Obama doesn't need to get angry but he does need, pace JFK, to get even. Wright is more than dissing him, on a national stage; he's making a direct threat to Obama's candidacy. Obama needs to show us that he can act swiftly and devastatingly, just as he would/will as POTUS when someone directly challenges the success of his presidency.

This is like Hoffa vs Bobby Kennedy. I know what Bobby would do to Wright.

Obama can't be angry. Sorry. That makes him an "Angry black man". It's in the "IF you're a black person, you have to jump through this hoop" rule book - the one that Geraldine Ferraro clearly never read. Obama can't be a mainstream candidate and be angry. It's just not possible.

"So the second big question is how hard John McCain pushes it--and, finally,  whether Hillary dares pour some fuel on the fire."

If they do, it will show that they have no shame, and it will probably backfire.

But FWIW, I predict that Hillary will try to milk it.  She clearly has no shame; McCain still has a few shreds of dignity (I think).

Oh, goodness, yes.  Hillary will be all over this.  It is pure catnip to the Clinton campaign because they realize that only by shredding Obama can this nomination fall into her lap.  They simply won't be able to control the building frenzy.  First Lanny Davis, then Carville, then Joan Walsh and the rest of the gang at Salon, and then Bubba himself - all will fall all over themselves to thrash Obama about the head and neck with the fact that he is now flip-flopping on his support, etc, of Wright at the Philly speech.

Cool shmool. I heard Gergen too last night and thought he was dead on and I initially had the same initial reaction -- Obama could have shown a little more visceral passion. However, I thought that a degree of anger *did* come across -- very controlled, kind of measured anger. So it wasn't completely lacking. Plus, Candy Crowley, the CNN reporter who was interviewed after the press conference, said that in the room you could really see that he was angry and upset and she said wasn't sure if that would come across as much on TV.

Ultimately, Obama has to be himself. If a measured, steely demeanor, rather than a fiery on, is how he projects anger, that's what it has to be. He can't start "performing" his anger in ways that aren't natural. Viewers would sniff that out instantly. Plus, it wouldn't be who he is.

A tangent, but did anyone notice that Hillary is going on O'Reilley tomorrow night?  Wowsa.  

I think both Tep and VC are right - we need or Don Corleone moments as Americans, ugly but true.  We need to know he can tap in to that if need be.

But.  He has to do it his way.  Obama's nature is not explosive or rageful, he's just not made up that way -  and he still can't scare the white people anyway.

The Obama way might be an amusing quip, something devastating, something that makes you laugh and reduces Wright to a silly figure who has blown it with Obama forever - laughing at Wright would get him where it hurts, his pride, his manhood and there's no one out there that wouldn't get it.  Sort of a "oh snap* moment.

Don Corleone meets JFK.  Condescending but not *quite."

The problem with Obama is he's not dangerous.  I like his decency and all that, its my favorite part of him, but decency is not going to impress WIN a showdown with Iran.  But he's screwed that way, he can't be.

Maybe his cool is the new way, not sure.  Still too soon to tell.  But I could use a flash of danger myself.  Not anger, Corleone spoke in a polite whisper.

VC: Trust me, it is not just black men; it is the "If you have a tan" rule book.  I have a dog-eared, tabbed and highlighted copy on my desk.

As for flip-flopping - that'd be rule number 3: "You will be criticised regardless of what you do.  If you're consistent, you will be accused of pig-headedness; if you change positions, you will be accused of flip-flopping.  So just do your thing, then lay back, close your eyes and think of the Empire."

Tep: are you suggesting that Obama should disappear Wright? ;-)

He's NO DRAMA OBAMA.  Perfect tone.  Perfect Pitch.  A friend who has been resisting all my pro Obama blandishments (a 75) year called me all excited to watch the press conference, which I had already seen and to inform me that she finally understood why I was so excited about him and that she would no longer have any qualms voting for him in the general and now actually preferred him to Hillary... one anecdotal story... along with others.

