Other people's words seem to be a major liability in this campaign, whether it's Geraldine Ferraro's, Samantha Powers, or Rev. Wright.

Sent by George de Man | 8:27 AM ET | 03-18-2008

No surprise to me that ugly racism is still alive and well in the "Good Old USA." It laid low during the early days and months of Barach's campaign because no one expected him to become a front runner. Now that he has risen to the brink of being the Democratic nominee for president, the fearmongers and hateful are showing their true colors. I hope that all who want a better America will unite behind this courageous man and join in a long-term movement to openly address and eliminate racism, thereby improving the lives of ALL Americans.

Sent by Donna Engstrom | 8:47 AM ET | 03-18-2008

The silver lining to the whole commotion about the influence of race in the Presidential campaign is that, in a time when many Americans believe that racism is no longer an issue in this country, an important dialogue about race relations has been brought to the forefront of the nation's mind. Obama's speech will not address a simple campaign issue, but an issue pertinent to the everyday lives of every American.

Sent by N. Savage | 8:47 AM ET | 03-18-2008

This is going to be a tough sell. Since Senator Obama has been a long-time member of this church, people associate Obama to a follower of Wright. If Obama disassociates himself, the next questions will be "OK, so why did you continue to go to that church and associate with Wright for years and years? Since ministers have a primary role of 'converting' their flock, do you expect us to believe you were not influenced at all?" Today's speech is too late; Obama should have attacked the Wright issue weeks ago. It is a big story on talk radio, Internet and via e-mail.

Remember, Huckabee was associated as a follower of Jerry Falwell. G.W. Bush was associated with Bob Jones University. Once an association sticks, it is difficult to change people's perception.

Sent by R Creasey | 8:50 AM ET | 03-18-2008

The Obama guy says that Reverend Wright's videos are misunderstood. The Obama guy says Wright's videos are really not about denouncing America.

If you play the video backward, you will see that Reverend Wright's comments are not about denouncing America.

Playing the video backward you will see that the Reverend Wright is really denouncing The Beatles. And that the whole video thing is a mistake because too many Americans are watching the video forward.

So, everyone in America, after you have watched Reverend Wright's video in forward motion, where it looks as though Reverend Wright is saying: G**D*** America!

Play the video backwards and you'll see that the Reverend is, in actuality, saying G**D*** The Beatles!

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 10:28 AM ET | 03-18-2008

I was bothered by the commentary this morning defending Rev. Wright's rhetoric. The problem with such inflammatory speech is that, rather than lift people up, it serves to perpetuate harmful myths, lower expectations, and stoke anger which follows people into their homes and spills out onto the streets.
One of Senator Obama's most poignant passages in "Dreams from My Father" was when he described how people seemed pleased that he did not fulfill the stereotype of an angry young black man. While the undertone was one in which Obama was forced to navigate between his ???black and white worlds???, it also speaks to the fact that his ability to transcend race and appeal to so many is partly because he isn???t driven by anger. Anger may have been necessary to mobilize a generation and fight institutional oppression. But anger will not change hearts and minds, which is the real challenge today. It can no doubt be cathartic, but at what price? Why should a young black person strive to succeed when they are told time and again that the world is out to get them? Why should someone apply themselves in school, or at their job, when they are told that they???re expected to commit crimes and go to jail? I hope that no black person feels like they are ingratiating themselves to me if they nod or smile as we pass in the neighborhood. This goes a long way towards improving race relations and minimizing the hurt caused by the insults and harassment which I also seem to encounter on these same streets simply because, as a white professional male, I embody all that is wrong with Rev. Wright???s America.
And can we really believe that this anger is directed only at whites, or the establishment, or does it also have an impact on the preponderance of black on black crime, for example? These same lowered expectations and feelings of hopelessness fuel ???beefs??? between neighborhood gangs. They create unnecessary friction between ???haves??? and ???have nots??? within the community. We can analyze socioeconomic disparities all we want, but by stoking and not confronting the anger that underlies much of this struggle, we are just spinning our wheels.

Sent by D Vollmer | 10:29 AM ET | 03-18-2008

If you go the About Us section of this church's web site, you will see it says in the very first sentence they are "Unashamedly Black." I can only imagine the response if Clinton or Mcain, or any other notable person for that matter went to a church that said it was "Unashamedly White." Reverend Wright is clearly prejudiced and a negative influence on his congregation. Racism goes both ways and spreads like a virus. This is an issue that should be addressed and seriously considered.

Sent by Karen | 11:06 AM ET | 03-18-2008

D. Vollmer: I agree with you that these sound-bites of Rev. Wright are inflammatory. In fact, I agree with much of what you posted. I don't know that there is any commentary that should defend this speech, but I don't think that these short sound-bites warrant our criticism, either. I have been to many churches (some of them in the south when I lived in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) where the pastor said some crazy things in order to wake up his/her congregation. Sometimes, this exaggerated speech was followed with a sensible lesson about how to be a bigger, better person in the fact of conflict. Sometimes it wasn't; it was simply angry speech. I don't pretend to know what Rev. Wright went on to say in these particular sermons, but I am suggesting that we all take the media with a 'grain of salt' so to speak. I understand that video footage of Wright's sermons has been available to anyone. Why not show or make available the rest of these particular speeches? I think the media should take the hit here; not Rev. Wright or Sen. Obama. At least not until we have more to go on than these highlighted inflammatory sound-bites.

Sent by sem | 11:09 AM ET | 03-18-2008

I have been very disappointed in npr's inability to cover this election with any degree of professionalism, i beleive they should recuse themselves from coverage if the can't even begin to be unbiased. it is our tax dollars and my contributions that make it possible for them to stuff their viewpoint down my throat. How about balancing the callers you take?how about equal questioning of the callers, today a man from S.F> called in as the only one to speak out on obamas speech not praising it..he was grilled whereas the callers worshiping the speech were glad handed. Please keep your viewpoint out of the way of fair reporting and expess your views at the ballot box or give the tax payer a rebate "all things considered"

Sent by sandra Longley | 12:04 AM ET | 03-19-2008