Barack Obama Again Addresses Rev. Wright

On Larry King Live: (live-blogging)What Wright said is unacceptable. His statements were hurtful and reckless.

He wasn't aware of them, he wasn't in the church when he said them.

His church is a typical traditional AA Church. It's a bedrock of the South Side of Chicago with people from all walks of life.

Had I known that these comments were made, I would have confronted him directly, and I might have left.

His own career is about bringing people together. His own background is one of diversity. He's rooted in the AA community, there are flaws in the AA community, just as there are with all communities.


He hasn't spoken to Wright since this because he's on sabbatical and on a cruise. Last summer these sermons first came to light. He told him he was uncomfortable with them but said because he played such an important part in his life, he hoped they could get past them (or something like that.)

Fourth time he says Wright's comments were inexcusable. Again defends the church. Says white people come to visit and are welcome. There are white members. They've done great things speaking out on AIDS and gays.

Some of the criticism has been a distortion. And it's about race. It's a difficult issue we haven't overcome. We've made enormous progress during my lifetime. We have more in common than what divides us.

He wants to keep talking about it during the campaign, but doesn't want to lose track of other issues.

Commercial and then will get to his comments in his speech about his wife's grandmother.

They replay his statement about his grandmothers "fear of black men who passed her by on the street." King asks him about his statement today saying his grandmother was a "typical white person."

he says what I meant was those are stereotypical fears to crime that are embedded in our culture that many people have. His point was good people who are not racist are still subject to these images and sterotypes.

Will all of this hurt his campaign? He's not answering, he's talking about change and unity and solving problems. Now he says he's confident people will judge him on his life, record and 20 years of service and if they support him, we'll have a chance of making real changes.

End of Wright and race discussion. End of live blogging.

< Obama Speaks on Michigan | McCain's Race Baiting Fundraising E-Mail >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Defense (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Athena on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:42:12 PM EST
    It's just not credible.

    His church (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:43:22 PM EST
    is not a typical AA church. Not from the ones I have been to in the south growing up and not from some of the interviews I saw today.

    Am I in crazy land (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:42:50 PM EST
    or is this going against what he said in The Speech?

    Is this continuing to dig in order to get out of the hole?

    I just don't understand.  It's political roulette.  

    I am surprised (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:47:15 PM EST
    We all speculated that his inexperience would mean he could not handle the pressure of intense scrutiny or vetting but this has been so sloppy that it goes beyond my expectation.

    Just one story and even he admits he has been "shaken up"


    Sort of tragic (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:48:23 PM EST
    if after all the adulation he ends up with this as the legacy.  

    I'm There With You (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by chrisvee on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:31:12 PM EST
    His campaign may have mortally wounded Clinton in the AA community and now they seem to be in utter meltdown.  Will we have a candidate left for November?  Somebody get John Edwards on the phone.

    or something like that.. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:42:58 PM EST
    important part in his life, he hoped they could get past them...  Obama hoped they 'we' ? could get past them or they 'the church' could get past them?  

    Just want a little clarification...

    It's possible that I'm clouded by my (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:45:32 PM EST
    partisanship but I don't believe him. Didn't he say something different in his speech on Tuesday?

    Triple Flip-Flop? (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:45:41 PM EST
    Now he's back to saying this: "He wasn't aware of them, he wasn't in the church when he said them"


    He wasn't there (friday interviews) then he was there  (speech), and now he's gone again. (larry king)

    It's a triple... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:50:08 PM EST
    like the ice skating Olympics...

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:30:42 PM EST
    He does seem to be all over the place.

    I guess it's mean, but I'm kind of hoping this is his Guliani moment.


    But he knew about them Suddenly Last Summer.... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:06:27 PM EST
    More WORMs?

    Yes, why cancel Wright introducing him (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:06:08 PM EST
    as planned at Obama's campaign kickoff, which upset Wright, if Obama wasn't aware of a problem in what Wright said until now?

    That's what doesn't add up for me.  Not that anyone in the so-called journalistic corps is going to put it together and ask him . . . although that also would require Obama actually holding a press conference, and maybe actually allowing more than eight questions.


    No (none / 0) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:51:19 PM EST
    In the speech he said that he had heard Wright say many controversial things.  He didn't reference specific items.  

    The most noxious of Wright's speeches, at least that are available to see,  was given on a day when Obama wasn't there.  This has been corroborated.


    I Did Not Hear the Sermons (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:53:41 PM EST
    Of that Pastor.

    Maybe he should have bought those (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:55:33 PM EST
    DVD's also to listen to while he was away . .

    I heard (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:56:39 PM EST
    But I didn't inhale, as in it went into my ears, but I blew them right back out! :)

    Wait, wait... (none / 0) (#192)
    by delandjim on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:55:29 PM EST
    I thought it was "The point was to inhale. That was the point." BHO

    Best post of the day, IMO. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:56:12 PM EST
    LOL! Wagging his finger too? (none / 0) (#200)
    by andrys on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:10:05 AM EST
    > "I Did Not Hear the Sermons...of THAT Pastor..."

    Sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Coldblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:56:38 PM EST
    the the elementary school 'I was absent that day' excuse.

    corroborated (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:56:52 PM EST
    I see.  All of them?  The podium humping anti-Clinton one?  The G D America one?  The AIDS was created to kill all black people one?  Which of these are the most noxious?

    Doesn't it seem a tad strange to you that on all the days that Wright said all those nasty things, Obama wasn't there?   Did Wright tone it down in order to protect Obama?  "Oh, Obama is here, lemme say that AIDS was meant to kill gays instead."

    Come on.  Do the math.  Obama was never there?

    And you know there are more tapes out there.  Someone is probably looking right now to find Obama in a screen shot with his hands up or clapping.


    WORM (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by chrisvee on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:26:44 PM EST
    Not only was he not there but apparently no one else who attended ever mentioned the statements to Senator Obama or to his wife.

    Uh huh.


    3 sermons (none / 0) (#175)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:08:35 AM EST
    The offensive statements are in 3 sermons....If there were others they should have surfaced by now....Wright gave 3 sermons every Sunday for at least 20 years....

    Obama admitted he has heard controversial statements by Wright but not the 3 over-the-top sermons that everyone is commenting upon....

    Obama has been perfectly consistent and has been saying the same thing for a week.....People just want to simplify the issue into a simple yes or no:  Wright was preaching consistently an anti-American viewpoint every Sunday that Obama heard, or not.....There is an in-between position:  Wright was occasionally on the edge when Obama was there and fell off the cliff 3 times when Obama was not there....


    If you look at the clip on the (none / 0) (#190)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    the Bill Clinton "played dirty" bit, you will see Obama at the end. They tried to edit him out, but missed a frame or two. He was there for that sermon. It's on tape. Would link, but can't find the link right now. It's on YouTube, of course.

    "Played dirty" (none / 0) (#194)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:50:44 PM EST
    Do you have a link?  

    If Wright was talking about Monica, that's what Pastors do:  talk about adultery.....Perhaps crude but well within the moral structure of the church.


