Rev. Wright on PBS Tonight

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of the Trinity Church, gives his first interview since becoming a household name to Bill Moyers on PBS tonight.

You can watch a clip and read some details of what he says here.

I was struck by his comments that Barack Obama's race speech was "the politican talking."

Wright said he was hurt by what he considers unfair use of the sound bites, but understood why Obama had harsh words about his statements during a speech on race that the candidate delivered in Philadelphia. Wright said he is obligated to speak as a pastor, but Obama addresses audiences as a politician.

"I don't talk to him about politics," Wright said. "And so he had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician.

< Is the Media Turning on Obama? | Defense Files Challenge to Raid on Polygamist Sect Compound >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wright (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    sounded to me to be a pastor.  He didn't explain in that clip his notions about why he used such inflammatory language as a pastor.

    I wonder if that was even discussed.

    It has been discussed in some places (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    and when the offensive words from the sound bite are put into context some people don't find them hate speech and some people still do.  I still find them hate speech.

    It's probably going to be (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:53:10 AM EST
    a favorable piece that is intended to help Barack Obama. But the best laid plans...

    You put quotes around (none / 0) (#6)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:56:50 AM EST
    "the poltician talking." Is that in fact a direct quote, or your paraphrase?

    Ther direct quote can be found in my post (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:57:37 AM EST
    on the subject below and is MUCH worse than Jeralyn's generous paraphrase.

    Wright's association with Farrakhan... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:03:44 PM EST
    ...might make his reputation unsalvageable.

    But, as it stands, Obama will lose on Wright alone in November, so they need to take that gamble.

    But, I don't know, I don't see a route where Wright's history with Farrakhan and NOI doesn't get explored. Wright has a long history of working with and promoting both Farrakhan and Nation of Islam -- in fact, according to TNR, Wright used to be a member of NOI. It is a hard sell to have a guy that quits NOI, then continues to associate with them, then preaches many of the same Hamas-inspired controversial things, and then try and say he is UCC minister that has no anti-sematic leanings.


    I'll be watching (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:54:00 AM EST
    mostly because hate speech is hate speech and I don't care what your gender is or what color your skin is.  If Wright has been delivering hate speech he needs called on it.  If he hasn't, then he deserves to be apologized to from people playing the "out of context sound bite".  I will also be investigating the transcripts that can be purchased from some of his past sermons that I have been told reveal more hate speech.  Since I have not read these things for myself though I won't be simply taking people's word for it.  I will be investigating it for myself.

    What I saw of the interview (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:54:38 AM EST
    was very strange, because it showed a perfectly nice and normal looking Wright, then cut to the clips of his "GD America" rant, and all I could think was Jeckyll/Hyde.

    He does Obama no favors, not least of all for calling him a politician, which goes against Obama's message.  The more Wright is out there, the more opportunity there is for his hateful messages to be played.

    I thought it was interesting today because on one of the morning programs, both Cokie Roberts and an aa reporter whose name I can't recall were asking, "in what context is 'GD America' acceptable?"  They both seemed really to be questioning this.  

    Context has been the Obama argument all along, but when the same explanation comes from Wright's mouth, it gets challenged.

    That's that whole ministering thing (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:57:03 AM EST
    and why I have such a hard time attending church and being a part of any organized religion.  Human beings are synergistic and I'm a recovering cheerleader.

    Cheerleaders Anonymous? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:26:59 AM EST
    Where does George Bush sign up?

    Oh No! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST
    I can turn no fellow sufferer away.  Has he hit bottom yet though ;)

    Dr. King on America. (none / 0) (#21)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:24:20 AM EST
    And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You are too arrogant. If you don't change your ways I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God."

    YouTube Link

    Dr. King doesn't use the word damn but that is really splitting hairs, don't you think?

    White and black alike all across the country were skeptical that a black preacher from Atlanta could change the country. Some hated him for even trying.

    Thank God he did.


    Do not EVEN (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:28:16 AM EST
    try and compare Dr. King to Wright. That is a dangerous comparison.  And Dr. King would turn over in his grave that you would even compare him to a hate-monger like Wright. For shame.

    The words I quoted are Dr. King's own. (none / 0) (#30)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:33:56 AM EST
    How you judge them is your decision, but Dr. King clearly did not think America was God's appointed nation.

    I did not say that. (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:38:32 AM EST
    Dr. King DID NOT damn this country nor did he call a sitting woman senator and former president the things he did.  Dr Wright is a fear-mongering, hateful man and Dr. King was none of those.  Keep on with this comparison. It will absolutely ruin your candidate.   And it totally shames the memory and work of Dr King. Disgusting.

    You're so silly. (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:44:44 AM EST
    King did not damn this nation? Do you even understand the word damn? It means to condemn to punishment or fate; to condemn vigorously.

    Dr. King said God would "break [America's] backbone of power" and give to "a nation that doesn't even know my name."

    He damned America on a regular basis.

    You have proven yourself incapable of true debate.
    How sad that you insist on perpetuating hate, for that is what you do when you parrot the GOP on Wright.


    halstoon (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:45:59 AM EST
    does it bother you at all that you have to contort yourself so drastically to justify Wright's words?

    It bothers me that (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    Obama will have to prove his patriotic bona fides every day from now to doomsday.

    It was hard enough to do that with Kerry and he was a decorated military officer.


    Kathy (none / 0) (#59)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    It is not me doing the contorting.

    Does it not bother you that you people are pretending that Dr. King did not have harsh words for his own country, a nation he loved while regularly condemning?


    Dr King (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:56:43 AM EST
    was telling his fellow Americans, "together, black and white, male and female, we can bring change and make the world even better."  His words came from a place of love for our country and for his fellow man.

    Wright's words clearly defined that black is against white.  There is no togetherness.  There is only struggle and hatred.  When he spoke the words, "GD America," he meant white America.

    King wanted us all to work together for justice.  To conflate Wright's negative message with King's does the man a social injustice, and it seeks to change a history that Americans who lived through those times know did not exist.


    Obama's message is an extension (none / 0) (#102)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:55:45 AM EST
    of Dr. King's. The GOP and some here are trying to tie him to something more like how you describe Dr. Wright. That is blatantly unfair, and I would hope that you would agree.

