In all the commentary, no one mentions that Obama is half white. He had no opportunity to choose his racial identiry, that was thrust upon him the minute his dark head poked out from his mother's womb. . Now he is suspect because of that same identity, the one he has no choice in.
In spite of that, he shows no signs of being bitter or of rejecting the white half of his ancestry.

After Obama's father left, his choice of male mentors was limited to those who offered to serve as such. Did a pastor from the white side of his ancestry step in and ofer to guide him?
And still, there is no bitterness or blame discernible in Obama's words.

Obama spoke about the need to understand people of many different convictions, and that would include the very people who are his critics. All he asked in return was that he be allowed to define his own beliefs and his own principles. In reply to his offer of mutual respect and understanding, his critics drone on about double standards and two sides of the coin. I call that spitting on the hand offering grace..

I'm not religious, but I do respect the religious maxims of many religions.
I especially value the 'Do unto others..” verse, which is echoed, in some form, in many religions. In his offer of mutual understanding, Obama appears to be applying that principle. I don't sew too many doing the same, not even among those who are fervent defenders of their faith. Huckabee is the execption, and how it is that he is the xception.

In all the commentary, no one mentions that Obama is half white. He had no opportunity to choose his racial identiry, that was thrust upon him the minute his dark head poked out from his mother's womb. . Now he is suspect because of that same identity, the one he has no choice in.
In spite of that, he shows no signs of being bitter or of rejecting the white half of his ancestry.

After Obama's father left, his choice of male mentors was limited to those who offered to serve as such. Did a pastor from the white side of his ancestry step in and ofer to guide him?
And still, there is no bitterness or blame discernible in Obama's words.

Obama spoke about the need to understand people of many different convictions, and that would include the very people who are his critics. All he asked in return was that he be allowed to define his own beliefs and his own principles. In reply to his offer of mutual respect and understanding, his critics drone on about double standards and two sides of the coin. I call that spitting on the hand offering grace..

I'm not religious, but I do respect the religious maxims of many religions.
I especially value the 'Do unto others..” verse, which is echoed, in some form, in many religions. In his offer of mutual understanding, Obama appears to be applying that principle. I don't sew too many doing the same, not even among those who are fervent defenders of their faith. Huckabee is the execption, and how it is that he is the xception.

The speech was brilliant. But I expected nothing less… Obama has a true gift in that respect, just like many a strong leader in the past both benevolent and malicious alike. I don't think he tried to deceive with the speech… It was quite clear. I do, however, think he tried to shift the focus, and and judging by the media reaction, I think he did that well.

But it doesn't change that he chose as his mentor and spiritual adviser someone who I consider a most unsavory fellow… Nothing he could have said in that speech would have changed that because what's done in the past is done. And in this case that's what I was judging, Obama's powerful and eloquence treatise on race notwithstanding.

Alas, 'tis but one data point in a sea of many with more to come…

The speech was brilliant. But I expected nothing less… Obama has a true gift in that respect, just like many a strong leader in the past both benevolent and malicious alike. I don't think he tried to deceive with the speech… It was quite clear. I do, however, think he tried to shift the focus, and and judging by the media reaction, I think he did that well.

But it doesn't change that he chose as his mentor and spiritual adviser someone who I consider a most unsavory fellow… Nothing he could have said in that speech would have changed that because what's done in the past is done. And in this case that's what I was judging, Obama's powerful and eloquence treatise on race notwithstanding.

Alas, 'tis but one data point in a sea of many with more to come…

Boy, here's a first……….I am going to be more of a contrarian than you, DLS.

He did equivocate around for a couple of days with sort of dismissive responses before he gave the fullsome direct response.

As always, the partisan response from either side is meaningless in terms of moving votes. The unanswered question is what the 5 day uneffectively responded to did for the swing voter.

Boy, here's a first……….I am going to be more of a contrarian than you, DLS.

He did equivocate around for a couple of days with sort of dismissive responses before he gave the fullsome direct response.

As always, the partisan response from either side is meaningless in terms of moving votes. The unanswered question is what the 5 day uneffectively responded to did for the swing voter.

In the end, too though, I'm not claiming that either situation is a litmus test for me, by any means. There's no doubt that McCain represents the policy positions that I favor, and that Obama is much too liberal for me to support him. When I state my opinions about how each is measuring up, it's not about who gets my vote- but I would, for instance, contact the McCain campaign to register my displeasure if he goes too far with pandering. And if I seriously thought it was going to influence his policies, I'd abstain from voting (I don't see this as a real possibility in this case though.)

Of course, McCain did disown and criticize the religious Right in 2000. That cost him. He is being more politic this time.

They both have to walk a politic line, IMO. It is just sorta ironic that this time a likely Democratic candidate will have to walk the same line.

I imagine the GOP is enjoying this. Historically, the MSM has raked the GOP candidates over the coals for their wacko pastor associations. Now the media must either do the same for Obama, or be exposed as utterly biased.

My best take: they will note the Wright connection, but draw an equivalence with McCain/Hagee…and then excuse them both to illustrate their high-mindedness and rejection of the awfulness of “guilt by association”.

I guess to some extent, McCain is situated as someone who can transform the GOP away from the more dangerous elements of the religious right

Huh?

How is McCain doing that?

He was pleased to accept the endorsement of Rod Parsley, a Religious Right figure who wants a war with Islam.

He was pleased to accept the endorsement of John Hagee, a Religious Right figure who despises Roman Catholics.

And vice versa, some who defended McCain might now be saying that the same defense doesn't apply to Obama. In each case, the people making the arguments have their reasons, which might be legitimate or they might be rationalizations, or they more likely are a combination of both.

I hope that everyone will apply some self reflection to see where they stand. I try to do so, though I'm human and I know I have biases like everyone.

Katherine already explained some of the counterarguments for those of us who don't give Obama a pass on this. Personally I don't completely give McCain a pass either, but I do see a difference in degree because of the type of associations involved and because of Obama's unique situation of being a black person who can be transformative in racial politics in America. I guess to some extent, McCain is situated as someone who can transform the GOP away from the more dangerous elements of the religious right, so I'll concede that's something to consider too.

I think though that when Dems say that the religious right has far more influence and that's why it's more important to focus on that, they are engaging in rationalization. Black liberal politics has centered around churches, and Dems have long pandered there. It's just not as open, esp in national politics; that lack of transparency though can almost be more dangerous than the overt pandering that goes on on the extreme right.

Thank you for making the case so clearly.