Um, I can think of exactly one politician who had a story like this. I believe it was Claire McCaskill and I believe it was said half jokingly.  As for the other 210 superdelegates, expect 210 anecdotes about poor reasons for siding with Obama.  More Clinton head shaking.  Some eyerolls.  All fueled by a profound sense of entitlement to the Presidency.

She would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids.

Great, now icanhascheezburger has infiltrated my one refuge from it.  Thanks a lot, Crowley.

Yesterday I sat in a meeting of approximately 20 scientists--far from being a scientist myself, I'm the recording secretary--and listened as they debated the means and merits of further developing a treatment for an especially nasty form of cancer.

There's much bantering and random noise during the early part of the meeting, when preclinical data are discussed. Side conversations, folks munching on popcorn and popping Diet Pepsis, slouching, stealing glances at their BlackBerries. These are extremely bright and hard-working people, at the top of their respective games, and they know it. You can tell it by their body language.

Everything changed, though, when the discussion turned from preclinical to clinical. This section always starts with an overview of the problem--the disease, the people who have the disease, and what is, or isn't, being done to help them.  Suddenly, everyone got quiet. No eating. No BlackBerries. Erect posture. All eyes focused on the single PowerPoint slide, showing the inevitable progression--the clinging, the slipping, the final fall.

These, as I said, are extremely smart, hard-working people. They come from all over the world--most from the good old U.S.A. They are also extremely good-hearted people. It's the greatest honor of my life to be able to work with them, to serve them.

One more thing: many of them, perhaps half of them or more, are young enough to be my children.

Anyone who downplays, ignores, or expresses confusion at "their children's enthusiasm for [Obama's] candidacy" or for that matter the enthusiasm of young people for anyone's candidacy, or for anything else on our fortunate, fecund soil, hasn't been paying attention.

Stagla,

Actually, Casey said he was influence by his kids.

bcbaird, two words:

Monorail Cat!

Damn, I've been busted. I don't like to read the papers or any other news source, and try to base my judgments on subjective impressions - I was born subjective, dammit, and find it too damn difficult to wade through information to try to determine the truth. (Another difficulty is that as a dedicated solipsist, whenever I accidentally come across information that does not confirm my prejudices, it makes my head hurt.) So, to choose my Dem candidate, I took Drudge's photo of Hillary, to which I added some devil horns, and a picture of Obama, his face angled toward a sun almost as brilliant as he is, to a nearby schoolyard. Amazingly, the children's reaction to the photos was "Ew" for the Hillary pic, and "The man looks like a god to me" for Obama's. My decision was made.

Some of you "objective" types may think this is not the best way to choose a candidate. In my own defense, I'll say that whatever its drawbacks, it's still better than listening to Howard Wolfson.

She doesn't get it. It's like the people who saw Obama's race speech and said "good speech" because everyone else was saying it I guess, and then said they didn't see what the history of race in this country has to do with Jeremiah Wright, or Obama's tolerance/respect for him. They could not connect the dots at all. Missing the entire point of the "good speech". Our work here is not done, for sure. But it's a trend that is pointing in the good direction, likewise with the acceptance of gays/gayness, and part of that is old people dying, and young people reaching voting age, but part of it is also the reason for the trend in the first place - technology that brings us all closer together, so we can see beyond our own wee backwater. Books, movies, music, tv, internet - that stuff does help in this respect, especially if your mind is somewhat open and you actually want to know what other people think and feel.

But children are the future...

AH yes, ageism - ever reliable for the desperate in many cases.

Beautiful post William Y.

NO BHLnyc... children are the past... we the over 70 year olds are the future.  Or as the kids say... 'Whatever..."

The scientists described at that meeting... were they all for obama, or was the point that they were younger than the recording secretary.

Does any one have a good answer to:  But he listened to Wright for 20 years, therefore he must have believed that drivel?   That's all I keep hearing in the old folks blogsphere...How do we answer that so they hear... or is that hopeless because they are deaf to anything other than that one concept?

Not only are young people unbelievably naive and stupid in choosing which candidate to support, but they show up on the tarmac when you're trying to duck and run from sniper fire, insisting on reading their poems and shaking your hand.

