Clinton On Wright

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:35:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

In my humble opinion, Hillary Clinton makes a grave mistake wading into the Wright waters:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a wide-ranging interview today with Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporters and editors, said she would have left her church if her pastor made the sort of inflammatory remarks Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor made. "He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Previously Clinton has steadfastly avoided discussing the Wright issue. Rightly in my view. Of course it was no doubt frustrating to her campaign that she did not receive any credit for taking the high road here, but it is still is a grave mistake to now discuss the issue. I am disappointed that she chose to discuss it. Bad show Hillary.

Update (TL): Comments now closed, there's a new thread on Wright up.

< The Wrong Argument | Wright Sermons in Tampa Canceled >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news
Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
Contributors
- T. Christopher Kelly
- Armando Llorens
TL Alumni
- John Wesley Hall

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- Hosted by Scoophost
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Template Design based on WordPress Relaxation Theme
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2008. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com.
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
Stats
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Clinton On Wright | 264 comments (264 topical)

I gather she her comment was in response (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:39:40 PM EST

to a question. Should she have responded: no comment?

Correct it was in response (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:42:17 PM EST

to a direct question of what she would have done in that situation. When the reporters tried to ask her if Obama had done enough she demured and suggested that was a question for him. She could only answer what she would have done.

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

[ Parent ]

Except (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:44:10 PM EST

It opens a can of worms. She could have punted.

[ Parent ]

Obama's can perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Chimster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:51:32 PM EST

This comment she made will keep the Wright issue in people's minds and make the issue rise once again to the surface due to her response. It will remove the sniper issue and place it on a forgotten back burner. She did not make a mistake. She waited for someone to lob her this question. She whacked it. I don't believe she mentioned Obama directly. I think she gets away from this one with much scarring.

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily just Obama's (none / 0) (#149)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:46:14 PM EST

What do you know about her own religious ties?

[ Parent ]

Uhh, just Obama's can of worms this time.. (none / 0) (#175)
by Chimster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:57:57 PM EST

At this moment in time, it does not matter what her religious views are. The topic is her reaction to Obama's mentor. She spoke an obvious truth. Wright's name is back at the top of headlines.

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

[ Parent ]

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

her religious ties?

[ Parent ]

x (none / 0) (#190)
by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:05:56 PM EST

She's been a devout methodist all her life. I really don't think you're going to find a Rev. Wright in the Methodist church.

[ Parent ]

That's it? (none / 0) (#192)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:07:55 PM EST

Her religious ties are far more interesting than that.

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

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

[ Parent ]

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

Where she connected Clinton to Hitler.

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

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

[ Parent ]

: Interestingly Coe has claimed that (none / 0) (#244)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:55:32 PM EST

they influenced Clinton on right-wing legislation that she supported or sponsored. I don't know if that's true or not.
However, what's also interesting is that this is one thing that won't hurt her at all in the GE as the people who are part of it are right-wingers.

[ Parent ]

She goes to prayer breakfasts (none / 0) (#243)
by zyx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:54:52 PM EST

Honestly, you don't think that the Nazi connection is bandied about at Congressional Prayer breakfasts? This is gotcha crap. I skimmed the Ehrenreich hit piece. Not impressed. I pulled up at the Harper's piece in your list. Didn't mention Clinton. I just read the Mother Jones piece (quickly). Yeah, so she meets with Brownback and now he likes her better than he did. Yeah, she opposes flag-burning, which I think is dumb. She also opposes unlimited access of minors to crap video games, which my 22-year-old son thinks is dumb. I had a little argument with him about that and suggested that someday when he has minor children he might feel a little differently. He huffed that he is a strong believer in the Constitution and its amendments and all. I huffed right back that minors don't enjoy the full protections of the Constitution and does he realize maybe there is a reason why children don't get to vote, maybe?

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

[ Parent ]

If you say so. Didn't know that right-wing (none / 0) (#247)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:02:08 PM EST

religious nuts who influence our policies were acceptable to Democrats but I guess I was wrong. Learn something new about my party everyday.

