Taking The Bait On Wright

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

The pro-Obama blog Huffington Post (with an assist from the Obama campaign?) appears to have taken Hillary Clinton's bait on the Wright issue. Sam Stein reports:

[T]he pastor at the church that Clinton did once attend has recently expressed public support for Wright. He's even proclaimed it a "grave injustice" to make a judgment on Wright based off of "two or three sound bites," and criticized those who would "use a few of [Wright's] quotes to polarize."

Not sure what the point of this story is (that Hillary's ex-pastor disagrees with her on Wright? So what?), but I do know this is the LAST story Barack Obama wants to have driving the news narrative today. Now Hillary has a good excuse to continue discussing Wright. She gets to be anti-Wright while Obama gets reinforced as being pro-Wright.

I imagine Hillary Clinton is thrilled that Huff Po detests her so much that they will push this anti-Obama issue in order to try and get at Hillary Clinton.

< Why The Obama/Clinton Rules Led Us To This Rough Campaign | Who Wants A Candidate To Drop Out? 22% Say Clinton, 22% Say Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    By all means (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:08:07 AM EST
    by hook or by crook, let's do keep this Wright story on the front burner.

    Afterall the Obama people started all this negativity.

    This is why people hate politics (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by ItsGreg on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:43:36 AM EST
    Obama's pastor said some scandalous things about the U.S. Hillary exaggerated the danger of a trip to Bosnia. Obama doesn't wear a flag lapel pin. Hillary was in the White House when Bill was canoodling with Monica.

    Who cares about crap like that? It's all a distraction from the issues. It's got nothing to do with who would be a better president; it's only directed at making the other candidate less attractive.

    The sad result is that the the most passionate supporters of each candidate become more and more vitriolic and the average voter becomes more and more turned off by the ugliness of it all.

    Each of the Democratic candidates is head and shoulders above McCain. Each of them can raise more money than McCain. Each of them has policy positions more in line with the average voter than McCain. Each of them is more articulate than McCain.

    There is NO way either of these two remarkable candidates should lose to somebody like McCain...and yet whoever the nominee is, there's a decent chance the Democrats will piss away the general election because we're all so angry and self righteous about Obama's pastor and Hillary's Bosnia escapade.

    So yes, by all means, let's keep the Wright fiasco on the front burner, and let's keep the Hillary under sniper fire nonsense at the top of the YouTube hit list. There's still a chance that we've failed to alienate some segment of the Democratic party...and we wouldn't want that to happen.


    Well said (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    But we are the sound bite culture.
    Bunch of lazy thinkers we.
    And when there are two wonderful candidates to chose from we devolve to the GOP mind set of using junk like this to decide who to vote for.

    And then there's the red state of mind. I've not got a clue what goes on there.


    Nice try (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by bodhcatha on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:20:37 PM EST
    Equating the first issue with the last three.  The latter are superficial, to say the least, but the first speaks to Nobama's judgement, character and intentions.  When I heard some of the things Wright said (Bill "ridin' dirty" et al), Barack's and Michelle's arrogance and contempt suddenly made sense.

    "Don't bring a calculator to a knife fight"


    Please... (none / 0) (#95)
    by corn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:34:01 PM EST
    Think about the unfathomable amounts of power at stake here.  US modern elections are among the most civil and fair in democracy's history.  Sure it gets personal and nasty, elections are stolen and rigged, good guys finish last, etc, but keep it in perspective.  Politics is politics and it doesn't get much cleaner than this.

    IMHO (none / 0) (#37)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST

    IMHO Wright is a black David Duke.  Why defend the indefensible?

    You May Be Like (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:46:07 AM EST
    Duke, but comparing him to Rev Wright is absurd. It sounds like a  white supremacist's argument to me.

    Uhm (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:10:42 PM EST

    "You may be like Duke"?  You know, I've seen so many personal attacks from you, Squeaky, that I'm surprised Jeralyn hasn't banned you yet.

    Dude (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:29:45 PM EST
    You obviously do not know our republican friend amir.

    Still. (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:32:05 PM EST

    Personal attacks aren't allowed.  You miss the last (recent) memo on this?

    Nor (none / 0) (#154)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:33:30 PM EST
    Are you familiar with Duke or Wright, if you agree with amir's comparison.

    I never said I agreed with the comparison. (none / 0) (#158)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:31:17 PM EST

    And I'm very well familiar with Duke and Wright.  All I said, and keep saying since it doesn't seem to get through to you, that personal attacks aren't allowed on TL.  And what I see you doing is personally attacking another poster.

    Duke is a hate merchant (none / 0) (#112)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:12:44 PM EST

    So is Wright.  I have no use for either of those loathsome loads.

    Hahahahah (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    Duke is a hate merchant So is Wright.  I have no use for either of those loathsome loads

    But your brand of hate is AOK.


    I don't hate them (none / 0) (#130)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:09:44 PM EST

    The feeling is a cross between wonder and pity.

    The Huffington post is pure drivel. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by DemBillC on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:10:16 AM EST
    No anti Hillary story is to small to put in the headlines. I do not bother reading it anymore.
    The only worthwhile blogs are Talkleft, Taylor Marsh, and suprisingly TPM. A least TPM which is proObama makes some effort to be fair. Whe I try and rebut Hillary slanders on other blogs they quickly tell me I have poted to many times that day.

    Taylor Marsh (4.00 / 1) (#15)
    by rebrane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:17:51 AM EST
    And Huff PO (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:29:47 AM EST
    Also published Wilson's and Clark's endorsement of Clinton's vote on Kyl/Lieberman.

    I just read through... (4.00 / 2) (#38)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:33:43 AM EST
    Taylor Marsh's articles.  I didn't find one as I scrolled that was pro-Obama or negative on HIllary.  She's jsut like a mirror of Kos.  So you just like her because she likes your candidate?  This primary is driving us all to insanity.

    You must not have read through (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:35:43 PM EST
    Taylor Marsh recently then. She actually took Hillary to task for the Bosnia thing, even though most of her readers disagreed. She has taken Hillary to task as well about numerous things in the past.

    I was looking through... (3.00 / 1) (#118)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:35:40 PM EST
    her articles at Huff Post, since that was the blog originally brought up.

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:43:26 AM EST
    She IS just a mirror image of Kos. I don't like any of the blogs that are deeply biased and distorted, one way or the other.

    It's just like how Keith, Tweety, and MSNBC are now the mirror image of Fox News - one from the left, one from the right. Don't like any of them.

    Where to turn?


