Meanwhile, if Obama would take this race issue and use it to call for real change -- well, I guess then I'd be more jazzed about him. Democrats lose a huge fraction of the African American male vote in every election, due to the onerous drug laws that truly seem to be there just to make us lose votes. (Us Democrats I mean).

We lose 2 African American US Senators -and a rep - all the time -- like, for the last few decades at least -- due to DC not having voting rights.

Now, correcting those racial injustices would be real change.

And they know it's true ...

How's that Pinto working out for you?

Meanwhile, Republicans scream "his minister hates America and white people!"

What a beautiful robe the Emperor has on! So shiny and elegantly decorated!

I think you're kind of pissed to read a complex and compelling intellectual argument. And one that is not a turnout-killing negative attack. It appeals to the brain, but it doesn't make the voters get sick and stay home.

Combine this with his happy happy joy joy rallies and one would think there is something there for everybody.

Then why, Senator African American Obama, do you continue to cling to your support of states rights when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage?

Why do you continue to advocate for states to exercise rights to discriminate against a minority group today just like they did decades ago...say during the 50s?

Or doesn't your enlightened and liberated and courageous viewpoint extend to filthy faggots?

I think you're kind of pissed to read a complex and compelling intellectual argument.

e, just to be clear, I think Wright is an unpatriotic dipshit. And Obama was extremely il-advised to continue to go to that church once he decided to get involved in politics. I don't believe that Obama didn't know Wright's views. Belonging to a divisive church is no way to convince people that you are a uniter.

And all this debate is about trying to correct the damage Obama's poor choice has done to his campaign.

Will I support Obama if he's the nominee? Absolutely. Do I think less of him because of this issue? Yes.

We'll see if that translates to Federal lawmaking, but he's a lot more likely to help than Sen. Clinton (to say nothing of Sen. McCain).

Somebody who operates by politics-as-usual would have quit his church and thrown Wright under the bus long ago. Clinton would have done that as soon as she was done using Wright to get the Chicago black votes she needed. Obama isn't quite like that. Clearly there is a point where he will distance himself from people, but he isn't just going to pretend Wright's 60's era black activism means nothing to him or to us.

I think the point that is bugging the DLC so much is that they can't get past the idea of being on the attack always. They envy Roger Ailes and Karl Rove so much and they'd to anything to be just like them. The reason that doesn't work for Democrats is that we need high turnout to win. If we were a minority party like the GOP, we could win by going negative. Hillary can never win by out-Roving Rove. Obama will win by leaving bridges unburnt.

I still think you need to take back your sneer at Obama's supposedly overly-intellectual argument here. It's a sound argument, and it flies in the face of your previous claim that Obama is intellectually lightweight.

It stands to reason that, over the last few decades, that the general message was not of "damn America" but of community involvement, self-empowerment, and generally positive, Christian work. Wright didn't say this stuff daily, or the media would have more than 2 clips to show over and over. These speeches have been cherry-picked out of decades of sermons.

And so Obama, to his credit, doesn't just dump the man who helped him find Christ, helped nurture Obama's early community efforts in Chicago, married him to his wife, and baptized his children. Obama states vehement disagreement with the cherry-picked statements, and asks that people understand that Wright's anger isn't something he shares.

What it comes down to is this: aren't people allowed to disagree with their pastors?

I take back my sneer at Obama's argument. I welcome the idea of moving beyond 60s and 70s identity politics. I just worry that his argument will go over the heads of the bulk of the voters he needs to convince. All the people who are receptive to that argument will support Obama if he gets the nomination. I worry about the "Reagan Republicans" who, though I wish it were not true, we need to win the White House.

aren't people allowed to disagree with their pastors?

No. If Kennedy's priest in 1960 had been a fire breathing papist, Nixon would have won for sure.

The following is admittedly conjecture, but:

That said, people are a lot less uptight about religion now than in the late 50's. Romney lost out because he was a huge phony, not (as much) because he was Mormon.

The most helpful thing for Obama about this whole situation is that he pretty clearly loves helping (why would he ditch a cushy lawyer job to help communities in Chicago otherwise?), and that his demeanor couldn't be further from his hot-headed pastor.

I think it's a net gain. The Muslim thing goes away, he'll get some people (like me and elenchos) who respect him for being forthright, and it's not damning enough for most people to consider it to be a huge deal.

*shrug*

His position may generally be better than anyone else's - it is still full of holes and thus worthy of being spotlighted.

You may not like how it sounds to turn his rhetoric against him, but that doesn't mean it is not an apt remark.

I might be a hater...especially when it comes to criticizing grandiosity that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Just because defending the constitutional rights of same sex couples isn't important to you, doesn't mean his remark is above reproach.

He and you are not exempt.

Although I did stand outside of a Clinton fund raiser thrown by LGBT business interests in San Francisco with my partner last August holding a sign that read "Civil Unions are not equal." No one was very happy to see us...figures...self interest knows no sexual identity.

I do think it is more important to interrupt the crowing morons at blogs that spend all their time wrestling over foolishness (like goes on here all the time) in the hope that you might stop playing the role of sheep/idiot long enough to pay attention to what matters - policy not personality.

There are way too many people being led by the nose via the campaigns and the media to turn this election into an episode of Extra. And you love it. And you are fucking up any possibility of real change by being stupid enough to fall for it.

Stop cheer leading for wealthy politicians and start advocating for change.

It doesn't actually seem to me that it's having much effect, but time will tell. It's possible they can keep the outrage going all the way to the general election, and that might shift a few percent.

Most people, I think, don't much care if Obama's minister is hotheaded and bombastic and believes some weird conspiracy theories, as long as there's no indication Obama thinks the same way. And clearly he does not. But if you're on the fence and you're constantly confronted with the idea that Obama's some kind of stealth radical, I suppose it could shift the dial.

Hard to say, really. I predict it won't matter. I predict Obama for the nom, and then for the win. But as Yogi Berra said, "Predictions are difficult, especially about the future."

"And I know the government administered AIDS, so I guess we just pray like the minister say."