Clinton Camp: Time To Move On Past Wright

Greg Sargent reports that:

Hillary chief strategist Geoff Garin [said] "Senator Obama has said what he has to say . . .We respect the fact that Senator Obama has had his say on this and the campaign should move on."

Sargent also reports that Hillary Clinton said:

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[.] [H]e 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.

By Big Tent Democrat

< PPP NC Poll: Obama By 12 | AP Poll: Clinton Runs Better Than Obama Against McCain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hillary's statement (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:18:14 PM EST
    is perfect pitch.

    We need to turn down this thermastat for the good of all.


    Arousing racial tension to win an election is just stupid.

    Pelosi, Teddy, Kerry McCaskill Daschle those are (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:22:48 PM EST

    the folks that should be out trying to tamp this down before someone gets hurt ............................................it should not all fall to Hillary and Representtive Tubbs Jones who tired to warn Obama's campign surrgates on Friday this is a no win.

    Leadership (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    doesn't require a name or a label.

    Just do it.

    She has done the right thing by turning off this spigot.

    Wright is obviously out of control.

    He's a retiring train wreck with ideas that are so outdated as to be embarassing to everyone.

    I totally applaud Hillary's statement.

    Let us all move on.  

    Let him retire with dignity.  

    He was an honest pastor in that he represents the transition period of the AA community into now.

    But let's not assume that is the "final word."


    McCain (none / 0) (#205)
    by DJ on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:58:28 PM EST
    is  now backing away from stopping the Wright ads.  Said he is not going to do Obama's work for him.

    Guess all those right wing talk shows got him to back off his principled stand.


    Doncha Think It Was Just For Show? (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:43:40 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#224)
    by DJ on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:49:01 PM EST
    I think it shows he is willing to bend his principles for his handlers.

    And i just got a call (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by magisterludi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:36:40 PM EST
    from the DNC looking for money. I said my piece, criticizing Dean and Brazille. I told them to call back when they find their misplaced brains.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#197)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:47:44 PM EST
    From the fake story:

    The minister added that it would take at least two weeks for the channel to launch, but said that in the interim he would schedule a series of other television appearances, on such programs as "Jeopardy," "Dancing with the Stars," and the hit teen drama "Gossip Girl."

    Can't you just see it!


    oh shoot (none / 0) (#199)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:48:41 PM EST
    that response was for the Borowitz story below...



    I disagree... (4.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    Now, the Obama campaign, will come back and say that she has been "politicizing" the matter all along, ect.

    I think she should have said something like this:

    Nation of Islam is defined by the Southern Povertly Law Center, ADL, and others as a hate group. If my church gave a lifetime achievment award to the head of a hate group, I would have quit immediately or gotten a guarantee that they not collaborate with or promote this hate group in the future.  While I disagree with the content of the GOP ad running in North Carolina, I believe this issue with Senator Obama is not going to go away until he shows leadership and deals with it appropriately.


    No, I disagree (5.00 / 7) (#128)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:49:56 PM EST
    She's had her say on Rev. Wright's controversial statements already. She doesn't need to say more just because he's said more.  I think what she said today is perfect. She's trying to persuade the SDs that SHE's the best candidate in the fall, and SHE's been the one talking most about party unity and closing ranks behind the nominee.

    By saying what she said, she's proving she the real party loyalist. I say bravo.


    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Emma on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:59:29 PM EST
    She captured the high ground after her PA speech (so positive there was nothing negative to say about it) and she should keep it.  Keeping the focus on HER and her smarts and solutions always works well for her.  With some of the messianic shine off Obama, and the press doing some vetting on him, she can get back to where she started last fall:  issues and solutions.  That was working well then and I think it can work well again.

    That's true... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:12:25 PM EST
    ...Clinton needs to say what she said today. But, a surrogate or someone needs to still be pushing it.

    Better than the Clinton campaign, (none / 0) (#186)
    by seeker on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:34:30 PM EST
    the Republicans are pushing it.  Why should she be more "divisive"?

    Too aggressive, imo (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    Donna B has been shown saying Hillary needs to throw more dirty laundry at Obama. I don't think Hillary should do anything that would play into that hand. It would turn the tide back towards Obama if they can get back on the evil attacking she-devil train. imo anyway  ;)

    I would not take any advice from Brazille (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:04:08 PM EST
    even on how to boil water.

    But can she bake cookies? (none / 0) (#156)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:11:25 PM EST
    oh I know! I was a bit surprised (none / 0) (#206)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:02:15 PM EST
    she was going there after earlier remarks she's made. I won't put here what I said to her face on the TeeVee  ;)

    I'm sure that the Obama will (none / 0) (#160)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:14:12 PM EST
    seize on some improper intonation or font that the statement was written on; )

    Darn! (none / 0) (#165)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:19:09 PM EST
    She must have released the statement on LEGAL sized paper instead of LETTER sized!  </snark>

    Thank goodness the words (none / 0) (#168)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    "as far as I know" were not in her statement. ;-)

    Well... as far as you know... they weren't (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:31:23 PM EST
    The Borowitz Report (humor) (none / 0) (#177)
    by cymro on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:27:00 PM EST
    its good that she/they (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:20:16 PM EST
    are saying this.  
    but as atrios said recently:

    Some Republican or conservative group runs a dumb ad.

    John McCain nobly distances himself from it.

    Cable news spends all day talking about it and showing it for free.

    Rinse. Repeat.

    Regardless of who the Dem nominee is (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    this is what will happen.

    The only answer is to grab the news cycle.  How?

    Hmmmmm.  Every time McCain "nobly distances himself" , do him one better.  Say "I don't think [blah blah blah] is what the American people want to see.  I think they are more interested in Issues like [name Issue that is a Dem strength but a GOP weakness].

    Keep it up.  You'll have to shake it up often enough to keep the media interested in what you have to say, but always remember - it's a war of sound bites, you need to say it in thirty seconds or less.  Save the details for stump speeches and debates.


    I was just reading at Digby (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarany on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    about this.  It was a post last Friday about McCain's bad week, including his denouncement of the ad, and his apparent impotence since it ran anyway.

    So Hillary's got the focus just right on McCain.

    Despite Obama's opening on this (fair game for political discussion), McCain looks small for his inability to quash the ad, and then pouncing on it after all.  Seems like a weasly flip flop to me. He SHOULD get pounded for ceding the high road after making a big deal about being about refraining from making an issue of Wright.


    Sorry, I don't get that McCain looks small (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MMW on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:44:20 PM EST
    here. Most non-democrat men do not have to prove their manhood, their control, or their superiority. Yah, I know.