[ Parent ]

Hmmmm. (5.00 / 1) (#251)
by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:19:42 PM EST

Yes, and I didn't know that democrats were so non-reality-based that they are willing to make excuses for a pastor misinforming his flock about HIV AIDS by preaching that a government-made virus was introduced intentionally for the purpose of black genocide. I kind of thought democrats were for medical and scientific literacy -- you know, like the MEDICAL FACT that HIV AIDS evolved from a closely related immunodeficiency virus prevalent in non-human primates. How insulting to African Americans that this crap is peddled to them. How disappointing that people give Rev. Wright a pass on it. Dispensing this kind of misinformation does nothing to help with treating and curing AIDS and please remember that AA's suffer disproportionately from the disease.

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

[ Parent ]

Heh. Bill Cosby said the same thing. (none / 0) (#257)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:30:22 PM EST

I didn't see anyone lose their mind then. The government experimented on black people in Tuskeegee and let murderous terrorists sell crack on our streets - to black people - and then create racist laws to put them in jail longer than whites. Cosby and Wright are wrong about HIV but don't think the paranoia didn't come from somewhere.

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

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

[ Parent ]

Wright is too smart to say dumb things (5.00 / 1) (#258)
by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:36:49 PM EST

I agree with your last paragraph - stupidity is stupidity whereever it is. Same for bigotry. Same for fundamentalism. Etc.

[ Parent ]

: Cosby has a PhD. (none / 0) (#259)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:39:02 PM EST

I think he's probably not dumb either but he said it as well.

[ Parent ]

And a friend of Billy Graham (none / 0) (#203)
by felizarte on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:14:25 PM EST

This is one area which can stand the closest scrutiny according to earlier articles before she announced her candidacy. I don't have the links but I believe her pastor since high school was interviewed. Perhaps someone else can did this out.

[ Parent ]

But (5.00 / 2) (#117)
by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:33:42 PM EST

that can of worms helps her. Why would anyone think she should protect the opposition on a completely valid issue?

[ Parent ]

That can of worms... (none / 0) (#55)
by gmo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:20 PM EST

...was opened a long time ago. If we're going to have a continuing dialogue on race in this country, then this is simply part of it. So how can Obama (or anyone) credibly object to her voicing an opinion?

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

[ Parent ]

To Say (none / 0) (#64)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:06:17 PM EST

Something like, 'well, this is not something I am going to get into. Obama's relationship with his pastor is his business, and I am not in a position to judge it.'

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

[ Parent ]

There is no other context (5.00 / 8) (#72)
by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:09:34 PM EST

The Clinton Camp has been banned from addressing race in American in any context at all.

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

[ Parent ]

You Underestimate (none / 0) (#84)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:17:04 PM EST

HRC and are doing her a great disservice to suggest that she is limited in this regard. To think that she does not have the personal experience, imagination and talent, to address the long festering wound of racism in America outside of the narrow context of Obama/Wright, is nonsense imo. We all own it and it is much bigger than the campaign.

[ Parent ]

Whenever they address it (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:24:24 PM EST

They are blamed for addressing it.

[ Parent ]

Get real... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by ACitizen on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:34:44 PM EST

.........Obama chose to make this an issue.

All he had to do when first approached about Wright was say,

What happens in my church and between me and my pastor is my business. Not the business of the press and most especially not the business of the state.

But he's like all the rest of the believers. He thinks his belief should be center stage.

The Founders, for good and prudent reasons, thought not. But not Mr. SnakeOil. He wants his cake and eat it too.

Anybody remember his Time article about how Democrats should 'reach out to evangelicals...'.

I want politicians to keep their fucking religion out of my government.

Period.

Hell, I don't even know what religion Clinton is. Nor do I fukin' care.

You do realize that when Sinclair Lewis made his famous statement he did not say whether that figure was approaching from the Right or the Left.

Think about it.

[ Parent ]

: Obama Did Not q (none / 0) (#166)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:52:51 PM EST

Choose to make this an issue, except in that he did not disavow Rev. Wright before the campaign. And he does not have the luxury to say it is none of anyones business as HRC could do.
And being oblivious to the religion issue is a mistake imo. It would be fine to say that were it not such a huge force in mainstream politics. The fact that HRC is a top rank member of the Fellowship, speaks volumes and is far from a minor detail in her political war chest, imo.

[ Parent ]

That doesn't pass the giggle test. (none / 0) (#100)
by zyx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:25:24 PM EST

HRC is gagged on the race issue. Period. Obama owns it. The Clintons are "typical white people" and nothing more. The end.

