Also, I e-mailed Shaun Casey, the religious advisor for Barack Obama, and here was his response to me:

I am confident that the Senator and his campaign are aware of the potential problems with some of Rev. Wright's comments. Sen. Obama will continue to respond to them as the election continues to unfold. He will have to address this question many times in coming days and I believe he will do so effectively.

This is getting ridiculous.

Are we going to go through what every candidate's supporter has ever said to find out if they ever said anything offensive?

This is a random comment the media has discovered from almost 5 years ago. Why should he have to be thrown overboard for that when Ferraro didn't get thrown overboard for what she said recently? And while what he said may not please some people, it's hardly offensive like Ferraro's comment was.

Obama's response is 100% right.

"But I think it's important to judge me on what I've said in the past and what I believe."

I think that if Obama wants to keep Wright on board, he needs to explain what he believes. He may have already done this (I can think of the MLK Day speech), but it needs to be done in this particular context. What are Wright's attributes that aren't being seen in these clips? Why is he willing to go on a limb for the guy? I suspect that there are valid answers to these questions, but Obama needs to be very clear about those answers right now.

Where does "profoundly disagree" rank on the Reject-AND-Denounce Scale? I say it's a 5.3.

And, . . . . what's so wrong about a pastor saying the quote???? There is an argument that its a true statement. You could disagree with it, but there is an argument for it.

BFD.

I'd be more interested in the donors to the clintons' foundations than this.

Obama, the respectful disagreer.

It's no different than Jerry Falwell blaming gays for 9/11 or Katrina or whatever it was that crazy man said. It doesn't mean that Wright's statements are acceptable, but it's hardly something to get worked up about since Obama clearly doesn't agree with him.

Personally, I don't buy the notion that God has any particular opinion on the United States, but putting that aside... how is this statement substantially different from the many, many, many statements by rightwing fundamentalists? How many times have we heard comments about how God is punishing or will punish America for her sins with earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and terrorist attacks? They come from rightwing Christianity on a regular basis.

This is ALL part of the broader meme that Obama is un-American. It fits in with the no-flag lapel, the no hand over his heart, his wife's comment about being proud of the US for the first time, this bit and then all lies about him being a Muslim and not being sworn in on the bible, blah, blah, blah....but it's eating away at the fringes and Clinton wants this to work NOW, not when McCain uses it. Obama need to define what being American is in order for all this to go away....I feel he has, in his 2004 speach, "there are no blue states or red states, there is only the united states." If I had to offer a solution, it would be that defending the constitution, the oath of all high offices, is the litmus test of Americanism. You can be anybody, so long as you honor and protect the meaning and intent of the document that made America the utterly unique country we are privileged to live in. Something like that.

"Geraldine Ferraro's remarks were cherry picked too then.
And Power's monster remark."

Ferraro went on every TV news show imaginable to repeat her offensive remarks ad nauseum (and truly ad nauseum)

Wright made these statements years ago. So what is the deal with them "suddenly" coming up, even though Obama has already addressed them previously.

It seems like the timing is clearly cherrrypicking of past stuff to throw out at opportune times by the Clinton team. The MSM and Nets are in the tank for Clinton and will play whatever the daily Clinton spin is.

I would like to ask the question about this -- why now??

Is it to deflect from Ferraro?

Who is the source for this story -- I would bet Penn is behind this.

The WSJ has a great article on this. The 527s can't wait and I'll be happy to donate if the Dems make phony Obama their POTUS candidate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120545277093135111.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

The Rev's tape will be played over and over by 527s especially if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. The Reverend is not just a surrogate, but rather someone who is referenced in both Obama books (to include the title of his second), married the Senator and Mrs. Obama, baptized their children whom may have attended and listened to the hate speech. Did Obama tell his kids pay no attention to this man?

20+ years of the "Living in the US of KKK A" is a bit too long for most thinking Americans to accept. Maybe the empty suit can explain. Why did Senator Obama remain in the Church? This is not a crazy uncle but his spiritual adviser.

if you have to reject and denounce a supporter anytime they say or do something you dont agree with Obama'd best reject and denounce me - since i've called Hillary far worse than a 'monster'...

is that all they have?

I think the difference (b/t Robertson, et al & Wright) is that one of Obama's main points is to try to move past this type of divisiveness. Furthermore, Obama is unfamiliar to many voters and they may wonder what is the substance of Obama's relationship with this guy & how it impacts Obama's message. The question in voters' heads may be: is Obama telling the truth?