    I listened to the sermon containg the GD America passage, and Dr. Wright was speaking about God's history of punishing arrogant empires and regimes. He started with Israel and went on up through America's current arrogance. He was not damning white America; he was damning an America that behaves with arrogance and imperialism throughout the world and then proclaims "God Bless America." That is when he said "nah nah nah..."

    I took a quote from Dr. King which clearly spoke of America in similar terms--Dr. King even railed against the America as world police ideology--and people acted as though I was justifying all of Wright's behavior. That is not only dishonest, since I did no such thing, but it also distracts from my real argument; that tactic is quite popular when people can't address the real issue; instead they divert attention in hopes people will forget what I actually said and instead focus on their spurrious points. That is what people are doing when they respond to the quote with denunciations of Wright's pulpit humping or calling Hillary a name. I did not defend either. I do not condone either. But those things being wrong doesn't mean that everything the man has said is wrong. That's flawed reasoning.

    When Dr. Wright chose to speak of America's role in the tragedy of 9/11 just 5 days after it happened, I think that was in bad taste. It was rude and insensitive, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to hear that message on that day. However, the fact that America has facilitated the fomenting of hatred against us around the world is no less true. The criticism of Wright in that instance--for my part--is more of a time/place nature than a disagrement with the substance of what he said.

    Those two comments get the most attention, and those two comments I think are consistent with--and a reflection of--the message Dr. King carried concerning America's foreign policy. Remember, he did much more than attack segregation; he was virulently anti-war, which today would make him anti-American according to the GOP.

    All the other showboating and name-calling Wright engaged in aimed at Sen. Clinton was embarrassing and beneath a man of God. I think he did damage to his congregation as a whole--not just Obama--when he acted with such disrespect toward a woman who clearly has worked very hard to improve the lives of the least among us.

    That said, Wright does have a history as a well-respected and honored member of the clergy and the black community. When Bill Clinton invited America's spiritual leaders to the White House, Dr. Wright was there. So to pretend that he is some sort of fringe character completely out of step with mainstream values is simply dishonest.


    what is fun here is that wright (none / 0) (#74)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    regularly said Damn American. That meas there is a compilation of out there.

    Um... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:49:02 AM EST
    How sad that you insist on perpetuating hate,

    That is exactly what Wright has been doing.


    Giant difference between (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:04:08 AM EST
    reminding us all that America not greater than any other place and God Damn America.  One encourages us to be realistic and vigilant to stay factual and the other is simply hateful and condemning.  Most human beings struggle to remember that they are only as human as they consider the next guy to be, but when you teach your children to damn others you teach hate!

    This has been discussed (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:49:35 AM EST
    And while this line of discourse only props up the idea that Obama was merely making a politically required set of disavowals in his big speech, the comparison itself remains inexact.

    You see.  Yes.  MLK became more inclined to indict America later on in life, but I view his speeches later on in life within the context of other speeches he made about how hate is a problem that exists in the black community too.  That they have their role to play in all this.

    I'm going to give you some advice.  Go back to the DVDs.  Watch those speeches again.  And scour them for at least one instance where Rev. Wright says something like this:

    But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.

    If there is any instance of Rev. Wright making such a statement then I would start seeing the other things within that context.

    The advice is pretty simple and it could be a way for Obama and Rev. Wright to resurrect this issue and finally deflate it.

    Fight the awful soundbytes of Rev. Wright blaming America with a soundbyte of Rev. Wright telling his congregation that blaming America can be it's own fixation, a trap for his congregation.


    unless Dr. King (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    humped a podium while talking about a past-President, you're desperately reaching for straws here.

    I do admire you're ability to offer the King/Wright comparison with a straight face, though.


    For you to respond to Dr. King's words (none / 0) (#104)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    by going immediately to pulpit-humping simply shows that you are incapable of impugning the essence of my statement.

    Your tactic is intellectually dishonest and logically unsound.


    you appear to work (none / 0) (#120)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:07:09 PM EST
    on assumptions and, in doing so, show your own intellectual dishonesty and immaturity.

    But then we already knew that, so it's a moot point.


    Your debate skills are clearly mute. (none / 0) (#131)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:13:47 PM EST
    your post reflects (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:34:48 AM EST
    Obama's PR team attempt to make Wright "acceptable" - another Dr. King.
    That's why the Obama camp is pushing a Wright blitz.

    Dr. King spoke to and inspired a nation.
    Rev. Wright humped a pulpit while damning America and demonizing the Clintons.
    Wright is no Dr. King!


    I did not call Wright a Dr. King. (none / 0) (#35)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:37:53 AM EST
    I pointed out that Rev. Wright expressed a sentiment very similar to one put forth by Dr. King.

    When Dr. King hears God saying to America, "You are too arrogant," that is a damning comment. God has judged the USA, in King's estimation.

    The point is not to make Wright a Dr. King. It is to  point out that Wright is not a hatemonger. He follows in a long tradition of black preaching that America is a fallen nation badly in need of God's grace.


    I missed the part (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    where Dr King humped a church podium as he railed against Jackie Kennedy.

    But, anyway, you should be very careful with your associations.  You could just as easily compare what Wright said to things that Musolini or Hirohito said.  All made speeches about how America's chickens would come home to roost.  See how that works?


    "chickens coming home to roost." (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:49:11 AM EST
    is an expression of glee.

    It's not a doleful expression. It also got Malcolm X kicked out of the NOI when he said it about Kennedy being assassinated.

    So it's also a phrase that I find troubling in a wider historical context. Wright expressed the same glee about 9/11 as Malcolm X expressed about Kennedy being assassinated.

    Elijah Mohammad thought it went beyond the pale enought to excommunicate Mr X.


    That is (none / 0) (#109)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:13:19 PM EST
    what Wright doesn't get.

    His remarks about 9/11 were simply unacceptable.  The fact that Obama cites this man as his mentor?

    That brings into question his real devotion to America.

    Hence, the questions that ABC dared to raise.


    It is the left that argues that America's (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    arrogance and indifference to the rest of the world that led to the rise of terrorist extremism and hate toward our nation.