And Bill Yard, don't get the wrong impression.  Some of us young adults work hard to be lazy, entitled and indifferent.  What do you think keeps "The Hills" on the air?

Annabelle, you are very funny. I took WIlliam's post to mean that judging someone as incompetent to make major decisions abot this country based on the fact that they under 40 is, well - silly and borderline offensive.

As far your friends, I'd just ask if they believed every syllable of drivel thier friends and loved ones have ever said.  And what if they were held accountable for it?  Also note that Obama has not been defensive about this, he's been a class act (youtube him on The View today, where he said he apprecaited that because he is running for President he is under higher scrutiny, that he is asking people to entrust them with their country so he doesn't mind the continued questions on this at all, he's happy to do it, but he'd like to move on to McCain!)

You might want to also remind them that Wright volunteered for the Marines during Vietnam (he quit college to do so) and has been a tireless advocate for those with nothing for 40 years.  Can they say that?

Personally, I shiver at the thought of being judged on someone else's 5 stupidist things they ever said.  The man who married me (who I adore) writes bad poetry so bad, it makes Wright look tolerable in his antice - he also grumbles loudly about this country constantly.  

I always wonder if people have actually listened to Obama's response to the question - he answers it very clearly and directly. If people don't want to hear it, or think it's not enough, that's one thing, but to keep asking he same thing over and over as if Obama hasn't responded very thoroughly to this - strikes me as a sign as a senior moment? (Which I, at 43, have regularly).

PS I even have a weakness at times for Hillary's whole shameless thug thing - even 61 year old blonde Methodist ladies in pantsuits can be gangsters.

PS I forgot to add that I thin it's ageism to pester McCain about HIS age too - take people as individuals.  Don't judge people for exterior nonsense.

I get tired even watching McCain, I wouldn't dare underestimate him because of something as dumb as age (besides, when a high school kid asked him if he thought he was too old to be President, McCain said "thanks alot you little jerk - you're drafted."  All you do is set Johnny Mac up to be funny when you bug him about that - funny conquers all).

Annabella - it's hopeless - there are none so blind as they who will not see. Nevertheless, here's my take on the question, did he believe the drivel? First, if conservatives or anyone else want to criticze Obama over Wright, they should not do so on the basis that Obama must secretly share his views (for reasons addressed below, and also because the idea is so far-fetched that even the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Jack Kemp and Chris Wallace don't believe it), but rather on the basis of courage. While I think there are a lot of reasons why Obama did not confront Wright on his wacky views, one could at least argue that one reason was that he just didn't want to confront the man. I've had acquaintances or co-workers say racist or homophobic things in my presence, as we probably all have, and I have not always been a model of courage in dealing with it. Another thing we probably all have in common is that sometimes our family members say stupid things and we let them pass rather than spark a confrontation. Perhaps we should call them out, but frequently, we don't.

Okay, but does Obama secretly believe this stuff? Well, there's a zero chance that he thinks the CIA invented AIDS to kill blacks. In fact, it's not certain that even Wright believes this - he could be trying to be provocative. After all, the church has an AIDS ministry. Assuming that it addresses the disease through prevention and retrovirals, etc. rather than by saying "If a CIA guy offers you something to drink, don't take it" Wright probably has a more sophisticated understanding of the nature of the disease than is apparent in the YouTube clips.

But, Wright hates America, doesn't he? Well, he damned America in a YouTube clip, but he also enlisted in the Marines and fought in Vietnam. This is generally taken to express the ultimate love of country - "greater love hath no man" as Prez Bush reminded us just the other day. So, rather than hating America, it may just be that in order to be provocative he's willing to go farther than we'd like in damning some of the things America has done. Please don't misunderstand, I find such statements objectionable, just as I find provocative statements by conservatives that demonize blacks, gays and liberals objectionable. He should not  have made them, they are wrong. But if we're trying to find out his true views and the true level of his love for the country, we need to dig deeper and consider the whole package. Put another way, the statements are wrong in themselves, and will always be wrong, but they are not necessarily an indication of his true views, and the fact that they are not a reflection of his true views does not excuse them in the least.

