I am an agnostic, middle aged woman from the west coast and I personally didn't see what the issue was with Wright, but I don't watch television, so I feel  I am better informed (speech in context kthxbye) because I was never barraged with the media images.  Don't people realize that if you have enough footage of someone, you can make them into anything at all?

I could likely take any longtime poster here on MyDD and parse their diaries and comments to make them out to be anything I please as long as it is not necessary to provide context.

You know, if I have time this weekend, maybe I will test out this little experiment.

That said, I don't place the whole Wright issue on the Clinton campaign, I think the media itself was  the primary guilty party in this whole event.

This is who I am.  This is what I believe.  Sorry if you folks disagree.

I haven't yet seen the whole interview, but I DID watch two of his controversial sermons in full, and found them to be considerably more thoughtful and less hateful than the 15 second dumbed down sound bites that ran seemingly endlessly.

The criticisms of Wright are, in my opinion, not much different than criticisms of those who stood against this war at its inception.  Those people, too, were called unpatriotic or America-hating, because they dared to say that we were better than what we were doing.  Well, America IS better than what it has done.  If I didn't believe that, and that we can work hard to improve it, I'd be very disenchanted living here.  But is IS better, if we try.

Wright did say some very bad things.  Not "God Damn America," so much as the AIDS comment.  But to lose the overall message or to smear a 30 year career with 30 seconds of out-of-context sound is shameful.  

this diary is full of

You know, the truth is, no matter which voice he chose to use during that interview, he has (frequently) chosen to use a very different voice.  And I deeply disagree with that choice.

This controversy is helpful to the extent that it tests assumptions and forces us all to hold up a mirror.  But you are changing the subject.

The question ought to be: how did Rev. Wright's hatespeech benefit the African American community as a whole?  These are not isolated incidents or short soundbites taken out of context, as you try to suggest.  These are central theses to the message he preached on many occassions.

I don't think it's helpful to constantly tell people that the world is fundamentally against them, that the "rich white man" is some kind of bucket into which you can place all your fears and angers, whether real or imagined.  I don't think that moves us forward.

I don't think it's helpful when he devoted an entire sermon just this year to telling his congregants that Black people should vote for Barack because he "ain't white" and "ain't rich" (which, if you're counting, is 25% true).  I don't think it's helpful when he equates believing in the good work that Bill Clinton did on behalf of the African American community with being anally raped.  I don't think it's helpful when he tells Black folks that they should not vote for Hillary because she "ain't never been called a nigger."

But ultimately what is so wrongheaded about what he preached was not any of that.  It was what came before that, when he said that Hillary doesn't know what it's like to have to work twice as hard just to get ahead.

Ask any woman whether she agrees.

So really what he was doing was pitting the anger and resentment of one disadvantaged group against the other.  Manipulating resentment, instead of trying to heal it, by pointing out the commonality that between the two - that both are trying to break societal barriers that have never been broken before.

Now, I am not making this about the campaign but I mention this sermon because it illustrates how damaging this rhetoric is.  And when you have this kind of message reinforced, suddenly you start framing the world around you that way.  It can become a sort of self-fulfilling cycle.

I will also say that what disturbed me as much, if not more, than these sermons was the commentary that followed them.  I recall one academic who said something along these lines: "What you must understand is that Jeremiah Wright was speaking a different language to a slightly different culture."

As liberals we are pretty-much trained to accept statements like that on face value.  But I ask you to stop and think about how denigrating that is to African Americans.  The implication is that unless you get real ugly and say some very hateful things, those dumb Black folk just won't get it.

Well, I reject that.  I think that when you hold someone to a lower standard, you are fundamentally disrespecting them.

I'll close on this note.  I went to college in a city.  I have friends of every color, orientation and whatever else you want.  I lost a job once because I told my (white) employer that I thought a comment he made was racist.  I have never been called racist in my entire life, until the moment I said that I have a problem with Rev. Wright's racially divisive remarks.  That, if nothing else, should tell you how fk'd up the whole thing has become.

I don't think he is evil.  I believe the (many) accounts of good things he has done.  But having done good things doesn't make a wrong thing right.  Not everything can be swept under the rug of "context".  Sometimes things are just plain wrong.

There is no context which makes turning the story of the crucifixion into a  bogus tale of rich white men persecuting poor black men and using it directly and unambiguously as an analogy for this election.

Wright used both racist and misogynist rhetoric to smear Clinton on Obama's behalf. That's not to say he's always a thug, but he was certainly one on Christmas morning. He owes Clinton an apology but I don't expect the minimum level of integrity necessary to apologize.

The fact of the matter is taht most of us don't preach for forty five minutes once a week in front of 8000 people and for the video camera. He was well aware that his message was going out to a large group of people and would be preserved for posterity. And he uses that extraordinary forum to engage in unambiguous misogyny.  

He may have his virtues but he has huge issues with women and he smeared a very fine Democratic candidate quite publicly and has not apologized. Until he does apologize, then he's nothing more than a misogynist and that is how he will be defined.

People loved Strom Thurmond too and Trent Lott thought he was being bold when he waxed nostalgic for what could have been had Strom won the presidency. What Wright said is no less offensive than that.

Then please tell me why Obama disowned him in every possible way than saying "I disown him."  He disowned a vague and indeterminate number of Wright's statements, calling them "inflammatory and appalling" in writing, called him a crazy uncle, said that if Wright hadn't either retired or apologized Obama would've quit his church, kicked him off his campaign, said he has never read the church bulletins, and hasn't been caught within a mile of that church since this thing broke.

