« The view from Mount Greenspan | Main | Florida has a plan »

Obama's speech on race

18 Mar 2008 01:36 pm

My instant reaction to what may have been the most important speech of Obama's candidacy is that it was excellent. Not, for once, because it was all that well delivered. Especially at the beginning, he seemed not just calm and collected, as usual, but downright subdued. He got more comfortable as he went on, but the whole thing felt more like a statement announced under some duress (which I suppose it was) than a speech he was ever keen to deliver. On the substance, though, my feeling is that he hit every target. Perhaps the association with Wright will still prove to be a net negative. We will find out in due course. But I thought Obama dealt with the issues so well that, at least for me, the whole fuss over Wright might turn out to work to his advantage.

In my previous post on the Wright affair I called Obama's first line on the matter--"I wasn't present when he said those things"--a transparent evasion. I was very glad to see no trace of that in the speech:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Rather than pretending he was unaware of Wright's views, he confronted them:

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.


That seems to me exactly right. But having criticized his pastor so frontally, Obama then had to explain why he nonetheless has remained a member of his church and evidently holds the man in such high regard. He did this too--first in a very personal way, but then in an explanation that broadened out to touch on the main themes of his campaign.

The personal aspect was partly an appeal to take a broader view of Wright:

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

I found this both intellectually and emotionally convincing. I thought he might wind up at this point--and in fact, as it became clear he had a lot more to say ("Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point...") I wondered for a moment whether he was about to make a big mistake. No. He bravely extended these personal observations, and located them alongside his main campaign messages.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committ ed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

Well, as I've said before, I think Obama is wrong about "the real culprits of the middle-class squeeze". I winced briefly at that sop to anti-business populism. But his larger point about race and political misdirection is true. Then came these paragraphs, which I thought were the crux of the speech:

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.


Obama is absolutely right about the "profound mistake" of Wright's sermons. Obama said what was wrong with them, and why he disagreed with them, without repudiating the whole man--indeed, while explaining his affection and regard for him. This was not throwing Wright under a bus, as some of Obama's critics will say he has; nor was it equivocating over what Wright said, or meant to say, or said in front of Obama. In short, he has dealt with the issue to the satisfaction of any fair-minded person. Much more than that, he has used it both to underline the central themes of his campaign, and to bravely extend those themes to a frontal examination of race and politics in America--and the role he can play in transcending the "racial stalemate".

As I say, Wright may even have done him a favor. In any event, it was a good morning's work.

Comments (40)

So he lied at first, but it's okay, because today he came clean?

"a transparent evasion" isnt insinuating a lie, it is stating that he was trying to avoid passing judgement on the man during press interviews that would be turned into a soundbiteand possibly used out of context. Barack is more comfortable explaining things when he has the time to fully flesh out complex reasons, as he just did in his speech. to claim he was lying from clive's statement that he was being evasive is duplicitous.

Cal, he did'nt lie at any time. This is what makes me so angry about people that are ignorant and profess to be smart enough to own a computer with internet and write on these blogs. He said that he never heard the hateful comments of Wright saying the hatefull thing such as we have seen in the clips. Remember Obama probably has not been in church that often since 2002, so it is possible he did not hear these comments. He does know and has heard the Pastor speak out harshly about social issus and some of his comments could border on the offensive. Nothing like what we have seen in the youtube and FOX News clips. So he did not hear these offensive and divisive comments at all and he did know that his Pastor can be harsh. Remember, this is a pastor that has also spoken out harshly against Afican Americans and there lack of hard work to better themselves. Obama gets it and he understands what this is all about and he willing to talk and open this wound that never healed.

Come on, America, grow up. After reading blogs on multiple websites, I cannot believe that people don't get it. Do you really believe that we should "throw away" every friend, relative, and offspring who makes a statement with which we disagree? Would you disown every child or relative who holds a belief different from your own? Then, why do you think it important for Obama to do that?

It is better that we address these differences (like he just did) in simple, very clear language, explaining why we denounce or repudiate the message so we can help each other and work together as a people. Throwing out the baby with the bath water is not the answer. I thought Obama’s speech was brave, insightful, intelligent, and proved to me that he is the best person we could hope to have as our president. We would be so fortunate.

Obama 08

I'm really missing the point.

Its okay to say crazy things from the pulpit because thats part of the black experience?

Its a good speech on race, but dont know how it addresses the issue of his wild eyed pastor.

