Wright Sermons in Tampa Canceled

Rev. Wright will not be speaking in Tampa this weekend after all.

The Rev. Earl Mason cited security concerns and said the three-night revival featuring Wright was turning into an "event" and media circus, rather than the celebration of the church's 10th anniversary that it was intended to be, so Mason asked him to stay in Chicago.

Good. Perhaps now we can get back to important issues like universal health care and ending the war in Iraq and how to count the votes of the 2.2 million voters in Florida and Michigan.

Rev. Wright is a distraction. Focusing on him puts us right in the midst of the Republican playbook. If he weren't Barack Obama's pastor, his remarks would be a blip on the radar screen.

Update: Comments mow closed.

< Clinton On Wright | Rush Limbaugh Attacks Dan Abrams and Me >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Blip? (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:52:28 PM EST

    If he weren't Barack Obama's pastor, his remarks would be a blip on the radar screen.

    Thats true but so what.  There are plenty of truther, racist bigots out there.  Thats not the issue.  The issue is BHO's choice to associate with one.  Closely.  For decades.  Then his implication that the "typical white person" is racist as well.  Ha!  Why start a conversation about race with a racist assertion?

    Anyone that has chosen to closely associate himself with such venomous bigotry for decades has no moral authority.  Particularly after dumping on his own grandmother.  

    If you think he was (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:34:26 PM EST

    you are welcome to that conclusion.  I don't agree.

    Letter from a Birmingham Jail (none / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:46:23 PM EST
    is a great example of MLK not being the least bit racist.  He got on his fellow clergy, and moderate whites and blacks, for being willing to go along to get along.  That's not exactly what you're saying, I don't believe.  The letter is profound and is real inspiration.  Too bad we don't have another like him today.

    That's a profound letter (none / 0) (#125)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:54:44 PM EST
    and everyone should read it often and take its lessons to heart.  

    MLK isnt racists, and neither is Rev. Wright (none / 0) (#198)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:33:02 PM EST
    In fact, Bernice King is an elder at New Birth Cathedral in Atlanta, Eddie Long's church, and last Sunday she said that MLK jr was going to deliver a sermon called "America may go to hell" at his church... unfortunately, he was assassinated that week before he was to deliver that Sermon... she said that MLK jr's sermon was spoken through Rev. Wright...

    as were a lot of his great sermon's and speeches... u all need some perspective


    When you attack (none / 0) (#202)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:39:53 PM EST
    The white power structure in this country... its considered racism... if MLK was alive today, and their wasn't a Malcolm X, he would be considered a racist also... its what's sad

    At least (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:56:16 PM EST

    At least when you accuse that structure of releasing the AIDS virus for the purpose of killing people of color.  Shameful.

    Who said he is right there? (none / 0) (#210)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:13:35 PM EST
    He isn't... but its understanding the thinking. Why would he say that? because stuff like this was not so far fetched in his generation

    You know (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by sas on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:07:28 PM EST
    I don't think I care about any of this anymore.

    I've had it up to here.

    I'm totally fatigued by all of this- same thing day after day.

    My mind is made up.  

    I know who I'm voting for and I will vote for no one else.

    I know what you mean, I'm digging in.... (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:21:11 PM EST
    ....I'm starting to feel like I did when everyone in the MSM and GOP ganged up on Bill Clinton and the Obama supporter bringing up Lewinsky didn't help. We are really and truly in a stalemate now, but hearing the same old gang plus the Obama fan club gang up on Hillary might actually work out in her favor. It's too much, really. Way too much. Too excessive and obvious that even the most oblivious voters will start to smell a rat soon.

    If the U.S. voter is unable to (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:25:04 PM EST
    smell the rat in today's events, I don't really expect the voter to ever figure it out.  

    I absolutely agree, except I've already (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:22:44 PM EST
    voted in the primary and don't expect my candidate to be the Dem. nominee.  

    I Should Be So Lucky (none / 0) (#111)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:40:54 PM EST
    I have no idea who I would vote for if there was a Florida Primary tomorrow. I have gone back and forth between the two candidates so many times now I could be committed as a flip flop.

    As one of those voters that has never been a one issue candidate in national elections I see plenty of good in both of our candidates and very little light between them on many of the issues.

    To be able to affirmatively say I am solidly in one camp and no chance at the other...it just hasn't happened and I concede defeat in that quest. All I know for sure is, barring some disaster, either Clinton or Obama will have my vote in November.


    I felt like that when Edwards dropped out (5.00 / 5) (#152)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:25:22 PM EST
    and I had Hillary or Obama to choose from...and to tell you the truth, it kind of ticked me off.  

    I read something tonight that shed a lot of light on the choice - whether it will resonate with you or not, I don't know, but I would suggest you read it, too.

    Newsweek's cover story is "When Barry became Barack" - I kind of had to force myself to read it, and it is, in places, a little over-the-top in its adulation, but in the end, it was revealing.

    My take?  Barack Obama still has no idea who he is - he wants to be something, be important, and rather than stick around in one stage of his life long enough to figure some things out, he kept moving on, moving up, looking for that thing that would make it all make sense.  

    I'm not really interested in a president who is taking this step because it is the next stop on his journey to figuring out who he is - I want someone who knows, who hasn't run from the demons, but faced them, who hasn't invented and re-invented his/her persona to see if that's the one that is The One.  

    I don't know - you and others may find other things in the article, see it as life-affirming that he wants to "find" himself.

    To bring this more on-topic - I think that was part of the attraction to Wright.  "Barry" felt a need to know and embrace his black heritage, and I think Wright took him there in a way that no one else could.  I get that.  Maybe when you're looking for racial identity, you need someone who is on the far side of the spectrum - I don't know.

    I think the reason Obama can't completely jettison Wright is because his own identity is bonded to him, and Obama is, deep down, that unsure of who he is - all by himself.

    I find these signs to be worrisome, and if I needed something more to tell me that I was making the right decision to support Hillary, what I read tonight was it.


    Bingo, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:56:59 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned, you've hit the nail on the head with this.

    This has been my interpretation (none / 0) (#169)
    by kayla on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:49:07 PM EST
    of Obama for a long time, and hearing these Wright tapes is what confirmed it for me.  I really don't have a problem with Wright or what he said.  I'm just curious to know what Barack thinks of these statements, besides "I condemn them".  I don't believe him.  I feel like I don't know Barack at all.

    An interesting Obama article (none / 0) (#194)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:16:21 PM EST
      The Agitator

    Shows how Obama's Community Activist role meshed with Wright's Trinity style.


    however, he is, so they aren't (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:08:35 PM EST
    If he weren't Barack Obama's pastor, his remarks would be a blip on the radar screen.

    merely a blip. in fact, a 527 is forming as we speak, with the sole function of playing "all wright, all the time" commercials, with sen. obama's picture morphing out of pastor wright's. betcha real cash money on it.

    i have critical thinking skills, i happen to be tragically white. as always, in any demagogic rant, there's a core of truth. that's how hitler came to power, stalin and mao just killed everyone. so yes, there may well be some tiny, hint of a core of truth in many of pastor wright's sermons, maybe. and your point would be?

    let me clue all you defenders o' the good pastor in on a harsh truth: joe sixpack isn't going to give two nanny goat patoots about the "core truth" in pastor wright's "sermons". he's going to hear and see a ranting, seeming nutjob anti-american, who just so happens to have been sen. obama's pastor and mentor for the past 20 years.

    joe's going to ask himself, "gee, how could sen. obama possibly have missed this, for 20 years? joe is going to find that just wee bit hard to believe. joe is going to think, rightly or wrongly, that perhaps sen. obama agrees with some of the more noxious sentiments espoused by the good pastor wright. joe is going to vote for the guy who is "all american". that "all american" guy will not be sen. obama.

    "fair" is not an issue for discussion, winning the GE is the only issue worthy of consideration, period. it's about time the democratic party got its collective act together and recognized that salient fact, or we're going to be witnessing the inauguration of pres. maccain next jan.

    You Cherry pick and parse (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by suisser on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:10:10 PM EST
    so as to diminish the obvious insult and disrespect he threw at HRC. You obviously know or perhaps care, nothing about sexism in our society.

    I strongly disagree. Any "leveling" of (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:13:47 PM EST
    the playing field, slight or otherwise, has benefitted all women and minorities.  Although, due to recent state statutes and U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U of M undergrad case, such leveling is decreasing rapidly.

    My view is different. Government (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:33:14 PM EST
    is obligated not to discriminate in hiring.  Until recently, in some states, at least, government was obligated to consider women/minority owned businesses for government contracts prior to awarding the contract to a Caucasian male-owned business.  

