Wright, Jefferson and the Wrath of God

"Just maybe now as that dialogue begins the religious tradition that has kept hope alive for a people struggling to survive in countless hopeless situations will be understood."

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, April 28, 2008

The right response to the controversy that has been generated with regard to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. is not to run away from the United Church of Christ pastor, to condemn him, or to try to apologize for him.

Rather, it is to listen to him and to recognize that Wright's not the disease that afflicts our body politic.

Indeed, this former Marine who became an remarkably-successful and widely-respected religious leader is in possession of the balm that has frequently proven to be the cure for what ails America -- an eyes-wide-open faith in the prospect that this country can and will put aside the sins of the past and forge a future that is as just as it is righteous.

As Wright has illustrated over the past several days, in a remarkable appearance Friday on PBS' Bill Moyers Journal and in speeches to the Detroit NAACP and the National Press Club in Washington, he is the opposite of the caricature of an angry, America-hating false prophet that has been so crudely attached to him. Deeply grounded in biblical tradition, nuanced in his understanding of race relations and historically experienced in his assessments of America's strengths and weaknesses, he has much to say to this country at this time.

Not all of what Wright says is comforting.

His views are not universally appealing, nor are they or should they be seen as unassailable.

But, for the most part, they are well much within the mainstream of American religious and political discourse.

The problem is not Jeremiah Wright.

The problem is a contemporary political culture that has come to rely on character assassination as an easy tool for reversing electoral misfortune -- and a media that willingly invites manipulation.

Let's not forget how Wright became an issue in the 2008 presidential race. Republican operatives, fretful about their party's political fortunes, decided that the only way to weaken the candidacy of Wright's longtime parishioner, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, was by suggesting the Democratic presidential front-runner was in the sway of an anti-American radical.

That end was achieved by separating out from long and thoughtful sermons regarding matters biblical and political seemingly offensive phrases and then inviting the Grand Old Party's media echo chamber to repeat the sound bites until they became conventional "wisdom."

This is a classic guilt-by-association maneuver, played out so aggressively in the current circumstance that it would make Joe McCarthy blush. But it has worked, at least in part because people of good faith have not taken the time to assess and appropriately answer the charge that Obama's connection to Wright confirms the candidate to be either a closet radical or, worse yet, a dupe of some free-floating, ill-defined but still frightful fringe.

The response of Obama -- most recently in an extended and at times painful press conference on Tuesday -- and of many of his supporters has been to try to put distance between the candidate and the preacher. "They offend me," the senator said of controversial comments by the minister who presided at his wedding and baptized his children. "They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally today."

That's strong stuff, to be sure. But it is not likely to end the wrangling over Wright.

While it is always good to maintain America's historic wall of separation between church and state, the Obama camp has not had a lot of success so far in separating this particular statesman from his church.

That's because the candidate and his backers have consistently come across as being embarrassed and ashamed by Wright.

That's the wrong response. It's perfectly fine to disagree with Wright. And Barack Obama should do so.

But there's little if anything about this pastor that should provoke embarrassment or invite apology.

Wright can be unsettling, thought-provoking, often right and sometimes wrong. But he is neither anti-American nor unpatriotic.

In more ways than Republican and now Democratic critics seem prepared to admit, Wright is the embodiment of an American religious and political tradition of challenging the country's sins while calling it to the higher ground that extends from the founding of the republic. No less a figure than Thomas Jefferson -- who constructed that wall of separation between church and state but who worried a good deal about questions of the divine -- worried openly about the retribution that would befall a nation that permitted slavery.

"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other," wrote Jefferson in 1781's Notes on the State of Virginia, where he asked, "(Can) the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever."

The wrath of God brought down on a country that permits slavery? A nation damned by its original sin? God damn America?

America has been blessed from its beginnings by champions of liberty, by abolitionists and civil rights marchers, by suffragists and union organizers, by anti-imperialists like Mark Twain and challengers of the military-industrial complex like Dwight Eisenhower. Necessarily, these patriots have said some tough things about American leaders and policies. They have acknowledged flaws that are self-evident. Yet, they have not done so out of hatred. Rather, they have loved America sufficiently to believe it can be as good and as just as figures so diverse and yet in some very important ways so similar as Thomas Jefferson and Jeremiah Wright have taught us.

Comments (168)

1. It is amazing that the MSM gives hsuB/cHeney admin a pass on their criminal lunacies on almost a hourly basis, yet jump all over the Rev. Wright non-issue and create an issue apparently as a distraction from their own MSM cowardice and incompetence; an inability to cover real stories that would definitely create push back.

   MSM sans gonads should equal -- no viewership. But if the viewership is also sans gonads...

   This is a set-up: Oh please, wait until McCave gets the microscope of nonstop lists shown on prime time of all the lunatics he's got close associations with, still. Rev. Wright will not look bad at all by comparison.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2008 @ 5:45pm

2. Thanks for the nice breath of fresh air, John. It may be among the few we're afforded during these days of choking smog and obfuscation.

   Although the apparent statement of Wright's about AIDS being possibly a lab created plague is a bit much, he hasn't said anything that is worthy of the universal scorn that is now being heaped on him, and by association Barack Obama, by our so-called mainstream media.

   I am an atheist myself, but after 7 plus years of Dubya's incalculable disaster I'm prepared to pray that we damn well don't end up with the insidious Hillary, or the hapless McCain as our president.

   Dog help us.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/29/2008 @ 5:49pm

3. I was in the same boat as b_kool. I listened to Wrights remarks on Moyers and at the NAACP conference and I agreed with a lot of what he said, essentially it was just tough love. But now he goes into this idea that AIDS was invented to kill black people and we go head long into la-la land. I don't get it.

   Posted by Tzimisce at 04/29/2008 @ 5:56pm

4. Btw 44 soldiers died so far this month, but not a single newticker mentions this. As far as the MSM is concerned the surge is working and Iraq is well on its way to being great!

   I'm going to agree with some other comments made that I have read today and state that the problem with America is not Democrats or Republicans. Congress or maybe even the presidency, its the media.

   The Fourth Estate has failed in its responsibility to this country. How can we ever think to have a working Democracy without a free press?

   Posted by Tzimisce at 04/29/2008 @ 6:03pm

5. Posted by Tzimisce at 4/29/2008: "the problem with America is not Democrats or Republicans. Congress or maybe even the presidency, its the media."

   And the problem with the media is who controls it. I recommend Ben H. Bagdikian's book New Media Monopoly, which traces the corporate family tree of media ownership.

   It's easy to understand the media's problems when you consider than the people making your news have a stake in arms production (and that's not an overstatement or exaggeration).

   Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 6:24pm

6. Nichols is right on the mark. Even the ostensibly liberal media (MSNBC) as titillated the public with snippets. It also must be noted that Clinton has with evil intent exploited this media frenzy. Their has clealy been a conspiracy of minds to torpedo this campaign and it is lace with race baiting. This is the first time that I have ever been supportive of a mainstream candidate. In the past I have always exercised my franchise for parties of the left. If they steal this campaign from Obama, it is back to principle and Ralph Nader.

   Posted by dblake at 04/29/2008 @ 6:28pm

7. Among Bagdikian's most useful arguments for us progressives is that America media has a consistent rightward bias owing to its economic interests.

   The military-industrial complex is now the military-industrial-media complex.

   Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 6:29pm

8. Ah hum: "American media." Damn this tiny box.

   Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008 @ 6:34pm

9. What is there to disagree with Wright about? Everything he says is correct.

   Posted by neaguy at 04/29/2008 @ 6:34pm

10. Thank you for the first rational commentary I've read. I'm sorely disappointed in Obama and his remarks of today. Obviously, he's reacting to the firestorm but I find it pusillanimous. I've read so many comments in the past two days "Why did Obama join that church?" and "Why did Obama stay in that church?" Well, maybe, just maybe, it was because of Rev. Wright, not in spite of him. The man appears to have a soul and conscience and actually cares about his fellow beings. He challenges his congregation to care and to do. Why is that so difficult for our society to grasp? Why does he frighten us so?

    Watching Moyers and NAACP and National Press Club, I saw an intelligent, educated, articulate speaker who demonstrated empathy and understanding of and for the human condition. Different not deficient. Like b_kool, I'm an atheist, but I was raised Wisconsin Synod Lutheran so I know the bible and I know theology. Wright's biblical references and allusions flew right over the punditocracy's heads.

    The media will destroy any person worthy to be president. No Gore. No Edwards. And now, possibly, no Obama.

    Posted by draghnfly at 04/29/2008 @ 6:48pm

11. I believe relative to Obama's latest statements that his relationship with Wright is officially over.

    Posted by Benchrest at 04/29/2008 @ 6:48pm

12. The Rev. Wright ordeal is done...now back to the facts...The media diagnoses every demo....the old...young...rich....poor...educated....uneducated.... bowlers, bluecollar, beer drinkers.....And somehow ALWAYS finds a way to give the advantage to Clinton. But it's time for the media to finally raise the most incredible point in the whole campaign. HILLARY HAS LOST THE SUPPORT OF AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE !!!!!!!! Do you know how incredibly sad this fact is ? Hillary Clinton (who's husband was so loved as to have been called The First Black President) has alienated the black people of America to such a degree that there is no way blacks will support her EVER. This has nothing to do with Obama !!!! Keep in mind folks....Hillary started this campaign with 82% of the black support. But as blacks learned more about her (Goldwater Girl....Against Civil Rights Act 1964...etc.) combined with her LBJ statements and Bill's minimizing of Obama (fairy tale...Jesse won S.Carolina too...etc) blacks were shocked...then incredibly offended beyond recovery. WE FEEL DECEIVED !!!! We hope that our friends of all races understand how we as blacks feel. This is the main story that needs to get out to ALL superdelegates. People across America are contacting the DNC 202-863-8000 to let them (and superdelegates) know that Hillary ABSOLUTELY KILLED HER ELECTABILTY. The truth is the truth !

