home

Rev. Wright at the National Press Club

Rev. Wright today spoke at the National Press Club. He continued his attacks on the media and again asserted Barack Obama speaks with electability in mind. Jake Tapper at ABC News writes:

He clearly was not doing Obama any favors, not only by reappearing before a ravenous media thus distracting from Obama's attempt to relate better to white working class voters in Indiana and North Carolina, but by implying Obama's condemnation of some of his sermons was not sincere.

"Politicians say what they say and do what they do because of electability," Wright said, arguing that Obama had not seen the sermons played in the media that Obama has called "offensive." "He had to distance himself because he's a politician...Whether he gets elected or not, I'm still going to have to be answerable to God."

Wright also defended the comments in his past sermons that have placed him in the media spotlight.

But he didn't distance himself from any of the sentiments underlying the clips shown on television. Indeed, the former pastor embraced the most controversial items he has said.

On Louis Farakkhan [More...]

Wright was also asked about his relationship with Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakhan, whom Wright described as merely haven once said that Zionism -- not Judaism -- was a poisonous weed. (Farrakhan has far more than that one comment in his collection of anti-Semitic statements.

Farrakhan, Wright said, is "one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century," noting the Million Man March. "When Louis Farrakhan speaks, it's like when E.F. Hutton speaks...Black America listens."

...."Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy," Wright said, since Farrakhan had not enslaved Africans and brought them in chains to the U.S.

At this point, I'd say the question is not whether, but how much, Wright is hurting Obama's campaign.

< SCOTUS Upholds Indiana Voter ID Law | SUSA IN Poll: Clinton By 9 >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    the next question (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:26:56 AM EST
    is how much it will hurt in the general as opposed to the primary.
    its not going away.  thats for sure.

    Wright hurts the Party IMO more than Obama (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:51:18 AM EST
    himself, I cannot thank Gov. Strickland, Rep Tubbs Jones and State Senator Miller enough for providing the empowered leadership that will inoculate and hopefully prevent our State from slipping back into the hands of a republican party that has so hurt our State.

    [ Parent ]
    Wright hurts race relations (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    ...unless one considers feeding negative sterotypes and inciting fear and mistrust to be helpful things.

    [ Parent ]
    Blame the Victim?? (none / 0) (#131)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:33:46 PM EST
    So how do we as Black people get out from underneath the racism endemic in this country?  We can't be mad because then we are scarry, we can't speak the truth the power, because then we are devisive.  And we can't rely on Senator Clinton, because she will throw us under the buss to get elected.  Who should we turn to?

    I find it repulsive and depressing, that the progressive movement is not fighting back on this as a unified front.


    [ Parent ]

    throw you under the bus? excuse me? (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:11:16 PM EST
    You must be confusing Sen. Obama with Sen. Clinton, because Sen. Clinton is the one who went to the State of the Black Union in NOLA after the GA, SC & LA primaries were over and all those AA votes no longer "mattered." Sen. Clinton is the one who has fought for civil rights since her days in law school.  Sen. Clinton is the one who went to the MLK anniversary memorial.  Sen. Clinton has never thrown black people under the bus.

    [ Parent ]
    There you go again (none / 0) (#168)
    by madeinUSA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:51:48 PM EST
    Doing things when people are looking does not weigh as much as doing when noone is looking.

    [ Parent ]
    you are right (none / 0) (#199)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:32:25 PM EST
    Obama disses the AA community right to their face. And, um, I really don't think anyone was paying much attention to a law school student volunteering at civil rights trials -- but nice trying to diminish Hillary's 30 years hard work on civil rights. Why can't your guy ever stand on his own record?  

    [ Parent ]
    And what has Obama done (none / 0) (#200)
    by Just another person on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    when no one was looking?

    [ Parent ]
    What does this have to do ... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    ...with the Democrats winning the Presidency?

    The Mormons have the same problem within the GOP--Witness the silly abuses heaped on Romney.   In the UK in 1992 Neil Kinnock lost to John Major--mostly because he had a Welsh accent and English voters detested the sound.

    Gordon Brown is currently experiencing the fact that he's a Scot leading the English and dependent on winning constituencies in Middle England.

    [ Parent ]

    by unified front... (none / 0) (#147)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    you must mean the same unified front that Obama's campaign defending the Clinton's against the charges of racism?

    [ Parent ]
    I know many Obama supporters think (none / 0) (#153)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    that Hillary should defend Rev Wright, but did you listen to the stuff he said about her and her family? And the way that he said it, how can she defend that? She tried to stay out of it until the Obama campaign dragged her in by sending that photo to the NYT and smearing her bible study group. Now she really can't defend him, or she'll be smeared with supporting a minister that isn't even hers and apparently hates her.