    It is a "liberal" position that America does in fact share some blame for the current state of international affairs, including our low standing in the Middle East.

    Chickens and roosting may be harsh, and saying so 5 days after 9/11 was certainly rude, but the underlying truth is there.

    Now go on your little GOP rant about how I hate America.


    all right (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:51:18 AM EST
    now explain the support of Farrakhan, Natalie Holloway deserving to be raped and killed, Italians "looking down their garlic noses" before killing Jesus, humping the podium over Clinton, saying that homosexuals need to be "hoped" for, saying Hillary has never suffered in her life, and the rest of it.

    My original post said absolutely nothing about (none / 0) (#106)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    any of those things. I simply pointed out that wrongful nature of attacking the GDA comment.

    To pretend that I defended every Wright statement by defending one is intellectually dishonest.

    I say bash Wright all you want. As for Farrakahn, Gov. Rendell had lots and lots of nice things to say about him. I didn't hear one Clinton supporter suggest he be removed from the campaign for his support. That is hypocrisy.

    That Wright is arrogant and has embarrassed himself and his church in the pulpit is not what I dispute. I do think, however, that it is a matter for the church and not one that should involve a national microscope. Obama went their for 20 years; Bill Clinton invited him to the White House for a prayer breakfast. Clearly, he hasn't always been a scurge. He made a fool of himself over Hillary, but I doubt Obama's been going to church at home much since last February at least, and who knows before that.


    it's an expression of glee (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:57:04 AM EST
    most famously used to describe the assassination of Jack Kennedy.

    The world is always going to be fouled up. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    That's the nature of reality.

    Generally American liberals blame the residue of the French and British Empires for flair ups in the third world though.

    Sometimes the US is held responsible for Latin America.

    liberal postions?   you misunderstand what liberals have done--especially Kennedy and LBJ. They saw America as a beacon.


    You're talking about 2 people who were (none / 0) (#107)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    on the national stage 10 years before I was born and when Obama was just a boy. Maybe you have missed the current state of affairs.

    Michael Moore is a liberal. George Clooney is a liberal. Sean Penn is a liberal. Cindy Sheehan is a liberal.

    They are all people who at least partially blame American policy for the current fouled up nature of the world.


    but the point of Obama's team (none / 0) (#52)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    orchestrating the Wright blitz is to make him acceptable - a kind man merely doing the "work of the Lord."
    Although Obama's "race speech" included hate speech about Hillary - media pundits placed it in the category of Lincoln's speeches - with implication Obama would be the next face on Mt. Rushmore.

    The corporate owned media shapes public opinion toward corporate interests and Obama's their New American Idol.
    Obama is hoping Obamedia will continue promoting him by making Wright acceptable.


    halstoon, you know I won't agree with you here (none / 0) (#121)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:07:48 PM EST
    You're taking Rev. Wright's sound byte presenting it as the same as the text from Dr. King. These are prepared remarks and each man meant what he said. This is not hairsplitting---the remarks from each were intentional.

    It appears your position is that while the words are the different, the meaning is the same. I disagree.

    And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You are too arrogant. If you don't change your ways I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God."

    Dr. King warns us: god may punish our nation because of our arrogance. Please note the language he uses: "It seems" Dr. King can hear god saying these things; "god has a way of standing before nations," not god is standing before our nation to judge and condemn us.

    It is a warning. And angry (and I think justifed) warning. I'm an atheist, so I don't think the big spaghetti monster in the sky is going to rain toads on me if I don't behave. But I agree with Dr. King that we had better change our ways before our own arrogance, greed, and stupidity destroy us. But that's beside the point.

    Rev. Wright's "god d@mn America" reorders a common phrase, "god bless America,"  which can be construed as a prayer or wish. He changes the phrase into "god damn America," but I'm not sure if that's a wish or a prayer or a demand. Regardless, he did not say, "god may damn America if we don't shape up," which is what Dr. King was saying.

    There's nothing conditional from Rev. Wright---god should damn us for X, Y, and Z, end of story.

    My take, of course. And we can continue to agree to disagree.


    Time and the rise of China (none / 0) (#28)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:32:42 AM EST
    and India will break the back of American power.  But in the meantime America is the hegemonic global power.

    When Obama is President he'll start calling the US the "indespensible" nation, he'll ramp up military spending, he'll bomb a few places and police the world just like Bush.  He'll also pay attention to central asia as his theatre of war because Zbig is him FP guru.


    Because the the third world is slipping into chaos and Obama won't have a choice.  Food riots are just the start of it.


    No way to change Wright's rants (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:59:21 AM EST
    When he says out of context and people used it, in what context is humping the podium ok, or saying G--d America?  Or that the US started AIDS.  I heard someone yesterday say that 10% of AAs believe the AIDS myth, that is even  a radical fringe in the AA community.  

    That's the problem right there. (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:16:31 AM EST
    I can understand taking things out of context and not getting the full picture. But his sound bites are simply his sermons and the idea that he was humping the pulpit while denigrating Hillary to the cheers of the crowd made me physically ill. There is no way to explain that away. NONE.  

    Bingo!!!! (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:23:35 AM EST
    Everyone carrying on about context isn't providing a different interpretation.

    Because, in or out of context, there is no other interpretation that exists other than the interpretation that has now saturated the main stream media.

    So.  Yeah, if you're gonna tell me I've mis-interpretted then give me the interpretation I've missed.


    You have to remember (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:31:35 AM EST
    that things like the Tuskegee Experiment, while unimaginable to us now, are real.

    The black generation that is now in its 70s and 80s know all too well the evil America is capable of. Their children and grandchildren are influenced by those memories. It was not so long ago that America was truly an ugly place for nearly all blacks.

    Forty years is not near long enough to erase the residue, much less heal the wounds.

    The AIDS myth is fringe, but the idea that America has not fully embraced it black populations is not. And theologically, pointing out that God does not endorse America's behavior is not--or should not be--very controversial. We are a fallen people, and that includes our nation.

    But for Grace, He would damn us all.


    Again, you keep (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35:20 AM EST
    putting it out there that Wright is simply calling America out on all its ills. That is NOT what he is doing. He is hate-mongering. Dr King would have never ever said anything of the sort. He spoke out against ills in America and against racism in this country. Did he ever call Mamie Eisenhower what he's called Hillary? Did Dr King ever say Godda** America? Did he ever hump the pulpit while deriding a former DEMOCRATIC President and a sitting US Senator?  NO.  

