If he weren't Barack Obama's pastor, his remarks would be a blip on the radar screen.

Thats true but so what.  There are plenty of truther, racist bigots out there.  Thats not the issue.  The issue is BHO's choice to associate with one.  Closely.  For decades.  Then his implication that the "typical white person" is racist as well.  Ha!  Why start a conversation about race with a racist assertion?

I've had it up to here.

I'm totally fatigued by all of this- same thing day after day.

My mind is made up.  

If he weren't Barack Obama's pastor, his remarks would be a blip on the radar screen.

merely a blip. in fact, a 527 is forming as we speak, with the sole function of playing "all wright, all the time" commercials, with sen. obama's picture morphing out of pastor wright's. betcha real cash money on it.

i have critical thinking skills, i happen to be tragically white. as always, in any demagogic rant, there's a core of truth. that's how hitler came to power, stalin and mao just killed everyone. so yes, there may well be some tiny, hint of a core of truth in many of pastor wright's sermons, maybe. and your point would be?

let me clue all you defenders o' the good pastor in on a harsh truth: joe sixpack isn't going to give two nanny goat patoots about the "core truth" in pastor wright's "sermons". he's going to hear and see a ranting, seeming nutjob anti-american, who just so happens to have been sen. obama's pastor and mentor for the past 20 years.

joe's going to ask himself, "gee, how could sen. obama possibly have missed this, for 20 years? joe is going to find that just wee bit hard to believe. joe is going to think, rightly or wrongly, that perhaps sen. obama agrees with some of the more noxious sentiments espoused by the good pastor wright. joe is going to vote for the guy who is "all american". that "all american" guy will not be sen. obama.

Obama went to private schools, so he didn't have the deprived existence that you want to pretend. Further, if it's a question of wealth, isn't he worth millions as well?

Hypocrisy and more hypocrisy.  You know very well that he didn't say, she wasn't black.  He used a disgusting word instead.  

IMHO, many people are taking the Rev. Wright's sermons out of context and, because of that, they are trivializing some very serious issues. One has to look at the totality of the church, it's message, and it's effect. This goes way beyond just Rev. Wright and the snippets that most people have seen. Just the other day on NPR, the new pastor of Trinity excused all the inflammatory remarks, lies, and distortions of Rev. Wright, and then piled on some more of his own. This is a church that has preached suspicion of white people. This is a church that preaches with lies and distortions. The lies about the HIV virus being deliberately introduced for the purpose of black genocide are simply outrageous to me. No amount of excuses based on historical events like the Tuskegee experiments justify those remarks.

IMHO, black bigotry is as pernicious in its effects as white bigotry. Kids don't naturally become suspicious of, and hateful towards, other kids who don't look like them - they have to be taught that. I don't think it's can be a good thing that kids like Sasha and Malia Obama are being taught by their pastor that HIV AIDS was introduced deliberately for the purpose of black genocide by the great white oppressor. How can we progress racially if black kids are taught to be suspicious like this? These kinds of lunatic fringe, bigoted rantings are just the black mirror image of the lunatic fringe, bigoted rantings of Falwell, Robertson, etc. Neither should be excused or justified.

What happened to liberals being reality-based? Are we supposed to give Obama and his church a pass on this because of black history? What would it take before we would criticize the lies and distortions emanating from Rev. Wright?

It's a disappointment to me that progressives are for reality and truth UNTIL AND UNLESS lies and distortions come from certain people - then it's OK or at least understandable. I don't care if Rev. Wright is black, white or polka-dotted. He preaches bigotry and misinformation to his flock. And if I object to that, I don't think that makes me a racist.

Liberals (black, white and every color) are supposed to pride themselves on being fact-based, reality-based, etc. in contrast to the right wing. AIDS evolved from a closely related immunodeficiency virus in non-human primates - this is medical FACT, no doctor will tell you otherwise. To spread tinfoil hat misinformation about it is irresponsible because it means that cures for AIDS will be slower in coming and people won't be treated for it in a responsible way. And AA's suffer disproportionally from AIDS, of course.

The video snippets of Rev. Wright being shown around the internet are not the totality of that church's paradigm or that pastor's beliefs and deeds. What about the Hamas screed printed in the church bulletin? What about the connections to Farrakhan and Rev. Wright's anti-semitic letter to the NY Times? What about the Easter Sunday sermon of Rev. Moss where he calls whites Romans and accuses them of lynching Rev. Wright? What about when the good Rev. said that Natalie Holloway got murdered because she was a 'loose woman'?

I am also disheartened that many liberals are  silent about Rev. Wright's disgusting sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton. What kind of person brings their kids to see a preacher humping the pulpit and talking dirty like that? What kind of people applaud such things from the pews?

Exactly what power structure are you talking about?  Rich blacks are part of it.  Rich hispanics are part of it.  Or have we forgotten about Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice?  The Authorized Bush Liars?  Here's the thing:  the RICH ARE PART OF IT.  Black, white, etc.  Targeting 'rich white women' of whom we can argue Hillary Clinton is not one (she may be one now, but not when she was growing up, just as Wright wants to paint Obama as not being well-to-do when growing up) is pretty much just that.  

I don't think your generalizations about the feminist movement are necessarily true.  The feminists have over time more or less been too elitist.  It's still a problem.  Women writing Ph.Ds about feminism often don't have a concrete relationship with the women who bear the brunt of our atrocious statistics as far as women's issues go...sexual abuse, rape, etc.  They don't have the relationship they need to with women in neighborhoods where over half of all women have experiences with sexual abuse.  And yes, feminism and race issues have indeed had a very complicated relationship.

