Gotta run.

Very Serious Person looks like, they need look no farther than Rev. Wright.

I think I'm with the people who take Wright's post-National Press Club silence as a sign that he was indeed throwing himself on the grenade for Obama.

But that doesn't mean that he didn't have other reasons for establishing the distance.

that Wright was dissing Obama in that last round of performances and doing everything he could to weaken him.  That was why I turned against him (Wright.)

And BTW, isn't the metaphor "to throw under the bus", just about ready for the graveyard?  That and "perfect storm."  Time to declare them literary crimes, or at least misdemeanors.

I think you're onto something.

I don't know why every analysis of Wright's behavior has to center on Obama.  He was invited to speak and he spoke.  It's clear from his delivery that he has given the speech -- the Press Club speech and the NAACP speech, which overlap considerably -- many times before.  He retired from Trinity and now it is time to take his show on the road.

I've said before, take Obama out of the picture, and nothing changes about how Wright plans his calendar.  He would still be invited to speak, he would accept the invitations, and he would offer the same speech.  The only thing that changes is the nature and tone of the coverage.  And the nature and tone of the Q & A.

. . . I don't think Reverend Wright was trying to make anything easier for Obama.

Here's my take on the Q&A from his appearance at the National Press Club.  Reverend Wright perceived that his reputation had been severely damaged and he took the several opportunities available to him in an attempt to repair that damage.

His behaviour at the Press Club was part of a "challenge/repost" scenario that can be seen in several places in the gospels.  In each case in the NT, the aim of the exchange is to "win" honour from one's opponent.

Unfortunately, members of the press did not understand what was going on . . . they were asking for information or clarification (or engaging in "gotcha" questions) while Reverend Wright was doing something else altogether.  What he undoubtedly perceived as "zingers" with his answers, many of us found cocky, arrogant, disrespectful and damaging.  Reverend Wright, on the other hand, clearly perceived that he was "winning" - besting the press, and displaying his (superior) knowledge and wit.

Since he had the support of most of the audience members (but not the working press), his emotional response during the Q&A seemed to be that he thought he was being successful.  He was standing solidly within his own hermeneutic and displaying solidarity with African Americans in the audience.

This was as deep a culture clash as I have seen played out on the public stage.  And while I would love to believe the Reverend Wright was really acting in the best interests of Obama, I am more inclined to agree with Bill Moyers: his behaviour led to an irrevocable break with his parishioner and has left grief and scars that both men will carry to their graves.

FWIW, Walter Wink transformed my understanding of Christianity, and the continuing contributions of social science have done the same. "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild" has gone out the window - replaced by a Jesus who was indeed as wise as a serpent, and as gentle as a dove.

If only Reverend Wright could have included the "gentle as a dove" part, then I think he would have helped Obama.  This performance, however, did not.