Don't listen to the WSJ... Obama's right on this one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003017.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

1) These are the honest views of many blacks, so is the best solution to marginalize the entire community because of a subset of crazy beliefs? I think Obama was right in that we need to learn how to incorporate these people back into society and in doing so maybe convince them that the entire world, or at least the government, is not systematically out to get them.

2) I am sure that $22,500 dollars was not paid to the reverend to go around the country speaking only about these issues (and if it was, Charles is right.) I think Charles misses the fact that the church was involved in the community. The money is not a proxy of the views necessarily, but it is of where and how the money is spent.

3) It seems that he makes a point that actions speak louder than words. It's ok for his grandmother and Harry Truman both to harbor racists feelings so long as they do not act on them in a negative way. If we are judging in terms of actions, then why don't we look at what the church has done for the community instead of through speeches. But maybe his point is more subtle, maybe it's just not ok to spout fear publicly. That Harry Truman would in fact be judged as hurting the interests of minorities if he took the same positive actions, but publicly slandered Jews and Blacks. This seems inconsistent too, though. Because, it would seem to mean that Jesse Jackson is also wrong to spread racial hatred (or in this case, racial fear of black men on the streets). So what is it that matters, words or actions... and how are we judging Wright? Let alone Obama, a degree of separation away.

4) Is he suggesting that it is best to ignore racism? Or just ignore black problems with race? Or just white problems? Obama made the point of grievances on BOTH sides. The problems he cited do not only face blacks, but whites too. Poverty doesn't discriminate, even if it is disproportionate.

5) Why expose your children to old black people, Charles asks. Why don't you shield your children from the realities of today and the opinions of many people in your own community? If we ignore the views of a segment of the older black generation then we wont be subject to them, is that the argument? Maybe the sermon provides a contrast for Obama... to teach his children that the problems of the past are not simple, but are deep seeded. That the views of a sizable minority still exist and instead of ostracizing a generation that witnessed overt and more systematic racism, that we should attempt to form a pluralistic society and demonstrate with actions that we can incorporate this generation into the melting pot.

Maybe if we can stand with these people, or at least not marginalize them, and demonstrate that the government cares about their plight, or at least cares about it as much as it does the white plight, then we will have taken one step forward in convincing a bitter, and rightly so, generation that its views do not represent modernity and are not based on facts or intentions. I think that if we can do that, and our actions speak to our intentions, that racially charged words wont have the same sting because in that world 30% of the black population wont be in jail, more than 50% of the black population will graduate high school, and cocaine will carry the same sentence, or a stiffer one, than crack.