Barack Obama has to give this speech because he has sold himself as a uniter, a bridge builder and when you have someone like Wright connected to the campaign railing that Hillary Clinton didn't understand what it was like to be black, saying "Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a n-----," you have to cut them loose.

However, the message delivered is not a lie, it's true. She cannot know. Black men are too often bear the brunt of an unequal and unfair criminal justice system. In this case, the fiery, condemning delivery does nothing to address how people can come together in greater understanding and empathy -- I gather that wasn't the point of that particular sermon, but to allow the rage of injustice out from the pulpit to those who understand.

That said, people have to acknowledge part of the reason for the discomfort lies in Wright's delivery of the message. It's so black, isn't it? It sounds militant to tender ears outside the traditional black church. For that matter, it doesn't resemble the delivery of sermons in other denominations of black churches -- I was raised Episopalian, and those folks aren't the hooping and hollering types of congregations. That said, what does that all mean? If the same messages were delivered with a velvet glove, with less inflammatory language, would it generate the same reaction? I doubt it. But what does that mean in the bigger picture. I'm not sure. I think it requires more dialogue. Dialogue too many of us are afraid to engage in.

There are so many different perches from which to respond to a speech like that: The purely emotional level where I was going "sing it, brother", most of the time. The political pundit level of me asking which excerpts will be drawn out to be used as THE message of the speech, to be endlessly dissected and reinterpreted and discussed until the speech indeed has become those few excerpts. The political nerd level where I was making mental lists of any actual solutions the speech contained. The wannabe campaign advisor level of me wondered if all the needed buttons had been punched, if all the focus groups liked the speech equally well. The feminist me noting the ever-so-slight tilt towards men in the speech. And so on.

Did Obama succeed with this speech in containing the damage? It depends on the intended audience. This speech appears aimed at 795 specific individuals — Democratic superdelegates. Obama needed to show that he can address the racial issues in an inclusive manner, and walk the highwire with Wright by scolding him without alienating the black community. While the delivery was uncharacteristically lethargic, the content probably made the sale.

Unfortunately, he left himself still vulnerable by stubbornly refusing to 'disown' Wright; if anything else more incendiary comes up, he will have to address this all over again. He didn't inoculate himself against future revelations, which is one of the main purposes of these kinds of speeches. We'll see if that gamble pays off.

Here's the text of Barack Obama's speech on Rev. Jeremiah Wright and race. Our last thread is filled. Here'a a new one for more of your thoughts.

Update: I only caught the last 5 minutes live and will wait until the re-run to write more. I will say I was impressed by his calmness and his tone. I was expecting a sermon, and the portion I heard was not.

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux says there were teleprompter problems for a while.

Update: I just watched the clip of him saying say he would not renounce Rev. Wright, and I thought he did that well. Here's the quotes:

Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race this morning showed off exactly why he's become the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. He's absolutely willing to challenge the conventional way of how politicians approach controversy. In my opinion, it was the best speech so far in this campaign.

A whole lot of jargon for a select group of people. Doesn't disavow Wright, continues to defend him. Blames Talk radio and conservative "commentators" for stirring hatred. mmm, ok

My thoughts: If Obama is so committed to racial unity, why would he attend a church for 20 years that has outright paranoia for white people?

Maybe it is a sign of my own neurosis that I actually studied the reaction of the blogosphere to the speech. After all, isn't it obvious? The left blogosphere loved it and right blogosphere hated it. The problem is how pointless it all is. The blogosphere grew out of an extension of the belief that the MSM was failing to do its job. The bloggers decided that citizen journalists would do it better. For the most part, these citizen journalists aren't really any better. There are just some that have a different political ideology than the MSM. The problem is that if a media's perspective is obvious and pre determined, then its existence is only for vanity and preaching to a choir that already believes what the media is feeding it. That media accomplishes no function in moving a debate forward.

I just finished watching Barack Obama's fabulous speech addressing not only Rev. Wright's outrageous comments but also race and poverty in America in general. He raised the bar to address all races including whites who have faced hardships that are just as much about poverty as race because poverty is an equal opportunity oppressor--regardless of race. Obama could have walked away from this opportunity to heal these wounds and just take the safe road but Obama is not the typical politician. He has a way of broadening the conversation to include everyone so that as a community we can all recognize that no one is perfect and that we can come together despite our environmental conditionings.