    Plus McCain has an entrenched background narrative - Maverick.

    Sorry, Clinton is saying what she has to say. She comes off as the better candidate, the more forward thinking, gets passable press for it (maybe), but no way it dies down because she says let's move on. Wright has brought his own legs and Obama's attitude and recent gaffes are bringing the other legs.

    It just means she can say later on that she has already addressed it.

    Wishful thinking to say it could be Clinton or McCain's problem or that it'll die down, while Wright is still speaking.

    She chose a good day for it too. They will report her response because he's still speaking and they're reporting him still.


    She can only control herself and (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    her campaign.  She has no control over other elements of the society.  But the important thing is she addressed the issue for the right reasons.  People will notice and remember her sttand.  She is showing true leadership and integrity as a campaigner.

    Voters have pretty much accepted the fact that the media is biased against her.  And maybe there are still some honest journalists left in MSM.  On the other hand, I think Obama is dazed and has not recovered his timing/footing from his humiliating loss in PA and the stream of negative stories e.g. Wright, bitter/cling, "Bored," and "can't I just eat my waffle?!" None of which had anything to do with Clinton.  Those are all self-inflicted.

    Where Clinton was able to say, "I found my voice," after New Hampshire, Obama seems to have "lost his voice" after PA.

    Being a Clinton supporter, I am naturally reassured by these developments.


    "Nobly distances himself from it"? (none / 0) (#100)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:32:00 PM EST
    The MSM will never acknowledge that McShame is trying to have to his cake and eat it too by publicizing his noble distancing (not to mention his powerlessness as the presumptive nominee to get anyone in the state parties from pulling the ads).

    At the same time, however, they will speculate that Hillary Clinton secretly put the Rev. Wright up to speaking to Bill Moyers and the NAACP.

    BTW, I watch the Bill Moyers interview, and through most of it Wright comes across as intelligent, thoughtful and charismatic. His "give unto politics what is politicians'and give unto God what is God's" explanation could have been stated in a way that didn't call Obama's integrity into question, though.

    But then again, maybe Wright wanted to call Obama's integrity into question? I wonder how welcome Obama still is in that church....


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:31:05 PM EST
    Everybody keeps saying that Obama "didn't throw Wright under the bus" with that speech of his -- but he did -- he has dismissed Wright like some out of touch, crazy old "uncle" who people are amused by but don't really pay much attention -- for a guy like Wright that is throwing him under the bus: 1. because of his ego and 2. because he believes this black liberation theology.  So, not only has Obama insulted Wright's sense of purpose, he has insulted his beliefs (can you imagined how po'd Wright is to realize that Obama has probably been using him & UCC as a political stepping stone? 'cause trust me, that is what Wright is thinking about now). So, I totally believe that Wright wants to call Obama out with these actions -- I think Wright believes God wants him to call Obama out -- Wright seems like a man with a mission to me, and it looks like "mission [almost] accomplished."

    It was never Hillary (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:21:34 PM EST
    that was pushing the story in the first place.

    That's right! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by stefystef on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:58:07 PM EST
    And this statement from Hillary is perfect.
    She should stay far away from this and tell Bill Clinton to stay REAL far away from this.

    Obama will have to deal with Wright all by himself.


    Actually fmr Pres Clinton could come out strong (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:10:14 PM EST
    and say, "These ads are bogus. Sen. Obama is a good Democrat and a good man. So why don't we all follow Hillary's example and focus on the issues the American people need us to focus on."

    It's a position of strength---defending the opponent in the middle of a tough contest---and it sounds confident.


    They've done enough (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:12:49 PM EST
    Indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:15:30 PM EST
    Short, sweet and to the point.

    Now, Obama, about that debate on a flatbed truck...;-)


    That would be good, yes (none / 0) (#78)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:17:04 PM EST
    but considering how much Obama has been smearing his legacy, I think that would be asking too much.

    just a bit of editing... (none / 0) (#118)
    by jackyt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:42:16 PM EST
    and say, "These ads are bogus... why don't we all follow Hillary's example and focus on the issues the American people need us to focus on."

    Unfortunately Rev. Wright (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Serene1 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:22:20 PM EST
    is perfectly content to remain in the news. He seems to be in his element.

    As for McCain, his weak sounding opposition is not convincing anyone.

    Certainly seems that way (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:36:05 PM EST
    but why not?  He retired from a church of 8,000 now he can preach to the entire 250,000,000 Americans.

    Wright's like Obama said a crazy ole uncle (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    but Rep Clyburn is an elected officals and leader in the House and he is clearly inflaming grievance and should be called to task by members of the Party.

    Did I Just Read This? (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Athena on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    Should it become necessary in the months from now to identify the moment that doomed Obama's presidential aspirations, attention is likely to focus on the hour between nine and ten this morning

    Dana Millbank right now in WaPo - tide is turning, folks,....


    Aw geez... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:29:28 PM EST
    It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

    Okay, I'm off the fence. Obama cannot be HRC's VP. The Dream Ticket is no more.

    Obama is toast.

    (IMO of course)


    Seconded (none / 0) (#98)
    by Regency on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:31:22 PM EST
    I knew he'd be toxic to her and this proves it.

    Seriously, the ReThugs will go after him if they feel that what they've got on her isn't potent enough.  Saying otherwise is denial.


    I might have just lost $20 (none / 0) (#210)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:26:01 PM EST
    I made a bet that Hillary would choose Obama for a VP, and the person I made the bet with (a feverish Obama supporter) said that would be the kiss of death, and besides, she'd never do it.

    Well, looks like I lost that one. I think I'll wait for a few weeks after the convention before I give her the $20.


    Oh crap (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:34:24 PM EST
    I'm a Clinton supporter, but I'd hate to see Obama's campaign run off the rails because of this. If it plays out that way, it will anger a lot of African-Americans and irrevocably impair a promising leader who just needs (IMHO) a little more experience and seasoning.

    He Lacks (4.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Athena on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:36:51 PM EST
    No, he needs judgment.  

    All of these are unforced errors on Obama's part - not ready for prime time or future time.


    Future time (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    I would have said that his time was in the future. I still think he has the fundamentals, and just needs experience and seasoning -- which includes some time pondering his own fallibility. Judgment can improve.

    But this may sink him for good.  I don't take pleasure in that possibility.


    Neither pleasure nor (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    satisfaction is taken by me either for in the end it is a waste of his potential nonetheless it would best for the country if Obama resigned from public life. He's as toxic as Richard Nixon really.

