D'oh:

His only crime is being abrasive, but the people who find him most abrasive are the people who have are invented in denying the truth that he speaks.

Should say invested, not invented.

I love Thomas Jefferson. He was a brilliant political philosopher.

He was all of that, and the voice of the American Revolution, and a grade "A" prick.

DF, I always enjoy your posts. It's unfortunate that your post photo doesn't show your lapel: without knowing whether you're wearing a flap pin, I can't discern if you're criticizing America because you love it or because you hate it.

As I push towards my 50th year, I sense a loss of pride in America, a dread that we're headed in the wrong direction at breakneck speed. Innocent men have been locked up in Gitmo for years, denied any basic human rights and no one protests. A handful of men concocted the lies that led us into Iraq, displacing millions, killing tens of thousands. No one has been prosecuted. We talk about how our busy lives (the vibrating cell phone that keeps buzzing, the need to pick up a DVD to show in the van on the ride to soccer practice, the hustle to get home for "American Idol") prevent us from getting involved. We are letting the elite white men set the agenda, and we are happily settling for less and less.

That's what attracted me to Obama. Not his black skin, but his vision for a great America, one of unity and a push for greatness. Hillary's message is one of plodding towards a solution, of micromanaging the details. I say leave that to the white-collared bureaucrats populating the DC corridors. We need that grand vision again. Our constitution provides us the mechanism to become the best hope of man. Obama may become the focal point to lead us there.

And this isn't some messianic crap, either. Listen to the candidates, including John McBush. Which one sees greatness in America, sees the potential? Which one sees my America?

DF:

As a history teacher and longtime student of America's numerous missteps on the world stage, i agree completely with your general position regarding the numerous immoral actions America has taken in her brief history. An the Reverend wright is perfectly correct that the reaction many blacks should have is hardly 'God Bless America' (and add to that many women, non-whites, and homosexuals).

The fact that it is expected that American citizens must somehow lockstep to Francis Scott Key's anthem, have our hands ready to scurry to the position over our hearts whenever we see an American flag, and somehow feel some reverence when the Pledge of Allegiance is mouthed by captive schoolchildren or oblivious adults has always been a sore point with me.

The sad state of affairs is (and always has been) that candidates must appease the 30-40% of voters who respond to childish and elementary knee-jerk arguments, rally to those who hoist the crowd-pleasing symbols of a nation that never existed 9and never will exist), and hand over their support and their backing to those who use the most deceitful and unsophisticated arguments and symbols which serve only to solidify the 'herd mentality' and prevent the average citizen from voting for any candidate who questions the mushy patriotism of those raised on pablum.

Keep up the good work!

This is about optics for Barack. He's failing badly 1) to reject this stuff immediately after it happens, and 2) to get the message out that he loves America, Jesus, and Apple Pie.

I fear that it will cost him not only the G.E., or the nom, but even the V.P. slot (which may be his only clear shot to gaining enough legitimacy to ever make President one day).

Exhibit A - Lot's of people used to love the Dixie Chicks. They didn't do/say much to be so villified, but they're mostly still hated. Ask most people, and they don't know why, but they hate Natalie Maines.

Great post DF. I think Obama was very much inspired by this man. He was inspired to do everything in his power to make sure children of all races would no longer have to grow up feeling the way Rev. Wright does.

DF, respectfully, so what?

Wright is right? Fine. It occurs to me that the ones that made this an issue were the same ones that made Ferarros comments an issue. IOW: YOU made this bed.

I really think it behooves all supporters of Obama and Clinton to just knock off this hysteria driven BS before they destroy any hope of kicking the Republicans out of the White House.

I told you before that this hysteria stuff was stupid. There's no place to go from here but down.

Let's just stop. Let's stop attributing statements made by others to campaigns and allowing the MSM to foister hate and division on us before it's too late.

Oh, who am I kidding. It probably is.