I am not saying that he has to cut ties with the guy. I am just saying that leaving it out there without explaining these elements to people is harmful to the man's campaign.

where would jesus church.

the interesting irony here is that the proponents of the hoopla about rev.wright care little about faith and the good news of the gospel.

it’s simply red meat for a hungry flock already very much set in their ways.

america has so much more to fear from the greater majority of hagee type gospel churches in our country than from the flock and it’s leaders at trinity.

contrary to popular belief, and another interesting piece of irony here is that, america's place and respect in the world is not being damaged by the community at trinity but, rather, by the so-called "patriots" who have a very infantile and distorted notion of what it means to love your country.

god save us from these folks and god bless america.

This guy seems like a wacko to me, but obviously it doesn't effect my view of Obama. Just like I don't blame Catholic politicians for the sins of their priests.

Overall this story is bad for Obama, HOWEVER, it does put into the media over and over and over that he has a Pastor and is therefore Christian. Silver lining, I suppose.

The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.

- Sydney J. Harris

This will not play well in Pennsylvania.

The Reverand's controversial comments were going to come up again. Better now than closer to the PA primary or in the general election.

Now do you see what happens, friends, when the Democratic Party (in a goddamn primary, of all things) marches to the Clinton tune? Forget issues, forget substance, forget policy: we get six weeks of: "Your surrogate said something offensive." ad nauseam.

This is squarely and solely the fault of the Clinton campaign for explicitly endorsing a kitchen-sink, through-the-mud, tear-down-the-party strategy when they woke up on Super Wednesday morning, realizing: "We just lost this thing." But, no, you had to give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt. Because surely, surely this time was different.

Give me a break.

My question for the many people much more knowledgable than me on these topics is "why now"?

Wasn't the video from last year or earlier?

It looks like the Clintons spliced up some "greatest hits" and sent it to distract from Ferraro and sending to Fox.

If Fox and the nets are running spliced-up Clinton hitjobs for free at the time of their choosing, isn't that kind of being in the tank for Camp Clinton?

"Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor."

Obama should not even have given him that. He may know Wright as a good, decent guy at heart, but any statement that can be seen as even the vaguest defense of Wright will be used against Obama. He should have seen this coming. A church is more than just the pastor, and NO church in the country is free of controversy, but Obama should have seen this coming.

Obama had better do something significant and do it quick. "Profoundly disagreeing" with some of Wright's statements doesn't go anywhere near mitigating the damage this is doing. This is potentially fatal material. I couldn't think of a better way to turn Obama into Jesse Jackson than this. Let's be realistic, people. This makes the Swiftboat thing look like an issue ad.

I actually don't think that, by the standards set already in this campaign, Wright's comments should be treated that differently from Power's and Ferraro's.

The comments will offend many people (including Obama, apparently), therefore, Wright should step away from Obama politically. No doubt. If only to help this go away and give Obama a better stand against McCain's response to Hagee in the GE.

Even though Power and Ferraro were making more personal statements against the candidates, the "acceptable" response has been set by these comments and their fallout.

400 years of slavery, God Bless America!
Lynchings to this day, God Bless America!
It's only because he's black, God Bless America!
MLK Jr assassinated, God Bless America!
RFK assassinated, God Bless America!
One in ten black men in prison, God Bless America!
High unemployment among blacks, God Bless America!
Black on black violence, God Bless America!
Guns and drugs and prostitution in the projects, God Bless America!
A bunch of rich white folks doing everything they can to smear Barack Obama, God Bless America!

You critics are right, it does sound better that way! Someone send a memo to the pastor! He's got it all wrong!

P.S. I trust Obama will not end his speeches with a variation on Bush:

"Thank you. God bless you. And God damn America."

I'm waiting for the Clinton's to say Obama was the 20th hijacker.

the wright story is not on the front page of abc news, msnbc, nyt or wapo. single line of text on cnn.com

Who hasn't disagreed with something their religious leaders have said? (Us progressive Catholics pretty much make a sport of it.) If his comments had to do with anything other than race, this would not be news and would only sway the fundies who believe that they DO have to agree with everything their religious leaders say (let's face it, they are never going to vote democratic in large numbers anyway).

But they are racially charged. I think there's more truth in his comments than many white folk are comfortable acknowledging, and speak to the sensitivities of a lot of those Archie and Edith Bunkers out there. My hope it that, given the amount of time before PA, people will get past that and some other shiny object will catch their interest.

