The problem then becomes what has Obama and Wright talked about privately in the past, what has Obama confessed to Wright over the 20 years?

Hell, what if Wright started outright lying about Obama? I bet the country would believe Wright.

Uh... when Oedipus overthrew King Laius things did not work out so well for that MoFo.

Maybe you've just chosen a bad metaphor but having been on both sides of Obama my feeling is that people are always trying to get him to "reject and denounce" his associates, influences, anyone. And it makes Obama look weak when he does. When he fired an advisor for calling Clinton a monster I felt like he played right into Clinton's staff. You don't let your opponents tell you who you can associate with, hire, fire, like or dislike. You have to stand on your own on those decisions.

Obama really won me over with his initial reaction to the Wright controversey. They could not make him denounce his friend and mentor then. I hope they can't make him do so now.

In full disclosure, let me say for the record that I am a Clinton supporter.

That said, let me add that I take a certain pride in generally avoiding cheap-shots and "gotcha" as best I can. Politics being the rough business it is, I'm sure I don't always succeed, but I try my best.

I think Mr. Gitlin is correct on Rev. Wright/Sen. Obama in a theoretical sense, but how does one accomplish that seperation in a practical, real-world sense? The more Obama refutes the specifics of Wright's ideas, the more I am reminded that he, his wife, and his children spent 20 years in Wright's church. The worse he makes Wright out to be NOW, the LESS sense those 20 years make. It is also difficult to avoid the sense that his newly-discovered regrets are tactical, and not necesarily deeply felt. Much better had he seen this light BEFORE running for President.

ANY of us can be put into some very difficult binds by the nature of our associations. Whether we like it or not, or even whether it's entirely fair or not, it is a time-honored tradition to judge people to some degree by who they hang-out with. I sincerely believe that this isn't the LAST time Sen. Obama is going to have this problem. He has a number of relationships that may seem OK in the context of local Chicago society and politics, but which are (at best) problematic in a Presidential candidate.

I think that the suggestion that Obama has INSUFFICIENTLY distinguished himself from Wright is misplaced. Obama will only alienate more of his progressive constituency by trying to throw Wright under a bus, though on the other hand, I have no sympathy with those who try to prettify Wright's message into something it is not; I agree with Gitlin that, any way you slice it, Wright is WRONG.

But the problem is not with Obama and Wright, it is with the temptation (which Hillary Clinton even tried in one debate in a perverse semantic game regarding Obama and Farrakhan) to link Obama to third parties to scare the public. Obama I think adroitly handled the issue in his speech, and now, rather than stirring the conflict with more media-generating controversy, Obama's tendency to insist on moving beyond the distractions of Ayers, Wright (and whoever is added to the cast of this drama of misdirection) is the right instinct. Like someone yanking at the leash of a dog that absolutely INSISTS on extensively sniffing out EVERY fire hydrant, Obama needs to use (or continue to use) his bully pulpit to yank the mainstream media away from its ABC-debate type proclivities.

Perhaps one thing Obama could do is to schedule yet another debate, possibly an early one with McCain once it becomes clear that Obama and McCain are the presumptive nominees (something I predict will happen before the end of May, but my predictions have been wrong before -- 'an invasion of Grenada? And people call ME delusional?'); in this debate, the ground rules will be NO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HORSE-RACE, ABOUT SOUND BITES, ABOUT 'character' and scandal, but ONLY about issues issues, platform, and more issues. You notice how the 'town meeting' type debates tended to focus more on substance, including on environmental issues, than the press-sponsored debates? The dog of the MSM needs to be yanked, and yanked and yanked and yanked, in the proportion that MY chain gets yanked, but that's a whole other tale. And progressive critics of the media both in the mainstream and out of it (the latter possibly with major demonstrations planned targetting the MSM as the huge part of the machinery of our system that it is) need to join in a chorus of insistence on a more substantive politics.

If not Wright, Sistah Souljah, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, flag pins, or "bitter" bytes, surely a politics revolving around a mainstream media devoted to glittering triviality inevitably finds the baubles that it seeks. Only by adamantly insisting on putting the structure of debate, as Obama's tendency tends to be, on a firm footing of solving problems rather than scoring points will Wright and the "Wright Syndrome" be overcome.

