What is so painfully missing is the (to me, obvious) accetance that Wright can be both wrong and understandabke at the same time.
A common theme runs through all conflicts, from the socialist revolution in Russia to the current Israeli-Paletinian conflict., and it runs through union-business confilcts and racial conflicts in the USA.

We take a snapshot of a moment it time, decide who is to be condemned and never stop to figure out how we got to that moment in time in the first place.

We say Wright is craxy to believe in his HIV/AIDS theory, and it is loony, but we don't connect that to Tuskegee.

Being right and understanding the ''enemy'' are not mutualyy exclusive positions., As long as we treat them as such, we can't move forward. We're stuck in repeating the same series of back and forth backlashes.

That Obama supporters should fall in line with the prevalent post mortem on Wright disappoints me most of all. Did they entirely miss his speech on race, or did they hear it only as a gimmick to defeat other politicians? I don't think I'm ready to hear the definitive answer. I need time to recuperate. from disappointment.

I certainly think he is intelligent enough to know that he was screwing Obama. The question is did he screw Obama deliberately or did he screw him irrespective because his vanity forced him to defend his honor.

I gave my analysis on my blog the day he did it:

Wright's rant

Addition: I saw Wright on Bill Moyers and he was a much different individual. Why he changed his tune, one cannot know. I do speculate it has much to do with the audience. The Moyers interview was for general consumption. The NAACP and National Press Club were for black consumption.

You asked what was Wright thinking and I agree that he didn't care what effect it had on Obama. He was blinded by anger. Whether he meant to hurt Obama, we won't know. But, that fact is largely irrelevant in the grander scheme of things.

The continued hand wringing here over trying to defend, justify and understand Jeremiah Wright only goes to undermine the credibility of those who write these things and this site in general.

I think that white American is getting a second dose, after the youtube postings about Rev. Wright, of how blacks talk when they are by themselves. The National Press Club speech came off as being worse than it should have been because Rev. Wright brought a group of supporters with him how hooted and catcalled during question time. It seemed like Rev. Wright was doing out of his way to act like a Baffon during that speech.

Here is a man whose long career has been destroyed. Both he and his church have been reduced to odious carcatures. His life is being threatend, as are the lives of his family. And his famous congregant does not come to his defense.
I would think he was feeling a little betrayed, in his own right.

Of course, if he were a saint, he would have put on a public face to selflessly do whatever it takes to help Obama. His great sin, then, is not being a self-sacrificing saint.
Personally, I haven't met too many saints lately..

What is called 'buffoonery', I think was just a little in-your-face blakk pride.
As if to say: “I'll be what I want to be, politics or no politics, white folks or no white folks.'

I think we are watching a very human drama (tragedy, really) distorted by the linelight That's all..

For background I refer to what the pastor of another black evangelical churdh (I forgot his name) said in a Charlie Rose interview. Ths man knows both Wright and Obama, and he described their relationship as close, but built around many rather contentious debates. The words 'close' and 'debates' say to me that Obama was aware of there being differences but could appreciate Wright for his other qualities.
That sounds to me like the essence of a lot of relationships, with nothing extraordinary involved.

Whether or not these debates involved any hot button controversies, it's impossible to know. However, let's remember that Wright, first, formost and always, was about lifiting up the downtrodden, just like Obama was doing in Chcago. .I think that's why Obama sought him out in the first place.

The words that have upset the country are only a tiny, tiny part of Wright's ministry. The volumes of words he has written and spoken .are what represent what he is about and what his congregants came to hear.

I think it's silly to focus this much attention on what Obama heard or didn't hear.
People hear what's important to them and glide right past what's off mesage..
People don't walk out of Shakespearean plays because characters like Shylock might have anti-semitic overtones. They're too focused on the large scale insights Shakespeare has to offer.
When you're looking at an elephant, you don't pay much attention to the little bird by its feet.