Rev. Wright is not a hater, although he expressed words that many people view as hateful. Obama sees a man of charity and kindness who does not mistreat anyone. I would willingly walk with such a man, even though some of his words I viewed as hateful.

Michael Gerson just doesnt get it. Though - credit where credit is due - his column is all about hate.. his own.

Cool Bobby K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The speech was really bad. Not even first grade
> racial understanding.
>
Kindergarten blog... Keep Hatin' Cool Bob.

Wright was most evidently a hater and racist. Why BHO backed him is a just concern.

Choices of association and community are largely based on a symbiosis of differing yet likeminded connection; one relates to those one chooses to associate with.

BHO has congratulated Wright and Farrakhan and his actions back that up through association with a community which also admires these men ... for better than 20 years.

There is no racial judgment in pointing this out. It just gives us helpful indication of where his values truly are.

Sometimes labels are ok, they keep you from drinking poison.

Too bad Mr. Gerson is not a minority to fully appreciate Mr. Obama's speech.

Obama haters will NEVER say anything positive about him so there's no real point reading that junk. I'll be the first to laugh at the naysayers when Mr. Obama wins the presidency.

Look, I am a McCain man, both in 2000 and now. I have donated to his campaign and am an ardent supporter. Notwithstanding that predisposition, I found Obama's speech one of the most remarkable I have ever heard. He is truly gifted in his judgment, intelligence and speaking abilities. This was an important dissertation, regardless of how this campaign is resolved. Everyone should listen to it with an open mind.

Look, I disagree with this guy on almost every issue. I am confident, however, that we shouldn't let reasoned differences blind us to the thoughts of a remarkable person who has a great deal to contribute to the national debate.

I agree that making the assertion that the United States government created and disseminated that AIDS virus is ridiculous...

Nearly as ridiculous as the thought that they would knowingly infect African Americans with syphilis , withhold treatment for a curable disease and then study them for over 40 years to watch how the disease would take its course.

While the former statement is obviously a myth, the latter is a sad fact. The Tuskegee experiments did happen. It is a sad but undisputed chapter in our nation's history.

While Wright's comments are frightening and appear patently ridiculous to most white Americans, it's at least worth considering that minorities, and African Americans in particular, have a history which makes it less likely for them to dismiss such statements out of hand.

What a stupid, stupid column. And it's quite telling that it's listed #1 on RCP - for a site with such a nice compiling of polls, it sure is slanted toward the neocon/fascist right wing.

Michael - are you an idiot? Never did Obama attempt to make words of hate sound less severe than they actually are.

Wright is an inner-city black preacher in Chicago. Does it really surprise you that he's passionate about race in America? he lives in a bubble and sees things through an extremely filtered lens. This is simply a product of where he lives and what he does. Though, I'm sure he says good things as well, and Obama is free to pick and choose whatever messages he likes from the sermons, just like the rest of us do at church.

It is the same effect that has made Bush and Cheney actually believe that War in Iraq is worth it or that the United States is better off spending $3 trillion overseas while our country implodes back at home. It's called tunnel vision. It's just what happens when someone is too deeply involved in one cause for too long.

In no way can Obama be held responsible for his former pastor's words. He obviously likes some things about SOME of the messages from Wright. But because it's his pastor doesn't mean he endorses, likes or even somewhat believes.

I'm shocked that so many people are taking this so seriously. This is a pastor. Has Obama's campaign message given us ANY reason to believe that he honestly believes any of the things Wright has said? Who cares if he was in the pews during a controversial sermon? Did he write it? Did he jump up and say "that's going to be my campaign next year!"?

NO. And it's nothing more than character assassination to accuse otherwise.

The speech was bad? Maybe for an uneducated schmuck such as yourself. He didn't talk about choosing between merely him or bad stuff, but talked about the problems in society that many like to pretend aren't there anymore.

He DID NOT say his view was stuck in the past, but his pastor's--that American can move forward from such ideas and build a country of unity, not divisiveness.

I drew my conclusions from available, non-biased resources.

What biased news media spoonfed you, @#$%&?

[claremontobserver.blogspot.com]

Cool Bobby K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The speech was really bad. Not even first grade
> racial understanding.
>
> Then Obama took a really long time explaining how
> we had a choice between--- bad stuff (or his
> conception of bad stuff)---- OR VOTING FOR
> HIM!!!!! (this is the definition of messiah
> complex, by the way)
>
> His main point was that the only way forward was
> by voting for him, all other paths were backwards
> or stuck in the mud FOREVER.
>
> HUH! Since when? Why does anyone support this man?
> Because he says you should? WOW!!!!!
>
> Of course, those are not the words he said, they
> were the theme. Which is great, because you will
> think that it is something you thought of
> yourself, not that he told you to do it. This is
> apparent from all the people saying it was a great
> speech.
>
> Was it? Why?
>
> Courage? He had no choice.
>
> His entire tone was black-centric. I thought his
> church was Afro-centric? What did we do to Africa?
> It was Africans that sold slaves. Lately, America
> has tried to help Africa.
>
> Worse, Obama revealed that his view is indeed
> stuck in the past. There is no clear vision of
> unity. There was none forthcoming from him at all.
> Only an empty promise that he will deliver one,
> but only if we elected him. Shesh!!!

too bad you are so myopic that you cannot see the real message, which was of unity, he understood and stated both sides of the racial divide, and he pushed for unity. the sad reality is that people like you still exist in this country.




Cool Bobby K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The speech was really bad. Not even first grade
> racial understanding.
>
> Then Obama took a really long time explaining how
> we had a choice between--- bad stuff (or his
> conception of bad stuff)---- OR VOTING FOR
> HIM!!!!! (this is the definition of messiah
> complex, by the way)
>
> His main point was that the only way forward was
> by voting for him, all other paths were backwards
> or stuck in the mud FOREVER.
>
> HUH! Since when? Why does anyone support this man?
> Because he says you should? WOW!!!!!
>
> Of course, those are not the words he said, they
> were the theme. Which is great, because you will
> think that it is something you thought of
> yourself, not that he told you to do it. This is
> apparent from all the people saying it was a great
> speech.
>
> Was it? Why?
>
> Courage? He had no choice.
>
> His entire tone was black-centric. I thought his
> church was Afro-centric? What did we do to Africa?
> It was Africans that sold slaves. Lately, America
> has tried to help Africa.
>
> Worse, Obama revealed that his view is indeed
> stuck in the past. There is no clear vision of
> unity. There was none forthcoming from him at all.
> Only an empty promise that he will deliver one,
> but only if we elected him. Shesh!!!

I am a Barack supporter. But I am not blind, I've started wavering in recent weeks in light of the very legitimate concerns that have been raised about him.

I consider myself to have pretty objective, sound judgement. And I found Barack Obama's speech today meaningful, thoughtful, and perhaps one of the best of his career. It addressed head-on some of the underlying (and often unspoken, misunderstood) racial tension that still lingers in the American psyche.

This column, as well as the first comment on this page, proves conclusively to me that there are just some people who will find wrong in Mr. Obama no matter what he says. They will always find something to criticize. They're blind, and their dislike for Barack Obama has become a religion in the sense that it's set in stone, no matter what he can say or do.

Great speech and a good move on Mr. Obama's part.

Question is whether Obama has reconciled the racial divide within himself:

From Dreams of My Father, " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASISVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE".

From 'Dreams of My Father',
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.

From 'Dreams', "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

From 'Dreams', "I had grown accustomed, everywhere, to suspicions between the races."

From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure, even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."

OBAMA''S SPEECH TODAY:
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should''ve been authorized and never should''ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we''ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

BILL CLINTON"S FAREWELL SPEECH IN 2000, Farewell Address:
"Third, we must remember that America cannot lead in the world unless here at home we weave the threads of our coat of many colors into the fabric of one America. As we become ever more diverse, we must work harder to unite around our common values and our common humanity. We must work harder to overcome our differences, in our hearts and in our laws. We must treat all our people with fairness and dignity, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, and regardless of when they arrived in our country-always moving toward the more perfect Union of our Founders'' dreams."

Well said, Sam Clare. Good to know there are people like you out there. At least you know what Obama addressed during his speech.

Good for you.

[claremontobserver.blogspot.com]

Sam Clare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am a Barack supporter. But I am not blind, I've
> started wavering in recent weeks in light of the
> very legitimate concerns that have been raised
> about him.
>
> I consider myself to have pretty objective, sound
> judgement. And I found Barack Obama's speech
> today meaningful, thoughtful, and perhaps one of
> the best of his career. It addressed head-on some
> of the underlying (and often unspoken,
> misunderstood) racial tension that still lingers
> in the American psyche.
>
> This column, as well as the first comment on this
> page, proves conclusively to me that there are
> just some people who will find wrong in Mr. Obama
> no matter what he says. They will always find
> something to criticize. They're blind, and their
> dislike for Barack Obama has become a religion in
> the sense that it's set in stone, no matter what
> he can say or do.
>
> Great speech and a good move on Mr. Obama's part.

I am referencing here the first comment on the page. As I said in another comment here, "This column, as well as the first comment on this page, proves conclusively to me that there are just some people who will find wrong in Mr. Obama no matter what he says. They will always find something to criticize. They're blind, and their dislike for Barack Obama has become a religion in the sense that it's set in stone, no matter what he can say or do. "

In classic logical fallacy form, this poster put words/themes into Mr. Obama's mouth and then criticized him on points that he did not make. Mr "Cool Bobby," just because YOU took that meaning away from his speech does not mean that that was his point.

The point that grabbed me was " Of course, those are not the words he said, they were the theme. Which is great, because you will think that it is something you thought of yourself, not that he told you to do it. This is apparent from all the people saying it was a great speech." Well DUH you numbskull, what do you think the point of a speech is?! And secondly, you even admit that those were not his words. If those were not his words, then you have no legitimate right to make a claim on what his "theme" was.

You seem to criticize Mr. Obama for not being substantial here, for not being direct, for not providing support for his claims. Well sir, neither did you. "Not even first grade racial understanding...." How do YOU know? What claim do you have on racial understanding? I don't care if you're black yourself, just because you feel one way doesn't make it THE way, arrogant fellow.

And as a final example of the absurdity of the comment, the guy says "HUH! Since when? Why does anyone support this man? Because he says you should? WOW!!!!!" Umm, again, Barack Obama did not say that, nor did he imply it. You just put those words into his speech and then criticized him on a point he did not make.

Intellectual cowardice, not to mention incompetence. Sorry to sound like a snob there, but it's the @#$%& truth.






Cool Bobby K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The speech was really bad. Not even first grade
> racial understanding.
>
> Then Obama took a really long time explaining how
> we had a choice between--- bad stuff (or his
> conception of bad stuff)---- OR VOTING FOR
> HIM!!!!! (this is the definition of messiah
> complex, by the way)
>
> His main point was that the only way forward was
> by voting for him, all other paths were backwards
> or stuck in the mud FOREVER.
>
> HUH! Since when? Why does anyone support this man?
> Because he says you should? WOW!!!!!
>
> Of course, those are not the words he said, they
> were the theme. Which is great, because you will
> think that it is something you thought of
> yourself, not that he told you to do it. This is
> apparent from all the people saying it was a great
> speech.
>
> Was it? Why?
>
> Courage? He had no choice.
>
> His entire tone was black-centric. I thought his
> church was Afro-centric? What did we do to Africa?
> It was Africans that sold slaves. Lately, America
> has tried to help Africa.
>
> Worse, Obama revealed that his view is indeed
> stuck in the past. There is no clear vision of
> unity. There was none forthcoming from him at all.
> Only an empty promise that he will deliver one,
> but only if we elected him. Shesh!!!

