Disappointed

So now we've reached the final chapter in the Rev. Wright novella and my overall feeling after the entire sad soap opera is disappointment.

Maybe I expected far too much.

I had hoped that some of the truth behind many of Wright's comments would eventually be examined. I wasn't so naive as to think the media would admit that they got it wrong, but that Barack would find some way to improve the quality of our discourse.

Unfortunately, Rev Wright turned out to be his own worst advocate - and Barack was left with no choice but to toss him under the bus, backup and start doing donuts.

It's really Wright's own fault, the blame has to start with him and his Grandstanding. He got start-struck. He went Hollywood. He was drunk with the power of being in the spotlight and drove his own car into the ditch, with Barack's Presidency strapped into the passenger seat.

I clearly understand that Barack had to cut him loose.

I just wish he didn't have to. I wish he didn't have to confirm all those smug media pundicators who've spent the last month mostly debating just how high the railway bridge needed to be when Barack finally kicked Rev. Wright from the train.

Those lazy ass-clown hacks don't deserve to be vindicated, and I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised. But, I admit I was surprised when Obama himself bought into the spin.

Obama feels that Rev. Wright dissed him when he said that he was a pastor and Obama was politician. Somehow Wright's rather lengthy discussion before the NAACP on how some things can be different but not deficient, was completely missed.

He wasn't insulting Barack by saying he was a "politician" - he is a politician. That's not a dirty word, it's just descriptive.

The problem wasn't that Wright wouldn't repent and renounce his previous statements, it's that in some cases he simply refused to show any sensitivity to those who may disagree or misunderstand him. When he was asked whether Barack was in the pews when he was smack talking he said...

MODERATOR: You just mentioned that Senator Obama hadn’t heard many of your sermons. Does that mean he’s not much of a churchgoer? Or does he doze off in the pews?

WRIGHT: I just wanted to see — that’s your question. That’s your question. He goes to church about as much as you do. What did your pastor preach on last week? You don’t know? OK.

Oh, OUCH! That wasn't pretty.

He also didn't really take anywhere near the proper care he should have when he finally asked the AIDS question.

MODERATOR: In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?

WRIGHT: Have you read Horowitz’s book, "Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola," whoever wrote that question? Have you read "Medical Apartheid"? You’ve read it?

(UNKNOWN): Do you honestly believe that (OFF-MIKE)

WRIGHT: Oh, are you — is that one of the reporters?

MODERATOR: No questions -

(CROSSTALK)

WRIGHT: No questions from the floor. I read different things. As I said to my members, if you haven’t read things, then you can’t — based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.

In fact, in fact, in fact, one of the — one of the responses to what Saddam Hussein had in terms of biological warfare was a non- question, because all we had to do was check the sales records. We sold him those biological weapons that he was using against his own people.

So any time a government can put together biological warfare to kill people, and then get angry when those people use what we sold them, yes, I believe we are capable

So in response to the question he refers to a book by a Harvard researcher, but doesn't really bother to explain that quite a few doctors and scientists have been looking at weather polio and other vaccines first tested in Africa may have caused the HIV virus to jump species from monkey's to humans, and whether agencies such as the CDC have stonewalled and blocked attempts to either verify or refute this hypothesis.

I first came upon this idea ten years ago in the New Yorker Magazine, and based on that and some pretty simple research on wiki - there has been a lot of pushback on this and various agencies and medical journals have refused to even entertain the suggestion.

So Wright isn't really wrong here - he's not saying that it happened, he's saying we're fully capable of it and we are - he saying most of us haven't heard the whole story, and we haven't - but telling someone to "just go read the book" isn't all that convincing. It's not going to bring people over to his side of the argument.

Here's another comment I fully agree with, but I understand can't possibly go down well.

What I said about and what I think about and what — again, until I can’t — until racism and slavery are confessed and asked for forgiveness — have we asked the Japanese to forgive us? We have never as a country, the policymakers — in fact, Clinton almost got in trouble because he almost apologized at Gorialan (ph). We have never apologized as a country.

