Obama-Wright, Obama-Rezko: It's All About Judgment

A few days ago, when writing about Barack Obama's recent interviews with staff members of the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times about his involvement with Tony Rezko, I quoted this segment of the Chicago Sun Times interview:

Is Rezko still a friend? "Yes,'' Obama said, "with the caveat if it turns out the allegations are true, then he's not who I thought he was, and I'd be very disappointed with that.''

And it's that friendship, Obama said, that probably kept him from realizing it was a mistake to enter into a real estate deal with Rezko.

"Probably because I'd known him for a long time, and he'd acted in an aboveboard manner with me," he said. "And I considered him a friend. ... It's further evidence that I'm not perfect.''

Obama had a 17 year friendship with Rezko but never saw any signals or flags that Rezko might be unsavory, to put it politely.

Now we have Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of 20 years, the man who married him, baptized his children and whose sermons he attended as a member of the Church. Obama was so taken with one of Wright's sermons he titled his book "Audacity of Hope" after it. But Obama now says he had no idea about the inflammatory nature of Wright's sermons that came to light this week and he never attended any. [More...]

This is a second significant, almost 20 year long relationship in Barack Obama's relatively short adult life in which he now says he was clueless about things that should have leapt out at him.

It's a problem of judgment. And, to some extent, arrogance. He knew about Rezko being a problem for him before he announced his presidential bid. But it took 15 months to agree to answer his hometown papers' questions about him. He also knew Wright would be a problem, but instead of addressing it, until this week he intentionally swept Wright under the rug:

Obama campaign advisor David Axlerod today acknowledged that the Obama campaign knew Wright was going to be a problem from the get-go and it's why Wright dis-invited to Obama's launch of his presidential campaign.

the Obama campaign had a sense that Wright's sharp tongue might spell trouble for the Illinois senator. (For a sermon sample, click on the Read more line below.)

That was the word anyway Sunday from Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, who acknowledged during a conference call with reporters that Wright was disinvited from Obama's official candidacy announcement on Feb. 10, 2007, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.

Wright had been expected to lead an invocation of some kind, but never appeared. “There was no doubt that there was controversy surrounding him,” Axelrod said Sunday. “And we didn’t want to expose him … [or] make him the target and a distraction on a day when Sen. Obama was going to announce his candidacy.”

The Obama campaign first said the weather prevented Wright's appearance. Today's statement by Axelrod shows that wasn't true. They were trying to hide him.

So, two significant relationships of almost 20 years in Obama's life. Two cases of bad judgment, of his having to renounce (but not reject) a person close to him. Two cases of waiting more than a year to fully answer questions about the relationship. As I wrote here last week:

I've consistently maintained there's no indication Obama did anything legally improper in his Rezko dealings. Rezko is presumed innocent -- his criminal trial is only a few weeks old and scheduled to last months. Obama is not a player in any of the alleged misconduct.

But it's hard to say he didn't exercise poor judgment and it's fair to ask whether it might happen again, whether he's too naive and whether personal loyalties might again impair his judgment on some issue.

While I don't believe Obama subscribes to Wright's views and I believe his heart is in the right place and he wants what's best for the country, I think we've just seen another case of his poor judgment and his tendency to put blinders on when when it comes to his loyalty to his friends and his choice of associates.

If Obama is elected President, we'll be relying on his judgment in choosing high level advisors and policy makers. His track record with Rezko and Wright, particularly his insistence he saw no red flags, gives me pause.

Obama seems less about hope and change and more about inexperience and naivite.

I'll take a gamble if Obama's the nominee, for sure. Anything but another 4 years of Republican rule But he isn't the nominee yet. And we have a much less risky option at hand in Hillary.

Update: Comments at 150 and closing.

< Prostitution: Never A Victimless Crime? | The Economic Downward Spiral: Will It Trigger Nostalgia For The Clinton Years? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you Jeralyn! (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:49:19 PM EST
    I've been saying this since the Wright story broke--talk about a pattern.  And, his "just words," words matter shtick.  It's like, really--how do you feel about hate speech?  

    I apologize if this sounds harsh, but the hypocrisy is outstanding!  

    This statement of his is strange (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by catfish on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:50:46 PM EST
    Is Rezko still a friend? "Yes,'' Obama said, "with the caveat if it turns out the allegations are true, then he's not who I thought he was, and I'd be very disappointed with that.''

    1. He said this last week, so it's odd he still considers Rezko a friend. But more power to him for loyalty right?
    2. Actually, no. Should Rezko be found guilty, he will no longer be Obama's friend. "with the caveat if it turns out the allegations are true, then he's not who I thought he was,"
    3. Obama seems really optimistic Rezko will be found not guilty. Or he seems oblivious that he should hedge his bets, oblivious that this statement will hurt him in the GE as it shows his naivete.

    Wish I could articulate this better, but what is Obama's definition of friendship? Is it possible to still be a friend to somebody who made some grave errors?

    He didn't say (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:04:21 PM EST
    if he gets found guilty he'll be disappointed; he said if the allegations turn out to be true he will be dissappointed. There is a difference.

    It's still a strange statement (none / 0) (#48)
    by catfish on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:22:52 PM EST
    There's a decent chance allegations will be true.

    Allegations aren't truth (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:47:30 PM EST
    A guilty verdict isn't truth.  Even if Rezko is found guilty of allegations, Obama won't comment... he can declare to have faith in our legal system and the decision but he'll have to wait until the appeals process is over.

    Rezko is a slumlord (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:57:25 AM EST
    Obama is supposedly an activist for the rights of the poor. Politics may make strange bedfellows, but ... this is ridiculous.

    Judgment goes to his 3am call, and to his views (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jerry on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:53:21 PM EST
    on SSI, healthcare, ...

    Frankly, the whole position is based on who has the better judgment.

    We need someone who can look into Putin's eyes and see what needs to be seen.

    Why would he remain friends with a (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:56:26 PM EST
    slumlord like Rezko? Suppose he didn't know about the apartments going without heat in the winter (if you're naive enough), he certainly knows now!

    I don't trust him, (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by 30yrdem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:59:05 PM EST
    I have been reading everything I can find on Mr. Obama and his story seems to change over time. I feel like he says what he needs to say to get by at the time. After seeing the news the past few days, reading online papers. I don't buy it, he has held a position at his church, he is more involved than just sitting in a pew every other Sunday. I think he has mislead us again. The new Rezko info was given at a very strange time.........he is up to something. I can't roll the dice for him. He will not get my vote in November so I hope the democratic party comes to realize there is much to be learned about Mr. Obama............Time is going to tell.

    Oh oooooh! (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:02:22 PM EST
    How will Wright's remarks affect Obama's support from McCaskill, Sebelius?

    Two of Barack Obama's most important endorsements from America's Heartland are from Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

    But how will the controversy that now surrounds Obama and his long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright Jr., affect those endorsements?

    At the very least, both Midwesterners will face pressure from Missourians and Kansans to back off their earlier enthusiastic support of Obama.

    Both Sebelius and McCaskill will be watching very closely in the days ahead as Democrats in their states react to Wright's offensive words.

    McCaskill (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Davidson on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:20:56 PM EST
    After Kennedy, Kerry, and Daschle, I immediately thought of her when I heard about Wright and I couldn't stop grinning.  I know it's wrong, but for her to have slammed Bill Clinton like that was just too personal.  And, of course, she's been quite the disappointment in the Senate.

    Even if Obama wins the nomination, which will basically be due to Clinton Hate (e.g.,. media darling status, by default), his supporters will suffer in the GE because of this.  I worry about all those Democrats who thought they picked the right guy.


    This Should Prove Interesting (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:23:22 PM EST
    McCaskill, after Bill Clinton made a fund raising trip for her, said on MTP, that she wouldn't want him in the same room with her daughter. It will be interesting to see what she has to say about Obama. Her endorsement will be real popular (snark) in rural Missouri now that they have seen Rev. Wright.

    I'm biting my tongue... (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:29:51 PM EST
    ...for fear of violating house rules with respect to McCaskill...

    I will say she completely embarrassed herself on Bill Maher when a sitting US Senator claimed to caved to her college-aged daughter in choosing Obama for her endorsement:

    "...It was Maddy in my face saying, you know, "How can you look yourself in the mirror?" "You're a slug." "You're playing it politically safe." I - "You believe in this guy." "I'll never speak to you again, if you don't stand up and have some courage."