In reference to Cal's remarks: Obama did not lie...he said he was not at the service the day Wright made the controversial remarks that have been played on TV and he wasn't. He heard him make such remarks other times.

Obama's remarks were excellent. They were not a political speech, although it may have achieved a political purpose. They rose above politics. They should have touched all Americans...they reached out to everyone...in understanding and in an offer of hope for a better America for everyone. They were as clear a statement of the racial divide in this country as I've ever heard. What is amazing is that this man had the courage and vision to do that. Few who have run for President have done so....except for Lincoln who, like Obama today, called on the better angels of our being.

Not really sure what is meant by the term "the issue of his wild eyed pastor".

Obama disavowed the statements of his "wild eyed pastor".

I fear a larger construct. Do Wright's comments have no relation to Obama saying his favorite book is the Biography of Malcolm X or his wife's statement of her heretofore lack of pride in our country? What's the old saying about the company one keeps? That's all.

He demanded AIDS money and Africom? What if the money didn't show or the org didn't happen?

A great analysis of an extraordinary speech. Kim, perhaps you should listen to or read the speech instead of worrying about the "wild-eyed pastor". After all, it's not the pastor who is running for president, so it would behoove you to find out how Obama feels about what the pastor said. As for me, Obama has my vote.

It was clear to me that what Barack was saying is that his relationship with Rev. Wright is based on what he knows of the whole man and not just based on the few snippets of his most provocative sermons that have been played over and over -- totally out of context with not only the rest of those sermons, but his overall body of sermons. And yes, that sorta gotcha distortion is practiced all the time by politicians of all stripes. And it is that sort of distortion that Obama is asking us to move beyond. Yes, his campaign is guilty of it at times, but objective observers have noted that he has more than most tried to stay above this sort of negative politics.
Obama gave a incredible well reasoned and honest speech. The Philadelphia Speech might well go down in history as the starting point of a more honest and frank discussion of race and racism in America.

Good news is that we are now coming to know who Obama is and who influenced his personality for past 20 years. I would like to know more about his hidden controversial past. People cannot be fooled no matter who authored the speech and how well it was delivered!

Barack Obama is the real deal.

It's so easy to go negative on someone speaking the truth to America... that we are all saddled with weaknesses but bound by greater strengths - that we are an imperfect union of far from perfect souls but that we can take all these truths together, for what they are worth, and begin to let go of the divisions that hold us back collectively and march on toward something better for our posterity - for our children - Mine and yours.

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

I agree "Good news is that we are now coming to know who Obama is and who influenced his personality for past 20 years."

He has my vote on how he dealt with those influences.

It's wonderful to have a candidate who responds to a tough situation with such thought and maturity.
Just the kind of person we need in the White House to take those critical calls - at any time of day.

I'm a Louisiana resident and was living in this state during the time that David Duke was the Republican nominee for governor.

Duke got two thirds of the white vote in that election but didn't win because of an exceptionally high black voter turnout which naturally, voted against him.

I look at the hypocrisy of SOME conservatives who were strangely muted in their condemnation of those Louisiana voters because Duke was so popular with whites in the state who tended to be politically conservative.

Are those white people evil because they overlooked Duke's, horrible racial speeches?

Reading these comments, I think that it behoves people like "Kim" and all the other throlls here to mind what Obama thinks about your grandmother losing her pension and having to return to work at Walmart at 68 just to pay the gas bill, and what he is going to do about it, rather than uselessly go back and forth about what his pastor or little sister said.

It behoves you lot to mind what Obama thinks about the fact that millions of Americans are losing homes that they saved every penny to get a mortgage to purchase while we're funelling $12 billion a month down the drain in Baghdad, and what he is going to do about it.

It behoves you to mind what Obama thinks about the fact that Bush and the Republicans in Congress would veto a bill to provide healthcare to America's children while we donate billions of dollars abroad every year to help other nations provide the same to their children.

It behoves you to mind what he thinks about the fact that you're still struggling to pay off your student loans on top of taxes and gas bills when so called banana Republics out there grant their citizens free college tuition in exchange for national service, and see how he plans to fix that.

It behoves you to consider whether you, so-called Christian that you all claim to be, would prefer the same society that GW Bush subscribes to when he tells his party fund-raising gala that he loves the saying: to whom much is given, more shall be added, which is precisely the very opposite of the gospel of Jesus, or whether you're willing to open the blocked drain of your mind and look at someone, anyone, who has proven by their work and lives that they believe in a society where helping the working family is doing god's will.