Okay, so why didn't Obama say anything sooner? As noted, perhaps lack of sufficient courage is part of the answer. But let's not lose sight of the fact that Obama's entire career in public life has been a refutation of the worldview in Wright's sermons. His conversion to Christianity and his ties to Trinity are literally an open book (Dreams of My Father), and nowhere does he say "I was thrilled to finally hear someone damn America" or "Pastor Wright sure opened my eyes on that AIDS thing." In fact, whenever he talked about Wright's political views (admittedly not much) before the clips surfaced, he made clear that he did not share them. And most importantly, in his Philadelphia speech he not only confronted Wright directly and told him his views are immoral, un-American and counter-productive, but he delivered that message to every other pastor in the US, both those who stoke resentment among African Americans and those who stoke white fears, and every member of their congregations. Obama needs racial healing to win, racial animosity will get him nowhere. That's why some conservatives are falling over themselves to misread and misinterpret his speech so that it does not achieve Obama's stated goal.  

Finally, there's something strange about wondering if Obama has views that are the diametric opposite of the views he espouses in public. If he really shares Wright's views, are we to believe that he'll give a one sentence inaguration speech "It's payback time, whitey!"? If he did, if any part of his administration appeared to be enacting the Wright agenda, he'd be the most ineffectual and reviled president ever.

I think one reason we're concerned about hidden views has to do with white racism. Past a certain point in the 60's, it became impossible for any national politician to make bigoted statements and get away with them. But, we know from personal experience that there are some racists out there, including some public officials. So, we're constantly on the look-out for a bigoted statement that slips through the defenses, so we can use that statement to show that the speaker secretly harbors racist thoughts. Recently deceased Earl Butz is an example, as is "looks like he was recently deceased" Don Imus. Having given so much thought to the Obama situation, it occurs to me that these bigoted statements are probably not the full measure of the men who said them. In fact, a lot of decent public figures seem to like Imus, so he's probably not a raving bigot, any more than Wright is a raving Amerikka-phobe. Perhaps they're both just people who got famous by being provocative and then got carried away.

Martin Marty, a highly respected Chicago theologian, has an excellent article on Wright:marty-center.uchicago.edu/.../0402.shtml

Every time I stand before a classroom full of young law students, I think of three things: me, in their place; them, in three years; and the next question one of the blighters is going to ask to which I can only respond, "That's a really good question, and I don't know the answer.  What do you think?"

Sure, I find their idealism alarming at times, but there is nothing more unpleasant than a cynical and world-weary college kid.  And sure, I wish sometimes they thought more and asserted less; that they analysed more and were inspired less; that they pay attention to the details more and get less distracted by the PC cause du jour ... but then I look at my own accumulated prejudices of the last fifteen years since I walked over to the other side of the classroom, and I forgive and forget the shortcomings of youth.

I like Mrs. Clinton, and I hope that the woman who wrote "It Takes a Village" did not really roll her eyes at the thought that parents might be swayed by their children in their political choice.  And you know, if you do not trust the wisdom and the judgment of your "long time friends", what that say about your choice of friends and your own wisdom and judgment?

geoffgraham: Amen.

Annabella: In the web of cultural, community, familial and friendly relations that we weave, there are some who are "better" than others; some who say bad things you do not agree with; some who do things you do not understand; some who think thoughts that are completely outside the bounds of decency.  If I wanted to take offence and challenge each comment that affected me or my thinking, I'd be fighting all the time.  Why?  Simple:

I'm of very mixed background, one side tracing back to the Prophet Mohammed, a Jewish grandfather, grandmothers descendants of the Mongol hordes who ravaged the Middle East in the Middle Ages, there is a Byzantine queen in there somewhere ... etc. ... but I wear none of the background on my sleeve.  I've heard good friends muse outloud about Hitler not having finished the job; other friends refer to Arabs in harsh derogatory terms; it is perfectly normal to say pejorative things about Genghiz Khan, Tamerlane or Attila the Hun in the politest of companies ... and this totally aside from the routine demonisations of Middle Eastern men and Iranians and whatnot that I hear all around me.  Why, I've been known to crack the odd off colour joke about my own (remote) Arab/Jewish/Persian/Turkish/Greek ancestry.

