The obvious that everyone failed to see:

The Rev. Wright was there for the Clintons when he was in trouble.
He visited the Whitehouse when Clinton needed help in terms of prayers.
His damaging effects coincide with critical times in the election when the Clintons need him the most.
The Clintons have hang in despite the fact that there is no chance of beating Barrack, and have prepared the electorate to get comfortable with the word electability. They knew this all along. The Rev's picture with Clinton was the closest anyone could spot.
The Rev's behavior so far cannot be anything positive for Obama. Even just being quiet after Moyers would have pointed positive. Therefore ask the question why he decided to undo whatever positive impression he gave despite the fact that people who knew him very well had begged him not to do it.
Also remember this is a highly educated man.
The obvious is easy to draw as conclusion. The characters involved are too smart (Clintons-Wright) to make it that easy.
Mr Obama you are being blind sided.

Sent by Ty | 10:05 AM ET | 04-29-2008

Yes, I believe that Rev. Wright has now created an excellent opportunity for Obama to sever himself philosophically from Wright. To do so however, Obama must be articulate in his denouncement of Wright's racist statements. Here is what I'm referring to...

Again, the danger in Rev. Wrights comments lie in his unwillingness to differentiate between culture and race. The statement that, "Black worship is different from European and European-American worship," is a racist statement. It implies that all blacks worship in a certain way, simply because they are compelled to, because they are black. No significance is given to individual cultural heritage. In doing so, he denies to blacks the ability to act in any manner inconsistent with his preconceived notions of how blacks WILL act, in this case relative to their worship practices. This notion is the philosophical foundation of racism. It validates the racist notion that one CAN know how someone will behave in ANY situation based solely upon their race. It would be an enlightening and inclusive moment for Rev. Wright to recognize and acknowledge that his congregation worships in a manner consistent with the culture of his community. Instead he chooses to be divisive by characterizing the actions of his congregation as those inherent to black people. This is racism in it's most insidious form in that he has been able to convince his audience that there is actually something to be gained from this notion.

Sent by Jon | 10:30 AM ET | 04-29-2008

I believe that Jeremiah Wright is using his 15 minutes of fame to HIS advantage and not thinking of the negative effects that his words and prescence in the media is having on Obama's campaign. It is almost as if he's working for Hillary now instead of supporting the former member of his congregation. When people get a taste of attention it is hard to back down and be humble for someone else's gain. Fame and attention changes people no matter good or bad and I believe that this is a perfect example of that.

Sent by Quston | 10:42 AM ET | 04-29-2008

The man is a racist.Period.He could have been wearing "white face".Does anyone have that right,yes.This is america but do you really want that door opened? It swings both ways.Hate brings hate,there are better ways.I never supported Obama,however,I could not sit and listen to racism of any form,against any group for any length of time-how could he?This is the question.If this was a white man and that was a "klan-type" sermon,would there be a discussion.I don't think so.

Sent by susan | 10:43 AM ET | 04-29-2008

Detailed coverage has helped me to consider the sound bytes in ways I probably never would have had I relied on the gossip of my family and friends. I didn't realize for example that only half a sentence was being scrutinized. I assumed the sentence ended at "God damn America," without knowing it was follwed with "for killing innocent people," which was in reference to America's role in several still very controversial issues, such as the atomic bombings in Japan and recent Palestinian and South African dilemmas. I'm still not convinced that Wright is the most thoughtful speaker, but in my mind, the recently acquired knowledge that Barrack Obama wasn't present at these sermons does help to distance himself from these potentially alarming statements.

Sent by Trevor | 11:07 AM ET | 04-29-2008

Susan, why don't you try reading a transcript of Obama's speech on race? If you can't listen to racism of any form, then you certainly must have given up on Hillary Clinton when she used racial prejudice and bigotry to smear Obama by falsely claiming he has a "relationship" with Farrakhan. Stanley Fish had a good blog entry last Sunday about the idiocy of playing politics by association. Obama isn't a racist; however, HRC certainly hasn't been above playing the racist harp in trying to scare uneducated working class voters away from Obama.