The question is: would Jeremiah Wright be a guest in an Obama's White House?

He did nothing today to suggest the answer to that question is other than yes.

We should have the courage to decide whether it is acceptable to elect as President of the United States someone who carries Rev. Wright around as part of him, and who takes his ranting seriously.

As one who often has to speak from the heart, I am horrified that anyone believes that Mr. Obama EVER does. This is simply not the case.

I can accept the pastor. It is the candidate himself that I have issue with. He is far too intelligent, far too experienced in campaigning, to not know that he is a populist and taking full advantage of the gullibility of people. This is called conning. It is no different that those who make a living asking for train fare. He has never settled down and done any of the jobs he has been elected to do. That is why he has no record. He has been campaigning for the last 12 years.

It is also Barack's choice of a mate that I object to. It is also his failing as a father in taking his children to hear the pastor. It is also his choice in churches. It is also his thin understanding of Christianity. It is also his choice of mentor.

It is his financial dealings that are truly audacious. "I cannot BELIEVE that I am winning and HOPE that I do not get caught before they CHANGE their minds and do not vote for me!" NO YOU DON'T!!!!!

[www.abcnews.go.com]

APRIL 11, 2007

Obama: Fire Imus


. Obama First White House Contender to Call for Imus' Firing Over Racial Slur

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."
In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus' show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television.

I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."
Obama said he appeared once on Imus' show two years ago, and "I have no intention of returning."
"He didn't just cross the line," Obama said. "He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women -- who I hope will be athletes -- that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It's one that I'm not interested in supporting."

Though every major presidential candidate has decried the racist remarks, Obama is the first one to say Imus should lose his job for them.

Calculated Fluff speech to try to cover up something that he cannot cover up with fluff. In fact he used it more or less to try to change subject and make others feel guilty about daring to question him and his lack of sense.

20 Years! wil not be buried by this tripe.
Obama is done.

Primary Wrote:

You shouldn't put quotation marks around your comments re: Obama because that's not what he said. That's your myopic take.
-------------------------------------------------------
> His speech says -
> "We all say wrong, racist things" -
> "Vote for me and you can prove you're innocent and
> not really a racist."

When Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address his words were ridiculed by press of the time. In the long run Obama's speech will be remembered for forthrightly addressing the racial divide in this country, while the petty criticism will be long forgotten.

Gerson didn't like Obama before so i'm not surprised the speech fell short for him, he's blinded by his anti-oBama bias to see how important the speech was

Geez, this is like my fourth comment on this page. I'll shut it after this

But I have to ask this poster... why exactly is it a fluff speech? I found it very specific and substantial. As a public speaker and having ample experience writing academic essays, I found most of what he said today quite organized. He had a specific main point, provided all different kinds of arguments (historical, logical, emotional appeals) to support his 'thesis'

I'll say what I said about another poster. 'Triad' is again making things up: why would you say he's trying to make us feel guilty? I didn't feel guilty upon watching the speech, and I had joined in the bandwagon on criticizing Mr. Obama before today. You're making up false points that Barack did not make and then trying to refute them. It's called the straw man argument, and it's weak.




Triad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Calculated Fluff speech to try to cover up
> something that he cannot cover up with fluff. In
> fact he used it more or less to try to change
> subject and make others feel guilty about daring
> to question him and his lack of sense.
>
> 20 Years! wil not be buried by this tripe.
> Obama is done.

Posted by: WSH
Comment: #8
Mar 18, 11:03 PM
Report Abuse
Reply
Wright was most evidently a hater and racist. Why BHO backed him is a just concern.
----------------------------------------------------
As are Catholics that support the Pope and his sheltering Cardinal Law and his continued placement of pedophile priests in new churches so they could have some fresh action by moving him to Rome when the police had a warrant for his arrest.
As are the Lutheran's who remain silent as some Pastors preach the late writings of Martin Luther's anti Judaism that were the foundation upon which Hitler based his final solution..
As are the Baptists for supporting Baptists that demonstrate and the funerals of service members killed in action, telling their survivors that their loved one died because God @#$%& them for defending a nation of homosexuality that refuses to defend marriage.
Or the Jewish school that uses electric shock collars so much they cause 2d & 3rd degree burns on kids with Autism then destroy the video tapes to protect the victims privacy after they were ordered to safeguard them for the police defending the practice as a religiously protected practice.
Or the Anglican's that schism with the Episcopal church over the ordination of women so they join the church of Uganda with their open approval of bigamy which is a crime in this country

Yep.
Being ecumenical is a lot easier when we judge others before we judge ourselves..

If BO had been president in Sept 2001, one of his closest advisers would've been telling him "America had it coming"... even while the rubble still burned. I find this totally unacceptable.

Are we really even considering Obama as a possible nominee at this point? He spent 20 years in that church listening to that hate monger, was married by the hate monger and had his children grew up listening to Wright's vitriolic hatred of his country and white people. Obama's children were baptized by Wright who said God should @#$%& the USA. Obama is a loose cannon. We do not know what his real beliefs are because he turns on a dime and masks anything that will cost him the nomination. Do we really want to find out what his beliefs really are once he is in the Presidency?

Mr. Gerson-- This would be a fabulous opportunity for a lot of us to take a field trip to a black church. Among the questions we should try to answer: Why does the Rev. Wright think the US government started AIDS? I don't know. Why does my white father-in-law insist on call the next President of United States "Osama"? I wish I knew.

Alas the Wright issue is old news, except for panicked McCain supporters like yourself. Wasn't that your candidate on the news today saying (for the second time) that Iran backs al-Qaeda? Will he expand the war into Iran? Why do I always feel with this guy that he has a secret burning desire to say the words, "My fellow Americans, the missiles are flying." Geeesh.

OBAMA '08

What are we doing? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are we really even considering Obama as a possible
> nominee at this point? He spent 20 years in that
> church listening to that hate monger, was married
> by the hate monger and had his children grew up
> listening to Wright's vitriolic hatred of his
> country and white people. Obama's children were
> baptized by Wright who said God should @#$%& the
> USA. Obama is a loose cannon. We do not know
> what his real beliefs are because he turns on a
> dime and masks anything that will cost him the
> nomination. Do we really want to find out what
> his beliefs really are once he is in the
> Presidency?

First off you don't know much about Wright, you've heard a few comments made by him repeated ad nauseum on the 24 hr cable news networks and then made an opinion on that, Obama knows the man personally, and has made it clear he disagrees with many of his political views, today Obama laid out his personal view, the speech was penned by him, if you still don't like Obama that is your choice, however Wright's views are not his

Do you guys even know who Michael Gerson is? He was Bush's speechwriter for five years (I should just stop right there). He's also an evangelical Christian ultra-conservative Republican. His opinions on Obama and Wright and understanding and forgiveness should be considered in light of this. Gerson is the last person on this earth to criticize another man for spreading hate and lies with his words.

Gerson would have been well off to take some pointers from Obama. Obama's speech was three things a Bush speech has never been: honest, relevant, and genuine.

The Wright controversy is kept alive by only Republicans and some conservative members of press like Gerson. Obama's speech was the most relevant and insightful speech I've ever heard a politician make. He was speaking from the bottom of his heart, going against every single political rule. Those of you who doubted Obama had the courage to enforce his pledges of change need only look at this speech. Perhaps Gerson is more concerned with the words of Obama's preacher than Obama. I certainly am not. I know better than to judge a man who has lived over 60 years by only 60 seconds of film. Obama refused to sell a man short just because of a few stupid and ignorant speeches, no matter the political cost. He had the courage to acknowledge that a man like Wright is nothing more than an embodiment of the misunderstandings in our country towards race. The speech wasn't about Wright because Wright is just one man. It was about something bigger and more important: acknowledging the role of race in America. Obama brought to light thoughts and fears that have been under the surface of America for years, so we could confront them and start to progress. This wasn't about politics. This wasn't about Wright. This was about us. If you don't understand and admire Obama's position on Wright after this speech, then that isn't Obama's fault. Gerson is the very kind of person we are trying to move past. Gerson, unfortunately, will be forever be stuck in the past. It is up to the rest of us to make sure America doesn't stay stuck with him.

Bruno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have crazy muslim Jihiadis preaching
> hate.....Then we have crazy Rev. Wright preaching
> hate....They both do it in the name of GOD and the
> pulpit. They influence people to do crazy things
> and they have followers....
>
> We just do not need one of their followers to be
> our President.....GET IT MR. OBAMA???
>
> Your friend is no different from the Radical
> mullahs that preach hatred....And you take your
> children to that church.... WHY??? What did those
> beautiful kids do, for you to take them there and
> have them indoctrinated with that crap....
>
> Are you sure its your pastors hatred and not your
> own....Is it your own anger??? You can do better
> than that to have your wonderful kids be a part of
> that....
>
> And before you lecture us....at least be man
> enough to talk to your friend Rev. Wright....What
> kind of a friend are you that does not question
> and correct a friend, when they have crossed a
> line....

How do you know he hasn't? Just because you haven't seen it means nothing. Obama considers Wright part of the family, and when a family and friends say something you disagree with you tend to bring it up with them in private not in public, he hasn't disowned him or the church because as he said its a part of his life, plain and simple, does that mean he agrees with everything Wright says, no, as he showed today, however its still a part of his life, and it shows courage for him not to take the coward's way out by doing what is politically eaysy and cutting off ties, it shows a strength of character to be honest about the importance of the church in his life

Obama's speech was an intelligent, well-spoken and deeply insightful look at race in America.

But, good as it was, it's not going to make a guy whose previous columns have all been screeds against Obama change his tune and admit that Obama said something meaningful. The usual right-wingers are going to continue to say "It wasn't enough!" as if ANYTHING would be enough for them to admit that Obama did right. The steadfast "No one but Clinton" supporters will say "Too little too late!" as if ANYTHING would convince them to admit that Obama has turned a political landmine into something purposeful and meaningful.

Columns such as thing -- and to be honest, the constantly strident pro-Obama ones as well -- are meaningless fluff which appeal only to preach to the choir. Only time will tell how this speech affects the people who matter: those in the middle.

I have a friend who I know to be politically savvy and active although she has kept her opinions to herself throughout this primary season. This afternoon, after having heard Obama's speech, she told me "For the first time, I'm really glad he's a candidate". Those are the voices who matter, not those of conservative hacks like Gerson whose columns' slant could be accurately guessed at before you even click the link.

A political figure who even sympathizes with this "pastor" is not fit to be President of the United States. If you cult fanatics would like to heal America's racial wounds, you can join Obama's church and dance with glee when Rev. Wright screams "@#$%& America" or "Kill Whitey." Howard Dean lost the election when he screamed. It is an image indelibly etched in the mind of each voter when they go into the voting booths. Obama will always be remembered sitting in the pews of that congregation with his wife and daughters drinking in those hateful words, whether it happened or not. It likely did, although he was able to rise above it and maybe bring America with him through this watershed moment. I sincerely doubt it now. Picture Obama being sworn into office and then hear that man screaming for murder. It is exactly like the OJ trial. Obama got that part right.

