Obama Campaign Provides Photo of Rev. Wright Shaking Hands With Bill Clinton

I'm not sure whatpoint the Obama campaign thought they were making by providing the New York Times with a picture of Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a room full of people at a 1998 Prayer Breakfast at the White House shaking hands with Bill Clinton.

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.

The Clinton campaign had this response (received by e-mail, no link)

"Less than 48 hours after calling for a high-minded conversation on race, according to the New York Times the Obama campaign is peddling photos of an occasion when President Clinton shook hands with Reverend Wright. To be clear, President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his eight years as president."

Update: Comments now closed.

< Hello, West Virginia: Hillary 55%, Obama 27% | Bill Richardson to Endorse Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Jeremiah Wright back in the news (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:32:15 PM EST
    Ok then.

    And why is Obama calling attention to him (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by katiebird on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:34:22 PM EST
    Does Obama think that Wright in any company is good news?

    how have Dems alienated the AA community? (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:14:20 AM EST
    The Race Card was first initiated by Michelle Obama and Oprah telling AAs to vote for THE ONE - the black one.
    Obama approved those political announcements.

    I believe women (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:30:26 AM EST
    are the most loyal Democratic vote.
    Could be wrong, though.  ;)

    didn't the latest poll say she had 57% (5.00 / 0) (#231)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:54:48 AM EST
    if she went H2H with McCain? I thought I saw that today?

    And how exactly were the "Dems" supposed to defend him? Did Obama do enough? Or is this all on Sen Clinton?


    Bill is not running for president. (none / 0) (#206)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:35:51 AM EST
    Um, no. (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:34:08 AM EST
    That would be women. Larger part of the electorate, larger part of the voters. Like, 60%.

    Um uh no. (none / 0) (#209)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:38:22 AM EST
    Not 60% of women. Women are 60% of the total Democratic vote.

    And here I always thought (5.00 / 0) (#242)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:30:37 AM EST
    it was women who were supposed to be math-challenged.

    Barbie: "Math is hard."


    Bill Clinton and Wright (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by PennProgressive on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:03:35 AM EST
    If Obama camp wants to assert that Wright may not be all that bad (I  am not suggesting  he is) because Bill Clinton shook his hand, fine. They seem to be thinking highly of Bill Clinton (lol). If they want to suggest that Bill Clinton also had a relationship with him not just Obama and  So Obama's judjement cannot be  called into question in this regard,that argument is laughable. I don't understand why they would bring up Wright, unless contrary to the spirit of the speech they want to use the  picture to tell White America that even Clintons were cozy with the "scary" preacher.  If that is the case it is really sad and disgusting. And it  is not going to work.

    whatever (none / 0) (#154)
    by english teacher on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:08:44 AM EST
    The Clintons are not attacking Wright (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:24:26 AM EST
    But exactly how do want Bill Clinton to defend Rev Wright?   Should he thank the Rev for saying that he (WJC) was "riding dirty" and that he committed an Monica on the AA community ?

    yeah, whatever (none / 0) (#163)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:15:21 AM EST
    The hypocrisy is never ending (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:54:37 PM EST
    and thanks Sen Obama for keeping Rev Wright in the news and giving it to the NY Times.

    Someone's campaign is in trouble.  What was it that they were saying about the kitchen sink?


    Our only hope to defuse the Wright scandal (none / 0) (#82)
    by Friday on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:13:49 PM EST
    ...is to frankly admit the right-wing noise machine has tainted Obama and he can't be the nominee.

    They'll never drop it, so if we drop Obama, we can neutralize this attack.

    And they won't have anything to use against the D candidate in November.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:27:04 PM EST
    the far right loves to paint the Dems as America haters.  Wright just drives that point home.  That photo of Bill Clinton doesn't pass the smell test.  Barack kanoodled with this man for 20 years.  What a desperate and sad attempt by his campaign.  

    Hope and change.  Yeah, right.


    Defending Wright.... (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:20:44 AM EST
    Riding Dirty

    Now tell me, why should Hillary defend this?  


    obama can't win without the black church vote (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by english teacher on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:24:41 AM EST
    clinton wants it, because she has worked her tail off to represent that constituency.  but she doesn't need it to win the general election.  that's just ridiculous.  

    good glad you've cleared all this up (none / 0) (#199)
    by english teacher on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:33:27 AM EST
    and spoken for so many.  you've made your point.  please quit repeating it for christ's sake.

    and you are free to quit claiming to be (none / 0) (#217)
    by english teacher on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:42:59 AM EST
    the spokesperson for all african americans.

    Excuuuuuse me.... (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:29:49 AM EST
    Anger about what?  Who forced Wright to be vulgar?  Who forced Wright to get disgusting?  

    Who forced the Obama campaign to put down the Black Congressional Caucus members who support Hillary?  


    If she has to defend (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:58:28 AM EST
    Wright's attacks on her to get the vote, she's better off without them.

    Not every AA supports what Wright said (none / 0) (#178)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:25:59 AM EST
    when did you get appointed spokesperson (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by english teacher on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:23:22 AM EST
    for african americans?  

    Explain to me... (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:32:53 AM EST
    as a human being, after watching the Wright video about Bill and Hillary, what moral obligation does Hillary have to defend him?  What?  For votes?  This is a man of the "cloth" who gestures obscenely at the pulpit.  

    As you appear to be clueless (5.00 / 2) (#234)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:02:50 AM EST
    about the voting habits of any other demographic - such as women, who are the majority of Democrats - you'll forgive me if I don't think much of your "qualifications."

    I appear....not at issue? (5.00 / 3) (#239)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:18:30 AM EST
    hmmmm....since I know more about the mating habits of marsupials I would appreciate that you take, at face value, everything I have to say about the fact that marsupials, contrary to popular belief, do not practice safe sex.

    not that my sarcasm questions your credentials pertaining to "having the pulse of African-American voters"....but,  Dems can't win without the AA vote.  That may be true but if Hillary does not get the AA vote if she gets the nomination it has nothing to do with her lack of support for a racially and politically divisive preacher--it will have everything to do with the consistent insistence by Obama supporters that racism is a part of Hillary's fundamental beliefs.  You and those like you, who continually charge Clinton with those beliefs, should be ashamed for resorting to the same type of smear tactic Karl Rove would use..but none of you are ashamed and that is why I have no respect for the Obama campaign nor its supporters.

    Try this on for size: Hillary responds to criticism of Obama's spiritual leader by saying,  "Reverend Wright, is the epicenter of progressive thought.  In fact I've often commented to my spiritual leader that he should "damn America" in his sermons while also reminding his congregation that his white members are more than likely harboring deep seated racist ideals (endemic white racism) and that nothing in this country will change until the US Govt stops purposely infecting blacks with the AIDS virus."  

