Clinton On Wright

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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".


    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.  


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.  


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    I'm still trying to get past (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:56:29 PM EST
    "uncommonly honest". Good lord...

    LOL (5.00 / 0) (#261)
    by ineedalife on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:39:59 PM EST
    I guess he's admitting Obama is usually not honest!!!

    Now, this, is slimy (5.00 / 6) (#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.

    Dang, that was fast. (5.00 / 2) (#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 . . .


    He will have his (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    arms crossed.

    And will look down his nose.


    ah yes. very predictable, eh? n/t (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    Boy, (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    Really (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.


    Wright's Mockery of Clinton (5.00 / 10) (#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.


    Thanks for that reminder. (5.00 / 6) (#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.

    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.

    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.


    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!


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.)


    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!


    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.  

    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?)

    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!)

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

    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 / 1) (#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.  

    Wright is Here to Stay (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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

    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.  

    Don't (5.00 / 6) (#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.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#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..


    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.

    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?

    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?


    Given the small number of African Americans (5.00 / 0) (#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.  

    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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.

    I take exception to the framing (5.00 / 0) (#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?


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


    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.


    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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 / 0) (#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?


    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.

    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.


    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.


    How about this part: (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:34:48 PM EST
    Bill Clinton "did" AAs in the U.S. the way he did Lewinsky?  From the pulpit, mind you.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#141)
    by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:43:45 PM EST
    the worst aspect of his sermons is the fact that he's essentially teaching AAs to have self-perception of victimhood in a time when it's very possible for them to shake off victimhood and rise up and be part of mainstream America.

    Sounds Bad (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:03:26 PM EST
    Here, but it could have been one of those things that you had to be there for. So I would reserve judgement.

    The analogy, as vulgar as it is, may be apt, given the context.


    You can burn a flag and (5.00 / 1) (#260)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    say anything you're big enough to mouth.  But freedom of speech doesn't mean without responsibility.  I don't care about their passion, I care about their actions.  Defending this cretin says a lot about you.  

    Like I said you can dissent all you want but don't expect others to necessarily agree with you and give you a pass on your BS.  You seem to be a part of the loonie left who is afraid to show anger at junk like this, lest you look judgmental.  Shame and your book is idiotic..


    I agree (none / 0) (#181)
    by alexei on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:59:28 PM EST
    but, I also think that she also was right to say this.  

    after all the slim being pitched toward her and (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by athyrio on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:56:41 PM EST
    her campaign, to simply answer this question is mild indeed IMHO...Glad she did...

    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.  

    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.

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

    On Wright (5.00 / 8) (#47)
    by Shawn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:58:51 PM EST
    The Obama campaign has been trying to bait the Clintons into this for several days now: first with the photo of Wright at the White House which they sent to the NYT, and then with these comments from Obama himself over the weekend:

    But understand this, something else that I think has not gotten reported on enough, is despite these very offensive views, this guy has built one of the finest churches in Chicago. It's not some crackpot church. I mean, witness the fact that Bill Clinton invited him to the White House when he was having his personal crisis.

    Note the Monica allusion from Mr. High Road.

    It's still not a great move for her politically maybe, but given that context, I can see why she'd fire back when prompted.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:00:35 PM EST
    That's part of it too.

    Wright (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:26:17 PM EST
    smeared B Clinton from the pulpit with regards to Lewinsky, Obama brings it up again, Wright goes after H Clinton and H Clinton responds with 'I would have left'.  That's an incredibly mild response.  Obama never addressed what Wright did in church concerning the Clinton's.  I left a church for much less and would have been angered if a pastor spoke about someone in my family in that fashion.  I think her response was nothing.

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:50:06 PM EST
    And what's more, Wright did his vulgar little dance after having gone to the White House during the Lewinsky crisis . . . he's the hypocrite.

    Why has no one asked Jeremiah Wright what the heck he was doing shaking Bill Clinton's hand if he was so disgusted by Clinton "riding dirty" on African Americans just like he did on Monica?


    I never thought of that. (none / 0) (#105)
    by ajain on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:28:32 PM EST
    Now it makes more sense.

    Honestly, (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:59:44 PM EST
    I can't even begin to see anything wrong with Hillary answering the question exactly as she did.

    Obama has something to answer for, which his speech only evaded, instead of responding to.

    I don't think there are many Americans who can understand how someone could listen to the ugly stuff Wright was spewing and not walk out of the church, never to come back.

    If a voter feels that a Presidential candidate doesn't share anything like the same basic moral values they believe in -- especially as those values pertain to the country we live in -- why should they vote for him?

    She gave a perfectly normal answer (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:43 PM EST
    Of course, the Obama campaign had a stack of press releases ready to go should she even dare to utter one word about this. They will be playing the race card. So, politically, it is a mistake, even though she spoke the truth, and did not even criticize Obama.

    Maybe not. I think some in the press (none / 0) (#129)
    by BlueMerlin on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:38:30 PM EST
    may be growing tired of Obama's constant cries of "wolf".  

    I am listening to MSNBC headline EVERY (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kenosharick on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:02:55 PM EST
    show, day after day with "Hillary can't win" Meanwhile they discuss the upcoming states w/o mentioning the wrght controversy- as though it never happened and will have no impact.

    I have no problem with her being asked (5.00 / 9) (#62)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:03:00 PM EST
    what she would have done, nor do I have a problem with her answer - it's the answer a lot of people would have given, the answer Obama should have given and couldn't, because it wasn't a one-time thing, and she knows it.    

    The problem is that this will be another "so, he's not a Muslim?" kind of thing - asked over and over until she finally says something people can hang her with.

    Look, she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't - no matter what she says, there are people who will attack her for it.  I expect there will be people who will be attacking her for waiting so long to say anything - but it's not like she scheduled a press conference or gave a speech about it.

    Asked and answered.

    I completely agree BTD (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:07:59 PM EST
    I said so earlier today.  

    I don't care if it was low or slimey or any garbage like that.  She is trying to win the candidacy and jumping on Obama weaknesses is a way to do that.

