What audacity, a PRIEST quoting the BIBLE?!?!!??!?!!??

"I hate to go 'I told you so' about Jeremiah Wright, but I think I did."

Happens to the best of us, Dayo. Here's hoping your own TNR friends don't dump as much scorn and nastiness on your head as my TalkBacker crowd has done on mine these last few months.

A nitpick, maybe, but that humorous proverb is attributable to Lincoln (I think--that could be apocryphal), not scripture. Proverbs does say, "Even a fool may be thought wise if he keeps his mouth shut." Maybe Lincoln was paraphrasing the biblical text; but to say Wright had the "audacity to cite Proverbs" isn't really accurate.

The alternate scenario to "just can't keep his mouth shut" is that the good Rev knows exactly what he's doing, and, for whatever reason, is looking to torpedo Obama.

Anybody who builds a parish into the money-making operation that his would appear to be has to be a bit wily.  He may be willful, but I can't imagine he's dumb.

"Further, he's threatening to "come after" Obama if elected--an ugly threat for such a learned man."

Are you kidding? That is no idle threat. Rev. Dr. Jeremiah would be operating practically out of the White House if Obama is elected POTUS, and if you think that you have seen the worst of it, then fasten your seat belts! You ain't seen nothing yet! The fact that he is out there, oblivious  to how shitless this  scares the superdels from backing Obama, should tell you that this man would have to be forced into a straight jacket and hauled out of the WH if Obama is the POTUS!

Obama is his "Manchurian Candidate" and he. Jeremiah, won't be denied!!! In the remake of the movie, the "Candidate" wakes up and takes a bullet that rids the world of his manipulating mommy... I hope it won't have to come to that for Obama to rid the world of this...man.

Ok ok, but I think the point is that he didn't appear to see how it applied to himslf.  Wright is in a tradition of black preaching that offered a respite from the world of white domination and a larger theological context for going back out to resist such domination.  The problem he has is that he can't (at least rhetorically, probably philosophically too) find a language to mesh with 2007 when the domination/subordination map in the U.S. for African-Americans looks a lot more complex than it did in 1980.  As he built his authority and influence on one model, he ain't going to be too quick to trade it in for a new one.

I think he's going to be a long-term nuisance for Obama's campaign, but Obama's got to be careful about this if he doesn't want to start a wave of negative reaction among black voters.  He needs to put Wright firmly in the past without dismissing him in a humiliating manner.  The upside that he should be able to use Wright as a kind of springboard to talk more widely about his vision for America, where he can go from the negatives/past (Wright) to the positives/future (Obama).  He needs to have Wright make himself irrelevant, and then use the space constructively.  If that makes sense.

"That is no idle threat. Rev. Dr. Jeremiah would be operating practically out of the White House if Obama is elected POTUS, and if you think that you have seen the worst of it, then fasten your seat belts!"

dschungu:  Yes, you're right.  I think there's a definite danger that the man who is taking a buzz saw to Obama and his campaign will be high on the list of "most favored confidantes" if Obama ultimately wins the White House.

Good call!

ironyroad, hope you're right about that upside, but after watching Wright's antic Q & A this morning, the last sentence of Gatsby came to mind. It's been with me all day. You know the one:

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

Well, OK - I guess its time for me to say I was had by this Wright cretin.  I can only pray that his congregation is disgraced and that they renounce him.  Obama was used by this man, then and now and by all of us who defend black religious culture. Who this man defiles and does not represent.  

At least Bill Clinton never tried to find a father figure - especially one who could screw him some day this badly.  The only thing those two really have in common is no father and look how it turned out.

I wonder if Obama has it in him to slay the betraying father.  Perhaps it is about time, Presidential campaign or no.  The time has come for Obama to take that knife out from under his toga and do this.

Or he deserves to be done.

We're in the ethereal space of metaphor here, but I think he needs to make Wright sharply and distinctly irrelevant, call it taking the dagger out if you like.  What he doesn't need to do is make Wright a kind of black martyr a few days before North Carolina (what HRC would love, of course).

Irrelevant would be great Irony, but no chance of that - Wright baptized Obama's kids and brought Obama to Christ. Is he Obama's daughters' godfather?

The only is a very un-Obama-ish way: unpleasant but satisfying melodrama on primetime, one we ALL get.  This is universal, they'll understand it in any language. Its usually the son doing it to the father, but sometimes its this way.

Obama can look it up in the Bible, in Shakespere, he'll know where to find directions.  Time for archetypes, time for melodrama.  Time to kill his father on the 5 o clock news.  Or he can kiss the Presidency good bye.

