Obama Addresses Rev. Wrights' Latest Comments

Barack Obama, who has not been known for accessibility to the press the last few weeks (see the waffle story) called a "hastily arranged press conference" today to again disassociate himself from Rev. Wright, including his most recent remarks. The press conference lasted six minutes on the airport tarmac and he took three questions.

"Some of the comments that Rev. Wright has made offend me, and I understand why they offend the American people. He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign," Obama said.

"Many of the statements that he's made, both that triggered this initial controversy and that he's made over the last several days, are not statements that I have heard him make previously. They don't represent my views," the senator added.

He asked that he be judged by his "20 years of service" and the values he's espoused more than by his past associations. More...

"I think people will understand that I am not perfect and that there are going to be folks in my past like Rev. Wright that may cause them some concern but that ultimately my 20 years of service and the values that I've written about and spoken about and promoted are their values and what they're concerned about," Obama said.

< No Sign of John Edwards Endorsing Either Candidate | Supreme Court Grants Cert, Vacates Sentencing Opinion >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    20 yrs of wha? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by miguelito on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:40:13 PM EST

    Service . . . (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:45:10 PM EST
    which must mean back to being chair of Ayers' educational foundation board, since Obama didn't start in public service until a dozen years ago.

    My favorite is that when people try and (none / 0) (#169)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:23:38 PM EST
    attack Obama for having CLEARLY the weakest resume in American history of any major party candidate, they compare him to Lincoln, Kennedy, or Wilson.  What a joke.

    Ruh roh. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:40:19 PM EST
    Someone's panicking.

    well ... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by miguelito on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:41:11 PM EST
    he DID take 3 questions.. what a wordsmith

    He Used To Be Known To Take 8 Questions!! (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:57:19 PM EST
    It's getting crowded (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:11:01 PM EST
    under that bus.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#190)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:04:18 PM EST
    Lambert Or VastLeft Over At Correntewire (none / 0) (#207)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:22:01 PM EST
    had a funny post about Wright reaching out from under the bus and grabbing Obama's ankle and dragging him under it with him. It was also recommend that they get another bus because it was getting too crowded under the first one.

    MSNBC just ran a clip of the (none / 0) (#19)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:51:56 PM EST
    "press conference."  Obama was standing on the tarmac in NC, and he appeared to be looking down at the ground as he spoke.

    It was very odd.  Maybe he was standing up on something and was looking down at the reporters.  Or maybe he was just really really bored.


    Obama press conferences (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:20:21 PM EST
    are painful.  The "uhs" the losing train of thought.  Man, he is not ready.  

    Obama's speaking style (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by landjjames on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:43:47 PM EST
    I have to admit that when he's delivering a prepared speech, there's nobody better than him right now.  However, when he's called upon to make remarks off the cuff, he stutters and the "uhs" are painful to listen to.  The difference between when he's prepared and when he's unprepared is quite startling.  

    yes, he's (none / 0) (#129)
    by Lil on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:15:29 PM EST
    sounding very Bushian.

    And Axelrod Is On Hardball....They are full (none / 0) (#30)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:59:17 PM EST
    damage control mode, but it might be a little late.  And is it just me, or was Obama's response more than a little tepid?

    No, it isn't just you (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:06:10 PM EST
    Both Obama and Axelrod seemed strangely disconnected.

    that often happens (none / 0) (#54)
    by ccpup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:12:25 PM EST
    when one is in full Holy Sh*t panic mode.  To literally see the nomination slipping from their grasp when they're t-h-i-s close must be an unbelievable thing for them.  

    Hence, the "it's not happening, everything is fine" attitude.

    It'll be interesting to see how they meltdown when the SDs start to bolt after Indiana and North Carolina.


    Denial (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:51:06 PM EST
    what comes after that?

    Anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.


    I suspect in Obama's case (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by ccpup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:25:55 PM EST
    it'll be tears and a big carton of smokes.

    A variation on Kubler-Ross (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:30:37 PM EST
    Six Phases of a Project

    1.  Enthusiasm
    2.  Disillusionment
    3.  Panic
    4.  Search for the guilty
    5.  Punishment of the innocent
    6.  Praise and honors for the non-participants

    Not sure whether Team Obama is still in phase 3 or has moved into phase 4.

    Academy Award for Best Actor goes to Obama (none / 0) (#77)
    by ig on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:33:02 PM EST
    and Best Supporting Actor goes to Wright

    More like a Raspberry, IMHO (none / 0) (#85)
    by themomcat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:40:51 PM EST
    I don't know. (none / 0) (#151)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:47:16 PM EST
    There is something for Obama that is stopping him from cutting his ties from Wright.

    The relationship between them is now looking like it is toxic beyond the obvious toxicity of having one's spiritual advisor totally undermine a massive under-taking like running for President of the United States - something we all face from time to time - lol - and lol only because when a situation looks plenty scary and treacherous often the only thing to do is to laugh at the irony of the darkness.


    Even if (none / 0) (#168)
    by Andy08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:17:26 PM EST
    he cut them, 20 years , your marriage, your daughters baptism, your house blessing, etc etc etc is heavy luggage. The nation of islam and co. help his campaign a lot, on the ground and more. I don't really know but I bet he owes them a lot (and they'll collect) for him to cut Wright off and alienating a whole bunch of these ties....

    Maybe (none / 0) (#217)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:38:31 AM EST
    the fact that in his speech on race ("the greatest speech ever given") he said he could no more disavow Wright than he could his own white grandmother.

    Wonder how crow tastes?  Maybe he and Huckabee can get a cooking show on the Food Network?