Should I be offended, walk away, denouce and reject every lousy statement I hear?  Or should I, through, gentle suasion, try to change attitudes over time?  Stomping off gets the message across once in a while, but does not change attitudes, views and hearts.  I don't know what kept Mr. Obama in the church for twenty years - I never set foot in one except to take pictures or to offer condolences or congratulations -  but surely the measure of the man is not what someone else said in his presence, and not whether he stomped off or denounced forcefully enough, but how he relates to us and the world around him?

and Hillary's support is so huge as to give her second place, that is comforting. What is her line of thinking? I can't win the Democratic nomination but am better suited in the general, even though I am the candidate most associated with the Democratic party.

I also remember there being 20 debates so far in which Obama has consistently improved, wasn't she even there at those debates, didn't she notice it at all?

William Yard and Geoff Graham:  If I weren't already married, and I don't know your marital status', and polygamy were allowed, I'd marry the both of you."  Brillant writing from you both and so true.

There is nothing that Reverend Jeremiah Wright ever said on his pulpit that has not been said elsewhere in either public or private by what are supposed to be educated and intelligent people.  When AIDS first came on the scene many people spoke of it as a government invention that "got away", because who better to give an incurable and completely fatal (at that time) disease to, but black Africans, homosexuals and IV drug users?  No one would really care about those people anyway, so the disease could wipe out all three populations.  I would be willing to bet that even today many people believe that sentiment, but are better at hiding their thoughts.

As to the racism in America, while so much has changed since the 1950's and 1960's, there is still a long way to go for race relations here and abroad.  As late the late 1990's I was able to see the subtle racism that pervades everyday culture up close and personal, when I was shopping with a well dressed, professional black man.  While the shopkeeper only asked me one time what I wanted, he followed my friend around the store the entire time we were there.  I'm certain there have been many other instances of subtle racism going on around me even today, this one stands out in my mind because we were the only customers in the store and the shopkeeper's racism was apparent and unapologetic.

Reverend Wright may not be up on the times, still living in the 1960's, but he isn't totally wrong.  Also his comments regarding "America's chickens coming home to roost on 9/11" have been published in the most liberal of magazines online and in paper versions by many different writers.  While he may state his opinions in a commanding voice, that does not mean everyone in his audience or congregation agree with him on everything.  But who better to recognize racism or discrimination in America than those in the minority of any kind, racial, ethnicity or religion?

Senator Obama is correct when he calls for a national dialogue to begin on the issue of race on all sides, white, black, hispanic, asian, etc.  Only by talking and interacting with each other can we change the way things are.

Those who missed his point in his wonderful speech are the same people who need to examine their own lives and the lives of the people around them;  they might just be surprised to learn that they too have discriminated and been discriminated against by others.

Sarah

HI Sarah - as an historian you may be interested in the recent history of "national dialogues on race". As I recall, in my lifetime alone I've experienced national dialogueson ten different occasions.

1967 - before during and after the riots in Detroit

1968 - after MLK's assassination, b d and a the riots in Watts

1976 - after the mega-hit TV docudrama "Roots"

1987 - after the Howard Beach and Tawana Brawley incidents

1989 - after the Bensonhurst beatings

1991 - during and after the Clarence Thomas hearings; after the Crown Heights Riot

1992 - after the LA riots

1995 - b d and a the OJ Trial

1999 - after the Amadou Diallo beating

2005 - b d and a Katrina

Two questions for you:

Why in your view did those 10 other national dialogues fail to produce any real understanding or closure?

What in your view justifies yet another national dialogue given the failure of those earlier attempts and the relative triviality of the Wright incident when set next to the urgency of events like the LA riots, the OJ Trial, the 1967-68 riots, MLK's assassination etc?

My goodness icarus, the "Hitler not finishing his job" stuff would be fighting words in my house!  My father would throw anyone in to he street who dared say something like that, related or not.