Sent by Sweetie | 11:09 AM ET | 04-29-2008

p.s. @Quston, all is vanity, right? ;)

Sent by Sweetie | 11:10 AM ET | 04-29-2008

"God's wrath will go forth like fire, and burn with no one to quench it, because of the evil of your doings" ... hm, just wondering what would have happened if Jeremiah, the Biblical prophet, had been videotaped saying such things about the beloved mother country back in the day. Wonder if that sounded pretty much like "God damn Israel" to the folks who heard it? Oh, I know, context is everything, but I bet old Jeremiah was a pretty wild looking guy, and a clip of him preaching about unquenchable fire would have played well on cable. Whoa unto any politician who happened to be in his congregation.
Authentic prophetic speech is always spoken from the perspective of the oppressed and powerless, and aims always at the powerful. That's why the Biblical Jeremiah's speech is not anti-Semitic even when it calls for raining fire down on ancient Israel. That's also why the contemporary Jeremiah's speech should not be equated with white supremacist speech, which is always spoken from the perspective of the powerful.
Whether or not Jeremiah Wright's speech does his cause any good is another question altogether.

Sent by Rev. Dr. David Ensign | 11:25 AM ET | 04-29-2008

@Susan

Of course there would be a discussion.

Precedent: Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice, former member of the KKK, Robert Byrd, Senator West VA, former member KKK.

Your partisanship is showing.

Sent by Chester | 11:28 AM ET | 04-29-2008

It is obvious that this man is hurting and he has been hurting for a long time. He is sick. It is called "internalized oppression." It is my opinion that every one of us has had an affilation or superficial relationship with someone that let us down by not being the person that we thought them to be. What I do not understand is why so much emphasis is put on the affiliation. Senator Obama is his own person. He is not accountable for Rev Wright, nor can he tell a grown man what/what not to do or be. Senator Obama is from a different era. The bitterness from slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and the injustices made by Americans toward other ethnic groups in America has not been internalized by his generation. His generation "made lemon aid." This is healthier than holding on to bitterness that defers dreams. Please stop giving Rev. Wright so much attention. His root of bitterness can spread like a wild fire, causing us to lose focus on the real issues--all Americans are in a recession, we are at war, we have no or underinsured health care, we pay gas prices for Chaney and Bush to get kick backs through Halliburton, etc.
I am very proud of Senator Obama. He has integrity and principles. He practices what he says. He does not reduce himself to others' level, nor does anyone else define who and what he is. He is learning a very valuable lesson. People who look like you and who you allow in your life, you should be able to trust, however, people have their own agenda and they are about self. Since no one can reduce or find any shortcomings with Senator Obama, they have resorted to using his former pastor. Does that make any sense America? All of this is deliberate and purposeful because traditionally, Blacks have been held to a higher standard in America. America, please do not allow this saboteur to rob us of regaining our dignity/trust around the world and making real changes that are postive, in our best interest and benefit "We the people".

Sent by Robie | 11:34 AM ET | 04-29-2008

Interesting article indeed. Maybe it can be summed up thusly: "Perhaps we can fool the rubes somehow and to make ot more exciting, we will WRITE about fooling the rubes."

Are we to believe that only now the good MR Wright has become virulent and he showed none of that streak for the 20 years that "the one" attended that separatist meetinghall?

This will indeed be satisfyingly hilarious and tragic to watch at the same time. We will witness the true destructive power of groupthink, ideological insularity and media bias. By the time the left gets done with Wright and his minions, they are gonne think they are as wholesome and normal as gramma's oatmeal cookies and they will feel free to say everything and everything that comes to their poisonous minds.

Sent by deek | 11:51 AM ET | 04-29-2008

I think Wright should go out and say what he truly thinks. I think everyone should do the same and not try to hold back or twist their words to manipulate the American people. I have been impressed by Obama's candor on these issues, and I became a fan of his after his speech on race. We need more honesty and less over-analytical protection of image, campaign, message, etc. That's why politics season really sucks--because no one thinks Americans are capable of handling open, honest dialogue. Let Rev. Wright speak freely. I think it will work out in the end.

Sent by anonymous | 12:15 PM ET | 04-29-2008

Rev Wright is serving HIMSELF and no one else. In the long run, it will not help Obama. Those who support him, support him. Rev Wright is not gaining any votes for Obama and may cause a loss of support. Bottom line, he cannot overcome sound bites. No one can...next week the talking heads will still be in control of what we hear; Wright's 15 minutes will be up and BO will be left with the mess.