    I know several people (none / 0) (#185)
    by K Lynne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:02:04 PM EST
    who game the 'women and minority owned business' preferences by listing the wife as the majority owner.  My BIL is a self-employed truck driver, but my sister is the 'company owner'.  My son's soccer coach runs a construction company, but his wife (who primarily handles paperwork / HR / billing duties) is the 'owner' of that business.  I could probably name half a dozen more without too much trouble.

    Stuff like this make a mockery of the 'problem' it was supposed to address, but it is all perfectly legal...


    Are you serious? (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:24:44 PM EST
    You are such a hypocrite.  Hillary's family was self-made.  Her parents worked really hard, and so did she.  She has earned every cent of the money she has.

    Obama went to private schools, so he didn't have the deprived existence that you want to pretend. Further, if it's a question of wealth, isn't he worth millions as well?

    Hypocrisy and more hypocrisy.  You know very well that he didn't say, she wasn't black.  He used a disgusting word instead.  

    What Wright said about Hillary was disgusting and appaling.  Obama should have apologized to Hillary. But then IOKIYAO.  

    let me think? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:52:21 PM EST
    Like graduating top of her class at Wellesley?
    Like graduating from Yale, and working on Capitol Hill upon graduation?
    Like being a bright star even when she was very young?
    Like being a full partner at her law firm?
    Like writing two books, one of which sold more than 1 million copies in a couple of months?

    She supported Bill financially when he was governor (governor's salary wasn't enough to live by), and now Bill gives speeches, and gets paid for it.  Yeah, people may actually want to pay to hear a president, and after working all his life for it, he may be entitled to a good fee.

    Yes, politicians cash in on book writing.  There is nothing wrong with it.  She worked for free when she was advising and working behind the scences in the white house.  

    Obamas have lots of money, and their yearly income is now close to a million.  You argue Obama has less than Hillary.  He would get there, don't worry.  He doesn't have any objections to getting rich.  


    Wrote some bestselling books, like Obama. (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:57:41 PM EST
    Bill's been working as an investment fund advisor, and has earned money from consultancy deals, speeches and his writings. And books.

    They left the WH millions in debt from legal bills. They had to borrow money from Terry McCauliffe to buy their home.

    She makes $165,000 a year as a senator.

    But yes, all of her money is self-made, her family was middle class, her paternal grandfather was a coal miner, and her mother was essentially abandoned as a child. Hillary earned her scholarship to Wellesley and worked her way through law school.

    You want an all-American rags-to-riches story, it's hers, not Obama's.


    Rev. Wright and Obama (5.00 / 12) (#100)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:27:30 PM EST
    I'm sure I will get flamed for this and possibly be called a racist or worse, but I'd like to share my own opinion about Rev. Wright and Obama.

    IMHO, many people are taking the Rev. Wright's sermons out of context and, because of that, they are trivializing some very serious issues. One has to look at the totality of the church, it's message, and it's effect. This goes way beyond just Rev. Wright and the snippets that most people have seen. Just the other day on NPR, the new pastor of Trinity excused all the inflammatory remarks, lies, and distortions of Rev. Wright, and then piled on some more of his own. This is a church that has preached suspicion of white people. This is a church that preaches with lies and distortions. The lies about the HIV virus being deliberately introduced for the purpose of black genocide are simply outrageous to me. No amount of excuses based on historical events like the Tuskegee experiments justify those remarks.

    IMHO, black bigotry is as pernicious in its effects as white bigotry. Kids don't naturally become suspicious of, and hateful towards, other kids who don't look like them - they have to be taught that. I don't think it's can be a good thing that kids like Sasha and Malia Obama are being taught by their pastor that HIV AIDS was introduced deliberately for the purpose of black genocide by the great white oppressor. How can we progress racially if black kids are taught to be suspicious like this? These kinds of lunatic fringe, bigoted rantings are just the black mirror image of the lunatic fringe, bigoted rantings of Falwell, Robertson, etc. Neither should be excused or justified.

    What happened to liberals being reality-based? Are we supposed to give Obama and his church a pass on this because of black history? What would it take before we would criticize the lies and distortions emanating from Rev. Wright?

    It's a disappointment to me that progressives are for reality and truth UNTIL AND UNLESS lies and distortions come from certain people - then it's OK or at least understandable. I don't care if Rev. Wright is black, white or polka-dotted. He preaches bigotry and misinformation to his flock. And if I object to that, I don't think that makes me a racist.

    Liberals (black, white and every color) are supposed to pride themselves on being fact-based, reality-based, etc. in contrast to the right wing. AIDS evolved from a closely related immunodeficiency virus in non-human primates - this is medical FACT, no doctor will tell you otherwise. To spread tinfoil hat misinformation about it is irresponsible because it means that cures for AIDS will be slower in coming and people won't be treated for it in a responsible way. And AA's suffer disproportionally from AIDS, of course.

    The video snippets of Rev. Wright being shown around the internet are not the totality of that church's paradigm or that pastor's beliefs and deeds. What about the Hamas screed printed in the church bulletin? What about the connections to Farrakhan and Rev. Wright's anti-semitic letter to the NY Times? What about the Easter Sunday sermon of Rev. Moss where he calls whites Romans and accuses them of lynching Rev. Wright? What about when the good Rev. said that Natalie Holloway got murdered because she was a 'loose woman'?

    I am also disheartened that many liberals are  silent about Rev. Wright's disgusting sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton. What kind of person brings their kids to see a preacher humping the pulpit and talking dirty like that? What kind of people applaud such things from the pews?

    Sorry for the long post. I find this all incredibly depressing. I apologize in advance if my opinions offend anyone.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:35:26 PM EST
    I couldn't agree more.  Some liberals seem to be in denial about this whole mess.

    Check this link out (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:27:15 PM EST

    The liberal tendency is to never encroach upon one's right to congregate and worship as they please.


    Well, that's true (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:54:46 PM EST
    I still feel unutterably sad about kids learning racial polarization and suspicion of those who don't look like them in black churches and in white churches and everywhere else. I feel like we are going backwards, not forwards, this way.

    In my very integrated neighborhood, I think I see this play out sometimes in the kids around here. Little kids don't start out with racial suspicions or bigotry. They learn it. By a certain age, they've stopped playing innocently together as just kids and it's clear they've been taught to be suspicious, and sometimes outright hostile. I mean both white and black kids.

    I'm depressed, and signing off for the night.


    Well you certainly (1.00 / 1) (#195)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:25:55 PM EST
    have some very deep rooted opinions of a church most here never heard of until about 3 weeks ago.

    So do you have any examples of Obama EVER promoting any of these beliefs, other than going to a inner city church that occasionally says them?

    Personally I embrace the whole notion that religion is a private matter and I try to avoid making assumptions about people based on their religion, even though I am personally an agnostic that finds organized religion a scam.  I always thought that was more the bailiwick of the Right Wing.  They are the ones who seem to think that all Muslims hate America and who find atheists to be a great scourge to our society.  Apparently it's not just Republicans that judge people based on their religious affiliations any more.

    I also don't believe in assigning standards to politicians that I don't hold myself.  I don't discard my friends and family that hold crazy views, and yes I have some family members that would find Wright's comments tepid.  

    Barack Obama has NEVER uttered ANY of those noxious comments.  Not once.  Not ever.  Not even close. He has strong support among Jews and whites.  So personally I find the attempt to smear Obama with Jeremiah Wright nothing more than political opportunism of the most base sort.  


    United Church of Christ is a prominent (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:35:24 PM EST
    Protestant denomination, its origins dating from 1934, and going further back, to Calvinism.  A merger, including the Congregational Church.  

    LOL @ all of this (1.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:40:53 PM EST
    Meanwhile Hillary can say that she has finally found her voice in January, but that is all good... jeez...

    OK (none / 0) (#205)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:41:18 PM EST
    I was speaking of the Trinity United Church specifically unless Dr. Molly was insinuating that the entire denomination holds these beliefs.  

    Is Wright really preaching to women? (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:44:07 PM EST
    I don't get that sense exactly, but I'm curious as to where you're drawing that from.  

    Exactly what power structure are you talking about?  Rich blacks are part of it.  Rich hispanics are part of it.  Or have we forgotten about Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice?  The Authorized Bush Liars?  Here's the thing:  the RICH ARE PART OF IT.  Black, white, etc.  Targeting 'rich white women' of whom we can argue Hillary Clinton is not one (she may be one now, but not when she was growing up, just as Wright wants to paint Obama as not being well-to-do when growing up) is pretty much just that.  

