Cross-posted at dKos, in case anyone cares. My intent in writing this was to relieve myself of the angst growing in my mind reference the rest of white America. In many, many ways, political campaigns disgust me. But, most of that is do to the reporting of those campaigns.

That people would seriously suggest that Obama has a "patriotism" problem is beyond the pale, in my mind. I can only assume those same people would say the same things about me, should my political viewpoints not agree with theirs.

So, my question then: What does this say about American culture, and the American people?

What a great post - thank you! You know, I am just amazed at the way the MSM has latched onto this with absolutely no regard to the GOOD things that Obama has done and represents.

He is the epitomy of the American dream for goodness sake.

Your post was refreshing and hopeful, thanks again.

The MSM have also latched onto this story with absolutely no regard to the good things that Wright has done. Where are the interviews on MSM with people who applaud Wright for ministering to the sick and poor, and being incredibly generous to the other (predominately white) churches in the UCC? Where are the sermons Wright gave preaching how we must love our enemies? I can find them on blogs or snippets on youtube but not a mention on MSM.

I too thought this was a great post.

Actually, the most condemning part of his statements, which is not shown (that I have seen) on TV, but I heard it on radio and have seen it in text -- was about Bill Clinton (or maybe 'the Clintons') turning their backs on the blacks, capped off with really unsavory references to Monica Lewensky and (I heard reported - have not seen), some pretty unsavory body movements.

I understand your points about the other statements - same reasons that most of the AA community doesn't see the Fourth of July quite the same way whites do. The ones I find most offensive are the above-mentioned and (blessedly) little-seen segment and the attack at Hillary, essentially saying she should be discounted, not considered, is unfit to be their leader because she's "white, rich and connected" and never been called the N-word. Well, that describes Bobby Kennedy, too, and many of the whites who helped form the NAACP and lots of others through the years. That statement, in my opinion, is as racist (and unrelated to real reasons for anger) as Geraldine F's.

I'm willing to bet they are the ones that upset Obama the most, too. (In his written statement he mentioned being angry, which is something I don't imagine he does lightly.) They are pretty indefensible and even his magnificent speech didn't attempt a defense of them. (Wisely)

One last comment on your comments. Obama *didn't* really grow up in that community you describe. Think about it - his entire family is white (he probably didn't know he was different for several years, critical years), he lived in one of the most racially diverse places in the world, he then moved to Indonesia where he and his mother were both "different," and then back to Hawaii. Obviously as he got older he began to understand, but he probably didn't really get the frequent hard looks and ugly names until he was in high school, poss. college in California. Then, in NY and later, of course, he got it in full ... There's also the lack of what Clarence Page calls PTSD: Post-Traumatic Slavery Disorder. Those wrenching, stories about the great-grandfather aren't part of his family chronicle, although I'm sure he can comprehend them in ways that a white person cannot quite do.

That's an odd, perhaps 'protected' background/beginning for a black man, and if you buy into the theory that the earliest years are the most formative, it may well have made a very profound difference, given him a perspective and sense of self that it would be almost impossible to replicate.

Sometimes I want for him to just stop - go home with Michelle and the girls, have a wonderful career in the Senate and get out of all this nastiness, which will only continue in different ways if he's elected. But then I think -- who is going to come along who has both his genuine gifts AND this background which puts everything, at least everything relating to race, in an entirely different light?

God bless you, Angry Vet. I hope more and more people see it as you do.

This has been a high-tech lynching.

I feel sorry for Wright, who is a good man, albeit bitter.

I don't think the clips were representative of his typical sermon nor accurately portray the man.

He was speaking out angrily about racism and arrogance and violence, but gets tarred by clearly prejudiced mainstream media types as a "hater" and "bigot"

Great, great post. I wholeheartedly agree. But for some, you can't criticize the United States while being patriotic. Oh well.

Another key point missed in the MSM coverage:

The assumption that when you go to church at TUCC, all you hear is Wright screaming US KKKA for three hours. Um, doesn't this seem at least a bit implausible as an assumption? But it is the assumption you have to make to get to the question, "Why did he sit through that hate for 20 years?" Which seems to be the only way the MSM is willing to talk about it. (I thought Scarborough was going to have an aneurysm this morning).

Obama has said that Wright's soundbites aren't what the church is about & if it was, he wouldn't be there. How does Joe Scarborough know what went on there for the past 20 years better than someone who sat there?

