Which of his statements do you find to be hateful and/or racist?

I really was hoping to get it all. The tough as nails fighter to drag the masses kicking and screaming into the future and a vp to give them hope when it got too tough. I'm wondering if he is so damaged now that's impossible as well.

As per usual, I can't tell what in the hell your scatter-shot diatribe is about. I can vaguely surmise that you're trying to turn this into your typical, knee-jerk Clinton teh best!!! stuff, but my post wasn't about Clinton or Obama. So, thanks for stopping by and missing the point. You're always good for that.

"So I hope you'll help me convince the others that the problem is not Hillary wanting to fight back in Washington, it's those guys sitting around Bush enabling him - some of them I'm sure who are considered 'moderate Republicans'."

The problem is that the same guys sitting around Bush were sitting around Bill Clinton and will be sitting around Hillary Clinton. The Clintons demonstrated time after time -- and especially this campaign season -- that their "love" of black people was only as abiding as the black votes they could produce for the Clintons.

The hypocrisy of this whole thing is that pilgrimages that other candidates have made -- both Republican and Democrat-- to secure the "blessings" of their base go unreported -- or at least with none of the hyperbole associated with this lastest tempest in teapot.

I do not see Sean Hannity or Joe Scarborough or Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper getting exercised about the treks to Bob Jones University (which outlaws interracial dating among other things.) I don't see the same spittle flying over remarks from the Revs. Hagee and Parsley and Robertson (to name three) about gays, African Americans and "abortionists" (to name three targets) when they rail about AIDS and natural disasters and "immoral lifestyle choices" (to name three of their favorite subjects.) And I don't hear the same kind of wailing or see the same kind of hand-wringing when inflammatory claims are made about a religion tightly intertwined with Christianity made up out of whole cloth, with no basis in fact and history whatsoever. (And on this count I could be talking about Judaism or Islam. The same outlandish filth has been spewed by these people about both.)

I do not see them gasping and sputtering about how unpatriotic and un-American it is to round up persons solely on the basis of skin color, religious preference or geography, haul them off to prison for crimes undetermined for indefinite lengths of time to undergo "enhanced interrogation techniques" without benefit of protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, without counsel, without even the periodic comfort of contact with their families.

No, patriotism is not measured by following the Constitution. It's measured by lapel pins and flag-waving. But someone who wraps himself in the flag, and sets it afire in a parking lot at the Pentagon to protest a war waged on foreign soil is a nut case, not patriot. "Patriots" spy on their neighbors with illegal wiretaps.

These folk "celebrate" the emergence of a viable non-white candidate by imposing all of the "tests" that the Constitution prohibits and then make up a few more, just for good measure. There is no religious test for any candidate of any public office, as long, of course, as that candidate's choice of religion and worship is of a certain brand and style and delivery acceptable to those "patriots" deciding for you what is "acceptable." We have no "official" state religion, no "official" orthodoxy of what we must say or do when we worship except that imposed upon us by these "wise" men.

And then there is the matter of the other "tests" which must be passed. It seems there is a "Commander-in-Chief" test that has been suddenly determined to be crucial in 2008. And apparently, that test wasn't given at Columbia or Harvard Law. Then there is the new "steward of the economy" test. It seems that test was only given in Hope, Arkansas in the 1980s and since then only in Chappaqua, NY, and Washington, DC, but only to persons who arrived in DC prior to 2004 or who served as First Lady in 1990s.

And apparently there is the new "New Math," in which only persons who are behind in the delegate count, states won, popular vote are winning. It seems "winning" is determined by how well you are "losing."

What does all of that have to do with the Rev. Wright? Everything. It is about developing the mindset in his black parishioners that teaches them to fight on for what is right, and rightfully yours, in a world that makes absolutely no sense. It is about teaching them to see through empty promises, to avoid the "okie-doke," the "bamboozle and hood-wink." It is about teaching them to see more than flag-waving and lapel pins, that reckless actions -- even in faraway lands with funny names -- have dire consequences at home. It is about teaching them to remember we live in a country that only celebrates and preserves and protects the lives of people who look like the people in charge. Those lives were not important in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they weren't important in Rwanda or the Gaza Strip.

Rev. Wright's mission was/is different than that of Sen. Obama. Obama is yet to complete his, the false distraction of this news cycle notwithstanding.

"A Republican friend called to tell me he had seen a video of Wright's preaching, and that - sorry to tell me - but Obama's candidacy was surely over. He called back later to say he had seen Obama's response and changed his mind - he thought Obama would weather the storm. In fact, he was impressed with Obama's response. He hadn't watched the Democratic debates and this was the first time he had really heard Obama other than in brief news clips."