    Greg Jones Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org (A Multi-Racial Organization...Dedicated To Truth)

    Posted by gregjones at 04/29/2008 @ 6:49pm

13. I think it's hilarious that the chosen boy of this paper, which I have all but ignored national political articles in since the Obama drama it has willfully played into ... That anyone on here has anything to say about the media bias...this paper packaged the term this election cycle with it's unwavering support of gum drop happy articles about Obama...well cold hard fact the man insulted his pastor. He was quoted in the BBC that their "relationship has now changed." The reverends speech was eloquent...I thought. And true. Truth is something Obama and this paper shy away from...opting for nothing but rhetoric, empty rhetoric. Hillary Clinton, the Hilldog, has been in it since watergate. She was one of the Lawyers, fresh out of Law School, that Indicted Nixon. Indicted..Nixon. She, I imagine, would never express "outrage" about her minister speaking the truth. In any case, I love it. You see the hypocrisy...Obama willfully plays into the media circus. Lovingly. "Change." Where's the change when a black man ignores the truth? This is no MLK. Martin Luther King would express outrage at the media..not the pastor. The man went on Oprah. Obama...is not change. And he's dishonest. And is soft on gay rights, and has a hard on for being as moderate as possible in his actual positions, whatever phony message of "change" he babbles about. Go Clinton.

    Posted by exitandpanic at 04/29/2008 @ 6:54pm

14. I think it's hilarious that the chosen boy of this paper, which I have all but ignored national political articles in since the Obama drama it has willfully played into ... That anyone on here has anything to say about the media bias...this paper packaged the term this election cycle with it's unwavering support of gum drop happy articles about Obama...well cold hard fact the man insulted his pastor. He was quoted in the BBC that their "relationship has now changed." The reverends speech was eloquent...I thought. And true. Truth is something Obama and this paper shy away from...opting for nothing but rhetoric, empty rhetoric. Hillary Clinton, the Hilldog, has been in it since watergate. She was one of the Lawyers, fresh out of Law School, that Indicted Nixon. Indicted..Nixon. She, I imagine, would never express "outrage" about her minister speaking the truth. In any case, I love it. You see the hypocrisy...Obama willfully plays into the media circus. Lovingly. "Change." Where's the change when a black man ignores the truth? This is no MLK. Martin Luther King would express outrage at the media..not the pastor. The man went on Oprah. Obama...is not change. And he's dishonest. And is soft on gay rights, and has a hard on for being as moderate as possible in his actual positions, whatever phony message of "change" he babbles about. Go Clinton.

    Posted by exitandpanic at 04/29/2008 @ 6:55pm

15. Having read the transcripts of the interviews with Rev. Wright, and finding nothing all that off about the reality of being black in the US, think Obama's response today was all wrong, and isn't likely to end the Clinton and media piling on, as if Obama had never made the speech on race he made to such applause not long ago.

    Sadly didn't think that speech would make a difference and today's response won't either. From the beginning this has all been about turning Obama into the stereotypical black, angry, and implicitly antisemitic. Saw it done to Jesse Jackson in the eighties, and has been what the Clinton has sought since Iowa and February 5 didn't work as Clinton wished. This has been DLC strategy since Gore in 1988 at least, and remains about the white backlash against affirmative action and inclusion that goes as far back as MLK. Now that Obama himself seems to has folded, I think, it will only make what he sought to accomplish all the harder. If he gets the chance at all.

    The Clinton campaign has acted despicably with media help. The argument all along has been that a black isn't electable.

    Since white political leadership has remained largely mute and Clinton need not worry of any disaffection from white progressives, the US will go on refusing to come clean over its own racism.

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 04/29/2008 @ 7:07pm

16. I guess it's this sort of "logic" and lack of holding each other accountable that has gotten African Americans in the place they are today...dissed and dismissed.

    Posted by m.nolan at 04/29/2008 @ 7:13pm

17. I watched Rev. Wright on the Moyer's program. I'm white as a fishes' belly, but if that fellow was my pastor I probably would have stayed christian.

    Posted by mdyer909 at 04/29/2008 @ 7:33pm

18. Look, guys there's fantasy and there's reality. From impeachment to "Bloomberg/Hagel unity tickets" to the sun rising and setting on Russ Feingold....John Nichols has been on the fantasy side of the aisle.

    Wright was not brought down by "a snippet here or there"...his conspiracy theories and full out rants are what started this.

    His performance at the National Press Club, also showed that his OWN EGO is involved here...going after Obama in a DELIBERATE attempt to hurt him and his campaign, probably out of anger at being diss'ed...possibly out of anger that an Obama Presidency will undercut the "White Government Conspiracy" talk...if an African-American is President.

    But the Media is not the problem...Obama should have been smart enough to see this coming months ago (even before his campaign started) and Wright should have been told what Obama was going to do, but BEFORE it hit the fans.

    But "The Nation" is making a SERIOUS mistake in trying to defend Wright...he's got an agenda, and it's personal.

    And the fantasy that Wright should go out and speak MORE and he'll "create a discussion" by talking about the CIA and AIDS or how great a guy Farrakhan is....is just dopey....and John Nichols SOP.

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 7:36pm

19. Oh I fully agree with Obama going right at Wright, hell I wish he would have been more severe and more stark about the matter. Political discourse in this country has NO place for this type of race bating. Let me guess the CIA planted crack in the black neighborhoods and AIDS was invented to kill blacks, what other nonsense is there? FFS the poor and other minorities have REAL problems that don't require a long dance naked out in left field.

    Its this kind of fanciful tinfoil hat line of thought that makes either side of the aisle look stupid. I like many of Michael Moore''s films until that moment, and I think everyone knows that moment, the moment where he takes a good point and then takes a good long pee on it by going on some conspiracy tangent.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/29/2008 @ 7:54pm

20. Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/29/2008

    I will grant the common sense and lack of self-foot-shooting of the Right, LVLIB.

    After all, you've accepted McCain as your nominee, despite the fact that he's not "pure" on stem cells, global warming, affirmative action, campaign finance reform, or that he called your buddies "agents of intolerance" (and likely, despite this year, STILL thinks so).

    "Purity" in politics is a sure-fire guarentor of the OTHER guys winning.

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 8:04pm

21. Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/29/2008

    From what I have seen so far the "far left" actually agrees with Obama and not Rev. Wright. Many, like myself agreed with some of Wright earlier comments this weekend, but then were totally confused about the sudden turn to the complete crazy. If Obama didnt say anything about these remarks at the Press Club then I would wonder about him.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/29/2008 @ 8:06pm

22. Though having said everything about many on the left, there is a reason why they want some degree of purity. They are tired of being completely ignored by the Democratic party.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/29/2008 @ 8:09pm

23. I don't care what Rev. Wright says. The issue is all about Obama. Unfortunately, neither he nor many of his supporters will admit that he has caused his own problem. I don't like the fact that Obama talked the big talk and was above it all when, in fact, he was just like all the other politicians. Some of us have been able to see through his facade. He is a Svengali. I will stick with Hillary. Why, because I know what she stands for and how she is and that she will be able to get things done. The best thing to happen now is for her to be the president and Obama vice-president. She can work on getting this country back on track and he can work on the race relations. Both things need to be done and neither one can do it by themselves.

    Posted by AJH at 04/29/2008 @ 8:20pm

24. Posted by AJH at 04/29/2008

    HTOTD?

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/29/2008 @ 8:21pm

25. Guaranteed.

    Posted by Benchrest at 04/29/2008 @ 8:26pm

26. No surprise, MSM owners vastly prefers distractions to discussion of genuine issues, all of which touch on seriously flawed econimic distortions. Keep the candidates away from those. Obama bears the AIPAC & Billary mark of Ham & the MSM will obediently trumpet this to ensure the spotlight stays off genuine issues. That Obama has aa better chance of beating McCain than do Billary renders this distraction ever more attractive to MSM owners.

    Posted by sloper at 04/29/2008 @ 8:28pm

27. Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008

    MASK, the reason why the right settles for less is because we are, by definition, not ideologues. We'll take half-right over dead wrong every time. Conservatives have an empirical philosophy, leftists have always been revolutionaries. That's why no statement is ever too extreme for most leftists; nihilism is the heart and soul of the movement.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/29/2008 @ 9:12pm

28. How long will it be before Americans start to leave? I know 22 year olds who are leaving this year to move to New Zealand. They no longer want to be Americans, as Americans are sick, fat, lazy fascists who refuse to think. This whole Obama thing has brought it to a head. Sad--so sad. I will vote for Obama, no matter what--and I am WHITE, but most 20-somethings I know want to get the hell out, as they know America is o-v-e-r.

    Posted by chocco at 04/29/2008 @ 9:21pm

29. 45% will always vote left, 45%will always vote right and Wright has made up the minds of the other 10%. Guess who's keeping a brother down this time.... yep .... a brother ....

    Posted by bleedingheart at 04/29/2008 @ 9:25pm

30. Posted by chocco at 04/29/2008

    My girlfriend is totally thinking that right now. It is sad and its mostly because America just doesn't seem to be the land of opportunity, it just seems to be the land that refuses to wake from its slumber.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/29/2008 @ 9:31pm

31. what a waste of electrons....

    the greenland ice-cube is ready to flood the few rice-growing areas left, while america turns food into guzzlehol and hundreds of thousands continue to die of disease and war.

    shit, malaria's coming to backyard near you......

    and we "debate" this "issue".

    what the fuck america, wake up!

    Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:42:57 PM

    (so there!)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/29/2008 @ 9:38pm

32. it just seems to be the land that refuses to wake from its slumber.

    Posted by Tzimisce

    what the fuck america, wake up!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/29/2008

    SYNCHRONIZE ALARM CLOCKS!

    LOL.

    Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:44:18 PM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/29/2008 @ 9:40pm

33. Posted by pontificus at 04/29/2008 Ideologue- "an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology"

    You SERIOUSLY think that doesn't fit you? Care to name a few "rock solid" conservative beliefs you've rejected lately?

    Sorry, PONTI, lots on the Left...but YOU and lots on the Right too.

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 10:03pm

34. I watched and listened to all three of the Wright television appearances.I never realized how arrogant and insecure we are as a white race. All rev. Wright said was that he considered himself and his race equal to white America and we have so distorted the image of the man that Picasso wouldn't recognize him.

    Posted by julien38 at 04/29/2008 @ 10:09pm

35. once again .. the two right wing minds that constantly post here 'hit the nail on the head'.... Wright is trying to purposefully sabotage Obama's campaign to keep on keepin' the brothers down... (wait for it) so his sermons on 'whitey' will have more merit... Are you kidding me..?? Does right-wingers actually think this...?? LOL... every time i go to hit the 'IGNORE THIS PERSON' link.. I stop and say no... to funny.. to crazy... must read on for entertainment... after all.. Dino McCain Is thier 'MAN'..lol

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 04/29/2008 @ 10:14pm

36. Posted by julien38 at 04/29/2008

    That's ALL he's said?