Most of your examples Tep are national emergencies (except Roots), which is a different dynamic than something hopeful and exciting, like a glass ceiling being broken.  Anger rules in those situations.

Context and time in history are definitive, just naming situations with black people in them doesn't mean much. Besides - why does this have to be a finite conversation?  What "closure" do you mean?  Black people not being angry anymore?  People not having racial identities anymore to make white people nervous, since we don't have any? Why do you seek  that?

If so - just say that's what you mean.  This idea of "post racial" is irritatingly vague and therefore meaningless.

tep, as Stuart Smalley says, "process process process!" - and Wandrey's right, because there is a decidedly different feel in the air in the wake of that speech - not the Wright youtubes but the speech - than there was after Katrina, OJ, Rodney King, etc. Those other incidents were grim reminders of the divisions between black and white, and made people viscerally clench up, even as they dutifully said "we need to talk" - but these things did not create a nice atmosphere for talking. Most people need that. The ones that don't are already talking.

But this time, with this speech, the reaction is one of enthusiasm, relief, and the real hope that we can put down our weapons for a second, thaw out a little, you know? Maybe you don't know, because the speech seems to have left you cold, but you should acknowledge that a lot of others felt differently. Instead of mocking them, you should be wondering what they saw that you didn't, and be less quick to dismiss the effect it had on other people just because it went past you. I'm the only person I know who has not ever been able to see the picture in one of those "magic eye" nightmares that were all the rage about 10 years ago, but I never claimed that there was nothing to see.

erase-ism.

Historian1956 said:

"While he (Rev. Wright) may state his opinions in a commanding voice, that does not mean everyone in his audience or congregation agree with him on everything. "

I assume that the fact that the same videos show the members of his congregation standing and cheering while he is saying these things would generally indicate agreement with the statement he had just made.

Stop it with the silly apologias already!  The vast majority of members of his congregation DO agree with Wright's statements - enthusiastically!  You can see that with your own eyes!

Now am I saying that OBAMA agrees with Wright on all of these statements?  No!  And anybody who does say that Obama agrees with Wright about this stuff is in serious competition with Doug Feith for "fucking stupidest person on the face of the Earth".  

But I do agree with geoffgraham - it IS about courage.  I don't think it's necessary (or even right) for Obama to leave the parish.  But if Rev. Wright really is his "closest spiritual advisor", wouldn't they have private conversations from time to time?  I've never once heard Obama said "I disagree with these statements, and I have had numerous discussions with Wright over the years, and he is well aware of my opinions about these statements".  

When you start spouting some of the nonsense that Wright is proclaiming, Wright is no longer part of the solution - he's part of the problem.  Wouldn't Obama have a duty to the other members of his extended religious family (his fellow parishoners) to get Wright to see this?

So why is this?  Because Obama never had the courage to call out Wright, even in private, over this stuff.  And whatever else you want to question about John McCain, nobody is ever going to question his courage.

Wandrey: Unfortunately, in "multi-culti" communities one hears a lot of nonsense that would horrify White liberals.  This is one reason why over the last twenty years I have become a firm believer in assimilation and why, on the multiculturism issue, at any rate, have a lot of sympathy with Hitchens and Hirsi Ali.  And that is why Rev Wight's speech and Mr. Obama's reaction did not at all surprise me or cause dismay.

In any event, I have found that even the most outrageous comment can be defanged through gentle reasoning.  I cannot count the number of times I have started a sentence with, "Hmmm, did you know that ...?"  Does not always work, but is slightly more persuasive over the long term than throwing friends and relations into the street :-).

Tep: I am also sceptical about the whole dialogue on race thing, but then, it has to start from somewhere _at the top_, and I'd rather have as an interface an Obama rather a Sharpton or a Jackson Jr.  Not because Obama is half white, and not because he is an Ivy Leaguer, and not because he is a smooth-talker ... but, frankly, because his father was a Kenyan immigrant.  Obama has felt, it would seem, the aftershocks of America's "birth defect", without being born into the justified anger.  There is something to that.

buffaloboy: McCain eventually embraced Falwell, probably one of the most odious characters and odiferous walking carcasses in modern American politics.  Falwell, lest we forget, said some nasty things about America and 9/11, and when McCain went to seek his benediction at Liberty University, I did not see any courage or denunciation of that sack of fermented manure.  And we are not talking about a twenty year relationship here.

