Tucker Carlson and Charles Krauthammer are idiots. Fine, I agree with that. But what's with all of the concern about who has standing to speak on what issue? These guys are wrong on the facts. Seems like a better idea to deal with it that way rather than to try to argue that they shouldn't be discussing these matters.

They won't stop talking about something just because we say they can't or shouldn't. They will, in fact, use our saying that in order to cloak themselves as victims. They will also say that we're afraid of the truths they're mouthing. When we try to remove them from the conversation, we play into their hands.

The notion that someone who comes from a group that historically has experienced discrimination somehow gains from this membership some right to extra standing to express views concerning discrimination is balderdash. My (mixed) family background includes Irish, and clearly the Irish suffered severely from discrimination both from the English (also in my family background) and here in America (e.g., Irish need not apply). My family background also includes Scottish, and as we know from Mel Gibson's film (among others such as Rob Roy), the Scots were discriminated against by the English (again, also part of my background). To think that any of this provides even a scintilla of extra rights to pontificate about matters of discrimination is, as I wrote above, balderdash. People who play on tribal divisions of any kind (racial, national, ethnic, etc) for political or personal gain are playing an immoral game. We need to recognize and embrace at a fundamental personal level our common humanity and to act from the realization the we (as individuals and as groups) have no greater moral importance than do others. No one gains extra rights as a function of group membership. All people deserve equal respect and equal treatment as a function of their basic shared human dignity. To think that some gain extra rights of any kind as a function of their race, class, tribe, sex, nationality, level of education, etc. is fundamentally wrong. Of course, this is not an argument that the playing field is level. When it is not, and clearly it is not in many ways, we cannot allow it to remain so. For example, remnants of slavery days echo in today's reality. Not to recognize this is moral folly and is a denial of the fundamental of all people to equal treatment.

I know it's to be expected but many people will seize on this as fodder for their opposition to Obama. They will focus, as Krauthammer did, on why Obama didn't leave the church? For people like him, no amount of denouncing or rejecting would ever be enough but I am still startled that they COMPLETELY missed the point of the speech.

Thanks for a great blog!

After all the racial division and hatred promoted in the columns and Fox News segments, if the Washington Post writer were my Grandmother, I'd throw Krauthammer under a bus.

Well said about Krauthammer.

Should you leave your congregation because he is a member? Of course not?

Because the majority are facilitating an Israeli policy that you believe is wrong? Of course not.

Should I leave the United States because of its invasion of Iraq? Of course not.

Sometimes a community or nation is just where you live.... you work to change it from within. You are not responsible for everything every idiot in your community says.... and that includes the idiot in chief.

People say "he could leave his church community..." But why should anyone have to do that just because they sometimes disagree with the leader? People have relationships to whole communities. Leaders are just one part of that relationship, and sometimes a rather small part.

On some level I think Americans understand this. Obama talked about it when he talked about everyone having disagreed with their minster, priest or rabbi at one time or another.

Rich spoiled white males of the Carlson type land on their feet...you'll notice they've just given him the label of Senior MSNBC Political Correspondent. You'd think he could follow a lead without corrupting the form of journalism. The American people you would think could see the script as it plays out. The MSM needs him to put that fake doubt in the masses minds about all things liberal.

I never thought I would ever agree with Charles Krauthammer about anything, but I think this vile, but intelligent, man has done a very excellent job of parsing Obama's speech.

The speech is sophistic to a high degree. It reminds me of nothing so much as a speech by Tony Blair. In fact on hearing it and reading it, it came to in a flash. This is America's Tony Blair!

Like Kruathammer I found the comparison of a public figure like Reverend Wright to his poor old grandmother really nauseating... like Spitzer making his wife appear beside him. Vintage Tony Blair: spin, sentimentality, betrayal... yechh.

Repulsive,revolting, pathetic. Evil. I will not even dignify him by mentioning his name.

MJ accepts without comment the idea that Rev. Wright's comments were racist and paranoid. Taken out of context, his widely circulated comments are completely meaningless. In context they are anything but racist and paranoid. I found what Wright was saying in both sermons to be nuanced, intelligent, and, for the most part, praiseworthy.

Before dismissing the man, people should actually listen to what he had to say. You can do so here.

I'm disturbed by the racial overtones of recent commentary. It's bordering on a media lynching of he preacher. If by lynching we mean an angry mob rushing to judgment and trampling on the rights of a powerless minority. Having all these angry white pundits blaming blacks for racism and smearing the black church as "racist" is ugly and offensive in the extreme.