    And you know what? (none / 0) (#116)
    by pie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:40:33 PM EST
    There's nothing wrong with that kind of criticism.  It's constructive and accurate.  No one is saying Obama shouldn't run for president.  He has the potential to be very good.

    Just not now.

    This could have been done without the vitriol and the mud-slinging.  It's been very disappointing to watch this play out.


    Obama supporters (none / 0) (#155)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:10:30 PM EST
    will know why he can't be the VP.  And many will be convinced that he did it to himself with the help of his so-called supporters.

    Why, I b'leeve I said on this blog (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:25:29 PM EST
    in recent days that bad as Wright was when on script, it would be a problem when he went improv in the standard q and a at the National Press Club, especially the significant venue that it is.

    Milbank's list of Wright's wrongs today is jaw-dropping, but none will have more impact on media than this one:

    Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."

    Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

    Btw, in their club, I would bet that members did not appreciate the crowd that Wright brought in with him, with the way they acted as we can see on tv.  But it may dawn on some of the media that this shouting down was the sort of actions reported along the campaign trail at caucuses, too.


    Tweety's face (none / 0) (#212)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:43:10 PM EST
    Ryan Lizza is going off on how 'unfair' this is.  You should see the very vague smirk/smile on Tweety's face.  Wright is Obama.  Jekyl/Hyde.  ouch!  Ray Lizza is trying, stating Obama has a record to look at.

    G@d D@mn America!  (Tweety)  You would have heard about this.  Are you telling me he didn't hear about this?   Dems have been lambasting Repubs for ages, this is how politics is played.

    Ryan Lizza is the one who wrote that B Clinton doesn't like Obama (because he is enraged that Obama keeps attacking his record)

    Tweety's flipped.


    Unlike Clyburn, Hillary is a good politician (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    I think the statement is to let the AA voters that she is not going along with the race baiting.  That move is for the November election, and maybe for some AA's who might be having second thoughts at BOs electability.

    exactly (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by ccpup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:39:05 PM EST
    She's showing she's not playing that game and disagrees with the GOP tactics to attack Obama via Wright which subtly reminds these suddenly skittish potential Obama voters that

    1. Wright will be an issue which could (and will) adversely affect Dem chances in the Fall if Obama's the Nominee

    2. McCain is as divisive as the GOP and not the maverick he'll sell himself to be so he shouldn't be trusted to be as behind the AA community as he'll say he is

    and 3) she supports their community, has always supported their community and will continue to support them especially if the Media takes the words of a misguided Reverend and attempts to wound the community with them.

    She really is showing her impressive ability to out-maneuver Barack on this big chess board we call The Primary.


    She's also coming to the defense (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:41:16 PM EST
    of two gubernatorial candidates (and superdelegates) in NC who did not endorse her.

    has Obama done that? (none / 0) (#221)
    by ccpup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:45:08 PM EST
    Or is he still waiting to see which way the wind blows before finding his "courage".

    (I assume you mean the two down-ticket Dems who have ads being run against them linking their campaigns to Wright and Obama, correct?)


    What? (none / 0) (#225)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:32:03 PM EST
    Obama doesn't stand up for anyone but Obama.

    Yepper (none / 0) (#227)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:25:46 PM EST
    sorry---that was to ccpup (none / 0) (#228)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:34:35 PM EST
    I just got done (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:31:07 PM EST
    with a brief discussion on DK.  IACF! if the DNC decides to seat any delegates from MI & FL.  IACF! if SuperDs choose her instead of Obama.  IACF! even if everything is done according to Teh Roolz.  (I don't know if Wright is ACF!)

    The people you meet online are just fascinating, utterly fascinating.

    What do those acronyms mean? (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    I no longer go to the Blog That Must Not Be Named.

    P.S. Howard Dean was on the Today Show this morning and was yapping about Teh ROOLz, the need for consequences, the importance of having  chosen two additional states for the front end that had AA and Latino voters....And yet, Dean promises, "delegates will be seated...I just don't know how." Meredith Veiera did not press him on whether he meant that delegates would be seated ONLY after he had coralled all the SD's into declaring for Obama.

    BTW: Don't Michigan and Florida have AA and Latino voters?


    IACF=It's All Clinton's Fault (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:40:11 PM EST
    (my coinage)

    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:46:00 PM EST
    I did hear people on MSNBaraCk speculate when the Wright controversy first emerged that somehow the Clintons had engineered the release of the incendiary videos.

    Perhaps Keith Olbermann will be starting off the Countdown with a resuscitation of that story tonight....


    Yes... (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:50:20 PM EST
    What astonishes me is why HRC even needs to run for President. She clearly controls the Universe already!

    Really! (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:55:11 PM EST
    If the Clintons were that all-powerful, wouldn't they have been able to keep Monica secret and make sure all the Democratic chads in Florida fell off in 2000?

    Heh. (none / 0) (#141)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    This is why the Obamans who scream "IACF" all the time remind me so much of the Freepi.

    Their logic centers appear to be seriously impaired.


    So...apparently there are some things (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:36:08 PM EST
    that she will not do or say in order to get the nomination.

    That was a nicely done statement.

    but now watch Obama (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by ccpup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    feed her to the wolves without a second thought the first chance he gets.

    I hope the SDs are making mental notes about which candidate is stabbing which candidate (and spouse) in the back whenever there's an opportunity to do so and which candidate is (and has been) making a plea for party unity and declaring some attacks out-of-bounds.


    It was clearly time for her to say something, (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:39:51 PM EST
    and what she and her campaign have now said strikes me as being near-perfect.

    The campaigns have to move on - whether the media will go along with that strategy remains to be seen.  After listening to Rev. Wright this morning, I'm not sure he is ready for the microphones to go dead or the cameras to be turned off - and if he's still interested in hogging the media spotlight, will the media continue to indulge him?

    Of course, the media and the McCain campaign could just as easily respond to Clinton that no one cares what she thinks, and the Obama campaign could choose to keep things going by finding some bone to pick with Clinton over her statement - that would be a huge mistake on their part, I think.

    Hillary knows what we all know - that we can let go of Wright for now, but if Obama is the nominee, and even if he is on the ticket as VP, we will be seeing even more of Wright in the general election that we already have.  And who, in their right mind, wants that?

    Not me (speaking as someone who mostly still seems to be in her right mind - although this election season is putting that to the test)!

    She has no say in the matter (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:40:14 PM EST
    Neither she nor her campaign created the Wright story and it's ridiculous for her to get involved in any way. Wright doesn't benefit her. It hurts Obama without making her look better. And it isn't going to go away if she or Obama want it to.