What a great message you wrote, CLI. Thank you for your honest input. I am a strong Obama supporter and am glad to see that regardless of your affiliation, you can appreciate his value. I do not agree with one word that Gerson wrote- even Pat Buchanan and the National Review praised the speech! How sad for Gerson that his right-wing rigidity has blinded him so terribly. How very sad.

CLI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look, I am a McCain man, both in 2000 and now. I
> have donated to his campaign and am an ardent
> supporter. Notwithstanding that predisposition, I
> found Obama's speech one of the most remarkable I
> have ever heard. He is truly gifted in his
> judgment, intelligence and speaking abilities.
> This was an important dissertation, regardless of
> how this campaign is resolved. Everyone should
> listen to it with an open mind.
>
> Look, I disagree with this guy on almost every
> issue. I am confident, however, that we shouldn't
> let reasoned differences blind us to the thoughts
> of a remarkable person who has a great deal to
> contribute to the national debate.

axt113 Post 64/65, how do you know he is telling the truth? Ever? He is a politician, they lie. "No new taxes", "I never had sexual relations with that woman", "WMD in Iraq", or:

(On My Faith and My Church) - “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.”

(Philadelphia Speech) - “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.”

mark l. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the problem:
> He is drawing half of the democratic party and
> losing the other half. Factor in the gop opinion
> of Obama and the speech played well with 25% of
> the voters, but poorly for the other 75%.

That only works if you assume that no one from the Democratic party will vote for the other candidate and it completely ignores independents/moderates who don't align with either party.

I think you did a good job of proving that if you don't like Obama, you'll take something negative from the speech. For instance, you took some really poor math skills in order to show your prejudices.

hypothetically-

Obama gave the greatest speech ever.

His problem is that he gave it at 11 am on a tuesday. If you add all the people who watched it live or on the net later, and subtract the number of people who have already made up their mind about how they will vote, you might get 10,000 people, 5000 willing to support him- now, and 5000 who were turned off.

vs.

Rev Wright's gaffes, which come in 15 second soundbites.

BO's defense? yeah, my pastor may be a racist, but then so is my white grandmother.

Jeremiah Was a Bullfrog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Barack has refused to indicate whether he agrees
> with Wright's assertion that Jesus "was a poor
> black man"

Why on earth would Obama's beliefs on what color Jesus was be of anyone's business at all?

You should try to be more subtle when trying to slide in that racist knife -- "Obama might believe that Jesus was BLACK!!! instead of blonde and ble-eyed! Be SCARED, America!! BE SCARED!!"

polly a. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jeremiah Was a Bullfrog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Barack has refused to indicate whether he
> agrees
> > with Wright's assertion that Jesus "was a poor
> > black man"
>
> Why on earth would Obama's beliefs on what color
> Jesus was be of anyone's business at all?
>
> You should try to be more subtle when trying to
> slide in that racist knife -- "Obama might believe
> that Jesus was BLACK!!! instead of blonde and
> ble-eyed! Be SCARED, America!! BE SCARED!!"

If Jesus actually existed, which is arguable, he was probably tan/brown

Excellent column, very well written.

My take after watching Obama's speech was that he can't stop talking about race and the the past. Hundreds of years ago Africans kidnapped millions of whites for the purpose of slavery. It's gone both ways and slavery and bias are wrong all around. A well-researched book about this is by author Robert C Davis. also great reading for all ages is Dr Seuss - The Sneetches.

I've noticed Obama sends mixed messages which is a form of control. He's very clever. He obviously is able to charm great numbers of people with empty glossy words. Some people are excellent at the art of manipulation. I don't know enough about the man to say he's not evil or is evil. He refuses to cut ties with his pastor and that is not a good thing for him or America if he suceeds in getting the nomination.

I want to know more about him the person, not just growing up in Hawaii and Africa and private schools. He grew up with more than most others and I did and currently lives in a mansion. Good for him but don't put on the poor boy act.

Kenn, I urge you to avoid ad hominem attacks when trying to communicate your point. If you see everyone and everything as "hatin'", then that is a chip on your shoulder that you need to deal with. I would refer you to some significant aspects of Obama's speech today to explain that for you.

Kenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cool Bobby K Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The speech was really bad. Not even first grade
> > racial understanding.
> >
> Kindergarten blog... Keep Hatin' Cool Bob.

axt113, no, fundamentally the man said that he had no knowledge of the statements at all. He gave the impression (strongly) that he was unaware that the man had extreme racist hateful views. That is a lie.

And yet he did not let the reverend -his personal spiritual adviser- pray when he announced. Why?

Questions Surround Obama's Candidacy:



[questionbarackobama.blogspot.com]

I am sorry in my previous post, I left out an important word "McCain's drug addict (WIFE) who got caught by the DEA. I omitted the word wife so my post made it appear I was calling McCain a drug addict which was not my intention, I was talking about the blonde with the serial killer eyes - sorry folks

Bad math-my point wasn't how people will vote, but how they recieved it...

"Factor in the gop opinion
of Obama and the speech played well with 25% of
the voters, but poorly for the other 75%"

Let me expand-

compare 06 turnout(off -year) to 2004...

04-62 million go gop, 59 million go Dem.
06-35.7 million for gop, 42 million go dem.

using the 06 to indicate party affiliation-it would leave 43.3 million independents. Gop lost 26.3 million indies, dems lost 17 million.

the math reflects a consistency to other projections of politcal affilation.

30% republican, 35% democratic, and 36% independent.

30% republicans+17.5% (for hrc support)+22%(indies who vote conservative)

70%. While not 75%, it is ballpark. Considering the independents are also lily white, I would guess that the independent support for obama is less than kerry's.

In obama's speech he even acknowledges the divdie that exist in moderate voters...

"Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition."

So Reagan was wildly popular due to racist support? That will play well in Pa.

The speech wasn't really about Wright....and Michael's obsessive focus on Wright suggests he and others still don't get the "race issue" or the American experience. Empathy, compassion....our better nature....Lincoln and Obama get it, Robert Kennedy understood it.......but the media (Fox) and most of the posters on this board do not.

Senator Obama's speech on race has done what the Clinton campaign has failed to do for months...made Obama just another "black candidate", like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Bill Clinton must be laughing his @#$%& off.

Hello All,

I have been a loyal democrat for nearly 40 years. I was raised very liberal, and in spite of success will *always* believe in democratic principles. I believe that a government's role should be much more than just to provide basic services for its people. I believe that a government should provide much more - including access to affordible (if not sponsored) health care, etc.

I am scared of Obamamania. And I am also scared of the self serving, empty rhetoric provided by Obama himself.

The latest controversy with the pastor that he will NOT seperate himself from only echoes my concerns. This is much more than just about reverse racism. It is just frightening.

I hope that you will join me in supporting our only viable and experienced democrat - Hillary Clinton. She has the experience and know-how to get us out of the current Bush mess that we are in and will restore our image to the rest of the world. Please do not fear Bill Clinton! As I travel abroad - did any of you know that in many little cafes and restaurants around the world they still have pictures and portraits of Clinton in prominent display? I mean come on... let's get real!!

Obama offers NOTHING but empty speeches and I am embarrassed that so many folks have fallen for the cult like promises. He offers nothing but hollow rhetoric and has absolutely NO experience. Wake up please!!!!

axt113, your lack of concern for Wright's lie that Jesus was a "poor black man" is disturbing. When leaders lie about facts it creates false bases for beliefs and actions.

In terms of ethnicity, Jesus was Jewish and like all semitic peoples (whether Jews or Arabs, both traditionally thought to be descended from Abraham), Jesus was a Caucasian regardless of how light or dark his skin color was. He was not of the Negroid race as Black Liberation Theology contends. Reverend Wright's stupidity on this point shows what a scholarly "theologian" he really is.

axt113, you know that if Barack said he thought Jesus was a black man, he'd be unelectable.

Hello ClaremontObserver (and anyone else that is young and naive)

First of all, what do you mean that someone that is liberal believes in "LESS GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT"??

Do you NOT know what the definition of a liberal truly is?? For your information a CONSERVATIVE is defined that government is evil, and that states rights and free enterprise (along with flagrant Capitalism) is GOOD.

A LIBERAL believes that the role of a government should be to offer services to its PEOPLE - and yes, along with the rest of the free world - this includes SPONSORED health care. If the Bush morons can pay one TRILLION dollars to a doomed war in Iraq, then clearly it can spend on offering health care to its own people.

BY THE WAY - WHAT DO YOU THINK IS OBAMA's Experience???? Exactly??? The "present" votes in both the Illinois State Legislature coupled with his junior role in the US Senate??? WHAT is his experience?? Can you be specific???? I can be specific about Hillary's contributions. What are you, 19 years old??? Come on.

Michael Gerson is Bush's former speechwriter. The Washington Post should mention that. By not mentioning it, someone might think he was a journalist. He's not. He's a Bush Republican. I think that clearly affected what he wrote here, and the Washington Post was derelict in its responsibility by not properly framing this person's words.

I'm a Clinton supporter, but I 'm having a hard time saying anything bad about Obama's speech today. (I'm still voting for HRC, but I have to give credit where it's due).

If you guys want a little humor, though, look at "Mr. Darcy's" take on this ridiculous blog someone linked me to: [ladycatherinebedamned.blogspot.com] Hilarious stuff.

BlueCross...

A republican filibuster will be meaningless. Especially in a democratically controlled Congress. (absent of that stupid Nancy Pelosi)

And as to your notion that Obamamania is nothing more than brainwashing hope... can you offer a good argument otherwise?? Can you speak to a qualified resume?? I mean, I can give a very inspiring speech but does that make me QUALIFIED to be POTUS??? I should think not. And yes, I can explain exactly why Hillary has the necessary experience to be our Commander in Chief.

Hello Mark L.

Well stated. I guess that Claremont has left the field.

And yes - it is ABOUT TIME that America wakes up to the dangers of Obamamania - I guess that it is true that the "Masses are @#$%&" and are SO starved for a "Leader" that they will follow anyone that can inspire - in spite of the TOTAL LACK OF EXPERIENCE"..... how do you young people think that Hitler had his roots?? The same exact way.... A great orator with no experience.... just a book published from prison. Oddly similar to the pastor inspired "Audacity of Hope" by Obama.... wake up, please.

MAYBE Obama doesn't hate white Americans and Jews. Maybe he's just pretending to hate them and enables and subsidizes those that do in order to advance his career. Maybe.

But he did oppose a war that even Hillary voted for. And he did seriously propose that we "negotiate" with Iran. He does want our troops out of Iraq ASAP. Wouldn't these positions be identical to Wright's? Obama's actions and proposals and ideas reflect what he learned from his friend and mentor.

And, by the way: Where is Barack's American flag lapel pin? I guess he can't quite bring himself to wear one. I didn't notice one on Jeremiah Wright either.

Hello Mammamia,

You hit it right on the head. INSPIRATION. We are all starved for that in light of 8 years of Bushism. BUT - at what cost? Do any of us really KNOW Obama - or simply caught up in the message of hope????