[ Parent ]

That's basically what she was saying (none / 0) (#77)
by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:14:49 PM EST

it wasn't her place to comment, speak to him, he gave a good/important speech, talk to him etc.

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

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

[ Parent ]

No judgement (none / 0) (#80)
by Chimster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:16:05 PM EST

on this matter equals no headlines in the news. She gave her judgement, and it is now news again. If she had kept going along the "high road", no one would have noticed. I'm sure there will be times where her fooot gets stuck in her mouth, but this was not one of them.

[ Parent ]

It wasn't a judgment (none / 0) (#89)
by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:21:27 PM EST

She was asked what she would do, not what she thought of his handling of it.

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

[ Parent ]

It was her judgment (none / 0) (#110)
by Chimster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:30:55 PM EST

that told her to make make no comment up until this point. It was her judgment that told her to tell the news exactly what she thought of his handling of it. I think she used good judgement this time around.

You're right about Richardson.

[ Parent ]

: It was good judgement, IMHO (none / 0) (#126)
by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:36:13 PM EST

And if you watch the video you see how she said it, what the question was and everything else. it was a good answer and an answer her base was probably thinking.

[ Parent ]

Obama Misspoke (none / 0) (#201)
by Athena on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:12:18 PM EST

Why wasn't the press worked up over the fact that Obama misspoke when he claimed to have never heard inflammatory statements by Wright?

Selective outrage, indeed.

[ Parent ]

Except... (none / 0) (#154)
by gmo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:48:15 PM EST

...imo, that's what Obama should have said himself in the first place.

[ Parent ]

But, if she did that, she'd be playing along with (none / 0) (#227)
by derridog on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:30:20 PM EST

Obama's meme that there isn't anything there - nothing to see --just an old friend and mentor who happens to be a kindly old racist, who humps the lecturn in church when speaking of the Clintons.

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

[ Parent ]

What part of her statement had anything (none / 0) (#151)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:46:59 PM EST

to do with the discussion of race in America?

[ Parent ]

She answered a question. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by ineedalife on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:41:14 PM EST

If my pastor was making insulting my spouse from the pulpit I would leave too.

Remember how Dukakis was wimpified by refusing to answer the hypothetical question about how to punish a person that raped his wife?

Wright made this personal about the Clintons. She is going to be asked these questions until she answers them.

In fact by answering them now she may have done Obama a favor. Now the question may not be asked at the debate.

Let's see what the Obama campaign does (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:44:31 PM EST

with it. Hopefully they'll leave it alone. There was nothing wrong with her answer (that I can see)
and if they let it roll on by, this issue may simmer down.

[ Parent ]

They didn't (none / 0) (#17)
by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:48:40 PM EST

from the Obama campaign, wow, that didn't take long:

"After originally refusing to play politics with this issue, it's disappointing to see Hillary Clinton's campaign sink to this low in a transparent effort to distract attention away from the story she made up about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. The truth is, Barack Obama has already spoken out against his pastor's offensive comments and addressed the issue of race in America with a deeply personal and uncommonly honest speech. The American people deserve better than tired political games that do nothing to solve the larger challenges facing this country," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 4) (#23)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:51:13 PM EST

Interesting decision to juxtapose the Bosnia issue with the Wright issue. Do you think it's clear that the voters will unanimously conclude that Bosnia is far, far more important?

Only a political spokesman could make a big deal out of whether Hillary exaggerated an incident from 10 years ago in Bosnia while at the same time decrying "tired political games." I wonder how many of the country's problems will be solved by getting to the bottom of the Bosnia issue.

[ Parent ]

I'm still trying to get past (5.00 / 6) (#40)
by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:56:29 PM EST

"uncommonly honest". Good lord...

[ Parent ]

: LOL (5.00 / 1) (#261)
by ineedalife on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:39:59 PM EST

I guess he's admitting Obama is usually not honest!!!

[ Parent ]
: Do other politicians generally acknowledge (none / 0) (#155)
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:48:19 PM EST

the issues of race that Sen. Obama acknowledged?
Do other Americans?

[ Parent ]

Now, this, is slimy (5.00 / 7) (#31)
by suisser on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:54:14 PM EST

politics as usual. I have no problem with the Clinton comment, I personally agree and see no reason why she should be made mute on the subject.
As for the Obama campaign reaction to her comment - absurd and slimy, and pure political games.