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 10:17pm

37. The Nation has also done a good share of character assassination. Just view the archives of anti-Hillary posts on this website that a bulk of criticism foisted at her had nothing to do with her policy positions. Now that Obama is at the receiving end, I am sure it grieves Obama's supporters.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 04/29/2008 @ 10:18pm

38. Terribly grieved. What would grieve me more is if well, any of this had anything to actually do with Barack Obama. I mean it was mark penn that said that stuff about those snipers? oh wait wait no it was hillary. and it was paul wolfson that commented about jesse jackson winning south carolina? oh wait no that was bill clinton. You see there is a difference between the clinton and the obama scandals. Proximate Cause. The clintons are THE PROXIMATE CAUSE of their scandals. Obama is guilty by association, which is a tenuous form of causation.

    You wont respond because im guessing you're a HTOTD.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/29/2008 @ 10:24pm

39. "And the fantasy that Wright should go out and speak MORE and he'll 'create a discussion' by talking about the CIA and AIDS or how great a guy Farrakhan is....is just dopey...," said "Mask."

    Not if you actually listen to what the Reverend Wright has to say! It's all available on line at the Bill Moyers Journal website.

    The problem is that too many dittoheads will go right to their trusted soundbite spinners at Fox News Corp. to pre-digest it for them. So, yes, "Mask," you have a point.

    Wright's support for AIDS conspiracy theories (and who can prove that this support is still current, by the way?) can also be put into perspective - in two ways.

    First, many of the rest of us promulgate myths, too. We do this simply because we don't research every rumor that we pass on. I am guilty of this as a German teacher, in fact. I repeated the myth that "Ich bin ein Berliner" was ungrammatical for years, until I was set straight by Jürgen Eichhoff of the University of Wisconsin. Inserting the word "ein" - which no born Berliner would do - is the only way a non-Berliner could have called himself a Berliner so as to identify himself WITH Berliners rather than AS a Berliner. There was no actual confusion with the jelly-doughnut-like confection that Germans also call "ein Berliner." I am partially responsible for the "Kennedy was a jelly doughnut" myth - so let me say publicly that I do regret this and recant what I formerly said.

    So I've recanted. Has the Reverend Wright recanted? He deserves a chance, too.

    On Bill Moyers's program, here's all that Wright said about AIDS: "God is the giver of life. Let me tell you what that means. That means we have no right to take a life whether as a gang banger living the thug life, or as a President lying about leading a nation into war. We have no right to take a life! Whether through the immorality of a slave trade, or the immorality of refusing HIV/AIDS money to countries or agencies who do not tow your political line!"

    Sounds true and accurate enough to me! It also demonstrates that Wright knows the most essential truths about HIV/AIDS, for example why "abstinence only" education isn't enough to stop its spread. I wish more Republicans understood this.

    Interestingly, the article that brought Wright's AIDS conspiracy theory to the readers of "Slate" (one month ago, written by Juliet Lapidos) also mentioned the theories of some other men of the cloth about AIDS - here's the second element to what I mean by "perspective":

    "The Rev. Jerry Falwell famously argued that AIDS is a plague sent by God to punish homosexuals and American society for tolerating homosexuality. Jerry Thacker, the publisher of Today's Christian Teen and other Christian magazines, has also called AIDS a 'gay plague' and referred to homosexuality as 'the death style.' In 2003, the Bush administration nominated Thacker to serve on the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS. He withdrew his name under pressure from gay rights groups and Democrats."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/29/2008 @ 10:26pm

40. Posted by chocco at 04/29/2008

    I say let them go.

    Posted by ACook at 04/29/2008 @ 10:35pm

41. John Nichols's general point about the media's penchant for character assassination is well taken, but I think something needs to be added.

    Character assassination seems appropriate when the media generally are focused on the "character" of candidates for public office rather than upon their PUBLIC RECORD and their stated proposals about what should be public policy. In other words, the media don't just assassinate "characters," they also create them in order to enjoy the fun of knocking them down. It's as easy as stacking up a tower of toy wooden blocks and then kicking them over. A three-year-old can do it.

    But the character-creation and character-assassination game of our sensationalist media poorly serves the public. Into the void that should be filled with facts, there rushes in a flood of images, innuendoes, flag pins, and vague associations; and innumerable consumers of this junk, who believe that it is "news" and vote accordingly, rush in right behind.

    Tracking down a politician's public record, and comparing and contrasting this record with what a politician says about the main questions of public policy that confront us - this is the true work of journalism, and there are too few journalists left who do it well.

    I blame (as usual) the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the widely held but terminally stupid notion that whatever sells must be true. Surely the former is united in spirit with the latter.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/29/2008 @ 10:39pm

42. Posted by JakobFabian at 04/29/2008

    Jakob you want to argue an analogy of Jeremiah Wright and Jerry Falwell...I won't be the one fighting you on it.

    McCain's gutlessness at "walking back" his "agents of intolerance" line from 2000 is another reason to not like the guy anymore.

    But look what John Nichols and the Local Left are saying...they slough off Wright's AIDS conspiracy theories for the "good stuff" (the quasi-King stuff)....I look at the whole package and see NO DIFFERENCE between "AIDS is God's judgement on the homos" and "AIDS was created at Ft. Detrick to kill black people" idiocies, nor cut slack for the idiots who espouse them on EITHER side.

    Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 @ 10:43pm

43. I forgot you can't post anything on The Nation, Moveon.org or the Daily Kos if you are not in support of Obama. Am I going to get waterboarded here? You know, Bush/Cheney are still in office because Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table.

    I have to laugh at most of the posts here. You seem to think that just because you see Obama one way, everyone else that disagrees with you are uneducated, poor morons. Don't worry see how far you will get without our support for your candidate. You all don't have a clue about politics. They are dirty and mean. People run for office because they are ambitious and want to win. Oh, and if Obama doesn't win, we are going to move to New Zealand. That is a smart move. With that attitude, America will never change, but nobody says it is a perfect country.

    The problem that most of you can't seem to understand is Obama is a liability to himself. What do you think the Republicans are going to do at their convention? I know they can use the flip-flops they used with Kerry on Obama -- first I was for Rev. Wright and then I was against him.

    Obama didn't have the balls to stand up to the MSM and the criticism from people regarding Rev. Wright. What will he do with Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc.? The funny thing is I agree with much that Rev. Wright said, I just don't like the way he presented it -- semantics I suppose. Sorry to burst your bubbles, but Obama is just another politician! There is nothing new about him at all -- least of all change!

    Posted by AJH at 04/29/2008 @ 10:44pm

44. ...some of the far left bloggers here live in some kind of never-never-land that is divorced from both reality and common sense.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/29/2008 | ignore this person

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    This post comes from someone who claims to have been resurrected...twice!!

    Talk about being "...divorced from both reality and common sense."

    Really...this is obviously just more flatulence from the la-la-land inhabited by the wing-nut fringe.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/29/2008 @ 10:52pm

45. "Sounds true and accurate enough to me! It also demonstrates that Wright knows the most essential truths about HIV/AIDS, for example why "abstinence only" education isn't enough to stop its spread. I wish more Republicans understood this."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/29/2008

    Sorry Jacob, but Rev. Wright knows no more than the rest of us. You can through all the money you want at AIDS/HIV and it won't stop the progression of the disease.

    Posted by ACook at 04/29/2008 @ 10:53pm

46. The Fourth Estate has failed in its responsibility to this country. How can we ever think to have a working Democracy without a free press?

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/29/2008 | ignore this person

    Bingo!

    Tzimisce has hit the nail squarely on the head!

    There is no 'objective reporting' anymore. Or presentation of actual 'news'.

    It's all about 'enfotainment' now...selling the news and current events as just another form of entertainment to the lowest common denomenator.

    Now, in order to get anything approaching real 'news', we have to go to PBS or other sources who have made at least made some effort to remove the 'profit factor' from actual reporting.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/29/2008 @ 10:57pm

47. "Mask," I agree that the truth is always better than myth. But at least the Reverend Wright has a good grasp of the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS.

    Frankly, I would be disappointed in somebody who believed that global warming was caused by, say, elves - but I'd be less disappointed if this same person agreed that the thing to do to fight global warming is to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases.

    Some myths are more dangerous than others. Wright's AIDS myth (assuming that he still believes in it) does not make fighting AIDS more difficult by spreading dangerous disinformation about how this disease is transmitted.

    Falwell's AIDS myth - still widely held by the late Reverend's fearfully bleating flock - does make fighting AIDS more difficult, because it misrepresents this sexually transmissible viral disease as the will of God and its sufferers as worthy of death rather than our compassion.

    None of the Reverend Wright's views, no matter how erroneous, is as harmful as that.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/29/2008 @ 11:03pm

48. I'm not religious myself but I have to ask, did Barack ever go to services? I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that you could be a semi-regular attender of services at Reverend Wright's Church and not know what is obviously the pastor's very being. While it's true, some of what the Rev. says is perhaps a little over the top, I'm not personally offended by any of it, nor would I dismiss ALL possibility that all of what he says might prove true to some extent. But whatever your own personal view of the verity of his positions, could you possibly know someone that outspoken for twenty years and not know what he/she is about? This is like Dubya looking into Putin's soul or the infamous "Heck of a job, Brownie." Something isn't quite right here, and no matter how culpable the press may have been in focusing on frivolous personal issues (usually to the detriment of Hillary I might add), those personal issues often do wind up reflecting more about a candidate than their vague or overpromised or over-wonky position statements ever would.

    Posted by omichael at 04/29/2008 @ 11:15pm

49. Dear "LVLiberty,"

    To contract HIV/AIDS, all you have to do is have unprotected sex once with an infected person - who may be unaware of the infection, since it has a long incubation period.

    Or you may simply be born from an infected person.

    "Consequences", you say? Well, all right, though that's not the word I'd choose.

    Will of God? - Absolutely not! And you're no better than Falwell if you say so.

    Even so, I thank you for sharing the disappointing news that the Reverend Wright stood by his mythical AIDS historiography at a National Press Club forum (which I missed, having no television). This put Obama's recent "distancing" speech into a clearer, and for me more favorable, context.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/29/2008 @ 11:16pm

50. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080428_hope_for_corporate_america/

    Posted by wgilwood at 04/29/2008 @ 11:24pm

51. Posted by omichael at 04/29/2008 Good post. What's not quite right is probably pretty benign. Finding himself type stuff. Forging his black identity. Growing roots. New marriage, new life, new community. The message was compelling at a time in Obama's life long ago.