    Sad when you get bullied by your 18 year old.


    It wouldn't exactly be swiftboating (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by otherlisa on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:10:11 PM EST
    but the Wright thing takes Obama's strength - his claim to bridge divides and unify us - and torpedos it. You can't make those claims and have a 20 year association with a nationalist who is your spiritual advisor. This will absolutely sink Obama in the general election, should he be the Democratic nominee.

    I'll tell you how Clinton and Obama are (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:10:30 PM EST
    different, and why guilt by association is less of a problem for Hillary. Obama is a marketing product, while Hillary has not just 35 years of experience, but 17 or more years in the public eye. People have definite opinions about Hillary; for example, people are just not going to believe Hillary is a racist, by and large.
    Obama? People hardly know him, therefore his image is much more susceptible to news of associations like with Wright.

    It is about judgment. It is about experience. (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:22:04 PM EST
    Recently a Democrat said to me in answer to my question, "I am voting for Hillary. I think Obama is weak." She went on to explain that in listening to him she did not believe that he could deliver all that he promised and he just seemed to agree to things like a bobbing head doll. Personally, I don't think Obama is a leader. I think he is a follower. I believe he makes a decision after he sees what others are doing or just follows directions. And he makes bad decisions and that scares me for the future.

    Listening to Obama talk about his friends I am reminded of GW. Loyalty to his friends. Admirable, but you have to know when to fold. I believe Obama when he says Rezko did not ask him for favors. But, friends always take care of friends. All you have to do is have a discussion about a matter and you know what that person wants without them having to ask. I am sure there was a reason Rezko kept so close to Obama but I do not know why Obama kept so close to a slumlord. And not know that he was one to boot.

    of course it's about judgment (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:22:58 PM EST
    and that was the point of HRC's 3AM phone call advertising too.

    It's not that Obama is a bad guy...it's just that we have way too little information about him to actually know what his judgments will be.

    It's sort of why it's so hard to be a US Senator and be elected President because when you have a lot of votes recorded, you become known and people dislike you because of some votes that you made (i.e. HRC's vote on AUMF). Obama is benefitting from his lack of votes and that also means that he is (phrase that I saw in another thread), the empty vessel that just simply isn't known or defined.

    I think there is lots to worry about since he is such an unknown quantity and if Democrats feel that way, how are Indie's and Republicans going to feel? I just don't see how he wins in November and that is paramount.

    It's odd that they reacted to that as an attack (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:05:17 AM EST
    The phone call was a standard "I'm more qualified" ad. Apparently, the only ads Clinton is allowed to run involve her standing in front of a flag and pledging allegiance. Anything critical of Obama is an "attack".

    No need to worry... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by robertearl on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:34:39 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton supporters, take it from an Obama supporter, his candacy (sp) is over. I think this really tanks it for him. I don't think he subscribes to these views, nothing that he says or writes gives evidence that he does.
    He will be, and already is, being painted as a black militant, someone who leads two lives. I can't see how he can recover from this.

    With that said,if Hillary gets it I'll support her as vigorously as I have supported Obama.

    Believe Me (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:47:11 PM EST
    as an die-hard supporter for Clinton, I certainly don't revel in this mess that the Obama campaign is in right now.  I have said, too, that I would support Barack if he wins the nom.  But after seeing his Rezko and Wright fiascos, I'm not sure.  It reminds me way too much of Bush.  I think it takes a strong person to admit that he or she is wrong. It takes a stronger person to walk away and start anew.  Obama isn't going to abandon Rez or Wright.  I don't 100% blame him, but we need a president who is going to have more strength of character.  Critize the Clintons but they know when to re-calibrate, for their good and the good of the country.

    My guess (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:14:10 AM EST
    is that there's more to come. Even if what we know about Wright isn't enough to sink his campaign, I'm betting that there are going to be more clips. Weren't all of the Sunday sermons recorded and sold? I would imagine that there are people pouring over every last one of them and finding additional offensive and inflammatory statements. If that happens, it is going to be much harder for Obama to maintain that he never heard any of it. As it stands, the clips that are out there are not just from one or two speeches; judging by the clothes Wright is wearing in them, the existing clips represent quite a few different speeches -- it's hard to believe that Obama managed to miss every single one of them.

    When/if we start to see more clips, I think Obama will be in real trouble. My only fear is that whoever is pouring over those tapes is holding back their findings in preparation for the GE.


    We all should worry (none / 0) (#158)
    by Davidson on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:21:00 AM EST
    Even if Clinton somehow gets the nomination (After these past few months I've realize there is no charge too outrageous to be used against her), she's been smeared as a racist and it'll anger many Democrats if she's chosen and these heinous smears (in addition to other trumped up charges) will likely be replayed constantly throughout the GE if only to suppress likely Clinton voters.

    Still, I refuse to count out Obama, Axelrod, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc.  They've been hellbent on not only winning the nomination, but helping set up a toxic anti-Clinton narrative.


    There seems to be 2 sides to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:36:35 AM EST
    I just listened to the interview Obama did with Keith O.

    I was impressed when Obama said  that Rev Wright represents the angry black man from the '60's, but that he (Obama) is past that, that he (Obama) is the transitional leader to the future (of race relations).

    But then I remember Obama starting the whole racist smear against the Clintons and allowing his supporters to continue smearing them instead of being the transitional leader he claims to be

    Sad, harmful and so unnecessary.


    Think about the arrogance it takes... (none / 0) (#183)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:11:09 AM EST
    ...to run for President of the United States when you have far less experience than any of the other candidates. Obama, apparently, said that he was too experienced to run about 3 months before he formed his exploratory committee. Somebody convinced him he could do it. Audacity is the only word. If he wins, he'll be running the most powerful nation in the world with virtually no experience during a major crises. He must feel that he is meant to win this race, and that means that he must do whatever it takes to win. Smearing the Clintons is part of it - he has certainly made it difficult for Clinton to win the primary, and probably the general.

    I can't imagine what he is thinking, though.


    Generous Assessment (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:52:23 PM EST
    I think you are being very kind in your assessment that Obama is merely naive. To me it seems more likely that he was purposefully ignorant of the unsavory aspects of those close to him. I just don't see how he couldn't know unless he didn't want to know. A more negative view of him would be that he knew and didn't care.

    My problem with the statement on Rezko ... (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:01:52 AM EST
    is that some of Rezko's slum housing was in Obama's own district.  A district he represented until he took his seat in the U.S. Senate in 2005.

    So either the former community organizer didn't know what was going on in his district, or he's lying about his assessment of Rezko during the purchasing of his house.

    And I'm not sure which one is worse.

    Tonight I watched (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by badger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:04:52 AM EST
    The Candidate - a 1972 film starring Robert Redford about an election campaign for the CA Senate. Despite being 36 years old, the only thing dated about the film is the absence of laptops, Blackberries and cell phones.

    Reford plays a young lawyer who's working as a kind of community organizer (can you see where this is going?) who is somewhat deceptively talked into running by a hard-boiled campaign consultant, played by Peter Boyle.

    Redford's character is convinced to run because he can't possibly win - so he has the opportunity to place the issues he cares about (poverty, the environment, health care, etc) in front of the electorate because there's nothing to lose.

    Eventually though, the candidate begins to become somewhat wrapped up in the campaign process (although never completely) and begins to rise in the polls. Each gain in the polls is accompanied by less ability to say what he really thinks and more pressure to mouth meaningless boilerplate campaign rhetoric created by speechwriters. Finally, the candidate is running on a meaningless platform of hope and change and comes very close to declaiming "we are the change we've been waiting for". Instead of "Yes, we can", his campaign slogan is "A better way".

    [SPOILER] Ultimately, the candidate wins, and his final lines in the film are: "What do we do now? What do we do now?"

    I'm increasingly convinced that the Obama campaign is an example of life imitating art - that things like the Rezko affair or Rev. Wright are holdovers from things pre-candidate Obama seriously believed in to some extent, to the point of saying Rezko is still a friend, or his continuing admiration for Wright. The real Obama, I think, is as naive about political campaign realities as Redford's Bill McKay in the film, and as much a creation of campaign consultants and ad men.