    Poted or Potted (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jaman on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:12:51 AM EST
    You probably have potted too many times ;)

    Obama, Wright, Liabilities (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Athena on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:12:49 AM EST
    Wright is now an electoral liability - plain and simple.  There's no reason to hide the issue - it just makes the primary results even more disconnected from what will happen in November.

    The Wright-laden Obama candidacy is not the candidacy of the early primaries.  What bothers me is that Obama has handed the GOP a narrative that not even their wildest dreams could have imagined.  For his deliberate concealment of Wright and his liabilities, I believe that Obama has forfeited his legitimacy as a nominee.  Of course, the media helped in this subterfuge.

    Note, I am not debating the merits of Wright's critique - but squarely facing the electoral shadow that now hangs over the Dems - one that was not there before.  It activates old primal fears about the Dems in a year when things should be going our way.  Only a naive or arrogant candidate would have concealed this - rather than disavow early and forcefully.  Ultimately, it is an act of disloyalty to the party, IMHO - to "hope" against due diligence and simply coast to a nomination based on hype.

    BTD, you proclaim to be reality based (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:18:58 AM EST
    Part of the new reality that we must all accept is that Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is emerging as an untractable problem for him that has made the odds on your "gamble" very diminished.  

    If I were a betting man, I'd be placing a bet that you will lose your bet.  They call that side action.

    How we chose our leaders is up to us (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:31:47 AM EST
    Who wants out leaders chosen by minor stuff like this?
    It's up to us you know... we can simply turn off the crap and tune in the important stuff.

    How much money does it take (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:32:00 AM EST
    to buy a website's loyalties is what I want to know.

    Josh's site the DK and Huffpo are probably the 3 worse offenders IMO. I could understand the GOP sites. It must get pretty boring in the echo chamber. I mean, how many times can you call Mrs. Clinton a m*nster,or call for her to drop out, and still have cred? Really, those site are getting on my last nerve. Glad to have Talk Left, thank you Jeralyn, BTD.

    Snyder NOT Clinton's Pastor (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by OxyCon on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:32:53 AM EST
    Pastor at Hillary's former church defends Wright [CORRECTED]

    NOTE: Dean Snyder is currently the senior minister for the Foundry United Methodist Church, and was not the pastor when the Clintons were in the White House.

    per Ben Smith's blog

    the pastor isn't even Hillary's former pastor (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:34:10 AM EST
    The man became pastor of a church (iirc in 2002) the Clintons attended when Bill was president.
    It's a non-story but it's been on pro-Obama Rec lists since yesterday.
    Yet another opportunity for Obama followers to bash Hillary and declare "typical white people" voting for Hillary are racists.

    Defense of Wright (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Richjo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM EST
    I find it very interesting that Wright has, as far as I know, never apologized for the remarks he made. He has never acknowledged that he stepped over a line that he should not have. I think it is totally fair to argue that one should not be judged by only a few comments, rather than in one's totality. But I find it very troubling that Wright who has never apologized or acknowledged the error of his way is defended, and those who suggest that his comments should not be tolerated are vilified. I would be more than willing to be generous in my assessment of Wright if he was willing to acknowledge he crossed a line and apologized for it. He has earned understanding and forgiveness, but he has not earned being excused for his behavior, which is what many are doing out of their desire to protect Obama politically. I don't know if Obama had to leave the church, but he at the very least needed to express his disagreement with these things before it was a necessity to his campaign he do so, or he needed to make a real attempt to convince the Reverend Wright to acknowledge and apologize for his extreme statements. If he had done that and failed, then he should have considered leaving; but even if he didn't, at that point I think he would have been totally justified in saying that he won't allow a small, unrepresentative set of comments cause him to abandon an otherwise good and worthy organization. The problem is that he did nothing. He did not speak out about this until politics demanded he do so. He might not have agreed with what the Reverend Wright said, but he tolerated it. He should have actually showed leadership on the issue, he did not. The ultimate example of the Obama rules is the way the media has claimed that he did exactly that because he gave a speech about the issue out of pure political necessity to save himself. I have not doubt that no one could reasonably believe that Senator Obama agrees with the ideas we have heard set forth by Wright. That is not the issue. The issue is will he tolerate such viewpoints, especially if it would be politically difficult for him not to. If that is the case then that is a very serious problem indeed.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:58:27 AM EST
    Something inside me finds it very, very odd to insist that a preacher apologize to the outside world for things he says to his congregation.

    It's like eavesdropping on a private conversation and then expecting an apology when someone says something offensive, or something.


    except, (none / 0) (#85)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:17:47 PM EST
    it isn't a "private conversation" when those sermons are put on a CD (a kind of "greatest hits" album) for sale to the general public.

    pastor wright's church opened the door, they are estopped from now claiming it to be an intrusion on their privacy.


    Heh (none / 0) (#93)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    I made a snide comment yesterday about how everything is being made into an estoppel argument.  Are we on the same wavelength? :)

    I'll note that there are a great many offensive CDs on sale to the general public, but we don't expect the artists to apologize to people who are offended.  Rather, we expect people to avoid buying stuff that offends them.


    Do those "great many offensive CDs" (none / 0) (#108)
    by sumac on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    make insulting references to us by name?

    Well (none / 0) (#114)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    I did not read the original comment to suggest that Wright should apologize to Hillary for the specific comments directed at her.  That's a different issue.

    But it might be (none / 0) (#146)
    by sumac on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:59:36 PM EST
    the right thing to do, to apologize to Hillary for the specific comments directed at her and her family?

    I am all for free speech - believe firmly in it. Wright can blame the ice age on America and it wouldn't bother me one bit. But, I don't condone offensive remarks made from a pulpit towards an individual (who cares what I condone, though).

    I also don't find it politically prudent on Obama's part to closely associate with a man whose speeches may offend some (many?) of the general electorate, even if those who find the speeches offensive are not referenced by name.


    Richjo (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by bodhcatha on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:41:53 PM EST
    Obama didn't just tolerate Wright - he actively supported him, called him a role model, mentor, inspiration etc.  When his book came out, he already knew he would be running, and he credited Wright in the book and raised his national profile.  You don't do that with someone you just TOLERATE, like a senile uncle.

    And as I've said before, the speech was like a bank robber who gets caught and lectures us on the unequal distribution of wealth without ever admitting to his own culpability.  It was not, as the media keeps telling us, the Sermon on the Mount.  More like the Sermon on the Brink (of losing the nomination).