Good point. I think this can show a few things

1) Obama weathering some GOP attacks and showing he is calm under fire (3am)
2) Show he is in fact NOT "muslim" (ironic silver lining!)
3) Show that his message of unity is far better than the past divisiveness.

I too was impressed by Obama's answering this so well and so quickly, and even on FoxNews. Americans don't expect their leaders not to make mistakes or have bad friends or other issues, but they do expect them to account for what they do and to level with the American people. He did that, as did John McCain several weeks ago on that NYTimes story. Interestingly, people seemed to respect McCain more for the way he handled it.

Terry, I've seen you make this argument over and over again. I understand that there is very little (although there is some) scientific evidence for racial differentiation. However, this misses the point. Why? Because people don't judge others and alter their behavior by reading someone's DNA. It's not whether or how I can define white or black. It's that those things have been defined for a long time. If there's no difference between an American of European descent and an American of African descent then how were Jim Crow laws enacted?

terry,
We can agree that scientifically their is one human race. However, Here on planet earth, people are judged on the basis of skin color.

Taxi drivers who pass well dressed African-American males to pick up a Caucasian in jeans do not care about DNA. Realtors who direct darker skinned client to only certain properties and loan officials who offer higher cost loans to those same individuals are not going to request a DNA sampling.

Are you blind to what occurs in society? Do you find some perverse humor in your denial of something that is very real for a significant portion of the US population. Race is an accepted social construct. Race impacts income, the criminal justice system, housing, loans, and health care.

It appears that you want to deny the truth hat African-Americans and other groups face racial bias. To be very honest your posts on these issues are less than worthless.

What is my "cause" airwon? It is truthiness that every President we've ever had has been a white man? Is it truthiness that the black unemployment rate is nearly triple what it is for whites? Is it truthiness that a black man living in the inner city is lucky to live to age 30? Is it truthiness that he's more likely to be convicted of the same crime that a white man commits and, if so, will serve more time? Is it dangerous to point these things out? It's dangerous with respect for maintaining the status quo. It's dangerous to the people who want to act like everything is "post-racial" and that these realities just don't exist, that we should talk about them because it's "dangerous."

My opinions are my own. I have no troops to rally. In case you didn't notice, my stance is not the same as Obama's on this. I didn't write any of this for "my" candidate or to help him out. I wrote this because it's how I see what's happening in front of me, period.

I'm an atheist and I don't buy into bumper sticker patriotism, so maybe that's why God damn America doesn't bother me. Especially because I can read the context. He's not saying, "Please, God, will you please, please damn this place called America straight to hell." He's expressing anger and frustration at a society that wants everyone to salute and say "God bless America" no matter what. No matter what the realities currently are. He's saying, damn an America that insists on keeping its head in the sand and I can relate to that easily.

The HIV comment is truly regrettable. To my knowledge, there's absolutely no evidence to support such a claim and it makes him sound like a real nut.

I don't think he's saying that 9/11 was justified. When did he say this? He's pointing out, as Ron Paul has tirelessly tried to do, that we were not attacked because they hate us for our freedom. Do you remember what Bush said just after 9/11? "Why do they hate us when we're so good?" America needs a serious reality check on this. The attacks were not justified, but they were retaliatory and this is historically undeniable. This is universally acknowledged within the intelligence community. I can recommend Chalmers Johnson's Blowback for a good treatment of this subject.

If this makes me divorced from reality in your opinion, then consider my tryst with reality to be on the rocks.

To respond, and to clarify what I said above (I do wish there were a way to edit these posts for typos and clarity after the fact. It is possible, but not here, apparently.)

My brother, who has a Ph.D and 30 years of experience working overseas, believes in the HiV conspiracy. I don't. I don't see any evidence of that, or motive, for that matter. He does. I tease him about his tinfoil hat because he's my brother and I can, but I don't love him less for his having some odd opinions.

That's the only point I wanted to make about this Wright controversy. It's one of those election-year issues that are fanned by the opponents, and so any chance of having a calm discussion gets buried in hyperbole and outrage.

Hold Wright accountable for what he said? Sure. But let's try to be balanced and see what else he said in 30 years in the pulpit. Same for Hagee and the others on the right. Everyone sure seems in a big hurry to hang people and have the trial later these days.

Pointing out cause and effect is not the same as "justifying", i.e. implying either the cause or the effect is just.

I'm not sure where you are going with this???