:(

DF - Off for prior committments but will answer your question when there is a moment. But the tone, the snarls, the anger -- I respond as negatively to this as I do when it's Savage or Limbaugh, etc., etc. ranting and snarling. With less factual basis I'll readily grant you, but so many will not hear past "God damn America" or whatever it was about HIV (never could get that straight). The main thing, as some one said above, is that it's anger as the answer, no guidance toward a resolution. I wish there was more (and maybe there will be) attempt to put these statements into context. What was Wright saying in the *rest* of these sermons? What do his other sermons say? -- The real damage is the image of Obama sitting there for years listening to stuff like this and nodding his head or saying 'Amen.' It may never have happened ... but there is no *factual* reason for those who want to believe the worst, or those who are frightened by the anger and strangeness, to get that image out of their head. I guess it comes down to ..... how many of them are there? We don't know yet. Well, off to try to think about other things that require attention ... when what I really want to do is wake up a week from now and see how this has played out. Sigh. --- But he did a good job last night. He really did. So it's a tug between my faith in him and my lack of faith in the many who don't see past the hate and anger.

I could do without Rev. Wright saying "God Damn America."

I think people are leaping to conclusions about Rev. Wright and about Obama based on insufficient evidence. The guy is on record making controversial remarks twice or thrice, and suddenly the idea is that he only makes these kinds of remarks from the pulpit?

There is no evidence that ANY of his other sermons have contained such material. Obama seems, for all intents and purposes, to have his head screwed on right, and if he thinks this man is worth learning from, than there must indeed be something there other than these two or three instances. But it is illogical to conclude, based on the given evidence, that Rev. Wright consistently preaches such material and it is unreasonable to assume that, even if it were true that Obama was in the audience when Rev. Wright made some questionable remark, Obama must now be some undercover hate-agent who will hand America over to the Muslims once he's elected.

The less-than-a-handful of instances in which Rev. Wright has said something regrettable does not make Obama divisive.

Any argument suggesting such is baseless.

I suggest everyone step back a little bit from their candidate-love and consider this logically.

Want to add that there were many who cheered during "Shock and Awe" as if Wagner is playing in the background. They never got any grief for *that*! Ironic much?

This country was built on the backs of white folk that had to pay off their ship passage in servitude for between 2 to 7 years. The Irish were the lowest of the lowest. The Italians were at one time the lowest of the lowest. And during the colonial days, there were Free Black Men with White Slaves.

And when the ships stopped at Africa it was the Africans that had rounded up their own people and stuffed them into tiny quarters so they could make some money off of their own people.

How many people do you know that have picked cotton for a living that are alive? Can you talk to them in the next two minutes and how many can you reach?

This was a wild woolly country and we all did wrong somewhere. I know the blacks were picked on ALMOST as badly as the Native Americans, but not as bad as the Native Americans.

And I'll guarantee you Women didn't have any rights at all. Women could not own any land. Black men could own land, but if a White land owner died and he didn't have any sons, his wife nor his daughters were able to own or inherit the land.

It was pretty bad all the way around for everyone.
My sister told my Grandmother one day, Grandma, I wish I'd lived in the Good Old Days Like You Did." And my grandmother said, "THESE ARE THE GOOD OLD DAYS." She'd never seen better.

And it is a myth that everyone had plantations and tons of slaves. They had a lot of children to work the farm and since there was little equipment it took a lot more and to survive they had to stay in competition and buy slaves, but they were not cheap. One slave would be worth more than all the land, cattle, horses and house and contents inside the white land owners home. That's how little the white folk had.

History can become very interesting when it gets rewritten to suit someone else's needs. I came from poor cotton pickers. My Daddy's stomach would start growling when he saw that sun going down and his father would say, "Son, can you pick just a few more minutes?" My father would say, "Yes Sir." He said it would be more than half an hour it would seem as the sun kept dropping further and further and he'd look up at the darkened silhouette of his father against the setting sun and his father would say again, "Son can you pick just fifteen more minutes?" And my father would say, "Yes sir". The sun was down by the time they got back to the house with nothing but a tar roof, holes and cracks in the walls and floors.