    I have to beg to disagree (none / 0) (#121)
    by Richjo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:46:57 PM EST
    I think your point is well taken, but at the same time I think it may be possible to embrace the good parts of someone without necessarily agreeing with them 100%, or embracing every part of them. The message Obama has consistently set forth is one that is very much in contradiction to the comments made by Reverend Wright. If he agreed with and supported what Wright was saying I think he would have articulated a similar message himself. Nothing in his public life indicates that. What I believe is not that agrees with that stuff and hides it as some sort of malcious and insidious plot, but rather that he tolerates it due to weakness and a failure of leadership and courage. I don't know that he had to, or even should have, thrown Wright overboard, but he at the very least needed to stand up to him on these issues. As Dumbledore reminds us it takes far greater courage to stand up to out friends than to our enemies. I don't question that Obama's basic beliefs are pure and well intentioned, this has simply made me question the strenght of his leadership.

    In normal circumstances (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Daryl24 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    that maybe right but a US Senator cannot get too close to anyone spouting anti American rhetoric let alone for 20 years.  

    19 1/2 years ago (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by bodhcatha on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:19:33 PM EST
    He should have cut his ties with Wright then, and he would not be dealing with having to throw him overboard so publicly now.  And of course the media praised his 'courage' in not disowning Wright now, but when Hillary stood by Gerry Ferraro it just proved that she shared GF's 'racist' views.  Ugh!

    Looking ahead to the GE: (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:37:20 AM EST
    I think it's pretty clear that this Wright issue was the first major negative story BO has had to deal with.  Most of us agree that his camp has played it wrong--the speech was widely praised in the press but still left questions, it brought up the 'grandma under the bus' thing followed by "typical white person" gaffe.  Then the BC/Wright photo and now continuing this story.

    After all of this, BO takes a vacation to the islands to show what a 'regular guy he is' and how well he does under pressure?

    Considering all of this, how do we think he'll do against Republicans--talk about "real" swift-boating.  Yes, I'm an HRC supporter, but as a Democrat who wants to win in November, this is an important, no crucial, question.  

    What Wright said about HRC (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:44:31 AM EST
    was not only horrible, but with a broad stoke he stated that sexism and misogyny don't exist.  In terms of what he said about BC, not only was it factually inaccurate, but the man humped the pulpit.  Please, someone go ahead and defend that.  

    proseandpromise: While I agree TM unapologetically  pro-HRC,  you missed this
    from Monday.

    no baseball bats here youngster, (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:45:37 AM EST
    Put down your baseball bats, please.

    just hard, irrefutable, undeniable, unrelated third-party confirmable facts. those pesky irritants that get in the way of a good rant. can't get rid of the little buggers, they just keep showing up!

    two things:

    1. pastor wright, all by his lonesome, would not necessarily spell the death knell of sen. obama's run in the GE, were he the dem. nominee. however, add him to rezko (currently on trial) and who knows what all else will come popping out of sen. obama's closet, and i believe it's safe to start saying kadish over the corpse that was the obama campaign.

    2. convince me, or anyone other sentient being (ok, sure, including myself in that category might be a stretch! lol), that in 20 years, only 3 of pastor wright's sermons are what might be considered objectionable. maybe so, i have no clue. what i do know is that the 527 being formed, as we speak, to exploit this could not care less what the truth is.

    this 527 will beat this to death, all over the country. anyone looking to rationalize not voting for sen. obama, not because he's black mind you, will have this as their support. bet the rent money on it.

    guys, what we're witnessing is the exact reason someone hasn't come out of nowhere (and let's be reality based for at least one moment, sen. obama came pretty much out of nowhere), and won the presidency before. you would think, in over 200 years, that might have happened. it hasn't. this is why.

    right now, sen. obama's continued inclusion in the race is causing great harm to the democratic party's chances in the fall. were he the honorable man he claims to be, he'd do the the right thing and withdraw.

    he won't, his ego won't let him, and he still foolishly believes he has a chance in nov.

    "pride goeth before the fall"

    Maybe I would buy that is they talked about issues (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:49:09 AM EST
    ...but what sent more over the edge were accusations of the Clinton campaign darkening Obama's skin in ads, were personally responsible for Obama's passport being peeked at, etc. You just don't find comparable stuff here. You really don't, no matter how much you try to believe it.

    Right! (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:13:08 PM EST
    And Hill eats babies too. Let's not forget that.
    You have been duped. Sucked in.

    Got google? Verify.

    My uncle once said: believe nothing of what you read, and only half of what you see.


    Ignore my previous post (none / 0) (#82)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:14:05 PM EST
    misunderstood yours

    More words of wisdom from Rev. Wright (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:08:41 PM EST

    In the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine, (Nov/Dec 2007) Rev. Wright had this to say about Italians:

    "(Jesus' enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."

    Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ..


    Wow - does he inspire me [/snark]

    Oh, just let Gerry Ferraro see this (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    More evidence that the reverend will remain toxic to this campaign and probably take out everyone by the end.  And Obama with him, if he's the nominee.

    WOW (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    I didn't even think of that - Ferraro!

    No vacation in Italy for him anytime soon (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    Holy (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:00:32 PM EST

    COW.  I mean--REALLY.  Wright becomes more and more unsavory with each revelation.  "Garlic noses"???

    It makes me wonder if Wright would say something against my ethnicity like that...say something disgusting about Mexicans/Hispanics...it'd be like the equivalent of calling is "burrito butts" or something.


    Wright's picture with Bill Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by glennmcgahee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:38:12 PM EST
    When Obama's campaign released the picture of Rev. Wright with Bill Clinton, they gave the Clinton campaign permission to talk about Wright. I don't beleive you would've heard from them otherwise. Clinton's statement about Rev. Wright only came because she was answering a question from a reporter. They have purposely avoided that topic. They don't need to bring it up. Its not going away.

    By the way (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by ChrisO on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    those who find it scandalous that Hillary sat down with the Pittsburgh Tribune Review might be interested to read the first interview Obama gave when the Wright story broke, in which he distanced himself from Wright's remarks. I don't want to give anything away, but the paper's in Pittsburgh.

    Obama interview

    If Hillary meeting with them is somehow an endorsement of Scaife, than I guess Obama talking to them means he's trying to bring up Whitewater. No, I don't believe that, but it goes to how silly Josh Marshall and others are on this subject. Imagine, meeting with the second largest paper in Pittsburgh during the Pennsylvania primary camapign.  

    Heh (4.88 / 9) (#5)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    I sympathize with the folks on the blogs who want to defend Wright on the merits of his comments, complain that he's been taken out of context, etc.  Not that they'd be doing any of this if the controversy were about Hillary, but still, a number of Wright's controversial comments are little different from the standard liberal orthodoxy and I understand why folks defend them.