    I disagree that she threw AAs under the bus. She's always been a fighter for civil rights, even going back to her college days, and Bill took a lot of hits in the 90s for speaking out in support of the Million Man March and standing up for policies that would help AAs. They both have their blind spots due to white privilege, as Senator Obama has his due to male privilege, and they've rightly taken some hits with AAs because of that. I agree that they should be called out when they fail, but I think Hillary wants nothing more than to get it right and reach out to AAs. She and Bill both seem pretty hurt by suddenly getting called racists, when their whole lives say differently.

    But she's not willing to just give up her run for the Presidency to get out of the way for Senator Obama-- he's going to have to beat her to win. That's not the same as throwing AAs under a bus, IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree about Sen. Clinton. (none / 0) (#156)
    by moll on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    So how do we as Black people get out from underneath the racism endemic in this country?

    I really believe that Rev. Wright and his kind NOT anyone's friend.

    When you protest something, you have to have a goal. For instance, Jena 6 - the goal is that justice is done. You can define justice however you like, but clearly there is a case there, and it can be resolved. You can define what resolved might look like - that is, if you want the protest to end, simply release the good guys, jail the bad guys, and/or pass a new law forbidding certain types of hate crimes.

    But what Rev. Wright & those kind do, they whip up the anger, they channel it into protests - but the protests are designed to go nowhere. There's nothing anyone can do. There's no possible outcome except failure.

    A white guy watching as Rev. Sharpton threatens to "shut down NY" over Bell might genuinely want to take some action in support of the incident - but how do you make things better? Overthrow the rule of law so that legally acquitted police officers can be tried twice for the same crime?

    You can't protest to demand that slavery be undone. It can't be undone. But that is what the Rev.s Wright does. The way he talks, it is clear that nothing less than undoing the past could ever make it possible for black people and white people to live together.

    That, by the way, is what makes black people scary to white people. If there's no way to ever make things right except to undo the past, then that means sooner or later it's going to be war, right? And since the whites don't particularly want to start it, they assume the war will be started by blacks.

    And your leaders are doing their best to fuel that impression.

    These black leaders are getting rich by leading a bunch of people into protests that never solve anything, not because white people don't care (a great many white people do care), but because the protests are dead end. And meanwhile the anger and the frustration just keeps getting worse.

    Become a real leader yourself. Figure out what would actually make life better for black people, and then figure out how to make it happen. You will be astonished at how willing white people are to work with someone who has a plan for actually fixing things.
     

    [ Parent ]

    clarification (none / 0) (#163)
    by moll on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:22:38 PM EST
    I really believe that Rev. Wright and his kind NOT anyone's friend.

    btw by this - by "his kind" - I mean relentlessly negative, nothing but blaming and attacking, never offering any solutions, just tearing down the efforts of those who try to fix things but don't do it fast enough or good enough.

    This incidentally also seems to be to be pretty much synonymous with the "anti-America" or "blame America first" crowd. They don't make America better, they just point out that we should all be ashamed of ourselves for things beyond our control.

    [ Parent ]

    It can't be done by embracing the (none / 0) (#165)
    by tree on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:31:00 PM EST
    same kind of bigotry that causes the problem, and that is what Wright has done with his jabs at whites  and others. When Wright says that Farrakhan is not his enemy "since Farrakhan had not enslaved Africans and brought them in chains to the U.S."(quote from Tapper) it logically makes no sense since anyone who did that is long since dead, unless one believes that there is some inherent racial connection in attitudes, i.e. that all whites are racist because they are genetically programmed to be racist. This is what is so divisive about what Wright is saying. And I don't think that progressives should be condoning this kind of sentiment from anyone. Racist talk is racist talk no matter who is talking. If his message is equality and "different is not deficient" that is good, but he needs to hold himself to that standard first before he preaches it to others, or else his message is hypocritical and self-negating. And whites aren't likely to cede power to blacks if they think that they are just as racially bigoted as some whites. That's why Wright's kind of talk is so detrimental to overcoming bigotry and promoting equality.

      I'd like to hear why you think that Hillary has, or will, throw blacks under the bus. There is one thing that you can take to the bank, and that is if she wins the Democratic nomination she will make a very concerted effort to woo blacks back into the fold. Obama on the other hand, has taken them for granted, and promised them nothing. I think its far more likely that he will throw blacks under the bus, if he hasn't secretly done so already.

    [ Parent ]

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:09:21 PM EST
    I think Wright hurts Obama more. However, it still hurts the party, race relations and a host of other things. All I have to say is that if Axelrod thought a tour was the answer to Obama's problems, he is one bad advisor.

    This is a nightmare imo that will only lessen if Obama is not the nominee or if he is the nominee after he loses in Nov.

    [ Parent ]

    Saw this coming (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:27:54 AM EST
    from eight miles away. Clearly Wright has an ego the size of Cleveland and doesn't want his "legacy" to be tainted.

    Remember how the Obamans claimed that the Wright issue was defused?