    Panic Mode? (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:27:57 PM EST
    His supporters on the blogs are all over the place:

    • Buyer's Remorse
    • Blame the media
    • Full Steam Ahead, Wright's a non-issue or right.
    • Can we get Gore or Edwards to run?
    • Ugh. I'm sitting this one out.
    • Why, why, why? Disbelief.
    • Anger. Clinton is behind this.
    • Don't Worry, Be happy. Obama can do anything.

    Not sure the mix.

    How Many Are Now Saying (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:44:14 PM EST
    "If that's all they got, "Bring It On?"" Use to be their standard macho reply when anyone said that this might hurt Obama.

    There are people claiming to have (none / 0) (#153)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:48:40 PM EST
    found God because of Wright in response to the situation.  That to me is mind-blowing.

    Please Tell Me You Are Joking (none / 0) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:09:09 PM EST
    Just can't handle the thought of this type of support for another 4 years.

    Sadly, I am not joking. n/t (none / 0) (#198)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:39:06 PM EST
    Ok- I got to ask (none / 0) (#189)
    by AlSmith on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:03:38 PM EST

     Can we get Gore or Edwards to run?

    What are peoples' thoughts on this?

    If Obama is out and fairly or not the AA's wont support HRC, what do people think of the substitute candidates?

    I was a strong Biden person but I cant see giving it to someone who was in the process and lost so Edwards would be out too. That leaves Gore, Kerry and maybe Dean. Is Cuomo too old to run now?

    Would this kind of thing stick in peoples' throats or is it acceptable?


    I do not like coronatons (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:12:21 PM EST
    Gore and Edwards did not earn it.  We have two candidates.  

    As always (none / 0) (#202)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:50:17 PM EST
    Well said, and I totally agree.

    I agree (none / 0) (#219)
    by moll on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:07:34 PM EST
    Well said.

    Also, if they tried to bring in Gore, it wouldn't look legitimate. Right now Gore has some credibility, I would hate to see that damaged.


    Er...how about Hillary? (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by ricosuave on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:52:01 PM EST
    Isn't there already another popular and capable candidate in the race?  Maybe, if Obama drops out, we should pick the candidate that was already in the race, and who is basically tied in pledged delegates and pulling ahead in popular votes?  That would seem to make sense.

    What is with the myriad plans to dismiss voters in this election?  We ignore millions of them because they voted on the wrong day, and now we want to ignore tens of millions more and draft somebody new?

    We have an election process in place.  Lets use it.


    Wow (none / 0) (#128)
    by chrisvee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:13:52 PM EST
    I just saw the clip.  Did Obama not know where the cameras were?  Why does he appear to be looking down?  It's giving the impression that he can't make eye contact.  Is this some bad edit???

    Either Obama was standing on a platform (none / 0) (#176)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:35:09 PM EST
    so that he had to look down on the assembled reporters, or he was avoiding eye contact and looking at the ground.

    The camera seemed to be on eye level with him, by the way, so I think scenario #2 is more likely. But I'd be interested to see this from another camera angle or a photo with a wide angle lens.


    Some folks in his past? (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:42:12 PM EST
    I guess technically a 20-year long period ending a month ago is in the past.

    Wish I could (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by g8grl on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:42:45 PM EST
    Unfortunately there aren't very many records of what he did in the years prior to becoming a US Senator.  Perhaps if waited a bit longer in order to develop a track record in the Senate we would have more of his actions to judge him by and they would carry more weight.  As it is, we have Obama's statements that he valued his pastor's spiritual guidance for 20 years and we have snippets of his pastor's guidance.  Bummer

    You nailed it. Had Obama and the people (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:56:04 PM EST
    who pushed him forward thought this through they would have given him a better track record on which to run and build a wall of experience for him.  What was the rush? He is only 46 with a thin resume and so the blank slate has become filled with the news narrative.  Actually I think Obama's appearance on Fox was more telling, but people will go with the Wright story.  Maybe he will agree to a Lincoln-Douglas debate to change the subject. Lets hope.

    why was he pushed? (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by jackyt on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:28:21 PM EST
    Why, to stop Hillary of course. And it looked so e-e-e-e-e-e-e-z-e-e-e. However, once you're on that track, it's really hard to say, "Oops, we may have backed the wrong horse". I think... (dare I say hope?)... there's no stopping her now!

    It was Oprah (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:36:16 PM EST
    He appeared on her show in the fall of 2006 and she begged him to run for president and to announce on her show.

    Well, I don't know if that was the whole reason, but I happened to see the show, so I know she begged him.


    if he ran because Oprah told him too (none / 0) (#185)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:50:31 PM EST
    then I really question his judgment -- I respect Oprah for all she has accomplished and her good works, etc. BUT you don't run for President of the United State of America because Oprah asked you too.

    I was joking... (none / 0) (#188)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    ...mostly.  But I do think that all the glowing press he got when he went on his "Audacity of Hope" book tour first led him to consider running in this election cycle.  

    Now millions are begging him to cut it out (none / 0) (#215)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:36:57 AM EST
    But power drunk bloggedy pants kingmakers, Dem'ristocrats, and media refs / cheering sections won't count that vote (nor what HRC earned honestly.)

    I want to know (4.91 / 12) (#68)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:23:16 PM EST
    why the Dems who pushed him (Kennedy, Kerry, probably Dean) didn't vet him at all before jumping on the Unity Pony Express.  Are they really that clueless, or do they just hate the Clintons that much?  