    I don't think your generalizations about the feminist movement are necessarily true.  The feminists have over time more or less been too elitist.  It's still a problem.  Women writing Ph.Ds about feminism often don't have a concrete relationship with the women who bear the brunt of our atrocious statistics as far as women's issues go...sexual abuse, rape, etc.  They don't have the relationship they need to with women in neighborhoods where over half of all women have experiences with sexual abuse.  And yes, feminism and race issues have indeed had a very complicated relationship.

    I outlined above why I think accepting his attakcs on Hillary Clinton is hurtful to all women.  I also think Wright has been a public figure long enough to know his videotaped sermons are not exactly confessionals.  His attacks were framed in a way that completely devalues Hillary's experiences as a woman, with lines of attack that are common to arguments claiming women don't experience discrimination.

    I realize the media phenomenom of Wright is different from the man himself.  I'm still interested in the actual clips.

    Wright's attacks on (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Lena on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:28:20 PM EST
    Clinton, as well as Natalie Holloway, really get me. I know that Wright's racism is in the forefront in the news--as racism is taken seriously by the media, while sexism is not-- but it's Wright's sexism, and hypocrisy, that get me.

    I CAN understand people being angry at our country. I know I am. But Wright's words don't seem to me to be the words of a compassionate, enlightened spiritual leader. I mean, what minister would go to a prayer breakfast at the White House, hear a President confess his sins,and then go back home and mock and taunt that President? Yuck.

    I think Wright will be a huge problem for the Democratic party if Obama gets the nomination. I, for one, do not think Obama's media darling status would last through the ge either.


    No Bosnia mileage..so now the outrage (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:44:37 PM EST
    Outrage de jour.   The Bosnia  lie outrage did not get any mileage.

    So now we get all stirred up about this.  Of course she comments.  

    When my daughter was 9 and she asked in the Greek Orthodox Sunday school why Jesus had no girls as  his friends and the teacher gave an idiotic answer we stopped going to Greek school and Greek church.  We were going for the cultural aspects, but could not continue with something that I did not believe in.  Hillary is right and many of us have walked away from churches that we did not agree with, but then again, we were part of the old culture wars, so banal.    

    This Obama crowd is about the most hyper sensitive bunch of people.  Everything outrages them, everything is the end of the world, the end of democracy, the end of.....

    We need to get a truck load of anti anxiety meds.  Jeepers creepers, how about some tough skin there folks?  

    Have we gotten to the demands for apologies yet?  

    Do you denounce the devil and all his ways?  Renounce?  

    excessive drama queens (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:51:32 PM EST
    concern, depression, outrage.  it's all too much.  how will i get through the day?  :-)

    This: (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:49:59 PM EST
    "And did Hillary not come from wealth and is worth millions?"

    Oh, btw, Hillary went to public high school.  Not that it matters at all, but if you're going to make arguments about her incredible wealth, you might want to realize how limited they are.

    Obama went to prep school.

    Barack got a scholarship (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by kayla on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:26:15 PM EST
    to go to that prep school.  But yeah, I thought it weird when the Reverend said Barack isn't rich, white, or privileged.  I'm like, yeah you're right, he's half-white, lives in a 2 million dollar home, and went to Harvard.

    Re: Clinton on Wright (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by RickTaylor on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:51:03 PM EST
    I don't blame Clinton much for her remarks on Wright. She was asked a question, Wright is Obama's problem, I don't expect her to take a hit to protect him (which is what would have happened if she'd dodged the question entirely). Maybe she responded a little over-enthusiastically; it would have been enough to say she wouldn't have attended Wright's church and leave it at that. But there's way too much picking over candidates statements about issues like this, which in my opinion don't have much bearing on how effective a President the candidate is likely to make.

    Why blame Clinton at all (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:09:46 PM EST
    for responding to the question in a measured manner.  

    Didnot exclude women of color (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Foxx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:53:54 PM EST
    The women's movement did not exclude women of color.I was there, I know. This is a slander and a myth!!!

    OK (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:24:39 PM EST
    It just goes to show that gender trumps race.

    If I were HIllary (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:56:59 PM EST
    I would say:

    "Yes, I would leave a church if I had a pastor that damned America. I have worked too hard, in fact my entire adult like to effect change in America. I can also identify with anger...anger because I am a female running for President of the United States. I have been called names that are unspeakable in a public forum; I have been belittled and called ignorant, disgusting and evil.  I have been labeled a communist, compared to Hitler and have been asked to please die.

    Yes, I can understand anger.  However, I am a woman running for the office of President of the United States. And Yes, I would leave a church if my spiritual leader said God damn America. I say, for this privilege of a woman standing here today, I say God Bless America.

    Ah were it so simple.... (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:57:59 PM EST
    ...he was just pointing out politely that Hillary was white, because otherwise we might not know. He did insult Hillary. He said things about her and her family from the pulpit that were completely unneccessary. Malice was clearly intended. Therefore it was an insult. Parse it however you like, I know an insult when I see one.

    Ever since he became a candidate (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:05:36 PM EST
    I have noticed his propensity to be everything to everyone.  I guess that for 20 years he was a follower of Rev. Wright and now that he is a liability he has become a disagreer.  Nothing new in this man who was working in Chicago for voter enfranchisement while his campaign lawyers where burning the midnight oil disenfranchising the voters in his district.  The one who brags about his speech against the war but continues to fund it like everyone else.  Who will speak of supportive of gay-rights but invites an anti-gay activist to his rally in SC.  To me is just more of the same and I sometimes wonder how different is this person from McCain.  If he is the democratic nominee I will be holding my nose when I vote.

    She donated her royalties in excess of several (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Dancing Bear on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:25:07 PM EST
    million dollars to children's hospitals across the country.  He bought a 1.65 Million dollar Georgian Mansion while his constituents had no heat and lived in squalid conditions.

    Michelle earns about $475,000. a year.

    When you have money you invest it.  It builds.  You roll it over. It grows and grows and grows.

    When it comes to poverty and being the average guy he does not fit that role.

    She also worked for a good fifteen years before he even started college. For large firms.

    Nobody paid her way.  Nobody gave her a penny she didn't earn.

    No, that's not all he said (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:33:19 PM EST
    Go listen to the clip again.  And be sure to notice that loving, tolerant, unifying Christian tone he uses.  Might also want to look up the one where he humps the podium in a Christmas Day rant about how Bill "did" black folks like he "did" Monica, "riding dirty."

    The other blogs and networks (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by kenosharick on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:45:06 PM EST
    esp. MSNBC have really ramped up their attacks on Hillary. She is (according to them) a "racist" "joe mccarthy" and "tonya harding" all rolled into one. They are desperatly trying to make her into thse horrible things and give wright a pass. THEY are on the low road and I am so mad that he gets a pass and she gets blamed for every problem in the world. Sorry, but it is time to REALLY start playing hardball.

    A lot of people feel the same way (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:50:57 PM EST
    A backlash is foreseeable.

    Sorry Rasheem- she DID NOT (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by kenosharick on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:51:07 PM EST
    come from wealth, rather worked her butt off. And sorry, wright's comments about how we deserved 9/11 are beyond forgiveness- at least from me. This seriously calls Obama's judgement into question.

    I'm no t as offended by Wright's comments (5.00 / 5) (#208)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:00:50 PM EST
    as I am by the people trying to excuse them. First, stop telling me to listen to hours of his sermons. I'm not going to go read Obama's entire damn web site like his supporters keep telling me to do, and I don't need to hear the "context" of the sermons. I saw him humping the podium and insulting Clinton. I think Obama supporters are so used to casually saying the most horrific things about Hillary that they really don't see that stuff as anyhting out of the ordinary.

    Also, stop excusing the HIV stuff by pointing out how black people have reason to be so misinformed. This isn't some guy on the street. This is one of the leaders of his community, a person that people look to for guidance. Is the idea that he has a reason to believe, and spread, crazy assed rumors the best defense people can come up with?

    What really pisses me off is Obama's disingenuousness. He told Wright a year ago that he was going to have to stay under wraps. Is that because he never heard any of his offensive remarks? Please. He knew Wright was a ticking time bomb, and he just hoped he could ignore it. Then when he's finally forced to confront it, he gets lauded for his "courage." And what's particularly galling is that we're supposed to admire Obama for not throwing Wright under the bus. He said he completely dsagreed with Wright's statements, called him an old uncle, and had him leave the campaign. The only thing he didn't do was physically place the man under a bus. Then he grnadstands about how he won't "turn his back on him." That's like the candidate who says "I don't believe in beating puppies, and I don't care if it does cost me the election."

    I'm glad Hillary said what she did, and I hope this issue stays front and center. Sorry, but pleading for this issue to go away so we can focus on the substantive stuff just sounds naive. Does anyone really believe that if Wright hadn't blown up we'd all be talking about the respective candidate's stances on economic stimulus? Not this time. Not this time.

