I came here thinking about posting on this, and you beat me to it. :)

I just read the text of the speech.

I echo your thoughts Bill. I could never vote for a man who not only believes mommas should have the right to kill their babies, but will be instrumental in defending that right with supreme court nominations.

But I am glad to know that should he become president, there will be some common ground. America is a great country.

It was a good speech. I think it demonstrates what I've been saying for a while now. Obama's like teflon. Aint nothing nobody can throw at that guy that's gonna stick. He just turned what would have been a race-ending scandal for anyone else into possibly the race-winning opportunity.

People on my local talk radio station were saying that it was historic and landmark, up there with "I have a dream"

If Obama had just delivered that speech without the controversy leading up to it, not many would have paid attention. But my local station ran it uninterrupted for the whole 45 minutes.

Hillary doesn't have a chance.

That's all for my political analysis.

As for the content...I agreed with much of it. I really liked his point about us ignoring or pretending there aren't still racial issues, and that we won't solve these problems unless we confront them.

What I didn't like is how smoothly he turned the solution to our racial problems to his own political idealogy, policies and platform.

It was like he was saying that he is the answer. It was a political speech folks. Don't forget that. He is trying to get elected.

As far as the excerpt you print here. He's right. and there's a lot of white folks who don't realize it.

I have a unique perspective on this because of something that happened to me in Nashville, that I want to share... Maybe I will in a future post.

In a kinder, gentler universe, Obama might be able to walk away from this. If he survives the Clinton attack which is no longer assured - his strength amongst white male voters has dropped precipitously), the Republican attack dogs will make sure the message is always in front of their base.

And it will stick. For many people who placed their hope in a "New Kind of Politician" it will become the Audacity of Hope Deferred - and they will be heartsick.

I've since read the speech. It is a very good one. Will it be enough. I'm not convinced. But I have been wrong hundreds of times in the past. And I will be many hundreds of times more.

Bill Kinnon,
Obama won't just walk away from this. He will walk away from it victoriously. In fact, I think he already has.

I've already posted my initial thoughts here, so I'll just add a couple extra comments. First, I think there's a great deal of truth to the section of his speech which you quoted; but given that Sen. Obama has for two decades attended the sort of church that reinforces that problem, rather than a church which seeks to bridge it, I think there's more than a little irony to that section as well.

Second, I think it's far, far too early to say that this speech ends his Jeremiah Wright problem--because not only did he not disavow him, which I don't think he could have honorably done, he didn't even try to explain why he's been a part of that church, absorbing that sort of racialist invective, for two decades. I have to agree with Bill K. over against Shrode T.--I don't think Obama has walked away from this at all, and I'm not at all sure he's going to, because he still hasn't answered the real question people have: why choose this man as your mentor and this church as your home?

I agree with A.M. on this. I just read a piece that Jill Stanek wrote about this. She and I'm using her words here because I agree entirely with her sentiments)

I just watched Barack Obama give his speech about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racism and anti-Americanism.

It was a great speech on racism - choked me up in spots - but it did not respond to how Obama sat in a church for 20 years and, so he says, remained unaware of Wright's radical racism and unpatriotism.

In fact, either on purpose or by osmosis, Obama appears to have been negatively impacted by Wright's teaching. All the pieces fit: Obama's refusal to place hand over heart during the National Anthem, his decision not to wear a patriotic pin, and his wife's "first time I'm proud of my country" line. We are to believe these actions were in no way connected to Wright?

I agree with these last few comments. This may go away as a story in the news, but I wonder if the whole thing hasn't alienated some voters.

A.M., you say in your post that Obama has avoided race as an issue in his campaign up to this point. I don't think he has. He charged Mr. and Mrs. Clinton with racist remarks more than once, and came across as fishing for offense at least once.

I think Obama may still win the nomination, but all of this is just part of the ugly fight the Democrats have on their hands. What we sarcastically speaking) is a Republican scandal to sink our chances of winning the White House and keeping respect in congress. "GOP congressmen solicit prostitutes with money from the Social Security slush fund!! Barney Frank calls for their resignations."

Not precisely--I said he has tried to avoid it. I should have said "largely," because at strategic moments, when he's been able to use it without it sticking to him, he has--largely by accusing the Clintons of making it an issue; but he has made a determined effort to avoid making it his issue. Now, that's changed.

OK, I've edited my post.

And BTW, Bill, why are opening parentheses screwing up the comments?