It behoves you to mind what Obama thinks about the fact that each time someone proposes government investment in American families and American children, be it to help provide childcare for working mothers, or provide job training for hard working blue collar workers who've been downsized, or subsidising healthcare so your grandfather doesn't have to go into debt just to pay for his hip replacement or cancer, every time someone proposes that the goons in Congress and in your party shout "Big Government", while it is no problem for them to propose that we spend millions of tax payer dollars monitoring your cell phone conversations or what book you borrowed from your local library or paying for your sheriff to buy a designer flak jacket for a police dog in the name of homeland security while our troops overseas have to rely on their families to buy them flak jackets.

It behoves you to give yourself some credit as a thinking human being, and reconsider your priorities, and quit this inanity about what a former marine who served his country honorably like you haven't, said on the pulpit.

And it behoves to you all to go back and read your scriptures properly, for once, and decide whether you're truly living up to what the scripture ask of you, to love you neighbor like yourself, to refrain from bearing false witness, to be careful about judging someone else lest you be judged, to tell the truth at all times, to show respect and decency toward all.

Give yourself some credit and think properly about what is really important in your life and in this election, rather than just go online and rant and put your salvation in jeopardy.

Perhaps, Clive, you dislike the reference to "the real culprits of the middle-class squeeze" because you were on the profiteering side of the squeeze -- the dirty secret of the Clinton years and yet another reason Obama is so necessary to save the soul of the country.

The speech strikes me as sophistry.

When Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell said 9/11 was the result of American tolerance of homosexuality, nobody insisted that we had to understand the context and personal history behind those remarks. Nor when Don Imus made an unfunny joke about "nappy-headed hos." If Hillary Clinton were cozying up to Robertson or Imus, Democrats would want her head (those who don't already want it, that is).

Obama's speech seems to me a long-winded excuse for his many years of closeness to a black racist. What else can he say? "One of my major role models was and is a bigot, but vote for me anyway"?

Instead, Obama offers a justification of resentment held by blacks and some other folks. As far as I can tell, he differs from Rev. Wright only in (1) expanding the ranks of victims beyond blacks and (2) assigning blame not to the white race generally, but specifically to "corporate culture," "special interests" -- as if blacks and union members, among others, did not comprise "special interests" -- and a generic "Washington," as though its politicians were elected by somebody other than Americans.

Furthermore, his views appear to differ from those of the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton only in (1) expressing sympathy for some whites and (2) advocating "personal responsibility," though Obama appears to confine this to responsibility for one's children. I don't believe his proposed remedies differ a whit from those previous presidential candidates'.

All in all, it reminds me of an old adage about taxation, amended thus: Don't blame you; don't blame me; blame that bogeyman behind the tree.

But most important, don't blame Obama (he says) for cozying up to a racist. I don't think this speech absolves him.


Two other bits that don't ring true:

"...I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. "

Nope. Not once. I can't imagine many people belonging to such congregations. Strong disagreement gives most people strong discomfort, and they find a more compatible religious leader.

"Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us."

No, it doesn't. The Bible says many things about caring for one another, even for our enemies. But that particular phrase appears only after Cain murders Abel, and God asks Cain where Abel is, and Cain replies surrily, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Is this hair-splitting? Yes. Does it reinforce distrust of someone trying to justify his long friendship with a racist? Also yes.

Two other bits that don't ring true:

"...I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. "

Nope. Not once. I can't imagine many people belonging to such congregations. Strong disagreement gives most people strong discomfort, and they find a more compatible religious leader.

"Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us."

No, it doesn't. The Bible says many things about caring for one another, even for our enemies. But that particular phrase appears only after Cain murders Abel, and God asks Cain where Abel is, and Cain replies surrily, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Is this hair-splitting? Yes. Does it reinforce distrust of someone trying to justify his long friendship with a racist? Also yes.

Two other bits that don't ring true:

"...I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. "

Nope. Not once. I can't imagine many people belonging to such congregations. Strong disagreement gives most people strong discomfort, and they find a more compatible religious leader.

"Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us."

No, it doesn't. The Bible says many things about caring for one another, even for our enemies. But that particular phrase appears only after Cain murders Abel, and God asks Cain where Abel is, and the surly Cain replies, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Is this hair-splitting? Yes. Does it reinforce distrust of someone trying to justify his long friendship with a racist? Also yes.

People on both sides of the racial issues are far too quick to yell "racist" at those they don't agree with. Nothing will heal the divide until all are allowed to speak their minds and list their grievences.