    Do not try and equate right with men and women who have fought for the rights of blacks in this country. You do yourself, your candidate, and the black community a disservice by trying to go down this road.  You are being utterly foolish.


    You are beginning to sound like the (1.00 / 2) (#42)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:40:47 AM EST
    hatemonger and the foolish one.

    You can do your Wright is bad dance all you want. In the end, the examples I point out are why the "controversy" has failed to hurt Obama. People understand the message. Only those out for political gain--like you--try to make it hate.


    Oh please. (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:45:10 AM EST
    First off, I'm not White, so you know not what you are even speaking TO.  Second of all, you are being foolish in attempting to equate Wright with some kind of hero for the African American cause.  The examples you point out show that Dr King believed this country had problems. That it needed to heal and address lots of evil and lots of hate toward the black community.   It's no hate dance that I'm doing about Wright. Wright himself did all the dancing.  Good luck trying to pass him off as the next coming of Dr. King.  Again I say: FOR SHAME.

    First, I never said you were any color. (none / 0) (#110)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:14:05 PM EST
    But thanks for asserting that your blackness trumps my own or anybody else's who does't agree with you.

    Second, I never held Wright up as a King. I noted that King said similar things in terms of damning America. That was the only thing I defended about Wright. You and others decided to make it about other issues. That's because you cannot dispute my point: that Dr. King damned this country.


    Obama is more like Wright than King (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:01:03 AM EST
    Dr. King implored AAs (and whites) to refrain from violence and retaliation - and instead focus on voting rights.

    Obama and Wright specifically incite HATE - violence and retaliation - toward the Clintons and America!

    There are some major whacked out Obama supporters I wouldn't trust meeting - even in public.


    You are right (none / 0) (#108)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:11:03 PM EST
    We did hear the message, and it is a very ugly one.

    You write: (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    but the idea that America has not fully embraced it black populations is not.

    America hasn't fully embraced any minority, including those who were here first.

    I'll say it again.  Inflammatory, hateful rhetoric like that is not going do anything to make things better or change the minds of those who constitute your concept of America.

    And when I remember MLK, I don't remember him spewing that kind of vile rhetoric.  What does he want?  Revenge?  What possible good is he trying to do?


    10% isn't a fringe. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:39:49 AM EST
    Blacks in the US constitute approx 12% of the general population and 20-25% of the Democratic voting base. That means you have about 2.5% of the Democratic base entertaining the idea that they are the target of an extermination plot.  And many more tolerating the idea privately among their number.

    Also the AIDS conspiracy is about the ravages of AIDS in Subsaharan Africa itself.  You might as well say Malaria was designed in a lab---it kills and depopulates Africa in much laregr numbers than AIDS.


    10% is not 50% (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:47:43 AM EST
    If Wright was mainstream black preacher like Obama proclaimed should not that percentage have been higher of those who believe.  

    Some historical context.  Those same preachers when AIDS first came on and hit the gay community were saying hateful things about gays and AIDS.  Where was their support for gays when they got AIDS?  


    That's 10% who openly ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:09:24 AM EST
    admit to the suspicion.

    I reckon it's a low ball figure. If I heard a preist say something that stupid I'd publically confront hism for spouting absurdities.  That he has avoided such a confrontation suggests a far wider acceptance and toleration of the AIDS/lab theory than the 10% figure records.

    It's bad enough that so many people in the Dem party think 9/11 was an inside job while also illogically maintaining tha 9/11 was also chickens re-roosting.


    Great point on 9/11 (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:11:52 AM EST
    My favorite twisted 9/11 story, was at the time it happened I was reading that many in Egypt thought it was a lie, cause Egyptians could not pull something off so flawlessly.  

    Yet it was Obama who stood in the pulpit (none / 0) (#113)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:22:20 PM EST
    at Ebenezer Baptist and chastised the black community for turning it's back on "our gay brothers and sisters."

    It is Obama who regularly discusses gay issues on the stump, and Hillary who only mentions it to gay audiences.

    People like to try and tie Obama to Rev. Wright as though they share a brain, yet Hillary can pretend she had no idea Bill pardoned Weather Underground members and people expect us to believe it.


    I'm glad (none / 0) (#128)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:23:44 PM EST
    someone spoke up.  I about choked on that last post, but I figured it was my job to say anything.

    Good golly, the man didn't carry No. Cal, even!  LOL*


    These gays disagree with you. (none / 0) (#130)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:12:11 PM EST

    Not to mention that you ignored the link I posted orginally.

    As a straight supporter of gay rights, I'll stick with Obama.


    I don't think anyone would deny (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:45:15 AM EST
    that African-Americans have a great deal to be angry about in this country.

    But that's not what people care about. What they care about is "God D*n America." That's why the media focuses on it so much.

    Wright didn't say "God D*n George Bush." I would have applauded him if he did, frankly.

    But when you are the candidate for the Presidency of the United States, you do not pick the Reverend Wright as your pastor, mentor and friend of 20 years. You get up and you leave, and you don't come back.

    It's just common sense and "judgment."


    But when President Clinton invited Rev. Wright (none / 0) (#114)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:25:02 PM EST
    to the White House in 1998 as part of prayer breakfast during Monica, he was a man of deep faith who had value to the Clintons.

    And, if He were not a gracious God, He would most certainly damn America. We are a fallen nation, reliant upon Grace for our prosperity.


    halstoon, one is true and one is crap (none / 0) (#122)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:17:45 PM EST
    The Tuskegee Crime was a crime. It was racist and classist---people who should have known better didn't give a rat's @ss about the plight of African-American men who were poor. It is unforgiveable and should never be forgotten.

    The AIDS conspiracy crap is crap.

    Irrationality does not prevent the spread of AIDS or help those who are HIV+ or living with AIDS. Continuing to spout this garbage takes much needed attention from real, ongoing harm done to people on the basis of race and class. Like this:

    Scientists using federal grants spread fertilizer made from human and industrial wastes on yards in poor, black neighborhoods to test whether it might protect children from lead poisoning in the soil. Families were assured the sludge was safe and were never told about any harmful ingredients.

