new in it then I dissent from those plaudits. IFor it was not inspiringly delivered and it was too long. It was wonderfully written to be sure, but I did not think it was particularly well argued and in places, on some issues, I found it, as I have tried to argue, disingenuous and manipulative.

I recognize the inspirational, totemic value of certain speeches, of certain turns of phrase. I don't discount any of that. But those were not the virtues this speech was extolled for, as I read the commentary. It was, to repeat,  intellectually supple, brilliant, food for thought for the most thoughtful amongst us, perhaps too high falutin for the rabble--the welder in Peoria, or whomever, the folks that understand and are moved by rousing rhetoric, as, in fact, am I; it was hailed, as noted, the most important statement on race in half a century.  

So all I say is I don't see it; and I ask someone to point out to me evidence from the speech that supports those hosannas. If they can't be pointed out, then I ask on what basis is the speech great--this is not, I understand, your burden in argument, because you say it is good not great; but I ask regardless where is the beef of its greatness/brilliance. It was no stem winder; it was flatly delivered/read; and I have mysef real problems with its argument and with some of the means by which the argument was advanced.

And the worst, for me, at its core, is that Obama, after all the lyrical eloquence, could not bring himself to repudiate completely a racist, anti-Semitic, purveyor of massive  and paranoid libels, which I find entirely paradoxical, verging on the ironic, for the greatest speech on race since sliced bread."

We reached out to several friends of the magazine to respond to Obama's big speech in Philadelphia

"What, if anything, did Obama do in response to what he now acknowledges he heard Reverend Wright say? Did he raise his concerns with other members of the congregation? With Reverend Wright himself?"

This is an importan question that Obama zombies can't answer. Worse, they don't even know that it needs to be answered.

"friends of the magazine..."

Is this a euphemism for, "Obama supporters?"

tep,

You contradict yourself.  If the black community would, according to you, react with indifference no matter what Obama said, what reason is there to believe that the white community is not equally indifferent -- meaning that there is nothing that Obama could have said that would alter any votes in one direction or the other.  In that case, who cares what he said?  How can you argue that he should have said something else at the same time that you declare that, there could never be any consequence to anything he said because everyone already knows the score?

The only real measure of success in an election is winning the election.  Obama has, in my opinion, spiked the possibility of a public opinion meltdown that might change the outcome of the Democratic convention, meaning Hillary still loses.  It is far too early to tell how this will play out in the general, but I think Obama's language positioned him as well as could be hoped for the general.  My guess is that Wright will only end up being important to the Rush Limbaugh wing of the Republican party that will entertain itself with this throughout the campaign without changing any votes.    

basman,

We will see whether Obama is a more deft politician than you.  You seem to prefer art for art's sake.  Politics is a performance art, and at the end you get the score.  Aesthetics matter only insofar as you get points (votes).  I am prepared to bet that Obama is much better than you at gaging the political needs of the day.  I don't ask or expect any more from him than that.

He did what he needed to do.  It will not satisfy you.  But there is nothing that would satisfy you within the bounds of political reality.

We await your list of those in public life who we are now to shun for their relationships with people who have offensive ideas.  Let the hunt begin.

Another way of thinking about the political effectiveness of the speech: was it a speech or an essay?

tep, (and others)

When I lived in Hyde Park, Obama's church was viewed as the one for "buppies" or black upwardly mobile professionals.  It expressed the least anger of all the churchs which blacks attended.  Wright was remarkable, not for the sentiments now associated with him, but for how seldom he expressed them.  It was certainly not the choice of church that increased the "street-cred" of a black politician.  Quite the opposite; most blacks looked with some suspicion on those who attended.  It would have been all to easy for someone in Obama's position, trying to organize a black community but not "really" black in the eyes of that community, to go to one of the more popular South Side churchs; the fact that he did not was already an act of some courage.  

Obama could have stopped attending church, although if his faith is genuine, that may not really have been an option.  He could have gone to a white church, but that would have ended his political career.  And in the end, Wright really didn't represent the radical, racist side of black culture, so Obama made the best of bad situation.  As he always does.

But he couldn't really say any of that in his speech, so he skirted these issues.  Maybe that's disappointing, but that's politics.

roi, really, get a grip. Obama's won over afr-amer voters. Mission accomplished. He hasn't won over non-college educated non-AA voters.

Thanks, Clifton, for the inside scoop. I don't envy Obama's situation,a dn maybe this is actually the best way he could play it. That said, if Wright's the _upscale_ preacher, lord knows what kind of vitriol spews from the other southside pulpits...

...offensive ideas...

Euphemism in blazing neon.

"I think at this point Obama needs to publicly get rid of the guy."

Since Obama has already "gotten rid" of Wright in both practical terms by removing him from his campaign advisory position and in political terms by denouncing on multiple occasions any disagreeable thing Wright has said, one is forced to conclude that tep means "get rid of the guy" in the mafia sense.

Have we really finally reached the point in which our absurd political dance of guilt-by-association requires the politician in question to kill his suspect associates, in public, with his bare hands? And do Democrats really believe we can win a shoot-your-friends contest with the Republicans?

Sorry tep,

You're just not getting it.  His particular problem was to prevent a meltdown in the polls that could jeopardize the nomination.  Your argument for the voters he "must win over" may or may not be correct, but it was not the problem to be solved on this day.  

