Falwell and Wright

Ezra Klein’s a smart guy, so I’m assuming this is a parody of liberal cluelessness rather than the real thing:

Does anyone believe a long association with Jerry Falwell's church would have done anything but help McCain in the Republican primary, and gotten Democrats tagged as anti-religion when they tried to point out Falwell's nuttiness in the general? It's fine to be a Christian extremist in America. It's fine to believe, and say publicly, that everyone who hasn't accepted Jesus Christ into their heart will roast in eternal hellfire, fine to believe that the homosexuals caused Hurricane Katrina and the feminists contributed to 9/11, fine to believe we must support Israel so the Jews can be largely annihilated in a war that will trigger the End Times, fine to believe we're in a holy battle with the barbaric hordes of Islam, fine to believe that we went to the Middle East to prove "our God is bigger than your God." What you can't believe is that blacks have suffered a long history of oppression in this country, that they're still face deep institutional discrimination, and that a country where 100 percent of the presidents have been rich white guys is actually run by rich white guys. More to the point, even if you do believe those things, you certainly can't be angry about it!

What horseshit. If John McCain were an evangelical Christian and a longstanding member of Jerry Falwell’s congregation, and if he had written a memoir describing, say, how he was “born again” under Falwell’s influence, he would not be the Republican nominee today. With a great deal of luck, he might – might – have done as well in the primaries as Mike Huckabee did, and of course you may recall that Huck had all kinds of difficulties winning non-evangelical votes, faring particularly poorly among Catholics; you may recall, as well, that the press delighted in lobbing him questions about evolution and wives submitting to their husbands and all the rest of it, without any fear of being tagged as anti-religion. And of course Falwell’s brand of evangelical Christianity is considerably more controversial than Huckabee’s. And considerably more apocalyptic, one might add: Imagine, for instance, how McCain’s support of the surge, and his hawkishness more generally, would have been treated if he attended a church whose pastor's foreign policy views are defined by a belief in the imminence of Armageddon.

As to Ezra's larger point, of course it’s “fine” to be a white Christian extremist in America; it's also fine to be a black Christian extremist like Jeremiah Wright. This is a free country, after all. Nobody in the national media was parsing the Reverend Wright's sermons before the 2008 campaign, and nobody would be parsing them today if he was just one minister among many supporting Barack Obama for President. I have no doubt that many, many Democratic politicians have put in an appearance at churches whose pastors share Wright's outlandish political views without anyone kicking up a fuss, just as Republican politicians have long accepted the support of figures like Falwell without taking too much heat about it. The distinction here, for the umpteenth time, is that Wright isn't just Obama's supporter; he's his pastor, his friend, and his spiritual mentor, which makes him exactly the kind of person whose views ought to be of interest to a public that's considering electing Barack Obama President of the United States. And as to the substance of those views, well, if Ezra really thinks that Wright's sermons have sparked controversy because he broke a taboo against getting angry over the fact that "blacks have suffered a long history of oppression in this country" and "still face deep institutional discrimination," I would suggest that he take another look at them, paying particular attention to Wright's remarks about 9/11, as well as what appears to be his suggestion that the U.S. government created not only the crack epidemic, but the AIDS epidemic as well.

(It's also worth noting that two of the specific examples of white Christian extremism Ezra nods to - Falwell's 9/11 comments, and General William Boykin's "my God is bigger than your God" remarks - both provoked controversies that ended in public apologies, albeit of the mealy-mouthed, "I'm sorry if you were offended" variety. Whereas I'm not holding my breath waiting for Reverend Jeremiah Wright to "clarify" his remarks.)

Comments

Couldn't agree more. He's being willfully blind. Frankly, he's not fooling anyone and not helping Obama, either.

Posted by Peder | March 17, 2008 12:25 PM

Wright is trouble.

Wright is an exhibitionist and has long been publicly committed to the idea that the white man will never give the black man an even break. I suspect he'd prefer to do down in history as the Willie Horton of 2008 who sank Obama's candidacy than as a minor figure who helped get Obama elected President.

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 17, 2008 12:26 PM

Wright may well want to sabotage Obama.

Look how Wright invented out of whole cloth a Lifetime Achievement award just to give it to Louis Farrakhan at a gala event at the Hyatt Regency in Chicago last November 2. If he sticks to the same schedule, he'll hold another one on the Friday night before Election Tuesday. Who is he going to give his
Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement award to then? The Beltway Snipers?

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 17, 2008 12:31 PM

So 9/11 had nothing to do with American foreign policy?

Posted by Brendan | March 17, 2008 12:32 PM

It's NOT horse shit!!! If you don't think there's a different standard going on here than how the hell do we account for George W. Bush and all the crazy hatin' people who endorsed, guided, and donated to him? You gotta be kidding me. We've given a pass on the conservative evangelical Christian comments for many many years.

Posted by leap1 | March 17, 2008 12:37 PM

I agree with Ross on the politics. I think Wright is a real danger to Obama, and his existence will probably dog him throughout the campaign.

As for what Wright said, particularly about 9/11, its not as clear what is objectionable (probably because its not clear exactly what Wright meant). The fact that the US has killed millions of other people around the world "without batting an eye", and then got the vapors because 3,000 people got killed here, is a bit hyperbolic, but otherwise just a mundane truth. Yes, its politically incorrect, but so what? By the way, I don't think this is much of an indictment of America because I see this as a reflection of a universal human nature rather than anything particular about the U.S.

The idea that 9/11 is "chickens coming home to roost", that somehow has a connection to our bombing Japan in WWII, seems to indicate that he believes it is God's retribution for our sins. This, of course, is crazy, but exactly the kind of crazy you expect from someone who believes in Divine intervention. Is it the idea that God would want to punish America, as opposed to always blessing America, what is so objectionable?

Posted by Jim W | March 17, 2008 12:41 PM

Meanwhile, over at Huffpo, a former member of the Christian right details how he and his father preached similarly inflammatory damn-America language, and were subsequently invited to dine with Reagan and Bush.

The real mystery is why Dems continue to grovel whenever anyone unearths something controversial that any of their acquantainces said without their knowledge somewhere in the past, while Repubs get away with murder. Just hypothetically, what would happen if a Dem candidate said he was proud and honored to receive the support of someone who explicitly called for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews? His candidacy would be dead on the spot.

Posted by Hans B | March 17, 2008 12:50 PM

Spengler has an interesting article today in The Asian Times, The peculiar theology of black liberation , cogently arguing that:

Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people”. At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | March 17, 2008 12:51 PM

Ezra Klein: most overrated liberal blogger.

Posted by right | March 17, 2008 12:53 PM

If John McCain were an evangelical Christian and a longstanding member of Jerry Falwell’s congregation, and if he had written a memoir describing, say, how he was “born again” under Falwell’s influence, he would not be the Republican nominee today.

Uh, what? You're really going to just assert that and make no effort to justify it? Sorry, but this is unadulterated bullshit. It's just ideological blindness. Unapologetic, enthusiastic support of absolutely batshit Christian demogoguery has been the lifeblood of your party for about, oh, two decades now. Don't play coy and pretend that the Republican party has in any way extricated itself from vengeful, extremist, apocalyptic Christianity, because it most certainly has not.

Also, I'm increasingly tired of your "hey I said-- whoop no I didn't!" attitude towards race-baiting. Do you really want to put the phrases "blacks have suffered a long history of oppression" and "still face deep institutional discrimination" in scare quotes? You constantly tiptoe up to the line of saying controversial things about race in America, but you never actual do it. Winess your obsession with the size of a "welfare queen"'s TV or your support for the patently dishonest Reagan welfare-queen story. You're a bright guy but on this issue you are an utter coward. Say what you mean.

Posted by Freddie | March 17, 2008 1:00 PM

You've got to be kidding me. Falwell has been important in Republican circles for decades. The number of connections between Republicans and creepy people and institutions--Bob Jones University, anyone? What about the Council of Conservative Citizens? How deep must we think that Larison's weird commitments are, if he's basically a Southern Agrarian? And should we be inferring something about your views from your friendship with Larison?--are legion. Republicans don't repudiate those people or institutions because they can't win without them. For gawd's sake, the reason that McCain had to stage a comeback is, in part, because he does occasionally repudiate or otherwise take shots at them.

And religion? What does your Catholicism say about your comfort with pedophiles, or at least where you rank it as a sin in comparison with Church embarrassment? Are you a faithless Catholic for supporting an unjust war, or did you really not support it and didn't want to say?

Jeebus. But, hell, if Republicans want to play the dozens about fringe-y statements, particularly by religious leaders, keep on keeping on. That's a game some Democrats have been wanting to play for years.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 1:10 PM

Uh, but it is Obama who is setting himself up as 'above and beyond' politics as usual. This makes him seem, like, well, any other politician, R or D. So those of you who say the Republicans do the same thing are just underscoring the point. He's the same as other politicians - he looks out for his own interests. It's same old same old.

Posted by MD | March 17, 2008 1:10 PM

Yeah - Ross seems to think the Jerry Falwell is some sort of marginal figure in American politics. That comes as a big surprise to me.

Rather than debating Falwell's specific role, though, I think it's worth pointing out that for every Wright there are a thousand Falwells, and while it may give Ross some comfort to think of McCain as merely a pragmatic convert to this flock it fills me with the opposite emotion.

I would like to hear Ross say exactly what his problem with Wright is! Is it the role of race in Wright's theology? If so, does he have a similar problem with, say, Joe Lieberman's theological outlook? I think Ezra's concerns have a lot of merit here.

Posted by berger | March 17, 2008 1:13 PM

Ah, the nation's vaunted top-flight graduate schools: apparently full of students who can't distinguish between scare quotes and direct quotes. Perhaps if Freddie, using those finely honed reading skills that got him into graduate school in the first place, had read the Ezra Klein block quote, he would have realized that Ross was specifically quoting Klein, identifying what appears to be a central point in Klein's argument.

And, Freddie, I think that if you kept reading, you'll find that Ross backed up his assertion with a fairly persuasive argument, using Huckabee's failed campaign as evidence, though of course it's only fairly persuasive because we're talking about a freaking counterfactual - i.e., we've never seen a member of Falwell's church run for president. And, again, one would think that your reasoning skills would be sufficient to distinguish the question of whether Republican's have won votes by courting the religious right from the question of whether a bona fide member in good standing of the religious right could win the Republican nomination for the presidency.

And isn't the conflation of the two rather inexplicable given that your ideological confreres consistently argue that the Republican establishment is interested in the religious right only for their votes and not their values and that it would never allow a religious nut-job like Huckabee to become the nominee? Y'all can't have it both ways...

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 1:18 PM

As a Christian who has attended a wide variety of churches over the years, I can say with confidence that Klein's rant is describing about 20 Christians in the country. Huckabee was running as the mainline southern evangelical in the Republican primary... and he got clobbered.

There is a wonderful sniff test to see if someone is drawing evidence from their own personal dreamland or from some tangible reality. When you say the word "evangelical Christian" to Ezra Klein, does the image that pops up into his head more accurately reflect a movie character (perhaps from "There Will Be Blood") or a Christian that he knows personally?

Posted by Matthias | March 17, 2008 1:19 PM

****Jeebus. But, hell, if Republicans want to play the dozens about fringe-y statements, particularly by religious leaders, keep on keeping on. That's a game some Democrats have been wanting to play for years.****

How's that workin' out for ya, Tim? Tough talk is easy to type, ain't it?

Posted by RW | March 17, 2008 1:21 PM

Ross,
Really, It's OK to pander to right wing preachers, ask for their money and support all the while not believing a damn thing they say. Right wing preachers declare 911 and Katrina acts of retribution against gays and sinners and they are invited to the Whitehouse, they are invited on political talk shows, they are members in good standing in the Republican party. You don't see a double standard?

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 1:26 PM

Whatever one thinks of the content of Wright's sermons, part of the problem for Obama is that he has claimed to be "beyond race" and has argued for a new politics that goes beyond the politics of personal destruction and all of that.

To find that he then is so closely associated with a man whose sermons do indeed involve precisely the sort of race-based anger and personal attacks (check out his pet names for Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice) that he claims to reject understandably raises the eyebrows of those who saw him as an agent of change.

Obama has said all the right things, but when his closest spiritual advisor (and someone whose church he supported to the tune of over $20K) seems stuck in exactly the angry, personal attack mode that Obama has promised to overcome, one wonders about the sincerity of his rhetoric.

Posted by Steve Horwitz | March 17, 2008 1:26 PM

****Y'all can't have it both ways***

Sure they can.
Remember back in December, 1998, when bombing Iraq because of WMDs was cool? Or the '04 election, when being a war hero was the primary reason to vote against someone who never served?

It's easy when history truly began yesterday.

Posted by RW | March 17, 2008 1:26 PM

Bush and Billy Graham:

And his influence is especially felt in the current administration. When asked where he would be without Graham, George W. Bush said "I wouldn't be president."

Troubling statements of (and muted apology by) Billy Graham:

In 1994, H.R. Haldeman's diaries revealed that Graham had taken part in conversations speaking of "Jewish domination of the media." The allegations were so at odds with Graham's public image that most did not believe his account, and Jewish groups paid little attention. Graham released a statement denying that he talked "publicly or privately about the Jewish people, including conversations with President Nixon, except in the most positive terms." He said, "Those are not my words."[13]

In 2002, however, newly declassified "Richard Nixon tapes" confirmed remarks made by Graham to President Nixon three decades earlier. Captured on the tapes, Graham agreed with Nixon that Jews control the American media, calling it a "stranglehold" during a 1972 conversation with Nixon.[23] "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,"[24] said Graham, agreeing with Nixon's comments about Jews and their influence in American life. Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, including A.M. Rosenthal, saying they "swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he tells Nixon, "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country."[23] These remarks were highly controversial to some Jewish leaders that characterized them as antisemitic, such as Abraham Foxman.[13]

When the tapes were released, Graham apologized for his remarks, stating that "although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made ... They do not reflect my views, and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks,"[25] and "If it wasn't on tape, I would not have believed it. I guess I was trying to please... I went to a meeting with Jewish leaders and I told them I would crawl to them to ask their forgiveness."[26] According to Newsweek magazine, "the shock of the revelation was magnified because of Graham's longtime support of Israel and his refusal to join in calls for the conversion of the Jews."[26]

So we're all agreed that George Bush may well be an anti-semite, and that it's because of that anti-semitism that he wasn't elected. Thank gawd for the enormous media effort that went into looking into this matter.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 1:30 PM

If John McCain were an evangelical Christian and a longstanding member of Jerry Falwell’s congregation, and if he had written a memoir describing, say, how he was “born again” under Falwell’s influence, he would not be the Republican nominee today. With a great deal of luck, he might – might – have done as well in the primaries as Mike Huckabee did.

Like Freddie above, I'm having a hard time believing that you really think this is true. You use Huckabee as an example, and choose to ignore our current born-again, fundamentalist president? Look, I don't agree with everything Ezra wrote, but your argument is BS.

Posted by Gabriel | March 17, 2008 1:31 PM

A couple of points:

1. I'm a Bob Jones alum (almost twenty years ago now) who has since left all that completely behind. I had little idea what I was getting into when I went (I spent most of my childhood overseas) and am not clear now why I stayed for all four years. I had grown up in a racially diverse church and community and found the institution's position on race inexplicable.

2. That said, during my time there, I don't recall hearing any sermon on race per se. I certainly heard nothing as poisonous as these clips from Wright.

3. My long-ago connection with Bob Jones has resulted in my having to deal with questions about religion in nearly every job interview I've had since, notwithstanding my extensive time spent overseas, my marriage to a spouse of another race, and my graduation at near the top of the class of one of the top graduate programs in my profession in the country. I have had recruiting personnel from some employers - espeically those particularly "committed" to "diversity" - all but mock me in interviews. I know that if I ever ran for office in my part of the country, my four-year association with Bob Jones would terminate my candidacy before it even got started.

4. Those of you - Freddie, I'm talking to you - who likely feel no sympathy for me, please explain how my distant association with Bob Jones should tarnish me any more than Obama's ongoing association with the racist Rev. Wright - even to the point of putting his children under the influence of Wright's hateful teachings - should tarnish him.

5. Given my own experience - and if we've learned anything from this campaign, it's that one's personal experiences trump all other considerations - forgive me if my schadenfreude at Obama's predicament is nearly uncontrollable. It's about time the media turned its attention to the extremist rhetoric that comes out of mainline, so-called "social justice" churches on a regular basis. The only reason their influence on the left margins of American politics (and the mainstream of African-American politics) has not been the subject of more outrage is because, by and large, the press either (1) is afraid to touch it or (2) largely agrees with it. It's about time that changed.

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 1:32 PM

Talk about chickens coming home to roost ... you diversity whores and race baiting liberals will choke on Wright from now until November because you REFUSE TO ADMIT THE MAN IS A RACIST ...

Un - believable ...

You deserve to lose when your hero can't even clean up the racists in his own church ...

The Big Con game that Obama has been playing is starting to unravel ...

Your ignorance about human nature allowed Obama to lie about his past and beliefs ... you simply cannot believe a black man can be that messed up.
The signs were always there. His nasty wife, his "present" votes, his pastor.

You on the left simply bought it hook, line and sinker and now you are feeling the bite of the hook in your lip and you think you can just jump up, shake your head and shout racism and that hook will be thrown. Sorry, you swallowed it way to deep for that.

You are going to die as a polical party, flopping around, gasping for air just waiting for the end.

Posted by Jeff | March 17, 2008 1:32 PM

The least edifying part of this whole Wright business is this debate over whether Wright is more, less, or equally as offensive as Falwell etc. I'm sick of politics by who's offended. Let's stipulate that most religions have a viewpoint about who's chosen and who's not that is kind of offensive in a secular democracy, where we're not supposed to disdain our neighbors for tribal reasons. Nevertheless everybody has to belong to a church to get elected. So every candidate's in the same catch-22.

The question is, is your religion something that makes it likely you can be fair-minded, pluralistic, decent etc., or does it make other groups feel like you're going to be out to get them? It's entirely rational for white lunchbucket guys to feel that a black politician who's led a fairly charmed life sliding right up the ladder of success-- Ivy League to law firm to power-- yet apparently goes to a church where they peddle and nurse no end of resentment and grievance toward whitey is not going to have his interests in mind-- and fails a rather crucial test of self-awareness to boot.

And it is entirely reasonable for any of us who feel national security is a key issue in this election to question whether someone who may well subscribe to the idea that 9/11 was justified payback for Hiroshima (funny that Osama Bin Laden himself never mentions that in his laundry list of gripes, by the way) is not someone you feel is right enough and clear-headed enough to defend this country and advance its interests. They can have those views, but that doesn't entitle them to our votes.

Posted by Fried Smelts | March 17, 2008 1:35 PM

please explain how my distant association with Bob Jones should tarnish me any more than Obama's ongoing association with the racist Rev. Wright

At a bare minimum, we're talking about an institution tasked with educating you, through both formal and informal means, at what is supposed to be an impressionable age. That seems pretty easy to distinguish.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 1:37 PM

If we were to elect Obama as Prez, one of the benefits would be to have an important counter-points to some types of extremism.

African Americans cant, wont, must...

Or maybe they could be President of the U.S.

Posted by Kim | March 17, 2008 1:38 PM

Unapologetic, enthusiastic support of absolutely batshit Christian demogoguery has been the lifeblood of your party for about, oh, two decades now.

Yeah, like remember when Falwell blamed 9/11 on the gays and the abortionists, and Bush was like "Totally! Right on!"?

Oh wait, no. It wasn't quite like that.

For gawd's sake, the reason that McCain had to stage a comeback is, in part, because he does occasionally repudiate or otherwise take shots at them.

"In part" is doing an awful lot of work here. I'm pretty sure McCain was never going to receive evangelical primary votes and that his need for a comeback was driven much more by immigration.

Posted by right | March 17, 2008 1:39 PM

Any halfway honest person should easily understand that for a 66 year old black man to feel some anger at the U.S., and even at white people as a class, is in no way morally equivalent to the reverse. Admirable? No. But arguments of the form "If you switched the words 'black' and 'white'..." ignore the entire history of our country. And I really don't think people who make such arguments are making them in good faith; I don't think anyone is really so naive.

Posted by Brendan | March 17, 2008 1:39 PM

Since Nixon came up, I'm reminded of something Stephen Ambrose said, where he marveled that someone who had been awarded nearly every office in the land by the people* should be so consumed by resentment over how he wasn't loved enough like those goddam golden Kennedys.

Don't elect presidents who nurse resentments when in fact they've been extraordinarily blessed. It just never works out.

* Nixon, in fact, had more votes cast for him in elections than anyone else in American history. Interesting to think of it that way.

Posted by Fried Smelts | March 17, 2008 1:41 PM

Falwell is and has been a marginal figure in Republican circles for years. The only people who still think he and Pat Robertson have political clout with GOP voters are liberal Democrats.

As for Ross making an "unsubstantiated assertion" about what would happen if McCain were a Falwell-evangelical - he uses the *actual* example of how poorly Mike Huckabee (a much more mainstream evangelical) did in the Republican primaries to suggest (at least to those paying attention and not just looking to score cheap points) that a more extreme evangelical would have done worse.

> (It's also worth noting that two of the specific examples of white Christian extremism Ezra nods to - Falwell's 9/11 comments, and General William Boykin's "my God is bigger than your God" remarks - both provoked controversies that ended in public apologies, albeit of the mealy-mouthed, "I'm sorry if you were offended" variety...)

Posted by JD | March 17, 2008 1:43 PM

I'm pretty sure McCain was never going to receive evangelical primary votes

Think that might be because of his shots at "agents of intolerance"? Maybe? Possibly?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 1:43 PM

SomeCallMe,

When the tapes were released, Graham apologized for his remarks, stating that "although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made ... They do not reflect my views, and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks,"

"According to Newsweek magazine, "the shock of the revelation was magnified because of Graham's longtime support of Israel and his refusal to join in calls for the conversion of the Jews."

Where are the parallels with Wright? A. Are we talking about things he said 30 years ago, or within the last 5 years? B. Has he apologized for anything he's said? C. Are there contravening statnements and/or actions that indicate that his statements about whites and/or America are anomalies, as opposed to firmly held beliefs?

Posted by Mike S. | March 17, 2008 1:43 PM

Obama did not learn to be a radical black man from Wright, he took the good and rejected the extreme. There is nothing in Obama's writings speeches or voting record that show him to be of like mind with Wright.
Why do people insist on portraying his relationship in such a simplistic fashion. Don't answer that, I know why.

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 1:45 PM

"Obama did not learn to be a radical black man from Wright, he took the good and rejected the extreme. "

Could be true, what's the proof? All this has revealed is how little we know of the true Obama. Post-racial uniter or conspiracist nutbar? Who can tell from the speeches he makes?

Posted by Fried Smelts | March 17, 2008 1:48 PM

At a bare minimum, we're talking about an institution tasked with educating you, through both formal and informal means, at what is supposed to be an impressionable age. That seems pretty easy to distinguish.

Just as I thought: My one-time association with the institution is enough to brand me for life with the racist bilge the institution is known for. No doubt a similar youthful lapse in judgment by somebody on the left - Bill Ayers, anyone? - would be met with bromides about the indiscretions of youth. Good God.

Isn't it easy to distinguish on grounds more favorable to me? I attended Bob Jones when I was young, impressionable, and faced with a number of unappealing options (coming from a fundamentalist family, suspicious of higher education; indeed, the first in my family to go to college); I have since distanced myself from the school, and everything in my current life - from the career I've chosen to the way I rear my kids - shows a commitment to honest, fair inquiry and a rejection of any philosophy that would judge people based on their racial or ethnic identity.

Obama, on the other hand, consciously chose a racist minister for his mentor, submitted to the leadership of that mentor in the early years of his faith formation, and has maintained his association with that minister - to the extent of, as I said above, willfully placing his children under that minister's hateful teaching - for two decades.

And you seriously maintain that I'm the worthier of condemnation and ostracism?

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 1:50 PM

Think that might be because of his shots at "agents of intolerance"? Maybe? Possibly?

Of course it is. Also because he's not evangelical. But it has nothing to do with why he faded from Republican front-runner status in 2007 and needed to "stage a comeback".

Posted by right | March 17, 2008 1:50 PM

Ross--You know who was a really nutty "spiritual advisor"? There was a guy back in the 1860s who actually stood up and told Americans that God had given them the Civil War as punishment for their sins--and he got away with it! He did it from the East Portico of the Capitol!! Lord knows what any of you--you, Matt, Ezra, bloggers left and right--would have done with that Abraham Lincoln character. May I suggest, though, that societies that think prophets are nutty by definition--and that seems to be the case with the whole lot of you--are in big trouble? Wright is a hot preacher; to anyone who's ever been to a black church, this is no surprise in the least, though it seems to be shocking, shocking!! to you guys [One might suggest that there are severe limits to your vaunted cosmopolitanism]. Prophets are also shaggy fellows who say disquieting things. But, as Ralph Luker pointed out this morning at Cliopatria, Martin Luther King, Jr. said similar "nutty" things, and was hated for similar reasons. These guys scare you--and they scare you [and again I don't mean the Right, but the Left as well] because, in the end, your ultimate value is your own comfort.