    The Oscar-winning script was written by a speechwriter from Gene McCarthy's 1968 Presidential campaign - it's a great film about political campaigns, even if it doesn't remind you of Obama.

    Tribune Interview (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:19:57 AM EST
    Towards the end of the Tribune interview, Novak, tackles the issue that irks me.  Rezko's properties started defaulting in 97.  Obama continued to use Rezko as a fund raiser even as for the US Senate campaign, Rezko was on the finance committee.  

    Novak asked the questions I wanted to hear:  did you not know, did you not get letters at the firm etc.  Obama kept saying how it was not brought to his attention.  I am really sorry, This is not acceptable.  

     1.  As a public servant he should know or ask about how someone who does business in his community is serving his community and how he is using public funds.  As a self proclaimed community organizer, with roots in that field he totally failed in this job, he should have looked beyond the friendship and the supporter status and looked around.  

    2.  It's a small district, he should have heard from people in the community.  He talks about how he had only one staff person.  Who would "bring it to his attention" if they perceived him to be part of the political Rezko machine?  

    I frankly don't care about the corruption charges, but the fact that from 1997 till 2007 Rezko was going down the tube and taking all the projects down with him and Obama had no clue...YIKES. Eleven projects in Obama's district.   How do you explain that?

     You hear things, people talk, local government politics at that district level are filled with gossip.  I just don't get it.  It's a big deal for cities and the Chicago Equity Fund to put projects i default, this does not happen everyday, unless it's a standard procedure in Chicago.  

    a new commenter (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:24:34 AM EST
    KQuark got banned on her first comment. New commenters need to read the comment rules. No personal attacks.

    The comments about Hillary's war vote are off topic and have been deleted.

    This post is about Obama and how his relationships with Wright and Rezko reflect on is judgment. Feel free to opine that there is no negative association. But off topic comments will be deleted.

    Respectfully Disagree -- Not Judgment (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:35:42 AM EST
    It's about being divisive.

    Any political path is going to be littered with folks who will reflect badly on the candidate.  To me, it's not an issue in terms of judgment.  Hell.  I don't even think Wright is a bad person.  I don't even think what he said, in terms of how he said it, within the context of his sermons, are that off the mark.  We have been an imperial country.  Imperial countries make enemies.  Etc.   Nina Simone sings "Mississippi Godamn!" and no one thinks she hates Mississippi in some literal sense.

    The issue I keep hitting is Obama's claim that he can do something something that Clinton can't do.  He claims he doesn't have the baggage that she has.  The baggage that prevents her from buiding the political alliances and uniting the country behind change.

    Even though I don't think Wright is a bad person, nor do I think Wright hates America or even believes America DESERVED to get attacked, I also know how those videos look.

    I also know Obama won't be able to keep up his charade for much longer.  Who really believes he didn't know the sermons of Pastor Wright?  I don't.  "I did NOT hear the sermons of that pastor!" maybe complete with a wave of a finger.  

    Anyway.  It doesn't make me think he lacks judgment.  It just makes me think he's got as much baggage as anyone else, maybe even more so, and that when the Republicans get done with him he'll be just as polarized as any Democrat.

    I think his judgment... (4.75 / 4) (#1)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:41:38 PM EST
    ...on the timing of making a full disclosure is questionable as well.  On several occasions he has told the press that he's disclosed everything on Rezko and that all donations have been donated to charity.  Of course, it took an inquisitive media to find that neither of these statements were true.

    Likewise, from a candidate beating the drum of transparency and ethics, is it reasonable to claim that "It's hard for me to know precisely." when asked exactly how much money Rezko raised for his campaigns?

    His judgment is not only questionable based on his chosen friendships but based on his inability to be forthcoming and thorough in disclosing the nature and extent of his relationships.

    the real damage (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:31:35 PM EST
    His judgment is not only questionable based on his chosen friendships but based on his inability to be forthcoming and thorough in disclosing the nature and extent of his relationships.

    While I'm personally unconcerned with Obama's relationship with either Rezko or Wright, I think these two "judgement" issues will damage his campaign considerably.

    After, Obama's response to the "preparation to be President" question raised by the "red phone" ads was alway to avoid it, and change the subject to "judgement".  He's not merely shot himself in the foot, he's blown off everything from the ankle on down with a 357 magnum.


    I think the other issue is Shock Doctrine (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:02:56 AM EST
    If you read Naomi Klein, you know how our winger billionaires take advantage of economic shocks to ram through programs people would otherwise not support -- for example, privatizing the pension scheme in Chile.

    Since by all accounts we have shocks coming, it behooves us to think which candidate is going to sell us out the least.

    I think the only answer there is Hillary; whatever else one might say about her, she's not weak, and she works like a dog. And, if she wins, she will get there without any help from the Village, and so won't be  beholden to them, as would Obama.

    The same cannot be said of Obama, and I thought immediately of Shock Doctrine when he put Social Security in play during Iowa -- he would put a smiling face on whatever shocks were to come.


    Also note... (4.50 / 2) (#139)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:06:18 AM EST
    ...that his campaign finance chair, Penny Pritzker, was on the board of Superior Bank when it imploded under the weight of extensive subprime lending.  Coincidentally, Obama's solution to the mortgage crisis toes the 'moral hazard' line favored by Republicans and is well short of Clinton's proposal to freeze interest rate increases and delay foreclosures.

    I think Obama is spinning (4.75 / 4) (#16)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:02:38 PM EST
    by limiting it to the statements from  the 1 or 2 videos that were released last week.

    The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign.

    Did Obama personally hear similar statements?  

    Yes, Very Carefull To Reference Only (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:51:32 PM EST
    those specific remarks. Leaves a lot of room for a whole lot of other similar sermons not covered by his statement.

    I give Senator Obama (4.75 / 4) (#43)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:20:16 PM EST
    far too much credit.  Initially, I was going to support his candidacy. However, being a product of the 1990s, I remember all too well what a Clinton presidency brought to our country.  There in lies my dedication to Senator Clinton.  I feel that Barack, like Jeralyn says, has his heart in the right place but is bungling.  I expect more from an Ivy-league, educated attorney.  But then again, Bush graduated from Yale.  Stick to public universities guys...good schools and more economical. Oh yeah, and awesome professors!

    And the country is in a far bigger hole (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:37:52 PM EST
    Bill inherited a mess in 1992 after 41 and managed to turn it all around. This time 43 is leaving us with a even bigger mess. Woe de me. You will have to have the best of judgment as there is little wiggle room for mistakes when we take over.

    Absolutely right BarnBabe (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:42:06 PM EST
    there IS no wiggle room for mistakes.  We already suffered a "President for Dummies" failure.  Not that I am comparing Obama to Bush, but two political neophytes in a row for 12 years, we cannot afford it.  Hillary Clinton has the savvy and know-how to navigate Washington.  Never count out the Clintons. I just hope she wins the nomination.  If BHO does, the Wright sermons will play ad nauseum through November.

    Check out Krugman's column (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:57:16 PM EST

    And if history is any guide, the coming taxpayer-financed bailout will end up costing a lot of money.

    The U.S. savings and loan crisis of the 1980s ended up costing taxpayers 3.2 percent of G.D.P., the equivalent of $450 billion today. Some estimates put the fiscal cost of Japan's post-bubble cleanup at more than 20 percent of G.D.P. -- the equivalent of $3 trillion for the United States.

    If these numbers shock you, they should. But the big bailout is coming. The only question is how well it will be managed.

    The post is right to frame the issue with Reszko and with Wright as question of judgment.

    There is absolutely no way I want to take the risk with Obama* in a situation like this.

    * Obviously, McCain is out of the question. It's his movement that got us here.


    Yes, I agree (none / 0) (#131)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:04:01 AM EST
    I too don't want to run the risk of Obama running in the general considering, what I believe, is just the tip of the proverbial iceburg with regard to his judgement, or rather, the lack thereof.  I understand the framing, because the R's will use that type of frame to their advantage. The numbers in Krugman's column scare the heck outta me!  But where do we being with the bailing out?  Not enough buckets my friend.