    Hillary tied defending Obama on 60 Minutes. The result? His campaign now uses "as far as I know" as a talking point. At the same tim, Obama himself is citing Drudge as "proof" that Hillary will stoop to anything.I don't believe that there is any response she could have given to the question that wouldn't have been met with shock and outrage by the Obama people.

    The Wright Stuff will never go away, (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Arcadianwind on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:36:58 PM EST
    not this year in any case.

    It is too rich with metaphor.  

    If we are going to talk about (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:50:02 PM EST
    the movements of the 60's, I think its rather telling that you fail to mention one of the most notorious comments of SNCC chairman Stokely Carmichael: that the proper position of women in the movement was "prone" . In fact the feminist movement arose out of a failure of those in the civil rights and student rights movement to question their own assumptions about male superiority.

    Wright is Here to Stay (4.90 / 11) (#9)
    by Athena on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:19:06 PM EST
    Obama's negligence and media complicity have allowed Wright to explode on the scene in a manner that the Democrats will not be able to control.  He could be labeled a distraction, but he will remain an onoing character witness for a relatively unknown Obama - a fact that will severely dim his electoral prospects.

    Obama has introduced Wright into the election - because of his long association with a "mentor" whose remarks could have been written by a GOP fantasist.  So I blame Obama for all of this - now saddling the party with Rev. Wright as a silent running mate this fall.

    The notion that gods (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Manuel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:20:17 PM EST
    punish humanity for its sins through catastrophes is quite old.  It isn't surprising that preachers of any stripe might actually believe it.  I hope a silent rational majority disagrees with this but not being religious, I can't tell.  I did read somewhere that there is a surprisingly large number of religious people in the country.  They might even be a majority and be familiar with Noah.

    She was correct in making it clear (4.85 / 7) (#44)
    by Salt on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    that not all Dems believe Wright's irrational rants to be okey dokey.

    If our media (4.83 / 6) (#35)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:33:22 PM EST
    was capable of a discussion beyond political self-interest, Wright could be an interesting figure.  Not just for his presentation on institutional racism, but for his setting up of women as absent of experiences of discrimination.  That is what his Hillary remarks amount to.  We could discuss the merits of some of his comments, the lack of merit or disrespect in others.  

    But instead, we only discuss Wright as a political pawn.  We apparently are supposed to align his comments in some sort of 'shut up and smile!' Democratic solidarity.  He's right about some things and wrong about others.  He's no pariah to me.  But I don't like seeing people defend or hate him unconditionally.  We should be able to discuss what he said for its content, not just its political value.  Because when we discuss the CONTENT of statements and beliefs, we demonstrate our political values, we show a capacity to be Democrats instead of "ban and disdain" Republicans.

    I am tired of approving of the media's role in our elections.  I am tired of Democrats quoting Chris F&*)&& Matthews.  I am tired of Dowd being anything other than her own echo chamber.  The blogosphere is the perfect tool to form a separate conversation about Democratic politics.  But...

    Well (4.80 / 5) (#14)
    by Andy08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:31:30 PM EST
    Obama's 20 year relationship with Wright is a huge deal. It isn't about being "his pastor" it runs much deeper than that.

    I am utmost disgusted by it.  Whether it plays into a Republican playbook or not is irrelevant. This is serious fact about Obama himself.  

    Andy- I agree and am appalled (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by kenosharick on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:47:16 PM EST
    at how the MSM is pretending it never happened and will not destroy any chance he has in Nov.

    so... (1.00 / 2) (#15)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:33:54 PM EST
    ... can I assume that you think it is a "huge deal" that Hillary Clinton has a significant relationship with The Family?

    What significant relationship? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    That she goes to a weekly prayer breakfast?

    Weekly Prayer Meetings (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:26:48 PM EST
    In no way signifies a casual relationship with the Fellowship. Being  invited to participate in the Weekly Prayer Meetings is a very exclusive thing. Dominionism, a belief shared by Dubya, are the order of the day. It can be said that the Family is a major powercenter in US politics. The fact that Hillary is now loved by people that hated her could be a good thing for us.

    Ironic that HRC is more the unity candidate in deed than Obama.


    Al Gore (none / 0) (#216)
    by GDKitty on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:41:11 PM EST
    was also a friend of Doug Coe's and attended the breakfasts.  

    Remember when Gore appeared before Boxer's Environmental Cmte last March?  When Inhofe was being really obstinate, Gore suggested that the two of them get together with their friend, Doug Coe, and hash it all out over breakfast.  

    Here's Gore in an interview about 'Environmentalism and the Spirit' (at the end of his response to the question, 'Who have been your heroes?'):

    Outside the environmental movement, I have a friend named Doug Coe who devotes his life to the message of Christ in a completely nondenominational, noninstitutional way. He just lives it, and is incredibly loving and strong.

    Link? (none / 0) (#221)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:57:49 PM EST
    Al Gore..... attended the breakfasts.  

    Do you have a link to back up that he was a regular member of the Weekly Prayer Meetings?


    Religion And An Impromtu Call (4.80 / 5) (#25)
    by Coral Gables on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:06:07 PM EST
    I still can't believe lifelong Democrats care in the slightest what someone's religion is or who someone's pastor might be. To get caught up in this kind of static is exactly what the GOP spin machine does every election. The educated electorate hopefully sees through it, the rest see Obama as either an American hating Muslim or a bat crazy Christian.

    What saddens me is Dem's in this regard are little different from their Republican counterparts. The less religion is interjected into politics the better it is for everyone.

    And while I was writing this, I received a call from the Obama campaign telling me the nomination process ends June 1 and asking for a contribution. I let them know there was a primary on June 3, and that until the votes from Florida count in the the nomination process, not to count on anything from me. That was very cathartic.

    This Montanan thanks you-- (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by eleanora on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:21:08 PM EST
    I can't believe I might actually get to vote for my preferred candidate in a Presidential primary, and have it mean something! The constant refrain of "this has to end now" and "more voting will hurt the party" is really difficult to hear from Democrats. I thought we were better than that.

    Eleanora I am in Montana as well (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by athyrio on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:25:17 PM EST
    and plan to cast my vote for Hillary...I am in southeastern part of the state..What part are you?

    important issues? (4.71 / 7) (#13)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:28:28 PM EST
    Perhaps now we can get back to important issues
    Like what?

    How much Obama donated to charity?

    Or if Obama was wrong when he said it was a mistake to use drugs?

    I agree that Wright is a distraction from real issues, and I am glad that he is not speaking this week in Miami.  But it is kinda' funny to hear you say that you want to deal with important issues when you have based Obama twice today for pretty ridiculous things.

    Does the fact that Rev. Wright's (4.66 / 3) (#1)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:00:11 PM EST
    remarks offended me make me a Republican?

    nah (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Nasarius on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:09:35 PM EST
    Even if we discount the truly idiotic garbage...

    Look, I wasn't in Manhattan for 9/11/2001, but I was close enough to remember the sound of military jets overhead and the indescribable smell that was everywhere you went for a few days after. His tone, just five days later, and the people cheering him on, are truly despicable.


    Well I Live (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:13:21 PM EST
    Less than a mile away, and lived through all the horrors of it all. I had no problem with what he said as I understand it.

    To make believe that 9/11 had nothing to do with US foreign policy is nuttier than the worst conspiracy theory out there.


    I didn't have a problem (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Nasarius on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:19:31 PM EST
    Until I realized when he said it. The Sunday after, and instead of mourning the dead, reminding us that revenge is not Christian, and that we have a responsibility to be peaceful in the world...he goes on a rant about American foreign policy?

    I was raised in a quiet, apolitical Catholic community, so it's particularly surprising in a church, but still...I wouldn't expect this is any  public setting on the weekend after.


    It is... (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by alexei on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:12:23 PM EST
    absolutely despicable especially from a so-called "man of god".  He should have been respectful of the families - I know, because I had an event about a week after 9/11 (and believe me, I am and was very critical of the government and its involvement), but I knew that it was totally wrong to talk about that - instead, I talked about the tragedy, the families and the first responders.  

    Im sorry? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:20:31 PM EST
    But how was he disrespectful to the families?

    Did he say that those people deserved to die?

    I can't even believe some of you all think this...


    The question is, does (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:26:15 PM EST
    Obama agree with Rev Wright re  U.S. foreign policy causing 9/11.  

    And if he does, which policy was it that caused 9/11?

    And how will President Obama alter that policy to prevent another 9/11?


    Okay (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:25:31 PM EST
    But let's not put up a strawman here.  It's a bit much to rant about US support of apartheid in the context of 9/11.

