Two excellent columns about Obama’s speech on race (his attempt to diffuse the situation created by the revelation that his pastor of 20 years is a bigoted racist wacko).
One by Victor Davis Hanson:
…notice how Obama characterizes Wright’s bigoted, paranoid, hate-filled, ignorant rants: remarks that could be considered controversial. The passive voice and the weasel-word “controversial” are of course the rhetorical perfume Obama sprays over Wright’s malodorous comments. The “could be considered” also implies that the remarks should not be judged in terms of their truth or conformity to empirical evidence. Rather, how one reacts to them is what’s important, and that reaction is merely a consequence of personal taste or preference or socio-racial-economic “situation,” a bit of postmodern cant that runs throughout Obama’s speech. Thus when Obama calls the remarks a profoundly distorted view of this country, what he means is not that they are false, but that Obama disagrees with them.
The beauty of a speech is that you don’t just give the answers, you provide your own questions. “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.” So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.
An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which”controversial” remarks?
Wright’s assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented HIV “as a means of genocide against people of color”? Wright’s claim that America was morally responsible for Sept. 11 — “chickens coming home to roost” — because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?) What about the charge that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl Harbor, but lied about it? Or that the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?