Rev. Wright Attends Chicago Church Service

Rev. Jeremiah Wright made his first public appearance last night since the Obama embroglio. He got a thunderous welcome.

Barack Obama's former pastor, who canceled several public events after an uproar over his incendiary comments, surprised a Chicago congregation by attending an event to celebrate poet Maya Angelou's birthday.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright got a raucous standing ovation when he entered Saint Sabina church on the South Side on Friday night, video from WBBM-TV showed. Members yelled "Hallelujah!" as Wright embraced the Rev. Michael Pfleger, Saint Sabina's pastor.

Here's more on the "thunderous welcome" and some video from cbs2chicago.

< The Folly Of The Campaign To Get Clinton To Drop Out | Buying An Election? Or Blocking Two? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by americanincanada on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:41:26 PM EST
    if Maya objects to what Wright said from the pulpit about Hillary Clinton, given that she supports her. It may not have been the most polite thing to invite Wright unless the pastor cleared it with Maya. But that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

    I agree. it should not hurt Obama...but it will.

    My first thought as well (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by annabelly on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:45:26 PM EST
    And to see the video, the person being lost in all of this is Maya Angelou herself. I watched it specifically for her reaction. I wondered how she felt watching another celebration for her accomplishments turn into an opportunity for redemption for yet another man in trouble. I'll be watching to see if she offers a reaction.

    I really don't understand why the Democratic (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:55:24 PM EST
    establishment started trying to force Clinton out in earnest AFTER the Wright story broke.

    Neither could I (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:16:31 PM EST
    especially because the Clintons represent that group in the party that knew how to win the Whitehouse after twelvel years of republican presidents. Perhaps this election would place McCain in the Whitehouse which should make Bill Clinton's presidency sandwiched between twelve years of republicans in the Whitehouse.

    Perhaps the Democratic party does need another four years to finally 'get it'.


    single target theory (none / 0) (#10)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:57:14 PM EST
    Obama's lucky that Clinton is taking some (none / 0) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    of the media hits that he would be getting if she dropped out.

    You may be right. (none / 0) (#13)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:03:00 PM EST
    If Obama gets the nom, we will finally see if BTD's "media darling" theory holds true in the GE campaign.

    we'll see (none / 0) (#17)
    by Nasarius on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:10:55 PM EST
    Clinton's definitely the big shiny object they all love to hate. But if there are absolutely no other skeletons, no more "typical white person" screwups, he may yet survive without the kind of hostile media coverage that plagued Kerry and Gore. I wouldn't count on it, though. They already have more than enough ammunition.

    Did Obama misspeak on Wright? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:27:12 PM EST
    Seems he did on the View yesterday.


    Has Wright ever acknowledged he offended people?

    Has Obama ever specifically denounced the hateful remarks about Hillary that Wright made from the pulpit?


    afaik (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:39:51 PM EST
    that would be a no and a no.

    All at once (none / 0) (#42)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:39:09 PM EST
    He denounced all of the YouTube clips together.  I don't think it is necessary to repeat each one for an individual rebuke.

    That's like Russert in the debate wanting to read Farrakhan's hateful words even after BHO denounced them.  Why spread the hate?


    I keep forgetting - (none / 0) (#69)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:56:30 PM EST
    Obama doesn't need Hillary supporters to win the general - they'll just fall in line.
    Or as Obama says - there will be "bruised feelings" but we'll all come together.
    However, it doesn't appear the togetherness will be because of Obama's "unity" skills.

    What amuses me (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:07:01 PM EST
    is he actually thinks it's about "hurt feelings".  Yes, my feelings are very, very hurt that he has to stifle two elections to "win".  

    It shows at the end of the day, the man is totally naive.


    Yes, we vote not with our brains (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:40:04 PM EST
    but with our feelings.  Uh huh.

    Spread the hate (none / 0) (#109)
    by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:41:15 PM EST
    I  don't think making it clear that you don't stand behind the insults aimed at your political opponent could be called "spreading the hate."  Obama has been very vague about exactly what he has renounced.  He certainly has never used language like "all the Youtube clips."  The public speech he gave where he distanced himself from Wright's remarks was a speech about "race," not a speech about political discourse.

    True (none / 0) (#34)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:34:50 PM EST
    I'm an Obama supporter but I think you are absolutely right.

    BHO would be much worse off if the Bosnia thing hadn't broken after the Wright thing.  Bosnia gave perspective to Wright.  You can see people lumping them together and saying, "well that's just politicians."  If nothing else, Bosnia definitely changed the subject.  Then the subject was changed to HRC should quit (as was pushed a few weeks ago, and can be expected to return a little while down the road.)