It does make it a little harder though, for me to convince my 80-year-old granny who voted in her first Democratic primary ever this year (for Clinton), to vote for "that nice young black man" in the fall.

I don't remember his exact words, but I agree with Sen. McCain who said that everyone really needed a pass on be blamed for remarks made by some of their supporters. All the candidates have them.

Wright's horrible statements are his statements, not Obama's. Hagee's statements are his, not McCain's. (McCain didn't look too enthused getting that endorsement.)

Where the Ferraro stuff differs is she worked for the campaign and there is a big difference between what some minister said two, three, four years ago and what a campaign person says now.

We need to get back to the issues at hand.

As big of a supporter as I normally am for Obama, I think he needs to be more assertive in his denunciation of Wright's words. This will kill him in the GE if he doesn't stop it now. He needs to talk to Wright, tell him what he has to do, and tell him that he will publicly denounce him.

Look, I don't think this is on the level of Ferraro's comments. And it was initially brought up by Fox news - clearly as an antidote to the Ferraro overload. I think its dumb that its even up in the front page of TPM. That said, most Americans don't pour over details like we do - they just say... you hear what Obama's pastor said?

And that's all that needs to be said to screw Obama's chances in November.

A POW who fought for the US Flag going against a guy who didn't want to wear US Flag Lapel pin for some weird reason and it looks like that he has been brainwashed by a guy who says "God damn America"!! Can anyone want to bet who will win this argument?

"As big of a supporter as I normally am for Obama, I think he needs to be more assertive in his denunciation of Wright's words. This will kill him in the GE if he doesn't stop it now. He needs to talk to Wright, tell him what he has to do, and tell him that he will publicly denounce him."

OBama can use this opportunity to make clear his religious beliefs. He probably should talk to Wright and tell him he will have to disown the guy.

The new pastor might be a good spokesman, as well.

He needs to take the bull by the horns, not sit back and the rightwing will drop it.

This is a swiftboat type video splice together, eith made by the GOP or HRC. (HArd to tell the difference). The clips are very old. Seems like a classic out-of-context guilt-by-association hitjob.

Obama needs to respond forcefully, and not just defensively, but proactively. HE alreayd has people thinking Michelle is not patriotic, that he is a muslim, etc. So now's a good chance to show he is a normal Christian.

Erin, the trouble is he is NOT Obama's uncle, he is his pastor. You can't quit your family, but you can leave a church if you profoundly disagree with what you hear from the pews.

The fact that Obama and his wife bring their three young kids to listen to a guy say things like we should damn America, and that the 9/11 attacks were deserved, is disturbing even to a progressive like myself. It will be poison to the Reagan Democrats whom Obama claims he can bring back to the party. That's not going to happen unless he goes considerably farther to renounce and distance himself from this guy. Otherwise, I fear it could really cost him the GE.

I think we need to see this pastor monster's tax records, and let's call him at 3am to ask for them - but only after he's been rejected and denounced by the lucky black man.

I fail to understand why some liberals don't "get" this. This is like a cancer growing in the body. You can't say that the guy can't be tied to Obama. You can't. BTW, I voted for Obama in the VA primary. I'm a Preachers Kid myself.

Let's recount the facts:

1. The Obamas have given money to this guy's church, to the tune of $20K last year.

2. Obama himself says he's been going there for 20 years.

3. This guy baptized Obama's daughters.

4. Obama got the name of his book from one of his sermons.

5. He's his spiritual mentor, and prayed with him when he decided to run for President.

It's impossible for Obama to not be tied to the guy. Impossible. I'm surprised, and as someone else said on another thread, the fact that more people here don't get it, is very depressing indeed.

Here's the way this will work. Rush, Hannity, and the rest will play this tape over and over. Play it to death. The 527s will pick up on it, and Obama will be forced to denounce and condemn this man. Which he should.

The Clintons have already legitimized this whole thing, and don't even think for a moment that this molehill won't grow into a mountain the size of Everest by the fall.

Every way I look at this, it looks good for the Republicans. It reinforces the "America Hater" mime to the nth degree. It alienates and turns off liberals, because the Clintons started it; and she's likely to be the nominee.

What really depresses me is that Obama, if he had had any political ambition at all, should've seen years ago that this association was toxic. And it is. Folks, this isn't something that can be talked out of.

I think Obama's dead in the water.

ABC is comparing McCain and Obama's religious suporters. They put it this way:

"While many American voters place importance on a candidate's faith, political strategists say few voters would hold a candidate responsible for something that was said by a religious adviser.