    Gamble? More like Russian Roulette with (4.66 / 3) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:04:52 PM EST
    4 bullets. Interestingly, if you do a Google search, there are about 200,000 more hits for Obama Wright then for Obama Rezko. That story is really going to gain traction.

    i wonder when the religeous right will (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:40:49 PM EST
    weigh in. i have read the aa ministers are faulting obama for his disassociation. i expect them to make some statements about this. i can't see the religeous right supporting this.

    The Chicago Tribume (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:59:29 PM EST
    never known for liberal leanings, continues to endorse Obama after a 90 minute no holds barred interview with him.

       We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama's bumper.

        When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

        Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.

    Jeralyn, will you be writing about Clinton's association with Norman Hsu anytime soon?

    The clinton's had no association with HSU, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:02:01 PM EST
    which is why Jeralyn doesn't write about it.

    I've written at least four comments (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:06:46 PM EST
    pointing out how dissimilar they are.

    I know... I was being snarky. (none / 0) (#23)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:08:25 PM EST
    There is no association, therefore you have not written about it.

    Norman Hsu (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:03:16 PM EST
    contributed to both Obama and Hillary. Norman Hsu was not friends with Hillary or Obama. He didn't spend any time with them. Neither Hillary nor Obama did any personal business deals with Hsu. Neither one talked to Hsu daily during their campaigns.

    Any more non-similarities between Hsu and Rezko?


    I deleted your comment (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:12:40 PM EST
    because it was off topic and your link was improperly formatted, it broke the margin.

    you are referring to dig dug boy? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:17:39 PM EST
    I deleted it too for the same reason.

    We must have done it at the same time (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:18:18 PM EST
    New formatting and "reply to" ?? (none / 0) (#144)
    by jerry on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:08:11 AM EST
    Did I miss a post about a formatting change here?  I think I caught some mention of it from JM last week discussing the fixed formatting, but it seems now that:

    a) replies are not always indented under the post they respond to
    b) at times the button "Reply To This" is missing!



    Change your (none / 0) (#155)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:17:06 AM EST
    SORT to Ignore Ratings (and SET it)

    I'm beginning to think the Dems are like the Cubs (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Miss Devore on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:47:51 PM EST
    Who are like blogs....

    The List (1.00 / 1) (#205)
    by 1jane on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:43:45 AM EST
    Karl Rove used the list against all Democrats. It is documented in Tom Brokow's new book, "Boom!" It seems the Clinton folks like the list so much they turned it on one of their own. Oh yeah, then the Clinton campaign claimed the Obama campaign used it on them. As Bill says, "Chill out."

    Obama's Rezko Questions Keep Coming (none / 0) (#2)
    by downtownted on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:47:32 PM EST
    The Chicago Tribune has an interview with Barack Obama in its Sunday edition and online.  There is a section where Obama talks about the purchase of the home and denies that there was any thought that he was aware of any inkling of a problem with Rezko buying the lot. Then comes this statement

    "We raised our offer to five, uh $1.5 [million], and all this was done through our respective brokers. The issue of the lot and the lot price never came up.

    "It was never an issue in our purchase. Tony Rezko was not involved in those negotiations. Those were negotiations between our brokers, and we ended up agreeing to a sale price of $1.65 [million].

    "I have in the documents a statement by the sellers indicating that at no time did they ever consider the lot in relation to the price of the house, that they did not offer a discount on the house, that there was no contingency with respect to our house purchase relative to the lot. There was simply no connection between our purchase of the house and our price of the house and the sale of the lot.

    "As I indicated before, the lot was already for sale. I wasn't involved in that transaction. I'm not aware of how Tony ended up getting the option from the previous individual. That was not something that I was concerned with. I didn't know exactly what the price was that he paid. I knew that there had been an option there for 600 and something dollars because the broker had told me when I had first gone to visit.

    It appears that the statement from the sellers is contemporaneous with the sale because of his claim that the statement is with the documents from the house closing. If that statement is contemporaneous with the sale, it eviscerates his argument about being unaware of the import of Rezko buying the lot.  If it was not done as part of the sale and came later, this issue has not been put to bed.  It was only spun to willing Tribune editorial board members who were so happy to see Senator Obama they forgot to act like journalists and ask some follow up questions.

    Trib columnist John Kass doesn't think the interview ended the Rezko questions either.

    McCain still has his involvement with Keating that he can never avoid. Let us not forget that Keating was a really bad man who hurt and financially devastated a lot of hard working people and their family's scoundrel

    Obama's spin... (none / 0) (#7)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:56:40 PM EST
    ...is complete nonsense.

    We're expected to believe that no conversation or coordination took place between Obama and Rezko on this transaction?  


    just a happy coincidence all around (none / 0) (#9)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:58:48 PM EST
    Right, obviously they coordinated. (none / 0) (#11)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:59:18 PM EST
    Why this is such a problem isn't quite clear to me, since Rezko's purchase was viable. I have read that the coordination would imply violation of US Senate ethics rules, but I don't know the details.

    I'm not sure... (none / 0) (#45)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:21:14 PM EST
    ...if this is too OT, but I've seen a pattern with Obama where he's known to re-invent circumstances.  It defies credibility that he and Rezko wouldn't have even had a discussion on this, but he sticks by it.

    As well, there have been several articles pointing out that he's taken liberties with his recollections of past events:

    Old Friends...in Obama's Young Life

    "Mr. Obama's account of his younger self and drugs, though, significantly differs from the recollections of others..."

    Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs...

    "He doesn't remember the names of a lot of people in his life," said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman.


    Some say he has taken some literary license in the telling of his story...Dan Armstrong, who worked with Mr. Obama at Business International Corporation...added: "There may be some truth to that. But in order to make it a good story, it required a bit of exaggeration."


    He toured the house with Rezko. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:22:39 PM EST
    It defies credibility to think they didn't discuss the deal.

    Re-invent circumstances, indeed (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:06:02 AM EST
    Obama said, in his last debate with Hillary, that he gave his famous Iraq speech "in the midst of" a "high stakes" campaign for the U.S. Senate.

    He gave the speech in October 2002.

    He declared for the Senate in January 2003.

    The same claim is repeated on his website, so it's not an accident.


    And apparently that's the last speech (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by tree on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:57:20 AM EST
    he made on the subject. There were massive protests in January and February but where was Obama? His one and only speech happened before he decided to run for national office.

    What I read (none / 0) (#163)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:26:45 AM EST
    is that the Obama campaign at some point  emailed  the sellers asking them : "Do you agree with these......  If so sign on the dotted line."

    I think this was in the Chicago-Sun; and it was on the context of whether "Obama got a 300K discount."

    And when I heard Obama mention the "documents from the sellers" I immediately thought he was refering to the email(s) his campaign elicited from the sellers when questions started to arise from the Chicago reporters.  

    But maybe tehre were some other documents (?).


    What matters????????????? (none / 0) (#8)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:57:40 PM EST
    It is interesting that when he had to exercise his judgement (HIS RED PHONE moment) for senator Obama.. he did  a poor job... that was the judgment that mattered ... the one we should take note of!

    On the other hand.. he takes credit for the war judgment ... that did not mattered..!! but we give him credit for..  


    what matters? (1.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:04:41 AM EST
    Rezko and Wright matter?  Can you explain to me what the policy implication of either of the two are?

    What matters is judgment. (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:23:59 AM EST
    At least, that's what Obama keeps telling us. We should elect him president despite his lack of experience and because of his judgment. If you're going to build a campaign on a thin resume and supposedly superior judgment, then your judgment should be sterling. There are way too many examples that indicate that judgment is perhaps one of his biggest weaknesses.

    Aside from the issues raised in this thread, how about his judgment in hiring people for his campaign? Goolsbee, Rice, Power -- there may not be a direct policy issue going on there, but if this is who he chooses to work for him now, what will his cabinet look like? I think we've had enough "Heckuva Job Brownies" to last a lifetime.


    I can tell (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:07:51 PM EST
    because I've already deleted two comments that personally insulted me or TalkLeft on this thread. Must be striking a nerve.

    Maritza (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:10:56 PM EST
    should be suspended immediately.

    I deleted her comment (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:15:25 PM EST
    as way off topic but didn't suspend her.