[ Parent ]

Dang, that was fast. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:30 PM EST

I should have gotten out my stopwatch.

I pretty much could have scripted that for them. They are getting predictable. They are always disappointed, lol!~ Wonder if the disappointment will make it into Obama's stump tomorrow . . .

[ Parent ]

He will have his (5.00 / 3) (#63)
by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:04:28 PM EST

arms crossed.

And will look down his nose.

[ Parent ]

: ah yes. very predictable, eh? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:09:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Boy, (5.00 / 2) (#65)
by sas on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:06:52 PM EST

the Obama campaign is really a bunch of bottom feeders.

They disgust me.

[ Parent ]

Really (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:35:01 PM EST

I think he's so far off the mark to pursue this course.

[ Parent ]

Yeh, when her minister dry-humps a pulpit (5.00 / 8) (#158)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:49:31 PM EST

and pretends it's Obama, then the Obamans can get all atwitter. Until then, they can stuff it.

Wright was appalling, period. And Obama did a great disservice to the Dem hope of winning the White House by being too gutless to find another church.

Good for Clinton. She was asked a question that dealt not with Obama or Wright but with what she would do in her church. She may just have saved some votes for Dems -- and those may go to him, after all. So any offended Obamans, see paragraph one.

[ Parent ]

Wright's Mockery of Clinton (5.00 / 11) (#168)
by Athena on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:54:23 PM EST

There was little outcry over the mockery of Hillary Clinton by Rev. Wright. I think that's because most of America is so used to seeing Hillary denigrated that Wright's tirade was actually familiar.

So it's good for Hillary to speak out against a "pastor" who had no mercy when lashing out against her - and who seemed to be enjoying taking her down. What's amazing is that she held back for so long.

What would the reaction have been if Hillary's pastor had mocked Obama from the pulpit? Total combustion.

[ Parent ]

: Thanks for that reminder. (5.00 / 7) (#194)
by gmo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:08:59 PM EST

Not to mention Wright's nastiness in his "riding dirty" comments about WJC, which are equally denigrating to all women, not just HRC.

[ Parent ]
: x (5.00 / 1) (#199)
by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:11:47 PM EST

I think one of the big reasons is that no one saw it. The media kept re-running the vids with Wright saying "US of KKK-A" and "God Hate America." I don't remember ever seeing the vid about the Clintons on TV. I saw it on the internet only.

[ Parent ]
: Or just maybe (none / 0) (#200)
by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:11:51 PM EST

because presidential candidates are held to a different standard than religious leaders?
No, no, that can't be it. It must be because the media hates Hillary. That pretty much explains everything these days.

[ Parent ]

Disagree respectfully (5.00 / 6) (#4)
by garage mahal on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:41:15 PM EST

I can't see a thing wrong with her replying, or the substance of her reply. Was she supposed to lie?

I agree and disagree... (none / 0) (#39)
by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:56:24 PM EST

...while I have no problem with her weighing in or the substance of her remark (she's absolutely right, as far as I'm concerned), this smacks of desperation to me. It could be that she's trying to get the Bosnia story (she "misspoke" in a prepared speech, etc.) bumped off the news, or she's realizing that Obama's very bad week has come to an end and she wants to remind people of it.

But again, it sounds desperate. I suspect her internals are reflecting what some new polling appears to be showing. Obama's stemmed the bleeding, there's some tightening in Pennsylvania, and North Carolina is moving decisively to Obama. In addition, the media narrative of "She can't win" is gaining new steam (and, umm, she can't). Let's talk about Wright!

[ Parent ]

I agree and disagree... (none / 0) (#134)
by alexei on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:41:28 PM EST

My understanding is that Bosnia reference wasn't in a prepared speech. That was the Obama campaign's talking point.

[ Parent ]

I saw proof of that today... (none / 0) (#147)
by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:45:48 PM EST

wish I could remember where. It was not in the prepared remarks.

[ Parent ]

Okay, fine... (none / 0) (#163)
by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:51:20 PM EST

...so what. She still made it up - twice. She didn't lie, she just invented details that contradicted what happened in order to make a political point about her experience.

You don't misspeak or misremember having to duck and run off a plane because of sniper fire twice. Also, the statement is absurd on the face of it. The Secret Service would never put the First Lady in that kind of danger.