Posted by David in Nashville | March 17, 2008 1:50 PM

bjd - yes, you have a point. Still.

It's not so much that he really believed Wright, it's just that he found him politically expedient to associate with at one point, and now he's trouble, so Obama's gonna dump him. Now, that's a profile in courage, right there.

Posted by MD | March 17, 2008 1:52 PM

"Obama did not learn to be a radical black man from Wright, he took the good and rejected the extreme."

I find this argument - peddled by Sullivan and certain close friends of mine - to be among the most remarkable to come out out of this whole brouhaha. Certainly Obama's rhetoric differs vastly from that offered up by Wright . . . but, folks, it's rhetoric, nothing more. And all the rhetoric shows is that Obama was smart enough to know that he wouldn't win his Senate race, much less the Democratic nomination, if he campaigned with the rhetoric of a Wright (or even a Jesse Jackson). In other words, while he may indeed be altogether different from Wright, his rhetoric doesn't prove that; it proves only that he's a savvier campaigner than Jackson was. That's something, but it certainly isn't a sign of the second coming...

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 1:56 PM

Any halfway honest person should easily understand that for a 66 year old black man to feel some anger at the U.S.

Any halfway honest person would also understand that these statements go beyond some vague disassociated anger at the U.S. or "white people". How angry do you have to be to believe that AIDS is a government created disease designed to eradicate the African American population? Or is it better described as prejudice and irrationality?

Posted by Brad | March 17, 2008 1:57 PM

This is one instance where Obama really can blame the press. Not for all these burdensome questions but for their lateness. Once Barry came up to the Edwards level of support he should have been vetted like anyone else; like Romney and the Huck or at least on par with Hillary. Din't happen. No no. Obama has all the downsides of Jackson with less candor and more vitriol but the Dem flunky's in the press didn't point any of that out because they Hope For Change. Hilarious! But Obama will have served one invaluable purpose; I thought I would be lucky to live to see the shiny rubbed off of the Clintons. Well done, Barry. Well done.

Posted by megapotumus | March 17, 2008 1:58 PM

How angry do you have to be to believe that AIDS is a government created disease designed to eradicate the African American population? Or is it better described as prejudice and irrationality?

Well, it is prejudice and irrationality. But have you ever stopped to ask why some black people might find such conspiracy theories believable? You might start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

Posted by Brendan | March 17, 2008 2:01 PM

In other words, while he may indeed be altogether different from Wright, his rhetoric doesn't prove that; it proves only that he's a savvier campaigner than Jackson was
And you have nothing to base this on at all and that's called prejudice.

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 2:03 PM

But have you ever stopped to ask why some black people might find such conspiracy theories believable?

Because some idiots & guilty white liberals prop them up in order for votes, that's why. That's why you have enablers trying to argue the indefensible right now, because voting for the Dem is all that matters.

Posted by RW | March 17, 2008 2:05 PM

Once Barry came up to the Edwards level of support he should have been vetted like anyone else; like Romney

Back in the U.S. at Brigham Young, when boycotts and violent protests over the university's virtually all-white sports teams broke out at away games, he stayed on the sidelines.

At the time, the Mormon Church excluded blacks from full membership, considering them spiritually unfit as the result of a biblical curse on the descendants of Noah's son Ham.

A handful of students and prominent Mormons called for an end to the doctrine, but Romney wasn't one of them. When he heard over a car radio in 1978 that the church would offer blacks full membership, he said, he pulled over and cried.

But until then, he deferred to church leaders, he said. "The way things are achieved in my church, as I believe in other great faiths, is through inspiration from God and not through protests and letters to the editor."

Oh, yeah, "vetted."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 2:09 PM

And you have nothing to base this on at all and that's called prejudice.

Since when does a citizen of this republic bear the burden of proof when it comes to judging whether a candidate for public office has the substance to back up his or her rhetoric. Demanding that a candidate show that is not prejudice, bjd, it's prudence.

All I said was that Obama's rhetoric proves nothing about his substantive beliefs. Are you saying that I'm prejudiced for not taking him at his word? Because that's all there is - his word, his claim that he is a unifying force, a bringer of change that transcends race and party. Words and claims contradicted not only by his association for over twenty years with a racist, hate-filled minister who sees American as irretrievably divided and corrupt, but also by his utter failure ever to take a stand that caused him to break ranks with his party in a way that actually cost him something, unlike his Republican rival.

Let me put it another way: What you're advocating is a kind of faith-based politics, but it's a faith of the most irrational kind - faith that you can take a politician at his or her word. Forgive me if I find that type of faith to rival the Jim Jones cult for sheer lunacy.

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 2:12 PM

It looks as though Obama may have the "Wright Stuff."

Posted by too bad | March 17, 2008 2:13 PM

Some here have argued that, in at least some of his remarks, Wright is either correct, incorrect with an understandable reason for being in error, or partially correct despite rhetorical excesses.

Obama has declared that he "vehemently condemns" all of Wright's "controversial" statements. Do you think that Obama is wrong to distance himself from remarks that you believe to be correct?

I don't think you do. You know exactly what Obama's doing: he's condemning Wright's statements because he has to, not because he belives they're wrong. And you don't call him on it because you want him to win. If you had any courage, you'd criticize Obama the same way you criticize non-Obama supporters for condemning Wright's statements.

In case you're keeping score at home, this is known as "hope."

Posted by AK | March 17, 2008 2:16 PM

I guess one can look at the Wright issue and see something legitimate there...

I also suppose that one could see the Wright issue as the latest in a litany of petty slams against Obama. "He's a muslim." "He's not a patriot because he doesn't wear a pin." "He has a funny name."

And now, "He has a crazy preacher."

Tell me...who doesn't???? We're not talking about a craziness unique to Wright. We're talking about a craziness unique to preachers .

And as such, there is an acceptable level of craziness from right-wingers that is not extended to left-wingers.

Freedom of religion, right? As long as it's the right religion.....

Posted by Herb | March 17, 2008 2:18 PM

I think Rev. Wright will apologize. As I wrote on my blog, Obama's poll numbers will plummet, and Oprah has a problem with the Rev. Wright also. Look for an Oprah show on the Reverend soon, where he is presented in a very sympathetic light. His Marine Corp service etc.

Posted by Sweating Through Fog | March 17, 2008 2:20 PM

Herb,

You're missing the point. It's that the craziness that Obama saw fit to associate with for over two decades is not simply crazy - it's that it directly contradicts the fundamental premise of his campaign, the aura that sets him apart from Clinton, that of change and unity.

Try a little thought experiment. Let's say that I not only graduated from Bob Jones about 20 years ago, but that I returned to teach there, I attended its weekly services, and I had my kids enrolled in the Bob Jones Elementary school. And I chose to run for public office on a theme of unity across racial lines, of extending full equality to gays in marriage and other laws, of tolerance toward people of all faiths, including Catholics and Mormons. You, Freddie, and the rest of the left-of-center posters here would unreservedly call me a sham, a hypocrite, and a liar. And you would be justified in doing so.

Why is Obama entitled to different treatment?

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 2:24 PM

I don't think you do. You know exactly what Obama's doing: he's condemning Wright's statements because he has to, not because he belives they're wrong.
Another statement based on the air in someone's head and not on fact. Once again this is called prejudice. Did you learn to think this way in church?

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 2:24 PM

Herb, please tell us about Hillary's and McCain's crazy preachers. After all, everyone has them.

Posted by ed | March 17, 2008 2:25 PM

I don't think you do. You know exactly what Obama's doing: he's condemning Wright's statements because he has to, not because he belives they're wrong. And you don't call him on it because you want him to win. If you had any courage, you'd criticize Obama the same way you criticize non-Obama supporters for condemning Wright's statements.

He certainly believes that some of them are wrong. For example, I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that the CIA created AIDS. I also believe him when he says he never heard Wright say that, or yell "God damn America," because he wants to be president and he's not an idiot. If he'd heard Wright say those words, he would have downplayed their relationship from the beginning.

Now he's overreaching, though, by saying that he never had any clue that Wright harbored some bitterness toward white America. In fact, he had admitted before that Wright was basically like a racist uncle. So I think he's bungled this. He should have come right out and said that Wright had played an important role in a formative part of his life, and that he overlooked Wright's faults out of personal loyalty. I think many Americans could have accepted that.

But, AK, as to your larger point, I agree that Obama is, in certain ways, a phony. His public message is that we have nearly put racism behind us. I don't think he really believes that, but it's the only way he can get elected. And yes, I want him to get elected, so I was hoping most people would buy his message. Guilty as charged, I guess.

Posted by Brendan | March 17, 2008 2:30 PM

Republicans don't repudiate those people or institutions because they can't win without them. For gawd's sake, the reason that McCain had to stage a comeback is, in part, because he does occasionally repudiate or otherwise take shots at them.

Actually, if you really want to know, Republicans like me don't repudiate these people or institutions because we genuinely believe, in our heart of hearts, that America is a free nation, that speech should be free, and that nobody ought to be publicly repudiated for the alleged sin of holding an unpopular opinion. Also, everybody can vote for whomever they like -- and that's not the candidate's fault.

Notice that we're not demanding that Reverend Wright be silenced, nor that he apologize. Quite the contrary -- we're thrilled to have a source from which we can finally obtain a glimpse into what Teflon Man Obama actually believes.

What we deplore is this oppressive notion that Democrats hold, that suggests that if what a minister preaches violates the sensibilities of some group of Democrats, then the public ought to rise up like a mob with its torches and pitchforks and silence the offending speaker. That's Orwellian Mob Rule, not proper behavior in a democratic society.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Posted by Plumb Bob | March 17, 2008 2:33 PM

Richard,
If you ran for public office and had a public record of speaking against the policies of Bob Jones U, had a voting record that showed you did not vote in accordance with the teachings at Bob Jones U, then I would assume that are working to change Bob Jones U to a different place.
Your words and deeds would matter.

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 2:33 PM

Shorter Ross:

Our nuts are not as bad as your nuts.

The only problem is, it's not true. The right's nuts are much worse.

Posted by Dilan Esper | March 17, 2008 2:37 PM

Tim, uh, what? Are you saying that Barry received this same treatment from CBS or the press at large? Or that these investigations into Mormonism generally and Romney's faith specifically don't constitute "vetting" as Obama is now receiving? Or are you saying that the nastier tenets of Mormonism are the equivalent of Wright's blandishments? Romney got grilled on his religion. You demonstrate that. Why shouldn't Barry endure the same? There is a simple and honest response: Barry joined the church to ingratiate himself with the local electorate and never took that stuff seriously unlike the devout Romney. This is his only out and we know why he can't take it. It would invalidate his claim to authentic blackness, such as it is. Romney stood up to all questioning on his religion like a man. I know we don't expect that sort of thing from Democrats but we thought B. Hussein Obama was different. Sorry.

Posted by megapotamus | March 17, 2008 2:39 PM

So if I understand many of you right the "failure" of Huckabee's candidacy proves that the Xtian right has no political power...?

Posted by berger | March 17, 2008 2:39 PM

Richard, I don't think I'm missing the point...I thought I conceded that this might in fact be a legitimate issue.

I tried your thought experiment, however, but was unable to reach a satisfactory result.

1) Are you genuinely embracing the "unity" platform while secretly holding to the standard Bob Jones line?

2) Or did you suddenly have a Eureka moment and realize that your 20 years of Bob Jones teaching was invalid and now you're a "unity" guy?

Either way...I don't see how the thought experiment is germane to the Obama situation.

Ed, This is what I know...John McCain is a baptist. Hillary is a Methodist. They both believe a guy lived a couple thousand years ago, wandered the countryside performing magic, was executed by the authorities, and then came back from the dead to save humanity from a vengeful God.

I know, I know... That story seems all too plausible to millions of folks.

But that doesn't make it any less crazy...

Posted by Herb | March 17, 2008 2:43 PM

Since when does a citizen of this republic bear the burden of proof when it comes to judging whether a candidate for public office has the substance to back up his or her rhetoric.
You can think what you want, but there is a voting record that shows what you think is false. There is a record of writing and speeches that shows what you think is false.
You may think Obama is the black Manchurian Candidate, but that pretty much pegs you as a man of prejudice.

Posted by bjd | March 17, 2008 2:45 PM

Falwell is and has been a marginal figure in Republican circles for years.

It would be pretty remarkable if he were still influential.

Now, tell us about how marginal James Dobson is.

Posted by Mike | March 17, 2008 2:46 PM

The distinction here, for the umpteenth time, is that Wright isn't just Obama's supporter; he's his pastor, his friend, and his spiritual mentor, which makes him exactly the kind of person whose views ought to be of interest to a public that's considering electing Barack Obama President of the United States.

I agree that he ought to be of interest given his close relationship with Obama; but I think we should be careful about equating Wright's words with Obama's beliefs.

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 2:46 PM

Imagine, for instance, how McCain’s support of the surge, and his hawkishness more generally, would have been treated if he attended a church whose pastor's foreign policy views are defined by a belief in the imminence of Armageddon.

As opposed to securing the endorsement of one and then appearing in public with him?

I think you're a pretty smart guy, Ross, so I’m assuming this is a parody of right-wing cluelessness rather than the real thing.

Posted by Mike | March 17, 2008 2:53 PM

Romney got grilled on his religion. You demonstrate that. Why shouldn't Barry endure the same?

He is getting grilled on the same. And we're arguing that he ought to get to use the same response as Romney: "Those beliefs aren't my beliefs, even if I didn't leave the Church over them."

Ross appears to be arguing for a different standard for reasons I cannot fathom. (Though I guess we could go through his associates and see if they have any beliefs that give rise to malicious explanations. That'd be hard.) We'll see if the media holds Obama to the Romney standard.

I'm not all that worried about the broader American reaction. Lots of Americans go to church, and lots of us discount whatever comes from the pulpit that strikes as crazy.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 17, 2008 2:54 PM

we're thrilled to have a source from which we can finally obtain a glimpse into what Teflon Man Obama actually believes.

So you didn't know that Obama wrote two books, has given innumerable speeches, and provides lots of information about "what he believes" on his campaign website? You're seriously that starved for information about him, and yet you haven't done the slightest bit of research?

Apparently none of that stuff matters - what matters is what his pastor has said, since Obama necessarily agrees with everything that comes out of Wright's mouth.

Give me a break.

Posted by blahblah | March 17, 2008 2:55 PM

Personally, I shall never forgive the late Jerry Falwell for diverting the course of Hurricane Gloria in 1985 away from Virginia Beach so that it left my cousins on eastern Long Island without electricity for ten days in the middle of a Mets pennant run--futile, as it turned out to be and postponed for a year.

Posted by Arthur Glass | March 17, 2008 3:00 PM

This is going to be a long campaign season indeed, if every doubt about Obama is interpreted as arising from a belief that Obama is a "Black Manchurian candidate." I have never uttered any sentiment so despicable and would "reject and denounce" any ideological compatriot who did so. And I reject and denounce you, bjd, for introducing such racist sentiments into a discussion about Obama and imputing them to me. I happen to be favorably disposed to Obama as a person - if not as a candidate - and I resent your implication that my honest disagreements with him on matters of theology and policy are somehow based on his race.

But point me, please, to the voting record that shows my concerns to be unfounded. When I look, I see a lockstep approach to voting that has justifiably earned him one of the most liberal records in the Senate, that has illustrated time and time again an unwillingness to broker - or even participate in - bipartisan compromise under any circumstances, much less circumstances that might earn him criticism from his own party. Please show me that I'm wrong. Please.

And explain to me why I should give his speeches or his two books (which, as far as I know, are the only examples of his "writing") more credence than I give his twenty-year association with the racist Rev. Wright. And explain to me why my refusal automatically brands me as prejudiced.

And, finally, explain to me how a candidate whose supporters respond to every bit of skepticism with charges of racism, to every good-faith disagreement with charges of prejudice, to every doubt with a call to trust Obama, is going to be able to bring any unity to the country at all.

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 3:04 PM

Actually, Ross, I think the distinction is whether or not we would BELIEVE a white candidate who disavows himself or herself from the nutty views of someone close to them, versus a black candidate who disavows himself from the nutty views of someone to close to him.

In other words, if Barack Obama were white and his pastor were white, would we believe Obama when he says he doesn't believe the crazy things that pastor says?

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 3:07 PM

In other words, if Barack Obama were white and his pastor were white, would we believe Obama when he says he doesn't believe the crazy things that pastor says?

Thus my hypothetical above about my candidacy as a Bob Jones professor. Which, to judge from Herb's response, caused a few heads to explode. Which, in turn, strikes me as pretty solid evidence that a white candidate would be - with total justification - hounded from the race unceremoniously.

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 3:12 PM

And explain to me why I should give his speeches or his two books (which, as far as I know, are the only examples of his "writing") more credence than I give his twenty-year association with the racist Rev. Wright.

Because Obama actually wrote his own books and gave his own speeches, and because he and Wright are different people?

Are you seriously arguing that Obama and Wright share the same mind, worldview, perspective on everything? What could possibly give you such an obviously dopey idea? Obama has said the opposite, and you choose to disbelieve him for what reason?

Posted by blahblah | March 17, 2008 3:14 PM

This is going to be a long campaign season indeed, if every doubt about Obama is interpreted as arising from a belief that Obama is a "Black Manchurian candidate."

Besides, if we're going to worry about a Manchurian candidate, then McCain is obviously the bigger danger. Who knows what kind of crazy Communist brainwashing he was subjected to as a POW? What if he's president, and some Vietnamese mad scientist whispers a phrase that brings McCain under his total zombie-like control? What then?

Why would anyone want to risk our security like this?

Posted by Jim W | March 17, 2008 3:21 PM

Are you seriously arguing that Obama and Wright share the same mind, worldview, perspective on everything? What could possibly give you such an obviously dopey idea? Obama has said the opposite, and you choose to disbelieve him for what reason?

I could be snarky and say that it's presumably for the same reason that folks on the left have consistently been ready to assume that I share the same worldview and prospective on everything with my alma mater, but I wouldn't want to be tagged with the same dopey beliefs that most "tolerant" left-of-center folks use for forming judgments about me.

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 3:22 PM

I think you're making the same mistake the EZRA and some others are making. While it’s easy to point out Huckabee as an example, it’s not exactly the same. Is Huck’s lack of ability to pull non-evangelical’s a result of being an evangelical or because he’s Huckabee? Are people afraid of his church or his fair-tax? Are they voting McCain because they trust the ‘Maverick’ and not the governor who doesn’t believe in evolution? Huck is also a minister.

You can't tell me that if Obama was a Republican that FOX and the others would have quite the same slant as they do today.

It’s a legitimate concern that this man is Obama’s pastor, but is it legitimate to cherry pick a few minutes from a few sermon’s and smear the pastor to smear Obama?

I think the media is doing the country another disservice by not actually investigating what this man stands for, the good and the bad, and only playing back a few minutes of his sermons. At times in some obviously partisian and exaggerated manners. I think the media (left and right), and you as well, are doing the country a disservice with dismissing out of hand churches that aren’t 100% mainstream and patriotic and politically correct. The glory of the first amendment is the right to voice dissent towards your political opponents, and most importantly, your country. The minister may be a racist (although, to truly be a racist you have to have power), and his statements definitely were prejudiced; but does that fact that Wright isn’t perfect mean that Obama is an undercover black agent of intolerance?

Is the totality of a church a few sermons by an old black minister?
Because that old black minister still feels some of the hurt from discrimination and racism, and speaks out about it, he’s to be demonized?

There are legitimate questions and concerns, but the media in general, fails to actual present facts in a fair impartial way. But I have no confidence that the media actual cares to present a complete picture of the situation and allow people to actual decide.

You’re right, if all the facts were the same and Barack were white, or he was republican, he would still be having some problems with his pastor. But they wouldn’t be the same problems, and I truly doubt they’d be this severe.

For a little context - I’m black, male, un-practicing catholic, under 40, and registered republican.

Posted by Ken | March 17, 2008 3:25 PM

Any halfway honest person should easily understand that for a 66 year old black man to feel some anger at the U.S., and even at white people as a class, is in no way morally equivalent to the reverse.

I just wanted to quote that fine sentence again, as so much of the recent rhetoric against Obama's candidacy wants to conflate ahistoricity with honesty or fairness -- i.e., Geraldine Ferrero's crass comments, which many have defended as simple honesty.

We are historical creatures. We live in a context of all that has happened before. It is not simple honesty or fair-mindedness to pretend as if the past never happened; it's deceit; it's disingenuousness.

Blacks in this country have walked a difficult, twisted path, largely imposed on them from the start by white people. A lot of smart black people, especially older ones who experienced first-hand being treated as second-class citizens, are still pissed about it, and who could blame them?

Sorry to break it to the mainstream of this country, but anger is still an integral part of the black experience in America. Obama wouldn't really be a uniter if he didn't have some people around him who reflected that anger (even irrationally at times.)

It is the promise of Obama that he may help redeem the bitterness of the past by including it within a larger, more hopeful truth about this country. Obama never claimed he'd be a sanitizer or eraser; that's just what some white people have hoped.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 17, 2008 3:33 PM

Those of you who think the Wright brouhaha is no problem for BHO:

How do you think it is going over with Hispanic and European American Catholic blue collar workers, male and female? I.e., the Irish, Polish, Italian, Czech, Hungarian, Mexican workers who populate the northeast and midwest major metropolitan areas.

Do you really think you could convince that segment of the population that Rev. Wright's relationship with BHO is irrelevant?

If so, how?

Posted by vnjagvet | March 17, 2008 3:37 PM

True. You should be comparing him to HATE MONGERER FRED PHELPS, WHO ALSO SAID AMERICA DESERVED 9/11.

Also, fred phelps viciously attacked gays the same way that Wright attacked Whites Jews and Hispanics.

Posted by Obama's Pastor: "America deserved 9/11" | March 17, 2008 3:40 PM

Barack is in trouble. His supporters can spin it anyway they want. Let them. He may still win the nomination, but he win NOT win the GE.

Posted by Dawn | March 17, 2008 3:41 PM

Jerry Falwell said " he would rather see a strong atheist in the white house than a weak christian, No uproar from the christian community? No. God by Himself is a majority. A christian and God is an unbeatable candidate. The conseratism movement has turn to goverment as their god. They want politicians to fulfill the Great Commission for the church,by passing laws to curtail sin in America. Rev wright is only fuel for those who does not want to see Obama as the Presedent of the USA. If it was not Wright,they would dig up something else. It's time to get back to the bible,and stop follow ing the world and the Devil.

Posted by Lj | March 17, 2008 3:42 PM

Is the totality of a church a few sermons by an old black minister?
Because that old black minister still feels some of the hurt from discrimination and racism, and speaks out about it, he’s to be demonized?

I think it might be a little more malignant than "a few sermons" or an old man's lingering pain from a by-gone era. Here are the animating principles of Wright's "biblical scholarship":

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." -- James Cone, Union Theological Seminary (who Wright publicly acknowledges as his spiritual forefather).

This is black liberation theology, folks, in which Wright is a self-proclaimed (and Obama-proclaimed) scholar. Still believe it's no big deal?

Posted by JA | March 17, 2008 3:42 PM

At a bare minimum, we're talking about an institution tasked with educating you, through both formal and informal means, at what is supposed to be an impressionable age. That seems pretty easy to distinguish.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim

So attending a particular college at "an impressionable age" is going to have a more lasting effect on a person's values than the house of worship one chooses as a young adult and chooses for his children to be educated by, through both formal and informal means.

Are college age teens and young adults more impressionable than children? The Obamas have chosen to affiliate and raise their children in Wright's church.

The difference between Wright and his putative namesake is that Wright's speeches are no jeremiads. The biblical prophets had to give stern messages to the people they loved. Wright, though, has no love for America, only love for what he can get from it (see the church's web site that endorses middle class incomes for blacks while disparaging middle class values).

>How angry do you have to be to believe that AIDS is a government created disease designed to eradicate the African American population? Or is it better described as prejudice and irrationality?

Well, it is prejudice and irrationality. But have you ever stopped to ask why some black people might find such conspiracy theories believable? You might start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

Funny you should mention it because I've had black people tell me that the Tuskegee soldier were not simply left untreated but actually infected with syphilis by the gov't. One guy, with a straight face, said, "what are the chances that so many members of the same army unit would be infected?".