I happen to think your argument is over-stated.  If Obama won over "non-college educated non-AA voters" in addition to the voters he already has, the result in the general would be landslide.  It is worth noting here that the various arguments advanced, by you among others, that one or the other cannot win without this bloc, that bloc, or the other are entertaining color commentary but factually wrong.  It is a state by state matter and every vote counts once, with winner take all for the electoral college votes.  Thus, a coalition cobbled together in a given state from a little bit of this and a little bit of that is just fine so long as it is 50% plus 1.  These generalizations about voting blocs are meaningless.  That's also why, in a district voting system, gerrymandering works.  WHERE particular voters are is crucial.  It is also the reason why Hillary's "he cannot win the big states argument" was so much hooey.  Obama will win California and New York even though he lost them to Hillary.  Hillary would lose Texas and most probably Florida to McCain (not that she'll get the chance) even though she beat Obama there.

Your analysis, tep, just doesn't bear much relationship to the real mechanics of winning, first the nomination and then the national election.  A good part of why Obama is beating Hillary is that he, or someone who works for him, sat down and thought about the mechanics concretely while Hillary couldn't be bothered.  I mean, really, her campaign was stunned to learn the Texas primary/caucus rules months after they should have understood them.  

All this analysis and meta-analysis and meta-meta-analysis is pure entertainment.  Obama is winning his war on the ground where it has to be won.  Just wait until the general campaign and McCain makes one gaffe after another while Obama floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee around him.  Wanna take bets on how long it takes for the voters to figure out that McCain is a case of incipient senility?  Assuming that is that the campaign doesn't kill him.

I just listened to a liberal political consultant who offered an interesting take on the speech, one I don't think has been made elsewhere here. He thought Obama should have renounced any church's views or attitudes as a candidate for President of the U.S., in much the same way John Kennedy renounced the Catholic Church's views and policies where they might conflict with his pledge to support the Constitution. He thought it was a mistake that Obama undertook to integrate the African American church experience into his (Obama's) political perspective and positions.

Makes considerable sense to me. My recall is that Obama was first confronted with the controversial statements of Pastor Wright, at which time Obama or his campaign asserted that he attended the church but was not present when those statements were made. When the veracity of his explanation was strongly and persistently questioned, he decided then to announce he would be delivering his speech on race relations, rather than answering the questions and charges themselves. Was the reason for the address to  clarify and expand his views on race relations, or just an artful rhetorical dodge of the questions' implications, that he lied and tried to cover up and got caught in it.

Roid wrote >>A good part of why Obama is beating Hillary is that he, or someone who works for him, sat down and thought about the mechanics concretely while Hillary couldn't be bothered.<<

Well, there's the rub -- one explanation for why Hillary wins the big states and looses the caucus and smaller states is her hideously managed campaign and waste of funds early on.  It's one explanation for the disconnect.  Texas and Ohio seem to show it's not simply "Obama wins when he has time to campaign in a state" (though he did close the gap in Texas, he really didn't move people in Ohio).   But if that's the reason, it detracts a bit from Obama -- he's not winning it as much as she's losing it -- which doesn't bode well for the fall.  

JD writes:  "This is an important question that Obama zombies can't answer. Worse, they don't even know that it needs to be answered."

Yes.

The problem here is that if one doesn't answer the question, one is presumably

(a) an Obama zombie proving that they don't even know the question has to be answered;

(b) an Obama zombie proving that they know, but can't answer the question

(c) a non-zombie Obama supporter who doesn't want to answer the question because jd's comment suggests that all Obama supporters are zombies, and therefore to respond is to so identify oneself.

If, however, one answers the question, one is then presumably

(a) an Obama zombie engaging in a simple act of self-identification,

(b) an non-zombie Obama supporter proving themselves in jd's eyes to be a zombie, but one who

(b-1) does know that the question has to be answered, but can't answer it, or

(b-2) doesn't know that the question has to be answered, and reveals that lack of knowledge in the act of trying to answer it.

Did I get that right?

Either way, doesn't seem to be a lot of space left for a reasonable exchange of views.

No lymon,

There are states where the demographics favor Hillary.  There are states where the demographics favor Obama.  One of the mistakes in all this analysis is treating this like an athletic contest where everyone steps onto a "level playing field" at the outset and then the outcome is determined exclusively by the struggle.  The field in politics is never level.  Hillary had at the outset a huge advantage in name recognition and organization and lead time, as well as support of the party establishment.

He is a much better politician, but in his ability to connect to voters when he speaks and in his understanding of how the game is played, the tactical aspect if you will.  Think of it as the difference between coach and player, except that in this case the candidate is both head coach and player.  Obama's tactics are better than hers, taking much better account of the field and the resources, and his execution is better.  He is a better player.  That is how he has been able to overcome her initial advantages.

There are states, such as Texas, where, had Obama had enough time, he probably could have beaten her.  Ohio was probably always out of reach.  Nothing to despair about that Obama cannot beat Hillary in every state all the time.  He is a terrific pol.  I couldn't ask for more going into the general election.

"caaggies, are you sure you want to get into the middle of this?  You get a pass as a first-time offender.  But don't come back for another round."

roidubouloi -- Way to go, punk. Oh yeah, it's REAL easy to be a tough guy online, huh?

You're a brainwashed idiot, and your Obama-is-God crap is pathetic. So other people don't like like Obama? Well, guess what, joker -- they have the RIGHT to hold contrary views. So learn to live with it.

I agree with Galston, and know I've seen this done somewhere before.

First, you intercept the Reverend and inform him that "there's been a change in plans".  Then, you swiftly rebuff him when he asks to be "let off the hook, for old times sake".  Nothing elaborate, just a quick and curt "Can't do it Rev."

That's how it's done, particularly if he's family.

Wednesday evening, and I've read more comments and analyses of the Obama speech in the last twenty-four hours than I