Christopher Hitchens is saying that Obama’s refusal to condemn Wright was , rather than brave, a copout. Hitchens says that Obama could have and did not identify WHICH of Wright’s statements he disagreed with.
For me, the reasons I have given for Obama’s intentional lack of specificity were that the issues surrounding this (black liberation theology expressed in apocalyptic language) are not “public”; the level of our political discourse is NOT accepting of it. What Obama did was to supply just enough content to diffuse a great bit of this. He’s not going to completely silence his opponents and Christian Right adherents. But he impressed an awful lot of people with the level of his insight, and ability to articulate about race.
Hitchens thinks also that Obama went “shopping” for a religious base, which, given the one he “chose” in this scenario, is absurd, but it fits Hitchens’ cynicism and rejection of religion as some sort of crutch of insecure people. Hitchens says that Obama “chose a problematic church”. If Obama were “choosing a base” to get in good with the religious folks, this was an idiotic choice. So I think Hitchens is stretching quite a bit here.
Tim Russert Show Video 4-5-08
