for the sake of simplicity here, your argument (in this thread) seems to be: "i don't believe obama when he says he discounts wright's opinions on matter A, because he seeks wright's opinion on matter B."

my counter: "why not?  people do that all the time." 

again, i've not more than a half-hearted interest in this, but it seems like you consider obama saying that he cherishes wright's advice on matters spiritual enough to disregard his views on other matters to be disingenous, whereas i find it terribly common and human.  so i'm trying to figure out what you really find disingenous.  do you feel he cannot really consider this man family, and thus give him the leeway we afford our loved ones (such as grandma)?  i just don't know.   

Ok -- Obama doesn't just disagree with Wright's positions on race, he considers them toxic, and keeping blacks from confronting the hard work necessary to improve things.  It seems that Obama's responsibility would include more than silent disagreement.

Maybe another way to think of it is a restaurant.  The menu has a lot of nutritious entrees, but also a lot of fatty stuff, which is what's most popular.  But it ends up making the patrons fat. 

Obama says he was a regular at the restaurant, but stuck to the healthy fare, and thinks the fattier stuff shouldn't have been served.  And now he wants to lead us all in eating better, but had quietly watched his neighbors get fat on the junk.

---

There's a lot of rhetorical junk food out there, and I don't think Wright's is the worst of it. 

but more:

1. The ashamed of America shtick Obama did earlier (along with his wife) is eerily similar to the "America had it coming shtick of Wright on 9/11.  People commented back then how gratuitous it was when Ms. Obama said she hadn't been proud of America until now - where now meant they were voting for her husband.  (It's like she hadn't clued in that the America pre-voting for her husband was the same America post....).

2. Obama somehow lacked the political sense to keep Wright away from the campaign.  How do you explain this?  There are only two explanations - John is beating around the bush here in wondering why Obama stayed silent - a) he's stupid; b) he didn't see it as offensive.

I don't think he's stupid.

He didn't see it as offensive.  He didn't get it.  He's already admitted the whole thing has caught him by surprise.  How's that possible?  How is it possible that he thought it wise to have a campaign advisor say things he thought were reprehensible?  He's too smart to have someone around like that.  The thing is, he didn't think them reprehensible.  In his mind they were said in a context where they were appropriate - even right on.

He attended that church for 20 years, not thinking that the guy is like a funny uncle about to retire.  Here he is lying to you.  He at tended that church because he found the guy's words "inspirational."  If he were truly offended by anything the guy said, he wouldn't have found "other" words inspirational.  I won't find JohnMcG finding inspiration in the "other words" of a KKK member.  Just ain't gonna happen (sorry to use you, Jmcg).

In other words, Obama found him inspirational, wanted him on his campaign team, and saw nothing offensive - not even potentially offensive - in what the guy said.  (I'd hoped I wouldn't have to be the guy to explicitly say this, but I've certainly been hinting at it.)

Obama's smart.  He never thought of the guy as a funny uncle.  He never thought of the guy's comments as wrong or reprehensible or whatever actual word he used.

Think about it - his first move was to deny ever hearing such things.  His second move was to say he was just the funny uncle waiting to be ignored.  His third move was to remove him on the campaign and send him off to who knows where (who's paying for that?) so that he wouldn't be interviewed on cnn or cnbc or fox or what have you.

Bottom line - Obama should have and could have seen this mini-explosion happening.  He didn't, and he didn't not because he's stupid.  He never found it (him) offensive.  This explains why the guy's on the campaign.  This explains why Obama reacted the way he did.

well, like i've said, i've barely been paying attention.  but again, i don't discuss my uncle's creationism with him; though i think i did laugh when he tried to tell my brother that dinosaurs were on the ark.

a) the American flag pin thing - just a weird thing to do.

b) "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country" - Ms. Obama's infamous speech.

His reason for taking off the flag - people wearing it were doing unpatriotic things.

"After a while I noticed people wearing a lapel pin and not acting very patriotic."  This somehow told him he shouldn't wear one either.  To me, don't wear the pin - but don't make a production out of it and don't try some weird rationalization as to why it's bad to wear it.

So before you get your shorts in a knot - you might feel tempted to say neither adds up to be "ashamed."  Put in "unproud" instead.  I'll stick with ashamed, but the point stands.