    If I found something in one of the videos (none / 0) (#201)
    by andrys on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:13:34 AM EST
    ... I wouldn't be posting it to youtube, I'd be contacting the news places or the tabloids for $$$.

      Okay, I'm corrupted.


    He was at the "riding dirty" sermon (none / 0) (#202)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    if you look at this video, he is in the very last frame. Looks like they tried to cut it before he appeared and missed one. Once it has run, just tap the end of the indicator and it will show the last frame..Obama.
    Don't know how to embed here, so here is the link.



    flyerhawk, our friendly devil's advocate (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:01:25 PM EST
    Unfortunately the evidence of the flip flops is overwhelming at this point.  I can find you some videos that illustrate this in vivid detail with a montage of all his versions of excuses from interviews he gave last Friday.

    It will only lead to you looking less credible though, so maybe you want to go do this in private.


    Quotes? Links? (none / 0) (#50)
    by plf1953 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:02:52 PM EST
    Please provide the corroborating evidence.

    How about his big speech? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:26:19 PM EST
    Did you not see his big speech?

    WTF are you talking about? Of course I saw (none / 0) (#110)
    by plf1953 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:31 PM EST
    the speech.

    That has nothing to do with my question to Flyerhawk who said this above:

    The most noxious of Wright's speeches, at least that are available to see,  was given on a day when Obama wasn't there.  This has been corroborated.

    He claims it "has been corroborated" that Obama didn't attend and didn't hear Wright's garbage mouth.

    I've asked him to provide the corroboration as I haven't heard or seen this.

    You're welcome to do this as well.


    Calm down. I believe Dancing Bear was (none / 0) (#117)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:39:13 PM EST
    being snarky.

    Well, maybe its me, but snark usually at least (none / 0) (#122)
    by plf1953 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:43:37 PM EST
    obliquely applies to the subject you're talking about.

    Silly me.


    How about proof (none / 0) (#176)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:10:51 AM EST
    he was there....

    Circumstantial proof in favor of Obama:  He wrote favorably of Wright in his two books.  If he had known Wright was off his rocker he would not have done that....


    Obama seems to have (none / 0) (#203)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:53:57 PM EST
    tunnel vision when it comes to his friends. He had no idea that Rezko was a bad guy either. Never asked, apparently. Obama seems to not delve very deeply into people's character before taking them on as mentors and good friends. It seems that what makes you a good person in his eyes is liking him. Narcissists evaluate people that way, not the sort of judgment you want picking cabinet members, ambassadors, etc. Competence and character don't seem to mean much to Obama, as long as they like him. Not my idea of good judgment.

    He COULD have been at that sermon... (none / 0) (#199)
    by andrys on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:54:13 AM EST
    Actually, while it was shown that Obama was in out of state, in Miami that Sunday and Kristol had to apologize and correct his story, it was THEN discovered, using Washington Post's Presidential  Tracker that Obama was in Chicago that morning.  He had a scheduled "appearance" that day in Chicago.  They don't say what it was.

      His campaign answers by saying "We have reviewed his schedule," he wrote. "He didn't go to church that day."

      That's the last I read.  


    Jarelyn... (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:46:42 PM EST
    Thanks for taking one for the team...I cannot watch tv or listen to radio anymore.  

    Going to repost a link here... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by hopeyfix on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:48:12 PM EST
    ... because I think it is more pertinent to this discussion.

    Obama is trying now to spread the Wright controversy, it seems.

    I don't even know what to make of this.

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:52:03 PM EST
    This is really great....!!!  So, what is the point?  

    The obvious point (none / 0) (#165)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:48:49 PM EST
    is that the Rev doesn't mind shaking hands with a President who was "riding dirty".

    Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty,



    Again, a good link worth seeing (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:52:06 PM EST
    if you missed it in the past thread, folks.

    Reeks of desperation by the Obama campaign.  Some comments funny that catch that, too.


    It does seem petty (none / 0) (#142)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:03:19 PM EST
    like Obama isn't aware that presidents have their pics made with thousands of people they barely know.
    But Obama doesn't mind appearing ignorant - he just wants to focus the public on Clinton's impeachment.

    What this Proves (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:56:22 PM EST
    Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Pastor of Hypocrisy.

    His attacks on the Clintons (which probably should not be repeated here) are now well documented.


    That is exactly what I was thinking (none / 0) (#34)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:58:27 PM EST
    When I was looking at the story. I must be really biased.

    I think the moral of the story (none / 0) (#159)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:22:13 PM EST
    is two wrongs don't make a Wright (right).  

    Wow. So they decided to go there? (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:00:12 PM EST
    {shakes head}

    Of course they tried to do this with Rezko (sp?) also.


    Wolfson cracks me up (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:02:34 PM EST
    a picture, ooooooo  lol

    Another photo of Clinton w/ a figure embarrassing (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:12:36 PM EST
    to Obama. First, the photo of Retzko with the Clintons surfaced (surely from the Obama campaign)--one of those go thru the handshake ine and get a photo taken.

    Now, this. Sheesh.

    Wonder what the Rev. Wright told Clinton about "ridin' dirty."


    Times seems to call the Obama campaign out-- (none / 0) (#80)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:17:17 PM EST
    During one of the most difficult periods in the presidency of Bill Clinton, he addressed a group of clerics at an annual prayer breakfast in September 1998 just as the Starr report outlining his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was about to be published.

    Among those in attendance, was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who is seen shaking hands with Mr. Clinton in a photograph provided today by the Obama campaign. Mr. Wright's relationship with Senator Barack Obama, as his longtime pastor, has been the subject of considerable controversy in recent days because of incendiary excerpts of sermons Mr. Wright gave at their church, Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago.

    In providing the photograph to The New York Times, the Obama campaign appeared to be trying to divert some attention to the Clintons after a week in which Mr. Obama's relationship with Mr. Wright has left him facing one of the biggest challenges of his campaign. There is nothing in the picture or the note that addresses whether Mr. Clinton had met Mr. Wright prior to the White House meeting or whether he or Mrs. Clinton knew anything about Mr. Wright's views.


    Obama sent the media the pic (none / 0) (#140)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:00:37 PM EST
    to remind the public of Clinton's adultery - but disguised by the Obama Camp's claim the pic shows Wright was a good guy, even invited to the WH by Clinton.

    I looked at the picture (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:13:57 PM EST
    and it reminded me of, oh yeah, when Clinton was in the White House.

    And all I could think about was the peace and prosperity....now there's a picture I can't get out of my head....countries liked us...we liked ourselves.

    I really think this isn't going anywhere


    echoes of the Rezko picture with Clintons (none / 0) (#33)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:57:11 PM EST
    not even close to an equivalent comparison or relationship and it only serves to highlight how much more serious the tie is with Obama.

    Clinton isn't even looking at the guy (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:59:44 PM EST
    But--hey, where did this photo and the invitation come from?

    Reverend White.

    So, he must be coordinating with the campaign--or at least he was until he got on that slow boat to happyland or wherever he decided to trot off to so he'd be out of the way of the press.

    And I thought he retired?  Now, he's on sabbatical?