But again, she didn't lie. She just - and this is what frightens me - casually and naturally invented a story that didn't happen.

[ Parent ]

: Oh I'm sorry... (none / 0) (#178)
by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:58:12 PM EST

...I forgot, she's only human. That was a "revelation" to me.
Cry me a river, Clinton, you misspeaker of details about something that never happened. (She's not a liar.)

[ Parent ]

LOL (none / 0) (#70)
by zyx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:09:07 PM EST

...she could say "I really like baby bunnies, they are very cute" and the Obama camp would attack her somehow.

I'm pretty bored by this. Talk about the kitchen sink!

[ Parent ]

No one's attacking her... (none / 0) (#94)
by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:23:35 PM EST

...I think if she's getting desperate, she should throw the kitchen sink. Doing so got some results before Texas and Ohio. All's fair in politics, I guess, including "misspeaking" (She didn't lie!!!!) twice in prepared remarks about something that demonstrably did not happen in Bosnia.

[ Parent ]

No one is attacking her? (none / 0) (#122)
by zyx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:35:19 PM EST

Excuse me, where do you spend your days? (and nights?)

[ Parent ]

: I meant here on this board - (none / 0) (#180)
by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:59:10 PM EST

...I didn't attack her in my first post. (I did, though, in my most recent one!)

[ Parent ]

LOL! (none / 0) (#123)
by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:35:40 PM EST

Exactly right.

[ Parent ]

Fair Game (5.00 / 7) (#11)
by Athena on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:45:28 PM EST

At least one of the Democratic candidates has to effectively disown the Wright bigotry. Obama won't do it - at least Clinton will.

Why should Clinton be denied a sharp contrast with Obama? There's no way she would associate with such a character - and she would have been hounded out of the race if such a story had broken about her.

Yeah, I don't get this (5.00 / 2) (#174)
by goldberry on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:57:52 PM EST

What is she allowed to say? If she gives the response she gave, she's being too negative and stirring up trouble. If she gives no answer, she's been weakened by the constant attacks, and that's not a great presidential characteristic. What exactly is the appropriate response? How about just answering the questions truthfully? If he was my pastor, I'd have to think twice about maintaining a 20 year relationship. You stick with someone for 20 years and you are associated with what they believe. It's the company you keep.
But for some reason she is not supposed to say anything because it disadvantages Obama? Is that realistic during a presidential campaign?
That's my real question: Is it realistic to expect a candidate to never disadvantage her opponent by contrasting herself with him?
BTD knows that the answer to this question is no, it is not realistic. For sure, Obama's camp wouldn't give it a second thought. They are constantly saying nasty things about her. So, BTD is insisting she come to the gunfight not even carrying a knife. No, Hillary must be completely disarmed. This is nonsense. The public would never expect it. It is only the committed Obama supporters who cannot tolerate any unpleasantness directed at Obama, especially from HER. How are they going to feel when the GOP starts hurling accusations? Well, then it will be as expected. The Republicans are mean. Hillary is not allowed to be.

[ Parent ]

Wright is Here to Stay (5.00 / 1) (#189)
by Athena on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:05:46 PM EST

The Obama left is delusional - the 24/7 Wright attack is already underway on talk radio and right-wing web sites. Many don't want to see how Obama is severely weakened by the Wright mess. It's pointless to have Obama run in primaries where the Wright issue is buried and not aired. Then the primaries are even more disconnected from the general election.

[ Parent ]

: Knuckling under (none / 0) (#193)
by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:08:58 PM EST

Whatever talk radio and right-wing web sites say, we'd better agree with, because if not we'll get our asses kicked by real America. That's why I'm in favor of invading Iran.

[ Parent ]

Sorry, (5.00 / 8) (#12)
by ruthinor on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:46:49 PM EST

but where has "taking the high road" gotten her? She answered the question honestly and if Obamatrons don't like it, tough noogies.

Thank you. (none / 0) (#73)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:09:44 PM EST

That was my thought, as well.

[ Parent ]

: Yes, (none / 0) (#142)
by alexei on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:43:52 PM EST

Mine too.

[ Parent ]

You might be right... (5.00 / 13) (#13)
by Exeter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:47:33 PM EST

...but it doesn't really matter to the Obama people how Bill and Hillary answer questions. They project their hatred onto their answers and glean absurd derogatory meanings from whatever the say.