Here's the thing: out of a sum total of twenty years of sermons, we have several snippets of statements that are, admittedly, both shocking (to white American ears) and fairly common place (not just in the African American, but also in some multi-culti groups).  We do not, in fact, know how Obama reacted in private; and we cannot expect him to come out and spell out in detail what he told Wright.  If Obama is an honorable person, he would have said his piece in private, and while publicly expressing his disagreement, say nothing about his private talks.  So as to his "courage" to speak out in private, this is all speculation.

As for his congregation: frankly, isn't he doing EXACTLY what you expect him to do, but on the national stage and to the broader African American "congregation", rather than to his South Side church's limited audience?  He has denounced and rejected and opposed and educated and clarified and elaborated and ... and he continues to do so.  He is using the pulpit of the Primaries to reach the entire nation, including African Americans, and to wet Wright right.  Is that not courage enough?

I think our conversations on race have been stymied by the conservative movement's constant willful misinterpretation of the "liberal" position on race. This is what some conservatives are doing today, willfully misinterpreting Obama's Philly speech (and willfully overlooking significant parts of it in the well-founded hope that their audience will take their word as to what Obama said instead of bestirring themselves to Google the speech and spend 15-30 minutes trying to understand it ) to turn it into a screed that justifies black anger at their status in America. This is factually false, and also deeply illogical. Obama needs racial healing to win, if he is seen as stoking black anger against whites, he'll lose. What politician would ever think he could get elected by riling up 15% of the population against 85%? "No sane one" is the answer (I'm looking at you, Jesse!). Could a politician win elections by riling up 85% of the population against 15%? Well, the numbers stack up, so maybe, just maybe, conservatives could sometimes be tempted to highlight the more radical expressions of black anger and more glaring examples of black dysfunction and conflate those with all postions on race other than the approved conservative one in order to cast the choice as one between Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton on one side, and all decent people, including all those decent whites who do not recognize themselves in Sharpton's or Wright's caricature of them, on the other.

According to the conservative movement, the liberal position on race is "Blacks are hapless victims of white racism, if only whites would stop being racist, we'd live in paradise. Whites should feel guilty for all the depredations visited upon blacks, and this guilt should make us support special preferences for blacks." They rush to eviscerate any claims of racism - many of which are admittedly easily eviscerated (it's all too easy to eviscerate morally-compromised spokespeople like Sharpton and Farrakhan too) - but never, ever acknowledge that some racism still exists.

The utter refusal to acknowledge that there is any residual racism worth talking about, or more importantly that a belief that black poverty today is partly due to the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow is at least somewhat consistent with objective reality, is I think due to the fact that the movement never acknowledges the reasonable basis for any position other than its own. Thus, the rhetorical style is to overlook large swaths of objective reality and countevailing facts and interpretations, resulting in arguments that implicitly say "this is our side of the story, if you want to hear the other side, read the New York Times."  Of course, the problem with this is that the movement's position is that the NYT is a propaganda sheet rather than a source of objective news, so in effect they're saying, "this is our side of the story, if you want the other side, read the NYT or some other liberal propaganda; unfortunately, there's no truth there, so there's really only one side to the story." The final piece of the conservative assault on the liberal position on race is that liberals ignore the self-destructive habits of blacks that keep them in poverty.

Though I'm just one liberal, I think I can set forth something much closer to the true liberal position than the movement's caricature. (I'm heartened in this endeavor by the fact that Obama's speech seemed to track pretty closely my own views on race, though of course he was more articulate). Black poverty is partly the legacy of racism - it was difficult to acquire education, money and what I'll call "middle-class values" when blacks were systematically excluded from all meaningful opportunities. (White folks, particularly white men, have it pretty rough these days, as Rush and Sean and others remind us daily, but blacks may have had it even worse during slavery and Jim Crow - just a thought.) Poverty, whether white, black, brown or otherwise, is both a cause and effect of social dysfunction. Constricted opportunities lead some to succumb to crime, drugs, booze, single parenthood and other bad habits, which exacerbates poverty, which exacerbates the dysfunction - a classic vicious circle.