    This is (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:04:20 AM EST
    nothing short of a disaster for the Obama campaign. Did they put him up to it? I don't know but if they did it is a huge mistake. Wright is a serious problem for them.

    Maybe...if they cut back and forth... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Shainzona on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    to what he said in the videos.  If they leave him alone and let him "preach" his new spiel to the audience in his 3-piece suit and calm demeanor Tweety will be saying on Monday that this kind, gentle, loving "uncle" is, indeed, someone who BO should not cut his ties to.

    I thought Wright was going to eat the podium (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:42:50 AM EST
    at certain moments.  Or have a seizure.

    Everyone explains Wright away as... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Shainzona on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:07:06 AM EST
    "sound bites" because that's a media term.  But I can't help but think that Wright's sermons were/are really more common than they are being portrayed.  Do people really think the snippets just popped up out of this guy's mouth suddenly and without being attached to an entire philisophy?

    Also, we are being told to concentrate on "God D*** America" - but when this first came out there were several additional "sound bites" that were also nasty, hateful and angry.  The things he said about Hillary were the ones that made me sit and take notice and, in true media manipulation, those have fallen by the wayside.

    Communications is more than words.  It is the sum total of a person's statement - tone, words, inflection, delivery, place, audience.  The whole enchilada.  And Wright is a very very nasty fellow...IMHO.

    Wright says, at least once...maybe twice, (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by g8grl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:11:03 AM EST
    that Barack "says what he has to say".  Basically implying that Obama doesn't mean it when he denounces the Rev. but says it to get the votes he needs.  Wright isn't offended by it because Obama didn't really mean the anti-rant words he says.  

    I'll say it again.  Obama sat in that church for 20 years.  Regardless of whether he heard those exact words, he had to have known some of the anti-white anger and divisiveness.  He should have at LEAST talked to Wright to try and heal the anger/pain.  Fine, if Obama didn't want to walk away from his church and community.  He should have at least tried to change it from within.

    Similar (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:18:08 AM EST
    to what a lot of Obama'a other advisors have said, no?  Goolsby on NAFTA, Powers on the Iraq strategy?

    Very telling that Wright is the third person close to Obama who has said he's just saying things to get elected.

    Or, as Axelrod would frame it, "He'll say anything to win."


    David Gergen (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by standingup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    on Larry King last night was not happy with Wright doing this interview or going before the National Press Club today. Gergen thinks that Wright is acting selfishly, should have stayed in the background because the last thing Obama needs is for anything about Wright to be in the news cycle again. I think at one point Gergen even said that Wright was the one throwing Obama under the bus.

    No kidding (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:17:34 AM EST
    But it's clear from watching that Wright has a huge ego problem.  That was Obama's mentor?  scratching my head  I'm still trying to figure out what the attraction to him was ever about.

    I believe Wright is very hurt.  Obama has no power to stop him.  Clinton couldn't stop Ferarro, either.  This is a free country.  LOL*

    But it's too bad that Wright believes he can convince people that he's a nice guy.

    He just doesn't realize how shocking he really is to most people.


    Ann, you hit the nail on the head (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:21:55 AM EST
    I think that there is a certain sect out there who just does not see how inflammatory Wright's remarks are.  It's totally out of touch with the everyday American--and fails to see that Wright offered plenty of things to disgust just about every sector of the electorate.  Are you a patriot?  "GD America."  Are you a feminist?  "Natalie Holloway deserved what she got."  Are you a Clinton supporter?  "Bill rode us hard and dirty" (hump-hump, to illustrate).  How about a doctor or scientist?  "The government created AIDS to kill the black man."  How about a LGBT?  "Have the audacity to hope for the homosexual!"

    The well of outrage is bottomless.  Talk about microtargeting the electorate.


    What about, (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:27:43 AM EST
    "Hillary ain't never been called no n***er! She ain't had to be twice as good as a white man to get where she needs to go!"

    Sorry, feminists. You've ALWAYS had the right to vote, the right to get equal pay for equal work, the right to control your own bodies. You've never had any problems due to institutionalized sexism in America.

    You're just too stupid to realize it.


    Which leaves out (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:32:13 AM EST
    What he wrote about Italians.

    Could be (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    nothing more than setting up the race card here.  Clyburn is dragging up old Bill stuff.  Wright is on the circuit.  Obama is acting like he's not involved.


    This is starting to look like a big ole strategy move.



    Twisted (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:00:47 AM EST
    Again what they have done to the "highly educated Obama supporter" is that they have convinced him that to criticize Wright you are being racist.  So, pay no attention to what you think you heard Wright say, just worry about not being racist.  To me that is the ultimate racism.  Not attributing equal negatives to all races and just always convincing yourself that the others are motivated by only good.  How patronizing.  

    Wright makes money in his church.  He has an audience.  He passes the plate.  He gets a house worth millions in a gated community and goes to the White House and now gets to go on Bill Moyers.  


    My answer to that (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    is that the quality of the discussion is about as good as the ability of the journalists and politicians to put things into context in a way that makes sense to both regular people as well as to the "thinkers."

    Wright, Ayers, all of this to me....including the lapel pin......is really a discussion about Obama's true political roots.

    Now, the question is.  Does it bother us that his roots are more traditional in the AA sense?  Want to gain a backing, join a big AA church with connections.  Come up through the left-wing who champions minority candidates.  Most don't end up being under the national microscope.

    Remember the woman who got caught hiring an illegal maid and was bashed non-stop?  I can't think of the name this minute.  

    These are old "suitcases" of how Obama rose in politics.

    Do I care?  To be honest, no.

    Other than it hurts his electability.  

    What I care about is how he's bashing healthcare as a way to scare people.  We need that dang healthcare plan, even if it's not Hillary who leads the charge.  He's infuriated me with his tactic there.

    What I DO care about, character-wise, is that I think it's publicly irresponsible to play the race card to win races....with a BIT of leeway on that.

    Totally fair to nail Bill on the Jesse comment.  Totally NOT fair to suggest every race lost is due to racism.

