home

Tomorrow's View Today: Obama on Wright

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:51:08 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Barack Obama will be on the daytime chat show "The View" tomorrow. Here's what he had to say about Rev. Jeremiah Wright (received by e-mail from ABC News, no link):

  • "I'm not vetting my pastor," Obama told "The View", "I didn't have a research team during the course of 20 years to go pull every sermon he's given and see if there's something offensive that he's said."
  • "Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people, and were inappropriate and mischaracterize what I believe is the greatness of this country," Obama explained, "Then I wouldn't have felt comfortable standing in the church."
  • Obama described Wright as a "brilliant man who was still stuck in a time warp."
  • "It was a snippet of a man," Obama told ABC. "I don't purchase all the DVDs and I didn't read all the church bulletins." The candidate went on to explain, "Part of what my role in my politics is to get people who don't normally listen to each other, to talk to each other, who crazy things, who are offended by each other, for me to understand them and to maybe help them understand each other."

Update: Comments now closed.

< Karl Rove on Obama's Exaggerations and Best Move for FL/MI | McCain Brings Romney Along for Western Fundraisers >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tomorrow's View Today: Obama on Wright | 199 comments (199 topical)
    When did (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:53:16 PM EST
    Wright publicly acknowledge anything? what is he talking about?

    He's being crucified (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:54:33 PM EST
    Last time I heard.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama's (none / 0) (#4)
    by tek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:58:54 PM EST
    falling down on the job trying to get the voting public reconciled to Rev. Wright.

    [ Parent ]
    Judgment (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by Jon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:06:56 AM EST
    We have freedom of association. People make decisions about who they choose to associate with. Although you may like someone who holds radical views (whether they are of the government or religion or some other issue), you may choose not to associate too freely with them for the simple reason that you don't want people to think that you endorse, sympathize with or hold those same radical views.  

    We cannot choose our family members but we do choose everyone else who we associate with.  The choice of a spiritual mentor is a serious matter, if you are devout. I cannot imagine choosing a spiritual mentor who held views that I found to be offensive even though I thought him to be the nicest or kindest man in the world.

    Either Obama is incredibly naive or audaciously disingenuous. Either quality is a serious cause for concern.

    [ Parent ]

    He is not being crucified. (none / 0) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:07:01 PM EST
    If that man is Jesus then... well I won't even go down that road because I have a pretty strong feeling that he is not.

    [ Parent ]
    He went on (none / 0) (#105)
    by Andy08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:29:38 PM EST
    sabbatical to and undisclosed location where Obama's "other uncle" sometimes is taken as well. Or maybe..
    he is still  on the Virgin Islands. Or maybe...

    [ Parent ]
    Kenyan grandma was interviewed today (2.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:35:05 PM EST
    on Al Jazeera.  Perhaps The Rev. could pay her a visit.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is simply not credible (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by kenosharick on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:59:23 PM EST
    He knew NOTHING of this crap for TWENTY YEARS???? Anyone who believes him now is terribly gullible. Are the superdelegates going o allow the party to go down the tubes just to placate his supporters at the expense of our country?

    And what about Farrakhan? (4.66 / 3) (#89)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:13:39 PM EST
    The church bulletin routinely mentioned him, they sold Nation of Islam books in the church book store, Rev. Wright traveled with Farrakhan to Syria and Libya, and, too top it all off, the church magazine gave Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award.  How is the close association and promotion of a hatemonger like Farrakhan not, in itself, reason enough to leave this church?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama has repudiated (none / 0) (#108)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:32:39 PM EST
    Farrakhan in language stronger than any white dem has had the courage to use.

    [ Parent ]
    And (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by nell on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:35:56 PM EST
    I believe it was Hillary who encouraged him/coached him through this during the debate. People hated her for it, but the fact is she gets how this kind of association will be used in a general election and she actually helped him nip that one in the bud.

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong (none / 0) (#118)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:39:15 PM EST
    As usual Hillary was trying to score cheap politcal points by arguing over silly semantics. She did not coach Obama through anything.

    Farrakhan has a following. Hillary, Bill, and most other dems being political animals don't want to risk losing votes by renouncing him (name one white dem who has done so; or black dem for that matter). Obama is the only one with the courage to renounce, reject and denouce Farrakhan.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually.. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:00:35 PM EST
    Obama was asked if he rejected Farrakhan's support and he said that he had no power to reject someone's support. And then Hillary said that it was important to reject his support and the Obama said he "I reject and denounce" Farrakhan. But, it was only after being pressed by Clinton. Even then, he seemed to be parsing his words and saying that he rejected Farrakhans words, but not Farrakhan himself.

    As for your other comment regarding Obama denouncing Farrakhan or whatever he's said, that's not the issue here. The issue is that he is taking his children and his family to a church that has bulletins praising Farrakhan, Nation of Islam books, and a minister that is praising and promoting Farrakhan and regularly colloraborating with him.

    If Hillary was going to a church that was colloborating with and promoting a white supremacist like David Duke, there would be hell to raise and she would probably have to drop out of the race. At the very least, she would quit the fricking church!