I should think not. John F. Kennedy was an inspirational "leader". Yet naive and almost brought us to our knees with the Cuban Missle Crisis. No foriegn policy experience, etc... In these troubled times, can we really afford to have a leader with no experience??? I should think not.

There comes a time when the media stops providing coverage on a subject and just becomes hell-bent on smearing a person. That time has come on this story. Enough of the attacks on Rev. Wright. This man is not one-dimensional that you can sum up in a bias one-sided article. He did a lot of good things in his life, made worthy contributions to the poor and downtrodden. As a white, middle age woman, I would much rather call someone like Rev. Wright my friend, than a politically-motivated insincere hacker like Michael Gerson. Let it go already! We're sick of the media chewing this man's life up. Have you ever even met him? You, and the corporate rag you write for, make me feel ashamed to be an American.

fblaze Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rev. Wright is not a hater, although he expressed
> words that many people view as hateful. Obama
> sees a man of charity and kindness who does not
> mistreat anyone. I would willingly walk with such
> a man, even though some of his words I viewed as
> hateful.

Were you sober when you wrote this?

I RATHER "SLEEP" WITH THE DEVIL I KNOW RATHER THAN WITH THE DEVIL I DON'T KNOW........... HOW'S THIS ??????????

I'm glad that Obama clarified things for us. For awhile I thought his hanging around homey Wright for 20 years and listening to his drivel was HIS problem. Turns out, it's just a natural outgrowth of white racism.

Obama doesn't like White people. Any White person who votes for Obama is by definition full of self-hatred.

McCain is gonna win the general election 65-35.

The real issue is Obama's sense of his own moral responsibility.
He paid Wright's church $ 22,500 last year- this is about 15 per cent of his salary as a U.S. senator.
This money is used to disseminate Wright's sermons, all of his lies and hatred, to thousands of people.
Now Obama himself-- so he tells us-- is unaffected by the lies and hatred-- apparently he has will power of steel and can listen, without any objection, to Wright for 20 years, and yet not adopt any of Wright's hatred.
But what about his daughters, whom he brings to the church Sunday after Sunday.
What about Michelle Obama?
Does Obama believe that he has any moral responsibility to protect his own family from this vitriol? or any moral responsibility to protect the thousands who will receive the messages of hate, thanks in part to his $22,500?
We now have a clear view of the Mysterious Stranger and his sense of responsibility-- and what we find is appalling.
That is far and away the main issue.

Please explain when BHO was lying... would that be when he didn't know what Wright was saying or when he was explaining what Wright was saying... us poor Republicans are so often confused....

Primary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> His speech says -
> "We all say wrong, racist things" -
> "Vote for me and you can prove you're innocent and
> not really a racist."

Obtuse, unsubstantiated and uneducated. To the more educated, your choice of words and how you choose to phrase them says it all.

Mud Guru Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please explain when BHO was lying... would that be
> when he didn't know what Wright was saying or when
> he was explaining what Wright was saying... us
> poor Republicans are so often confused....

Here's what I'm confused about. Electing a President that declared war on a country with no evidence that Saddam had any association with the terrorists responsible for 9/11. That ships coffins all over our country from Iraq. That spends money that could be helping impede the state we're in now. There are Republicans and then there are Republicans. Thank you for clarifying which kind you are. Shall we count how many times this Republican administration has lied to the American people both Democrats and Republicans since 9/11. Dude you got some nerve but I guess that's what makes our country great. The freedom to be who we want to be...even ignorant morons.

No one says Obama can’t attend any church he wants, or practice Muslim religion, he can be as racist as his “not proud of America" wife Michelle, or even the anti- American as Wright and his churches “man of the year award" Farrakhan! The problems he is running to be President for ALL people of the U.S. not just white American haters! He is not fit to be in public service! He should have disowned Wright & Farrakhan before this week or left that church years ago if he didn’t agree with his anti-American, anti white preaching. He is teaching his daughters the same type of anti American racism by attending that church and continuing to support and follow his spiritual advisor Rev Wright! Obama can’t persuade his way out of this one with that extremely lame speech!
IT’S TIME OBAMA GET OUT OF THE RACE!!! DROP OUT! WE DO NOT NEED OR WANT YOUR CHANGE BACK THE RACIAL DIVIDE OF THE 60'S...SHAME ON YOU OBAMA!

Whether you chooose to vote for Obama or not, I'm saddened by the comments on this message board, who clearly didn't listen to his speech at all.

When was the last time a politician stood up and admitted he was associated with something or anyone which could be (and in this case, will be) damaging to their campaign?

I can't remember, can you?

When was the last time a politician spoke to YOU, the public, as an adult.... instead of trying to mislead us, lie to us, avoid the subject, and give up.

There are lots of reasons to NOT vote for Obama. But to claim after that speech that he is preaching racial division instead of unity, is ignorant at best. I'm disappointed with the political and social views of my own dad, other family members, friends and c0-workers, but I'd never choose to "disown" them, even though they may be the people I choose to turn to for leadership in other parts of my life. I think if most choose to calmly think about it, they'll have the same experience.

If anything he may be guilty of asking too much of people, to 'let it all go', and move beyond it. If anything, based on some of the posts on this board, it's far too much.

Missed the mark. The "speech" offer no forgiveness and redemtion for Wright. And more importantly none for dead slave owners, dead Africans who sold their brothers into slavery or Don Imus.
Guess I'll vote for MCain

Obama is trying to set a precedent here. It's OK to be a racist liar IF you've suffered!

Stick a fork in Obama.

Approval numbers are down 5% in five days, below 50 approval.

He is starring at 51-38 poll in Pa. If he doesn't get at least 40% in Pa, the wheels on the bus will offically have come off, and the story will be 'unelectable'. The exit polls in Pa will be savage.

After the panic gets a good hold, representatives of Obama will declare PA as a racist state. Then it just gets ugly.

Gerson is annoyed because this speech was more important, delivered more elequently, and recieved much better than any speech he ever wrote for George W. Bush. It saddens me to read the amount of latent bigotry that is spewed in the comments here after such a honest, bold, and yes brave speech on race and American society by Sen. Obama, this country's next president. People get over your hatred. You can blame Rev. Wright which many do, or in some cases you embrace Wright because of your own prejudices against Obama. It is just the grist you need for your mill of prejudice. By blaming him you justify your own fears and disgraceful bigotry. This is the 21st centruy, it' s time to move on, shed the hate and embrace real change the means healing racial tensions and addressing the serious problems all Americans face.

Unlike Imus, Wright did not call any one a "nappy headed ho," Wright called our nation a murdering insensitive blight on humanity world wide. Imus was wrong. Wright is insane. Anyone who can't see the racist hate-monger in Wright is stupid. And that includes Barack.

1. How can Obama call himself a "uniter" when for 20 years he evidently did little or nothing to show his pastor the error of his ways? My father was really racist, and I spent many years arguing with him before I realized I couldn't change him, but I did try. But I never tolerated racist talk from anyone else. And I left my church when I felt it did not see civil rights as a Christian obligation.
2. What would really impress me would be if Reverend Wright returned from his holiday and told us how Obama had persuaded him that his comments were inconsistent with the Christian message and that he might be keeping people from taking steps to improve their lives when he thundered the white-run system was the reason they were kept down. How can he change the nation if he couldn't change (or more importantly, didn't even attempt to change) his pastor?
The true shame is that between the rhetorical gifts of both Obama and Reverend Wright, they couldn't use words to change the hearts of their church members and neighborhood.
3. When Obama said Rev. Wright was like family, didn't he realize that when a family member has a problem, you try to help them, not tolerate their weaknesses. If Rev. Wright had had a public drinking problem, wouldn't Obama have tried to help him? Yet for 20 years he passively allowed this hate to fester and infect the congregation. It really doesn't say much for Obama's leadership qualities.

The article is too weak in its analysis of the dangerous personality lurking under the "blank slate" Obama so proudly announces he is - a slate on which we can each write what we want. The article did not take the opportunity to remove that blank slate and show what is really present: anti-American sentiment and hatred of his country and its people. Obama's choice of aligning himself with such a hate-race-baiting "preacher," who proclaims such lies and insights Americans to victim hood and division proves where Obama's beliefs are based. Such a person should never even be considered for the office of president of the United States. Obama is a confused angry person who does not know where he belongs, much less who he is. Americans do not OWE Obama any vote - we do not OWE any one - male/female/white/black/orange/purple/neuter - our vote.
Obama is a dissembler - his anger is seething - it s real - and it has NOTHING to do with the United States and everything to do with Obama's self-confusion about his place and his person. He is lost and we do not owe him and we cannot give him the path to truth or the path to the self. The audacity Obama preaches he fails to seize for himself - to discover who he is and what he believes. No "blank slate" deserves my vote for anything. Obama's audacity is even considering running for the presidency and counting on people to give it to him because for some ugly twisted mean nasty false reason, Obama believes he has a right to it. The American people owe NOTHING to any one and everything to their country.
Martin Luther King knew that hates distorts personality. King said "The man who hates can't think straight; the man who hates can't reason right; the man who hates can't see right; the man who hates can't walk right." That man is Obama. The media has the right and the duty to expose him. Stop smoking Obama's false hope.
As Mr Shelby Steele has stated: “No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sence of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity…” Such a person should have no political power. Obama thinks Americans are fools and blind. We are neither. We don’t have to “wait for the tide to go out to know this swimmer is naked.”

Mammamia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Obama and Republican Senator Tom Coburn from
> Oklahoma passed a law to create a Google-like
> search engine to allow regular people to
> approximately track federal grants, contracts,
> earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times
> wrote, "It would enable the public to see where
> federal money goes and how it is spent. It's a
> brilliant idea." That's quite an accomplishment
> that supports his ability to work across party
> lines.

So what? Obama wants new taxes to give money to the UN for "eliminating global poverty". He intends to milk me dry not just to help the "poor" here in America, but across the entire @#$%& globe! Never mind that 2/3 of the globe hates America, Obama wants to bleed me for their sake.

Obama is more of the same -- the same tired, stale, statist welfare state programs that do not work.

antognini Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BlueCross...
>
> A republican filibuster will be meaningless.
> Especially in a democratically controlled
> Congress. (absent of that stupid Nancy Pelosi)

HAHAHAhahahhaha!!! Yeah, just like the constant Republican filibusters have been meaningless in THIS Democratic controlled Congress. And Pelosi is the Speaker of the HOUSE -- filibusters are a fact of life in the Senate. Go back to Civics 101.

> And as to your notion that Obamamania is nothing
> more than brainwashing hope... can you offer a
> good argument otherwise??

I didn't argue that. I argued that Clinton's supporters were equally brainwashed when they drank her Klinton Kool-Ade and said "Yay, Universal Health Care!" while she offered no suggestion of a plan to get it past the inevitable Republican filibuster. The Senate isn't going to have 60+ Democrats next year and you can be @#$%& sure that the Republicans will present a unified front to block a socialist-sounding mandated health plan.

But you just drink it up, boy-o. Blindly listen to anything Clinton tells you and never question. No, never question anything.

fblaze Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rev. Wright is not a hater, although he expressed
> words that many people view as hateful. Obama
> sees a man of charity and kindness who does not
> mistreat anyone. I would willingly walk with such
> a man, even though some of his words I viewed as
> hateful.


