Hallo I'm a 23 year old white male and I want to write a comment on the ongoing American presidential election, concerning the democratic primary and in particular it's latest controversy. I have been a devoted follower of the election coverage by the US media since February this year. I think my interest in event has been kindled by Barrack Obama. I would have followed it sporadically without him but I have been drawn in ( u could say gotten addicted) by his person, his speeches, and his ideas. In the beginning I became enchanted like so many Americans and maybe other people around the world at that time. I was euphoric and touched by his unconventional, for an American stunningly liberal messages and character (yes part of this his being a black man). This made me watch the news day to day. And then when controversies emerged, when the common enthusiasm seemed to fade and when finally the Wright comments led to fundamental questions and reversion of the media hype my unconditional admiration faltered, too. It was the time when Obama faced real (partly personal attacks) from the other side and didn't respond in the eloquent, and honest way I expected of him. For some time now I am not even sure anymore that he would make the best president. Well you can guess I was deflated after the hype I had participated in and that was gone now. What was most discouraging at the time was that I didn't condemn the comments by Jeremiah Wright. In fact I embraced his words being contrary to the one notions I had disliked about America. My problem and the reason for my disapproval of Obama came from his firm reaction of condemning these comments in their Entireness. My belief was that in fact he wasn't that biased towards them, that he in fact even shared the same opinion but that he had to conform with the American majority for the sake of his campaign. After those comments then were discussed extensively and from the general uproar more and more arguments concerning their graveness emerged my vision began to clear and I could put myself in the position of the other side. The anger about those comments which I had misjudged as overbording patriotism. Then Obama gave his speech which I liked but which left a question that circulated in the american media the following days and which has been unanswered as to now. The question is "what drew Obama to this man in the first place". I didn't give this question the graveness the American public gave it because I didn't look at the comments with that graveness. In fact the things which touched me when I first heared them hadn't vanished. I still saw a truth in them. I could simply understand the offense in them as well. It was the antagonism in those words not the question why obama hadn't condemned them before which left me thinking. Therefore I tried to look through Obama's eyes ( of course merely grounded of the personal impression I have of him) and how he could answer this remaining question and suddenly came to even another and final view concerning the comments. First there is the "Goddamn America" phrase. This was the main subject for criticizm in the media. For me it's the least offensive. My first impression was that of a couragous statement. A statement absolutly contrary to an American trend I had observed for some time. The abuse of christianity and other values like freedom for ignoble causes like war and patriotism. After all Jesus Christ (the namesake for the religion president bush and most americans claim as their entity of believe), as people who read the bible should have noticed, was rather opposed to violence. So raging a questionable war (to be dainty raging a war in general) and proclaiming christianity as guidline on the other hand seemed hypocritical at the least. And proclaiming the universal right of freedom while at the same time torturing people without a proper trial is as questionable. Returning to the comment I simply understood it as a fierce reminder of this wrongheaded, dangerous development. A reminder of the fundamental christian values and that one can't take God's blessing for granted particularly when performing actions obviously contrary to the christian teachings. As I said for me this is the least offensive because this message seems quite obvious to me. The fact that the phrase "God bless America" is not just a statement one might voice but a phrase deeply rooted in american history and culture, that it can't be just erased let alone because of it being embedded in the national anthem and that probably many Americans comprehend it in a modest, nonpatriotic way, simply as a prayer for faith and good will or maybe don't attach much importance to it at all explains the anger the comment has provoked but doesn't legitimate this anger completely. We're talking about a country that claims free speech as one of it's main values and itself as advanced and sophisticated after all. What I recongnized as the main flaw of this comment and what finally disquallifies it and produces a rightoeus outrage could be considered as a rather logical mistake. But compared with Wright's other comments it reveals a misguidedness and arrogance in the speakers moral position. If Wright's intention with his comment was as I implied, that a mere man dare not bless or command a blessing, that only god is entitled to do this, that if one wants his country to be blessed he can't just call for it but has to do something to deserve it first, then Wright makes the mistake in reversing the phrase to "Goddamn america". And thereby he does exactly what he meant to criticize. He wanted to evoke a christian sense of humbleness before God but then he himself throws the stone and makes a judgement that he proclaimed only God can make. And seen without the context an unauthorized blessing seems much less inferiour and against christian sense then a damnation. The next point of the controversial were the comments about 9.11..Wright put the blame of the attack on grave injustices caused by the US in the native countries of the terrorists and around the world. Again this comment seemed justified to me in the beginning seeing the USA has inflicted as much misery around the world as many other countries but always keeps proclaiming a sense of inerrancy, moral leadership and christianity. But listening to arguments and by logical thinking I soon realized my error and that of Mr Wright. First of all I am convinced that every action has a cause. That there actually may be despair and misery in