Is it the role of race in Wright's theology? If so, does he have a similar problem with, say, Joe Lieberman's theological outlook? I think Ezra's concerns have a lot of merit here.

Posted by berger

Berger, what role does race have in Joe Lieberman's theological outlook?

Any halfway honest person should easily understand that for a 66 year old black man to feel some anger at the U.S., and even at white people as a class, is in no way morally equivalent to the reverse. Admirable? No. But arguments of the form "If you switched the words 'black' and 'white'..." ignore the entire history of our country. And I really don't think people who make such arguments are making them in good faith; I don't think anyone is really so naive.

Posted by Brendan

Any halfway honest person should easily understand that for a 66 year old Jewish man to feel some anger at Europe and Arabia, and even at non-Jewish people as a class, is in no way morally equivalent to the reverse.

I know you don't like substituting 'black' and 'white', but how about substituting one historically oppressed group for another. Explain to me why it's okay for blacks to cultivate a perpetual sense of grievance towards the United States (in spite of the fact that American blacks are demonstrably better off than those who live in Africa), but it's not okay for Jews to perpetually feel aggrieved at goyim?

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 17, 2008 3:51 PM

Yes, it is no big deal. People believe all kinds of crazy irrational stuff (hell the horoscope is printed in virtually every newspaper), and as long as nobody gets hurt, honestly, what do you care? "Malignant," why? As opposed to every other bit of nonsense that results from mixing politics and religion?

Are you arguing that Obama believes it? What would give you such an idea?

Posted by blahblah | March 17, 2008 3:54 PM

Great post, Ross.

Posted by Bobby | March 17, 2008 3:56 PM

McCain had attacked Falwell before he made those comments. Then, after he made the comments, McCain did everything in his power to embrace Falwell.

So no, not the same.

Posted by JoshA | March 17, 2008 3:57 PM

Funny you should mention it because I've had black people tell me that the Tuskegee soldier were not simply left untreated but actually infected with syphilis by the gov't. One guy, with a straight face, said, "what are the chances that so many members of the same army unit would be infected?".

What's your point? Are you saying what the Tuskegee Institute actually did was less monstrous than if they'd infected the subjects themselves?

Any halfway honest person should easily understand that for a 66 year old Jewish man to feel some anger at Europe and Arabia, and even at non-Jewish people as a class, is in no way morally equivalent to the reverse.

Yes. That is a good example. I have had more than one Jewish friend tell me that their grandparents warn them not to trust gentiles. Is that admirable? No. But it's certainly understandable.

Posted by Brendan | March 17, 2008 3:58 PM

Why would a "Christian" pastor spew such hatred? Why would 8,000 people (the alleged membership of Trinity) sit still for it? UNLESS such people -- vide Barak & Michelle Obama for the last 20 years -- agreed with such filth OR saw a personal or political advantage to belonging to such a congregation.
HOLD those thoughts while checking out the denomination to which Trinity belongs, namely the United Church of Christ which, not coincidentally, is racing to Wright's and Obama's defense. But, then, the UCC is a hate-mongering outfit itself. It hates America and Israel, although it's never met a left-wing dictator or Arab terrorist that it did not like.

Posted by Noreen | March 17, 2008 4:01 PM

Explain to me why it's okay for blacks to cultivate a perpetual sense of grievance towards the United States (in spite of the fact that American blacks are demonstrably better off than those who live in Africa)

Jeebus, resorting to Michael Medvedisms? What if someone argued that the Holocaust wasn't so bad because it led to the creation of Israel? You'd think they were insane, right? "Slavery wasn't so bad, look at those primitive Africans!"--how do you think that makes you look?

Posted by blahblah | March 17, 2008 4:01 PM

A handful of students and prominent Mormons called for an end to the doctrine, but Romney wasn't one of them. When he heard over a car radio in 1978 that the church would offer blacks full membership, he said, he pulled over and cried.

If you bothered to research the subject you will find that Romney has indicated those were tears of gratitude. His father, George Romney was an early and eager supporter of the civil rights movement.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 17, 2008 4:03 PM

Putting aside the comical dismissal that McCain didn't kiss the ring of Jerry Falwell (even converting from being a lifetime-Episcopalian to Baptist), what's this indicative of? That Obama is a racist? Anti-American? An angry black man? This whole issue borders on the absurd. Our finacial markets are in crisis and we're talking about this? I'm afriad we're not ready for democracy in this country.

Posted by Pat Hendrix | March 17, 2008 4:05 PM

Does Wright suggest American society should look more like Rwanda, Chad, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, DR Congo, (and the list could be endless)?

Posted by Petru | March 17, 2008 4:13 PM

Well the US did in a round about way create the crack epidemic.

from the wiki:

The Iron Law of Prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan which states that "the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes."

Posted by M. Simon | March 17, 2008 4:17 PM

What exactly is controversial about the assertions that the US government has at least *abetted* the crack and AIDS epidemics? Nobody within the communities fighting either scourge holds this view in any serious doubt and there is plenty of evidence to back it up. It is indeed politically tragic that Mr. Obama is so closely affiliated with the Pastor because it will surely lose him many white votes. White America should perhaps spend more time trying to understand the problems non-whites face before registering the kind of surprise we've seen at the anger and blame-casting that is a result of those problems. Despite the media's best attempts to discredit and alienate Pastor Wright, his words are not at all surprising to anyone familiar with the intra-community discourse. I feel very much like despite all of the progress we've seen attitudes have regressed a bit. Not acknowledging these truths will only ensure that we never heal.

Posted by Jonathan | March 17, 2008 4:18 PM

He is getting grilled on the same. And we're arguing that he ought to get to use the same response as Romney: "Those beliefs aren't my beliefs, even if I didn't leave the Church over them." SomeCallMeTim

The difference is that the LDS church rejected those beliefs 35 years ago, whereas Wright still preaches hate.

Tell us, since you seem to be agreeing that Wright is wrong, what positions of Rev. Wright do you find problematic and why do they concern you?

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 17, 2008 4:18 PM

"But arguments of the form "If you switched the words 'black' and 'white'..." ignore the entire history of our country. And I really don't think people who make such arguments are making them in good faith; I don't think anyone is really so naive."

I am. I'm that naive. Because I'm pretty sure that the race-baiters demanding reparations and all that BS weren't AROUND for the whole history of the country. They don't get to pry out of me something that is owed their great-granddaddy by my neighbor's great-granddaddy (my great-granddaddies weren't even across the atlantic until last century).

I'm making this argument in good faith. I know it's different other places in the US, but where I've lived all my life, I can count on one hand the times I've seen something happen in person that I would term racism, and in every single case it was by someone that I otherwise knew to be a general asshole.

You should actually try switching "black" and "white" in some of these statements, and then try to look at them through the viewpoint of a lifelong white American who has black/indian friends and has no real concept of race...to the point where they don't even really notice someone's race unless it's brought up by someone else. Because we do exist, and I'm guessing there are far more of us than there are of the people these hucksters like Sharpton or Jackson rail against.

Posted by Dan | March 17, 2008 4:19 PM

Explain to me why it's okay for blacks to cultivate a perpetual sense of grievance towards the United States in spite of the fact that 360,000 white Americans died to free them.

Posted by M. Simon | March 17, 2008 4:24 PM

What's your point? Are you saying what the Tuskegee Institute actually did was less monstrous than if they'd infected the subjects themselves?

Yes. Failure to treat is a heinous act for a doctor or government, but it's not as bad as deliberately infecting someone. In the minds of many black Americans, like Rev. Wright and Mrs. Obama, America's original sins of slavery and warring with the natives justify any exaggeration. It's like a dissatisfied customer exaggerating the damage the airline did to their luggage.

Are you saying that what the US gov't did at Tuskeegee absolves blacks of any and all responsibility to have any perspective?

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 17, 2008 4:25 PM

It utterly disgusts me how quickly this whole discussion has turned into essentially a guilty-by-association phenomenon. Are we seriously going to judge Obama by the words of his pastor, however close the friendship might have been? Have you people ever heard of DISAGREEING with those you otherwise love and cherish? My best friend (an evangelical) holds what I consider to be quasi-fascist political views and seems incapable of understanding how reasonable people might believe something like evolution. Yet he's also one of the funniest, most loyal people I have ever known. Does that mean I can't disagree with him about politics and still keep him as my friend? What the hell is wrong with you media idiots, who assume that its just fine and dandy to rip two minutes worth of quotes out of an entire career and call that an accurate portrayal of a man, or somehow "impute" that it captures the essence of their relationship? Have you ever heard Obama say anything remotely similar to the stuff Wright said? If not, this issue needs to be dropped NOW because the country I live in should never (or so I used to believe) judge me by the actions of my friends (however close), but only of myself. I seriously doubt Obama, even if he heard Wright say some horrible things, was somehow brainwashed or some other such B.S.; can't we assume a man who directed the Harvard Law Review can speak for himself, think for himself, and make his own damn policies? Just as we need to not judge McCain by Hagee or Parsley or any of the other morons he chooses to spend his time seducing, we should lay off Wright-Obama. You don't like what he said? Fine. But don't assume Obama does either. After all, he plays (and played) no political role in this campaign until this garbage came up.

Posted by ChiChi | March 17, 2008 4:29 PM

I'd like to highlight this passage about Rwanda from Keith Richburg's book, Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa (courtesy of Rod Dreher):

What I...noticed were the weapons--crude farming tools, really. Machetes and long panga knives, more typically used for clearing brush and chopping firewood than for severing human limbs. There were also clubs. Big, flat wooden clubs, smaller at the handle end and rounded at the top. They reminded me of the all purpose clubs Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble used to carry in the old TV cartoon. But with one small difference: To make the clubs more deadly on impact, the Hutu militiamen drove long nails into the end. That's what Rwanda has become, I thought. The country has reverted to prehistoric times, to a kind of sick version of Bedrock. And could these be fully evolved humans carrying clubs and machetes and panga knives and smashing in their neighbors' skulls and chopping off their limbs, and piling up the legs in one pile, and the arms in another, and lumping the bodies all together and sometimes forcing new victims to sit atop the heap while they clubbed them to death too? No, I realized, fully evolved human beings in the twentieth century don't do things like that. Not for any reason, not tribe, not religion, not territory. These must be cavemen.

Sometime, maybe four hundred years ago, one of my ancestors was taken from his village, probably by a local chieftain. He was shackled in leg irons, kept in a holding pen or a dark pit, possibly at Goree Island off the coast of Senegal. And then he was put in the crowded, filthy, hold of a ship for the long and treacherous voyage across the Atlantic to the New World.

Many slaves died on that voyage. But not my ancestor. Maybe it was because he was strong, maybe just stubborn, or maybe he had an irrepressible will to live. But he survived, and ended up in forced slavery working on plantations in the Caribbean.

Generations on down the line, one of his descendants was taken to South Carolina. Finally, a more recent descendant, my father, moved to Detroit to find a job in an auto plant during the Second World War.

And so it was that I came to be born in Detroit and that 35 years later, a black man born in white America, I was in Africa, birthplace of my ancestors, standing at the edge of a river not as an African but as an American journalist - a mere spectator - watching the bloated bodies of black Africans cascading over a waterfall. And that's when I thought about how, if things had been different, I might have been one of them -or might have met some similarly anonymous fate in one of the countless ongoing civil wars or tribal clashes on this brutal continent. And so I thank God my ancestor survived that voyage.

Thank God my ancestor got out, because, now, I am not one of them.

In short, thank God that I am an American.

A little perspective goes a long way, no?

Posted by JA | March 17, 2008 4:34 PM

Fred Phelps is a Democrat.

I hope that helps.

Posted by M. Simon | March 17, 2008 4:34 PM

although, to truly be a racist you have to have power

Do people really believe this bovine excrement?

So you acknowledge that Kwame Kilpatrick can be a racist. He certainly has more power than me.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 17, 2008 4:34 PM

M.Simon,
You ever hear of Sharecropping? Jim Crow? Ever been to the south side of Chicago? Seen a ghetto? Not a lot of freedom there buddy. Black folk have plenty of reason to be mad... just be glad someone like Wright knows how to take that anger and turn it into community outreach and development.

Posted by clairovoyent | March 17, 2008 4:35 PM

Nice post! But one thing about it is bothering me. Yes, Wright "was" Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor, but he also compared him to an "uncle" who sometimes Obama agrees with him and sometimes he doesn't. Obama also "categorically" denounced his comments as divisive. His comments pained and angered Obama. Mr. or Ms. Poster, you don't believe him when he says this? And that's interesting. Again, why don't you believe him? Is it possibly becasue, deep down inside, you think all blacks feel this way? You shouldn't subtly accuse a person because of association. Look into Obama's past, see if you can find any solid proof. Making assumptions are for lazy people and people who do anything to make a name for themselves. My guess, you won't find any solid proof. I don't believe that Obama could inspire people with mere empty words. And how could a man hate white people when his mother and grandparents, who he loves dearly, were white. Mr. or Ms. Poster, I think your comments are ridiculous and disturbing.

Posted by Carl | March 17, 2008 4:36 PM

Wright drags Obama down, but John Hagee gets a free pass? The man who says the Catholic church is a whore gets no scrutiny for his words?

My point is that nuts exist, and we shouldn't excoriate one and ignore the other. Even though I feel Wright is a junior nut next to Hagee. That Obama is late in ridding himself of Wright is better than McCain's humble acceptance of Hagee's blessing.

McCain, "I'm honored to accept the endorsement of a man who thinks the Catholic church is an old whore. Why that reminds me of back it Nam, before I was shot down...."

I'm no big fan of dredging up old speeches, unless they were doozies. If the McCaines/press/Newsmax is smart enough to unearth 5-year old sermons from Wright, why can't anyone in the Obama camp forward what Hagee says? Just go to talkingpointsmemo, his bile is easy to find.

Posted by Sebastian | March 17, 2008 4:36 PM

Rev Wright is the greatest thing to happen to bigots in America. this is fuel they can use to keep a great black man out of the white house. America is farther from God than they realized. Christianty is only a word today, that has very little relationship to Christ. I would love to hear from the born again believers who looks through the eys of Christ. Politics has no saving power. Trust in Christ.

Posted by Lj | March 17, 2008 4:37 PM

Rev Wright is the greatest thing to happen to bigots in America. this is fuel they can use to keep a great black man out of the white house. America is farther from God than they realized. Christianty is only a word today, that has very little relationship to Christ. I would love to hear from the born again believers who looks through the eys of Christ. Politics has no saving power. Trust in Christ.

Posted by Lj | March 17, 2008 4:37 PM

Put a fork in Obama - he may still win the nomination, but he's done.

Fully unelectable now. Still electable by the wing nut crazzies and by the stoned, delerious Obamaites (their sure are a lot of these people who not only drank the Kool-aid, but are showering in it)

It is hillarious when the loons compare Wright, Obama's mentor, friend, advisor, etc. - to some controversial right wing church nut. Last time we all checked, the right wing zealot (take your pick) wasn't the mentor, advisor, wedding minister, kid baptiser, etc. of McCain, or whomever.

Barak has exposed himself as either a fraud (likely) or a complete unaware dolt (unlikely). We all know, he is way to clever to be this naive and have this pitifully bad judgement - right?

Either way, this episode lays bare the Obama fiction. It was a great run, but - He's finished

Posted by Fred | March 17, 2008 4:39 PM

I don't believe that Obama believes what Wright says. He just associated himself with it because it was politically expedient.

He also brought his children there every Sunday to soak up the poison. Note: this is not the best way to end the intergenerational transfer of racial animosity.

Posted by JA | March 17, 2008 4:41 PM

To go a bit further than Mr. Douthat, Falwell's Jesus is the Bible's Jesus.

(And I see nowhere in Falwell's ministry that he believes war with Israel will be successful for anyone perpetrating it -- quite the opposite. Jerry Falwell was an avid supporter of "the peace of Jerusalem" -- including that of not dividing it! It is pretty difficult to maintain a peace for something that is rent in two. I.e., he and other Bible believing Christians DO NOT WANT ISRAEL ATTACKED.)

And, to find Jeremiah Wright's "Jesus," one must look into the Marxism with misapplied Biblical quotations that is "liberation theology" -- then put the typical, lamentable black-ist spin upon it.

Thank God there is neither a white or black church.

Posted by unspun | March 17, 2008 4:43 PM

Ross: Believe it. It's no parody. How can someone who is active in a racialist, hate-filled church possibly pose as a post-racial, post-political trancendental saviour, you may ask?

As another saviour might have answered: "With man it is not possible, but with Obama all things are possible."

And apparently it's already played in Peoria, so who knows, maybe it'll play nationwide in November. The Democratic Party appears poised to bank on it.

Posted by fred gill | March 17, 2008 4:43 PM

So you didn't know that Obama wrote two books, has given innumerable speeches, and provides lots of information about "what he believes" on his campaign website? You're seriously that starved for information about him, and yet you haven't done the slightest bit of research?

Are you really that stupid, or were you just looking for a cheap excuse to hurl insults?

I've done a great deal of research. What I have not done is believed what a self-promoting politician speaks about himself. I'd much rather know from examining his life than from examining his politically-motivated autobiography and his smarmy web site.

You should take my example instead of sneering. However, in my experience, those who sneer are the farthest from those who actually seek knowledge.

"A sneer is a distortion of the face that denotes a worse distortion of the soul." Frank Sheed

I should know what sort of amoral shit to expect among liberals. You guys are the sewer of mankind.

Posted by Plumb Bob | March 17, 2008 4:44 PM

So if someone were a member of the KKK, you couldn't hold that against them because it would be guilt by association right???

So instead of the KKK, he's a member of a church that preaches hate. If you become a MEMBER of a radical group, it might be logically assumed that you agree with the positions of that group whether it's a church, a mosque, a country club, or the KKK.

Posted by whatacrock chichi | March 17, 2008 4:45 PM

Ross: Believe it. It's no parody. How can someone who is active in a racialist, hate-filled church possibly pose as a post-racial, post-political trancendental saviour, you may ask?

As another saviour might have answered: "With man it is not possible, but with Obama all things are possible."

And apparently it's already played in Peoria, so who knows, maybe it'll play nationwide in November. The Democratic Party appears poised to bank on it.

Posted by fred gill | March 17, 2008 4:45 PM

I propose a Ross Douthat Index=and index that measures the sum of a blogger's cowardice and intelligence. Who else is in the running?

Posted by RICKM | March 17, 2008 4:45 PM

JA,

Do you actually know any African people in Africa? I know lots, having worked there.Yeah I'll just bet that the Richburgs are better off running the risk of getting shot to death in Detroit rather than living a peaceful (and, yes, probably materially fairly poor) life in Senegal. I'll just bet that broken and unemployed inner city families in Detroit are better off than the peasant families that I worked with.

Keith Richburg is a fool, and a tool of the rah-rah America-Number-One yahoos. I know you aren't a fool, so I'm not sure why you feel inclined to give him any credence.

Posted by Hector | March 17, 2008 4:46 PM

True. You should be comparing him to HATE MONGERER FRED PHELPS, WHO ALSO SAID AMERICA DESERVED 9/11.

It's good you capitalized everything to show just how REALLY, REALLY PISSED OFF you are. You could have replaced Fred Phelps with Jerry Falwell. I'm wondering what you thought of Jerry Falwell shortly after 9/11:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

This was followed by his "apology":

"I would never blame any human being except the terrorists, and if I left that impression with gays or lesbians or anyone else, I apologize."

Well, yeah, Jerry did kind of leave that impression. And I'm sure this sent the writer quoted above into mad fits of capitalized letters.

Jerry Falwell was a stalwart of the Republican Party until the day he died as is his friend who participated in the above conversation, Pat Robertson. Falwell was called just last year by the White House for his advice on a Supreme Court nominee. For Ross Douthat to say any comparison of statements by Falwell and Wright is horsehit is horseshit.

Posted by Pug | March 17, 2008 4:46 PM

So you didn't know that Obama wrote two books, has given innumerable speeches, and provides lots of information about "what he believes" on his campaign website? You're seriously that starved for information about him, and yet you haven't done the slightest bit of research?

Are you really that stupid, or were you just looking for a cheap excuse to hurl insults?

I've done a great deal of research. What I have not done is believed what a self-promoting politician speaks about himself. I'd much rather know from examining his life than from examining his politically-motivated autobiography and his smarmy web site.

You should take my example instead of sneering. However, in my experience, those who sneer are the farthest from those who actually seek knowledge.

"A sneer is a distortion of the face that denotes a worse distortion of the soul." Frank Sheed

You might want to read this assessment of Obama's personal history, which contains much more salient information about his background than anything on his web site. But I expect you'll just sneer some more.

Posted by Plumb Bob | March 17, 2008 4:48 PM

First, the right wing was convinced Barack Obama was a Muslim (a complete lie). Now, the right wing has accepted that Obama is a Christian, but they just don't like his preacher. Is that the best you can do?

Obama is the candidate, not his preacher. I defy anyone to find Brack Obama making any anti-American statement. By this same logic, George W. Bush should be a member of the Ku Klux Klan because he was endorsed by David Duke.

It is simply guilt by association. If we want to go that route, how come the media is not saying anything about how the first thing John McCain did after he won the nomination was go to Washington, DC, embrace Bush and endorse his policies and go an a trip to Iraq with Dick Cheney? If we're going to question somebody's character, how come no one is saying anything about the fact that McCain admitted his first marraige broke up because he repeatedly cheated on his wife? It's time to drop the double-stnadard and start loking at the real mess this country is in. The only direction McCain and the Republicans are going to tkae this country is straight down the tubes.

Posted by KB | March 17, 2008 4:52 PM

Just remember: God sent terrorists to attack America on 9/11 because of homosexuals, our abandonment of Israel, and gay marriage, and our secular humanism. Katrina, too.

Hating America is just fine, as long as you're a right-wing white evangelical Christian.

And we all know that Denish D'Souza, James Hagee, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Rod Parsley and others have absolutely no influence in GOP circles. It isn't like McCain actively sought the support of these anti-American nut-jobs. Oh, wait, he did.

On the other hand, if someone says that the US constantly bombing other countries tends to cause resentment in other countries and fuels anti-American extremism around the globe, well, that person is clearly a nutcase.

Posted by jim | March 17, 2008 4:52 PM

America has digressed in the last seven years. Home losses.jobs outsourced, donwn sizing of jobs,etc. Is Rev Wright more important than making a decent living,or staying in an unholy war? It's time for A new direction. The Demcrafts can do it with God's help. The GOP did not include God in this administration.

Posted by Lj | March 17, 2008 4:52 PM

America has digressed in the last seven years. Home losses.jobs outsourced, donwn sizing of jobs,etc. Is Rev Wright more important than making a decent living,or staying in an unholy war? It's time for A new direction. The Demcrafts can do it with God's help. The GOP did not include God in this administration.

Posted by Lj | March 17, 2008 4:52 PM

First, the right wing was convinced Barack Obama was a Muslim (a complete lie). Now, the right wing has accepted that Obama is a Christian, but they just don't like his preacher. Is that the best you can do?

Obama is the candidate, not his preacher. I defy anyone to find Brack Obama making any anti-American statement. By this same logic, George W. Bush should be a member of the Ku Klux Klan because he was endorsed by David Duke.

It is simply guilt by association. If we want to go that route, how come the media is not saying anything about how the first thing John McCain did after he won the nomination was go to Washington, DC, embrace Bush and endorse his policies and go an a trip to Iraq with Dick Cheney? If we're going to question somebody's character, how come no one is saying anything about the fact that McCain admitted his first marraige broke up because he repeatedly cheated on his wife? It's time to drop the double-stnadard and start loking at the real mess this country is in. The only direction McCain and the Republicans are going to tkae this country is straight down the tubes.

Posted by KB | March 17, 2008 4:53 PM

You all are missing the point. It's not that Falwell wasn't an influential player in Conservative politics, he certainly was. The issue is that Rev. Wright is an influential figure for Barack Obama personally, not the Democratic Party in general. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are both race-baiting, victim-obsessed, jackasses who are both very influential in Democratic politics. However, they are equally as irrelevant in this debate as Falwell is.

First, Falwell is dead. Second, he wasn't ever anywhere close to John McCain, neither personally nor professionally. Rev. Wright, on the other hand, has been Obama's spiritual confidant for over 20 years and has, by Obama's own admission, played a key role in his life during that time. This indignation from the left over any type of scrutiny of their new wunderkind is ridiculous. Stop getting pissed off because the veneer is finally starting to peel away from Mr. Post-Partisan. It is incredibly ironic that the same people who have cried for so long about the right using the word "liberal" as a pejorative, and thereby avoiding debate, are equally as enraged when Obama is shown to be one. Where is your courage, your conviction? Why are you getting mad at conservatives and the media for pointing it out? Shouldn't you be explaining and defending it instead? I simply can't wait for Obama's big race speech. I will take great delight in watching him turn into Mitt Romney, twisting and turning, trying to play both sides while offending no one but explaining nothing. He should take lessons from Hillary, she's good at that sort of thing.