    We saw it coming (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Emma on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:30:19 AM EST
    But I can't keep watching it.  It's a slow motion train wreck.

    [ Parent ]
    I posted that Wright ... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:33:59 AM EST
    ...was our George Allen a few weeks ago on Dkos.

    I actually like the kooky old Reverend but you can see that he half mad.

    This loose cannon is tearing up the gundeck and has killed half the crew.

    [ Parent ]

    How many troll ratings (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:35:09 AM EST
    did you get for acknowledging reality? ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    one or two (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:37:36 AM EST
    I didn't mind really.

    THey became a badge of honour at a certain point.

    [ Parent ]

    You don't understand (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by 1jpb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:05:06 AM EST
    that dKos has commenters that can't tolerate different POVs so they must give you many many troll ratings.  In contrast commenters on tlakleft don't do that sort of thing.


    [ Parent ]
    i'd been there since... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:08:09 AM EST
    ...2004.

    So I know all about he way the place works.

    I'm on sabbatical.

    [ Parent ]

    Bet to disagree with you (none / 0) (#169)
    by madeinUSA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:55:10 PM EST
    I have been lashed at for stating facts here at talk left by a few as long as it does not jive with what they want to hear. It has to be proHillary or you must be silly!

    [ Parent ]
    just by the way you say... (none / 0) (#171)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    you've been lashed at for stating facts, suggests to me that what you call facts are contentious and not really facts but opinions.

    But I don't know unless you want to point out specific instances.

    It's possible to be pro-Obama and garner respect at TalkLeft...I know because that is TLD's stance.

    [ Parent ]

    being silly, look at my comment history n/t (none / 0) (#202)
    by 1jpb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:37:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:03:56 AM EST
    Jackie Gleason.

    Can't you picture Wright raising his head up and chiming "How Sweet It Is!"

    [ Parent ]

    True (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:09:49 AM EST
    Allen rather politely ended his polital life after that outburst.  Energizer Jeremiah  Wright just keeps banging his drum.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, but as he says, he (none / 0) (#87)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:39:58 AM EST
    is not a politician. Just a preacher. And he is preaching Obama into oblivion.

    [ Parent ]
    Thems the breaks (none / 0) (#105)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    When you rise to fame and power on the back of religious overtones, with nothing else to offer, you have to risk it coming back to bite you in the butt.

    Live by the platitude, die by the platitude.

    [ Parent ]

    Not fair (none / 0) (#133)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:35:32 PM EST
    He didn't ask for this media coverage.  He was a preacher trying to help those who came to him.  That is his point.  He is not a politician

    [ Parent ]
    Sure he asked for this coverage (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:09:47 PM EST
    as nobody can make you go on Moyers, go to the National Press Club, etc.  Not even his publisher could make Wright do so to plug his forthcoming book, as he is doing.  He wants to do all this.

    If you mean the initial coverage, that was based on tapes of Wright's sermons that he sold, too.

    [ Parent ]

    Isn't his book coming out in the fall? (none / 0) (#192)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:11:11 PM EST
    I thought I heard that last night . . .

    [ Parent ]
    You do (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    have a point. However, if Obama was so concerned about him being thrust into the media, he should have the left church.

    [ Parent ]
    Please, (none / 0) (#170)
    by madeinUSA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:59:59 PM EST
    would it be fair to say that Hillary should have left her church when the pastor was found guilty of molesting children (he is still in jail for it). She did not reject, denounce the man or leave that church. I know I'll get bite marks here for this but it's a fact.

    Wright is no longer the pastor and the church is more than just Wright. If people should leave their churches for one man (mind you people go to these churches to worship God) they do not agree with, then the Catholics should leave their faith if you know what I mean.

    [ Parent ]

    Unless he preached to his congregation (none / 0) (#183)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:25:20 PM EST
    that molesting children was a good thing, then it is irrelevant. The pastor at Hillary's church broke the law in a rather disgusting manner. He was arrested, tried and is now serving his time. No one is condemning Rev. Wright for having his beliefs, at least I am not, but he preaches them from the pulpit, and spreads them around the media ad nauseum. He preaches hate and divisiveness. The exact opposite of what Obama claims to stand for and promote. That is why it's big news.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree... (none / 0) (#137)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:36:21 PM EST
    I know. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:34:30 AM EST
    I refuse to watch that arrogant SOB Wright pontificating about how wonderful and misunderstood he is.

    I am hoping that Indiana goes for HRC by 10%. At that point, I'll bet that Obama seriously considers quitting.

    [ Parent ]

    I Was "Wright" (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Athena on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:14:03 PM EST
    I posted some time ago that Wright would become a silent running mate for the Democrats whether we liked it or not.  He just won't go away.  Little did I know that he actually would announce that he wanted the VP slot.  LOL.