Did you say that about Imus when Mr O was calling for him to be tossed and saying he would never again appear on his show? He had no trouble appearing time and again with the racist Rev.

The great delusion.

has there been a filibuster in this congress?

For a party that made its platform 'out of Iraq', they appear unwilling to lose much sleep over the matter, and more than eager to take extended recesses.

I thought the democratic congress would be a nightmare, but actually they do nothing. Maybe they are lying low, hoping to win in 08. Of course, when they lose in 08, they will lay low wanting to win in 2010. It will be funny to watch Harry Reid get booted, and quite possibly Obama as well.

When bush leaves in Jan 09, their first rxn will be joy, shortly followed by the realization that they have no talking points.

Does it really matter what B.H.Obama says? He has lost all credibility… if in fact he ever had any! We need to put the medias feet to this fire. Even they know how fraudulent he is.

That today you write "The problem with Obama's argument is that Wright is not a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses of the African-American community. He is a political extremist, holding views that are shocking to many Americans who wonder how any presidential candidate could be so closely associated with an adviser who refers to the "U.S. of KKK-A" and urges God to "@#$%&" our country" shows that you did not listen to what Senator Obama was saying. Rev. Wright is not a "political extremist".

Just curious, Michael. How have you served your community? Rev. Wright has been a servant to his community for decades. He has served this country as a Marine. Have you ever served in the Armed Forces, Michael. I doubt it.

Remember, the likes of Frank Schaeffer, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have all condemned America for behavior they find unacceptable and these guys have been not only conservative heroes but invited to the White House.

How is it different for a black preacher? It's not. Your reactions are different and your requirements for the black candidate are different.

Ronald Reagan began his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS, for goodness sakes, and served as a 2-term president.

And more than one president has cozied up to Bob Jones University.

I don't remember any one of you pundits requiring that any of the former presidents "disown" Jerry Falwell, Frank Schaeffer, Pat Robertson or Bob Jones University.

Maybe one day you'll listen to Rev. Wright's entire sermon instead of letting soundbites color your opinion. After all, that's only fair.

I didn't intend to paste the passage below, but since I did, I suggest you read it. Some in the black community do believe that the government created AIDS to destroy the black community. Personally, I don't believe that. But I understand where the paranoia comes from:
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.
—President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997
For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”

Using Human Beings as Laboratory Animals
The true nature of the experiment had to be kept from the subjects to ensure their cooperation. The sharecroppers' grossly disadvantaged lot in life made them easy to manipulate. Pleased at the prospect of free medical care—almost none of them had ever seen a doctor before—these unsophisticated and trusting men became the pawns in what James Jones, author of the excellent history on the subject, Bad Blood, identified as “the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history.”

The study was meant to discover how syphilis affected blacks as opposed to whites—the theory being that whites experienced more neurological complications from syphilis whereas blacks were more susceptible to cardiovascular damage. How this knowledge would have changed clinical treatment of syphilis is uncertain. Although the PHS touted the study as one of great scientific merit, from the outset its actual benefits were hazy. It took almost forty years before someone involved in the study took a hard and honest look at the end results, reporting that “nothing learned will prevent, find, or cure a single case of infectious syphilis or bring us closer to our basic mission of controlling venereal disease in the United States.” When the experiment was brought to the attention of the media in 1972, news anchor Harry Reasoner described it as an experiment that “used human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone.”

A Heavy Price in the Name of Bad Science
By the end of the experiment, 28 of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis. How had these men been induced to endure a fatal disease in the name of science? To persuade the community to support the experiment, one of the original doctors admitted it “was necessary to carry on this study under the guise of a demonstration and provide treatment.” At first, the men were prescribed the syphilis remedies of the day—bismuth, neoarsphenamine, and mercury—but in such small amounts that only 3 percent showed any improvement. These token doses of medicine were good public relations and did not interfere with the true aims of the study. Eventually, all syphilis treatment was replaced with “pink medicine”—aspirin. To ensure that the men would show up for a painful and potentially dangerous spinal tap, the PHS doctors misled them with a letter full of promotional hype: “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.” The fact that autopsies would eventually be required was also concealed. As a doctor explained, “If the colored population becomes aware that accepting free hospital care means a post-mortem, every darky will leave Macon County…” Even the Surgeon General of the United States participated in enticing the men to remain in the experiment, sending them certificates of appreciation after 25 years in the study.

Following Doctors' Orders
It takes little imagination to ascribe racist attitudes to the white government officials who ran the experiment, but what can one make of the numerous African Americans who collaborated with them? The experiment's name comes from the Tuskegee Institute, the black university founded by Booker T. Washington. Its affiliated hospital lent the PHS its medical facilities for the study, and other predominantly black institutions as well as local black doctors also participated. A black nurse, Eunice Rivers, was a central figure in the experiment for most of its forty years. The promise of recognition by a prestigious government agency may have obscured the troubling aspects of the study for some. A Tuskegee doctor, for example, praised “the educational advantages offered our interns and nurses as well as the added standing it will give the hospital.” Nurse Rivers explained her role as one of passive obedience: “we were taught that we never diagnosed, we never prescribed; we followed the doctor's instructions!” It is clear that the men in the experiment trusted her and that she sincerely cared about their well-being, but her unquestioning submission to authority eclipsed her moral judgment. Even after the experiment was exposed to public scrutiny, she genuinely felt nothing ethical had been amiss.

One of the most chilling aspects of the experiment was how zealously the PHS kept these men from receiving treatment. When several nationwide campaigns to eradicate venereal disease came to Macon County, the men were prevented from participating. Even when penicillin was discovered in the 1940s—the first real cure for syphilis—the Tuskegee men were deliberately denied the medication. During World War II, 250 of the men registered for the draft and were consequently ordered to get treatment for syphilis, only to have the PHS exempt them. Pleased at their success, the PHS representative announced: “So far, we are keeping the known positive patients from getting treatment.” The experiment continued in spite of the Henderson Act (1943), a public health law requiring testing and treatment for venereal disease, and in spite of the World Health Organization's Declaration of Helsinki (1964), which specified that “informed consent” was needed for experiment involving human beings.

Blowing the Whistle
The story finally broke in the Washington Star on July 25, 1972, in an article by Jean Heller of the Associated Press. Her source was Peter Buxtun, a former PHS venereal disease interviewer and one of the few whistle blowers over the years. The PHS, however, remained unrepentant, claiming the men had been “volunteers” and “were always happy to see the doctors,” and an Alabama state health officer who had been involved claimed “somebody is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.”

Under the glare of publicity, the government ended their experiment, and for the first time provided the men with effective medical treatment for syphilis. Fred Gray, a lawyer who had previously defended Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, filed a class action suit that provided a $10 million out-of-court settlement for the men and their families. Gray, however, named only whites and white organizations in the suit, portraying Tuskegee as a black and white case when it was in fact more complex than that—black doctors and institutions had been involved from beginning to end.

The PHS did not accept the media's comparison of Tuskegee with the appalling experiments performed by Nazi doctors on their Jewish victims during World War II. Yet in addition to the medical and racist parallels, the PHS offered the same morally bankrupt defense offered at the Nuremberg trials: they claimed they were just carrying out orders, mere cogs in the wheel of the PHS bureaucracy, exempt from personal responsibility.

The study's other justification—for the greater good of science—is equally spurious. Scientific protocol had been shoddy from the start. Since the men had in fact received some medication for syphilis in the beginning of the study, however inadequate, it thereby corrupted the outcome of a study of “untreated syphilis.”

In 1990, a survey found that 10 percent of African Americans believed that the U.S. government created AIDS as a plot to exterminate blacks, and another 20 percent could not rule out the possibility that this might be true. As preposterous and paranoid as this may sound, at one time the Tuskegee experiment must have seemed equally farfetched. Who could imagine the government, all the way up to the Surgeon General of the United States, deliberately allowing a group of its citizens to die from a terrible disease for the sake of an ill-conceived experiment? In light of this and many other shameful episodes in our history, African Americans' widespread mistrust of the government and white society in general should not be a surprise to anyone. —BB

1. All quotations in the article are from Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, James H. Jones, expanded edition (New York: Free Press, 1993).

Sounds like Gerson is mostly preaching to the choir. His analysis is basically making no impact. It was basically a waste of a read like alot of other articles.

Junky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like Gerson is mostly preaching to the
> choir. His analysis is basically making no impact.
> It was basically a waste of a read like alot of
> other articles.




True, the Obama lovers see no racism or anti-American statements. I bet they were all lock step with him calling for the firing of Imus but now they are silent. Instead of this being about Mr O and his judgment he is trying to flip this into about how America is racist and needs to follow him to get over it. Yes, we need to follow him because he has such good judgment between the Rev and Tony Resko he is batting a thousand.

While the rest of the media is (again) fawning all over Obama, Michael Gerson at least has the guts to give an honest evaluation of what was another fluff speech, notable for three things: The venom-filled rantings of Wright were actually the minor transgressions of an otherwise really, really swell man of the cloth; that Obama is incredibly slow (twenty-years too slow) to catch onto Wright's hatred for the US Government and White people, but is lightning quick to throw his White grandmother under the bus; and that it's not Wright's anger and hatred that are the problem, but (once again) it's the fault of White folks for being unable to 'understand' the anger and hatred of Wright, Black churches and Black people.

rich-1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > cwat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > Obama can definately talk the talk but he does NOT walk the walk. Obama claims to be the great unifier. Please list one accomplishment (if you can find ANY) in public life that supports this
rhetoric. Did he ever support any bi-partisan legislation in his brief tenure in the Senate?
> >
> That is the best you can do to show working across
> party lines a bill creating a search engine to
> look at earmarks. Give me a break. Where was he on
> illegal immigration? The Fisa bill? Iraq? He was
> lock step in line as one of the most reliable dim
> votes. Yea he worked with republicans to name a
> building after Joe Blow, now that is a uniter.


Here are more examples of how Obama has worked across party lines:

-U.S. Senators Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) sponsored a bill that will help keep weapons like shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles out of terrorists' hands. Lugar and Obama authored the legislation (S. 2566) and included provisions of the bill as part of H.R. 6060, which was approved by the Congress. The Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.

-Obama also sponsored the "Iran Sanctions Enabling Act" supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry and joined Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in introducing legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism.

-U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Barack Obama, (D-IL), Kit Bond (R-MO), George Voinovich (R-OH), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced legislation to expand consumer access to 85 percent ethanol fuel, or E-85, an affordable, home-grown alternative to gasoline.

-Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) introduced S.1977, Non-proliferation bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.

-U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have introduced the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs.


These empty accusations and defamations of Obama get really tiring. Why don't you take some time to research some of this on your own before taking your road rage out on your keyboard.

Obama trades in generational insult. He charges everyone from prior generations withbeing defective, and dispenses forgiveness or condemnation as a little emperor. You brilliantly note that he claims MLK as a cohort of Wright--a big lie--with the clever insinuation that this is another proof Hillary is bad because she is 60. We are to believe that until him, original sin was for real, and with him it's out the window. I think to the contrary, he has pride, conceit, and dishonesty mastered as well or better than his elders.