It's not just this case, we need the archetype too - we need to know that even this essentually decent man can go midevil if the situation calls for it. Some day we night need that.

This is America, and like it or not - we need Don Corleone every bit as much as we need Jesus Christ.  Hillary, as ungraceful and obvious as she is, gets this.  She lacks the honor, but not the ruthlessness.  We all know we need to see that from Obama and if he doesn't do it now, with this parasite destroying his campaign and begging for it, then we'll never see it.

Wandery, glad you have smelled the coffee!  Welcome.  

Irony, Obama needs to do more than just throw Wright overboard.  He needs to explain why, after 20 years of listening passively to Wright's racist blather, he still has the colossally bad judgment to choose Wright as the spiritual guide for his young daughters.  With his dismal track record on things that most of us consider critical in our personal lives, how can we expect competent judgment from Obama in the Oval Office?  

There are only a few trajectories for social movements.  One is expansion: growing momentum and success in achieving goals incrementally over time.  This one is the least common in Capitalist societies.  Another pathway is success—quickly or more slowly—that becomes institutionalized with a cost: corruption of authenticity via assimilation into the status quo.  This one is quite common in US history.  A third trajectory is stagnation- or plateau.  Finally, there is self-destruction/implosion or decline.  It usually happens after a quick ascent and is brought on by a combination of factors internal and external to the movement.  Both plateaus and declines are more common than pathway #1.

Obama’s campaign is on this trajectory.  Where is his social movement headed?  Clearly it aspires to expand and that is what many of his supporters believe he can still achieve.  But lately, Obama’s been sitting on a plateau and today it looks like he’s starting to implode.  Actually, I think there is evidence of this before today.  In my view, Obama must not only fight off the Wright thing, i.e., reverse the implosion.  He needs to get back to expansion, for this is the cornerstone of his campaign.  Broadening his coalition toward a new politics is his fundamental goal.    If he gets the nomination, he’ll need a second wave of expansion – older women, seniors, and working class whites, etc.—to win the GE.  The first wave (e.g., middle and upperclass whites and African Americans) is already onboard.  This is the time for expansion, not damage control (which would keep him on a plateau) or implosion.  Let’s see where this aspiring and inspiring leader takes us.

dlrocdoc - I want to make it clear to you that you and I do not smell or drink the same coffee here.  I still think Obama is awesome, a once in a lifetime candidate and hope he wins.  Are we clear?  I am not on your team at all.

dlrocdoc - I want to make it clear to you that you and I do not smell or drink the same coffee here.  I still think Obama is awesome, a once in a lifetime candidate and hope he wins.  Are we clear?  I am not on your team at all.

It is not coffee that you are drinking; It is called kool-aid...

great post Tammy - clearly time for me to go to sleep.

Wandrey, wow.  Now it's my turn to be astounded by something you've said:  "The time has come for Obama to take that knife out from under his toga and do this.  Or he deserves to be done."

I feel I've watched the entire arc of your enthusiasm for Obama from early infatuation to the edge of divorce.

I disagree with you in one respect.  I don't think the good Rev used Obama.  Or, put it this way, I believe they used each other.  

Obama needed the street cred of Wright's prominent black church.  And as Obama's star rose, the Rev was pleased to hook a lariat to it.  

But this seems to me a symbotic relationship gone bad.  When the old girlfriend proved to be no longer useful, Obama tried to disassociate himself without while still being a gentleman.  Or, at least without alienating her still politically vital family.

But, "she" refused to go along with the scenario the way Obama had written it.  That is, not make a fuss.

"She" is making a scene right in the middle of the posh restaurant.  And she may make some more before it's over.

Who was that unfortunate lady who posted her divorce manifesto on YouTube the other day?

She didn't come off looking too good.  But, I imagine people who know the husband were really wondering about him, too.  How could he have married such an idiot?

Tammy, some people today will still think you're overstating the case on Obama's dire situation.  A week from now, you may look the prophet, indeed.

I will take this opportunity also to say to any of you who a week ago were calling on these pages for Hillary to resign out of decency and love of the party, that you may be on the cusp of looking like awful fools.

If Obama implodes, as suddenly it looks like he actually could, then Hillary will be lauded throughout history for having the guts to tough it out when all about her were yelling "fold!"

I am about her least fan on the planet.  Except, I have long admired her self-grown cojones.  The kind that make so many of her male fellow Democrat look like drones, indeed.

It's time Democrats eschewed the cult of anit-macho left over from the foolish Feminist era and start relearning the lesson of true grit.  

It's wonderfully ironic that it's taken a woman to show you all how to be a man.  But, maybe it has always been thus.  Many mothers have probably taught this to their sons.  A survival mechanism for humanity.