Posted by Archimedes | March 17, 2008 4:54 PM

Ross, bigotry lives and dies by double standards.

The notion that all the apocalyptical evangelicals who have been embraced for a generation by the Republicans, who have blamed America first, who have attributed everything from AIDS to 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina to gay rights, who have preached religious chauvinism, racism, apocalyptic theories of Mideast politics, and generally stunk up the public marketplace of ideas--that this infernal claque does not hold a candle to Jeremiah Wright: This is lunacy of a high order.

You, sir, are a bigot--a typical one, reveling in the power to foist off your illogic on the powerless. Because you can, I guess.

Posted by elle loco | March 17, 2008 4:54 PM

Evidence shows Obama has lied to the American people...

Senator Obama threw down the gauntlet recently regarding his former controversial Pastor Wright, insisting that he knew nothing of his incendiary sermons, quotes of which are now being repeated ad nausem in media outlets.

He denounced these views, and said he would have left the preacher and maybe even the church, if he had only known about the rhetoric, but all he observed during the 20 years of close association was finding Jesus.

Obviously, this defies all credulity to a reasonable person, since attending so long with such a close association is unlikely to hide such an obvious bigoted bias, but NOW there appears to be *clear evidence* surfacing to show what Barack knew and when he knew it, and the picture is clear that Obama knew all about Wright's views, despite his recent claim to the contrary.

1) Last year, the New York Times reported that Obama was worried over Wright's views, suggesting he was well familiar with their incendiary nature. This was reported 3/17/08 By John Fund on Fox News.

2) In Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance by Barack Obama, he quote's his former pastor where inflammatory rhetoric was openly used, so it is impossible for Barack to suggest NOW that he just found out about such views. This was exposed by Rich Lowry March 14 2008 on National Review online, and is obviously easy to fact check. Naturally, considering that Barack was so deeply influenced in development that his other book "The Audacity of Hope" has its title inspired by Wright, it is hardly surprising.

3) A reporter (Kessler) from Newsmax has stated that Obama was in attendence last July 22 in the pulpit where Wright sermoned, nodding in agreement when the Pastor used inflammatory rhetoric. He may have been wrong about the exact date, but this reporter is sticking to his story and new details have emerged, see this link: http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/newsmaxs-kessle.html

Reporters are not given to openly lying to ruin their careers, but politicans are.

As so often is the case, the cover up is worse than the original offence, something we have all learned from Watergate. Politicians attempt to lie instead of coming clean, and their credibility is lost.

Obama has lost his.

A campaign presumptively built on character shows now that Obama was not a good judge of personal character, considering his association with Wright. An election about judgement shows Barack did not have that with regard to a person he had on his staff up until recently, when for poltical expediancy the preacher was thrown under the bus. Obama had clearly known about his racial views, as demonstrated above. Finally, race built on transcending race relations has been shown to be connected intimately with divisive left wing radical racial politics, not bringing people together.

A liberal voting record more extreme than just about any other senator also belies his claim of working with the other side. Obama supported filibuster of Alito, and voted against the partial birth abortion bill most Americans, even prochoicers, supported. He also denounced the Supreme Court ruling upholding the legality of the late term abortion ban. A divider, not a uniter.

His wife's comment about her being proud of her country for the first time in her adult life, which many took offense to, may be explained by so many hours spent in front of Wright, whose views must have been known clearly to the prospective first couple, and this also speaks volumes.

The defense that these charges are merely political sophistry, "guilt by association" as it were, are clearly incorrect in light of the above facts to the contrary, and the predonderance of the evidence.

As a liberal African American Juan Williams put it on Fox News recently, the more we learn about Barack Obama, the more we learn he is an inauthentic, disingenuous politician who does not offer hope and change, but more of the same.

This story may doom Obama's nomination candidacy, general election prospects, and may even prompt calls for resignation of his senate seat, since the cover up calls into question his honesty.

Posted by Me | March 17, 2008 4:54 PM

Plumb Bob-

I read your link, and I can confidently claim that you are a moron.

You think that one of Obama's campaign offices hanging a Che Guevara flag is significant. You approvingly repeat Lisa Schiffren's hateful smear that Obama is a Communist because his parents are mixed race--after all, every mixed race couple that Lisa Schiffren knew back in the day were communists!!!!11

Wow. Obama met with a weatherman... and ZOMG!!! !h e is also friendly with.... oh noez! an ARAB! (The esteemed scholar R. Khalidi)

You conclude: "Mr. Obama embodies the fondest dreams of radical socialist organizers" That is, I'm sorry to say, the dumbest thing I've read in a long long time.

Posted by RICKM | March 17, 2008 4:55 PM

Wright's conservative critics are in error. A pastor has every right to bring criticism to the nation. If you read the Bible, the Old Testament prophets were all sent to tell the Israelites that they were damned if they did not shape up. And that was for God's chosen people! It's like nobody has read Jeremiah before!

In principle, I don't think it is a big deal. Many conservatives are bent out of shape over the "God damn America" thing, because they believe that Nation is more important than God and that you can only follow God when He does not interfere with Nationalism. That's idolatry.

Now, as far as the reasons that Wright identifies... well... he is in error, too. Because it isn't "white people" that are taking away our money and spending it on our own destruction. It's greedy people. It's not "whites" that are burning up our tax money on a stupid war. It's not "white people" who are cheating millions of Americans out of their homes. It's greedy people. It's not "whites" who legalized abortion and make money killing a million babies a year. It's selfish people and a preacher has to preach against that... especially when you have a really greedy person for president. So, I do think that Wright should apologize for stereotyping white people. But he should keep on preaching against mammon.

Posted by BigT | March 17, 2008 4:57 PM

ChiChi,

So you are not responsible for your choice of friends?

A novel idea to be sure.

BTW how many out and out racists are you friendly with?

Posted by M. Simon | March 17, 2008 4:57 PM

With Obama, the Dems have the JFK's oratorical skills (with Wright-style outlines), and will get...
The worst of JFK's foreign policy inexperience
The worst of Carter's economic policies
The worst of Clinton's 'morality'

And instead of Jesse Jackson, who was fathering an illegitimate child while 'counseling' Clinton in the Lewinsky affair, Wright can 'council' Obama on race relations.

Sounds like fun times ahead, lol...

Posted by JonDoe | March 17, 2008 4:57 PM

Anyone remember Saul Alinsky?

Posted by Arthur Glass | March 17, 2008 5:05 PM

Remember, right-wing evangelicals can attack America all they want. It is only a outrage if they are on the left.

See here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X77R_prkCkg

Posted by jim | March 17, 2008 5:05 PM

>Explain to me why it's okay for blacks to cultivate a perpetual sense of grievance towards the United States (in spite of the fact that American blacks are demonstrably better off than those who live in Africa)

Jeebus, resorting to Michael Medvedisms?

And this represents reasoned discourse?

For the record, I was actually thinking about Keith Richburg's book quoted above. It's a very powerful passage. Medved's okay, but I think I've only called up his show to disagree with him. It's funny how folks on the left like to treat others as cardboard cutouts.

What if someone argued that the Holocaust wasn't so bad because it led to the creation of Israel?

I'd say that they didn't know much about history because with the growth of the yishuv the Jewish population of pre-state Palestine, the establishment of a Jewish state there was going to happen sooner or later. You are perpetuating the myth that the displaced persons camps in Europe emptied out into a previously judenrein Palestine, and that an influx of Holocaust survivors flooded the land, forcing the UN to vote on partition. While it can be argued that shame and guilt over inaction during the extermination of Europe's Jews led to a more favorable diplomatic climate for the establishment of a Jewish state (though Cold War dynamics probably had more to do with it), and certainly the yishuv and then young state took in refugees, in May 1948 only a fraction of the Jews in Palestine were survivors of the death and labor camps.

Of course there is also the issue of theodicy. As a Jew I believe that the horrific events of 1933-1945 are ultimately part of God's plan, and recognize that some good can come out of terrible events. I'm sure you don't object to the emergency room doctor using techniques developed in battlefield medicine to save your child. However, God didn't kill 1.5 million Jewish children. It was real live Germans (and their Muslim allies that Wright seems to revere) who did the killing.

You'd think they were insane, right? "Slavery wasn't so bad, look at those primitive Africans!"--how do you think that makes you look?

Who said anything about "primitive"? I'm not the one harboring stereotypes. Only someone who holds those stereotypes would assume I was thinking about them. I was referring to the widescale corruption, disease, political oppression, tribalism and poverty on the continent, not the level of development.

You think that you putting words in my mouth will make me quiver at the thought of being called a racist? You think that it bothers me that some latte sipping Che t-shirt wearing bleeding heart calls me a name?

In any case, I never minimized slavery, though with all things one needs perspective. Just as the Brits did colonialism better than the Belgians (who killed millions in the Congo), chattel slavery was different depending on locale. The French territories in the Carribean were brutal and the slaves were treated as a disposable resource, with people being treated terribly and often worked to death. Maybe that's why Haiti is so much worse off than the Dominican Republic, because the French were more brutal and stupid than the Spanish. By comparison, in North America slaves were generally regarded as valuable livestock, so they were treated better.

Am I excusing chattel slavery? Of course not. Yet intellectual honesty demands an accurate perspective. As a Jew I may not be thrilled about many aspects of European culture and history, but that doesn't allow me to deny the greatness of Beethoven and Rembrandt.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 17, 2008 5:06 PM

That's true, Jim. I remember Rev. Falwell saying that 9/11 was from God because America has freedom for homosexuals. It's no different than what Wright said. Maybe even worse. Because Wright didn't say that God did 9/11, he said that it was people who were angry at us.

Posted by BigT | March 17, 2008 5:08 PM

Or Dorothy Day? Or Father Coughlin?

I don't, except from the history books. Dorothy Day is up for canonization, I believe. But what do I know? I'm a poor Anglican drop-out and our
__primus inter pares__, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is a drooling Druid.

Posted by Arthur Glass | March 17, 2008 5:09 PM

Interesting that all of you are making fools of yourselves about this. Ever hear of separation of church and state? It's supposed to be an important part of the Bill of Rights...

And Me, you are spreading false facts--how so? Because you twist them to suit your own political agenda. Obama never said he was "Completely unaware", but that he chose to ignore the type of rhetoric that Wright spouted.

Quoting Fox New, "Me"? You should be smarter than to be spouting the conservative, biased crap that comes out of there. If you blindly let their views color your judgement, then you truly are a helpless fool.

And anyways, any of you heavily religious people have no right to say anything, because many of those highly evangelical leaders, i.e. Pat Robertson, are the ones who say that "Gays are worse than terrorists", and that they should "burn in hell and are responsible for 9-11". So don't even start complaining about Obama's pastor.

Posted by Brian N | March 17, 2008 5:09 PM

whatacrock:
To compare membership in Trinity United Church of Christ, which is about 2 miles from my house and which has done more to further southside community life than basically any other institution in the area (including the city) to the KKK is the height of arrogance, stupidity, sloppy thinking, and is, essentially, an example of everything that embarrasses me about this country and its chattering class. Again you do not have to agree with what Wright said (most of which, with the exception of ludicrous statements on Aids, is actually nothing more than a stern and overheated, but relatively widely held critique of the effects of American policy on our own moral credibility) to avoid falling into the trap of a.) essentially ignoring the vast majority of the church's work, which is very positive by anybody's standards and b.) indicting members in some sort of anti-american black militancy movement, which it is pretty obvious that, of all people, Obama rejects the most forcefully. These people, like you, have brains. I expect you to use yours a little better.

Posted by whatacrockknowswhencehespeaks | March 17, 2008 5:18 PM

You make a good point Bozoer.

I think that you could look and say that Africans are better off because if they weren't here, they would be in Africa. And maybe they would be really poor.

But at the same time, if you are going to say that black people should be happy because you can compare them to black people in other places.

But if you are going to make comparisons, it is probably better to compare them against other Americans because they are mostly Americans. They have black skin, but they grew up in America. And if you compare them to Americans, well, they don't have it as well as other Americans going all the way back to the days when it was illegal for them to have freedom, to vote, read books, and own things.

And, so if we are going to say their life is relative, then you just can't compare them to black people in Africa, because that's plain racist to say that black people gotta be compared to black people. You gotta compare them to white people, because America believes they are equal to white people. And they are Americans. So you gotta compare them this way, too. But if all Americans don't have the same chances to work hard and do well in life, then that means that we don't treat people equal. Then we'd have to change.

Posted by BigT | March 17, 2008 5:20 PM

Hector,

Tell us about the smiling, happy natives, unconcerned with big city crime, the rat race, or having their children survive to adulthood.

You should check out the movie Mine Your Own Business.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 17, 2008 5:22 PM

M.Simon,
Not apparently having much experience in the realm of friendship, I don't expect you to understand this point, but I usually try to evaluate people based on more than simply their worst attributes. You might try it...

Posted by ChiChi | March 17, 2008 5:25 PM

M.Simon,
You ever hear of Sharecropping? Jim Crow? Ever been to the south side of Chicago? Seen a ghetto? Not a lot of freedom there buddy. Black folk have plenty of reason to be mad... just be glad someone like Wright knows how to take that anger and turn it into community outreach and development.

Posted by clairovoyent | March 17, 2008 4:35 PM

Well yes. I personally knew a share cropper and he was kind enough to allow me to plow a few feet of ground with his mule. I was a kid. It looked like fun.

I remember drinking out of colored only water fountains when I was 5. (I could read the sign and defied the ban - my mother pulled me away for social reasons, but she always took pride in that).

So the deal is: I am not personally responsible for those things. I fought against them as a child of five and later as an adult.

And I am a Jew. I do not hold the Germans alive today responsible for what the Germans of 1933 to '45 did. Hate them? What would be the point? Like Muhammad Ali I'm glad my ancestors got on the boat. Mine got here around 1900. So what ever the evils of slavery, I had no connection to that American experience. As I said. I fought Jim Crow from an early age. One of my best friends (drinking buddy) in high school was black. Teddy White. We liked to get lit and sing rock 'n roll songs together at the top of our lungs. Good fun.

There comes a time to move on. Holding hatred for past wrongs corrodes the soul.

Obama is responsible for his choice of ministers unlike Catholics who have them assigned. And he knew that the Rev. Wright would be a problem. The Rev. told him so. Too bad Obama didn't listen to his minister on that occasion at least.

Posted by M. Simon | March 17, 2008 5:27 PM

It's not the style - I actually think that style of preaching is pretty inspiring. There's a reason Rev. King has a reputation for his speeches as well as the courage he had.

It is the message. A message of disgust with America, which has the potential to seriously hurt Obama. It contrasts very strongly with his message on nearly every point. Where one tosses out conspiracy theories, the other presents himself as calm and rational. For one race is everything and whites are monsters, for the other race is something to be transcended. This also makes Obama's not displaying his patriotism overtly look suspicious.

I really don't think Obama agrees with Wright. I think he is playing a calculated game of politics, being a different person to different groups. He's just another politician.

Posted by OmegaPaladin | March 17, 2008 5:28 PM

I'm a poor Anglican drop-out and our
__primus inter pares__, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is a drooling Druid.

Posted by Arthur Glass

When he isn't embracing Sharia, that is.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 17, 2008 5:30 PM

I think most people are better off living in a country that is clean and safe, but it is still wrong to have some people live with less rights than others.

You look at the history of Europe, and most Jewish people for example, did OK. Some even made money and lived really well. But they still didn't get treated equal on a fundamental level. And then every once in a while, because they weren't treated equal, people got together and killed them. Over and over again.

That's why you gotta stick up for people's rights to be treated equal. You can't just say, hey, at least you're not in Africa, so stop bellyaching about being in the ghetto. Especially when you have a whole bunch of rich people around who never work at all, they just make money off other people working in the stock market. I'm not that smart, but even I know that you have to have fair principles. And poor people need a fair shot in life.

Posted by BT | March 17, 2008 5:32 PM

The big difference here is that Jerrimiah Wright is "the" person who supposedly inspired Obama to become a "Christian". I am an agnostic, but it is obvious to me that the hateful sentiment of some of Wright's teachings are by no means Christian. Some of his words amount to divisive hate speach just like Jerry Falwells. There is no difference. The hatefulness of Jerry Falwell and his Republican leanings by no way just Wright's hatefulness. This article attempts to excuse the influnce of hate speech in politics by saying, "the other guys do it too." Honestly, I see them both as being as far from god as any clergy can be. They are not as smart as they (Falwell and Wright) would like to perceive themselves as being. They obviously have little self control, hence their outrageous words.

Barak Obama's high esteem for Wright is an example of his poor judgement. His alignment with Wrights church, and his refusal to completely denounce not only Wright, but also Louis Farakan, leaves one to question not only Barak's judgement, but moreso his motives and vision for America.

Posted by Peter | March 17, 2008 5:32 PM

ChiChi,

So you would be a friend of David Duke's?

So tell me about your hater friends.

If you have children would you send them to a Sunday school run by Duke?

In any case the nuances will be lost on the general public. Obama is toast.

Posted by M. Simon | March 17, 2008 5:35 PM

I'm white. I'd have gladly gone to Wright's church. Some of his comments are crazy (the HIV one), and others I'd prefer to see reworded, but fundamentally, if you don't know that the US has done things as bad or worse than 9/11 and if you don't think our foreign policy helps create people who hate us, then you're an idiot.

None of that means the 9/11 victims deserved to die--unlike so many American hypocrites, I don't believe in collective punishment.

I've seen a lot more hate and hysterical cluelessness and bigotry on this thread than in anything attributed to Wright.

Finally, Obama is basically trapped, because the only way he can hope to win is to pander to all the white narcissists in America who believe their country is beyond serious criticism and who personally believe they are free of racism. And I don't think he can convincingly act like someone stupid enough to believe what so many whites wish to think. I don't actually have much sympathy for Obama--he's a politician like all the others and right now he's in a bit of a squeeze. His fate depends on how many Americans are white narcissists. I think he's in trouble.

Posted by Disgusted | March 17, 2008 5:36 PM

"Interesting that all of you are making fools of yourselves about this. Ever hear of separation of church and state? It's supposed to be an important part of the Bill of Rights..."

No, it's not. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights will you find anything about separation of Church and State. You will find the establishment clause of the first amendment, which prevents the government from establishing an official state church a la the Anglican church in Britain, or the Catholic church as it existed in old Spain.

In practice, the establishment clause has inhibited the various churches' participation in public life, but only because organizations like the ACLU have rendered the bill of rights FUBAR.

But there is no "separation of church and state". It's one of the biggest misconceptions around.

Posted by Dan | March 17, 2008 5:37 PM

Um, watch the videos you dodo's

1) He says something like 'Goddamn America for poverty and pain, Goddamn America for (other bad stuff in society) etc...'

The, I admit, slightly complex point for most of you pea brains is that he was cursing the aspects of American life that don't live up to the dream of America. The man loves this country. Watch the whole sermon.

2) He does not hate white people, he just thinks (and is right) that they have it easier often than black people and are totally unconscious of that. This can be a little irritating...you know... Anderson Cooper saying how could these kinds of sentiments exist? Wy would anyone not love every moment of this wonderful life? Aren't we all equal? He himself criticized America during Katrina...does that mean he hates America?

3) Wright is a GREAT speaker, in a tradition that a lot of you are too unimaginative to ever understand, a good sermon is an art form...He is very witty, warm. He comes from a long tradition that has spoken out against oppression. His church does huge work for the poor and dispossessed. Those people need confidence. You lot tell them their poverty is their own fault even as you inherit your daddy's mansions. Of course they need to understand that the myth which blames everything on them is a hypocritical myth...like the myth that America had never done anything reprehensible on the world stage that might have led to the kind of hatred felt by the 911 nuts. Wright helped show them that there is the fiction of the mainstream 'America is glorious' myth, and there was the reality of a complex nation that has many glories and many problems. All of which must be confronted and worked through.

Obama is a progression on that. A mature person...such a departure from you repressed bitter loons.

Too bored by you all to even take time wording this comment well. Have pasta on. Clueless people. I hope you get McCain. You deserve him.

(a white person in NY)

Posted by Jason Murphy | March 17, 2008 5:37 PM

Right on time: Some non-relevant controversy polished by the Republicans to take our attention away from any issue that actual matters. And we wonder how our country gets into such trouble. I missed something: since when did a man's preacher speak for a man? Since when can you judge a man by a couple of sentences spoken over a lifetime? And then pretend you too are Christian? Since when did this race become about a preacher, and not about the Iraq War, domestic policy, foreign policy, or anything else that actually matters? Why did this HAVE to become about race? Why are Americans so damn ready to hate? Do you want me to judge you based on a few sentences spoken in your life?

Such a shame. This race started out being about unity. Democrats, Independents, pissed-off Republicans coming together to heal our country after 8 years of the most damaging and ignorant administration ever. We were actually headed there, too. Hillary just can't have that, though, can she? Hope? HA! Togetherness? Not if she can help it. Once again, a political race has degraded into divisions and hate, exactly has she had planned. How any of you think that Hillary is going to bring anything other than hatred and division into the White House is beyond me. Or maybe I shouldn't even ask you? Maybe I should ask your preacher, since he probably speaks for you and all. Shaming.

Posted by workmonkey | March 17, 2008 5:40 PM

Obama used the racist black church
Obama used the racist black church to forward his own agenda of getting elected in S. Chicago. It was a perfect and politically correct network for his senatorial race and victory in becoming a senator in that area.

Now he wants to disavow those who elected him to senator and those who brought him to this pinnacle of becoming a candidate for the most important position in the world because the average American cannot stomach his racist hypocrisy.

He was creepy before this revelation of his church affiliation. But now the jig is up people and in spite of the MSM, we have the truth. The main stream press has been complicit in forwarding him and his leftist agenda. Be thankful for the internet and other sources of information before this political chameleon was able to fool the masses!

Posted by Oakley | March 17, 2008 5:41 PM

To Ross and those who agree with his assertions-

Suddenly, because you say so, Rev. Wright has mind control over Obama. Put aside for the moment that the assertion comes from no intimate understanding of the two men’s relationship; OR even familiarity with the two men. They are both reduced to caricatures just to fuel your fantasy.

You are purposely exploiting Wright's statements and his association with Obama for a self-serving agenda. I suspect that there is no way to have an honest discussion on this issue since you are showing false indignation at the resentments, suspicions, and accusations from those who feel dispossessed. The defensive response from Obama’s liberal supporters is no better but that is beside the point. There is a cultural divide here as is the case with other issues like the Hispanics and Immigration. If you don’t or won’t understand the context of Wright’s disillusionment with America, you will not understand his comments; or how we will get to a better place. Hopefully, Obama will not throw Rev. Wright under the bus for his imprudent statements. You, on the other hand, don’t really care except how you can exploit this to score cheap points with an inattentive and ill-informed public.

Posted by R_Young | March 17, 2008 5:44 PM

this whole focus on the ecclesiastic class is silly!

Posted by John Jones | March 17, 2008 5:44 PM

this whole focus on the ecclesiastic class is silly!

Posted by John Jones | March 17, 2008 5:44 PM

Isn't it cute to see the dumber sort of white person using the word "racist" so gleefully? As in, "Oh, I'm not racist, but those horrible black people who think they're oppressed by whites--they're racist."

Time to leave this thread. It has its amusement value, but fundamentally it's very depressing to read the kind of mentality on display here.

Posted by disgusted | March 17, 2008 5:46 PM

To paraphrase Jim Carville, it's the ingratitude, stupid!

Mr. & Mrs. Obama have lived enormously privileged lives by virtually any American standard and I'm pretty sure that the average American, white, black or purple, resents the ingratitude of Michelle O and the wrong Rev. Wright.

What I personally find so irksome is that neither Obama nor the missus has ever done anything to actually create wealth (his books don't count, they are the reward of celebrity). They've either worked for non-profits or the government or done 'public service' law while working at private practices, and parlayed this into millions in assets and a mid six figure income between the two of them (plus book proceeds).

But what do I know? I'm sure that when they apply to college, the Obama's daughters will have the benefit of both the race preference industry and the wealth and political connections of their parents.

Never mind that he travels by limo, as long as one immigrant Somali taxi driver will pick me up before Sen. Obama, America must repent for its sins.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 17, 2008 5:50 PM

M.Simon,
My point is real simple, so I'll go ahead and use the simple words for you. I have a friend. He is not always good. He is my friend because sometimes he is good. I don't like it when he is bad and I tell him so. But he is still my friend. You get it? Simple enough for you? If you don't, I trust most Americans will.

Posted by ChiChi | March 17, 2008 5:53 PM

It used to be said in the early part of the 20th Century that a Jew had to be twice as good as a Gentile to get hired.