    But this sort of comment is really going to turn off a lot of Obama supporters, particularly AA supporters.

    This will most likely start up another round of racial charges.  Whether the people of TalkLeft think it is fair or not this entire controversy is racially charged and by wading into it she is opening herself up for more attacks.  

    And for what?  What does that comment achieve?  Who does she think is being swayed by that comment?

    If she felt the need to continue to push the story  she should have, at the very least, had a staffer or surrogate make the comment.  There is no need for her to be in the middle of it.  Unless she is TRYING to create controversy and conflict, which is possible.

    Why (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by sas on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:15:28 PM EST
    should she care about turning off Obama supporters?  There's nothing she can say that they don't tear apart.  Even with reasonable comments such as this, they express outrage.

    The Obama campaign is pathetic.


    Because (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:17:03 PM EST
    she can't win in November without them?  

    You know the corollary (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:22:35 PM EST
    Of course.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:23:36 PM EST
    Do you think the campaign that supposedly has this thing all wrapped up, yet does not allow a day to go by without attacking Hillary Clinton's character and upsetting her supporters, understands this concept?

    Or does the point you made only work in one direction?


    You are missing the point (none / 0) (#218)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:23:16 PM EST
    Both sides attack each other.  That happens and, for the most part, it fades away.  

    I am talking about the larger implication of this comment.  For a lot of AA supporters this comment will not be received well.  Not because they will be offended for Obama but because they will be personally offended.  

    To many AAs the entire Wright affair smacks of an underlying racism because their religious practices are different.  


    Heh (none / 0) (#242)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:53:14 PM EST
    We discussed in an earlier thread the blinders that some Obama supporters wear when they contend that African-American voters are uniquely disposed to hold a grudge in November.  It seems to be a given with them that everybody else will just forgive and forget.

    Maybe you should check that thread out.


    I think that (none / 0) (#256)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    people who get offended because of things said about someone else usually get over it pretty quickly.  So when someone insults Obama or Hillary, that sort of stuff will wash away relatively quickly.

    When someone gets offended because of things said that they feel apply to them, that's a different issue.  You tend to take that much more personally.

    To each their own I guess.  


    But there is another set of impacts (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:20:58 PM EST
    The media here is turning Clinton supporters against Obama.  You can see the anger in this thread.  And you can ignore it or deem it irrational, but it's going to linger, and it won't be forgotten.

    If she can't give the answer she gave without everyone cooing "She's exploiting the race issue," then ultimately.  Not now.  But in November.  That can hurt Obama too.

    I don't think she's exploiting race issues here.

    You think she is.

    We're at an impasse.


    That made me smile (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:02:57 PM EST
    this sort of comment is really going to turn off a lot of Obama supporters

    Because we all know that up until she said that, they were ready to go out and vote for her, eh?

    A lot of Obama supporters want HRC to be driven in rags from the capital, preferably wearing tar and feathers.

    A lot of Obama supporters have been so outrageously vicious in their discussion of HRC that they've turned what used to be a decent blog into a nightmare thing that ought to be renamed kosrepublic.com.  It's pretty funny to hear someone say with all seriousness that anything she said is really going to turn off a lot of Obama supporters.  Thanks for the chuckly.


    What will it accomplish? (none / 0) (#187)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:05:02 PM EST
    Perhaps it will help to immunize him for the GE if he were to win the nomination.  It's going to come up for sure against the Republicans, and they won't be quite so polite about it.  If there is a way to respond to this that makes him stronger for the general, that would be a blessing.

    I don't buy that (none / 0) (#221)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:24:49 PM EST
    She isn't trying to help Obama and it is more than a little to suggest otherwise.

    How does this comment help Hillary?


    everyone also forgets (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by NJDem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:12:29 PM EST
    Wright's 'Israel is a dirty word' sermon.  

    I can honestly say I would have walked out of my synagogue if my rabbi ever said that!

    There's a difference b/w her saying what SHE would have done and criticizing what HE did.  HRC did the former, which was the direct question she was asked.

    I also think it was a great move by her to bring up the Imus controversy.  It shows BO's hypocrisy b/c he said he would have fired Imus too.  

    You know (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by sas on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:12:41 PM EST

    I can't even begin to describe the disgust I have with the MSM.  CNN and MSNBC are particularly putrid.  

    On the other hand.........

    Sometimes they are so awful I can't help but laugh - they make such fools of themselves.  Blitzer, Cafferty, Bernstein, Matthews, Olberman, Cooperet et. al. are just awful.

    Hillary's response was fine.  Now the media is falling all over itself about it.  Really pathetic.

    You'll appreciate the note I sent CNN (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by BlueMerlin on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:35:56 PM EST
    on the last day I ever watched them:

    Wolf Blitzer, Jack Cafferty, et al.  (Wednesday March 19, 3:40 pm PDT).   You have just crossed over into the realm of Rush Limbaugh.  You three men sit there launching character assassinations against Hillary Clinton (accusing her of political machinations and "unseemly whining").    In fact, insiders understand that it IS the Obama campaign holding up progress in Michigan.  You people are not journalists, you are opinionated misogynists who think you can say anything about a woman from your holy pulpit there on CNN and everyone will think it's just fine.  

    Everyone does not.   You've just lost this viewer forever.  


    McCain and Huckabee defended Obama (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by magster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:23:01 PM EST
    I agree with BTD.  It plays right into the "Hillary the Destroyer" theme.

    They had to defend (5.00 / 0) (#229)
    by alexei on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:31:57 PM EST
    McCain had to because of Hagee.  Huckabee had to because of...Huckabee.

    after the nasty stuff said about Bill Clinton by (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by athyrio on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    that General calling him McCarthy etc. while Obama stood next to the general saying nothing and smiling, no one can claim a high road or be "disappointed". Double standards ain't gonna cut it any longer for me and I encourage Hillary to fight back...