    What makes me "bitter" is that we had so many good candidates going into this election season, and all but the indefatigable Hillary were derailed by the Obama Love Train before we even had a chance to get to know this guy.


    I really don't think Dean pushed Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:53:03 PM EST
    I think he is actually more practical than that about the prospects for the party.  Dean is no "post partisan" thankfully.

    Where are they now (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:15:57 PM EST
    Where are Kennedy and Kerry now, are they defending Wright?  I have not seen the Godfathers coming to protect Obama, did I miss them?   I watched tv news for the firs time in a long time. and man, they are hammering this Wright stuff.  



    Kerry and Kennedy? (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:37:40 PM EST
    Hiding in some corner trying to map out some completely incomprehensible position on Wright that won't threaten their power because it is incomprehensible.

    Kerry and Kennedy? (none / 0) (#197)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:37:58 PM EST
    Hiding in some corner trying to map out some completely incomprehensible position on Wright that won't threaten their power because it is incomprehensible.

    What I would really like to know (none / 0) (#211)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:50:21 PM EST
    is Ted's reaction to Wright's mention of JFK in his NAACP speech. I know the context of Wright's bringing up JFK but it his execution was terrible and not respectful of JFK. I remember how mad Ted got at the Clintons when he thought they were being dismissive of JFK and his role in passing the civil rights act. Do you think he will be more understanding of Wright?

    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#212)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:11:29 AM EST
    that is the one I want to see.  Temper.  How about the Irish bashing?

    Hillary Had An Amazing Coalition Assembled (4.92 / 13) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:03:25 PM EST
    The only thing that could beat her was taking away her AA support. The only way to do that was to run a popular, high profile black candidate and brand her as a racist.

    I don't know if those involved in the power struggle didn't vet him properly, didn't think Obama's associations would hurt him much or just didn't care as long as they took down the Clintons. Anyway, i agree with Obama on one thing only. The Democratic party is the stupid party.


    Yes, and that coalition would have put (5.00 / 5) (#149)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:45:57 PM EST
    a Democrat in the white house.  But the jerks couldn't wait and now this could be a train wreck. Nice going Bradley, Kennedy, et al.

    This... (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by pie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:58:15 PM EST
    Perhaps if waited a bit longer in order to develop a track record in the Senate we would have more of his actions to judge him by and they would carry more weight.

    is exactly why he's going to lose it.

    Why certain blogs supported him baffles me.

    Or does it?


    I hate to say that I have come to the (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:26:00 PM EST
     conclusion that Barack Obama is not a "worker;" he shows all the signs of someone who gloms onto this or that because it looks good on a resume, but he never really applies himself, never does the hard work, but always shows up to take credit.  We all know people like this, don't we?

    If he had a resume with real substance - as Hillary does - these questions that come up would have less meaning.

    I think I find the whole thing a real insult to my intelligence.

    In some strange twist of fate, or maybe I annoyed the gods or something, I got in the car to come home and C-SPAN radio was playing the same NPC event I heard on the way to work this morning.  It didn't get any better hearing it the second time.

    The problem with Obama's plaintive assertion that Wright does not speak for him is the even louder assertion from Wright that Obama is just doing what politicians do to get elected - and that is the lens and the filter through which a lot of people will be seeing Obama's comments.  In one fell swoop, Wright has managed to undercut pretty much everything Obama says - and I have to wonder if that message resonates with the black community, such that it begins to affect Obama's share of the black vote.  If the black community wants to punish Obama for throwing Wright under the bus, backing up and running over him again and again, they might decide to vote for Hillary.

    I think Obama is toast.


    Two Reasons (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:06:18 PM EST
    One he wasn't Hillary and two they saw a way to delude themselves that they would be seen as "king makers."

    Telling choice of words here? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:44:39 PM EST
    there are going to be folks in my past like Rev. Wright that may cause them some concern"
    Wright is the target today but we know there will be others the Republicans will be using to stir the pot.

    He is definitely acknowledging (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by daryl herbert on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:05:23 PM EST
    that there are others (including Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers).  His campaign's web site already has a page devoted to that.

    What I want to know is, why won't Sen. Obama just tell us which of Rev. Wright's statements he agrees with, and which he disagrees with?  Why won't he tell us which statements are beyond the pale, and which statements are acceptable even if wrongheaded?

    Also, if Sen. Obama knows there are other controversial figures in his past, why doesn't he come right out and tell us who they are?  He wants to keep it a secret until the general election so that McCain can use it against him?

    All of this makes Sen. Clinton's call to put this issue behind us look a little weird.  Just when it is exploding again, she wants to put it back in the bottle?  I think Clinton just figured out that Rev. Wright is an attention whore, and the best way to get him to say crazy things is to act like he's irrelevant.  The man will say anything to crawl back into the spotlight.


    Pure speculation on my part (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:37:46 PM EST
    It might be too risky for Obama to make such distinct statements on what he agrees and disagrees with from Wright. He might be afraid that something could come out that contradicts what he states which would create an additional problem.

    I don't know how Obama thought he could skate through without some of these associations drawing negative attention. I have to wonder if some of his early supporters like Daschle, Kerry and Kennedy, were aware of them or if they have been caught by surprise. But Clinton's strategy to take the so called high road with her statement today is about the best option she has in my opinion. The tables have turned with Wright, the press and others are doing what they have done to her that helped Obama previously in the primary.


    Obama Is Between A Rock And A Hard Place Right Now (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:49:26 PM EST
    Can't distance himself too forcefully or he will have the black ministers up in arms and if he doesn't distance himself more than this, he many lose the nomination and definitely will loses the GE.



