home

Sunday Open Thread, No Topic Limitations

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:17:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

For the past week, I've refused to allow comments about Rev. Jeremiah Wright because the comments section became filled with accusations about racism and this site doesn't allow such accusations, name-calling or personal attacks. I just didn't want to spend the time monitoring comments when I could be spending that time blogging or on other activities. I still don't.

But, I'm hoping the emotionalism has died down and I'm now willing to give readers a chance to express their views, so long as they don't call people racists or engage in personal attacks on each other or public figures.

This is an experiment. It's an open thread where all topics are welcome. Let's see what happens. I hope it stays civil.

Update: Comments well over 200, our usual limit. Time to close the thread. Thanks everyone.

< Mukasey Personally Opposes Death Penalty for al-Qaeda Detainees | D.C. Handgun Case to Be Heard This Week >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Open Thread, No Topic Limitations | 239 comments (239 topical)
    If Hillary will do anything to win (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:22:47 PM EST
    as has been claimed, then she would "question" Obama's "judgment" in associating with people like Rezko and Jeremiah Wright.

    On Fox News this morning, Bill Kristol was complaining because the Clinton campaign was NOT making an issue of Wright.

    I personally hope she does not go there.

    But I do believe it puts the lie to the outlandish, outrageous and false claims by the likes of Ezra Klein and Josh Marshall trying to claim Clinton was the cause of or behind the Wright issue.

    The performance of the Left blogs in this contest has been disgusting and disgraceful.

    Simple ad (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by badger on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    (supply your own graphics - imagine the typical negative ad voiceover announcer)

    "Barack Hussein Obama ...

    "His pastor says 'God Damn America' [Wright]

    "One of his friends declared war on America {Bernardine Dohrn]

    "Another friend bombed government buildings [Bill Ayers]

    "Another preaches hatred against homosexuals [McClurkin]

    "Another is under indictment for raising campaign funds illegally for Barack Obama [Rezko]

    "And his top advisor is in the inner circle of Chicago's notorious Daley political machine [Axelrod]

    "Do you want Barack Obama and his friends running your government?"

    ---

    Would John McCain approve this message? Or would he just rely on a 527?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm a bit uncomfortable with this... (3.00 / 2) (#52)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:48:56 PM EST
    Dohrn and Ayers are not friends but are residents of the Hyde Park area, acquaintances of other Obama's acquaintances and there's no real link between them other than being at the same party(ies).

    McClurkin is just another preacher jamming his point of view and not really related to Obama in any meaningful way.

    Axelrod is well, Axelrod and certainly nothing that he need to apologize for.

    So we are really talking about Rezko and Wright.

    Rezko - details still emerging and does call into question the issues that Obama refers to as 'judgment'.

    Wright - Black America understands Jeremiah Wright and white America never will. Clearly that is why Obama tried to distance himself at the very beginning of his announcement as candidate but his ties to Wright cannot be easily dismissed...even the title of his book, "Audacity of Hope" came from Wright. Obama apparently called him a mentor and a role model. The significance of all this is for the rest of America to decide. Best to get this all out now because this clearly is going to be front page stuff in any general election that pits Obama against McCain.

    Will America be repulsed?  Too soon to tell

    [ Parent ]

    As I recall, Obama has referred to Ayers (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:54:49 PM EST
    as a friend.  

    Obama campaign invited McClurkin to join the tour; McClurkin is a Grammy winner, at one time sd. he was homosexual, presently says he is not and that, through religious intervention, homosexuals can convert to heterosexual.  

    [ Parent ]

    as someone who came of age in the 60's (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    I don't mind Ayers (or Dohrn) a bit.

    That said, I have never seen a reference to where he called Ayers a friend. He is of course, a colleague since he too teaches at UofC.

    As to homosexual conversions...the whole religion thing seems to pander to stupid assertions that defy rational thought. McClurkin just seems to be an oddity that isn't worthy of too much discussion unless you are questioning Obama's commitment to the LGBT community.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by badger on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM EST
    Dohrn/Ayers held a house party for Obama during his first campaign (they live in his district) and Ayers donated $200. Ayers teaches at the University of Illinois - Chicago, not the University of Chicago (and Dohrn teaches law at Northwestern, and grew up a couple miles down the road from me).

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's campaign specifically invited McClurkin (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:22:24 PM EST
    to appear at the SC event. I don't think it can be dismissed as an "oddity". For me, that was the turning point when I knew I could not support Obama and would switch to Hillary instead (I had been suporting Edwards). Obama's use of McClurkin smacks of pandering of the most vile kind.

    We have a gay-hating preacher here in the NW (Ken Hutcherson) who's been trying to retaliate against Microsoft for its progressive domestic partnership benefits policies. I can assure you, there isn't a Democrat in the state of Washington that would dare be seen with Hutcherson, much less invite him to headline one of their fundraisers!