    Still, the lack of political judgment is amazing.  Last week's poll showed Wright was viewed favorably by a mere 8% of Americans.  That's verging on Osama bin Laden territory.  Defend him on the blogs, sure, but don't get to thinking that you're going to save Obama by rehabilitating Wright's reputation!  The way to save Obama is to get the story out of the news.

    How far have we (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:13:36 AM EST
    devolved when the faction that thinks Armageddon in the M.E is God's will is welcomed into the mainstream, and someone like Wright is anathema?

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:18:21 AM EST
    I frankly think we're making progress.  The fact that the double standard still exists does not mean we're going backwards, in my view.  It's just that we still have work to do.

    for the record (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:20:59 AM EST
    most evangelicals do not believe in Armageddon.
    that is a bit of an urban myth.
    some do. most, including my family and everyone they know, do not.

    I sympathize with your point (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    about the mainstream, but I think both are anathema.

    You proved his/her point (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by AF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:43:30 AM EST
    When we start holding churches and preachers to the standards of political discourse, there's no place to draw the line.  

    I am looking forward to your explanation why people who believe in Armageddon are anathema but those who belief in Creation are not.


    huh? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    I'm sorry, I must be dense - I don't understand your point or your question.

    Why would I say that people who believe in Armageddon are anathema whereas those who believe in Creation are not?

    What I tried to say before was that I think both points of view are silly.  Just as a belief that the flying spaghetti monster created the world is. I didn't say the believers are anathema, I said the beliefs are equally anathema.

    In any case, I don't think you have anything to look forward to from me.  


    If you are only talking about beliefs (none / 0) (#72)
    by AF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:58:37 AM EST
    Not believers, then I guess you don't think Reverend Wright is anathema or that Obama deserves criticism for having gone to his church.

    In which case, we are in complete agreement.


    One last time (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:06:37 PM EST
    I find beliefs not based in reason to be silly (and sometimes dangerous). I think that this is borne out by centuries of human civilization. Ergo, I think that some of Rev. Wright's beliefs are silly and deserving of criticism, and I wish he wouldn't say them. Just as I find those of some white evangelical religions and churches.

    Try to twist my words some more, whatever, I'm not interested in your baits anymore.



    You are missing the point of the entire debate (none / 0) (#83)
    by AF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:17:13 PM EST
    The Wright controversy has never been about whether Wright was correct -- virtually nobody (certainly not Obama or myself) says that he is.  The controversy has been about whether Obama deserves criticism for not distancing himself enough from Wright.

    In other words, the controversy has been about Wright, not his beliefs.  The question is at what point a person's beliefs are so hateful that mere association with that person is worthy of criticism.  

    You equated have equated Wright's statements with irrational religious beliefs held by many white evangelicals.  That is a fair comparison.  But nobody ever criticized a politician for associating with white evangelical Christians.  

    Thus, your equation of Wright and white evangelicals in no way supports the criticism that Obama has received for attending Wright's church.  On the contrary, it is a defense of Obama.  


    Agree to disagree (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:25:33 PM EST
    I disagree with just about everything you just said.

    But I MOST disagree with your bolded sentence, and indeed, find it to be utterly ludicrous. Of course politicans have been criticized for associating with white evangelical Christians. I do it all the time. So do most liberal I know. The left has criticized McCain for speaking at Falwell's university; they have criticized Bush for associations with with the rapture folks; etc etc. The left is constantly criticizing politicians for their associations with religious nutjobs. The only difference now is they apparently dare not criticize Obama for his association with one. Go figure.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#98)
    by AF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:36:55 PM EST
    My point is that it never becomes a serious campaign issue.  Obviously, somebody criticisms just about everybody for just about anything.

    Note that the major criticisms of presidentical candidates based on their association with white evangelicals -- eg, Bob Jones University, Agee -- have been for bigotry, not paranoia or insufficient patriotism.

    As for Bush, the problem is that he agrees with these people, not that he assoicates with them.


    OK (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:44:30 PM EST
    A. I guess we will also agree to disagree on whether Rev. Wright's comments are bigoted or not then. I think some of them are, you apparently think not. I think some of the comments are just as bigoted as those coming from white preachers. (I don't really care about the patriotism thing at all.) So we disagree.

    B. As for your last paragraph, I am going to just hope against hope that Obama does not agree with Rev. Wright's most egregious comments when I pull the lever for him in the fall. My fear is that he might. I fervently hope that he is not that person.


    Yes (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:54:14 PM EST
    But, the criticism of Falwell, Dobson et al is for having an undue influence on current US leaders who want to forgo Church/State separation issues and all the garbage that comes with that position. Obama or HRC do not appear to favor a breakdown of Church and State constitutional barriers.

    Mostly the criticism regarding Wright is that he is accusing America of Imperialism and institutionalized racism. Those are issues shared by liberals and progressives. The hypocrisy is that mainstream preachers (white evangelical  christian) are held to a different standard than someone like Wright, who is not mainstream because he is black and to the left.

    The double standard is that Rev Wright will make Obama unelectable in the GE while no one has ever said that a right wing  white religious nut job would ever make a Pol unelectable, be they Dem or Repub.  


    heh? (none / 0) (#113)
    by shaharazade on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:14:35 PM EST
    convoluted logic here. How often have you seen clips of crazy ass fundamentalist right wing preachers cut up and run over and over on CNN? Why is Hillary keeping this obvious media sleaze fest alive? I have never heard Hillary up till now criticize fundamentalists. She is a member of a powerful group of them. Anything to keep the press off her. The NAFTA and Bosnia lies are actual issues this is not.  

    I disagree (none / 0) (#91)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:24:47 PM EST
    "But nobody ever criticized a politician for associating with white evangelical Christians."

    You mean no one criticized Bush for his conference calls with Dobson and Haggard et al?

    Just because some people didn't pay attention (i.e. conservatives who were going to vote for Bush - this actually helped him) doesn't mean people didn't criticize him for associating with white evangelical preachers.


    The Family (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by shaharazade on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    is chock full of really nasty fundamentalists, including man on dog Santorum  Hillary is a member, has been for 15 years  The press will not even mention this nasty secret organization. When she starts saying that 'you do not choose your family.....' is she talking about this Family?

    I guess I didn't spend the last 8 years being told by the media about how out of sink I was for not having values. The values recycled of the 'moral majority'. Hillary started with her 'spiritual mentor' during the odious reign of Newt.