     

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong (none / 0) (#165)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:12:12 PM EST
    You may as well never go to church or synagogue or mosque if you're going to be associated with everything that goes on there. This is a fairly large church. If I belonged to a prayer group consisting of only 3 people I wouldh't want people to associate me with everything that happens in the group.

    [ Parent ]
    Absurd and Intelectually Dishonest (none / 0) (#193)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:37:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Has Farrakhan endorsed the others? (none / 0) (#146)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:59:16 PM EST
    I think that's where all the renounce/repudiate/reject came from.

    [ Parent ]
    Farrakhan (none / 0) (#160)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:08:06 PM EST
    did not endorse Obama. This was the crux of Obama's reasoning. Reject has the implication of rejecting an endorsement. There was no endorsement or offer of help from Farrakhan to reject. Therefore Obama felt the proper way to proceed was to renounce the ideology of Farrakhan in total, as opposed to rejecting a non-existent endorsement. It may be a fine point, but apparently Hillary wasn't sharp enough to get it and neither did Tim Russert. Seeing that his argument was going over their heads Obama conceded the point and agreed he would use language they preferred to denounce Farrakhan.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's fault (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:21:25 PM EST
    that Farakahn is an issue again.  If he was not running this would not be an issue.  He needed a few years away from Chicago politics, but no, he had to run.  Egomania.  

    [ Parent ]
    sorry, I thought the praise/support was (none / 0) (#204)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:49:57 PM EST
    along with an endorsement. Didn't realize it stopped short of that.

    I think she got it (Russert is a toss up, he was in gotcha mode). I think she had a different motivation than Russert.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually.. (none / 0) (#149)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:00:55 PM EST
    Obama was asked if he rejected Farrakhan's support and he said that he had no power to reject someone's support. And then Hillary said that it was important to reject his support and the Obama said he "I reject and denounce" Farrakhan. But, it was only after being pressed by Clinton. Even then, he seemed to be parsing his words and saying that he rejected Farrakhans words, but not Farrakhan himself.

    As for your other comment regarding Obama denouncing Farrakhan or whatever he's said, that's not the issue here. The issue is that he is taking his children and his family to a church that has bulletins praising Farrakhan, Nation of Islam books, and a minister that is praising and promoting Farrakhan and regularly colloraborating with him.

    If Hillary was going to a church that was colloborating with and promoting a white supremacist like David Duke, there would be hell to raise and she would probably have to drop out of the race. At the very least, she would quit the fricking church!

     

    [ Parent ]

    Farrakhan and NOI (none / 0) (#171)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:15:42 PM EST
    are not pyriahs in the black community. He is considered a genuine and authentic leader, unlike the likes of Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. People don't judge him only by the questionable comments he's made about jews. There are other things, very positive things which they use to take measure of the man and NOI. Even many white politicians (including Bill Clinton) have had good things to say about Farrakhan.

    [ Parent ]
    Farrakhan is a Racist NOI is Hate Group (none / 0) (#192)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:35:59 PM EST
    Nation of Islam is on the list of hate groups of the Southern Poverty Center for it wide variety of very, very ugly and bizarre views, including that an evil black scientist created the "blue-eyed devil" white man in a lab accident 6,600 years ago.  NOI is more a racist cult than a religion.

    As for Farrakhan, not only does he lead this crazy group, he's preached that whites are less evolved than blacks, praised Hitler, called white man the "anti-christ, ect, ect, but here's the kicker: he believes that the NOI founder Elijah Mohamed is still alive and in a spaceship circling the Earth ANNND, best of all, Farrakhan has ridden in this spaceship and spoken to Mohamed after he "died". I'm not making this stuff up.

    Obama is smart, Harvard educated intelectual. He knews better and it shows a gross error in judgement that this went on for over 20 years and, even today, he refuses to quit the church!

    [ Parent ]

    Provide a link to NOI being delared a (none / 0) (#202)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:49:04 PM EST
    hate group. They're not going out and assaulting people physically or even advocating that. You could argue that they are a defensive organization just like the JDL (though JDL seems more prone to violence and the advocacy of violence). But a reasonable person would cut the JDL some slack given the persecution of jews throught the centuries.

    NOI is is mostly concerned with self-determination and self-help among blacks. These are conservative values and it is in the interest of society generally for blacks to improve themselves from within. NOI is anti-drug and alcohol abuse. They work for strong black family units, education, impeccable hygiene, healthy diets, self-respect and respect for society at large. They want to build up black communities by circulating money within the black community just like Jews, Iranians, Armenians and the other successful minorities do.

    Therefore, Farrkhan and NOI are good for America. Black America getting itself together is good for everybody.

    By the way, what have you said about Billy Graham who was caught on tape trying to poison Nixon's mind against Jews?

    [ Parent ]

    Here's the link... (none / 0) (#213)
    by Exeter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:00:02 AM EST
    http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks. From your link, this is how they (none / 0) (#220)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:18:46 AM EST
    describe them:

    Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions -- or even a separate nation -- for blacks. Most forms of black separatism are strongly anti-white and anti-Semitic, and a number of religious versions assert that blacks -- not Jews -- are the Biblical "chosen people" of God.