    True (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:57:23 PM EST
    and I was wondering if he were to go too hard against Wright, would he risk angering some of the Trinity members so much that one or two might come forward with more information to dispute some of Obama's previous statements.

    We know Obama has backtracked once or twice on what he knew or had heard from Wright. Wright has clearly signaled that what Obama the politician is saying is not consistent with what Obama the parishioner might have said.

    Who really knows what skeletons are left in that closet.


    It's those CDs of the sermons.. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:24:56 PM EST
    He is on the one with the "ridin' dirty" podium humping bit..at the very end the last two frames of the YouTube version. He must be wondering if he is on any of the others, and can't say anything until he checks to see. Otherwise, he says something and it's all over YouTube with proof that he lied. He should just retire now while he still can. Of course, he has to explain it all to Michelle. I hope he survives.

    Leaders don't fold like cheap Wal-Mart lawnchairs (none / 0) (#216)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:23:07 AM EST
    ... at the first whiff of trouble.

    Obama's associations aren't a fraction as "bad" as what anyone in office has had and he should be judged on his record and qualifications. His defenders have shown more fortitude here than their "leader" deserves.

    What I've come to deeply dislike about Obama -- there I've said it (and I used to be neutral leaning towards positive) -- is his tendency to smear everyone and anyone who's helped him, at the first sign of criticism. A slight distancing, okay I could see that if it's political necessity.

    But the kind of repelling he does revolts me. His own mother and grandmother too? They become typical problematic white racist women -- um, who only raised him and stuff -- when he needed the African American vote solidly behind him.

    YMMV, but you don't speak ill of your parents and other caretakers, even rotten ones, even when they ARE around to have their say, because it's just plain chickensh!t. (If you need to work it out for personal peace and justice, do it outside of the spotlight.)

    Then Obama dusted Mama off again when he needed a character to get the violins playing for the media, and suddenly she was a teenaged mom on food-stamps.

    I don't like that flexing in anyone, and not just the way Obama has done it to people who contributed mentorship in Obama's life, but even smearing people who neither helped nor wronged him in any way.

    It's always his first strategy to make himself look good. It stinks and he's a jerk for doing it.


    Hillary's response (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by landjjames on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:39:41 PM EST
    is her attempt to take the high ground on this issue.  She's leaving it to McCain & Co. to make a lot of noise about Obama's poor choice of friends over the years.  

    Not sure what you mean (1.00 / 2) (#107)
    by lastamendment on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:55:54 PM EST
    Clinton weighed in pretty clearly that Wright would not be her choice of pastor and implicitly endorsed any Republican attacks on him.

    There's a reason Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

    You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as "The "Fellowship," also known as The Family. But it won't be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet's shocking exposé The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May. ...

    Clinton fell in with The Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the Senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, The Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."
    Hillary's Nasty Pastorate

    McCain has Hagee too.

    As far as I'm concerned, these contrived religious controversies are a wash, and we should move on to talk about real issues.

    But if Clinton supporters are going to fall in with the GOP and put religious associations on the  table, then we should look at Clinton's as well.

    Obama certainly bears responsibility for his handling of the Wright issue, but let's not pretend that Clinton has been above the fray.


    Unfair and Untrue (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:02:33 PM EST
    Please do not distort either candidates position.

    You're off the reservation (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:26:42 PM EST
    with that particular line of accusation.

    Wright falls squarely on Obama. Hillary hasn't even touched the issue.


    Repeat yourself much (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:33:07 PM EST
    Ha! Ha!

    What about Hillary's relationship with The Family? (1.00 / 2) (#103)
    by lastamendment on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:55:23 PM EST

    See here:
    Say Hillary, What About The Religious "Family" You Have Chosen To Be Part Of?

    and here:
    UPDATED: "The Family" featured on MSNBC today

    and here:
    Bill Clinton To Reverend Jeremiah Wright: "I Have Sinned"

    As the DailyKos diary states, you reap what you sow.

    And quoting Kos.  Ha! Ha!


    Perhaps youdidn't get the memo... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by tree on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:50:00 PM EST
    but that talking point has become, as Ron Ziegler used to say, "inoperative" once it was revealed that Obama also attended the "most elite cell", the weekly Senater Prayer Breakfast. Can you say "nevermind" ?... I knew you could.

    That Ehrenreich Piece (none / 0) (#209)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:42:52 PM EST
    Is a a joke.  Written by someone who is such a good democrat, she voted for Nader.  See Bob Somerby.



    I DId TOo (none / 0) (#220)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:25:57 AM EST
    As a NYer it was a protest vote that was irrelevant.

    Kind of not the smartest thing (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:45:57 PM EST
    for him to talk about 20 years of service especially when trying to deflect Wright since every time I hear his name the second thing I think of is: 20 years in his church.  

    What 20 years of service? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by RalphB on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:50:26 PM EST
    Darned if I can find the records of all that marvy service.  

    20 years of church services, maybe? (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by cymro on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:59:16 PM EST
    Except when he wasn't present, that is.

    20 years of service (none / 0) (#86)
    by daryl herbert on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:41:01 PM EST
    Sen. Obama is counting his time in public office and his time as a community organizer.

    Remember that he joined Wright's church as a young community organizer because, as an "unchurched" person, none of the older black leaders took him seriously.

    He started his service to the community/public at the same time as he joined TUCC.  That's why it's the same time period.


    That's what I thought two (none / 0) (#24)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:55:13 PM EST
    Yes, by all means, judge Obama based on where his butt has been parked for the past 20 years.