    I'd give Wright a pass if he agrees to go minister some lilly-white town in North Dakota...gets to know some average white people.  Then goes to the Middle East to see if Israel actually is the main problem or just a part of the problem.  Then I'd like him to go back to school and actually learn about the W's about AIDS.  Then I want him to publicly apologize for his divisive comments, especially to Hillary Clinton.  There is no logical explanation why Hillary, or any other white person, can't be supportive of civil and equal rights for all without having to have been called a "ni**er".


    Are you saying ALL AA think the same way? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:23:57 AM EST
    Sounds kind of presumptuous to me.

    I think that there is a wide range of African Americans, just as there is a wide range of Caucasions, Asians, Latinos, etc.

    You do them a disservice to lump them into one homogenous group. You underestimate their power of independent thought.

    Besides, everybody knows ALL the Latinos already outnumber AAs and they love Hillary. [/wiseass]


    A friend of mine was on the plane... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:25:16 AM EST
    that went into the Pentagon. And my sister was scheduled to be at a meeting in that part of the building that day.

    Given his "home to roost" invective after 9/11, why should I defend his invective style of rhetoric any more than I'd defend Robertson/Falwell for their hate speech blaming liberals, pagans, feminists, and a host of others for 9/11?


    Oh I understand the phrase... (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:49:57 AM EST
    You're missing something...a big something when it comes to his rhetorical style.

    There is a big difference between going through the event and doing an analysis of what happened and what some of the root causes might be/what are some possible solutions to the issue and standing up on a stage with a fire and brimstone sermon that lays blame.

    It's in his reductionist argument and style, one that Obama sought to distance himself from in his speech while you're defending it, that I have issues with.

    When I hear vitriolic comments like his, Robertson's, Falwell's, and others about that day, the loss of a friend comes back...the sound of another friend's voice break with tears as she compared her walk home from work in Manhattan to a cacaphonic Pompeii.

    It's shocking...but not in a good way.


    Because AAs don't all think alike (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:42:43 AM EST
    and don't all think Wright is defensible.

    And why is this Hillary's problem? Obama doesn't defend her when she's attacked with sexism.


    The irony: (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:09:51 PM EST
    Sen. Obama wouldn't outright denounce Wright, but he wants to taint Hillary by Wright's association with Bill.

    Really? Is that logical at all?


    Right... (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:20:27 PM EST
    If Wright is such an honorable, good guy that Obama considers him family and will not repudiate him, why is it bad for him to be seen in a photo with Bill Clinton?

    because the purpose of the photo (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:25:56 AM EST
    is to remind the public of Clinton's impeachment.
    We knew Obama would go there eventually - even indirectly as he did with this photo.

    Does he really think we have forgotten? (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:54:18 AM EST
    Or that we weren't enraged by it? 65% approval ratings at the height of impeachment, IIRC.

    Yeah, go ahead, remind us of how Bill got screwed. That'll help your case.


    Um (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:28:36 PM EST
    Your using logic and Wright in the same sentence.  

    Axelrod has jumped the shark with this stunt.


    no no.. they're blaming the Clinton's for (4.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:21:20 PM EST
    being behind the Wright story, then saying this photo shows their hypocrisy.

    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:59:23 PM EST
    Because that's just dumb.

    Do they think people are that stupid?


    People are that stupid... (4.00 / 1) (#150)
    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:05:03 AM EST
    some are...some aren't.

    But when it comes to the political game, logic tends to be irrelevant.


    It seems like the talking points (4.00 / 1) (#185)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:28:37 AM EST
    of the blog supporters

    This is more defense of Wright. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:33:27 PM EST
    Only the Obama Base will be swayed by this at all.

    It's a confusing move (none / 0) (#182)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:27:38 AM EST
    On one hand, you have them either condemning Bill Clinton by saying 'he did it too!', or you have them defending Wright, strangely enough by using Bill Clinton (and by extension Hillary) as a symbol of how important Wright is.

    Either way it amounts to the same thing: Obama is on the wrong side of the issue.


    Desperation. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:34:27 PM EST

    But... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Marco21 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:34:34 PM EST
    Barack is above this kind of stuff, right? Remember him admonishing the Clinton camp for the African garb Drudge photo AFTER he said they had nothing to do with it?

    20 years (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by mookiedog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:12 PM EST
    A handshake does not equal 20 years of sitting and listening to his racist hate speech and his unpatriotic speech. Get real.

    Irony: telling of Wright (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:15 PM EST
    Wright attended that event in the White House, when Bill was basically confessing and going through an act of contrition with the ministers.  When Wright, made fun of Bill from the pulpit, he basically was violating the Christian core belief of forgiveness.  

    Interesting (none / 0) (#37)
    by xspowr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:51:26 PM EST
    That was the first thing I picked up on too, all the ironies converging in this single photograph. While it's probably just coincidence, it also seems a bit tacky to release it right on the heels of the tasteless ABC and AP stories linking the "blue dress" episode to Hillary's calendar. Lots of negative connotations here, and doesn't seem to do much vis-a-vis defusing the Wright problem for Obama.

    Question to Obama blogs (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:37:28 PM EST
    If Wright is toxic at this point, and Obama's campaign associates him with Bill Clinton, are they not giving fodder to the McCain campaign?  

    Are they not doing anything to win?  Are they not destroying the Democratic party to save themselves?  

    I am so glad I didn't have anything in my (none / 0) (#12)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:41 PM EST
     mouth to spew when I read that comment.
    Second best comment of the night!!

    Honored..spew and all (none / 0) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40:02 PM EST
    in their mind (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:45:22 PM EST
    Clinton is no longer a Democrat.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by vigkat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:49:27 PM EST
    That's because she is a Monster, all the more easily vilified.

    KarlRovian shoe on the other foot (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Chimster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:23 PM EST
    Obama campaign leaking a picture of Bill with Wright. Similar to picture leaking of Bill and Rezko. That's two similar tactics that are not only pathetic, and ineffective, but will liekly destroy Obama's campaign plans of taking the high road.

    Hmm.. This is also the pattern of the leak that included Obama in muslim garb. Sounds like a hat trick to me.

    Can I renew my delcaration (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:39:47 PM EST
    that there is not now, nor has there ever been, a "new kind of politics" from Obama.

    This just pisses me off more about his phony baloney political style.

    I used to do theatre (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40:59 PM EST
    and we called this "flop sweat".

    Flop sweat? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:42:06 PM EST

    Flop sweat (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:43:16 PM EST
    You know the show you are performing in is a stinker, you know the audience knows it, and you have to perform anyway.
    So you sweat.
    Flop sweat.

    Can you complete the analogy? (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:03 PM EST
    lest there be any doubt (none / 0) (#25)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    I am referring to the Obama campaign in the
    aftermath of Wright.

    Thanks! I'd heard the phrase before (none / 0) (#30)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:46:28 PM EST
    but didn't understand it.
    Good analogy.

    It will be her "Socks" speech, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47:36 PM EST
    Expect some judicious tears.

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:47:56 PM EST

    Well, that proves Clinton's a racist (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:48:22 PM EST
    Oh, wait...