    Posted by winyahn at 04/29/2008 @ 11:49pm

52. The far left applauds and supports anyone who is critical of the US, no matter how outrageous their assertions may be. What matters to the left is to condemn and criticize the United States.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/29/2008

    naw, you guys are cool.

    i think toning down the business-driven foreign policy would be nice, though.

    and please don't elect mccain. or clinton.

    obama's bad enough.

    Wednesday, April 30, 2008 12:40:27 AM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 12:36am

53. Secondly, calling AIDS a punishment from G-d is certainly closer to the truth.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/29/2008

    did you just call god an asshole?

    Wednesday, April 30, 2008 12:42:47 AM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 12:38am

54. Not if you actually listen to what the Reverend Wright has to say!

    ~jako.

    fat chance.

    it might interrupt "dangerous housewives" or whatever they call that nonsense.

    Wednesday, April 30, 2008 12:46:47 AM

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 12:42am

55. Look, this is a simple matter. When Rev. Wright says that our government invented AIDS as a form of genocide on black people, and that we got our just desserts for our own terrorism, those are not comments that need to be put in "context." I don't care whether the Rev. loves this country or not. And the real problem with Obama is not that he's a closet radical or a dupe, it's that he was spineless for 20 years to listen to repeated outrageous comments and keep coming back.

    I don't associate with otherwise good people who preach utter nonsense like AIDS-as-genocide. It reveals something about the person who believes that, and it's not something that needs to be nuanced. What does that word mean, anyway?

    Wright destroys his own credibility as a social critic. He's not only offensive, he's a waste of time.

    Posted by dgutting at 04/30/2008 @ 12:50am

56. How about Farmer John Tester -Montana, I think. Does he applaud and support anyone who is critical of the US, no matter how outrageous their assertions may be. And... what matters to Jim Webb is to condemn and criticize the United States? Libertyhaters both?

    Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008 @ 12:50am

57. Everyone talks about how Wright's words were taken out of context. But when you actually do watch the whole sermon, it doesn't get any better. Wright really does appear to be a racist loon. And Bill Moyers didn't help with that pathetic "interview," when he asked such hard-hitting questions as "I think of how important music is to your church at times like this, that's intentional isn't it?" The first journalist to get an interview with Wright since this story broke and he spends the entire time throwing lame touchy-feely softballs. Peabody award my ass.

    Posted by Tiger01 at 04/30/2008 @ 01:03am

58. You can through all the money you want at AIDS/HIV and it won't stop the progression of the disease.

    Posted by ACook at 04/29/2008

    well...it might slow/minimize the spread of the disease. sure, there must be a point of diminishing return, but...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2008 @ 02:02am

59. Wright is about as racist and Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

    Posted by bansidh at 04/30/2008 @ 02:24am

60. The only thing shocking is how little the Obama Camp - and pretty much everyone in between - knows about the Mass Media. I mean, does anyone involved with all this wanton ignorance, prejudice & power understand the first thing about the media at all? All I can say is fools deserve not only other fools, but our contempt as well. I hope they all continue wandering in the desert searching for manna. The one thing I know is the rest of us don't need 'em...any of 'em.

    Posted by Tatoo at 04/30/2008 @ 03:24am

61. Isn't it reasonable to assume that in the course of his 20-year relationship with his pastor Obama knew about Wright's acceptance of the far-fetched "genocidal" AIDS theory? By the same token, is Barack believable when he says he ignored the reverend's position on 9/11 as tit for tat, because he had not attended that particular service?

    The man is blowing the wind of change from the same old politician's hole, as Jeremiah has correctly pointed out.

    Posted by chinpoko at 04/30/2008 @ 05:03am

62. Wright's recent appearance revealed him to be narcissistic and immature and incredibly spiteful. Much worse, he flagrantly violated his trust as a clergyman by talking about Obama in public--even daring to suggest that Obama believes the loony, racist conspiracies that Wright propounds. Wright is seeking to hurt Obama as much as possible, which is outrageous coming from a member of the clergy or other trusted professional (psychologist, medical doctor, etc.). It's a betrayal pure and simple and should make Wright ashamed of himself, regardless of whether anything he said was true or false. He should be disciplined by his denomination for betraying a parishioner, although the denomination can't do much against this retired fat-cat.

    Posted by feinfein at 04/30/2008 @ 05:38am

63. Isn't it reasonable to assume that in the course of his 20-year relationship with his pastor Obama knew about Wright's acceptance of the far-fetched "genocidal" AIDS theory? By the same token, is Barack believable when he says he ignored the reverend's position on 9/11 as tit for tat, because he had not attended that particular service?

    The man is blowing the wind of change from the same old politician's hole, as Jeremiah has correctly pointed out.

    Posted by chinpoko at 04/30/2008

    1) You can know someone for many years and still not know some of their wackier ideas, my dad and brother in law never cease to amaze me,

    2) The very premise of your argument seems somehow flawed. X (Wright, flawed logic, flawed ideas) wrong about EVERYTHING but his assessment of Y (barack obama). and Y must know, or according to you, should have known, all controversial comments made by this guy, which to me would require an almost near telepathic link between the two.

    Let me guess you're either a HTOTD or you never ever supported Obama, and are looking for anything, no matter how tenuous and vacuous it is.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008 @ 06:10am

64. Can't help wondering if there is not some truth in Rev Wright's comments about AIDS, in the light of this BBC News article about an infamous British chemical and biological weapons research establishment: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3744110.stm

    Of course, such places couldn't possibly exist in the US!

    Posted by Porton Down at 04/30/2008 @ 06:10am

65. Posted by AJH at 04/29/2008

    Who would have known that not throwing someone under a bus at the first sign that they could become a political liability is a source of weakness? I would see that a source of character, a person willing to give someone they've known the benefit of the doubt. It's always great to have someone come in here on their soapbox and complain about other people's soapboxes it really is a remarkable feat. I also like how we are all suddenly elitists because we feel that character assassinations are not actual news. Someone must have really angered you in your perch below you bridge.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008 @ 06:15am

66. A letter from Hillary supporters to Obama supporters

    Dear leftist-hippie-kool-aid-cultist freaks,

    How dare you presume to question the rightness of the DLC, its members and its ideals? What I don't understand is why don't you just fall in line? I mean we KNOW you're not going to vote Republican so why is it that we have to listen at all to the left of the party? Silly, idealists, let me tell you how it is. This world is dirty, and it takes someone dirty to clean it up, some with the grit and the spine to destroy all in their path to quench their insatiable thirst for blo...power. Obambi just does not fit the bill I mean come on he actually listens to the party's base?! He also doesn't automatically demonize his political foes? What kind of a president would such a person make?

    You need to listen to us, we are right, we are so right that everything you could say to counter us is, well so wrong. How could you be so wrong?

    Look our strategy is flawless, we will apply the same failed plan that lose the election in 2000 and 2004, but this time, this time we will win because, we will convince people we are right, by destroying everyone that thinks we are wrong. This strategy is working so well that we have 57% negative ratings, if that's wrong, then I don't want to be right.

    Yet, day after day, there is all this hatred and bitterness towards Hillary, she is only pursuing character assassinations through guilt by association and parroting lines of the GOP to make you stronger! Duh! But you cultists just cannot see how right and proper and great and wondrous and (insert adjective here) our goals are. You need to get real hippie-loser-latte freaks.

    Signed the Clinton cul--camp

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008 @ 06:38am

67. the writer of this article sees nothing wrong with a person who in all seriousness claims that the government is killing black people with aids? It's sad that conspiratorial thinking like that infects so much of the left. No wonder you guys keep losing elections.

    Posted by write2 at 04/30/2008 @ 07:14am

68. Posted by write2 at 04/30/2008

    Because vince foster was murdered. Mccain had a love child. becuase if obama gets elected he will turn the entire white race into second class citizens, right right?

    We all know that the right doesn't have any nutjobs or conspiracy theorists right right? Back to the bridge duder.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008 @ 07:19am

69. tzimisce, glad you agree that wright is a nut job. so why is the Nation and posters on this forum defending his views?

    yes, of course the right has it's share of conspiratorial kooks too, and that's equally sad to see. But I'd say on balance that at this time in history, the left has a bigger problem that way -- let's not forget to about those lovely 9/11 truthers.

    Posted by write2 at 04/30/2008 @ 07:34am

70. I think it stems from a very profound hatred for all this Bush/Cheney and the belief that they represent all that is wrong in America. Its attribution rightly or wrongly of all faults to them. The right was a lot like that during the Clinton years. Honestly I think its because the left "kooks" tend to get more airtime in order to discredit an entire side of the political spectrum. It would be the same as someone airing Rev. Robertson and Hegee over and over again and trying to convince folks that's all the right is.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008 @ 07:40am

71. GOD BLESS JOHN NICHOLS

    Posted by jones at 04/30/2008 @ 07:43am

72. But yeah I'll agree it is stupid. The more outlandish your claims are, the more proof you need to back it up. And firing off one doozy after another is well, dumb.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008 @ 07:44am

73. Good points Tzimisce. I agree with your analysis!

    Posted by write2 at 04/30/2008 @ 07:51am

74. "While it is always good to maintain America's historic wall of separation between church and state, the Obama camp has not had a lot of success so far in separating this particular statesman from his church." Absolutely a ridiculous leap here. Who a candidate associates with is pertinent.

    Posted by Gringo Jon at 04/30/2008 @ 07:53am

75. To Tzimisce:

    I recommend David Brock's (founder of Media Matters) book called "The Republican Noise Machine." It might enlighten you about the media and all the lies that have been told about the Clintons. If you didn't know, he was a Republican and helped write a lot of BS that was put out there. He finally got fed up with it and left. It is a great read. Go on and support Obama. He is a wimp. If he truly was strong, he would have stood up to the media because Rev. Wright was his mentor and surrogate father. The one he wrote his books after. That is not a sign of strength to finally be outraged about things and denounce him. If he was so outraged, why didn't he do it in his speech in Philly. It is not character assassination, but showing how Obama is another politician.

    Oh by the way, I must have hit a nerve. If you think Putin and the like are going to go for all Obama's new way to deal with things, you would be in for a huge shock. His presidency would be just like Jimmy Carters. Perhaps, you should check out an American History book and see things beyond your aerie. Seek out the truth and you will be set free.

    The view from under the bridge (a bit of character assassination on your part) is really nice.