    If the newest BHO-HRC Rasmussen and Gallup polls mean anything BHO is doing very well, ironically, because of HRC being in the race.


    This is true (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by nell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:44:34 PM EST
    Though I DO NOT think the Bosnia flap should be equated with Wright. There is a clear difference between exaggeration, which all politicians do (yes, they all do, including Obama), and sitting for 20 years in a church whose head pastor has said some pretty controversial, and frankly, hateful things about the United States, white people, and your political opponent. The media, in their eagerness to protect Obama, bought his campaign's push of the Bosnia story. And while I don't think his campaign was wrong to push it, I do think the media was wrong for equating the two and trying to make it seem like the same thing...it is not the same thing. An exaggeration is a very different thing than a 20 year relationship with someone who has said anti-American things.

    Thank you for stating this nell! (none / 0) (#112)
    by ConsiderChange on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:15:29 PM EST
    If anything regarding Bosnia, Senator Clinton was wrong to 'embellish' as she did [and politicians do this; it's just not too often that GE's CBS has the footage to shut that door ;D].  She stated the facts in her Living History autobiography and should have just said them as plainly she did there [perhaps it's "too boring" in comparing it to Obama's manner of speech (with help from key campaign personnel)?].  In fact, perhaps she should do as Senator Obama and just mention her book(s) during EVERY speech.  That way, she won't have to worry about 'slipping up' ;).

    As for the Rev. Wright comments from Obama (now); forgive my skepticism when I make this comment: same __, different day.  Why?  Because Senator Obama had plenty of opportunity to state his 'leaving the church' on CNN, CBS, etc. BEFORE Senator Clinton stated this in front of the media.  It's in the same vain as the MSNBC debate where Clinton commented to Obama that he should 'reject AND denounce' Farrakhan's statements (go figure!).  Normally (and sadly), representatives such as these tend to make even more comments behind the scenes than in front of the masses.  This is regardless of the nationality/race of the individual!

    Sigh.  Senator Obama is showing that he has little initiative as to stating what he truly believes before consulting his ex-Clinton (2000), Edwards (2004) campaign power team.  

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment within TalkLeft :).


    Is he doing well vs McCain (none / 0) (#45)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    that's where the real fallout will be-- in the GE.

    No more BHOs please (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:18:02 PM EST
    Not allowed here.

    I prefer BHO (none / 0) (#111)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:17:47 PM EST
    because BO is worse...seriously.

    I use BHO because it's an obvious simplification who I am talking about...just like HRC.



    Wright (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:13:00 PM EST
    The issue is Obama.  He used Wright when he needed the support of the AA community in Chicago.   Wright I think went all out for Obama with the Bill and Hillary attacks.  Now, Obama wants to keep his Wright connection and sound like he does not believe in the Wright's core beliefs.  

    This is  a lie or a artificial construct of historic proportions.   He cannot have it both ways.  He is with him but against him.  Way to subtle a nuance.  

    It's hard to reconcile. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:38:56 PM EST
    Close friend and spiritual advisor for twenty years but he didn't hear anything that controversial.

    Yes, he knew Wright did say some wild things but he didn't agree with them and he did tell Wright so.

    He would have left the church IF Wright hadn't retired first - after twenty years together.

    It just sounds like Obama wants to have it both ways - a strong connection with the black community via Wright, but not a strong connection with Wright's views.

    Can Obama have it both ways?  Or does he only need to until he locks up the nomination - and then dump Wright?   I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the way it plays out.


    On The View (none / 0) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:22:16 PM EST
    Obama astounded even my by saying the "spiritual adviser" thing was overblown anyway, Wright was nothing more to him than the pastor of the church he attends.



    He dedicated a book to him! (none / 0) (#118)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:33:23 AM EST
    "Just the pastor"?

    How many people do you know who dedicate their books to their pastors?  Usually it is someone very close to them or someone they have a great deal of respect for.

    Not some guy they see at church once a week for a couple hours.


    Not only that: He's Never Condemned Farrakhan (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:03:26 PM EST
    If you go back and look, he always is careful to parse his words and say that he denounces specific statements or categorically denounce Farrakhan's "anti-sematic" statements, but he's never spoken out, generally against Farrakhan.  Even in the "denounce and reject" debate, if you listen closely, he was saying that he rejected and denounced Farrakhan's controversial statements. In fact his denouncing of Farrakhan is similar to his position on Wright: he denounces specific statements, but defends the overall man.  