    Wright is the gift that keeps on giving for the right wing. If he would just shut up for a few months the scandal would fade in the public memory, but is not going to happen.  And Obama can't renounce him at this point. He's too closely tied to him. It was really stupid of Obama to essentially say "it's a black thing" when he refused to distance himself from Wright. It makes white Americans feel as if there is some important difference between white and black Americans at a time when we need to be emphasizing the many ways we are the same.

    however (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by dws3665 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:48:02 PM EST
    She (and/or her campaign) would have continued to be asked about it by the media. Her not answering would keep the story alive. Some type of statement was needed, imho, and I think this is a very good one.

    And, it's probably just the thing to (none / 0) (#57)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:59:38 PM EST
    keep Wright talking, if you want to take a cynical view of the statement.

    I didn't say the statement wasn't good (none / 0) (#194)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:45:14 PM EST
    As far as it goes, it's fine. But she can't make the media stop Wright-watching when he is talking at the National Press Club and major national events. Right -wingers aren't the only ones promoting Wright - Wright is also self-promoting, and he isn't likely to stop now that he has a bigger pulpit than ever.

    Good for Hillary... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:44:45 PM EST
    But Wright isn't going away. Tthe problem is that unlike everyone else, Wright isn't supposed to be helping the Democratic Party.

    Wright is for Wright, and that's his right. He's trying to save his own reputation, not Obama's. And given the shots that Obama has taken at him, I'm not surprised he doesn't feel any obligation to help him out by going away.

    Seems like a smart move by Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:07:23 PM EST
    Now that the Right Wing attack dogs have grabbed hold of it there isn't much meat left for Hillary.  She cannot appear to be echoing the Right Wing crazy brigade.

    Now she can look magnanimous while the Right Wing uses it to attack Obama.

    As Wright makes more noise on his own the less impact he will have on Obama.  

    Less impact? (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    Um, ok.

    Wright needs to go away for good. NOW.


    I dont see that happening (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    but I agree he should

    I just read (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by pie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:34:59 PM EST
    comments following Sargent's post. Obama supporters are clinging to the notion that Wright doesn't hurt Obama.

    Good luck with that, people.


    Supposing Wright keeps talking. (none / 0) (#89)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:24:56 PM EST
    Will you admit that Obama is not going to win in November, if he even gets the nomination?

    If he does not shut up? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:27:58 PM EST
    then Obama will not win.

    obama needs to put it up there.... (none / 0) (#226)
    by moll on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:10:41 PM EST
    I am not a fan of Obama's, but for some perverse reason I keep fantasizing about this scenario:

    1. he takes the debate with Hillary

    2. he astonishes us all by clarifying exactly who he is, what he believes, and what he is going to do for the American people. He also makes clear what his real motives were in hanging out with all the people.

    3. he is so persuasive, so honest, and so thorough, that I can go back to not minding the idea of him as President.

    I guess that means that, beneath all my anger, I still want to believe in the guy.

    So I can only imagine what it must be like for people who actually like and admire him.


    I have no idea (none / 0) (#153)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:07:14 PM EST
    I don't make predictions about events that I can't reasonably speculate on.

    Maybe Wright will keep talking and he will continue to damage Obama.  Maybe people will soften their views on Wright.  Maybe they will get bored of him and not pay anymore attention to him.  Maybe Wright will simply go away.

    I really don't know.


    absolutely (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:34:00 PM EST
    Clyburn was never freelancing.
    this has been staged carefully.  but I think it is starting to backfire.  I just dont think they can make AAs hate the Clintons as much as they thought.
    who knew?
    (actually I did)

    As someone (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:12:38 PM EST
    who has someone very close to me who briefly worked on the Kerry campaign scheduling surrogates, I can tell you that Clyburn definitely had the blessing of the Obama campaign.  The Obama campaign is the one who gets the particular people to go out, they schedule where they want them and what their message is to be.  Occasionally, some go off script, but not seasoned politicians.

    This was approved from the top.


    Why the riotqs will not be in Denver... (1.00 / 1) (#222)
    by SAINTIXE56 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    Coming from HRC team, that is rich to play down Wrights comments, the man is a lunatic and it was not hard to know it from the first time around, what is clear is that the cLinton mafia has willingly blown up the chance of an AA to reach the WH FOR AGAIN A VERY LONG TIME. yes bwanah, me good boy, so dont be worried the GE willcome with a price and a long tab as for the senate and other elections
    time for payback.

    Hmm. (none / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:20:51 PM EST
    Kinda subtle?

    By me? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    I hope not. I want this story gone.

    wright's starting to remind me (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:26:14 PM EST
    of ralph nader. after decades of speaking before a few hundred people here, a few thousand people there, he suddenly has the national spotlight. and he likes it. and he's not going to easily give it up.

    When did Ralph Nader. . . (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:27:21 PM EST
    ever pull an audience of a few thousand people?

    he occasionally filled (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    a college auditorium. suddenly, he was filling basketball arenas. how fun!

    The WWF (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:32:06 PM EST
    guys can fill a place up; maybe one of them should run. Or maybe one of the Olsen twins.

    It's been done. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    He reminds me of my boy Ralph too.... (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:39:41 PM EST
    both say what they mean and mean what they say.  

    I wish I could say the same for the 3 stooges campaigning for president, or 99% of our Congress.  


    away from all 3 campaigns, it is not going from the media or from the various cultural/ethnic/religious organizations representing groups that took offense.  

    Garlic Noses have now disjointed noses, not necessarily because they follow the campaigns and the news as political junkies do, but because they ear/read what their org.s and churches analyze and circulate.  Unquantifiable? Sure.  Having a negative effect on Obama electability?  You bet.


    No, by Clinton. (4.20 / 5) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:26:36 PM EST
    Sort of a soft appeal to Wright-following African American voters without damaging her appeal to anti-Wright whites while at the same time actually ginning up the Wright issue.

    If Clinton spends the next few days knocking McCain for not being sufficiently against the people who are against Wright she paints McCain as divisive, reminds white voters about Obama's association with Wright, and lets African American voters know she's still there for them.


    Yes, Clearly It's Hillary Clinton's Responsibility (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    to make the issue of Obama's 20-year relationship with Wright go away.  

    Which is not to say that I disagree with Clinton that it's time to move on, I don't.  But ultimately Wright is a self-inflicted wound for Obama and I'm tired of every problem he has being Hillary's fault.  


    This has been a bizarre POV of Obama supporters (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    ... the complaint that TeamClinton aren't spending half their time and resources either mopping up, or outright STUMPING for Obama.