The landscape of opportunity available to me when I was growing up in Dallas in the 60's was much wider than that available to black kids my age.  I took the advantages I was basically born with - middle-class parents, a college-educated father (whose university excluded blacks when he went there), middle-class neighbors and friends, books and newpapers galore, decent schools and perhaps most importantly, an unspoken, bedrock belief that if I worked reasonably hard and kept my nose reasonably clean, I could have a life even better than my parents - and used those advantages to make a life for myself better than my parents'. Doubtless, some of my black contemporaries in Dallas managed to make a life every bit as good as mine, perhaps better, but to do so they had to overcome far more burdens and resist far more temptations to dysfunction than I can even imagine. (Not that I resisted all temptations to dysfunction - it was the 60's, after all - but like most of the rest of my middle-class contemporaries, I never fell too deep, which is partly the result of God's ineffable grace, and partly due to the fact that the middle-class have a better safety net to catch them before they fall too far.)

"Enough with the burdens!" I hear you saying. Amen, I say in return. Whites cannot conquer black poverty,  the well-off cannot ameliorate poverty in general, unless blacks and other poor folks do a lot of heavy-lifting themselves. Liberals have always recognized this - I don't know how George F. Will and Charles Krauthammer and other conservatives have missed the fact that we recognize it. This has been a component of Obama's message since his campaign began, and it is a much more prominent part of Pastor Wright's ministry than hating Amerikka or identifying the real cause of HIV/AIDS. In fact, I'm willing to bet, despite having read only two of Wright's 100's of sermons, that for every "hate Amerikka" in his sermons, there are dozens of exhortations to "turn off your tv, be loving parents to your children, work your butt off and teach your children to work their butts off too, and never, ever succumb to despair." If Wright's worldview was what the caricature says it is, we would expect him to urge his parishioners to take arms against America to claim their rightful place. Instead, he's constantly telling them how to be productive members of society, and has numerous outreach programs to help this happen.  

Actually, I do know how Will and Krauthammer have missed the self-help part of the liberal position - by relentlessly hammering on one pole "Stop having babies out of wedlock, put down the crack pipe, show up to work on time every day, even if it's a crappy job, and you'll be infinitely better off" they invite reaction from the Sharpton pole "How dare you, the beneficiary of opportunities we can't even dream of, tell us that our plight is all our own fault?" A debate on these terms benefits the Krauthammers and Wills because it confirms their belief that liberals can't be trusted on race - if we can't see the need for self-help, we're obviously not qualified to propose solutions. It benefits the Sharpton pole too - "if the Wills and Krauthammers can't even acknowledge that opportunity is unequally distributed due in part to race, how on earth can we trust them to give us advice on civil rights?"  When the poles are shouting at each other, there is no conversation, just two sides shouting at each other.

As noted, this stalemate benefits whites - if fears of black people ascendant can be used to collect even a small percentage of non-African American voters (or, perish the thought,  to collect large majorities in former Confederate states), the numbers quickly swamp the electoral clout of the far less numerous African-Americans. (The stalemate benefits the Sharptons too, as long as the wounds are open, they'll have something to scratch. It's hard to know who's happier when a noose appears in a tree in Louisiana - Sharpton, who gets to run to the microphones for another 15 minutes of fame, or the conservatives waiting to pounce on him when he shows up, using him to demonstrate to all America the moral bankruptcy and clouded worldview of all civil rights activsts)  

But Obama has rejected the poles - that's what his Philly speech was about, what his speech/sermon at Ebenezer was about, what his entire campaign is about. Huckabee sees it, Christopher Caldwell sees it, even Charles Murray of "Bell Curve" infame sees it: "Of course you can go after him in all the ways that people have gone after him—if what you want to do is go after him. But suppose you approach Obama’s text under the twin assumptions that (a) he is trying to communicate with you, and, (b) your obligation is to make a good-faith effort to understand his meaning."