"There has to be a level of reasonableness to what the campaign or the candidate should be held accountable for," Carrick said. "There's just no way for the campaigns to look at everything these people have ever said." "

By the way, I don't think calling the Catholic Church the "great whore" is all that friendly either, but it seems like being a black minister you are held to a different standard. Falwell said all kinds of contrversial statements but was accepted by many Americans.

Obviously, this is a good example of "who needs enemies, when you've got friends like this." However, in all of our lives, we have people who are nutty. That doesn't make us nutty, and when it comes to family and church members, it is understandable that Obama has done all he can to distance himself from this guy -- e.g., he refused to allow him to speak at his kick off a year ago, and has condemned the words on these videos. He also implies that in his 40 year career, this pastor hasn't consistently sounded so crazy.

I'll tell you what bugs me about your column, though. You quote Obama as suggesting that the press not judge a man without the borader context of a 40 year career -- and then you just quote another inflammatory remark made in the same video clips and say, in effect, "here's the context."

That, to me, turned your piece into a hack job. All of it should be reported and judged upon -- but there is no need for a journalist to engage in deceptive "gotcha" writing.

Regardless of whether it's right (ha! pun), Obama needs to do much more than just disagree with this guy. He had to know this stuff would come out, and since he didn't get out in front of it, he needs to deal with it and pronto. I disagree with both extremes who think it will ruin him or have no effect. If he tries to approach it as if it's just a little brushfire, it'll get out of control and really burn him. Wright, as shown on TV, perfectly fits the stereotype of the angry black man, and Obama has had a very close relationship with him. This is different from Hagee, Robertson and any other white wackos people have complained about. Wright is like family, and he stands to deeply wound Obama. Why didn't Obama denounce the 9/11 remarks when they occurred? I do think, however, that if Obama addresses this in a way that makes people understand both that these remarks are a small part of Wright's ministry and also how Wright helped him find Jesus and played a positive, inclusive role in his life, he could possibly turn this into a net positive. We all have people close to us who can appear frightening when a harsh light is shined in them. Obama needs to connect Wright to the complicated people in all our lives, who we believe are truly good despite their faults. The key is not to throw him under the bus-- that would reek of political expediency. The task for Obama is complicated, but he's probably one of the few people in American who can tackle it.

EmmaP -- Don't know if you are aware, with your talk about Granny' that that is precisely how Obama acknowledged and explained his connection to Wright to a number of Jewish leaders not long ago: likening him to the old uncle most of us have who says things with which we profoundly disagree but whom we nevertheless honor and call family.

It's obvious, and I think to his credit, that Obama is not going to jettison Wright from his life, nor should he, nor would it make political sense. He's been very clear in saying that Wright played a major role in his development so it would only look unconvincing and manipulative, as well as crassly disloyal, to suddenly disown him. (Jettisoning him from any role in the campaign has, I think, been done - and should be.)

But that doesn't alter the fact that Wright's anger and vehemence and the ugliness of his statements is, to most of us, totally unacceptable. Yes, I can see the factual and emotional basis for what he says and even understand that there is sufficient reason for the anger. But there are few people more truly angry at injustice than Martin Luther King..... and he never spoke, or even thought, that way. *How* you do things is often as important as what you do, and this is something that Obama has shown he knows full well. His(Obama's) way is much more like MLK than Wright. So why? How? How does this person who apparently goes about 'fighting' for justice in the worst possible way become someone who is so important to and respected by Obama?

Neilrica has it right, I think: "What are Wright's attributes that aren't being seen in these clips? Why is he willing to go on a limb for the guy? I suspect that there are valid answers to these questions, but Obama needs to be very clear about those answers right now." That's precisely what is needed, both to reassure a lot of voters and to help us all get to know Obama better. And it's going to have to be a deeper and more 'explaining' answer than Obama gave in the Pittsburgh interview.

If he doesn't give one, it's quite simply going to cost him a lot of votes and some degree of enthusiasm and assurance from his supporters. I personally am comfortable taking him on faith and believe that if he had this kind of anger and nastiness boiling up inside him, it would have become apparent by now. But others won't be comfortable doing that, and I have nothing I can say to disabuse them. The definition of faith, if you will, is that it can't be explained, so my faith doesn't serve as a convincing argument to someone else.