And isn't the fact that Wright mentored someone with a worldview like Obama's some proof that there is more this man and this community than meets the You Tube?

I mean, here's the thought process: 1) no sane person (even Joe Scarborough) thinks Obama espouses Wright's views, in fact, he seems to have a completely different view of the possibilities inherent in the US. And 2) Obama obviously cherishes Wright as a key mentor - he is willing to lose his shot at the Presidency to stand by him.

So, isn't the logical conclusion, not an unanswerable question (How could he sit through this), but that something else was going on in that church and that relatioship?

Why is it so hard for people to make that connection? Have they never learned from, and cherished, deeply flawed elders? Have they never sat quietly through that person's more ungracious moments in deference to the good that they have done?

I keep hearing from people that this is a Christian country. Doesn't seem that way over the past week. If we are each in our own lives willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we are going to get what we deserve: leaders who pander rather than lead.

When I first got on board with Obama, I thought: this guy is too good for us - it'll never work. Well, I am beginning to think I was right.

So, welcome to four years of McCain bungling key facts and saying "My friends" or Hillary telling some baldfaced lie or another with a completely straight face. Inspiring!

Great post. I've been making similar points to friends and wonder why no one in the media is discussing the fact that Rev. Wright (and other black Americans) have real, legitimate reasons to be angry. Our country is just a bit over two centuries old. For most of its first century, the government permitted blacks to be enslaved and for most of the second century, the government and our society in general allowed severe discrimination against blacks, preventing blacks from having equal access to political power, jobs, and education and thereby doing serious and long-lasting damage to the prospects of black Americans. Wright's rhetoric must be understood in the context of the clear injustice perpetrated by the American government and by American society against his people.

I heard a conservative commentator the other night talking about how the outrage against Obama for being associated with a church that honored Louis Farrakhan was as legitimate as would be the outrage if McCain were associated with a church that honored David Duke. Now I can understand why some people believe Farrakhan's statements are as hateful as Duke's. However, this doesn't quite make Farrakhan morally equivalent to Duke. While some of what Farrakhan says is truly as offensive as the things Duke says, Farrakhan's statements are motivated by legitimate anger against a great injustice perpetrated against his people. David Duke's statements, however, are motivated by the despicable desire to preserve that injustice. Rebellion against injustice often has an ugly, sometimes violent side, and Farrakhan sometimes shows that side. But the root cause of Farrakhan's anger, at least, is just. Duke's ugliness and anger, though, is motivated by the antithesis of justice. That, to me, is a significant difference. And while I may not like a lot of what Farrakhan says, I can't fully condemn him because I believe he is fighing in a just cause. With Duke, I find both his language and his cause despicable. And because of that, I find Duke morally far more reprehensible than Farrakhan. In fact, I might even argue that the conservatives' attempt to hold whites like Duke and blacks like Farrakhan to ostensibly the same standard is not (as conservatives like to claim) an attempt to treat everyone equally and fairly, but rather an insidious attempt to ignore the history of discrimination and therefore to actually continue to treat blacks and whites unequally. You cannot pretend that 200 years of history is irrelevant. Doing so in the guise of treating everyone equally actually means treating blacks less equally because it prevents us (both black and white) from doing anything special to help blacks overcome the lingering effects of past (and, to some degree, ongoing) discrimination.

This is a beautiful post Angry Vet. i hope you defend Obama and the Free Speech "Wright" of every American.

While other minorities have suffered ignominously, I don't think any of it can rival what African Americans have to put up with. I'm Asian, and while I'm truly fortunate my father is a progressive, I know for a fact that a very large number of Asians are racist towards Blacks. I don't understand how they cannot empathize or find solidarity, having been through their own historical horrors and injustice. Many of them vote Republicans. Race relations are at a nadir, between Hispanics, Blacks, Asians & Whites, and this awful episode really hits home. This man, having spent most of his life serving his country and the community that needed his spiritual guidance and inspiration, is torn down and broken into a 1 minute video loop, chewed up and spat out by scornful, disdainful, young brash pundits.

I have a question for Hillary supporters. If this video were the product of her campaign, will you still stand by her?? Even McCain couldn't stomach its indecency and has spoken up, where is Hillary on this matter??

