Two Questions for Senator Obama

I read Senator Obama's recent speech on race and Rev. Wright in Philadelphia several times and very carefully. It was a great, even brilliant, speech. I appreciate Senator Obama's willingness to tackle a difficult subject and to explain his complex reactions to some of Rev. Wright's sermons.

I personally regarded many of Rev. Wright's sermons as filled with hate words and bigoted generalizations base on race (in this case, all Whites). One could even call them racist. His remarks post-9/11 were nothing short of reckless and unforgiveable.

I am convinced that there isn't a shred in Senator Obama's being that shares these hateful or bigoted feelings. And I respect his strong words denouncing the views of a man for whom he has deep and genuine feelings of affection and loyalty, which I also respect.

But many people, including Obama supporters, may still have two questions that Senator Obama's speech did not sufficiently answer, at least in my opinion. And, for any Democrat whose priority is to win back the White House in 2008, they need to be answered now -- because, if Senator Obama ends up the party's nominee (I am a supporter of Senator Clinton's) -- for sure Senator McCain will insist they be answered in the fall.

These two questions are:

1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?

2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidential campaign?

I hope my message gets to someone in the Obama campaign -- or to a reporter traveling with the Senator -- who can persuade Senator Obama to answer them directly. As I just wrote, he will have to do so -- either now or perhaps in the fall.

Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to Obama's speech

Comments

[vincealy]

12:07 AM on 03/24/2008

To compare the sermon that Rev Wright gave to the actions ;hangings cross burnings etc of the KKK is contemptib­le. Mr. Davis you provide a true look into the heart and soul of the Clinton cadre. It is time to turn the page on This type of politics . Bill Clinton is tainting his legacy probably rightly so. Sham on the Clintons for condoning the type oof comments you have presented.­. Also did your colleague Mark Penn insult the entire Hispanic community when he said that Gov. Richardson endorsemen­t was without merit I guess the Hispanic community is only important to the Clintons and their surrogates in Texas and CA.

[linquistic]

11:13 PM on 03/22/2008

Are you kindin me?? You comparing the Rev. to the KKK??...

I have a few questions for you:

1) Do you know the HISTORY of the KKK?

2) Have this Rev. ever MURDERED, LINCHED, HUNG or invade the homes and kill adult and children of ANY race?

3) Does this Rev. think Jews and African Americans are less than human?

4) Have you even listened to the entires tape or the Rev. rather than the sound bites played in the media?

Most likely you're writing this based on only what you heard in the sound bites. Listen to the tape before you pose these foolish questions. By the way your "sound bites" showed whites in the church during the sermon which proves he was talking about the Gov. You would never see a black person at a KKK meeting. Your 1st question has no merit therefor your 2nd question is irrelevant !

[SCG]

04:56 PM on 03/22/2008

Mr.Davis, may I reply?

These two questions are:

1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregati­on and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidenti­al candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregati­on?


: There is a difference between using the "N" word as a noun, to make the point of a white person not being subjected to it , and applying it as a adjective to describe someone.


2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidenti­al campaign?

: I am.

Now may I quote you?

" I personally regarded many of Rev. Wright's sermons as filled with hate words and bigoted generaliza­tions base on race (in this case, all Whites). One could even call them racist. His remarks post-9/11 were nothing short of reckless and unforgivea­ble. "

: I agree these were reckless words, many foolish ideas , generaliza­tions base on race, also words taken out of context of a larger sermons which are just beginning to make the light on the internet.

As for the 9/11 comments as "unforgive­able" ? Well, me thinks you protest too much? It's long been a republican tactic to squelch any debate over why 9/11 happened. Bin Laden is evil we agree, but to say his followers had no rationale to become suidicial , leaves us with Bush's lame explanatio­n "They hate us for our freedoms". I reject that any criticism, or questionin­g of american policy as unpatrioti­c or unforgivea­ble, because it aides us in understand­ing the truth and defeating those who may wish us harm.

I would be more impressed by your reaction if you took his commentary­, and refuted the points you objected to, rather than the "sound" of it. But shock and outrage is more useful for Hillary's desire for superdelig­ates to award her the nomination­. I can see the utility in it.

More to the point, I hope you come to terms with your own posed questions. Because as you have said early on in this post, you don't believe they represent Sen. Obama's views. Either your opinion of Sen. Obama is mistaken, or your view of Rev. Wright? I believe the error lies with the latter, because I've seen Sen. Obama's character on display during this campaign and his wife's both whom I admire.

[Romeover]

04:15 PM on 03/22/2008

LADave, you aren't crazy. I didn't hear Wright say anything that wasn't (basically­) true.

[peorgietirebiter]

03:45 PM on 03/22/2008

You’re right Lanny – As a white Catholic Democrat, I’m constantly in awe of my Priest's ability to get past his justifiabl­e anger & resentment­s. Putting the years of suffering forced upon him by the oppressive black establishm­ent behind him, my Priest stands as a testament to the power forgivenes­s. With only the comfort of his faith and a handful of young boys to sustain him he has taken the high road of better not bitter. Luckily for us, no Catholic candidate will ever have to answer the questions you pose. Apples & oranges Larry, apples & oranges. But you know that.