    The wink-wink stuff from the Obama campaign is destructive, in my view. He deserves to be called out for it, long and loud.

    [ Parent ]

    words matter - associates do too (none / 0) (#137)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:20:04 PM EST
    Who are Obama's associates? (see list above)
    Associates matter.

    Who are Hillary's associates?
    Have any of them been accused of maintaining anti-American views?


    [ Parent ]

    I mind. I thought the female (none / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:28:21 PM EST
    who was finally arrested and imprisoned after living in the Midwest for years, doing vol. work, appearing community theatre, raising a couple of kids, etc., was justly punished for her involvement in violent acts which killed others.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think you will find... (none / 0) (#207)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:55:08 PM EST
    that she is unapologetic for her 'crimes'

    that she wasn't charged for many of those 'crimes'

    that there are lot of people who will decry any association with either Dohrn or Ayers...I'm not one of them.

    [ Parent ]

    i listened to rev wright and am (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:08:07 PM EST
    disgusted. if you think others won't be, then color me amazed. it is very bad for the general election.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (3.50 / 2) (#68)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    but there is an "insidious pattern" as David Axelrod might say.

    The point is that there is enough plausibility for the right wing to base an attack on all this stuff.  I assume none of us genuinely believe that Barack Obama secretly harbors an anti-American agenda.

    [ Parent ]

    of course not (none / 0) (#180)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:41:16 PM EST
    but John Edwards didn't routinely get $400 haircuts, BUT...


    [ Parent ]
    John Edwards (none / 0) (#186)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:43:42 PM EST
    Got smeared as mean and not truly genuine with his populist message. He should have hired Axelrod, the advertising guy.

    [ Parent ]
    Then Edwards would be channeling (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:07:55 PM EST
    Deval Patrick.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't believe any of it, but ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by badger on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    do you think Michael Dukakis intentionally released Willie Horton so he could rape and kill? And the opportunity Dukakis got to address it was "What would you do if Kitty Dukakis was raped?" in one of the debates.

    Is there anything in the ad above that isn't true (other than 'friend' may be stretching it in a couple of cases)?

    My imaginary ad above is a little crude (although I could see Limbaugh running down that list), but I assume McCain will employ professionals if he chooses to go that route.

    [ Parent ]

    clearly (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    this is 527 territory so McCain can keep his hands clean. Did we not see the trajectory in 2004?

    [ Parent ]
    Actually McClurkin ties into the (none / 0) (#98)
    by DaleA on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    AA church. Rev Wright does not preach homophobia. Quite the contrary, his congregation reaches out to lesbians and gays. Which is in line with UCC practice. But this is very rare for any AA religious organization. Based on what Obama supporters told me at the great orange, the AA church is very homophobic. And according to them, this is something we need to live with. Strange to realize that Rev Wright may be one of the more tolerant AA preachers.

    [ Parent ]
    And I have to ask (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:41:30 PM EST
    Why do we have to live with this? When did it become acceptable for progressives to support bigotry? It seems to me that we are being told to give up many progressives values to enable what is, I guess, the greater good that is Obama. Once we go down that road how long and how difficult will our journey back be for us?

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe Rev Wight is tolerant (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:19:01 PM EST
    of homosexuals so he can blame HIV/AIDs as a white genocidal conspiracy against AA's - instead of preaching to stay monogamous and wear a cond*m.

    How can Obama CHANGE Washington, DC,  when after 20 years, he didn't CHANGE Rev Wright?

    [ Parent ]

    You Are High (none / 0) (#226)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:25:03 PM EST
    So should HRC's leadership be called into question because her priest still believes in religious fairytales and hocus pocus.

    [ Parent ]
    A 527 of course (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:40:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You think anyone would be immune from 527's? (none / 0) (#67)
    by zzyzx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:52:42 PM EST
    Heck, I bet they have stuff ready to go against Gravel in case the Gravelance happens.  If we're worried that there might be an opposition ad demonizing our candidate, there's quite a few lines of attack to be used against Clinton too.

    No candidate is going to be perfect.  The Republicans aren't going to give us the election for free.  The fact that all they can find with Obama is guilt by association is pretty impressive.   No Obama isn't going to win the hardcore Republicans, but if that ad is enough to swing the voters, then we might as well stop caring because we're doomed no matter what.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by badger on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    but your argument is quite different from the one I've seen on blogs for months now which is the argument that "the GOP will put Hillary's past through a meat grinder, but Obama if pure and free of all this kind of stuff".

    And in fact HIllary can definitively answer all of that in a single sentence: "Ken Starr spent millions of dollars investigating all of those allegations and found they were all false".