"Irony, Obama needs to do more than just throw Wright overboard.  He needs to explain why, after 20 years of listening passively to Wright's racist blather, he still has the colossally bad judgment to choose Wright as the spiritual guide for his young daughters.  With his dismal track record on things that most of us consider critical in our personal lives, how can we expect competent judgment from Obama in the Oval Office? "

dcshungu:  Are we on the same planet?  I consider achievement, intelligence, adaptability, sensitivity to social and cultural surroundings, courage in overcoming personal disadvantages, a vision for the future, and an ability to reach a wide range of Americans and touch them on important themes regarding the future of the country to be *anything* but a dismal track record.

But you may not consider those things important in your personal life.  I don't know.

dlrocdoc, I'm curious, at what point does a woman that keeps ranting about the husband that beat her for years become a sexist?  One year, five years, ten years?  

I still hear crap coming out of my mother's mouth about how bad blacks are.  And if you think Wright is incorrect about how blacks are treated take a look at the commercial the RNCC is running in Mississippi against Travis Childers:

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../obama-stars-in-mississipp_n_98936.html

The racist tones are obvious.  Now, Obama can run his campaign trying not to be the "black" man, and Wright seems to believe a lot of conspiracies, but the rest of the Democratic party shouldn't be sitting back worrying about how Obama's blackness may rub off him and stain the rest of them.  This is the one election where racism and sexism have to end.

If Hillary wins, do you really think they won't play every trick to indicate that a woman is not strong enough to do the job?

anonevent, maybe your mother reads about things like the ongoing weekend murder waves on the South Side of Chicago, and it frightens her.

She just not as discerning and subtle as you are.  And, are you sure she is saying ALL black people are horrid?  Or is she just wondering how so many blacks can be so cruel to each other?

anonevent, regarding your question, " at what point does a woman that keeps ranting about the husband that beat her for years become a sexist? One year, five years, ten years?"  

It's pretty simple, anonevent: she becomes a sexist the moment she embraces the idea that all men  (including the huge majority who never beat anyone) are evil pigs simply because they are men.  Just like a stupid white cracker who decides that if one black man commits a violent crime, then all black men are violent thugs.  Or a black minister who preaches that all white folks are inherently evil.  

Sorry to hear your mom is a racist.  You can't choose your mom.  But you can damn well choose your minister.  

Hey, Wandrey: "dlrocdoc - I want to make it clear to you that you and I do not smell or drink the same coffee here.  I still think Obama is awesome, a once in a lifetime candidate and hope he wins.  Are we clear?  I am not on your team at all."  

Glad that you have accepted my attempt to reach out across the aisle in friendship about something we agree upon: the disgusting behavior of Wright.  

Thanks for smacking me down!  You and Obama are really good at building this transformational post-partisan consensus, eh?  

dlrocdoc, "Glad you've smelled the coffee!" isn't reaching out.  It's smug condescension dressed up as reaching out.

Reaching out is saying for example that, whoever loses, he or she has to lose well so that we have a broad movement for November, and in return he or she should not be demonized for primary sins.

Whoever loses, I hope -- as Rahm Emmanuel has been saying -- they lose well.  But looking to deep-six the opponent's candidacy so that the Republicans win, that's not losing well but rather pointless destruction, and people will know it when they see it.

irony, in defending a Democrat, I am by definition Devil's advocate.  But, there is a possible defense of Mrs. Clinton that hasn't occurred to you, or you haven't expressed, anyway:

Perhaps Hillary honestly believes that an Obama presidency would be a disaster both for the nation and for the Democratic party.

Perhaps Mrs. Clinton's loyalty to her country is stronger than to her party.

Perhaps Mrs. Clinton believes that if she cannot be president, that it would be far better for the nation, and ultimately for her party, if McCain were to win in November.

She may truly believe, as she has almost said in the course of this campaign-- in fact at one point did say it-- that McCain and she are qualified for the CIC role, and Obama is not.

If this is her honest belief, then the true patriotic course would be to sabotage Obama's candidacy in favor of McCain.

McCain, after all, is likely to serve but one term.  And, unless he picks his VP brilliantly, 2012 may be an excellent year for a Democrat.

Who might happen to be Mrs. Clinton.  Not the defeated Democrat of '08, Barack Obama.

Here's reaching out for you: I want Obama to succeed. I want him to show real leadership ability, including the ability to wield a shiv when needed, and sacrifice a friend when something much, much larger at stake-- in this case, taking back the presidency on behalf of that majority of Americans that recognizes we are in the sh*t up to our knees now, that McCain's know-nothingism on economics and Hillary's see-nothingism on basic character issues aren't good enough.