    Although the Southern Poverty Law Center recognizes that much black racism in America is, at least in part, a response to centuries of white racism, it believes racism must be exposed in all its forms. White groups espousing beliefs similar to Black Separatists would be considered clearly racist. The same criterion should be applied to all groups regardless of their color.

    This is relatively benign compared to real violent and viscious hate groups. Still, I think NOI would take great exception even to this characterization. I think Southern Poverty Law Center is bending over backwards to appear evenhanded. In any event, I don't believe that even the most wild-eyed Hillary supporter believes that Obama opposes integration or intermarriage.

    [ Parent ]

    Do black women have equal rights in the NOI? (none / 0) (#221)
    by criticalthinker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:23:50 AM EST
    Per Wikipedia, the official platform also states that "Belief in the respect (but in Muslim tradition, not the equality) of Black women" is one of the beliefs of the NOI.

    I find that very troubling. Please enlighten.

    [ Parent ]

    Support Hillary, but don't embarrass (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:36:01 PM EST
    yourself with fishing expeditions and guilt by association. Yes, he didn't hear this crap for 20 years. There is no proof that he did. Wright held at least 3 sermons a week for 30 years. Yet those seeking to damage Obama have found only a few instances in which he made these type of remarks. And even the offensive remarks were taken out of context. For example, when he says God damn America he was quoting the former embassador to Iraq, who happpened to be white.

    [ Parent ]
    Question . . . (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04:16 PM EST
    On the tapes, DVDs and bulletins, was there a warning not to listen/read because the good Rev was using profanity, making racist, anti-(insert choice here) remarks or slurring the Clintons? because if not, it's hard to believe Obama never saw/read/heard any of this.

    THAT is a credibility problem.

    [ Parent ]

    I am so angry. (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by faithandhope97 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:32:29 AM EST
    DNC, Republicans, new that there was this stuff floating around on the internet. And they watched our campaigns go into attack mode. Now that were look like idiots,the republicans are going to go after Obama and it will make us look weaker. Have we been duped!! And this is why when Hillary was getting pounce so hard (blue dress, Lewinsky which I found EXTREMLY distasteful, etc.)the news channels block us out.  Oboma thought he had a free ride to the nomination, and he still might win that.  But did he really think that nothing else was going to be dug up? True or false, it doesn't matter the repubs will take it as far as they can.  Geez, now we have meeks, who have upset Italians.
    When will the madness stop.  And this is Obama's fault. Quite naive to say the least that running for the POTUS, that he was going to get a free ride.  

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (none / 0) (#121)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:41:56 PM EST
    it was the chickens coming home to roost comment that was an attempt by Wright to convey the embassador's feelings on the issue. Ironically enough, Wright heard the embassador make these comments on Fox News.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought "chickens coming home" (none / 0) (#161)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:08:58 PM EST
    was Malcolm X?

    And you sure it wasn't one of the far-right religious that Wright heard after 9/11?

    [ Parent ]

    Malcolm X said this in reference (none / 0) (#170)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:14:52 PM EST
     to JFK assassination.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes it was Malcolm X (none / 0) (#174)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:18:41 PM EST
    Wright was paraphrasing the ambassador by using Malcolm X's terminology. And I do recall this interview with the ambassador after 9/11. Frankly I was stunned. He ripped this country apart. Wright's sermon on this subject was much more neutral and moderate than the ambassador's comments.

    [ Parent ]
    I missed the ambassador's comments (none / 0) (#184)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:25:07 PM EST
    as I did Falwell's. Those didn't filter through until later. I didn't have cable at the time, so info was spotty. I think we had one very fuzzy channel.

    Do you have a link connecting this?

    [ Parent ]

    Ed Peck, former embassador to Iraq (none / 0) (#194)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:37:14 PM EST
    I did not find this particular segment on Youtube. But I remember watching it as it happened. Not so much because of the unyielding anti-American content, but because it came out of the mouth of a former ambassador on a major news network just a few days after 9/11. This was Wright's point, he too was stunned by Peck's commentary. Wright agreed with Peck's sentiment but his sermon was much more contextual and nuanced than the angry anti-Americanism of Peck.

    Here is the actual sermon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqPUXjFYh38

    He starts on Peck at 3:20.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks (none / 0) (#211)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:58:43 PM EST
    yeah, major news networks weren't working too well for some time here. Some stuff from that day I didn't see until the 1yr anniversary.

    I'll watch the sermon vid. appreciate a whole sermon one. you wouldn't have a link to the second sermon that he uses 9/11 in would you? he seperates it out with Twin Towers, The Pentagon, The field in PA etc and mixes them in with other events. I've seen it 2x's on Fox, but it was always late and I can never remember the gist of it.

    [ Parent ]

    Trinity created a channel on youtube (none / 0) (#216)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:03:47 AM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/user/TRINITYCHGO.

    I haven't seen the second sermon you're referring to or even bits of it. But it may be on their channel.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is hurting the Democratic brand (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by BigB on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:03:11 PM EST
    As Obama keeps defending Wright in this manner on a daily basis, not only is he hurting himself he is also hurting the Democratic brand seriously.