    Honestly. Bad enough to see all this bouncing off walls about Obama owning his on the record words and actions -- and additional gaffes that happen during the WORMing -- but seriously ...

    When were candidates supposed to fawn along with the rival team's fans?

    (The complaint came up in the hand-wringing about WJC being such a "loose cannon" on the trail.)


    This just fits in (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by nemo52 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    with the Hillary-as-bad-Mommy mentality.

    You two are right on target. (none / 0) (#203)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:57:06 PM EST
    The Obamans who claim that HRC should be covering Barack's butt rather than trying to, you know, win the nomination, don't realize that they are tacitly admitting how weak Obama really is as a candidate.

    HRC doesn't need Barack to cover for her, after all. She is strong enough to admit her own mistakes and to work them out herself. She even smacks down Bill when he gets too rowdy.

    She is solid to the core.


    Wright himself is ginning up the Wright issue (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    or did Clinton ask him to do a 4 day media blitz?

    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    She gets a jab in to the right, at the same time a jab in to the left, and still looks like she's the "unity" candidate.



    I disagree. (4.00 / 0) (#47)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:45:03 PM EST
    I don't think there's any nefarious undertones to her statement. Simply Wright is Enough.  McCain should stop being a typical Republican.

    I do not see any underlying evil (nor do I condone it) way of getting Wright tied to Obama yet again.  Ya know, she DOES care about the Party.  


    I think it's code (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    At this point, anyone who is slightly paying attention, the name Wright will evoke something in people.  And if they haven't been paying that close attention, it highlights that Wright has been speaking all weekend and those clips will be played, plus the GOP commercials to give her statements context.

    She has kept quiet about this topic and people have been speculating how her campaign would use it.  She puts it to bed with this statement and appears above the fray.

    In my most humble opinion, of course.  :)


    And this is a bad thing because...? (none / 0) (#20)
    by janarchy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    Where did I say it's a bad thing? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    I'm really just interested in it as an example of political ju-jitsu.  I've always admired Clinton as a politician and this is another example of just how good she is.

    Because.... (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:42:18 PM EST
    she is talking out of both sides of her mouth.  

    Some of us value integrity over "electability".


    If HRC were dishonest (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:04:47 PM EST
    about anything important, the corporate media would have found it by now.

    That's why I trust her more than the others.

    Sure, she has to watch what she says. If everything you said were deconstructed by a hostile punditry, every day for 16 years, you'd be a little cautious too.


    It's the opposite.... (1.00 / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:53:23 PM EST
    if Clinton, or Obama for that matter, were honest about anything important they'd be getting the Rev. Wright treatment from the corporate media by now.  iow, crucified.

    Or the Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich treatment. iow, being ignored.


    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:04:05 PM EST
    Have you been asleep since the Clinton Presidency?

    Do you really think that Bill and Hillary Clinton (or any Democrat) have gotten favorable press coverage for more than a microsecond? They were accused of murder! Bill was impeached for a blow job! Hellllooooooooo....

    The corporate media is all-Republican, all the time. I pity you if you don't realize that.


    I hope the Unity Hope crowd explains Garlic Nosed (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    Last week I was merely an inherently racist problematic old typical white women.

    Now it turns out I'm part Garlic Nosed too. (Hard-nosed, I wouldn't argue; hard-@ssed, a gimme. Garlic Nosed needs splainin.)

    Oh, and evilly Liberal, of course (but I didn't get the full effect of the souldja'ing on Fox.)


    Yep, exactly right.... (1.00 / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:54:52 PM EST
    I said I value integrity, which makes me a "none of the above" supporter...aka whoever the third name is come November.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:32:40 PM EST
    Am I the only one who got it? (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    Clinton takes McCain to task re: McCain's ineffectual protest against a nasty 527 Wright ad.

    While effectively cutting Obama out of the loop,
    Clinton points out McCain's impotence,
    and fights against below-the-belt ads.

    Not shabby work.


    I got it... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:39:43 PM EST
    And heard Rush taking him to task for rebuking the NC-GOP for airing the ad.

    Thank you. (3.00 / 0) (#54)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:53:48 PM EST
    I was away for the weekend and in the interim the comments section here seems to have become the anti-Kos where any neutral discussion of politics is considered an assault on one candidate or another and people down rate comments because they don't follow or agree with the argument they contain.

    Come On Larry (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:38:04 PM EST
    One person down rating your comment  (& one giving it a 5) and one other person objecting to what you said in a comment does not mean we have become like DKos. Several more down thread agree with you and I do too.

    There are, I think. . . (none / 0) (#147)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:02:34 PM EST
    eight (first level) responses to my original comment of which one is positive and the others refer to "tin foil" theories and my being one of "you people".  And considerably more than one negative rating in the thread, although they don't actually matter here.

    Frankly, I'd rather have a spirited and friendly disagreement with people than constant agreement, but the tone of the response is reminiscent of the response elsewhere when someone posts a comment stating that just maybe Obama is a politician instead of a deity.


    I Type Slow (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:27:44 PM EST
    My comment was true at the time I started it. I'm familiar with how you approach politics and although I don't always agree with you on issues, I do agree with your sentiments about having spirited and friendly debates. Sorry to see you getting slammed unfairly IMO. The threads were heavily invaded over the weekend with shrieks of "Hillary Is Stealing The Election" and other standard Obama insulting talking points to the point that it strained the tolerance of most people here. I know I veered into slamming a few people myself and had to talk myself back from continuing to do so. An explanation and not a justification if you get my drift.

    And to be fair. .. (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:39:41 PM EST
    the comments (and ratings) are now considerably more mixed than when I first posted my complaint.

    Sheesh Larry (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:08:37 PM EST
    Don't be such a baby.

    Jeez Louise. (none / 0) (#77)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:17:02 PM EST
    Look at the response to a very straightforward, fairly obvious comment.  I made an admiring point about Clinton's political ability and it's like I insulted Obama on some other blog.  Is there anything in my comment (not withstanding the fact that you may not agree with it) that you believe smacks of tin-foil hattery, or you-peopleism?

    I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but be honest -- doesn't the response here remind you of someplace else?

    Pointing that out is "being a baby"?

    You guys have built a nice following here, but if someone responded to one of your "let's look at the political aspects of this statement" posts the same way people have responded to my tiny little comment you'd be slamming them left and right and decrying the tone they were bringing to the comments section.


    LarryinNYC, that Louise from Harry & Louise? (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:34:56 PM EST
    I'm kidding.

    But I agree with you: the junior senator from New York has amazing political skills. The only issue for me is that she return to her message as it sets her apart from both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama.