Did any of you pick up that the Press event was set up for Wright by a fervid Hillary supporter?  Barbara Reynolds... an african american former board member of US Today?  Curious... they sure knew their "wounded narcissist" out for destructive revenge... what a comic buffoon on some level, but also what a stupid way to keep his own community down.  But then if Obama should prevail that would destroy his raison d'etre wouldn't it?  I wonder if there was also a Clinton contribution to his home building project... how many millions of $$$ was it costing Wright?

Just saw the presser - I was surprised because I thought Obama looked very angry at times, guess these things are in the eye of the beholder.  He seemed to be almost shaking at one point.  I was expecting the cool, cerebral thing and it was there, but the flashes of anger were there too.  Nothing burns lke betrayal, nothing.

Senator Obama wasn't showing this "outrage" yesterday on the tarmac in Wilmington -- just hours after Wright's NPC performance.  Why the outrage lag? For that matter, why wasn't he "outraged" years ago by Wright's offensive tirades? Oh right, I forgot, Barack and Michelle weren't in church any of those days. I suspect Obama ginned up some "outrage" after multiple calls from concerned superdelegates. And perhaps some worrisome tracking poll numbers. Americans will see this performance (Obama's, not Wright's) for what it is.

As for Michael's interesting footnote, I'm sure Axelrod was relieved that Obama failed to take the bait on the black liberation theology question.  I'm sure his armchair theology is no better than his armchair sociology (i.e., why the white working class is bitter).

Actually, it looks pretty emphatic, just the right level of passion I think. You can see a man angry, but holding it in check...

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../the-wright-spee.html

"As for Michael's interesting footnote, I'm sure Axelrod was relieved that Obama failed to take the bait on the black liberation theology question.  I'm sure his armchair theology is no better than his armchair sociology (i.e., why the white working class is bitter)."

Actually, he should have asked the reporter 'what's "black liberation theology?"' and sat back for a laugh.

There are many politically correct views that I consider appalling. For one, the idea that Hillary Clinton or John McCain should ever be president. Less divisively, I find opposition to gay marriage horribly bigoted and wrong. Most Americans oppose gay marriage and politicians are expected to. But it is a horrible thing to think that gay love is aberrational. Yet, I have a few friends who oppose gay marriage. Indeed, I have a friend who believes 9/11 was a conspiracy. I don't think that. But friendship is not political, at least not wholly political. Anyway, it's certainly not determined by opinions on events the press considers scandalous. What is wrong with Obama having a friend--one he has now denounced, if out of necessity--who has wacky views? Why do the wacky views of one man offend people? Don't people realize other people believe worse things, violent things? What the hell is wrong with everyone?

skipper2379, had Wright just been a "friend" to Obama, you'd be correct.  But Wright was far more than just a friend; he was the man Obama selected to be a spiritual role model for his family, because that is what one one's minister or priest or iman or rabbi becomes.  That role isn't one of just being a friend; it is also a role of mentor and guide, someone you place in a position of authority and responsibility.

The concern many of us have is not that Obama agrees with Wright, which is ludicious, but instead that Obama showed tremendously poor judgment with his choice, and poor judgment is not a acceptable quality in a president.  

I'm delighted that Obama did the right thing today and denounced Wright; it was late in coming, but it finally happened.  My concern is that you can denounce someone but still stick with them, like the Democrats who denounced Bill Clinton for his blatant perjury during the Lewinsky scandal, but still stood by Bill during impeachment when it counted.  

So I wonder if denunciation alone is enough, or if instead renunciation, or yes, the very "disownment" Obama previously stated he could never do to Wright or his grandmother,  is called for instead.

Should Obama elect to continue to expose his daughters to Wright's brand of racist, hate- and conspiracy-filled theology, then his judgment would become even more suspect.  And judgment is a most legitimate and fair target in a presidential race.  

Two things:  First, don't the comments of the good reverend raise serious questions about the judgment of Bill Moyers, about how closely he travels with the looney left?   Maybe he's thinking he should have passed on the opportunity to interview a narcissistic, racist, anti-semitic fool of a reverend. But if he's over there with him, and I think there's now plenty of evidence to make that assumption, he should not be given another opportunity to interview anyone else---both he and the reverend have been thoroughly discredited.