    Not a Mistake at all: Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by BlueMerlin on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:28:08 PM EST
    necessary!   As Democratic nominee in the general election Hillary will have to say that she spoke out clearly and early on this issue.  She can't let the Republicans say she was silent on unpatriotic hate speech.  IMO she waited rather longer than she should've to say this.   Wright is appalling on so many levels, to so many Americans.  

    That is an interesting (none / 0) (#186)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:04:22 PM EST
    Point.  I forgot what the Repubs would do with her silence.  Now I understand an article I read that the Wright issue was bad for both of them.

    Fear (none / 0) (#188)
    by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:05:30 PM EST
    You really think that Hillary's words and deeds should be shaped by "what the Repubs would do with" them? That's the same thinking that led to her voting for the war, and look how well that turned out for her.

    Not paying attention to (5.00 / 0) (#213)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:21:11 PM EST
    "what the repubs will do" with their words is what is going to cost Obama the Whitehouse if we are so short-sighted as to make him our nominee.

    I thought it was a classy response (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by stillife on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:28:25 PM EST
    To anyone who has every left a church because they don't agree with the pastor's message, it's incomprehensible that Obama would have stayed for 20 years.

    She was non-judgmental and speaking only for herself.  Of course, I'm sure that according to the Obama Rulz, she'll be lambasted for this statement.

    Hillary's choice (and choice of her TL support) (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by magster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:30:06 PM EST
    "For we have a choice in this country.  We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism.  We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news.  We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words.  We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

    We can do that.

    But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction.  And then another one.  And then another one.  And nothing will change."

    It's a nice set of choices (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:45:04 PM EST
    But it's why I have little regard for Obama.

    That part of the speech is basically set up to shame anyone who thinks Wright is a legitimate issue to discuss in this election.

    That's great.

    But it's coming from someone who thinks Clinton's scandals are a legitimate issue to be discussing in the campaign.

    So, in my view, he has no credibility on the issue he's attempting to discuss above.


    Exactly right! (5.00 / 2) (#230)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:33:26 PM EST
    The entire "new kind of politics" argument is nothing but a rhetorical device.

    If you talk about Rev. Wright, then oh no, you're succumbing to the worst kind of politics.  But if you talk about what Hillary did in Bosnia 10 years ago, you're really focused on uplifting the American people!  What bugs me about the Obama campaign is not that they attack like everyone else does, but that they put on such an air of being above it all.  It's a Joe Lieberman level of sanctimony.


    then maybe 'they' should stop pouncing (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:55:37 PM EST
    on everything.

    Thanks for reminding (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:27:07 PM EST
    me of the slap at Clinton in his speech.  I noted the comparison of Wright to his grandmother and Ferraro, but I forgot about that one.  I wonder who won the bet on how many minutes it would take for him to mention her.  I know I lost, I thought he wouldn't mention her at all.

    Obviously (none / 0) (#195)
    by badger on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:09:37 PM EST
    you've chosen to pounce on gaffes (in your opinion) of Hillary and Hillary supporters.

    Pot, kettle and all that.

    I'll be impressed when Obama supporters start acting like Obama's speech outlines, not when they simply choose to use the speech as a club.


    This wasn't a gaffe from her supporter (none / 0) (#209)
    by magster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:18:26 PM EST
    It was deliberate and from Hillary's own mouth.

    A pretty mild response considering (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:30:14 PM EST
    what that man said about her and her family.

    You can fool yourself if you like, and look down on her.  But she kept her feelings to herself for long enough that we can be pretty sure THIS is what she wanted to say about it.

    I think it's pretty mild.  What's she supposed to do?

    oh my! the horror, the horror! (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:32:13 PM EST
    But this sort of comment is really going to turn off a lot of Obama supporters, particularly AA supporters.

    and we should care because? if i recall correctly, these are the same people who didn't vote for her in the primary, and have stated that if sen. obama is not the chosen one, they won't vote in the fall. so, why should sen. clinton really care what they think?

    she was asked a question, she responded in the best way possible. if someone doesn't like it, tough cookies. maybe, just maybe, sen. obama should give more consideration to who he hangs out with. it isn't sen. clinton's fault that sen. obama's pastor, of 20 years has been shown to be liturgically challenged.

    i have heard the audio of several of pastor wright's sermons. just ghastly. i must say, either pastor wright is one of the world's finest living actors, or sen. obama and his wife are just totally oblivious to all that goes on around them, for his less than pleasant comments to have been completely missed by the sen. and his wife, for 20 years.

    kinda makes you wonder what else the good sen. missed, doesn't it?

    It won't hurt her (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:32:29 PM EST
    Obama already has the African-American vote, it's not her's to lose. By being forceful about it, she gains strength among her core constituents and with white rural voters.

    I don't much care for the Wright issue, what people say in churches is none of my business. Neither is their religion. The public seems to think otherwise.

    There is another election in November, you know (none / 0) (#132)
    by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:40:04 PM EST
    I understand that African-Americans will be invited to participate in that election as well.

    As are... (none / 0) (#140)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:43:43 PM EST
    latino/as, whites, women, asians, etc, etc. What is your point?

    My point is (none / 0) (#153)
    by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:48:07 PM EST
    that it's ridiculous to say that Hillary can afford to write off the African-American vote.

    she'll have it in November (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:51:52 PM EST
    if she's the nominee. She doesn't have it now. If she's not the nominee, what people think of her in Nov. is irrelevant.

    Or it could drive the numbers higher (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:57:47 PM EST
    It wasn't just one demographic that found Wright offensive. He managed to cross them all. To what percentage, remains to be seen . . .

    For some people, it wasn't some of (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:07:19 PM EST
    the content, but the delivery. For others, it was the content. And some of his comments were just plain unnecessary, imo.  

    There's a lot of content/delivery up for being offended by or not. And that may be where the problem lies.


    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#238)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:50:37 PM EST
    Is that all he was talking about?  NO.  I believe a lot of what he says comes from an anger we should all respect and learn from and listen to, but his comments DIRECTED AT Hillary Clinton were a complete disservice to her personal experience as a woman and extremely malicious.  We do NOT have to have a conversation about imperialism and racism at the EXPENSE OF respect for women and respect for what women bring to the table as a group with their own collective fears and resentments.  No conversation about discrimination and humiliation will get very far like that.  