All peoples have suffered at one time or another. I abhor the KKK (I just had to remove what I had to say about them it was not nice) and treatment of the blacks. It is almost difficult to believe that something like that could take place until you look at these Muslim Extremists and they are just as bad, except they just want everyone's heads unless they turn to a Muslim. Not a good thought for a Baptist, Catholic, Buddhist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopalian, etc., etc. They don't care what your skin color is either.

And like I've said before. The two women I have met in my life that have had true Grace were both Black Women. One was a doctor from Nigeria. She was like a Queen. Another is a friend here. I have friends from other countries, but they are now Americans and proud of it. They didn't wait twenty years to become Proud to be an American like Mrs. Barak Obama under Rev Wright's direction. And they are just as dark as she is too. They are not angry either, never were, they are grateful to have been fortunate enough to come into this wonderful country America and follow the laws and attain their United States Citizenship the legal way with Great Pride and with Precious Humble Tears.

After reading some of Wright's cherry picked passages that I found searching news reports about this, I have come to an agreement with almost most of what Rev. Wright says, except about the "rich" white people controlling this country bit. Not all white people are rich and have power. He would have been spot on the money if he instead said country being controlled by "rich white males" . Second statements he said that I don't agree with was about the government infecting Black peoople with AIDS. That is categorically not true, AIDS affect everyone, not just Black people. Other than that there's really not much here to get all upset about.

I think what helped make Wright's comments seem overtly inflammatory is that he said this all speaking with high emotion in his tone and anger in a typical fashion that most Black pastors do in the middle of sermon preaching to their congregation which I am sure middle-America and the MSM is not keen to seeing or listening.

There's no doubt that Reverend Wright's words were incendiary, but most of what he said was right. This country was built by slave labor and founded on the genocide of the native population. The rich have been stealing from the poor. The U.S. is as yet the only nation to drop the atom bomb on a civilian population. The U.S. has supported apartheid. God would not likley respond well to this history by bestowing his blessings. To say "God damn America" is unnecessarily inflammatory, but to point out that God is likely to withhold his blessings from a nation behaves like ours isn't wrong. Wright largely has been right.

All Blue-Eyed peoples came from one ancestor who had two recessive genes. They came from the area around the Black Sea. In a map of the 19th Century there is an area that archs up and is called the "Khanate of Astrahkan". It takes up almost all the area between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. I picked up a video of a more recent day Russia from the Library and I guess Russia absorbed all of that and there is now only the one town of Astrahkan in Russia.

In Afghanistan there are clans with blue eyes. In the Mountains there are some clans with Red Hair and Blue eyes.

Obviously people have gotten around over the last twenty thousand years or so. Wars followed by wars, followed by famine and search for land and food and shelter and finally most of the blue eyes ended up in The Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,up the Adriatic Coast, Switzerland, Russia, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, England, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and where else am I leaving out besides here.

They all came from the Black Sea region and in the mountains around there.

Good post! I like how nobody in the MSM touched his "America is run by rich white people" remark. LOL Hilarious.

Disclosure: I am a strong Obama supporter, a liberal white man, and wrote my undergraduate thesis on liberation theology. I am not a jingoistic guy, or someone mindlessly reactive to someone like Rev. Wright.

The point that Wright has said some good things and makes a lot of good points is beside the point. Arguing, essentially, that the U.S. had 9/11 coming is legitimately very offensive to the vast majority of Americans, whether one wants to recognize it or now. That's more important than finding nonsoundbites we like to contextualize the offensive 9/11 and "God damn America" soundbites.

There's no electoral majority to be won by defending those two clips in front of swing voters and Republicans. Life isn't a West Wing episode, and middle of the road Americans, whether people in our echo chamber want to acknowledge it or not, will decide this election.