    Obama is alienating the very working class Democrats who Bill Clinton worked very hard and successfully to bring to the Democratic party.

    The so called party "elders" should ask him to shut up about Wright and moveon to the next topic.

    His continued defense of Wright is idiotic and not good for our congressional candidates in the swing districts.

    Obama doesn't understand how upset people are about his sermons.

    He is also hurting his own brand... (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:12:33 PM EST
    His initial response to Wright's comments was the correct response.  It was a clear declaration of disagreement and rejection.  But by defending Wright he in muddying the waters.  He is providing fodder for the GE 527 ads and well his loyalty is honorable, but likely will prove to be really politically stupid in the end.

    [ Parent ]
    BigB- not just Obama, but the MSM (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by kenosharick on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:14:03 PM EST
    and left Blogs think it is over!!! They pretend it never happened!! I hope the superdelegates are not so stupid. This will be HUGE in the general if we fulfill a death wish for the party by nominating him.

    [ Parent ]
    Right! (none / 0) (#55)
    by faithandhope97 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:31:07 PM EST
    He said Hillary's people would vote for him! Well I'm going on record that he will not highjack my vote!


    [ Parent ]
    Interesting... (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by proseandpromise on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:43:01 PM EST
    a new poll suggests that over 20% of the dem voters that don't like him, still believe he is a Muslim.  I'm not sure I want voters like that crossing over.  20 or so percent of Hillary's voters sitting it out might be OK.  They can come back when they are actually paying attention.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/The_Muslim_lie_lingers.html


    [ Parent ]

    So you are insinuating (none / 0) (#145)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:58:03 PM EST
    that Clinton supporters who don't for Obama are what? Some believe they support Clinton this time around.  Some believe they are working class indies that could switch to McCain.  Some think voters may just be burned out and stay home.  Some may be women interested in voting for a woman.  But hey, you go with the 'muslim' thing and insinuate all you want.  sheesh

    [ Parent ]
    I'm just saying (3.00 / 2) (#154)
    by proseandpromise on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:03:48 PM EST
    20+% of people that don't like Obama and are dems still believe he is Muslim.  That is a HUGE stat when you consider that almost the exact same percentage of Clinton supporters wont crossover.

    Now, certainly there may be some Dems that don't support Hillary or Obama I suppose (Gravelanche!).  But let's be reasonable.  I'm willing to stand by the assumption that a good chunk of those people who still think he is a Muslim are behind Hillary.  I don't want people like that calling themselves Dems.  Fear-mongering has no place in progressivism (this is also why I deeply resent the 3am ad, btw).  

    So I've decided that when I hear "people won't crossover, this will destroy the party, etc." I'll point out that 20+% of the dems not supporting Obama don't have a clue.  The other 80% probably do and many probably have good reasons for not liking him.  But 20+% is a big chunk.  You can't ignore that I don't think.  It's an important stat.

    [ Parent ]

    Can you tell me (none / 0) (#84)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:06:27 PM EST
    when Bill brought people to the Democratic party.  He never picked up a majority of GE voters and presided over huge losses in both the House and Senate.  Maybe Gore was a flawed candidate, but he felt like he had to distance himself from Bill in 2000.

    [ Parent ]
    You need to go back to your history books (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:13:57 PM EST
    again...When Bill left office his popularity in this nation was over 70%...The highest in long while.....Gore admitted he made a mistake not asking Bill to campaign for him...Would have made the difference....

    [ Parent ]
    You're right . . . (none / 0) (#97)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:19:14 PM EST
    Bill was very popular (at least towards the end), but Brand Democrat wasn't.  Bill brought people to himself (at least a plurality in '92 and '96) but didn't too a lot for the rest of the party during his time in office.

    [ Parent ]
    Now that's an interesting topic (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:35:49 PM EST
    because you are trying to tie Bill Clinton to the decline of popularity of the Democratic party but that decline actually began in 1994 with the Democrats hammered on two things:
    • Health Care Reform
    • Gun Control
    And in 1994, the health care industry and the NRA/Gun lobbyists poured incredible amounts of money into the campaign and the Republicans took control.

    The notion that this had something to do with Clinton was absurd...he was a Democrat who was President and any other Democratic President would have ignited the same fires if they embraced the same issues.

    The wave that the Democrats are riding now are reaction to inept, pathetic, dishonest, war mongering and corrupt Republicans of which Bush is only a part...Bush didn't lose in the 2006 elections...Senators and Congressman lost.

    Bill Clinton's popularity stemmed from really basic things:

    • prosperity
    • peace
    • acceptance around the world
    • leadership

    Gore lost because he let the media control the narrative, much of what is happening today (oh yeah, the Republicans with help of SCOTUS helped them steal enough votes to win).

    It would be entirely irregular for the popular vote to go more than 5% in favor of any candidate in the general election and the whole notion of a 50 state strategy in Presidential elections is a non-starter. There are only the battleground states.

    It is the battleground states where Obama will get creamed...that's my view.

