It's a bit more than that. Trump has had no problem condemning Antifa thugs and violent radical Islamists, so it is noteworthy when he equivocates on violent white supremacists, especially when some of them are claiming that he supports them.

This is par for the course for Trump, who (only when under extreme political pressure from his own party) will belatedly condemn right-wing extremists with one corner of his mouth, but give them a verbal wink with the other.

[1] - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40965029

(Corollary: arguing for the removal doesn't make you a violent Antifa Communist.)

Condoleeza Rice, an African American woman with political clout and experience, has argued we should keep the statues. Others have made a strong case for removing statues of people who committed treason.

But whatever your view, this should be done legally and peacefully. No mobs tearing down statues, no pitchfork-wielding defense of statues. We live in a democracy. Exercise it.

President Trump equates the alt-right racists and the Antifa violent Communists for political purposes. President Obama equated Israelis and Palestinian terrorists for political purposes[0].

People find it hard to condemn violence when their side is doing it; they point out wrongs in the other side to soften or excuse their side's violence.

[0]: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/227669/re-cairo-speech...

Also they are used to how politicians typically do whatever necessary to appease their constituents till the horse is dead. Not saying this is bad, but that's the expectation and one he doesn't follow.

I also think he's not attuned to people's sensitivity toward race.

I said no new taxes. No new taxes. No taxes. I won't raise taxes. Taxes will not be raised. Over and over and over and over.

Not being a pol hurts him here in that he does not get that aspect of governing.

You don't just do what you think is right, you have to continuously signal your intention, otherwise your intention is suspect.