I outlined above why I think accepting his attakcs on Hillary Clinton is hurtful to all women.  I also think Wright has been a public figure long enough to know his videotaped sermons are not exactly confessionals.  His attacks were framed in a way that completely devalues Hillary's experiences as a woman, with lines of attack that are common to arguments claiming women don't experience discrimination.

So now we get all stirred up about this.  Of course she comments.  

When my daughter was 9 and she asked in the Greek Orthodox Sunday school why Jesus had no girls as  his friends and the teacher gave an idiotic answer we stopped going to Greek school and Greek church.  We were going for the cultural aspects, but could not continue with something that I did not believe in.  Hillary is right and many of us have walked away from churches that we did not agree with, but then again, we were part of the old culture wars, so banal.    

This Obama crowd is about the most hyper sensitive bunch of people.  Everything outrages them, everything is the end of the world, the end of democracy, the end of.....

We need to get a truck load of anti anxiety meds.  Jeepers creepers, how about some tough skin there folks?  

Have we gotten to the demands for apologies yet?  

Oh, btw, Hillary went to public high school.  Not that it matters at all, but if you're going to make arguments about her incredible wealth, you might want to realize how limited they are.

"Yes, I would leave a church if I had a pastor that damned America. I have worked too hard, in fact my entire adult like to effect change in America. I can also identify with anger...anger because I am a female running for President of the United States. I have been called names that are unspeakable in a public forum; I have been belittled and called ignorant, disgusting and evil.  I have been labeled a communist, compared to Hitler and have been asked to please die.

Michelle earns about $475,000. a year.

When you have money you invest it.  It builds.  You roll it over. It grows and grows and grows.

When it comes to poverty and being the average guy he does not fit that role.

She also worked for a good fifteen years before he even started college. For large firms.

Also, stop excusing the HIV stuff by pointing out how black people have reason to be so misinformed. This isn't some guy on the street. This is one of the leaders of his community, a person that people look to for guidance. Is the idea that he has a reason to believe, and spread, crazy assed rumors the best defense people can come up with?

What really pisses me off is Obama's disingenuousness. He told Wright a year ago that he was going to have to stay under wraps. Is that because he never heard any of his offensive remarks? Please. He knew Wright was a ticking time bomb, and he just hoped he could ignore it. Then when he's finally forced to confront it, he gets lauded for his "courage." And what's particularly galling is that we're supposed to admire Obama for not throwing Wright under the bus. He said he completely dsagreed with Wright's statements, called him an old uncle, and had him leave the campaign. The only thing he didn't do was physically place the man under a bus. Then he grnadstands about how he won't "turn his back on him." That's like the candidate who says "I don't believe in beating puppies, and I don't care if it does cost me the election."

I'm glad Hillary said what she did, and I hope this issue stays front and center. Sorry, but pleading for this issue to go away so we can focus on the substantive stuff just sounds naive. Does anyone really believe that if Wright hadn't blown up we'd all be talking about the respective candidate's stances on economic stimulus? Not this time. Not this time.

But instead, we only discuss Wright as a political pawn.  We apparently are supposed to align his comments in some sort of 'shut up and smile!' Democratic solidarity.  He's right about some things and wrong about others.  He's no pariah to me.  But I don't like seeing people defend or hate him unconditionally.  We should be able to discuss what he said for its content, not just its political value.  Because when we discuss the CONTENT of statements and beliefs, we demonstrate our political values, we show a capacity to be Democrats instead of "ban and disdain" Republicans.

What saddens me is Dem's in this regard are little different from their Republican counterparts. The less religion is interjected into politics the better it is for everyone.

Perhaps now we can get back to important issues

How much Obama donated to charity?

Or if Obama was wrong when he said it was a mistake to use drugs?

And Wright is important because in my mind, and maybe only my mind, how do I know what Obama is really thinking? There is little history. It is like a reality show, Supermodel. Make me a President. What if after 20 years with his mentor he has picked up the same thinking but is hiding it from us. 20 years is a long time of forming ideas and plans. What is he is a wolf in sheep's clothing?

She was asked the question.

Edwards may, in fact, be able to beat McCain.  That's not the problem.  The problem is/was...he couldn't beat Clinton and/or Obama.

Game over.

Clinton weighed in today...not one word about her being questioned about it or about what Rev. Wright said about her.

He didn't say it the right way.

What he said is wrong but the good outweighs the bad.

I would quit my church if my pastor said it.

He engaged in hate speech.

All of these opinions are valid and say more about ourselves than Wright.  I have friends who might hold each of those points of view.  Having a dialog means we respect understand and acknowledge our disagreements.  Unfortunately, which opinions are most popular will have an effect on the race.

There is a valid (IMO) criticism of Obama'a political judgement.  He waited too long to deal with it.  His reaction is valid as is Clinton's.  There is also a valid criticism of those who jump in outrage at any statement they disagree with.  In this campaign, Obama's supporters have been much more hypersensitive than Clinton's.

Can you imagine if candidates were attacked for remaining in the Catholic Church?

A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth.

Dean J. Snyder, Senior Minister
Foundry United Methodist Church
March 19, 2008

Which candidate do folks here consider more 'liberal' or 'left-leaning'

Would an equivalent white politician who had a similar 20 year relationship get a pass from TL?  I seriously doubt it.

And no, Falwell (et. al.) are not the same, as those were not 20 year, personal relationships.