What was she supposed to say to when asked if she would have taken her children to that church?

In the Obama camps eyes, there is NOTHING Clinton can say other than "Obama should be President and I'm sorry to be standing in his way." If anything Clinton needs to take off the kid gloves and start punching Obama right in the face and let the chips fall where they may.

"and I'm quitting and giving him my (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by Joan in VA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:02:02 PM EST

campaign funds. Please forgive me." lol

[ Parent ]

Perhaps that is the point of this post. (none / 0) (#113)
by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM EST

Not that HRC shouldn't have responded to the question the way she did if she had any chance of winning the nomination. But since, arguably, she doesn't, she shouldn't have sd. it because it weakens Obama in the GE? Who knows.

[ Parent ]

Don't (5.00 / 7) (#128)
by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:38:10 PM EST

you think that argument is getting old? "weakens Obama in the GE." You know what? Maybe Obama is weak.

[ Parent ]

Yes (5.00 / 3) (#137)
by nell on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:42:48 PM EST

Thank you. He sure needs a lot of protecting for someone who is so far and away the better candidate...

Pssst...Obama...WE ARE ALL THINKING IT. HRC saying it doesn't change the fact that we are all thinking it..

[ Parent ]

If so, then Clinton is weaker (none / 0) (#138)
by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:43:36 PM EST

She is losing, after all.

[ Parent ]

A tie is not ... (none / 0) (#148)
by alexei on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:46:01 PM EST

losing. Plus, if Wright had come out before Iowa, you really think that Obama would be around now?

[ Parent ]

If you can't beat someone who's weak (none / 0) (#164)
by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:51:26 PM EST

then you're sure not strong.

And I don't understand what you mean by "if Wright had come out before Iowa." Do you honestly think that Trinity is a secret cult that nobody realized Obama belonged to until FOX News decided that it was the #1 issue facing America?

[ Parent ]

Given the small number of African Americans (5.00 / 1) (#214)
by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:21:34 PM EST

residing in Iowa (5%?), I doubt a full on discussion of The Rev. Wright's sermons would have brought forth support for Obama. Not many subscribers to black liberation theology in IA.

[ Parent ]

So Iowa doesn't count (none / 0) (#223)
by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:25:26 PM EST

because you think that he wouldn't have won if the week immediately preceding Iowa had been full of highly negative news coverage, maybe.

This is weak tea indeed.

Less than 1% of Iowa's population is black.

[ Parent ]

: Sure, Iowa counts. It's #1, after all. (none / 0) (#226)
by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:27:51 PM EST

I pointed out the rationalization that Obama's pastor was bascially preaching black liberation theology and, thus, non-blacks shouldn't be upset by it, wouldn't play in Iowa if this info was available to the voters b/4 the IA caucuses.

[ Parent ]

x (none / 0) (#207)
by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:16:58 PM EST

He wouldn't have won a single primary and would be out of the race. We'd be seeing a two-way race between Clinton and Edwards. If only it had been! I could have supported either of them.

[ Parent ]

: Yeah, (none / 0) (#216)
by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:23:13 PM EST

that's why all the polls and such show that Obama's nationwide support has cratered in the last week, and... what's that? The polls haven't budged? Oh, well, maybe you actually don't know what everyone in America is thinking, after all.

[ Parent ]

I take exception to the framing (5.00 / 1) (#171)
by Exeter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:57:07 PM EST

of everything of Clinton related fitting into the formula of "she has NO CHANCE of winning" + she has one of a wide variety psychopathic tendencies = that is why she is doing it. She still has a decent chance to win this thing-- especially when all the media lemmings start running in the other direction after she wins PA.

But, to answer your point, no it does not hurt Obama in the general. The Wright issue will be thoroughly explored to the point of over-saturation and exhaustion -- would you rather that happen in mid March or mid October?

[ Parent ]

I take exception to the framing (none / 0) (#173)
by Exeter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:57:49 PM EST

Since no one else dares to utter the words (5.00 / 8) (#16)
by ivs814 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:48:05 PM EST

I am grateful she had the courage to say what our "objective" media won't. Most of us would have left if our pastors had uttered a fraction of the vile words preached by this hateful man. And it most definitely reflects on Obama's character that he chose to keep himself and his family planted in the pews of a church that corrupts the Christian message.