    That kind of talk really divides the races more, and we don't need it.  We're doing pretty good in this country on race, in my opinion.  It's taken generations.  We now have real racism located in the fringes, where it should be.

    Let's not be stupid as a nation and let this turn into an issue.  

    I'm certain that the Hillary supporters here agree that he's entitled to 90% AA vote if he can get it.  We couldn't get that many women voters, but I sure would have taken it if we could!  That's fair.

    What's not fair is turning the race into a spectacle about race.


    what gets me (none / 0) (#95)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:33:27 AM EST
    is that he's now got a following who have a the ugly side of left wing conspiracy theory and none of the more noble and attractive left wing goals like universal goals like UHC.

    I don't want to get bogged down in patriot games and Obama bogs us down in patriot games.  The Obama supporter here today proves this point by her/his very words.


    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:40:31 AM EST
    Wright is nothing more than Obama's sniper fire.  I'm convinced he over-wrote the influence to make his story sound better.

    That's it.

    He ducked sniper fire.  :)

    This COULD go away for him with some real discussion about the pathway of all AA politicians.

    Now, he can't do it.  He's got to go sideways on this.

    But he's a nasty character in my perspective, because he's turning this into a race war instead.

    That is just not leadership I want to see, frankly.

    I like my politicians to help us bridge the gap......not widen it.

    And he's not done a dang thing to campaign on policy since Texas.  It's been non-stop character attacks.

    This latest?

    This will truly drive me out.  

    I will wait and see if I'm right about this, but I smell a gigantic race card being played.


    You bet, spinnig n not dicussing why Hillary wins (none / 0) (#101)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    and why Obama can't, is just what they want.

    Retread Obama good Clinton evil...boring.

    Now this stuff though, IS hurting the party not just Hillary that's what Axelrod statement about Dem don't depend on working class was really about whites not welcome were wallowing, its just like Kerry stuck in the trauma of 60's this one Social Justice, MLK, Racist, Victim hood, Radicals, Civil protest, fear...a reminder to whites, working  class, Jewish Dems, seniors in the tow upcoming States why they dont like the Dem Party while still inflaming turn out in the black community.


    You got it (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:31:22 PM EST

    He may win the PR war, but he'll lose the election.

    Now, if we want to see this change, we need to make sure Hillary has the money.

    It really has come down to the people.

    Which, honestly......that's pretty cool.


    Boring (none / 0) (#111)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:15:01 PM EST
    is OK.  That never damages anyone.  Beat that horse to death.  :)

    Truly, human nature is such that we just get bored with the discussion and move forward.

    Nothing wrong with that.


    Inlammatory (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:37:51 AM EST
    especially when they're played, out of context, over and over and over again.

    You must, on some level, have a nagging sense of how full of it you are.


    Oh.... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    There was absolutely no doubt.  Wright communicated effectively.

    We ALL got it.


    This is why Public speakers (none / 0) (#94)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    need to choose their words.

    Also I'm seeing the idea defended that the people in the office blocks were culpable for the activities of the CIA and whatnot.

    This is an argument that we expunged in 2004.

    It sheer lunacy to go into an election with these arguments.


    Kathy, I don't think Rev. Wright (none / 0) (#123)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:26:02 PM EST
    was being homophobic when he said the thing about hoping for the homos.

    He did fight on behalf of us queers by demanding that the straight African-American community accept us as god's children. My understanding is that he did it from the pulpit and in meetings of church leaders.

    I think he was saying to have hope that us queers will finally be accepted by ourselves and by the breeders. That was the hope.

    My take, of course.


    You need to get out more (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:33:07 AM EST
    If you think Wright is shocking, you should try reading Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal and Naomi Klein for starters -- you'd probobly react by organizing a band of likeminded cohorts and going to the authors houses with torches.

    Shocking I tell you, shocking! Unless you've ever read any of the speeches of Eugene Debs or MLK right before he was killed by another one of the "shocked".


    Oh, grow up (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:40:12 AM EST
    you defeat your own argument by trying to bring these authors into the mix.  We are all painfully well-educated here (it's part of our "low information" strategy).  Try spinning that crap at Kos where folks don't know any better.

    No doubt it's painful (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:42:58 AM EST
    for you.

    The equally shocked Carrie Nation sounds more like your speed.


    "I know you are, but what am I?" (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:44:54 AM EST

    If it makes you (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:54:11 AM EST
    feel any better, I plan on voting for Hillary if she's the candidate. But that dosnt mean Im going to turn myself into an obedient zombie who suspends his critical intelligence every time she makes another oracular utterence.

    On Zombies (none / 0) (#65)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:57:01 AM EST
    Look, we are no Zombies, we just like Jamborees.  I loved that song.  

    I wasn't aware (none / 0) (#77)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:04:54 AM EST
    that Gore Vidal was the pastor, mentor and 20-year-friend of any presidential candidate this election cycle.

    I must really be a low-information voter!


    sadly - owners of pro-Obama blogs (none / 0) (#78)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    haven't educated Obama's supporters on facts about Hillary's brilliant "umbrella of deterrence."
    Therefore Obama supporters are running around posting nonsense - "Hillary will nuke the world!"

    But they don't seem to wonder why Obama hasn't denounced Hillary's proposal.


    Gore Vidal (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:44:27 AM EST
    isn't a religious mentor.  He's an atheith or agnostic writer.

    Caligula was a fairly good screen play and Justinian was an awesome book.


    Julian (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:47:49 AM EST
    but what the hey, it aint the facts that are important, it's doing ones best to imitate an embedded talk radio host -- in this election season.

    I was thinging of belisarius by Robert Graves (none / 0) (#81)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:11:38 AM EST
    my wires crossed.  Vidal was ripping Graves off of course.

    thx for the correction though.


    I ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:25:27 AM EST
    ...do have to wonder about your roosting comments.

    Do you know that they were most famously uttered by Malcolm X after Kennedy was assassinated and that they were repeated by Wright to describe the biggest mass murder in US history? Callously and vindictively in the wake of a 3,000 strong deliberate mass murder  of office workers and firemen--he said it in cold blood. Do you not undersatnd that? I do have to wonder who's spouting the rightwing insanity.

    facts be damned in your case.


