Case in point, as you mentioned, he made a conscious decision to attend this particular type of church in order to gain a better understanding of this segment of African American culture. But in doing so, there is a backlash from conservative whites who definitely won't embrace a person of that mindset. I just don't think he's sufficiently showed that he understood that (if he did, he would have distanced himself much sooner, and more clearly.)

I'm not sure yet whether Obama should outright “reject and denounce” Wright. Pulling a Sister Souljah on him would (1) seem like a sing of weakness (run away! run away!) and (2) be divisive (since a lot of people DO agree with what Wright said).

I think Obama needs to use his “crazy uncle talk” as the kernel of a speech that hits on (1) the fact that we all have people in our lives that we love and cherish but who also do things that we disagree with and are sometimes disgusted by, (2) that many people agree with Wright and that national unity means we simply can't reject those people because they have ideas because we find disquieting, and (3) that the greatest thing about America is its ability to absorb the positive things to be learned from even people who have ideas that we reject.

This speech would hit on the importance of family, community and the nation and how all three survive and thrive because of the diversity of opinions within them, not despite them.

That's the kind of emotional appeal I would like to see coming from Obama (or any other leader for that matter).

Did we learn nothing from the last two elections?

Politics is about emotions, not reason. Making a reasoned argument against this story will fail and it will fail spectacularly. Obama needs to make an emotional argument that distinguishes himself from Wright. There will be a significant number of voters in the middle who will be swayed by stories that say “Obama's minister says 'God Damn America'”. Simply waiving it off as “crazy uncle talk” won't cut it.

I think what gets lost is Obama's own personal account of his identity. He grew up in privileged and mostly white culture, (not to mention he has no African American ancestors) and he's said part of the reason why he goes to that church is to understand how blacks in this country view things.

I'm not sure that he does show a lack of understanding about white reaction. Why do you think that? It seems to me that what he shows a lack of understanding is that try as he might, he has to address things that have absolutely no clear relevance to how he will govern. Obama is not MLK or Malcom X. He is not a racial leader, he is a political leader that is trying to ignore demographic differences. Now that it's clear he cannot, it'll be curious to see what he does.

I've always thought that the greatest weakness of Obama is that his entire premise relies on assumptions that I'm not sure America has reached yet. My greatest fear isn't that Obama the man loses (because I'm not even sure how great of a President he would be) but that if he does, it will kill the ground up reconciliation message that he is trying to spread.

Thankfully things aren't quite as volatile today as they were then, but the same underlying dynamics sit below the surface any time race is an issue.

That's not what the phrase “having a tin ear” means, at all.

Instead, it means that I see in Obama taking too long to distance himself more clearly and forcefully from this racially based political theology, that he doesn't quite get how this kind of rhetoric sounds to conservative white voters. It's not that I think Obama agrees with Wright on all or even most of this- but it's that I know other people aren't going to give him the benefit of the doubt and stirring up those concerns that some whites have about radical anti-white racism is not going to create a good environment for racial healing.

As Mikkel says, like it or not, a lot of blacks feel the way that Wright does. Obama seems to understand that part of it, even though he doesn't agree with Wright. What he shows a lack of understanding about though, is that a lot of whites feel a strong negative reaction to the fact that a lot of blacks feel the way that Wright does. Obama (if he now gets this) needs to reassure that group, just as his acceptance of Wright and his followers shows reassurance to them. If you're going to be the guy who mediates between the two sides in a dispute, the very first step is to demonstrate that you understand the views of each side.

That;s the way it should be. We should be able to debate ideas and voice our disagreements without dehumanizing those who have misguided opinions. As it is, we do, in fact, dehumanize and treat those in disagreement as if they were not human beings breathing and bleeding like the rest of us. They are treated like
malignant tumors, that thave to be cut out and destroyed. By destroying people instead of trying to negate their ideas, we destroy a lot of good along with the bad.

The question is, could Obama carry it off on such terms? I feel real fear when I consider our attention deficit disorder epidemic. Deep and complex ideas are hard to get across in our soundbite age..

Maybe this is serious enough to warrant a major speech, one of the same caliber as his speech at the Convention. .Such a speech could priovide a really sweet moment. and a reinvigoration of his campaign.

Dare I hope?

On the other hand, I think that if he highlights the reasoning behind what Elrod says, while combining it with his overall message, then it could be a historical political moment.

Like it or not, many many people in America feel the way that Wright does. And I'm not just talking about blacks feeling oppressed or taken advantage of, but people of all races that feel like the system is tearing them up. And almost all foreigners think that the terrorism connection is completely obvious even though they of course think that it is repugnant that any one could think terrorism is ever justified.