other countries more or less caused by the US and that this despair and misery feeds such opinions as those of the terrorist of 9.11.. And that peacefull approaches mostly create friendly responses while opressive and agressiv measures often respond in returning aggressions. But let's look at it from the political and even more from the jurisdical point of view. The Attacks were, after all a crime of murder and an act of war. Now if someone commits murder there will be reasons for it. But that doesn't mean one has no choice (After all our political and jurisdical system is based on the belief of Free Will). And it doesn't alter the guilt. If someone hurts or even kills a person close to you, you are not entitled to kill or even hurt the murderer in return. If you do, you will be judged yourself by the same measures. And whenever a country was attacked throughout history when did it not fight back (defend itself) if it had the means to do so? Again rev. Wright may have had the intension to recall the true values of Christianity (After all Jesus teaches us to forgive everyone and to love your enemies) but ifso he took a devestating approach. If you want to succesfully evoke mercy and forgivness you better not do it in an aggressiv, commanding tone and with accussations of guilt at the same time (accusing america in this case). And if you want to promote mercy and understanding in the face of murder (again it IS a christian value) there could be no worse approach then the greatest tragedy in recent US history. I mean how could you demand understanding and compassion for those criminals that commited a crime multible times the magnitude of crimes, for which american citizens, according to the law, are rightfully sentenced, put to jail and even executed every day. Concluding I would call this the most controversial remark of the Reverand. With good will and considering the man's former deeds you may recongnize a good intention. But if one wants to succesfully deliver a good intention I'd expect an approach that actually has a chance of deliverance. Then there were the phraces where he actually spoke about the campaign, endorsing Obama over Clinton and using the N-word which gave the comment a racial touch. His intention was, I guess, to strengthen black support for Obama. And I don't see anything gravely wrong with the way he did it. It was fierce but not immoral. He didn't use the certain word to insult anyone and after all he is a black man so you can't blame him for it. The problem from a political point of view is that it may have angered and discouraged some of Obama's potential white voters. Concluding it was a political mistake and it showed that Rev. Wright just isn't a politican and should better stay away from political issues. The last comment was some kind of conspiracy theory. I didn't personally hear the comment but only the disscussion about it. I think it was an accusation of the government to deliberatly having spread the aids virus as a form of attack on the black population. I won't make the afford to actually discuss this. Not because I think it's 100% improbable (let's say 99.99%) but because if this was true any decent discussion about America and our modern world would become obsolete. And it was barely mentioned in the media so it doesn't seem that important to the American public although I find it not uncontroversal. Maybe such theories and accusations are so frequent that people just ignore them. Maybe it was an act of mercy by the media and the people to not bring this up. Maybe it means that such a belief is not that uncommon but people are afraid to talk about it. Maybe it was more of a joke by Wright and therefor couldn't really be used only as amplifier to the other comments. In conclusion it's not so much about the ideas Rev. Wright proclaims. It's the way he does it. He may think that the cynicism and the wrongheadedness is so deeply rooted that you have to take fierce meassures, to provoke and therefor even to hurt feelings to achieve change in people. But it doesn't work like this because it mainly creates anger and it gravely opposes the ideas he might want to deliver. So after presenting my understanding of the possible intentions and the reactions to these comments here my conclusion why Obama didn't brake up with Wright and why he joined him in the first place. My impression of Obama maybe best described as that of an intellectual, liberal humanist. The Main reason why I like him is because this is also the way I would describe myself or at least the way I try to be, since these are high values that one can't claim easily. I think Mr. Obama knows that too. This can be recognized in his speech where he mentions his belief in his own imperfections and the imperfections in every human. For me this was one of the important parts of that speech because I can directly apply it to my own relation to Barrack Obama. I wrote in the first part of my article that when I first got to know him I was stunned by his personality and visions. In few words the way I could identify with him. I realize know that at this time I only saw his very best side. He wasn't under much pressure, he didn't have to answer difficult questions, so he could bloom is his virtues and talk about his dreams. Then the situation got tougher for him and while he made mistakes I became more and more disillusioned. But I'm talking not so much about political mistakes here, rather that he could no longer stand up to his own values that were the cause for my admiration. His campaign adapted in parts the dirty tactics which he pretended to oppose. He did not answer some controversal questions in the plain honest way I hoped he would. He tried to defend himself from accusations and he he didn't look very confident doing it. Altogether he looked a bit like a impostor who was dismanteled. Then he gave a nice speech but left something missing. Now when I look back I see that the overenthusiastic impression I had in the beginning was exaggerated. It wasn't wrong. Because that's just the way one feels. I saw someone who came as close to my own opinions as no polititian I have ever seen before. And therefor I wanted him to be the winner. I wanted him to be perfect. I wanted him to be like a messiah so that the change he was speaking of would come merely by his being there and giving some encouraging speeches. Then I felt discouraged and I had strong doubts that he is the man he pretended to be, and that he would be the best president