I really cannot identify myself with the politics of the DLC and its Billary core. Like Lieberman, they have moved closer to the Republicans and offered support to Bush-Cheney these past 8 years, from the wars to the bankruptcy of the economy. Ron Paul, a Republican, is a more honest, less corrupt fighter for the Constitution. He speaks to me more than this neocon Democratic cabal ever will. I hope the parties will split one day and a true progressive third party emerge from this decayed political morass.

Great post, Angry Vet.

That people would seriously suggest that Obama has a "patriotism" problem is beyond the pale, in my mind.

Too true, and the same goes for the idea that the Wright videos prove that Obama is a closet racist. How anyone can listen to what Obama says, watch what he does and read what he writes and come away with the idea that this guy is some sort of black supremacist is beyond me. Is the sky still blue in the world in which folks like "GotaLife" and "Matthew Weaver" live?

Qwerty,

Why do you hate Sen. Clinton so much? The distaste you and others have is so poignant that it really makes me wonder why or if we are in the same party. I thought the point was electing a Democrat, getting the Senate and House more secure. Statehouses and local races..............

In case you haven't read those videos were put out by Trinity UCC. Not Hillary.

Angryvet, thanks for the post. To answer your last question nothing in Obama's background would keep me from voting for him. What would and is keeping me from voting for him is his lack of full knowledge of the issues. The lack of wanting to KNOW all the nuances of the issues. His seeming Reagan like attitude to the position in question. I am hiring someone that is going to be leading me for the next 4 years. I want someone that I know has a vision and also knows how to get to that vision. Lastly, he was the one that indicated that he was for politics that wasn't "as usual". What about all of this isn't usual? We have these discussions every 4 years.

Rev. Wright certainly can be rude and stupid and profane. It is deeply wrong to say he say he is spreading hate, or that he holds hatred for white folks. The only people saying that are people who know next to nothing about him. He has anger. Not hatred. He has to temerity to call people to righteousness (which you may well believe is none of his business). He has an unwillingness to be polite in the face of gruesome facts.

I applaud your willingness to take this on. The defense of rev. Wright against this slander must go deeper if we are to avoid the judgment that it is in fact we who are truly ignorant, and intolerant, and spiteful ,and "un-American".

Fundamentally, this has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with honesty and decency.

I just posted this comment in another diary; since it's more or less relevant, I'll post it here too:

I think the issue of why Obama has continued to stay with this congregation for 20 years is a red herring. Clearly there are many many reasons why people affiliate with a faith community; obviously for Obama the 100 good reasons outweighed the few bad.

Not only that, but I think it's entirely possible for a person to hear the views expressed by others and maintain a clear conscience with respect to their own views. And Obama has noted more than a few times in the past that he has had disagreements with Wright, but they agree to disagree. Enough said. Move on.

Unfortunately, this intense "vetting" has been entirely focused on the Democratic candidates, and if this is indeed an issue a majority of voters are serious about, then why aren't we clamoring for more vetting of McCain's associations? Too bad someone hasn't yet made a youtube video that splices together all the "incendiary rhetoric" of Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Rod Parsley, John Hagee - the leading luminaries of right-wing Christiandom - with all the sycophantic Republican politicians looking to increase their cred with believers.

Joe Scarborough made a good point yesterday morning on his show: a lot of politicians where he grew up probably heard plenty of racist commentary in churches - they just never got caught on youtube.

But getting back to another aspect of the Wright controversy: Put aside the rhetoric for a moment, which I agree is offensive to most people, why has no one bothered to point out that much of the substance of what Rev Wright was talking about is, in fact, legitimate and substantive?

Many, many respected commentators and journalists have written about how past US foreign policy in the Muslim world has fomented hostility and resentment among some extremists, resulting in various terrorist responses, i.e., "our chickens have come home to roost." Not to defend his rhetoric, but shouldn't we try to re-direct the focus on the truth of the matter? This is, after all, a salient and relevant issue of our foreign policy. I'd like all the candidates to be asked to speak more on that aspect of our diplomacy with the Middle East.

And as for the Rev's rant about government involvement in spreading AIDS, again, not to excuse the rhetoric, but credible news outlets have published serious stories about the inquiries that some researchers have made about the possibility that AIDS might be a man-made disease that is a consequence of a) contaminated vaccines b) contaminated drug trials or c) bioweapons experimentation gone awry... the media blackout on this topic is still pretty much in full force here in the US (excepting the underground), but apparently other countries have seen fit to print those stories as news.