We need Obama to succeed, and need him to denounce Wright, and give us a contrasting, un-Wrightian vision of this country that once and for all puts to rest all the stuff about who he is, how he feels about this country, why he wants to lead it.

I'm hoping he can rise to the challenge. I'd say a prayer if I believed in god, awesome or otherwise.

Dayio, you'd better stick to singing that Harry Bellafonte song that you were named after.  Sounds like you've got a bigger head than Rev. Wright!  What, are you jealous you aren't getting equal footing?  Or is it that you feel threatened by him - a black man speaking more truth than you can handle.  Maybe you've an insecurity issue - whatever it is you need to get over it.

I'm white and happen to agree with him.  It's about time we had a serious discussion about race, and Rev. Wright is certainly bringing out the prejudices in all the media folks, isn't he.

Teplukhin wrote:

"We need Obama to ... give us a contrasting, un-Wrightian vision of this country that once and for all puts to rest all the stuff about who he is, how he feels about this country"

Oh for crying out loud. He wrote two books and gave countless of speeches in which he did exactly that. If his much-praised seminal speech on race wasnt an "un-Wrightian" enough vision for you, I just dont know what you are looking for here. Or is it that you want him to give a seminal, "un-Wrightian" speech on race every damn time the man pops up in the network broadcasts?

DC Shungu, that's got to be the stupidest thing I have seen on TNR talkback and that's saying something. Wright will be "operating out of the white house"????? Jeez, even maniacal Wright didn't say that. If you think for a second Obama is going to have Wright any where near the White House after this mess, I have some lovely waterfront property in Baghdad for you. The closest Wright will ever come to the White House was his small part in the Bill Clinton Redemption Tour.

miceelf  said:

"DC Shungu, that's got to be the stupidest thing I have seen on TNR talkback and that's saying something."

You wouldn't know "stupid" if it hit you in the face. Obama cannot distance himself from Wright any more than a man can do without oxygen. For twenty years, Obama has inhaled this man's venom, so much so that when presented with a great opportunity to distance himself from him, Obama bailed out with widely heralded speech that did everything except to fully and completely disown this man. Now, that cowardice is threatening to come back and bite him in the ass...if it hasn't already, since his very long odds at winning the GE have now gotten prohibitively longer. Obama as the POTUS would leave back channels open for his long-time guru to tell him how to address and redress the plight of the black man in America. It will be a frigid day in hell when a "government" run by a Wright protege would target black people for extinction. Wright would make sure of that. Obama IS Wright's "Manchurian Candidate", at least that is what Wright believes, as his current media tour makes abundantly clear. Obama owes him and he's not about to let him forget that. Simple cogitation should reveal that to you or anyone with an ounce of gray matter between the ears.

Stupid.my ass...

It's an old story:  journalists either do not grasp or cannot convey what faithful persons (of virtually any stripe) believe to be the truth.  In this instance, atrributing to the Book of Proverbs what is most commonly associated with Lincoln, suggesting that it's somehow offensive to offer forgiveness (even rhetorically) in the spirit of Jesus, describing someone as a "theologist"--these are clues, but the issue is this:  "... [Wright's] worldview doesn't recognize firm boundaries between religion and politics, or really between religion and anything."

That isn't Wright's worldview.  That's what religion is  (literally, in fact:  it means "to bind together").  I offer no defense of Wright that hasn't already been offered.  The point about narcissism is well made and well taken.  But persons of faith are called to erase boundaries between religion and politics, not maintain them.  It can be done clumsily, narcissistically, rashly--but if religion does not direct one's understanding of, and speech about, the other dimensions of life, then it isn't religion at all.

What Obama "needs" is to win convincingly in NC, keep it close or win in IN, and watch as Hillary's narrative  that she can still capture the nomination falls to dust. Her knee-capping in the context of a nominally ongoing campaign where she might win, in the abstract, claim a majority of delegates or votes can still be regarded by a large part of the party as nasty politics, but still as politics.  Once she no longer has the fig leaf of trying to win either a majority of delegates or votes, so that the only possible rationale for her behavior is that she is trying to destroy Obama, the backlash will begin in earnest, certainly at the professional pol level.

With that behind him, Obama can take a deep breath and consider how, in the context of the general election, not the primaries, he can and should address Wright, etc., etc., etc.