Second, speaking of those discredited, don't Obamafiles feel a little betrayed by their messiah who has now been caught in at least five lies about his relation with the good reverend.  All the Jonathan Chaits and E. J. Dionnes in the New Republic who were busy offering that pathetic defense that Wrigjt's comments were taken out of context....apologists of Obama must now be as red faced as Obama who NOW wishes to get more distance between himself and the carzy guy in the robe.  In a court of law, lawyers ask in this situation, are you lying now or were you lying then......

spiritual role model? good lord, I had enough in my life from all the nuns that tormented me through grade and high school. were any of these nuns my friend? Hell no. Am I responsible for them?

Keep peoples religion private, you know, Jefferson and the whole wall between church and state. Keep Wright on that side and Obama on this side.

"Second, speaking of those discredited, don't Obamafiles [sic] feel a little betrayed by their messiah who has now been caught in at least five lies about his relation with the good reverend."

No, because we're intelligent thinking people who know

1.  that Obama had a long relationship with Wright, and presume that he found over the time that the good Wright did outweighed the rhetorical flights and weird ideas;

2.  that black churches have a history of authoritarian conservatism and a narrow anti-intellectualism, and Wright seemed to offer something different;

and 3.  that nobody saw/sees Obama as a messiah in any case, but as a potentially transformative president who treats the American people as if they were adults and can handle a complex idea or an ambiguous situation.  We like that.

That make sense?

blackton, there is a distinction here that I think you might be missing:  most likely your parents chose to have you "tortured" by nuns as a child in school, rather than granting you free will, and allowing you to choose instead to be exposed to the evil, secular, free-thinking riffraff in the public schools.  So you have my sympathy for your parents' choice to oppress or indoctrinate you as a child.  

On the other hand, Obama freely chose Wright as a role model and authority figure for his daughters.  He is hardly an innocent victim here, and his judgment to choose Wright quite obviously sucked.  It appears that he chose to foist upon his daughters the same type of crap your parents dumped on you.  And again, crappy judgment is not an attribute most people desire in a president.  

ironyroad:

What's the secular word for "amen"? Oh, I know: "Hear! Hear!" Too bad "amen" sounds better.

One thing I'm waiting to see - will all the other people in the room that were high-fiving Reverend Wright now come to Wright's defense?  If Wright is the only black "leader" that keeps trying to fan the flames, this thing will eventually peter out.  But there were a lot of fellow travelers in that room with Wright that are passionately (and in many ways self-servingly) committed to keeping separatism and grievances alive.

I think it is highly possible that we might see these other black leaders throwing a snit, and then the blacks out in the voting booth will be forced to make a choice - support Obama or support their home grown charismatic leaders?  And given how many blacks there are in North Carolina, how this plays out there will have a very big impact.  I'd like to believe that the majority of blacks don't think the way that Wright thinks, and think closer to how Obama thinks, so that this won't hurt Obama in the black constituency.  But then a majority of blacks still think that OJ was innocent, so who knows?

Certainly, though, the Clintons need to keep their mouths shut on this issue.  They can't possibly say anything that would help them - no matter what they say, no matter how innocent or sincere, it's going to be seen as political posturing.  So just go out and stay totally away from this radioactive minefield.  Whatever happens, happens.  But we'll see if they can avoid the temptation, or be drawn to it like moths to a flame.

Obama's denunciation of Wright is incoherent and impossible to take as anything other than more slipperiness, disingenuousness, and fibbing on Obama'a part. For 20 years Obama didn't realize who Wright was and what he was sayng until the night his own presidential campaign was threatened? Is that credible? There is no difference between what Wright said at the National Press Club and what he said on the videos that Obama attacked as unrepresentative distortions. Nor is there a difference between what Wright said Moinday and what was reported in the Rolling Stone article that Obama cited as the reason for disinviting Wright to give the invocation at the launching of his campaign. (See time-blog.com/.../the_anatomy_of_wrights_disinvi.html ). Obama can't come up with a straight answer.