    How does Obama answer those charges in less than 30 minutes?

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary and Bill (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    have been accused of many things - some of them warranted. But they've even been falsely accused by Obama followers as being "racists."
    But I don't think either has ever been labeled "anti-America."

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
    you forget. The first Bush admin made a big deal about Bill Clinton going to Russia when he was a student.

    [ Parent ]
    Best defense... (none / 0) (#201)
    by zzyzx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:53:04 PM EST
    ...is a good offense.  Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.  "I don't think anyone would mind if we were in Iraq for 10,000 years."  

    Look, is there a chance this attack could work?  Sure.  After 2004, I learned to never overestimate the American people.  However, I think it would work mainly on people who are looking for a reason to dislike Obama.

    The problem is that there are so few policy differences between Clinton and Obama that this primary is being based on style.  Come November, there will be a lot more ways that we can attack.  It's one thing to worry about who really is going to look at NAFTA and who is posing, it's another thing when you have an opponent who is actively defending NAFTA.

    [ Parent ]

    Badger, add this to the list (none / 0) (#230)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:34:18 PM EST
    The title of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope", is borrowed from a sermon by Rev. Wright.  

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton camp will stay mute on this (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Grey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:51:02 PM EST
    And that is the absolutely right thing to do.

    FOX News has been talking about the Rev. Wright for more than a year; trying to make this some kind of Clinton oppo research dump is ludicrous and just plain wrong on the facts - which is not the say that facts have ever stopped the likes of Ezra Klein and Josh Marshall from making everything Clinton's fault.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes indeed (4.83 / 6) (#10)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:31:51 PM EST
    For Clinton to make an issue of Wright would be perceived as a Sista Souljah moment aimed at the institution of the black church itself.

    It would be insane for her to demagogue Obama's minister for votes.  Even her surrogates have been on their best behavior.  You better believe the word went out.

    The Right, with the cooperation of the Hillary-haters on the left, has done a great job of smearing Obama during this primary while leaving Hillary's fingerprints all over it.

    They did this when the Washington Times ran with the madrassa smear several months ago, claiming that Hillary's people had been pushing the story.  Somehow people decided that while they were lying about every detail of the underlying story, they were 100% credible when they blamed Hillary for it.

    They did this just a few weeks ago when Drudge blamed the Clinton campaign for pushing the turban picture.  Once again, certain people on the left decided that Drudge was a 100% credible source.  Shamefully, Obama himself went around Mississippi blaming the Clinton campaign for that one, based upon nothing more than an uncorroborated report by Drudge.

    The Wright thing is certainly one of the roughest attacks the right wing will be able to levy against Obama.  Of course Bill Kristol wants to be able to launch the attack and blame Hillary for it at the same time!  Sorry, not gonna happen.

    [ Parent ]

    Primaries are for the purpose (none / 0) (#111)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    of selecting the best nominee for the General. Who can best beat McCain?
    But it appears, Obama supporters are only focused on primary season and "beat the B!" - not the General. Or maybe I've missed all the articles and diaries explaining Obama's vast advantages over McCain - and WHY Obama would win.
    Wright's and Michelle Obama's "anti-America" comments will be an issue in the General against POW "Mr. America" McCain.
    But it's the Dem delegate count that matters - right??

    [ Parent ]
    I also think (4.25 / 4) (#11)
    by spit on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    Clinton is very wise not to touch this one. And I bet she's figuring out, as we speak, how to answer questions about it at the next debate -- that's tricky for her, too, and I'd be willing to bet the media will do another of its "itching to get the candidates to fight" lines of questioning.

    [ Parent ]
    She's smart not to say anything (none / 0) (#6)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:27:13 PM EST
    The way things have been going, Wright is a huge issue, but if Clinton comments or is found to have been involved in any way the story will become all about her campaign's involvement. This is one of those times when all she needs to do is keep her mouth shut and exercise control over her campaign staff. Of course, eventually somebody who supports Clinton will comment and the whole story will turn toward her anyway, but the longer it is Obama's story, the better.

    [ Parent ]
    oh there are ways to bring it out in (none / 0) (#94)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    a subtle manner. question his choices and speak to the divison of religeon and state. talk about moderation for those who are divisve.

    [ Parent ]
    That would be a huge error (none / 0) (#154)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:26:07 PM EST
    A lot of American's don't want too much division between religion and state. Sad, but true. If she even hints at this, it becomes "her" issue, not Obama's. If Clinton could pull it off, it would be ideal if she could just leave the country for a few days. She can't, of course, but she has to simply keep hammering on the same topics she has been. The media are doing plenty of questioning of Obama's choices right now. She just has to keep her mouth shut and see what happens. This will play out without her involvement.