    Your thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:17:54 PM EST
    My view is that she posted repeated insults of Talk Left knowing that violates the rules.

    I believe deliberate flaunting of the rules should merit suspension. Tomorrow is another day for commenting.


    ugh (none / 0) (#106)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:52:55 PM EST
    that's terrible.  That's why this place is like the most sane spot in the blogosphere?  I happened to peruse the comments on HuffPo(which I barely read now) after BHO blogged there after Wright.  The comments were FRIGHTENING.  You would think Arianna would have moderation in place.  Here's a question, I know off topic, since Arianna was a conservative during the Clinton administration, does one think there in lies her preference for Barack?  Just wondering if that crossed anyone else's mind?  Getting back on topic now!

    She does have moderation... (none / 0) (#123)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:00:30 AM EST
    ...but it's haphazard.  Some threads are subject to moderator approval, some appear instantly and may be later scrubbed.  Some "pending" posts stay there forever and are never posted.  There's been at least one incident of mass deleting/banning because things got so out of hand.  I left simply because the editorial content become so ridiculously slanted toward Obama (ie "Why I think Obama is (insert superlative here)) and the threads just got wildly out of hand.

    On teevee (none / 0) (#133)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:04:39 AM EST
    I was referring to when hufpo was on teevee, she couldn't control herself.

    LOL (none / 0) (#147)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:10:53 AM EST
    That's why I come here now. It's my first destination on the web now (behind me checking my bank balance!)  HuffPo used to be awesome, like DailyKos.  I hope we can all get back to normal after the primary season is over.  I enjoy all the commentary.  But when it gets heated and malicious towards one of our own, that's where I take exception and would rather refrain from being a witness to all the cheap shots.  Like Eleanor Roosevelt said, "great minds speak of ideas", average minds speak of events, small minds speak of people."  I'm guessing she meant that when people talk badly about one another.  OMG I loved her!  

    too off-topic (none / 0) (#151)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:13:37 AM EST
    sorry, save it for an open thread.

    sorry (none / 0) (#168)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:30:51 AM EST
    Jeralyn...back on track now.

    I think this overstates the case (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:09:15 PM EST
    particularly on Rezko.

    On Wright, I think the poorest judgment shown was the statements made on Friday about never having heard anything like those statements. That one seems likely to blow up.

    All that said, these are minor issues in real life, but not generally in political life. For any other DEM pol, Wright would have been enough to finish him.

    But Obama has a magic Media halo. I think he will come out of this not completely unscathed but at least intact.

    The big worry for Obama REMAINS as it has always been, will the Media stop coddling him? No sign of that yet. Thus, I still favor his candidacy over Clinton's.

    Wright is not just about judgment imo (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:25:15 PM EST
    It's also about character, or the lack of it.  A politician who sits through sermons resembling those, assuming he does not agree with the contents, and continually exposes his children to them is not worthy of support.  

    Say what you will about the Black church, the video segments I have seen are hate speech.  In my opinion it was also hate speech when Falwell blamed 9/11 on liberals, abortion, and gays.


    Got that (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:28:56 PM EST
    from 5 minutes of YouTube clips, huh?  

    I could record just about any church and find 5 minutes worth comments by the priest/pastor that would be deemed hateful.  


    Oh come on... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:35:54 PM EST
    ...I know you play the contrarian here, but it's just ridiculous to claim you could find similar commentary in "any church"

    Oh yeah? (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:40:26 PM EST
    Let your pastor/priest wax on about homosexuality or sin sometime.  

    Sin is coin of the realm for ministers.  They deal with simple black and white morality for the most part.  Good and evil.


    Umm yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:53:20 PM EST
    I'm not sure what 'sin' has to do with anti-American commentary, racial stereotyping or stoking of conspiracy theories.

    And you stay (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:36:35 AM EST
    there ? You didn't get up and leave?
    Well, if a person can stomach that speech and tolerate it more than once, that says a lot about
    who that person is.  

    Most Evangelical preachers (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:11:27 AM EST
    will say bizarre things at one time or another....Nice, concise, scripted homilies are not their style....

    More than those 5 minutes (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Davidson on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:47:09 PM EST
    I've known and read about Wright since late 2006 and he has a strong, clear pattern of inflammatory rhetoric on and disturbing associations, such as Farrakhan.  Let's say not one Obama supporter is bothered by even one comment right now, fine.  The greater public will be, especially after the right wing noise machine gets through with this.  However, his supposed strength--appealing to Republican and Indys (expanding the base) and a post-racial, healing image--is severely undermined by this.  This is red meat drenched in sauce to the right wing base.  If McCain had trouble inspiring the evangelical vote, he certainly won't if Obama is the nominee.

    This is not some pastor.  This is a close, personal spiritual mentor who has been a part of Obama's life for nearly 20 years; Wright is essentially a father figure to Obama.  This is beyond Obama: this would hurt the Democratic party if he became the nominee.


    Good point... (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Rainsong on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:42:24 AM EST
    Personally, I have no major problem with Wright. Its a free country of free speech (in theory) <grin>).

    But plenty of our countryfolk wont see it that way, especially in some of the states which Obama has had most success to date.

    Obama seems to me, to be taking the view that we all have embarrassing relatives, and its best to politely ignore them or minimise their relevance. Its a shame that Ferraro wasn't given similar leniency as an old sick woman, speaking her mind in a much less public situation, with a much less inflammatory statement.

    Time will tell on whether the polls are affected I guess, as Obama still has a free pass with the media, and most of the vocal Party icons behind him willing to forgive and forget.

    Not sure about Clinton supporters though, for me - it just adds another little black mark (to a growing list of them) against his ultimate electability.


    Scratch "However" in first paragraph (none / 0) (#95)
    by Davidson on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:48:27 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#97)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:49:46 PM EST
    We can tell by how the Republicans have been so heavily damaged by having wacko religious types surrounding them.

    Oh wait.  That's right.  They haven't been hurt by it at all.

    The last thing in the world John McCain wants to do is bring up religious associates.  


    What is your point? (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:54:16 PM EST
    It's ok because Republicans do it?

    You really want to just pass this off as routine don't you?


    Pass what off as routine? (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:04:53 AM EST
    That Obama has a minister with some crazy political views?

    Do you go to church?  Do you know your ministers' political views?  


    Tedious... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:14:38 AM EST
    ...you make it sound like Obama just shows up a couple times a month and sits in the back row.  Up until a few days ago, Wright was an adviser in his campaign.  Further...

    "Mr. Obama has described Mr. Wright as his "sounding board" during the two decades he has known him.

    The title of Mr. Obama's bestseller "The Audacity of Hope" comes from one of Wright's sermons. Mr. Wright is one of the first people Mr. Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004. Mr. Obama consulted Mr. Wright before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Mr. Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.

    Blabbity blah blah.  Again, topic of thread is Obama's judgment in choosing controversial figures as his confidantes and close associates.


    That's exactly the point (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by otherlisa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:46:25 AM EST

    A Democrat cannot get away with it, especially one who has staked his claim on the nomination on his ability to unify us.


    The Media (none / 0) (#108)
    by Davidson on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:53:58 PM EST
    Will be backing McCain against Obama (i.e. there will always be double standards).  However, even without the double standards, does McCain attend a church with equally inflammatory pastors?  Does McCain have a similarly controversial pastor as close, spiritual mentor?

    The he did it too excuse (none / 0) (#83)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:40:59 PM EST
    An offense is not made right because someone else made a similar offense.

    Oh come now (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:35:07 PM EST
    Pols sit through nonsense they do not believe in in churches ALL THE TIME.

    I categorically reject your character argument.


    Go ahead, we disagree vehemently (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:54:51 PM EST
    and that's OK.

    Nonsense is what people sit through every Sunday in church.  Hate speech not so much.


    Ah, no (none / 0) (#165)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:27:50 AM EST
    There is all kinds of stuff that is said.....Pastors feel remarkably free from normal constraints when making all kinds of pronouncements from the pulpit....



    I am not sure I follow (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:37:27 AM EST
    BTD thinking here; I agree 100% with RalphB post above. Obama was not sitting here as "a pol" he was here  year after year for 20 years with his family.
    He says that it was here where he found "salvation"
    (or some equivalent word).

    in that this is about information concerning (none / 0) (#89)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:45:44 PM EST
    judgment and associations, it brings back to mind rudy's fall from grace when information about his associations gained more prominence. i do understand that these are two completely different stories, i just mention it because it wasn't long after rudy began to fall in the polls.