    If she overreaches, we're back to hearing how she's so evil, every time she smiles an angel explodes.

    (Overreaching for her is based on a double-standard IMO, but I'll let it go for now.)


    Sure it is (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:23:38 PM EST
    You made it sound pernicious frankly. And the way you describe it, it would be imo.

    Clinton could have stayed silent and the Wright coverage would have been the same.

    You make it sound like this gins it up.

    this was a response to Clyburn imo.

    But your theory of Clinton ginning it up makes no sense imo.


    Do you prefer. . . (none / 0) (#127)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:49:50 PM EST
    the phrase "piling on" to "ginning up" (because at the moment it is hard to gin any harder than Wright is himself)?

    Do you really think Clinton wants the Wright issue to disappear from politics overnight?  Don't you think that view is kind of naive?


    Seems pretty straightforward (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:42:50 PM EST
    to me, although (as I said) subtle.  This is a great issue for Clinton and this lets her help to keep it alive while being on the right (no pun intended) side of the issue.

    I disagree with your interpretation (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    As I have said 3 times now, this is about Clyburn, imo, not Obama.

    Of course you're free. . . (none / 0) (#85)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:21:30 PM EST
    to disagree with my interpretation (although I'm pretty surprised that you do, since it seems pretty obvious to me and requires a suspension of your "of course they're all politicians" outlook).  Your initial comment ("Huh?"), however, led me to believe that you didn't understand my interpretation.

    As for Clyburn, I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Clyburn isn't mentioned in the post or anywhere in this thread of comments.  I'll now go off and read some other posts to see if I can figure out how you believe Clyburn relates to Clinton's statement today.


    PS. . . (none / 0) (#139)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:56:13 PM EST
    I now see that while I was off replying to something else you did, in fact, mention Clyburn in this thread.

    That is a convoluted interpretation (none / 0) (#25)
    by BigB on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:33:46 PM EST
    Remember Occam's razor, The simplest interpretation is the best.

    More like a tinfoil explanation. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:36:55 PM EST
    Wherefore Hillary is still the guilty party: trying to look good while secretly ginning up the Wright issue while at the same time attacking McCain.  She's a regular Saruman.

    My interpretation is the simplest. . . (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:49:57 PM EST
    the idea that the Clinton campaign would make a statement like this without considering the political aspects, while simple on the surface, is really hard to accept.

    Is everyone arguing that Clinton genuinely wants to suppress one of her best issues against Obama eight days before the potentially deciding contests?


    Well I dunno why your comment (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:47:09 PM EST
    got downgraded. I get what you're trying to say and I see no bad or whatever in your interpretation. I just agree with BTD on this. She had to respond but I don't think there is anything beyond that involved.  She would not fan the flames of this. If she turns out to be the nominee she will not risk alienating the AA vote more than it already has been by all this racial nonsense.

    My original point. . . (none / 0) (#137)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:55:31 PM EST
    was not that she's alienating the African American vote but just the opposite -- that she's appealing to them by "supporting" Obama on this issue while doing nothing to actually make the issue go away.

    LOL (none / 0) (#145)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    I know what you meant originally, Larry. I'm just seeing it differently is all.

    How can she (none / 0) (#146)
    by pie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:02:28 PM EST
    make the issue go away?  

    She's concerned with her own campaign, and she certainly doesn't want to spend a lot of time on this which would only serve to keep more attention on Wright.


    She can't. . . (1.00 / 0) (#151)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:06:24 PM EST
    If she really wanted it to go away, she should say nothing.  But certainly it's not going to go away any faster by her calling for it to go away -- if that has any effect at all, it will be to prolong it.

    So now she needs to STFU too? Puh-leeze (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:40:14 PM EST
    She's running a GD campaign for office. She should be out in front of hot issues like Wright's idiotic move to take Stupid Tour '08 on the road.

    This is Obama's spiritual mentor for 20 years.

    Your admonishment would be better sent towards Team Obama to do damage control on Wright, not on Team Clinton to make their public relations disasters go away. Jeez.


    Things are really getting kind of nutty. . . (none / 0) (#201)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:50:21 PM EST
    around here.

    I did not call for Clinton to shut up.  I simply pointed out that nothing she says is going to make the Wright issue go away.  Since it's in her interest in this political campaign for the Wright issue to continue I wouldn't expect her to be quiet about it.

    I admonished no one.  I respect Clinton as a politician and I certainly don't think it's her responsibility to clean up the Wright mess -- as a candidate, if anything, it's her job to keep in in the public eye.

    It really is the silly season around here.


    True enough (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    But your interpretation is wrong imo.

    This is more about Clyburn than Obama.


    Criticizing her for being wise? (none / 0) (#26)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    wisdom should be applauded in any person.

    You think that Clinton (none / 0) (#29)
    by eric on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:36:47 PM EST
    is "ginning up the Wright issue"?  I think Wright is doing that all by himself.

    Look, the guy is everywhere on TV, Clinton says it's time to move on, what more do you people want?


    I don't know which "people". . . (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:45:53 PM EST
    you think I am.

    I made a minor point about Clinton's political acuity and people seem to be reading all kinds of perfidy into it.

    I'm on sabbatical from Kos because over there you can't say anything without it being perceived through the lens of Obama mania.

    Sadly, it's getting like that here too, only in reverse.


    Sorry, maybe (none / 0) (#53)
    by eric on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    I jumped the gun, but when you wrote about Clinton "ginning" up the issue, it seemed a bit disingenuous.  Wright is doing this all by himself with the speeches and media appearances.

    If Clinton had brought this up next week, after Wright had disappeared from the headlines, then I would agree with you.

    Anyway, sorry, I don't mean to be accusatory.  By "you people", ironically I meant people who always assume the worst about Clinton....

    I know, right back at me.


    I'm a Clinton supporter. . . (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:00:11 PM EST
    although I also like Obama just fine.

    One of the reasons I like Clinton (and many people seem to dislike her) is that she's a fantastic and subtle politician.  For instance, I can't tell you how many people I've had arguments with who believe that Clinton sponsored anti-flag burning legislation because she wanted to see such legislation enacted.  That was a brilliant (and subtle) piece of politics on her part -- apparently too subtle for some liberals who seem to have wanted the anti-flag burning amendment to pass.

    Clinton has certainly caught a lucky break with Wright's new fifty state strategy, or whatever he's doing.  But this statement from the campaign shows that she intends to take full advantage of it.  Bringing up Wright after the ruckus had died down would not be a politically sound idea.  It would be pretty obvious.