    OK (none / 0) (#146)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:19:09 PM EST
    I am sure it is. I do not think any of the religious BS is to be trusted. The so called spiritual leaders say quite a bit of nonsense as they rant, if you ask me. This is minor and quite typical, or a bit less so because he is black.

    Second if your a Christian and believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ then you might understand that the injustices in the world are not only caused by foriegners. And that if you don't stand up for every life then God will judge you accordingly. 4,000 dead American Soldiers what do we here about the 90,000-120,000 dead in Iraq including women and children.  Dwell on Wright if you want but I believe strongly that the greatest injustice here is that the men responsible for 911 have not been caught.  Instead we wage a war based on faulty intellegence on political motives.

    I was 200 feet (none / 0) (#183)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:01:18 PM EST
    from the WTCs when the planes hit. I was looking at the towers when the first plane hit.

    And I think it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that Wright was saying that the victims deserved it.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:08:23 PM EST
    I saw the second one hit, after being woken up by the first one. I haven't listened to the good Rev. but from what I have read, I did not think he was personalizing it by blaming the people in the buildings. I thought he was blaming America and its policies. Huge difference in my book.

    Yup (none / 0) (#196)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:27:54 PM EST
    His point was that our foreign policy actions are what made 9/11 happen.  But why let that little fact get in the way when you can instead calling Wright an America hater?

    I can't believe liberals are actually using the America-hater trope.    


    He offended me, too (the HIV (4.33 / 3) (#3)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:06:28 PM EST
    conspiracy theory crap).  A few things both Obama and Hillary have said offended me.

    I know people who were so offended by Wright that they won't vote for Obama.  But the point is, it does no good to dwell on it, because it does indeed play into the Republicans' hands.

    Of course, it would be nice if the shriller precincts of the left blogosphere were as concerned about the effect all this nastiness will have in November.


    for purposely giving diseases to African Americans.  HIV might be a conspiracy but how many diseases to we need to give you before you start thinking we are behind it.

    Say what? (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:25:19 PM EST
    What are you talking about?

    Do you mean (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:30:11 PM EST
    the Tuskegee Syphilis Study?  If so, the Government did not give syphilis to the AA.

    Bill Clinot gave a brilliant speech on Tuskeegee (1.00 / 1) (#179)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:58:31 PM EST
    Apologizing for it.

    That speech should put to rest for good and all any idea that Clinton is a racist.

    So, given the history, the HIV CT stuff isn't that implausible.  


    Of course it's implausible (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:01:20 PM EST
    One thing has nothing to do with the other. As far as diseases go, we know more about the origins and spread of HIV AIDS than we do about most diseases. There is no excuse for spreading misinformation about it. Talk about insulting people's intelligence.

    Okayyyy (none / 0) (#181)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:59:42 PM EST
    That is technically true.  But it doesn't make the governments actions in that study any less abhorrent.

    Lying to your patients so that you could continue to run tests on them regarding a potentially fatal disease is fairly disgusting.  Doubly so when you consider that there was effective treatment for syphilis for most of the time the study occurred.  


    Um... excuse me but... (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:05:46 PM EST
    HIV is closely related to SIV, which jumped from African chimps to humans, mutated into HIV and was then imported to the U.S. and around the world. (I would suspect that if any group had a right to a conspiracy theory that the govt. was trying to kill them off, it would be gays.)

    If you want to ply that knuckleheadness here, go join up with Thabo Mbeke, who still doesn't believe that HIV causes AIDS, and employed a Minister of Health who actually claimed garlic could cure HIV.


    Good book, "Bad Blood" (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:34:14 PM EST
    about the Tuskegee syphilis study.  Author is James H. Jones.  I assigned it as an outside reading book (meaning, outside of the standard textbook) when I taught US History to college freshmen.  It's very interesting and will clear up your misconceptions.  It was a terrible episode in national racial relations--so terrible that there is no need for Reverend Wright, a very educated man by all accounts, to demagogue and misrepresent it.

    HIV/AIDS is a completely different story, which an educated man should realize.  I cannot understand why he would connect the two in an impassioned speech in front of a large group of people except to stir up ill will and worse.


    No But (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:07:58 PM EST
    If you start saying that dissent is unAmerican, or that by saying god damn america indicates that you are somehow unpatriotic, yes.

    "God Damn America" wasn't all he said, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:12:05 PM EST
    by the way.  I didn't hear Obama address the HIV issue in his speech, but I'd be glad to be informed if I missed it.

    OK (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:55:20 PM EST
    "God Damn America" wasn't all he said,

    That is your argument that he is unAmerican and not a patriot?

    Or that this could possibly be as damaging as having people like

    Reverend Rod Parsley

    The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook.


    In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization."

    The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

    And then there is Hagee, Falwell, Dobson,  and they are all still best buddies with McBush/McSame/Lieberman or what have you.

    He is McBush's guy, you know, McSame. I do not think that this is going to go well with the voters.


    do the same before you judge a man based on a Fox news created highlight real.

    You know, I don't care if he preached (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:35:47 PM EST
    goodness and mercy and god's love for twenty years.

    He humped the pulpit.

    End of story.


    There are ways to dissent (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by hookfan on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:44:50 PM EST
    without damning all of us. Or do you think it's appropriate to damn the victims that died in the tower? They are part of America, no? Or those of us who opposed imperialism of whatever race or financial circumstance. We're part of America, no? I think the not-so-right reverend owes all of us a heart felt apology for his severe lack of discretion and highly inflammatory statements.

    Saying Damn (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:37:01 PM EST
    to the religious is not  alight matter and it's not something that is done from the pulpit.  This is not Joe Blow damning America, this is a preacher.  It may not mean anything to some of us, but it means a lot to those who hold such things sacred.  

    The GOP Church Scandals (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:59:59 PM EST
    And McCain, are worse.

    me know if you feel the same way!

    I am don't care (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:14:06 PM EST
    I don't care what he says in  his sermons.  Obama is the one who went out of his way to prove he is a church going "Christian".  Obama is now linked to him and the dirty nasty little bits are out there.  So, it's not up to be to absolve Wright stain on Obama.  Obama has to be a man and take it on the chin.  Obama is the one who said race did not matter anymore, that there is no white, no black America, just one America.  So, let's see how he walks the fine line on this one.  

    Obama used Wright to get "church going" credentials when he was running for office in Chicago.  So, now, he has to take a stand.  This is what happens when you have to take a stand, when you have to explain your judgement.  I don't have to clean up his mess.  

    To me, all the good things Wright said, are disqualified based on what he said about "Bill and Lewinsky".  That was vile.   Other people will not like other bits.  His politics don't shock me, his so called Christian values of forgiveness and not throwing stones and not judging lest you be judged...etc..etc., that bugs me.  


    The man is a preacher (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:25:08 PM EST
    I am tired of making excuses.  He is a grown man.  He has found a shtick and it works.  Preachers of all sorts make lots of money from people.  Give me a flying break.  He knew that he was insulting Bill Clinton and Hillary when he brought up the "doing us dirty"  he has to live with the consequences.  He was vulgar.  He knew what he said when he said " God Damn America".  

    Blah...blah....blah.  Excuses...excuses.  He said that stuff, Obama listened...no excuses.  How paternalistic to not let the guy stand for what he says and believes.  Also how condescending.  

    Gee, I guess Jackson was not good enough but this guy is worth defending.  Thanks, but I will take Jessie any day.  


    Clinton to be without church soon (none / 0) (#177)
    by magster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:57:25 PM EST
    as her own former minister strongly defended Rev. Wright.  Time for her to find a new church.

    Correction (none / 0) (#187)
    by magster on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:02:16 PM EST
    Snyder is the current senior minister of Clinton's church.

    Are they that close? (4.66 / 3) (#26)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:09:58 PM EST
    The Health care is very different. And if the other things are close, are they close because he followed her lead so people would say they are so close on the issues and stop talking about them? Have we lumped together the issues? I think we need to discuss what those difference are because the health care difference alone is substantial.  How are they on Stem cell? Will it pass now?

    And Wright is important because in my mind, and maybe only my mind, how do I know what Obama is really thinking? There is little history. It is like a reality show, Supermodel. Make me a President. What if after 20 years with his mentor he has picked up the same thinking but is hiding it from us. 20 years is a long time of forming ideas and plans. What is he is a wolf in sheep's clothing?

    Wright scares me and Obama knew he would scare me or he would not have hidden him. Issues & Wright. Very important. I do not want another puppet in the WH who is loyal to his friends and stubborn. Scooter is a very lucky man. He has not bled from the sword.