    Give me a break.


    not looking (none / 0) (#87)
    by corn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:23:09 PM EST
    and there's a line waiting for their turn.

    Obama is being advised (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:01:07 PM EST
    By blogger consultants who think Clinton and Bush in the same picture means something.

    Have they built their float yet?


    I think they lightened Clinton's skin (5.00 / 12) (#89)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:24:20 PM EST
    You made me spew my drink!!! N/T (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:25:19 PM EST
    Me too! (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:48:19 PM EST
    now that's the comment of the night (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:48:27 PM EST
    I third or fourth or whatever that (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by cal1942 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:14:51 PM EST
    I only got the function keys on my keyboard.

    Thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by GDKitty on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:49:25 PM EST
    ROFLMAO!  Thank you, Kathy :)

    Honestly--how desperate is this photo tactic?  Jeez Louise.  


    I can see the videos now. Split screen with BO (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:50:18 PM EST
    saying that he wasn't aware of the speeches, wasn't in the church when they were said; other side he's saying he was aware but didn't do anything about it, they were just words, yes, I was there but it was a long time ago.  

    He wants it both ways.  He's been this way with almost all the issues.  He just can't keep his stories straight or he thinks we'll only remember the last thing he said.  Sheesh.

    On Youtube (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:55:59 PM EST
    there are already several videos doing exactly that.

    But words (none / 0) (#82)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:18:26 PM EST

    The remarks are already coming in about Rev.

    This is just awful!! I may have to vote for Sen Obama if he gets the nomination.


    Now for the Anti-American Angle! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by InkSlayer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:50:20 PM EST
    Here's another angle to the Wright story that hasn't been explored properly:

    Obama gave his big speech about Race trying to end his Reverend Wright problem.

    But Reverend Wright's rants weren't just racist, there were anti-American. Even more so Anti-American one could argue.

    Anyone who watches Reverend Wright give his "Coming home to roost " sermon 5 days after 9/11/2001 has to conclude that the Reverend is happy America finally got it's comeuppance.

    How can the President of the United States not only belong to that church, but support it to the tune of thousands of dollars a year?


    Can Barack please give us another speech, maybe telling us about his Grandmother's occasional anti-American slurs.

    I know I'd sure feel better. (snark)

    And there is no way he didn't know about the Coming Home to Roost speech. Even if he wasn't there in person, although we know he was in Chicago that weekend.


    you just heard about this? (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:55:37 PM EST
    That video clip came out the same day as the rest of them and yes it is equally disturbing.  But it goes to show that people are STILL having this story sink in days later.

    The "Chickens are coming home to roost" line was originally uttered by Malcolm X.


    NO (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by InkSlayer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:07:19 PM EST
    NO - I noticed it right away - that's why I'm wondering why the MSM is just talking about this as if it is a race problem.



    Oh, ok (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:12:39 PM EST
    well my guess would be that "race" is better for ratings.  Truth is secondary for many of these so-called journalists.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:49:57 PM EST
    In response to JFK's assassination.  Now there's a connection the Obama campaign probably doesn't want to make.

    Wonder what Teddy Kennedy thinks about that?


    I agree- I only noticed the anti-American (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by kenosharick on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:56:43 PM EST
    stuff until the media started screaming RACISM! Which Barack has been using to his political favor.

    Also a couple of nasty smears on (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:03:22 PM EST
    Pres. & Sen Clintons.

    I noticed the anti-American and racism the first time i saw the story. The AIDs and other smears later after my brain recovered.


    WJC (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:12:35 PM EST
    reference... I am not young and have a rather vulgar sense of humor and had never heard the phrase 'riding dirty.'  The phrase I noticed most was 'he did us, like he did Lewinsky.'

    Wright Hypocrite (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:18:10 PM EST
    This is what is more despicable, this pastor, who was called to this event at the White House, then ridiculous the Christian who confessed his sins.  Man, what kind of Christian is Wright?  

    What kind of a Christian indeed, but even worse .. (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by plf1953 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:27:22 PM EST
    what kind of a minister or priest or rabbi would ridicule the sinner who just confessed to and asked forgiveness from him and a thousnd other men and women of God.

    Despicable ...

    If that had been my priest who'd done that I'd have left my church in an instant.


    And yet I guess he felt it was special enough (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:30:50 PM EST
    ...that he a)accepted the invitation and b)kept it all these years.

    But I guess he didn't realize that Clinton "rode him dirty" until Barack Obama was running for president and he figured he would be an abundance of invitations to the White House.


    Wow.... (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:13 PM EST
    they really dug a big one....

    Agree - The most harmful part to his campaign (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:59:39 PM EST
    is the god d** America sound clip we are going to see all through the GE.  Why is he trying to make it a racial issue, when it really isn't?  My only problem with The Speech, which overall was excellent, is that I'm not sure we need to have it explained to us, in 2008, why black people and white people get mad at eachother sometimes.  I think we all get that.  What needs explaining is why that means god should d** America.  

    Sorry about the bold face. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:00:40 PM EST
    Guess asterisks turn it on.  Learn something new every day.

    Why has no one said ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:14:52 PM EST
    that the phrase about "chickens coming home to roost" is taken from Malcolm X's comment after the JFK assassination?

    A comment which even the National of Islam found untenable. It led to Malcolm X being removed from his leadership position with the NOI.

    I think Wright was clearly referencing that comment in his use of the term.

    But I don't see this referenced on the MSM or on any blogs.


    and other Malcolm X lines... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:18:53 PM EST
    include "you've been hoodwinked. bamboozled. led astray. okie-doke" etc, etc... all of which have been used by Obama in this campaign when primarily speaking in front of black audiences.

    He did it a bit tongue-in-cheek but I was disturbed that he seemed to be implying the Clintons were doing the hoodwinking.


    Wow, that ought to have clicked for me (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:20:12 PM EST
    -- I remember it now.  (Loved that book.)

    That is just . . . so sad, isn't it?  Takes me back to two terrible days, devastating days.  And well I recall fools in 1963 who joked about it, too.


    My Mother had a function to attend (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:04:49 PM EST
    a few days after and she said the Republican people were so gleeful there that she and my Father just left. I remember her coming home and really being mad at these so called friends. It was the end of several friendships because she really liked JFK and was disturbed that people could be so happy over such a tragic event. It was the wrong thing to say then and it is the wrong thing to say now and an insult to all the people who lost loved ones in New York and DC. That is a tell of what a person is all about.

    Yep, I remember times like that (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:14:07 PM EST
    for my folks, too.  We were raised right, BBabe.

    a big disappointment for me (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:06:50 PM EST
    re Obama's speech was he didn't denounce Wright's remarks about Hillary.

    and does anyone find it a little coincidental (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by wrkn129 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:49:00 AM EST
    that Obama quit wearing the flag pin "shortly after" 9/11?  Isn't that about the same time Wright made the comments about chickens coming home to roost?  link

    oops. let me try that link again (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by wrkn129 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:55:44 AM EST
    hmm it was there yesterday (none / 0) (#198)
    by wrkn129 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:58:36 PM EST
    it's been moved to here: link

    what a stupid idea of Obama's campaign to try (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:50:44 PM EST
    to show that picture with Clinton at some white house function as if to suggest a comparable friendship....very very stupid...