I was willing to listen to him. But felt he went too far when he suggested his grandmother who raised him was a racist because she worried about black men on the corner. Then to say that Geraldine Ferraro is racist because she dared to speak the truth that he woulld not be as far as he was today if he were not black. He would not have been given the chance to give the speach at the Democrat convention which brought him to national attention if he were not black. There were plenty of young articulate freshmen senators who could have spoke but he was given the opportunity because he is black. I have no problem with black people being given such opportunities but to say that a woman who has always fought for the rights of all minorities is racist because she dared to speak the "politically incorrect" truth is beyond the pale.

Michele Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That today you write "The problem with Obama's
> argument is that Wright is not a symbol of the
> strengths and weaknesses of the African-American
> community. He is a political extremist, holding
> views that are shocking to many Americans who
> wonder how any presidential candidate could be so
> closely associated with an adviser who refers to
> the "U.S. of KKK-A" and urges God to "@#$%&" our
> country" shows that you did not listen to what
> Senator Obama was saying. Rev. Wright is not a
> "political extremist".
>
> Just curious, Michael. How have you served your
> community? Rev. Wright has been a servant to his
> community for decades. He has served this country
> as a Marine. Have you ever served in the Armed
> Forces, Michael. I doubt it.
>
> Remember, the likes of Frank Schaeffer, Pat
> Robertson and Jerry Falwell have all condemned
> America for behavior they find unacceptable and
> these guys have been not only conservative heroes
> but invited to the White House.
>
> How is it different for a black preacher? It's
> not. Your reactions are different and your
> requirements for the black candidate are
> different.
>
> Ronald Reagan began his 1980 presidential campaign
> in Philadelphia, MS, for goodness sakes, and
> served as a 2-term president.
>
> And more than one president has cozied up to Bob
> Jones University.
>
> I don't remember any one of you pundits requiring
> that any of the former presidents "disown" Jerry
> Falwell, Frank Schaeffer, Pat Robertson or Bob
> Jones University.
>
> Maybe one day you'll listen to Rev. Wright's
> entire sermon instead of letting soundbites color
> your opinion. After all, that's only fair.
>
> I didn't intend to paste the passage below, but
> since I did, I suggest you read it. Some in the
> black community do believe that the government
> created AIDS to destroy the black community.
> Personally, I don't believe that. But I
> understand where the paranoia comes from:
> The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
> The United States government did something that
> was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It
> was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and
> equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly
> racist.
> —President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee
> Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining
> survivors, May 16, 1997
> For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S.
> Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an
> experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of
> syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate
> sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in
> Alabama, were never told what disease they were
> suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed
> that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1
> their doctors had no intention of curing them of
> syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was
> to be collected from autopsies of the men, and
> they were thus deliberately left to degenerate
> under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can
> include tumors, heart disease, paralysis,
> blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one
> of the doctors involved explained, “we have no
> further interest in these patients until they
> die.”
>
> Using Human Beings as Laboratory Animals
> The true nature of the experiment had to be kept
> from the subjects to ensure their cooperation. The
> sharecroppers' grossly disadvantaged lot in life
> made them easy to manipulate. Pleased at the
> prospect of free medical care—almost none of them
> had ever seen a doctor before—these
> unsophisticated and trusting men became the pawns
> in what James Jones, author of the excellent
> history on the subject, Bad Blood, identified as
> “the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human
> beings in medical history.”
>
> The study was meant to discover how syphilis
> affected blacks as opposed to whites—the theory
> being that whites experienced more neurological
> complications from syphilis whereas blacks were
> more susceptible to cardiovascular damage. How
> this knowledge would have changed clinical
> treatment of syphilis is uncertain. Although the
> PHS touted the study as one of great scientific
> merit, from the outset its actual benefits were
> hazy. It took almost forty years before someone
> involved in the study took a hard and honest look
> at the end results, reporting that “nothing
> learned will prevent, find, or cure a single case
> of infectious syphilis or bring us closer to our
> basic mission of controlling venereal disease in
> the United States.” When the experiment was
> brought to the attention of the media in 1972,
> news anchor Harry Reasoner described it as an
> experiment that “used human beings as laboratory
> animals in a long and inefficient study of how
> long it takes syphilis to kill someone.”
>
> A Heavy Price in the Name of Bad Science
> By the end of the experiment, 28 of the men had
> died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of
> related complications, 40 of their wives had been
> infected, and 19 of their children had been born
> with congenital syphilis. How had these men been
> induced to endure a fatal disease in the name of
> science? To persuade the community to support the
> experiment, one of the original doctors admitted
> it “was necessary to carry on this study under the
> guise of a demonstration and provide treatment.”
> At first, the men were prescribed the syphilis
> remedies of the day—bismuth, neoarsphenamine, and
> mercury—but in such small amounts that only 3
> percent showed any improvement. These token doses
> of medicine were good public relations and did not
> interfere with the true aims of the study.
> Eventually, all syphilis treatment was replaced
> with “pink medicine”—aspirin. To ensure that the
> men would show up for a painful and potentially
> dangerous spinal tap, the PHS doctors misled them
> with a letter full of promotional hype: “Last
> Chance for Special Free Treatment.” The fact that
> autopsies would eventually be required was also
> concealed. As a doctor explained, “If the colored
> population becomes aware that accepting free
> hospital care means a post-mortem, every darky
> will leave Macon County…” Even the Surgeon General
> of the United States participated in enticing the
> men to remain in the experiment, sending them
> certificates of appreciation after 25 years in the
> study.
>
> Following Doctors' Orders
> It takes little imagination to ascribe racist
> attitudes to the white government officials who
> ran the experiment, but what can one make of the
> numerous African Americans who collaborated with
> them? The experiment's name comes from the
> Tuskegee Institute, the black university founded
> by Booker T. Washington. Its affiliated hospital
> lent the PHS its medical facilities for the study,
> and other predominantly black institutions as well
> as local black doctors also participated. A black
> nurse, Eunice Rivers, was a central figure in the
> experiment for most of its forty years. The
> promise of recognition by a prestigious government
> agency may have obscured the troubling aspects of
> the study for some. A Tuskegee doctor, for
> example, praised “the educational advantages
> offered our interns and nurses as well as the
> added standing it will give the hospital.” Nurse
> Rivers explained her role as one of passive
> obedience: “we were taught that we never
> diagnosed, we never prescribed; we followed the
> doctor's instructions!” It is clear that the men
> in the experiment trusted her and that she
> sincerely cared about their well-being, but her
> unquestioning submission to authority eclipsed her
> moral judgment. Even after the experiment was
> exposed to public scrutiny, she genuinely felt
> nothing ethical had been amiss.
>
> One of the most chilling aspects of the experiment
> was how zealously the PHS kept these men from
> receiving treatment. When several nationwide
> campaigns to eradicate venereal disease came to
> Macon County, the men were prevented from
> participating. Even when penicillin was discovered
> in the 1940s—the first real cure for syphilis—the
> Tuskegee men were deliberately denied the
> medication. During World War II, 250 of the men
> registered for the draft and were consequently
> ordered to get treatment for syphilis, only to
> have the PHS exempt them. Pleased at their
> success, the PHS representative announced: “So
> far, we are keeping the known positive patients
> from getting treatment.” The experiment continued
> in spite of the Henderson Act (1943), a public
> health law requiring testing and treatment for
> venereal disease, and in spite of the World Health
> Organization's Declaration of Helsinki (1964),
> which specified that “informed consent” was needed
> for experiment involving human beings.
>
> Blowing the Whistle
> The story finally broke in the Washington Star on
> July 25, 1972, in an article by Jean Heller of the
> Associated Press. Her source was Peter Buxtun, a
> former PHS venereal disease interviewer and one of
> the few whistle blowers over the years. The PHS,
> however, remained unrepentant, claiming the men
> had been “volunteers” and “were always happy to
> see the doctors,” and an Alabama state health
> officer who had been involved claimed “somebody is
> trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.”
>
> Under the glare of publicity, the government ended
> their experiment, and for the first time provided
> the men with effective medical treatment for
> syphilis. Fred Gray, a lawyer who had previously
> defended Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, filed
> a class action suit that provided a $10 million
> out-of-court settlement for the men and their
> families. Gray, however, named only whites and
> white organizations in the suit, portraying
> Tuskegee as a black and white case when it was in
> fact more complex than that—black doctors and
> institutions had been involved from beginning to
> end.
>
> The PHS did not accept the media's comparison of
> Tuskegee with the appalling experiments performed
> by Nazi doctors on their Jewish victims during
> World War II. Yet in addition to the medical and
> racist parallels, the PHS offered the same morally
> bankrupt defense offered at the Nuremberg trials:
> they claimed they were just carrying out orders,
> mere cogs in the wheel of the PHS bureaucracy,
> exempt from personal responsibility.
>
> The study's other justification—for the greater
> good of science—is equally spurious. Scientific
> protocol had been shoddy from the start. Since the
> men had in fact received some medication for
> syphilis in the beginning of the study, however
> inadequate, it thereby corrupted the outcome of a
> study of “untreated syphilis.”
>
> In 1990, a survey found that 10 percent of African
> Americans believed that the U.S. government
> created AIDS as a plot to exterminate blacks, and
> another 20 percent could not rule out the
> possibility that this might be true. As
> preposterous and paranoid as this may sound, at
> one time the Tuskegee experiment must have seemed
> equally farfetched. Who could imagine the
> government, all the way up to the Surgeon General
> of the United States, deliberately allowing a
> group of its citizens to die from a terrible
> disease for the sake of an ill-conceived
> experiment? In light of this and many other
> shameful episodes in our history, African
> Americans' widespread mistrust of the government
> and white society in general should not be a
> surprise to anyone. —BB
>
> 1. All quotations in the article are from Bad
> Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, James H.
> Jones, expanded edition (New York: Free Press,
> 1993).


Thanks for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment history lesson. In citing it, don't you find it at all ironic that no african american men served on the Commission that drafted the Belmont Report on ethical research on human subjects? 2 African american women did, and 3 women total. Should we renounce the commission's ends because it's means might be construed as discriminating against black men? Given the wealth of information and technology--to the point of overload--the idea that the u.s. government created HIV/AIDS is absurd. Additionally, AIDS was called the Gay disease because of its prevalence in the gay community in the early 80s, so if there "should" be a conspiracy theory, how about that one to eliminate all the gays out there? As for the pastors you mention who are also racist, none of the presidents associated with them claimed a volunatry, 20 year relationship with them or their church. If you want to get beyond race, just look at the facts. Obama denied ever hearing the comments by Wright but the next day admits to hearing them. There is evidence that he was in Church for many of those speeches. He claims immunity from being a racist/divisive b/c of his biracial heritage, and then claims he's entitled to unify because of his background. So what? this misses the point of agency--that what he does is not excused by the color of his skin, just as being Jewish does not excuse anti-semitic remarks or being gay excuse forms of gay bashing. One's personal identity must go hand in hand with informed choice and for me, Obama did nothing to assuage the problem of his judgment in abiding by Wright and calling him Uncle.

Freddy-D Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Furthermore, surely we can all also see that the
> United States has created many of its own
> problems. As a country it is a fact that we have
> done quite a few things that have come back to
> haunt us. We cultivated the Taliban while they
> were fighting the Soviets, and they have since
> become our Frankenstein's Monster.