So he "didn't disown him" for bragging rights of "standing by his friends" but could he possibly split that hair any finer without totally repudiating the man?

Before some people just freak out at my response, let me state that I was at the 2004 DNC in Boston when Obama made his speech. It was a big deal because he was the one hand picked by Kerry to give that speech.

Realizing I was being overtaken by giddy enthusiasm and creating a whole platform for him in my mind, I contented myself to donating to his Senatorial campaign. I'm not embarrassed in any way to say I donated to his Presidential campaign later on, because I thought he would make a great VP and the exposure and training on a national playing field would be good for him.

Obama was still denying any interest in running for President, and the thought that being VP might be considered a "back of the bus" position for him never crossed my mind. Until other people in the race started saying things like, "I'm not running to be VP", I really thought that he would not have taken that position. Believing Hillary Clinton would never go through the merciless and relentless and tedious crap required to run for President after what she had gone through already, I thought he would make Wes Clark or John Edwards a great VP.

When Hillary declared, however, I thought Obama would be the most logical and progressive choice, as I don't and have never irrationally or vehemently hated any Democrat -including Bill Clinton, - and even then it disgusted me that so many in the Democratic Party let themselves get caught up in the moral outrage over Gays in the Military or Hillary's battering by insurance companies and Republicans and Democrats who felt left out of the whole health care reform process.

I was stupid enough to think that at least most women and certainly Democrats were ready for an obviously battle tested and and highly skilled woman to lead this country if she was willing to do it. What shocked me most was the vehement not "that" women attitudes from otherwise progressive, sane women that I knew. And Mark Penn was a really bad choice. But it is what it is, and I am still convinced that Hillary Clinton will not only win the Democratic nomination, but also win the Presidency.

So how did we ever come to the Reverend Wright fiasco? I'm just going to say what I think of the whole thing. Actually, I'm just going to comment on how some Democrats are responding to it.

Frankly, Wright had already lost some of my respect for his AIDS comments - I treat a lot of people with AIDS and other STDs and people are typically inclined, especially when younger, not to fully understand or care about the repercussions of their actions - at least health wise. Stubborn older people with bad livers or kearts and weight issues are just as bad when it comes to putting down the bottle, cigarettes or comfort foods. There are still people who believe cream cheese is anything more than fat and stabilizers

I know just how harmful comments by people who want to attribute some religious, racial, political or judgemental attributes to a virus whose only mission in life is to parasite a host and use it for survival.

Tell me how that has helped Wright's community?

How do you explain the fact that Obama gave up on defending such a good man? Or didn't he give up? Obviously Sean Hannity has been pounding on Wright's statements for almost a year now. Why, instead of saying he didn't hear or wasn't present during the time that Wright made "that" 30 second sound bite, didn't Obama extol the man's virtues ? Did some highly paid political advisor tell him not to?

I expect Hillary Clinton to be blamed for everything when it comes to the world's problems, including the suffering of cage bred animals and alcoholism. She will be blamed for the entire Wright controversy as well. She already is, by people who should know better. I think it quite coincidental that Rep. Clyburn is working the Bill Clinton has offended Blacks right before the NC primary. I think it's a coincidence that McCain would stop running ads using Wright that his Party thinks are appropriate right befoe the NC primary. And it's extremely co-incidental that a majority of voters in the NC Democratic primary will be Black.

So please explain to me how any of that will help the Black community - assuming of course that you believe the entire membership of Trinity church and all of Rev. Wrights work was about Black people.

Maybe it will help to deal with your anger by recognizing that every current candidate in any Party's primary has made political calculations with regards to Wright and a whole lot of other people as well. I can say with certainty that atheists were not their targeted audience with Wright? Or maybe just non-Black atheists someone might chime in.

Unfortunately, this type of behavior is not going to stop just by wishing or hoping for or saying we're going to have a new type of politics in this country.

Every campaign is playing politics. The fastest way to get pounced on by the media is by claiming you are above or beyond or immune to that. Unless of course they feel that they'll keep the stunned bird under its paw to play with later when ratings might be harder to jack up.

But they will still create a sudden death type of horserace for the Presidency. Fairness, impartiality or the number of people whose lives are ruined will not be part of their calculations. That get's played out on TV and in gossip mags and even reality shows every day, probably non-stop.

in my most humble opinion:

anyone who hasn't yelled "god damn america" at least once in the past eight years hasn't been paying attention.

First thought is that showing the long version of his 911 sermon didn't make it sound any less anti-American. He was still blaming America using some sort of chickens coming home to roost karma connection.

He was very pedantic, which will fly with the elitist but will make no sense to the working class-telling us that we think incorrectly, that we've been manipulated into believing things. People aren't going to cotton up to that very well.

At first I felt annoyed at Moyers but as the interview went on, I thought he did a good job of not putting Wright on the defensive which left Wright to expose his prejudice.

Wright is stuck in the 70s victim mentality. Shelby Steel called it in his interview with Moyers a while back.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/011120 08/profile2

He did himself no favors by defending the NOI and Louis Farrakhan.

I don't think this interview will do much to change people's beliefs. The kool aid drinkers will swoon, the media will make sound bites to portray their bias du jour, and Obama will bamboozle and hoodwink in order to win the votes of working people. For the most part, the AA votes are gimmes anyway.

I kept thinking of the nasty things he said about Bill and Hillary in those videos. Moyers didn't ask him to explain that.

He's a hypocrite, just like his "nephew."