    Obama falls from grace (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Prabhata on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:49:01 PM EST
    Obama allowed race to become an issue and he is keeping it alive.  He is now just another African American candidate with narrow support.  I support HRC, but I'm sad for Obama. He could have been a candidate that appealed to everyone, but that opportunity is gone.

    It's not Obama's fault that race was an issue; (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:51:12 PM EST
    I think he handled the issue in a two-faced way, using surrogates to attack the Clinton's as racist, while calling for civility.
    Had he actually been generous and above the fray with regards to stray ill-considered comments, he would have garnered a lot of sympathy and respect, IMO.

    He handled the issue in a two-faced way (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Prabhata on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:58:23 PM EST
    But it's not Obama's fault that race was an issue.  I don't get the logic.  Those in the Democratic Party that would have come to his defense, people like me who would have wanted a strong candidate in November, did not lift a finger.  I spoke to a talk radio today and said exactly what you say here.  He benefited from the race card and only gave the speech when racism was used against him.

    It IS Obama's fault that race was (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by BlueMerlin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:42:07 PM EST
    made an issue.   His campaign took every opportunity to inject race into the election.   They pushed "The Bradley Effect" issue with the media after NH.   They made ridiculous charges of racism against Hillary's statement regarding LBJ and MLK, and Bill's claim that black votes for Obama would put SC out of reach for Hillary (well duh, every CNN pundit was saying the same thing).   They counted the number of black children in the "3 am" ad, found the number wanting and made an issue of that.    They went after Ferraro deliberately, digging up comments to the "Coast Breeze" (what the heck is that?) -- comments which, BTW, were identical to comments made by Obama himself and now today made by Kerry.  

    See "Race Man" by Sean Wilenz in The New Republic.


    Someone pointed out before (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by felizarte on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:00:57 AM EST
    that the Wright issue is not a racial one; it is anti-American.  It is the equivalent of the Jane Fonda excursion into Hanoi.  It crossed the line; went beyond being anti-war into being anti-American.

    Not just anti-American in the war sense either (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:10:49 AM EST
    it's also that he's a nutjob who's peddling that ludicrous conspiracy theory about AIDS.  I don't know how anyone can defend that guy in good faith.

    Here is Ferraro ion being (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:31:54 AM EST
    included in The Speech:



    Its Obama's fault that race is an (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:47:39 PM EST
    issue within the Democratic Party - an issue that has divided the DP.

    Had Obama not used race and if he was the nominee, the Democratic Party could have backed him come Oct when Fox would have released the tapes anyway


    I don't care for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:12:15 AM EST
    but now he is crossing into the realm of truly pathetic.

    This Wright pre 9/11 and pre God Damn America and pre Hillary ain't ever been called this and that.

    Doesn't Obama that this is grasping at straws? It was the same thing as the picture of the Clintons with Tony Rezko at a Carol Mosley Braun event. That too came from the Obama campaign. Rolling my eyes.


    Hilarious (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Prabhata on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:51:37 PM EST

    Al Gore (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by xspowr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:57:24 PM EST
    is also in the photo, so I guess that blows any chance he'll swoop in and save us all come convention time!

    The ironies keep coming (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:00:24 PM EST
    Remember when the blogoshrills went nuts when Bill implied that Obama was like Jackson?  If Bill was a racist, why did he invite him to the White House?  

    Do tell me now, what are they going to do, show pics of Bill with Jackson?  Is Bill now black again?  These people have gone off the deep edge.  They created a story, but now the story is not holding up.  If they just let Obama be who he was and given him a few more years to get experience, maybe it would have worked.  But, they got really fooled by their own cleverness.  

    Kiss the Democratic White House goodbye.  

    And why did he, as a sitting President, (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by BlueMerlin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:44:40 PM EST
    give a speech on race to the Million Man March in 1995?   That speech was just as deep and symbolic and meaningful as the one Obama just gave, but NOT coerced by being in a jam.   His came from the heart.  Toni Morrison called him "The first black president".   And then the Obama campaign thanks him by smearing him with racism charges.  Boy that's the sign of a real "uniter" isn't it?

    Let's compare the two : (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by InkSlayer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:02:23 PM EST

    Reverend Wright is a man Clinton met at the White House for 30 seconds.(doesn't look like he's even paying attention to him really)


    Reverend Wright is the man Obama calls his mentor and adviser.

    The man Obama says helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.

    The man who Obama calls his political sounding board.

    The man who Obama personally thanked for his successful 2004 Senate race.

    The man who Obama consulted with before deciding to run for president and who he prayed with privately before announcing his candidacy.

    The man Obama believes so much in that he has given thousands of dollars to.

    The man whose sermon inspired Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" (He must have been listening that day - LOL)

    The man Obama chose to marry him and his wife and baptist his children.

    The man whose church Obama is loyal to even after it gave Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award.

    I could go on, but why confuse the trivial with the serious.

    since you are making the claim (none / 0) (#245)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:44:07 AM EST
    you support it with facts.  

    Pretty weak to make a claim and then tell someone else to disprove you.  

    But since you like to generalize I will too.  Do you know what a politician's job is?  Oh, you think it is to do the will of the people.  No, the job of a politician is to get elected.  Politicians can't get elected without making strange bedfellows---thus the cliche.  The Clintons have been making political allies and enemies since before Obama was old enough to have a drug habit.  The problem with your accusation is that all politicians have skeletons in their closet, all politicians have made that deal with their personal devil---not some, all.  Sure there are degrees of bad, Rezco is no Abramoff for example.  But we still, in effect, don't know thing one about Obama's past because the media is adamant about protecting his 'cleaner than Hillary' image.  And not one of Obama's supporters has proven a single claim about Hillary's perceived "scandal in waiting" accusations.  You just keep throwing out names and possibilities with the hope that something might stick.  They aren't sticking because they are manufactured.  

    On kos the other day there was a diary about campaign donors.  95% of big banks made hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to both Obama and Clinton (cept you guys think that Obama doesn't accept anything but 20 buck donations from bloggers) but the 5% of donors Clinton had that Obama didn't meant something had to be fishy....Bear/Stearns in financial trouble, they donated to Hillary BAM, GOT HER, Hillary is responsible for the collapse of the mortgage market.  That is all it was, no facts just claims of impropriety because a Wall St name was in financial trouble and had donated to Hillary and not Obama.  

    Keep grasping at straws.  Just try and back up your claims instead of settling for making baseless claims.


    Reminds me of when I was a kid (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:02:26 PM EST
    and I would screw up and my Mom would be in the process of determining punishment.  I would, in my STUPIDITY, try to deflect my own bad behavior and try to make trouble for my siblings by making them look bad.

    My Mom was too smart and this ploy never worked.  I got my just desserts.  Let's hope that Obama and his campaign gets theirs, too.

    i urge obama to pull out of this (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:20:26 PM EST
    race now for the good of the party and the nation. that felt good!

