Colin Powell certainly isn't easily definable, but it still stands that most white conservatives would support him. So, another piece of evidence that argues against racism.

When you say–

white conservatives have a far more favorable view of black conservatives like Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, J C Watts, or Colin Powell than they do of black liberals, esp those like Rangel or Jesse Jackson who agitate for black exceptionalism

–aren't you just saying that conservatives prefer conservatives and liberal prefer liberals?

PS–Not so sure that most conservatives consider Colin Powell a conservative.

Which approach would actually work better to address the real problem?

It's ironic , btw, that those who have suffered most by unjust rules of the game are now held responsible for single-handedly overcoming the results.

I think that's true to an extent, though I don't agree that it's asking blacks to singlehandedly be responsible for the changes. Obviously whites too have to be willing to truly treat black people as equals, and white racists do need to be taken to account. But the problem as I see it is that this can never happen if some whites who are not racist are still being accused of it with no way to prove their innocence.

As far as the oppressed being the ones who have to provide the most momentum though, I think there's some truth there and it's a hard truth but it's rooted in human nature. Look at history- MLK's movement, Ghandi's, the black anti-apartheid movement in S. Africa, etc. Things finally improved when the oppressed class took the highest moral ground. That's a tough assignment, but unfortunately I think it's a necessary one.

By the way, my own former minister was a good man, and I don't need to throw him under the bus, but he sure had some wacky beliefs, none of which define who I am or what I believe today.

Those comparisons are not apt because a) you're not running for office, so your relationship is purely a personal choice with no public effects whatsoever and b) Obama's relationship with the pastor was partly political- he joined TUCC to begin with as an attempt to have more credibiiity in working with churches on community organization, and he repeatedly described his relationship with Wright and this church as formative to him personally as well as politically.

It's a lot like people on the left feel about conservatives and the religious right. I think most people really don't care if a candidate has some beliefs that they'd strongly disagree with, but the question is whether or not their associations give political clout to certain religious factions.

I don't mean to accuse you, personally, of anything. But isn't it possible to look at what you've described–white unhappiness over black claims to exceptionalism–from another angle: white resentment over black claims to equality?

Well, I didn't infer any accusation anyway, but I don't think your incorrect in stating it this way, I just feel that we've reached a point where it's more the former (resentment over the black exceptionalism) rather than the latter (resentment over claims for equality.) Case in point- white conservatives have a far more favorable view of black conservatives like Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, J C Watts, or Colin Powell than they do of black liberals, esp those like Rangel or Jesse Jackson who agitate for black exceptionalism. But liberals will see that same distinction and some will say it's because the black conservatives aren't truly black, that whites are comfortable with them because they 'act white'. Well, no, it's because they don't insist that blackness is what people like Jesse Jackson define it as.

I think the reaction to Wright is as extreme, objectionable and divisive as anything Wright said.
It would follow then, that those failing to recognize it as such and failing to denounce it are showing very poor judgment, and that goes for prominent politicians. as well.

This is a case of one side writing the rules of the game, defining the terms, making the calls and meting out the punishment, That's the best way to ensure continued divisiveness and extremism.

It's ironic , btw, that those who have suffered most by unjust rules of the game are now held responsible for single-handedly overcoming the results.

On a pragmatic level. I'll take whatever works.
The irony and the injustice of it, should not go unremarked.

I don't mean to accuse you, personally, of anything. But isn't it possible to look at what you've described–white unhappiness over black claims to exceptionalism–from another angle: white resentment over black claims to equality?

Our nation faces huge problems in the next decade, mostly caused by our short-sighted choices of the past decade. Our standing in the world has suffered greatly, and I don't mean the world's opinion of us. We are weakened militarily, socially, economically and morally. We desperately need for this political season to focus on who has the ability and skills to lead us in grappling with these multiple crises. In this context, it is simply preposterous that we are engaged instead in criticizing our candidates for what their ministers said.