We didn't "cultivate" the Taliban. We supplied Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to one faction of the resistance fighters who were fighting against the Soviets -- a faction that was OPPOSED to the Taliban. Those missiles proved instrumental in defeating the Soviets -- a costly defeat that was undeniably a factor in the downfall of the Soviet Union and the eventual release from slavery of millions of human beings in formerly Soviet-dominated eastern Europe. THAT was a "huge global event" with serious repercussions -- yet it doesn't appear in your narrative. Nor will it ever be mentioned by Reverend Wright. I wonder why.

If Barack has to explain how he could continue to attend a church whose Reverend spouted hatred, all Catholics should have to explain how they continue to attend and ignore the pedaphilia endemic in the Catholic church. How can Catholics send their children to Catholics schools, entrusting them to those people who protect those pedophiles? What hypocracy!

I think some people are just unwilling to truly hear what Obama said yesterday. It was honest, insightful and the truth. Gerson clearly wanted to hear only one thing regarding the Reverend -- what that was supposed to be is unclear to me. The speech did not fall short. Some people's willingness to listen and contemplate did.

Tina Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fblaze, I absolutely agree. Those in the media
> and on these blogs who blindly criticize Rev.
> Wright without researching his career with an open
> mind do us all a grave disservice.
>
> The evidence is clear...Rev. Wright said a few
> very inflammatory and stupid things. However, the
> sum total of his career is very, very positive.

Even if you can rationalize the content of Wright''s hateful racist message, you can't rationalize the vulgar manner in which he delivers it in front of his congregation, which includes children, possibly even Obama's.

In the words of my dear old mother and Proverbs 13:20: "You are the company you keep"

Stick a fork in Obama. If the Dems aren't through with him, America is. Let's move on.

Nancy Pace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerson says, "Barack Obama is not a man who hates
> -- but he chose to walk with a man who does."
>
> So did Jesus.
>
> Obama is guilty of finding the most compassionate,
> passionate, intellectual, committed, loving leader
> of the Black church community in his Chicago
> neighborhood, and not only learning from him, but
> contributing greatly to his work to uplift the
> downtrodden and bring light to darkness.
>
> Obama has clearly stated their areas of
> disagreement. He has rejected Wright's moments of
> fear, diviseness, and weakness, which we are all
> subject to.
>
> Obama, like Wright, and like other leaders, is not
> a perfect vessel. He is a human being willing to
> serve, one who is remarkably open to spirit to
> guide him in helping others.
>
> Beyond question, he is today's best candidate
> offering America the leadership we desperately
> need, and we'd be crazy to turn away from him
> against our own best interests because we are
> frightened by opportunistic messages of division,
> fear and hate.

Obama is not Jesus. He is just another politician, albeit a very capable and polished one, who tried to thread the needle yesterday, distancing himself from Wright while trying to keep his black base intact. Only time will tell whether he succeeded or not.

I think Obama has done more to harm race relations in America than anyone has in a long time. In trying to make excuses for his Pastor's hate speech, he and his supporters among the tv punditry have thrown black America under the bus by insinuating that that type of speech goes on in black churches all across the land every Sunday. It's bad enough that he threw his own white grandmother under the bus. Just another egomaniac trying to save himself.

Interesting speech from many angles

1- identity politics/race card: he says (with pride) that he is a mix of races, nationalities, geographies and that makes him an attractive candidate. BUT, when others point out that this FACT is one of his attractive qualities, the Obama camp pulls the race card. People have the right (and have done so in large numbers) to project their hopes/dreams on a multi-racial face. To use Ferraro’s langauge, they are in love with the concept (in other words, they are in love with what he represents to each person). The issue here is WHO gets to say this. When the Obama camp uses the language, it is legit and expresses a fact. When others discuss it, it is playing the racist card…

2 - He is still WRONG on WRIGHT: the flip-flopping going in here is disturbing. He obviously has a strong and loyal attachement to this man, has listened to his controversial remarks in church, and willingly denounces the radical agenda for sane political purposes. But it is not enough to just pretend that Wright is (kooky) “family” — and trying to place his remarks in a larger context is not convincing. Worse, Wright’s remarks are not even grounded in the biblical tradition. Even the harshest language of OT prophets was aimed at members of their own community — and for the purpose of moral renewal/reconciliation with God. He comes across as a quack fundamentalist that uses Biblical text for his own agenda — to demonize caucasions. His distorted use of Scripture is polarizing, racist, and morally reprehensible. It should not come up in the pulpit and I can’t understand why an adult man would bring 2 impressionable children there to hear what he finds “unacceptable.” If I heard sermons like that, you can bet that I (along with others) would have
inundated the cardinal’s office with complaints. Why would you expose yourself and loved ones to sermons that are, for all practical purposes, hate-crimes done in God’s house??

Let’s just admit it: HRC would have already been stoned to death by the DNC if she had similar associations…ask yourself why this is being played out differently.

3 - Unity built on our diversity: I find this to be the most persuasive of his very sincere rhetoric BUT (and this has always been the problem) it is ultimately misleading. Obama never says that he is going to govern by consensus, modifying the partisan views of diverse constituents. He wants to build a coalition of diverse persons around his very liberal big-government agenda. If you look at his voting record, he is not a vanguard maverick, but a very conventional liberal democrat. How is he going to pull off any of his campaign promises? This could explain why he is losing in match-ups to McCain in new polling in state elections. What will we remember of these words when his promise of troop withdrawal is stymied, when we realize that his anti-NAFTA protectionist agenda was a way to win over a key state, when Republicans vote in numbers to gain control of Congress and block his big-spending initiatives?

My heart wants to be seduced by what I hear, pull the lever and be done with it. But my reason demands more substance from Obama before November.

Having read some dozen reviews of Obama's groundbreaking speech yesterday, and having listened to his presentation (all eight american flags worth), I think Michael Gerson has an important point of view. As I see Obama's speech, as brilliant as it was, it was about false equivalencies, the diluting of one position by equating it, falsely, with a lesser one. So Obama's Grandmother's skittishness about black men on the street (a fearful position famously shared once by Jesse Jackson) is portrayed as equvivalent to stating as a fact that America created the AIDS virus to infect prople of color. Note that this particular position of Wright's is substantially unreported by many reviewers (e.g. USA today), because it is indefensible, even in an eccentric old uncle. Does Obama share the view? I believe not. But turn this on its head and ask how we would react if any other presidential candidate had sat for 20 years in the pews before a man and with a congregation accepting of such hate-filled speech. Obama is a wonderous orator, a politician unlike any in history, if the totality of the man is taken in. But it is the politician in Hillary, George, John and Bill that we most dislike,and tolerate for the hope that their honest efforts to lead us as presidential contenders will overcome the political manuvering that brought them to the Office. Up until now, Obama has gone far to portray himself as the most apolitical politician in decades. Up until now. But Wright is wrong, and there is no parsing that fact by comparing him to Obama's daffy, inconsequential, but well-loved relatives. That, unfortunately, is the politician in Obama coming to the forefront - and he has asked us to expect more from him. - Jay Campbell, JD

inspiredbyhersince92 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianTR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> Who cares if he was in the pews during
> > a controversial sermon? Did he write it? Did
> he
> > jump up and say "that's going to be my campaign
> > next year!"?
>
> No. He simply chose one sermon to name his
> biography after, since he'd been listening to them
> since he was in college, and the Reverend had
> become his 'mentor,' 'spiritual guide,' and
> 'sounding board.'
>
> So does BARACK think this man's opinions had no
> effect on his own views?
>
> From dictionary.com:
>
> Mentor (noun) 1. a wise and trusted counselor or
> teacher.
> 2. an influential senior sponsor or supporter.
>
> Spiritual (adjective) 1. closely akin in
> interests, attitude, outlook, etc.: the
> professor's spiritual heir in linguistics. 2. of
> or pertaining to the spirit as the seat of the
> moral or religious nature. 3. of or relating to
> the mind or intellect.
> guide (noun) 1. One who shows the way by leading,
> directing, or advising.
> 2. One who serves as a model for others, as in a
> course of conduct.
>
> Sounding Board (noun) 1. A person or group whose
> reactions to an idea, opinion, or point of view
> serve as a measure of its effectiveness or
> acceptability. 2. A device or means serving to
> spread or popularize an idea or a point of view.
>
> So if Barack does agree with his obnoxiously smug
> and reactionary online supporters that Rev.
> Wright's views have not/do not influence(d) him,
> he has only held that belief for the last few
> days.
>
> Now, please start calling me racist because I
> distrust and dislike Barack. Being bi-racial and
> coming from a tri-racial family myself, I find it
> ironic in a way Barack thinks you could never
> understand!

No, I don't think you are racist. But thanks for the straw man argument, it proves you really aren't interested in discussing the facts but rather embark on a witch hunt for someone with whom to disagree.

And it's a bit telling by your name that you're a passionate Hillary supporter, and that's fine. But don't think that your biased background of loving Hillary for 16 years gives you any kind of ability to actually understand where Obama is coming from. You clearly aren't interested in learning his positions or following his lead because you are so smitten with Hillary.

Yes, Wright was Obama's mentor. But on issues of spirit and religion, not of policy or life lessons. I repeat, if Obama honestly believed the crazy political views of Wright, how on earth would he even be interested in running for president? Obama wants to represent all Americans, and as Wright clearly thinks certain people in America are evil, it flies in the face of the message of unity that Obama is bringing to us. The only conclusion you can rationally reach from this is that Obama does not believe these crazy things and instead supports all Americans and strives to understand them in their individual struggles to move ahead in this day and age. That's better than Hillary could ever say.

One day later has made a difference. Anybody else have this sensation one day later?......Yesterday I thought it was a sufficient rebuttal to Rev.Wright......Today though I woke up realizing how bad the Rev Wright/Obama speech thing really was. I hate to say it but it already has crystalized in my mind that Obama is not special and now just another also ran liberal black candidate(like Jessie Jackson)

Look guys !!!

For 20 yrs....20 yrs he had associated with Rev Wright !!!! Right ??

Can this be put away by ONE @#$%& GOOD SPEECH ?????

Think man !!!

For those that claim Mr. Obama failed because he denounced some of the comments of Reverend Wright without renouncing the man, I submit that American history is replete with individuals whose comments were repudiated and denounced without renouncing the person. Of the many examples, I present two, Abraham Lincoln and Henry Ford.

Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press:

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

An address by Abraham Lincoln at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857 [Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol II, pp 408-9, Basler, ed.]:

"A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'where there is a will there is a way:' and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."

