Let's Just All Agree That Wright Apologized And Move On

Can someone help me with what looks like the latest fantasy from Obama as he explains his Reverend Wright (emphasis added) [and see LAST WORD below for Obama's side]:

WASHINGTON - White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's campaign, not stepped down.

"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.

Let's make the working assumption that this excerpt is accurate and in context - time will tell, since the show airs tomorrow.

So, when did Wright acknowledge that what he had said was deeply offensive and inappropriate?  The AP story recounts some of Wright's controversial comments but oddly omits to mention his apology, as does all other news coverage with which I am familiar.  And I am strangely certain that a Wright apology would have made the news - unless he never made it publicly.

So what are we supposed to believe - that Wright apologized to Obama, who is now apologizing to the rest of us on Wright's behalf?  For heaven's sake, this really does show that Obama is made of Presidential stuff - maybe he can do an Apology Tour, just as Bill Clinton did.

But why is Wright apologizing to Obama, who only heard these remarks second hand - well, "second hand" if we still believe Obama's insistence that he missed every service with these controversial comments (Huffington Post) but heard others (The Speech) but didn't hear anything at all (town hall).  Shouldn't Wright be apologizing to those of us who took offense?  Or after thirty years of delivering three sermons per week, has Wright developed a fear of public speaking?

Oh, well - even though this is clearly just extemporaneous BS from Obama, I suppose a few follow questions would be in order, if only to generate more extemporaneous BS. 

Away we go - when did Obama give serious thought to leaving the church - presumably it was when he became aware of these ghastly comments from Wright and received an apology, but when was that?  Per his Huffington Post Obama claimed, implausibly, that he only learned that Wright had attitude issues at the outset of his Presidential campaign.

When did Wright apologize, or explain, or whatever, and in what forum, and to what audience?  Was this apology in response to a specific protest from Obama?

And how did it happen that this apology was not mentioned in Obama's statement at the Huffington Post or in the big race speech?  Are we to believe that Obama only just decided to mention it now - why keep that helpful news about Wright's redemption and repentance in reserve?  Or did Wright's apology follow "The Speech", which implies that Obama was considering leaving his church just last week, a month after Wright's retirement?

I suspect the MSM will be all over this one.

PROPS:  To Don Surber:

When it came time to leave the church, Obama voted present.

MORE:  Does Wright seem repentant in this back-and-forth with the Times, in their coverage of his disinvitation to Obama's campaign kick-off?  Ponder this:

Mr. Wright said that in the phone conversation in which Mr. Obama disinvited him from a role in the announcement, Mr. Obama cited an article in Rolling Stone, “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama.”

According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

In a follow-up blast at the Times reporting, Wright added this:

I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out?

Repentant?  How about in this Times story a month later:

Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.

“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

Barack is shoveling nonsense.

SPEAKING OF NONSENSE:  Wright's new digs, a 10,000 square foot home in a gated community.  In "Dreams From My Father" Obama recounts Wright urging someone or other not to take his family from the the 'hood for the suburbs; Obama offers that it might be safer, and Wright rejoins that a black man isn't safe anywhere.  Well, that was twenty years ago.

Wright grew up in comfort and will retire in same, Black Values and its Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness" notwithstanding.  Whatev, Rev.

THE CAPTAIN ALLAHPUNDIT TAKES A STAB at bailing Obama out:

Tom Maguire thinks Obama’s deceitfully trying to suggest here that Wright has apologized when of course he hasn’t. I don’t read it that way at all. I think he’s speaking purely hypothetically, if inartfully: If Wright was still pastor of the church and if he refused to apologize for the sermons, then Obama would have to quit. Since he’s not still pastor, there’s no need to quit irrespective of whether Wright has apologized or not.

Hmm - one of the most articulate politicians of this generation speaks inartfully (or very artfully!), inadvertently creating an impression helpful to himself.  If it's that complicated, it's still misleading - listeners aren't sitting at home drawing Venn diagrams.

I certainly agree that the presentation was not artful, but let's see - as AllahP presents it, it is clear that Obama's message was that Wright had to either resign *or* apologize, or else Obama would leave the church.  So let's imagine this construction - this is Obama, in a hypothetical re-write; the highlighted sentence captures the current controversy:

I was only comfortable staying in the church if Wright either resigned or apologized.  In other words, I would have left the church if he had not resigned and not apologized.  However, he resigned, so it's all good.