    [ Parent ]

    I wouldn't go that far (none / 0) (#147)
    by badger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:00:22 PM EST
    Clinton made a lot of errors leading up to the 1994 election, not just health care and gun control. There were his problems getting appointments through the Senate, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a mess - he ended up trying to straddle the issue and offended nearly everyone - the economy was improving but not great and he failed to pass his stimulus package, and his approval ratings were far below what they'd be when he left office.

    All of which speaks to Bill Clinton's lack of experience, which Obama shares. In fact Obama probably has less relevant experience (no executive experience, for example) than Clinton did when he took office.

    Hillary has at least some experience from those years, being pretty heavily involved in White House operations, but assume, as Obama supporters claim, she has no experience. She still has the core of Clinton advisors who went through that period as well and know what mistakes they made due to inexperience.

    Of course Obama has a ton of Clinton advisors as well (something Obama supporters fail to recognize), but the situation is different. It's likely there are Obama people and ex-Clintonistas and with an inexperienced executive, that's a situation ripe for internecine struggle.


    [ Parent ]

    A lot of errors? (none / 0) (#178)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:19:30 PM EST
    There were some to be sure...Hillary trying to build a health care consensus behind closed doors was the biggie.

    Don't Ask, Don't Tell, came later but it has been a reasonably successful transition program and at some point, the military is going to have to openly accept gays.

    Still, the 1994 elections were about health care and gun control and the Dems lost control of the House.

    [ Parent ]

    DA,DT was implemented by (none / 0) (#197)
    by badger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:41:15 PM EST
    Les Aspin, and he didn't make into 1994 as Secretary of Defense. From the wikipedia bio of Aspin:

    The fallout from the controversy wounded both Clinton and Aspin politically and dragged on until December 1993, when, after many months of equivocation, confusion, and more controversy, Aspin released new regulations, known as the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexual conduct in the armed forces ...

    This compromise policy, sometimes termed "don't ask, don't tell," issued after an agonizing and divisive public debate, did not completely satisfy any of the concerned parties.

    "Equivocation, confusion and more controversy" is what inexperienced leaders do.

    And I forgot about Waco, too.

    A lot more than health care and gun control lost for Dems in 1994.


    [ Parent ]

    you're right (none / 0) (#217)
    by white n az on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:05:49 AM EST
    Don't ask don't tell was early in Clinton Pres...

    I guess the political fallout is a subjective analysis...I didn't see DADT as that big of a motivator, but NRA and health care wallets were out big time in 1994. That's what I believe drove the issues that year (remember Newt's Contract for America)

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry. (none / 0) (#164)
    by faithandhope97 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:11:50 PM EST
    I was referring to post above about BHO! I need to keep an eye oh this when I'm posting.  But I did enoy reading your post.  I love Hillary and Bill!

    [ Parent ]
    The Clintons did a lot for this country (none / 0) (#100)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:24:36 PM EST
    and he presided over peace and prosperity, which is wonderful....To trash him now is unforgiveable IMHO

    [ Parent ]
    My opinion! (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by faithandhope97 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:33:20 PM EST
    This man has trashed a lot of good people.  It's mean, disrespectful, etc.  

    [ Parent ]
    faith and hope? (none / 0) (#117)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:38:03 PM EST
    truth in advertising?

    trashed a lot of good people?

    mean?

    disrespectful?

    Please...don't stop for my benefit, I'd like to hear more of your thinking

    [ Parent ]

    They also... (none / 0) (#159)
    by proseandpromise on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:06:34 PM EST
    gave us NAFTA, hurt the welfare system, played to the right on the death penalty, and made things worse for Rwanda.

    If Hillary gets to take the good (of which there was much) she needs to acknowledge the bad as well.

    [ Parent ]

    NAFTA (none / 0) (#182)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:24:13 PM EST
    Bill was warmly supportive of NAFTA in the 1992 campaign.

    Welfare reform, yes but that was an issue that still resonates...I got a junk e-mail yesterday from a friend that is trying to make the point about how much money this country wastes on welfare, illegal immigrants, etc.

    Rwanda...the problem with Rwanda was Somalia. They simply didn't want a repeat - no doubt this led to massive genocide but it's a very tough sell to the American public.

    Sorry only welfare reform had traction and Clinton made the best deal he could make under the circumstances.

    [ Parent ]

    Can you clarify... (none / 0) (#188)
    by proseandpromise on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:28:31 PM EST
    on what you mean about NAFTA and Rwanda.  I don't know that I follow the argument.

    And what about the death penalty?  

    [ Parent ]

    And here are some interesting quotes on Rwanda... (none / 0) (#195)
    by proseandpromise on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:37:26 PM EST
    "I believe if I had moved we might have saved at least a third of those lives," he said. "I think she clearly would have done that."

    He went on to explain how America, which did intervene in the former Yugoslavia, could only take on so much at once. But not acting in Rwanda, he suggested, was a mistake his wife wouldn't make." - Bill Clinton

    Obviously Bill regrets their inaction.  It was no doubt a tough call, so I'm not trying to throw him under a bus.  I'm just saying, let's not pretend like the 90's were all sunshine and rainbows.  