    His comments about Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#248)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:07:57 PM EST
    are part of this media scandal.  

    And yes, he was talking about women in general.  "Do you think Hillary Clinton knows what it's like..." Do you think these comments are not an attack on her collective attributes, but instead on her, and just her?  His comments were dismissive of the feelings and realities of discrimination a woman has to deal with.  A woman of any race.  Do I think they disagree?  I'm not arrogant enough to assume what the opinions were of the people in that church on that day.

    It's the damndest thing, gender.  You can be as rich as you want, as smart as you want, and people will still call you a b*tch or criticize you for not being 'womanly' enough.  Maybe it's your hairstyle.  Maybe it's who you sleep with.  Or who you 'let' sleep with who.

    Letting people get away with sexism is no help to anyone.


    "The African-American Vote" (none / 0) (#179)
    by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:58:16 PM EST
    To say it that way makes it sound as if there's one African-American with millions of votes who always votes for the Democrat. Of course that isn't the way it is. Black turnout is a crucial factor -- Hillary sure isn't going to win (for instance) Florida in November if black turnout isn't extremely high. If she wins the nomination by demagoguing Obama's black pastor for two solid months, black turnout is not going to be very high in November even if blacks do vote overwhelmingly for Hillary over McCain.

    Or in other words, Hillary can't afford to write off the black vote.


    Oh good grief (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by sonya on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:11:40 PM EST
    If Hillary is the nominee, she isn't going to lose any African American votes behind Jeremiah Wright.  LOL!  That is so ridiculous!  We have much more important issues to deal with.  When November comes we will vote according to our best interests, like we always do.

    Not any? (none / 0) (#212)
    by rebrane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:20:14 PM EST
    I just don't think that's credible. Maybe she'll only lose one out of every five hundred black voters; but then again, if Al Gore had done something to lose one out of every 500 black voters, he would've lost Florida by a clear margin.

    And what does obama poll (none / 0) (#205)
    by hookfan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:16:33 PM EST
    among whites? I believe the flip side is not positive for Obama.

    Good Point (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:42:37 PM EST
    Although were to she to say 'it is none of my business, etc'  could be taken as a nod to those white rural voters who do not want anyone poking around in their business either. Saying nothing, in this case,  in a clever way, gets everyone to think that she agrees with them. A win win for HRC imo.

    Jeralyn, I'll be very interested in tomorrow's (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:46:19 PM EST
    HRC campaign conference call.  

    I (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:32:44 PM EST
    disagree totally.  Your correct statement is that Hillary has taken the high road all through this campaign and never gets credit for it.  Instead, Obama claims she's attacking him and going negative.  As in the MLK debacle, she actually complimented MLK and gave credit to JFK but then Obama and Kennedy came out swinging and accused her of diminishing both these leaders' legacies.

    She's pulling ahead in the popular polls.  There's no reason she has to rush to Obama's defense unless the Republicans attack him unfairly.  But he won't even defend her in those circumstances.  He's so accustomed to everyone protecting him, his camp misinterprets her very candid, benign comment as something negative.  He'd never make it in the GE if this is his perspective.  The Republicans will not be coddling him.

    I have been astounded to read (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:49:44 PM EST
    on blogs and message boards that Hillary should come to Obama's defense about Wright by defending Wright's words and saying it's all great religion or something--I don't know exactly what she's supposed to say, but she's supposed to defend Wright and Obama, and I read that right after the Wright story had legs.



    Question for a Bill Clinton critic: (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by BlueMerlin on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:33:46 PM EST
    Please name the President you would have had instead of Bill Clinton.  Limit yourself to the last 50 years (before that too many are shrouded in myth) but you dont' have to limit yourself to American presidents.  Name any man, woman, or child in the last 50 years of the world with a better record on the economy, on peace, and on advancement of important social issues (including race).   I'd really like to know whom you are comparing Bill Clinton to when you sully his reputation with smirking insults.

    Bingo! (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:47:52 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton chose a wonderful spouse, she says so herself and that's really all that matters. No?

    Barack Spoke, Hillary Would Have Acted (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Richjo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:35:47 PM EST
    That is the difference between the two and why Hillary is the one I prefer. I don't see anything wrong in what Hillary said. I would not have stayed in a church where such things were said, and even if I might have sympathy for why one might stay, there is no excuse for remaining silent about the issue until political necessity forced you not to.

    This just perfectly illustrates how Obama is all talk and no action. What did he do about these things going on his church- he didn't take any action to do anything about it. He gave a speech about it. His campaign's insistence that the fact he has spoken out against these comments should somehow make this no longer an issue is truly revealing. It is if they are saying how dare we expect him to have actually taken some sort of action to deal with this problem. Speeches are great, but they aren't enough. They have to be matched by action. The very idea that Obama could get out of this issue by giving a speech is ridiculous as far as I am concerned, yet that is exactly what the media has propagated throughout this entire incident, and this entire campaign for that matter. If Obama had actually acted in some way to deal with this matter I would agree we should all let it go and move on. He didn't, and all the speeches in th world, no matter how well done, won't change that.

    Frankly (5.00 / 9) (#130)
    by nell on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:38:38 PM EST
    Obama deserved it. Maybe that is wrong of me, but I am so incredibly sick of the double standard. I lose more and more respect for his hypocrisy every single day. Wright is OBAMA'S ISSUE. He chose to sit in that church for 20 years, and now it is his issue to deal with.

    Hillary stayed out of it even though Wright made deeply personal and awful attacks on her and Bill and I thought she did the right thing. She took the high road. So what does Obama do? He makes every effort to drag her into HIS mess at every single turn. At every single turn. The only answer he has when asked to take responsibility for anything is "Hillary did it too." He has painted the Clintons as being racist, he has questioned her character and her core values at every single turn, and she has, for the most part, taken the high road, ESPECIALLY on this issue.  