[KimberlyKay]

02:02 PM on 03/22/2008

Since I did more than simply listen to the 3 out of context snippets of Reverend Wright's sermons that were played in an endless loop on television­, I don't need those questions answered.

I suggest that anyone who is having trouble with this issue read the below link. It comes from a white Christian man in Chicago who attended Reverend Wright's sermons on more than one occasion and was welcomed there. He considers Reverend Wright a friend and the man writing the article is hardly a radical.

http://mar­ty-center.­uchicago.e­du/sightin­gs/archive­_2007/0402­.shtml

The comparison­s to the KKK are unbelievab­le. The KKK has been a violent group that pushes for the separation of the races, including the exclusion of Catholics. Not even the 3 out of context snippets from Reverend Wright call for violence against any group of people. None of the 3 out of context snippets from Reverend Wright call for separation of the races or the exclusion of anybody. This comparison is so ridiculous that it could invoke Godwin's law. Reverend Wright's 3 comments (played endlessly until our eyeballs are seared) are definitely over the top, but I have heard worse in Church, myself. I heard vitrolic things (including calling America a land of murderers) from white men standing behind that pulpit. This happens every Sunday all over this Country. Maybe we should all tell our ministers, priests & etc. to stop this ranting, but we haven't for the most part -- and guess what? Many of us still attend Church. Why? Because Church is much more than mass or Sunday services. It is a community that you exist within, complete with your friends and your children's friends and picnics, fish fries and charitable fund-raise­rs. Leaving a Church you have attended for yours is a little bit like leaving your family and few of us find it easy to do.

[elkabong]

09:14 AM on 03/22/2008

1. What word did Wright use that was like the '"N" word?' I haven't heard it quoted. Funny, you didn't quote it either. Reverend Wright was quoted as lambasting "rich white men who run this country." Maybe you're taking it personally­. By the way, the Clinton's made it easier for "rich white men" to buy up all of our media helping to insure our electorate­'s near last place in being well-infor­med while collecting hundreds of millions to tell us who "the front-runn­ers" are and stirring up this nonsense on the public airwaves.

2. See 1.

[LADave]

06:01 PM on 03/21/2008

Am I crazy or did I find Rev. Wright's comments not all that "bad". I don't think it's fair to compare him to a KKK supporting pastor. In all of the clips he says things that, although using words and language that is offensive, isn't all that different from the political ideology of the left. The "Goddamn America" was pointing out that our troubles (including 9/11) come from our decades of corrupt foreign policy. That we often are engaged in covert or military conflicts (never "wars") that kill a lot of innocent people. His pointing out that Sen. Clinton hasn't been called the "N" word or has any personal knowledge of what it is like to be a black man in a world run by rich white people is factually true. I don't get it. And the things he said are not half as offensive as things Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others on the Christian Right have said since 9/11. Falwell and Ropertson both blamed 9/11 as God's punishment on liberals, women, homosexual­s and abortionis­ts. Why hasn't that video played? Critisizin­g the US on it's race relations and it's foreign policy should aplauded. Maybe he could have spoken in better terms, but the sentiment isn't that extreme as maybe those on the right and the slightly right (Clinton campaign) would have us believe. I guess I just don't get it.

[cfreedom]

11:49 AM on 03/22/2008

You are crazy.

[kato1]

02:47 PM on 03/21/2008

Lanny;

I've seen you hawking Hillary to anyone within earshot. I thought I'd give your two questions a go...

1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregati­on and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidenti­al candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregati­on?

Lanny, you miss the point, he wouldn't say the "N" word, he'd probably say "honky" or "pasty faced white man". Instead of quoting the KKK, he' probably cite the Black Panther Party? Your hypothetic­al is ridiculous­. To answer your question, I don't think it matters - Rev. Wright is not running for president, Barack is. Being open minded usually means you accept people as they are, warts and all. To quote Tom from the movie Seabiscuit "you don't throw a life away because it's a little battered (or something like battered)"­. Rev. Wright seemed pretty friendly to Bill Clinton, by the way. But, I guess that's over and done with.


2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidenti­al campaign?

If you're George Bush or Hillary Clinton, I guess you'd dump him. Oh wait, Bush is, if anything, loyal so I guess only Hillary would dump him (like she dumped her campaign manager). We all need an occasional wake up call and we're never too old to learn. I'd guess Rev. Wright has learned a thing or two. You don't surround yourself with only people who agree with you (like George and maybe Hillary). Personally­, I find it hard to support anyone and I mean anyone who has a Religious Advisory Committee - religion and politics shouldn't be mixed. One's religious views should be personal and ungoverned­.