    LOL (none / 0) (#67)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    In the (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    end him doing these interviews isn't going to keep him in the news anymore than the GOP would keep him in the news. The Wright 527 ads were already being talked about.

    Obama failed to realize what we say down here in the south: "when you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas".

    There's something everyone, especially Obama supporters should face: If Obama is the nominee, Wright will be his running mate along with Ayers Rezko etal.


    Yes, the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by standingup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:38:43 AM EST
    will keep the Wright issue alive as much as possible.  But that is different from a wounded, hurt Wright out there defending himself in a manner that works against the way Obama tried to defuse the situation.  Gergen's point seemed to be that Wright was acting solely in his own interests with little regard for how it impact Obama's campaign.  

    In essence, Wright is providing more material for the GOP to use against Obama.


    Here is how they will do it. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST
    "The chickens coming home to roost."

    cut away to kennedy being assassinated and Malcolm X saying it, cut away to 9/11 and Wright saying it.

    Why this tactic wasn't used on Robertson and Falwell I dunno.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:50:35 PM EST
    so much for clarifying. I now see your point. And I do agree that it's even worse if he's damaging Obama even more.

    I don't necessarily disagree (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:24:23 AM EST
    with some of the things I've heard Wright say.  And he isn't a politician, so he can say them.  (I just don't know what rhetoric like that does to improve the situation.)  But even though it might be a good idea to attempt to paint Wright in a more positive light, you can bet that the republicans will not be so inclined and will stir this up all over again and make it sound even worse.  It will depend on how solid Obama's support is.  Obviously, people are already questioning his staying power and the exuberance for some has dimmed a bit.

    Twenty years of church attendance is a loooooong time, Obama.


    Hamas (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    How will Obama put Hamas in context or rationalize, especially when he's already going to be painted as a terrorist sympathizer for befriending an unapologetic Ayers?

    Even if Obama runs with the "Hey, I'm just a politician" angle people will ask, "What else would he do to get elected?"

    To add (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    Hamas has been mentioned in their church newsletter.  Hence, my use of Hamas to tie in to Wright.

    Obama got caught (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    Obama tried to spin how he was not a Moslem by telling us about his Christian credentials.  He got his Christian credentials by picking a politically connected church in Chicago.  Now, that works well in Chicago, but they guy had no idea that the stuff would get out and people would just see it is harmless Church.

    Memo to Axelrod:  
    Lesson # 1 to politicians who are creating religious narrative, choose something with no political ferment, something non confrontational, like Episcopelians or Pressbyterians.  Stick to the mainstream.  

    Even Bush with his evangelical base never was affiliated with a fringe church.  

    You don't name your book after his sermons, you don't call him your mentor, then he gets caught and you run away.  It does not work and you can spin all you want.  

    This is the Bubble Problem.. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by kc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:01:29 AM EST
    When you just associate with a limited group of people, your world absorbs that tint only.

    Wright aside, does anyone else think there is something suspect about Clyburn's comments and Doug Wilders yesterday?  Coincidence  or  an organized attempt to start something or blunt GOP ads before NC?

    I just got it (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:04:32 AM EST
    myself.  Obama is playing the race card again.  Wright is the warm-up act.  :)

    Let's talk about Bill Clinton for a change instead of electability!  :)


    The sad fact is (none / 0) (#115)
    by janarchy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:31:03 PM EST
    that the problem is that the Creative Class sucks this up like babies at the teat. There are internet discussion groups (such as Debunking White on Live Journal) which solely consist of 'progressive' young white people flaggelating themselves about the ills of the AA community and how they apparently personally caused them. It's all about collective guilt and pandering to anyone of colour, regardless of what they say or how they behave because they have been victims of society and we all owe them all the time. If anyone questions it, ignores it or doesn't buy into the narrative, they're racists, stupid and apparently throwing Klan meetings in their basement. These are the people the Obama campaign has tapped into.

    I have to admit that I'm tired of (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    hearing about Wright. The whole thing has become a bit tawdry for me.
    Ayers? That's a different story.
    The larger issue is that Obama has a tough time putting bad news behind him, IMO.

    I hate to use this comparison. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:12:46 AM EST
    But GWB's trick for deflecting attention from Bad News was to talk about Good News.  It gave us an entire collection of quotes about "dead enders" and "turning the corner" and the famous "Friedman unit" (as in: the next six months will be critical....).  The troop draw down in time for the 2006 elections followed by The Surge.

    Seize Control Of The News Cycle.
    Either have some Good News about yourself or be ready to Blame The Opposition for thwarting your w-, er, the will of the people.

    Obama was doing pretty well there.  But now he's running into a series of negative news cycles (PA, Wright, IN(?) ) and he needs a big boost of Good News to help him.

    He needs his bestest buds in the Media to bail him out.  They've always done it before.....


    That's right Obama (none / 0) (#85)
    by Andy08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:13:11 AM EST
    has been unable to do so. The (DNC & Axelrod's) idea then is to help him out by trying to rehabilite Wright before the GE.
    We'll see if he plays ball.

    Remember when "Tuzlagate" (none / 0) (#88)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:22:26 AM EST
    was the biggest story ever---sure to take Hillary down?
    I don't.

    Wright knows Obama well (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Andy08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:09:50 AM EST
    "And so he had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician.

    It's the "fierce urgency of politics as usual". Sounds like a fraud to me.

    All this will do (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:22:20 AM EST
    is keep Wright in the news for another cycle.  Not that there was any danger of the story being dropped - I clicked on Fox for about 3 seconds this morning and what did I see?  Sure enough, a Wright video!  

    Morning Joe played some excerpts from the interview this morning and while I'm sure Moyers will be fair to Wright, there are bound to be plenty of quotes from the interview which will provide tasty sound bites - like when Rev. Wright says America has blood on its hands.  Even if it's true, that is not what middle America wants to hear from the spiritual adviser of a candidate for President.

    The Firemen had blood on their hands. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:27:42 AM EST
    That's Wright.

    See how easy it's gonna be?

    Al they need are a few of th elads fromthose ladder companies to organize and rub the wright quotes in Obama's face.