Well we really fooled those suckers. We worked hard and became 7 times as good. The door was opened.

If only blacks had chosen the road of advancement instead of grievance. Instead working hard to get ahead is seen as "acting white". Or in Wrights vernacular - acting middle class.

I wonder if Wright ever thought that the reason whites are successful is that they act white. Outside the music business being an "authentic" black is not a career enhancer.

Posted by M. Simon | March 17, 2008 5:57 PM

Especially when you have a whole bunch of rich people around who never work at all, they just make money off other people working in the stock market.

I happen to know some millionaires, nobody fabulously wealthy but a couple of them are worth $50-$100 million. Almost without exception they work very hard, way more than 40 hours a week, and while they live well they all give away a ton of money to charitable causes. Though I'm not a big fan of Wall Street because I think it's better for the economy to make money selling goods than off of financial speculation, the folks in the financial markets also work their asses off.

Of course were it not for people investing in stock, businesses would have a much harder time getting the capital to build factories or whatever and employ people.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 17, 2008 5:59 PM

ChiChi,

OK you tolerate friendship with less than the best people you can find.

I don't. If I had a racist friend - if after a few years he didn't see the light I would drop him. People tell me I am rather brutal that way. For me life is too short to spend it in the company of that which I have fought against since I got out of diapers.

You are known by the company you keep. Like it or not.

Let me add that the share cropper was cultivating land at the foot of Monticello. You could see Jefferson's house from our back door. I was too young to appreciate it at the time.

Posted by M. Simon | March 17, 2008 6:06 PM

This whole controversy is centered around the notion by white people that black people think and act in one giant lock step. Obama's pastor's 'racist' uh oh! Obama is a racist! Its the "tribal" image of Blacks in America. I'll grant YOU we stick together, but please grant US the ability to be able to distinguish between bullcrap (gov't manufactured AIDS, Jesus was black) and not so bullcrap: (9/11 chickens coming home to roost, sorry, its kinda true, white people own everything).

Klein is right, there is a double standard with white (men and women) being able to say whatever they want about American culture (since, apparently, they own it first, then everyone else has second claim). While anyone who isn't white who tries to criticize their own country, its racist. Can anyone see the loophole here?

White people = "Real" Americans = Legit criticism

Non-whites = Hyphen-Americans = criticism rendered illegitimate and unpatriotic/racist

Posted by Annoyed | March 17, 2008 6:06 PM

Obama fans are almost cult-like in their devotion. The fall will come extra hard to some.

Posted by rjschwarz | March 17, 2008 6:08 PM

Great. All the Obama apologists are screaming "What about Falwell!!!! He supports Republicans, so there!!! Same thing!!!"

LOL

Well, gee. I guess that means the right can take their pick from the thousands of radical, race-baiting, America-hating black preachers in the US (with Donna Brazile claiming Wright to be less radical than most) who support liberal politicians.

So the muddle-minded liberals lose again.

Of course, you can laugh the entire, moronic argument of the libs out of the room with the simple and very obvious observation (at least to anyone who's even half-way rational) that the republican candidate McCain hasn't had a CLOSE, personal relationship with someone comparable to DAVID DUKE for 20 years.

Ever notice that liberals, generally, just don't think very clearly?

Posted by Kent | March 17, 2008 6:08 PM

if you don't know that the US has done things as bad or worse than 9/11

Yeah, name three.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 17, 2008 6:11 PM

Every Sunday we pray for the "rights of the unborn" at Mass. Our parish priest has given several sermons on the evilness of abortion that I have heard. I respect him for his views, although I disagree. I have been close to a number of nuns and priests over the years, but have never discussed my prochoice views primarily because I know that they have such strong feelings about this issue. As a teacher in a catholic school, I have had a number of colleagues who are also prochoice.
The Church is far from perfect, and I am angry at the way the hierarchy responded to the pedophile priests. But I have never left the Church- there's a lot of good there as well as bad.
Perhaps Obama feels the same way about his pastor and his church.

Posted by csmith | March 17, 2008 6:14 PM

Question:

Why does anyone think the $20,000 figure is unusually high, as donations go, for someone who is as well-to-do as Obama?

Christians of all stripes give to charity and to church, and often give to charity by means of church (i.e., giving an amount to a church which is designated not for that church's general budget, but rather for a particular ministry to the poor or homeless or sick or whomever).

The normative amount (though it's probably not the norm in terms of obedience) is called the "tithe," which amounts to one-tenth of a person's pre-tax income.

But well-to-do Christians are generally encouraged to go beyond that; the famous Christian writer C.S.Lewis thought that the only "safe" approach was to always give more than one was comfortable with; enough to make it pinch. Another "guideline" used is: "Give for the sake of helping those who are dependent, up to but not beyond the point of making yourself dependent." Lewis himself was apparently giving away more than half his income at some points in his life.

That being the case, what are we to say about a man with Obama's income and resources, who gives $20,000 to his church? That it's a shocker?!

Posted by R.C. | March 17, 2008 6:21 PM

OK, worse than 9/11:

1) Trail of Tears, Indian relocation & genocide

2) War on Drugs

3) Legalized slavery, 3/5 clause in the Constitution, Dred Scott/Jim Crow/segregation

That's more than three, but you get the idea.

Posted by you're a Bozo | March 17, 2008 6:27 PM

Wake up! The Rev. Wright was screaming "God Damn America" and the unknown and unproven Barack Obama took his time denouncing the Rev's words and has still not resigned from this church. He is TOAST! This will not be the man that Americans put into the White House....there is no turning back from this story; there is no Obama spin that can possibly undo the impressions made on the brains of white America as they viewed this black racist's rants. Imagine what black America would say if this had been a white preacher screaming about the sins of blacks? Barack Obam has, halfway into the primary season, managed to tear this country apart. Do you really think he can unite it? WAKE UP. And for the black community, who will no doubt blame this on white America's racism, I say to just put your children in front of those tapes of Wright and see how they wiggle in discomfort from the anger and crudeness and tell them that he's a man of God who loves his country.

Posted by m. nolan | March 17, 2008 6:27 PM

Bozoer Rebbe,

I don't drink lattes, but I do have a Che T-shirt, and I think you know what I would call you, so I'll save you having to hear it.

Your rich investor friends don't do a lick of work, unless you consider the modern equivalent of usury work. It would be better to say they get other people to work for them....probably people whose skin is a bit darker. I suppose we should all be grateful that they give away a few pennies from the fruit of _other people's labor_.

So it was God's will that the state of Israel was founded through shedding rivers of Palestinian blood? I suppose it was God's will too, that the Zionists murdered Folke Bernadotte of Sweden, the man who had rescued thousands of Jews from the death camps, and that they stole Jerusalem after promising the Vatican that it would be an international city, and that they provoked a war against Egypt, and collaborated with the government of South Africa.

There's nothing remotely _racist_ about Reverend Wright, who is a true man of God. It's neither racist nor hateful to say that America's history is very largely typified by greed, land theft, genocide and oppression against everyone from the Wampanoag to the Nicaraguans. Nor that their Israeli lackeys are much better. Npr that the basic premises on which America is founded are essentially false, and that Jefferson was not much more than a slave rapist hypocrite. That isn't hatred, it's just fact.

Posted by Hector | March 17, 2008 6:28 PM

Wait a minute -- Klein thinks that Harry Truman and Abraham Linclon were rich? What am I missing here?

Posted by Ahad Ha'amoratzim | March 17, 2008 6:29 PM

Well, McCain has indicated that he would like to bomb Iran and continue our occupation of Iraq for 100 years, despite the increase of death and destruction this will surely bring to another region of the world. Now, rather than argue which candidate is associated with the pastor with the least savory rhetoric, why don't y'all focus on the MORALITY of each candidate's proposals for this country. Really this is such a stupid discussion - this election is devolving into a disgusting food fight, while really serious issues are ignored.

Posted by csmith | March 17, 2008 6:29 PM

Jesus may have been black, white, or whatever. We don't know. The important thing is to emphasize that He was God. To say that He was black, or white, or Jewish, or whatever is to emphasize His humanity at the expense of His divinity.

I'd add to the list of American crimes:

- Unprovoked land grab from Mexico
- Supporting the Contras in Nicaragua
- Invasion of the Dominican Republic
- Vietnam War
- slavery, slavery, slavery

No, none of them were 'worse than 9/11'. To say that Hitler was worse than the South Africans isn't to say that the South African regime was anything less than evil.

Posted by Hector | March 17, 2008 6:34 PM

Does anyone know why Rev. Wright believes that we are a racist nation because we nuked Hiroshima, but the Japanese were not racists when they sneak attacked Pearl Harbor?

And, does Obama believe that any act of self-defense on our part would be racist? Is that why he was against the Iraq war (unlike Hillary)? Is his "good judgement" (the centerpiece of his campaign) merely a reflection of his mentor's belief that whites may not defend themselves when attacked by people of color?

Under what circumstances would he defend our country if we were attacked during his tenure? Or will any such attack be automatically deemed to be one we brought upon ourselves and, like 9-11, richly deserve because we are racists?

In opposing the war, Obama may have been acting out the beliefs - however insane - of his pastor.

Posted by Bat Guano | March 17, 2008 6:36 PM

Not just this election, csmith. The 2004 election turned on gay marriage and the forgery of Bush's TANG documents, despite a sectarian war going even worse than it is today, Abu Ghraib, no WMDs, etc. In 2000, it was Al Gore sighing and inventing the internet vs. the contentless "compassionate conservatism."

When was the last time a presidential election has been about issues?

Posted by you're a Bozo | March 17, 2008 6:36 PM

"In opposing the war, Obama may have been acting out the beliefs - however insane - of his pastor."

I opposed the war along with half of the civilized world - because it was unprovoked and immoral. Didn't need a minister to tell me that. Even my seventh graders can think more logically than you!

Posted by csmith | March 17, 2008 6:41 PM

Well said, csmith.

M. Simon, your unqualified devotion to your own high-mindedness sounds very narcissistic.

B. Rebbe: Vietnam, Guatemala, El Salvador

Posted by R. Mutt | March 17, 2008 6:51 PM

"You can't tell me that if Obama was a Republican that FOX and the others would have quite the same slant as they do today."

The other none MSM networks, and most of the print media, keep the conservatives honest.

Posted by davod | March 17, 2008 6:55 PM

Racist repubs at it again. They don't know how to research or think for themselves. Just as Billy Kristol & others put out that false statement that Obama was at church on July 22 last year at one of Wright's sermons & nodding in agreement, until it was proven that Obama was in Miami at the time. The repubs have no doubt that in November, Obama will beat McCain like white on rice, so they're doing everything that they can do to try to knock him out. It won't happen, so save your breath, keystrokes, etc.

Someone asked if anyone believed that the CIA introduced AIDS, HIV virus into the black population. Well to be honest, for me it's not that difficult to believe. Many years ago, the U.S. government left many African American men in Tuskeegee untreated with syphillis so that they could experiment. Those humans went blind, died, etc. for the U.S. governments observations. SO DON'T YOU DARE ASK ME WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE THAT THE CIA WOULD DO SUCH A THING OR NOT. YOU PROBABLY KNOW MY ANSWER, AND IF YOU WERE AN AFRICAN AMERICAN YOU WOULD FEEL THE SAME, AND ONLY BECAUSE YOU WISH TO BE IN DENIAL DO YOU NOT REALIZE THE DIFFERENCES IN YOUR AMERICA FOR BLACKS VS WHITES.

This Wright fiasco is only a big deal to some of you because you want to make it one. Believe you me, I've heard similar sermons, and agree with what he said. Tell me what remarks Wright made that are not true? I've often asked this question, but no one has told me what lie he spoke. Oftentimes, we're more angry with the truth. Think about it!

Posted by Janice | March 17, 2008 6:58 PM

What kills me about this whole thing is when Mitt Romney was in the race no news stations ask him to renounce his church and there beliefs. He is an Ordained Priest in the Mormon church he was born into his church Know one and I mean know one asked him about his churches views on black people. This is written in some of there doctrine even today. If McCain picks him for VP this will come out this time. Then let's see the GOP FOX NEWS MACHINE Spin this one. Mitt was born in his church and I am living here in Salt Lake City so I know first hand how some Mormons really feel. Were was the media then this is the main issue. If we are going to start judging these candidates on there religious beliefs then we are going to go down a really horrible path here in US election process.

"Now WE ARE GENEROUS WITH THE NEGRO. WE ARE WILLING that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I WOULD BE WILLING to LET every Negro DRIVE A CADILLAC IF THEY COULD AFFORD IT. I WOULD BE WILLING that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. BUT LET THEM ENJOY THESE THINGS AMONG THEMSELVES." LDS "Apostle" Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems - As They Affect the Church," Address delivered at Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book entitled, "The Changing World of Mormonism," p. 307, emphasis added.

LDS - "Those who were LESS VALIANT IN PRE-EXISTENCE and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the NEGROES." LDS "Apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

LDS - "THE NEGROES ARE NOT EQUAL WITH OTHER RACES where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, ...but this inequality is not of man's origin. IT IS THE LORD'S DOING, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the LACK OF SPIRITUAL VALIANCE OF THOSE CONCERNED IN THEIR FIRST ESTATE [the Mormon pre-existence]." LDS "Apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 - 528, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

LDS - "...[T]hrough their INDIFFERENCE or LACK OF INTEGRITY TO RIGHTEOUSNESS, [blacks] rendered themselves UNWORTHY of the Priesthood and its powers...." LDS "Historian" B. H. Roberts, The Contributor, vol. 6, pp. 296-297, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book entitled "The Changing World of Mormonism," p. 293, emphasis added.

LDS - "Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not A REFLECTION OF OUR WORTHINESS or LACK OF IT IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE? ...[C]an we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in DARKEST AFRICA, or in FLOOD-RIDDEN CHINA, or among the STARVING HORDES OF INDIA, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that BECAUSE OF PERFORMANCE IN OUR PRE-EXISTENCE some of us are born as CHINESE, some as JAPANESE, some as Latter-day Saints. ...A CHINESE, BORN IN CHINA WITH A DARK SKIN, and with all the HANDICAPS OF THAT RACE seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. IN SPITE OF WHATEVER THEY MIGHT HAVE DONE IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE TO JUSTIFY BEING BORN OVER THERE AS CHINAMEN, if they now, in this life accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous? Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... THIS NEGRO, WHO, IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE LIVED THE TYPE OF LIFE WHICH JUSTIFIED THE LORD IN SENDING HIM TO EARTH IN THE LINEAGE OF CAIN WITH A BLACK SKIN, AND POSSIBLY BEING BORN IN DARKEST AFRICA.... IN SPITE OF ALL HE DID IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. IF THAT NEGRO IS FAITHFUL ALL HIS DAYS, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. HE WILL GO THERE AS A SERVANT, but he will get celestial glory." LDS "Apostle" Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems - As They Affect the Church," Address delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book entitled "The Changing World of Mormonism," p. 294. Note: Allegedly, even "if that Negro is faithful all his days," he will never achieve equality with his "white and delightsome" Mormon brethren. Instead he allegedly will go to the celestial kingdom "AS A SERVANT!"


A CURSE ON THE "SEED OF CAIN" ?
LDS - "You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, UNCOUTH, UNCOMELY, DISAGREEABLE and LOW in their habits, WILD, and seemingly DEPRIVED OF NEARLY ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been KILLED, and THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A TERMINATION TO THAT LINE OF HUMAN BEINGS. This was not to be, and the Lord put A MARK upon him, which is THE FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race -- that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, emphasis added.

LDS - "Though he was a rebel and an ASSOCIATE OF LUCIFER IN PRE-EXISTENCE, ...Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth.... [H]e came out in open rebellion, fought God, worshiped Lucifer, and slew Abel.... AS A RESULT OF HIS REBELLION, CAIN WAS CURSED WITH A DARK SKIN; HE BECAME THE FATHER OF THE NEGROES, and THOSE SPIRITS WHO ARE NOT WORTHY to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage." LDS "Apostle" Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 108-109, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

LDS - "...[F]rom Ham sprang the race which preserved the curse in the land." LDS Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:24.

LDS - "Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the Negro lineage through the flood." LDS "Apostle" Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

Posted by Mase | March 17, 2008 7:00 PM

Amen. Brother Falwell and Brother McCain were two peas in the pod. They know the heretics when they see them.

Let us smite this Negro now and put him in his place !!

Posted by Bubba Smedley | March 17, 2008 7:04 PM

Mr. Douthat,

I understand your concerns and appreciate the difference. But there is a far larger and more important issue here.

The important distinction is that while Obama has firmly distanced himself from Mr. Wright, McCain (and practically every GOP candidate over the past couple of decades) have tried to associate themselves as closely as possible with the Falwells and Robertsons and Bob Jones University, etcetera.

Whoever said it is acceptable to be a right-wing, white Christian extremist is one hundred percent correct. Without that group of nuts, the GOP would cease to exist.

Posted by max | March 17, 2008 7:23 PM

The really upsetting thing is that by now Rev. Wright has possibly cost Sen. Obama the nomination or the election.

If you go read your Gospels you will not find Jesus of Nazareth condemning groups wholesale, but ministering to them. Being called "the United States of KKK America" is untrue and calculated to alienate people. Obama's message has been opposed to that, but angering everyone who is not, nor has ever been, a KKK member is not the way to unify the country, let alone continue to be considered for leading it.
The Senator should realize he is being tempted here, and perhaps reply as Christ did: "Get thee behind me, Satan"; I will have nothing to do with you. If a message of unity is to be believed, I fear that this class of reply, and nothing less, is needed.

Wright's kind of rhetoric might be common in some churches, but to one not accustomed to it, it sounds like a mirror image of, say, an endorsement by a neo-Nazi. That it violates everything Obama has been saying about how a nation needs to behave ought also to be obvious, but the response needs to be at least as vehement as the stimulus.

Posted by G eberhart | March 17, 2008 7:25 PM

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right." -- John McCain, 2000

Obama has denounced and rejected Farrakhan. What has McCain done?

He's pandered to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, and Rod Parsley. He even went so far as to proclaim (falsely) that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

Obama has not pandered to Wright's objectionable views. He attended a church where the preacher had at some point said some things he strongly disagrees with. If you can confidently claim you are not in a similar situation, you probably aren't religiously active.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/14/the_irrelevance_of_obamas_mini/

Posted by They are different | March 17, 2008 7:25 PM

Why is Obama's church now purging information off their website? Something to hide? Obama has duped the Democratic Pary.......

Posted by happygolucky | March 17, 2008 7:29 PM

Consider that I am a die-hard conservative when you read this. I don't agree with much of anything Wright has said that I have seen. I went to Falwell's university and have a long relationship with Jerry himself. Anybody who knows him will tell you he is not the man that is often portrayed in the media....(Flynt, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Larry King, etc.)

Yes....he made some pretty stupid statements....and some that were theologically correct but were not easily understood outside the filter of a theological construct. How about all of you having every word you say being scrutinized for any mistake or stupid statement,or even belief system. Bet we would find some.

That being said...I am willing to give Obama, whom I am so distant from in my political beliefs, some of that Christian doctrine of "grace". We don't always agree with everything our leaders say. Sometimes we are in associations for different reasons. IMO Obama has not shown HIMSELF to be a racist. Let THAT be the standard.

PS. Falwell never claimed to steer the hurricane away from the East Coast. That was Robertson. Anyone with a more sophisticated understanding of the "religious right" would understand the clear difference in their theology. Similarly, I attend a church pastored by Rick Warren who is often vilified as a "liberal by some fundamentalist Christians which is so far from the truth as to be laughable. It's so many mistakes like this that turn into urban legend dogma that encourage me to give grace to Obama. There are enough crazies with political agendas on both ends of the spectrum so one must be very circumspect in buying the whole line someone is trying to sell.

Posted by john | March 17, 2008 7:42 PM

"I attended that church for 20 years, and I did not inhale"

Just how smart does Obama think we are? Why did Obama give $22,000 to a church that preaches a message like what Wright preaches? Why did Obama have Wright come and dedicate his new mansion? Why did Obama have a private prayer session with Wright right before announcining his candidacy? And if Obama never heard these sermons, then why did Obama have peripheral quotes from one of the race baiting sermons in his latest book? Quotes that he says he heard first hand?

The gullibility of some people is amazing.

Obama is either dishonest, lacks judgment or both. Either way he is not fit to become President.

Posted by KSM | March 17, 2008 7:49 PM

Of course, the Rev. Wright's relationship with Barack Obama is troubling. I may even have to re-think my support for him. However, whether Barack wins or loses, something else is far more troubling to me.
The list of topics that seem to split so sharply along racial lines is staggering.
* The OJ verdict
* How bad Michael Vick's actions were
* How fair affirmative action is
* The likelihood that crack was introduced by CIA
* The motive behind the slow reaction to Katrina
* The legitimacy of Rev. Farrakhan
* Was Larry Bird over-rated
I'm not saying that either side is right or wrong. I'm just troubled that Black and White America seems to differ so widely on so many issues. We should all work together to address this before our "chickens come home to roost"

Posted by daneayers | March 17, 2008 7:54 PM

Of course, the Rev. Wright's relationship with Barack Obama is troubling. I may even have to re-think my support for him. However, whether Barack wins or loses, something else is far more troubling to me.
The list of topics that seem to split so sharply along racial lines is staggering.
* The OJ verdict
* How bad Michael Vick's actions were
* How fair affirmative action is
* The likelihood that crack was introduced by CIA
* The motive behind the slow reaction to Katrina
* The legitimacy of Rev. Farrakhan
* Was Larry Bird over-rated
I'm not saying that either side is right or wrong. I'm just troubled that Black and White America seems to differ so widely on so many issues. We should all work together to address this before our "chickens come home to roost"

Posted by daneayers | March 17, 2008 7:55 PM

Of course, the Rev. Wright's relationship with Barack Obama is troubling. I may even have to re-think my support for him. However, whether Barack wins or loses, something else is far more troubling to me.
The list of topics that seem to split so sharply along racial lines is staggering.
* The OJ verdict
* How bad Michael Vick's actions were
* How fair affirmative action is
* The likelihood that crack was introduced by CIA
* The motive behind the slow reaction to Katrina
* The legitimacy of Rev. Farrakhan
* Was Larry Bird over-rated
I'm not saying that either side is right or wrong. I'm just troubled that Black and White America seems to differ so widely on so many issues. We should all work together to address this before our "chickens come home to roost"

Posted by daneayers | March 17, 2008 7:55 PM

Of course, the Rev. Wright's relationship with Barack Obama is troubling. I may even have to re-think my support for him. However, whether Barack wins or loses, something else is far more troubling to me.
The list of topics that seem to split so sharply along racial lines is staggering.
* The OJ verdict
* How bad Michael Vick's actions were
* How fair affirmative action is
* The likelihood that crack was introduced by CIA
* The motive behind the slow reaction to Katrina
* The legitimacy of Rev. Farrakhan
* Was Larry Bird over-rated
I'm not saying that either side is right or wrong. I'm just troubled that Black and White America seems to differ so widely on so many issues. We should all work together to address this before our "chickens come home to roost"

Posted by daneayers | March 17, 2008 7:55 PM

First, the GOP has pandered to its religious crazies for decades. And again, these crazies did not just sometimes preach a controversial sermon, they influenced GOP politics.

Second, do we really want to judge a candidate by every person who enters their life, or want a candidate who has never had anyone in their life that expressed a point of view with which they differ? Oh, yeah, I forgot...we have a president who surrounds himself with people who think like him, and that is why we are in trouble today.

Third, this is classic GOP/Hillary playbook: let's distract people from the issues that matter, and focus on stuff that doesn't make any difference in people's lives. Hey, the economy is melting down, we're wasting lives and billions in Iraq, but hey, let's talk about Obama's former pastor.

Posted by cm | March 17, 2008 8:08 PM

Obama loved his Preacher and Knew him Well Chicago Tribune
http://www. chicagotribune. com/news/custom/religion/profiles/chi-070121-relig_wright,0,5184608. story?page=1&coll=chi_news_custom_religion_promo

Obama says that rather than advising him on strategy, Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.

"What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," Obama said. "He’s much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I’m not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that’s involved in national politics

In his 1993 memoir "Dreams from My Father," Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation

Posted by Angel | March 17, 2008 8:10 PM

I think the real point is that Obama was a neighborhood organizer. You can't organize a neighborhood without belonging to its church.

Obama wanted to help end the anger is division in this black community by changing the conditions within a community and the nation that caused the rage--the very rage expressed by Rev. Wright.

Rev. Wright's comments are very frightening to people because we understand the larger social costs of this rage.

Obama was trying mightily to help the community overcome this rage. He was encouraging the constructive aspect of Rev. Wright's work: The theme of taking responsibility for one's own improvement.