    His assertion that Hillary was on the right side of that one is interesting.  Maybe I'm a cynic but I have a hard time buying that on the two biggest mistakes (in my judgement) of the Clinton admin - helping push through NAFTA and standing on the sidelines in Rwanda - the Clinton who is now running had it right.  Maybe she did.  I hope so.  Maybe that would mean she would take real action in Darfur and the Congo.  That would be wonderful.

    [ Parent ]

    just like Obama (none / 0) (#209)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:55:51 PM EST
    pressing one button when voting in the Illinois Senate and then formally changing his vote afterwards in the records (a practice permitted in Illinois Legislature).

    It's called trying to have it both ways.

    Bill Clinton was always very good at trying to have both sides of an argument. Obama has proven to be a virtual equal on this tactic.

    David Gergen has stated that she was against NAFTA.

    Politics is after all politics and it's a game of skill, to be sure.

    They didn't take action in Rwanda because of what happened in Somalia and the Powell philosophy (completely abandoned in Iraq with consequence) that you don't go in without superior and overwhelming force. That of course doesn't consider the total lack of support from Congress for military action in Africa which would have cost a ton of political capitol to get passed.

    I am dissing neither Clinton nor Obama by these comments...only advancing a perspective, one that has me thinking that you are a either being naive or I am not understanding your point.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm just saying... (none / 0) (#214)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:00:25 AM EST
    that the 90s weren't all great.  I don't want people voting for Hillary because of an idealized picture of a pretty good (but not perfect) decade.  That kind of reminiscing politics is dangerous because memory tends to heal all wounds.  The Clintons need to own up to their mistakes, like Bill is doing in the quotes I gave you.  But to say along with his owning up that Hillary was right all along is suspicious to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's position on NAFTA (none / 0) (#205)
    by badger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:52:23 PM EST
    is far from clear, and I don't believe he supports reinstating any kind of welfare system. I don't know Obama's position on capital punishment, but I'd be surprised if he supports it.

    For obvious reasons, I'm less than enthusiastic about America's role as world policeman, particularly in areas like Rwanda where most of the exploitation was done by Europeans - they have lots of young kids who can die in foreign countries too, and economies that can finance wars. If there's blame, there's plenty of places to apply it.

    So even assuming there were evils in the Clinton years, Obama offers no redemption, but mostly more of the same.

    I'd vote for Bill Clinton again, but in the current field I'd take Hillary over him or Obama.


    [ Parent ]

    NAFTA (none / 0) (#212)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:59:44 PM EST
    is a talking point - an issue for exploitation by these candidates since all of them (Clinton, Obama, McCain) are essentially free traders, as are their advisers.

    The fact that one of Obama's advisers says to Canadian emissary not to pay attention to the rhetoric wasn't surprising except for the damage it did to his campaign of 'not the politics as usual' meme.

    Let's not fall for the rhetoric.

    [ Parent ]

    nafta-gate is under investigation... (none / 0) (#215)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:02:10 AM EST
    that business was shady.  You do yourself a disservice quoting it.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#222)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:30:25 AM EST
    NAFTA, like almost everything else in this campaign, isn't that big an issue when it comes to trade.

    Yeah, we've lost some jobs to Mexico and Canada (the company I worked for in the late 70s had moved all its manufacturing to Mexico by the late 80s, well before NAFTA, and real wages have been declining since Carter, though somewhat less under Clinton), but the loss of jobs to China has been significantly greater.

    "Most Favored Nation" and WTO are responsible in part for that, but again - it was already happening anyway. It isn't so much what we've done as what we've failed to do.

    The problems are a lot more complex than trade treaties, and Clinton (IMO) has addressed those problems in more detail. Not that I think she's all that great on the subject either.


    [ Parent ]

    the congress hates the clintons -- is that why? (none / 0) (#129)
    by teachermom on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:47:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Actually, in the 90s (none / 0) (#177)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:19:17 PM EST
    many state Dems did well, governors, legislators, etc.  Congress?  It took longer to bounce back but blaming those loses on Clinton is to ignore history.  Congressional Dems did it to themselves.  

    Arrogance will do it (almost) every time.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama/Chris Mathews Talking Points (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Jon on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:29:49 PM EST
    Obama/Chris Mathews Talking Points, I see.

    Bill Clinton is the first Democrat since FDR to be elected twice. And he set the national agenda for 8 years. He effectively ended the conservative advance in national politics and neutered conservative policies in the Legislature, not to mention his Supreme Court picks.

    But of course, in Obama World, no one has ever done what he (Obama) could do if only he were the President tomorrow. Of course, we still have no idea what he would do and I suspect even he doesn't have much of a clue what it is he'd want to do other than to be the national cheerleader. But cheering can take the the country only so far.  

    From "Yes, we can" to "No, you can't (vote)". That's Obama HOPE. Hope that he can get enough people to suspend belief long enough for his political minions to "steal the nomination" for him. Obama supporters may not like it but by trying to effectively neuter the independence of the Super Delegates and disenfranchising the Florida and Michigan voters, that is exactly what the Obama Team is trying to do, "steal the nomination" by short-circuiting the nomination process.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh my! (none / 0) (#113)
    by faithandhope97 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:35:55 PM EST
    The tables will turn!