    Rudy (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:30:17 AM EST
    actually did something wrong:  diverting public resources for his mistress.....And trying to get Kerik in as head of Homeland Security....

    Obama didn't nominate Rezik for a position in the government....didn't give him a job on his staff......Obama hasn't done anything wrong personally.....


    Well, he did help him get government (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by tigercourse on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:35:39 AM EST
    money for his building projects.

    Some of which were in (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:37:33 AM EST
    Obama's state legislative district...but which he mysteriously never showed any interest in as the housing dinintegrated and went into receivership.

    Frankly, this is the biggest red flag to me.  Where were the advocates who should have been lobbying their state legislators (Senator Obama) and enforcement agencies about the failures of these low-income publicly-funded developments?  Did the local papers interview THEM?  Something very, very fishy about all of this.


    In relationship to Obama's judgement, I (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by hairspray on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:51:12 PM EST
    think the fact that he has not held one single meeting of the Committee on Foreign affairs/NATO and Afghanistan also speaks to that issue.  Our situation is a worsening Afghanistan and it is directly related to our need to increase cooperation with European countries. Our NATO partners are upset with American behavior and it seems that this issue speaks to very weak job performance and judgement about a presidential campaign being more important than running for office.

    Yes, another example (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:13:12 AM EST
    That was surprising because he was given a excellent chance of demonstrating leadership.

    Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:09:05 AM EST
    First I believe this current flurry is only the first installment of what I think will be the continuing saga of Rev. Wright. Also, he is now caught between those who deplore Obama's long standing association with a preacher who makes such devisive statements and a backlash from Black ministers who are coming down on him for not defending Rev. Wright.

    While I think there is still a good chance that Obama will win the nomination, I think when after more media attention and 527 ads this will bury him in the GE.


    If you parse what Obama said (none / 0) (#34)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:15:11 PM EST
    he limited it the statements which "are the cause of this controversy" -  he never mention similar statements.

    The problem with that is (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:16:39 PM EST
    that new revelations are sure to arise.

    In addition, it appears that Obama had tapes of Wright's sermons.

    I think he should have just separated himself from Wright without the parsing.


    the tapes thing (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:22:58 PM EST
    more on that here

    Yep (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:35:44 PM EST
    Developing .  . . as they say.

    And as it develops it will drag (none / 0) (#143)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:07:55 AM EST
    Rezko along with it as people start stacking onto to the original accusation. Wright is the big thing, but Rezko is still in the background as the trial progresses. If and when people turn, it can get nasty. And if and when this happens, the media will have no choice than to run with it. Fox will for sure. It is like watching a hurricane develop.

    Did I read it right on Google, Over 1000 searches in the last hour on this? Ooops, I just rechecked and it is 1700 plus now. In one article about this, they added in the Rezko connection and noted that the donations are now up to $250k from previously stated by Obama. It is developing.


    "Controversial" statements (none / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:08:52 AM EST
    Obama said that he had heard Wright make "controversial" statements but not the two most damning statements, GD America and the 9/11 stuff, or the Hillary comments.....

    Other Wright statments about white racism are less likely to draw such ire....

    And Wright may have run more off the rails the older he got....

    Personal wrongdoing would bring him down....Comments of others and wrongdoing of others?....time will tell....  


    I am not sure (none / 0) (#178)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:49:14 AM EST
    he will come out intact; his relationship with Wright is deeply troubling to many people (me included) and will surely be a killer in the GE should he be the nominee.

    The polls (none / 0) (#33)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:14:00 PM EST
    showed a dip for Obama yesterday, but nothing today.

    If these judgment problems are going to affect the nomination, we have to see something soon, yes?

    The polls show general election dips (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:16:21 PM EST
    for Obama more then primary dips. But he's also lost ground there.

    If you're looking for general reactions (none / 0) (#55)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:25:34 PM EST
    to the Obama/Wright and Obama/Rezko stuff that hit on Friday afternoon, it's not likely to show up much until Wednesday or so this week...perhaps not until people actually are faced with the ballot in their hands.

    Just for the record (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:19:55 PM EST
    I do not personally like the accusation of deliberate deception.

    I also do not like the misspelling of misLED.

    I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:23:46 PM EST
    as a personal attack on Obama.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:34:07 PM EST
    So I'm clear (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:26:15 PM EST
    what exactly is Obama's poor judgment regarding Wright?  That the guy is a radical and thus Obama shouldn't even associate with the guy?  

    Is Wright a crook?  Is he a felon?  Has he committed a crime?  

    He some some obnoxious stuff, which many people find really obnoxious because there is a lot of truth to his statements.  So what?

    Is Obama now supposed disassociate himself with anyone who ever says something dumb or hostile?  

    At least with Rezko I can see where the judgment questions are pertinent.  This is just trying to tie everything into a single overarching theme regardless of whether they fit.

    If by 'associate' you mean (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by badger on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:39:28 PM EST
    cite him as a mentor or make him a part of the official campaign operation, that's certainly up to Obama, just as it's up to voters to evaluate the significance of that association.

    It's a free country, and Obama can choose to run his campaign in a way that does it a lot of harm. I think that does raise a question about his judgment though.

    And it's not like he wasn't aware of the problem on the day he announced his candidacy.


    it's more than that (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:42:24 PM EST
    Wright married the Obamas
    Wright baptized their daughters
    Obama's book "Audacity of Hope" title was taken from the title of one of Wrights sermons

    There simply is no way that he can divorce himself from Jeremiah Wright, regardless of how he dances around the topic...it doesn't just go away.


    In all fairness (none / 0) (#120)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:58:11 PM EST
    why does the subject that Wright married the Obamas and baptized his kids keep coming up?  I am a non-believer but isn't that what reverends do in a church?  The "audacity" angle is fair game. But let's get real.  If that's where he goes to church, it would stand to reason that Wright performed these sacraments for his family.

    His kids go to that church (none / 0) (#159)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:23:43 AM EST
    Even if Obama wasn't "sitting in the pew" when Rev Wright made some of those statements, he knew his kids were sitting there listening to this

    fair enough (none / 0) (#166)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:28:28 AM EST
    i certainly wouldn't want my kids listening to that stuff.

    Ahem.. you think there is "some sense" (none / 0) (#57)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:28:25 PM EST
    in Wright's AIDS conspiracy talk?!
    I am going to take Obama at his word that Wright was his spiritual mentor and thank him for making the choice against him so easy.

    No (none / 0) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:31:47 PM EST
    But I do think some of his other comments have some legitimacy to them, even if we don't like to talk about it.  

    Do you have a quote from Obama from anything not 15 years old saying that Wright was his spiritual adviser?


    I am not all that bothered by Wright's sermons (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:39:37 PM EST
    personally...I am fairly sure that much of America is not gonna feel the same way but hey, time will tell and those sermons have gotten a fair amount of attention this weekend by the MSM so it's out there.

    I really, really hope they get out there and seen by everyone...

    • the dialog is good for America
    • we clearly have been a racist nation
    • I think we still are a racist nation but it helps to check the temperature
    • but mostly, I don't want Obama submarined by this topic if he gets the nomination and we KNOW that this stuff will get LOTS of play in a general election

    The truth of the matter (none / 0) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:46:35 PM EST
    is that this story really doesn't have a lot of legs UNLESS they find something that Obama himself has said or done.  

    These proxy attacks just don't carry much weight.  After a short while people will start to tire of them and react negatively to them.


    this story has legs. denial doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:50:59 PM EST
    make it go away. sorry, no sale!

    proxy attacks? (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:52:13 PM EST
    Main Stream Media is driving this cycle...not HRC.

    This is not subject to normal Obama rules...sorry


    Yeah people here (none / 0) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:57:52 PM EST
    said the same thing about the plagiarism stuff as well.

    I don't that HRC is driving it.  But the media can't get a story afloat on its own.  And the whole "Obama's preacher said crazy stuff" story line really doesn't go very far.

    As I said if they find some quote from Obama where he is saying something like this, then this story will have real legs.  But Obama's minister being a whackjob is a shortlived story.