Two other bits that don't ring true:

"...I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. "

Nope. Not once. I can't imagine many people belonging to such congregations. Strong disagreement gives most people strong discomfort, and they find a more compatible religious leader.

"Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us."

No, it doesn't. The Bible says many things about caring for one another, even for our enemies. But that particular phrase appears only after Cain murders Abel, and God asks Cain where Abel is, and Cain replies surrily, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Is this hair-splitting? Yes. Does it reinforce distrust of someone trying to justify his long friendship with a racist? Also yes.

Posted by Alyosha | March 19, 2008 5:59 AM

I’ll address these points one at a time.

My Pastor and I disagree on many key issues both within the scope of internal Church politics and secular politics… I’m a Member of the United Methodist Church we have something called “Apportionments” this is set amount each Church is expected pay for each member of the congregation. This money is then used for mission work that individual Churches have little to no say over it's distribution. I’m in favor of the individual Churches having more control over what mission work they do and do not want to support.

Now onto secular politics our prisons are full of people who have three, four or even more felons. He’s in favor of “rehabilitation” I’m in favor twenty three hours a day of lock down and three strikes and you’re out! However my form three strikes you’re out isn’t another prison term it’s of the gene pool… We’ve had a number of heated discussions about this and other related topics. I won’t cover all the things we disagree about but it’s more than just the two above examples.

Considering that’s from the Old Testament I’m going to give everyone something to look up.

Matthew 22:36-38

After you read that decide if all this debate was really worth it?


I find the calls, asking Obama to abandon his church, particularly interesting, as I write from the calm of the suburbs surrounding Philadelphia, that includes a large Catholic population (that includes me I am proud to write). Many of my fellow Catholics with whom I have spoken are dismayed by Wrights comments and with Obama's fidelity to him and his church. It's ironic because I didn't see these same people run for the hills when it was discovered that our own Bishop, Cardinal Bevilacqua, was involved in shuttling pedophile priests from parish to parish for decades. Shoot, the Vatican gave Cardinal Law a job after the whole Boston archdiocesan fiasco.

Cheers to Fallows and Crook for viewing this issue the right way from the beginning. And shame on most CNN and all Fox commentators for fanning the flames of controversy when they could have had honest discussions (or simply reported news, as used to be the norm). Entertainment as news, mostly in the form of schadenfreude, is a serious cultural problem that Americans seem to be too entertained to bother objecting to.

The truth of the Jeremiah Wright matter has always been exactly as Obama expressed it in this speech. The real tragedy of this situation is that if Obama were less of a speaker, he would have lost the whole election on this issue, simply because our political culture so ignorant that it takes a man of special speaking talent to tell us what should have been obvious from the start.

I hope the unusual humanity he showed in this speech comes through the issue's deplorable handling by the talking heads so that voters have at least the chance to appreciate the points he made.

Alyosha - you aren't just "splitting hairs", you're also missing the point. Clearly the negative implication is that you should be your brother's keeper, i.e., God's condemnation of Cain's murder of Abel is a "yes" answer to Cain's smart-ass question.


He was not there on the day of the now famous speech. Did he purchase a copy of the video that was available at the front door?
This is not some stranger who supports him, nor is it not an idle acquaintance. This is his mentor, his moral advisor for 20 years. It is my opinion that this speech, just like all of his other speeches. was empty rhetoric.

Maybe I should re-phrase "wild eyed pastor" in light of these comments. Do you know that I was actually trying to avoid swearing or insulting, but still convey a meaning?

Okay Obama attends a church where there is shouting, clapping, and emotional preaching. Great. What is the content of the religion of that congregation?

Sounds more like crazy talk than Christian talk, no matter what race you are.

" The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow."

And these guys get this from...First Peter chapter 3?

As impressive as Senator Obama's recent speech was, it raises many questions regarding his conduct as it relates to his involvement with Rev. Wright: (1) What does it say about Senator Obama that he reversed his earlier assertion that he was unaware of his pastor's radical sermons? (2) Since we now know that he was present, why did he choose to remain in the church and continue to expose himself and his family to such toxic beliefs? (3) Why did the senator fail to challenge Rev. Wright on these appalling statements? (4) What does this say about his discernment and willingness to create change in this divisive forum? (5) And, finally, if Senator Obama lacks the moral courage to confront wrongdoing in his own church, how can we expect him to act differently as president?