Hmmph.  As a matter of strict logic and deep charity we could agree that Obama's statement is not false.  However, it is still very misleading, since it is (in my opinion and personal experience) likely to create the impression that an apology has been delivered when in fact it has not, publicly at least.  This impression arises in part because Obama is describing both a reality (Wright's announced retirement) and a hypothetical (Wright's apology) as having equal weight in his stay/go decision, when in fact, Obama may never have sought an apology.  As presented, Obama lays out a lot of detail for a hypothetical and factually irrelevant apology - why bother, other than to confuse the issue?

It is also neither unreasonable nor unprecedented to think that Obama might have wanted both an apology and a retirement, as when Samantha Powers got tossed under the bus.  For example, this could be a hypothetical re-write of Obama:

I was only comfortable staying at the church if Wright both apologized and resigned.  If he had not resigned and not apologized, I would have left the church; fortunately, he did resign and  he apologized to me in a secret session, so it's all good.

In that construction Obama wanted Wright to satisfy two conditions, not simply order from the menu and choose one.

When a skilled speaker delivers a false-but-favorable idea wrapped in a true-if-parsed-favorably cloak, I still think is close enough to lying to be called that.  These aren't depositions with legalistic wiggle room; in the court of public opinion we value straight talk.  That said, now that I see Obama's comments both ways, I can see how someone might have seen it the other way first, or only that way.  A very familiar feeling...

BONUS DETAIL: Jim Geraghty stoops to conquer by live-blogging The View:

Barbara Walters: "Had the reverend not retired would you have left the church?"

Obama: "Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church."

It looks like he was ready to say more, but *sigh* Hasselbeck interrupts.

Karl at PW delivers a savage beat down (I'm jealous...).

So the Captain sees Obama responding to Barbara with, roughly, had Wright not retired and, having stayed on, had he not apologized, I would have left.

I am reading it as 'had he not both stepped down and apologized, I would have left'.

Closer to the mainstream, Ben Smith of The Politico headlines the "Might have left church" and seems to be sniffing BS:

In a clip posted by ABC, Obama says: 'Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country -- for all its flaws -- then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church."

In Obama's speech in Philadelphia last week, he said: "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

At the WaPo blog, bafflement about what did Obama hear and when did he hear it, if ever.

Kate Phillips of the Times Caucus reports on The View revelations without comment, but adds this:

He also told the show’s hosts that he had spoken with Mr. Wright since controversy erupted over excerpts of some of the pastor’s sermons. “I think he’s saddened by what’s happened, and I told him I feel badly that he has been characterized just in this one way, and people haven’t seen this broader aspect of him,” the Democratic candidate said.

Is that meant to be understood as some sort of private apology?  C'mon, "saddened" is pretty broad - Wright might be saddened that Rush Limbaugh didn't choke on his microphone while covering this.

LAST WORD:  The AP takes this up with Obama's press flack and gets the "it was hypothetical" defense:

WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama seemed to suggest in an interview aired Friday that his former pastor has acknowledged that his controversial remarks were inappropriate and hurtful, although there are no public accounts of the minister having done so.

...

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the senator's remarks did not imply that Wright has expressed misgivings about his statements.

"Sen. Obama was clearly saying that were Rev. Wright not retiring, he would need to be assured that the reverend understood why what he had said had deeply offended people and mischaracterized the greatness of this country," Burton said.

I question whether Obama was "clearly" communicating that Wright had not, in fact, apologized, but I understand the logic of the position they are promoting.

Comments

[bgates]

This reminds me of the outrage from some Iraqi cabbie who was quoted by NRO in 2003 saying that the invasion was unnecessary because we had invaded just as Iraq was about to rise up and overthrow Saddam. Likewise, Obama's discomfort had been rising for 20 years, until this spring, when he'd finally had enough - only the pastor had already retired.

To be replaced by somebody who sounds exactly the same. Obama should tire of the new guy around 2035.

[clarice]

He just wants us to know he's as sparing of the truth and as creative in his recountings as his rival, Hill, is.