By the way, my own former minister was a good man, and I don't need to throw him under the bus, but he sure had some wacky beliefs, none of which define who I am or what I believe today.

While questions about associates and associations are, indeed, legitimate. drawing knee-jerk conclusions from them is not.

What is never legitimate is to apply the 'guilty until proven innocent' rule.

To my mind, this is very definitely about race. and/or inequality of power.

CStanley expresses very well the 'concerns' of many whites. I wouldn't call that racism, but I do see it as unilateralism:. There is no accompanying interest in the concerns of blacks, White concerns are explainedd and justified, but black concerns are seen as a threat,, and that's the end of it.
There has been zero interest iin the 'why' of Wright, or even the 'all' of Wright. ( See Rudi's comment for more about Wright that's being ignored)

For us to progress, there needs to be a willingness to listen as well as to express.

Wright, in the Press Club speech was in the same mode of expressing without (inwardly) listening. While that was badly unwise. I can understand his urge to even the score on attention, to have his say, after he'd been pounded for days and weeks on end. with the expressed concerns of his critics.
Sometimes it seems as if you have to shout to be heard.

Wright and Obama are persons, not abstractons, with both flaws and assets. What their works and accomplishments are matter. What their message is matters. Ironically, Wright's message has been largely about reconciliation, but you don't see clips of those statements in the media. His church includes the 'black and white together' verse to We Shall Overcome, but you don't hear that mentioned.
It;s more than not listening, I think the deafness is deliberate.

Compare that to the level of outrage over pedophilia in the Catholic Church.
There has been criticism, certainly, but I didn't hear many calls for ostracizing all Catholics becaue of it. I haven't heard questions about the patriotism of Catholics (except from Dobbs, maybe) when it acts to circumvent immigration laws.
Both the Catholic Church and Wright act , in the main , on behald of the oppressed, but there is a double standard on how their excesses are judged

The double standard has to be torn down, through dialogue, not through deaf-in-both- ears monologues.

I don't like it that George Bush claims to have “talked to his higher father” about Iraq, and frankly think that anyone who expects the “big Man upstairs” to keep our troops safe, or deliver victory, fails a big test. OK, I won't get that in America, but of all of the politicians who do have religious connections, they all can be said to have failed the same guilt by association test. The Clintons Pastor during his presidency has praised Jeremiah Wright, and the Clintons invited him to the White House. The Clintons spiritual adviser during the Lewinsky scandal was Jesse Jackson.

Chelsea Clinton called Jesse Jackson and asked him to come give spiritual guidance to the family. He ultimately became the Clinton family’s spiritual adviser, ministering to Hillary, Bill and Chelsea, and at Hillary’s urging developed a special counseling relationship with their daughter. 

Jackson was later quoted as saying that “The relationship between a prophet and a president, the priest and the president is a sacred one.” Jackson gave Hillary Clinton a framed photograph of himself with Chelsea, which Hillary Clinton hung in her bedroom.

The Clintons did not repudiate Jackson for his earlier comments
about Jews, calling them “Hymie’s” and referring to
New York as “Hymietown.” Nor did they repudiate him for
recognizing the PLO or Yasser Arafat, or for embracing Arafat and
Syrian Preisdent Hafez Assad, or for accepting Arab money for two of
his organizations. (In fact, Hillary Clinton was roundly criticized by
her New York constituents for embracing Arafat’s wife at a
meeting.)

Later it was revealed that while Jesse Jackson was acting as the
Clinton’s spiritual adviser during this troubled time, he was
having an affair with a California State University professor Karin
Stanford, a former staffer, and fathered her child. According to
Stanford, Jackson tried to keep it quiet by asking her to sign a
confidentiality agreement and by paying money to her from his charity
organizations, hardly visiting the child at all. “An angry
Stanford remarked later that “black religious leaders and
congregations prayed for him (Jackson) and his ‘family’ but
not for our daughter (Ashley) and me.” She then said,
“Coming at a time when (former) President Bill Clinton was being
crucified for lying about his affair with a White House intern, my
partner was praised by the media for his honesty.”