    [ Parent ]
    yup a lot of people would love (none / 0) (#178)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:39:47 PM EST
    to try and pin it on her for sure. i think faux will carry the torch. i watched hannity one night interview rev wright. he didn't go to the sermons but questioned him on other issues. i found the reverend to be hostile but excused it due to hannity being hannity. now i can see faux is waiting for the go ahead for this and will use it.

    [ Parent ]
    Could someone delineate (none / 0) (#9)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:31:14 PM EST
    the differences between candidates, their campaigns, their campaign staff and the official definition of "surrogate"?

    The one talking point over at the Orange that drives me to distraction is that A Certain Campaign is responsible for every news report, story or commentary criticizing (aka "attacking") A Certain Candidate via leaks, surrogates and other covert means.

    It sounds like serious tinfoil territory to me to suggest that anyone can control the media to that extent, yet some apparently believe anything that fits into their chosen narrative.

    So what can we correctly attribute to a campaign?  Comments by the candidates, certainly.  How loosely connected can a person be and still considered objectively a "surrogate"?

    [ Parent ]

    You focus on Daily Kos (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:36:32 PM EST
    which I think is a mistake. Rabble rousing has always been the order of the day, admittedly never so against a fellow Dem.

    the real villains in the blogs are the so called respectable blogs - TPM, Ezra Klein, TAPPED, etc. they have blatantly told falsehoods about Hillary Clinton.

    I'll be honest, if not for Jeralyn's distaste for interblog critiques, I would be blasting Josh Marshall on a daily basis.

    I believe his behavior is easily the most despicable of any blogger.

    Kos, Aravosis, et al, they are what they are. Their site do what they do. Josh Marshall pretended to be something different. He is not. He is a charlatan.  

    [ Parent ]

    charlatan is name-calling (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:40:16 PM EST
    please don't do that.

    [ Parent ]
    What word would be appropriate for it? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:42:19 PM EST
    How about this? His work in this campaign has been disingenuous, misleading, biased and offensive.

    Would that be acceptable?  

    [ Parent ]

    if you prefaced it with (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:49:06 PM EST
    "I believe" it would be okay.

    I believe his work in this campaign has been disingenuous, misleading, biased and offensive.

    You would then be criticizing his work, not him as a person and stating it as a belief not fact.  

    [ Parent ]

    I believe all of that (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    I believe TPM has been an unreliable,. biased, sexist and offensive media outlet in this contest.

    For all the complaining about Daily Kos, the real outrages have come from TPM, TAPPED and other "respectable" outlets.

    [ Parent ]

    come on! (none / 0) (#93)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:02:27 PM EST
      The additiona of a superfluous, "I believe" or "in my opinion" etc. changes nothing.

      People are either writing what they believe or what they desire  for other people to think they believe. Adding unnecessary qualifiers   simply makes it more tedious reading.

      Refraining from using a certain word and instead writing  a greater number of words that reflect the definition of the word forgone also just makes for more tedious reasoning.

     

    [ Parent ]

    works for me (none / 0) (#59)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:50:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not "focus" (none / 0) (#95)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    More "experience".  I don't read all the blogs - that's a tough job!

    The narrative that everything can be traced back to A Certain Campaign is hard to swallow objectively - no matter who believes it or which blog it is posted on.  It's one of the narratives that made me doubt the critical thinking abilities of commenters - and more than one diarist.

    [ Parent ]

    "Surrogate" is anybody who speaks... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:34:54 PM EST
    ...officially for a candidate. There is no official list. A campaign official or family member who is campaigning would obviously qualify, as would anybody who is presented at a campaign event or in a commercial. But it has been stretched to mean "anybody even remotely associated with the campaign", at least in part because of the right wing strategy of using people who aren't directly associated with the campaign to plant rumors (which gives them "plausible deniability").  

    Some people seem to think that Clinton is a master strategist who is able to parse every work coming out of her mouth to maximize it's damage, control the media flow, and use right-wing tactics without ever getting caught. The irony is that somehow they always "catch" her in her machinations, even though she is incredibly subtle. If she really were as good at manipulating the media message as they seem to believe, I can't understand why she gets caught so often.

    [ Parent ]

    Advocate Is A Synonym For Surrogate (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:39:42 PM EST
    And delegate is one of the definitions. Connotations are another thing and I think that is what you are bothered by.

    [ Parent ]
    Personally... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:49:14 PM EST
    ...my view of the term 'surrogate' is that it's reserved for 'those who speak on behalf of...'

    IMO, it's been too broadly construed to where anyone who even supports the candidate - no matter how distant from the campaign - is presumed to be speaking for the candidate.  

