We simply do not know what Obama knew and when he knew it. The "well, he sat and listened to that pastor for 20 years" line simply doesn't do it for me. Frankly, I happen to agree with a great deal of what Reverend Wright believes. I will say that I don't think the US government created AIDS to kill black people, but I understand someone with knowledge of history and what we did with those black airmen and syphilis might come to believe. Moreover, is it such a stretch to suggest that the U.S. government shares some blame in the 9/11 attacks? After all, we trained Bin Laden in counter-insurgency techniques during our proxy war with the Soviets in the 80's. That said, Obama has repeatedly condemned the words of his pastor. The reason for the break with him that occurred on Tuesday was, in part, that the pastor was telegraphing to the press that Obama believed the same things he did. There is simply no evidence that this is the case. Obama's books, speeches, and various writings have been vetted and there is zero evidence that he believes in anything radical at all. It seems that Obama internalized all the good things Reverend Wright taught about social action, without internalizing the more radical ideas that he espoused. Obama has already admitted that he views Wright in a sociological prism--as someone that was shaped by events that are no longer dominant, and as such, separated the wheat from the chaff.

The Wright issue only matters now to those who never would vote for Obama anyway, whatever those reasons might be. Yes, if Obama is the nominee, the republicans, particularly in the south where racism is still endemic, will resurrect Wright for their own nefarious purposes. My response to this concern is, so what. If it wasn't this, it would be some other straw man. My view is, bring it on! The republicans will only alienate themselves further with the AA community, and the backlash among white moderates may be significant.

Rev. Wright's comments were very carefully worded for a certain amount of deniability: I wouldn't put it passed our government to promulgate AIDS based on what we saw from Tuskegee. But Rev. Wright's comments promulgated a disabling level of paranoia and fed hatred nonetheless. Obama has made no reproach to Rev. Wright that Obama is willing to discuss -- Rev. Wright intimates that Obama is distancing himself from Wright's positions for political reasons. What ever Rev. Wright's faults dishonesty does not seem to be one of them. Obama appears to have specifically told the Reverend that Obama would might have to distance himself from the Reverend because 'you know that you get rough sometimes in sermons.' Under these circumstances -- the only revealed reproach being for style not substance -- shouldn't the Reverend believe that Obama agrees with him?

Obama made no known reproach to the Reverend and is now paying the price.

It is indeed interesting to see how quickly Obama has become incensed when it is own stature versus America's stature which is at issue.

The other way that Obama could have handled this rather than saying my spiritual guide for twenty years is my crazy uncle in the attic would be to acknowledge that while Reverend Wright has gone over the top there is a grain of truth in some of his criticisms and here it is. But Obama plays his Rorschach defense instead -- I don't agree with his inflamatory statements some ones of which
I was not in the pews for. So if you like some of the Reverend's statements you can imagine Obama agrees, and if not, well, Obama doesn't agree does he?

Larry: Amen, brother. Moreover, in saying that Obama is a liar, Wright implied that Obama does actually believe Wright's inflammatory views. That undermines Obama's candidacy to the max, and that undermines my and million's of other peoples hopes, the hopes of people who believe that Obama is genuinely Lincolnesque. Cherry is a woman, so I guess we have to forgive her. Women don't read or study the issues. Silly prejudice like Cherry's prejudice against Obama.

She drank the koolaid and won't take the time to investigate her candidate one tenth of the time she uses to grossly degrade Obama. She hasn't read the spate of articles showing that Hillary tried to destroy the career of a widely admired, even loving democrat of Tenn, Congressman Cooper, because he didn't agree with her health care proposal. That's who she is. Petulant? Geez, she's way beyond petulant. Petulant would be okay. But Hillary throughout this campaign and her political life is a vicious person, whereas Obama, in response to the ultimate dagger in the back from someone he has supported and counted on for spiritual support only expressed anger and in the most temperate way possible, always carefully explaining his feelings and detailing his evidence. He also qualified his judgments, saying that Wright may not have meant to hurt him; he also said he would talk with him and try to understand. Hillary is a divider. Obama is the most sophisticated and genuine uniter of all US presidents since Lincoln.

Whenever Cherry G posts on a topic it signals that it is officially dead. Thank god this distraction has finally had its play.
Also thank god the supers are finally starting to do their job. Those that know how they are voting should step up to the plate now so that it will ultimately be the voters of one of the state that put Obama over the top.