The best line I ever heard about Krauthammer was by some commenter right here on TPM I think it was who said his pic used in his columns makes him look like
he's just risen from the grave and is hungry for brains.

M.J. Rosenberg, a somewhat off-topic question. An associate of mine was making strident defenses of Ferraro last week, and made claims that she had literally put her life on the line by marching with black in the south in the 1960s, and I have been unable to find any evidence that she did so. Since you have been around the people around Ferraro and might have a more expansive knowledge of her background, can you clear this up for me?

I know that she graduated form law school in 1960 and went into practice with her husband, but have been unable to find any evidence at all that she every traveled south to march in the civil rights movement. Clarification if my associate was just making shit up in a wild-eyed defense would be greatly appreciated.

"But until this year, she kept her views on race to herself and that was all to the good. "

Oh, good the unvarnished Geraldine Ferraro on Race...what did she say? Where did she make her "views" on race known?

You know perfectly well that this claim is bogus.

I've run out of patience with pundits from both sides of this Obama-Clinton divide who keep making sweeping statements that are simply not supported by the public record.

Henry Ford said that "history is bunk". I think most Americans agree with that and truly want to believe that it is possible to completely erase the past and begin anew... But, in fact the relations between white America and the decedents of African slavery are America's Balkans, which as Churchill said, "produce more history than they can digest". Any American city is Bosnia-Herzegovina. And this is not really about color.... it's about history. A Bosnian Muslim and a Bosnian Serb share the same language and morphology, but history has them at each others throats. Color is just the uniform that American history assigns each player in this horrible game. Denying it doesn't change anything.

I first discovered this when, here is Europe, I was thrown into the company of Cubans and Venezuelans of color and later with African exchange students. No history separated us, there was no tension at all on either side, we hung out together in the most natural way... Even in England, the relationship with students of the British Caribbean, was fluid. African-Americans have told me they experienced the same thing. For all of us it was an inexpressible relief.

It is not about color it is about history. Contrary to what Obama says, we are not "one people", but two peoples, each with distinct, but overlapping cultures, who must share the same space and learn to live with each other and even love one another. I think we have as good a chance as the Bosnians do, but not any better one.

"In fact, Tucker Carlson's homies" [i.e., White men] "have been running America (and before that the UK) for hundreds of years so you'd think he would just have the sense to shut up."

I'm a White man. Does that make Tucker Carlson my "homie"? (I thought the word was "homey", my homes.)

Am I supposed to "have the sense to shut up"?

Does it matter that I am a big Obama supporter?

This column wasn't up to Dr. Strangelove's typical standards--it reads like a thinly varnished rehash of wingnut talking points (did Timmy Goeglein ghostwrite it for him?)

Notice how he sets up the straw man comparison of Wright to Ferraro, and the *real* equivalence, the good Rev. Hagee, is never mentioned?

Dr. Strangelove has gone widely afield throughout his career, but what the hell is he doing discussing Dem politics? Shouldn't he be keeping his piehole shut until something comes along in his field, say, another Terri Schiavo, or the benefits of eugenics?

I would like to take exception to your depiction of Rev. Wright as a 'racial paranoid'. You should be careful of categorizing a man based on a couple of 15 second you-tube clips. I watched the complete 9/11 sermon this morning and I found it to be brilliant and profoundly moving. His "America's chickens have come home to roost" was a deliberate reference to Malcolm X and he uses the quote as part of his argument that perpetuating a cycle of violence in response to the terrorist attacks would be fruitless and wrong. You should acquaint yourself with more of Wright's body of work before casting such a harsh judgment. I really do love your writing, but I think you should study this one a little more.

And the principles that Obama espoused in his speech led him to do what about Wright? Sit in the pews without challenging him in any way for 20 years? Despite the ideas that Obama now claims he thought disgusting?

Rev. Wright's ideas are defensible. What Obama did was throw not his old uncle Wright under the bus but Wright's ideas under the bus. I have a sneaking conviction that Rev. Wright would have preferred the reverse.

"And then there was that experience with him in my synagogue in 2001. It was Yom Kippur. The rabbi was giving his sermon only to be interrupted by a bellowing obnoxious Krauthammer who was shouting him down for expressing a hope for peace between Israelis and Arabs."

I've heard about that before. He probably dozed off and dreamed he was on the McLaughlin show. But hey, what do you expect from someone who makes a living shouting at other ideologues for whom it's a forgone conclusion they'll never agree about anything, except perhaps to piss on somebody's grave.