    Why does he need to condemn Farrakhan? Because is church gave him a lifeteme achievement award and his mentor said that he "epitomized greatness." And both his church and his mentor frequently colloborate with and promote Farrakhan.


    You don't condemn the man (none / 0) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:26:24 PM EST
    Farrakhan or Wright, first of all, if you actually are a believing Christian-- condemn the sin, not the sinner.

    Secondly, Farrakhan has done enormous good work in the black community.  There is much, much more to him than we hear about in the media. It would be demagoguery to "condemn" Farrakhan the man, and frankly, the fact that he doesn't do so is one of the few things I find admirable in Obama.  It would be more admirable if he had the courage to explain, but I think it's understandable that he doesn't even try in the context of a presidential campaign.


    It's a Obamination (none / 0) (#66)
    by Boo Radly on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:36:39 PM EST
    Have your cake and eat it too..... sums up his campaign no?

    BTD's "obama media darling" (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:22:41 PM EST
    theory is built on a foundation of shifting sand (thank you justice scalia!); recent history belies it. once the nominating process is finalized, should sen. obama be the dem. nominee, expect the "liberal press" to turn on him immediately. maureen dowd & frank rich most likely will lead the charge.

    again, should sen. obama be the dem. nominee, the "rev. wright" situation doesn't go away (and please, spare me the "but you have to hear it in context." nonsense), it only gets worse. fair or not, sen. obama will be permanently connected with the anti-american statements made by rev. wright. to deny that, is to deny reality.

    if (a really big if) rev. wright were the only negative sen. obama had, it might be survivable. he isn't. rezko's trial will either still be ongoing, or just recently concluded, and who knows what else will come popping out?

    sen. obama's electability has taken a huge hit.

    Rezko (none / 0) (#53)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:47:30 PM EST
    I don't get the issue with Rezko.

    The worst allegation was that BHO got a deal for his house.  But, we've known for more than a month that there was no deal.

    Who cares if they went back and added contributions from additional campaigns?  And, the big (a relative term; other candidates have raised much more from people with criminal problems) contribution numbers aren't from Rezko, they're mostly associates.


    The issue isn't about the cost of the house... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:02:28 PM EST
    ... The property in question actually contained two different deeds: the house was on one deed and the large yard was on another, which is common in large mansions built in that era: the mansion takes up most of the lot that it was built-on, so an adjacent lot adjacent lot was also made part of the estate, so there would be a yard.  This house and neighboring yard set-up has been intact since the house was built 80 years ago. So, of course, when in 2005 the people selling the estate they were selling the house and yard together.

    Obama, by his own admission, couldn't afford to pay for both the house and the yard in 2005. So he bought just the house and Rezko bought the yard for $600,000. To further complicate the matter, Obama then bought 1/6 of the yard, which made the remaining lot likely difficult to build or develop on because it made it too small.  In addition, Obama has paid to have the "Rezko's yard" mowed and landscaped since 2005. Rezko owned the land up until the Chicago Tribune ran the story in late 2007, when he quickly sold it to a developer. To this day, nothing has happened with the yard and continues to sit vacant.  


    I mostly agree (none / 0) (#74)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:18:15 PM EST
    The seller says that their deal with BHO wasn't influenced by the Rezko deal.

    When BHO bought the sliver, he had it appraised, the appraised value was less than half of what he actually paid.  He decided to pay 1/6 of the lot's total value (rather than the lower appraised value) so that he would avoid an appearance of impropriety.  Even after taking this step, he still acknowledges it was "boneheaded" to buy the sliver.  Good for him.

    I don't blame him for keeping the lot groomed, I'd do the same thing if I had to look at it.  

    I think you may be off on the final purchaser, I thought I saw that it was a Rezko lawyer.  

    The bottom line is; where's the fire?

    Here is a link to the buyers comments.



    The fire... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:39:06 PM EST
    Is that Rezko bought the yard of Obama's house. Look at it on google earth. The yard in question is already small-- imagine if you took another 1/6 of it. It would make it ususable for future use, and that's the point-- Obama's got half million dollar yard.

    Buildable (none / 0) (#82)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:48:35 PM EST
    No, I've read that that lot is still buildable for that area.  I looked into this a while back because it was being claimed that the lot couldn't be accessed and it was unusable.  If you make me, I can track down documentation.

    I've seen the pictures I can understand where you're coming from, that's why I looked into this.