Exactly! A conversation where both sides make a good faith effort to understand each other, rather than a bad faith effort to foster division. This is the conversation we haven't had, despite the numerous calls listed by Tep above. We may be disappointed again, but this time, as psantillana notes, Obama's speech gives us a much better head start than we've had in recent memory, if not ever.  

icarusr said:

As for his congregation: frankly, isn't he doing EXACTLY what you expect him to do, but on the national stage and to the broader African American "congregation", rather than to his South Side church's limited audience?  He has denounced and rejected and opposed and educated and clarified and elaborated and ... and he continues to do so.  He is using the pulpit of the Primaries to reach the entire nation, including African Americans, and to wet Wright right.  Is that not courage enough?

I agree with most of what you say - I really have no problem with what Obama's said once the sh*t hit the fan.  I can't find any wiggle room in what he's said - he's flat out condemned the comments.  I thought his big coming out speech on race was excellent, although I do think throwing grandma under the bus was unnecessary and not even close to being morally equivalent to what Wright said (unless maybe grandma was really a true blue racist and Obama is erring on the side of over protectiveness for her - I suppose it's possible, since I've never heard or read anyhting about grandma one way or the other).  I just wish he had shown his courage back when he wasn't forced to, and could have simply chosen to act courageous.

And let's not get too carried away with how "courageous" he's being - he's getting up and saying things that are perfectly reasonable, and that most reasonable people would easily agree with.  I agree there has been an inconceivable lack of reasonableness over the years in this country on any number of issues.  But being one of the few reasonable people in the room isn't a sign of courage, it's a sign of reasonableness, nothing more.

psantillana - I'm not :mocking" anyone. My question was dead-serious, and originated from a life spent listening, every few years or so, to a dialogue on race that never seems to advance beyond the tropes of White Guilt (in black eyes) and Black Inferiority (in white eyes), and the resulting dynamic of White Denial and Black Self-Destructiveness, and/or White Callousness and Black Rage, etc.

This cycle dominated every formative stage of my political education, from child to early adolescence in the late 1960s-Roots era, throughout college days and student government pissfests between Black Action Movement reps and moderate-to-conservative whites, to my early professional years on the east coast when every few months brought another riot or conflagration, media frenzy soap opera, Spike Lee movie, and now this. Frankly, I don't really care about Rev. Goof. I accept that most blacks in this country entertain ridiculous conspiracy theories about the government and AIDS. Maybe I would too, if I were in thheir shoes. All of which signifies... nothing. It tells us nothing about whether we should continue locking up young drug runner mules (IMO we should not), or whether we should privilege college applicants based on race (IMO we should not), or whether we should evaluate Obama's fitness for the presidency independent of his racial status (IMO we should). Given the endless dynamic that results in such a vast disconnect that more than half of afr-amers believe the US government seeks to kill them, I cannot, in the very best faith, see the point of continuing this dialogue further at this point.

To make it simple, either one of two possibilities must be true. Either the ten or so previous attempts made very significant progress toward mutual understanding and political closure/consensus, or they did not. If the former, then another national dialogue is unnecessary, If the latter, then it's unavailing and unwise.

Regardless, the burden is on those who believe such a dialogue is still necessary to clearly explain why it is that the previous dialogues failed, and how this one will be so very different that it has a high chance of succeeding.

Given the low odds of such success, and given the huge and urgent crises at our front door now in the f-p and financial realms, I think that sinking a lot of time and energy in such a low probability-of-success endeavor like this is imprudent, to say the least. Also politically stupid for a liberal Democratic candidate for president.

wandrey - "What "closure" do you mean?"

What was that phrase... something about contentment, contents, user-generated content...

Ah, that's it: a wise man once said a propos of race that he looked forward to the day when individuals would be judged "not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character."

That's closure in my book. Pretty simple, really-- that's how I judge others and how I expect them to judge me. Frankly I have zero interest in discussing or debating or dialoguing with anyone who believes there's a government conspiracy to kill him or members of his race or creed or tribe or clan.