I'm neither black nor a Christian (or theist in general), but thanks for writing this, Huey. And it's rather well written, too.

I can see that for Obama, leaving Trinity may be the politically expedient thing to do, but it is also the right thing to do - for reasons beyond his control.

Sure he's going to get some flack for it, but then again, those same people would criticize him if he stayed, so their opinion isn't worth much.

Why are journos such a pack of hyenas, anyway?

I think the issue here is that Obama was a member of this church for 20 years. The pastor married him and was the inspiration for one of his books, even the title of that book came from one of Wrights sermons. What the real issue is that how could Senator Obama suddenly realize that Wright was not the man he thought he was. Of course, we can rationalize that people get divorced after 20 years of marriage with that same lame excuse but that is what it is a lame excuse. Sorry, but he through Wright under the bus because he wants to be President. And this after the greatest speech on race ever given in recorded history.
Can someone please explain this clearly and without insulting everyones intelligence?

You know, I have nothing against Senator Obama. I think he will make a fine president. My problem is with the kind of people that are attracted to him. You are a perfect example.

I sense the sad reluctance with which Obama took this step. But frankly, after the Pfleger episode, it was no longer a question of political convenience but of political necessity.
Whites, and white journalists in particular, may well misunderstand black churches. That was the starting point for Obama's superb Philadelphia speech.
He justly earned credit there for not throwing Rev. Wright under the bus. His nuanced approach was in vain, however, as Wright proceeded to throw himself under the very same bus.
In his three-day TV blitz, Wright purported to be defending the black church, but couldn't resist rambling on about AIDS and right-brain-left-brain differences.
Which would have been fine, except for his implication that Obama shared his views but was dissembling out of expediency. Precisely confirming right-wing talking points!
Obama could either have let that stand or disowned his ex-pastor; I believe he made the right call.
Then came Pfleger. A Catholic priest giving a guest sermon, he also happened to be a long-time Obama associate.
Pfleger's performance combined mockery of Hillary Clinton with racial taunting that was cringe-worthy.
It had nothing to do with faith; it was pure politics -- but ran completely counter to the Obama campaign's necessary appeal to eventual reconciliation.
That third strike called for more than a mere expression of disappointment. Since Obama will be moving to Washington for the next eight years, it made sense to start looking for a new congregation.
I don't disparage social and political engagement on the part of clergy. "God damn America!" is not something any politician wants to put on his bumper sticker, but Obama did his best to finesse that.
But the second and third forays involving the church directly linked Obama to views and opinions that he could in no way defend.
Should he have waited for a fourth or fifth between now and November?
As you point out, the media have revelled in this issue. But Obama has also been ill-served by clergymen he thought were his friends.
It is sad that he had to move on, but sometimes change is a good thing for all concerned.

I've just registered on TPM after months of luring just to say thank you for this post.

BO's resignation from Trinity really saddened and bothered me, actually more than anything else I know so far about BO. Although I'm neither Christian nor black I could only begin to guess how difficult this decision must've been for him. I think that there was no good solution for this situation: from many people's perspective staying would've been bad – but in my opinion leaving was really no better.

I have deepest respect for Rev. Wright (from what I've heard of his speeches and sermons on youtube). I think he is a brilliant, wise and passionate person and pastor (I feel very silly writing this, who am I even to begin to judge him?!). As for his statements which some find offensive – well, truth may hurt, do our egos only ever need stroked? Besides, we are still on this side of death, and Rev. Wright never claimed to be an angel. :) What he was was a very important person in BO's life, and ultimately it will not be our fellow Americans who will have to live with Barack's decision to leave the church but Obama himself.

I do from all my heart hope that political expediency was not the true motive of his resignation. Because if it was I'm not sure BO is the person I was hoping he is. After all, once you start on the path of compromising your integrity, where do you stop?

So I'm extremely grateful to you for voicing another possible explanation for Barack's resignation, that is, protection of his fellow worshipers. If it doesn't completely put me at ease, at least it allows me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

In a story I hoped would get lost in the coverage of Saturday's RBC deliberations and Sunday's meaningless primary in Puerto Rico, Barack Obama has left his church, Trinity United Church of Christ (UCC).