    I don't see (none / 0) (#86)
    by Nadai on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:59:26 PM EST
    where it matters if it's buildable or not.  It isn't being built on, not when Rezco owned it and not now when (if I read one of your earlier comments correctly) one of Rezco's lawyers owns it.  It still looks to me as if Rezco bought Obama his yard and has seen to it that it stays Obama's yard, de facto if not de jure.

    Selling (none / 0) (#87)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:10:23 PM EST
    I personally don't see the fire, but others may.

    Side Note:
    The Rezko lawyer is now selling the lot for almost $1 million, he says he wants to cash in on the fame of the adjacent neighbor.


    That's just manuevering... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:34:02 PM EST
    ...because they know this is a scandal. Guarantee you that after the election, the price drops down or Obama buys it to make the problem go away.

    Even (none / 0) (#101)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    I believe that the Rezkos wanted to liquidate assets regardless of BHO.  I'm sure you know that Rezko is not doing well.

    I agree that BHO may want to buy the property.  But, it would be cleaner for BHO to just sell his house and move to the White House.  Leave Rezko and that house behind him in IL.

    I may not feel that this is a big deal because I remember how it was portrayed when I heard the allegations.  I learned about this story as though it was some big quid pro quo scandal.  Now that I know the details are so much less than the original allegations I'm immune to caring about this.

    But that's just me, maybe "fresh eyes" will see this differently.


    I've got dollars to dimes that says . . . (none / 0) (#110)
    by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:45:25 PM EST
    If a buyer shows up (at that clearly outrageous price) there will be some heinous conditions to sale and the lot will never move while Obama lives there.

    Yes... technically the lot is buildable... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:32:17 PM EST
    ... I don't question that. The reality is that this lot was has been used as the yard since it was built over 80 years ago and that is why the hedge encircles both properties. The bottomline is that by selling 1/6 of the lot someone will have to build a much smaller house than is typical in the area and nobody wants to spend $500,000 for a lot to put a build small house, hence the selling the 1/6 strip made the value of the lot pretty valueless.

    In addition, when they say "1/6" of the lot, keep in mind that the lot includes the area between the sidewalk and the street... in other words, the actual area between the sidewalk and Obama's lot line is very thin and narrow.  Also keep in mind that because the initial builder intended the Rezko lot to be the house's yard, the house was built almost exactly on the lot line and there isn't even a few feet of breathing room.

    There is no way that Rezko buying the lot and selling back 1/6 to Obama can't be considered, at best, a gift worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.


    Who knows? (none / 0) (#102)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:32:49 PM EST
    I don't know about the setback requirements in that area.

    BHO bought ten feet, so any new home would need to be ten feet narrower than it could have been before the sliver was sold off.  BHO bought 1/6th so the remaining lot must be 50' wide.

    To be sure that is a smaller house.  This could be an issue for some, just not me.

    I used to live on Lake WA; we had a 50' lot, but a huge four level home, it's hard to say what can be built in IL.


    No more BHOs please (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:17:21 PM EST
    Not allowed here.

    What's a better choice? (none / 0) (#103)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:33:49 PM EST
    dare I say it (none / 0) (#104)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:46:14 PM EST
    BO? Snark. I don't get the problem with those initials. They are his. I don't see a problem. But it's your rules.

    OK, another snark, but if Obama becomes president, do you think he'll have the letter H removed from the alphabet? Ouch, OK, go ahead and delete this.


    precedent (1.00 / 0) (#105)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:53:39 PM EST
    Like the some Clinton staff taking the "W's" from keyboards before they left.

    Maybe, BO will have "H's" removed.


    That is a lie, actually. (none / 0) (#106)
    by rooge04 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:58:58 PM EST
    A right wing one...spread on Drudge and RedState. But thanks for repeating it here.

    Not serious (1.00 / 0) (#107)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:08:53 PM EST
    I wasn't serious.

    I remember that the vandalism lies involved much more serious allegations than the made up keyboard thing, and the MSM was reporting these lies.  Not just wingnuts.


    Hahaha.. (none / 0) (#108)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:17:09 PM EST
    the MSM ARE wingnuts.

    The only part that seems damaging to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kayla on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:37:56 PM EST
    for me was when the anchor said something about Obama might have thrown Wright under the bus.  That's really the only thing about the Wright controversy that bothers me.  I feel bad for the pastor.  It's so irresponsible to throw him in the middle of all this.  He's a pastor that you either get (I actually think most people would get him if they listened to full sermons... even if they don't like his presentation) or you don't.  Why did Obama put him in his campaign, but disinvite him from speaking when announcing his run to the white house?  Wright doesn't bother me per se, but the way Obama has handled this can paint him as an opportunist and a user.