    I saw that pic... I don;t know why people like (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:55:02 PM EST
    Mark Halperin would put that on his page.. what are they trying to say..? it is shame that our media is trying to protect Obama and demean Clinton in any way as possible.

    let them do it (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:08:11 PM EST
    they are learning the meaning of "karma boomerang"

    think about it-- this is only going to keep this story going and people comparing 20 year relationship vs 1 day of random greeting.


    Yes, karma is a...hillary (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:23:53 PM EST
    If he thinks this is hard to dig out of, maybe he is wishing he had thrown Hillary a life line on the LBJ-MLK thing that she had to explain for two freakin' weeks, including a session with Punkinhead  Russert.  

    this is so on point (5.00 / 7) (#95)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:27:32 PM EST
    maybe he is wishing he had thrown Hillary a life line on the LBJ-MLK thing that she had to explain for two freakin' weeks, including a session with Punkinhead  Russert.  

    I would have a lot more respect for him and his "unity" crap if O had done this way back when the whole race thing was going on.

    Can you imagine how different the conversation would be today if Obama had joined Clinton in chastising Shuster, for instance?  It would have cost him nothing and gained him everything, but O was so shortsighted, so gleeful that the good press was going his way and the bad was going Clinton's, that he couldn't stop to think ten steps ahead and realize that by taking up for her, he would have done exactly the thing he was saying he wanted to do: shown a different kind of politics.

    But, he didn't, so here we are.


    Racism didn't become something he had to address (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:37:25 PM EST
    until it was hurting him and not the Clintons.  The rest of this post is from Bob Somerby today at dailyhowler.com.   I couldn't agree more. First quote is from Obama's speech.

    And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

    Shorter Obama: Race only becomes divisive when it starts to hurt me! All that race-baiting aimed at the Clintons? That was OK, this text implies. At least, that's how it struck us.

    Somerby overall praises the speech, as do I (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:53:40 PM EST
    Just to be clear.  

    You know... (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Dave B on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:53:24 PM EST
    If he had defended the Clintons against the attacks and accusations of racism, I just might be a supporter of his.

    Instead, I sent Hillary another $50 today.


    Me too (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:56:11 PM EST
    In fact, a lot of her support has hardened among people like me who almost reflexively defended her when no one else would.  If he had shown her the grace and respect she deserved after Iowa, it might easily have been all over.

    For me the Obama revulsion moment (none / 0) (#204)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:11:46 PM EST
    came courtesy of Michelle Obama. She said that a woman who can't keep her own house in order has no business trying to run the country..as if a husband's cheating has anything to do with the wife's competence at her job. For a woman to sling that sort of manure at another woman, even if she is running against the sainted husband, is beyond the pale. It showed me early on just how low the Obama campaign would stoop. And then she had to "think about" whether she would support Hillary in the GE if she got the nomination. That is when I realized that the Obama campaign isn't about improving America, helping people, or anything but Barack Obama's ambition. He will use anyone, including his own "beloved" grandmother, to get what he wants. And I want a President who is about what WE want, not what HE wants. We just had eight years of a President like that. Enough is enough, thank you.

    shortsightedness is something (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:11:33 PM EST
    Obama seems to have in abundance, and that is not a good thing.  I've been saying for some time that he's running as if winning the nomination is the end of the race instead of the beginning of the hardest, and most important, part.  Yeah, I know that he can't get to the general until he wins the nomination, but he seems to have no long-term strategy.

    It all started to go downhill for me when he snarked "you're likeable enough, Hillary."

    Edwards will be on with Leno tonight - oh, for what could have been.


    I was torn between Hillary and (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:20:47 PM EST
    Edwards.  It was the fighting spirit of these two and when Edwards dropped out I turned solidly to Hillary. But I was turning to her already because I kept defending her against vitriol.  The more I learned about her the more I liked her. I have always wondered why the 'short circut to the big prize' for Obama.  Being president is a lot more than that.

    Same as Rezko (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:04:51 PM EST
    When the story of Rezko was coming out, the Obama camp release a meet and greet picture of the Clintons with Rezko.  It just so.... weak.

    Gives us an excuse to talk about Wright (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:32:48 PM EST
    for a few more days :)

    What it suggests (4.00 / 1) (#27)
    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:56:16 PM EST
    is that Wright was considered a respectable enough leader that he, and many other church leaders, were worthy of being invited to the White House by President Clinton.

    What it suggests is that Wright was viewed by the then President of the United States to be a profoundly religious and important church leader.

    That's what it suggests.


    A profoundly religious church leader (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:59:07 PM EST
    Who would then say the nastiest things imaginable about Bill 13 years later.

    Yes, and I'm sure Bill personally issued the (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:59:10 PM EST
    invitation.  Give me a break.  

    And who implied he wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:59:27 PM EST
    Any of those things? But does that somehow change what he said?

    was it after 2001 comments? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:00:08 PM EST
    .. go figure

    Were they married by this pastor or regular (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:01:52 PM EST
    attendee on his church or donate avg:20,000$ yearly to that church?

    Wright also (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:03:25 PM EST
    "blessed" their house.  I have no idea what that means--prayed and sprinkled some water?  I hope he didn't hump the bathroom sink.

    Okay, well, that's gonna get deleted.


    Out home was blessed by both (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:08:44 PM EST
    a Protestant minister and a rabbi.

    Both behaved themselves very well, thank you, and the ancient (100-year-old solid porcelain) sink survived.  Whether they sprinkled, though, I dunno.  Door was closed.

    Btw, a couple of years later, a friend who is a Wiccan offered to bless the house, too.  What the heck, we thought.  So we figure we're covered now against all sorts of righteous wraths.  Or wraiths?


    That's Great (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by cal1942 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:00:15 PM EST
    cream city.  I never thought of that although when I read your comment I couldn't help but remember the scene in MASH (the movie) showing Father Mulcahy blessing a jeep.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:43:53 PM EST
    Oh I hope not.  

    That reminds me I read where Rev. Wright gave a demonstration of Bill Clinton's tryst and I never did see it.


    I have made myself resist searching (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:09:59 PM EST
    YouTube for that and other segments I have missed by switching channels whenever the stupid tapes came on.  That is hard for a nooz junkie to do.  But --

    I decided to give up Rev. Wright videos for Lent.

    That way, I could keep chocolate this year.  Mmmm.:-)


    Had their children baptized there too. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:04:55 PM EST
    Not if it was the Clinton White House (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:13:40 PM EST
    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by nell on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:53:27 PM EST
    Well, given the way Rev. Wright was bashing both Hillary and Bill, clearly he did not feel they were kind enough to him to constitute true friendship. This is just foolish of him.

    I have to ask: (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by InkSlayer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:53:28 PM EST
    If meeting Reverend Wright for one minute is bad, what level of evil is it to be his best buddy for 20 plus years?

    No kidding. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:59:35 PM EST
    And I doubt Bill Clinton himself invited those pastors and religious leaders.

    massive tactical error (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:04:47 PM EST
    I am very close to declaring official meltdown.
    But I am disciplined and wait for the voters to prove it.