    She's got a lot of nerve to start with Obama's pastor while having her own questionable 'pastor' Coe standing in the wings.  


    You do know the family remark was in response (none / 0) (#117)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:33:52 PM EST
    to Obama's "crazy uncle", right?

    In the GE, do you really see the Repubs smearing their own prayer group? Methinks it's more likely a "no.". It basically takes religion/etc off the table. I think it will be more 'fun' to put the economy on the table instead  ;)


    Oh, and she didn't "start" (none / 0) (#119)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:36:08 PM EST
    the press has been asking her since this whole thing started and she's deflected the questions. Yesterday, she would NOT answer questions regarding Obama's actions, only her own. Check the interview. They asked her a couple of ways.

    I see (none / 0) (#124)
    by shaharazade on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:52:18 PM EST
    she just had to answer. Her own actions? A couple of ways for her to keep it alive and get to point out his lack of patriotism or what ever they have decided is so horrifying about his church. She is saying that he choose this pastor. I am saying she choose hers. Why is hers not an issue? Because they are powerful elites but they are a damn sight scarier then Rev. Wright.  

    The Obama camp should NOT have responded (none / 0) (#134)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    yesterday. They tried to smear Clinton with it. Damn stupid if the issue needs to go away. She said something straight forward and it could have stopped right then. But no, they had to respond and his lap dog media started spinning that she started it. I say BS.

    meanwhile (none / 0) (#140)
    by shaharazade on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    his lap dog media? are the ones who forced her to bring it up? yeah right! So who did start it, the lap dog media did. Whose lap their in depends on who they are momentarily growling at or sitting in. seem to me they just love the sleaze regardless.

    I agree on the sleeze love :) (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:54:29 PM EST
    I was referring to the MSNBC crew and a few others. They just sit around panting and drooling waiting for the next opening to smear Hillary. Honestly, if they were doing it to Obama, I would feel the same way. I'm disgusted by the state things have been reduced to in our media. What ever happened to the integrity of it. It's been going downhill for years, but we've hit a new low on 'reporting'.

    She did not bring it up. They have asked her every single time she has addressed the media. Now she can say she's addressed it, let's move on.


    Google McCain Hagee (none / 0) (#99)
    by tree on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:37:12 PM EST
    and you'll find page after page after page of links to people criticizing McCain's association with Pastor Hagee.

    That's just one of the most recent occurrences. Criticizing politicians for associations with white evangelicals has a long history, going back at least as far as the advent of Falwell's Moral Majority. I'm sure there are historians who can trace it back even farther.


    Hagee (none / 0) (#101)
    by AF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:43:54 PM EST
    Is an anti-Catholic bigot. I reject and denounce any attempt to equate Hagee and Wright.

    But you yourself (none / 0) (#106)
    by tree on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:56:07 PM EST
    claimed that "nobody ever criticized a politician for associating with white evangelical Christians".  
    I am simply pointing out how totally wrong that statement is. And you have just further proven the lie to your own earlier comment.

    I've got  absolutelyno problem with people criticizing Hagee. I just think it is really nonsensical to claim that no one has ever done so.


    Associating with white evangelicals (none / 0) (#110)
    by AF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:04:18 PM EST
    In itself, never caused anybody difficulties in a presidential campaign.

    When those white evangelicals are also racists or bigots, that can cause problems.

    But still never nearly as large as the problem Wright seems to have caused Obama -- judging by the news cycles, if not the polls.


    Diasgree (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    When those white evangelicals are also racists or bigots, that can cause problems.
    Not if they are right wing mainstream christian. Forget their preachers, bigotry and racism out of the mouths of past US leaders have not stopped them from getting elected.

    OK, I finally understand (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:36:39 PM EST
    and I agree with the last points made by Squeaky and AF. This conversation got a little convoluted from its original intent, or maybe I'm just dense.

    To be clear, I deplore bigotry and irrational regligious ranting from black and white sides of the spectrum and from left and right sides of the spectrum. But now I get your point that there is a political double standard - Obama's association with Wright is being portrayed as a dealbreaker whereas some white politicians' associations with similar nutjobs have not. I agree - it is a double standard. Sorry it took me so long to get it.


    Sorry To Have (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:50:04 PM EST
    Underestimated you and assumed your earlier comments were those of a shill. Your comments from the last few days are hardly one dimensional as I earlier typified them, they are refreshing. Hope you stick around at TL after the nomination.

    Aw shucks (none / 0) (#131)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:10:43 PM EST
    Thanks, and my apologies too. We've officially made up!

    Great conversation (none / 0) (#127)
    by AF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:01:08 PM EST
    Thanks for your patience; the conversation did get a bit convulated, you're not dense.

    Ditto (none / 0) (#133)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    he's pretty (none / 0) (#125)
    by shaharazade on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:56:05 PM EST
    much an equal opportunity bigot, women don't fare to well and neither do gay people.

    Actually this is not true (none / 0) (#143)
    by hookfan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:44:31 PM EST
    Consider Sen. Brownback, and even Huckabee has received criticism for supporting Young earth theory( or religious ideas might be better).

    That's what happens when you get a little success. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:36:31 AM EST
    I'm way left of most Americans and I no longer hold any illusions that I will bring them around to my way of thinking.

    Wright called out Hillary, Bill by name (4.85 / 7) (#19)
    by catfish on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:20:58 AM EST
    from the pulpit. She has every right, in fact she has a duty, to say she would not choose Wright as a pastor. It is bad for the party, for the country, for a leader to stand by while this unacceptable behavior continues.

    Obama tacitly approves this negativity, these character attacks on his Democratic party colleagues by refusing to even acknowledge Wright's personal attacks on the Clintons from the pulpit.

    Wright Mocked Clinton From the Pulpit (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Athena on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    I posted a comment yesterday reminding everyone that Wright mocked Hillary from the pulpit.  Where was Obama's outrage?  Imagine if Hillary's pastor had mocked Obama.

    Hillary was a target of Wright and should not be prohibited from responding to such venom.  What's amazing is that she waited to do so.


    Is it unacceptable (none / 0) (#60)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    to be racist regardless of what race you are?
    If I express bias of any kind I am guilty of doing what I'm so very much against.

    Happens though. It punches through my logical brain.  Emotions have a way of doing that, and none of us are bias free.

    So I am, by all that is fair and right, required to forgive when this thing that happens to me happens to somebody else.


    Forgiveness has nothing to do with it (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by catfish on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:18:26 PM EST
    You have to say something is wrong if it is wrong and you were a part of it. She can do that and still forgive Wright, as I'm sure she has.