    You just had to (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:23:30 PM EST
    get that off your chest, didn't you, hellothere?

    actually it was half snark! (none / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:25:21 PM EST
    but i do get weary of hearing these folks telling hillary to get out of the race.

    There is (of course) a diary on the (none / 0) (#94)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:22:19 PM EST
    wreck list at Orange Republic saying Clinton must drop out, by the aptly named "EternalHope"

    what a shame! i just don't see (none / 0) (#98)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:24:29 PM EST
    things improving there down the road. it would take a major cleanup and i don't see it happening.

    The way things are going, I think there's a good (none / 0) (#105)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:30:22 PM EST
    chance Obama's fall (if it happens) will be seen as largely his own fault, because he made poor choices and didn't anticipate the fallout. In that case, it will be easier to accept Hillary.
    I'm in a red state where Obama has no chance, so I have no dilemma if Obama is the nominee; however, if I were in a contested state, I will be very unhappy to vote for him, because I consider him manifestly unqualified; in combination with his arrogance, he reminds me too much of Bush.

    Don't kid yourself (none / 0) (#212)
    by jen on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:39:12 AM EST
    IF O falls, the O supporters will honestly and fully believe it was all Clinton's fault. They have set it up to be true, and they will believe it 'til their dying day.

    I respectfully disagree (none / 0) (#219)
    by tree on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:46:29 AM EST
    Obama love is like a fan phenomenon. With time they will all  mistakenly remember that they were the only ones who didn't fall for the fad.

    I'm not so sure... (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:13:04 AM EST
    There are people who...to this day...still blame Yoko.

    Female Blogger of the Year (5.00 / 3) (#227)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:51:28 AM EST
    Over at Women's Voices. Women's Vote they are sponsoring a vote on female blogger of the year.

    I think our dear friend Jeralyn Merritt is one worthy gal.


    I nominated Jeralyn (none / 0) (#246)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:54:59 AM EST
    I recommend others do it too.

    She has courage, dedication, high principles, discipline, and tolerance and if she were running for president instead of female blogger of the year - I'd vote for Hillary.

    But it would be a tough decision.


    He doesn't have to be fringe to be a lunatic (5.00 / 0) (#240)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:20:10 AM EST

    well, (4.00 / 2) (#97)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:24:02 PM EST
    Wright can't be that bad a guy if "the first Black President (er, worst race-baiter in the history of the free world???)" is shaking hands with the guy.

    Only problem?  Clinton having met Wright is not the same as sitting in beneath Wright's pulpit while Wright spewed extreme sermons on race, politics, economics, etc.  Not the same thing as calling Wright a "mentor".  Not the same thing as Wright being a close personal friend who you could no more disown than your grandmother.

    Wow, Clinton met Wright...if it proves Wright isn't a bad guy then doesn't it prove Clinton is not the racially divisive figure Obama and staff claim he is?  Not sure what the goal in distributing the photo was....other than that OBAMA is scared that he has absolutely lost all momentum and that voters are no longer buying into the "Obama is as infallible as his nomination is inevitable" meme.

    Ok (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:03:11 AM EST
    1. How do we know Obama supplied this picture?  
    2. Sounds like the Republican campaign is working the Democrats are in a sad state.
    3. Clinton started the mud slinging, Obama is not a god he is a person if you attack him he will defend himself.  Holding him to a higher standard while his opponent takes cheap shots is not fair or reasonable
    4. Clinton said McCain would be a better commander and chief
    5. Clinton sent a surrogate to ask Obama questions today to keep Wright in the news and in the forefront
    6. Obama is winning and unless your willing to break the sanctity of Democracy your hating on your candidate for the Presidency of the US

    I agree with 7 and 8 (5.00 / 0) (#221)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:48:54 AM EST
    And that is why I voted for Hillary in the primary and will gladly vote for her in the GE.

    As for rest:

    1. Read the NYT article, it says supplied by Obama campaign.
    2. They don't need to, we are doing a fine job snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by ourselves.
    3. Not true, Obama did it too, he just fooled some people into thinking he wasn't doing it.
    4. Try reading the actual quote, rather than repeating incorrect talking point.
    5. Link please. Also unless you have turned off all news channels no one needed to keep the story alive. And Obama didn't help by his "typical white woman" comment.
    6. There is no winning. There is "won" and "lost." Neither has happened yet.

    How we know (none / 0) (#177)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:25:57 AM EST
    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.

    source of pic

    Didn't find source (none / 0) (#184)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:27:52 AM EST
    Your source link is not active, who was the source?

    The source (none / 0) (#194)
    by xspowr on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:31:44 AM EST
    is the New York Times article linked in Jeralyn's original post. Here it is once again:



    link correction (none / 0) (#205)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:35:45 AM EST
    source is in her quote (none / 0) (#207)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:36:47 AM EST
    from the NYTimes article, the Obama campaign.

    2 thru 8 are memo (none / 0) (#190)
    by tree on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:30:51 AM EST
    talking points, but if you are serious about question 1, we know the photo came from the Obama campaign because the NYT said so, and the Obama campaign has not denied it.

    Now your (1.00 / 1) (#218)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:44:33 AM EST
    attacking me! I was just asking a question and asking for unity in our party.  Adults can have discussions without being offended.  I'm not offended by peoples comments. I am an Obama supporter does that make my point of view less relevent.  If Obama provided the pictures then he did.  It doesn't affect my belief that we are attacking the wrong person or the wrong party for that fact.  If you believe so strongly in your convictions then debate them on merit.

    Are you questioning the (none / 0) (#222)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:49:11 AM EST
    NYTimes contention of the source?  our comments as to why would the Obama campaign release the photo?  The contention that Hillary should defend Wright?  What do you want to discuss?

    Um...we have been (none / 0) (#225)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:50:44 AM EST
    for pages and pages.
    Your all cap rant contains attacks on Clinton.
    But never mind.
    I've read your comments.
    You needn't read mine.

    No (1.00 / 1) (#228)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:53:05 AM EST
    I am not, it's hard to tell these days what is true and what is made up.  If they source the Obama Campaign then I have no doubt the report is accurate.  I believe I understand why he did it though.  Best of luck in Pennsylvania but remember North Carolina and Oregon are following.

    It really is starting (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:26 PM EST
    to feel desperate in the Obama camp.  All the media Obama did before The Speech didn't help, The Speech itself doesn't seem to have helped, and he's been all over the TV again today - and he's not acquitting himself well.

    And now, this.

    Thinking back a hundred years to my single days, it's a little like what happens in a bar when the lights go up for last call - the magic just evaporates, and a lot of people go home - alone - saying to themselves, "what was I thinking?"

    Ah yes (none / 0) (#107)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:32:53 PM EST
    the sad, desperate days of the clubs when the lights came on.

    I made it a point that after that happened to me ONCE I never did THAT again.

    And I didn't.  And like Bill Clinton, he met ol' Wright once.  Barack, well, that's another story...20 yrs worth of 'em actually.