[ROA]

Instapundit just posted a link to a Fox News story about the Reverend’s new $1.6 million dollar, 10,000 sq/ft house in a gated community.

http://instapundit.com/archives2/017057.php

[Soylent Red]

Obama should tire of the new guy around 2035.

Or when his sermons show up on YouTube. Whichever comes first.

[Allahpundit]

Wright hasn't apologized. I think what Obama means is that he would have left the church if Wright was still pastor and refused to apologize; if, however, he did apologize, Obama wouldn't have left the church.

[Other Tom]

Reminds me of fawning sycophant Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., telling us that had JFK lived, he would have got us out of Vietnam instead of allowing it to escalate. This despite the fact that the speech he was on his way to give in Dallas on the day he died was to be a ringing defense of the war.

[Tom Maguire]

I think what Obama means is that he would have left the church if Wright was still pastor and refused to apologize

Clever and generous; praise Allah.

Of course, Obama learned of Wright's attitude issues (he says) in Feb 2007, and Wright retired a year later. That worked for him?

And it is a very generous reading - the argument is that everything that follows "if he had not retired" is hypothetical, since Wright did in fact retire, but it certainly leaves the misleading impression that Wright did those things.

I am going to take a hard line and go No Sale on that - as a matter of logic (I am pushing it on a Thursday night here), Obama ought to have said "if he had not retired *OR* if he had not cured AIDS" I would have left the church - "OR" requires either clause to be true, "AND" requires both.

Even the "OR" formulation would have been very misleading, but it would have been logically defensible as a bridge that Obama never reached.

Hmm, that said, there is some other logical rule about negating both clauses and reversing "ORs and ANDs", which might apply since Obama is using a negative construction here. Oh, boy... I am going to post this and mull for a while.

[Sara]

Wright is building a 10,340 sq. ft. $1.6 million home in a gated community for his retirement.

Link

[Cecil Turner]

Reading through some of the Black Theology stuff, it's pretty interesting. It's metaphorical of course ("white" means oppressor, "black" means oppressed . . . not [horrors] racist), and over-the-top:

Cone's rhetoric sounds strident if one fails to understand his use of the terms black and white. For example: "To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores." Or again, "Black theology will accept only a love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy." In looking back on these earlier books, Cone later admitted that he would no longer use such extreme language, but, nevertheless, his condemnation of racism and oppression was as strong as ever.

But essentially, it's a Marxist-Leninist cant (whatever brand insists equality of result is the goal, and lack of it demonstrates oppression rather than any personal failing) wrapped up in "hate whitey" language.

And I'd note TUCC's Black Value System is still on the website (though less prominent after the Fox interview. This isn't a few cherry-picked statements, it's their core value system . . . and Obama actively sought out this congregation, presumably aware of the creed. Yeah, I'm not buying any, either. And I don't think this one is going away any time soon.

[SAM]

Boy, the pastor's new home looks pretty swanky. Is it in the parts of the sermons that aren't played that he says that he's just kidding and that he's really in it for the money.

His new Tinley Park home will be a hike from the South Side church. He may be shopping for a new church.

The thing that gets me in all of this is that only after Obama saw the roof beginning to cave did he seize the inititiative and offer his speech in which he redefined the issue as a race issue and dump it at everyone else's doorstep. I'm still scratching my head at how 95% of the press is lauding the speech as a watershed moment in race relations. He pull a classic rhetorical sleight of hand. It's nonsense.

In truth, it's about a foul-mouthed bully who spewed anti-American, anti-Semitic, and now anti-Italian invective. On top of that he spewed three colossol lies: HIV, crack, and atomic bombs (without batting an eye). In other words, it's about a guy who apparently did some exemplary outreach work with his church, but he also did some hateful things in his sermons. With all this shuffling, can he or Obama tell us how they plan to put the hate that he infected his congregants with all these years?

The guy abused his position as a pastor, and Obama--an intelligent, well-educated, and prominent member of the congregation-- didn't have the courage when it mattered to confront this guy. It's an extraordinary act of cowardice, but it was politically essential to keeping the political base.

[bgates]

You know, everybody is jumping all over this $1.6 million dollar home Wright is moving in to, and asking how coming up with that kind of money squares with his sermons about not pursuing wealth, and that's just not fair.