    Posted by AJH at 04/30/2008 @ 07:58am

76. Who a candidate associates with is pertinent.

    Posted by Gringo Jon at 04/30/2008

    Good old Joe McCarthy thought that too. See the problem with this line of thinking is where to cut off "associates with." Rev. of 20 years, yeah I think we would state that is an association. Now the BIG leap in logic is that this association means that the candidate accepts and a agrees with all statements made. Again its guilt by association.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008 @ 08:01am

77. The view from under the bridge (a bit of character assassination on your part) is really nice.

    Posted by AJH at 04/30/2008

    Yeah I love irony:) or better yet hypocrisy.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008 @ 08:03am

78. "Look, this is a simple matter. When Rev. Wright says that our government invented AIDS as a form of genocide on black people, and that we got our just desserts for our own terrorism, those are not comments that need to be put in 'context,'" said "dgutting."

    I will submit that context ALWAYS matters. Always. And you can't trivialize this word by putting it into quotation marks, "dgutting."

    Frankly, anybody who knows the real history of the U.S. government's relationship with peoples of color cannot regard Wright's AIDS myth as all that far-fetched. (Though I will reiterate here that I reject this myth for lack of hard evidence.) Five hundred years of slavery, segregation, and lynching: That's CONTEXT. Passing smallpox-infected blankets along to American Indians - that's CONTEXT.

    I recommend to anyone George Lakoff's book "Whose Freedom? The Battle over America's Most Important Idea" (2006). This book explains clearly how the conservative outlook is founded upon "direct causation" and generally disparages "complex causation," including what we wild-eyed leftists commonly call "context." Read this book, and you will understand exactly where "dgutting" comes from.

    Another point, and a small one: the term "just desserts" as a representation of the Reverend Wright's view of the September 11 attacks is not only misspelled; it's also a misquote.

    Wright's phrase was "the chickens have come home to roost," and he quoted this phrase from a white US diplomat. In other words, the attacks of 9-11, according to the Reverend Wright (and at least one white US diplomat), were long-term consequences of US military policy in the Middle East (specifically support of the Saudi oil monarchy) - not acts of God, and not necessarily "just deserts."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/30/2008 @ 08:14am

79. There is another point that needs to be made. The Reverend Wright is a preacher, not a prosecutor. His purpose is not to punish bad people, but to exhort good people to greater effort - through the challenge to reflect upon their own sins, however small they may be compared to the sins of others.

    Wright's general point in his infamous "God damn America" sermon - a point that he took great pains to repeat often, lest someone should miss it - was that the murder of innocents is wrong.

    It can of course be argued - from a judicial or legal standpoint - that Wright IS wrong to equate every case of murdering innocent persons with every other. As we all know or ought to know, every war, no matter what its aim, claims the lives of innocents. Indeed, in this respect the Second World War, which we regard with some justification as the "Good War," was no different from any other, and the Allies, though clearly on the right side of this war, also claimed the lives of many innocents. Nonetheless, we ought to admit that some wars are less morally objectionable than others, and as a judge or even as a lawyer, the Reverend Wright would be well advised to keep this in mind.

    But Wright is not, I repeat, a lawyer or a judge, and he is not empowered to impose punishments upon US-Americans or anybody else for their wrongdoings. He is, I repeat, a preacher, and his aim in his most notorious sermon was to provoke reflection upon the sins involved in EVERY war, and to assert that through these sins all of us - all of us, regardless of color or nationality - fall short of the ideal of perfection that we call God.

    Once again, it is CONTEXT that matters. It is context, and not this or that inflammatory soundbite, that distinguishes a Jeremiah Wright from a Jerry Falwell.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/30/2008 @ 08:53am

80. Please put the comments about black brains being creative and white brains being logical "in context." This is a race baiter and not a progressive. Please don't fall all over yourselves to defend him.

    Posted by mikemcburton at 04/30/2008 @ 08:55am

81. Dear "mikemcburton,"

    Please provide a source for the statement that you attributed to the Rev. Wright (that "black brains [are] creative" and "white brains [are] logical"), and I'll see what I can do about the context.

    And I beg to differ with the claim that I'm falling over myself to defend the Reverend Wright. I stand firmly upon my own two feet, thank you.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/30/2008 @ 09:09am

82. At this point, I think Obama needs a Donald Segretti to get a photo of John McCain shaking hands with Ted Haggard...or better yet Warren Jeffs or Fred Phelps.

    Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 @ 09:11am

83. [QUOTE]Falwell's AIDS myth... (punishment for sin of homosexuality) misrepresents this sexually transmissible viral disease as the will of God and its sufferers as worthy of death rather than our compassion.

    None of the Reverend Wright's views, no matter how erroneous, is as harmful as that.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/29/200 [/QUOTE] *** You appear to be close to confusing two levels of conscious discourse, descriptive and religious.

    These have different and distinct subjective/psychological underpinnings, functions, and grammars of use, according to breadth of inclusiveness of personal totality in addressing the subject.

    1. descriptive -- there is massive documentation that in fact the AIDS virus did not originate from wild green monkeys but accidentally contaminated ones - for starters in re points you appear to be ignorant about ...

    2. religious. Addressing what is given descriptively as fact from the standpoint of personal totality (=> the universe of discourse taken under the categories of true or false), the word sign conventionally used* for the completion of totalities in general (*God) is from a more inclusive (birth-to-death karmic'ly adjusted) place of judgment from within oneself -- how things ought to be; and the deformity of human nature that prevents that from happening. This deformity emerged in 1930's Hitler Germany -- as a descriptive matter -- and is now, as then, personified forever in the reptilian right wing mind set of GWBushites et al.

    The fundamentally flawed premise of discussions under this entire thread, going back to Nichol's piece, is this: IT IS NOT 'AMERICANS' WHO HAVE DONE ALL THIS -- IT IS ANTI-AMERICANS USING THE NAME OF OUR COUNTRY AND HERITAGE.

    Lets see how this looks.

    Posted by jones at 04/30/2008 @ 10:16am

84. Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008

    Warren Jeffs would definitely do the trick. Might as well push him off a cliff.

    Posted by Benchrest at 04/30/2008 @ 10:17am

85. Why is Mr. Nichols going out of his way to praise this so-called reverend? Did he not hear the recent press conference where Wright ranted about whites being overly "analytical" and "left- brained", while blacks are more "creative" and "right-brained"?

    Everyone here knows that if a white minister said anything even remotely close, the Nation and other leftist media would be appalled.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 04/30/2008 @ 10:23am

86. I pay The Nation good money to mail me kindling long after I've read it here, the least they could do is provide a time stamp on blog entries so I can see if anyone is out there now (not sometime since midnight!, geez. Or maybe they could STOP WRITING ABOUT REV. WRIGHT. I would hope The Nation realizes their articles that scold the media are just as damaging to Democracy as the MSMs- sadly I think they do know. Please for the love of god and all that is good, LET IT GO!

    Posted by phillymark at 04/30/2008 @ 10:25am

87. If McCain's white pastor said about black people what Obama's pastor said about white people, there would be such a hue and cry that it would end McCain's bid within days. Racism is evil - there is no context that makes it okay and if you truly value your principles then they should not be subject to being twisted to justify your emotional beliefs. Is something only wrong when someone you disapprove of says it? Be consistent or be prepared to have your beliefs written off and marginalized - again.

    Posted by chadsexington at 04/30/2008 @ 10:42am

88. (Although the apparent statement of Wright's about AIDS being possibly a lab created plague is a bit much)- regardless of what many think about this comment, back in the 80's when AIDs first came on the scene, this thought was believed by many in the area where I lived. Our government has always been less then honest with us so to take this next step was not so hard to do. Whether it was or wasn't a government experiment, if you stop and think about it, it could be possible. You may trust the government but I do not and after work for them for many years, my view has not changes.

    Posted by lvdragonlady at 04/30/2008 @ 10:48am

89. McCain's pastor is $

    Eight houses, private jet. So rich, he won't and doesn't have to produce the documentation.

    Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008 @ 10:48am

90. Bill Moyers...did anyone see that interview? I thought he was gonna lean over the table and kiss the guy. Jesus, Bill, it's ok to be a fan of Obama, but fauning over a deranged bigot and lobbing him soft ball questions only earns you the praise of self-loathing white media elites. I love PBS -- and still have a soft spot for Bill -- but I was disappointed.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 04/30/2008 @ 10:56am

91. We may not know the details, but some version of the following benign tale is probably the case: 1- Half-white, half black, exuberant, driven young man forges a home/marriage/family /career - and this solidly black, southside church is a fit. Decision made, done deal. It's rapidly expanding, it's anchors his blackness, it situates his bottom-up change focus, Obama's organizer identity/career. The church is rapidly growing, meaning tons of outreach, programs, all focused on improving realities on the ground for blacks in Chicago. All this reinforces, solidifies his quest to ground himself in the 'black community' on the heels of kicking butt in the white Harvard world, so it fits the macro uniting project he was cast into by his parents. At this stage of it, Obama's clearly all about being black.

    Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008 @ 10:59am

92. Posted by phillymark at 04/30/2008

    Time stamps are irrelevant!

    Common sense is irrelevant!

    Having fun while blogging is Irrelevant!

    Previewing your post is irrelevant!

    Resistance is Futile!

    You WILL be assimilated!

    Posted by Benchrest at 04/30/2008 @ 11:05am

93. Posted by marybretbrad at 04/30/2008

    SO the Democratic Party is full of right-wing Christian fundamentalists who hate homosexuals?!?!?

    Huh...learn something new every day I guess.

    Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 @ 11:07am

94. Been away for a while, but figured I would give my two cents.

    Any real dialogue on this issue will be buried in the noise machine.

    Some people need to know when to sit down and shut up.

    If Wright truly supports Obama, he should have never gone on Moyers' show.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/30/2008 @ 11:20am

95. Anyone who defends Wright's comments has not read Wright's comments. He is entitled to make any statement he wishes, however, Obama has an obligation to distinguish his differences with his former pastor.

    It is clear that Senator Obama used Rev. Wright's church to help launch his political career. But like many early alliances, his aspirations and beliefs quickly outpaced those of his former mentors and supporters.

    What is much more interesting is how most national politicians have very interesting roots - some of them are not so savory (remember Ron Paul's newsletters?).

    Posted by CitizenDeux at 04/30/2008 @ 11:21am

96. PS - Nichols has no idea what he is talking about. He is lost in some post-modern, relativist delusion. Wright's comments are no more valid than any crank (right or left)

    Posted by CitizenDeux at 04/30/2008 @ 11:23am

97. And to The Nation webmaster -

    This new format leaves something to be desired.