    An apt analogy (none / 0) (#124)
    by vigkat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:46:05 PM EST
    What are they thinking?  

    They just provided the picture? (none / 0) (#9)
    by vj on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:48 PM EST
    No commentary or explanation of what they thought its significance is?

    (I didn't see any in the Times article.)

    I would guess (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:51 PM EST
    The Reverand used that photo and had it right on his desk for all to see. Yeah, those were heady times.

    Volunteers? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:39:02 PM EST
    Volunteers needed to go see what the Obama blogs are saying about this.  I am really curious about the spin.  How is Hillary to blame about this?  

    No can do. I have to sort my socks tonight. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40:51 PM EST
    No thanks (none / 0) (#53)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:57:49 PM EST
    Given the toxicity of the Obama blogs I will stay within the sane confines of TL.  I'm not in the mood to be called a bunch of names.

    I have to wash my hair (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:45:03 PM EST
    and if that doesn't convince you, I have to help Angel sort her socks.

    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:34:03 PM EST
    I need to let Angel borrow my hair dryer.

    I have to mop the kitchen (none / 0) (#236)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:08:07 AM EST
    and I HATE mopping the kitchen.

    Can't wait to read what KO says (none / 0) (#26)
    by Chimster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:56 PM EST
    Olbermann is the one that I want to hear spin this. This is startin to get fun.

    In the day, he would have reported this well (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:19:15 PM EST
    as it has the makings of a classic.

    But now?  Nope.  KO will sound like that wreck list diary on this.


    I thought he was getting his talking points (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:33:50 PM EST
    from the Wreck List? One of the reasons he was put on my do not watch list along with the rest of the boys there.

    Well, I am SHOCK (none / 0) (#29)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:45:37 PM EST
    diary is only number 2 on the Wreck list!
    Start wading!!

    Groosssss (none / 0) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:53:03 PM EST
    made me look

    You're obligated to report now! (none / 0) (#42)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:53:25 PM EST
    I looked (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:04:40 PM EST
    They are talking about Monica and how the Clintons used the Rev for support... and now they don't want anything to do with him....

    They sent the picture to any media outlets they could think of... and they think they found a picture of Hillary sitting with the Rev... it has a partial face of a man that looks nothing like the Rev.

    That was all I could take... I had to leave for my own sanity.... I now need to take shower to get the dirt off of me!


    Eeewwwwwwwww (none / 0) (#72)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:08:03 PM EST
    This feels like.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:09:49 PM EST
    when I would go into my son's room when he was a Senior in high school, I would tell myself to not look, but I would and then get all grosssed out.  

    Come on.. boys don't like the smell of (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:13:07 PM EST
    clean, and Obamacons don't appear to like the sweet aroma of truth, either.

    Gotta give you a 5 for this one, MarkL. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:14:20 PM EST
    I thought that the person that the Clintons (none / 0) (#110)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:35:03 PM EST
    looked to re: support and counseling was Rev. Jesse Jackson.

    Yep...random sample of the (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:08:12 PM EST
    you see the Clinton's did the Wright scandal.  Therefore, showing Bill with Wright, shows Wright was not dangerous.  Right!!!!
    Random comments:  Yes, they are to spread it all over..."fly my pretties"  
    This shows evidence of Wright's stature in the national religious community.  If he is prominent and respected enough to have been invited to this event, it does reflect POSITIVELY on him.

    Most of us agree that this is not smearing Wright but rather vindicating him, and pointing out the hypocrisy of Hillary and Bill. Bill used Wright for religious cover during the Lewinsky scandal, yet he couldn't manage to defend the poor man when he was being brutalized in the media.

    OY! (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:40:23 PM EST
    I didn't venture in the Wright diaries. I got side tracked by the one where they are trying to connect the Leaking Of The Native Dress Photo Which Had Been In Public For Who Knows How Long Before Drudge to the recent O.M.G.! Passport Violations Breaking News. Apparently it has Clinton written all over it, ya justy know it does! lol!~ . . .

    Considering what all has gone on in this (none / 0) (#111)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:35:05 PM EST
    campaign, I think the Clintons are doing the right thing to stay out of it. Hillary complimented his speech and that should be the end of it from them. Everything they say gets twisted as a slam on Obama.

    this has been (none / 0) (#17)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40:12 PM EST
    the source of a bunch of blowback.

    transcendent politician?

    let's move beyond racism?

    is there any doubt how Obama's campaign has efforted (h/t Dan Patrick) to brand the Clinton's as racist and even the media is tired of this.

    It was a bad move and in a larger context, their ability to move press coverage has been marginalized.

    Could it be because they sunk about 8 points this past week? Could this now be the cause for them to sink further?

    Ouch (none / 0) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40:43 PM EST
    That was a sharp response... after calling for a high-minded conversation.. they are peddling photos.

    Alternate spin (none / 0) (#24)
    by dwmorris on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:35 PM EST
    One could also argue that the photo reflects poorly on Rev. Wright.  Given his rhetoric posted online, why would he come to the DC and suck up to Bill Clinton for a photo op?  Something doesn't add up.

    Because he got an invitation to the White House. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:54:56 PM EST
    Probably the only one he would ever receive.

    Wright's probably in it more for the (none / 0) (#125)
    by BlueMerlin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:46:35 PM EST
    money (big tithes) and the glory than for really believing it.   I mean, you know that guy has got to be rich, as leader of an 8,000 member church.

    Obama spokesman Bill Burton response: (none / 0) (#39)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:52:22 PM EST
    Obama spokesman Bill Burton response:


    After their top surrogates pushed this story line and Senator Clinton's campaign outlined this as a central strategy in her plan to overturn the will of Democratic voters, I can see why they wouldn't want a photo out there that shows the kind of hypocrisy we've all come to expect from their campaign.

    This is just a bizarre comment! (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:54:53 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign did not create the Wright controversy, nor were they prime pushers of it.
    That's the first problem. Second, where is the hypocrisy? I realize that Obama has the stupid vote locked up, but that's  not QUITE enough. Who will buy this crap?

    hypocrisy (none / 0) (#87)
    by Nasarius on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:19:15 PM EST
    I keep trying to do the devil's advocate thing on this one, but I got nothing. The Clinton campaign denounces Wright's diatribes from 2001, but...Bill met him at a prayer breakfast in 1998. Somebody connect the dots for me, because the only interesting fact I see here is that Wright was prominent enough as a religious leader to get invited to the White House.

    His supporters do (none / 0) (#114)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:38:48 PM EST
    they are going wacko over a Politico over this stuff.

    BTW they say that Maura Hardy, an ambassador from the Clinton Admin has been tied to the passport issue........


    not bizarre (none / 0) (#120)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:44:00 PM EST
    that is how propaganda works...you just put the idea out there and let people think what they want...but in this case it will make Hillary voters go "hmmmm", and make kossacks run to google in search of a deeper meaning--a meaning that doesn't exist, but that won't stop them from trying(or manufacturing something).