    Good for her. Maybe bad for democrats, though I am sadly starting to care less and less. But good for her. She spoke about what she would have done, and frankly, it is what many of us have been thinking. Next time, he should keep her out of it.

    Kos keeps hammering her (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by thereyougo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:40:41 PM EST
    by saying she'll sunder the party, and that she doesn't care.He's not using coup or civil war.

    Until I read that he is the head for an Obama 527, I'm dimissing his comments as fair anymore.

    Hillary can't do right by anyone. She can't answer a question, even honestly. She answers more questions than the Obama campaign. Politico says they have conference calls with bloggers, MSM daily compared to weekly by the Obama people.

    They're asked tons of questions. Obama's people mute follow up questions they don't like. This isn't talked about, but when Hillary's asked about Obama's pastor and she's not supposed to answers honestly? come on.

    I suspect Hillary is (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by OldCoastie on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:45:29 PM EST
    damned if she does, damned if she doesn't... perhaps staying completely silent was the correct path, but if she was going to say anything at all, her response to the question seems completely reasonable...

    for Obama's campaign to view her words as an "attack" shows just how sensitive they are about the issue. I think it makes him appear weak.

    The other thing that always strikes me is that Clinton is not "allowed" to run an actual campaign... we know darn well if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary was having pastor trouble, Obama and his surrogates would be bringing it up over and over again...

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by nell on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:48:24 PM EST
    and people judge her for that every single day. Some positive, like me, and others negative, who judge her for marrying him, for following him to Arkansas, for standing by him after he cheated, etc, etc.

    And,  do tell, who was Bill Clinton spewing hate speech towards? I thought he was the only two term Democratic President we have had in a long time under whose leadership I, at least, enjoyed peace and prosperity....

    Here is the full transcript (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:50:12 PM EST
    of Hillary's comments today.

    I'm not reading this thread, I hope BTD is moderating comments.

    Good for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by sonya on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:58:04 PM EST
    She was asked a question, and she answered.  Her response will resonate with a lot of people.  Don't hate on her because she has common sense.

    I remember sitting in church one Sunday, and the preacher started blasting gays, saying that they were an abomination before God.  Guess what?  A lot of people walked out, including the choir director.  And this was a Black Church!  

    I have nothing against Rev. Wright, but I resent the he** out of Obama and his surrogates trying to say that Wright is representative of mainstream preaching in the Black Church because he most definitely is not.

    What do you expect? (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    Clinton puts her team on orders for radio silence on the Wright matter and Obama decides to drag her in anyway - the Ferraro reference in THE SPEECH and then pushing the Wright/Clinton photo.  Obama made Hillary's comments fair game by dragging her into this when she had done absolutely nothing to merit it.

    Getting up and walking out (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:16:57 PM EST
    A few years back I was attending a Boy Scouts meeting with my son when an area representative came in and requested donations for the area council to be used for fighting a court case to exclude gays from being in scouting.  The man said some horrible misleading things about gays.  I stood up, told him I didn't agree with his views, and couldn't in good conscience stay with the organization and marched out with my son, never to go to another meeting.  My son agreed with me at the time too.

    People like me thank you for that. (none / 0) (#210)
    by Dancing Bear on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:18:42 PM EST
    I no longer (none / 0) (#235)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:41:05 PM EST
    give to the organization or buy their goods.  When they have done fundraisers, I am very clear with the adults why I don't support them.

    I can walk out of a church that teaches intolerance and I do not support groups that teach it either.  It's c$#p.


    An honest answer to a probing question. (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Dancing Bear on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:17:46 PM EST
    Do we deserve less?

    An honest dialogue generally means there are two sides. We just heard from the other side for the first time and not in an inflamatory way. Just an answer to a question.

    Should she stand with her hand over her mouth until November?

    Free speech. It applies to the candidates also. They represent the people. We are the people.

    Telling the truth, when asked (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by NotThatStupid on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:51:56 PM EST
    a straight question, may get you into political trouble, but is never wrong, morally.

    I wish the media would start asking Senator Obama some questions about Wright that still need answers.

    The President of the United States needs the judgment, wisdom and courage to be able to make tough decisions quickly and correctly.

    Knowing that Obama went twenty years before doing anything about Pastor Wright -- and then, only because he was forced to in order to save his campaign, and even then not addressing the real issues, but attempting to spread the blame on all of us  -- fails the judgment test for me.

    I spent many years in the military and I wouldn't want Senator Obama as commander-in-chief.


    If u dont want Obama (none / 0) (#246)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:59:11 PM EST
    as Commander and Chief... fine... but dont use those comments which were taken out of context by his pastor to base your decision... its what neocons have done and Im sure you will complain about that...

    The sermons were taken completely out of context,

    "Chicken's coming home to roost"

    "GD America"

    here is more

    the fact that the media has duped you and others is just shocking and scary...


    I already watched them (none / 0) (#253)
    by NotThatStupid on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM EST
    and I disagree that the context makes them less objectionable.

    Senator Obama himself has called the comments that have been aired frequently seen on television unacceptable. I agree with that assessment.


    You already watched it (none / 0) (#255)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:28:47 PM EST
    and think the context he is saying is correct?

    That is pretty much a Faux News, GOP talking point...

    America is never wrong...  duped


    I'm not duped by fancy prose, no. (none / 0) (#254)
    by thereyougo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:23:43 PM EST
    Question? (none / 0) (#222)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:25:05 PM EST
    Im listening to her comment right now, how is she speaking on race by saying that he would not be my pastor? their is no discussion there, she is being petty...

    The sad thing about this, he did not make any hate speech... its been completely blown out of context... this is a terrible look for her...


    Heh, the Tonya Harding... (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by jor on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:23:14 PM EST
    ... metaphor gains more steam, straight from the horses mouth.  Mistake on Hillary's part. I think the TPM analysis is actually the most accurate on this. This issue was basically dying, and hillary wanted to keep it going, so she is trying to revive it.

    Does the fact Obama discussed his (5.00 / 0) (#232)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:34:27 PM EST
    relationship with Wright on a radio broadcast aired today impace your opinion in any way?

