So, you labeled Obama’s speech “histrionics”. I found the speech and read it. But maybe we read different texts.

The one I read and the one America heard is, as far as I can tell, a singularly brave and admirable achievement in balance, nuance, and clarity – facing one of the most nagging and uncomfortable issues of American society with grace, poise, and intelligence. He did not label, he did not accuse, he did not disown. Instead, Obama made a daring and, in my feeble estimation, successful attempt at addressing a set of issues that America seems unable to face in a level-headed manner, taking in the perspectives of all the concerned parties, and calling the American people to unity and progress. He did not fall for clichés but, instead, in the tradition of the best political dialogue, called the people to a higher plane, a better hope, a way forward.

Will some people still feel uncomfortable with it? Sure. Will some people still take issue with this or that characterization? Sure. But, whatever your politics, you can admire that speech. I challenge someone to write a better one, given the circumstances.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I was in no way seeking to imply that Mr. Wright’s “detractors shouldn’t be allowed a place in the public sphere.” In fact, I also stated that I did not defend the “accuracy or wisdom of Rev. Wright’s… statements” – thereby admitting the validity of reasoned criticisms and debate.

What concerns me is that in instances such as this, instances where the American consciousness senses a contravening of some amorphous ideal of “patriotism”, there is no debate. Instead there is an attempt to either silence or caricature the controversial voice, thereby ensuring that the views themselves are not taken seriously. For example, whoever it was that dug up Rev Wright’s comments (whether Clinton staffer or journalist, I don’t know) was not interested in using this as an occasion for reasoned debate on the merits of Mr. Wright’s views on racism and US foreign policy. No, the expectation was that this would cause scandal and controversy for the Obama campaign, while the specific issues become less and less central to the firestorm. Sadly, this is indeed what seems to have happened – although Obama, in his speech, may have done an admirable job of trying to focus on the issues that mattered, I can’t say, since I haven’t had a chance to read his speech yet.

So, AR, in sum, I think your criticisms are misplaced. I have no problem with Mr. Wright’s views being scrutinized and debated in a reasoned, cool- and level-headed manner which genuinely seeks answers. Yet this is not the type of reaction that I see in American or from your description of Mr. Wright’s positions, which seemed to accuse him by association and were not convincing for their nuance. It is to that which I object.

Fine, give me my own sphere; and I’ll say the following concerning Mr. Wright’s sphere:

It seems as though some (including Obama, whose histrionics in his Monday speech were, while interesting and eloquently presented, quite beside the point) think that Mr. Wright’s remarks are born out of a history of racial prejudice and injustice, which does not excuse but nevertheless seems somehow to legitimize them. Suppose that Obama is correct, and that Mr. Wright’s comments are indeed legitimate grievances. Why, then, when Mr. Wright in turn makes offensive statements toward Jews, Whites, and America in General, gives a ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’ to Louis Farrakhan, who has referred to the ‘White Man’ as ‘The Devil’, and admits to participation in militant black socialist organizations, are the complaints of white persons, Jews, and America in general delegitimized as petty?

It seems as though the complaints about Mr. Wright’s remarks aired over the past few weeks are a reaction to the exact same sorts of grotesquely ignorant racism at which Mr. Wright’s comments were not only directed but have undoubtedly served to propagate. (However, the reaction to Mr. Wright’s comments have been vastly more civil than his own.) Thus, having demonstrated that the reaction to Mr. Wright’s remarks has the very same basis as his own remarks, it seems plainly absurd to suggest that the reaction to Mr. Wright’s remarks is somehow unfounded, as this would strictly imply that Mr. Wright’s comments, having the same basis, were themselves unfounded. In this event, it would only be right and just to point out that his comments were unfounded and irrational, which I believe to be the gist of the aforementioned and unduly criticized reaction.

In short, if he gets to complain about white people, Jews and America in General, then white people, Jews and America in General get to complain about his complaints. It’s only fair. And if Barack Obama sat and listened to his sermons for 20 years without open objection, and wants to be elected President in a country comprised principally of the people his beloved pastor and mentor offends with his tawdry hate speech, then both he and his ‘Spiritual Father’ should be open to scrutiny.