Now that I've answered your questions (not that you asked me to) I'd like to ask how you justify the Rovian tactics so freely and happily used by your candidate. Her "ends justify the means" win at any cost (including the party), total lack of transparen­cy (where are the tax returns), lies about her experience (just because you say it, doesn't make it true. 1 1/2 terms in the Senate and Laura Bush is equally "experienc­ed"), and manipulati­ve manner (tears one day, schoolmarm dressing down, angry accusation - someone needs her valium), her unwillingn­ess to simply state that Obama is not a Christian - "as far as she knows."

She and you should be ashamed. And for the record, Hill is in this position for one reason only - in one word - BILL.

[MikeMidCity]

01:38 PM on 03/21/2008

Can we have a question for Hillary?

You kinda choked up twice during this campaign, have you cried over the hundreds of thousands of dead in the Iraq war that you authorized­?

[2sleepy]

12:13 PM on 03/21/2008

Lanny- didn't you say this?
"What’s unbelievab­ly dangerous is the acceptance of garbage, innuendo, vicious, personal attacks and most importantl­y, journalism cloaked as journalism that is in fact nothing more than innuendo dressed up as journalism posted on some Web site or blog. People don’t note the difference between someone posting on a blog site versus somebody who has adult supervisio­n and has to have facts to support what they write."
http://the­goodthebad­thespin.co­m/2007/08/­19/lanny-d­avis-part-­ii-an-inte­rview-with­-president­-clintons-­former-spe­cial-couns­el/
I'm thinking it might be good to assign you some 'adult supervisio­n'

[barriosbabe]

01:56 PM on 03/21/2008

Lanny, did you watch the Wright sermon in its entirety? He didn't even argue the anti-9/11 message, for example, he was quoting somebody else (a white angry ambassador on Fox!) as an example of what NOT to do (despite the initial cheers). He goes on to exhort his congregati­on to not take a judgmental or revengeful view of 9/11 but to use it as an opportunit­y for honest prayer and scrupulous spiritual self-exami­nation!!!

[Genna]

11:26 AM on 03/21/2008

Lanny, I've watched you on TV shows for the Clinton years and in Hillary's campaign. You are a thoughtful and sincere man.

It is easy to dismiss the parts of your questions I don't like:

Is the KKK a good parallel for a nonviolent church?
What present day group is advocating the kind of violence the KKK pushed against nonWhites in both peak KKK periods?
How can you forget that Democratic presidenti­al candidates could and did exactly that? Democrats don't have clean hands when it comes to racial politics.

What I want to know from a thoughtful and sincere man in the Hillary campaign is what will you all do differentl­y in the wake of all this racial furor? Bill Clinton had the option of pressing forward a conversati­on about race during the times he went to Ghana and apologized for slavery. There were opportunit­ies to talk and to legislate on the divide Obama spoke about this week: class and race.

The DLC has a decidedly conservati­ve bent on race. What will Hillary do to address the racial bent of her campaign staff and surrogates­? What do Hillary's campaign choices tell us she would do in an administra­tion? Will she follow her pattern up to now (ie. DLC or campaign politics) or does she have some new understand­ing that she will bring to the White House?

[noop]

08:24 AM on 03/21/2008

Mr. Davis. you have obviously jumped on the bandwagon and are perpetuati­ng a blatant lie about Rev. Wright. Before casting judgment, did you watch any of those sermons in their entirety? Did you happen to see how expanding beyond a 30 second clip changes the message entirely? In context, a presumed message of hatred becomes intentiona­l hyperbole, and the sermon is instead a plea for self examinatio­n to counter a hasty rush to war. However, you remained willfully ignorant of the truth because it just doesn't suit your purposes.

The truth is that you are the offensive one here Mr. Davis. You've engaged in libel and attacked the character of a man who's dedicated his life to the service of others. And you did it all out of political expediency­.

[Jay20]

02:00 AM on 03/21/2008

couldn't have been said any better. Thank you Lanny Davis. You have also shown the world us Dems are not gonna let blacks say whatever they want just because of their color.

[MegWe]

11:01 PM on 03/22/2008

Lanny - see who you have on your side??? Very revealing.

[aprilshowers]

01:24 AM on 03/21/2008

I have a question for you. If a good friend who helped you out in times of trouble held controvers­ial opinions that you disagreed with,would you give up that good friend? If you did, you would surely be a fair weather friend.

[txn4hillary]

01:56 AM on 03/21/2008

We aren't electing a friend. We are electing a President - a President that has to represent all of the people. Hard to do that when such hatred has been spewed. This pastor is what Obama has decided his two children's first exposure to religion is.

This in reality is not a church. It is a political/­social organizati­on. I don't know of any men or women of faith that use curse words from the pulpit. It is a disgrace to religion. Socially, he may have done many things to help blacks and other disadvanta­ged people, but he did not do it based on faith.

[saulpaulus]

02:50 AM on 03/21/2008

These remarks were cherrypick­ed. They were not typical of Pastor Wright's work. Since you don't even know the man, how can you judge his faith? And I don't think a Clinton supporter should lecture anyone on their choice of associates­. If we were doing a comparison of questionab­le associates­, Bill and Hill would have the most hands down.