    [ Parent ]

    Does this help? From Obama's (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:49:39 PM EST
    speech yesterday:

    "I noticed over the last several weeks that the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again. And I'm not here to cast blame or point fingers because everybody, you know, senses that there's been this shift," Obama said.



    [ Parent ]
    Yes it has. (none / 0) (#70)
    by jere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:54:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    re: Wright (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by spit on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    I'm personally sticking to political implications. The other stuff gets waaaay too charged, IMO.

    And I'm agnostic as to how much it'll wind up hurting Obama's campaign; certainly it could hurt badly if it starts to damage his coalition, or it could wash over. It'll take a few days to filter into polling, IMO. Certainly, he couldn't ask for better timing, if something like this was going to happen -- lots of time to pick back up. So the questions for the politics of it all are, how deep will it cut, and how much staying power does it have? For the latter, it also matters whether the campaign itself gets thrown off balance at all by the thing, for which I'm again taking a "wait and see" approach.

    I'm of two minds as to whether his tactic of going out on damage control on all the stations Friday was smart or foolish, too. On the one hand, it can make the story bigger, get more time and circulation for the videos, etc. On the other hand, ignoring it wouldn't make it go away, either, nor will declaring it a "nonstory" as many of his supporters online wanted to do earlier.

    I believe the problem with his statements (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    are the insistence that he never heard Wright say anything like what has been highlighted.

    It seems inevitable to me that more will emerge and Obama's claim to ignorance will become untenable.

    There was a reason Obama was keeping Wright away from his campaign - he was aware of Wright's inflammatory rhetoric. Denying that will become an issue when a new statement is revealed, as it inevitably will.

    [ Parent ]

    It seemed Gary Hart-ish ... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:38:08 PM EST
    when he denied ever hearing such views either in person or from the pew.

    It invites the press to go searching, and attempt to prove that statement is a lie.

    Did his renunciation really need that assertion?

    [ Parent ]

    imo (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:39:49 PM EST
    No.

    One thing for sure though, Obama has gotten kid gloves treatment on this by the Media. My Media Darling theory is holding strong so far.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe he was sleeping during the (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:41:59 PM EST
    sermon?

    [ Parent ]
    Did not know (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:49:32 PM EST
    "Was not brought to his attention" Two elements of the Wright and Rezko events. 1. He did not hear any of that language or did not know about it. 2. He did not know Rezko was in financial trouble with his buildings starting in 97. Sun Time interview the last 15 minutes. Wow, what does he know?

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (none / 0) (#16)
    by spit on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:35:58 PM EST
    if it comes out that he did know full well what Wright was saying in any of these instances, he's got a much deeper problem.

    I don't personally think for a minute he didn't have any clue, but the political question is whether there's anybody who's going to step forward with a statement that contradicts him on it.

    [ Parent ]

    There are audiotapes out there (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:38:41 PM EST
    Frankly, I think the Right Wing is now waiting for the proper moment to pull them out.

    [ Parent ]
    He already wrote about Wright's sermon... (none / 0) (#105)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:07:01 PM EST
    ...in his books.  I can't help but think Obama has been emboldened by a slack media.  Why say something that can be so demonstrably disproven unless you think the press will just let it go?

    Rich Lowry at NRO

    "In the book, Obama makes it clear that Wright when he first got to know him was pretty much the same Wright we're getting to know now...

    Reverend Wright explained..."It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere"

    And:

    Pastor Inspires Obama's 'Audacity'

    In his 1993 memoir "Dreams from My Father," Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church's radical reputation.

    [ Parent ]

    i went to the church web site last night. (none / 0) (#123)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:13:27 PM EST
    the tapes aren't for sale on there. i don't know if they were removed or what. i wasn't planning on ordering any but was curious.

    [ Parent ]
    They must have been removed. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    I don't blame them.

    [ Parent ]
    well it is too late. you can rest assured the (none / 0) (#152)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:25:34 PM EST
    right wing already has them. i noticed on the news that pastor wright has resigned from the campaign also. toooooooooooo late, way too late!

    [ Parent ]
    If this is true (none / 0) (#131)
    by nashville on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    They will wait to pull them out & totally discredit him AFTER he has locked up the Dem nomnation.  That is my fear!  C'mon press do your investigative jobs.  But I gues even if you, Clinton will get creit for it :)

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    Obama's supporters on the blogs are already telling us that What Obama Really Meant was that he never heard those few specific statements that have been quoted on the news.

    Like you, I don't believe this bit of parsing will wash, but they do a great job of convincing themselves.

    [ Parent ]

    And then he will have to deny (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:37:58 PM EST
    having heard all the other statements sure to come out.

    IT will become untenable.

    [ Parent ]

    Isn't that the same as (none / 0) (#159)
    by badger on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:30:27 PM EST
    "I didn't inhale"? Or is it more like "I never had sex with that woman"?