    This is an absurd charge (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:59:14 PM EST
    You MUST know, you frequent those sites, that this is entirely a Right Wing Affair.

    Well sure (none / 0) (#126)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:01:34 AM EST
    the Right Wing is going to TRY and use it.  But if history is any lesson, it just doesn't have much impact.  

    It's not like Jeremiah Wright is the first minister to blame American sin for causing 9/11.  


    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:05:25 AM EST
    I'm more concerned about (none / 0) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:07:26 AM EST
    Rezko than this.  

    You overestimate... (none / 0) (#156)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:18:47 AM EST
    ...the public's ability to grasp a financial scandal.  On the other hand, they have infinite appetite for sex scandals and, to a lesser extent, 'foot in mouth' scandals where people say ridiculous things.

    Personally I think the Rezko thing doesn't inflame the same passions as a guy talking about the US of KKKA and goddam America.  That's what will be reverbating through middle America for the next month or two - not the latest motion in the Rezko trial.


    Hold up (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:33:10 PM EST
    Are you denying that Obama has claimed Wright as his spiritual advisor now?

    nope (none / 0) (#71)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:35:27 PM EST
    He seems to be... (none / 0) (#115)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:55:27 PM EST
    ...denying that this whole Wright thing is even an issue.

    That's fine (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:59:38 PM EST
    I hope he is correct.

    Obama and his actions (none / 0) (#59)
    by stucow on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:28:58 PM EST
    I am not trying to be critical of you because I have seen similar comments many times, but lately, when I see a phrase like "there's no indication Obama did anything legally improper in his Rezko dealings." I have started thinking, who would know if there was anything illegal unless either of the two parties were to confess? If we have only Obama's or Rezko's word on their relationship and deals, of course everything is on  the up and up. A criminal investigation might turn out otherwise, but we will just have to wait to see if that  ever happens.

    I think there is now plenty of evidence to use in judging Obama's behavior and judgment. Obama should be evaluated on his actions. The words and deeds do not match up. It is better to forget about  those easy and apparently meaningless words of Obama.

    Watch the first few minutes of this video and see the love that Obama has for Wright, then let people try to tell you that Obama hasn't been taking that man's words to heart.  http://cbs2chicago.com/video/?id=33004@wbbm.dayport.com

    I think Patrick Fitzgerald's office (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:01:08 AM EST
    has investigated Rezko's dealings with everyone from day one. There is no indication Obama and Rezko had any illegal dealings.

    Let's not conflate judgment with illegality or wrongdoing.


    Question is: (none / 0) (#82)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:40:52 PM EST
     Would Jeremiah Wright be a frequent visitor in an Obama WH ?

    There were 2 articles worth your reading if you didn't back then or haven't yet. There were in the NYT in March and April 2007 discussing Sen. Obama and J. Wright. They were not at depth discussions of Wright; rather about the cancellation of Wright's delivery of the invocation when Obama formally announced his candidacy in February.
    It should be noted however that despite the canceled invocation, Mr. Wright prayed with the Obama family just before his presidential announcement.

    Asked later about the incident, the Obama campaign said in a statement, "Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church."

    In March, Mr. Wright said in an interview that his family and some close associates were angry about the canceled address, for which they blamed Obama campaign advisers but that the situation was "not irreparable," adding, "Several things need to happen to fix it."

    Asked if he and Mr. Wright had patched up their differences, Mr. Obama said: "Those are conversations between me and my pastor."

    Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama's audition for the ultimate establishment job.

    "If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me," Mr. Wright said with a shrug. "I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen."

    A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith
    Published: April 30, 2007


    Mr. Wright expressed disappointment but no surprise that Mr. Obama might try to play down their connection.

    "When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, "with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell." Mr. Wright added that his trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan's views or Qaddafi's.

    Mr. Wright said that in the phone conversation in which Mr. Obama disinvited him from a role in the announcement, Mr. Obama cited an article in Rolling Stone, "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama."

    According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, "You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public."

    Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized
    Published: March 6, 2007

    Democrats (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:42:10 PM EST
    Have to be careful about associating with people that say hateful things but if you are a Republican Hate speech is an institution that helps you, and you can even repeat the hate and get extra points.

    Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Coulter, Limbaugh, and many many more, are all fine to associate with, because IOKIYAR.

    please no racist comments. none are (none / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:51:38 PM EST
    making them to you.

    I just deleted a slew of comments resonding to one (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:54:20 PM EST
    Settle down folks. This post is about Obama's judgment in associates. Play the racism card elsewhere.

    thanks, jeralyn! (none / 0) (#114)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:54:51 PM EST
    Oprah (none / 0) (#154)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:16:12 AM EST
    this is another angel that will (may?) give the story legs.  She left the church in 2006 b/c of Wright's views, and then he lambasted her for her it.  

    Imagine when/if the media asks her about this.  As she defends her reasons why she left the church, she'll inevitably make BO look worse.  I think there's a good chance Fox has the tape of Wright speaking about her from the pulpit--and it's Oprah--so I think the the MSM will pick it up. IMO.  

    Is that true? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:32:57 AM EST
    I've seen the Oprah connection alluded to elsewhere, but I haven't seen anything concrete. Are there any news accounts of her split from this church? If you know of any, please post links.

    More on judgment (none / 0) (#162)
    by faux facsimile on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:25:14 AM EST
    I agree, judgment does matter. It certainly takes judgment to see that Obama's ties to Rezko and Wright are more significant, than say, his endorsement of Israeli war crimes in Lebanon and his opposition to the timely end of the US war in Iraq.

    I don't see anything wrong with criticizing Obama. It's just amusing to see him get nailed for his unsavory friends rather than his unsavory politics.

    (Though, seeing as Clinton holds many of the same unsavory positions, perhaps this should be expected here...?)

    this is about his (none / 0) (#164)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:27:10 AM EST
    association with individuals, not his policy positions, and how they reflect (or don't) on his judgment.

    Alright, but (none / 0) (#175)
    by faux facsimile on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:38:11 AM EST
    you don't think the one has anything to do with the others?

    Regardless, I suspect Rezko is going to end up being Obama's Marc Rich.


    The only thing similar may be (none / 0) (#176)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:48:05 AM EST
    the media attention, but other than that they are totally different situations

    But that's what (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by faux facsimile on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:02:13 AM EST
    matters, isn't it. The significance of most events is how they're perceived, not what actually happened.

    All in all, I think the Rich pardon and the events around it were pretty small potatoes. They did however nicely encapsulate the way the Clintons did business.

    Similarly, what matters about Rezko is not that any specific wrongdoing happened (that we know of, anyway), but the extremely slack attitude Obama seems to have adopted toward certain associates.


    Don't forget (none / 0) (#177)
    by ghost2 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:48:53 AM EST
    His whole candidacy is built on the 'fairy tale' of judgement (Note to Donna Brazile: take a hike).  He claims he has the judgement to answer the 3AM call.

    Great Depression II? (none / 0) (#185)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:17:12 AM EST
    Greenspan has said this is the worst economy since WWII.  The mortgage industry is collapsing....Bear Stearns's collapse and acquistion by JP Morgan is just the beginning....

    The Great Depression was by most accounts caused by the collapse of the U.S. Banking system and the contraction of the money supply....The disruption of the new mega-banking/investment houses is very troubling.

    The Asian markets are down right now....

    This is really, really bad....

    Rezko and Wright will be distant memories soon if the economy continues its slide....

    BTD has a post up on the economy (none / 0) (#186)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:24:40 AM EST
    please put your comments there.

    Another comment (none / 0) (#187)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:25:26 AM EST
    personally attacking Obama deleted and a few that were race-baiting. I'm closing this thread now.