Obama, with this honors degree from Harvard law school, his charm, skills and intelligence, could have divorced himself from the poor black community and joined a genteel, wealthy church.

Kudos to Obama for not abandoning this Church, but instead, trying to end the conditions that led to the rage and divisiveness.

Posted by saraz | March 17, 2008 8:11 PM

What will be interesting is seeing the extent to which this puts to bed the Obama Muslim rumor. If a focus on Wright puts that rumor away, then the net effect on Obama's candidacy should be small.

I think Sen. Obama would be well-served to tactfully expand his circle of religious advisers or to put those that he already has on board into more of a spotlight. I don't think the Wright effect will be as big as some people would like it to be. He dealt with the whole Farrakhan thing--a much more controversial figure--so deftly that there's no reason to expect anything different here.

And I do think that there is plenty of ammo among the bigoted statements from the right to throw back at McCain if he goes there in the general. I don't think "pastors and the wacky things they say" is a conversation that Republicans really want to have in a broad way, ever. They'll use it for targeted mailings to fire up their base, sure, but that will probably be the extent of it.

Posted by Mark | March 17, 2008 8:15 PM

The comments that seem to approve of the idea that if McCain were a hardline fundamentalist Christian he never would have been the nominee because Hucakbee wasn't nominated are just absurd. Huck had no chance at the nominee not because of his fundamentalist Christian beliefs (which got him a lot of support in the party) but because when it comes to the environment and big business and spending he's as far or farther to the left than the Democratic candidates. THAT'S why he had no chance - the religious fundamentalists who only care about social conservatism and the candidates religious bona fides all voted for Huck. There is no way any other Republican voter would vote for Huck, and the independent voters in the primaries vote for Republicans based on fiscal policy, not which candidate is "most Christian".

A purported fiscal conservative (apparently these days meaning tax cut, borrow and spend rather then the "liberal" tax and spend) who is a fundamentalist born-again Christian can absolutely win the Republican nomination and the presidency, unless I've been imagining that George W Bush has been the president since January 2001. The plain facts are that outside of the socially conservative policies and his being a minister, Huck just wasn't much of a Republican if you consider the traditional platform of the party. The people who care about both social conservatism AND fiscal conservatism weren't going to vote Huck, and certainly not the fiscal conservatives that disagree with Republican positions vis a vis gay marriage and other such issues.

Posted by Yinka Dare | March 17, 2008 8:22 PM

***The real mystery is why Dems continue to grovel whenever anyone unearths something controversial that any of their acquantainces said without their knowledge somewhere in the past, while Repubs get away with murder. Just hypothetically, what would happen if a Dem candidate said he was proud and honored to receive the support of someone who explicitly called for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews? His candidacy would be dead on the spot.

Posted by Hans B | March 17, 2008 12:50 PM***

Hans, Seriously, you're kidding right? Dems have been getting a free pass from the media for decades. Repubs get away with murder? C'mon. You're joking. I know this may be a new thing for you libs and it's probably a shock that the media actually might be asking tough questions of your wonder boy, but we Repubs have been putting up with the drive-by media smear machine for a long time. Get used to it because it's going to get a lot worse. The fact that Obama's "uncle" and spiritual advisor is a nitwit Jew-hating racist is just the tip of the ice berg. BTW, I seem to recall that Obama got the title of his last book from one of Wright's sermons. I wonder Obama will call his next book "God Damn America."

Posted by Rick | March 17, 2008 8:27 PM

To Janice:

The way we talk about traumatic events should always be sensitive to the victims' feelings.

So saying that 9/11 was the chickens coming home to roost suggests that the workers in the World Trade Center somehow invited the violence on themselves. I lived in New York during 9/11 and I volunteered working with families affected by the event. I spent the next year living as a student in Europe, where I would often hear that "we asked for it" or "our government did it." This would drive me very quickly to tears and anger. When you know some of the individuals involved and their families, any suggestion that they invited it or that we collectively "asked for it" is really, really offensive.

I think you could apply this same reasoning to any other personal or collective trauma that you feel closely attached to and see how problematic this is. When there are victims involved, everyone and especially public figures should avoid saying that "they asked for it." And that goes for Falwell and Robertson too. Equally extreme and offensive.

There are other ways to couch one's criticisms of American foreign or domestic policy.

Posted by Mark | March 17, 2008 8:28 PM

"I attended that church for 20 years, and I did not inhale"

So you believe EVERYTHING your minister preaches? Never disagree with him on any issues? Or if you do, you make public announcements about your feelings to other members of your church and community? Well then, you're in the minority. Trust me, as a menber of one of the oldest and largest church group, I know very few who buy into everything the Church teaches. But they don't go around publicizing their "errant" views. And most are active Church members. That's the way it is. All this nonsense could be avoided if the media would stop their 24/7 playing of that 10 minute mish-mash of statements made by Wright, because I truly doubt that those heated words represents ALL that he is.

Posted by csmith | March 17, 2008 8:32 PM

But Mark, "chickens coming home to roost" is quite different from "you asked for it." How complicit are we when we elect leaders who meddle in foreign nations' affairs surreptitiously or fight proxy wars to battle other superpowers? How complicit was the average German in the rise of the Nazi Party? How about the average resident of Hiroshima in the Japanese Empire? We have to be engaged so it doesn't happen here.

Besides all this, don't you think it was only a matter of time before we'd be hit by some massive act of terrorism? We have one of the most open societies on earth, and Europe has been hit by terrorists fairly frequently. It was bound to happen sometime; our geographical distance from people that don't like us for whatever reason only made it a bit harder.

Posted by Boynton Cousin | March 17, 2008 8:38 PM

Boynton,
Let me think that over...hmmm...no, Jeremiah Wright is still a racist ass clown. Look, Wright was useful to Obama early in his career when he was an up and coming Illinois politician. 10 or 20 years ago when Obama was sitting in Church listening to Wright damn the US and condemn Jews and white people he probably wasn't even thinking about how this might look if he runs for president one day. But now the "chickens have come home to roost" and, if I may mix avian metaphors, Wright is now just a big racist albatross around Obama's neck.

Posted by Rick | March 17, 2008 8:47 PM

Re: You use Huckabee as an example, and choose to ignore our current born-again, fundamentalist president?

There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush is a Fundamentalist. In fact his religious views seem fairly shallow and may well begin and end with Jesus as the great Twelve-Step coach. As for "born-again", I'm not sure he has ever described his conversion in that language. He is a member of the same denomination (Methodist) as Hillary Clinton. Some Southern and also Black Methodists do go in for the "Born Again" thing; but most do not. But even if Bush does see himself as "Born Again" that's hardly sinister since our last born-again president was Jimmy Carter.

Posted by JonF | March 17, 2008 9:31 PM

Um, sure. I bet you'll still be thinking that when Obama is sworn in next January, but it doesn't really matter.

Posted by Boynton Cousin | March 17, 2008 9:33 PM

It boggles my mind and probably a lot of fellow Hawaiians that Barack Obama could be even considered a racist, some sort of anti-American black supremacist by implication. His mother and grandparents were white, his little sister who he helped to raise is half-asian, and his niece is 3/4 asian. I realize that Hawaii is far away from the rest of the country, but we Hawaii people are proud Americans and we count too. Barack Obama thinks that we can become a postracial society because during the time he was growing up in Hawaii, for kids it was a postracial society. I know: I lived there during the same time as Barack Obama. We watched the same cartoons, played the same music, went to the same schools, and emulated the 1972 University of Hawaii basketball team, the Fabulous Five. I remember wanting to have a jump shot like Jerome Freeman.
Barack Obama has listened to the advice of many religious, including Wright and also Rick Warren and lives in Chicago. I get that as well: now I live in the South. I get that other Americans have lived with racial disparities. However, that does not change bedrock principles, belief in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Posted by CorinneA | March 17, 2008 9:45 PM

I don't have a particular bone to pick in this fight since I do not actively participate in any form of organized religion whatsoever..it's seems scary, divisive and a bit over the top BUT since we are talking all about who cozies up to who it made me think of when Bush was appointed and had the bright idea of forming that advisory board of religious big wigs to do whatever it is that religious people do. Guess who was on the short list of advisors to Bush and went to the White House on several occasions..none other than Ted Haggard. I'm sure no one would dare throw Bush under the bus for his personal association with a hypocritical minister who publicly condemned gay people at the same time he was..well, you know. Did anyone watch the documentary "Jesus Camp" with this bunch of loonies? The things they are brainwashing kids with should scare people a heck of a lot more than Rev. Wright.

I just don't understand the whole guilt by association thing. It seems like a convenient excuse for people to publicly voice their racial prejudices and insecurities while projecting their anger on to Rev. Wright.

I think what he said was whacky..but then I think Falwell was a total crackpot..Pat Robertson is a nut...John Hagee is certifiable (and looks remarkably like a chunkier version of Karl Rove) Rod Parsley is crazy yet they have people that follow every word they say and fork over tons of cash.

What do people get for that money that they give to churches? I'm not being a smart-ass, I'd just really like to know.

Posted by Debra H | March 17, 2008 10:05 PM

Hillary's due for a comeback. Obama's questionable judgement re: his church will come back to hurt him. Look for Hillary to capitalize.

Posted by Hugh Jardonn | March 17, 2008 10:11 PM

This is not about Wright. This is about decision making. Obama's comments reveal his knowledge of Wright's "a bit harsh" sermons and even alluded to the possibility of "distancing" himself from the pastor. But making the decision to distance himself was made for political reasons and not because Obama "loves" America. Obama doesn't wear an American flag pin because he can show his "patriotism" in other ways and his wife, for the first time in her adult life, finally felt proud of America. Horse puckey!

Posted by Tom | March 17, 2008 10:21 PM

Obama is clearly just now condeming Wright's comments because he has to for political expediency. If these comments had not come to light Obama would have kept silent, here's the proof. Obama knew of Wright's controversial statements long before he has admitted and yet kept his relationship with Wright as his "spiritual advisor"-the NY Times published an article on 4/30/07 where Wright admits that he and Obama discussed the fact that Obama might have to distance himself from Wright due to these statements and Obama agreed.
So Obama knew of Wright's beliefs and even discussed distancing himself from Wright sometime before April, 2007-I call that a huge problem.

Posted by Tom | March 17, 2008 10:25 PM

Sen Obama is a different kind of politician.

If he was a - let's say Clinton type of politican - he would have distanced himself from anyone he knows who could possibly impact his run for office

Instead: he can separate the difference between the words of Rev Wright and Rev Wright himself.

In how Sen Obama is handling this entire situation, and in his calm demeanor he is showing us he will not be "swift boated"

Sen Obama has lived in many worlds - and had more definaitions of "who he is" thrust upon him as we live in a world of "categories" and someone who is not easily pegged in a "box" gives the public pause

In the year Obama has been on the national scene he has been
(a) Muslim
(b) Radical Christian
(c) not black enough
(d) too black

and so many other things that are just a distraction to the core issue

Is America ready for a black president?

because at the end of the day - that is the the question--

I cannot put myself in a position to judge what is said in a black church, but Wright is speaking of Aids having come of age knowing the Tuskgekee Airman WERE injected with Syphllis as a medical experiment. Maybe from that point of view - the aids statement we all think is absurd -- can seem to have some validity--

Falwell, Robertson and the founder of the Religious Right Movement Franklin Schaeffer have all damned me - since I am Pro Choice, have no issue with gays etc -- and they also said America deserved 9/11 because of our sins --

Yet when Robertson endorsed pro choice, gay rights advocate Rudy Giuliani, the MSM writes about this as a "break through"

Maybe what is needed is a new kind of media - that can look at issues with clear eyes - can understand different categories of people in this country have different points of view

And you can look at Barack Obama or Bobby Kennedy or MLK or many others - until the joint experiences of Americans are understood and joined; we may just be doomed to keep running in place

After all - this is the unspoken hope of the Obama campaign --

And now that the campaign is up against all the MSM, right wing and rival campaigns throws at it -it is still alive --

I for one hope (and feel) Sen Obama will deliver a powerful message Tuesday morning

Let's just hope everyone hears it
We need to fix this country - and anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton or John McCain has a clue of how to mobilize then population to do better for ourselves, I submit, is living in a "fairy tale"

Posted by alison | March 17, 2008 10:38 PM

This is blown way out of proportion. As a consistent church-goer do I have to abandon all of my traditions, community, and faith simply because my spiritual leader says a few things that I disagree with? Do I have to abandon all of my friends who have said things that I disagree with? Do we not remember that Obama was raised by a white mother and white grandparents? There is a culture, a community, and a tradition that is so personal when speaking of religion that I find it sad we hold Obama accountable for every word spoken by his pastor. I would never find a religion to attend if I had to buy in to everything spoken from the pulpit. Let's cut him some slack for heaven's sake!

Posted by Kell | March 17, 2008 10:47 PM

What bugs me is not the reaction to BO's association with Reverend Wright (and whether he attended some of these "flag burning" sermons), but the public condemnation of Wright himself. One is predicated on the other.

Here is a black man who grew up with REAL racism. Here was a U.S. Marine & Seaman who worked as a medical technician during the mid 60's.

Now, the bombing of Japan was NOT the cause of 9/11 (and the statement thereof is absurd enough to dismiss), but the idea that American Foreign Policy had NOTHING to do with it is arrogant.

You can disagree with the way he chooses his words, but a lot of these 'controversial' statements have nuggets of truth.

On another note, I too disagree that we "never batted an eye" regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki (forgive me for spelling). Plenty mourning and prayer occurred. That doesn't mean that I liken Rev. Wright to Hitler. He's simply a tired man whose life experience and beliefs lead him to speak in angry overtones.

All that being said, sermons are not commandments, nor are they always literal expressions of the pastor's opinion. Like Biblical verse, a story is told to teach a lesson. In cases where the pastor's opinion is stated (especially on politics), the words are often taken with much salt.

Just because you trust your doctor more on what you should take for a headache than your lawyer doesn't mean you don't heed his legal counsel.

Posted by Brian in FL | March 17, 2008 10:49 PM

I agree with Ezra Klein, I agree with Reverend Wright, and I will continue supporting Barack Obama despite the REAL horseshit that Mr Douthart and his dittoheads pile up on this message board.

Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson have all preached white nationalism, hate, and war, and all of them have had far, far more influence over our government and the American people than Wright ever will. And that's why Wright is right.

Posted by rp | March 17, 2008 11:10 PM

I have to hand it to the Republicans. They are always so skillful at swiftboating. All these years of listening to their religious extremism and now they've proclaimed that Obama is guilty of religious extremism by association with Wright. Seeing as how they made Kerry's purple heart mean not only nothing but the opposite of what it was, they are a force to be reckoned with.

Posted by John | March 17, 2008 11:19 PM

"SO DON'T YOU DARE ASK ME WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE THAT THE CIA WOULD DO SUCH A THING OR NOT. YOU PROBABLY KNOW MY ANSWER, AND IF YOU WERE AN AFRICAN AMERICAN YOU WOULD FEEL THE SAME, AND ONLY BECAUSE YOU WISH TO BE IN DENIAL DO YOU NOT REALIZE THE DIFFERENCES IN YOUR AMERICA FOR BLACKS VS WHITES."

Janice, are you saying because you are black you should be given a pass for believing crackpot conspiracy theories? Don't you think that is racists, holding blacks to a lower standard?

Posted by Joe Lammers | March 17, 2008 11:22 PM

Hmmm...interesting there is no mention here of the Rev. Hagee. When will the so-called journalists finally treat McCain the same way they are treating the Democratic candidates? Media Matters had a great piece today (here is the link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200803140010?f=h_column) about the fact that McCain has not released his income tax returns but that no one could find one written commentary about that, while Hillary is roasted daily. It also talked about the press consistently referring to McCain's "rustic cabin" in Arizona. Well, you can take a good look at that "cabin" which was featured in Architectural Digest. Yes...I'll bet you never knew that the Digest does indeed profile rustic cabins.

You know things are getting bad when the best Liberal quote of the moment is from Joe Scarborough, referring the national press corps: "I think every last one of them would move to Massachusetts and marry John McCain if they could."

Posted by FactChecker1 | March 17, 2008 11:26 PM

I would much rather be associated with Wright than Falwell. Period.

Posted by Regan Chapman | March 17, 2008 11:32 PM

"I think the real point is that Obama was a neighborhood organizer. You can't organize a neighborhood without belonging to its church.

Obama wanted to help end the anger is division in this black community by changing the conditions within a community and the nation that caused the rage--the very rage expressed by Rev. Wright."

Hmmm...community organizer...a sure fire way to create wealth.

If Obama REALLY cared about his community he would be fighting to establish CORPORATIONS in Chicago; hence creating JOBS. Lowering taxes on [evil, Big Business] CORPORATIONS might help.

He would be fighting to drill in ANWR to lower energy prices.

He would be fighting for Tort reform to dispense with frivolous lawsuits and limiting excessive judgments.

etc, etc, etc, ...

Posted by mockmook | March 17, 2008 11:34 PM

Obama's minister committed reason but when my father said the same thing, he was a Republican hero."

By Frank Schaeffer

"When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton."

Full article can be found here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

Posted by sapec | March 17, 2008 11:39 PM

Totally agree with you Ross. If Obama was Catholic he'd be in the clear. There's no way he wins the national election now. He should have left that church a long time ago.

Posted by Lyle | March 17, 2008 11:44 PM

Barry refuses to wear an American flag pin.

He used the term "cracker" in one of his books.
(which is weird, considering he's a dark-skinned white person).

Barry brought his children to possibly witness his mentor Wright's rants about "riding Monica dirty" or maybe a "God damn America".

Bad, bad judgement for someone who wants to be the Prez.

He seems to want to impress nasty black Liberals by attending Wright's rants and then he turns around and smiles at moronic white Liberals who are itching to elect a Socialist.

Bye Bye Barry!

Posted by Sue in Palm Springs | March 17, 2008 11:49 PM

Matt's next project: "Hitler and FDR: Two Sides of the Same Coin."

Posted by Brendan | March 18, 2008 12:13 AM

Sorry, Ross. I just read Ezra's argument, your counter-argument, and Ezra's rejoinder to your counter-argument, and I think it's fair to say he smoked you pretty badly.

Posted by Brian | March 18, 2008 12:17 AM

This whole thing is such a ridiculous non-story. It's insane that we're supposed to care what his PASTOR thinks. Who cares? There are thousands dying in Iraq. Our economy is going to hell. Barack Obama is the right man for the job, not John McCain.

Also it's insane to compare what people asked Huckabee with the Obama situation. Huckabee was asked to clarify things that he himself said. Obama is being attacked over something SOMEONE ELSE said. Like Obama said, Wright was his pastor, not his political adviser.

Posted by The Presidential Candidates | March 18, 2008 12:23 AM

"This whole thing is such a ridiculous non-story. It's insane that we're supposed to care what his PASTOR thinks. Who cares? There are thousands dying in Iraq. Our economy is going to hell. Barack Obama is the right man for the job, not John McCain."

Perhaps. This is still going to cost Obama votes. Having a religious mentor who literally calls upon God to "damn America" is a sure fire way to lose votes.

Posted by Joe Lammers | March 18, 2008 12:33 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

News Flash: Reverend Wright’s Christianity isn’t the Right kind.

Now that the Right-Wing knows that Senator Obama is likely a Christian (although I'm sure there are those who are reluctant to part with his being a Muslim), maybe it's now time to suggest that Reverend Wright is the wrong kind of Christian leader as opposed to Francis Schaeffer (link above) who was the Right kind of Christian leader for several U.S. presidents.

Seems that it's okay for religious leaders to condemn America, and even call for insurrection, as long as those leaders are the Right kind of Christian leaders.

For instance, condemning America for bigotry and injustice against Blacks and gays is very wrong. There’s no way that particular condemnation of America could be tolerated. It’s (of course) unpatriotic. It just isn’t Right.

On the other hand, condemning America for the existence of homosexuality and for being like Hitler and like Russia is very Right. Anti-Catholicism is very Right. Racism is very Right.

When it comes to what some Christian preachers preach, there's the Right way or the highway.

The Right-Wing is totally hypocritical for its smearing of Reverend Wright and its false claims that Senator Obama is guilty by association. Ironically, the Right-Wing’s hypocrisy contributes to the bigotry and injustice that Reverend Wright is yelling about.

For an historical prospective, read http://www.hnn.us/articles/48444.html.

Anonymity is fertilizer to the cowardice of racism.

Posted by HankinTexas | March 18, 2008 12:47 AM

could someone remind me of the reason we celebrate martin luther king day?

Posted by Marc | March 18, 2008 12:51 AM

God damn America? You better believe it...

God damn a country that continues to accept the Republican party of:

Strom Thurmond
Trent Lott
Ralph Reed
Gary Bauer
Billy Graham
Jerry Falwell
James Dobson
David Duke
Pat Robertson
Pat Buchanan
Bob Jones
George W. Bush
Ronald W. Reagan

All of them, white nationalists. Every single one of them a devotee of war, economic injustice, homophobia, and hate, pandering with God Bless America while they divide and conquer.

Even if Wright were as bad as some on this board are saying, it will be a cold day in hell when the Democrats catch up to the Republicans for combining religion and politics in the most heinous ways.

Posted by rp | March 18, 2008 1:03 AM

Farwell vs. Wright = Conservative faith on the nature of God & “consequences" vs. Progressive/Liberal faith on the nature of God & "consequences".

In general...the Conservative view on consequences revolves around national punishment for "immoral" individual behavior (i.e. cultural conservative). God uses a hurricane to destroy New Orleans as punishment for homosexuality and feminism. A "clash of civilizations" between the Christian God of love and compassion versus the the Facist Islamic God of repression and terror.

Our nation is blessed by god and requires laws that are in-line with "God's laws" in order to avoid God's punishment in the form of social/personal suffering.

The Liberal/Progressive view on consequences revolves around national punishment for "immoral" state/federal government policies…Slavery, Supply-side economics, foreign policy (training jihadists), war (bombing Japan), CIA, etc. These policies, while enacted for the 'national interest', may be unfair and lead to unforeseen negative outcomes (Blowback).

Our nation requires a moral and fair 'system' of domestic/foreign laws, policies and enforcement in order to maximize equality, opportunity and freedom in order to minimize hypocrisy and neutralize the disproportionate suffering caused by these policies.

Ultimately, in the realm of foreign and domestic national policy, you reap what you sow. This is a valid and important point-of-view.

Posted by mmark | March 18, 2008 2:28 AM

Farwell vs. Wright = Conservative faith on the nature of God & “consequences" vs. Progressive/Liberal faith on the nature of God & "consequences".

In general...the Conservative view on consequences revolves around national punishment for "immoral" individual behavior (i.e. cultural conservative). God uses a hurricane to destroy New Orleans as punishment for homosexuality and feminism. A "clash of civilizations" between the Christian God of love and compassion versus the the Facist Islamic God of repression and terror.

Our nation is blessed by god and requires laws that are in-line with "God's laws" in order to avoid God's punishment in the form of social/personal suffering.

The Liberal/Progressive view on consequences revolves around national punishment for "immoral" state/federal government policies…Slavery, Supply-side economics, foreign policy (training jihadists), war (bombing Japan), CIA, etc. These policies, while enacted for the 'national interest', may be unfair and lead to unforeseen negative outcomes (Blowback).

Our nation requires a moral and fair 'system' of domestic/foreign laws, policies and enforcement in order to maximize equality, opportunity and freedom in order to minimize hypocrisy and neutralize the disproportionate suffering caused by these policies.

Ultimately, in the realm of foreign and domestic national policy, you reap what you sow. This is a valid and important point-of-view.

Posted by mmark | March 18, 2008 2:28 AM

Farwell vs. Wright = Conservative faith on the nature of God & “consequences" vs. Progressive/Liberal faith on the nature of God & "consequences".

In general...the Conservative view on consequences revolves around national punishment for "immoral" individual behavior (i.e. cultural conservative). God uses a hurricane to destroy New Orleans as punishment for homosexuality and feminism. A "clash of civilizations" between the Christian God of love and compassion versus the the Facist Islamic God of repression and terror.

Our nation is blessed by god and requires laws that are in-line with "God's laws" in order to avoid God's punishment in the form of social/personal suffering.

The Liberal/Progressive view on consequences revolves around national punishment for "immoral" state/federal government policies…Slavery, Supply-side economics, foreign policy (training jihadists), war (bombing Japan), CIA, etc. These policies, while enacted for the 'national interest', may be unfair and lead to unforeseen negative outcomes (Blowback).

Our nation requires a moral and fair 'system' of domestic/foreign laws, policies and enforcement in order to maximize equality, opportunity and freedom in order to minimize hypocrisy and neutralize the disproportionate suffering caused by these policies.

