[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
In my opinion, the only ones whose opinions of Obama were harmed by Wright’s statements were those who weren’t going to vote for Obama in the first place. This was just another example of Fox-brand Manufactured Outrage ™, and most of us didn’t buy it.
[/quote]
In order to win as President, you don’t need only the votes of “most of us” who were already in his camp. You need the votes of those who waiver between camps. It is there that the whole affair has done damage.
I agree, as you would see if you read my responses upthread.
My point is not that I, personally, think Obama is racist, or paranoid, or in any way thinks in the manner that the Rev. does - I believe his own expressed views. My point is that the affair has damaged his chances of election.
Moreover, my point is that those defending those views as understandable and indeed somewhat inevitable reactions to a history of racism are, if you will, amplifying that damage.
The reason is as follows: assume for the moment that the views of those in this thread are all true; it would follow that a Black person running for POTUS is as a matter of fact ‘unable to escape (racial) history’ [my paraphrase] and thus likely to be filled with entirely justified rage, hatred and paranoia - of the sort that the Rev. expressed. Is this the sort of person one would want in charge of the country?
Now, I imagine that some people would say “yes, certainly” - because such a person, having dealt with and overcome such emotions in his or her own life, would be best suited to deal with healing the divisions of the country.
However, a more likely reaction on the part of those not already committed to his cause would be “we don’t need that sort of risk”. Why vote for someone who has good reason to resent you or be paranoid about you?