    The thunderous applause and even the white announcer makes him look good to me.  It goes with the "he's well respected across all genders and races.  You just don't understand because you've only heard clips" idea.

    I want to know what Maya thinks of all this.

    You do realize the thunderous applause was (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:42:40 PM EST
    for Wright? If I was Josh Marshall, I could cook up a very nice mash up attack video of Obama/Wright, with nothing but the "truth."

    Yep, you're right (none / 0) (#60)
    by kayla on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:59:50 PM EST
    But I was talking about myself, personally.  Hence the "for me" part.

    I didn't forget that attack videos can be very effective, unfortunately.


    Obama's Bosnia moment (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    Sun Times on Obama's view comment.  Obama implied that Wright repented and that is why he stays in the Church.  Well, now the campaign is explaining what Obama meant.  If you understand what he meant, can you explain to me.  
    ''Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church,'' Obama said.

    Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the senator's remarks did not imply that Wright has expressed misgivings about his statements. ''Sen. Obama was clearly saying that were Rev. Wright not retiring, he would need to be assured that Wright understood why what he had said had deeply offended people and mischaracterized the greatness of this country,'' Burton said

    I had to read it three times (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:31:58 PM EST
    to understand the explanation side-by-side with Obama's comments; it's pretty tortured - there is no way anyone can think Obama was "clearly" saying what Burton claims he did - but after some effort, I do get it.

    The man-who-gives-great-speeches would not have needed an interpreter if he had said, "If Reverend Wright had stayed as pastor, the only way I could have stayed as a parishioner is if Reverend Wright publicly apologized for his inappropriate and offensive comments."

    The problem is that very few people will bother to look at it that closely and will believe that Obama said that Wright "expressed misgivings," when we all know that he is about as unrepentant as it is possible to be.

    As for the "thunderous applause" Wright received, people will have to interpret that for themselves.  Friendly audience?  People prepped ahead of time?  A "let's help Obama out of this jam" event?  

    It doesn't matter - the ads are already being written, and they are going to be very effective.


    Yeah...but what is left? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:37:20 PM EST
    had he not acknowledged

    this implies Wright acknowledged.  But, what is left in people's minds, that Wright repented.  Same as the speech equal to a vote, but no effort to correct.  I be 75% of Obama voters believe he voted against the war.  


    I agree that is sure sounded like he said that (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:11:21 PM EST
    Wright had apologized - and part of me is cynical enough at this stage to believe that he deliberately said it that way.  The word "hoodwink" keeps popping into my head for some reason...

    But...if Wright had retired as pastor and was no longer affiliated with that congregation, why should whether Obama decided to stay or leave depend on any kind of acknowledgment from Wright?  If it's not "Wright's" church, who cares?

    That's one way to look at it, I guess, but I think those who think the whole thing was much ado about nothing don't care, those who were offended are not going to be placated by some tortured language that suggests an apology - they will want to see and hear the good reverend deliver it himself - and for a pretty large segment of the population, there will be no un-ringing of this bell, and nothing will make them feel better about it.


    Huh? Obama "seemed to suggest" (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:48:36 PM EST
    that Wright had apologized?  No, I watched it, I heard it, I checked it again -- Obama said that Wright had apologized.  

    And re Obama would leave the church if Wright had not retired, well, the current pastor is the guy in the video of Wright humping the pulpit and mocking the Clintons -- the current pastor is the guy running up, cheering on, and congratulating Wright for it.  And a congregation happy with a past pastor always will hire another just alike, so the current pastor also must subscribe to the theology that calls for "destruction of the white enemy" at its core, per its primary spokesperson Cone.

    So Obama better leave the church now.  No?


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:52:31 PM EST
    he talks like Bush.  He stings on words and has no clarity.  It's a muddle cause he wants the muddle.  Not only is our nation devoid of good orators but we have also lost the art of listening and demanding clarity of our speakers.  It's always easy to catch Hillary when she lies or misspeaks, cause her language is clear.  Obama purposefully uses language to deceive.  

    What you said (none / 0) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:35:27 PM EST
    Bravo.  I hadn't thought it through as clearly as you have, but I think you're absolutely right.

    Bill Burton (none / 0) (#81)
    by Nadai on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:41:03 PM EST
    needs a lesson in conjunctions.  If Obama had said, "Had the reverend not retired or had he not acknowledged..." etc. etc. then he'd be correct.  Obama, however, said and.  For such a great orator, that's a surprising mistake.  I would have thought Obama of all people would have understood the difference.