    Read up on the passive bystander effect.


    I said it was a great move yesterday (4.83 / 6) (#18)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:19:52 AM EST
    (not trying to toot my own horn here) but what she said MOST people agree with--somebody had to say it.

    Of course the MSM is acting like she brought it up and was an attack on BO, which it wasn't.  But keeping this in the news is not good for BO.  Why doesn't he and his supporters realize that yet?

    I also said, but not sure if it's been picked as widely as I would have hoped, that HRC bringing up Imus was brilliant.  BO said he wouldn't appear on his show and would have fired him from his campaign for such statements.  Could the hypocrisy be more clear?

    we'll toot together (eww?) (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:23:44 AM EST
    Hey, I said the same thing also.  In fact, many of us did!

    Let's have a tootin' party.


    like I said in a previous thread (4.80 / 5) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:11:02 AM EST
    her "answer" was not only correct it was smart politics.

    Guess What? (4.80 / 5) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:11:52 AM EST
    Look who's pastor is preaching tolerance and forgiveness for a pastor who viviously an unfairly attacked one of his flock?

    Indeed, one pastor does have a different message than the other.

    And yes, the obsession with trying to catch Clinton in a Gotcha moment has backfired here.

    The contrast between the two pastors is stunning.

    IMO (4.66 / 3) (#25)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:25:16 AM EST
    Arianna Huffington has issues, not the least of which is that she was a Republican until this election cycle.  May be why she is so vitriolic toward Hillary.  I must say I've seen much more ridiculous stories than this one on Huffington Post, it's become tantamount to The National Enquirer.  Interesting that Obama seems to have adopted it as his official blog outlet.  

    Recently, Arianna has been running stories that divulge every minute detail of Spitzer's sexual appetites.  I don't really care much for Eliot Spitzer at this point, but I think running these kind of private details to kick someone who's down is just unconscionable.

    Huffpo is banned in my household (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    Not progressive
    More like a gossip column
    So disappointed in her. She's smart and articulate... but has lowered herself to this.

    Arianna--who is she (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:04:32 PM EST
    Without disparaging anyone too much, I think that it is important to point out Arianna's background from time to time--especially, when her own blog goes off the deep end of personal politics.  I always wondered how someone with her earlier impeccable conservative credentials could morph into a front progressive.  Fascinating.  I wonder what holds them together--perhaps, it is something in one of Wright's speeches. (Yes, thats sarcasm.)

    My favorite Ariana moment (none / 0) (#29)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:29:24 AM EST
    Remember back when she was running for Governor of California and decided to make a big scene by hogging some microphones in Downtown L.A.?  That was the most desperate cry for attention I've ever seen in political life.

    Ah (none / 0) (#77)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    I thought she had run against Arnold.

    The Real Kitchen Sink (4.50 / 2) (#2)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:06:51 AM EST
    Even as the MSM and liberal blogs accuse Hillary of having a "kitchen sink" strategy, they have fired every musket ball they have at her, and are now filling up the gator's head and powdering it's behind.  Last week, it was a flap over Hillary's prayer breakfast, somehow connecting her with Hitler and such nonsense.  Now, it's Rev. Wright's picture with Bill Clinton and support from Hillary's former paster that creates the perception that Hillary is secretly in the good revern's flock.  Add to that the hoopla over the non-issue of her mistatement on Bosnia, which has been running on every major cable news for the last 3 days, and I think we are seeing a very real 'kitchen sink' strategy.

    I think the Obama camp needs to (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    work on their kitchen sink thing. The picture just kept the story   going and the pastor thing shows that her pastor is what most think of as their pastor and his pastor isn't. So keep throwing.

    or as I have been saying (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:25:08 AM EST
    keep digging.  please.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#26)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:26:11 AM EST
    chuckle.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#149)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:57:19 PM EST
    That was so dumb.  They need to let this go.  I actually don't think that Wright makes Obama unelectable...once gas gets to $4.00, things in Iraq deteriorate, the "economic slowdown" gets worse, people will start to realize that maybe they don't want a republican in the White House...even if that means voting for someone with a lunatic former-pastor.  Also, the Wright issue has been so thoroughly milked by the MSM that it's going to start getting stale by the time the GE rolls around.  It's still fresh enough, thanks in part to a really bone-headed move by someone at the Obama camp, to possibly cost him the primary but not the GE.  
    McCain already looks completely worn out.  

    Do we remember? (2.00 / 1) (#41)
    by 1jane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:34:43 AM EST
    Let's back up. Do we remember remarks made by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell after the 9/11 attacks? Those white evangelical pastors also blamed our countries moral and secular behaviors for the attack on the Pentagon and on the Twin Towers in NYC. How many of us stood up to denounce their remarks?

    I did..... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:41:34 AM EST
    ...albeit in my living room because I don't have any other platform. I've been denouncing them for years. The substance of what Wright said isn't what is indefensible....but the fact that he said it in such a hateful manner from a pulpit just days after 9/11...that's something for which an apology would be nice.

    I did (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:43:05 AM EST
    I thought a lot of people did (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:48:02 AM EST
    Me included, lot of commentators, etc.

    I did, too (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by spit on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:48:24 AM EST
    and pretty much everybody I knew on the left did -- of course, a lot of my friends are as queer as I am, so that shouldn't be too shocking, I suppose.

    A straight friend of mine actually did leave his church in those days right afterwards, over his pastor's defense of the "blame the gays" thing, too.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:56:44 AM EST
    Me too.  I'm not sure on what planet those remarks were considered "okay."

    must have been many since (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ding7777 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:05:20 PM EST
    Falwell issuesd an apology.  Did Rev wight apologize?

    If And When (2.00 / 1) (#96)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:34:38 PM EST
    Rev Wright enters the mainstream of US politics he will also be forced by an AA president to retract his words.

    Thomas Road was listed No. 8 in the [Outreach] magazine's ranking of largest U.S. churches, with an average attendance of 17,445.



    And you know (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by spit on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:20:48 PM EST
    the more I think about it, the more I'm bothered by the movement of the argument here toward just sort of tacitly tolerating whatever statements as "somebody's personal beliefs", particularly if they're framed in the context of religion. Sure, Robertson and Falwell had a right to say whatever, but others had a right (IMO even a responsibility) to stand up and make clear that they felt it was wrong, if it offended them.