    [ Parent ]
    Taft, not Cleveland! (none / 0) (#46)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:02:53 AM EST
    If we are going for "ample-itude"!

    [ Parent ]
    IMO totally unelectable...Sad...This retoric (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29:00 AM EST
    doesn't reflect ALL black churches. I would imagine that many many blacks will feel quite uncomfortable with this stuff....Particularly the older ones....

    really? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:36:08 AM EST
    He defended his comments in the context of all back religious tradition.

    Many Obamabots have also defended him in the context of all Black Churches.

    What's under that rock?

    [ Parent ]

    Just the lies that Wright and Obama (none / 0) (#95)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:51:24 AM EST
    want you to believe. I have been going to black churches with friends for decades. I have NEVER heard that sort of hate preached, or that sort of stupidity either. The liberation theology I have heard is more along the Jesse Jackson line of improving yourself to improve your community and thereby raise everyone up. It has no basis in hate or tearing down other groups to elevate their own self-image.

    When I was in college in Atlanta, I used to buy the Black Panther newsletter every week. Why?? Because the money from the sales of the newsletter went to fund their breakfast program for poor kids so they could have a decent breakfast before school. I thought that was a great idea. It pre-dated the government breakfast programs by a decade or so. I don't know much about the New Black Panthers, but I do know from my experience with the old Black Panthers that they were more about empowering through education and hard work than they were about burning down anything.

    It's too bad Rev. Wright and Obama didn't go down that road instead of the "hate everyone who isn't black" road. That would be accepted and understood by the American people, but this hate-filled man isn't.

    [ Parent ]

    Cecil Williams (none / 0) (#158)
    by vigkat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    The pastor of Glide Memorial in San Francisco is a black minister who practices an entirely different kind of outreach, one that is focused upon love and charity and grace.  What a contrast he is to the Reverend Wright.  A church service at Glide is uplifting and filled with the true promise of love and diversity.

    [ Parent ]
    Black churches only (none / 0) (#172)
    by madeinUSA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:03:32 PM EST
    There are few black churches with controversial pastors similarly with white churches. Check out the likes of Hagee and what they preach. Will blow your mind. Not saying since the white churches have it makes it ok but all I'm saying is this is not typical of Wright or black churches only. Fair is fair and so much is being unfairly thrown.

    [ Parent ]
    And the one who is unfairly throwing it (none / 0) (#178)
    by tree on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:12:54 PM EST
    is Wright, among others who are condoning what he says as typical of black pastors.

    [ Parent ]
    Is the word "Obamabots" (none / 0) (#106)
    by CCinNC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:03:16 PM EST
    not considered an insulting term here?  

    [ Parent ]
    well (none / 0) (#114)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    I use it as an insult.

    I found it profoundly disturbing that Obama supporters characterized Wright as a typical black preacher.  Or a genius.

    It either means that black preachers indulge in all sorts of insane political ditribes, or that they are lying about what black churches really do.

    It's not a stable platform to fight for the Presidency.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#150)
    by CCinNC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:56:59 PM EST
    as long as you aren't generalizing.

    [ Parent ]
    the proof's in the pudding (none / 0) (#24)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:44:09 AM EST
    Its a nice idea to dream that someone like Wright doesn't speak for a group, but the only proof in the pudding we'll see is by the number of black churches that come out and proclaim that Wright doesn't speak for them.

    [ Parent ]
    Even the crickets (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:46:47 AM EST
    have gone silent.

    i'm hearing teh original sound of the universe.

    It sounds like a big big bang.  Almost like an implosion.

    [ Parent ]

    Different Perspective (none / 0) (#109)
    by formerhoosier on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    This is not to criticize your view, just to offer another perspective.  When the 'talking heads' were just shocked the Muslim community was not condemning the hateful speech of radicals, it was a way to demonize all in the Muslim community.  A vocal and outspoken individual does not speak for all.  This is not to equate his rhetoric with radicals, just to point to the unrealistic expectation for anyone to counter his arguments.
    Also, as someone who observed the attention the media gives to one facet of Christian dialogue, without allowing countervailing (and more mainstream) views to be expressed, I am not convinced the silence is not being managed by media selectivity.  His view of Theology is not mainstream in African American churches, it just isn't.

    [ Parent ]
    ahem (none / 0) (#119)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:23:48 PM EST
    I'm going to deconstruct this for you in plain English.

    This is not to criticize your view, just to offer another perspective.  When the 'talking heads' were just shocked the Muslim community was not condemning the hateful speech of radicals, it was a way to demonize all in the Muslim community.
     

    The hateful speech of terrorists or radicals?  Also it was a surprise to see the  Arab,  Pakistani and North African Muslim community turn on their former favourite Mr Bush and equally odd to see him turn on them.  They voted Bush into office.   You can check the stats Muslims were voting overwhelmingly for the GOP until 2002.