Do we know for sure Rezko didn't pay for the house?

[Thomas Collins]

I suspect that B_O is still talking about this for one reason: his campaign's internal polls must be telling him that there is trouble ahead. This is consistent with my polling system, which is speaking with folks who don't listen to NPR.

[capitano]

But why is Wright apologizing to Obama, who only heard these remarks second hand .... Shouldn't Wright be apologizing to those of us who took offense?

Wright is only apologetic that he has provided ammo for Obama's critics, which explains why Wright has canceled recent public speaking events.

More to the point, will Obama the Uniter explain how the U.S. will ever achieve racial unity with "spiritual leaders" like Rev. Wright poisoning the young minds of each new generation?

Radical Islam brainwashes its youth in hate-filled madrasas; black separatists use the neighborhood church.

[clarice]

It's an American tragedy--young hustler and street organizer seeks help and gets enmeshed with crazpypants race baiting preacher and a Dem- financing crook with Iraqi ties. He goes on to the US Senate (with their help) and then to a hotly contested race for the presidency only to be forced held back by these ties. There's something Faustian in all this.Only because he's running as something that hs is not--a high minded unifier, rather than a pol--he's a bit stuck . (Now he knows what it's like to be a Republican--held to a higher standard like kosher hotdogs)

[Jamesofengland]

So, just to get this straight, he'd have disowned Wright (since that has to be a reasonable description of leaving a church in protest against the pastor) if Wright had not changed his ways.

Are we to believe that the reason he didn't disown his grandmother is because she changed her ways, or because she'd already stepped down as his primary carer before the clock ran out on the 20 years of toleration?

[Jeff]

Obama is a racist con man ...

[MDR]

Lets all agree that Obama lied through his teeth 6 times before admitting what he couldnt hide, that his 20 year association with wright shows he has no jugement no character no conviction and no courage OR he swallowed all of Wrights nonsense,(which would explain no hand over the heart for the pledge of allegience) and lets all agree that having the man who made those statements baptize your children, marry you and who you call an uncle makes Obama unfit to spend a night at the white house much less live there and then let's move on.

[clarice]

I think James Lewis has written yet another winner:
Far too many black people don't feel good about themselves, and are constantly looking for answers from somebody else. That quest for the impossible has been turned into an accusation against the invisible but all-powerful white racist establishment. Michelle and Barack Obama were indoctrinated with those toxic beliefs at Princeton and Harvard, so that they are now making more than a million bucks a year, living in a mansion in Chicago while still feeling sorry for themselves. Give me a break. (Michelle Obama's salary increased by almost 200,000 dollars in one year at the University of Chicago. How many people get that kind of raise?)

No doubt the Obamas tell themselves that they are the lucky exceptions, and that they are just identifying with poor blacks, who surely are out there in the hundreds of thousands. But that's just the self-serving generosity of politicians handing out taxpayer money. The Obamas are rich, highly educated, extremely successful professional politicians. They are the darlings of white liberals. Are they anything more than that?

For politicians, voter dissatisfaction is the fuel of personal careers. You can't get anywhere by promising all the answers to people who don't need you. So the first order of business is to find dissatisfied voters, and if they're not there, stir up some dissatisfaction. That's why Obama needed the Rev -- to get him in good with a proletariat, any proletariat, in this case a black one. If Obama had stayed back in Hawaii or Indonesia, he would suddenly have discovered his inner Hawaiian or his authentic Balinese. Now he is "authentically Black," and the Rev guarantees his blackness. That's why Obama can't renounce the Rev. The Rev is his meal ticket.
Make yourself happy, no one else can

[hit and run]

Who said anything about an apology?

The question is has Wright acknowledged inappropriate and offensive remarks.

Of course he has.

Obama: Reverend Wright, I strenuously object to your controversial comments in today’s sermon.

Wright: Controversial? Damn. They were meant to offend. Did they offend white people?

Obama: They were inappropriate, sir.

Wright: What, they weren’t offensive enough? Sonuva… You don’t think they pissed people off? Well, then yeah, I guess they were inappropriate. I’ll have to try harder.

Good enough for Obama...