    Liberation Theology: More than a snippet of video (none / 0) (#189)
    by Avoca on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:39:07 AM EST
    I prefer Hillary to Obama but think this whole church thing is a canard. Anybody here from San Francisco? Ever heard of Glide Memorial, and the Rev. Cecil Williams? Actually the Clintons have been there often. It's Bono's favorite church, too. I've spent time working with them mentoring kids, even though I'm not a "Christian" and never formally joined that church. Because it's all about social justice and liberation, aligned with my secular politics. Oh, and feeding people who otherwise would not eat. All good things, on the whole.
    Though I dare say if the crazies go looking for it they'll find something to manufacture outrage about.
    If Obama's church is the about the same, then I think people are way over-reacting about how unacceptable this preacher's remarks have been. From what I've seen, one rhetorical "god damn america" does not disqualify the man or his church from serving its community and thereby being good for America.
    I'll feel better about Obama as a general election candidate, should he win that fight, if he doesn't cave to this particular bit of nonsense based on a few snippets of video. That's no way to judge the community this Church represents.

    Missed opportunity (none / 0) (#192)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:04:46 AM EST
    Rev Wright's words are inflamatory but not totally without cause.  Obama is running away as fast as he can instead of taking the opportunity to do what he has said he can do i.e. tell us things we might not want to hear.  He could have taken this opportunity to show how he intends to unite the country.  He must share some of Writght's outrage at our country's history but stakes out a politically safe position.  He is reacting just like any other pol.  Where are the new politics he talks about?

    Hillary has shown political courage defending her AUMF vote.  What unpopular position or vote has Obama defended?

    It's about judgement (none / 0) (#193)
    by marnitalawrence on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:27:45 AM EST
    There's a saying that people fear what they don't understand.  That is apparent from all the criticism about Barack's association with Rev. Wright and Rezko. We can't hold candidates accountable for everything that someone says that is deemed "controversial".  Are you gonna hold McCain accountable for John Hagee's statements? I don't think WHAT Rev. Wright said was as controversial as much as HOW he said it.  He said it with such passion that I think that scares white folks a bit.  But again people fear what they don't understand.  This is nothing new in African American churches.  The passion of the sermons are the norm. Instead of relying on a 15-20 second soundbite of a couple of sermons, look at the man as a whole. I doubt if all of his sermons over the past years are the same. Research other black pastors and see that their delivery is the same. I would ask two questions:(1)Why are the statements controversial? and (2)Are they true? Before you criticize, analyze.  Did we bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki? yes. Did we support state terrorism against the Palestinians? Apartheid in South Africa? Did the government give drugs to black people(CIA),build bigger prisons, pass a 3 strike law, treat Blacks less than human? yes to all of the above. So why are his statements controversial and considered hate messages?  He stated that Hillary Clinton has never known what it's like to grow up poor and Black. Is he not right? Nothing he has said is a lie, it's just that people hate for the mirror to be placed in front of them.  No one likes to be told the truth about themselves.  White folks continue to deny the truth and continue to sweep injustices under the rug. This is by no means saying that black folks need a pillow for all ills done against them. I strongly agree that we cannot continue to use this as a crutch, but I think when there continues to be a denial or hush hush attitude about the truth, there will continue to be a divisiveness among blacks and whites.  Admit the truth; America HAS NOT been good to Black people, yet we still love our country; but don't get upset when we talk about America's ills.
     As for Tony Rezko, nothing has shown Barack did anything wrong. Rezko is on trial, he hasn't been found guilty.  Innocent until PROVEN guilty.  But no one has mentioned the trial going on right now in California; PETER PAUL vs HILLARY CLINTON, considered the largest case of campaign fraud in US history.  Go to Hillcap.org.  To the person who commented that he'll feel safer with Hillary because she doesn't have as much on her; DO your research!! The only thing you have on Obama is his associations-the Clintons are actually hands on in their dealings. Google "the crimes of Mena".

    One can't run a campaign or manage money (none / 0) (#194)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:14:35 AM EST
    The other has run a historically brilliant campaign. An insurgency that out-witted and out-smarted a 20 year dynastic machine that had overwhelming advantages. Gee, which one would make a better president? Do you need a hint?

    I can only say (none / 0) (#195)
    by facta non verba on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:42:55 AM EST
    that I wish I had written the post. In a way, I have. I have been saying the same since January post Iowa when I first started looking into the junior Senator from Illinois.

    This line of Jeralyn's caught my eye Obama seems less about hope and change and more about inexperience and naivite. That is in and of itself a powerful line but it is an incomplete statement. There is even more or less, dependent on your point of view. There is an unsettling ambition for power come what may and very nebulous outline of what he is actually going to do with said power.

    Advertising guru David Alexrod is increasingly a font of my wrath. The article in the Sunday's NYT again sent my blood pressure soaring. Alexrod isn't selling a political platform, he is selling a personality. Well this is not a popularity contest, it's a Presidential Election. Obama is unacceptable and must be stopped. He will tear not just the Democratic Party apart, but the country. Odd that he thinks himself a uniter. Quite the opposite.

    judgment or honesty? (none / 0) (#196)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:35:53 AM EST

    A fight about sleazy/controversial associates (none / 0) (#197)
    by JJE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:56:35 AM EST
    Is not a fight anyone named Clinton should welcome.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#199)
    by tek on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:00:01 AM EST
    that Obama can say he's not perfect and only gets sympathy.  Yet, after years of contributing to the good of this country Hillary is constantly roasted because her husband's administration was not perfect.

    Sunday Talk Shows (none / 0) (#200)
    by 1jane on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:01:29 AM EST
    The Sunday Talk shows dicussed the Obama disclosures at length. Conclusion, none of the stuff matters EXCEPT Bill's $500 million donations and who did they come from and the joint tax returns of Bill and Hillary. They also concluded that Obama isn't the least bit responsible for what the pastor says at speeches and tellingly he kicked the pastor off of his religious advisory committee immediently. Barak spent 1 and a half hours with two newspaper editorial boards in Chicago and answered every question they asked. There's an old management term among executives known as "managing a person into a corner"..so far Obama has demonstrated his understanding of that concept..guess who's in the corner playing heavy defense?

    the bottom line for me is (none / 0) (#201)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:25:27 AM EST
    if Obama feels he can win by converting red states, then these comments will really come into play with republicans that he wants to vote for him...They won't be nearly as understanding of this as democrats might be....

    Judgment, Deception, or Spin...... (none / 0) (#202)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:28:32 AM EST
    Judgment, Deception, or Spin

    On CNN last Tuesday, Senator Obama said, "Well, look, Wolf, I think if you watch how we have conducted our campaign, we've been very measured in terms of how we talk about Senator Clinton. ... I have been careful to say, that I think that Senator Clinton is a capable person and that should she win the nomination, obviously, I would support her. You know, I'm not sure that we have been getting that same approach from the Clinton campaign."
    The facts of this election stand in stark contrast to that statement. Senator Obama and his senior campaign officials have engaged in a systematic effort to question Hillary's integrity, credibility, and character. They have portrayed her as someone who would put her personal gain ahead of the lives of our troops, someone who would say or do anything to win an election, someone who is dishonest, divisive and disingenuous. They have adopted shop-worn anti-Clinton talking points, dusted them off and unleashed a torrent of unfounded character attacks against her. Among other things, they have described Hillary - and her campaign - as:

    "Too polarizing to win"
    "Saying and doing whatever it takes to win"
    "Attempting to deceive the American people"
    "One of the most secretive politicians in America"
    "Literally willing to do anything to win"
    "Playing politics with war"

    So much for The "new type" of politician....!

    very puzzling (none / 0) (#203)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:35:22 AM EST
    series of issues. Either Obama is really naive and has bad judgement, or worse, in reality sees nothing wrong with these two people.

    It is hard to believe when you see those tapes of Wright and watch the church members being very happy and agreeing with what he is saying that Obama had no idea these things were ever said -- for 20 years. And now we just find out that Oprah was a member of that church when she lived there but quit because she was uncomfortable with those sermons. It's very puzzling indeed.

    That's puts a new wrinkle to the meme about going with Obama is a roll of the dice.

    Bill Clinton was right !!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#204)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:40:34 AM EST
    Voting for Senator Obama is but roll of the dice... how true.. I wonder how many more skeletons Republicans will expose out of his closets in case he does get the nomination.. !!

    Comments closed here (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:46:46 AM EST
    Please no more. I closed these last night.

    Juan Williams (none / 0) (#207)
    by Andy08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:41:55 PM EST
    senior correspondent at NPR appeared Sunday at Fox and Fox is worth listening at on the Obama and judgment question.  Here is the video (scroll down to watch)