His maneuvers are so incoherent that he has now renederded his "Lincolnesque" race speech as non-operative and ridiculous, and he has left his kool-aid drinking, reality-denying supporters looking like idiotic dupes and stooges--for an example of which, see the following, in The Nation:

www.thenation.com/.../316575

They had the misfortune to publish this just before Obama "discovered" who Wright "really" was. What fools they now are seen to be.

buffaloboy, I've got to agree that the Clintons should just shut up here.  Obama managed to shoot himself in the foot again by MAKING RACE THE PARAMOUNT ISSUE IN HIS CAMPAIGN.  When their opponent is hell-bent on creating more self-inflicted wounds, neither Hillary or McCain are stupid enough to get in his way.  

Judgment.  It would be a good word to remember if (or, more likely, when) the Democrats let another presidential election slip from their certain grasp come this November.  

pccostello, excellent job of speaking the truth---but common sense isn't highly valued by many of the ideologues who routinely post here.  Keep the faith, baby!  DL

Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an ideologue?  Maybe they are just not so wildly impressed by the stuff you and pcc post.  Could that be it?

I'd consider it, if you're thinking of engaging in debate at any future point.

blackton, I apologize for using the term "tortured" in my reply when you actually wrote you were "tormented' by the nuns.  In the TNR world, there's probably a Gitmo's worth of difference there in the politically correct parsing of those two terms, and I'm sorry I misattributed that word to you.  

ironyroad , "Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an ideologue?  Maybe they are just not so wildly impressed by the stuff you and pcc post.  Could that be it?  

Hey, that's a really nice, compelling, ad hominem argument you've constructed there.  I'm impressed!  

Actually, I enjoy learning from people who disagree with me when they take me down using data and logic.  Unfortunately, some of posters here are incapable of constructing a well-reasoned argument based on facts, and they reflexively resort to invoking glittering generalities, pre-established narratives, and name-calling instead when they disagree.  Ideologue is a fair term to describe them.  

For an example, look at the above posts from rfaris10, or porterm, or virginiacentrist:  they make observations based on facts, and then draw logical conclusions.  You, on the other hand, just insult the purveyors of the conclusions you don't like without putting forward a valid counterargument.  

Hey, look it up: it's right there in the High School debate team manual!  

First, some kudos and an Amen to ironyroad.

I would say "I hate to bust some of y'alls bubbles...", but I actually enjoy this stuff. I need to sound off on a couple of things that I can't let slide. In case there are any doubts, allow me to call out "dlrocdoc" and "rfaris10".

Wright may be a conspiracy theorist, but that does not mean the Tuskeegee Experiment did not happen:

Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male[1] also known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Pelkola Syphilis Study, Public Health Service Syphilis Study or the Tuskegee Experiments was a clinical study, conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, in which 399 (plus 201 control group without syphilis) poor — and mostly illiterate — African American sharecroppers were used as subjects to observe the natural progression of syphilis without medicine. [Wikipedia]

While probably not true, and for sure there is no actual evidence, Wright's HIV theory is plausible. No one has any legitimate reason for decrying Wright as a conspiracy theorist.

A quick search of Racism on www.dictionary.com reveals the following information (I've picked the American Heritage definition because I'm AMERICAN):

  1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

  2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Wright may be a lot of things, but he meets no part of either of these criteria for being a racist. Wright has denounced and decried, very vocally and descriptively, the history of whites' oppression of blacks in America, citing things like Dred Scott, Jim Crow and the Tuskeegee Experiments which ARE racist because these things meet one or both of the criteria I've cited. However, you will never find anything proving Wright to meet any of the criteria for being a Racist without stooping to Faux News tactics, but that won't work either because I've watched the sermons that were made available on YouTube, the clips that show the WHOLE sermon; Wright never takes a stance that would qualify him as Racist under one of the criteria above, and actually concludes at least one sermon by calling together ALL people to unity and healing.

As for being a Hater, your scurrilous derision is not supported by anything Wright has said or done. Wright has vehemently decried some things which are worthy of hate and derision, but that does not make him a Hater, a point which was made abundantly clear during his interview with Moyers.