I completely agree... (5.00 / 5) (#20)
by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:49:55 PM EST

I would have left and that goes double for most everyone I know.

Hillary is brave in answering that question and stating what most of her base is thinking.

[ Parent ]

thinking? (none / 0) (#32)
by kostaway on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:54:32 PM EST

has anyone bothered to see the entire sermons beyond the tape excerpts? it is as much hate speech as liberal blogs are hate sites.

curiosity would kill the cattiness, I realize.

[ Parent ]

What about Wright's comments (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM EST

regarding the Clintons?

[ Parent ]

Really? liberal blogs are saying (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by kenosharick on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:58:36 PM EST

we deserved 9/11 and AIDS was forced upon blacks by our government? I think not.

[ Parent ]

: If you only read conservative blogs (none / 0) (#60)
by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:02:32 PM EST

then yes, you probably do think that liberal blogs say that we deserved 9/11, or that they want American troops to die in Iraq, and you've probably seen one or two cherrypicked comments to back that up. Likewise, if you only watch FOX News, you probably think Rev. Wright's sermons are like Black Panthers rallies because you've seen 30 seconds of one of them played over and over and over.

[ Parent ]
: the part in Wrights sermon (none / 0) (#143)
by kostaway on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:44:20 PM EST

where he leads up to the "chickens coming home to roost" comments, are about him quoting a former US ambassador, who discussed "blowback". the sermon goes on to discuss the problems of violence begetting violence.
I don't agree with the suggestion that the government forced AIDS upon African-Americans, but I do understand that things like the Tuskeggee experiments, among other things in US history do set up alarms in the African American community.
People seem to focus on the most irrational claims, but Wright also talked about 3 strikes laws. Given that African Americans represent a higher proportion of the prison population to their proportion of the actual population, and that they are often viewed with suspicion by police, based on color, it is not unreasonable to think that such laws are going to affect the African-American community disproportionately?

[ Parent ]

Hateful? (none / 0) (#50)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:59:32 PM EST

Why because he has big problems with American foreign policies? From what I have read his views, save for the HIV comment, match up with what most liberal/progressive have been hammering the right about for years.

[ Parent ]

She was asked, ok? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:49:08 PM EST

She didn't bring it up, and of course you neglected to mention that in your comments above.

And her answer is, in my view, right on the money.

She could have said something (none / 0) (#34)
by mikecan1978 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:54:53 PM EST

Like Mccain or Huckabee, the whole she was asked is bullshit....she could have avoided it if she wanted.....her surragotes are pushing the same theme now.

[ Parent ]

Penn and Wolfson have apparently (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:57:09 PM EST

sd. on their conference call the Super-Ds shouldn't forget the Obama/Wright issue in making their decisions. I don't think they should have sd. that or that they needed to say anything.

[ Parent ]

Yes, (none / 0) (#131)
by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:40:00 PM EST

but you aren't running Clinton's campaign.

[ Parent ]

: That I will concede. (none / 0) (#135)
by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:42:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Good (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:58:14 PM EST

They're gonna be blamed anyway.

I would have left the church, too.

[ Parent ]

Good for her (5.00 / 13) (#26)
by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:52:16 PM EST

Regardless of which road Hillary actually takes, the media and most bloggers will still accuse her of taking the low road.

So she might as well just travel down the truth road.

The media brought up the question, didn't they?

Some of you reading this will now think: "Ah yes, but she could have just answered NO COMMENT."

And there's the rub. If she had just said NO COMMENT, she will lose with the kool kid bloggers anyway because she failed to defend Obama and Wright

Oh no, not again! She didn't martyr herself to save her opponent from his own shady affiliations and mistakes. What a terrible outrage.

: Some people (5.00 / 5) (#28)
by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:52:59 PM EST

Don't want to travel down the truth road.

[ Parent ]

Is it more than Wright? (5.00 / 7) (#33)
by Polkan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:54:42 PM EST

In the early replays, CNN was showing her speak about her reaction to Don Imus.

To me it shows two things:

Hillary being Hillary and saying things as she believes them to be
consistency in her positions on Imus and on Wright, for what it's worth

She didn't wade into it (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:55:57 PM EST

the reporter/editor, whoever it was, threw a bucket of it at her head, just like Kroft did with the Muslim nonsense. As was said downthread, if she'd repeated "No comment" over and over like a robot, she'd be accused just as much of exploiting the Wright issue.