    He is still saying he was unaware of these comment (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by kenosharick on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:53:41 PM EST
    for 20 years? If Hillary sat in a pew listening to hate speech/KKK/white power garbage for ONE DAY her campaign would be over. Media double standard. Why did he NEVER speak up on ths until he needed to save his own butt?

    When does he give a real press conf? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by kenosharick on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:01:24 PM EST
    Larry King does not count (nor would a puff interview on MSNBC- who used to be a credible political operation;how sad)

    he is making Bush look accessible (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:02:57 PM EST
    Bush takes more questions from reporters than Obama who remains a largely un-vetted presidential candidate

    Off Topic - NAFTA video (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by InkSlayer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:04:05 PM EST
    Off Topic I know, but I just uploaded a video on youtube of Lou Dobbs siding with Hillary on NAFTA after weighing the facts:


    It's worth a watch if you haven't seen it, and also please Link to it if you need some ammo fighting the Obama lies.


    The gist of it is, the Obama campaign can't figure out that just because someone attended a meeting it doesn't tell you if that person was for or against what was discussed.

    Jessica Yellin (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:06:45 PM EST
    kept trying to wiggle out of it, but he kind of laughed at her at the end.  It was good.

    Saw that. She's gonna get some ribbing (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:10:38 PM EST
    for that from her PrObama press corps.  

    Can't stand Lou Dobbs on a lot of issues -- but he still knows how to use his authority over the young'uns when they won't answer straight questions.


    My goodness! (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:21:05 PM EST
    she was just a baby then!  Some women are fortunate enough to get even more attractive as they age.  

    Thanks for the clip, it was nice to hear Dobbs (of all people) talk about how it was time to be journalists for a change and look at things fairly, and guess what, when journalists do that, they find that Clinton has been enormously consistent on this and most issues.

    It's actually a relief to finally see something positive.  Too bad it's from Dobbs.


    Dobbs has a wide audience though (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:30:30 PM EST
    and I think he now has a radio show for a couple hours a day (week?). I started watching him a year ago because he's the only one that covers imports, recalls and food safety. And what our government is not doing about it.

    I was surprised the Obama campaign went after the NAFTA issue again! Bad move, imo. And it looks like Dobbs didn't help their spin any  ;)


    Good for Dobbs ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:49:43 PM EST
    I love how the reporter is trying to spin it as an anti-Clinton story, and Dobbs calls her on it.

    It's funny what happens when you apply a little objectivity.


    objectivity can be a B*tch ;) n/t (none / 0) (#149)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:11:33 PM EST
    just a baby then? (none / 0) (#141)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:03:15 PM EST
    she was born in 1971...she was what, 22/23 at the time, hardly a baby.

    yes, Dobbs is hard to watch


    Aw, but it cuts off at the end, just before (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:11:42 PM EST
    Jessica has to agree with Lou, like he's pulling teeth.  I thought she sucked on a lemon or had lockjaw.

    I've (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:37:26 PM EST
    already been explaining this on All Obama All The Time blogs today.  I'm sure they appreciate being tutored on the subject.

    Jessica Yellin wanted to slant (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:30:49 PM EST
    the story one way and Lou Dobbs challenged her.  See her snide smile when he contradicted her point?

    Thanks! Know just where to post it ;) n/t (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:09:29 PM EST
    has noone ever asked him if Michelle was there (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:04:41 PM EST
    with her girls??

    Has anyone ever asked him... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Alvord on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:08:56 PM EST
    ... if he thought it appropriate for his daughters to be exposed to anti-American hate speech at a Sunday sermon?

    the girls have been attending Sunday school (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:10:46 PM EST
    right there at that church... eek.

    I suspect Michelle O was more (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:33:30 PM EST
    influenced than Barack.  Recall she said after Wisconsin that for the first time she "was proud of her country?"  Sounds like she drank the Wright koolaid bigtime.

    Axelrod...Rove envy (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:08:42 PM EST
    Axelrod wanted to out Rove, Rove.  Problem is the American people were ready for change.  Change from the politics of Rove.  Change from the politics of fluff.  Change from the politics of innuendo and political expediency.  He got the change notion right, but used the same old tactics.  

    I see (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:28:19 PM EST
    the Obama passport story is now in the MSM headlines--a victim again!

    No, no, no (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:30:24 PM EST
    Didn't you see his good buddy McCaskill saying that he was the first black leader to not be a victim?

    With friends like these...

    (and campaigns like these...holy peeps a'fire!  They are in total meltdown.  When you think about all the crap Clinton has dodged and weaved through, and that she's still standing--it just makes me respect her that much more.)


    Yeah, she really knows how to (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:37:59 PM EST
    hold up under pressure. She's also smart enough to know that in her future she was going to come under fire again. I would be floored if there was anything in the paperwork they are requesting that is earth shattering. I love the way folks are trying to create situations out of her schedule! lol!~ "She went to a meeting! Meltdown!!!"

    Just the fact that she wants to stand up (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:46:41 PM EST
    is impressive to me.  After all this crap?  I'd be enjoying the rest of my life on a beach someplace, not trying to take on the hardest problems in the world.

    We'll see how Obama comes through this one tiny iota of what she has come through.  My hat will be off to him if he has 1% of her grace.


    What You Remind Me Of (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:37:04 PM EST
    When I was fresh out of law school (in the late 1980's) I worked for a giant law factory in San Francisco that did a lot of intellectual property work, much of which was for the Japanese company, Fujitsu.

    I remember a case I worked on, a trademark violation case, in which Fujitsu was suing an American company for violating its trademark.

    At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the lawyer for the American defendant got up and walked around the courtroom.  He then started out by saying, "I was in Hawaii last week, and while I was walking near PEARL HARBOR, the thought occurred to me that . . . . and the landscape around PEARL HARBOR was so beautiful, that it just made me think what a beautiful country we have here . . . ."

    Not that PEARL HARBOR was relevant to anything, but it sure didn't hurt to keep mentioning PEARL HARBOR.

    don imus is not (thank god) (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:39:45 PM EST
    in any kind of leadership position. clearly, the rev. wright was. the two are not even remotely comparable, in a reality based world.

    again, the decent thing for sen. obama to do would be to gracefully bow out, concede to sen. clinton and re-tool in the senate. he is no longer a viable candidate for the democratic party in nov. he is, for at least this election cycle, irreparably damaged goods.

    hopefully, he can recover enough by 2016 to be the guy again. hopefully. this should be a valuable learning experience for him.

    Ohhhhhh this is painful (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by RickTaylor on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:41:04 PM EST
    I didn't hear it, but it sure doesn't sound good. He's got to stop shifting. Is he repudiating his minister or not? Did he hear offensive sermons or not? Did his grandmother say hurtful things about minorities or not? The wrong answers firmly given would be better than waffling, keeping the whole issue alive.

    I'm starting to be sorry I missed it (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:50:49 PM EST
    I said this afternoon that I didn't think he had ever once helped himself in an off-the-cuff situation. Looks like the record stands.