Ultimately, in the realm of foreign and domestic national policy, you reap what you sow. This is a valid and important point-of-view.

Posted by mmark | March 18, 2008 2:28 AM

You seem to forget that the Haggard "controversy" (the Bush connected, evangelical preacher from Colorado who was caught with a young homosexual hooker and meth) turned out to be a non-issue in the Bush campaign. It seemed that the religion line was out of bounds.

Furthermore, when W. Bush told 20/20 that he had a personal conversation with Jesus Christ about invading Iraq it was dismissed as hyperbole. His literal claims of revelation were received with ambivalence among the voting population. Yet, Obama is criticized for his association and admiration of Wright. Would it have been better if he claimed to have spoken to the Lord? There is clearly a double standard here and one that has been imposed by the media, insighted by the despicable Clinton campaign, and advanced by the shameless conservative trash machine. Judge as you will, but at least remain consistent.

Posted by Austin in Austin | March 18, 2008 2:54 AM

Our economy is in shambles, our energy policy is self destructive, and our air and water is being polluted to no end.

But by all means, feel free to discuss Jeremiah Wright. I'm sure his sermons rank much higher on the agenda of who should be our next president.

I for one would much rather have a president who has been exposed to a rampant disgust with the way things have been done in this country for years, than one who is singing cumbaya with George Bush and the lobbyists, and touring iraq for photo ops.

Give me a break people. our democracy is being hijacked while we sit on the couch watching talking heads duke it out over non issues. Get it together folks and get educated on the facts that make this election the most important one in American history.

Posted by Greg in San Diego | March 18, 2008 4:23 AM

* Nixon, in fact, had more votes cast for him in elections than anyone else in American history. Interesting to think of it that way.
Posted by Fried Smelts

A very interesting, even important historical fact, with America now with a population that is 1/3rd to almost 1/2 larger than Nixon's electoral time span of 1946-1972.
Nixon, IMO, will rise in reputation as his biography & great achievements are measured against his at best medium-bad personality flaws that set him up for tragedy. Next to FDR, he was the most consequential President of the 20th century. More so than LBJ or Reagan, IMO. We know that we have had Presidents and folks like MLK with equal or greater flaws, we know that the Hard Left Nixon haters were wrong about the "innocence" of the communists he went after. And we are far more sophisticated about how the media manipulates the public to spin narratives that fit the agenda of the media owners...

************************
And Ezra Kleins logic that all Presidents were rich white men therefore all America's time was about rich white men getting what they want reveals a profound ignorance of history. Many Presidents came from very humble beginnings. A handful went into office with only modest possessions and left and died with no monetary gain from the Presidency or post-Presidency income.
There have been seven waves where America has dramatically cut power of rich white men, beginning with Jefferson, Jackson, the Grange, Trust-busting, FDR's redistribution, LBJs redistribution...There have been other very rich white men, prominently Jews - that worked against the interests of other wealthy white men in championing coomunism, class warfare, the interests of minorities over whites.
***************************************
His points on Wright are lost because he does not distinguish between a passing endorsement from a near-stranger with someone very close and influential to you that you should be expected to know the attitudes and business of if you tout him or her as a wonderful person with deep influence on your life over decades,
While we never truly have perfect knowledge of what is in the mind and heart of any human being, their hidden affairs...we do know those who are around us from their public behavior.

I know my minister of 12 years well. I know each liberal belief he has, his doubts on Christ's literal divinity, what parts of the Bible he believes true and untrue. I know his church and state politics. Centrist democrat, pro-gun rights, against ordaining women but in favor of closer ties to Latin, African, and Asian ministries of the same order. I remember his sermons after 9/11 vividly. His speeches on black-white relations, Jesse Jackson as a false Reverend - a con man, his belief that capitalism was failing in Latin America.
I suspect just about anyone that honestly calls their minister or priest highly important in their life and inspiring can sit down and talk and give an extensive talk over a few hours on memorable sermons, what they believe about many matters secular, what they do "off duty". Especially a man who claims he listened intently to what his Rev said, was a church regular, had a wife that also was a devotee that might discuss with him what controversial things the Rev said.

(My wife and I had discussions in areas of disagreement with our Revs sermons on several occasions, discussions relevant and memorable because we discussed those disagreements intensely).

So what Rev Wright said MUST have registered, at least 90% of what he said - with the Obamas. With their friends that also shared a keen interest in church and politics. Neither is a dumbass. I don't buy that the nuclear stuff Jeremiah Wright said went in and out of Obama family ears, that their acquaintances never discussed it, or that the Obamas missed all the controversial sermons and church member debates because they were absent when both say they went about every week for 20 years except rare occasions when a newborn kept them up or someone was sick..

That is quite different than Hillary or McCain getting an endorsement of 110 religious figures and somewhere on the list is Joe Billy Bob Smith - who it turns out believes in UFOs and the Apocalypse happening in 2009.
Neither McCain or Hillary would have any duty to investigate the background and complete history of remarks of some preacher who happens to cheer for them or put a bumper sticker on their car, Or Obama for that matter if some strange Rabbi in NYC who has controverial positions on Israel and Asians lacking souls happens to endorse Obama as the Messiah predicted and send him money. How can Obama be expected to know his views, or if he does, decline the goodwill of the Rabbi and the community he might help influence to vote Obama.

No, it is different when it is someone that is described in interviews and books as an intimate, and a personal inspiration for 20 years, and someone you are close to. Where your supposedly quite intelligent wife also shares the same experience and who is also supposedly quite sensitive to statements and positions made by close associates of Barack that could damage him.

Then it becomes a matter where the public can deliberate on your personal integrity and level of good or bad your judgment in having longtime, personal friends like the guy that gave your wife the Vicuna coat, Bebe Rebozo, Reagan being pals for 30 years with gay Merv Griffin, Clinton and the Vince Foster-MacDougal-Web Hubble ties, Bush and Harriet Miers.

And Obama appears to have other people like Wright off in the wings that he also did not repudiate...stuff that Hillary may hesitate to bring up about Obama's mothers anti-white, anti-American views, his NOI associates including NOI on his Senate Staff, his Muslim roomates at Columbia, his association with Bill Ayer, Bernadette Dohrn, and several mega rich hard Left Jewish radicals. His friendship with Electrnic Intifada founder Ali Abunimah. His close friend and donor Tony Rezko, with his ties to the ME, getting money for helping out with Obama's house and campaign from a billionaire Iraqi Sunni that both supplied arms for Saddam Hussein and also ripping off the US Iraq Occupation Authority. Hillary might hesitate, the Republicans will not. man that o

Posted by chris ford | March 18, 2008 4:41 AM

Believing in hell does not make you a Christian extremist, it makes him, simply, a Christian. Christ taught that hell existed.

Ezra needs to realize that Christianity is not like Judaism, where different sects believe in different vital aspects (afterlife/no afterlife, hell/no hell, etc)...to be a Christian you must believe what Christ taught, otherwise you are simply not a Christian, regardless of your claims.

He should try to understand this basic precept: One can never be an extremist based on one's belief of what happens after death. Extremism by its very definition denotes activities that are bound by the physical, i.e. blowing up cafes of 'imperialists', physically assaulting homosexuals, stoning women for showing too much calf, etc.

His accusation of extremism based on a Christian's belief in hell is at best a gross ignorance of the world around him, or at worst a cold cynical premeditated attempt to demonize spiritual people.

I call on him to take back this statement.

Believing in hell does not make one an extremist.

Posted by franco | March 18, 2008 4:44 AM

ee things differently - (McCain)He even went so far as to proclaim (falsely) that "the Constitution
-established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

Anti-Christian Jews and atheists, notably the ACLU Jews - keep trying to put out the notion that the Constitution was not written by observant Christians who started and ended each day of the Constutional Convention with a Christian prayer, who alluded to the Christian God and God's Blessing as the moral basis for man's natural rights (See the Preamble, where Liberty was noted as a Blessing - not a Right - but a Divine Blessing given Man). The men who all signed the Constitution and put it in force pending ratification by each signer noting it was executed In The Year of Our Lord, 1787.

Many of the Same Men who signed the Constitution also signed the Declaration of Independence, which ends with "With a Firm Reliance on the protection of Divine Providence".

McCain is right, the secular progressives - Jews and atheists - are wrong. The Founders left no doubt they were a Christian nation, a Protestant one at that. Some were Christian ministers themselves. They discussed the Christian theological framework of the Constitution in the Federalist papers and in letters. They talked about admitting Catholics as long as Papistry was controlled and allowing Jews in on sufferance of not abusing American toleration with excessive meddling that had gotten them so much rancor in their Diaspora to other nations. Many believed there was no place for Musselman (Moslems), including Ben Franklin, as Musslemen were the unrelenting enemy of Christianity. Barely 100 years had passed since the Moslems tried and failed at Vienna to conquer and enslave Central Europe. It would be like Americans today debating whether or not practicing Nazis should be welcomed as immigrants.

Posted by chris ford | March 18, 2008 5:22 AM

Mar-15, 2008, OBAMA STANDS BEHIND SPIRITAL ADVISOR WRIGHT!
“Wright is like an uncle you love and respect”
How does Obama consider someone a Mentor and friend for 20 years and not know their hateful racist values and character? Obama said he had no plans to leave the South Side church. Wright is like an uncle you love and respect ! he highly respects the opinions of Rev. Wright said Obama, who brings hope to many and agrees with giving the man of year award to the notorious Louis Farrakhan. Nation of Islam Minister who said we are witnessing the phenomenal rise of a man of color in a country that has persecuted us! Obama hasn't distanced himself from Farraklhan as he wants the media to believe. A number of Jewish and pro-Israel voters have concerns and raised questions about Barack Obama. In case you haven't followed this ongoing issue, here's a brief summary of the complaints:Obama has called for engaging Iran. Daniel Ayalon, Israel's former ambassador to the United States, told the New York Sun he is concerned Obama would want to negotiate with a "Hitler-like" regime. Some of Obama's policy advisors of various stripes, such as Samantha Power, Robert Malley, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, have come under attack for their views on Israel. World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder fears, it's only a matter of time before the president becomes anti-Israel Howard Friedman, the president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said the leading presidential candidate are all interested in continuing close ties with Israel. Obama in traditional muslim garb brought these questions back to the fore Obama is a closet Muslim. Obama hasn't distanced himself from Farraklhan as he wants the media to believe, Obamas and his church said Farrakhan "epitomized greatness. For Americans, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." His history is a rancid stew of lies. Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. His anti-Semitism and particularly his false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans. Farrakhan's dream has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small. He talks of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Obama and Rev Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. He applauds his "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." He praised "his integrity and honesty." He called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose." These words of the black man who touts change and claims to be a uniter of all people? DO NOT VOTE FOR OBAMANATION!

Posted by No obamanation | March 18, 2008 7:30 AM

Gee, the Klansmen and racists are really out in force today.

Mr. Ford,

Your Nixon was nothing but a lying, cringing butcher. His hands are red with Cambodian, Vietnamese, and Chilean blood. It's really too bad that Carter didn't make a deal to sell Nixon to the Vietnamese so that they could put him on trial for his crimes. Of course, you and your military buddies probably saw nothing wrongs with setting Vietnamese babies on fire, so you don't think that's a bad thing. You people disgust me.

The US is and always has been a country for rich white men, deal with it. And as a Christian, let me say that there was nothing remotely Christian about Jefferson, for one. His version of the 'Bible' cut out all the miracles. The United States is not and never has been a Christian nation- unfortunately. The "Nature's God" of Jefferson is not the God of the New Testament.

Posted by Hector | March 18, 2008 9:05 AM

Can anyone link Rev.Wright's comments with any extremist act or thought on part of Mr.Obama in the past 20 years? Have his wife or daughters ACTED in a way that has harmed anyone?

on the other hand, there have been more violent acts and people killed by the thoughts, plans and decisions of Mr.Bush and his theology, than there have been from theology preached by any black church or leaders that arise from it.

Its a deeply scarring tragedy that in large parts of this nation's pysche, African-Americans still have to justify and defend themselves (just for being!), their culture, their way of worship, and their philosophy, or their way of thinking, no matter what positive things they achieve in their personal and professional lives - they are still foreign and exotic, mistreated, and misunderstood.

Posted by serene | March 18, 2008 9:37 AM

I just saw Pat Buchanan claim that there's no pattern of hateful and Anti-American statements from Jerry Fallwell. Really?

The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior. -- Jerry Falwell

God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. -- Jerry Falwell

The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country. -- Jerry Falwell

And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen." -- Jerry Falwell, in 9/11

I had a student ask me, "Could the savior you believe in save Osama bin Laden?" Of course, we know the blood of Jesus Christ can save him, and then he must be executed. -- Jerry Falwell.

Posted by Double standard | March 18, 2008 10:55 AM

You've gotta be kidding me.. is this water-carrier trying to imply that Jerry Falwell's had less influence on politics and Presdidents than this Reverand Wright might?

That's just stupid.

Didn't President Bush declare a national day of mourning when Jerry Falwell died? Why didn't he declare a national day of denouncing everything Jerry Falwell did in life? Why didn't he denounce all the hate-bating Falwell did? Why didn't he denounce the man's life-work of promoting the politics of division, hatred, and intolerance?

I mean, at least Reverand Wright's America-bashing is based on historical facts (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, slavery, support of Israel, etc.). He's hating on things our government has done. Falwell and Robertson and their type, who have been massively influential to the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and both Bushes, hate AMERICANS, not America's governmental policies. They blame 9/11, Katrina, economic downturns, and just about everything else on private lifestyle choices made by certain Americans. That's despicable.

Do you actaully believe this hypocritical crap, Ross?

Posted by crafty b | March 18, 2008 11:35 AM

but Wright is speaking of Aids having come of age knowing the Tuskgekee Airman WERE injected with Syphllis as a medical experiment.

Sorry for the Caps but THIS IS A GOD DAMN LIE!!!

The soldiers were not treated, which was heinous enough. However, but they were not infected by the government scientists, they were infected by their sexual partners, like everyone else who gets syphilis, with the exception of neonates who get it from their mothers.

The experiment/study also had nothing to do with the Tuskegee Airmen, the subjects were mostly black sharecroppers. The original intentions were not evil.

The study was started in 1932 by the US Public Health Service, ended in 1972, and was originally intended to compare the results of not treating the disease with the results of treatments available at that time, which were both mostly ineffective and often toxic with harmful side effects. The first effective treatment, penicillin, was not widely available until 1947, so the idea of the study was really not evil. It was comparing unsafe, ineffective treatments with no treatment at all - not too different from the doctors today who advise "watchful waiting" for prostate cancer vs. radical treatments that can make the patient incontinent or impotent.

It was supposed to be a short term study, 8 months, at which time the subjects would be treated. The scientist who started the study, Dr. Taliaferro Clark, resigned after a year in opposition to how the subjects were deceived. As I see it, that's the primary moral flaw of the experiment's design. The uneducated, illiterate subjects trusted the doctors who were lying to them about treating them. The underlying moral issue is one of informed consent. The subjects could not really consent because they were not informed truthfully about the nature of the experiment.

NOBODY WAS DELIBERATELY INFECTED - THIS IS A MYTH THAT IS POPULAR IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY

While the study involved deception (they'd tell subjects that spinal taps to check for neurosyphilis were "special treatments"), the truly heinous thing was not ending the study in 1947, when it became possible to actually treat the disease with antibiotics.

So, while the Tuskegee Experiment may not have been the most ethical thing the US gov't or public health doctors and nurses have done, the true story is a bit nuanced. In any case the gov't did not infect the men with syphilis.

Frankly, this illustrates just how willing some members of the black community are to believe the worst possible things about the United States.

Essentially the argument is that we should understand that black people believe conspiracy myths about HIV/AIDS because they already believe a conspiracy myth based on a case of actual racist government misconduct.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 18, 2008 3:43 PM

I anxiously await Ross or anyone else demonstrating anything said or done by Senator or Mrs. Obama which could in any way, shape or form demonstrate any agreement with racist ideology. Regardless of what Rev. Wright said it is worth remembering Rev. Wright is not running for president, Sen. Obama is.
And Ross, please, spare me the claims this is different. President Bush has openly courted extreme religious figures. Remember the sudden crises requiring state constitutional amendment plebiscites to bar homosexual marriage - an act which was already illegal and thus not in need of barring - and the incredible coincidence of it appearing on numerous state ballots when he was in a tight race with Al Gore? Yeah, no pandering to religious bigots there, no siree bub. Hey, come out and show some hatred of gays and vote for Bush while you’re at it.
On second thought you are right. It is different. Whereas Obama can not be shown to subscribe to the ugliest views put forth by Rev. Wright there is no question that numerous Republican politicians can be shown believing in and pandering to the most homophobic and misogynistic beliefs of the most extreme members of the religious right.

Posted by Bob | March 18, 2008 6:14 PM

Bozoer Rebbe wrote: "The original intentions were not evil….NOBODY WAS DELIBERATELY INFECTED - THIS IS A MYTH THAT IS POPULAR IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY…the truly heinous thing was not ending the study in 1947, when it became possible to actually treat the disease with antibiotics….Frankly, this illustrates just how willing some members of the black community are to believe the worst possible things about the United States.”
Look, you did correct some fallacies in the earlier comment. However you also demonstrate the subtle racism still lurking at the heart of the conservative movement. Much like the National Review writers who prattle on about “liberals believing in the primacy of race while conservatives want what Dr. King wanted: a color blind society (this in the pages of a magazine that labeled him a commie dupe and a third-rate orator while he was fighting for equality) you present yourself as being a reasonable color-blind person who merely wants to present the facts.
So let me ask you a simple question: was it a coincidence the subjects were African-American? If you answer yes, please go on with your day as I don’t have the time or patience to try to awaken you. If you answer no, than you agree black men were allowed to suffer for decades, to be lied to, to be used as fucking lab animals because they were black and yet “the original intentions were not evil.” Oh, yes, I do catch the all important word “original” meant to give you the out of saying it was just a series of well-intentioned mistakes that really could have happened to anyone. Bullshit. They were lied to and denied treatment because they were black and if you can’t grasp why that was evil you need a soul.
How anyone in the black community could look at the Tuskegee syphilis experiment – not to mention the middle passage, slavery, Jim Crow, Separate but Equal, lynching (tacitly allowed by government so please spare me the “illegal acts” claim) and frankly the entire history of race relations in this nation as anything but problematic should be no mystery to anyone willing to open their eyes. As soon as I read someone parsing this – me and Dr. King want the same thing – it was only to be a temporary experiment – I’m all for equal rights, but blacks get special treatment – I find myself wanting to puke. Give me David Duke any day. At least he’s honest, says what he believes and makes an effort to defend his beliefs. You hide behind pedantic history lessons to pretend turning human beings into lab rats wasn’t really racism and wouldn’t really be that big a deal if only they had stopped when a cure was found.

Posted by Bob | March 18, 2008 6:41 PM

"I anxiously await Ross or anyone else demonstrating anything said or done by Senator or Mrs. Obama which could in any way, shape or form demonstrate any agreement with racist ideology."

You mean like when Michelle mentioned recently that she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life? After her husband had just won some primaries? (Yeah, I know she said that wasn't the reason, but she would have shared the same sentiments had it been a white "change" candidate? You really think so?)

And that's the problem. You start drilling down into what others around Mr. Obama believe, and they share similar tonal ... ahem... "shadings." If you can't see the difference between being around, conversing, and taking advice from an extremist for 20 years, and simply accepting his endorsement for political office, then you should probably refrain from engaging in anything as important as voting until your mental faculties are more refined.

However what I find most unconscionable is this quote:

April 2003: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God damn America … for killing innocent people. God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.” (Emphasis mine)

This is not simply criticizing the country, this is a man of the cloth beseeching the Almighty to render His most extreme and irrevocable punishment upon the country, and in doing so consigning its people (Wright's countrymen) to the fires of hell forever. Whether you believe in hell or not is irrelevant. Wright certainly does and as a man of the cloth he should have known exactly what he is asking for when he uttered those words. Were the minister at the church I attend to make such a statement, I would seek him out after the service and demand he public rebuke those comments in the following week's sermon. If he didn't, I don't care how nice he was, how much he had helped me, how long I had been with the church or whatever, I would quit the church and not associate with anyone involved in the organization. That statement alone is enough.

Also, you have Obama going on record recently saying he wasn't there for any, save I think one, of the controversial statements, then in his speech Tuesday, he reports that, indeed, he had been in the pews when a number of the controversial statements were made. So now we're starting to hear Clintonesque statements being made by the ostensible Agent of Change. Excelsior, I suppose....

Posted by Hand of Vecna | March 18, 2008 10:40 PM

Look, you did correct some fallacies in the earlier comment. However you also demonstrate the subtle racism still lurking at the heart of the conservative movement.

So, because I think historical accuracy is important I'm a racist?

So let me ask you a simple question: was it a coincidence the subjects were African-American? If you answer yes, please go on with your day as I don’t have the time or patience to try to awaken you.

First of all, get off your high horse. It's not up to you to "awaken" me. I'm a classical liberal and have supported the concept of equal justice under the law since I was old enough to understand it, which goes back before the '64 Civil Rights Act (passed due to Republican support while Democrats filibustered).

Your question is a good one. I considered it while writing my post. You seem to think that racism is the worst part of the experiment. I don't. I think that deceiving the men into thinking they were getting treatment, and then post 1947, not making a known effective treatment available to them was the most inhumane and inhuman aspect of the project. Frankly, I think racism pales beside that inhumanity. That there was racism involved only makes it worse, but the racism isn't the core of the evil. I also, btw, think that had Dr. Mengele performed his "experiments" on average Germans instead of Jews, he would have been just as much of a monster. In this case he happened to be a Jew hating monster serving a Jew hating regime, but the experiments were monstrous regardless of who the victims were.

I bring up Mengele at the risk of violating Godwin's Law, by way of pointing out that both the Tuskegee Experiment and Nazi ideology were influenced by eugenics, which enjoyed broad popularity in the first part of the 20th century, including among many self described progressives. Most eugenics enthusiasts didn't think too highly of the average "white" man or woman as well.

For that reason, I conclude that I can't say with certainty that they wouldn't have performed a similar experiment on poor white sharecroppers. The gov't certainly experimented on white people with a variety of drugs like LSD and pyslocibin in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Who knows? I mean, if I'm supposed to believe in a gov't capable of evil conspiracies, why shouldn't I believe that they'd do it to white people too? Remember, 1932 was barely a decade removed from passage of very restrictive immigration laws intended to prevent Italians, Jews and Poles from coming to the United States, and it's not like the Irish were highly regarded either.

If you answer no, than you agree black men were allowed to suffer for decades, to be lied to, to be used as fucking lab animals because they were black and yet “the original intentions were not evil.” Oh, yes, I do catch the all important word “original” meant to give you the out of saying it was just a series of well-intentioned mistakes that really could have happened to anyone.

Nice to know that you have a better idea of the intent of my words than I do. I used the word "original" because the study was designed as a public health study to determine the effectiveness of existing treatments. Today a study would use placebos, the difference being informed consent, the people in a study today know they may be getting real drugs or they may be getting a placebo. The study was done with the mindset of scientists of the early 1930s, which no doubt included all sorts of cultural prejudices, good and bad, not to mention various fads and trends popular in science.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if there actually were other studies that used other ethnic groups as subjects. The Tuskegee Experiment lasted until 1972, when a leak to a newspaper ended it. It's quite possible there were other Public Health Service studies done as well.

BTW, the only person who worked on the study for the full 40 year duration was Eunice Rivers, nurse and study co-ordinator, an African American woman who never once told any of the men they were not really being treated. Was she guilty of racism too? Does she get a pass because she was only serving a racist system? Or does she get a moral pass because you won't condemn a black person?

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 19, 2008 2:49 AM

How anyone in the black community could look at the Tuskegee syphilis experiment – not to mention the middle passage, slavery, Jim Crow, Separate but Equal, lynching (tacitly allowed by government so please spare me the “illegal acts” claim) and frankly the entire history of race relations in this nation as anything but problematic should be no mystery to anyone willing to open their eyes.

I'm Jewish and my knowledge of Jewish history tells me that chattel slavery in North America is but one of mankind's many, many instances of inhumanity. I also know that slavery was a near universal institution for most of human history and that there were societies far more brutal to their slaves than the slaveholding states in the US. If that perspective makes me appear to slight your own parochial grievance, thus making me a "racist" in your eyes, so be it.

Compared to Europeans and Asians, Americans are rank amateurs when it comes to racism. We've certainly never had any intentional genocides here, like in Rwanda. Where were your conservative racist boogeymen in the Rwandan genocide?

On the contrary, rather than genocide against blacks here, the population of blacks grew under slavery and has grown ever since. America may have committed its share of sins against blacks, but genocide is not one of them.