If Obama does not nail it in NC, then he had better pull out his own knife and get to work on cutting up Hillary into ribbons or see himself Swift-boated into history.  I happen to think Hillary is a pretty easy mark for negative attacks.  For example, I, for one, want en explanation of how a candidate who is already regarded unfavorably by 54% of the American public is supposed to win a majority of anything.  She would begin with a target audience of 46%.  Now, it goes without saying that the fact that Hillary is the second most disliked and detested politician in American, next to George Bush, has nothing at all to do with her many fine qualities -- her record of political achievement in the senate and before, the many political battles she has waged on behalf of working people, her contribution to healthcare reform, her outstanding rhetorical skills.  But, despite her many evident gifts, 54% of the public dislikes her and 58% think she is dishonest.  Those are definitely a political liability.  One might even ask whether the country is ready for a president who begins a general election campaign with a 54% disapproval rating.

If, thanks to Hillary, the Democratic party's very own Republican, knifework is what is necessary for Obama to nail the nomination, the knife needs to be used on Hillary, not on Wright.  

Hey Channy - still out there?  Not divvorce, I think Obama should be the next President and admire him a great deal.  

I'm just realistic about human nature and political psychology.  This is Greco-Roman here, nothing less.

Humm...

has anyone given any thought to the possibility that this may be pre planned to allow Obama to have cause to "throw Wright over"?  Something smells fishy here, especially Wright's criticism of Obama. Maybe some Rovian type in the Obama's camp realized that white older folks just won't consider voting for Obama until he realizes that he has to act like the Good N-----r and throw the Uppity Angry N----r "under the bus", thus making everyone feel good about this vital issue of national importance...

jaunty - good to see your nom d'plume too.  I don't see Wright as a team player who could actively collude in a scenario in which he would end up getting trashed for the benefit of the Obama campaign.  I agree with those who see Wright as relishing and trying to squeeze the juice out of his 15 minutes of fame before he recedes and becomes a footnote.  In any event, collusion of the sort you imply would not be a very smart strategy since it keeps a painful, negative connection alive and available for media dissection.  But even without collusion, if Wright persists, he may indeed elicit that longed for Sister Soulja moment.

dcshungu, going to church one hour a week is not inhaling someones vision. Good lord you really are a tiresome ass. I am a Catholic, I have had priests in my parish I couldn't stand but still went to church, I have also had priests I have liked tremendously, in the end though it was the church service I went for.

we have pretty much boxed ourselves in a corner. I will never vote for Hillary, people like dippy will never vote for Obama. I know people might not be overly happy with the idea, but perhaps Gore is the only feasible candidate. Even dippy would probably vote for him. I can see Obama instructing his delegates to go to Gore and it will be utterly amusing to hear Hillary shriek how unfair it is to her, how the will of the people is being cheated. Gore is pretty much a shoe in, neither Hillary or Obama are. Ah well, I can dream.

"Here's reaching out for you: I want Obama to succeed."

tep - I acknowledge your reaching out and salute you for arriving at the (pained?) realization that Obama is clearly less flawed and more qualified to be President than either of the other two extant candidates, that McCain's "know-nothingism on economics "and Hillary" "see-nothingism on basic character issues" are ultimately disqualifying, fatal flaws in a President.

I consider you a serious thinker who is willing to slog down the dusty road towards the truth without fear or favor to friend or foe, willing even to change your mind after countless contrary posts.  If there were an "open-minded mensch" award, I would nominate you.  

the average person spends more time pissing and shitting a week than he does in church service. And in the church service the sermon is only a part of it. So the average person spends more time shitting than he does listening to a sermon, and likely puts about as much thought on one as the other. The lies we are telling ourselves about how significantly religious we are is funny.

It is a shame Obama just can't admit what we all know. People go to church because they feel they have to, but would rather stay home and watch football. They like to think their making an appearance means God will pay attention so that God will be there when they need him.

JackR,

Yes, Wright's temperament seems to suggest that he is too uncontrollable for such a carefully planned Machiavellian scheme.

Still, my question is this: Why are people surprised that Wright is defending himself?  He should just take all this criticism and be quiet?  That's asking a lot. Wright is a jerk for sure but even jerks shoudl be able to defend themselves.

Good post Dayo, but...um..."tumescence?" You need to stop hanging out with Peretz...

blackie, I've spent some time in Catholic chures.  And I've spent more time in Protestant ones.  I've heard opinions expressed from the pulpit that could be interpreted as political.

But, I've never heard anything in any church that would approach the inflammatory content of the Rev Wright's sermons.  Sound bites or not.

I could not imagine returning to a church with my wife and children where material like Wright's was bandied about.  And neither could most Americans.

If you are sanguine about all this-- and obviously you are-- it hardly matters.  Nor does my opinion.