    The message box is as small as the ones on those 1980's computerized typewriters before word processing came to the masses.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/30/2008 @ 11:23am

98. This is all about being part of ground-up organizing. Growing a church from 80 to 8000. Whatever you call that skill, Wright's got it, and Obama clearly was attracted to it. Personally, I don't see him as having become some sort of cult devotee. True, he didn't pull his family out. But neither did thousands of others, quite the opposite. And I don't think you can prove members of Wright's church are uniformly warped or hateful or fixated on the AIDs bit. This whole story is about blacks being so abused, so marginalized - about catharsis, mutual support, and lots of normal church/community attributes. Look at the data, Obama didn't fixate on the zany end of things. But he did clearly make friends, network, and make a name for himself as an organizer. All stuff probably pretty consciously aiming at elected office. I just think it's as paranoid as Wright to say that his political aspirations are the Trojan horse, that his true aim is to release some sort of crazy crap once elected. For super ambitious whites, there are not the additional barriers someone biracial faces. Sure he'll likely get marginalized. But he's sure managed to break the Jesse Jackson mold, the only white sanctioned path for blacks heretofore. 100 million $ McCain or Hillary are so shortsighted, so lacking in courage, and just plain greedy to continue to ride the media Obama-crushing coattails. And Obama himself should come out more and explain how this church fit for him and what he was figuring out, what he was putting together in his life and work at the different stages, 20 years, 15 years, 10 years, 5 years ago. Now that there's this Anna Nicole fixation, he might as well try to use it to his advantage. Of course, it'll get spun hard but what are his options.

    Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008 @ 11:26am

99. Attempting to bracket verb usage in a blog post which disagrees with you is an example of falling all over youself to defend a racist's description of the difference bet. black brains and white brains. Look the quote up youself if you have all day to correct blog english. I guess you have no answer. No wonder progressives cannot connect with middle america. Maybe next time we should vet a candidate before, yes, falling all over him. I said it again. Attack the messenger again.

    Posted by mikemcburton at 04/30/2008 @ 11:32am

100. Watching MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews yesterday evening crystallized much for me. The media clearly lined-up behind Obama as he completely repudiated Wright and his comments. It was as if they had been hypnotized into total allegiance by a perceived attack on one of their own, a politician. An allegiance that no doubt is reinforced by the fact that these pundits would have a much less interesting job, if any, without Clinton-Obama.

     I am white, a non-believer and up until I heard Reverend Wright, a backer and contributor to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Although I do not agree with everything Reverend Wright said in The Detroit NAACP or National Press Club speeches, I found Reverend Wright's comments and discussion of subjects that are for the most part left unspoken, refreshing. Finally, we are having a dialogue that challenges the mind and the government on a number of levels.

     Following the National Press Club speech, my support was shifting to Barack Obama. I began to like Obama by association, his association with a man that could publicly articulate the private queries of many and provoke a new dialogue. Then came the Obama press conference denouncing everything and anything Wright.

     I realized then that Obama is just a wolf in sheep's clothing and playing us all for the fool. He has no intention of breaking from the classic political mold. He is content to pander to the same political machine as his predecessors. Same old, same old.

     My anger hit a crescendo as I listened to MSNBC tear Reverend Wright apart and dismiss his allegations that the U.S. government created the AIDS virus as ludicrous. Now, I do not believe this to be true, however, if you had told me today about Nicaragua, the arming of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent fictitious WMDs absent any journalistic research as to their validity, I would have told you that it cannot be possible. I now know that, in regards to our government, anything is possible and nothing is beyond the scope of reality.

     Reading John Nichols' article today reminds me that there is much unanswered about Barack Obama and even more unanswered about the objectivity of our media.

     Posted by horlosky at 04/30/2008 @ 11:34am

101. At this stage of it, Obama's clearly all about being black.

     Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008

     No. You completely negate the inner meaning of "Church" and Christianity, itself. Some kind of sociological p/o/v glazes over here.

     The inner side is the crucifixion template -- distinct from 'martyrdom' for one's cause by full-of-self-fanatic, if you can make that leap.

     It takes appreciation of the spiritual depth in resonating to the template to be able to see through the staged personality craziness to the soul-essence of what Wright is about. Democrats have more Christ in them than Republicans by nature, but are the more to be despised in allowing themselves to be sold out (to the Cath-'o-Jews, e.g., McCauliff -)

     Posted by jones at 04/30/2008 @ 12:01pm

102. Ah hum: "American media." Damn this tiny box. Posted by Butler at 04/29/2008

     You can enlarge the text box by grabbing the lower right corner and dragging it to the desired size.

     Posted by Radscal at 04/30/2008 @ 12:09pm

103. Jones, with internet posting / email there's so much room for misinterpretation of the other. Please hear this as coming from a positive place. My sense is that you know a ton, have a gift for writing - and as a reader that I'd get a lot more out of it if you were a little less ornate, more pedestrian at times. Then perhaps the flourishes, riffs and rants would have the context they deserve.

     Regarding my 'sociological' POV, I was trying to make a reasonable guess at some of what you describe. I agree with you that there's probably an entire other domain relating to the inner meaning of Church. But I think this aspect begs the question of why this firebrand, rapidly expanding, heavily outreach oriented particular church. I was speculating about this fit, this connection of Obama as a driven politically oriented personality and Wright's church.

     Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008 @ 12:27pm

104. Euler, are you so sure it's all so bad? That Obama's not both sincere in wanting to use image and connections to get office AND wanting to make the difference that makes a difference? I think any analysis of anyone who is super driven is prone to this same sort of autopsy. That by proving they did some things just to get in higher positions is claimed to therefore absolutely also prove there's not much more to them. Hillary's a good case. All her backers are very much ready to see the attacks on Obama as unfortunate, understandable tactics - not a mirror of her soul. For me, I think it's always a mixed bag and the devil's in the details. The details matter. Presently I don't think the details add up in the way you do (Obama as spineless, manipulative, ergo as completely insincere with respect to healthcare / bring people together, etc.)

     In Firefox, there's no box to enlarge the window. Still hating this "improved" site design!

     Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008 @ 12:38pm

105. Looking back on Bush, the National Guard ploy, the DUIs, party'r history and so typical Born Again turn. All these in retrospect do speak to someone ill-formed, immature, still in Daddy's shadow. Someone prone to the puppet job Cheney's did. Probably even called him "Mr President" in private! Such sick shit. He had no feel for tradition, just a shallow mimickry of it. American tradition calls for transparency. He is everybody's president. He's supposed to be representative. But he pulled the curtains and went into we know better bunker mode. This is deeply unAmerican. And there were signs. His history was not one of having accomplished anything besides using inside connections, and there were signs. I don't see these ominous signs in Obama and I do in Clinton and McCain.

     Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008 @ 12:47pm

106. Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008

     EULER's funny. He goes after Obama for supposedly being dishonest...

     yet when Hillary claimed sniper fire, he said "he didn't give a f**k, they all lie"!

     Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 @ 12:57pm

107. Chocco about nailed it. I never bought into the Obama campaign, but we needed to find out if a postracial, postsectarian candidacy was finally possible in the U.S. The neurosis of identity politics is not only incurable, but very likely fatal. McCain, Hillary...why do I care?

     Posted by bagehot at 04/30/2008 @ 12:58pm

108. "Deeply grounded in biblical tradition, nuanced in his understanding of race relations and historically experienced in his assessments of America's strengths and weaknesses, he has much to say to this country at this time. " Only if what you think the country needs to hear is a mixture of religiosity and jingoism. I don't think so.

     Posted by Octave Doctor at 04/30/2008 @ 1:30pm

109. mccain?

     clinton?

     please, please tell us it isn't so.

     signed,

     5,700,000,000 people.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 1:39pm

110. well, at least one.

     Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:44:23 PM

     Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 1:40pm

111. Wright = Jefferson. Hmmm. OK, now we'll hear from the sane side.

     Posted by truecon at 04/30/2008 @ 1:55pm

112. Man. I've been surfing the web all day, looking for non-political stuff and....everywhere I encounter the same darned headlines! Even on music boards. Christ, help us all.

     We're political junkies and now our...chickens aw comin' hoooome. To roost!

     Posted by Beausoleil at 04/30/2008 @ 1:59pm

113. " ... The Clinton campaign has acted despicably with media help. The argument all along has been that a black isn't electable... "

     Exactly. Whether the MSM's agenda is to get HRC nominated so that McCain will win, or simply to prolong the civil war to boost their ratings, doesn't much matter. It's disgusting either way. But what really does matter is that HRC is willing to excise whatever soul remains of the Democratic Party for her own personal ends, and do so with a carefully calculated (just enough to ensure plausible deniability) appeal to racism. And that is -- or should be -- unforgiveable.

     Posted by kanig at 04/30/2008 @ 2:01pm

114. truecon

     well, both fathered black children.

     Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:08:02 PM

     Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 2:03pm

115. Let's give Obama a break on his response to Mr. Wright's comments. I don't have a problem with most of Mr. Wright's comments. (But his comments about an AIDs conspiracy make him appear delusional.) In any event, it would be idiocy for Obama to not distance himself. As Mr. Nichols says, the problem is that the media and Republicans make this an issue. If Obama were to have allowed himself to be continually associated with a person who had negative (although correct) things to say about this country, there would be no question that his candidacy is doomed. By taking the action he did, he at least has tried to limit the damage.

     Posted by mg_shaw at 04/30/2008 @ 2:13pm

116. Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008

     Well, CANYON's a nutty Nazi, still trying to pass himself off as a "normal right winger" (and oddly, some of the Right here seem to accept that?)...but if he's over 25 and not living in his Mom's basement with Nazi memorabilia on the walls that he bought at the Army-Navy (fakes of course)...I'd be surprised.

     FRANK is a cultist...straight up. He's been brainwashed (kind of in reverse) by all the years of listening to Limbaugh to think that Hillary is the Second Coming (since Rush and his dit-heads think she's the Anti-christ). His "I'll vote for McCain, if it's not Hillary, due to experience" is b.s. and just out of spite. Else, why not vote for McCain REGARDLESS if it's just about "experience"??? He just wants to get back at the uppity Negro and his hippie followers who STOLE Her Majesty's nomination.

     As for EULER...he's a die-hard Hillary'ite, but realizes that if he comes out TOO strongly for her, he'll look nutty as FRANK. So he fakes the "Who cares? All of them are phoneys" cynicism (And believe me, I KNOW fake cynicism...heheh) so as to appear blaise about her...all the while ripping into Obama like Harold Ickes on crystal meth.

     He's the worse actually. MARKHIMMLER and RENFIELDGRITS probably are honest in their wackiness...EULIE tries to hide it.

     Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 @ 2:20pm

117. <i>This is a very useful lie in that it perpetuates a persistent sense of victimization, which is why Democrats also find this lie very useful. The same goes for the 9/11 conspiracy industry. You people know better, but you participate in the lie with your silence. </i>

     Name ONE Democratic official who has brought into the AIDS-as-government conspiracy theory or the 9/11 MIHOP theory.

     Posted by brunowe at 04/30/2008 @ 2:24pm

118. "Purity" in politics is a sure-fire guarentor of the OTHER guys winning. <Posted by Mask at 04/29/2008 >

     This is a good slogan, but it doesn't seem to stand the reality test. George Bush 2 was pretty pure on every count that mattered to the Right: Right on religion, taxes, citizen surveillance, guns, abortion, right to life issues generally (stem cells), capitalism, war, foreigners, beer-drinking, and barbeques. About the only thing he wasn't right for the Right on is immigration. There his professions are a bit liberal, but his actual implementations are 100% in favor of the Nativist sentiment of the Right. (So there might be a certain amount of playing to the Hispanic vote ceremonially while ruling as the dyed-in-the-wool WASP he is by inclination and heritage.)

     So what does this mean? That the USA is simply the most successful of all the New World post-colonial banana republics, that's all. We are no better off than Argentina or Chile, once you discount the top echelon of the economic elite.

     Why is this? Well, check back in with me after McCain wins the election in November. I'll be glad to elaborate in more detail then.

     Posted by goyadad at 04/30/2008 @ 2:27pm

119. Posted by horlosky at 04/30/2008

     HTOD?

     Posted by goyadad at 04/30/2008 @ 2:35pm

120. I watched Wright on Bill Moyers and found his comments no less offensive when they were put into context. And I had to ask myself why an educated and intelligent man like Wright would spread ideas like the conspiracy theory that the government invented the AIDS virus to keep black people down.

     Posted by CarolC at 04/30/2008 @ 2:39pm

121. I blame (as usual) the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the widely held but terminally stupid notion that whatever sells must be true. Surely the former is united in spirit with the latter. <Posted by JakobFabian at 04/29/2008 >

     Read this whole item, above. It's all good & this week's winner in the "Most Lucid, Rational, and Pertinent Blobpost of the Week" Award [MLRPBWA].

     Posted by goyadad at 04/30/2008 @ 2:40pm

122. Posted by goyadad at 04/30/2008

     hey, that's funny.

     check out what i just posted on the "audacity, gotcha" thread.

     Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:47:39 PM

     Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 2:43pm

123. It is truly incredible that the mainstream press has amplified this Wright thing as much as they have. They are clearly rooting for a Hillary come-back to boost their ratings, and Wright becomes a convenient vehicle.

     The problem is Wright AIN'T Obama, and I think the vast majority of voters recognize this.

     I didn't find a whole lot in Wright's sermons to be objectionable, and have wondered out loud how the HIV virus started and whether it was an experiment in biological warfare that went awry. But without any FACTS to support the idea that the US was behind it and that blacks were the target, I have reserved judgment.

     This is all Barack is saying....that Wright reaches some conclusions sometimes without a factual basis and these conclusions should be rejected by those who are more reasonable and like their conclusions to be based on fact.

     Hell, I think that maybe Mossad had a role as an "agent-provacator" in 9/11, but I will readily admit that I don';t have the agents name and picture who infiltrated Al-Qaeda and promoted the attacks. It was kind of peculiar that the all the Israelis in the twin towers were warned prior to the attack, and one can only "guess" as to the reason or cause.

     Posted by Metteyya at 04/30/2008 @ 3:03pm

124. I agree with much of what Nichols has to say here, and I am not at all surprised to find progressives agreeing with many of Wright's views.

     I am not, however, convinced that Obama's distancing himself from Wright was a matter of political expediency. If anyone did any under-the-bus throwing in this scenario, it was Wright. Knowing as he did that any further media scrutiny of the relationship would erode Obama's support, he chose to keep himself and the controversy in the limelight by repeating and amplifying his most controversial proclamations at three separate venues in four days, and furthermore, to state outright that Obama agrees with him and is lying when he claims he does not.

     I think Obama was and is angry at Wright the man, his supposed friend who seems willing to sacrifice Obama's political career in order to extend his own fifteen minutes of media fame. I'd be angry too. At the end of the day, Wright called Obama out in public as a liar. In my book, that's not what friends do, especially when the stakes are as high as they are now.

     Posted by RI Bassist at 04/30/2008 @ 3:03pm

125. What I don't get is at what point in Rev Wright's speech has he said anything denigrating about Obama? He's a preacher who has accomplished so much for the poor and forgotten people in Chicago suburbs, people who could care less about the electoral process. I was so glad to hear that Obama was part of his congregation. There was NOTHING Wright said that taunted Obama. In his Moyers interview he said Obama is a politician. Well, yes, so is Ted Kennedy, so is Bill Clinton, so is Hillary. Why did Obama take umbrage at that? Rev Wright said "I am a preacher, Obama is not" which is true. Obama is a politician, that's not an affront. Rev Wright went to the Press Club to expound on his thoughts for America, yes, he uses extreme language and rhetoric that doesn't put you to sleep, but that's just the ticket I think. Obama looks for every opportunity to come across as some sort of Nirvana generator who is too cool for his own good, who is superior to Rev Wright? It's nonsense. Obama was way out of line in talking so poorly of such a great man. You should know better BO. I can't believe I supported you so ardently in so many fights and discussions with my friends and family who support HRC.

     Posted by msseelam at 04/30/2008 @ 3:21pm

126. today, sen, hrc said "because of reverend wright, the april death toll for u.s. personnel in iraq is at a 7 month high."

     john mccain countered that "due to rev. wright's meddlings, our economy is on the verge of collapse"

     mr. obama replied "i was not present".

     <I>and the band played on..........

     Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:36:04 PM

     Posted by frosty zoom at 04/30/2008 @ 3:31pm

127. I am not familiar with blog lexicon and do not know what "HTOD?" means. Please explain?

     Posted by horlosky at 04/30/2008 @ 3:32pm

128. HTOD?

     Posted by goyadad at 04/30/2008

     and do not know what "HTOD?" means. Please explain?

     Posted by horlosky at 04/30/2008

     Actually it's "HTOTD"...Hillaryite Troll Of The Day".

     A poster who pops in ONLY for one post and ONLY to attack Obama and/or tout Her Nibs. It's a different nick every time (easily accomplished via numerous Hot Mail or Gmail accounts).

     They never respond to questions and only very rarely post a second post.

     Then a day or so later, some other "newbie" pops in and again attack Obama and promotes She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed.

     They are quickly recognized as such...and are likely ONE person, probably on the HRC staff assigned to "blog work".

     Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 @ 3:49pm

129. But then again Rev. Wright's linking AIDS to the Tuskegee syphilis experiments on 400 black men - 1972, does prove the point that one has to be somewhat paranoid of the US government considering all the lies even/esp. the current hsuB/cHeney admin has fed us about: 9/11, the Iraq war, the economy, a gestapo DoJ, massive constitutional violations, etc.

     Hey, Raygun's belief in flying saucers and the emergence of AIDS will always be linked in my head. So Wright's speculation isn't so far fetched to me.

     (And I think Wright was speaking about Farrakhan's fiddle playing mostly.)

     It's gotta be a Black thing as Obama has more white blood than I do-- perhaps he can see that side in a more balanced way than I, but it's been a good long while since a US president and or US government 'hasn't' told some major whoppers to believe they actually represent the American people in all honesty.

     And our MSM is bought, big time.

     http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/52/7/977

     Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2008 @ 3:54pm

130. Posted by goyadad at 04/30/2008

     Dubya wasn't RHETORICALLY as pure as the Hard Right wanted. Remember, he (or Rove) came up with "compassionate conservative" to blunt the bad feelings towards the Gingrich Congress...and the Limbaugh types got pissed because they said "Hey, conservatism IS compassionate...what is this guy saying?" and got a little nervous that he was going down his dad (GHW Bush)'s road of "kinder, gentler" following Reagan.

     True, he was pretty "pure" on conservatism, but remember he knuckled under on No Child Left Behind with Ted Kennedy and Medicare Drugs early on in 2001 and never vetoed spending.

     But if "purity" had worked on the Left, KUCINICH much less John Edwards would have won this, or atleast be beating both Obama and Hillary...and they're not.

     Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 @ 3:54pm

131. BTW-- AL Gore.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2008 @ 3:57pm

132. It was kind of peculiar that the all the Israelis in the twin towers were warned prior to the attack, and one can only "guess" as to the reason or cause.---Posted by Metteyya at 04/30/2008

     Peculiar, because it never happened, RESE!

     Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 @ 3:57pm

133. Another religious whack-job that proves that religion is dangerous.

     Some of what he says may be valid, but anyone that believes in an invisible friend in the sky simply can't be taken seriously.

     Posted by jaguarxjs at 04/30/2008 @ 4:00pm

134. what we need as a country is to have dialogue about all issues . we must make the 21 century the century of dialogue. we must face our true history as a nation,with an open mind. to me revernd wright talk about our actions around the world caused the effect we seen on 911. lets dialogue.whats my constint thought is how i can greate a peaceful country and world if we all have this as our foundation, we can share ideas we must not let our egos get in the way of greating a peaceful world. lets learn from everybody and dialogue how we can work toward the goals of peace. as progressives liberal , democrates we must lead the way of dialogue and bring in our brothers and sisters on the right .

     Posted by brian a. at 04/30/2008 @ 4:08pm

135. Posted by brian a. at 04/30/2008 |

     Can we sing "I Want To Teach The World To Sing" and have some Coca-Cola?

     Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 @ 4:11pm

136. hsuB is a petty dic'tator and our congress hasn't the guts to get rid of him or his admin.

     And the MSM is as well too gutless to address it on a daily/hourly basis.

     Those are two issues way more important than anything Rev. Wright has to say, but then again we have a gutless MSM.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 04/30/2008 @ 4:15pm

137. All good points, MASK. (4 posts above)

     The fact remains that purity (or in your terms, virtual purity) only works on the Right. Those morons will vote for anyone who waves the flag, puts women in burkas, and promises to shoot any Mixicins ‘r other foreigners (including liberals, aka "temporarily displaced foreigners").

     Like the Jacobin faction in Paris, the Left in America has the habit of "devouring its own" to use the terms of Jacques Danton.

