Rev. Wright's alleged sins that Obama pretends to condemn

Yesterday, at the Press Club in D.C., Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave a speech (transcript here) describing his church and its mission. He spoke of the ‘invisibility’ of his church’s liberation theology, about the need for an honest racial conversation, about the value of moral equality, about the need to transform injustice into justice, about global economic injustice, about his church’s many significant contributions to poverty, and about reconciliation through the acknowledgment of past grievances and forgiveness of such grievances.

During the question period a moderator read questions given to him by members of the press. They asked Wright, among other things, about his previous assertion about God damning America, whether he owes Americans an apology, Louis Farrakhan, and whether he is disappointed that Obama has distanced himself from him.

In other words, the questions and his, in my opinion level-headed responses to them, bore no relationship to the content of the speech he came there to deliver.

Today, as a way of recapping Wright’s speech and Obama’s response to it, the U.S.’s two most important editorial boards write:

NY Times: It took more time than it should have, but on Tuesday Barack Obama firmly rejected the racism and paranoia of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., and he made it clear that the preacher does not represent him, his politics or his campaign.

and,

WaPost: Did Mr. Obama climb out of that hole yesterday? It seems to us that the whole sorry episode raises legitimate questions about his judgment. Given the long and close relationship between Mr. Obama and the Rev. Wright, voters will ask: How could Mr. Obama have been surprised by the Rev. Wright's views?

“Racism”? I challenge the Times editorial board to point to anything in Wright’s speech that could be reasonably judged racist. How about the Washington Post’s reference to Wright’s ‘views’ as if they were bombastic and condemnatory? Which views exactly? They mean the one asserting that there is global poverty and economic injustice? Or the one about the value of moral equality? Or the one which asserts that the U.S. government has committed numerous injustices throughout its history for which it has never formally apologized?

Our mass media seems to live and report on activities from another planet, and confuses them with the happenings of our planet.

Of course, this is not true of all media outlets, as Bill Moyer’s excellent interview with Wright proves (video and transcript here).

One further unfortunate aspect of all this is to see Obama debasing himself with ridiculous political posturing. Commenting on Wright’s speech, Obama declares, “Upon watching it, what came clear to me was that it was more than just him defending himself. What became clear is that he was presenting a worldview that contradicts who I am and what I stand for. What particularly angered me was his suggestion that my previous denunciation of his remarks was political posturing.”

So, Obama stands against global economic justice, moral equality, and the church’s work to alleviate poverty? Or, if not, which ‘worldview’ is he referring to? It’s also mildly amusing that Obama is angered by Wright’s calling his political posturing, political posturing. Is he angry that he has to do it, or that someone is pointing out the obvious truth that he is engaged in it?