    Wow. Which speech was this one? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:41:08 PM EST
    The December one?

    Here (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:47:26 PM EST
    Wow. (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:18:18 PM EST
    I hadn't seen it all before. I had just gotten off the phone with a Florida friend who changed to Obama from Hillary because of Bill in South Carolina. She said what he said was not bad. Hello! She also is a great fan of Imus and although she thought what he said was bad, she did not think he should lose his job. Sometimes it is very hard to discuss things. BUT I got her to pledge that she would vote for Hillary if the Senator can pull it off. Reluctantly she agreed. I think she needs to see this video.

    Ahh...Freudian slip (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:42:29 PM EST
    Jeralyn, you may want to correct Obama's first name on this post.  

    Nice catch (finally) ... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by plf1953 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:47:00 PM EST
    Just the same, I kind of like "Barck Obama" ...

    All Barck (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by stillife on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:50:16 PM EST
    and no bite.

    just did (none / 0) (#167)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:14:52 PM EST
    thanks, I'm on a laptop where I make many more typos, the screen is small.

    One (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:55:07 PM EST
    thing I've noticed is that when Obama has to answer questions from the press he has almost as much trouble thinking on his feet as Bush.  He gets words confused and uses them improperly.

    I am sort of tiring (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:09:25 PM EST
    of his excessively cautious, halting speech when he is live without safety net.

    But this is a petty thing and I think that if it's him against McCain, it's a snooze fest because both of them are so rote that the campaign will not be substantive.

    I think more than anything else, his newness has worn off and we are left with just the man and the man hasn't transcended his empty vessel status.


    This is what Obama should say: (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by kayla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:59:17 PM EST
    Throughout our history, African-Americans have been mistreated all because of what we look like.  It is a tragic truth that even our government has perpetuated an isolationism that segregated Americans depending on the color of our skin.  Some whites have felt as though African Americans have received a free ride in our education and employment institutions.  Inside of our separate communities harsh feelings have been harbored, festering and growing and an utter lack of understanding and ignorance prevails even today as we strive to push the racial divide out of the way.  But it can't be pushed out because it is too painful to talk about for all of us.  There is white resentment and there is black anger.  But now is the time we face it.  Reverand Wright was a man who introduced me to a world so saturated with the pains of a truth I was so unfamiliar with that I was drawn in.  As a bi-racial Harvard grad, I was trying to find my identity in an America that still thrives under strict racial divides.  Reverend Wright has quelled the uneasiness and hopelessness of many blacks in Chicago while simultaneously being a bold voice that many felt is not being heard.  When Reverend Wright said, "God D*** America", he was not speaking of the great men and women who have shaped this country.  No - Washington, Truth, Jefferson, King Jr., Cady Stanton all built this nation through struggle, pain, and sacrifice.  Reverend Wright, though radical and offensive to many, is considered one of those great leaders who has brought forth awareness and progress to the plight of the black community.  It is the America that is imperfect that should be banished, the America that refuses to open their eyes to our crumbling schools, our 100s of thousands of minorities wasting away in prisons, the America that doesn't realize that we as a nation cannot rise and perfect itself through ignorance.  Wright's sermons may have been offensive, wrong, incendiary, but I refuse to turn my back on a great, yet imperfect, American leader.  He represents those many skeptics, whether they are black, white, man or woman, who feel stuck in a system that doesn't seem to work for them.  I sat in those pews, admiring a man who brought me to my faith and made me a man of the little people when I was in my mid twenties.  He inspired my desire to become a community organizer.  He became a part of my family because he helped shape me.  But as I grew older I realized that, though skepticism can beget a will to fix what's broken, the skeptical leader can also find that spiteful rants will place him in a position where others refuse to listen.  I decided to run for president because I want to end that hopelessness, skepticism and bad communication.  I want to voice injustice, solve our problems, but in such a way that is understanding of all of our plights as a nation, not just as an isolated community in the south side of Chicago.  I want to be a president who puts our poor communities first.  I want to end this divide by showing those like Wright, that we don't have to show our disappointment in our nation through anger, but through hope that we can do better.

    ... Or something like that.  He needs to admit that he was there and tell us why he was there, and why, despite what seems like anti-American rants spewed by his spiritual adviser, he still thinks his experience at UCC is beneficial to his candidacy.  As much as I can't stand Obama, I really want him to squash this.

    No, it called "Agitation" (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:18:10 PM EST
    Reverend Wright has quelled the uneasiness and hopelessness of many blacks in Chicago while simultaneously being a bold voice that many felt is not being heard.

    "agitating" is "making someone angry enough about the rotten state of his life that he agrees to take action to change it; or, as Alinsky himself described the job, to "rub raw the sores of discontent."

    Its just that Wright went beyond "agitation" and crossed over to lies and hate to achieve his goals.


    You're right (none / 0) (#184)
    by kayla on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:07:36 AM EST
    But one person's lies is another person's fair suspicion is another person's truth.  I don't believe that the government gave blacks AIDS, and none of us have any proof, but I can see how someone would think so, with the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment and other such horrible acts committed or allowed by the government on certain groups of people.  Barack doesn't want to offend those people who are sensitive to that but he still wants to keep the trust of those who are offended by what the reverend said.  And I really really really want him to distance himself from those controversial statements effectively.  This crap about this being a typical black church (it isn't) and him not being there for those rants (he was) is just not cutting it.

    To be honest, my problem with this whole thing isn't really Wright so much as it's that I have no idea who Barack Obama is.  And here is his opportunity to tell us, and he still won't do it.  I want to know why he stayed at the church for so long.  I have my guesses, but I don't understand why he won't just explain himself truthfully.


    Wow!! That's great (none / 0) (#162)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40:43 PM EST
    what about an apology? (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by confloyd on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:54:26 PM EST
    Why exactly can't Obama see that an apology to Bill and Hillary would be necessary, after all the apologies she has had to make for her supporters and workers?

    that would go a long way to rebuilding his image (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:50:49 PM EST
    I agree with every thing you wrote (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:22:01 PM EST
    with the exception of the very last paragraph which was your conclusion.

    It wasn't just the 3 words...

    It was his rage, his anger and the notion that the simple fact that there is a huge segment of the white American population that simply doesn't believe the things that he wrote, much more than just the 3 words.

    First off, women are comparatively disfavored as blacks.

    Secondly, most white people don't accept that they are racist and to be accused of being racist clearly will turn them off.

    Thirdly, the anger/rage that people hear closes their minds to the ideas and sentiments behind them, always does, always will.

    Lastly, you cannot dismiss the notion of guilt by association. The fact that this is someone who Barack Obama holds near and dear, he is identified by Jeremiah Wright.

    If one looks at stupid polls like Rasmussen is carrying about the popularity of Jeremiah Wright, then the totality of his life is diminished but clearly Jeremiah Wright never once considered running for president so his approval/disapproval ratings are meaningless.

    But Obama is running for president and the fickle nature of that act means that you are judged on a great many things, some fair, some unfair and the simple fact is that his identification with Jeremiah Wright doesn't get dismissed by a speech or by simply stating that he rejects the sentiments expressed on those video tapes. There is no shuck and jive waiver on the guy who changed your life and is your 'uncle'.