Sent by Rayzr | 12:19 PM ET | 04-29-2008

Thanks to youtube i got the chance to hear the ENTIER speech and as far as I can gather (being white myself), there is absolutely nothing racist about Rev. Wright's words. It's the fire of civil rights not dumbed down or muffled by the "progress" of the last 40 years. Political correctness has gotten so out of hand [within the large media forces] that any racial discourse has been labeled as racist. When he says that "Hillary has never been told that she's not white enough," he is not putting down her whiteness, he is only highlighting the fact that she is completely disconnected from a large portion of Americans that deal with issues of race on a daily basis. This is classic big media coverage: take something out of context, play it repeatedly to smash it into the consciousness of th public, and tell them what is wrong with it. It's becoming harder and harder to get real news (or at least the whole story), unless, like the folks reading this, you do a little digging.

Sent by Jerome | 12:52 PM ET | 04-29-2008

"...we pay gas prices for Chaney and Bush to get kick backs through Halliburton, etc"

Robie, what proof do you have of such claims?

Sent by deek | 1:12 PM ET | 04-29-2008

I believe that if wright should get into a fight with anyone one out there, Obama would have to be held accountable for it and has to face the charges. This is how ridiculous we have become as a people.

Sent by Ty | 1:18 PM ET | 04-29-2008

Sweetie: WAKE UP!
Obama DOES have a relationship with Farrakhan. Farrakhan's headquarters is in Obama's district. Obama has been employing members of the Nation of Islam in his Chicago and DC offices for years--claiming "it's no big deal". Wright went with Farrakhan to visit Libya in 1984. As to Obama--the liturgy of the church is based on "black Liberation Theology" as Wright keeps telling everyone. Google it. It was created by James Cone. Here's what he has to say about it:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120585801828545495.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r2:c0.12717
(That's from the Wall Street Journal by the way)
Wright is a racist. James Meeks (another Obama mentor) is a racist. Obama is a racist.
NO RACISTS. NO OBAMA.

Sent by Phillip Seymour | 1:53 PM ET | 04-29-2008

The Press/Media should be reporting to us exactly what they see or hear, and we as the people should make our own decisions.That is where their freedom should end as the forth branch. They should not be allowed to insert their own opinions and manipulations that is where deceit begins. The law makers need to do something about this.

Sent by Christy | 2:24 PM ET | 04-29-2008

And then after Obama disowns Wright, when should we expect him to also disown his white gramma?

Oooooopsie.

Sent by deek | 2:52 PM ET | 04-29-2008

Seymour:
The Bush family have been friends with the Saudi's for a very longtime. He even visited not too long. Saudis flew aircrafts into the world trade center.
please why don't you complete this for us per you method of analogy on Obama....then start convincing us, as to why we had no problem voting for Bush.
Marc Rich one of the biggest tax evaders in US history. he also deals in guns and Oil with Iran is very close with clintons, actually they pardoned him he contributed to their library (do some research on this not difficult to find), convince us on this too.

Sent by Christy | 2:53 PM ET | 04-29-2008

deek: why do you bother asking anyone else a question? You never respond to anyone else's questions of you.

For that matter, no one seems to in these comments pages. I came here looking for a discussion and all I find is howl at the moon rant from both sides.

Sent by Kasreyn | 3:28 PM ET | 04-29-2008

Kasreyn, I was unaware you questioned me. It's hard to keep track of that in this format. What question do you have?

Sent by deek | 4:03 PM ET | 04-29-2008

I'm concerned with the term racist being applied to Jeremiah Wright. I'm neither a congregant, nor a supporter of his nor do I agree with many of his opinions but I've found no evidence of racism. One of the examples cited here, his saying that he feels that people in black churches worship differently than people in European-American churches is not racist. It is the same as saying Baptists worship differently than Presbyterians or Jews differently than Catholics. He's merely drawing a distinction between groups. If you have attended services in a black church and European-American/white church you'd likely agree that there are distinct differences in worship styles.

Please let's not use the term racist loosely. According to Webster's Dictionary racism is 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

If there is substantiated evidence of Wright purporting his racial superiority, or claiming to hate a group of people because of their race I'd like to see it. I'd like someone to fully support the racist argument not with snippets or out of context excerpts but with facts.

Wright's opinions are just that. He's welcome to express them freely in public just as we on this blog are doing right now. You are welcome to condemn his opinions and anyone who supports them with or without substantiation. However wouldn't we all rather have accurate facts to support our positions? Isn't that why we listen to NPR for news and information rather than say Howard Stern? If one prefers propaganda to facts then perhaps that person should be blogging on The National Enquirer's site.

Sent by Mark Riding | 4:13 PM ET | 04-29-2008

How could this possibly help Obama...people who did not support Obama were able to determine that Rev Wright had "issues" and was a problem almost immediately via soundbites, 30 minute recordings and recently on television...and to suggest that Obama couldn't in almost 20 years makes him look even more clueless...whether you believe it or not, I feel your pain, Obama Supporters...your candidate simply doesn't have what it takes...