    How can a presidential (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:47:06 PM EST
    candidate get away with not answering questions or doing debates and the press is still "in love" with him?  If Clinton or even McCain tried this the press would be all over them for being "secretive" and "inaccessible."  I can't find any criticism!

    I thought words were important (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:49:29 PM EST
    Words are meaningful, right? Experience doesn't matter as much as words, right? That is the core of Obama's message: that we should not judge a person by their experience but by their words.

    this Statement is a bit like (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by ccpup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    trying to put out a brush fire with a squirt gun.

    Good luck with that.

    (Now watch him get peevish over the next week or so when the Press continues to ask him questions about Rev Wright.  The "I'm displeased with you and your question" face doesn't look so good on Obama.)

    He just doesn't get it, does he?? (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:50:19 PM EST
    the values that I've written about and spoken about and promoted are their values and what they're concerned about

    It doesn't matter what you say, or write, or promote. What matters is what you DO. And part of what you do is associate with like-minded people. Unless his attendance at the church was simply to make use of their political base. Unless his accepting contributions and help buying his house from Tony Rezko was simply self-interest and greed. Then he has to come out and say so. So either he found these people, or "associations" to be comfortable at the time, or he is a very devious person who will use anyone and say anything to attain office.

    Most people ACT as if they believe what they say. They don't behave one way and then say they believe something entirely different when they want votes. At least not if they want to be believed by the voters. I will be very interested to see what happens in NC.

    He's trying really hard (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:05:55 PM EST
    to get people to remember what he actually does very, very well:



    Senator, those are your gifts.  Your writing knocks me out, and tho' I'm not one of those who faints over your rhetoric, I know that a lot of people do.

    But writing and speaking are not governing.  They're not knowing how to work with others to make stuff happen.  They're not enough to turn you into a president, not this year.


    IIRC In A Recent Interview Regarding Rezko, (5.00 / 10) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:06:47 PM EST
    Obama said he still considered him a friend. It was bythen a well documented fact that people went without heat in Rezko's buildings and other necessary repairs went undone (i.e. Rekzo was a slum lord). Now these were not rich, white people freezing in Rezko's building. I find it very troubling that Obama still saw him as a friend.

    Not only were they not rich, white people (5.00 / 9) (#104)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:55:18 PM EST
    they were his very own constituents. People he whose votes he had asked for and gotten, and to whom he had promised better things. That is what makes it so egregious. He had an actual responsibility to those people, not just the sort one has for fellow human beings. He was being PAID by their tax money to represent their best interests. He let them down for his own profit. That is what is so horrible about it. It is the ultimate political betrayal.

    Somebody was a believer (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Sunshine on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    I don't think that you could stay in that church and listen to the Rev. Wright for 20 yrs if you did not think that some of what he was saying was right...  Now, just about everything that is brought up, Obama claims that he disagrees with... Either him or Michelle was a believer, you just don't sit and listen for 20 yrs and not agree with something that is being said, just what part does he agree with?  If he believes in this, he is not a uniter...

    I sat in an RC church (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:58:34 PM EST
    all through my adolescence and in my 20s even though I believe in reproductive freedom, including abortion rights. Not to mention the ordination of women and permitting priests to marry.

    So you can sit in a church for many years without agreeing with everything about the church's doctrine or with the pastor's sermons.  (How many sermons did I listen to about "natural family planning," a/k/a, parenthood?)

    If my pastor was saying things like the soundbytes that we've heard from Rev. Wright, it would disturb me.  I guess I would have to weigh it against everything else he did and said.

    I saw Wright on Bill Moyers' show on Friday, and for the most part, Wright was impressive: intelligent, articulate, reasonable.  I could see how someone might think his more outrageous statements were just a small part of what he has to say.

    But in that case, Obama's response to the initial (and the continuing) controversy has been at once too defensive, and unclear about what he is that he disagrees with.


    Big difference *which* 20 years. (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by K Lynne on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:02:54 PM EST
    I'd say there is a big difference between staying in a church you don't agree with between the years of 0 - 20 (or 5 - 25), and/or in a church where you were brought by your parents as a child, and one freely selected as an adult at age 25 in which you chose to stay 20 years.

    I grew up Catholic as well, and it took me into my early 20s before I finally 'truly' left the church...  


    Yeah, I was raised Catholic too.. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:06:36 PM EST
    We had a poster in the house, as a joke, I think, that had a pic of Pope Paul VI shaking his finger at the viewer and the caption was "The Pill is a No-No!!" When I went away to college, I got a boyfriend, and we decided to start spending weekends together. My first experience with sex, by the way. And when I called my mom to tell her that there would be a different phone number to reach me at on the weekends, the first words out of her mouth were, "Are you on the Pill??" I said yes, had been for a month before indulging in hanky-panky. She said, "Good, you are being sensible about it." Now, she was a convert, a very devout one who wore scapulars and read novenas every night. But she was also a feminist, daughter of a feminist, grand-daughter of a feminist. So, she was fine with the Pope telling her how to pray, but not telling her how to treat her own body. That she felt was between her and God. On that we agreed. Heh.

    My mother (none / 0) (#181)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:47:37 PM EST
    went to church after she had her fourth child to confess that she was going on the pill.  The priest's reply: "Everyone else in the parish is on the pill too."  Now he tells me, she said to herself.

    She doesn't regret having had my youngest sister, of course. Not that any of us was actually "planned."  I myself (a "honeymoon baby")caused my father to drop out of college and get a full-time job and go to night school, from which he graduated when I was eight.  Apparently, the fact that my grandparents were married for five years before my uncle was born, and then another five years passed before she was born, led her to believe that you could get pregnant quite so fast. I owe my life to my parents' extreme ignorance.