To be honest, it feels like our country is sick..being the most powerful country is in many ways its own disease and history has repeatedly shown this. At this point in time, our country acts a lot like the Greek gods if you get my drift. So yeah, I think that Obama can explain why Wright is a spiritual mentor even though Obama doesn't agree with his worldview, but I hope that Obama can help us usher in a renewed pride and fighting spirit to live up to try to live up to the American ideal.

So I don't think that Obama should reject Wright…to me rejection sounds like casting someone aside and is inherently disrespectful. He should do what he did with McClurkin but more forcefully: state that he respects the person and the views, but that the person is wrong because of a lack of understanding — or at the very least, that we can all agree on a number of principles to work together towards even if we cannot agree on much else, and see how things fall in place. Similar to how he has worked with Sen. Brownback on several issues and Rick Warren in combating AIDS in Africa.

domajot,
I agree on the timing. A month and a half before the next primary is the best time for this to pop up. And he should respond to Wright's comments with his own oft-stated views on patriotism and unity.

As I said on another thread, though, I think Obama lucked out with the timing.
This has come up after Obama had the time to build a following but before the general elections.

He has time, then, to consider and plan the strategy for his response.
The response is what will determins, to a large extent, how this will play out.
Obama will need to be weplicit and forceful. Generalites won't do this time, IMO,

the having to be so stridently against him would be what I would object to if I were Obama – I don't want have to be so affirming in a certain way just to be convincing to a certain demographic. I think he CAN appeal to many, many people by outlining it as you have – because in real life, that's how it does happen.

My father-in-law is this way. He's an incredibly generous, caring and thoughtful man who has been a great influence on my wife's life. But he's also an unabashed racist and he has a creepy fixation with Nazi Germany (as a Sudeten German expellee, his opinions of Nazi Germany are not academic). Do I reject association with him because of this? I'm Jewish and a liberal and I find much of what he sees repulsive. But I recognize the totality of him is greater than dinner table racism.

Judging from Obama's book, his relations with Jeremiah Wright is similar. Spiritually, there is much that Wright has done to lift Obama up, especially as he searched for his own identity. But in the process Obama came in contact with some pretty nasty rhetoric from Pastor Wright. Does that mean Obama used “poor judgment” in having him as a Pastor? I think that's unfair. The totality of Jeremiah Wright is undoubtedly far greater than the outlandish snippets shown on TV.

However, optics in a campaign matter. Obama's opponents – both Hillary and McCain – will seek to tar him as unpatriotic because of his pastor's sermons. It isn't fair, but that's how politics works. As a tactical measure, then, Barack Obama needs to Sistah Soldjah Jeremiah Wright. He should probably call him privately ahead of time to let him know it's coming, but then he should publicly denounce, reject and repudiate the comments by Wright, and he should remove Wright from his religious outreach role on the campaign. He should reinforce his core patriotic belief in American unity, and that Wright's remarks directly contradict his. He should reject identity politics – as he has done throughout the campaign – and hold up Wright's sermons as the sort of thing he's moving beyond.

I think that will cap the damage from this at this point. He will have to deal with Wright in the future, but he must make sure that the public knows Wright speaks only for himself on matters of politics and society.

That's what my point was then and it's the point I see again here in your post and in Joe's which he posted a little bit later in the day and referenced you.

EVERYONE has to answer that question. To say that Obama may need to also is not unfair, wrong or otherwise improper.

We could say the same about Clinton and McCain – so let's do that if necessary.

But to say that it's not an issue – well, maybe to many of us it isn't – we've made that clear several times, as individuals.

But as you say and Joe says, this is not going to go away.

I don't think Obama has ever claimed to represent what these more conservative whites feel about race ralations. It should be obvious from his policy positions that he is not a staunch conservative, in terms of today's major political disagreements. It would be rather sittly and self-destructive of him to pretend to be what he is not in order to gain a few votes.

He offers an invitation for people to work together, in spite of their differences, without drawing blood. Some will accept the invitation, while others not. The choice is up to them, the people, and each has to take responsibility for his decision. The question for conservative whites should not be what can Obama do for us, but rather, how can we work together to make a better American society.

Even should Obama fail, that's a political assessment and says nothing about the value of what he offers. Note how many of today's masters of art were failures during their lifetimes.

Certainly JJH's comment was timely in that context. However, it may be that JJH would be disinclined to support Barack Obama anyway, aside from this issue. I dunno.

But from a pure “electability” perspective, I think the Obama campaign (and his supporters) are being myopic if they assume this won't be a problem later. Yes, it's true that it will be brought up regardless, but getting it addressed now will make it far less of a lightning-rod issue later.