Sent by ard | 5:49 PM ET | 04-29-2008

Mark,

I've given due consideration to your statements of yesterday and am hoping you might as well, consider the following.

The groups that you list in example; Baptist, Presbyterian, Jews and Catholic are all valid designations in your argument, however, "black" is not. As Americans, we all possess both the ability and the right to select which of these faiths we choose to follow or not to follow, and you are most correct, both the philosophies and the manner in which these philosophies are expressed in worship, can be very different. Again, we as Americans have both the ability and the right to follow whichever of these faiths that seems most suited to us as individuals.

One has no choice over their race. To suggest that blacks worship in a certain manner simply because they are black, is both an absurdity and a racist notion. If you examine my initial comments closely, I do not claim that Rev. Wright is a racist. However, if our intent is to realize Dr. Kings dream, then we are left with no alternative than to judge ourselves based upon our actions, as our actions determine our character. Rev. Wright is espousing racist notions, again that, "... he denies to blacks the ability to act in any manner inconsistent with his preconceived notions of how blacks WILL act, in this case relative to their worship practices. This notion is the philosophical foundation of racism. It validates the racist notion that one CAN know how someone will behave in ANY situation based solely upon their race." This notion falls directly in line with the number 1. definition that you provide for "racism." Without knowing Rev. Wright personally, I hesitate to label him a racist. If he is not, he needs to be more articulate in his point of view.

There is no such thing as the "Black Church." It does not exist. To believe otherwise is to believe that all blacks worship in the same manner. I think Justice Clarence Thomas, a devout Catholic, and the now passed Sammy Davis, Jr., a converted Jew, would take umbrage with this notion.

I think that the problem that some people are having with Rev. Wright is that he is confusing culture with race. His observations about culture are most insightful; his example, comparing the styles of the University of Michigan and Michigan State University marching bands to the styles of the Florida A&M and Grambling marching bands, is an apt one from a cultural perspective. His mistake comes when he says, "We just do it different." The problem lies in most peoples' interpretation of the implicit meaning of "We." Without taking too much of an assumptive leap, are we to understand that he means "black people?" If so, now he's talking about race, not culture. Again, herein lies the problem. The culture of the University of Michigan marching band is most definitely different from the culture of the Florida A&M marching band. I think however, that the many talented, young, african american members of the University of Michigan marching band might take umbrage with the notion that this difference is one dependent upon race! Cultures are transitional, race is not. This is the essence of what makes racism so divisive. Reverend Wright needs to take another small step forward and adopt the new paradigm that "race does not matter." He can then continue to advocate with validity, in his most inspiring, compelling, intelligent and articulate way, that we should learn to love and accept one another in spite of our cultural differences.

I do not use the terms racism or racist loosely. These terms define an ongoing scourge upon our county's psyche. We must convince our leaders that RACE DOES NOT MATTER, that there is nothing to be gained either personally our philosophically from proclaiming otherwise!

Rev. Wright gave Senator Obama a great opportunity yesterday for Obama to distance himself from Wright... and Obama, much to his credit, took it!