    I'm not offended as an American. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by KevinInNYC on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:38:28 AM EST
    Wright's words don't offend me because I think they're anti-American.  

    I'm offended that he uses the pulpit to sow seeds of discontent, anger and division, rather than peace, unity and love.

    Don't go into God's house and try to turn his children against each other.  That's what offends me.  It offends me when the religious right does it, and it's no less offensive to see someone with the same political leanings as me do it.  Probably more, since I think the ideals of liberalism are a heck of a lot closer to the way that God wants us to treat each other.

    If my pastor said anything even close to what Wright said, I'd be worshiping at a new church the following week.  I need my religious leaders to challenge me to find the good in others when I cannot see it, not appeal to the worst of my instincts.  

    Yeah (none / 0) (#185)
    by kayla on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:34:58 AM EST
    Until Wright is conducting massacres against white people, I don't have a problem with him and I hate that this might kill Obama's campaign.  I really hope it doesn't.  For that to happen seems, and this is ironic, un-American.  We're giving up on him because his church is too Black?  Unfortunate.

    I'm not gonna match you word for word (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by white n az on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:25:50 AM EST
    you really should learn how to express yourself more tersely in these comments.

    Should we just give up on him because America isn't ready to vote a black man president should we just admit that any change over the last 40 years of our history were simply an illusion?

    Give up on him because he is black? NO

    Should we vote for him because he is black? He's all but convinced the black community to do that. The white community isn't going to buy into that logic.

    But all of this time he refused to address the issue of race thinking he could get through the election cycle without a discussion on race.

    Now that he has suffered a decline in the polls, he decided to have a 'major' speech on race. (I highlighted 'major' because he used that exact phrase last night on CNN).

    In the end, this is all about him, not about his race. We ultimately choose to either vote for him or not vote for him, for whatever reason we choose.

    Woman are not as disfavored as blacks to claim such is pure silliness, Are women more likely to be pulled over because they are female? Are more likely to receive a longer sentence for committing a crime?

    Purse silliness? NYT story today on women getting their green card via sex. I don't intend on providing a litany of injustices to women because if you don't know that they exist, I'm not gonna convince you.

    You won't see me reinforcing their sexist frames either.

    Ignoring of course, the fact that you did approximately 12 paragraphs above, sure, I believe you.

    I agreed with you that Wright is not a big deal to me but you want to parlay that into something larger and I'm not the one you need to work on and in fact, your arguments about race, gender need to be critiqued because you're not making them to the right audience or with proper foundation.

    Why do we care? (4.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Coral Gables on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:07:22 PM EST
    I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in what church any politician attends. Nor do I care if they attend no place of worship at all. Religion is a private affair between one's self and one's god. It has no place in the political arena.

    The GOP for years has tried to make religion an issue and we have criticized them for it. Now we begin to do the same thing. It's a damned if you do attend or damned if you don't. It's time to let it go. The hypocrisy and theophobia and self-righteousness that evolves from religion in politics is exactly why we have a separation of church and state.

    One week the discussion is that Obama is a bad Muslim. Now it's that he's a bad Christian. I don't care if he's a born again Liberal Quaker or an Agnostic or an Orthodox Jew. Religion should have nothing to do with running for public office.

    Obama made (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:10:00 PM EST
    his faith, his church a cornerstone of his candidacy.  We did not.  You are right, religion has no place in politics.

    Listen (3.00 / 1) (#90)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:25:18 PM EST
    I've listened to several of Rev. Wright's sermons trying to figure all this out.  And I was surprized to learn that most of the sermons didn't mention anything about G'dam America, or Clinton, KKK or anything controversial.  It was actually pretty boring come to god, we should all unite, I pray for everyone, you know come to Jesus stuff.  I guess that's why no one talks about them.  

    Which ones did you watch? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:28:18 PM EST
    First random hit (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:29:45 PM EST
    I am not responsible for the source

    The best is see his Logic on ejecting IMUS (none / 0) (#35)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:58:53 PM EST
    this is called straight talk: Comment on Imus

    How much has he changed.

    You won't believe this..... Sharpton says (none / 0) (#69)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:10:20 PM EST
    IMUS worse than Rev Wright.. and that is why he took a leadership role to ask for his ejection from MSNBC. You cannot equate Rev with Imus!!

    After all that effort, per SNL (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:05:07 PM EST
    of keeping Rev. Sharpton from the campaign, he has finally found an opening.  This Rev. Wright thing is beginning to be comical. If only the statements made weren't so sad.  There is something divinely ironic  that Hillary's candidacy is being helped by two reverends even if it is the farthest thing in their mind to do so.  If the MSM will not give her a fair shake, obviously someone up there is looking out for her.

    Can the Rev. Jesse Jackson be far behind? (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:13:22 PM EST
    Perhaps to mediate the Michigan vote between Hillary and Barack?

    agreed (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:16:09 PM EST
    IMUS is a jerk and exploits people for ratings

    Wright is angry and expressed his anger - perhaps fairly, perhaps a bit over the top at times. I am quite certain that this was not a new thing and I have to believe that is why Oprah left the church a couple of years back.

    The difference between the 2 is vast and that is because of their intentions.

    I am gathering that the impact of Jeremiah Wright has registered...

    According to Rasmussen

    However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama's chances of winning the general election against John McCain. The good news for Obama is that his numbers have stopped falling since his speech on Tuesday. The bad news is that they haven't bounced back.

    In reality, anyone who appears extreme is simply a negative, Wright is no exception.


    OMG what an incredibly stupid thing to say (none / 0) (#77)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:14:09 PM EST
    that Rev is a hundred times worse than Imus ever thought of being....

    How did he manage to twist (none / 0) (#79)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:16:52 PM EST
    that logic?

    This was on Fox with Greeta... (none / 0) (#84)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:20:00 PM EST
    He said.. Imus is really racist and demeaned gender.
    Rev. never said any racist or demeaning comments about gender or race ( I think he forgot "Hillary is no nig... " comment) and that is how he defined his logic.
    He is just brilliant !!!

    I guess he forgot (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:38:03 PM EST
    Wright saying that Hillary doesn't know what it is like having to work trice as hard to be taken seriously in the senate or that 'her people' have never been considered non-persons.

    Except...well..women have had both of those...


    Well that was special (none / 0) (#107)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:32:54 PM EST

    What Imus said was pretty bad. I'm not (none / 0) (#108)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:32:56 PM EST
    going to defend him for it.

    I didn't know until this thread that Wright mentioned Bill Clinton and Lewinsky. Is that true?


    the guy who pats Wright (none / 0) (#152)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:12:03 PM EST
    gleefully on the back is...

    Wright's replacement.

    That's what I thought (none / 0) (#160)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:23:09 PM EST
    but didn't want to ask.  I saw the clip and I saw the introduction of the new pastor and I paused... I thought when Obama said his pastor was retiring so it didn't matter that it might matter who the replacement was and I hoped the person would not be seen on any of the tapes acting like a jerk.