What would you have had her do, BTD, seriously, when she was asked about it?

That's not true (none / 0) (#52)
by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:00:04 PM EST

Last week she didn't answer questions about Wright. Do you honestly think nobody was asking?

[ Parent ]

and they were going to keep asking... (none / 0) (#111)
by kredwyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:30:56 PM EST

and asking and asking and asking and asking and asking and asking ad infinitum.

At some point she was bound to answer the question or look like a candidate trying to duck it.
"Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." Dorothy Parker
[ Parent ]

: And the irony (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by sumac on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:49:02 PM EST

...is that she would be the one castigated for the Wright issue, even though it's not her issue.

[ Parent ]

Ummm... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Oje on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:56:06 PM EST

I would say you cannot really condemn her comment without condemning Wright's two-minute sermon on what makes Hillary Clinton unable to represent African Americans. Obviously, Wright "would not have been her pastor," and Wright no doubt agrees.

I say this as someone who thought the Wright sermon was a non-issue and defended his sermon (on TL somewhere). So, I see nothing wrong with either statement. But, Obama supporters (A-listers on other blogs I mean) will no doubt defend Wright's sermon about the cultural distance between Obama and Clinton, and eviscerate Clinton for reflecting on the same in response to a press question (nearly 2 weeks later - who makes this an issue? Not Clinton).

: Seriously. (5.00 / 1) (#236)
by lilburro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:42:53 PM EST

How many hits as a person does Hillary Clinton have to take for 'the team' (Dems) while people supposedly on the Dem side exploit the worst lies about her and turn her out of the team with unusually malicious comments?
The Wright issue seems to be resonating with people at a level deeper than disapproval of his violation of political correctness. We can argue about what Wright really means to XY and Z, but the trash he said about Hillary was indeed wrong and completely insensitive. Just completely, over the top, wrong. I'm willing to think about what Wright says, but I'm sure Hillary did have to sit in class and watch a dumber man get more credit than she, because he's a man. I'm sure she was demeaned for having ideas, for going to Yale when she did. No question, because women today still ARE. And I know that if she concedes, when that annoucement is made, there will be plenty of people who hiss under their breaths, if not shout, "that b*tch gets what she deserves" or "finally that b*tch is gone." And Dems'll be saying it. It's ridiculous and hurtful to set up blacks (esp black men) against (white) women or play into that adversarial image. These groups should be working together. When will that happen?

[ Parent ]

I disagree... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by gmo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:56:11 PM EST

...with BTD.

I think over the past week, we've seen a lot of folks feel this way, from op-ed pieces to personal anecdotes. I feel Clinton's comment voiced precisely what many people were thinking, and her statement is hard to disagree with, so I don't think it's a gaffe of any sort. Frankly, the can of worms it opens is a question everyone should be asking themselves: would this have been your pastor?

BTD: just to be clear - your disagreement lies in her broaching the topic, and not necessarily with the sentiment expressed in her comment?

Correct (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:00:46 PM EST

I think she gave the answer Obama should have given a year ago.

[ Parent ]

He should have for sure, (5.00 / 2) (#86)
by RalphB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:20:51 PM EST

and I'm frankly disgusted with people defending that hatemonger. His remarks are anti-American and those of a complete nutjob. Since when did Democrats defend this kind of hate speech. Don't hand me junk about nuance and his racial animus, that's no excuse.

These sermons transcend race into vile vicious slurs against the the US and more than a few Americans. They are inexcusable and Democrats will deserve the whacking they get in November if they keep defending it. Looks like they're trying hard to earn the "Blame America First" epithet.

[ Parent ]

Sounds Like BushCo (2.00 / 1) (#109)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:30:34 PM EST

Were you a GOP person before getting behind HRC? The reason I ask is that your comment is typical of the either your with us or your against us meme that we have been hearing the right trumpet for the last gazillion years.

Why can't someone burn a flag, say damn America and not also be a patriot. Usually when someone has such passion it indicated that they care about America and are willing to stick around and fight the same fight that got us here in the first place. Calling dissent hateful and unAmerican is unAmerican in my book.

[ Parent ]