    I was one of those civil rights activists (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    way back in the day with King and his message...He would be totally appalled by Wright...It seems to me that Racism no matter on which side is still wrong...I see nothing worse than racism and right now I think it is blacks racism against whites...Just as evil IMO...two wrongs don't make a right....You have to ask yourself why? is this fool drumming up hated etc. now? What good does it do him or anyone else...It totally plays into that "black liberation theory" which is so fringe it scares me...What good is he doing the black community as a whole....he is stirring hatred for no good reason other than trying to get the black community to vote for Obama as a block without question...He is doing a grave injustice to the black community as a whole..To paint Clintons as racist is truly stupid and entirely false.....He rails against rich white people while accepting a ten million dollar home in a gaited community...what a hypocrite...

    Detroit T.V. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    Local T.V. is running the Wright clips of GD America and others in the run-up to Wright's speech to the NAACP this weekend.  It's news here regardless of the campaign spin.

    I'm waiting to see if anything comes from Mayor Kilpatrick and Rev. Wright being in the same city.  That seems like potential trouble to me.

    Baiting... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:53:18 AM EST
    Someone needs to tell BC not to take the bait.

    If all of this is left uncommented on out there, If will begin to look bad. I just keep thinking that bait is being dangled in front of Bill and hoping that he ignores it.


    I gotta say.. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by JustJennifer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:59:35 AM EST
    the timing of the Wright interview seems to be fairly unfortunate.  I cannot imagine a scenerio where Obama would want this making it's way through the news cycle again.  Now there is just one more Wright issue to discuss endlessly.  

    I saw snippets of the interview..and I did feel that Wright repeatedly saying "Obama is a politican and says what he has to say" (I am paraphrasing) is not the meme you would want floating around when you are campaigning on a new kind of politics.

    Reverand Wright (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:03:58 PM EST
    is a strange strange man, and it actually pains me to know that there are people out there who are trying to compare him to King.  I get where they're coming from, but King was progressive.  He had a forward thinking mind.  He didn't look back at all the bad stuff, shout about it, and scream amen.

    That being said, who hasn't thought "GD America" at some point in our lives?  Especially when it comes to our foreign policy.  We're all frustrated with the way some things are being run, right?  Being critical doesn't take away from your patriotism.  Even the way this election is being reported on, the unfair media bias, the sexism and racism rearing its ugly head, makes me think "GD America!".  I love it here, but honestly, America is not perfect.  For me, that sermon was the least offensive of all of them.  The stuff he said about Hillary, Natalee Holloway, WMDs, etc. were more offensive to me.

    Somebody explain this to me, because I can't help but agree with Rev. Wright here.

    Agree (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    This is only political hay, by Obama haters, or Clinton lovers. As far as comparing Rev Wright to Rev King, I do not see why it is such a big no no. King was unquestionably a greater man, but he is clearly a reference point that invites comparisons to Rev Wright et al.

    To go on a fainting couch because Rev Wright is mentioned in the same breath as Rev King is absurd, and sanctimonious, imo.

    Also, granted that I have not listened to any of Wright's speeches, and judging from the AIDs soundbite he has at least one controversial POV, most of what I have read about places him as more of a progressive than not.


    Rev Wright (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jthomas75 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:25:35 PM EST
    It's a shame that so many people dismiss him as a fanatic without really listening to his whole sermon. With so many blacks sharing the same views, you would think that people would stop and take a closer look at why blacks feel whites are out to get them. Just look at things like the The Plexus Agenda by Andre Lewis, Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Jim Crow laws, Jena Six, Katrina, and you will realize what Rev. Wright is saying is true.

    Create a divisive Racist story for Obama to waxon (none / 0) (#99)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:45:13 AM EST
    so Obama cand hold a press conference to show how lofty and above the fray of race he is and change the subject off of why he still can't win in Nov coverage.  The thing Axelrod doesn't get is the wolf whistle has run its course.  

    And he just held one.  Amazing as it was he has lost the accent again and was attempting to dicuss substative issues in his speech did do it very well and he could have said just like her instead of his painful reading ...

    But thats not what it was about it was staging for his lofty waxing of goodness that transcends race, lets see who bites and who calls him in this overused stunt.

    Wrights out there, Clyburn's out there, JJJR out there, Barziles out there, and Obama's holding press conference all of a sudden for one reason with one subject racial identity grievance politics editorial Obama good Clinton's racist to inflame the AA voters in IND and NC and suppress the White votes in these to States with racial tensions trying to inflame the dialogue.  Hopefully, Clinton sends her proud empowered AA elected official surrogates Nutter, Miller, Tubbs Jones for PA and Ohio to Ind..

    I'm so thrilled! (none / 0) (#117)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    I caught on before it was 5 days into the issue.  :)

    I must be learning here.  *haha


    "Obama is a politician" (none / 0) (#112)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:17:41 PM EST
    I am sure that statement is going to play well in Obama campaign headquarters. For the very junior Senator from Illinois must cringe as his meme of being a figure who transcends politics goes out the window. His Pastor of 20 years calls a "politician" and Obama is likely to go really negative directly instead of having surrogates do his dirty work for him. In my mind he went negative last year with the "Hillary can't win" argument. Funny he ain't saying that no more.

    Oh, the Reverend Wright has a busy weekend. Speeches in Dallas and Detroit and then on Monday an appearance at the National Press Club in DC. I think a) this keeps him in the newscycle through the middle of next week which can't be good and b) Obama is forced to be on defensive and ain't so good when he is off-messages. I feel like sending him some waffles. If this were some parts of Europe or Latin America, people would hurling waffles at him in derision.

    Wright may not be Obama's friend (none / 0) (#118)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:44:59 PM EST
    If Wright wanted to help Obama, he wouldn't be doing this. I'm starting to wonder if Wright is not stupid, and is just not feeling so great about being used and discarded by Obama. Just a wild theory.

    I think (none / 0) (#124)
    by nell on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:32:26 PM EST
    Axelrod connected Wright to a PR firm he used to work with that is known for rehabbing celebrity images after they have a PR nightmare. I am guessing that this interview is part of Wright's rehab tour. They know Wright will be used against Obama, no matter what, so they want to try and soften his image before November so people won't have such a strong reaction to it.

    OR, Wright has a huge ego and likes the spotlight.