Britain has apologized to Africans, but this country’s leaders have refused to apologize. So until that apology comes, I’m not going to keep stepping on your foot and asking you, "Does this hurt? Do you forgive me for stepping on your foot?" if I’m still stepping on your foot.

Understand that? Capiche?

Holeey Crap!

It's almost frustrating that he's absolutely right, America has Not Apologized for Slavery. When Rep John Conyers was circulating a bill to simply study the idea of Reparations a decade ago it was shot down like Gary Powers over Russian.

But no one who experienced or perpetrated Slavery is still alive? Isn't an apology an admission of guilt? It's not my fault, I wasn't there - I didn't do it, why should I be held accountable and who am I supposed to be accountable too?

It was just plain pathetic.

The point is simply that admitting that it was wrong is the first step to making sure it doesn't happen again. How many people even realize that the 13th Amendment doesn't completely abolish slavery or indentured servitude?

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

So all you need to become a slave is for a judge and jury to sanction it. And just guess who happens to be crowded into our jails even though the Stats indicate that they don't commit most of the crimes or do most of the drugs?

'

Yeah.

Funny how it still works out this way, even in this day and age. Even in 2008.

The stuff that Wright was discussing is all, to one degree or another, true but you really can't treat people this way when talking about it. You can't come off like a dick!

Understand that? Capiche?

Oy vey!

My greatest regret is that Barack was forced by Wright's own arrogance and lack of caution in how he was speaking to initiate this split. Wright has discredited himself. He's undermined and undercut his own ideas. Now if you even attempt to discuss this kind of thing in the future you're likely to be branded as a "Rev. Wright Wackadoodle".

I think race relations and even the ability to seriously discuss sensitive subjects such as this may have just taken two giant steps backward.
Our great ambitious nation conversation about Race in America is now over. Done. Finito. Stomped into oblivion at least for the time being. (Which is exactly how the Just Get Over it crowd would like it to be.)

Barack could have fixed this, I believe, but it might very well have cost him his Presidency. It would have taken every ounce of energy his campaign had to rehabilitate this mess. He ultimately had no choice. He had to pick the needs of the nation of the needs of Rev. Wright.

I myself have written something of at least a half dozen diaries defending Rev. Wright's right to speak his mind, and I've taken a ton of heat for some of it. This discussion is now dead.

Another sad thing is that this seems as much personal as political for Barack. Obama felt personally disrespected and hurt. This wasn't easy for him. Watching a 20-year friendship crash and burn isn't pretty.

What Church does he go to now? Can he mend fences with the TUCC Congregation and it's current pastor Rev Moss? Which direction do black people go, with Wright or with Obama? Will this hurt his Black Vote and are they likely to go for Hillary who was talking ridiculous smack about Wright weeks ago?

This is a mess.

And it's ironic that Obama, who has long argued that he had the willingness to reach out to people he disagreed with like Ahmadenejad, and Syria, now can't find himself sitting at the same table as Rev. Wright while Louis Farrakhan as at the far end and extreme AIDS theories are on the plate.

He simply can't go there.

And the truth is he's not the only one. America isn't ready to go there either. Not yet. And there's no telling when it will ever be ready to go there and get it all this racial baggage out on the table, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Oddly enough Barack is now turning his back on one of his own primary arguments, that he can work with just about anyone, may just be the final example of his showing some backbone and fight that a lot of Democrats have needed to see for quite a while. Being willing to diss a prominent Black preacher has shown that Barack isn't a slave to Black Orthodoxy, and just might bring a few reluctant White voters his way.

Make no mistake, my support for Obama for President is still strong I just wish he could get this outraged over torture, domestic spying, 4th branch, crony contracting, lead paint on our toys or mercury in our water instead of over Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.

That's disappointing.

Vyan