home
Clinton On Wright | 264 comments (264 topical)
I gather she her comment was in response (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:39:40 PM EST
to a question.  Should she have responded:  no comment?

Correct it was in response (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:42:17 PM EST
to a direct question of what she would have done in that situation. When the reporters tried to ask her if Obama had done enough she demured and suggested that was a question for him. She could only answer what she would have done.

Frankly...I do not think it was a bad move.

[ Parent ]

Except (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:44:10 PM EST
It opens a can of worms. She could have punted.

[ Parent ]
Obama's can perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Chimster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:51:32 PM EST
This comment she made will keep the Wright issue in people's minds and make the issue rise once again to the surface due to her response. It will remove the sniper issue and place it on a forgotten back burner. She did not make a mistake. She waited for someone to lob her this question. She whacked it. I don't believe she mentioned Obama directly. I think she gets away from this one with much scarring.

[ Parent ]
Not necessarily just Obama's (none / 0) (#149)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:46:14 PM EST
What do you know about her own religious ties?

[ Parent ]
Uhh, just Obama's can of worms this time.. (none / 0) (#175)
by Chimster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:57:57 PM EST
At this moment in time, it does not matter what her religious views are. The topic is her reaction to Obama's mentor. She spoke an obvious truth. Wright's name is back at the top of headlines.

As for her religion, if the Obama campaign wants to dig there too, I'm sure she'd be happy to draw distinctions between their two churches and/or pastors. Wright's name will once again pop up in headlines when they do.

[ Parent ]

What do you know about (none / 0) (#183)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:00:44 PM EST
her religious ties?

[ Parent ]
x (none / 0) (#190)
by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:05:56 PM EST
She's been a devout methodist all her life. I really don't think you're going to find a Rev. Wright in the Methodist church.


[ Parent ]
That's it? (none / 0) (#192)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:07:55 PM EST
Her religious ties are far more interesting than that.

Have a look. A book is coming out in May.  

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich
http://www.toobeautiful.org/lat_020927.html
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525
http://www.alternet.org/story/16167/?page=1
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

[ Parent ]

Don't forget Barbara Ehrenreich (none / 0) (#219)
by wasabi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:24:18 PM EST
Where she connected Clinton to Hitler.

"The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes -- knitting together international networks of rightwing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family  reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs."

What's Clinton's sin here?  Oh yeah.  She attends weekly prayer breakfasts and that puts her right into the "inner circle".

[ Parent ]

Interestingly Coe has claimed that (none / 0) (#244)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:55:32 PM EST
they influenced Clinton on right-wing legislation that she supported or sponsored. I don't know if that's true or not.

However, what's also interesting is that this is one thing that won't hurt her at all in the GE as the people who are part of it are right-wingers.

[ Parent ]

She goes to prayer breakfasts (none / 0) (#243)
by zyx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:54:52 PM EST
Honestly, you don't think that the Nazi connection is bandied about at Congressional Prayer breakfasts?  This is gotcha crap.  I skimmed the Ehrenreich hit piece.  Not impressed.  I pulled up at the Harper's piece in your list.  Didn't mention Clinton.  I just read the Mother Jones piece (quickly).  Yeah, so she meets with Brownback and now he likes her better than he did.  Yeah, she opposes flag-burning, which I think is dumb.  She also opposes unlimited access of minors to crap video games, which my 22-year-old son thinks is dumb.  I had a little argument with him about that and suggested that someday when he has minor children he might feel a little differently.  He huffed that he is a strong believer in the Constitution and its amendments and all.  I huffed right back that minors don't enjoy the full protections of the Constitution and does he realize maybe there is a reason why children don't get to vote, maybe?

I think "The Family" is a gotcha red herring.  But that is what we do, I guess--throw fish.  

[ Parent ]

If you say so. Didn't know that right-wing (none / 0) (#247)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:02:08 PM EST
religious nuts who influence our policies were acceptable to Democrats but I guess I was wrong. Learn something new about my party everyday.

[ Parent ]
Hmmmm. (5.00 / 1) (#251)
by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:19:42 PM EST
Yes, and I didn't know that democrats were so non-reality-based that they are willing to make excuses for a pastor misinforming his flock about HIV AIDS by preaching that a government-made virus was introduced intentionally for the purpose of black genocide. I kind of thought democrats were for medical and scientific literacy -- you know, like the MEDICAL FACT that HIV AIDS evolved from a closely related immunodeficiency virus prevalent in non-human primates. How insulting to African Americans that this crap is peddled to them. How disappointing that people give Rev. Wright a pass on it. Dispensing this kind of misinformation does nothing to help with treating and curing AIDS and please remember that AA's suffer disproportionately from the disease.

And, in anticipation of the usual rejoinder, please don't try to convince me that historical events such as Tuskegee justify deliberately lying to the people in your pews.

[ Parent ]

Heh. Bill Cosby said the same thing. (none / 0) (#257)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:30:22 PM EST
I didn't see anyone lose their mind then. The government experimented on black people in Tuskeegee and let murderous terrorists sell crack on our streets - to black people - and then create racist laws to put them in jail longer than whites. Cosby and Wright are wrong about HIV but don't think the paranoia didn't come from somewhere.

Wright isn't a scientist so saying it's a deliberate lie is baseless. He can be wrong but there's no way for you to know if he's lying.

However, from what you said I have to conclude that you're also very disturbed by Clinton's right-wing religious guides then since we know they hate science and reality.