Obama is the only chance we have. The economy is damn near a depression; families must choose between gas and groceries. Obama calls for change, needed change that might pull us out of eight years of Pres. Bush) Obama knows what the working man needs to survive.
Obama 08

families must choose between gas and groceries.

I assume you mean, some families must choose between gas and groceries, to which I would say, have we ever had a time when this is not the case? Even in the "golden age" of the Clintons, weren't there a lot of families having to make tough choices like that.
Obama is not going to solve that problem, and I say that as tentative) Obama supporter. Gas prices will not go down, and though the economy will likely recover during his presidency, it probably won't be due to any legislation that he signs. People need to stop assigning so much blame and praise to the President for the state of the economy.

AM

Could you expand on your opening parenthesis question? I'm not sure I opening parenthesis in a comment I just tested worked fine)

There is a security layer in Bloo when it comes to what it allows commenters to enter into a comments field. It's possible something got caught there. Let me know what you were trying to type in.

I don't believe that Obama is much hurt in his race for the Democratic candidacy. If he loses it, this event would only be a smaller part of a larger whole. The Rev. Wright incident has hurt him more in the general election.

If BO loses the candidacy, it will mean that superdelegates voted for Hillary. It's nearly impossible for her to win the pledged delegate count. One could argue that the Wright incident plays into the superdelegate vote, but given who superdelegates are, I believe that most of their votes will come from political motives as opposed to altruistic hearts.

What the Wright incident has done, in my opinion, is the worst thing that Democrats could have seen. The Wright incident has begun to galvanize the conservative/Republican base who so wearily dragged themselves to the booths - or even stayed home - during the primaries. Certainly, the pro-lifers were always going to vote McCain, but when you hear someone's pastor say, "God d**n America," fifty times over the course of a week, the over-zealous patriot in every true conservative ;) begins to rear its ugly head. Rev. Wright has permanently injected race into the election, a barrier for Obama's campaign.

While this racial barrier seems to be small now, it could end up growing. It's one thing to endorse someone of a different race. It's another thing to endorse someone of a different race whose mentor seemingly believes that your race is the cause of everything evil and wrong with the USA.

I honestly haven't read/heard the speech and most people probably didn't hear it. Don't forget that both American Idol AND Dancing With The Stars were on last night. To put the speech near the ranks of "I have a dream" is to say that the speech will be remembered more than the remarks of Rev. Wright and I feel that such a turn of events would certainly be a dream for the Obama camp. Unfortunately for them, it will be a dream that simply won't come true.

Also - I agree with Andrew in comment 10 that the election of Obama will not see some dramatic turn in the economy that would be absent if McCain or Clinton were to be elected.

Still, Americans nearly always vote with their pocketbooks and if Bush doesn't get this thing turned around in the next six months, McCain is sunk. It's obvious that the Fed is running around like a bunch of Japanese at the feet of Godzilla trying to do anything and everything to make something better. While the stock market stays afloat and people begin to re-consider purchasing a home, the dollar is tanking and, as mentioned, gas prices are on steroids. Let's see what the May rebate brings, economically. It might be the band-aid that Johnny Mac needs to get into the Oval Office before the real problems can be addressed.

I should also mention that I noted Idol and Star Dancing only to say that people, instead of watching news fawning/coverage over the speech, may have been completely unaware that a speech even occurred.

A.M.

he didn't even try to explain why he's been a part of that church, absorbing that sort of racialist invective, for two decades.

I'm not so sure of that--I think he made it pretty clear that he derives a strong sense of community from his church. I think we all put up with a lot to get that kind of affirmation. I think Obama very effectively managed to distance himself from his pastor's more outlandish statements, while at the same time making it clear that he understood them.

I like Obama. All the same, I'm afraid of him because I'm not sure he can pull off everything that his rhetoric seems to promise.

Good speech. Great? We'll see.

Bill, go back and read your comment #11 in this thread as it actually appeared, and you'll see what I mean.

NBooth: granted. However, one can find a strong sense of community in more than a few churches--and in my experience, black churches generally do a better job of that than white churches do; people will put up with a lot, but--also in my experience--they won't put up with being offended by their pastor. If the preaching offends them, they raise a ruckus or they leave--or both. Sen. Obama did neither, which strongly suggests that he wasn't offended.