    Again (none / 0) (#28)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:19:16 PM EST
    Nothing at all is wrong with a majority of what he said... and when u listen to the sermon, he is right... its unfortunate that Americans have lost the critical thinking skills


    Chicken's coming home to roost

    GD America


    According to you (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:48:47 PM EST
    but I think he's a hatemonger and he spreads it around.  I don't care about his church, his passion, his color, or what he believes to be valid arguments.  The HIV conspiracy theories are the mark of a true nutjob.  Enjoy your delusions.

    the HIV theories... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:56:30 PM EST
    come from the Tuskegee experiments... he may be wrong about that, but his line of thinking came from  that... that is what he said in his sermon... Im not sure if you know about the Tuskegee experiments, but maybe you should look it up and then you can understand why he may feel that way about HIV

    u have not pointed out anything he actually said wrong... and I still do not feel you heard the whole sermon...

    and hatemonger? this guy received a commendation from Lyndon Johnson (remember him, Hillary supporters)... he was a marine... and served this country, he is far from that... his church accepts gay people and supports gay marriage... where is the hate?

    again, its just like the Neocon thinking... too bad people on the Left are subscribing to it...


    Just to point something out (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:06:14 PM EST
    Obama himself disagrees with you on the argument you're tryhing to make:  that there's nothing wrong with what Wright said.

    I am familiar with the (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:21:32 PM EST
    Tuskegee experiments.  They were God awful and were condemned and apologized for by that awful racist President Bill Clinton.  That has nothing to do with HIV, unless you are a paranoid.

    If Lyndon Johnson heard this junk, do you think he'd get a commendation today?  Of course not.  The fact that he was a marine makes it worse for me.  I was also a marine and he's thoroughly dishonored himself.

    As for hate, when he says GD America I take that seriously.  He damned me and deserves a damning in return.  Once he damns me, he gets no chance to explain I'm done with him and don't care one bit about any flimsy reasons or excuses.


    Read your history, sir (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:01:46 PM EST
    when the HIV crisis started in this country, it was predominantly with WHITE, gay males.

    The Haitian epidemic came later, and those people, are predominantly black.

    Man, get off the whole "discerning" angle.  Yes, you can seperate the hate from what you think is fact.  But that stuff doesn't play well in Omaha, NE or Jefferson City, MO.  That's the challenge for progressives:  the high road is desired (and needed) but the GOP will never take that route.  Grow up.  And Obama needs to "man" up.  I have heard more than once about his inability to make comments and stand by them.  


    The men of Tuskegee were infected with syphillis. (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by Dancing Bear on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:31:52 PM EST
    Through their own actions and the Government allowed them to continue suffering without treatment to study the effects of syphillis on humans. Very awful and dastardly but they did not kidnap them and infect them as many folks claim.

    It was a dark day.
    HIV however killed hundreds of thousands of Gay men before anybody even looked at it. If Wright wants to claim otherwise he is no less guilty than the a-holes that conducted Tuskegee. He diminishes all my friends lives that died.


    No. It wasn't (4.66 / 3) (#36)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:34:02 PM EST
    and that isn't true.

    She was asked the question.

    Don't make things up.

    I agree it has been a distraction, (4.57 / 7) (#6)
    by dk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:10:03 PM EST
    but Obama has been publicizing his faith throughout this campaign (he has definitely been the most religious candidate in either party with the exception of Huckabee).  Let's not forget those fliers he sent out in South Carolina, etc. showing him praying and talking about how he walks with Jesus, etc.  And let's also not forget how he legitimized the airing of homophobic views via Minister McClurkin to pick up some extra votes.

    Look, I'm an atheist and I'd be more than happy for none of these candidates to talk about religion and focus on actual public policy instead.  But he has run a religious themed campaign, and this kind of thing is one of the consequences.

    Some in the UCC leadership (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by dk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:15:31 PM EST
    may be leftwing when it comes to gay folks, but Obama has specifically stated that his reason for opposing gay marriage is his faith.  

    I don't buy the argument that he had to include religion (and homophobic tinged religion) in his campaign to deal with the Muslim stories.  Sending out fliers telling people to vote for you because you are a Christian, and legitimizing homophobic views based on the fact that they come out of the mouth of a Minister, went beyond trying to correct misinformation about his religion.  He tried to make religion a selling point, so he has to deal with the blowback.  Seems fair to me.


    nope you aren't a republican but you (4.50 / 2) (#2)
    by athyrio on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:03:45 PM EST
    just didn't drink the Kool-aide I guess. LOL...

    CNN did an extreme video which I won't link to (4.50 / 2) (#11)
    by athyrio on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:24:33 PM EST
    but said that this is the GOP's attack plans in the future to say that Obama isn't patriotic along with all of Wrights stuff etc...Was pretty vicious tape...

    saw that and agree (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:44:41 PM EST
    looks like a new swift boat group devoted to this issue or at least to Obama. I think with either candidate, we're in for a bumpy ride. I hope Obama hits back to that group, and fast. Then again, maybe not. You know, it's not an easy decision about whether to hit back on something like that or to just ignore it. We have the Kerry lack of hitting back fast still fresh in our minds. We'll see how they handle it.

    Wright is not Wrong (4.50 / 2) (#20)
    by GrandPanjandrum on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:48:35 PM EST
    Because I am not part of the Never Blame America crowd my take on Wright's sermons are quite different than others (Whites mainly), because I didn't find what he said to be all that shocking. Many of his remarks related to race were as fitting as they were discomfiting, and his views on the American governments propensity to screw up foreign policy matters were neither fatuous nor exceptional. I assumed that the remarks would create a political liability for Obama, but based on the substance of Wright's arguments (OK the HIV nonsense IS like the 9/11 truther garbage found out in the blogosphere) were NOT inexpiable.

    You can argue all you want about Wright's fire and brimstone approach (you know, those scary Black Men!) but listen to the extended cuts of his sermons and tell me what was disgusting about his remarks. I remain unconvinced that Wright is wrong, much less disgusting or vile.

    He blatantly (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:50:54 PM EST
    and yes, IMHO disgustingly insulted Hillary from the pew.  You'll have to find a link for his sermon, since I won't listen to him.  A Youtube search on:

    Hillary Wright

    would get you there.  


    Raheem (none / 0) (#73)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:08:32 PM EST
    has all the links.  I thing that he has used them three times today.

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    Nothing at all is wrong with a majority of what he said... and when u listen to the sermon, he is right... its unfortunate that Americans have lost the critical thinking skills


    Chicken's coming home to roost

    GD America


    If there is nothing wrong (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Manuel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:27:24 PM EST
    Why did Obama distance himself from his remarks?  Obama reacted like he was shocked by the remarks (which he wasn't present for and to which he would have objected).  Do you think Obama isn't being sincere?

    If Obama comes out tomorrow (4.50 / 2) (#22)
    by ajain on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:55:30 PM EST
    and says "I won't get into the gutter with Hillary", do you think it will work for him?
    And what would be her response to that?

    Obama says that every day (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by zyx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:58:19 PM EST
    it is a bald and unconvincing statement.

    No he doesnt do it himself (none / 0) (#123)
    by ajain on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:54:36 PM EST
    His campaign slings mud and then pretends that it isnt doing anything.
    But I think the whole thing will go to a higher level if he comes out and speaks out about it, himself.

    good for HC (4.50 / 2) (#24)
    by faithandhope97 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:01:39 PM EST
    I don't think this campaign is going to last much longer anyway, Why, because of all the dessent in the party, Fla, GOP, the constant dirt slinging and on and on and on.  One says obama's camp won't support clinton the other says the exact opposite, Gee, the news was talking about it this morning, refreshing though that it wasn't just Hillary by herself as usually but clinton/obama lumped together because of fighting on both sides. I am so saddened because on both sides this was such a historical election.  It will go down as one a ugly and vicious one  The ship is sinking and I don't think there will be survivors, I am Proud that Hillary said what she feels because I feel the same way.  The good thing is that she does know that whatever she says it will be horribly twisted.  Amazing she is doing so well even with the daily trash commetaries.  

    Clinton's comment led the NBC news tonight (3.33 / 3) (#37)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:37:18 PM EST
    It's a story now!

    Some of these Obama people (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:51:26 PM EST
    are just flapping delusional.  The whole party is gonna wear Wright around their neck on a chain by November.  Democratic candidates may as well tattoo GD America on their foreheads if Obama heads the ticket.

    Either that or (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:55:44 PM EST
    Disown the nominee.

    I'm glad (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:53:40 PM EST
    because personally, I think it's how many people feel.  I'll bet about half of America will say, "I can relate!"