Obama hasn't done it so far and I think it would be viewed as quite cynical if he began to separate himself from Wright after his earlier remarks. It would remind people of Kerry's "I was for the war before I was against it" statement.

Obama needs to get the camera off of Wright altogether, and "by any means necessary." Obama is clearly off his game, addressing every non-issue that the noise machine has to spew. Not a good place to be heading into the primaries that are supposed to "close the deal" in Denver. I don't know what it is, but the Obama campaign simply has to do something, anything to move us all out of this Write-Ayers-Hamas quagmire o' bullshit.

one_wilson is dangerously incorrect about the Clintons. Nobody has really even BEGUN examining their post-White House baggage yet, and I guarantee you there's a mother lode there that would dominate the fall campaign and make the silly wright flap looks like tiddlywinks in comparison.

So here we are, the merit of a candidate for president rests solely on with whom he associates - put another way, the old guilt-by-association peccadillo.

If such has become the case, from now until June both campaigns must dump any issues separating them to be replaced by daily disclosures of individuals with whom each has associated throughout his/her life.

This is the only guarantee we have of choosing the candidate best qualified to possibly be POTUS.

Obama needs to gather a coalition of prominent African-American figures to denounce Wright.

I read the tanscript of Rev Wright's speech. It was very good. The nation has missed a real chance to be educated about the 'invisible institution' that is the black church. Then he took questions and it all went down hill.

the reason the media--and the citizens--have placed so much emphasis on the Wright issue (and the Ayers issue, the flag pin issue, and the "not-so-proud" Michelle issue) is that Obama is such a blank slate. we've always projected our hopes and desires onto him, and now that these sorts of people are showing up as part of his past, we're projecting THEM onto him.

we don't know anything about this guy, really. and suddenly there come a whole herd of "radicals" and we go, "Oh! so THAT's what he believes."

this may not be true, or fair, but I guarantee you that's what the average American is thinking.

and why is this? well, it's not because of some nefarious Clinton plot, or the MSM trying to kill off Obama's candidacy (why would they do that? they've been genuflecting at his altar since the beginning). it's because the candidate himself hasn't given us anything else but vague promises of "hope" and "change."

btw, Don, "one nation, under God, indivisible" doesn't mean that we're indivisible from GOD. it means our NATION is indivisible. sheesh!

personally, i think we need to stop denouncing everyone in this country.

Get 10 prominent African-Americans together to quickly tell Wright and Sharpton they do not represent any race en masse. Marginalize them from within.

Karl and the GOP's gotta love this. If Obama denounces Wright, he runs the risk of alienating some black voters. If he doesn't, he risks alienating fence-sitting white voters. Meanwhile McCain can say "nonsense" over and over to distance himself from his crazy clergyman endorser Hagee and the MSM eats it up.
Wright rants against a warmongering government, Hagee rants against Catholics and homosexuals and is in favor of an apocalyptic war in the Middle East.
They're both egotistical nuts. Who's more dangerous?

Hagee's an idiot, but there's a difference. Hagee is just one random a**hole endorsing McCain. Wright is not a random a**hole, he's a decades-long friend and mentor of the Obamas, who performed marriages and baptisms for the family.

a better analogy would be Hagee vs., oh say, Daniel Ortega or Jane Fonda or Hamas or Jimmy Carter. nobody thinks less of Obama because these jerks have endorsed him. but people understand that Wright is a bit closer to him than those others.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVE INNOCENT

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/guilty-until-proven-innocent.php

"Obama has to overthrow his surrogate father."
- you mean "former pastor"?

"Obama has to say full-out where he disagrees with Wright. He has to say so full-throatedly. It's not enough to say he's "wrong and divisive." He has to divide himself--from Wright."

Has Hillary had to say where she disagrees with Wright? Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson?

Nice.

Bullshit.

The simple fact is that Rev Wright has a much more impressive resume' than Barack Obama. I would invite anyone to take a look at it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright

Wright is more qualified to be president Obama, and so it's understandable why he would be hurt and turn on Obama after being repeatedly slighted and shunned by someone who is less qualified to be president than he is.