    This way she gets good will from all sides in the Democratic camp while taking it to McCain as well.

    As long as American politics is going to be governed by politics, that's the kind of mind I want on my side.


    I don't care (none / 0) (#154)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:09:46 PM EST
    Your approach seems to be that she's a triangulator, and a pandering opportunist, but instead of disliking her for it, you like her for it.  I think you're wrong.

    When you look at the flag burning legislation she supported, you have to ask yourself if you support it too.

    I did.

    Should I describe it for you so you can make a decision on it?

    Would you allow a rainbow flag to be burned at a gay pride parade?

    An Irish flag to be burned during a St. Patrick's day parade?

    Would you describe such things as free speech or acts designed to create a violent response from a group of people?

    What do you really think about legislation that would ban burning the American flag in certain contexts, but still allow it within the context of a protest -- with the right permits -- etc.?

    What say you?


    Well, I would (none / 0) (#195)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    "Would you allow a rainbow flag to be burned at a gay pride parade?

    An Irish flag to be burned during a St. Patrick's day parade?

    Would you describe such things as free speech or acts designed to create a violent response from a group of people?"

    They're both.  That's part of the price we pay for the 1st Amendment, sometimes things get a little dicey.  Real freedom is not safe and cannot be made always safe.  I do not want the U.S. government deciding what I can and cannot say or what symbols I or other people can stomp on, or burn.  I'm not an absolutist, but I think the line should be drawn much closer to the edge than flag-burning.


    Honest answer (none / 0) (#204)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    I can handle honest disagreement a lot better than passive aggressively calling someone else an opportunist.

    Getting Like? (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:05:05 PM EST
    Been that way for awhile here, although I do not visit kos, so I am not up on how bad it is over there.

    You wouldn't like it there squeaky. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:02:41 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#218)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:16:12 PM EST
    I am certain of that. At worst this is Clinton version of kos-lite.

    Meh (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:06:01 PM EST
    I doubt it.

    I think they said it for political reasons of course. But not the ones you ascribe.

    I see it as a counterpoint to Clyburn's smears.

    To me it is more about Clyburn than Obama really.

    Did I say how disgraceful Clyburn is? A complete disgrace now.


    It is certainly a counterpoint. . . (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:29:20 PM EST
    to Clyburn, in the sense that it should produce good will (or at least ramp down ill will) among African American voters.  In that regard I think Clinton's hoping to blunt Obama's advantage in North Carolina (I doubt it will have much effect) but also to keep bridges open to the black community for a possible November general election.

    But do you seriously believe that the Clinton campaign genuinely wants the Wright issue to disappear?  Wouldn't that require their abandoning any hint of political sense?  Fairly or unfairly (unfairly, I happen to believe) this is one of their best issues.


    You know what I'll bet she wishes? (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    That Obama had waited till 2014, near the end of her second term, to run for President.

    I am sure that this entire campaign has been a nightmare for her. I am sure that she would have preferred to stay on good terms with Obama and the party elders. I am sure that the constant character assassination and race-baiting has hurt her feelings quite badly.

    Her point is not that she approves of what the GOP is doing with Wright, but that they WILL do it, no matter what she, John McCain or Barack Obama do or say. And yes, it makes her electable instead of Obama, but I doubt she is feeling happy-happy-joy-joy about it.


    You'd be very hard pressed. . . (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:51:58 PM EST
    You know what I'll bet she wishes? That Obama had waited till 2014, near the end of her second term, to run for President.

    To find anyone who disagrees with that!

    As Rick Hertzberg wrote -- Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime politician.  Unfortunately for Clinton, it's her lifetime.


    And unfortunately for Obama (none / 0) (#152)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:06:57 PM EST
    as well.

    I really saw a lot of potential in him, and I'm very disappointed at what he's done to this campaign and to the Democratic Party.


    Zuh? (2.00 / 0) (#184)
    by sweetthings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:32:13 PM EST
    Obama ran for President. What would you have had him do differently?

    I'm disappointed at how things have turned out so far, but I don't think any of it is Obama's fault, any more than it is Clinton's. Once the hats were in the ring, larger forces took over.


    He should have waited (none / 0) (#207)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:09:04 PM EST
    till he could have built up a better resume and distanced himself from his very questionable personal associations.

    That's what I'm saying. I am saddened to see his potential wasted.


    Waiting in the Senate... (none / 0) (#208)
    by sweetthings on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:19:34 PM EST
    Seems to be a poor resume builder for the White House. I realize we're going to see someone go from Senator to President this time around, but that's the exception, not the rule. I don't think Obama's chances at the White House would have been greatly raised by waiting 8 years. Yes, he would have gained some experience and possibly put more distance between himself and Wright, (but possibly not...I suspect Wright is the type to happily make noise until the day he dies) but he would have lost his 'rock star' appeal and would have built up a bigger Senate record for his opponents to demonize him with.

    For Obama, like Clinton, it was now or never. They both (understandably) choose now. And once they made that choice, larger forces took over. There really was little either of them could have done to alter where we are now, given the scope of their ambitions.


    I wish (none / 0) (#187)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:36:12 PM EST
    it would have been NOT in my lifetime.  I am not going to give him an inch.

    I've got a different take on the statement (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by tree on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:49:15 PM EST
    The latest GOP ads are directed at down-ticket Dems. This is bad for the Democratic party as a whole. I think that's why Clinton made the statement she made, so as to staunch the flow, so to speak. She's always been much more concerned with the  prospects of the Democratic party than Obama has ever been. Wright's going to be a problem for Obama without her saying a word about him, but if she can head off any negative spillover onto down-ticket Dems she'll do it.

    perhaps so, but it isn't (none / 0) (#183)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:31:53 PM EST
    going away. rev. wright is seeing to that now. should sen. obama be the eventual dem. nominee, a right-wing 527 will see to it during the GE. if you really believe this will die out, you need to check what's in the water you're drinking.

    no doubt the AA community will, for the most part, blow this off. if they constituted more than 12.4% of the total population, that might mean something. they don't, so it doesn't. the dem. nominee will need a significant chunk of the caucasion, latino and jewish vote to win in nov.

    the 527 won't place rev. wright's comments in "context", they don't have to. the damning comments is all anyone will hear for 3 months.

    add farrakhan to that (and the 527 will, rest assured), and sen. obama can kiss whatever shot he might have had goodbye.


    Something tells me (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:27:51 PM EST
    some blogs (not this one) will continue to keep it on the front burner; that is, until some fresher dirt can be dug up.

    This is what Wright gets for not hiring image consultants (another sign he's out of touch).