    To be clear, I'm actually not offended by most of what Wright had to say (the sexism and the AIDS thing offend me some, but not the 9/11 stuff really -- and I think he's right on some of it, though it's stated in ways bound to make people angry). But it's not off limits from criticism, either, and the more it's defended by this line of reasoning, the more bothered I'm finding myself. Bigotry in particular has to be spoken against; as a gay activist, I've spend literally the last decade trying to convince people that their silence only reinforces the status quo. I'm not going to now turn around and tell people they should simply quietly tolerate language they find terribly offensive; we all have to make the decisions about where we need to stand up to make clear that we personally find some things unacceptable. People leave their churches and their social circles and even family members behind every day based on standing against views they find abhorrent, and while those lines are hard to draw, everybody has to draw them sometimes.

    IMO, Wright's comments were understandable in context, but that doesn't change the core idea that quietly tolerating bigotry in the broader sense is not a good thing, whether people have the right to that kind of speech or no. Forget Wright for a minute, and look at the argument you're really making at the core.


    Is it relevant, 1jane? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    As usual . . . no.  Focus, please.

    I was trying... (none / 0) (#111)
    by sumac on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:09:23 PM EST
    ...to determine how this related to the situation at hand. I don't recall Falwell or Robertson acting as Hillary's minister/mentor for 20 years. But perhaps she should go ahead and apologize for every awful thing said by any person in the history of man/woman.



    Huffington Post (1.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Jaman on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:11:12 AM EST
    The Huffington Post is far less one sided than TalkLeft.  But you don't want to hear that.  Now that Ms Clinton has serially lied about her combat experience and tried to blame it on sleep deprivation (5 times?) she is finished.  But you don't and won't see that.  Put down your baseball bats, please.

    I see (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:24:17 AM EST
    This was intended as a pro-Clinton piece no doubt.

    Some of you are truly hilarious.


    Didn't you also hear? (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:27:05 AM EST
    The Bosnia flap, helped Hillary!  Read Craig Crawford's take on it.

    It's funny because when I was watching some of the footage, I thought a similar thing: "Hmm, Clinton sure seems like a Commander in Chief visiting those troops.  I am reminded that she has traveled all over the world (11,000 pages worth) and Obama has not."


    extra comma, I'm looking at you (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    I wish I could edit for typos.

    none of the above (3.00 / 1) (#43)
    by rebrane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:35:13 AM EST
    It seems like a bit of a stretch to first assume that anyone writing for HuffPo is trying to boost Obama, and then immediately turn around and scoff that they're actually undermining him. Occam's Razor would suggest that this piece in particular is not actually an attempt by an Obama booster to boost Obama, but an attempt by a political journalist to write about a timely issue in politics.

    A timely issue? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    Sorry, I know Huff Po. I have read it during this campaign. You doth protest too much.

    You know HuffPo? (4.00 / 1) (#55)
    by rebrane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:44:06 AM EST
    Then you presumably know that they give space to Taylor Marsh and other Clinton supporters. Obviously, the majority of writers on the site support Obama, but that doesn't mean you can safely assume that every writer on the site is running their stuff past Obama HQ before publishing it.

    Do you even have a reason to believe that Sam Stein is slanting his writing to boost Obama? The other articles he's posted recently on the site give the impression that he's a political journalist following the news cycle, not a partisan trying to spin for one side in the Democratic primary.

    "There was a palpable sense of anger among aides to Senator Obama during a conference call on Friday, as they ripped into Sen. Hillary Clinton" -- this is obviously not how Obama wants his team to be seen. And as you observe, they'd rather that nobody write about Wright.


    Sure they do (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:51:08 AM EST
    3 post for hillary do not make up for 97 anti-Hillary screeds and the anti-Hillary news coverage.

    Please come off it. Heck, Huff Po KNOWS it is anti-Hillary.

    You know it.

    and I know it. Why deny the obvious?


    Huffington Post is definitely biased (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:13:13 PM EST
    They feature pro-Obama and anti-Clinton stories more prominently while hiding or downplaying the opposite.

    Combat experience??? (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:46:12 AM EST
    Well yeah if she said that she had combat experience they she lied most egregiously and I'm surprised it took people so long to figure out that she was never in the military. LOL.

    well duh, its supposed to be TALK LEFT ! (none / 0) (#49)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:40:48 AM EST
    I think they're more concerned with fairness than Huffpo. Its all about traffic over there and ads and how much revenue is generated  for all those obama ads that are all over the A list sites?

    can we say overkill? I'm tired of seeing the question: Who will be the next president? Hillary or Obama, vote here.


    what is Obama (1.00 / 1) (#136)
    by shaharazade on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:20:09 PM EST
    supposed to do? you have a double standard going here. Once Hillary said 'now the fun begins' she positioned herself to start with the kitchen sinks , yet somehow she is the victim here? So Obama should just roll over and let her have at it?  

    Strange how everyones view of reality is so different when seen through the eyes of supporter.  where I see legatment opposition you people see dirt and hatred and visa versa. If She runs around flinging kitchen sinks she can't cry and play the victim.

    Obama addressed the Wright issue in his speech. The media is only interested in stirring the pot for ratings. Why is Hillary still using this? she is not above deflecting her real gaffs by fanning this fire.

    As for Huffpo they put all kinds of bs and weird stuff up. They are like a tabloid, a lefty one but a tab. So what if they are pro Obama? It's not like this site is anything but a totally and unopposed pro Hillary site. I

    I read appalling things about Obama here and yet you all whine about how nasty Obama is to poor Hillary. how the media and the blogs are out to get her. She is not a victim this is a primary. She is a nasty fighter who calls her slime vetting. She can not have it both ways, all attacks from Obama's side are personal and yet hers are just vetting.        

    OK, I keep hearing about (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by ChrisO on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    the despicanble comments here. I'll gladly concede that the bulk of the commenters here favor Hillary. I'm interested to know what you consider to be the comments that are so "appalling." Are they anything along the lines of constantly referring to Hillary as "the monster," or hoping a blood vessel bursts in her head, or saying she has blood on her hands? Because I think I've missed all of those.

    Granted, there's a cetain amount of snark directed to Obama. This is the web, after all. But wher are the despicable comments you refer to?

    And by the way, the phrase "now the fun begins" is often used ironically. I think this is another case where people are so eager to beleive the worst about her that they take a comment like that literally. I'm getting a little tired of hearing it repeated.


    This is just funny. (none / 0) (#1)
    by ajain on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:01:57 AM EST
    Just when I think that the Clinton campaign made a grave error, they prove me wrong. Not the first time, either.

    Anyway, lets see how this plays out. But I agree with you, I  don't get what the point of this piece is.

    Maybe (4.66 / 3) (#74)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:04:04 PM EST
    the point is that Obama is desperate?