Kim, I've been to a few Catholic charismatic services where shouting, clapping, and emotional preaching were the order of the day, mainly on youth group trips back when I was younger. Their presence or absence says absolutely nothing about the content of the religion. It's simply one way of worship. It's not a way of worship I'm particularly comfortable with. But the sacrament was identical to the silent pews of St. Joseph's, which is also the same as the communal warmth of a service in the Benedictine Nuns' chapel. The content is the same; the style is the only thing that's different.

Maybe we should look at what Obama proposes as policy, what Obama has done as a Senator, the speeches he has given and the papers he wrote as a student to determine what the man is all about instead of worrying about what his former Pastor has said. I have been unable to detect any of the bitterness and stupidity that Wright spoke of in any thing Obabma has said or done. Would any of us liked to be judged by what comes from the pulpits of our places of worship? I know I wouldn't. I am a Roman Catholic and sometimes I cring at the nonsence coming forth from the Vatican. Most religions are led by men in the same age group as Rev. Wright, carrying the same prejudices, bitterness, and the feeling that the world is slipping away from them. That feeling makes them bitter and angry for a world they felt they fought for in World War II and that they deserve to rule forever. They don't know the torch has been passed.

We have a word for condemning people for the company they keep. The word is McCarthyism.
Bravo to Senator Obama for having the courage to do this, when the politically "smart" thing, and the thing many of his advisers were advising, was not to touch it with a ten-foot cattle prod.
The Senator's critics want to paint his supporters as a messianic cult, full of young voters who are too inexperienced to know better, misty-eyed sixties liberals, and blacks voting for the black candidate. I've never gone in for the Saint Obama hokum, and I don't think that was the campaign's message to begin with. They haven't been saying he's better, just that he's different.
I've always admired Senator Obama for his practical approach, which favors dialogue and understanding as an initial strategy, rather than combat and conquest. That's not naivete, that's a style preference. Those that want to paint it as naivete may just be too cynical to see their way out of the forest.

As impressive as Senator Obama's recent speech was, it raises many questions regarding his conduct as it relates to his involvement with Rev. Wright: (1) What does it say about Senator Obama that he reversed his earlier assertion that he was unaware of his pastor's radical sermons? (2) Since we now know that he was present, why did he choose to remain in the church and continue to expose himself and his family to such toxic beliefs? (3) Why did the senator fail to challenge Rev. Wright on these appalling statements? (4) What does this say about his discernment and willingness to create change in this divisive forum? (5) And, finally, if Senator Obama lacks the moral courage to confront wrongdoing in his own church, how can we expect him to act differently as president?

1) He didn't say he was unaware of them. He said that he didn't attend the particular cherry-picked sermons in question. He actually said he was aware of Rev. Wright's fierce criticism of America. So this objection is simply incorrect, and perhaps disnigenuously made.
2) No, he wasn't present at the sermons in question (see above). As to why he remained in the church if he disagreed with the pastor, that was the whole point of the speech he gave. Reread to aid further comprehension.
3) For one thing, during a service isn't the proper forum for voicing an objection like this. For another, he condemned the statements as soon as anyone asked his opinion of them, and he condemned them repeatedly, until he felt compelled to make this speech. His work not withstanding, it isn't Senator Obama's job to right every wrong in the world.
4) I think his nuanced discussion of the origins of the current racial divisions in this country puts paid to any notion that he lacks discernment or judgement.
5) The wrong-doing you are describing is protected by the First Amendment. It is not, as some suggest, the same as suggesting that our tolerance for homosexuality and abortion brought 9/11 on us. It would be an oversimplification to say that 9/11 was a direct result of sanguineous US foreign policy, but it wouldn't be wholly untrue either. And, as I said above, damning Senator Obama for things that were said by Rev. Wright is just McCarthyism.
And for those of you too young or too beknighted to know this, McCarthyism was bad.

Anyone who criticizes Barack Obamas admiration of Malcolm X is speaking strictly from ingorance. Malcolm X was killed because he started to speak of reconciliation. After his pilgrimmage to Mekkah, Malcolm X was coming around to the same beliefs as Martin Luther King Jr before he was murdered. In Mekkah, he saw men of all races worship together in a common love for the creator. I’m paraphrasing him here from memory. When the great charlatan Elijah Muhammad murdered Malcolm X, he did this nation a great dis-service by depriving us of a great and charismatic leader who was coming around to a more peaceful message of integrity, courage and understanding in the human and civil rights movement.