I'm sure we are all having on-going conversations with our not-yet-convinced friends and family members, and I know full well what my secretary will be asking me about on Monday. Hearing even 40 seconds of the hate-filled venom from Wright is going to make her conservative, Republican mind close to the idea of supporting him like a steel trap!, whereas until now she was actually and seriously considering the idea of voting for him. So what do I say her? Actually, all I can say is what I'm saying here: that I don't understand why there would be this closeness and respect, that I'm confident there are good reasons that aren't apparent in the little we see of Wright, and that Obama will have to explain how he could take the good part of Wright's message (which he will have to identify) and remain unconnected to and untainted by the nasty outer layer that we can see on the video. When he does, I'll make sure my secretary gets to hear/read his explanation.

No, I don't think there should be a 'religious test' for the presidency or that candidates should be required to explain/defend their religious views ---- BUT I believe any candidate can and should be held accountable for ANY connections they have to hate and intolerance, no matter where that connection lies. Choosing Wright as their pastor; belonging to organizations that discriminate; youthful membership in the KKK; whatever it may be. That part of a candidate's character and world-view is simply to important to be left untouched and unexamined.

The analogy to Fallwell and some of the far right is valid, but only up to a point. Wright is more than a 'supporter.' Obama hhas chosen to attend Wright's church for 20 years, chose him to be the minister at his wedding, and has written describing Wright as an important spiritual inspiration and and guide. So in this case I do believe that some deeper explanation is due -- Or, perhaps more accurately, whether or not it's 'due' or it's 'right' to ask candidates to be so self-disclosive, it is, as a practical matter, necessary if he wants to win the nomination and election. Facts is facts and this is going to put off a LOT of people who would otherwise support him and vote for him.

Now my question -- why now? Wright and his 'inappropriateness' has been known and discussed all along. Why is it now that the airwaves are filled with the images and sounds. Just curious how it came about - but even if it was a deliberate ploy on the part of some adversary, that doesn't change the fact that it is there and will influence.

I bet Rev. Wright doesn't wear a flag lapel pin either (gasp!!!).

That said, I agree that Obama will be held to a higher standard than McCain (unfair as it is). Of course his comments were nuanced (which the press always has difficulty with), but they are inflamatory. They will be used against Obama in the Fall. The fact that there are people who still think Obama is a muslim who doesn't say the pledge speaks volumes.

I think he must remove Rev. Wright, even from a "largely honorary post on the campaign's African American Religious Leadership Committee". Guilt by association in the media.

Yes we can!

Time over for "profoundly disagree".
You must "denounce and reject".
Now I know again why I do not attend organized religious organizations.

This isn't a hit job, unfortunately, it's been out there for a while and, for some reason, no one really pursued it -- wary, perhaps, of getting involved in a "spiritual" relationship? Or maybe the media wasn't tough enough on Obama, after all. Whatever, it is an issue -- a big issue -- that has to be dealt with. And though there's undoubtably a lot of nuance in what attracks Obama to Rev. Wright and what the nature of their relationship is, the American public doens't really do "nuance." The campaign has to deal with this -- and soon! They should have been fully prepared that this would bust open like this.

I agree with Coonsey's post. Can't we please return to the issues? I have heard very little talk about the environment and the challenges of climate change, for example.

kr

This is not about a single speech. This is about what this pastor stands for. And it certainly isn't the philosphy of hope and unity that most people like to believe Obama represents. If most of you, moved by Obama's speeches,wished to join his church, do you think you would be welcome there?

This is nothing short of atory rhetoric that spews intolerance and hate.

This is the kind of spiritiual philosophy that Obama consciously immersed himself into 20 years ago. This is the kind of religion he witnessed being professed Sunday after Sunday, month after month, year after year.

He listened to these words as he chose to get married there, to have his children baptized there, to donate his money... he gave more money to this church last year than to any other charity. He even titled one of his books after a Rev. Wright's sermon. And every time Obama went there, he made a conscious choice (not exaclty the same like having a demented uncle who sometimes 'talsk crazy').

There is no amount of denial, repudiation, and rejection that can deny this deep, lasting spiritual connetion. Nor should there be any of it.

My father's rabbi has views on Israel that I profoundly disagree with and at times even abhor. But the rabbi visited my dad in the hospital when he was dying and he teared up at my father's funeral. There is just no way that I can feel anything but fondness, respect, admiration and gratitude for that rabbi,even though politically I often can't stand what he says. I assume that anyone who has any connection to their own or their parents' religious institutions are willing, like Obama, to cut their priests, ministers and rabbis some serious slack on political issues. Wright is about to retire, Obama has a bond with him, and Obama is rightly treating this man with respect, not because of Wright's views, but presumably because in his long career he's done a lot of good.