What matters is what ordinary, common sensical, middle of the road, not particularly ideological Americans think of all this.

And it is my guess, that those people who we usually think of as the swing voters and the former Reagan Democrats, etc, will not rationalize Wright and Obama's relationship the way you and others on these pages keep trying to do.

To normal people, Obama's tolerance of Wright will look either bizarre or political.  Or, maybe the most obvious explanation of all, Obama AGREES with Rev. Wright.

blackton's  greatest hits:

"dcshungu, going to church one hour a week is not inhaling someones vision. Good lord you really are a tiresome ass. I am a Catholic, I have had priests in my parish I couldn't stand but still went to church, I have also had priests I have liked tremendously, in the end though it was the church service I went for."

"the average person spends more time pissing and shitting a week than he does in church service. "

"It is a shame Obama just can't admit what we all know. People go to church because they feel they have to, but would rather stay home and watch football. They like to think their making an appearance means God will pay attention so that God will be there when they need him."

And this hypocritical buffoon dares to call anyone a "tiresome ass." The first place you need to start is to have some convictions, REAL convictions, and then you'll either avoid generalizing your narrow view of one's relationship with God, or you'll just have the  decency to shut the fuck up.

BTW, before you lecture me about the religious habits of the masses, I should let you know I am a good Methodist and that my daddy was even a bishop in the church...

roidubouloi  said:

"If Obama does not nail it in NC, then he had better pull out his own knife and get to work on cutting up Hillary into ribbons or see himself Swift-boated into history."

Things do not look as "inevitable" as they did before PA, do they, ey 'ROIDS? A day is an eternity in politics, and I had said that Obama's camp recent tendency for missteps as the press finally decided to turn up the heat on him was Hillary's best rationale for staying in the race. Wright made sure that I was not wrong about this long-held view by reappearing! Obama is still favored to win the nomination but talk of 'inevitable' or to call on Hillary to just drop out is mindless. Obama had better win NC or he is finished. A loss there would be all the Supers would need to justify junking him...and they will.

dcshungu  said:

"For twenty years, Obama has inhaled this man's venom ... his very long odds at winning the GE have now gotten prohibitively longer. Obama as the POTUS would leave back channels open for his long-time guru to tell him how to address and redress the plight of the black man in America. ... Obama owes him and he's not about to let him forget that. Simple cogitation should reveal that to you or anyone with an ounce of gray matter between the ears."

Wow. I mean, dude. This is pretty wild. Aren't you one of the people who occasionally refers to Obama backers as kool-aid drinkers? And then you say stuff like this? I dont even know where to begin.

OK, let's begin here: what does Obama "owe" Wright? Why does he "owe" him?

(As for the odds of Obama winning the GE, btw: Intrade, the betting site, is currently trading Obama at 43.5, McCain lower, at 39.6, and Hillary far behind, at 16.0.)

What I dont understand is how Obama says one thing, and some posters here hear another. For example, take this:

ChanRobt wrote:

"To normal people, Obama's tolerance of Wright will look either bizarre or political.  Or, maybe the most obvious explanation of all, Obama AGREES with Rev. Wright."

Obama said in North Carolina (see Marc Ambinder):

"He's obviously free to speak his mind, but I just want to emphasize [that] he is my former pastor. Many of the statements he made both to trigger this initial controversy, and that he's made over the last couple days are not statements that I heard him make previously. They don't represent my views and they don't represent what this campaign is about."

In short, what is this "tolerance" you're speaking of? The man says time and again that he doesnt agree with these views of Wright that you disagree with, and that Wright certainly does not speak in any way for his campaign. How is that "tolerance"?

And what do you want him to do, beyond repeating time and again that he disagrees with him? Publicly stick needles into a Wright doll? Invite him onto stage only to push him off? I mean, what's so unclear about, I dont agree with him?

jobeek2  said:

"OK, let's begin here: what does Obama "owe" Wright? Why does he "owe" him?"

Learn to comprehend simple Standard American English [SAE]...it'd help.

"(As for the odds of Obama winning the GE, btw: Intrade, the betting site, is currently trading Obama at 43.5, McCain lower, at 39.6, and Hillary far behind, at 16.0.)"

To use Intrade as a basis for assessing a candidate's chances to with the presidency is mindless, at best.

jobeek2 writes, "...In short, what is this "tolerance" you're speaking of?"

The tolerance is that Obama took his family to this guys insane church for 20 years.  Normal people would have left long before that.

Obama did not distance himself from the Rev's thinking until it became a campaign issue.  And, in fact, he gave $26,000 to the church just last year.