    And her choice (5.00 / 0) (#228)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:31:55 PM EST
    of spouse has been fair game to both Michelle Obama and Pastor Wright.  So why isn't the reverse also fair game.

    Total Agreement BTD (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:36:59 PM EST
    The media is all over her statement on Wright and on the puffed up "snipers in Bosinia" story. Both are being played through cable networks, talk radio and blogs. The MSM is all over it. Her campaign can only hope to contain both stories in a 24 hour news cycle or 48 hours if they are lucky. Her campaign is going to have a tough time overcoming both situations. There's a time to push back and a time to walk back. She had to walk back on the sniper story and she selected the wrong topic to push back on.

    Um Yes (5.00 / 0) (#241)
    by nell on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    Bill Clinton did the black community just like he did Monica Lewinsky. You are right. Nothing wrong with that comment. Never mind the fact that it was a) cruel, b) in direct contradiction to the apparent respect Rev. Wright has for Bill Clinton given that he visited his White House and given the praise he previously gave Bill Clinton, c) sexist.

    Are we to believe everything else he said too? Is "Israel a dirty word" now? Are we really living in the US of the KKK-A? Should God Damn America?

    Gosh, thanks for informing all of us ignorant fools who WERE offended by Wright's sermons. Of course, we  were wrong and had no right to be offended. Hillary had no right to be offended, either, by the way, by the awful things said about her and her husband. Thanks for clearing that up!

    I disagree with you. (5.00 / 3) (#263)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:51:45 PM EST
    I realize he was attacking the rich white power structure.  But then he started attacking women.  Here is why his comments have implications for all women, not just Hillary, not just white women.

    "Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up."  

    Possibly true.  But women have their own unique problems with catching a ride from a cabbie.  3 am, a woman, alone, at night, a male cab driver...picks her up.  I realize that in most cases it's a normal exchange ("barring TaxiCab Confessions" :P), but if you think that a man of any color and a woman in a cab doesn't play into a landscape of vulnerability for women, I would suggest you are wrong.

    "Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car, as a black man driving in the wrong..."

    I concede this point.

    "I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it."

    This assumes all AAs should be on board.  Even as he undermines the fears and discriminations of ALL women.

    Wright says Obama knows what it is like to be a black man "in a culture controlled by rich white people."  "Hillary can never know that."  Well Hillary I'm sure knows something about how male privilege works in that culture.  As do ALL WOMEN.  It isn't just about race.

    "Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons."

    I would argue the word b*tch, c*nt, and so forth, do define women as non-persons, just as many casual framings of women's struggles and issues deprive women of full womanhood.  I would argue taking away abortion rights deprives women of full womanhood.  I would argue rape, overwhelmingly perpetrated against women of ALL COLORS, deprvies women of full personhood.  You want polls?  Check out polls on men's attitudes towards rape.

    "Hillary hasn't had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folk who run everything"

    Tell me, were women accepted along with men when Yale Law School opened its doors?  

    "passing grade when you know you are smarter than that C student sitting in the White House"

    Women have similar issues.  Lawrence Summers?  And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

    This is a long string of comments that come off as ARGUMENTS and ATTACKS on the privilege and ignorance of Hillary Clinton, while ignoring the discriminations women have faced.  This isn't heat of the moment stuff.  I don't think Wright needs to apologize, I think he needs to be engaged.  Clearly what he said just isn't only about the "rich white power structure."  Women too have things to tell us about discrimination.

    What Wright said about Bill (5.00 / 1) (#265)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:33:20 PM EST
    and the vulgarity he used from the pulpit, good for her.   I would like to see an AA after they hear what Wright said about Bill, think that Hillary had an obligation to defend Wright.  Good think it was not me cause Wright would have heard way worse.  

    I loved the comment up thread:  Hillary would act, Obama gave a speech.  What do we need now?  

    I agree (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:38:04 PM EST
    Let me be even-handed and say that she probably did it because her internal polls showed that Obama's speech worked to some degree. Frankly, that's good news.

    It's never just a simple case (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:50:54 PM EST
    Of someone asking a question and her giving an answer.

    Oh well.

    I know the "as far as I know" was scripted too.

    She knew Kroft was going to ask the question 4 times.


    Alternate theory (none / 0) (#14)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:47:42 PM EST
    Her internal polls showed the speech didn't work, that he had bled, and she wanted to make sure he bleeds a little more.

    I think this is the MINIMAL statement she can make and not cross the line, but still get political mileage out of it.

    If she thought the speech worked she wouldn't bring it up again, it would hurt her and wouldn't hurt Obama.


    She didn't bring it up. She was asked. (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:16:03 PM EST
    But Gallop and Rasmussen.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:59:02 PM EST
    ...and a new NC poll all suggest the opposite.  Obama has stopped the bleeding and the media seems now to be moving back toward him.

    Media has been back to him (none / 0) (#56)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:01:20 PM EST
    For a while now, that is no surprise. But so far I haven't seen any poll showing this. The Penn poll showed pretty much the same margin now as before, and the NC poll (PPP) is such a swing it is astounding. Let's see what another one says.

    As far as national: neither Ras nor Gallup show him regaining.

    But whatever, we'll see how it plays out.


    Agree (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:41:36 PM EST
    It will not work for her, imo. Keeping quiet made her appear as if she was being gracious and taking the high road.

    Ick (none / 0) (#7)
    by kayla on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    I agree with what she said, but she shouldn't have said it.  She said a lot of great things in the press conference, but this statement is the one that the media is going to focus on.

    The tip off here may be " in my humble (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:43:32 PM EST
    opinion."  And andgarden, I'm surprised you agree.  

    Why? (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:48:01 PM EST
    I've always said that she shouldn't touch this.

    This part: (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:50:14 PM EST
    Frankly, that's good news.

    Good news that the speech (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:52:07 PM EST
    might have worked. Why should I think otherwise?

    The only bad situation would be if the speech worked well enough to win the primary, but not the general election.


    Lets just say your approach is (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:59:02 PM EST
    more even-handed than mine.