    [ Parent ]
    Guess What? Bill isn't perfect (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:51:49 PM EST
    The legitimate criticism is that he did not do enough to grow the party at the grass roots level is fine.  I think that's legitimate.  He employed a guy like McAuliffe who's sole vision was high end fund raising from very rich people.  Oh, and he was good at that, too!  But that was all he was good at and yes, to the extent that there was no field offices in college towns in red states, yes, the Clinton team is to blame for that.

    Ok?

    Now listen here.  Other people were involved, Senate leaders, House leaders who also dropped some balls letting Gingrich steal the show.  Other scandals that preceded Bill's more monumental scandal later in the administration.

    There were other factors involved, the loss of the senate and the house was also the final culmination of losing the south, it was something that started with the Johnson administration, it was a price to pay for doing what was right as far as Civil Rights were concerned.  

    Also, it was the result of Republicans co-opting religion.  They didn't really have field offices themselves, what they did is they took an existing network of churches and turned them into field offices.

    So Dems lost a lot of seats in the Senate and House.  You call them "Huge".  I'm not sure they were "Huge" and I do know Clinton gained some back in his second term (look up congressional gains for Presidents in their second term, see what you find, it's very rare).

    Ok. So Dems lost seats during the Clinton administration.

    Now you tell me.

    Who do you think was more destructive to the Democratic Brand?

    Bill Clinton?

    or Jimmy Carter?

    If there is any reason at all why any American can reasonably think of Democrats as being something more than just legislators, it's cause of Bill Clinton.

    No.  He's not perfect.

    But I don't really know what to say about someone who looks at a guy with the highest job approval ratings of any modern era president and finds a way to say he was destructive to the Democratic Brand.

    Dude!!!  The best (not perfect, just BEST) president I've ever had was .. guess what?  a Democrat.

    If he wasn't the best.

    Guess who then becomes the best president in the modern era?

    That's right.

    A republican!


    [ Parent ]

    Obama hurt the party (none / 0) (#176)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:19:16 PM EST
    When he decided to run this year.  He had plenty of time.  What was the urgency.  Obama, Kennedy, Daschle, Kerry et. al are hurting the Democratic party.  They did not let Hillary and Edwards fight over the read Democratic issues and push the country towards a real conversation, a conversation about health care, financial reforms, environmental policies, foreign policy and human rights.  

    Audacity.  Audacity cause he, Obama, has not paid his dues.  Audacity cause the Axelrod machine is using the social and economic justice as a ploy.  As an aside.  

    Finally, race in America as an issue  is being manipulated and perverted beyond recognition by the Lakoffian and Axelrovian tactics of manipulation of the polity.  

    [ Parent ]

    I wonder if he will be asked about Wright's (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:36:49 PM EST
    comments about Hillary and Bill, which Wright has not apologized for and Obama has not condemned. That seems like a great question for that show.

    Isn't this the show Whoopi Goldberg (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:39:07 PM EST
    is on?  

    [ Parent ]
    I believe so, why? Babwa wawa too, right? (none / 0) (#62)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:40:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Because Whoopi supports (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:45:32 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton and isn't shy about mixing it up.

    [ Parent ]
    HO HO HO (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:49:21 PM EST
    I am sensing a popular video on Youtube coming up.

    I think I might be going on youtube, btw... students of mine taped me doing something today.
    If it reaches the top 1000, I'll let you know. I'm hoping not.. heh

    [ Parent ]

    I searched for my daughter's (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:50:36 PM EST
    work on You Tube.  Bingo.  What a great device.  

    [ Parent ]
    Don't hold your breath because Barbara (none / 0) (#83)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:05:09 PM EST
    Walters is Arianna Huffingtons child's Godmother, plus Whoopi so far on the show has been totally supportive of Obama....Expect nothing from them....Almost like Whoopi has been neutered lately for some reason....I actually stopped watching it for that reason

    [ Parent ]
    But I thought (none / 0) (#88)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:12:33 PM EST
    Whoopi changed her support from Obama to Clinton?

    [ Parent ]
    She did over some issue, but has been talking (none / 0) (#92)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:15:07 PM EST
    about Obama ever since, and Hillary is rarely if ever mentioned...it is really sad....

    [ Parent ]
    Say it isn't so! (none / 0) (#96)
    by faithandhope97 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:18:44 PM EST
    Hopefully not on national television! I'll be so upset! GRRR!

    [ Parent ]
    Yes! (none / 0) (#67)
    by faithandhope97 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:44:18 PM EST
    I like her!

    [ Parent ]
    I don't believe him (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by kayla on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:39:44 PM EST
    But I think he's just doing what he thinks is politically safe.  And I actually don't find what Wright said all that bad, but his statements are obviously offensive to some, and I don't think he's handling this well.  It seems fake.  All this I LOVE AMERICA stuff just seems heavy handed and phony.

    This is gonna sound weird - but I think I understand where Wright is coming from more than I understand who Barack Obama even is.

    kayla (none / 0) (#69)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:44:49 PM EST
    has the post of the night.