     Posted by goyadad at 04/30/2008 @ 4:19pm

138. Posted by goyadad at 04/30/2008 Actually it's "HTOTD"...Hillaryite Troll Of The Day".....

     You are correct in your assessment of my being a neophyte blogger, however, the rest is pure speculative crap. I can see that you share a degree of elitism with your pre-ordained leader. Perhaps the exclusivity of your blogging club does not include opinions of those that may differ from your own.

     Posted by horlosky at 04/30/2008 @ 4:25pm

139. Posted by libzsuck at 04/30/2008

     And you are a little dick with ears.

     Posted by Benchrest at 04/30/2008 @ 4:27pm

140. Posted by horlosky at 04/30/2008

     The HTOTD title came about a few months ago when literally every single thread had some pointless diatribe against Obama and would always tout the inevitability of Clinton. Generally if a statement comes out of nowhere, it will be presumed to be HTOTD. Is it elitist? Maybe but its a very rebuttable presumption. We really do need a good Hillary supporter around here that doesn't talk down to all of us unwashed-hippie-leftist-koolaid gulping-"cultists"

     Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008 @ 4:33pm

141. Curse you Sandra Lee your terrible show forces my hand and causes me to watch cable news! *shakes fist*

     Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008 @ 4:42pm

142. As usual, a purveyor of hate-filled vitriol targeted at America finds no shortage of groveling apologists on the left. Spin on, lefties!

     Posted by pontificus at 04/30/2008 @ 4:55pm

143. As usual, a purveyor of hate-filled vitriol targeted at America finds no shortage of groveling apologists on the left. Spin on, lefties!

     Posted by pontificus at 04/30/2008

     As usual a right wingnut is blind to his own "purveyor[s] of hate-filled vitriol" and apologists in his own camp! Gay pride parade caused the wrath of God to be visited upon New Orleans. The abortionists, secularists etc, caused god to smite us with 9-11. The right obviously hasn't heard the one about stones in glass houses.

     Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008 @ 5:00pm

144. "Life In A Glass House" -by Radiohead Once again, I'm in trouble with my only friend She is papering the window panes She is putting on a smile Living in a glass house

     Once again, packed like frozen food and battery hens Think of all the starving millions Don't talk politics and don't throw stones Your royal highnesses

     Well of course I'd like to sit around and chat Well of course I'd like to stay and chew the fat Well of course I'd like to sit around and chat But someone's listening in.

     Once again, we are hungry for a lynching That's a strange mistake to make You should turn the other cheek Living in a glass house

     Well of course I'd like to sit around and chat Well of course I'd like to stay and chew the fat Well of course I'd like to sit around and chat But someone's listening in.

     Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008 @ 5:11pm

145. The religio-existential affinity between Catholics and Jews, illustrated by bonding of Reaganesque right wing neoconservatives ...(subject of sentence) ....is (copula) the psychic springboard of the anti-Jefferson anti-Wright crypto fascist politico state religion regime. Call it spiritual genocide.

     Catholics hate the U.S. constitution and everything deep, spiritual and true it reflected, preeminently in the figure of Thomas Jefferson. They like it when the Jewish Frankfurters deconstruct his humanity. What kind of leader of a country would fuck a black slave woman?

     These Zion Jews today hate Jeffersonian liberals because they are soft on Palestinians.

     Neither of these religious identities (group, sect, cult, ethnicity, whatever -- the neocons have poisoned whatever decent the names once stood for in human history -- were hardly tolerated here, and for good reason, it turns out.

     Posted by jones at 04/30/2008 @ 7:02pm

146. Posted by goyadad at 04/30/2008

     Well, THIS year they apparently have foregone "purity"...

     McCain believes in man-made global warming, is pro-affirmative action, pro-stem cell research, may even do a "Read My Lips" move on taxes...all of which defies the "pure conservative" label (though he's 100% on Iraq and abortion of course).

     And the Hard Right (LVLIB, PONTI, RIO, etc.) will still turn out to vote for him.

     While the dopey "pure progressives" keep talking Nader and "I'm keeping my precious principles, GOP victory or not!"

     Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 @ 8:23pm

147. Posted by horlosky at 04/30/2008

     Horlos, if you're not a troll, but a real Hillary supporter...glad to have you.

     Now, that said, there are a few questions to determine if you are a Hillary CULTIST or not...i.e. "If Queen Jadis (HRC) doesn't win the nomination...will you turn out to vote for Obama?"

     Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 @ 8:25pm

148. The United States government has been convicted by the International Court of Justice for state terrorism:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_vs._United_States

     Even though they were ordered to by the International Court, the US government sadly refuses to pay Nicaragua reparations.

     The United States government has PUBLISHED documents discussing terror operations against its own citizens:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

     Does anyone here dispute these facts?

     Do you feel they're not important?

     The US is a great country, it is one of the freest in the world. But not everything is perfect.. there are serious signs of danger which have not been adequately addressed.

     Posted by freezecoll at 04/30/2008 @ 8:39pm

149. Curse you Sandra Lee your terrible show forces my hand and causes me to watch cable news! *shakes fist*

     Posted by Tzimisce at 04/30/2008

     Wonder what you're shaking it on or in. Not good for the brain, apparently. Gettalife, or as the saying goes where I come from: 糞して寝ろ!

     Posted by chinpoko at 04/30/2008 @ 8:49pm

150. When Wright mentions Al Qaeda and the US government in the same breath, he is talking about things like Nicaragua and the CIA-aided overthrow of democratic governments:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

     Posted by freezecoll at 04/30/2008 @ 8:51pm

151. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change

     Posted by freezecoll at 04/30/2008 @ 9:06pm

152. Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008

     Must be a tough call for you this year, MASK. Vote for Lady MacBeth, with the bribes and all...or the man who condones racist fantasies spewed by crazy pastors? Decisions, decisions!

     Posted by pontificus at 04/30/2008 @ 9:14pm

153. Posted by Mask at 04/30/2008 |

     You nailed that personality analysis like a Freudian boat carpenter.

     Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008 @ 9:16pm

154. Posted by freezecoll at 04/30/2008

     America's not even ready for the more overt official nastiness. As tired as it is, in Monica lies vs. WMD lies, Monica wins everytime.

     as much as I enjoyed Wright's dance recently, I was shocked that he wouldn't toe the line a little. He'd ALREADY inadvertently become corporate media's dreamy cluster bomb.

     Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008 @ 9:25pm

155. Has whitey really triumphed yet again? I'm just hoping Obama can catch his breath. In this filth trap media areas, maybe all he's doing is losing ground. May be time to go small. Do a series of small house to house appearances. Handpick the families! Then let big media interview them under an "Obama puts families first" theme. Yeah baby.

     Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008 @ 9:32pm

156. And for you PONTIFICUS, the choice must be easy... support the guy who wants to bomb any and ever country that deigns to give the US a little lip. The same guy who used to be against torture (because he himself was tortured) before he became a supporter of torture. The same guy who was against the monumentally moronic tax cuts for the super-wealthy before he was for them. The same guy who accuses Obama of being an elitist, despite the fact that he divorced his 2nd wife to get hitched to a super-wealthy beer heiress, and then refuses to release her tax records, despite the fact that she owns all of their joint assets.

     You're as much of a chickenhawk wimp and hypocrite as Cheney, Bush, Rummy, Rush, Santorum, Feith, etc. You never cease to disgust me.

     Posted by jorcheim at 04/30/2008 @ 9:47pm

157. Beer Heiress. Why does that sound so appealing to me?

     Posted by Benchrest at 04/30/2008 @ 10:11pm

158. HTOTD what an honor. Thanks guys! It has become clear to me to see the maturity level of those that are actually supporting Obama. What a laugh! Oh by the way, not that it makes any difference, I am not a paid staffer for Clinton. I simply think that she is the best candidate for president. I know, I know, the sniper fire and all -- give me a break. Is that the best you can do? She never said that she was above it all unlike Obama. He got caught with his pants down. I guess Bill Clinton isn't the only one with that problem. Such a small country we live in where things just come around and "home to roost."

     Posted by AJH at 04/30/2008 @ 10:23pm

159. Better a beer profiteer than a war profiteer, like yet another Bushie in the news - Lurita Doan.

     Posted by winyahn at 04/30/2008 @ 10:30pm

160. Posted by AJH at 04/30/2008

     If Obama wins the nomination, who are you voting for?

     Posted by Benchrest at 04/30/2008 @ 10:57pm

161. I see very clear that media wants Obama. Wuthout a "context" and Jeffer son. Obama has again shown his stripes. He cannot blame on anybody. Obama did this all to himself.

     Posted by kuk at 04/30/2008 @ 11:03pm

162. Posted by pontificus at 04/30/2008

     See Posted by jorcheim at 04/30/2008

     Posted by Mask at 05/01/2008 @ 07:17am

163. i honestly think god doesn't care about this nonsense.

     Thursday, May 1, 2008 11:51:48 AM

     Posted by frosty zoom at 05/01/2008 @ 11:47am

164. Please check out "The Truth vs Barack Obama"

     http://savagepolitics.com/?p=317

     I saw this today, and HAD to share it with everyone. It is just a brilliantly researched and written list of inconsistencies with several of Obama's stories. I think it should be done for ALL three candidates, but I guess this is a good way to start at finally looking at the candidates with some honesty.

     http://savagepolitics.com/?p=317

     Posted by elsylee at 05/01/2008 @ 11:50am

165. Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/30/2008

     I was using the term 'pastor' as a metaphor something that points to what one truly worships. And in the conservative sense that actions speak louder than words, that McCain's a really big $ guy. This is NEVER a problem except when there's a split in how one protrays themselves. Buffet is not hypocritical. McCain and Romney and Hillary are.

     Posted by winyahn at 05/01/2008 @ 12:27pm

166. To those who believe Rev. Wright is a crank for claiming his belief in America's complicity in the emergence of HIV/AIDS:

     "Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease. . . A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million. . . . It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations."

     - From a 1970 Department of Defense Appropriations request for $10 million for the development of immune system ravaging Viruses for germ warfare.

     Posted by sparkicus at 05/01/2008 @ 1:19pm

167. "He got caught with his pants down." <Posted by AJH at 04/30/2008>

     There they go again. More language about how white people want to see Obama without his pants. (Just for the record, I think Obama has appeared in public fully clothed on every occasion. It's some psychological quirk that compels white males to imagine him without pants. Now, why would that be?)

     Posted by goyadad at 05/01/2008 @ 1:23pm

168. Thou doth protest too much.

     Posted by winyahn at 05/02/2008 @ 12:32am