    I want to win in November (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:08:41 PM EST
    Me too, but I don't think Obama (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:14:00 PM EST

    Yes (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:48:43 PM EST
    I consider it a mistake as well.

    Mind you, TPM is advancing the absurd claim that the Clinton campaign was already trying to go there, referencing an obscure interview by some surrogate on Irish radio.  I guess since they got away with it when Andrew Cuomo made a remark on local radio, and when Geraldine Ferraro said something that was only reported in an obscure local paper, they might as well keep making this argument that every single offhanded remark is somehow scripted by Hillary and the Rove-like Mark Penn.

    are you sure? (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:56:12 PM EST
    In my view, her answer reflects a sentiment that many mainstream, church-going Americans probably agree with.

    Now giving popular answers and keeping a story alive that is hurting your opponent is a bad thing for a politician?  That is what the kool kid bloggers want us to believe apparently.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    I think it's a mistake because it inflames certain tensions that ought to be let lie.

    I certainly do not belong to the school of thought that says it's okay for Obama to attack Hillary's character day in and day out, but if Hillary says anything negative about Obama, it's time to get out the fainting couch.


    Exactly - and I like her comment (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:16:09 PM EST
    but oh so much faux outrage from Obama followers - she crossed the line!!
    But Obama conjured up Bill and Monica by releasing Wright's pic and WH invitation.
    And recently, an Obama staffer mentioned "blue dress." Of course, Obama Camp apologized.

    Since HRC (none / 0) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:52:48 PM EST
    is so obviously the anti-Christ, she must also be omnipotent, no? <snark>

    My last dairy at Dailykos... (none / 0) (#29)
    by mikecan1978 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:53:55 PM EST
    Was titled "Good for Hillary" it was all about how I thought staying away from this whole wright thing was a good move on her part.  

    This is a very bad move, her surrogates have already taken it a step further comparing Wright to David Duke (forget the details).

    I think things are looking bad for Hillary, she's attacking in a way that we'd execpt when a republican makes a mistep not how one should behave against a primary opponent.

    No, that was Olberman (none / 0) (#220)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:24:21 PM EST
    comparing Hillary to David Duke for something she didn't even say.

    Try to keep up.


    Another point: Obama discussed (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:54:10 PM EST
    his  relationship with The Rev. Wright in a pre-recorded interview broadcast on radio today.  

    Has Obama been to the church (none / 0) (#66)
    by Saul on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:07:12 PM EST
    since this incident came up? He wasn't there for Easter.   It will be interesting to see if he goes or stays away.

    He can't go there and he can't not (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:20:55 PM EST
    go there.  Rock and a hard place.

    STUNNING the "Sniping" Going (none / 0) (#79)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:15:36 PM EST
    Back N Forth between the pro Hillary camp and the Obamam camp...
    I was so looking forward to voting Dem this year (my wife and I re registered Saturday - In Pennsylvania)...after having not voted for Dem Party since 1992.
    Oh well-
    maybe I'll vote 3rd party again, like I did in 2004.

    huge mistake by Clinton... (none / 0) (#82)
    by mike in dc on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:16:29 PM EST
    ...it benefits her very little with her "base", the media will portray it as her sinking to her lowest level yet, and the AA community will for the most part find it unforgivable.

    The media may (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:19:05 PM EST
    indeed play it that way but her base and the average american voter will be silently agreeing with her.

    The only one this hurts is Obama and his supporters who have divorced themselves from reality enough to think this had died down.


    Look at the responses here (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:21:58 PM EST
    Her base is enthused by her answer and angry at the media for feigning outrage that she had something to say about the issue.

    lowest level yet?! (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:25:18 PM EST
    What did she say that was so 'low'?

    And not all of the AA community was on board with Wright's sermons. Many felt just as Hillary did.


    The rules of faux outrage (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:33:04 PM EST
    require every new "outrage" to be the "lowest level yet".

    Lowest level yet (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:36:17 PM EST
    I question whether you thought she could get any higher.

    I have to disagree, BTD (none / 0) (#93)
    by Universal on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:23:23 PM EST
    I love your work, BTD, but I am happy HRC has finally brought this issue up. I'm tired of the "nobody can say anything about 'issue X'" that has gone on in this campaign. Enough.

    Wright is a problem, a liability, and I think it's time Clinton started discussing that herself.

    Wright is going to be a problem in the general election. In fact, I just made a video with my brother discussing the problems now facing Obama's candidacy post-Wright. I included a link to this video in a new MyDD diary:


    Now, my brother John is a conservative, so that should be known. His views are from that perspective, but they hold true for Obama and his electability. His point of view is that of what a general election person is looking at, or how many people will be looking at it if Obama is we Dems' nominee.

    If you like the video, please recommend it and the diary. Thanks.

    Also, I wrote a diary last night on MyDD detailing how it has been discovered that Rezko helped finance Obama superdelegate James Meeks, another 'spiritual adviser' of Obama's who has made racially insensitive remarks. If you want to check that out, the link is:


    One final thing: Last night someone else wrote a diary on MyDD about two questionable stock transactions which Obama was involved in. I had never heard this story before. Both transactions involved what at least could be perceived as questions about insider trading, or something very similar. Does anyone know more about these stories? Because I haven't heard anything about this before last night.

    Thanks again. Hope all are having a great day.

    - Universal

    Hmm... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ajain on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:24:35 PM EST
    I don't know how I feel about this. I mean, while I think she has every right to feel offended by all that the pastor has said, and I am certain that she is personally offended by it considering the 'dry humping' and all, I am not sure what this does to her politically.

    I mean clearly AAs aren't gonna be too happy about this, but maybe non-AAs agree with her. Also, she was asked a blunt question from a reporter, so that is her cover although I don't really buy that.

    I dont know, but I think she is proving her toughness and her willingness to play hardball and I am not sure complaining about her evilness (by the Obama camp) will do any good.

    "AAs" as you call them are NOT (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by BlueMerlin on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:29:16 PM EST
    a monolithic block.  Plenty of them also think that Wright is a goon and an embarassment to the community.  