I'm honestly glad Obama isn't rushing to throw Wright to the wolves, although I recognize that the firestorm this kicks up may lead to that. But this campaign has devolved into a contest of seeing who can fire the most supporters the most quickly. How dull, tedious, and small-minded.

I think people need to calm down a little. Many people will be turned off by Write, but would also be turned off by a man who would throw his Minister under a bus to appease the Washington press corps. That is not to say his Minister needs a formal role in the campaign, but overall an approach that calmly honors and respects his Minister while calmly distancing himself from the harsh rhetoric is probably exactly right.

If this relationship is a deal breaker for you personally, so be it, otherwise, chill!

How's that Obama Kool-Aid taste now? As time goes on it will taste even more sour and you will lie and lie and say "no it ain't sour, it's sweet" but we all know it's bitter as shit.

Throw him overboard and be done with it. This is silly, and what's the advantage to the Obama campaign of continuously being in the position of defending this guy? Yes, it's unfortunate, but it's out there and, right now, it's about electability. This issue does not help that argument.

I'm seeing here a lot of handwringing about what someone said five years ago. Wright is retired - now. He's not Obama's minister - now.

What I want to know is, how many more times will y'all wring your hands about what someone said in the past, that's been dug up by the corporate media?

Wright's saying "God Damn America!" because of its sins is hateful anyway you slice it, and there is nothing racist about pointing that out-

Since I quoted the above from the beginning of this very thread, I don't believe your misreading is an innocent mistake, either. Like most white liberals you're comfortable with blacks only when they act all meek and grateful for the good things white liberals have done for them out of the goodness of their hearts. Once again, that attitude has a name- racism. If the shoe fits, wear it.

It's amazing how many people now know Obama's deep, deep connection with his spiritual adviser.

It was just days ago when they wondered if he was a secret Muslim.

But, anyway. I agree the pastor is a cancer on this campaign. But, be honest, how does Obama "throw him under the bus?" He disagrees with these statements, and past speeches show he disagrees with these statements. He should sever ties, but what more can he do, convert to Islam?

The level of discourse in this country is frigin joke. Who cares what this idiot said 5+ years ago? Do you really believe Obama thinks we deserved 9/11, and do you really think he has screamed "God damn America" at any point in his life (or thought that)? If you do, then you have serious mental problems. And this whole "reject, renounce, etc" BS is a direct result of Hillary Clinton pretending to be outraged during one debate and forcing him to use additional language when it was clearly unnecessary to do so. He does not subscribe to whatever this preacher has said in relation to these particular sermons, and Obama has been clear on that for quite some time.

Regarding the events of 9/11, I'll debate that with anyone. No one can deny that many of our foreign policy decisions over the years helped bring about this hate (let me be clear, I don't agree with their motives or rationale) that directly led to 19 Arabs flying planes into American buildings. This preacher isn't the brightest bulb on the planet (his reasoning was way out of whack), but I think I know where he meant to go with this. I don't believe he thinks anyone should have died on that day, so enough with this faux outrage.

In response to Steve LaBonne -- What you are hearing is not "faux" outrage -- the comments by Rev. Wright that I have heard are sick -- I am not pretending to be outraged. I believe Rev. Wright's comments are TRULY outrageous.

It is not racist to condemn hateful speech -- no matter who is saying it.

One of the sermons I heard was from a couple of months ago. This hardly goes with the thought that this was one sermon five years ago, etc.

There are a lot of strange people in the world -- they say a lot of crazy things, awful things, mean things -- but when a person is running for the presidency, we have to look at the people he/she considers to be important in his/her life. It tells you a lot about that person's judgment.

That is the point of this issue about the Rev. Wright/Sen. Obama relationship.

Not so fast, sportsfans!

Obama DID dump his pastor and spiritual advisor of 20 years when it was convenient for him:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html

Rev. was slated to give invocation at the launch of Obama's presidential bid. On the eve of the event, he was 'disinvited'.

According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

How can Obama listen to those sermons for 20 years and not have his thinking influenced by them? Further, how can he take he children to hear that? This is bad, bad, bad for him, I'm afraid. It will Jesse Jackson-ize him.

At least attending a controversial church doesn't result in the deaths of nearly 4000 servicemen and women, like enabling fraudulant war and continuing to bow at the alter of George Bush does.