Not a well known fact but fact nonetheless. Alex Haley’s auto-biography of Malcolm X is a powerful book. Well worth the read. How can I fault Obama for saying that it is his favorite book when it is one of my favorite books as well.

(I’ve read the drivel that the Black Muslims hands out as the history of black people as well. A great scientist from another planet creates white people in a cave. Elijah Mohammad and his lackey Louis Farakhan are a plague upon America. If Obama has any association with the Black Muslims, he has no business running for Congress. But it is rare for a non-American black person to associate themselves with those crackpots. )

Wright's resentment and anger is a problem for this country: it speaks to a reservoir of disaffected and angry people.

The question is how to solve that problem. The Political Correctness of the '90s doesn't seem to have worked all that well. Perhaps we need a new approach.

Wright's resentment and anger is a problem for this country: it speaks to a reservoir of disaffected and angry people.
The question is how to solve that problem. The Political Correctness of the '90s doesn't seem to have worked all that well. Perhaps we need a new approach.
Posted by Carrington Ward | March 20, 2008 11:20 AM

I have to agree with that statement. I never thought changing the name of something or avoiding the issue was the best choice. We have very real issues facing this nation on many fronts. We need serious people to solve them. We don’t need exaggerated claims of experience or even worse taking credit for the hard work of others is the answer.

Do I have some reservations about if Obama can step up to the plate and meet all them head on yes? However he’s honest enough with himself to admit he doesn’t have them but is willing to listen and try and move forward.

Do I have any question in my mind about Clinton? Not even one she doesn’t have the answers she’s living in the past and in love with her own ego. She’s has a whole wonderful set of preconceived idea’s about how she’s going to fix things. Unfortunately she’s self-righteous and almost totally inflexible making are her precious ideals unattainable not to mention many of then are totally wrong. I could and might at some point go over each and every one of Hillary’s self-righteous policy points.
I will make reference to one item. In the last Ohio debate she spent 16 minutes not debating but arguing one bullet point of essentially identical healthcare packages, never mind that Hillary care Part-II stands no chance what so ever of actually passing congress as she’s envisioned it.
Let’s leave it at that kind of attitude is an incredible Liability.

The whole world changed one morning in September of 2001. I’m sure almost everyone remembers exactly what he or she was doing on that Tuesday morning when they heard what had happened. Unfortunately it seems that Hillary and her supporters don’t realize that the days of righteous indignation are over and done. Now we need to heal as a nation and I do not think she has those skills.

"We have a word for condemning people for the company they keep. The word is McCarthyism. "

Well put.

"We have a word for condemning people for the company they keep. The word is McCarthyism. "

The people McCarthy condemned did not show up once a week to listen to Stalin's speeches, speeches recorded so his word could be spread. If they had, their judgment would have been as obviously questionable as Obama's.

Two other bits that don't ring true:
"...I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. "
Nope. Not once. I can't imagine many people belonging to such congregations. Strong disagreement gives most people strong discomfort, and they find a more compatible religious leader.
"Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us."
No, it doesn't. The Bible says many things about caring for one another, even for our enemies. But that particular phrase appears only after Cain murders Abel, and God asks Cain where Abel is, and Cain replies surrily, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Is this hair-splitting? Yes. Does it reinforce distrust of someone trying to justify his long friendship with a racist? Also yes.
Posted by Alyosha | March 19, 2008 5:59 AM

I’ll address these points one at a time.
My Pastor and I disagree on many key issues both within the scope of internal Church politics and secular politics… I’m a Member of the United Methodist Church we have something called “Apportionments” this is set amount each Church is expected pay for each member of the congregation. This money is then used for mission work that individual Churches have little to no say over it's distribution. I’m in favor of the individual Churches having more control over what mission work they do and do not want to support.
Now onto secular politics our prisons are full of people who have three, four or even more felons. He’s in favor of “rehabilitation” I’m in favor twenty three hours a day of lock down and three strikes and you’re out! However my form three strikes you’re out isn’t another prison term it’s of the gene pool… We’ve had a number of heated discussions about this and other related topics. I won’t cover all the things we disagree about but it’s more than just the two above examples.
Considering that’s from the Old Testament I’m going to give everyone something to look up.
Matthew 22:36-38
After you read that decide if all this debate was really worth it?

Posted by SC Rose | March 19, 2008 9:14 AM

SC, I think you meant Matthew 22:36-39. Verse 39 is where Jesus says the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.

Obama didn't say he had ever had a discussion of any sort with Rev. Wright about the points on which he strongly disagreed.

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.


Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.