    Not to say I told you so (none / 0) (#4)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:08:27 AM EST
    It may be a little premature, but I thought her campaign pitched this about perfectly, about as much as she can say to restart this without really being objectionable. Said that yesterday when everyone was saying "she made a grave mistake."

    Wow, time for me to go fall flat on my face now (seems to happen right after I told you so).

    Everyone was saying that? Not really (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:13:30 AM EST
    If you go back and read those threads from yesterday you should notice that most people seemed to be defending Clinton or disagreeing that her response was a bad move at all.

    Far from everyone thinking she made a grave mistake.


    I didn't mean (none / 0) (#35)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:32:51 AM EST
    to so broadly over-generalize, I apologize. But there were a number of Clinton supporters who thought it was a mistake. They may still be right.

    Obviously most Obama supporters thought she was wrong.


    Yea, this too shall pass (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:58:32 AM EST
    It's probably a wash.  Not many grave things have happened in this campaign really, except maybe those videos of Obama's pastor.  Toxic for GE.

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:17:43 AM EST
    Agree! I do think she pitched it perfectly.  She said exactly what I was thinking...meaning probably exactly what her "low information voter" constituency was probably thinking....And I especially had no problem with it, given that some of the "taken out of context" remarks were vitriol targeted DIRECTLY at her -- name mentioned....and by Wright, who at the time he stated the nonsense, worked directly for the Obama campaign.

    So I couldn't have given a care what the media said (remember Iraq was a media darling too).  My personal thought was 'h*ll yeah!'

    But yes, if there was bait to take, it doubles my happiness that the MCM (of which Huffington and now DailyKOS is a member) took it.


    HuffPo has always been a mix of (none / 0) (#42)
    by brodie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:35:12 AM EST
    serious and silly tabloidy online journalism.  I don't go there much these days because it has been so harsh and unfair towards Hillary, like a RW site at times.  But occasionally they apparently publish the pro-Hillary piece, as with TM and one or two others.

    But AH herself began to drift away from Republicans after her support of Dole in 96, and restyled herself as a purist progressive.  In 2000, she loudly supported Nader.

    In 2004 she came down to Earth somewhat by supporting Kerry for the GE.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    Is this connected to anything at all?

    my question (none / 0) (#67)
    by noodles on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:56:12 AM EST
    Why isn't Hillary being taken to task for being a member of an anti-gay church? The United Methodist Church defrocked a lesbian minister a few years ago, has consistently stated that ministers cannot be gay, prohibits ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions, and stated that "no annual conference board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality."

    Hil and Bill's old church (none / 0) (#103)
    by andrelee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:47:04 PM EST
    is in Dupont Circle, DC's largest gay area. Anyone could go to that church no prob. Now, I don't know 'cause I live overseas.  

    Uh (none / 0) (#159)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:35:43 PM EST
    It's "in Leviticus" that thou shalt not lie with another man as a man would lie with his wife or whatever it says.  Anyone who is Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Baptist, Methodist...they're all members of denominations that on the whole are "anti-gay".  Your counterargument to the Wright issue is thus very weak.

    Clinton's old Church (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dave B on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:02:24 PM EST
    The minister that made the comments came to that church in 2002, after the Clinton's no longer attended there.

    So, to say that she was taken to task by her old minister is not correct.

    Okay (none / 0) (#79)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:08:03 PM EST
    now I have to go read the piece.

    nice post BTD (none / 0) (#84)
    by tarheel74 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:17:40 PM EST
    While I think you had a point when you said Clinton should not have waded into the Wright waters I think she was dragged into it when Obama so disingenuously pushed a picture of Wright at the white house shaking Pres. Clinton's hand. That made Wright fair game. Now with HuffPo getting in the act all of a sudden Wright will be in the news for a very long time. I think the Obama campaign brought this on themselves.

    BTD (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:18:52 PM EST
    To repeat and make explicit what others point out here, the guy is not "Hillary' ex-pastor."  He is, at best, Hillary's ex-church's pastor.  Any evidence that she ever sat through a service/sermon by him?

    p.s.  Having moved around a bit, both geographically and theologically, my ex-churches' pastors are legion, but I couldn't name hardly any of them nor have I heard a word they said, as I was long gone.

    Hillary's comment was like (none / 0) (#104)
    by andrelee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:50:59 PM EST
    a beach ball tossed in the air of no-gravity environment for some numb-skull to try and hit it with a rocket aided softball bat. Very. Well. Played. Mme. Clinton.

    Does anyone know why... (none / 0) (#126)
    by 2 Cents on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:58:16 PM EST
    the Huffington Post is so potently anti-Hillary. I read the previous posts about this but was looking for more specifics as to "why?" all this seems to be aimed at Senator Clinton.  

    It was my impression that bloggers believed in discussion, sharing information and polite disagreement but a polite demeanor is difficult to maintain when reading a lot of the HuffPo articles.

    Must Because (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    Arianna Huffington, ex GOPer dislikes HRC. I was shocked when the mud started flying months ago. I took a double take when she started treating HRC like Delay or his ilk.

    Arianna/motives (none / 0) (#142)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:40:01 PM EST
    Think about Maureen Dowd.  Think about Camille Paglia.  And, on the right, think about Phyllis Schlafly.  They all seem to act a bit of the Queen Bee.  A pretense to femininity or feminism--yet, ultimately, attacking (as they do) any strong protagonist who happens to be female.  Well...its as good a theory as any....

    Hillary's trip to Bosnia (none / 0) (#145)
    by glennmcgahee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:57:57 PM EST
    I've heard it reported over and over and it really is Obama rules. If reporters wanted to know about what was going on during Hillary's visit to Bosnia and they are willing to quote Sinbad, the comedian, why haven't they quoted the President of Bosnia at the time also.
    I dare just one newspaper or TV program report this story.

    Obama is keeping the story (none / 0) (#155)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:58:15 PM EST
    alive today.  Teevee is showing clips of him discussing Wright on the stump today.  He said 30 years was shrunk to a 1/2 hour clip and played over and over again blah, blah, something about 'stoking racial divisions.'

    Talking heads are now correlating his 2002 speech to Pastor Wrights statements and questioning Obama's judgement, questioning that he didn't know the radical positions...

    I would like to know why Obama is discussing this on his campaign.

    Obama has morphed into full-throated defense of (none / 0) (#157)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:58:40 PM EST
    everything about Wright---except for those 3 specific sermons he never heard.
    He's doing a Gary Hart on us.. just daring reporters to prove him a liar.