    D*&$, What leadership! (none / 0) (#17)
    by MMW on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    Oh I forgot... HE is the leader. My bad.

    What Hillary's church gave David Duke.. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:44:45 PM EST
    ...a lifetime achievment award?  At the very least, Hillary would have to say she spoke to her church leadership, that they acknowledged giving Duke a lifetime achievement award was a mistake, and that they will not promote or collaborate with Farrakhan in the futue.  As long as Obama remains at Trinity, this issue will not go away. He MUST either quit or get some type of promise that the affiliation with Farrakhan will end.

    quitting (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    I think that ship has sailed.
    it would just look like pandering now.

    He's got to do something... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:21:22 PM EST
    It is only a matter of time before ads running connecting Obama's church with hate groups, Yakub and UFOs.

    I agree something need to happen (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:26:53 PM EST
    but for the life of me I couldnt tell you what.
    except that he should shut up.
    it really boggles the mind that he has not been locked in a trunk somewhere till after november.

    I told my hubby last night (none / 0) (#99)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:31:46 PM EST
    that Obama should have offered the good Reverend some tickets to Tahiti.



    Could some please tell me what (none / 0) (#46)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    IACF means...Thanks very much...:-)

    IACF (none / 0) (#49)
    by dws3665 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:46:31 PM EST
    It's All Clinton's Fault.

    Damnnit IACF (none / 0) (#52)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    That I didn't know that!

    Hee! (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:00:29 PM EST
    I believe that "IACF" was my contribution to TalkLeft. Glad to see I could give something back. :-)

    Obama: Wright a "legitimate" issue (none / 0) (#75)
    by Davidson on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    The problem is that not only is Wright too sensationalist for the media and the right to pass up, but Obama himself stated on FOX that Wright is a "legitimate" issue.

    So, the GOP can continue hammering away at him and his endorsers and Obama can't truly fight back (assuming he actually would).


    you are talking about the FOX interview (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:20:35 PM EST
    weird wasnt it?  it was one of the best interviews I have seen him give.  he actually had some answers.

    Kind of a novice move (4.00 / 0) (#90)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:25:55 PM EST
    but then, what could he really say?

    He's the one that's been campaigning as Barack Obama, Super-Christian. It's legitimate to question his religious beliefs in that context.


    did you see W's comments at the (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:28:04 PM EST
    Hillary couldnt make it because of sniper fire and Obama was in church.

    Yes I did, (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:33:30 PM EST
    but I was distracted by W's extreme and obvious drunkenness.

    Then I was distracted by the fact that our media is so in the tank for Bush that they always pretend nothing is wrong with him.

    Then I got depressed.


    Just remember (none / 0) (#108)
    by pie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:35:58 PM EST

    Has a day (none / 0) (#119)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:43:18 PM EST
    ever come so slowly, pie?

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by pie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:46:57 PM EST
    And that's because I fear what further damage the idiot might still do.

    Worst President Ever.


    I laughed... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Regency on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:32:18 PM EST
    Might as well laugh. At least I can stand to see that guy on tv. BO I just mute it and turn as fast as possible.

    I feel the same way (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:48:58 PM EST
    but for some reason he is not as difficult for me to watch as he once was.
    I guess because I know he is getting short.
    but no question, he could break a lot of china and ruin a lot of lives on his way out.

    Was Obama Given The Answers In Advance? (none / 0) (#215)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:04:02 PM EST
    That might explain why he came up with some halfway decent answers.  It would be hard for me to believe, after his fiasco at the PA debate, that he wouldn't want to have them in advance.

    lol....I Meant The Questions.... (none / 0) (#216)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:04:29 PM EST
    Obama can't move on (none / 0) (#120)
    by miriam on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:45:33 PM EST
    but he can't stand still either.  You have to wonder how many people, both in the media and in Clinton's campaign, knew about Wright before those first clips were shown by FOX News.  And wonder, too, how Obama could have avoided knowing what a firestorm his pastor would cause.  One of the worst things Wright has done is to renew the vile arguments illustrated by the "Bell Curve" book.  And by his emphasis on our differences, (allegedly the right-brain, left-brain capabilities) he is also reviving the old, discredited "separate but equal" frame.

    However, to look at it from another direction, maybe many of us are missing the point about Wright's words when it comes to Obama: The Reverend is not concerned with Obama's political career; he is concerned with Barack Obama's Christian soul.  Otherwise, since he (Wright) is not a stupid man, he would have toned down his rhetoric.  

    Wright is not a stupid man for sure. Concernes (none / 0) (#178)
    by feet on earth on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:27:31 PM EST
    about Obama's eternal salvation is what motivate his rhetoric?

    It seems to me that it has everything to do with his own legacy on earth.  He had a fit about the "crazy uncle" label that Obama pinned on him to distance himself from him.  He did not like it and is firing back.  

    Hillary said enough and she said it nicely.  She does not own it.

    Now, it is fireworks between Obama and the good paster, and she is saying:
     let's leave it there.


    Not sure about that, (none / 0) (#138)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 02:56:11 PM EST
    On the other side, I never thought that Cuomo, Shaheen et. al. were part of a coordinated campaign to make racist comments about Obama (and I don't even think they did, but that's another story).

    Question (none / 0) (#182)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:31:43 PM EST
    I just read a comment by another poster on another site, and that person had this thought...

    What if this is a set-up?  When Wright says things like he is a pastor, Obama is a member, but he's not Obama's spiritual mentor, doesn't this open the door for Obama to publicly and forevermore denounce him?  I know he already said on FOX that it is a legitimate topic, but they've got to spin this somehow, don't you think?

    they can spin it all they want. (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:40:07 PM EST
    the bottom line is that it will be used against sen. obama in the GE, should he be the dem. nominee, guaranteed.

    it won't be by the republican party or the mccain campaign directly, but by an "independent" 527. that's where the real damage will be done.


    Absolutely (none / 0) (#211)
    by AlSmith on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:39:53 PM EST

    Since there is no point in giving money to McCain since he is taking matching funds, a lot of donors funds will go 527's.

    So expect to see a lot of Wright on your TV this summer.


    It's too late to do the Frienemies play (none / 0) (#202)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    I thought it might be to bolster a sagging Obama campaign for NC but right now I think Obama and Wright just aren't ready for prime time.

    Or Obama Is So Bored He Wants Out And (none / 0) (#217)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:07:34 PM EST
    asked Wright to help make obama look bad, so he could withdraw from the race.... :)

    Good for her. (none / 0) (#214)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:47:28 PM EST
    Well done Senator!

    Now if only Obama could get Wright to STFU.