Does that mean I agree with every crackpot idea Wright has about AIDS and Zionism? Certainly not! But I do find his in-your-face liberation theology approach to racial relations much more appealing than Obama's soft-spoken race baiting.

Would you please stop with the opposition nonsense. The fact that Rev. Wright enjoyed some privileges as a youngster, does not mean that he did not absorb the suffering of his people at the time. Matter of fact if he was sensitive at all he would be even more angry than he appears to be now. Having a great intellect it would affect hem deeply.

That however does excuse the preening and prancing he has been doing, nor the deleterious effect such activities may have on OBAMA and his staunch supporters.

Free Bubba has already pronounced this a crock of shit, so there must be something worthwhile in it. This post from earlier today already disappeared, but in the interest of filling out the theme of surrogate fathers and sons, I'll repost part of it:

The spectacle of a father-figure publicly calling out and embarrassing his son seems as old and profound as the Greek myths and Hebrew scripture. Was Rev Wright the titan Chronos intent on devouring his children? Was he Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac to express his faith?

Or maybe we should turn to Shakespeare in which Wright is Falstaff and Obama is Henry IV, the prince who must ultimately give up his pals in order to take office. But in this case, of course, Falstaff does not retire to the pub; he heads into the spotlight to deliberately disrupt Henry's royal campaign: "I know thee not, old man; fall to thy prayers;/ How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!"

While each of these stories can be illuminating, there seemed to be more to the story, another act of betrayal that kept eluding me.

This morning it came to me. Perhaps what we saw yesterday was Elija Mohammed trying to take down Malcolm X after he committed himself to a world beyond the pastor that had done so much for him.

Hillary actually DID push the Wright thing when she was trying to bounce Tuzla off the front page. Remember the "He wouldn't have been MY pastor" comment?

Hillary is defending Obama now against McCain doing the same thing to try and counteract the notion that she will do anything to win. If she thought that piling on would help her, she'd do that.

Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, who only a few months ago was accused of not being black enough is now, in the eyes of many Americans, a bedfellow of Farrakhan, the Reverand Jeremiah Wright and the black liberation movement. Talk about chickens coming home to roost.

Obama, who somewhere along the way decided to ride the coat tails of the African-American experience, something his DNA has no connection to whatsoever, is now reaping the flip side of that experience. Obama, raised by a white woman from Kansas, a distant relative of Dick Cheney, thought that by mimicking Martin Luther King’s speaking style, he could garner nearly 100% of the African-American Democratic primary vote and displace Bill as the first black president.

What Barack failed to take into account is that there’s a reason why there’s never before been a genuinely African-American president and that is because we enslaved, raped and lynched them over a period of four hundred years and there remains some lingering resentment and animosity.

From th AP: "Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he was outraged and appalled by the latest comments from his former pastor, who asserted that criticism of his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church and the U.S. government was responsible for the creation of the AIDS virus."

Let me get this straight---Mr. Obama goes to Mr. Wright's church for 20 years, listens to the preacher, donates money, takes him on as "Spiritual Advisor" and then when the rest of the world discovers that the preacher has some pretty wild ideas about white people, the USA and the government, Mr. Obama claims that the guy never spoke that way when Obama was around him? Now suddenly he is "appalled and outraged" by all the fuss.
Sounds like just another politico trying to save his campaign from a past that he had hoped would stay locked up in a dark closet.

Like chimp, I watched the footage and was actually pretty impressed with Wright's understanding of separation of powers of church and state.

Wright uses his interpretation of Jesus' teachings to implore people within his circle of influence to live by what Wright sees as Jesus' example. But he understands that "rendering unto Caesar" is different than "rendering unto God" and acknowledges that Obama, having taken on the job of being a politician ("rendering unto Caesar") has to make his decisions based on a political calculus that takes into account the views of people beyond Wright's circle.

Wright noted that even if Obama is elected he will keep pressuring Obama after the election, but in Wright's view, this is what Obama signed up for by deciding to be a politician--reconciling his personal faith with his political decisions, and vice versa.

If right-wing pastors had shown the same understanding of their roles, we might have avoided some of the ugliness of the past 20 years. Or maybe not, but the point is that there is a creative friction between religious thought and political activity and it's better to acknowledge it than duck it (as many liberals do) or run roughshod over it (as the right wing has done).