    [ Parent ]
    He Is Already On Record Of Knowing (none / 0) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    that Wright's sermons might damage his political aspirations via NYT article 3/07. See my comment above. I guess he could say that he didn't know how rough but not sure that will fly.

    Personally, I think that this will drip, drip. drip out in the media and will definitely be the focus of 527 ads if Obama is the nominee.

    Personal opinion, this will not play well across the country, but I've been wrong before so who knows.

    [ Parent ]

    But he didn't (none / 0) (#233)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:41:05 PM EST
    Obama was keeping Wright away from his campaign

    Wright was a member of the campaign's spiritual advisory committee.

    Sure, not much more of a "key official" than Geraldine Ferraro was for being a member of the large Clinton finance committee BUT -

    it's the word "advisory" in the committee name that makes it more damning. Gerry raised money. Wright was a trusted adviser for the campaign and for the past 20 years of Obama's life.

    I don't think he can shake this. I think he's toast.

    [ Parent ]

    Whoo hooo - This is the biggest thing to happen... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    ...in this election so far. Seriously. My local paper is a small town outfit that focuses almost exclusively on local news. They throw in a few regional and national stories, but our community is very diverse and they tend to avoid divisive politics (they have an even balance of liberal and conservative columns on the editorial page). So, I was shocked when they reported Obama's denunciation of Wright's words. It was a small story on the inside, but they hardly cover national politics at all.

    This is big. Obama's spiritual advisor for 20 years said some very hateful things about America and Obama he didn't stand up to him, didn't leave him, and didn't seriously denounce him until others made it an issue. I can understand why he didn't, but ... on top of the Rezko thing and Michelle Obama's questionable wording about it being the first time she had been proud of America (I doubt she meant it the way it sounds), this is going to put a serious dent in Obama's credibility. It's possible that this will blow over and Obama will become the golden child again, but he is tainted.

    I don't know if this will have enough of an effect to change the primary, but it could. It is a very good thing that it is coming out right now, because if Obama still wins the primary then this is going to be a major factor in the general election. This is part of how the right will inspire their voter's to come out in droves against Obama. People assume that right-wingers will stay home because they hate McCain, but the right is already promoting McCain (quite convincingly - it must be choking them as they do it) and their people are unifying behind him. Meanwhile, Obama's negatives are about 50% and climbing. We'll see.

    It's not just right-wingers (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    I can easily envision certain segments of the Democratic base being so turned off by the Wright connection that they stay home or vote for McCain in the GE if Obama is the nominee.  It won't play in Peoria and I don't think it'll even play well in my home state of NY which has been solidly blue for many years but is nevertheless a pretty conservative state outside of NYC.  Regardless of what I personally think of Wright's message, anti-Semitism (real or perceived) is a big deal here, and 9/11 is always a touchy issue for those of us who actually lived through it.  If the Republicans play this up in the GE (and they will, trust), NY could very well go red in November.  

    [ Parent ]
    This hurts with moderates of all stripes (none / 0) (#144)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:22:34 PM EST
    I think that most liberals can understand Wright's anger if they think about it, and can certainly understand Obama's reluctance to insult a man of Wright's power, influence, and wisdom. But this hurts among the moderates and "red, white, and blue forever" independents. I don't think it would be serious enough to turn strongly blue states red, but it might make a difference in some critical areas, if Obama can't defuse this bomb.

    [ Parent ]
    How about adding Asians and Latinos (none / 0) (#146)
    by DaleA on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:23:03 PM EST
    to those appalled by this. There goes California. No one with this sort of association would be acceptable to them. 'God damn America' will not play with Asians and Latinos here.

    [ Parent ]
    it won't play well in all communities. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    the koolaid drinkers of course will excuse it. but the damage is done. as i saw already posted here could have pocketed his ambition and made a play for the veep position. in 8 years the re scandal would be old hat like white water is and will stay. he could have found a new church with less controversy. rev wright would have been retired for awhile. but no he just had to do it now and face an almost certain defeat. what is it with dems? do they like defeat? i wonder.

    [ Parent ]
    Add that to the fact (none / 0) (#172)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:36:18 PM EST
    that McCain is already popular with Latinos.

    [ Parent ]
    And independents and moderates (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:02:16 PM EST
    McCain is very charismatic, in a low key non-flashy kind of way. He has a reputation as a moderate and honest man. He isn't quite as moderate as his reputation, but candidates run on their reputation, not reality.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you for the opportunity (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by nashville on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:47:24 PM EST
    to get some civil feedback on the pastor issue.