I think we all need to take a moment to reflect on what a truly difficult position Obama has been put in here, and how painful that decision was. Yes, cynics will dismiss it as a necessary move of political convenience.

What a well-written and thoughtful piece. I'm not Black, Christian, or even really religious, and you truly put me in a place to reflect on what it must mean for Obama to leave Trinity. It's something that's not being talked about, and it's something that's really not being cared about by anyone in the media, as unfortunate as that is. Even the thought that the parishioners were being harassed in such a way sickens me. And it makes me realize that, perhaps it was partially a political motivation of Obama's to leave. But it's not as if he didn't feel he was forced to make such a decision. ...How truly sad. How truly truly sad.

This is a post I made to TPM yesterday.
Scientific joins the Clintons, Bush and assorted media-bashers from all over the political spectrum by blaming the media's coverage of Wright, Pfleger, Trinity's howling and hooting congregation rather than the words and actions of the protanganists.

The media "doesn't understand" black churches? They don't understand jewish synagogues or budhist temples or catholic churches either. But they do know anti-white racism when they hear it...and that's what they heard.

My post below points out that the Trinity fiasco neen not have happenned; it did because Obama decided to place the god-card in his campaign, much as the right-wing extremist candidates have done for decades.

Obama Resigns From Trinity Church, 20-Years Too Late

Politico.com is reporting that the Obama campaign is going to spin the resignation from Trinity thus: Barack did this to protect the church from the relentless media coverage it has been receiving, coverage which may be impeding the church from doing its "good works."

I've written before about the cynicism evinced by Obama in wrapping around the Cross, much as the far-right reactionary candidates of the past have exclusively done. With the arguable exception of Jimmy Carter, Barack is the first progressive Democrat candidate to adopt one of the vilest and most divisive tactics employed by the Right.

I have argued that deployment of religiosity by Obama was a grievous and gratuitous strategic error that would (and already has) come back to haunt him.

His 20-year-too-late resignation from the church is preposterous on its face. Is he expecting the public to swallow the idea that only since the media shined its lights on Trinity has it been a sanctuary for anti-white sentiment? That, in his 20-years of alleged Trinity church going he never heard similar race-baiting comments coming from the pulpit?

He used the church membership as another line on his political resume; after all, how can anyone be elected president if he/she cannot plausibly assert membership in one church or another? Unfortunately for the candidate, he choose the wrong church and now, in the famous words of Rev. Wright himself, "the chickens are coming home to roost."

The Obama campaign is confronted with its first significant political dilemma. Either the candidate is an obvious hypocrite and was a church member in name only and didn't know or care anything about the church's ideology; or, he was deeply involved in church matters and at least implicitly condoned this church's ideological bent. Not a pretty choice.

He played the god-card when he had no need to do so; now he has to live with the consequences of that decision.

[Note: I take no joy in writing this; his achievements thus far have been monumental, as is his courage.]

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Why, thank you, barefooted. And I must say that I really appreciated your original replies to Fredrick, who, it seems, is a pain in the patootie.
You were spot on.

Obama arrived in Chicago alone, knowing no on. Through his relationship with Michelle and her family, he found the anchors that had been lacking in his life. One of those anchors, for him, was a church community, just as Rev. Wright was, at least initially, a substitute father figure. Who among you who, like Obama, has experienced being raised by a single parent, or being moved from place to place would not be drawn to a strong, rooted family and the larger family of that community church?
As an agnostic I find the subject of a candidate's religion superfluous. Nonethelss, I have hated the religious tightrope Obama is forced to walk. On the one hand, accusations that he might be a Muslim led him to the logical conclusion that he should point out his Christian affiliation; on the other, his choice of Christian affiliation has been criticized and impugned, and his church community has been harassed, factors which have led him to leave that particular church.
For Heaven's sake (pardon the pun) -- why is this part of the discussion at all? We should drop this subject altogether because we do, in fact, have a separation of Church and State. But, if not, then it is ridiculous to focus all the dissecting attention on the beliefs and affiliations of one candidate only.