    KO threatened more on Passportgate like he has some deliciously juicy info ---like once again telling people 10 times that the person in charge of the dummies who opened Obama's file was a member of the Clinton years.  Once again, we go 'wtf?' while Hillary-haters start building myths surrounding the massive conspiracy of former Clinton WH staffers to 'steal' the nomination from Obama by LOOKING INTO HIS PASSPORT.  

    My inquiring mind is wondering when Obama, KO and kos are going to let me know just when Up became Down, Left became Right, and gullibility (koolaid drinking) became a respected personality trait of "gate crashing" Dems.


    Up became down a few weeks back... (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:51:52 PM EST
    Didja miss the memo?

    well for a few weeks (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:58:14 PM EST
    every time I jump I hit my head on the floor.  Now I know why....wish I had gotten that memo.

    Bringing up Lewinsky now (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by felizarte on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:19:00 AM EST
    only brings out the fact that Hillary is the victim here, not the perpetrator; also brings out her strength of character, fortitude, concern for her daughter and doing her best, through all the humiliation to keep her family together.

    The way she has conducted herself in this campaign is totally classy, intelligent and poise.  I recall the hostage taking at her campaign office in New Hampshire and how she did everything right; all the makings of a Commander in Chief we can have confidence in.


    I got nothing (none / 0) (#134)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:51:55 PM EST
    except for a couple of postings, there is nothing on the Maura Hardy/passport story... nada, bupkus.

    lol!~ just WHAT did they think (none / 0) (#170)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:23:12 AM EST
    Clinton was going to be able to find by looking at his passport?!

    Obama and his supporters are most definitely NOT ready for Prime Time.


    Please. (none / 0) (#48)
    by ajain on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:55:33 PM EST
    Its one thing to make an electability argument and its another to insinuate a relation of a "controversial" pastor with whom Pres. Clinton met a prayer breakfast.

    Oops! (none / 0) (#50)
    by ajain on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:56:46 PM EST
    Sorry, the grammer in the above post is all over the place. But you get the point.

    Oh dear (none / 0) (#49)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:56:35 PM EST
    "to overturn the will of the Democratic voters"?

    Say what?

    After Obama blocked the Michigan revote?

    Now I begin to believe the Obama campaign thinks I'm stupid.

    This does not charm me.


    This is a very childish sounding reply. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:59:13 PM EST
    They really are not thinking these things through.

    A pot (none / 0) (#57)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:59:58 PM EST
    in search of a kettle to call black (no racial meaning intended, although I'm sure Obama supporters will think up one).

    Obama camp saying NYT is lying? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:13:51 PM EST
    NYT story says Obama camp provided photo, this guy says Clinton's "top surrogates" did.  So he's saying the NYT is lying?  

    Now, that's news.


    no, you misread it (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26:29 PM EST
    he said the Clintons were pushing "this story" meaning the original Wright stuff, but that now they had been caught in hypocrisy.

    This maneuver is unbecoming of a President.  Low point for the Obama campaign right now.


    But I thought that the folks (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:37:07 PM EST
    over at Fox (Hannity and such) were the ones running with the Wright story.

    Sen Clinton has been fairly silent on this particular story.


    and ABC news (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:47:42 PM EST
    The Clintons control everything however.  They set this all up so that she could fall behind in delegates and NOW the media starts to do her dirty bidding! mauhahahah ingenious....



    Remember when (none / 0) (#136)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:53:32 PM EST
    a certain poster over at a certain blog...which shall not be named...had this theory that there was this magic wand that the Clintons could wave and all the bad news about them would vanish?

    Ah...those were the days...


    well I'm trying to forget (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by diplomatic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:09:53 AM EST
    all about that other blog...

    although my favorite memory still remains the proclamation on the front page that Obama had made California "irrelevant" after he lost it despite all their predictions.  Suddenly it didn't matter, and at suddenly neither did that blog.


    6th largest economy, thank you very much! (none / 0) (#243)
    by otherlisa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:40:31 AM EST
    But this California native is feeling sooo irrelevant right now.

    What the . . .? (none / 0) (#85)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:14:35 PM EST
    How old are these guys?!

    I also find this amazing as they use new media to their advantage, they should know this will get shot down in a heartbeat.


    May backfire. (none / 0) (#40)
    by ajain on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:52:42 PM EST
    Maybe they will play the "hillary ain't never been called a n--ger' along side this picture. That way I think it will help Hillary and make Obama look dumber. If that was possible.

    Gulp... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:55:29 PM EST
    So much for the high-minded, nuanced response.

    This reflects very poorly indeed on the Obama campaign and really cancels out the effects of his speech.  

    Axelrod wannabe Rove (none / 0) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:55:33 PM EST
    I think just got caught with his own games.

    Yes. Penn is marginally lest detestable (none / 0) (#54)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:58:13 PM EST
    than Axelrod, which is an important consideration when evaluating the candidates.

    Mean while over at Politico (none / 0) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:57:36 PM EST
    Obama supporters love this.  The story of Clinton repenting at this event and the photo.  Two, two two hits in one.  They think this is good for Obama.  It's amazing.. Clinton's are hypocrites, Hillary was quiet because she knew this was coming.... it really is weird.

    Certs has retsyn! (none / 0) (#58)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:00:16 PM EST
    You jogged my memory with two, two, two hits in one! :)

    Almost anyone over 40 will remember (none / 0) (#60)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:00:56 PM EST
    Rosalyn Carter was photographed with John Wayne Gacy. So this argument can only work with someone who is both young and stupid.

    omg (none / 0) (#132)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:50:40 PM EST
    i'm the same age as Amy.  I sure don't remember that.

    This is pitiful (none / 0) (#63)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:02:29 PM EST
    What on earth are they trying to accomplish? I hardly think that shaking hands with a man is equivalent to being spiritually advised by him for 20 years. This isn't even offensive - it's just sad. The Obama campaign must be very worried. I don't understand why. With Michigan and Florida out, Clinton is unlikely to be able to pull off a primary win. Obama needs to stop pulling dirty tricks on Clinton and start pulling dirty tricks on McCain. He's going to need to make McCain look as bad as he made Clinton look if he stands a chance of pulling this election off without Michigan or Florida.

    My favorite part of the NYT piece (none / 0) (#64)
    by Grey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:03:24 PM EST
    was Wolfson's response: "Urgent indeed -- a picture -- oooooooo!"

    As for Obama's peddling of the photo, I'll again quote Wolfson: "The Obama campaign put this out? How pathetic."

    Pathetic indeed, because we all know that a single meeting is the same as a 20-year association and close friendship.

    How astonishingly pathetic.

    I would like to see Wolfson and (none / 0) (#66)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:04:26 PM EST
    Axelrod discuss this tomorrow.
    Should be good fun.

    lol (none / 0) (#78)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:10:11 PM EST

    Well, my preferred duo is Ferraro and (none / 0) (#79)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:10:47 PM EST

    Off topic but... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Marco21 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:05:01 PM EST

    Kos better call CBS News. currently Barack appears darker in the photo they're using in covering the passport controversy.

    if i could screen grab it or whatever, I would, but my computer knowledge peaked with Atari, really.