    This issue essentially broke wide open on Friday. I, however, just find it lacking credibility that 1) the MSM didn't already know of this or 2) the Clinton campaign did not know of it.  For the past day and a half I have just been shaking my head in disbelief that this stuff is just coming out now.

    And I couldn't believe on MTP when both Bradley and Lowey refused to discuss the pastor issue. Russert let it rest. Then Russert kept pressing Lowey on Ferraro.  What's the deal!?! Not exactly fair & balanced.

    IMO (and believe me I could be way wrong) I believe this issue in a deal breaker for the GE.  I am really worried. I hope I am wrong...I think.  

    Unfortunately I don't want our country led by someone who espouses, OR tolerates, the views expressed in those sermons.  Crazy Tweety said it best when quoting Tip o'Neil.  Can't remember the quote, but to paraphrase, if you're a political leader sitting in church and you hear something that inflammatory. You get up RIGHT then, walk to the center aisle, do an about face and march out.  Otherwise doubts about your sincerity in your repudiation will linger.

    Again thanks for the civil discussion.  I'm looking forward to gaining understanding on this.

    I think that difference is telling (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    Ferraro at the end of the day is a nonissue.

    All Dems recognize that Wright is something altogether different.

    [ Parent ]

    of course (none / 0) (#73)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    and yet, Obama himself was decrying Ferraro's statements which I thought was uncharacteristically stupid.

    Judging by the Sunday morning talking news shows, this issue is not going away any time soon either.

    [ Parent ]

    Ferraro (none / 0) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:56:55 PM EST
    Was another Axelrod false diversion, he knew the Wright stuff was coming, so he amplified the Ferraro comment to a small paper to be a big national issue. Diversions.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:01:28 PM EST
    I think the Ferraro brouhaha triggered the unleashing of the Wright issue by Fox and the Right Wing.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course it did ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    it was the proverbial straw.

    Politically, the Ferraro kerfuffle was a miscalculation by the Obama campaign.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    The Obama camp blundered on Ferraro imo.

    [ Parent ]
    as did Ferraro. (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:32:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I agree with that (none / 0) (#83)
    by nashville on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:59:33 PM EST
    so is the explanation of pressing Ferraro and not Wright simply total media bias.  Does the media care at all about the truth anymore or is it just ratings?

    [ Parent ]
    All Dems? (none / 0) (#106)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    No, my friend.  The really stubborn Obama supporters are still incensed about Ferraro and in denial about Wright.

    What happened in Iowa yesterday?

    [ Parent ]

    Iowa is one reason (none / 0) (#124)
    by nashville on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:13:42 PM EST
    I have been so confused. I thought the Wright stuff would make some people "wake" up, but from the caucus votes apparently not.  ?????

    Interesting speculation about the brouhaha over Ferraro.  

    [ Parent ]

    except pelosi and bradley it seems! (none / 0) (#170)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:35:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I undertsand Fox has been pushing the story (none / 0) (#84)
    by vj on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:59:37 PM EST
    for some time. I believe the turning point came when Video and audio of his speeches became available in the past few days.

    [ Parent ]
    Video etc has been available for sale (none / 0) (#162)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:32:25 PM EST
    on the church's website for a long time.  I think Fox didn't want to go first, so they waited on ABC to kick it off by Brian Ross.

    From the Fox viewpoint, this might have been better released after the Democratic convention.  However, then it would have only been useful as an attack on Obama now, if he's the nominee, it will be seen as a valid attack on the entire party.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought Fox kicked it off (none / 0) (#175)
    by stillife on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    with Hannity a week ago.  I could be wrong, though, b/c I don't watch Fox.  

    [ Parent ]
    Hannity (none / 0) (#188)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:45:00 PM EST
    has been on this for a long, long time.

    [ Parent ]
    x (none / 0) (#176)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    Very interesting point. This is the type of stuff I'm glad we're getting to discuss.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm less concerned about the Wright story (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:48:57 PM EST
    and how if effects the primary than I am for the general election.  I've already read enough about it on some other blogs to believe there is enough white liberal guilt among some democrats that it won't derail the nomination, though in my own opinion it should.

    Newsmax had a story a couple of days ago where the reporter was at a sermon when some pretty vicious things were said and Obama was also there nodding his head with the rest of the congregation.  If that turns out to be true, he could be toast.

    Republicans will not hesitate to use this and the commercials will be brutal and effective among the electorate at large.  Speaking only for myself, if I would have voted for him before I will not now.  As far as I'm concerned, remaining a member of the congregation gave tacit approval to  the hatemongering and disqualifies him to be president.  I seem to be missing my share of the guilt.

    I read that Newsmax article (none / 0) (#85)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    And I tried to find the part where the author made clear precisely which statements Obama was nodding in agreement with.  Then I remembered I was reading Newsmax and might as well have been reading a RNC press release.