There's a whole class of pundits, on the left too, who are utterly vapid, dissembling, rancid, street barkers. Their personae range from chronically angry to endlessly screechy with perpetually equivocating Chocolate Milquetoast in-between. Throw them all overboard. They're rather wealthy and will be fine in retirement.

No, Clinton has not been called the N word, but people who form an organization as loathsome as Citizens United Not Timid can get invited onto CNN and MSNBC to talk about her with their nama said out loud. Would they do that with some white supremacists who form a group called the Nat'l Institute G.........well, let's not go there.

The thing is they would not, because the N word is unacceptable but the C word can be a respectable acronym for republican activists who are treated with respect and not the contempt they deserve

What Mr. Rosenberg should do is make up for the chance he missed in synagogue that day and find a way to take Mr. Krauthammer on up close and personal. Instead, Rosenberg rants around here in the safety of the Obama echo chamber. If Mr. Krauthammer can shout his rabbi down when he disagrees with him, why couldn't Mr. Obama shout his minister down? Or is Mr. Rosenberg is inviting that comparison?

How about it, M.J.? If Obama didn't agree with Wright, why didn't he shout him down?

tjiny-- I must agree.
While I appreciate and always seek out MJ's excellent analysis, it seems that many of us have been misled about Rev Wright. I saw the video of his sermon last night and was shocked to see that it was actually a call to PEACE. Amazingly, the snippet running on continuous loop conveys the opposite of what his message was. I would encourage everyone to watch and decide for yourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ&feature=related%3C/p%3E

The irony here is that Obama, MJ and other Obama surrogates and supporters are race baiters who are trying to smear anybody with who they disagree as racists. To save American Democracy the Obama movement of hate must be defeated.

Let's see. You "refute" Krauthammer by calling him a neocon and making fun of his name. One down, one to go. Next you "refute" Joe Scarborough by pointing out he's a white male.

I guess it was bound to happen. Someone had to fill the evolutionary niche vacated by Karl Rove.

Oh, so Tucker Carlson isn't a card carrying minority member who has suffered ridicule, disdain and possibly even profiling?

I beg to disagree.

Until he made the jump to MSNBC he certainly was in a minority.

In fact, Tucker, or T.C. as we liked to call him, was chairman of the board of the Bow-Tie Wearers Club of America.

The BTWCA has been around for centuries and boasts a proud tradition of members, both American and International. Karl and Groucho Marx, for example.

Tucker was one of finest members. For years he withstood the ridicule of those who wore more traditional neckwear. Even genuine cowboys, like George W. Bush with their Bolo ties made fun of him.

Perhaps Tucker's finest moment was after his predecessor as chairman of the BTWCA, Sen. Paul Simon died. Tucker did a wonderful job of healing the club after a long and bitter campaign to replace Simon between him, George Will and Mathew Lesko.

I remember Tucker's speech the night he won the election like it was yesterday.

"It is time for a change," he declared in that soothing boarding school whine of his. "We must bring more bow-ties to Washington. Bow-ties of all colors and stripes, and polka dots too!"

Naturally, we were stunned when he switched networks and took off the Bow-Tie. At least the casual open-collar look was preferable to the leashs that most men wear.

At least until we had to suffer the ignominy of watching him gavotte in a cravat on Dancing With the Stars!

But it is time to heal those old wounds.

Tucker, now that it appears that MSNBC is pushing you aside in favor of necktie wearer Dan Abrams, we welcome you back to the BTWCA with open arms and buttoned up shirts.

another tidbit on Krauthammer- before Samantha Smith, the Anti-Reagan and growing anti-nuclear PR disaster for Star Wars proponents was Wellstoned in 1985 (see Amazing Grace and Chuck- loosely based on her story), Krauthammer wrote that he had to concede, reluctantly it seems, that the 11 yo was not really a communist dupe, that her motives were genuine. I wonder what some of the rest of todays neocons thought of her at the time.

I have not read Charles K., but after reading M.J. only once, I bet that there is not an once of difference.

By the way David, Obama has already failed twice, as a writer. I have his books on the bottom shelf with Ann C., Hannity, and audio tapes of Rush L.(couldn't stand the video).
Obama has never been called a n.... by a white person, but in going thru his musings, I find that the kids in that private school wanted to touch his hair.

And now someone has peeked into his passport file.
Talk about discrimination.