    My mother was therefore quite emphatic that I shouldn't let anyone touch me until I got myself a prescription for the pill.  Tough thing for a Latina of her generation to tell her daughter.  But advice for which I've always been grateful.


    One priest had a good way of dealing with it. (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:24:40 PM EST
    One young couple in our parish, friends of my mother's, who had just had a baby  went to the priest because the delivery had been complicated, and the doctor said they shouldn't have any more children for quite a while..a couple of years, I think. Well, they went to the priest for advice and he came up with an elegant solution. He told her to go on the pill and told them to also use the rhythm method. That way, during her "fertile" time, they would refrain from sex. And the pill would act as a safety net. The idea behind no birth control in the Catholic Church is that you should not have sex for pleasure ONLY, but for procreation as well. So, if you abstain during the time that a woman would be fertile when not on the pill, you are not having sex for pleasure without responsibility. Since the woman would, theoretically, not be fertile the rest of the month, being on the pill at that time would be irrelevant. Being on the pill would not be a sin in that case because of the abstinence. I thought that was a very cool priest. And a sophist of the first order..LOL

    Oops (none / 0) (#183)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:49:24 PM EST
    Today's Missing "Not":
    Apparently, the fact that my grandparents were married for five years before my uncle was born, and then another five years passed before she was born, led her to believe that you could not get pregnant quite so fast. I owe my life to my parents' extreme ignorance.

    To me, the difference is (4.66 / 3) (#93)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:44:54 PM EST
    Catholicism is a mainstream religion, and you, I assume are not a politician.  Most American Catholics take what they want and leave the rest.   I have a friend, a lifelong Catholic, who stopped going to church because she was so disgusted over the pedophile priest scandals.  This is a working-class woman, very smart but no college education (and yes - a Hillary supporter!) who realized that she had to draw a line in the sand.  Enough was enough.  If she could do it, why couldn't Obama?  

    Obama's church is far out of the mainstream.  I've seen numerous black pastors on TV today, denouncing and rejecting Rev. Wright and his message.  One of them said that Wright's statement equating an attack on him with an attack on all black churches was simply a ploy to draw other black churches into the fray, and he wasn't buying it.

    Obama wasn't raised in this church - he adopted it as an adult, out of choice.  I believe he did it for politically expedient reasons, never dreaming (apparently) that it would come back to bite him in the a$$.  


    especially (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Nasarius on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:59:47 PM EST
    This just isn't plausible:
    Many of the statements that he's made, both that triggered this initial controversy and that he's made over the last several days, are not statements that I have heard him make previously.

    What, Wright only spewed hatred on days when Obama wasn't in attendance? That really strains credulity. We've seen that this goes back at least 7 years.

    Not only that (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:06:56 PM EST
    but as has been pointed out by numerous pundits, if the pastor of your church makes controversial statements, isn't it likely that you'll hear about it from other members of the congregation, even if you weren't in attendance?  It doesn't pass the smell test.

    The most amazing thing, to me, is that Obama and his handlers apparently thought his association with Wright wouldn't be a problem in this election.  They made a gross misjudgment of the media and of Wright himself, who is not going to just shut up and go away.


    Rove tells Obama how to win (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    Rove also suggests Obama sharpen his repudiation of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons.Just one of his 6 suggestions. Reported on CNN I guess Obama got the memo.

    Don't (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:18:41 PM EST
    you think this is a little too late. Jerome Armstrong wrote when the scandal first broke that Obama should have thrown him under the bus and run over him. I think Jerome was right and Obama was wrong to continue to "cling" to Wright after the scandal broke.

    In my past (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:53:13 PM EST
    The guy was on his campaign up until a month ago.  It's the past!

    Rev. Wright Hates Obama (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    By now, it's certain.

    I think we have a case of passive aggression here. Maybe he didn't like being thrown under the bus.

    He knows he's toxic for Obama, but he doesn't care. He could have waited a little before going on his "Redeeming Tour" or "Defiance Tour".

    He couldn't have chosen a worst moment for Obama to come and monopolize the election news.

    He feels that that he's been (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:00:45 PM EST
    mischaracterized in the press, and even though he's already retired, he apparently feels that his rehabilitation in the public's mind -- the very same public who didn't know who he was until a few weeks ago -- is more urgent than Obama's nomination.

    Translation: he is really really pissed at Obama.


    Yeah... (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by magisterludi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:28:11 PM EST
    maybe Wright finally read Obama's healthcare plan.

    Wright knows (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:31:25 PM EST
    he's been thrown under the bus, along with Obama's grandma.

    Maybe some higher power (none / 0) (#193)
    by jen on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:17:41 PM EST
    is making him do it! ;-)

    Axelrod was not ready (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:00:18 PM EST
    for prime time...!!

    Ouch, CNN talking in past tense now (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:02:11 PM EST
    about Obama.  Just flipped through the Dobbs show, and to start on the topic of Wright, one guest began with "Barack Obama had the opportunity to become the first African American president. . . ."

    oh (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by ccpup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:08:52 PM EST
    that's gonna leave a mark

    And suddenly Hillary's looking like a political genius for not dropping out before now.


    Wow...Dobbs is harder on him than Cafferty, though (none / 0) (#55)
    by kempis on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:12:29 PM EST
    Earlier, Cafferty seemed to be shrugging it all off. In fact, he was joking about Dean's saying that one candidate needs to drop out after the primaries.  Cafferty's assumption was that Obama would be the nominee and Dean would be afraid to tell Hillary in person but would prefer to do it over the phone because she'd "kill him." Much laughter. :p

    So earlier, the Wright controversy seemed barely to be on CNN's radar.