    [ Parent ]
    Newsmax can be ignored (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by ricosuave on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:45:38 PM EST
    but they won't be the last to portray Obama sitting silently while this hatred spewed forth.  Obama's defense is that he has never heard any of the awful stuff directly, or knew that things like this were said in his nearly two decades of church attendance.  That doesn't even pass the straight faced test (and the fact that he can say it with a straight face is alarming).  It's not like this kind of sermon was an isolated incident, or something that the pastor was caught saying in secret conversations to some foreign consulate.  This was on videos that the church was selling, and is clearly an example of both the tone and the content of Wright's sermons.

    What is going to happen when we get a video or transcript of a speech or event that Obama can't deny being at?  What if there is one or a series of letters or email exchanges from someone (inside or outside of the church) that complained to him about Wright that confirm that he was aware of this speech or even shows him defending it?  Perhaps Obama can change his story as new facts emerge without scrutiny like he does on the Rezko relationship, but it is more likely that every news channel out there (even MSNBC!) will show the newly unearthed video/testimonial/evidence of Obama nodding while Wright says something about America, whites, Jews, Palestinians, or even Hillary Clinton.

    This may not be a killer in the Democratic primary--sadly, he could still win this--but I don't see how he can get past this in the general election, even with just the current videos that are out there.  I think about how many people voted against Kerry because of the Swift Boat campaign, and that wasn't even based on anything real.  Independents and fence-sitters don't even have to hold their noses or respond to fear to find John McCain acceptable, or even appealing--there is no great hurdle for them to get over to abandon Obama.  

    It is pathetic that the Republicans will actually be the ones that get to use Edmund Burke quotes about good men doing nothing against the Democratic candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    True dat (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:08:24 PM EST
    But do not think it will stop in a GE.

    Obama's Media Darling status will be very necessary.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm fairly livid about the pastor thing. I (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    didn't think Obama had much of a chance to win the GE. Maybe if the great media attention had held up. Slim maybe. But with the Wright thing, he's pretty darn sure to lose the election.

    He knew about this, and I'm livid that he decided to run anyway.

    What irks me is that he had to run NOW. (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:22:06 PM EST
    In 8 years Rezko would have been ancient history and he could have quietly found another church. I think that speaks to judgment, but what do I know?

    [ Parent ]
    In eight years (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:24:29 PM EST
    Obama would have a RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENT (one assumes).  Now all he has is his rhetoric and his reputation.  Talk, not walk.

    If he had more walk, then this stuff would be less toxic.

    [ Parent ]

    Democrats! (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    I like Clinton a LOT.  But I liked Dodd, too.  Edwards was promising.  Richardson--yes, okay.  Biden--there are things he's done that make me gag, but I could go with him.  It was a good lineup, and we ignored a lot of fine candidates.  Now I think "we" bought a pig in a poke, and he's not going to win the general election.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, with the exception of Kucinich (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:25:17 PM EST
    and Gravel, all the other candidates were probably more electable.

    [ Parent ]
    What IMO Is Even Worse Is That By Labeling (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:34:28 PM EST
    Clinton a racist b@tch since NH she has been severely in one of our core elements of our party.

    Also, the threats by Brazile to leave the party and Sharpton to march on the DNC, have sowed the seeds of the Dems losing the AA community  if Obama is not the nominee for obvious but unstated reasons. Rock and a hard place especially if Obama does not get the nomination due to his religious affiliation.

    If this implodes on Obama, the Dems  go into the GE with a seriously damaged candidate no matter who gets the nod.

    [ Parent ]

    It's a no win situtation right now. I think (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:39:49 PM EST
    the party is going to come out hobbled. Even if Clinton won the nomination (which I doubt) she would probably lose the GE because she's now apparently a racist monster.

    The worst attack the Dems always face is that they aren't "American enough". And Obama's associates play right into that. Our entire "brand" will take a hit.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed! (none / 0) (#171)
    by nashville on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:36:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I get the feeling (none / 0) (#187)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:44:43 PM EST
    you'd be livid about the way Obama ties his shoes and what he eats for breakfast.

    [ Parent ]
    Fruit Loops! That's the last straw! (none / 0) (#199)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:51:03 PM EST
    Seriously though, get ready for Mark Warner 2012.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow...in the link Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by DaytonDem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:17:34 PM EST
    provided above did Bill Bradley just accuse Bill Clinton of possibly taking bribes in the form of donations to his library? Unbelievable. And that is just what I mean. Beyond belief.
    and the link again

    That is qyuite a bomb (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:22:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And he spelled (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by DaytonDem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:25:57 PM EST
    them out...
    I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library. And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.

    I guess he forgot about fixing parking tickets.

    [