I’m sure Hillary Clinton does not support Jackson’s
remarks about Jews, his relationship with the PLO or his having a child
by a woman other than his wife. But clearly he was able to help her at
a time, as she has admitted, of the greatest crisis of her life.

Then there's McCain, who sought, received and has not repudiated a pastor who thinks Katrina was God's punishment for New Orleans having a “gay pride” march.

So everyone fails that test, if the test of judgment is having chosen not to associate with pastors who have said outrageous things. Am I wrong?

I watched an excellent Charle Rose program on the Wright controversy. It's excellent, and I recommend it to anyone. It aired April 29, 2008 and is available HERE.

I'm not sure if I'm getting the point across, but there's a lot there, I think. Again, my own experience is that a lot of white people are not racist but they oppose a certain idea of some kind of black exceptionality (particularly when it's used to excuse unexcusable behavior.) And then when we express that view, we're told that's not acceptable either because it means we don't accept black people on their own terms. Personally I love the fact that churches like TUCC embrace afrocentric music, attire, and style of worship. Just leave the politics out of it, please and thank you. Yet any criticism I might offer of that will I'm sure be seen as some as an example of a white person who just doesn't like people who look and sound different than I do.

Wrights only crime is some liberal comments and ministering to the poor in South Side Chicago. Does he have a fortune like the Whites or Copeland? Why no mention of Trinity scholarships and drug treatment programs?

It's not too offensive. It's simply no good as any kind of straw-man argument. (It's to Obama's credit that he doesn't claim “victimhood” status because of his race.)

It isn't “about race” (as a large-scale, much less dominant, explanation for concern about and opposition to Obama). It's about politics and the politically related aspects of black American subculture that include Wright's extremism.

Wright goes beyond the expected black-church exhortations to the faithful to be loyally Democratic in the next election. He is a liability to Obama and his campaign, even though we realize Obama is no Wright clone and that they differ substantially.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0326trinitymar26,0,2414760.story

I have been a member of Trinity, a church with an almost entirely African-American congregation, for more than 25 years. I am, however, a white male. From a decidedly different perspective than most Trinitarians, I have heard Wright preach about racial inequality many times, in unvarnished and passionate terms.

In Obama's recent speech in Philadelphia on racial issues confronting our nation, the senator eloquently observed that Rev. Wright's sermons reflect the difficult experiences and frustrations of a generation.

It is important that we understand the dynamic Obama spoke about.

It also is important that we not let media coverage and political gamesmanship isolate selected remarks by Wright to the exclusion of anything else that might define him more accurately and completely.

I find it very troubling that we have distilled Wright's 35-year ministry to a few phrases; no context whatsoever has been offered or explored.

I do have a bit of personal context. About 26 years ago, I became engaged to my wife, an African-American. She was at that time and remains a member of Trinity. Somewhere between the ring and the altar, my wife had second thoughts and broke off the engagement. Her decision was grounded in race: So committed to black causes, the daughter of parents subjected to unthinkable prejudice over the years, an “up-and-coming” leader in the young black community, how could she marry a white man?

Rev. Wright, whom I had met only in passing at the time and who was equally if not more outspoken about “black” issues than he is today, somehow found out about my wife's decision. He called and asked her to “drop everything” and meet with him at Trinity. He spent four hours explaining his reaction to her decision. Racial divisions were unacceptable, he said, no matter how great or prolonged the pain that caused them. God would not want us to assess or make decisions about people based on race. The world could make progress on issues of race only if people were prepared to break down barriers that were much easier to let stand.

Rev. Wright was pretty persuasive; he presided over our wedding a few months later. In the years since, I have watched in utter awe as Wright has overseen and constructed a support system for thousands in need on the South Side that is far more impressive and effective than any governmental program possibly could approach. And never in my life have I been welcomed more warmly and sincerely than at Trinity. Never.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/relig...