    I didn't mean to... (none / 0) (#139)
    by ajain on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:43:37 PM EST
    well..i did generalize, but what I meant was by and large. But its perfectly possible, and hopefully likely, that my theory is crap.
    Also I dunno if I offended you with the abbreviation and generalization. Just laziness combined with some demographic presumptions.

    She should have an opinion (none / 0) (#101)
    by nellre on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:25:40 PM EST
    She should have an opinion and she owes it to us to share it.

    She wants credit for taking the high road? (none / 0) (#202)
    by eleanora on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    I'd rather he just stop trying to spread his mess all over her. Hillary tried to stay out of it, even gave a supportive comment about his speech. And the Obama campaign repaid her by sending a photo of Bill Clinton shaking hands with Wright to the NY Times, smearing her for attending a Bible study group, and McPeak saying President Clinton was just like Gene McCarthy--with Senator Obama standing right there.

    Is it really okay for Obama to do anything he likes, and Hillary just has to sit there and smile? I disagree that this was a mistake--enough is enough.

    Nice Idea. (none / 0) (#211)
    by pluege on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:19:04 PM EST
    Being high minded in politics is a nice idea, but it is a sure way to have a very short career in politics...Obama knows it and Clinton knows it. Clinton is a politician. Holding her to adhere to a n idealistic code is not going to get her elected.

    Its been good that both candidates have generally kept the attacks of each other modest, not for high minded reasons, but for post nomination reasons: bringing the losing side into the fold is already a monumental task, excessive nastiness will make it impossible.

    So each campaign weaves a difficult maze of trying to make the other look bad to undecided voters while trying not to harden and completely piss-off the voters that have chosen the other candidate.

    This is sad (none / 0) (#215)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:22:53 PM EST
    That she would resort to this... she just sad F the party...

    in th e coming weeks, those Super Delegates will all jump to Obama... he may have that 60 SDs rally after all... this was the WORST possible thing she could have done...

    Right (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by nell on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:26:20 PM EST
    And she forced Obama to sit in that church for 20 years and she is so god awful that OF COURSE Wright had to say those horrible things about her and Bill. It is all Hillary's fault, you are right. Of course she should just stand by and shut up for the good of the party after Wright bashes her and Bill in the worst ways possible, why the hell should she say something?

    Has Wright ever apologized for what he said? Has Obama apologized for staying silent after Wright bashed her in this most disgusting and vile way.

    Obama screwed the party over in November by sitting in those pews. He bears responsibility for that, no one else. Not Hillary, not me, not you, not Fox news. He made that choice. Now he can live with it.

    I am so sick of everyone babying poor poor Barack.


    Again... (none / 0) (#239)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:51:38 PM EST
    The sermons were taken completely out of context,

    "Chicken's coming home to roost"

    "GD America"

    here is more

    the fact that the media has duped you and others is just shocking and scary...


    You have crossed the chattering (5.00 / 0) (#249)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:09:20 PM EST
    threshold.  Again.

    Issues on honesty (none / 0) (#234)
    by jimb1962 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:38:12 PM EST
    Someone needs to be the sacrificial lamb and quick.  Unfortunately for Clinton supporters that needs to be Hillary.  On the question of elect-ability consider the latest Gallup poll regarding "Trustworthiness and Honesty": McCain 67%, Obama 63%, and Clinton 44%.  The majority of Americans don't trust her and that will be a stampede to McClain's camp by both switch team Republicans and independents alike if she gets the nomination.  Hillary can still play an important role in politics and I hope she does, but this just isn't her time.  She's hanging by a thread and possibly destroying her career by staying in this race to the end.

    I think Al Gore is a great man, but if he is the nominee then you will see an even bigger stampede to McCain's camp that I described earlier.

    jimb1962 is correct! (none / 0) (#237)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:49:16 PM EST
    It's like when a suspect starts changing their story, the ground rules and their excuses kick in, even when confronted with objective corrections to their story. The likelyhood that the suspect is lying rises exponentially.

    save your posts! (none / 0) (#252)
    by faithandhope97 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:21:06 PM EST
    Clinton supporters aren't going anywhere!
    Next open topic thread bring it back to the table and we'll explain it again and again and again.

    Comments now closed, there's a new thread (none / 0) (#262)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:39:59 PM EST
    on Wright up. You can continue the discussion there.

    All of (none / 0) (#264)
    by sas on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:02:48 PM EST

    this is crap, crap, crap,
    meant to keep the populace occupied, and from discussing anything of substance.  What would cable news be without this empty headed nothingness to chew the fat over every day.  Hey, you have to talk about something for an hour and a half.

    Who said this, who said that, who responded thusly, this response to that response.....it is the lowest form of discussion.

    As they say in western PA, where I grew up...
    " "Honest to God"  can't we talk about ISSUES?"

    your dillusional if you accept this comment.  She has been asked this question everyday for the over a week.  The answer aiming right at Obama and to try and shift the media cover from her blatant lie on Bosinia.  Right after her campaing and all you crazy Clintomaniacs preached that it is Obama who is going dirty and we need to talk about the issues in America.  Good luck in the election after this I can no longer vote for Clinton in good faith.

    your dillusional if you accept this comment.  She has been asked this question everyday for the over a week.  The answer aiming right at Obama and to try and shift the media cover from her blatant lie on Bosinia.  Right after her campaing and all you crazy Clintomaniacs preached that it is Obama who is going dirty and we need to talk about the issues in America.  Good luck in the election after this I can no longer vote for Clinton in good faith.

    Of course the comment was ok. (none / 0) (#269)
    by WillBFair on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:57:29 PM EST
    It doesn't matter what Hillary says. The MSM will go after her. If they can't have another puppet in office, the next best thing is a naive poser.
    The game was really over months ago, when the smear campaign started. I'm surprised she's done as well as she has.
    It's disappointing, though, to see how many people can be manipulated by Obama's empty rhetoric and the MSMs moronic insults. No wonder the red States are choosing our candidate.