More to the point of Rev Wright's comments is the widely held belief in many AA communities that government scientists created AIDS to control or wipe out their population (remember the Tuskeegee experiments?). Public health workers in the black community know this and would not have been surprised to hear Rev Wright's comments at all. A couple of years ago, the Washington Post and NYT published stories about a RAND study which found that a large percentage of the black community believe this conspiracy theory, which has impeded the efforts of public health workers to prevent the spread of AIDS among black Americans.

My question is: does Rev Wright actually believe the conspiracy theory himself? Or was he preaching to the conspiracy theorists in the congregation that they shouldn't let their fears keep them from participating in public health prevention programs? Hard to tell the context from the youtube clip.

Keep in mind the other context that African Americans are more likely to live in communities near industrial brownfields and other pollution sources, such as freeways and oil refineries, and far from health care centers. As news about this sort of disparity become more well known, it becomes one more example to people in the black community that their lives are less valued. It contributes to the underlying anger and resentment in the black community.

Anyway, I just think that in the din of the furor over the rhetoric we sorta forgot to question whether or not Rev Wright had a legitimate reason for being p*ssd off, and while we shouldn't excuse or condone unnecessarily provocative language, we should nevertheless be able to hear the message.

Angry Vet, I appreciate your post. As a African American, it has been particularly painful to see Obama's campaign has suffered this week. There has been intentionality to Obama not resorting to race up to this point, but now is essential to his campaign's livelihood. I know many in the MSM would argue that Wright's statements should have been addressed sooner, but an African American injecting race into a political campaign is not a politically astute thing to do. It limits the audience and reach of the candidate's message. I am particularly saddened , because there are many African Americans who share Barack's public espoused ideals who are invisible to the mainstream and white america. Instead of moving beyond the old guard politicians like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Barack has now become ,through association, one of them. That is the biggest travesty of this all. I really appreciate Angry vet and many of the other thoughtful bloggers here engaging in this discourse. I just wish more people would realize that your view of America is undoubtedly shaped by your experiences. I know Wright's comments are counter to many people experiences here, the sad part for me is that I can relate quite well with them since they often resonate with my own.

Thanks for a great post, Angry Vet.

Wonderful post Angry Vet. I'm surprised you didn't mention Revend Wright's military background as well.

A members of the Marines and the Navy.

dembilic -- Have you ever heard of the Tuskegee Experiment? When that has been done to you, far-fetched ideas like the one about AIDS aren't quite so "far-fetched"
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html

Also, it looks like there's a pretty cool blog one of the Trinity UCC members started on this same subject:

http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/

To paraphrase, you have the ability to look beyond your nose, more specifically, the ability to look beyond your set of experiences. Your efforts are timely and are very much appreciated by this writer. I do believe your expressions reflect most citizens of the U.S.A, and will be shown in the general elections. This matter with Wright will benefit Obama. I hope the following add some textures and tones to your thoughts.

When they were delivered I heard all of the great speeches of the sixties. In this era Obama has no peers; however, he would not out pace King but Obama would give JFK a hell of a run for his money. In political life JFK was the best followed by RFK, I believe Obama is between these two.

Terms applied to those citizens of African descent are best avoided as they tend to be loaded with too much baggage. This supposed expose of Wright is a prime example.

Intellectually, the resolution is simple, pragmatically it is not. Unquestionably, in its various forms racial animus is alive, and it would be pointless to attempt to eradicate it; however, the simple recognition of similarities and an honest recognition of the basis of dissimilarities would provide a sound basis to minimize racial animus. Do note this is not new; disparate groups all over this county do this all of the time. In sum the common good must be made more common.

Final point is the term angry as generally applied in discussions of citizens of African ancestry, I reject its use. It is too often used to invoke stereotypes designed to deflect or obscure the issue being raised. As I recall Obama did use this term to describe Wright's words, and I do not agree that Wright's generation was angry, it a matter of language over time. The WPA slave narratives from the 1930s will place the term angry in a more appropriate context; these voices of actual former slaves, citizens of the U.S.A., are focused, directed and determined no less or more than Wright's. Yes, this is American history, and voices of a lineage that Senator Obama does not share but can amply represent as he can all citizens of the U.S.A.

WELL DONE! ANGRY VET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!