[clarice]

*thwack!!!*

[DebinNC]

That Rolling Stone article filled in some timeline gaps for me. Obama "worked with" Wright during his 4 "street-level organizer" years between Columbia and Harvard. Does that mean he's been exposed to Wright/Wrightisms longer than the 20 years he's been at Trinity?

This apology business reminded me of the scene in Jerry McGuire where the agent pleads with his angry, controversial client, "Help ME (pause) help YOU" .. be viewed in a better light by the public. The defiant client answers, "I won't dance, Jerry. I won't dance." I think "Barry" has had the same conversation with Wright, and any Wright "dancing" now will cause a black backlash of sorts against Obama.

[Porchlight]

Why does everything Obama says require an advanced degree in parsing to understand? I swear he's worse than Clinton. This alone should be a warning sign.

[Jane]

TM,

You have once again outdone yourself. That was a joy to read.

[marsh2011]

Someone needs to ask Mr Obama the question: "If you are elected President will you welcome Rev Wright into the White House"?

[Foo Bar]

Allahpundit is correct.

Hmm, that said, there is some other logical rule about negating both clauses and reversing "ORs and ANDs", which might apply since Obama is using a negative construction here. Oh, boy... I am going to post this and mull for a while.

Yes, the rules are known as De Morgan's laws, if you want the formal name, although they really amount to common sense. The relevant rule here is :

not (P or Q) = (not P) and (not Q)

Obama is saying that in order for Obama to stay in the church either Wright had to retire or he had to apologize. The logical equivalent is to state, as Obama did, that if Wright did not retire and, while remaining pastor, did not apologize, then Obama would have left.

Please update your post.

[Fen]

There's simply no getting around the fact that Obama is a 20-year disciple of a "religion" that encourages racial hatred of whites. Black Liberation Theology is no different than the philosophy that penned "Mein Kampf".

[DebinNC]

I think we've reached a tipping point where, unless new Wrightisms appear, any more confrontations of Obama about Wright will seem like unfair piling on.

There's probably a treasure trove of outrageous Wright stuff out there waiting to be discovered or being held until the best time to report it ... which imo would be during the fall campaign, not now.

[SteveMG]

Another outstanding post, Tom.

Perhaps Brian Williams will see it (if he still visits here) and pass it on to Chris Matthews (ahem). This should fix those feelings that shoot up his leg.

Dr. Maguire heals all. You just have to believe.

This is, frankly, nonsense from Obama.

[Sue]

I'm sorry, but the greatest speaker ever to grace the huddled masses has to have his words explained? And/or. Typical white. And something I noticed recently. He stutters. If he doesn't have a script he stutters. His oratory skills are limited to written text.

[centralcal]

So, I wake up this morning, cup of coffee in hand, and start see Tom Maguire all around the internet! Way to go Tom!

Obama spent his Easter vacation meditating on how he was gonna get out of this Wright, BLT, mess. From the sounds of things, he shoulda stayed awhile longer on the beach.

And, oh yeah, anyone heard from Michelle O lately? How long do you think her silence is gonna last? Tick, tick, tick . . .

[hit and run]

So rev Otis is now on the hot seat.

Otis shouldn't get all the benefit of the doubt Obama gave Wright though, right?

Don't think Otis will mind...vile rhetoric packs in the pews apparently and there is no such thing as bad publicity, right...

[JB]

So Obama would have left the church had Wright stayed and had been unrepentant about his statements?

Is he implying he only heard such statements within a short period of time before Wright retired? Or does he mean that he would have "eventually" left the church (let's say, no later than 20 years or so)?

If first, and factually false, Obama is digging a deeper hole. If second, he seems to possess a talent for insulting people's intelligence.

[Mitch from Chicagoboyz]

Why did it never occur to Obama to claim he had slept through the sermons? So many of us would have sympathized and forgiven.

[Ranger]

Kaus has a nice little bit up about how much Obama knew and when:

http://www.slate.com/id/2187358/#folksgreed

Given Rev. Wright's new digs, should he now be considered an "honorary white folk"?

[JB]

Guess the follow-up question is, "what did you hear, Sen. Obama and when did you hear it?"

[ben]

...."I believe is the greatness of this country, FOR ALL ITS FLAWS, ..."