    Cafferty (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:29:22 PM EST
    is blinded by Hillary-hate.  He's beginning to remind me of Dick Morris.

    Dobbs doesn't think much of any of the candidates, including McCain, probably b/c of the immigration issue.  With Dobbs, you get a bit of objectivity simply b/c he doesn't have a dog in this fight.  


    let's get this straight about Dobbs... (none / 0) (#103)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:54:15 PM EST
    the only opinion that counts is Dobbs opinion - there is no other rule.

    Oh, definitely (none / 0) (#112)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:58:25 PM EST
    but that can actually be a good thing b/c he's immune to the talking heads.  

    Of course, I tune out his show after the first 15 minutes, b/c then he goes on his immigration rants.


    You know... (5.00 / 9) (#45)
    by kempis on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:07:18 PM EST
    I was starting to feel sorry for him, but this just irks me:

    "Many of the statements that he's made, both that triggered this initial controversy and that he's made over the last several days, are not statements that I have heard him make previously. They don't represent my views," the senator added.

    There really is an annoying pattern to Obama's denials like "I barely knew [Rezko, Ayers]." "Gee, I never heard Wright say [whatever folks deem controversial.]"

    How long are these kinds of denials going hold up under scrutiny in a general election?

    I guess Obama (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:13:38 PM EST
    nods off a lot during services....

    He gets bored (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:17:25 PM EST
    If it offends you... (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:49:24 PM EST
    I never heard it!

    Think like a juror (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by NotThatStupid on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:31:31 PM EST
    That's what I try to do when I listen to politicians: ask myself if the testimony I hear from them believable or not?

    Senator Obama saying he that never heard Pastor Wright's "offensive" statements before is not credible. IMO he is lying about that, and I think most people would agree with me.


    20 years of service? (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:07:26 PM EST
    Seriously?  Is the guy smoking his own hopium?  This is a pathetic excuse for a renunciation, and an even more pathetic excuse for 20 years of worship at the foot of a loon.  What he wrote about to earn his coin and make his rep is straight from the mouth of this man he now claims never to have really known.  I lose more respect for him every single day.

    Wright, Fallwell, Robertson, etc. (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:07:56 PM EST
    Why don't they all go away from our politics.  I don't care about a politicians religion.  I don't want the ministers to have a place in the public forum about our politics.  Put them back in their churches and lock them up.  

    Because Hagee (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by hitchhiker on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:08:36 PM EST
    was never McCain's pastor.  He didn't marry McCain and either of his wives, didn't baptize their kids, and never counted McCain as a member of his congregation.

    McCain hasn't introduced him lovingly as his mentor.

    He's still a frakkin' racist (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:12:41 PM EST
    And McCain has said he's "happy" to have his endorsement.

    Not the same thing as being his pastor, but not good, either.


    You forgot... (none / 0) (#83)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:39:42 PM EST
    homophobe.  And I'm just betting, a little misogynistic too.

    They all tend (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:25:06 PM EST
    to go together, don't they?

    Just another pol? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Manuel on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:09:39 PM EST
    Many of the statements that he's made, both that triggered this initial controversy and that he's made over the last several days, are not statements that I have heard him make previously. They don't represent my views

    Obama needs to be more specific.  Which statements does he disagree with?  Presumably he doesn't agree that he is just another pol.  Unfortunately for him, this equivocation makes him look like just another pol.

    Can we just schedule these in advance? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:13:04 PM EST
    Say, once every 3 weeks, Senator Obama will agree to address Wright's latest remarks, in order to put this behind him.

    This is really a bizarre circus. I have never seen anything like it. Obama is unable to put the issue to rest. It is HIS problem---not what Wright said---but that he cannot distance himself sufficiently.
    Good lord, does he have no spine at all?

    His spine is awaiting the latest poll (5.00 / 9) (#66)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:22:01 PM EST
    Then it will weigh in.  Has this man shown an ounce of moral courage or political courage yet in this campaign?  Has he done or said one thing that represented taking a stand?  No.  He's playing it straight down the middle, hoping to ride the unity pony to the finish line without actually having to answer a hard question or take a tough position, like I don't know fighting for universal health care.  

    You mean that (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:17:40 PM EST
    twenty years of service that overlaps day for day with your twenty years of association with the Reverend Wright?

    Tweety said it best (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Coldblue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:20:36 PM EST
    the other day on Hardball;
    this is his Iraq

    "his Iraq"...thats just stoopid (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:47:14 PM EST
    all the more reason why it is probably true - this is America, land of corporate media inanity. Americans should be outraged at the corporate trivialization of the important issues of their lives and the people that might solve them.

    I saw it (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Coldblue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    as an astute political observation, not a corporate directive.

    Tweety said (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:42:25 PM EST
    Obama is Wright, Obama and Wright are Jekyl and Hyde.

    Unity or Bust (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Key on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:22:06 PM EST
    Right now, I'm very much pro-Clinton.  But I get tired of seeing people on this blog bash Obama - just as tired as seeing people on Daily Kos bash Clinton.

    Frankly, the best thing for Clinton (and her supporters) would be to help kill the whole media love affair with the Wright issue.  

    All this story does is seed more ill-will towards Clinton by Obama's people, and there's no use in trying to win the primary if Clinton can't win in November.  Clinton will need Obama as much as Obama will need Clinton.  I wish the candidates would get over themselves and come together.