    Acknowledge (none / 0) (#90)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:27:11 PM EST
    It's funny how people get so many different things from the same statements, her'e what I saw.....ACKNOWLEDGED that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized.  

    Obama does not feel the pastor needs to apologize, just acknowledge.

    Bill Burton confirms this for me when he was quoted... Wright UNDERSTOOD why what he had said had deeply offended people...

    Wright just needs to acknowledge and understand some may be offended by his statments.

    I didn't get that Wright apologized or that Obama felt it necessary.  Could just be me.  I acknowledge I am still offended by his comments.


    But did Wright acknowledge? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:29:11 PM EST
    Bill Burton (none / 0) (#98)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    can WORM all he wants. Wright acknowledges his words and controversial position by continuing to open his mouth on certain topics.  He's proud of the way he presents his message.  I'm sure he could care less if certain people are offended.

    Absolutely priceless. (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:06:07 PM EST
    It is simply an appalling proposal (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:31:21 PM EST
    and from a lawyer, yet, to back breaking the law.
    Perhaps you do not know, though, that it is against the law to vote in both primaries.  

    As for the "Kos defense," that is hysterical.  "But, but, but . . . a blogger made me do it -- made me break the law!"  But perhaps you do not know that it also is illegal to claim to be backing a party and ask for its ballot if that is not true and only gaming the system.

    Nowhere in this from you or from your favorite blogger or from your candidate do I see the exercise of conscience that is crucial for the citizenry in the classic libertarian theory of democracy.  Interesting.

    AIN'T NO CHICKENS ROOSTING HERE AND........ (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Peace Out For Unity on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    The hen eggs cracked on that one!Obama announces in NC that the Trinity Church Of God congregation is 99% white and CNN played him saying it after his speech in Greensboro!What's that all about on the  factual reality of truth? Re-wind inteview #1 by Anderson Cooper asking Obama about Rev. Wright and then Obama's speech on 3/18/08?Is that disingenous enough for ya or what!How many presidents have we had in office that don't tell the truth the first time about a minister? We've heard a lot of stories from politicians but dishonest about a minister? He who would be great must fervent in his prayers,fearless in his principle,firm in his purposes,and faithful in his promises.The judgement and choices of Obama?

    Just in case (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:32:48 PM EST
    anybody might believe this swill, what Obama said, which is absolutely accurate, is that the United Church of Christ denomination is overwhelmingly white.  He never said his individual church was white.  He's not quite that crazy yet.

    A thunderous welcome (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:33:35 PM EST
    It is not fair, but that too will hurt Obama.

    The thunderous wlecome for Wright (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:21:48 PM EST
    It will be imputed to Obama. you know better than this Bob.

    Not sure (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by nell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:25:47 PM EST
    if this will hurt Obama in Philadelphia, but Mayor Nutter went on record today as saying he would have left the church:



    Piling on (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:27:27 PM EST
    Why did Nutter say that?

    Not sure (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by nell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:33:14 PM EST
    Also not sure if it hurts Clinton instead of Obama. But part of it might be that the way Obama has characterized Wright's sermons is that they are very typical of African American churches. Based on my own experiences in many African American churches and conversations that I have had with some African American friends over the last two weeks, there are some who feel annoyed that all African American churches are being painted as being negative towards the white community and towards the United States. It is simply unfair and misleading to paint all African American churches as being similar to Wright's, which is what Obama has done, as well as others, such as Donna Brazile who said Wright was moderate.

    I do believe Rev. Wright's church has been vilified, but I also think he said some horrendous things from the pulpit that were beyond the pale...


    Also (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by nell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:35:52 PM EST
    based on what I was saying about all African American churches being painted in this light, it may be that Nutter felt the need to say this to ease tensions that may flare up in Philadelphia. My understanding is that he benefited from very broad and very diverse support and if people of other cultures feel threatened and feel like all African American politicians spend time in churches that have anti-american or anti-white sentiments, that could become a problem for him. I am not from PA, but my impression is that it can be somewhat racially charged.

    Yeah, it bothers me that Obama is pretending (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by kayla on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    Wright is not "typical".  I think black people have more empathy for him than other cultures can, but in no way is this church typical in the black community.  Black churches are the most comforting and accepting places you could find yourself, not matter who you are, and that church is really intense in comparison.  I like to use church as a way to decompress when I'm stressed out or something, and Trinity doesn't seem like the best place to do that.

    I don't know how many of my white friends have asked me about this and I had to explain because Obama has helped confuse people.  I can't see how we can have an honest discussion if Obama is going to make things up to save his behind in a "historical" speech about race.  Sigh.