Indeed, and more importantly, so does the fact that he settled there to begin with. We talk here about Calvinists and Arminians and Southern Baptists and the like, so we're aware of the importance of theological affiliation; and the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. describes himself as a student of black liberation theology, a school of thought which its founder, Dr. James Cone of Union Theological Seminary, describes this way:

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.

I've had people decide not to settle in my congregations because I believe in, and preach, predestination; I've had people object furiously because I believe, and preach, that we are all sinners saved only by grace. I know from experience that people don't tend to settle where they get told things they really don't want to hear. Why, when Barack Obama entered a church where black liberation theology was preached, did he find it congenial enough to stay there and develop that strong sense of community? That would be the question.

True, but I can't help but think this boils down to the way words are used more than anything. As a Calvinist, I've personally seen people rile up when I mention "Limited Atonement" or "Irresistible Grace." There's a cultural background there that outsiders might not get.

So...could it be that the circumstances under which Black Liberation theology was formed demanded such radical language? (I certainly reject any god that's on the side of terrorists, rapists, and murderers--and those are exactly three of the crimes waged by the white establishment against African Americans for the longest time). Perhaps Obama feels that, considering the ultimate goal of this language--equality--it is worth putting up with a occasional rhetorical fire and brimstone.

Hyper-Calvinism isn't just a matter of cultural background--it's a matter of taking certain truths to the extreme, and to the exclusion of other truths. The black liberation theology of James Cone, and Jeremiah Wright, is at least the equivalent of hyper-Calvinism. It is, at the very least, the equivalent of Jonah sitting under his plant looking down at Nineveh and demanding God destroy the city even though they had repented. At its bottom, it's racism, pure and simple; and if the birth of that hatred in past events is understandable, and if injustice still exists to offer some justification for that hatred, none of it changes the words of Jesus: love your enemies, and do good to those who hurt you. Certainly there's language almost that harsh in the Psalms; but remember the discussion we had here a while ago: David prays to God, "Destroy my enemies, either by killing them or by bringing them to repentance." I don't see any prayers for the repentance of his enemies in the Rev. Dr. Wright's arsenal. Or, for that matter, any acknowledgment of Paul's point that our enemies are not flesh and blood, but the spiritual powers of this present age . . .

I saw Karl Rove on Fox Noise last night "analyzing" the Wright situation. One point that he made about Obama's speech I found particularly interesting:

Obama has been running as a uniter, yet we find someone in a place of sizable influence in Barack's life who seems to be extremely divisive. Obama, while denouncing the most virulent quotes, has done little to distance himself from Wright. He has said that we should strive to understand Wright's POV instead of saying that Wright's POV is discordant and has no place in our country or its political dialogue. One cannot portray themselves as a uniter while associating themselves with such a divisive symbol.


While I don't put much stock in the media's talking heads, I think that this commentary is fairly spot on. I don't know if it will rub off on many of Obama's tried and true, but the independents might have picked up on the inconsistency.

More than just independents. Of course, it helps that a fair number of folks in the MSM are for Hillary, but still, I've seen that and others not too flattering to Obama) made a fair bit by liberals.

It does make a to me at least) whether or not people are segregated because they segregate themselves.

In the case of worship, do we segregate ourselves because of politics or because of style?

Do younger people go to different or churches) because they don't care for the "old folks" style of worship?

Do Pentecostals feel stifled when they visit churches with an emphasis on the Father, rather than on the Spriit?

Do Caucasians feel intimidated by the heart-felt excitement that manifested in African-American churches?

Those are not political issues, they are style issues and that I don't have a problem although there are a good number of us who could stand to loosen up a bit).

I work with a black youth we work in a school and he volunteers as a pastor). I had the opportunity to visit his and most likely will again). I was intimidated by the hats...and that's all me...

Saw this online just now:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/24/ogunnaike.black.churches.cnn

It's a CNN piece on the role of politics in the pulpit. The journalist focuses mainly on only her church, but I REALLY like what the pastor had to say about endorsing Jesus Christ.

He did say one interesting thing that could generate discussion here. Speaking on the necessity of pastors to be aware of what is happening culturally and in current events/news he said:
"Every preacher must have a newspaper in one hand and a Bible in the other."

Thoughts on this?

This is not a new debate, by any means, but to what extent does the Bible need to be related to current events? The Bible is relevant always, but it sometimes takes a skilled speaker to exegete certain passages appropriately to bring out their relevance.

Regardless, how much do "preachers" need to know about what is happening in their world/country/state/community to effectively do their jobs as prescribed by scripture?