In the something for everyone department, Mr. Obama’s speech was brilliant! 

Senator Obama recognized that nowhere else on earth would his story be possible. He rejects the idea that his candidacy is “somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.”

He rejects the comments but not the man in the person of Reverend Wright and projects that we have all had the exact same experience of disagreement that he claims was the case between him and Reverend Wright. 

He rejects the idea of endemic white racism as “elevating what is wrong with America above what is right with America”. He says the right thing about Israel and radical Islam.

Senator Obama while criticizing the statements of Reverend Wright does not reject the man and explains, reasonably, why he cannot do so. He says the same things he has been saying about Reverend Wright only with more elegance and in larger context.   Mr. Obama criticizes Reverend Wright for failing to recognize progress. He mitigates the impact of what Reverend Wright has had to say by relating his personal experiences with his white grandmother who used ethnic stereotypes and had a fear of black men on the street. The Senator says he could never consider rejecting her despite her failings or Reverend Wright.      

Senator Obama elegantly, brings the argument back to slavery and the institutional segregation of past generations. However, he also speaks to the frustrations of the white community over being held accountable for transgressions they never participated in. Brilliant!

The Senator addresses the reality of what is felt and said in small communities, churches and barbershops compared to what is said in polite company and the impact that this equation has had on prejudice and underlying racism. 

Even a bow to conservatives as Senator Obama said, “Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change”. He criticizes the Welfare State of the past as contributory to the lack of progress in the Black American community. There is, of course, more but this sampling is reasonable. Brilliant speech!

Nevertheless, questions and concerns persist.

My own personal context for the realities that surround issues of race were informed by a black colleague of mine during the OJ trial. After many hours of animated discussion, he from his point of view, me from mine, he finally said to me “Look I know you’re not a racist, I know you try, but you need to understand that if you don’t wake up black every morning, if you don’t feel that particular pressure you simply cannot relate on an emotional level. You can get there intellectually but you can’t get there emotionally, and it is emotional!” Hard for me to accept at that moment in time but undeniably true.

If the ever-present justification for Reverend Wright and those who share his belief system is the presence of slavery and the injustices of the past, where is the pivot point for changing attitudes? If slavery and Jim Crow are the permanent context of the discussion, as it was in parts of this speech, where do we go? Where does the black community go? We can’t make slavery go away, we can’t make the fact that Jim Crow existed go away. We did, eventually, make them go away, at great cost in lives but we can’t change the fact that they existed. We can’t change the fact that the founders skipped over the issue of slavery over the fear of losing the ability to create a cohesive union. All facts and none can be made to disappear. 

Despite the admirable rhetorical technique of equating his grandmother’s failings with Reverend Wright, there are substantial and obvious differences. The Senator’s grandmother did not maintain a position of leadership and influence. Her prejudice was her own and not the result of a theological belief system. She had no responsibility for informing the attitudes of thousands. This manner of relativism, while clever, is not equivalent and weakens the Senators credibility in the argument. 

If white attitudes, behaviors, and attempts at a change of heart, albeit in the personal context quoted above, have simply resulted in Reverend Wright’s rage and anger going underground or going to church do some quit trying? Does a view of race as an impossible challenge to overcome predominate? Will black rage now be met with white rage or worst white apathy?   

The Senator excuses Reverend Wright’s rage as a result of experience as the Reverend’s generation came of age in the fifties and sixties and faced the injustices of that era. The justification is valid, to a point. But to my white mind, I cannot help but ask, who is better placed to identify the nature progress since then than that generation? Senator Obama recognized the progress but a man that informs his spirituality and his relationship with his God clearly does not.

Black Liberation Theology, clearly, does not recognize progress. In 2004 Dr. James Cone the leading contemporary advocate of this theology wrote that “Black suffering is getting worse, not better….White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist even though black people are dying daily from its poison” (Living Stones in the Household of God).Further Dr. Cone opined, “White society is the Antichrist and the white church is uniformly racist” There can be no recognition of progress or pride in country because every event is viewed through a prism of permanent oppression and racism. Dr. Cone says, “All white men are responsible for white oppression”  

Michelle Obama’s statement about pride in country is fully consistent with the outlook of Black Liberation Theology. Lee Cary in American Thinker believes that the very general follow up to the comment by Mrs. Obama will remain general, or absent. To explain further or in detail will simply expose more of Black Liberation Theology with negative effects on the campaign.

Many Black ministers have rallied to the defense of Reverend Wright, leading to the question of how deep this anger goes and how pervasive is it? Each one fell back on past injustice as a reason for contemporary rage. None seemed prepared to acknowledge any fundamental progress and each had a well-constructed rationale for that point of view. Good debaters all but, I fear, the audience is not looking for a good debate. They are looking for some manner of recognition and it is not forthcoming. It will not be forthcoming in the context of this theology. One hopes that what we saw Tuesday was Senator Obama’s true self, but this is hard to know to a certainty.     

The Senator specifically identifies that his condemnations may not be enough for some, that is, unfortunately, true. This statement is unfortunately true, not based on endemic racism, or what conservative talk radio has to say. It is true because all of the questions have not been answered to a logical conclusion. Condemnation of Reverend Wright’s comments are appropriate and predictable. However, can a man that has been a long term member of a church that is a center piece of Black Liberation Theology lead us to a new racial context?  I fear that justifying racist rage while, at the same time, condemning it is just not a strong enough position in this situation.

I find it fairly easy to agree with much of what  Mr. Obama had to say today about why things are the way they are and the need for continued change. Easy to admire how he went about saying it, it was brilliant. The problem is that what he says is diametrically opposed to the theology of his church. It is opposed to the ideas of the minister who informs the context of his faith and by extension his attitudes. That conundrum remains an unanswered question.