The better approach to this would be for Obama to continue sharpening his criticisms of the worst remarks. Saying he was angered by them was a good start. Note to fellow travelers: Presidents are supposed to be angered by antiAmericanism. The flag crap in Dukakis' campaign mattered. Took him from a 17 point postconvention lead to an 8 point loss. Winning the argument about Wright, whatever that means, is not a meaningful objective.

Someone on the left has to counterpunch on Hagee, who has said things very offensive to white ethnic voters in the upper Midwest who we badly need. Let's get soundbites out there, so we can have a moral equivalence of hateful preacher soundbites.

One can disagree with dropping the bomb on a Japan that refused to surrender without creating a moral equivalency between that and 9/11. A person who cannot show that they are offended by that moral equivalency is unlikely to win the White House, though we can have a lot of fun blogging our agreement with them.

The echo chamber dynamic of the pro-Wright discussion reminds me a lot of justifying furlough programs in 1988, and assuming the Swift Boat attacks won't stick. (Historical note: those were dumb postures.)

Barack's moving the right way on this. He will have more opportunities later to punch this issue in a way that will resonate with Obamicans. He needs to. I hope he does. America needs him a lot more than we need to justify Jeremiah Wright.

Hello DF!

Perhaps you won't read my comment, but I like your post because it raises many important questions about American policies and American history.

However, with respect, I think you point of view is extremely one-dimensional. It is based entirely on the "right and wrong" and "good and evil" struggles of the Lord of the Rings variety, as well as the admirable but narrow idealism.

I think the truth and the reality of American history is more complex than you are willing to admit. Your account of American history is full of mistakes (but we can go over then if you like).

The one point where I disagree with you is the worldview that makes "progressives" uniquely right and everyone else uniquely wrong.

That worldview condones "an eye for an eye" kind of extreme partisanship that Rev. Wright puts at the center of his message - that's why you agree with him.

It's so ironic to me that you would support a candidate who built his entire candidacy on precisely the opposite approach.

So, in the end, while I understand that you are coating the Obama candidacy in the sweet sauce of freedom for the taste buds of the intended audience, you actually sound like someone who would support Clinton's worldview. If only you didn't hate her so much.

DF,

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.

Absolutely false. I never made such an argument.

Race is a fact as any damn fool can see.

What is not a fact is that there is a black race or a white race. That is pure racism.

Racial admixture can be determined by a simple DNA test.

As a fer instance of the damage mischaracterization of race does, the equivalence of caucasian and white is false. Doctors often fail to look for the "Cauccasian Disease" (cystic fibrosis) in the children of dark-skinned caucasians because they are imbued with the racism of David Duke, Chris Matthews and the social construct true believers.

I ask again, how come Barack Obama is not labeled white as often as black? How much admixture of this mysterious white race do you need in order to pass for white?

Why are very light-skinned Latinos, Arabs and even African tribesmen exempted from the sin of being white?

Best, Terry

terry, you seem to be mired in quicksand on this issue. You have repeatedly stated that you do see race. Good for you. while you stand on the sidelines yelling about your pure view of race, let others deal with the consequences of the social construct of race.

The MD faced with pulmonary insufficiency in an African-American child is going to go through a differential diagnosis. The process will begin with what is more likely to be the cause of the illness. While the diseae severity is equal in Blacks and Whites, the incidence is different. Cystic fibrosis occurs in 1/3200 Whites vs 1/15,000 in Blacks. The MD will olook for the most common causes for the illness in the child they are seeing.

The CDC recommends routine testing for cystic fibrosis in all newborns. Want to make a bet on whether it is more likely for a White infant or a Black infant to be screened, even with equal income levels and insurance plans?
That is the discussion that needs to occur. It reflects the effect of race. It impacts the health care of African-American infants

Again, your posts on this issue adds nothing to the debate.