    Someone call Markos on the evil CBS racists. Or, did Hillary put them up to darkening the photo???

    That must be what those workers were doing (none / 0) (#70)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:07:05 PM EST
    It's called a "Grip & Greet" (none / 0) (#69)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:05:15 PM EST
    Presidents do things like that.  The do functions where they shake hands with hundreds of people in a receiving line.

    Pictures are taken.

    They expect the Secretive Service to weed out potential assassins.  They don't check them for "baggage."

    Ah heck (none / 0) (#71)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:07:13 PM EST
    I thought it was "grip and grin".   ;)

    I thought they were (none / 0) (#137)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:53:34 PM EST
    call "meet and greet"

    yeah pat caddell is standing in line (none / 0) (#77)
    by english teacher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:09:58 PM EST
    behind wright and bill is not even looking at him.  then "slinkerwink" challenges the kossacks to "find out more" about this 1998 prayer breakfast.  so i guess we are now going to focus on the past?

    didn't venture into the comments, tho...

    That's what I love about the photo - that Bill (none / 0) (#80)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:13:01 PM EST
    isn't even looking at him!  

    "Find out more"? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:17:22 PM EST
    Like whether it was omelets or chicken a la king?  I mean, what is there to find out?  I'm imagining some poor cub reporter being sent out to "find out more" about this by Lou Grant.  "But, but, Lou. . . ."

    It's almost surreal. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:19:43 PM EST
    It's a reference (none / 0) (#248)
    by standingup on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:03:10 AM EST
    to the latest attempt to one up Hillary on Wright.  HuffPost has a new piece on it today - Hillary's Nasty Pastorate

    There's a reason why Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

    The affiliation is with the Senate Prayer Group which is really a "conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the "Fellowship," aka The Family."  Big scandal brewing ;-)


    its another Clinton did it moment ! (none / 0) (#89)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:19:29 PM EST
    bad hair day, Clinton did it,
    didn't you know? Guess Obama needs a Clinton did it moment now.

    Weird logic there.

    yeah its a desperate move.....sheesh!

    i wonder why we haven't heard any (none / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:23:10 PM EST
    gems or thoughts from michelle recently. hmmm!

    No Michelle, but (none / 0) (#102)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:28:08 PM EST
    Donna Brazile is quoted in the TIMES article saying the Clintons must show leadership and restraint on this issue.

    hasn't she been fairly silent... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:41:16 PM EST
    on this story? Her comments at the presser the other day sounded standard in the tactful category.

    i wish we would (none / 0) (#103)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:28:28 PM EST
    I loved TH Kerry.  I don't care if they hurt their husbands but it sure is fun listening to unvarnished opinions once in a while.  And Michelle Obama doesn't seem like the type to mince words.

    With the help of CNN, "The most (none / 0) (#106)
    by BlueMerlin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:31:50 PM EST
    trusted name in news", Obama will probably be successful in making this stick.     Hillary is velcro, Barack is teflon.   Go figure.  

    Liberal guilt, likeability, or male bonding?   Whatever it is, it will no doubt be the topic of a flurry of political science and gender studies dissertations in the coming years.

    wright and clinton (none / 0) (#113)
    by joe in oklahoma on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:38:13 PM EST
    "To be clear, President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his eight years as president."

    aww, how nice, and in 20 years at Trinity, Obama heard 6000 sermons and Wright said things three things which Republicans and Clintonites can twist out of context.

    More than three things, but since you missed them (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:44:22 PM EST
    you can prob still get the DVD's from the Church's website . . .

    just sayin'


    Sorry Joe... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Marco21 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:45:07 PM EST
    It's not Clinton using Wright against Obama, it's his girlfriend - the media. Obama and the media have been in a passionate embrace for a few months, but the flames seem to be waning and she's thinking she might have jumped in too deep, too fast.

    Welcome to the National Stage.


    Girlfriend, the media! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:55:29 PM EST
    That is AWESOME!  In the Washington Post when Barack started getting tough questions from the press while in TX about Rezco, the reporter stated that his reaction to the reporters was like "a man who had been bitten by his own dog."

    Not a dog...but the media can be a b***h.  And that's also what a payback is too!  


    A dog that OMG (none / 0) (#164)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:18:15 AM EST
    asked more than eight questions!

    Seemed they were the three worst (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:48:02 PM EST
    things Wright said on tape, but all reports said there were more.

    So you're saying there were even worse things he said than these?  Oh, that is bad for Obama.


    There have been six (none / 0) (#220)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:48:28 AM EST
    different sermons excerpted on Fox, all of them ugly in the way they're phrased and delivered, including one really charming one of Wright dry-humping the podium while exclaiming that Bill Clinton "did" the black community they way he "did" Monica, and adding "Bill was riding dirty!" all to cheers from the congregation.

    Sheesh (none / 0) (#237)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:11:31 AM EST
    I gotta say: If my rabbi ever did anything like that the congregation would have forced out him of temple --  pronto.

    Nevermind (none / 0) (#116)
    by InkSlayer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:41:14 PM EST
    The most disturbing video of the Reverend Wright videos IMHO is his Coming Home to Roost Sermon that he gleefully gave just five days after 9/11/2001.

    Any candidate that had even the smallest relationship with such a despicable anti-American wouldn't get my vote.

    When was this photo taken?

    Oh, 1998. Nevermind.

    gleeful??? (none / 0) (#135)
    by joe in oklahoma on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:52:45 PM EST

    1. have you ever been to worship in an African-American Church?

    2. on the morning of 9/11 i thought to myself, "so, it finally  begins"  does it not occur to you that the tragedy IS the chickens did come home to roost? having traveled extensively in developing nations and seen how US foreign policy under Reagan, Bush, and yes Clinton, i can assure you there has been growing resentment of how we have raided their resources, damaged their lands, and supported tyrants in exchange for oil, sugar, and other goodies.

    Pat Robertson (??) was pretty (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:56:29 PM EST
    certain that more than a few of us caused 9/11. Remember? Some friends and I pretty much covered most everyone he listed in that invective.

    I'm pretty sure he was gleeful...until they made him apologize.


    well it did not occur to me on the morning (5.00 / 0) (#208)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:37:25 AM EST
    of 9/11 that it was the tragedy of the chickens coming home to roast. may be it's because i didn't have the luxury of viewing it from afar . . .

    Yeah, it's gleeful (5.00 / 0) (#226)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:51:00 AM EST
    I agree with a good deal of the content of the excerpts I've seen of Rev. Wright.  It's the ugly tone and phrasing that makes me cringe.  If we're going to talk about America's sins, can't we at least have a bit of sadness about it?