"Obama needs to gather a coalition of prominent African-American figures to denounce Wright."

Uh-huh, but it needs to be a mixed-race group, preferably with a lot of other figures from the United Church of Christ.

Someone brought up Malcolm X. I was thinking this afternoon of Malcolm's famous riddle: "What do you call a black man with a Ph.D.? A n----r."

Karl Rove and the Republicans have been working nice and hard to make sure the Democratic nominee is unelectable. They hoped for Clinton -- anybody notice the "lesbian" smear in the supermarket tabloid this week? -- but if it's Obama they want to be pluperfect sure that the N label is plastered all over his body, strangling at birth the idea of a president who can help the country get past racial divisions.

Makes me wonder: who got to Rev. Wright?

Peace,
Paul

Well said...as were Bruce's comments.

I was very moved...and pained really...watching Obama's remarks today. They were good and probably necessary. But you could feel his genuine pain and conflict as he picked his words from the rubble of his emotions.

Very few electorates, if any, are capable of mature judgement. They are easily swayed by the sensation of the day.

Now if only we could bring Zionista back. Or is she here in a different form?

Just outta curiousity, does anybody think BHO could have pulled a pseudo-McCancer and just endlessly repeated "Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense" and gotten the free ride Fightin' Johnnie got???

and for Christians, their own founder of their religion said separate religion from politics, in the famous "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's"

And if that wisdom isn't enough for them, there's 1790 years of history of religious fighting that the first amendment largely vanquished, quietly, almost over night. Before 1790, Protestant, Catholic and Jew couldn't live next to each other, after 1790 people gradually realized it just didn't matter.

Perhaps Jesus recognized that religious beliefs and ethics, be they good or not, do not make for good civics. Or maybe he knew that it was politicians inside a religious organization and state apparatus that would combine, through political processes, to see to it that he was whipped, tripped and murdered. Either way, combining religion and politics ought to be a mortal sin for Christians.

In essence, people who promote religion into politics are promoting themselves at Christ expense. Christ doesn't need it, and he's said he doesn't want it. So there.

Has anyone considered the practical consequences to the Obama campaign of picking a fight with the black church? Obama's vaunted campaign organization has used the black churches to organize and turn out the vote. The timing of Obama's attempt to suck up to lower income white voters on FOX and again today suggests he thinks the black churches have taken him as far as they can in the primary. He's counting on his black base to hold together at least until May 6. His spokesmen and women to that community have been spinning their heads off today to play down any potential for backlash in the black community over Obama's "attack on the black church" as Wright characterizes attacks on himself. If half of Obama's black base gets disgusted and stays home on May 6, Obama's candidacy will end abruptly in NC.

The major flaw in the "what was he (Obama) doing there for 20 years?" argument is the assumption that Wright has remained the same person for the entire period.

I too found his smirking and preening at the press club truly odd behavior for the venue. I am one of the few who actually went back and viewed the entire sermons from which the controversial clips were culled and he didn't seem to be acting that way even then. His demeanor at the press club seemed to be rudely dismissive and disrespectful of the entire body of those who'd asked him to speak at THEIR venue.

Why speak there then? If you hold the national press in such high disregard why bless them with your presence? His entire "performance" as Obama put it was for his "fans" who were obviously liberally sprinkled throughout the hall as indicated by the racket they made.

I understand that that's how african-americans behave in their churches and I celebrate them for it -but giving a public speach as a guest is another matter. E.g. when you're invited to someone's home as a guest you don't invite your buddies and start playing poker. Examining the video of the speech you can notice a few times when even his supporters seemed uncomfortable.

All of this is to say that perhaps Obama is right and that Wright is not or is no longer the same person he was 20 years ago or for 20 years. Whether this is because of medication, advanced age, mental illness or just plain change we can't know without more. I'd be interested in hearing from a few of his (other) congregants to find out if they've noticed any change in him.

Finally, I think Obama has put himself in a win-win situation: He's completely deflated any notion that he might secretly share Wright's controversial views (except for the most die hard Obamahaters) and if Wright comes back at him he'll only be seen as a victim.