As for Obama's judgment, now that I've debunked your various "assertions" regarding Wright there is not much to talk about. First, Wright is neither a racist, a hater nor a conspiracy theorist: and never was. Second, Wright did not focus on things like Dred Scott or Jim Crow during EVERY sermon. The logical conclusion is that, most of the time during those 20 years, Wright was more or less indistinguishable from your average Christian paster on any given Sunday. Obama admitted that Wright would occasionally say some things, and all the facts I've seen support that statement.

Look, you do not have to like Obama, as a person or a candidate, but if you are going to attack him, rather than prop up your own candidate as a better choice, at least try to use arguments which are supported by actual facts, so that you do not end up looking like a Racist yourself, with unsupportable, scurrilous arguments as your pretext. You don't have to be a racist to support McBush or Hildabeast, but when you insist on bolstering the position of your candidate by negatively attacking Obama with untenable arguments, it really does look like a pretext for racism.

As for Bill Moyers, you can question his judgment based on scurrilous and disingenuous conclusions about Wright, or you can accept Moyers' proven reputation and the interview and allow that the media's (Faux News) treatment of Wright has been anything but genuine or honest. After watching the Faux News broadcasts, the coverage of the Faux News broadcasts, the entirety of a couple of the sermons that were used to vilify Wright (available on YouTube or for purchase from TUCC), as well as the interview with Moyers, and because I actually know what hermeneutics means I would have to say that 1) the Press has gone to great lengths to vilify Reverend Wright unjustly, and 2) white people need to stop drinking the koolaid. (I mean white people because I have yet to find a black person that was actually outraged by what Wright said, even if they didn't agree with it).

In fact, considering that 1) it is widely documented that white preachers have said many of the same things for which Wright was vilified, and 2) the same pundits and news anchors have never said anything regarding these other preachers, I think it is a fair conclusion that some news anchors and pundits should now be viewed as confirmed Racists that have acted prejudicially against Reverend Wright in an effort to smear Obama. I think it is also fair to conclude that anyone who continues to drink their kkkoolaid is at best being willfully ignorant, and at worst a Racist themselves. THAT, people, is the TRUE definition of racist; you do not have to like it, but you do need to deal with it.

As for coming to Wright's defense, you obviously missed the rousing ovations he received throughout his speech. They already ARE coming to his defense, although it is actually more in the form of moral support. Wright showed, quite deftly, that he does not need anyone to speak up for him; he was more than capable of putting his aggressors in their place during that speech.

Which brings me to the point of Obama denouncing Wright's words. I think it was more than justified at this point, but not because Obama disagrees with Wright. Like Obama said in the last major address, he sometimes does not agree with Wright on certain issues. This time, however, the real issue is that Wright is playing the Racist media's divisive game (and winning, IMNSHO) and has therefore become antagonistic to Obama's platform of Unity, Change, and rising above the divisiveness and partisanship to usher in a new era of politics. The only stance I saw, when watching Wright speak, that would put off Obama was when Wright started taking fierce jabs at his detractors; I think he even landed a couple of knockout blows, like pointing out that Farrakhan was the one to call Zionism a "gutter religion" and explicitly not owning that bit of "antisemitism".

This thorough separation from Wright will help if he wins the nomination because Conservatives lose their best argument against him, but allows for Obama to work with Wright in the future, when it becomes time to address the topics of unification and healing, which will necessarily involve dialogging with various Civil Leaders like Wright, Jackson and even Farrakhan.

And blacks are not going to be throwing any significant snits, largely because they actually understand what Wright was saying when he talked about Obama being a politician and himself being a pastor. They didn't throw a snit when this scandal erupted in the first place for the same reason; polling indicated a 2% drop for Obama in the AA community when this "story" was broken by Faux News, which quickly recovered once more of the actual details were flushed out. They may be black, and they may have been undereducated and underprivileged (thanks in large part to things like Jim Crow), but blacks 1) aren't stupid enough to fall for it, and 2) are more tolerant of various viewpoints (except, of course, for things like Racism and prejudice).