    It's really all about the HYPOCRISY (none / 0) (#119)
    by g8grl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:43:07 PM EST
    Isn't that what most politicians end up going down for, their hypocrisy?  After taking a look at Obama's interview regarding Imus and Imus' racist remarks, it's amazing that he didn't think any of the exact same issues applied to Rev. Wright.  Obama said (in response to question whether Imus should be fired) "he would not be working for me".  On whether Obama would do another interview with Imus... "I don't want to be an enabler or be encouraging in any way of the kind of programming that results in the unbelievably offensive statements that were made."

    To be fair (none / 0) (#230)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:54:25 AM EST
    Sharpton pointed out in a debate with Greta van Susteren on Fox tonight on just this issue that Wright never used racial or gender slurs even remotely comparable to Imus's against individuals, and most of his anger was directed at the institution of the U.S. government.

    Not defending Wright, I just think Sharpton's point that Imus and Wright aren't really comparable is right.


    i missed obama's speech on the racial divide. (none / 0) (#126)
    by english teacher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:47:23 PM EST
    i was wondering whether anyone could fill me in on his plan to rebuild new orleans.  i mean, that is the great issues apropos race in this country today isn't it?  

    so maybe an obama supporter can tell me all the great lines from obama's speech that focused on what he plans to do about new orleans and how that fits into healing the racial divide.  

    or should i just assume he didn't discuss it, since nothing has been reported indicating he said anything profound about a concrete issue aside from his own prospects wrt the dem nomination?

    Okay, I held my nose (none / 0) (#130)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:49:02 PM EST
    and went over to Huffbama Post to read the comments by their readers.  Yes, they are all calling for the Clintons' heads.  They are hypocrites for not defending Wright, they were at his church, there is video to this effect blah blah blah.

    Good to know there are a good number of commenters who are blasting the Obama camp for taking this path, even some of his supporters.  Also, I thought that this would have been like in 72 point font and a huge picture, but it was relegated to the middle bottom of the blog.

    Guess Arianna knows that this is a non-starter as well.

    Creative Class (none / 0) (#140)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:56:21 PM EST
    I guess Hillary supporters, being not part of the Creative Class, don't get why this picture reflects badly on the Clintons and why the Clintons would want to "breach the passport file. ".  Just a dopey middle aged woman here.  

    I am SO a member of the creative class! (none / 0) (#244)
    by otherlisa on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:43:59 AM EST
    I have a card in my wallet and everything.

    And I support Hillary.

    Do you think they will suspend my membership?


    Let it be known.... (none / 0) (#146)
    by robertearl on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:02:23 AM EST
    that I robertearl am the first to predict, that the democratic party is done. With all of this infighting, no matter who wins the dem nom McCain will be the next President of the United States.
    We as a party are deeply fractured. It's so deep that I don't think it can be repaired.

    We are acting like we are one anothers enemy. And while we fight, the GOP is sitting back laughing at us.

    When we loose, we will have no-one to blame but ourselves.

    If what you say is true... (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by Chimster on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:21:09 AM EST
    After the collapse of the democrats, you can then say you used great judgement. If I'm not mistaken, you are now eligible to run for president.

    Not unless (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:33:58 AM EST
    there is the ability to unify us to vote.  I don't think that just this group is going to get very far though.

    And here I thought I had seen (none / 0) (#153)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:08:36 AM EST
    everything. This is just silly.

    The sad thing is Obama looks pathetic.

    Yes, he does (none / 0) (#161)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:13:38 AM EST
    and yes, he can continue looking pathetic  ;-)

    Sorry for shouting (none / 0) (#166)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:19:10 AM EST
    My incoherrent rant is a call for us to unite not belittle each other. Obama doesn't look pathetic the state of our party does. I thought shouting may make it more clear, but since facts and sincerity don't work I'll ask you straight up. Can we simply agree to disagree.  I propose that we simply cast our votes.  The candidate with the most delegate wins and we come together to elect a Democratic president for 2009.

    No, sorry (5.00 / 0) (#233)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:59:00 AM EST
    Your boy thought it was a peachy keen way to advance himself by tearing down some of our best Democratic leaders with lifelong civil rights records by smearing them as racists.

    Discussion over.  If you want unity, tell Mr. Obama to drop out now.


    You seem to want us to stop discussing (none / 0) (#179)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:26:24 AM EST
    the campaign.
    Don't think that's going to happen.

    More bluntly put (none / 0) (#183)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:27:42 AM EST
    than my comment. ;)

    Discussion (none / 0) (#192)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:31:17 AM EST
    Oh I thought this was a rant not a discussion, if you have any points other then baseless attacks of hate filled jargan.  Then please go ahead!

    I assume (none / 0) (#210)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:38:43 AM EST
    you are referring to your own, all caps, prior rant, in which it is obvious you support Obama and don't like the tone of this discussion in this thread.

    I suggest you learn to spell before you come out to play with the adults.  And bring some facts with you, next time.


    You challenged the fact (none / 0) (#211)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:38:56 AM EST
    that the Obama campaign provided the photo to the NYT.

    When the proof is given to you, suddenly the whole Democratic Party is to blame.

    It's hardly hate. But facts are facts.


    You challenged the fact (none / 0) (#214)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:40:07 AM EST
    that the Obama campaign provided the photo to the NYT.

    When the proof is given to you, suddenly the whole Democratic Party is to blame.

    It's hardly hate.

    Facts are sometimes inconvenient.


    Bye (none / 0) (#223)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:49:54 AM EST
    I wish you well, we will see in the near future who our candidate is and I will vote for whoever that person is.  I admit I question both candidates electability at this point.  

    Don't know why you're leaving (none / 0) (#241)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:28:41 AM EST
    Just because others provided links on the NYT photo, or because some disagree with you?

    I'm also voting for whoever ends up the nominee. But that doesn't negate my right and responsibiity to point out hypocrisy or disengenousness in the candidates. McCain and his Rovian swiftboaters certainly don't need any help from us. They've already worked up a nifty plan to go after our nominee, no matter who it is. Guaranteed.


    Sorry for double post :-( (none / 0) (#215)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:41:15 AM EST

    Isn't it ironic (none / 0) (#249)
    by mg7505 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:24:42 AM EST
    that Bill Richardson just endorsed Obama as a "once in a lifetime leader" who can unite us and show some leadership? Unity and leadership = attacking your opponent's SPOUSE?

    Another irony: remember when Obama yelled at Hillary in an earlier debate about Bill's prominent role, ie "I don't know who I'm running against"? Who or what ARE you running against, Senator Obama? The possibility that you might have baggage too?

    At least this slimy tactics now are being (none / 0) (#250)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:44:36 AM EST
    covered by the Press.  

    candidate of change? (none / 0) (#251)
    by joyce1 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:12:28 AM EST
    Obama is trying to accomplish what the right-wing was unable to do in the nineties, destroy the Clintons. Every time he has a problem he tries to blame them instead of taking responsibility. He is not the man he pretends to be.