No you don’t have to believe that they’re the same. Osama has to believe it.

As for the implication that the US foreign policy does not reflect the will and culture of its People, well hundreds of thousands have died from the war and no one gives a shit. So I’d say you get the foreign policy you care for.

But Obama did not get up there and take the easy, expected way out, cutting ties with Wright. He got up there and said outright that Wright was being charactured, because people on all sides can’t talk about race without getting offended, defensive, and angry. And he was not going to reject that real human being because of how he was being portrayed at the moment, in the media, and by his enemies. I think that’s where the bravery shows.

Obama is cutting through the bullshit. Because those statements of Wright’s, and the reactions to them, have been bullshit. They’re not thought-out universalizable arguments on either side; they’re emotional eruptions of the kind that affect frustrated people who don’t know or understand each other. They’re not meant to be persuasive, they’re meant to be inflammatory to people who already think that way.

So I do think attempting to parse the actual words of Wright’s statements is futile. Words matter, but what they’re trying to express matters more. So that may seem like a cop-out to you. Politics frequently drives people into overly careful but meaningless language; intra-group rallies frequently drive people into uncareful gaffes that express something real in an imprecise way. Truly addressing a real problem means cutting out both those types of bullshit. But I think that’s what Obama was going for, and I think he succeeded.

And after all the bullshit of the administrations during my lifetime, I am hungry and eager for someone who can cut through it.

I have only so many legal recourses. I can not give orders to Generals, nor direct groups like US AID. I have tried communicating with military people (one longish conversation with a Command Sergeant Major about mercs) but, honestly, they don’t have much power, either.

I’m like a european social democrat, I guess, maybe an old style Fabian, and there hasn’t been a single political voice that I can say “Yes, that’s a person I’d happily go to the wall with.”

Like Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer and Reverend Wright, I know that Sept. 11th was driven by far more than a (source never identified) raw hatred for America, but in large part a direct response to a foreign policy that has been going on since the 1930s at least (as far as America is concerned) or earlier (Sykes-Picot) or earlier (Crusades!).

Once Obama said the Palestinians were “the most oppressed people on Earth.” Of the three people left in (the media’s conception of) the ring, that’s the closest thing to sanity I’ve heard.

So that is where, with head bowed, I am forced to hang my hat.

Bob - having read some of the Rev. Wright’s comments, I see plenty in there that’s divisive. I’m wondering what Obama sees that’s wrong. For example:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God damn America … for killing innocent people. God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

And I’ll agree that the rhetoric was uplifting and inspiring. But until Obama explains what policies are behind it, the rhetoric is no good to me.

To the last point: I would define patriotism as a love of item #3, often exploited to sanction #4.

He only alludes to the 9/11 comment once specifically, and basically says terrorism=bad. He doesn’t really even get into an argument about it.

So I don’t understand what your beef is with “not only wrong, but divisive.” He just finished a paragraph about how the thought the comments were wrong, then went into one about how he thought they were divisive. I don’t see how that implies he’d be OK with wrong-but-not-divisive or divisive-but-correct.

Then you say that he doesn’t say exactly what he thinks what wrong about the comments. The speech is full of what he thinks is right about the issue. Does he really need to read each of the comments he’s denouncing and do a point-by-point commentary? I mean, Obama is the guy running, not Wright. Obama doesn’t have to address what Wright believes, he has to address what he believes.

And I think the speech told us what he believes. That racial equality in this country continues to improve, in no small part because of seeds planted from the country’s creation. But that we may find ourselves stalled because the national discussion about race has become charactured and driven by anger & defensiveness.

I found I came away very impressed by his understanding of race relations in this country, and very hopeful that he can move the ball in the direction he’s pointing.

Lastly, with respect to the nature of what a democratic nation “is,” when it comes to someone expressing patriotism, isn’t it more a question of poetic intention than rhetorical construction?

I think that’s a pretty broad leap on your part. As you stated before, one can define the United States in more than one fashion.

While I agree with most of your complaints, I think you have to take into account, that as a candidate running for office, it’s very tricky to get down to the level of detail you want, without saying something that is easily twisted around. If Obama came out of this, and a right leaning news agency was able to dumb his statment down to “he thinks 911 is our fault” or “he thinks America can do no wrong” the guy is politically screwed. Like it or not, 90% of the voting public does not read into such issues as deeply as you.

And what does it mean to “bind our particular grievances to the larger aspirations of all Americans”? What exactly should a person who follows that advice be doing? What does it mean to “provide this generation with ladders of opportunity”? What, exactly, is he saying?

He’s asking that we come together to look at where other people are coming from. He’s asking that we understand that people of another color are frustrated by a percieved injustice due to race.. that we need to accept what things have changed for the better, that we need to get our heads out of our asses.

And he does in fact, say what would unify us.
“For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.”

“In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.”

Yes, this is rhetoric, but it’s true. He also says he’s not naive enough to believe that he alone or one president alone can change this.. but he’s saying something damn fundamental, and strong, and incredibly brave here.