I'm pretty sure the average plantation slave in the Carolinas was better treated than a slave of, let's say, the Aztecs or the Zulus.

Before the 16th century, most African slaves went east, usually to the Arabian peninsula (where there is still slavery). After that, the Atlantic slave trade created a market in the west. The vast majority of African slaves were not enslaved by Europeans, but rather captured by other Africans (Oyo empire (Yoruba), Kong Empire, Kingdom of Benin, Kingdom of Fouta Djallon, Kingdom of Fouta Tooro, Kingdom of Koya, Kingdom of Khasso, Kingdom of Kaabu, Fante Confederacy, Ashanti Confederacy, Aro Confederacy and the Kingdom of Dahomey), sold to Muslim Arab slave traders, who wholesaled them to Europeans on the coasts. The African kingdoms were essential components of the Atlantic slave trade because the Europeans generally would not enter the interior of the continent.

Also, the legal basis for chattel slavery in the American colonies was established because of litigation by a black slaveowner.

There is some evidence, albeit contested, that Sengbe Pieh, later known as Joseph Cinqué, the leader of the slave revolt on the slave ship Amistad participated in the slave trade after his return to Africa.

There are very few clean hands in the unsavory history of human chattel.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 19, 2008 3:17 AM

And no, there were no blankets infected with smallpox given to the aboriginal people here when the Europeans arrived. To begin with, Europeans didn't know enough about germs to make germ weapons at least until Louis Pasteur proved the germ theory in the 1860s.

But by the Civil War, most of the natives were already dead due to unintentional exposure to viral diseases. The North American natives did not, for the most part, raise livestock, so there were few vectors for them to get viral diseases and immunity. Smallpox was unintentionally spread by traders, trappers, missionaries and natives long before there were any signficant military conflicts.

When the first Europeans explored the Mississippi River they came across hundreds of Indian villages. By the time Lewis & Clark crossed the Mississippi, much of the continent had been depopulated by disease and they traveled hundreds of miles without seeing a native.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 19, 2008 3:37 AM

Nothing like pasty-faced white guys sitting comfortably behind their keyboards getting tough on the blacks, or anything, for that matter.

If I boil Mr. Douthat's observations down, I get two things: guilt by association, and IOKIYAR. It's childish and simplistic. You just can't handle uppity blacks (who are also white, in Obama's case). I think Richard Hofstadter laid it out cogently with his essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics in 1964. It's still relevant, particularly the section where he talks about projection. Instead of the Masons or the Jesuits or the communists taking us to hell, now it's firebrand black preachers. You can't simply disagree with the preacher and then get over it. Grow up.

Posted by John P | March 19, 2008 9:12 AM

“You mean like when Michelle mentioned recently that she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life?”
Wow, good catch. That’s a disqualifier if I ever saw one. If that’s the best you got (a statement I would point out was exaggerated for effect – I seriously doubt she meant that literally but wingnuts gotta be wingnuts so what the hell – prattle on.)
“And that's the problem. You start drilling down into what others around Mr. Obama believe, and they share similar tonal ... ahem... "shadings." If you can't see the difference between being around, conversing, and taking advice from an extremist for 20 years, and simply accepting his endorsement for political office, then you should probably refrain from engaging in anything as important as voting until your mental faculties are more refined.”
Right, no extremists around the Republican party. Falwell, Haggard, Robertson, Norquist, The Hammer, etc, etc, etc. It’s a lame game either side can play, but if you’re gonna play it do so all the way. Your moderate is my extremist and vice versa.
“So, because I think historical accuracy is important I'm a racist?”
Not at all. But I do think your reading skills are somewhere around the third grade level. There is nothing in my response that could reasonably lead an intelligent person with average reading skills to make that statement. I gave you credit for correcting the mistakes. Then I spent a great amount of time building the case that you failed to see the connection between race and the experiment. Two different arguments. If you have a middle-schooler at home getting good grades have him or her explain it to you.
“I'm a classical liberal….(passed due to Republican support while Democrats filibustered).”
Thank you – now I understand perfectly. You’re as liberal as Ann Coulter and the staff of the National Review. You didn’t leave your party – your party left you. You’re right, obviously today in 2008 the Republican Party is the party most concerned with racial equality and minority rights. If only those dumb Negros would wake up and stop voting 98% for the Democratic Party. No one is denying that in 1964 the parties were different. The argument is about today. So please try your neat little party game of Lincoln and CRA 1964 and therefore today Republicans are color blind and those damned old Democrats are so damned racist they’re destroying this country elsewhere.
“That there was racism involved only makes it worse, but the racism isn't the core of the evil. I also, btw, think that had Dr. Mengele performed his "experiments" on average Germans instead of Jews, he would have been just as much of a monster. In this case he happened to be a Jew hating monster serving a Jew hating regime, but the experiments were monstrous regardless of who the victims were.”
Sigh. Dr. Mengele had access to American, English, French, and assorted other belligerent POW’s, citizens of a large swath of Europe and North Africa, and all citizens within Germany, yet he experimented only on members of the “mongrel races” – ie Jews and Gypsies. If you are unable to see the primacy of race in that I don’t know how to educate you. The doctors in the Tuskegee experiment had access to the whole melting pot of America yet coincidently enough choose only to use African-Americans; not Italian, Irish, French, or German-Americans; not Inuit’s, Cajuns, or Sioux. ONLY African-Americans. Coincidence? I think not. Again, your inability to see the primacy of race in that is your problem.
“Or does she get a moral pass because you won't condemn a black person?”
Again, I am really tired of trying to explain all this to you. Let’s see, an African-American woman in the Jim Crow south who has managed against incredible odds to obtain a nursing degree and a decent job who may just have been afraid of the existing white power structure (that whole lynching, poll tax, grandfather clause, KKK, Confederate flag stuff that those paranoid black people are always going on about) plays along with that white power structure and makes an incredibly difficult moral choice to not reveal the truth to the subjects…..hmmmm….ok, I’ll say it. No, I won’t condemn her because she was black. See, she actually had everything to fear and everything to lose. And the white doctors and public officials who created the study and demanded silence? Are you honestly arguing they were no different than nurse Rivers? They feared what exactly if they told the subjects the truth? Lynching, KKK raids in the middle of the night, a sternly worded-reprimand?
From there you move on to those horrible progressives in the eugenics movement and frankly Jonah enough’s enough. Look, I honestly think you a decent person who wants a good world where we are color blind. Fine. But no examination of the present state of the world suggests we are anywhere near that. And that’s where it all starts to break down. To deny the primacy of race in the Tuskegee or Dr. Mengele’s experiments is to neuter them. We’re left with “the horror, the horror” without any meaningful explanation. The experiments were done on who they performed on because of who the subjects were. It is equal to the horror of the experiments, not tangential to the horror of the experiments. And that’s just what racism does. Gosh, that was terrible and it would have equally terrible if committed against different people MISSES the point. The experiments wouldn’t have been conducted against other people because racism demanded the victims be who they were. Equal weight; not a footnote.

Posted by Bob | March 19, 2008 9:40 AM

“Where were your conservative racist boogeymen in the Rwandan genocide?
On the contrary, rather than genocide against blacks here, the population of blacks grew under slavery and has grown ever since. America may have committed its share of sins against blacks, but genocide is not one of them.”
Wow, that’s one giant strawman you’ve created. Ok, you’re right. An economic system in which African slaves were a pricey commodity was an economic system in which genocide didn’t take place. Those kindly old slave owners just don’t get enough credit, do they?

Posted by Bob | March 19, 2008 9:50 AM

how many catholics left their particular churches when they found out their priest was involved in molesting children of their congregation?

i would like to see one, a single act, in the past 20 years, on part of Sen.Obama, that shows his actions are based on violent and so-called anti-american thoughts of his pastor.

anyone who has information, please share with fellow readers.

Posted by Mit | March 19, 2008 10:36 AM

how many catholics left their particular churches when they found out their priest was involved in molesting children of their congregation?

i would like to see one, a single act, in the past 20 years, on part of Sen.Obama, that shows his actions are based on violent and so-called anti-american thoughts of his pastor.

anyone who has information, please share with fellow readers.

Posted by Mit | March 19, 2008 10:37 AM

Mit; you're just not paying attention. Please note this exchange from above:
"I anxiously await Ross or anyone else demonstrating anything said or done by Senator or Mrs. Obama which could in any way, shape or form demonstrate any agreement with racist ideology." (A quote from one of my comments)
"You mean like when Michelle mentioned recently that she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life? After her husband had just won some primaries? (Yeah, I know she said that wasn't the reason, but she would have shared the same sentiments had it been a white "change" candidate? You really think so?)"
(Hand of Vecna's Oh, Snap! response. so you see, the Obama's are racist, anti-American, objectively pro-terrorist Muslims who attend a Christian church. Open your eyes, man, before it's too late!

Posted by Bob | March 19, 2008 11:25 AM

Wright was a spiritual mentor for Obama, not a political one. Obama found in Wright someone who thought rigorously about faith and remained faithful, and could articulate that faith beautifully even given the paradoxes faithful people struggle with all the time. (see the "Audacity to Hope" sermon for a great example)
It's entirely possible for someone to be an amazing, healthy influence on one's spiritual life, and yet have a personality and political bent that you find annoying, even troubling. From Obama's own statements, it sounds like he -- over the course of being a guy in his mid-20s who was still finding himself to a guy who is in his mid-40s and has figured a lot of things out for himself -- feels he has "outgrown" Wright to a large degree. But it would be deeply dishonorable to reject Wright 'the man.' And why should he?

However, the problem is that Obama has focused so much on his spiritual mentor that we really don't know where his political influences come from. Imagination fills a vacuum quite easily ... and he's left a vacuum where his political context is concerned. So, of course, people assume that Wright's politics are highly influential for him.

Who were his mentors in graduate school? What thinkers does he read and find influential? Is he afraid that if he mentions some conservative figures, he'll offend the left? I haven't read his books (though I'm a big fan), but I daresay most people haven't -- so there's a gap.

He needs to make this distinction more clear than he did with his speech. That talk was indeed groundbreaking, honest, marvelous... but it didn't give a clear alternative model for people to understand the distinction between political and religious in Obama's life.

Posted by inkblurt | March 19, 2008 12:12 PM

From 1932 to 1972, the U.S Public Health Service deliberately did not treat almost 400 black men for syphilis, just because they wanted to use these men as guinea pigs in an experiment to track the effects of the disease. See http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html.

This is the reason that some in the black community are "paranoid" and believe that AIDS is a government conspiracy.

Posted by Michele | March 19, 2008 5:06 PM

The fun never stops. Just realized I had missed this bon mot from Bozoer Rebbe: "I'm pretty sure the average plantation slave in the Carolinas was better treated than a slave of, let's say, the Aztecs or the Zulus."
Here's a fun statistic for you. The life expectancy of a slave in the Carolina rice plantations was 7 years. Seven! Add into that the fact that as it was such a rough life young, healthy males were all but exclusively put on those plantations to begin with. You know, it's such a hassle to train a new slave that you don't wanna do it any more often than you have to. Yup, once again you're right - I'm just not being fair enough to our slave owners. Foreign slave owners were so much worse that by comparison ours were kinda like Ben & Jerry.

Posted by Bob | March 19, 2008 6:04 PM

I think people need to start thinking outside of the box, and review recent history(like the last 8 years).You are asking Sen. Obama to disown a statement that didn't come from his own lips, but from someone else's(Wright). You want him to disown his pastor and church community to please you. Get Real!!! Many of you have had disagreements with your ministers or pastor regarding many tangible issues that we all face that you don't see eye to eye with, whether it's abortion,marriage, love thy neighbor as thy self, etc; but you will keep going back because it's your community and it's something familiar to you and your family. Now you could go to a new congregation, or try a whole new faith,or none at all and deprive your children the experience of faith,and community.
My point being that the expression of frustration by Pastor Wright in 2003, was reflective of the frustration that the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson felt after 9/11/2001;except for the fact that the camera didn't run long enough to capture the full effect of what they said for all of us to see like it did for Pastor Wright.
Now,everyone is holding Sen. Obama responsible for Wright's statement as if the Senator made the same despairing statements like Sen.Lott did at the late Senator Strom Thurmond's(who's older daughter is Bi-Racial,just history)retirement party.
Sen. Lott gave up his seat as majority leader as a result of this, but all was forgiven and forgotten by most,because Sen Lott is now minority whip.
Senator Obama delivered as good of a speech regarding this issue as he could; and for those who think outside the box, and believe that America is an evolutionary country will leave this behind,and await his strategy for dealing with the economy,health care,and the war. Everyone else will continue to allow the pundits from the "Flawed and Imbalanced" Fox networked to get them to "Major In The Minor" like they did in 2004 to re-elect a "Lame-Duck" who is spending a billion dollars a day on a war,borrowing money from one of the largest communist countries(China), to a point where we don't dare tell them to stop sending their lead base toys to our country out of fear that they may call in our loan. Currently, in some supermarkets,China has been able to find local distributors to import apple concentrate for non-brand name apple-juice,and frozen vegetables to local "Dollar" stores(so check the Labels), this country can't get cat food right. "Dollar" stores get a lot of traffic; especially when people are paying $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon for gas.
Our currency exchange rate is lower than Canada,the Euro and starting to run lower that the Wan.
We have alot of future problems to be worrying about,then worrying about those people who want to live in the past, and this is what this election is going to be about. About the nation as a whole wanting to start anew. That's where the battle is going to be this election,and I hope there is a great turn out by all Americans.
God Bless America.

Posted by vic | March 19, 2008 10:00 PM

Foreign slave owners were so much worse that by comparison ours were kinda like Ben & Jerry.

I'm sorry that history has a way of getting in the way of your grievances, but the simple truth is that slavery in the Caribbean, particularly in the French colonies, was much worse than in North America.

I realize that you want to see America as the source of all evil in the world, but as I said before, Americans are rank amateurs compared to Europeans, Asians and Africans when it comes to racism.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 19, 2008 11:17 PM

Silly me, how could I have even considered that a slave of a white person in the Carolinas would be better off than someone enslaved by Aztecs, brown people, or by Zulus, black people? We all know that the less melanin you have in your skin, the more evil you must be. After all, the Aztec slaves had the honor of having their beating hearts cut out of their chests while they were still alive, and the Zulu slaves had the honor of being buried alive when the Zulu king died.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 19, 2008 11:23 PM

Oh for Christ sake, where did I say America is the source of all evil in the world? Where did I say the less melanin you have the more evil you are? Turn your brain on, read what I wrote, and respond to that. Of course worse crimes against humanity have been committed. Which was worse; the Holocaust or slavery? Well, if I had to choose between being gassed in the ovens or enslaved on a plantation I’d go with enslavement. At least I’d be alive and have a chance at emancipation.
I’m not a citizen of the Aztec, Zulu, German or French nations or colonies. I am a citizen of the United States; a country which still bears scars from slavery which are legitimate topics of political discourse.
You conservatives have no arguments outside of strawmen, clichés, and lies. I love this country and see our history as this: increasing opportunities for increasing numbers of people. That being said we have also done a lot of bad. Of course no matter what we’re talking about you can always play your pedantic game of pointing out something worse thus trivializing (at least in your mind) the topic under discussion.
Go back and read all your comments. You sure seem to find it important to minimize the importance of slavery in the country in which you reside. Why might that be?

Posted by Bob | March 20, 2008 9:05 AM

I don't minimize the importance of slavery. All I'm asking for is some perspective.

Is there a statue of limitations on white guilt? My family, for the most part, immigrated after the end of slavery. Why should I bear any more guilt for slavery than the son of a white woman and a black African?

Let me ask you, should I have feelings of suspicion, resentment and hostility to the Ukraine? After all, Ukrainians have been slaughtering Jews by the hundreds of thousands since at least the 1640s. It's a disgusting calculus but I'm pretty sure that more Jews were killed by Ukrainians (not even counting those Ukrainians who collaborated with the Germans) than blacks lynched in the Jim Crow south. Would it be appropriate for me to stand in a pulpit and say "God damn the Ukraine?"

I just think it's funny how the left has embraced the "primacy of race" but in reality is very selective about identity politics. I guess some animals are more equal than others.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 20, 2008 12:07 PM

I love this country and see our history as this: increasing opportunities for increasing numbers of people. That being said we have also done a lot of bad. Of course no matter what we’re talking about you can always play your pedantic game of pointing out something worse thus trivializing (at least in your mind) the topic under discussion.

You see conservatives trying to put historical events in perspective as minimizing slavery (if I said the Nazis killed more Jews than the Ukrainians, would I be minimizing what the Ukrainians did in 1648-1649 and 1919-1921?).

Conservatives see those on the left giving lip service to the "increasing opportunities" part because you're always harping on the "done a lot of bad" part. We just don't hear you guys talking too much about what's good about this country. Your America is some kind of idealized, never fully realized, vision, and anything that falls short of that vision is evil. Simultaneously, you ignore the fact that many societies you admire (Cuba, Hamas/Fatah, Hezb'allah) have not just done a lot of bad but continue to be bad actors. Every society has "done a lot of bad", but on the "done a lot of bad" scale, the US is remarkably low.

It's not jingoistic to believe that the United States is one of the finest human accomplishments ever.

We're supposed to tolerate, excuse, and ultimately accept Rev. Wright's hatred as legitimate because of how blacks in the US experience racism. After all, he's only trying to help a community devastated by slavery, Jim Crow and four centuries of oppression.

I've been blessed to know a number of Holocaust survivors. Some have passed away, others are in their 80s or 90s. While I'm sure that Rev. Wright experienced some racism growing up in Philadelphia in the 1940s and 1950s, he did not live in the Jim Crow south and fear being lynched, and I'm pretty sure that the survivors I know personally experienced far worse treatment than anything Rev. Wright has endured.

By the logic that excuses Rev. Wright's hatred, these people should be incredibly bitter, and while it's true that they may not have the fondest of feelings towards Germans and Europeans, they don't seemed to be filled with the vitriol that so obviously drives Wright.

I'm simply tired of middle class blacks, who have virtually every opportunity I have, playing the race card. They do it consciously, and casually, like my buddy Al. We were at the cellphone store to pay his bill and he felt he was being overcharged. He started going off on the Chaldean clerk about it being because he was black. Afterwards I told him that it was shameless, and he just laughed.

I guess there are a lot of classically liberal folks like me who are tired of the shuck and jive of race pimps like Wright.

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 20, 2008 1:24 PM

Bozoer Rebbe,

The US was responsible for the Viet Nam War, imposing economic exploitation all throughout Latin America, creating the system of late capitalism that has advanced greed and selfishness to heights unparallelled in human history, committed genocide against the Native Americans, enslaved African Americans, and stolen half of Mexico. That's a lot of bad, in my book. And you're simply wrong about slavery. The French were pretty bad, true, and the Dutch were probably worse than the English. But the facts are pretty clear that the Spanish and Portuguese were better to their subject populations (probably under the humanizing influence of Catholic Christianity) than the Northern Europeans.

Cuba has done a lot of bad? I suppose if striving to create a society based on working for the common good instead of for personal greed was a bad thing, In your ethical system, perhaps greed is good- evidently you sympathize with the collaborators, gangsters and pimps who suffered under the Cuban revolution. Cuba has made plenty of mistakes and done some bad things, but I would take them with their imperfections over the history of racism, neo-colonialism and capitalism that is America, anyday.

The United States is one of the finest accomplishments ever? What a sick joke. The very premises that the United States is founded on are false. I reject the principles of liberalism, secular individualism, and capitalist 'democracy' root and branch, and therefore a polity based on them is not one which I regard as any kind of 'fine accomplishment'. Americans today are for the most part good people, which is more due to our inherited culture than to our institutions. That doesn't mean that the history of the political entity which encompasses them is also a great and good history.

Posted by Hector | March 20, 2008 2:27 PM

The distinction here, for the umpteenth time, is that Wright isn't just Obama's supporter; he's his pastor, his friend, and his spiritual mentor, which makes him exactly the kind of person whose views ought to be of interest to a public that's considering electing Barack Obama President of the United States.

Um, John McCain stood next to John Hagee and told him what an honor it was to have Hagee's endorsement. And no wonder he said that. He's been trying to get Hagee's endorsement for the past year.

I trust you are familiar with at least some of what John Hagee believes, and has said.

Also: John McCain has referred to Rod Parsley as his "spiritual adviser."

I trust you are familiar with Rod Parsley's background and his statements, as well.

Do you think Hagee's and Parsley's views ought to be of concern to the voting public?

Posted by Kathy | March 20, 2008 10:05 PM

Let's see here...

Obama refused to abandon a man he's had as a spiritual leader for 20 years...a man who introduced him to Christianity, presided over his wedding and baptized his kids...when it would be politically expedient to do so.

He says the world is not so simple as to be able to write someone off as bad just because they have some disagreeable opinions in some areas. He chose instead to disavow the specific opinions, while stating that this man means something to him...that he's more than just these statements.

McCain, on the other hand, admirably denounced the hate spewing religious leaders looked upon as heros by the Republican party. When that didn't work in 2000, he did the politically expedient move and tacked to the right, embracing these same men (while saying he disagreed with some of their positions and rhetoric).

Why should McCain get a pass from these people...some of whom blame him for denouncing Falwell and Robertson in the first place, and not his political embrace of them in the end...while Obama does not?

Like Rev. Wright, these right-wing heros blamed America for 9/11 and even Hurricane Katrina, with variations on the chickens coming home to roost line.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You don't see McCain throwing any.

Posted by Cal | March 21, 2008 9:20 AM

Hector,

If Cuba is so wonderful and the United States so evil, why are you not living in Cuba?

Tell me please, what's not racist about MEChA? What does La Raza mean? How many black Cubans have you ever seen in positions of power in the Castro regime? Why are Dominicans considered Hispanic or Latino but Haitians are considered black?

"Cuba has made plenty of mistakes and done some bad things, but I would take them with their imperfections over the history of racism, neo-colonialism and capitalism that is America, anyday."

So take them, please. I'd much rather you be a loyal Fidelisto than a disloyal American.

If you so hate capitalism, then give up what capitalism developed. Give away all your toys, your computer, your MP3 player, anything you own because, after all, property is theft, isn't it?

Like the anti-semites who hate Jews but vaccinate their kids with a polio vaccine discovered by a Jew, you hate capitalism, but enjoy its benefits. Words like hypocrite and parasite come to minds.

And who did the US steal half of Mexico from? The natives, or from the descendants of Spaniards?

I'm trying to figure out how things work in your alternate universe. You support the Palestinians, for whom there is no historical record of existence as a national group prior to the development of modern political Zionism. You dismiss the territorial claims of Jews, who were undoubtedly the ancient residents of Palestine. In the Americas, though, you make it seem that you are identifying with the aboriginial inhabitants (who were also immigrants from Asia), but it gets a little hazy when it comes to Hispanics and Latinos. Latin? Spanish? How is that native to the Americas? In most of Latin America it is the mixed blood folks who are the oligarchs and the mestizo natives are kept down. What kind of Native American name is Hector? Shouldn't you go by something like Teonanacotyl?

Posted by Bozoer Rebbe | March 21, 2008 3:24 PM

Bozoer,

I have no interest in getting into a debate with you about Cuba.

Regarding Israel, I don't deny the right of the State of Israel to exist. I believe I made it clear that I don't support the Palestinian cause either, and especially not the barbaric behavior of Hamas and its allies. Nevertheless, the current state of Israel is substantially larger than it has a claim to be as per 1947 borders agreed to by the United Nations.

Haitians aren't considered Latino because they speak French, not Spanish or Portuguese....have you consulted a dictionary recently? There are Dominicans I know who are as "black" as any Haitian. And actually, as I'm sure you know, Mexico is essentially a mestizo nation while USA has traditionally been a white nation in terms of its dominant class and culture, so Mexico is the legitimate heir to the Native American civilizations in a way that the USA is eminently not.

Since you've taken the dive into the personal mudslinging, mind if I ask, are you one of the parasitic oligarchy or just a bought-and-paid-for bootlicker for them?

Posted by Hector | March 21, 2008 6:51 PM

I think Cal is 100% correct. The religious right embraced and solicited by John McCain is no different then the the Rev. Wright comments.

Here are Mr. Falwells comments pertaining to 9/11;

2001-SEP-13: Two days after 9-11, in an exchange with Pat Robertson on the 700 Club program, he is reported as having commented on the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon:
"I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats -- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.....And I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say: you helped this happen."

And this statement and many others made by Rev. Falwell Sr. were repeated by Jerry Falwell Jr.

Have we forgotten Senator McCain addressing their
congrigation and hugging Rev. Falwell Sr.

And we haven't discussed statements made by Rev.Hagee or Pat Robertson. These are supporters of Senator Mccain.

Posted by Rich | April 17, 2008 11:04 PM