And its not that blacks don't think OJ did it. Blacks know that it was the Racist cops that ultimately screwed up a slam-dunk trial which allowed for OJ to be acquitted. They are still enjoying the irony that the Racism actually worked against the prosecutor more than anything else.

"You, on the other hand, just insult the purveyors of the conclusions you don't like without putting forward a valid counterargument."

Any evidence of that, dlrocdoc?  I merely suggested that if you consider the people who disagree with you to be ideologues, you might be leaving out the possibility that they just don't agree with you.  And if I've ever insulted anyone on this site, I'd be happy to hear from them, and apologize.

So I'd put it to you that my brief comment falls far short of an insult, and is not ad hominem. "Ad hominem" is when X says that Y's argument is wrong or unacceptable because Y is expressing it.  I don't know you, so it's impossible for me to construct an ad hominem comment.  I was merely suggesting that you could give people you disagree with the benefit of the same pass you give yourself.

dlrocdoc,

I want to play this game...

"So I wonder if denunciation alone is enough, or if instead renunciation, or yes, the very "disownment" ... is called for instead."

I am a Catholic, if the Pope says something I disagree with must I denounce, renunciate and disown or this only applicable in the Black Church?

I enjoy conspiracy theories involving  the govt., must my friends "disown" me because I believe some of these or do they realize that overall I am a rational, decent person who happens to have a few quirks?

Peace

Greg

gregstolhand, if the pope said something as obviously untrue and evil as the blather Wright has spouted, (e.g., HIV is a disease invented by the US government to kill blacks), then I would expect a moral catholic would choose to leave the church.  Just like Oprah left Wright's church.  

You might recall that a guy named Martin Luther did just that a few centuries back over a similar dust-up, and protestantism was the result.  

The Pope at one time in history said the world was flat and that Earth was the center of the universe :)

They are people and people make mistakes and have weird ideas sometimes, why the need to denounce and disown, why not just disagree?

To Gspinks,

 Thanks for calling me out; it’s nice to know that one’s words are being read even if they are not understood or approved. I am delighted that you think so well of reverend Wright that you are inclined to ignore everything about him that most thoughtful people find revolting in his understanding of race, America, the Jews and how blacks learn.  

First you tell your readers that Wright may be a conspiracy theorist but that fact (I presume you agree he is one) doesn’t mean the Tuskeegee Experiment did not happen. What does one have to do with the other? That reprehensible episode in American history, now common knowledge available to all, does nothing to justify the good reverend’s assertions about the origin of the aids virus and blacks in the United States.  If the pastor’s inclination to scream conspiracy about the planting of the aids virus in black urban neighborhoods is justified by the revelations about the Tuskeegee Experiment, then you and the reverend can make any wild and unsubstantiated claims about “the bad-ass U.S. government”  you wish--rational arguments are usually important in a courtroom.  To use that experiment, horrendous as it was, as a basis for making-up claims about aids and perhaps robots stealing our luggage at airports, is to abandon any pretext of a logical, rational and evidenced-basis process for determining the truth.

So whether the reverend believes half of the now widely circulated and fully contextualized bald-faced lies and distortions is irrelevant. That he’s willing to offer them as the truth in the absence of ANY evidence, is unconscionable and is part of the reason why Obama has finally acted to denounced this narcisstic and hate-filled man.  By the way, your insistence that Wright's accusation about aids is plausible is laughable.  What exactly is plausible about a government secretly introducing a virus, the consequence of which is the spending of billions of government dollars on research to cure the epidemic, twhile it spreads or has the potential  to the white population, and the danger of it undermining the stability of the republic?  What sort of understanding of governments are you and the reverend embracing to permit such a bizarre notion?

If Obama is only denouncing the reverend because of the pressure from the faux press, one that is, on your line filled with misunderstandings of both Obama and the looney pastor, then wouldn’t that make him (Obama) rather lacking in character that he would abandon a reverend who is brave and fierce enough to “speak truth to power?”  Shouldn’t Obama have stood by the goofy fellow who spits in the eye of big brother, the racists and the introducers of the terrible virus that plagues his community?  Your dictionary definition of racism, while simplistic as you would expect from a dictionary rather than a history or sociology text, would, nevertheless, work both ways. Bogus charges of racism from those “playing the race card” would also be denied and labeled as opportunistic and dishonest.