at all. I began to think that he really maybe too unexperienced and could make grave mistakes. And at that time I felt attracted to Hillary and even McCain because they seemed the saver bet. After all we're living in a world were war and poverty are undeniable realities for everyone. Now I see that this was a natural exaggerated reaction too. Since we're imperfect man and therefor noone of us is able to perform miracles hope will always go along with dissapointment. So for my part if nothing horrible happens I will go with Obama. Right now I don't feel very much inspired. I feel rather dissapointed. And I'm afraid that he who wanted to be different will get soaked up and conformed by the politics and become like everyone else. And the change he spoke of will not come. But then I remember one word he kept reminding us of. That word is "hope".I didn't give it too much attention then and I didn't really get a feeling of what he meant with it. I couldn't understand it because there was no need for hope. All went well. You don't need hope in times of euphoria and inspiration. You need hope when you're dissapointed and doubtful, when you are afraid and disillusioned. Hope means to trust that things will become better even if it's hard to believe, hope means to take an ongoing risk because you can never know when or if it will be fulfilled. Hope means to never be absolutly sure, to not take the save way because of fear and finally real hope means to stick to something even if you feel no hope at some point. Such a time is now. And the test is so hard because it's not about some issue, a political crisis, or a thread from outside. It's about the man himself. The good times are over for now. Obama has made his points already. That was when we cheered him, when he inspired us and when the majority of the country stood behind him. Now he is fragile again. You can see the human and the burden and the difficulties that lie before him and before the country. But what we experience now was a part of his message. He said this won't be easy and we gonna need hope. I think I would have gone with him anyway but this helps me to keep my faith. And this experience I'm having or trying to have or hoping to have with Obama right now may reflect in another scale and in different circumstances the experience Obama had with Jeremiah Wright. The reason why Obama joined Wright's church in my opinion is the pastor's relation to faith and hope. Even in these harsh, hurting comments you can see some glimpses of it. It's the belief that one has to repeatedly question his actions and compare them to what the Bible demands. Jesus tells us not to kill and even to love your enemies. Now every person looking at our present state of existence will know that this demand cannot be fulfilled. And this should create an inner struggle in a faithfull christian. And a common solution to this throughout history has been to become synical about it. To on the one hand call yourself christian and on the other hand simply ignore certain demands that are made on a christian. Wright's concept is to keep reminding people of these demands and to remind people that even if we know that we can't live up to them now we cannot forget about them because they are the very basics of the faith we claim our own. And therefor you have to acknowledge that you are imperfect. That you should try your best to be a good christian, but as long as there is a difference in the teachings and your actions you have to acknowledge that your an imperfect christian. You can't sit back and take your god's blessing for granted just by attending church. Being christian rather means a lifelong struggle to live up to the great goals and virtues the Bible proclaims and by that, slowly perfect your christianity although you know it will never be perfect. In order to achieve anything in life even if it may seem improbable you have to try. And what helps you to not give up and keep on trying is hope. The hope that things don't have to stay the same forever. That there is always the possibility of change no matter how unlikely it may seem. Obama knows that he cannot end the wars, rather that he has to call to arms if his country is in danger. He knows that he has to punish criminals. But if he does he will also know that this is against the fundamental teachings of his religion and that therefor he as man and the world as a place is yet imperfect in the sense of christian faith. And so he must hope and try his best that one time in a distant future the world will be a better place. I think this is what Obama was told by Wright and what attracted him to the man. It was this same inspiration of Hope and the belief in change that now attracted me to Obama. And although he surely has been discouraged and dissapointed in other things Wright had done and said (I could very well imagine that he listened to sermons quite alike to the ones in the media) he stuck to him because he rememberd his good sides and the ideas he inspired him with. And after all he knows that each man including Rev. Wright is imperfect and that as a christian it is one of your duties to forgive and to not judge someone merely by his imperfections and by his sins. So I can understand why these comments have raised such an anger among Americans but I don't see them as inferior. And after some thinking I have no problem imagining what attracted Obama to this man and why he stuck to him because I have experienced similar things with people I know. I just think it's dishonest and not helping anyone if you condemn a person because of bad things he does while at the same time you remember good things that person has done to you and others. After all when you choose a pastor, a candidate, or a friend, u don't do it because that person is perfect or because you agree with him 100% but because there is something in that person that inspires you, something that reflects your own personality or something that you merely like about the person. And you don't do it because you want to follow that person in whatever he says but because you want to have a relationship to that person. And relationships are always a mixture of admiration, love, dispute, dissapointment and all other things that make life. Now the problem why Obama didn't answer this question that way is, that when he did, he would have to explain that some of these comments he condemned in fact are distorted and ill-voiced expressions of the very opinions that he admires of Rev. Wright.