    Because he was asked. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:33:00 PM EST
    We low information voters (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by badger on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:36:30 PM EST
    are so happy and pleased you found your way here to show us the light.

    Thank you, Bob.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:37:43 PM EST
    You believe what you want.

    Watch the video play on an endless loop and tell mo how great that is for Obama politically.

    Because, you know, politics is always rational and fair.


    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by nell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:45:48 PM EST
    Angelou did not know that he was coming. I also resent the fact that what should have been a celebration of her - a great woman - is now turning into an event about Wright.

    and they say (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:38:47 PM EST
    irony is dead.

    Just to answer Mr. Johnson.... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ConsiderChange on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:00:55 PM EST
    Yes, Angelou has endorsed Clinton--

    And though she is not as vocal as her protege' Oprah, Madam Angelou's message is still powerful:


    Just FYI....


    BTW Bob (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:39:19 PM EST
    You are suspended for the day. I asked you to respect the rules, but you thought this was smear filled Daily Kos.

    No more commenting from you today. Come back tomorrow if you wish.


    I told you this is NOT (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:45:43 PM EST
    Daily Kos. We censor all the time here. We say so EXPRESSLY. I told YOU so TODAY.

    I told you specifically that this was not Daily Kos or MYDD or any other site. Play by the rules here.

    You took a direct shot at the site. Not allowed. Simply not allowed. Why? Because I do not get to eviscerate you rhetorically in return. That is the trade off here.

    Our rules are different. I told you this earlier today. I implored you to play by the rules of THIS SITE at this site. You have chosen not to.


    Especially the video (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:41:14 PM EST
    Did not watch it (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:44:23 PM EST
    Will now.

    Neither did I (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:47:21 PM EST
    But I didn't need to. If it's interesting at all, it'll make news.

    The applause is THUNDEROUS (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:48:20 PM EST
    Very damaging.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM EST
    Rev. Wright (none / 0) (#14)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:07:39 PM EST
    obviously the issue will not go away.

    Obama View clip (none / 0) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    What is he saying?  Are people serious about his talking skills?  

    that sentence (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Nasarius on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:17:01 PM EST
    Started off in one place, and ended up somewhere entirely different.

    I think a lot of people are mistaking charisma for speaking ability.


    THis is not... (none / 0) (#18)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    an open thread.

    The View clip (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:14:14 PM EST
    was in the video about Wright.  

    When there's no right answer (none / 0) (#24)
    by AF on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:18:56 PM EST
    Conditional clauses are your friend.  

    My apologies... (none / 0) (#27)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:24:22 PM EST
    I didn't see the link.

    He was invited and introduced by a white pastor (none / 0) (#16)
    by AF on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:10:54 PM EST
    Obviously that shouldn't matter -- but it does.  

    Just like the whole Wright mess in general.  

    Another clip (none / 0) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    Does anyone have the info on Obama's interview on the View?  Sort of on topic as it is the Wright issue and video.  I imagine they will both be discussed this week on teevee.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#58)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    this is important to follow as it speaks to electability.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:02:23 PM EST
    In all honesty I must admit that polls today are meaningless when we think about the GE in November.

    I do think that these polls tell us that the Wright thing isn't a deal breaker.

    And, this thing shouldn't be a big hit on BHO.  He isn't a racist anti-American nut, even if his pastor has been on a handful of occasions.


    One poll doesn't mean much (none / 0) (#67)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:40:29 PM EST
    but trends, I think, are more important. Obama seems to be floating back up from the initial hit and I'm curious to see if he stays there. And though polls now won't predict the GE accurately, they are a reflection of a slice in time.

    do you think most people are ashamed (none / 0) (#71)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    to be seen with their pastor?
    Obama disinvited Rev. Wright to speak or even attend his presidential announcement, presumably because he knew Wright's previous remarks and affiliation with Farakhan would be offensive to some people.

    BREAKING NEWS... (none / 0) (#64)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    Pastor shows up at church.

    More on the 10:00 news.  

    Virginia (none / 0) (#65)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    What does the poll for Obama/McCain look like?  I thought VA was a GE state for Obama?

    Pfegler's a real piece of work (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:37:07 PM EST
    Had a multi-year crusade to try and get the City to shut down Chicago's annual Hemp rally. Used to picket us, once blew his cool and tried to swing on one of the musicians, restrained by his own entourage.

    Obama opposed revotes (none / 0) (#85)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:57:23 PM EST
    It really doesn't matter if they were feasible or not.
    He opposed every proposal.