    Personally, I also don't attend churches that condemn people to hell and damnation if they don't act a certain way.  There are subtler approaches


    My current thinking is Clinton should (1.50 / 2) (#38)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:37:39 PM EST
    remove her name from consideration as the Dem. Presidential candidate.  The odds are Obama will be the nominee.  Perhaps, without Hillary Clinton to distract him, he will be able to focus his campaign and prevail over McCain in November.  Today has been a very discouraging day for this Clinton supporter.

    Nope. (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:42:40 PM EST
    It would be a huge mistake to hand him the nomination.  He needs to earn it 'the old fashioned way.'

    That's why we hold conventions.


    He's earning it the old-fashioned way by (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:53:18 PM EST
    continously trashing Clinton and claiming she's doing the trashing.  I'm really, really sick of it.

    So (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:54:51 PM EST
    One should never concede under those terms.

    I don't think of it as conceding. Just (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:58:23 PM EST
    leave this mess to Obama to figure out.

    Let him earn the mess. (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:54:59 PM EST
    Let's not just hand it to him. Let him make it the biggest sloppiest stinkiest mess possible before he gets to take ownership and fail to clean it up.

    Dude, buck up. If she can take it and still go on, the least we can do is support her as long as she wants to fight for us.

    I get upset over days spent defending her against the most vicious, malicious, untrue smears imaginable. Imagine what she has to deal with, just being her. And she gets up every day and does it again, with a smile and determination.

    This is the toughest, strongest, most courageous, most resilient woman I have ever seen in my life. She's a hero. You cannot keep her down. I am going to take her behavior in this campaign to my grave as inspiration. Win or lose.

    Eventually people will see what they are p*ssing on, and if she's the not the nominee, they will wish most sincerely they had not screwed up so badly in not choosing her. Because he is gonna tank, and it will not be pretty.

    Obama does not own the franchise on hope and inspiration.


    Enough (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:50:32 PM EST
    Hillary dropping out of the campaign already.  She isn't going to drop out and she shouldn't. She'd be a wonderful president.

    Every day (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by sumac on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:31:01 PM EST
    ...seems somewhat discouraging for this Clinton supporter...and that's from Day 1. I get so angry/frustrated/elated/disappointed. In many ways it would be better if I ignored the primaries altogether, at least if what they say about stress and health has merit. ;)

    But then every once in a while, my logical side takes over and reminds me that I am really proud of Hillary. She has not run a perfect campaign (far from it). But she is a fighter, and contrary to some persons' beliefs, I think she has acted in an honorable manner (as honorable as a politician can be). I can't imagine the strength of character it would take to endure what she has, and does, on a daily basis. But I do admire it.

    Obama needs to be able to solve his own problems concerns on his own with or without "distractions", particularly if he is going to be our president.


    Well sd. Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:34:17 PM EST
    Hilllary Clinton doesn't benefit from my beating my head against the wall here, that is for certain.

    No Oculus- she needs to do her best (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by kenosharick on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:02:06 PM EST
    to try and save the party from the cliff an Obama candidacy will certainly bring.

    Don't know where you suddenly appeared (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:35:11 PM EST
    from but, imo, your assessment is quite rude.

    I don't think this one is going (none / 0) (#176)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:57:15 PM EST
    to be around here for long.

    I don't think anyone is monitoring (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:58:47 PM EST
    the comments to this post or to the preceding post.  

    What happened? (none / 0) (#144)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:18:33 PM EST
    DId I miss something?  Did they spike your juice?  NOooooo!!!

    I think she's just periodically feeling down. I (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:23:07 PM EST
    was the same way the other night. It gets so frustrating to fight this losing battle with the media and the story they present the way they want it presented.

    Its not just the media. BTD condemned (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:28:40 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton for stating what he says Barack Obama should have sd. a year ago.  But have we yet seen here a post deploring what Wright sd. about the Clintons, the origins of HIV, etc.?   Obama condems Hillary Clinton for saying anything at all about Wright, even though, in a radio interview today, he also talked about Rev. Wright.  Immediately it is trumpeted far and wide that Clinton is stirring up the controversy over Wright again, keeping the story going, etc.  Then the defenders of Wright's misogynistic, racist, anti-American comments come to the fore.  Enough.

    I know. It makes me want to give up too (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:34:58 PM EST
    This issue will explode on Obama in the GE. As for Hillary, she is in a lose lose situation. Nothing she says or does can be viewed as positive. Obama stepped in it and she comes out looking bad for it.

    I wouldn't bet $5 right now on either of their chances in November.


    I'm certain Clinton would win the presidency (4.00 / 2) (#164)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:36:26 PM EST
    if she were the nominee; but, unfortunately, she will not be the nominee.

    Oculus dont give up yet as I think (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by athyrio on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:58:21 PM EST
    Hillary just might pull this nomination off yet!! She has been written off quite a few times only to bounce back....so hang in there kiddo as the fat lady ain't sung yet :-)

    Better tell me to back slowly away (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:00:20 PM EST
    from the computer!  Chelsea Clinton did really well today.  That's a cause for celebration.

    Her mom did (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:04:59 PM EST

    Read BTD's post and the comments (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:24:29 PM EST
    and then this post and the comments.  Everything is twisted out of shape, beyond recognition.  

    oculus (5.00 / 0) (#217)
    by Andy08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:41:26 PM EST
    yes, beyond recognition indeed; but don't get down that's their purpose, it's a cheap gambit.
    BTD post before seems disingenous to me : she ask a question and it was important she said she would do what any normal person would have done: get up and leave, change church synagogue or mosque.

    Disengenuous--that's a good word. (5.00 / 0) (#220)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:53:41 PM EST
    Usually I try to guess what's behind the title chosen and the posts posted.  this time I got sucker punched though.

    I meant (none / 0) (#224)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:04:38 AM EST
    "she was asked a question"  sorry

    The sacrificial lamb is Wright (1.00 / 3) (#30)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:22:13 PM EST
    After Clinton essentially told Obama where he should go to church today it is Wright who is told to go home. Remember Hillary in the deep South attempting to speak in Black cadence in an AA church filled with Black parishioners? The obvious racism in her suggestion today may cost her the very slim chance she has to gain the Democratic nomination. Talk about burning bridges......

    Exactly what is racist in (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:28:32 PM EST
    what Hillary said in response to the question she was asked?

    And what would you have said...?


    Nothing (none / 0) (#67)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:58:25 PM EST
    unless you believe Clinton is evil incarnate and is going to destroy the world.  Some people like to drop bombs and then leave.

    Cept he didnt say that (none / 0) (#69)
    by Raheem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:01:21 PM EST
    WAY outta line with the namecalling... (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:54:00 PM EST
    not to mention your preferred solution...John Edwards...is a bit out of the candidate stream.  He has failed to achieve the nomination TWICE.  Do you not get that he is not a viable candidate for the Presidency for Democrats?

    Edwards may, in fact, be able to beat McCain.  That's not the problem.  The problem is/was...he couldn't beat Clinton and/or Obama.

    Game over.

    The only substitute you could pull out of thin air and make it work...possibly...maybe...is Al Gore.  And even then...risky...

    Right (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:04:06 PM EST
    Let's show who we really are. Let's throw away a qualified woman and a neophyte black man and nominate another white man.

    That would be historic.


    Well, I deliberately did not (5.00 / 0) (#218)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:45:51 PM EST
    mention that as I hate to be first with the obvious, but of course, I agree with you.  

    I wasn't suggesting such a move...only pointing out to the person I was responding to that there was another, more viable choice if that was the route he was taking.

    I'm sticking with Clinton, personally.


    Those who have listened (1.00 / 2) (#70)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:02:14 PM EST
    to the entire sermon, and I am one...know that Wright's remarks were heavily distorted and out of context in the video. Those who only listened to the crappy soundbites have 1% of the information.

    Obama hasn't even campaigned in PA yet and he's rising in the polls there. Clinton reignited the Wright issue today to change the subject from her exaggerated tale of being under sniper fire while in Bosnia. Her story was so completely debunked that journalists are now vetting just about everything she says. She put her campaign in a real bind. Her likeability numbers continue to slide so she HAD to change the subject. Bringing up Wright may be her last straw. Self sabotage is a sad spectacle.

    I find your post silly. (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by suisser on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
    You speak of "likeability" ... What is this American Idol? or the Democratic Primary?  This is about competence, skill, intelligence, wisdom, compasion, and oh yea... EXPERIENCE.

    1% is alot (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by ineedalife on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:18:33 PM EST
    99% of what all historical figures, good and evil, say is mundane and agreeable. It is the 1% that matters.

    Excellent point (none / 0) (#226)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:20:14 AM EST
    that's is exactly the point. 1,000 good deeds don't undo the hateful ones: those are the ones that count. Can you imagine telling a judge, "well , yeah I know I broke the law and did --major offense-  but you should ignore it b/c I behave really well the rest of the time....