    A vocal and outspoken individual does not speak for all.  This is not to equate his rhetoric with radicals, just to point to the unrealistic expectation for anyone to counter his arguments.

    Wright isn't a ranter on Speakers Corner in Hyde Park.  he's a preacher with 8,000 cogregants that live in Hyde Park and environs.   He speaks, according to many Obama supporters, as a geniu and representative of all black churches.  Wright even claims that mantle.  Noone has disputed his authority from any corner of the religiousphere.

    Also, as someone who observed the attention the media gives to one facet of Christian dialogue, without allowing countervailing (and more mainstream) views to be expressed, I am not convinced the silence is not being managed by media selectivity.  His view of Theology is not mainstream in African American churches, it just isn't.

    Given that Wright claimed that an attack on him is an attack on all Black Theology it's up to other black preachers to denounce his claims.

    The silence will be deafening.


    [ Parent ]

    Clarification (none / 0) (#140)
    by formerhoosier on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:40:47 PM EST
    Granted the analogy was not good, and that is why I put the qualifier.  Even so, it muddled my point.  

    Let me try another approach.  When Christian Evangelicals were the only viewpoint of Christian
    thought was being promulgated by the media, some mainstream Christian denominations were trying to get their message heard.  The Lutheran Church wanted to have a message on the major networks, there was nothing political in the message.  And none of the major networks would allow it to be broadcast using arguments against religious expression being endorsed.  This did not stop them from continuing to show the views of the Evangelical churches.  That is why I said, even if there were African American church leaders who were not in agreement, we might not hear them.  Just because HE says he speaks for them, does not make it so.  (Used the Lutheran church as an example because am familiar with the event, not a member of the Lutheran Church)

    [ Parent ]

    and say so.  But I have an uneasy feeling thinking about the standing ovation Wright got at the end of is speech for 10,000 people. 8>(

    [ Parent ]
    He cleverly forced that ovation (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by tree on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    His last words were for the assembled to give THEMSELVES a standing ovation for the work that the NAACP has done for equality.  At an NAACP function,  the vast majority would most certainly in solid support of the NAACP. Very clever on his part as it forced the ovation that he called for, by making it supposedly about them, not him.

    [ Parent ]
    MSNBC and Fox (none / 0) (#194)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:26:34 PM EST
    so far today.  Rev Joe Martin was on MSNBC and I forget the person they had on Fox.  Juan Williams also speaks on Fox against Wright's position (I have no idea if he's Republican.)

    They are being given time which provides an additional look at the black church, but doesn't that just make Wright more of an issue for Obama?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes it would, but there is bigger discussion here (none / 0) (#203)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:39:57 PM EST
    now presented and discussed at Black Agenda Report, here:

    blackagendareport.com

    Obama's `Race Neutral' Strategy Unravels of its Own Contradictions

    [ Parent ]

    The real story's (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:29:30 AM EST
    going to be if the press asks Obama while he's out campaigning about Wright.  I know that he's in "black out" mode (no pun intended) with regard to the press.  The only national press he allowed that I can think of is, um...Fox News?

    I cruise the blogosphere of the right to see what they are gloating about when it comes to Wright.  It's a feeding frenzy at Michelle Malkin's site, Red State and Townhall are all weighing in as well.  Fox News's site has all this "you watch and you decide" videos of Wright.

    Ship of fools over there at Obama, Inc.

    Stuck my toe in the water (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:32:56 AM EST
    at my ex-favorite blog today.

    The commenters are 70% Obamans, 25% Clintonites, and 5% trolls.

    The Obamans are convinced that HRC and McCain are looking for MORE ways to call Obama an uppity n***er. They also are sure that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with anything Wright has said or done.

    It's just sad how clueless they are, as much as I know and respect many of them...

    [ Parent ]

    I Believe These Obamans Are The Same (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    people who keep dreadlocked Jason on American Idol week after week.  The tunnel vision of these Obamacans is quite frightening.  Rev. Wright is a liability, pure and simple.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think that's true (none / 0) (#91)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:46:29 AM EST
    though I prefer both the Davids, I have voted for Jason because like me he is a Colombian and because that version of "Over the Top" was amazing. That and David Cook's "Billie Jean" are the most memorable performances I have seen on Idol.

    [ Parent ]
    I feel sorry for Obama now (none / 0) (#20)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:43:01 AM EST
    No really I do.

    He tried to present a very non threatening view of black religiosity and a very centrist sort of approach.

    Sadly for him he's doing it on the backs of antiwar antiimperialistic lunatics and resentment filled black voters.  He can't ride that coalition and become the leader of the American Empire.  His candidacy is basically a critique of that Empire.
    He embodies that critique is a mysteriously impotent way, he can articulate what's wrong with America but he's not positioned to change how it works--not with these followers.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama not yet ready (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:46:18 AM EST
    Obama could have a good future. But it starts with him recognizing that he is not yet ready for the national limelight, that he needs more vetting. HRC's VP is place for him right now.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama doesn't need more vetting.... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:37:32 PM EST
    ...he needs more accomplishments in the political arena. The resume he is presenting currently isn't enough of a firewall against the negatives.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he "could have had" (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:54:25 PM EST
    a great future in politics -- but he needed patience and humility but his ego was so big that with a few strokes from the press and self-interested buffoons like Ted Kennedy, Kerry & Daschle, he jumped into this totally unprepared.  President of the United States of America doesn't just get handed to you -- heck, if it did, I'd run.  He needed to serve some time in the senate and learn about distancing himself from Wright, learn to stop entering into stinky "land deals" with guys like Rezko, etc.  His political future is over, imo -- and he doesn't need to be dragging Hillary's ticket down in flames with him.

    [ Parent ]
    No I disagree (none / 0) (#92)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:48:18 AM EST
    I think he needs to be out of politics pure and simple. He and David Alexrod are responsible for this madness, no matter what the NYT thinks. They tried to sell a personality, not a political program. Big mistake.

    [ Parent ]
    all politicians are soiled goods (none / 0) (#102)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    to expect purity in politics is not reasonable.

    Obama has done nothing unforgivable IMO, and he has many positive traits. (I'm not saying that I'd ever vote for him if I didn't have to, because he has a number of things I find objectionable, which would send me looking for alternatives.) He just doesn't have all his ducks in order yet. But he has a good base to build from if he doesn't blow it by getting too out in front of himself where he does things that are unrecoverable.

    [ Parent ]

    Not me (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:50:10 AM EST
    I have absolutely no pity for someone who is smart enough to have known better.

    And his own arrogance will be his own undoing.  I actually started off as an Obama supporter. BUT, I did my homework and found out about his voting record, his not-so-subtle stance on gay and lesbian issues and his inability to take a true stand on things.  

    He's afraid to take risks.  And that's not what leadership is.

    [ Parent ]

    Pride Goeth Before The Fall.... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:54:26 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You articulated (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:29:53 AM EST
    his position so nicely.

    What's very sad is that many of the more truly activist African American blog sites I visit are a lot more practical.

    One has a startling argument that points out he never has made a single promise to the African American community and, therefore, will not need to deliver an ounce of help to them if elected.  They gave it up based on his race and did not even ask for anything in return for their votes.

    The article is entitled:  4 years of irrelevance for African Americans.

    So Obama is hitting the worst of both worlds here.  He's not the true darling of the African American activist groups.  He's the pet of the white activists.

    Personally, I hate that type of attitude.  I think it's most insulting of all.

    But that's just me.

    [ Parent ]

    That's what stuck me (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:35:34 AM EST
    also about Obama. He always shied away from advocating genuine AA causes for fear of bracketing himself as the Black candidate. His speech on race was made only because hewas forced to do it to stem the Wright controversy.

    Comparitively Hillary has never shied away from espousing women's causes and has proudly associated herself with many feminist issues even at the risk of being bracketed by MSM as another whiny female.

    That I think shows strength of character more than any high minded speech can.

    [ Parent ]

    Check this out (none / 0) (#132)
    by echinopsia on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:34:58 PM EST
    Obama's Contempt (none / 0) (#118)
    by Athena on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:23:38 PM EST
    No, Obama entered the race with contempt for the 60's and its "dorm battles" and has emerged as the candidate with the most retro ties to 60's style radicals.  It's almost satire.  

    If Obama had not approached the progressive past with such derision, I'd have more sympathy.  But he wanted to be a man without a past - and a record - a blank post-racial slate.

    Instead, we have him huddling "downstairs" praying with the incendiary Rev. Wright before emerging to announce his post-racial candidacy to the cameras.  Wright was not disinvited - he was just kept off-camera.

    No, he's got way too many hypocrisies to explain to me.  He truly believed that an image would transcend the facts.  Wrong.  It just took time to uncover them.

    [ Parent ]

    Then could someone help me understand (none / 0) (#115)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:17:12 PM EST
    this little tidbit?
    ...."Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy," Wright said, since Farrakhan had not enslaved Africans and brought them in chains to the U.S.

    Is there anyone alive that has done so? What the dickens is he talking about?

    [ Parent ]

    The right wing... (none / 0) (#175)
    by madeinUSA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    ...they had sites galore thrashing Hillary when they perceived her as the front runner (they still do but not as active anymore), now they turn to Obama. Their goal is to knock out any democrat regardless. So, if you want to go pandering to them, go ahead. But remember the moment they perceive your ideas/candidate as a threat, you will not be so gagagoogoo about them. They've got their eyes on the prize unlike us, fighting like chickens!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:30:41 AM EST
    wasn't kidding when he described Wright as the "crazy uncle."  :)

    Dang, he couldn't make it clearer.

    Bye-Bye Jewish Dems.

    I keep forgetting (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:39:57 AM EST
    the ties to Farrakhan.

    Yikes.

    [ Parent ]

    My words exactly when I heard him say (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by vicsan on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    This: "Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy,"

    He didn't even try to distance himself from Farrakhan. Big mistake. HUGE mistake...Obama can kiss the Jewish vote Good Bye.

    [ Parent ]

    More Wright Today (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Athena on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    And describing Farrakhan as "one of the most important figures of the 20th and 21st centuries."  Yikes.

    [ Parent ]
    actually (none / 0) (#176)
    by madeinUSA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    Bill Clinton had nothing but praises for Farrakhan regarding the million man march back in the day. For every evil there is some good and for every good there is some evil. Human nature!

    [ Parent ]
    Whoa yeah (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    I watched it.  It was horrifying and devastating.  He could have left off just fine with PBS but something snapped, ego or something.  And then it just got worse.  He kept talking and kept smarting off but not really answering any solid question and it was just not even respectable or reality based.  It was the most horrible display of reverse racism I've ever seen get this much press.

    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    Few have dared to say its name - "black racism".

    Not all racists are white.

    [ Parent ]

    Even Roland Martin (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:34:49 AM EST
    on CNN was cringing about the National Press Club speech. If I remember right, he said he'd give Wright an "A" for the NAACP speech and a "D" for this one.  Not quite sure why he felt there was such a big difference.  David Gergen agreed, saying the problem with Wright is his enormous ego and he needs to get it off the public stage immediately.

    I was struck by the fact that he brought quite a large claque with him, who cheered and applauded and laughed uproariously and jeered the woman reading the questions afterwards, and cheered on Wright's more aggressive responses.  Ugh.  I wonder how that will go down with the actual press that was there.

    I saw that segment... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by k on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:07:11 AM EST
    Roland Martin said he'd give Wright an A for Moyers, a B for the NAACP, and an F for the Press Club.

    Both Martin and Gergen clearly saw damage being done with Wright's performance today.  

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the correction! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:34:20 AM EST
    I knew I had something about that screwed up...


    [ Parent ]
    WTF is wrong with Roland Martin (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:22:06 PM EST
    he would give him an A on the NAACP speech?  Am I the only one who thinks it was full of divisive racial stereotyping and crack pit educational and musical theory?
    Black kids are right brained and climb on desks, white kids sit still and learn from objects?

    [ Parent ]
    this is already shaping up to be (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by ccpup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:35:09 AM EST
    the Week From Hell if you're the Obama campaign.  

    Forget focusing on Barack's biography or connecting with those voters in Indiana you desperately need to connect with in order to show the SDs that you can, in fact, get their votes.  Nope.  

    The Press will ask him about Wright, the voters will have Wright on their minds and Barack -- not exactly the strongest of men (he's much too sensitive, in my book, and gets offended and angry too easily) -- is sure to be displeased.  And a displeased Barack on the stump ain't pretty.  Especially if you're an Undecided.

    Not the best combo going into the home stretch with all those now nervous (post-PA Primary) SDs watching.

    Barack is bored, now, too. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Shainzona on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:43:10 AM EST
    So add boredom to his feeling offended and angry and that is not a pretty combination.

    Good heavens!  Can you imagine him in the GE if he becomes the nominee?

    [ Parent ]

    I can understand his boredom, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sander60tx on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    The campaign has been long and grueling and he must be exhausted.  He's not the only one who is getting tired of his often eloquent and inspiring words.  They sound great the first few times you hear them and then after that, it's not fresh anymore.  I think he peaked too soon.

    In contrast, Hillary Clinton is like the energizer bunny... I think that controversey has the opposite effect on her... she seems invigorated by it, while he doesn't like it and it wears him down. He doesn't seem so messiah-like when he is playing defense.  

    [ Parent ]

    Sadsack Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:44:47 AM EST
    not  a pretty sight on the stump.  

    He needs to get back to the Epic historical destiny stuff--George Lucas should be called in to script the campaign now.

    [ Parent ]

    NO! (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Marco21 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:23:55 AM EST
    If Barack wants to destroy his campaign, he'd get Lucas to script it. You saw the Star Wars prequels, right? Ew. :)

    [ Parent ]
    lol (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    very true.

    they must turn him into Luke Skywalker somehow.

    Not JarJar.

    [ Parent ]

    as if Barack's campaign (none / 0) (#70)
    by ccpup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    could be resuscitated by Jar-Jar Binks?

    I don't think so.

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    and John Williams to write a score (none / 0) (#122)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM EST
    that can play under his speeches and commercials.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree add Clyburn, Bazile, Clay, and Shaprton (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:04:31 AM EST

    D's or SD's for the Party and you have two weeks of hell for Party its really past Obama IMO. Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Clyburn and Dean Barzile made it about the Party not the candidate by their public advocacy and anti Clinton Democrat posture knowing the danger and by what appeared to be a rush by them to cover it up before known and shut down the race without votes counted.  And while I have little respect for this crowd or their behavior I do not believe they are clueless politicians so now I wonder why they set out to throw the race.


    [ Parent ]
    The story according to me (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:32:36 AM EST
    goes....

    Dean and Donna finally "got" it that Clinton supporters were serious.  They did not appreciate the bully tactics to push her out before the votes came in.

    So they are trying this new angle, which is to push her out once the votes come in and before FL and MI are counted.

    Won't work.

    [ Parent ]

    I would love for a reporter to call (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:11:22 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy and ask him if he enjoyed the mimicry of the Kennedys in Rev. Wright's speech. And did he agree on Wright's stance on the Irish?? Oh, and if the answers are in the negative, ask him if he is going to withdraw his endorsement of Obama. I wonder what went through Ted's mind when he watched that speech. I really do.

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't he decide to support (none / 0) (#195)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:34:37 PM EST
    Obama based on Clinton's statements?

    [ Parent ]
    Because defeating Hillary was more (none / 0) (#56)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:07:38 AM EST
    important. Is there any other reasonable inference?

    [ Parent ]
    He can't resist... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Shainzona on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    ...he makes a statement that might be OK (Farakkan is not my enemy) and then has to add a totally outrageous end to that thought (he didn't enslave Africans and bring them to the US in chains).

    And I still haven't figured out his diatribe yesterday about the differences between blacks and whites...yup, true.

    But why the need to mock Boston accents to prove his point?  

    Now remember - he's not talking to his church members with these speechs, he talking to America...it's almost as if he has asked himself, how can I piss someone off today.

    I don't disagree with many of the fundamentals about his statements, but the mocking anger in his expression is what is over the top.

    Again, why say God D*** America when he could have made his point some other way?

    I think the guy has been told too often that he's a dynamic speaker and now he loves to hear himself talk.  Like the energizer bunny...he keeps going and going and going (actually Obama is like that, too...did you hear his speech after PA?  Snore!)

    And you know that (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:03:00 AM EST
    a huge percentage of the 'garlic noses,' the Irish, the Jews that Farakkan hates and etc, etc who immigrated post-Civil War had nothing to do with enslavement of Africans either, but they ARE Wright's enemies.

    In addition, it would be crazy to think that there were no dark skinned Africans (think I saw info about that on History channel) involved in capturing and rounding up slaves in Africa.  And by the same token, I would't be surprised if some of the descendents of those Africans are here.

    [ Parent ]

    many were (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:06:47 AM EST
    serfs or little more than chattel in their own nations.

    Especially the Russian emigres.

    They were slaves/serfs well into the 1880s in Russia.

    [ Parent ]

    Teresa, here is how the largest Italian-American (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by feet on earth on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:47:12 PM EST
    organization felt and feel about Rev. Wright "Garlic Noses" remark

    http://www.osia.org/public/newsroom/pr04_01_08.asp

    This letter went to their 550,000 members and it was discussed in many of the busses that from all over brought Italian-Americans to NY for the pope visit.  

    The Italian-American Catholic vote, if ever there, is gone from Obama.  Now he may have to kiss good-bye to the Irish-Catholic vote.  

    Like it or not, this is what rev. Wright is doing to Obama: drip, drip, drip, away.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks to the Daily Howler (none / 0) (#167)
    by anniethena on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    I know that some prominent members of "The Village" are Irish Catholics, e.g. MoDo, Chris Matthews and Tim Russert.
    Obama is in danger of losing the Irish Catholic Media Darling status.

    [ Parent ]
    Wright Is A "Loony Toon Racist"! (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by JoeCHI on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:42:50 AM EST
    I was at a picnic in Indiana this weekend and all they could talk about was what a "loony toon racist" (their words) Wright was.  

    Further, the other comment I repeatedly heard was "how could parents take their children to hear these sermons?".

    Incredibly saddening.... (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:43:07 AM EST
    the trajectory that this campaign season has taken vis a vis race. To have gone from Obama's soaring and beautiful words at the 2004 DNC on bringing all races and cultures together to this:  Wright - a 60's anachronism preaching black separatism, harping on cultural differences, and suggesting that the brains of black vs. white kids work differently. He's really just a throwback, he cites educators that were responsible for the justifications for ebonics, etc.

    I don't find him hostile or threatening, just boringly retro and unhelpful. And, sadly, in direct contradistinction to Obama's words and stated philosophies.

    It's very disheartening to have gone from that point to this.

    the soaring part is a fiction (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    Human beings are complete S**.  

    The nuts and bolts of equality involves lots of petty bickering and rough housing.  Lot's of attacks and smackdowns and unsightly behaviour.

    You might ev