    More Chicago news today about Wright (none / 0) (#95)
    by Munibond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:35:28 PM EST
    Chicago Sun Times has article about Trinity building a $1 million house for Rev. Wright.  <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/business/867629,CST-NWS-wright29.article"></a>

    Give me that old time religion! (none / 0) (#119)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:34:50 AM EST

    Concern with the Wright issue.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by ConsiderChange on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:50:04 AM EST
    The comments regarding Wright have relevance in regard of the judgement of having Wright be a part of the Obama campaign.  Although the mainstream media knew about this prior to the February primaries, when they finally showed and reviewed the comments from Rev. Wright, America voiced their concerns (to say the least!).  The cumulation of all of this concern resulted in a 45 minute speech reponse from Senator Obama (occuring several days later).  Senator Obama is the only individual who could have addressed the topic of race in such a manner.  Hillary Clinton would be be seen as one taking full advantage of the terse situation, and others would view John McCain mentioning it as a hypocrisy.  So the networks have, once again, provided their choice as president with large amounts of network access to address the issues regarding race and his pastor, as well as, ever so subtle, promoting his campaign as the 'voice of unity' [despite the events leading to African-Americans becoming despondent with the Clintons due to 'controvertial comments'-- or not]:

    >>>Unlike the big Florida victory on January 29th, the news of Clinton 's  New Hampshire win was not blacked out from coast to coast the next day.  Her detractors quickly rushed to fortify their positions, concerned that momentum from her dramatic comeback (losing Iowa) would soon turn into an electoral tsunami.  In the two weeks leading up to the South Carolina primary, Obama surrogates argued initially that New England 's white voters had betrayed their publicly declared support of the black candidate in the secrecy of the ballot booth.  Hence the reason why pre-election polls got the count so wrong.  The tactic smacked of sour grapes, but when Clinton made a speech tying Martin Luther King's efforts to President Johnson's signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, highlighting the role of Johnson, the Obama camp pounced.  An adviser immediately sent out a four-page memorandum(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html)  urging surrogates to slam her of disrespecting Dr. King.

    If you tracked the coverage of the ensuing feud, you would never know that it was this document that sparked the episode.  Before the memo surfaced on the internet, Obama insisted to reporters that neither he nor anyone on his staff had accused Senator Clinton of any impropriety in her speech about Johnson.  He said he was "baffled" by her suggestion that they were somehow involved.  Meanwhile, South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn claimed Bill Clinton's incendiary reaction to the racism charge had compelled him to renege on an earlier promise not to endorse a candidate before his state's primary.  A few days later, Clyburn retracted his endorsement of Obama, but the damage was done as African American voters converged on Election Day to back the senator from Illinois .  Now that the Clintons were being barbecued in the press for "playing the race card", Obama would no longer have to worry about the African American vote.<<<

    Senator Obama's reward for being able to do this speech?  Being the media's darling and receiving plenty of coverage for the next week (or longer!).  

    Speeches are remarkable in being able to sway or even change a person's opinion to help improve their lives, but actions can demonstrate to the masses how one is willing to perform the tasks that are necessary to improve lives.  If Senator Obama had more actions than just words, I would wholeheartedly support his march towards the presidency.  However, there are professional concerns I have had with the senator.  One in particular:


    Another creditable article with many different sources can be reviewed here:


    In Obama's speech he stated that he cannot 'disown' his pastor for the comments as he cannot disown his grandmother for making comments as well; I don't essentially agree.  Obama's grandmother represents his ancestral family, and his former pastor represents his spiritual family.  Obama's grandmother helped to provide the fundamentals of life and relationships, and Rev. Wright had the opportunity to do this as well; aiding in the development of Senator Obama's walk with Christ.  There is a phrase that says as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he-- and after 20 years of personally knowing and sharing in the fellowship with his pastor, Senator Obama could have left years ago.  Oprah chose not to remain with the pastor and congregation; she realized that his message was a bit too controversial.

    Essentially, Reverend Wright helped in providing Obama with contacts within and outside the congregation, and with large audiences prior to and after formally declaring his candidacy for president.  Rev. Wright knew that the comments he had made may harm the campaign as well.  However prior to the reverend retiring from his pulpit and from Obama's campaign, the pastor's message and the masses that followed him throughout the country aided in promoting Senator Obama. Thus Reverend Wright fulfilled his objective, and Senator Obama, through the 'race controversy', now shines as the candidate willing to address the issues and unite the nation in the process...