    Many despicable figures in history had a side that
    was seen as "nice". But judgment on them was not based on this but as it should-  on their abuses.

    It is a s simple as that.


    Remember "as far as I know?" (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:37:36 PM EST
    Remember "fairy tale?"

    Only two of many comments that represented a very small portion of a much bigger context, but which were nonetheless taken as stories unto themselves, and used to build a narrative of attack.

    The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.


    I think it's too bad that Obama (none / 0) (#94)
    by Boston Boomer on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:25:46 PM EST
    didn't stand up for his pastor and mentor of 20 years.  I would have respected him a lot more if he had tried to explain Wright's remarks in context and defend them.  However, I don't know how he could have defended Wright's remarks about Hillary not knowing what it is like to work twice as hard as others to be recognized and his crude and nasty comments about Bill Clinton doing to the country what he did to Monica L.  

    WTF? (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:30:43 PM EST
     I would have respected him a lot more if he had tried to explain Wright's remarks in context and defend them.

    Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but wasn't that what he did in his Rev. Wright speech. It worked for me, and I support HRC.


    Do you think Clinton is trying to (1.00 / 2) (#143)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:16:08 PM EST
    throw the election?  I mean the obvious lie about Bosnia.  Bringing up Wright.  On top of the that bringing up the rule on stealing pledged delegates.  It's borderline stupidity.

    Did Hillary "bring up Wright" or (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:44:39 PM EST
    did she answer a reporter's question about Wright?

    And if Bosnia was safe for Hillary, then last year, Baghdad was safe for McCain's market stroll since they both wore flak jackets and were protected by sniper troops.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#19)
    by Key on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:47:41 PM EST
    I agree.  Issues are important.  But since they are so close on so many issues, why don't both candidates agree to attack McCain instead?  Then the super delegates (who will end up deciding this thing) can select the candidate who does the best job destroying McCain's b.s. instead of each other.

    Actually, they did. (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:47:13 PM EST
    But then Pastorgate broke and Obama needed a distraction, so he attacked her.

    Pathetic (none / 0) (#32)
    by clapclappointpoint on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:28:58 PM EST
    You claim that you want to move beyond it, but you're trying to drag it out as long as possible.  This is a nonstory and it should stay a nonstory.

    Move beyond it? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:33:04 PM EST
    You're joking, right?

    No matter WHAT Democrats say or don't say, Rev. Wright will be front and center with the Republican Party, 507s, swifties and even John McCain all fall if he's our nominee.

    It's politics, remember?


    That's sort of like (none / 0) (#47)
    by clapclappointpoint on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:47:12 PM EST
    your buddies stealing your wallet and kicking the crap out of you before a night out on the town, because there's muggers out on the street.

    Harping on this issue does not protect our party from anything, it has only damaged the leading candidate (who is the likely nominee).  The Republicans don't need any help beating up Democrats.

    This story about Wright and Tampa is a non-story.  The only reason why it is posted on the front page is to drag out things out longer.  A more interesting story, perhaps, instead of the billionth post about Wright, would be a defense of Hillary's response to Tuzla-gate.  Unfortunately, a post like that would require a certain amount of courage.


    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:53:34 PM EST
    The only smearing you want going on is the smearing of Clinton.

    I know.  You don't think that's smearing.

    And guess what.  I don't think continuing to discuss Wright is smearing either.

    The issue can be discussed, and I can tell you why I think Wright damages race reconciliation in America, and you can disagree and say why you disagree too.  If you want.


    The weakness in the Wright argument (none / 0) (#65)
    by athyrio on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:57:52 PM EST
    that it is OK to say that, is that Obama is apparently depending on Independents and Republicans to vote for him in the General Election...Of course liberals will look the other way, but conservatives many times won't do it....

    Observation: (none / 0) (#95)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:25:53 PM EST
    Doesn't the fact that this story appears on the blog contribute to the distraction?  I would love to dialogue about real issues.  I am going out on a limb here and do some arm-chair psychology.  I feel that Clinton supporters (which I am) kinda like this story because of what it appears to do to Senator Obama, with respect to his candidacy.

    Would that be a fair assessment?

    The Sense I Get from Both Threads (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:50:52 PM EST
    Clinton support is being strengthened (and any Obama support required of Clinton supporters in the GE weakened) by the Pro-Obama media and anyone else who finds themselves determined to racially polarize any statement Clinton makes about Obama.

    It's simply run it's course.

    Re: Barbara Ehrenreich & Coe (none / 0) (#130)
    by gish720 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:58:41 PM EST
    Pleeze go read Bob Somerby's Dailyhowler.com on this very topic today.  He puts it to bed.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#137)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:03:55 PM EST
    That was great! I don't know how I'd survive without Bob Somerby.

    That is great gish720; (none / 0) (#223)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:01:43 AM EST
    Ehrenreich's writings are really pathetic.

    Oh Anderson Cooper. You are drunk on (none / 0) (#142)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:15:14 PM EST
    kool ade. Now he is getting in on the pro-Obama arguments as if his pro-Obama guest can't hold his own with Lanny Davis.

    Clinton weighed in today...not one word about her being questioned about it or about what Rev. Wright said about her.

    I have no TV left to watch except basketball. I'm getting my news from you guys now so please be accurate.

    Revisionist history (none / 0) (#171)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:50:58 PM EST
    "Sadly, the feminist movement of the 60's excluded women of color and lesbians for the most part"

    You're right about the feminist movement shying away from lesbians, but wrong about women of color.  The movement didn't exclude women of color, women of color excluded themselves because the women who might have joined up felt very strongly and understandably that it was more important to shore up black men and that racial discrimination was a much bigger problem than gender discrimination.

    There is a range of possible opinions (none / 0) (#203)
    by Manuel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:40:14 PM EST
    There was nothing wrong with what he said.

    He didn't say it the right way.

    What he said is wrong but the good outweighs the bad.

    I would quit my church if my pastor said it.

    He engaged in hate speech.

    All of these opinions are valid and say more about ourselves than Wright.  I have friends who might hold each of those points of view.  Having a dialog means we respect understand and acknowledge our disagreements.  Unfortunately, which opinions are most popular will have an effect on the race.

    There is a valid (IMO) criticism of Obama'a political judgement.  He waited too long to deal with it.  His reaction is valid as is Clinton's.  There is also a valid criticism of those who jump in outrage at any statement they disagree with.  In this campaign, Obama's supporters have been much more hypersensitive than Clinton's.

    Can you imagine if candidates were attacked for remaining in the Catholic Church?

    Wright is a distraction.  The sooner we move on, the better.

    Sorry Clinton, but your own Church defends Wright. (none / 0) (#206)
    by TeamQuest on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:51:23 PM EST


    The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth.

    Dean J. Snyder, Senior Minister
    Foundry United Methodist Church
    March 19, 2008

    Source: http://www.foundryumc.org

    Important issue (none / 0) (#211)
    by faux facsimile on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:19:07 PM EST
    Okay, maybe not so much, but I'm curious:

    Which candidate do folks here consider more 'liberal' or 'left-leaning'

    Are we to make anything of the candidates (or their campaigns') claims on the matter?

    I think it is probably a toss up. (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:31:01 PM EST
    WSJ says Obama has close ties to Wall Street.  He listens to those who advocate telecomm immunity.  But he is rated as more liberal than Clinton, although both are rated liberal.

    Clinton's push for universal health (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:31:54 PM EST
    care is more liberal than Obama's approach.  

    There isn't much daylight between them (none / 0) (#222)
    by Manuel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:58:27 PM EST
    on issues.  They are positioning themselves differently, however.  Obama promises a post partisan stance with broaad outreach to independents and republicans to create a new majority (like Reagan but from the left).  Clinton would continue the partisan positioning with limited outreach to republicans on specific issues.  I prefer Clinton's approach because I don't think the Republicans will play along.  Obama is as BC said a roll of the dice.

    RMMcCauley (none / 0) (#225)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:18:44 AM EST
    You're done chattering here. 36 comments today. Come back another day and no more than 4 per day.  More than that will be deleted and you will be banned.

    Comments now closed here. (none / 0) (#227)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:28:15 AM EST

    Not a distraction (none / 0) (#229)
    by jarober on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:48:44 AM EST
    Obama maintained - by choice - a 20 year relationship with a racist hate monger.

    Would an equivalent white politician who had a similar 20 year relationship get a pass from TL?  I seriously doubt it.

    And no, Falwell (et. al.) are not the same, as those were not 20 year, personal relationships.  

    Obama's association speaks to his character and his judgment.