I know you've got a million reasonable explainations.  But, don't tell it to me.  Tell it to the swing voters who may not get it.

"It isn't just that Wright is self-centered, although that seems to be the case; it is also that his worldview doesn't recognize firm boundaries between religion and politics, or really between religion and anything.

And to live in that world and stand on that principle in the face of a political storm that could literally change an election is, I think, foolish."

So--In your view to stand on a principle is "foolish"?  I thought when I first read the first sentence above that it was pretty breathtaking.  A minister who's dedicated his life to the proposition that his faith is applicable to all of life "doesn't recognize firm boundaries between religion and politics, or really between religion and anything"?  No foolin'!!  Indeed, if you'll refer to Wright's interview with Bill Moyers, it's basically something Wright learned from his fellow "fool" Martin Marty.  Actually, as a [white mainline Protestant] believer myself, I don't recognize those clear boundaries either; I'm not some Machiavellian who carefully segregates my political behavior from the sources of my moral sensibility, and I wouldn't vote for anyone who so compartmentalizes his life either.  If this be "foolish," make the most of it.  In the meantime, I'll simply say that the above quote illustrates to a tee, first, the general obliviousness of the American chattering classes about the demands of religious faith, and secondly, their utter cynicism about anyone who refuses to play the game the way they have decreed it should be played.  You'd think from all the horrified reaction to Wright in "progressive" circles that his sole purpose for existence is supposed to be to help elect a Democrat to the White House.  Given the fact that Wright has chalked up a great many accomplishments, and done a great deal of good, in his life long before anyone ever heard of Obama, I think he can be forgiven for thinking that the principles by which he's led his life up to this point aren't to be chucked down the toilet because people like yourself think they're "foolish."  Note that this isn't an endorsement of Wright's views, some of which I, too, find appalling [and some of which I find, as we used to say in the 1960s, right on].  Rather, it is an objection to the personal attacks on the man, the dismissal of him as "loony" or "self-aggrandizing."  He might be both [then again, *you* might be both]--but I think it's more plausible to understand him as a guy who thinks he's the bearer of a truth that needs to be told--regardless of the inconvenience it causes people he has no reason to respect anyway.

dcshungu  said:

"Learn to comprehend simple Standard American English [SAE]...it'd help."

Could be - I'm not a native speaker. So why dont you explain it to me?

You wrote, "Obama owes him and he's not about to let him forget that." I have no idea what you're arguing here. Why would Obama owe Wright anything? Least of all letting the man "tell him how to address and redress the plight of the black man in America" once he's POTUS? That doesnt seem to make any sense.

"To use Intrade as a basis for assessing a candidate's chances to with the presidency is mindless, at best."

Hey, you were talking about the *odds* of Obama winning the GE, and who better to ask about odds than a bookie?

Wait a minute Chan, either you read what someone wrote, and respond, or you just have a debate with yourself.  What jobeek said was quite simple:

1.  Wright said X

2.  Obama said in Philly, I disagree with X, and when Wright was my pastor, I didn't hear this kind of stuff from him -- I heard an engaged minister and saw him do a lot of good.  But I recognize the tone, and there's a kind of language and imagery that older black activists have from the 1950s-1970s that is part of them.  I understand where it comes from but I don't see it as being a valid description of America today, and it's not what I'm about.

3.  On the basis of the above, Obama did not "tolerate" X, and accusations of same are not supported by the evidence.  What he did do was say that he thought that Wright was about more than the X that caused the trouble.

irony, in order to go along with all your Xes, one has to believe that Obama went to Trinity Church for 20 years, embraced Wright as his "spiritual mentor," but never heard word one of the good REv's rather unconventional ideas.

I suppose that's possible.  But, one might ask, then, why did Obama put Rev Wright in the closet when Obama announced his candidacy for prez?  

I do think Obama did an excellent job today.  Question is, will everyone accept him at his word.  Or keep asking things like above?

And, maybe more important, has Rev Wright gotten it all off his chest now, or will he be back for more glory?

Chan, he almost certainly heard "unconventional" stuff -- but not necessarily unconventional for black churches.  But there's unconventional (= stuff that white America doesn't like) and totally loopy (paranoid conspiracy theories).  If this is going to be a problem for Obama, then it will be a problem for almost any African-American candidate in the future, as that mixture of high-octane religiosity and social anger (not exactly unknown in the white South, either, one might note) is pretty much available across the board.