I think that pretty much sums it all up, that even in trying to backpedal and obfuscate, Obama can't bring himself to say something good about America without a qualifier.

[Cecil Turner]

Obama is saying that in order for Obama to stay in the church either Wright had to retire or he had to apologize.

Which doesn't make a lot of sense in a past-tense construction where one of the clauses is known to be false (i.e., Wright hadn't apologized). The correct way of saying that would be:

"Had the reverend not retired, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church"

Please update your post.

I think it works pretty well the way it is. Or, if you [TM] must, highlight the superfluous clause

had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws

with an explanation that Obama's construction suggests it's meant to be taken as B.S., not fact.

[PeterUK]

""Black theology will accept only a love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."

This sounds uncannily like the branch of Christianity called Islam.

[boris]

Not P AND not Q = not (P OR Q) is all very fine to quibble about but the sense of the statement is that AND works and so does OR. Because P is public info (retired) while Q is described in detail as a real event:

had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws

Since the statement indicates both elements are true the logic construct used doesn't matter. Otherwise the long detailed Q is fabrication.

[JB]

White man's greed, eh?

So it is the first. Obama hit bottom, digs deeper.

[Neo]

Don't miss this selection via Christopher Hitchens' piece ..

"If Barack gets past the primary," said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the New York Times in April of last year, "he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen."

Pause just for a moment, if only to admire the sheer calculating self-confidence of this. Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he'd one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago "base" in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

Perhaps Obama didn't hear them, but he certainly knew of them at least a year ago.

[Jane]

"Had the reverend not retired, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church"

Now now this is a tribute to the great one's tolerance. After 19 years he had to put his foot down!

[Rick Ballard]

"Obama hit bottom, digs deeper."

I have to disagree, JB. BHO isn't anywhere near the bottom. He'll reach that point when Rezko spills in exchange for either a plea deal or a lighter sentence.

Right now we're just getting to the "would you buy a used car from this jerk?" point. Mendacity can be presumed from this point forward. The extent of his meretricious behavior has yet to be revealed. Is there any reason to believe that Tony Rezko is the only crook with hooks under BHO's thin skin?

[Cecil Turner]

Hey, the real news here is that the AP intro is spot-on with its logic:

WASHINGTON - White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's campaign, not stepped down. [emphasis added]

You can't go further than "suggests" on the first bit, both because Obama's secondary clause (Wright "acknowledg[ing] . . . deeply offended . . . inappropriate . . . mischaracterized") coulda happened (okay, okay, but we're just talkin' theoretical, here); and because Obama didn't explicitly pledge to leave, merely said he'd not have "felt comfortable staying."

So the writer gets it right and [correctly?] strips most of the BS from the statement. Elegant.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I think this whole election is giving me a headache.

[clarice]

Nor is there any reason to believe he told his aides of other bombshells he knows of and just wished away as he did Wright.

[GMax]

Well I want to call BS on the retirement meme. Too the man is still listed as Senior Pastor, isn't that like going from Grand Kleagle to Immediate Past President? Do you guess he is still drawing a stipend for whatever duties still fall in his lap? Dont you think he might need an income to service debt on a 1.6 mm house mortgage?

[DebinNC]

In TM's link above -"follow-up blast to Times reporting" - Wright castigates NYT reporter Jodi Kantor:

"When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, “What is that in your hand?,” that Barack was like that when I met him...."

Wright pointed out Kantor's Jewishness by referring to "your own Jewish stories" and "the Hebrew Bible". I know why Farrakhan would emphasize that a perceived enemy was a Jew, but what benign reason would Wright have for doing so?

[JB]

Rick, Obama is rapidly becoming a character straight out of The Wire television series.

[Foo Bar]

Which doesn't make a lot of sense in a past-tense construction where one of the clauses is known to be false

Since when is Obama not allowed to explain how he would have acted had a certain set of events (hypothetically and counterfactually) occurred in the past? He's simply saying what he would have done if the following 2 conditions had held simultaneously: Wright does not retire and Wright does not apologize.

It's analogous to Bush saying that had we known what we now know re:WMD he still would have invaded.

It's perfectly reasonable to explain what you would have done if certain events that didn't end up occurring had, in fact, occurred.