[ Parent ]

Wright is too smart to say dumb things (5.00 / 1) (#258)
by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:36:49 PM EST
I agree with your last paragraph - stupidity is stupidity whereever it is. Same for bigotry. Same for fundamentalism. Etc.

[ Parent ]
Cosby has a PhD. (none / 0) (#259)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:39:02 PM EST
I think he's probably not dumb either but he said it as well.

[ Parent ]
And a friend of Billy Graham (none / 0) (#203)
by felizarte on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:14:25 PM EST
This is one area which can stand the closest scrutiny according to earlier articles before she announced her candidacy.  I don't have the links but I believe her pastor since high school was interviewed.  Perhaps someone else can did this out.

[ Parent ]
But (5.00 / 2) (#117)
by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:33:42 PM EST
that can of worms helps her.  Why would anyone think she should protect the opposition on a completely valid issue?

[ Parent ]
That can of worms... (none / 0) (#55)
by gmo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:20 PM EST
...was opened a long time ago.   If we're going to have a continuing dialogue on race in this country, then this is simply part of it.  So how can Obama (or anyone) credibly object to her voicing an opinion?  

I think she deftly answered the question put to her, and appropriately punted the follow-ups.  

[ Parent ]

To Say (none / 0) (#64)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:06:17 PM EST
Something like, 'well, this is not something I am going to get into. Obama's relationship with his pastor is his business, and I am not in a position to judge it.'

Would have scored her points across the board. That does not exclude her talking about racism in america in a different context.

[ Parent ]

There is no other context (5.00 / 8) (#72)
by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:09:34 PM EST
The Clinton Camp has been banned from addressing race in American in any context at all.

A Clinton Aid can't even order black coffee without Olbermann having a hissy fit.


[ Parent ]

You Underestimate (none / 0) (#84)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:17:04 PM EST
HRC and are doing her a great disservice to suggest that she is limited in this regard. To think that she does not have the personal experience, imagination and talent, to address the long festering wound of racism in America outside of the narrow context of Obama/Wright, is nonsense imo. We all own it and it is  much bigger than the campaign.

[ Parent ]
Whenever they address it (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:24:24 PM EST
They are blamed for addressing it.

[ Parent ]
That doesn't pass the giggle test. (none / 0) (#100)
by zyx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:25:24 PM EST
HRC is gagged on the race issue.  Period.  Obama owns it.  The Clintons are "typical white people" and nothing more.  The end.

[ Parent ]
Obama Did Not q (none / 0) (#166)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:52:51 PM EST
Choose to make this an issue, except in that he did not disavow Rev. Wright before the campaign. And he does not have the luxury to say it is none of anyones business as HRC could do.

And being oblivious to the religion issue is a mistake imo. It would be fine to say that were it not such a huge force in mainstream politics. The fact that HRC is a top rank member of the Fellowship, speaks volumes and is far from a minor detail in her political war chest, imo.  

[ Parent ]

That's basically what she was saying (none / 0) (#77)
by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:14:49 PM EST
it wasn't her place to comment, speak to him, he gave a good/important speech, talk to him etc.

Didn't really score her much in the way of points and the issue has taken away press from her speeches on ISSUES (his also) etc. She may have nipped it here, but the Obama campaign has decided to exploit.

Odd, some AAs were getting uncomfortable with his lack of speaking out on Imus, and then when he did, he said he should be fired . . . if they keep playing with this story, this may come up again, louder.

[ Parent ]

No judgement (none / 0) (#80)
by Chimster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:16:05 PM EST
on this matter equals no headlines in the news. She gave her judgement, and it is now news again. If she had kept going along the "high road", no one would have noticed. I'm sure there will be times where her fooot gets stuck in her mouth, but this was not one of them.

[ Parent ]
It wasn't a judgment (none / 0) (#89)
by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:21:27 PM EST
She was asked what she would do, not what she thought of his handling of it.

So she changed the conversation. What do you think Richardson was doing on Friday?

[ Parent ]

It was her judgment (none / 0) (#110)
by Chimster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:30:55 PM EST
that told her to make make no comment up until this point. It was her judgment that told her to tell the news exactly what she thought of his handling of it. I think she used good judgement this time around.

You're right about Richardson.

[ Parent ]

It was good judgement, IMHO (none / 0) (#126)
by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:36:13 PM EST
And if you watch the video you see how she said it, what the question was and everything else. it was a good answer and an answer her base was probably thinking.

[ Parent ]
Obama Misspoke (none / 0) (#201)
by Athena on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:12:18 PM EST
Why wasn't the press worked up over the fact that Obama misspoke when he claimed to have never heard inflammatory statements by Wright?

Selective outrage, indeed.

[ Parent ]

Except... (none / 0) (#154)
by gmo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:48:15 PM EST
...imo, that's what Obama should have said himself in the first place.  

[ Parent ]
But, if she did that, she'd be playing along with (none / 0) (#227)
by derridog on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:30:20 PM EST
Obama's meme that there isn't anything there - nothing to see --just an old friend and mentor who happens to be a kindly old racist, who humps the lecturn in church when speaking of the Clintons.

I think she did the right thing. She didn't bring it up, it was a direct question and she didn't go for overkill.  This way, the subject is back in the news and that sound byte will be playing over and over. I think it was smart.

[ Parent ]

What part of her statement had anything (none / 0) (#151)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:46:59 PM EST
to do with the discussion of race in America?

[ Parent ]

Clinton On Wright | 264 comments (264 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft