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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute 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.

    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.

    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.


    throw you under the bus? excuse me? (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    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.

    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?  

    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.


    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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? ;-)

    one or two (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    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.

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

    So I know all about he way the place works.

    I'm on sabbatical.


    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!

    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.


    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
    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!"


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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

    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.


    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 . . .

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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"!

    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?  

    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.


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

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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)


    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>(

    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.

    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?


    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:


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


    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...


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    Not me (5.00 / 3) (#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.


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


    That's what stuck me (5.00 / 5) (#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.


    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.


    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?


    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!

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#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.



    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.


    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.

    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!

    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.


    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.  


    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...

    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?

    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 / 2) (#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?


    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.  


    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.


    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. :)

    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.


    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.



    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.

    I disagree add Clyburn, Bazile, Clay, and Shaprton (5.00 / 1) (#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.

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

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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?

    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.


    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.


    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


    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.


    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.

    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 / 3) (#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 even conclude looking at various political movements that the soaring aspect equality (or liberty for that matter) is used as a mask by ruthless personal power seekers to establish new hegemony and repressive power structures.


    The thing is that Obama was (none / 0) (#120)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:24:51 PM EST
    listening to that sort of anachronistic preaching for 20 years without finding another church. THEN he gave the soaring speech. And in his defense of Wright, such as it was, he seems to think there is nothing wrong with the hate and divisiveness preached at his church. That makes Obama two-faced at the very least, and a raving hypocrite at most. That is what is so disturbing to so many people, I think. He sat there and listened to that sort of stuff for years, never walked out, never thought about going to another church, and then gave a speech which was on the complete opposite tack from the church philosophy. He used Rev. Wright's church to get ahead, and then when they became inconvenient politically tossed them under the proverbial bus. I think Rev. Wright is mad as hell about it and is doing his very best to return the favor. That says more for Wright than it does for Obama. At least the Rev. Wright is consistent in his view, which is more than you can say for Obama.

    I find him hostile. (none / 0) (#129)
    by moll on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:30:30 PM EST
    I don't find him hostile or threatening, just boringly retro and unhelpful

    There are two reasons why Rev. Wright needs to be recognized as threatening. One is because he's a black racist, and he incites hatred against whites.

    Two, because he's also a one-man recruitment drive for white hate groups, who will look at this and say "see? These people are our enemies. You think they want to live in peace with us?"

    BTW guess which state has the highest KKK membership? Indiana. (Bet you thought it was Mississippi!)

    Don't know if that's coincidence.


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#180)
    by madeinUSA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:15:39 PM EST
    Is rev Wright of mixed race. Seems so to me. I believe he has whites in his family. Don't understand why he feels such anger towards one end and not the other. Perhaps because America did not see him of both worlds. Don't know. Just thinking aloud!

    Let's just hope (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    that the Clinton campaign keeps their mouths SHUT tight during the Wright Express.  The last thing they need is for the BHO people to say that Clinton is "piling on".

    When your opponent is shooting themselves in the foot, just get out of the way and let them blast.

    Absolutely - it's not her problem. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:13:18 AM EST
    Not her church, not her pastor.

    Separation of church and state.
    Freedom to choose which ever religion you like.
    Free to follow his faith.


    It would be (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:38:34 AM EST
    wrong to comment, frankly.  Wright is a colorful speaker in the time-honored tradition of the African American religious community.  They mix politics, current events, and religion freely.  Always have.  Some fundamentalist white churches do exactly the same and have even adopted some of the AA church methods.

    But that still doesn't address the real issue, which are the ideas.  I actually understood his remarks about Farrakhan.  Fair enough.  

    That begs the question about what he re-stated which is that America's policies are inherently bad and out to harm people.  

    That message is one that the majority of Americans just will find appalling.  And they won't have to be Rush L. fans to disagree, either.

    That's where I saw the damage.  If that's the ideology that Obama, by association, brings to the White House, then he really isn't prepared to be Commander in Chief.


    If Hillary should have to make any comment (none / 0) (#127)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:28:37 PM EST
    I think she should quote Patrick Henry.."I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it ." Then say that is all she has to say on the subject. Simple, elegant, and very much to the point.

    right (none / 0) (#181)
    by madeinUSA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:17:32 PM EST
    Not gonna happen!

    THAT (none / 0) (#190)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:53:59 PM EST
    should come out of Barack's mouth, not hers.  Barack is without "cajones".  He can't even defend his stance with his own pastor...passing the buck.  He should take a cue from Hillary on how to dismiss a distraction.

    Just like he dusted off his shoulder at some campaign stop about Hillary, he should do the same with regards to Wright.

    I am flummoxed and angered that SHE has to come to HIS defense.

    There's a word for guys like that here in Texas but I have too much respect for Jeralyn's blog to type it.


    I meant if she were asked to comment on (none / 0) (#191)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:59:08 PM EST
    what he said, not about how what he said is being used.

    I'm out of the mainstream again.... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:45:11 AM EST
    I kinda wish Rev. Wright was running for president...I could vote for him over any of the 3 stooges in a heartbeat.  

    Honesty is such a rare trait in politics...I guess thats why Rev. Wright isn't a politician.

    I wouldn't exactly call (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:59:24 AM EST
    quoting louis Farrahkhan comments selectively and conveniently Honesty.

    well sure - we agree with Wright (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:09:51 AM EST
    on some issues and Dennis Kucinich is probably applauding his leftist views. However, delivery is important too.
    And delivering racist remarks against St. Obama's opponent from the pulpit isn't appropriate.

    Race is still a problem in America, but it won't be solved by a black candidate calling voters 'racist gun toting Bible thumpers' - and his pastor saying, "Hillary ain't never been called a N****r!"


    That's the only thing (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:14:09 AM EST
    she hasn't been called.

    And even then i'm sure she was called a "N****r Lover" back in Arkansas.


    She AND Bill were. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Regency on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    It's in her book.

    At least he says what he means. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:01:31 AM EST
    but he's got no discipline.

    Screw "discipline".... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:52:45 AM EST
    just give me a candidate who means what they say and say what they mean.  That is the important thing.  For example, do you know where Obama or Clinton really stand on free trade?  the Iraq occupation?  Gasoline taxes?  I sure don't.  But I feel like I know where Wright stands on things, which makes him a stand up guy.  Clinton/Obama/McCain are spineless jellyfish in comparison.  

    Wright has more honesty and integrity in his pinky than Obama/Cinton/McCain combined.  That's enough for me to like and respect him, I don't have to agree with everything he says.


    Here, here (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    Too bad for Wright that he dosnt spend millions on image consultants and focus group researchers the way Pants Suit (smile), Mr "Change", and the Stiff do. We would never have heard about any of this.

    That's right... (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:39:02 PM EST
    there would be no hub-bub; if only Wright were bland, politically correct, and flapping his gums without saying anything...like the 3 stooges...all would be right in the world.

    And when one of the stooges says something worth hearing aka "controversial", usually on accident due to "fatigue" or "poor wording", they run from it like wildfire...something Wright refuses to do.

    But he's the "bad guy"...what a country!  


    blame does not a political leader make (none / 0) (#160)
    by moll on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    It is easy to tear down and criticize.

    It is a lot harder to do something to make things better.


    True enough.... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:42:21 PM EST
    but to do something and make things better you have to be critical and honest when describing the status quo....and sometimes this requires a little hyperbole and running the risk of offending fragile sensibilities.

    Was it me or does Rev. Wright seem bitter?? (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:45:57 AM EST

    VERY (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:01:59 AM EST
    and as NYT Bob Herbert said in "Heading for the Danger Zone" - 4/26

    >>>However one views the behavior of Bill and Hillary Clinton - and however large the race issue looms in this election, and it looms large - there can be no denying that an awful lot of Mr. Obama's troubles have come from his side of the table. The Rev. Wright fiasco undermined the fundamental rationale of the entire Obama campaign - that it would be about healing, about putting partisanship aside, about reaching across ethnic and party divisions to bring people together in a new era of cooperation.

    It's hard to continue making that case when the candidate's spiritual adviser is on television castigating America and scaring the hell out of at least some white people.


    That dichotomy (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:39:53 AM EST
    has been a thread throughout Obama's campaign.

    Heal?  When tearing down?  That's incongruent thinking that jarred me from day 1.


    Bitter? Ya think he's going to (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:27:04 AM EST
    endorse Hillary?

    I'm sure you think, that line is witty (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jgarza on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:46:31 PM EST
    but he actually has reason to be bitter.

    we all have reasons to be bitter... (none / 0) (#151)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:57:19 PM EST
    I don't see what makes him so special

    The Moyer's (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    interview was a real bore.  No hard-hitting questions.  They acted like two old fraternity brothers chatting it up.

    Moyers should have pinned down answers (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:51:06 AM EST
    to the AIDS comment, the ridin' dirty, the Hiroshima stuff etc.

    Moyers is a sympathetic liberal and could have made a good discussion on these issues and defused the innaccuracies of Wright's generalizatoins.

    TEH Q and A at teh end will kill any hope of rational discussion now.


    He is supposed to be a good (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:30:56 AM EST
    journalist. That interview was an embarrassment.

    Wright just gave Indiana to Hilary (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Saul on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    I know that Wright was trying to defend himself and was trying to say who  he really is but I think he just handed Indiana to Hilary.

    maybe he knows Clinton should win? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:03:05 AM EST
    Canny old nmaniac.

    Wow... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by americanincanada on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:47:24 AM EST
    No wonder the Obama campaign tried to distance themselves from this morning's speech. They can't though when he is touting Obama's name so often and telling everyone over and over he's only a politician.

    Obama is paying the price for not (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:53:04 AM EST
    completely separating himself from Wright.
    Now he's getting the grief for the association, and none of the exculpation he would have gotten from a firm condemnation.

    Honestly (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    I think he's paying the price for not walking away years ago.

    The fact is, he sat in that church for 20 years. He made Wright his mentor and friend. He brought Wright's sermons to Harvard. Either he was pandering for political reasons, or he agrees with Wright.

    Neither possibility is flattering or electorally viable.


    Why is it bad to bring (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by 1jpb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:27:16 AM EST
    sermons to Harvard?  Did I miss something?  I don't seem to posses that visceral reaction to black folks that makes me certain I know more about decades of their lives than they do.  Does that make me deficient?

    And for the record I don't think any HRC supporter can complain about the Farrakhan comments above for two reasons:  1) Rendell has been supportive of Louis, and 2) Wright's comment about slavery and Farrakhan is factually true and it doesn't implicate any living person, really very benign.  This reminds me of HRC's comments about her and McCain's great experience, when her supporters rightly noted that the absence of comments about BO is not an implication of BO (of course she did go further by saying he only had a speech.)

    I'm taking a glib break; so that means I have less input than may have otherwise been the case, especially with the comment fodder I'm seeing about this topic.  I'm sure I'll fall of the wagon, (this comment may, rightly, be described as such a slip up) but I'm trying.  It's hard with the low hanging fruit piling up.


    What did Wright say about (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:28:35 AM EST
    Farrakhan's virulent anti-semitism?

    Why is it bad (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:36:55 AM EST
    to bring sermons to Harvard?

    That's what you got out of my comment?

    I'm amazed.

    Let me say it more simply: You can't talk your way out of a situation you've acted yourself into.

    Not even if you say "but-but-but-CLINTON!" 800,000 times.


    Farrakhan (none / 0) (#88)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:42:32 AM EST
    isn't a big, big deal.  I thought Wright made sense about that one.

    Not about the other stuff, however.

    Farrakhan will be a red flag to Jewish Dems, but that flag went up ages ago for them.  Obama has tried to woo them without much success.

    Carter probably hurt him worse than this.  Big endorsement for Obama right before he meets with the Hammas?

    Thanks for nothing, Jimmy?


    You don't seem to understand (none / 0) (#101)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:57:39 AM EST
    the way people feel about Farrakhan.

    Farrakhan is deeply offensive on many, many levels.


    You could be right (none / 0) (#135)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:35:48 PM EST
    I'm not Jewish.

    And I am from the South originally.  So I am not put off by the "bully pulpit."


    He's a big deal to me (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:26:59 PM EST
    because of his anti-semitism. Follow the links in Tapper's article.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#110)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    Even Wright's saner rants are not something I would have enjoyed listening to for 20 years.

    Obama's church of choice (none / 0) (#142)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:43:21 PM EST
    is as unfathonable to me as my Southern friends who attended fundamentalists churches in the South.

    Same thing.  Flip side of the same coin.

    I never got it.

    But I'm a moderate in all things.  I like my spiritual life to inform my political ideology, but they are separate in many ways.

    My own spiritual path has a strict rule.  No politics.

    That divides people.

    I respect all of my friends I've met in that venue, but I don't like them much when we veer off into politics.  yikes

    So I love the separation.

    We relate on emotional levels and on experience and on our core beliefs.

    We don't have to vote the same way.


    Not only Wright, but his church... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:38:58 PM EST
    He needs to say that he spoke to the leaders of his church about x,y, and z, that they gave him a committment that there would be no more of x, y, and z, and therefore, he will continue to be a member. Or, alternatively, that they refused and he is quiting. But, as of now, he continues to go to a church that has many abhorent practices.

    Very weasly (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by ricosuave on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    I found Wright's performance at the Press Club to be combative and weasly.  Combative in the way that he prefaced nearly every answer with an insulting attack on the poor woman reading the questions (though sometimes generally to the anonymous questioner) that she/they didn't know the full story or context and were asking out of ignorance.

    And weasly everyhwere.  The AIDS question was a prime example: no chance of a "yes I believe that" or "no I don't believe that" answer, but merely historical references on why it could be true.  Just like Obama, he was attempting to have it both ways--to sound reasonable to reasonable folks and keep the support of folks who believe the nonsense.  

    In other cases, he just answered with the five word scriptural quotes.  In the question of whether Islam is a legitimate religion, I guess he answered it by saying that Jesus thinks Muslims are OK.  But I still don't know what Wright believes (or even what the context of the Jesus quote was, to tell the truth).

    Politically, he called Obama a dodgy politician again, which can't help.  And his statement that he was just a pastor and not a spiritual mentor (or, he said condescendingly, a guru) left me puzzled.  I thought that was what a pastor was.  And then he stated that Obama has never heard any of his sermons.  I just don't get it.

    But none of his appearances made sense until I saw that he had a book deal out.  I guess the pastor is cashing in regardless of what his publicity does to his former parishioner.  Will we see him on Colbert next?

    You know, I'm no defender of Wright (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:33:47 AM EST
    I've said repeatedly that there is no context in the world that can excuse the vile hate speech he spewed from the pulpit about Hillary & Bill Clinton or the lies about AIDS, etc. HOWEVER, I don't get this attitude that the man should just STFU because he is "hurting" Obama or that he should be at all concerned about what his actions are doing to Obama when Obama doesn't even acknowledge that Wright is still the pastor at Trinity.  You know, I have to agree with one point Wright made -- this isn't about Barrack -- Wright, for all his faults and for all I disagree with him, at least believes what he is saying -- which is a heck of a lot more then I can say about Obama. The man feels (whether you agree with it or not) that he has been treated badly in the press & tossed aside by Obama, and he has every right to speak out now -- the consequences to Obama be d*mned.  If Obama was so concerned about it, he should have left that church long before he ran for the US Senate. He didn't -- you reap what you sow. And if Wright hurts the Dems as a whole then guess what? Kerry, Dean, & Teddy should have vetted their little protege better before running him.  Because Wright is a 20 year part of Obama's life -- it is better we hear NOW what Wright before deciding who the nominee is to take on McCain.  

    People like Davd Duke (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:44:59 AM EST
    and Timothy McVeigh have and had convictions too.  Do you really want to fall into that line of thinking?

    I don't think Angie is saying that Wright's (none / 0) (#116)
    by MMW on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:17:50 PM EST
    convictions are right. She is saying that he has every right to speak his convictions, whether they are harmful to Obama and Democrats, or not. She is intimating that the super elders of the Democratic party were the ones who are causing the damage to the party. They jumped on board the SS Obama and have been trying to ram him down our throats. They are to blame for the damage caused by their shortsighted hubris.

    Quite frankly if these are the leaders of the party - it explains the current ball-less vison they have been advocating.


    Thank you MMW (none / 0) (#141)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    you nailed exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks!  

    WIRM (none / 0) (#188)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:43:50 PM EST
    maybe that should be a new acronym for the blogs: "...What I Really Meant..."

    And wow, my first troll/one rating.  


    I get the feeling (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    that Wright is actually having his revenge on Obama. Otherwise how else can one explain his blabbering like this to the msm. Next I expect him to concede that Obama was very much present during those "controversial" statements he made from the pulpit.

    The question that will come up (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:12:38 AM EST
    is, if the Senator was in D.C. or campaigning, etc., was a future First Lady wannabe at those sermons?

    Not that I can figure out how it helps the Senator to keep saying that he skipped church so much. :-)


    Well, being old and bitter, he's not (none / 0) (#65)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:14:50 AM EST
    part of the usual Obama demographic.
    I detect a hint of Hillary love in his speaking tour, myself.

    Serene1, Rev. Wright could also (none / 0) (#166)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    believe that he is telling the truth in that big sense. And if he feels it is part of the prophetic tradition and responsibility to speak truth to power, he may be speaking his truth now to everyone---including Sen. Obama.

    With this in mind, that he helps or hinders Sen. Obama is beside the point, just as whether or not people find his words scary, divisive, boring, dumb, irrational, joyful, accurate, reveletory or something else.

    Just another view.


    Farakkan (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:15:36 AM EST
    who is friends with Wright
       who is friends with Obama.
       Barack Hussein(Wright's emphasis) Obama

    When Farakkan speaks, AA's listen. etc.

    Just imagine the material...

    With all of this in mind, I think if the SD's nominate Obama, they're sending a message that they don't feel that it's strategically right to win the presidency at this time.

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:35:43 PM EST
    ...I can imagine an ad splicing Obama's spiritual advisor / mentor praising Farrakhan and then cutting to Farrakhan talking about his UFOs.

    I happened to be in the car, making (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    a longer than usual, and later than usual, drive in to the office, and caught the tail end of the speech to the NPC, and then, of course, there were questions that had been submitted ahead of time, which Wright answered.

    If there is to be blowback for Obama, I think it may come more from today's Q & A than from the speeches over the last couple of days.  What struck me is that while he spoke of reconciliation and redemption, his tone and the words that surrounded it were more divisive than unifying.  He was dismissive, he was condescending, and he was egged on by the hooting and hollering of a very boisterous and approving audience of invited guests.

    One thing I found interesting is that he has characterized the "attacks" by the media not as an attack on him, but as an attack on the black church.  So, instead of leaving it at him being on one side of a controversy, he expanded it to something so much bigger, which by extension and inference includes the black people who attend not just his church, but all black churches.  Reconciliation?  I don't think so.

    This could not have helped Obama.  But, in the grander scheme of things, this has hurt the cause of race relations in a very significant way.  I believe that the criticisms of Wright's sermons had nothing to do with race; it doesn't matter what color is attached to someone who made the comments Wright did.

    What a mess.

    Attack of the black church? (none / 0) (#97)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:52:21 AM EST
    Just more victimization.  Man don't they ever get tired of that game plan?  Obama is the antithesis of that line of thinking:  someone who worked hard, went to school and had aspirations for himself.

    I may not be a fan of Obama but at the very least he didn't make excuses for being "down".  Sadly though I think that this reverend has polluted his mind.  Obama doesn't necessarily strike me as a "victim" of any kind of racism but he's playing that card to cut Clinton (and possibly McCain) off at the knees.


    Well, to her credit (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:06:26 PM EST
    Hillary commented on the GOP ads using Wright today.

    Clinton on Wright

    "But, I regret the efforts by the Republicans to politicize this matter and I believe that if Senator McCain were serious he would do more than just send a letter he is the putative nominee I think he could very clearly tell the North Carolina party tell the Mississippi party that he would not tolerate those kinds of advertisements and I'm waiting to see if he does that."

    That's good to hear.

    probably the right tactic for her (none / 0) (#126)
    by AlSmith on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:28:27 PM EST
    But really what does "he would not tolerate those kinds of advertisements" mean? The advertisement is about a state race, so he really has no control over anything.

    a new game plan? (none / 0) (#164)
    by moll on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    But really what does "he would not tolerate those kinds of advertisements" mean? The advertisement is about a state race, so he really has no control over anything.

    it suggests to me that her strategy is to force the candidate to denounce negative advertisement.

    She is preparing for the swift boating by suggesting that the candidate has an obligation to stop it. Thus, if there is swift boating, (if she plays her game right) it will make McCain look bad, because he isn't stopping it, he isn't denouncing it.

    Should make for an interesting game later in the election, as McCain tries to find ways to respond to such an obligation :)


    I didn't watch it (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:30:12 PM EST
    but saw some clips.  My favorite quote was when he said this regarding his relationship with Obama.

    "I'm a pastor; he's a member," he said. "I'm not a `spiritual mentor.' "

    What?  A pastor is not a spiritual mentor?  Then what the heck is he?

    Too Bad Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    Are more like cats than dogs. Unlike Republicans who are able to march lockstep to the drumbeat of fascism, democrats say whatever they think is right irrespective of the fact that it sometimes turns into a circular firing squad.

    I think it's inherent (none / 0) (#146)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:48:48 PM EST
    "Democrats" (or more precisely, "liberals"), by their very definition, are open to accepting more than one idea, which is why there are sometimes competing interests in the party.

    Ok, here is the most sad, embarrassing (none / 0) (#60)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    diary yet about Wright.
    "Granny Doc" is a Ph.D with  a decades long academic career. She calls Wright "brilliant".
    I weep for the way Obamaphilia has brought fine minds down so low.

    You must be joking

    It's a viewpoint (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:18:00 AM EST
    And I guess the General Election is going to test the Good Doctor's thesis.

    Oh, how easy this election could have been.  We could have had 300 electoral college pts easy.  Split the GOP in the South and demolish them in Penn and Ohio.

    Not now.  Not for 20 years.


    exercise (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:20:45 AM EST
    go on youtube and watch some old Jessie Jackson speeches.  Some of the points he makes are the same that Wright made.  But, there is something about the way Jackson says that stuff that does not make me cringe or feel some deep seated hypocrisy.  I find Wright's style served him well in his church, to a closed audience, but he does not get it that he is hurtful when he mocks and ridicules.  

    I know that Jackson had his own baggage, but I am talking about the overall style.  


    I remember Jesse. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    his tone was a lot different.

    Message vs. Delivery (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:49:00 AM EST
    Saying "God D*** America" or "we should fight harder to be part of the American dream"...which one sounds better?

    And as for delivery, you can either come off as a "loony tune racist" or a serious Bill Cosby type.

    You choose Rev Wright...from your mouth to your flock.


    Actually.... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:47:09 PM EST
    I think God Damn America works better...controversy feeds thought.

    Sugar-coating the message takes all the teeth out of it and makes it easy to ignore.


    I saw Jesse Jackson in 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:54:06 PM EST
    at the Take Back America conference.  He talked about the disenfranchisement of all kinds of people.  At one point he talked about poor white and Latino women who worked hard hours cleaning hotels they would never be able to stay in.  He said what he said in soft tones and with such genuine love that he has me in tears.  Wright is no Jesse Jackson and neither is Obama.

    Wright doesn't offend me in any way... (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by Marco21 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:33:32 AM EST
    and not to offend anyone here, it's because I am an atheist and I believe those who speak in the name of an imaginary God are just full of themselves and sh*t.

    (again, that's my humble O)

    But, for this Orange Julius granny to say that you're cold and narrow-minded (and white if I got the gist correctly in the last paragraph) for not "getting" his message is exactly as you stated. Sad.

    Obama mania isn't just a fad - it seems to be a mental illness in a growing number of cases.

    I am so, so over getting called narrow-minded, dumb and a racist for not voting for Obama's presidential aspirations. To make it clear to any Barack fans here - I think Hillary will do a better job. That's it. It's not his race, his religon, his name, etc.

    Hillary will be a better President. That's the answer.


    I think Obama (none / 0) (#104)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:00:50 PM EST
    knows that there's something a but menacing in the MSNBC coverage and the supporters he's srating to get.

    He made a point to avoid association with Dkos when he went on Fox.

    I think he knows they went OTT on the Orangemen website.


    I found it sad. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:17:49 AM EST
    I think anyone of that age who has really had a rich and rewarding spiritual life wouldn't fall for Wright's spiel.

    Someone who has long been spiritually deprived might think it's a veritable feast instead of stale leftovers.


    Promoting and Collaborating with Farrakhan... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:33:11 PM EST
    ...really ##IS## brilliant!  Without Wright's help, many of his congregation, wouldn't have learned about Yakub!  Or about Farrakhan's UFOs.  Brillian! Bravo!

    BTD (none / 0) (#67)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:16:25 AM EST
    posted Rev. Wright: Obama A Politician last Thursday when advance clips and reports of the interview came out.

    I detect genuine anger at Obama from Wright (none / 0) (#99)
    by Terry M on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:54:39 AM EST
    With every stop on his media tour, Rev. Wright seems to be stoking the notion that Obama has been disingenuous about race and unity.

    With Moyers, I saw nothing particularly problematic.  Calling Obama a politician wasn't a compliment, but wasn't devastating.  Then, in front of the NAACP, the Rev. Wright of the sermon clips came out: sarcastic, mean (the Irish comment), intentionally provocative.  Then, today, at the Nat'l Press Club, he was a disaster for Obama.  I'm a Hillary supporter, and I feel badly for Obama - this is just a train wreck unfolding.

    I think Wright is baiting the Obama campaign with each appearance, and since they have failed to bite, he ratchets up the rhetoric.  

    Is Wright trying to peel away the black vote from him?  What else could he be tryng to accomplish?  

    Wright (none / 0) (#107)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:04:11 PM EST
    Said when Obama's president he'll criticize him the same way cause, as president, Obama will then be part of the problem.  Not part of the solution.

    That's what I gathered anyway.

    And this is how all the Obama supporters will respond to Obama as president as well.  

    Wright is a blogger activist, only most blogger activists do their work from a sort of post-racial secular point of view.

    Wright is a blogger activist with a LOT of baggage.

    Some of it I think is sincere.  Most of it is narcissistic greed.


    Farrakhan's statements on judaism (none / 0) (#100)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:56:01 AM EST
    I'm not familiar with Farrakhan, but his statements on judaism (linked at ADL), and what is and isn't valid judaism and valid activity, are about as interesting as a bill o'reilly culture war rant.

    He specifically targets hollywood, language/filth in films, and those that support homosexuality.  However, I'd say it's not just arrogant religious fighting and cultural arguments...it goes beyond that in that he thinks the Jews control/created the federal reserve and the fbi...that's way beyond an arrogant and divisive critique of another religion and well into anti-Jewish land.      Typing this is a ^%# verbal minefield, fyi, cut me some slack.

    Oh and a pet peeve, why hype something that speaks for itself?  I noted that the first quote on the ADL link is out-of-context for maximum effect (he's actually "only" calling a subset of jewish worshippers satanic). Using one term to denote Race/Religion tends to complicate discussion and make discussion far more divisive (farrakhan is already divisive, but it just got me thinking about how many folks seem to equate arab with muslim).  Heh, It doesn't help either that the etymology of anti-semitic could suggest anti-arabic.

    Farrakhan's anti-sematism... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    ...is most well-known, because ADL goes after him for it, but he is equally and just as rabidly racist to other races as well.

    Wright now being guarded by Nation of Islam (none / 0) (#123)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST
    I think this is the biggest news.

    Wright was once a member of Nation of Islam and many have alledged that his teachings are not United Church of Christ, but but his own religion that is a hybrid of UCC and NOI.  And, of course, Wright has a long history of collaborating with and promoting Louis Farrakhan and Nation of Islam in his capacity as pastor of Trinity.

    Nation of Islam is defined as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League and other hate watchdog orgranizations for holding many, many racist positions.

    Obama has said that if Wright was still his pastor and did not acknowledge that his statements were wrong, that he would quit the church. Yet, his church continues to promote and collaborate with Farrakhan and Nation of Islam, in fact, recently giving Farrakhan a lifetime achievment award. Shouldn't Obama give a similar ultamatum to his church in respect to its dealings with Farrakhan and Nation of Islam?

    The Rev. Wright's cop-out (none / 0) (#152)
    by bettym47 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    My blog this morning on this subject at http://www.elections2008online.com.

    Rev. Wright has been going out of his way to defend himself. He says an attack on him is really an attack on the black church. But, will everyone see it that way? I don't. I understand that people who were once oppressed and poor are more angry and may want to speak truth to power, but when you say things like G-D America, and that America was to blame for 911 or that America planted AIDS in people, and then people reject those words, is that an attack on the black church? I think not. Wright's comments are out of line and not acceptable, and if you say these things you have to realize many are offended. It's a cop out to say that this is what the black church is like. Also, you can say things that criticize society and America, without saying the inflammatory words that the Rev. Wright used.

    Moreover, the association with the Rev. Wright does not come in a vacuum as Obama has had associations with a number of other radicals as well. Barack sought out Marxist professors in college. You have to look at the whole picture surrounding the man.  Look at many of his advisers now. Many of them are very anti-Israel. There's a pattern there of being extreme regarding Obama's views over his entire adult lifetime.

    So my conclusion is that you can say things in church, but people may not like it, and if one of the members of that church, who has been there for 20 years, is running for the presidency, the American people have a right to determined if that candidate has been influenced by their pastor and if they want that individual as their president. I sure do not want such a man as my President. Barack may be a cool dude to some, but he's just too extreme for me and probably for much of America.

    I think Obama (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:31:43 PM EST
    is a complete centrist.

    Not Sure Of How Many (none / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:18:01 PM EST
    African americans commented on the last thread, but at least one AA Hillary supporter and one AA Obama supporter were scratching their heads as to why Rev Wrights speech was in the least bit offensive. Several non AA commenters, including myself are also wondering.

    Considering that 10,000 NAACP members gave him a looong standing ovation, Rev Wrights premise must be true: AA's are wired differently than most non AAs. What else could account for such a long series of presumably whitish commenters repeatedly fainting with outrage over Rev Wright's speech.

    Hats off to neurodiversity. I do not think the human race would ever have survived this long without it.

    true? (none / 0) (#184)
    by moll on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:26:49 PM EST
    Everything Rev. Wright talked about this weekend was true, but white people in general will react with anger b/c they hate to be reminded how their ancestors treated Africans and African culture.

    Excuse me, but no one in my family tree ever mistreated an African.

    It's funny, if you look at the family trees, most white people in America are not related to slaveholders.

    Really? (none / 0) (#201)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:29:00 PM EST
    I was under the impression that most americans whose ancestors have been here a couple of centuries are black, going by the one drop rule. And if that is true, that same population has slave owner blood as well.

    Me thinks a lot of hanky panky went on back then.


    the old wink wink (none / 0) (#196)
    by karen for Clinton on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:56:34 PM EST
    Ever since March 2nd this article has stuck in my mind as his modus operandi and it makes me nuts:


    "okie doke" barackbamboozle.