He condemned them by name, but it took 48 hours to do so.

And then went right back to false equivalence and whataboutism less than 24 hours later. The third statement reinforced the insincerity of the second.

Not only that, he then went on to complain[1] about the removal of "beautiful" Confederate statues, effectively siding with the Neo-Nazis, who were in Charlottesville specifically to protest the removal of a Confederade statue.

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

Arguing against removal of Confederate statues is not siding with neo-nazis.

(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.

Nit: it does quite literally mean you are on the same side as the neo-nazis, at least in that case.

Ah, yes, complaining about the removal of statues is siding with neo-nazis now.

False equivalence was bad, yes. Such is politics.

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...

On Mass Hysteria Bubbles http://blog.dilbert.com/post/164297628606/how-to-know-youre-...

While reading a TelePrompter, some people in his administration got him to stay on the script, but when he went off the script in the next press conference it got even uglier.

And he then pretty much rolled back 24 hours later by suggesting some kind of equivalence between the white supremcists and those who opposed them.

He could have been more eloquent, but the poison that kills me a little more slowly than the other poison is still poison.

He has multiple times condemned the kkk and neo nazi's as well as the groups you mentioned. What I don't understand from media coverage is why is what he said not treated like condemnation for those groups or that his words weren't strong enough or that it needs to be repeated at every news conference.

Part of the issue is people are used to simpler statements. One enemy at a time. One condemnation at a time.

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.

Congratulations, you're not paying any attention. He notably refused to condemn them initially, then released a textual statement condemning them days later in response to criticism, immediately walked back his condemnation in a press conference, before condemning them again. If you read that as "He condemned them! Twice!", I don't know what to tell you.