"Indeed, it is such a statement as the Gentile mind could not have evolved, because the trend of Gentile feeling is all in the opposite direction, namely that Americanization is a good thing for the Jew. It is from authoritative Jewish sources we learn this fact, that what we call civilizing influences are looked upon as being at enmity with Judaism. It is not the Gentile who says that Jewish ideals, as ideals, are incompatible with the life of our country; it is the Jew who says so. It is he who inveighs against Americanism, not the American who inveighs against Judaism. Americanism is yet unfinished, Judaism has been complete for centuries. While no American would think of pointing to any part of the country or to any group as representing the true and final type of Americanism, the Jews quite unhesitatingly point to parts of the world and to certain groups as representing the true type of Judaism." (Henry Ford, "Jew Objection to Americanism")

"One of the strongest causes militating against the full Americanization of several millions of Jews in this country is their belief - instilled in them by their religious authorities - that they are 'chosen,' that this land is theirs, that the inhabitants are idolators, that the day is coming when the Jews will be supreme." (Henry Ford, "Jews and the 'Religious Persecution' Cry")

"Wherever Jewish tendencies are permitted to work unhindered, the result is not 'Americanization,' nor 'Anglicization' nor any other distinctive nationalism, but a strong and ruling reversion back to essential 'Judaization.'" (Henry Ford, "Protocols Claim Partial Fulfillment")

One can surely denounce such humanly flawed comments without renouncing our greatest president, Mr. Lincoln, and an American icon, Mr. Ford.
For those that argue that Reverend Wright is a crank and/or demagogue, I submit that American history is, unfortunately, replete with unsavory acts of which we were not privy to for some time. Acts which, without future forthcoming evidence, appeared scurrilous, demagogic, and even seditious. Of the many examples, I present two.

The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.
—President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997

For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”
The experiment continued in spite of the Henderson Act (1943), a public health law requiring testing and treatment for venereal disease, and in spite of the World Health Organization's Declaration of Helsinki (1964), which specified that “informed consent” was needed for experiment involving human beings.The story finally broke in the Washington Star on July 25, 1972, in an article by Jean Heller of the Associated Press.(Information Please® Database, © 2007 Pearson Education, Inc.)

President Bush’s recent trip to South America provides a valuable foreign-policy lesson for Americans.

The president was greeted in Santiago, Chile, by some 30,000 angry demonstrators. But it was not only Bush’s invasion and war of aggression against Iraq that Chileans were angry about. Unlike so many Americans, the Chilean people have not fallen for the “We invaded Iraq to spread democracy” line that U.S. officials moved up to rationale number one after failing to find those infamous weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The reason? Chileans have not forgotten — and are still angry about — the U.S. government’s role in bringing about “regime change” in Chile in 1973. (Just as the Iranian people have not forgotten the U.S. government’s “regime change” in Iran in 1953.)

Chileans still remember that in the 1973 “regime change” in their country, the U.S. government played an active role in ousting their democratically elected president because he was a socialist and replacing him with a brutal military dictator, Augusto Pinochet, who ended up ruling Chile for almost two decades, until 1990. Yes, you read that correctly — the U.S. government, the paragon of democracy around the world, helped to oust a man who had been democratically elected by the people of Chile and helped replace him with an unelected, military brute.(U.S. Regime Change, Torture, and Murder in Chile
by Jacob G. Hornberger, November 24, 2004)

For those that argue that Mr. Obama has not done enough, does not have enough experience, I submit that many citizens have ascended to the presidency with what was viewed as limited experience, as have many with full resumes who left with little to show for such experience. President Bush, our first president with an MBA, entered office with a surplus of $284 billion. He shall leave office having borrowed in excess of $1.05 trillion from foreign governments and institutions. What Mr. Obama brings is a vision, a hope...a force of will and character that inspires other Americans to join him, support him, aid him in his quest, nay, our quest to form a more perfect union. Mr. Lincoln's quiet, humble command of politics, rhetoric, and interpersonal communication skills inspired. JFK's and RFK's visions inspired. Mr. Reagan's conservative vision inspired. Mr. Obama's vision and rhetorical skills inspires us, challenges us, gives us all the "Audacity to Hope".

The comparison to a Republican in a theonomic church doesn't seem to fit just right. For theonomy, the reprehensible positions you noted are central doctrinal tenets, undeniably so, and unapologetically stated as such by adherents (see Douglas Wilson's interview in the NYT Magazine late last year, where he said that homosexuals don't always need to be executed, but they can sometimes be simply exiled). Rev. Wright's reprehensible comments, while systematic enough in his own espousal of them, nevertheless don't seem to make up an actual theological tenet of the church worldview. I'm not aware from what I've read that the theology of the church is built around the most controversial statements Wright has made.

Article with Wilson interview: [www.nytimes.com]

Here is my issue. We have just come up with a rational way for dismissing anyone's religion that we don't agree with. We can't attack someones faith, but now we can attack thier judgment in practicing it. I am a catholic and do not agree with many teachings of the Protestant churches. Therefore, I now refuse to vote for members of that church because, although there is nothing wrong with being protestant, I don't trust the judgment of someone who went and picked that faith. See how easy that was. This is a slippery slope. Wright is a rediculous example of this as I don't agree or condone his teachings, but who am I to question how someone went around finding their faith. Maybe Wright's anger has helped to form Obama's opinions in the opposite way, taking what he says, all of it, not just the youtube snapshots we've heard and used it to make his own decisions about hsi belief system. But to think that because he sat in the pew he was indoctrinated is disturbing. Are you indoctrined at your church? So you want me judging how you came to your faith? Well, its all fair game now.

To Sally:

I agree with you --- if Clinton and McCain had a 20 yr association with a priest/pastor that used the same rhetorical preaching strategies against blacks (or any ethnic/racial group for the sake of argument), we would be witnessing public hangings.

It is simply ERRONEOUS and morally repugnant for Obama to refer to Wright as "everybody's" quirky relative (in this case, uncle). Wright employed the same strategy against whites (Biblical proof-texting to condemn a race and to justify the hurts done to that race) that a colonial economy used to keep african-americans enslaved for centuries. It is the same strategy employed by the Nazis to condemn and justify the slaughter of Jews. Speech - speaking - is an activity and in Wright's case, this activity is a hate-crime and should be treated as such.

Obama excercised very poor judgement and I really wonder what the polls will look like in the aftermath...

Speaking from the position of mother in a multi racial family, I find Obama untruthful.
Hatered is a dangerous thing. It is something that we must root out of our minds. Hate is the seed of racism. To allow it to fester, and handed down to the next generation is the cornerstone of racism.

I was taught that it you don't want something to grow you nip it in the bud.

To bring about change you must root out hate. The very thought must be nipped in the bud. To constantly remind etnic groups of why they should hate, be leary, be afraid of another group is to water the seeds of racism. Hate filled words make them grow. Let the seed die. Do not support someone who speaks hatered. How many former slave holders do we have today? How many former slaves. Let hate die, don't water it. It is a cancer.

Listen to your children and you will see that they are a reflections of the words and thoughts that they have heard. That's how we learn.

To put it simply as my Pastor (who is of color, in a Black church) teaches:

Thoughts become words.
Words become actions.
Actions become habit.
Habit becomes character.
Character becomes destiny.

My husband, a decorated veitnam veteran says that we should not be called black, white, or by any ethnic group but called Americans period. That is unity. That is change I can believe in.
When we believe that we are one hate is defeated and the seed of racism will be dead.

We can only do this is we stand up and take responsibility for the words that are spoken around us.
Not one person in this biracial family supports Obama or his politics of hate filled unity.
Actions speak louder that words. 20 + years of supporting such talk and most importantly passing the legacy of hatered to his children. The change that Obama speaks of are words,
His actions keep the destiny of hate alive.

The revelation that Obama was a member of the Black Klan for twenty years had damaged Obama among white working class voters to a devastating degree. Even at these early stages McCain has opened up a six point edge (Rasmussen). The only serious chance Democrats have is to go with Clinton.

OK.....You cannot compare Wright to the KKK. I have heard this comparison over and over again and it is just wrong. KKK committed acts of violence, they lynched black men, they advocating using violence to terrorize others. Wright NEVEr advocated using any type of violence, scare tactics, or intimidation. he never told me to go out and attack white, go out and disenfranchise white. These are HUGE differences. You want an analogy. Wright to White people is Pat Robertson to Homosexuals. That is an adaquet comparison. That KKK this is just moronic.

Guy I understand all of you very well. United States of America is the only Country we find true freedom around the world. So assisting somebody is trying to sell this country is not funny. I can not believe that Barak spend 20 years in a church allow his children his wife hearing all those crap from Jeremiah and now said I never heard anything like. You got to be kiddind. Even my 3 years old would conclude that Obama is a lier. Obama has ben blasting Clinton for bad Judgement in Irak every time he had a chance. Mr Obama the bible said you better cleaning up your eyes first then you can help Clinton. You are going to be our next president we do not know who you are. That's bizarre. If you were honest you would give and take sometime off to clean up your mess unless you really like the democratic party.
You said so did david and every body in your cmp that clinton would do anything to get elected how about you dam it.I fell like we have blind since super tuesday other wise this show should be over.
Cnn is for you regarless, Msnbc iam convince they knew about those staff they were as bad as you are.
It's time for america to put bark behind and see what can we do do help Clinton. Pensylvania, Indiana, North carolina, Obama does not care about the general election. therefore he does not need Florida and michigan. So From the bottom of my heart I encourage to go all in for Clinton In Pa. Indiana and North Carolina, because I aready vote for Obama as a black man I am sorry I was too naive. I wish I could take that vote back. Obama is not Good for America. If this guy can spent 20 years in church without acknowledging anything how could he becom president in a dangerous world. We love america so much we can not let Some media Bias and obama take it away from us.
Obama you make feel shamefull. thank for deceiving me. you cnn caferty and so many more. The american people would never forget how you trying to sell somebody in your patisanship.
before you vote for obama think twice because you are going to vote for Cnn or Msnbc. they all the same.

Just want to know....if I don't vote for Obama ,

will I be classified as Anti-Black( based on all of above )????

Amen to this op-ed/commentary

If we buy into the fact that the majority of african american churches across the nation are similar to Obama's (as he states), spewing hate messages, then we have a major problem in America, inclusive to the African American community.

This sounds so similar to the hate-mongering imam's/mosques where the recruitment of jihadist terrorists take place and are born.

"In Philadelphia, Obama attempted to explain Wright's anger as typical of the civil rights generation, with its "memories of humiliation and doubt and fear." But Wright's problem is exactly the opposite: He ignored the message of Martin Luther King Jr. and introduced a new generation to the politics of hatred."

So why would he expose his daughters to this kind of "civil rights generation" anger? It just doesn't add up.

Yesterday's speech was good, but not for the right reason. Plain and simple, it was for political reasons only.

concerned Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "In Philadelphia, Obama attempted to explain
> Wright's anger as typical of the civil rights
> generation, with its "memories of humiliation and
> doubt and fear." But Wright's problem is exactly
> the opposite: He ignored the message of Martin
> Luther King Jr. and introduced a new generation to
> the politics of hatred."
>
> So why would he expose his daughters to this kind
> of "civil rights generation" anger? It just
> doesn't add up.
>
> Yesterday's speech was good, but not for the right
> reason. Plain and simple, it was for political
> reasons only.


WHAT political reasons?
What exactly is it you think Obama gained yesterday?
If he were, as you infer, all about being the President, he could have just thrown Wright under the bus. He didn't. Integrity. No wonder most of you don't recognize it when you see it.

puhleeze... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barack Obama speaks like he's suffered the plight
> of the po' black man. Didn't he grow up as a
> quasi-white boy in an affluent white neighborhood.
> His "anger" has been instilled by the rantings of
> Rev. Wright.



The "po' black man?"
You must be so proud.