Is Reverend Wright a racist? Even if he is, who really cares? Rev. Wright is not Barack Obama, and I'm actually pretty tired of politicians trying to shoot magic bullets, and media moguls trying to drum up ratings, by playing six degrees of separation and trying to draw guilt by association.

First of all, it's hard for any politician or member of the media to sit there with innocent eyes and claim racism on Wright's comments. The very act of publicizing Rev. Wright's comments was one of racial motivation. Until Bill and Hillary Clinton’s comments prior to South Carolina's primary, race was just a glimmer in David Duke's eye in regards to the Democratic nomination - and even Duke was impressed with Obama. Obama running as a "politician who just happens to be black" was a dangerous concept. The charismatic Senator had all the tools necessary to win the nomination. His race was the only obstacle, and until South Carolina, the media and the public had done a good job of making sure that race was at most a quaternary issue. When Obama continued to gain steam, despite the focus on race during the South Carolina primary, a new tactic needed to be used. Instead of just bringing his race to the forefront, the media decided to create a racially charged controversy. Publicizing Rev. Wright's comments was a way to not only draw more attention to race, but to try to get Obama to look like a racist. It was a truly low blow that did, indeed (if only temporarily), affect America's view of Obama - one that didn't belong in this political contest.

The sad fact is that had Barack Obama and his preacher both been white, racial comments would have never even seen the light of day. After all, we hear very little about Hillary Clinton and the "Family" – a cult-like Christian group, seemingly focused on influencing political power. What we do hear is glossed over. Even if both Obama and Wright were white and the sermons were still publicized, it would have had little effect on America's view – or support - of the candidate. It was a simple race tactic meant to stir up controversy, gain ratings and attempt to flush away a great candidate in an attempt to draw attention away from all the positives.

It's also interesting to note the fervor that surrounds Rev. Wright and Obama's association with the man. It's ridiculous that people are so up in arms over Obama being a parishioner at Wright's church, yet so many of the same people brushed off Obama's association with Tony Rezko, which is by far the more incriminating association. Isn't it interesting how white America is quick to forgive and dismiss Obama's association with a criminal extortionist and money launderer on trial for – among other things – fraud, yet we get into an uproar over opinionated words from a black preacher, and almost condemn Obama for his relationship with the man.

By the way, I applaud Barack Obama for having the guts and credibility not to throw Jeremiah Wright under the political bus. He could have easily pulled the old politician waffle and disassociated himself from the man. Instead, he condemned his words, but not the man. He stood behind his reverend.

I'm about as white as they come. And I am not a racist. Yet I have a friend – a mentor – who has taught me much in life. He has made several racist comments before, and I have news for you, I would never throw him under the bus either. I don't agree with his racist remarks. I think they're outright wrong. But I'm not going to throw away a solid friendship just because of racist remarks. Not even for political office. I’m not his friend because of his racial beliefs. It's easy enough for me to just ignore those comments or speak my opposing opinion... but throw him under the bus? Never.

So let's talk about some of Rev. Wright's comments, shall we.

Saying that American foreign policy was responsible for the 9-11 attacks may seem slightly unpatriotic, but that doesn't make it any less true. Thanks to a lot of Republican money and big business investment in oil, the Middle East is a "place of interest" for the American government. In fact, we've had a big hand in training quite of few of the Middle Eastern countries in the art of warfare when it suited our needs. Though none of this is an excuse to fly a couple of planes into a few skyscrapers, its undeniable that American policy in the Middle East has directly affected the Muslim view of American, making it an indirect cause of the 9-11 attacks.

Is AIDS a man-made virus? Probably not, but in this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised. I've often thought that pharmaceutical companies have a cure for cancer, but keep it buried since more people make money off of cancer in America than people who actually have cancer. But that's another story. AIDS being a man-made virus is a common theory in the counterculture and revolutionary movements; but as far as conspiracy theories go, I have to disagree with Wright on one point. If AIDS were man-made and actually was released by the U.S. government, it has far less to do with black people than with gay people, so he shouldn't stress it so much as a weapon against blacks.

How about the U.S. government putting drugs on the street? I don't know if this is so much the US government itself as it would be the higher ups in the government. Though evidence is clearly lacking, it's kind of strange that we seem to do a much better job wiping out guerilla terrorists – and protecting America from terrorism after 9-11 – than we do with winning the war against the drug trade. Wright might be overly quick to place the drugs in the government's hands, but I would say that it's the government's lazy attitude – or blind eye – towards these drug cartels that allows drugs – and drug related crimes - to proliferate on the streets. But still, even with my disagreeing viewpoint, that still means that the government is indirectly responsible.

Is America really bad to blacks? This is a philosophical question really. The truth is there are several Americas. For one, there is the mythological America with George Washington, his apple tree, the Bill of Rights, Uncle Sam and the American dream. But there is also White America, an age old relic from the industrial revolution that pampers the rich at the expense of the poor. This racist White America does exist, but it's a dying dinosaur, as evident by the rise of successful black politicians - such as Barack Obama - and successful women politicians as well.

You see, where Jeremiah Wright is wrong is in assuming that White America and America are the same; and believing that White America is thriving. It's not. White America is finally decaying and withering away, but it does, however, gain more power when black anger lashes out at it. It stirs age old resentment and emotions in both races.

Wright's problem isn't in his opinion. He's entitled to voice his opinion and he brings up many thought provoking questions that need to be asked. Where Wright is wrong is doing nothing more than stirring up black anger and pointing the finger at the U.S. government as the "evil empire" as a whole, instead of teaching his congregation to try to change America for the better – an example set by his own friend, Barack Obama.

Nothing is ever going to be accomplished by pointing fingers. By "damning" America and doing nothing constructive to promote change, Reverend Wright is doing no better than the terrorists who took out the World Trade Center – only instead of physically killing Americans, he's killing the American dream by deepening the racial divide. Wright sabotaged his own validity by not acknowledge the change that has come about, and by focusing on the negative and enhancing black anger. I'm sorry Reverend. There's a black guy running for president right now with a clear shot at winning. You know him well. He is proving that anything is possible for any race. He is proving that the power of racism is withering away. So although Reverend Wright did good by voicing valid points, he was wrong by maintaining a Black People versus White America mentality. Meanwhile, America was wrong to purely dismissing Wright's words as racist, in themselves, and not explore the validity in them or the questions that they raise.

But even more wrong are we – and the media – for blaming Barack Obama for another man's words.