    You write (none / 0) (#182)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:36:22 AM EST
    as if Obama's been running on a platform for the Democratic Party, when in fact he's been tearing down the Dems since the beginning and is running on an OBAMA platform.  His campaign is about HIM, not the Party.  If he was about the Party, he wouldn't be so adverse to the "dream ticket", he wouldn't be so quick to want to keep FL and MI Dems from counting after he lost the primaries (even though before he lost them he SAID he'd "do the right thing" by the voters) and YOU wouldn't be so negative about Clinton's campaign.

    Curious (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:45:51 AM EST
    She should have stepped forward to defend Wright it would have increased her stature and would have bolstered her case.

    Curious as to why it is Clinton's responsibility to defend Obama when he never took a moment to defend her against unfair, gender-based attacks.  You can make the argument that neither candidate is obligated to defend their opponent, but you can't say that one HAS to and the other doesn't.  (And I would also argue that Obama should have stopped his supporters from smearing Clinton as a racist going all the way back to before South Carolina).


    Skex makes good (none / 0) (#183)
    by dem08 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:59:17 AM EST
    points here and in his follow-up post.

    I know the passionate Hillary People here are mostly also passionately anti-Obama, but this issue of Wright has one dimension:

    Is Obama a racist?

    You can criticize Obama's judgment, but Hillary's supporters are hoping that Wright renders Obama un-nominatable.

    It is funny how often Hillary supporters are giving Fox News as a source of comfort to them.

    My answer is that Obama is not a racist. This is a good wedge issue and a good chance for all the pro-Americans to illustrate high dudgeon that Pastor Wright, who served his country in the Marines, is not as truly American as Hillary's supporters, but in the Fall, Hillary will be accused of being anti-American on Fox.

    Fox News will ask: "John McCain says we are winning in Iraq. Does Hillary Clinton want the United States to lose the Iraq War?"

    I wonder if all you loyal Americans will still think these kinds of wedge issues are still important then.

    Long post (none / 0) (#188)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:40:23 AM EST
    So I'm just gonna note a couple of things:

    Should we just give up on him because America isn't ready to vote a black man president should we just admit that any change over the last 40 years of our history were simply an illusion?

    If the only way to measure progress over the last 40 years is to elect Obama, then you are compressing difficult issues into one person's ego.  Obama did this in his speech to - how does he show Wright that there's been progress?  by Barack Obama's campaign.  This is the flip side to those folks who think that if they elect him, they won't have to worry about the disproportionate number of blacks in prison or disparaties in education or wages.  I find that to be a little offensive.  A band-aid for a bullet wound.  

    These issues are bigger than one person and progress or lack thereof on them are not going to be solved by a single election.  (And actually, again that's another reason I didn't care for the speech - he gave it, in large part, to save his own ambitions.  Would have meant more if it wasn't prompted by political calculations.)

    And the people in the Clinton camp who are perpetuating and supporting this conservative frame are doing nothing but harming the cause of progressivism. Because it's painfully transparent that they are capitalizing on the issue in the most negative way possible.

    I suppose the argument in this is that Obama is the true progressive candidate.  I strongly disagree because of his rhetoric on Social Security, health care, and the McClurkin incident, to name three.  In fact, that is why I initially didn't support him.  It is bad for progressives when one of our leading candidates adopts right wing frames when discussing core issues.  In fact, more harmful than personal attacks, because a personal attack is just about one person.  When you demonize progressive programs and solutions, you are hurting our ability to advance policy and actually improve people's lives.

    Finally, I'm less interested in what Wright said than in the political reality that this will hurt Obama - and the party - if he is the nominee.  I wish this had come out five months ago and believe that Somerby is right that we should have been looking more closely at how Obama could be Dukakised months ago.

    These are political realities that people on this forum are discussing.  I don't see anything wrong with that or why you should be so disparaging.  This is what is in the news, naturally it's going to dominate conversation.

    Crisis (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    He characterized it as in "crisis" which is a Republican frame.  If it's in "crisis" then we have to take drastic steps and soon.... well, golly, maybe privatization is the answer!  But if it isn't, then incremental changes are adequate.  The "crisis" frame is false.  Feeding it merely reinforces the idea that the program is unsustainable without radical changes.  Which is what the Republicans want.

    We killed this in 2005.  Don't know why he brought it back.  (Well, I do know - to try to pigeonhole HRC as not offering solutions.  But I don't know how he can claim a "progressive" mantle on this issue after doing it.)


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:27:20 PM EST
    You should look at some of his other comments.  He pretended there was some big problem with Clinton's stance in order to attack her character.  But you don't have to take my word for it.

    And even if you look at the quote you picked out, it's feeding a right wing frame:

    We've got 78 million baby boomers, who are going to be retiring over the next couple of decades. That means more retirees, fewer workers to support those retirees. We are going to have to do something about it.

    That's false.  We don't "have to do something about it."  In fact, it's very likely that Social Security will remain solvent with no changes because economic assumptions by the Social Security actuaries that forecast a deficit also use an unrealistically low level of economic growth (about 1% annually).  If we maintain the pre-war average, it's likely there will be no shortfall at all.  The "have to do something" is a right wing frame.  And more here.

    And last, but not least, I give you .... Barack Obama:

    Q: So, welcome to Senator Barack Obama. Welcome to "National Journal On Air." Let me start right away by asking you about the contrasts that you are drawing between yourself and Hillary Clinton. Her campaign people, the people who support her, say by calling her somebody whose word can't be trusted, by suggesting that she's disingenuous, that that's really a character attack -- that that's the very thing that you said you weren't going to do in this campaign.

    Obama: Well, I strongly disagree. Look we are offering our plans for the future on health care, on education, on energy, and the American people have a right to judge how clear and how consistent have the candidates been in their positions. Because if they're not clear and consistent, then it's pretty hard to gage how much they're going to fight on these issues. You know, Senator Clinton says that she's concerned about Social Security but is not willing to say how she would solve the Social Security crisis, then I think voters aren't going to feel real confident that this is a priority for her. And that's the kind of leadership I think that the Democratic Party has to offer in the years to come.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#206)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:46:33 PM EST
    He consistently criticized HRC throughout the fall for not offering "solutions" to a bogus problem.  I've provided links that show that others view his actions the same way.  (BTW - the idea that annual growth of the economy would be at 1% for the next 30-40 YEARS is a little silly and ahistoric).

    But, of course, this is my opinion.  Because you agree with Obama on the "problem", you are inclined to believe he is not buying into right wing frames.  That is your opinion.  

    As a long time Democrat who had a front row seat in the Great Social Security Debate in 2005, I know that this is an issue we killed, KILLED, the Republicans on.  It was dead.  Obama brought it back.  And the quote I cited above (and other like it) can easily be used to demonize future efforts to protect one of the most successful Democratic programs ever.

    In my view, Obama uses right wing frames on this - and other issues (like McClurkin and health care) - when it serves him politically.  I do not see him as progressive ON THE ISSUES.  And this has nothing to do with any supposed racism.  It's because I believe Obama has "harm[ed] the cause of progressivism."