    [ Parent ]
    Its a big country... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:11:20 PM EST
    - with lots of views. Even our lunatic fringe on the outer ends of the Bell Curve number in the millions.  Like you, I get it with Wright, far more than I get it with Obama - but thats just me, there are chunks of American Dem-leaning populations who wont like it one bit.

    My gf says the only thing that can be generalised about Americans, is that they are "stubbornly local" or "anally zip-coded".

    IOW it all depends -where- the offence is most strongly felt, and if it is strong enough to affect individual state swings.  Thats why I tend to see national polling as mostly meaningless.

    Going on a popular show like The View, is playing it safe, and continuing in damage control mode, which sends a message that Obama feels that there is still significant damage to control -

    but, unfortunately for me, I keep seeing Whoopi Gooldberg through the filter of the wise Guinan character from Star Trek chuckle

    [ Parent ]

    Is there anything at the center of this man? (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:43:25 PM EST
    Should we be questioning how removed from principle one has to be to say different things to different people and expect that one group will never know what was said to the others?

    I maintain that Obama has so little grasp of who he is, and has so tied his own racial identity to Reverend Wright, that he is now making Wright into the same legendary figure that Obama believes he himself is destined to be, because to tear down Wright is to tear down his own idea of who he really is.

    What saddens me is that so few people yet realize that Obama is an utterly hollow person, who doesn't just feed off the adulation to stoke his ego, but to define that ego.

    When it all falls apart, it will do so in spectacular fashion and it will not be pretty.  All I am hoping for is that we are not part of the collateral damage.

    Maureen Dowd called Obama (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:48:21 PM EST
    an "electable suit."  She may be correct.

    [ Parent ]
    lol!~ I missed that one :) (none / 0) (#78)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:52:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It was after the fashion shoot feature. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:52:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    not buying it (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by nycvoter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:20:57 PM EST
    if he said he had joined the church because it had the largest African American community in his district and stayed on because he had build a community in spite of the pastor, maybe

    if he said that Wright had brought him to spiritual awakening after a difficult time, maybe

    Hey, I had no idea that my pastor preached controversial white oppression sermons, not buying it

    toasty (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by AlSmith on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:46:35 PM EST

    Obama just said Wright is a "brilliant man".

    Wright is on tape on Hannity yelling about you have to read Cone's book. James Cones says:

    Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.

    How in the world is Obama going to justify calling this guy brilliant? It obvious to all Christians that the bible says "Not my will be done but Thine"- Cone is advocating the opposite of Christianity by advocating a God who takes a cheerleader role for whatever the political cause of the day is. Was he so "brilliant" for missing the whole point of Christianity?

    You cant pretend you didnt know this was going on when you attended a church predicated on Black Liberation Theology. That would be like saying that you didnt know cow was going to be served at McDonalds. And I dont think this well play well in the general election no matter how fast a talker Obama is.

    [ Parent ]

    and this will be totally publicized as soon (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:03:41 PM EST
    as Obama wins the nomination...Rove cannot wait to move in for the kill....Pat Buchanan has predicted that it will take approximately two weeks to take Obama down as soon as he gets the nomination....It is so sad and depressing...The Obama supporters won't know what hit them....

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting ideas (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:20:55 PM EST
    recommended by Obama's Pastor, mentor, and sounding board. But we are supposed to believe he didn't know this while being ther for over 20 years.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't get it (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:25:48 PM EST
    Obama should have belonged to the church that spoke out about this kind of church.  Who would support any type of hate speech?  How did Wright's words (from the pulpit as a respected leader of a community) help bring black and white, Jew and gentile, together?  He did nothing but help further divide, on many levels.  

    Isn't this what you're supposed to speak out against?  

    I feel like nobody in this thread (3.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:43:22 PM EST
    A. Read Obama's speech on the Wright controversy and race a week ago

    B. Read Obama's first book Dreams From My Father

    Before continuing to bloviate onwards with righteous indignation about how Obama lied about his association with Wright or how he has no personal core or whatever, I strongly recommend doing these two things first. Just to be informed, okay? I also strongly recommend Dreams From My Father as just a plain good read, period, irrespective of the author's current fame (Obama wrote it himself and it was not ghostwritten).

    Obama's Church (1.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Left of center on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:29:09 AM EST
    Did Obama's Church really give a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn-ipVJcq1U&feature=related

    This (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:58:19 PM EST
    brilliant man who was still stuck in a time warp.
    Will stick.

    What Hillary said: if my minister (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:00:18 PM EST
    sd. those things (and if he hadn't already retired), I too wouldn't stay at that church.  Convenient.

    [ Parent ]
    According to the polls, though, (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:02:00 PM EST
    Wright hasn't damaged Obama.  It is HRC whose poll numbers have gone down.  I guess if I were Obama I'd keep on keeping on, just as he is doing.

    [ Parent ]
    Those polls (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:03:19 PM EST
    are not really reflective of the damage Wright has done for the GE. We need to see head to head with McCain and when you see those you realize how damaged Obama really is.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is going to need a dedicated (4.50 / 2) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:07:59 PM EST
    Wright rapid response team imo.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:15:56 PM EST

    Since the Wright Thing hit,