The rebellious son of a Baptist minister, Wright was hired by Trinity United when he could find no Baptist church to take him. The congregation on 95th Street, then numbering just 87, had recently adopted the motto “Unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian.” They did not mind his fiery red Afro and black power agenda.

Wright has continued on an independent path ever since, often questioning the common sense of Scripture, objecting to mandatory prayer in schools and clashing with clergy who preach prosperity theology, a popular notion among black pastors that God will bestow wealth and success on believers.

In the process, he built a spiritual empire. The modest brown brick building that housed the church in the 1970s was converted into a day-care center when Trinity opened its new sanctuary in 1995 at 400 W. 95th St. Members run more than 80 ministries, including an outreach to gay and lesbian singles, –also unusual for a black church.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/relig...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0326trinitymar26,0,2414760.story

I have been a member of Trinity, a church with an almost entirely African-American congregation, for more than 25 years. I am, however, a white male. From a decidedly different perspective than most Trinitarians, I have heard Wright preach about racial inequality many times, in unvarnished and passionate terms.

In Obama's recent speech in Philadelphia on racial issues confronting our nation, the senator eloquently observed that Rev. Wright's sermons reflect the difficult experiences and frustrations of a generation.

It is important that we understand the dynamic Obama spoke about.

It also is important that we not let media coverage and political gamesmanship isolate selected remarks by Wright to the exclusion of anything else that might define him more accurately and completely.

I find it very troubling that we have distilled Wright's 35-year ministry to a few phrases; no context whatsoever has been offered or explored.

I do have a bit of personal context. About 26 years ago, I became engaged to my wife, an African-American. She was at that time and remains a member of Trinity. Somewhere between the ring and the altar, my wife had second thoughts and broke off the engagement. Her decision was grounded in race: So committed to black causes, the daughter of parents subjected to unthinkable prejudice over the years, an “up-and-coming” leader in the young black community, how could she marry a white man?

Rev. Wright, whom I had met only in passing at the time and who was equally if not more outspoken about “black” issues than he is today, somehow found out about my wife's decision. He called and asked her to “drop everything” and meet with him at Trinity. He spent four hours explaining his reaction to her decision. Racial divisions were unacceptable, he said, no matter how great or prolonged the pain that caused them. God would not want us to assess or make decisions about people based on race. The world could make progress on issues of race only if people were prepared to break down barriers that were much easier to let stand.

Rev. Wright was pretty persuasive; he presided over our wedding a few months later. In the years since, I have watched in utter awe as Wright has overseen and constructed a support system for thousands in need on the South Side that is far more impressive and effective than any governmental program possibly could approach. And never in my life have I been welcomed more warmly and sincerely than at Trinity. Never.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/relig...

The rebellious son of a Baptist minister, Wright was hired by Trinity United when he could find no Baptist church to take him. The congregation on 95th Street, then numbering just 87, had recently adopted the motto “Unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian.” They did not mind his fiery red Afro and black power agenda.

Wright has continued on an independent path ever since, often questioning the common sense of Scripture, objecting to mandatory prayer in schools and clashing with clergy who preach prosperity theology, a popular notion among black pastors that God will bestow wealth and success on believers.

In the process, he built a spiritual empire. The modest brown brick building that housed the church in the 1970s was converted into a day-care center when Trinity opened its new sanctuary in 1995 at 400 W. 95th St. Members run more than 80 ministries, including an outreach to gay and lesbian singles, –also unusual for a black church.

I don't think William A. Von Hoene Jr. feels the caricature of Wright is correct of the real man.

And of course, I won't pretend that I'd support Obama in any case because even his stated policies are much more to the left than my preferences. I'm not trying to be a concern troll, just hoping to make people who are center left and supportive of Obama better understand where the opposition comes from.