Another case of a quibliter going alien on me.  daveto writes the greatest number of posts - bar none - that I think shouldn't be written.  But you've had your share too.  Simply wouldn't respond the way you've just done.  I see it as intellectual cowardice.

It's editorial cowardice too for that matter.

So let's play your game for a moment.  You've just accused me of making "shit" up.  An editor wouldn't want someone around who makes "shit"  up.  Now Geoff as an editor was far less offensive than you've just been.

Now that's your game.

My game, though, is different.  I have this really, really, really low tolerance for those willing to be insulting without at the very same time  actually defending their right to insult.  Let me just reiterate just how low that tolerance is.  Hope you get the gist.

Either way the outcome is the same.

Good points, all.

As I mentioned in the piece that started this off, my initial gut reaction was to let this go.  I don't want having candidates being called on to repudiate their spiritual mentors be a regualr feature of American politics.  We've all got friends and family members who have done or said things we would be ashamed of.  Why would Obama be any different? 

And to touch on Dawn's point, it may be the case that we expected too much out of Obama; he's a politician like the rest.  I do think a lot of us look at Obama and hope that's what we as a country can be like. 

If he's just another politician, then he's at a disadvantage compared to Clinton or McCain. 

John, I understand where you're coming from. What I don't understand is what you would have expected Obama to do that wouldn't have risked alienating himself from the community. As Michael Dawson notes on The Root, "[T]he problem is that Wright's opinions are well within the mainstream of those of black America." And that puts them squarely in the mainstream of the community in which Senator Obama lives, that identifies with him, and where his wife likely came from. It's great to say that one wishes that Obama were the ultimate outsider, willing to be the lone voice in the wilderness, but such people are rarely able to show that they can attract enough people to be viable candidates.

You say Obama quiety watched his neighbors get fat on the junk. The implication that I take away from this is that he should have been more vocal in attempting to lead them to the healthy part of the menu. For you, the fact that he didn't is at best, callous. For me, it's smart politics. The assumption that his neighbors would have been receptive to his activism on their behalf is arguable, at best. In a lot of ways, Obama is doing the single best thing that he can for the community, and that is showing them that he's successful with his different diet.

By being a member of a black church, and then rising to have a realistic shot at a position often called the most powerful office in the free world, if not the whole world, Obama is showing his fellow congregants that despite the rhetoric, despite the malaise, they actually CAN make it. That perhaps the deck isn't as stacked against them as they've always been told it was. There there really isn't a glass ceiling, set in place by gloating Whites. And given the overall desire of the Black community for role models that "look like them," this is a very powerful thing.

I don't think he's a politician like the rest. I think perhaps he's not enough of a politician to escape the thresher. Who was Michelle Obama talking to when she said she's proud of America for the first time in her life? I think they're both guilty of not understanding their audience, of not speaking to the broader audience of Americans that want to believe their America is as wholesome as they've always been told. Disabusing them of that notion is a terrible political error--one the Republican propaganda machine will use to swiftboat Obama right out of the Presidency.

Is it surprising that someone who desires radical change would surround himself with others who desire radical change? Does his change and their change necessarily look the same? I haven't read Obama's book, but I think if he were an ideologue, y'all would have caught it. It's interesting that the crucible that produced Obama and made him a good candidate might be the very same one that kills his chances. 

"So before you get your shorts in a knot - you might feel tempted to say neither adds up to be "ashamed."  Put in "unproud" instead.  I'll stick with ashamed, but the point stands."

You point does NOT stand. It is also intellectually cowardly to equate "unproud" with "ashamed," because you don't find simple indifference to be controversial enough. That's putting words in someone's mouth, which is the equivalent of making things up. You have defined your terms in a way that casts someone in a negative light, and your defense of that seems to be that you are the one who is allowed to tell us that not A must equal B. While it common to use "not proud" as meaning "ashamed," that is an incorrect equation, and there are some of us who understand that pride and shame are not the same binary state. On top of that, Michelle Obama never specifically said that she was "not proud" of the United States, only that she just now feeling pride. A pride that sleeps does not need shame for a blanket.

Your indignation is misplaced, and your aspersions disengenuous.