As for the Moyers interview, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the disingenuousness of it since Moyers deliberately avoided raising any serious objections as a good interviewer might or should have. Because if he had done so, he  would have revealed the good pastor to be the blowhard he is, the uninformed fellow he is, the unobservant theological hack that he is, the narcissist that he is.  He has not one scintilla of evidence to support his wild-eyed claim about the Aids virus and only sows deeper suspicions among his parishioners about a government that is long since past the 1950s era.  He hurts his own people with such distorted views of the universe we all live in, and it is for that reason among others that he was finally cut loose by Obama who doesn’t buy any of it, if he ever did.

By the way, does not "Zionism is racism" qualify as another of his ideologically hate-filled  assertions from someone who hasn’t the foggiest notion of what either is? You see, the good reverend is an anti-semite, is someone who wishes to focus part of the anger he has fanned within the black community on the embattled country of Israel and those jews in the U.S. who support it.  Simply put, he’s just another of those bigots in the black church who mirror those bigots in the white churches preaching race hatred without any interest in ascertaining the facts of life in the U.S. in the 21st century.  So scurrilous derision, if good enough for the white preacher filled with hate is an apt affect to the black preacher pursuing the same agenda.

If think by merely asserting you’ve “debunked” the commonly held views of the good pastor that you’ve succeeded,  you might try actually reading Obama’s last speech.  Does he think the reverend was trying to throw him under the bus?  Does he think the pastor is wrong, wrong, wrong?  Of course he does and he did even with his speech in Philadelphia.  So if you are an Obama fan, and by the way, I don’t dislike him and in a few years could even be convinced he’d be good for the country as president, you should accept his judgment of Wright, since he should know, a parishioner who listened to his rantings for 20 years, and who cites him in his "famous" book.  But he’s distancing himself from Wright as fast and as effectively as he can and still retain any credibility.  My view is that he believes very little of the idiocy of this man, whatever good you wish to attribute to Wright.

But I wouldn’t want to leave you with the impression that I think Obama is the object of my scorn.  Obama supporters, both in the press and in his campaign, have treated him as if he were the savior, as if it’s a good idea to assign anyone that role, and have been oblivious to anything in his history that might suggest otherwise, especially his relation to a black nationalist, marxist church in the middle of Chicago.  Of course parishioners are entitled to believe whatever they wish, even if most rational Americans reject such a discredited “ism”, with its nasty history of pogroms and reeducation camps, failed economic institutions and the like.  But presidential candidates in the U.S. hardly ever cozy up to the wild-eyed looney ideas of that group, even if they need their votes----Obama’s dilemma.

As for Blacks “understanding” what Wright did and why they won’t hold it against Obama for denouncing Wright, I couldn’t  think of a more disingenuous position to take—one that suggests that the black community, for whom you do not speak anymore than Wright does, is winking at the speeches by Wright, pretending to agree that his words are reprehensible while secretly believing anything he utters as gospel.  You surely can’t be serious in thinking that Obama, once he has conquered the racist/divisive game after he becomes the president, will then work with the divisive preacher to unify Americans around his (Wright's) disgusting and outrageous ideas?  If he’s lucky enough to gain the presidency, he’ll run not walk away from that stupidity, his only chance to both win reelection the next time around and to forge any meaningful unity between blacks and whites in the U.S.

Your comments about what blacks thought of the OJ case are also distasteful.  Again, I question whether you speak for blacks any more than either the reverend does, or I do for whites (whatever those artificially created concepts mean).  But if you’re serious, a man got away with brutally knifing to death two people, and because you view the criminal justice system as “racist”—although it doesn’t fit your own definition of racism you supplied from a dictionary—you view that as justification for permitting another malignant narcissist (OJ)  to go free, to murder without consequence? Curious concept of justice you’re working with but then you think well of the good pastor.

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