Sent by Jon | 8:18 AM ET | 04-30-2008

Jon,
I appreciate you giving my statements due consideration and I have given your comments the same. I must say that I appreciate this opportunity to have such a respectful and intelligent discourse. Please allow me to continue.
You are right, black people have no option to determine their race when born or throughout their lives. I also agree that to suggest that someone worships a certain way merely because he is black is absurd. It is equally as absurd to suggest that because someone is Catholic that he doesn't use birth control or because he's Hindu he's never eaten beef. Certainly such generalizations can be troublesome. However, I must take exception to your point that black is not a "valid designation" like the other groups I listed. By saying that, you are implying that there is no such thing as black American culture. There most certainly is and it includes (many people would say it is rooted in) religious traditions.
These traditions are not isolated to Jeremiah Wright's church. In fact, one could attend services in black churches throughout the country and find very similar practices, musical styles, and yes rhetoric. (Ask 10 black people at random what the response to "God is good" is. At least 6 of them will respond with "All the time.") In fact, one could attend services with black Baptist, Methodist, and AME (African Methodist Episcopal) congregations and witness versions of these traditions in action despite the theological/philosophical differences of the doctrines. You mentioned Dr. King who is an archetypal case in point. Even his non-liturgical speeches are replete with rhythmic timing, musical inflections and pauses for amens. That is all from the Black Pastor 101 textbook and purposely similar to other black pastors past and present.
Of course there is no singular Black Church to which all black people belong and I don't believe that Wright was suggesting that. By nature of his referencing Louis Farrakhan he is aware of black people who belong to other faiths (no doubt aware of black agnostics and atheists too). I'm certain he was referencing the quantifiable set of practices, music, mores, and expression that could be called black American religious traditions. In this context, when he says "we" he is speaking about those people who subscribe to those traditions; those black people who experience their culture in similar ways. He does not speak for all and you are grossly diminishing his intellectual capacity to assume that he thinks that he does. I have no problem with a black pastor using the inclusive "we" in context any more than I have a problem with Hispanic activists saying "in our community/La Raza" or a Rabbi referencing the suffering of "his people." This directly challenges your point of making Wright a "reflective racist". A clever argument yes, but unsubstantiated and inaccurate.
To your point of confusing the terms race and culture. Yes the terms do have different definitions but conceptually they are inextricably intertwined. That is why, fair or unfair to Merriam-Webster, the terms are commonly used interchangeably. With that, I now must correct you. RACE DOES INDEED MATTER. It matters because with race/culture comes traditions and collective experiences/history that inform individual identity development. When you claim race does not matter you unfairly diminish those things and suggest that those distinctions are not important to us all. Jon, this shouldn't be news to you, WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME.
Suggesting that we are all simply Americans without distinction is condemnably nationalist using your definition of racism as model. Certainly I take umbrage to anyone considering Americans, simply by nature of being American WILL act as George Bush, Andrew Jackson, or Gov. George Wallace et al have. (However I don't deny that I belong to a collective American culture and take no offense from being included in the "we" statements that apply to me.)
Perhaps this example will clarify my position. A teacher says, "Oh I don't see color/race in my classroom. I treat everyone equally." I say, "Shame on you teacher, you've just denied that little Asian girl, little Indian girl, and little black boy the opportunity to authentically revere their own and other cultures in your classroom with their peers. You've diminished the important role their ancestry/race/culture plays in their learning. Worse yet you've suggested that their (or your) unique cultural imprint will not benefit the class." When that teacher claims to not see color she is saying she teaches her charges as if they are all raceless, "regular American kids", and of course the majority regular Americans are white.
From a pedagogical standpoint, studies prove that white children and children of other races/cultures do not always absorb curricular material in the same ways. In short, one universal or American approach does not suit all. For example, a little kosher-keeping Jewish boy in 1st grade may have trouble completing the following analogy: hat is to head as cheese is to burger. Unless the 6 year old is extremely intuitive or a strong self-advocate he'll likely leave the class not understanding why he doesn't "get it" like the other kids do. By not giving credence to his kosher culture the teacher is unfairly privileging other children while depriving him of a more complete learning experience. The teacher should acknowledge and prepare for the diversity in her class and differentiate her instruction for race/culture differences in the same way she would for the kinesthetic or visual learner s. It is her responsibility, not his, to ensure that the lessons are palatable for all (pun intended). Otherwise there is clearly institutional racism--which indeed is the scourge of the collective American psyche. "Good ol' boys" calling Arabs Towel heads is far less an effective cancer to our society.
So please Jon, let's not strive for a society in which race is rendered unimportant, but for one that respects and approaches race pluralistically.
Lastly, to the original question posed, I think warding off the buffoonery of Rev. Wright could be beneficial to the Obama campaign but probably won't be; unringing bells is typically impossible. I think Rev. Wright is self-serving and ego-maniacal, and uses his position in egregiously irresponsible ways (Condi-Skeezer Rice in a sermon?!). He's obviously hurt by Obama's earlier distancing and not mature enough and/or farsighted enough to address his feelings to Obama directly and offline. His actions are not beneficial to the Obama campaign, the Democratic Party, or the country, as they only add additional conflagration to an already ablaze Presidential Primary contest. Why confuse masses that might be easily swayed? Why not allow Obama to run his Primary race untethered to this vacuous controversy? I'm glad that Obama has distanced himself and hope that the American people will return to discussing platform issues that matter to the country as a whole.
How in the hell am I supposed to afford to fill my SUV at $4.00 per gallon when the economy is stagnant? How are we going to stop hemorrhaging capital in support of what is apparently an unwinnable war? Why is NASA so well funded but public schools underfunded? And so on...

Sent by Mark Riding | 1:09 PM ET | 04-30-2008