I'm afraid Wright will be back for more glory, and it may get nastier.  This could be good for Obama (emphasis on the conditional).

jobeek, dschungu is just a pompous ass. He is fun to destroy but sometimes it is just too easy, like taking candy from a baby.

channy, If church can't be a sanctuary where people are allowed to worship God in whatever way they feel (provided no one is physically hurt) without repercussions then our freedom means nothing. Not a single Hillary supporter will ever address this issue. They are too busy being self-righteous pricks.

What next, shall we bug confessionals? Doesn't the public have a right to know?

Jack - "I acknowledge your reaching out and salute you for arriving at the (pained?) realization that Obama is clearly less flawed and more qualified to be President than either of the other two extant candidates"

No pain. Just gain. I wish the guy well, I do. I think that he's making a lot of rookie mistakes and wish that he'd toughen up, dispense with the vaporous stuff, start hitting hard. I think he can do it. I certainly hope so, for our sake, for ma and pa and all of us, for Health in Nautilus hooray hooray hooray

blackie writes, "...channy, If church can't be a sanctuary where people are allowed to worship God in whatever way they feel (provided no one is physically hurt) without repercussions then our freedom means nothing. "

First of all, blackie, we would not know what was being said from the pulpit of Obama's church if the good Rev Wright had not committed his inspiring sermons to DVDs which he sold in and through the church, presumably to help underwrite his new McMansion and the $10 million line of credit that went with it.

What is reverberating out of the church and causing Obama problems is nothing to do with religious doctrine but a lot to do with an excerable political agenda.  Which Obama himself has now condemned.

You are pretending to believe that the relgious beliefs of this church have come under fire when you know perfectly well this is not in any way the case.

Let's not be disingenuous, blackie.

Well, dcshungu,

I still think that the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of Obama winning the nomination because it is too late for Hillary, with the qualification that I have always given -- UNLESS Obama collapses in the polls.

I don't think that is very likely either, but, now that Hillary has gone Karl Rove all over this campaign (no surprise to me, I have maintained for years that the execrable Hillary is a closet Republican and still a Goldwater Girl), Obama is definitely taking risks by not responding.  His toughest riposte to date has been to mock her Annie Oakley routine.  McCain thought he could just ride out Bush's attacks and lost.  Gore thought the same and left it close enough for Scalia & Co. to steal the election.  He lost it in the Supreme Court, where it should never have been, if not in the polls  Kerry thought he could ride out Bush's attacks and lost.

Now Obama seems to think that he can just ride out Hillary's attacks.  He probably can because they come too late in the process.  But I wouldn't take the risk.  Far from being immune to attack because she has been attacked so often, anyone with a 54% unfavorability rating is low-hanging fruit.  Hillary can be sliced, diced and turned into a weeping mess in no time flat (unlike most candidates where a long lead time is required for attacks to stick, with Hillary, the pump is well-primed).  I happen to think that Obama ought not run the risk, should stop worrying about alienating people like you for when he runs against McCain, just cut her up and get it over with.  

It is a sad truth, but true none-the-less, than one of the things Americans want to know about a presidential candidate is that he or she has a vicious streak that will emerge when faced with a vicious, unprincipled enemy.  Hillary Clinton is a vicious, unprincipled enemy.  Americans, if not Democrats, would like to see Obama's vicious streak.  Rightly or wrongly, it is this that gives them confidence that a presidential candidate has the steel to face down our very real enemies.

First, Reverend Wright went renegade. Dayo Olopade had predicted his meltdown far in advance, and Michelle

Having had more of a think on last week’s developments, I’d like to cast less heat and more light on

Chan..you wrote: " for whatever reason, is looking to torpedo Obama."  That would seem self evident... wounded narcissism?  a pastor scorned... pure jealousy over Obama's greater acclaim?  a way even of saying that he will not let him prove by his successful candidacy that perhaps America is not all that racist after all?  And maybe it is all over determined... all rolled into one.

No one here is paying attention to what happened in the 6th Congressional District in Louisiana.  Cozayoux, a Democrat whom the Republicans tried to shoot down by associating him with Obama and the Right Reverend Wright, just won a by election Saturday, May 2...It had been a safe Republican seat for many an election cycle.

So maybe the very muscular legs of the Wright business have begun to be cut off.  They were far more dangerous as a subterranean worry than they are now in the open and in as pyrotechnical a fashion as they have been exposed.  Yes, they have done damage to Obama's polls.  But us has gotten people talking beyond the sound bites, seeing some of the complexity, trying to understand motivation... both Obama's and Wright's... and after all Prince Hal did understand that he had to slay Falstaff in order to become King Henry.

You all have to admit it has been a fascinating show.  One thing is certain... if the Republicans try to make a big deal out of this in the General, I do believe by then most people will groan and say:  Enoug already.  Far better now than in October.