    A Unity ticket is the only road to Victory in November, and at this point I want both Clinton and Obama to agree to such a ticket and then flip a coin to see who gets to play president.

    Regardless ow who wins the coin toss, the other candidate can be a real asset as VP.  There is nothing that prohibits a president from taking a lot of input from their VP.

    Let's all get a clue - Unity or Bust.

    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by pie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    Bash Obama?

    Can I have an example, please?


    See, I don't get this: (5.00 / 9) (#87)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:43:05 PM EST
    All this story does is seed more ill-will towards Clinton by Obama's people, and there's no use in trying to win the primary if Clinton can't win in November.

    How is what Wright is saying, and how Obama is responding, Clinton's problem?  What is she doing that is keeping the story alive?

    This is Obama's problem, and it is Wright that is compounding it; it has nothing to do with Clinton - nothing.

    Frankly, I'm not sure it is possible for Obama's people to increase the ill will they feel for Clinton, and anyone who believes she has to take the rap for Obama's 20 years of boneheaded judgment has truly lost their grip on sanity.


    Oh Please (1.00 / 2) (#101)
    by freethinker25 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:53:20 PM EST
    This site is being complicit in destroying the character of Obama based on guilt by association. Please site 1 thing that Obama has said or done that would in any way indicate Obama holds the same views as Wright? And all this talk of Obama not having 20 years of service? Since when does service in Washington count as the only type of service to this country? Is community organized not real service? Serving as a member of State legislature is not real service. Again, I respect Clinton and would be honored to have her as our nominee. However, I am disgusted in seeing fellow Democrats participate in the Swift Boating of another Democrat.

    we're just watching Obama's train wreck. (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:55:45 PM EST
    Do you think that the commenters at TL made Wright speak, or made Obama equivocate, over and over again, about how much or whether he agreed with Wright?

    No I didnt say that... (none / 0) (#120)
    by freethinker25 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:04:55 PM EST
    But when Clinton and her supporters bring up this issue validates the issue in the eyes of the media. They can say well even Clinton thinks its a legitimate issue. Do you really think Mccain wont use Clinton and her supporters words about Wright against Barack this fall?

    Clinton and her surrogates have been restrained (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:10:38 PM EST
    Painfully so.  She made one statement, one, during this whole months long mess about it, to a direct question in an editorial meeting.  Quit making this her fault. Face it.  Your candidate screwed himself.  Stop shifting the blame.  It's insulting.

    Let's hope they don't get a chance to N/T (none / 0) (#126)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:12:16 PM EST
    Against Barack this fall? Ha, nice. (none / 0) (#130)
    by leis on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:16:21 PM EST
    He won't need to use Hillary or her supporters words because he has Obama's.  So much more damaging.

    this is pathetic (none / 0) (#203)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:51:16 PM EST
    if I had those wright tapes:

    i'd have looped them and put them on TV in Iowa.

    this isn't beanbag.


    Actually, it's Obama himself. . . (none / 0) (#205)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:05:23 PM EST
    pushing the idea that Wright is a legitimate issue for discussion -- on Fox News of all places.

    The Republicans will need nothing but Wright's own words, and Obama's various responses, in the fall.  There's no significant record of Clinton or her campaign saying anything (at least on the record) about any of this.

    This is a mess that was entirely predictable except for the fact that Wright would decide to take a victory lap on national television at a critical juncture in the race.  And while the Clinton campaign is probably happy about their good political luck, there's no one to blame here except Wright.


    Um... (5.00 / 7) (#119)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:04:45 PM EST
    "Please site 1 thing that Obama has said or done that would in any way indicate Obama holds the same views as Wright?"

    Joined his church and stayed there for 20 years, got baptized there, got married there, had his kids baptized there, sent his kids to learn at Sunday school there, and put him on his campaign as his spiritual advisor?


    he used a line from a (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by english teacher on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:17:35 PM EST
    wright sermon as the title of a book:  "audacity of hope".  what more do you need?

    Please tell us what, exactly, comes under (5.00 / 8) (#144)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:35:39 PM EST
    the umbrella of "community organizing - what did Obama do as a community organizer?  What programs did he work on, or start?  Where are the people who worked with him?

    His church?  What did this man who claims to be able to unite the nation do to unite his church, to help his pastor see that his divisive and angry sermons were not helping people "come together?  What committees did he serve on?  I heard Reverend Wright talk about a slew of programs his church is involved in - feeding the hungry, HIV programs, mentoring - which ones was Obama involved in?  Why does he never say, "as a member of the church, I worked with young people who needed a role model, I worked in the soup kitchen, I donated legal services to the elderly?  See, that would be service and it would go a long way to bolster his commitment to service.  I don't see a commitment to anything other than Barack Obama.

    His state legislature job was a 4-months-a-year commitment - it seems odd to me that in the other 8 months he didn't see the horrific conditions in which many of his constituents were living, did not know those conditions existed in buidlings developed by his friend Tony Rezko, and did nothing to address them.

    We all know that he did little in his years in the Illinois legislature, until that last year, when he got the gift of being credited with sponsoring legislation that others had spent years working on - and that is a pattern that has continued in his short tenure in the US Senate - showing up for the pressers and taking credit for work that others did.

    And must we bring up, once again, his utter failure to carry out his duties as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's subcomittee on Western Europe and NATO?  Not a single hearing until the last month, and only - only - because he had been caught out on national TV in a debate.

    Now, I think Obama is a smart guy who clearly has some gifts, but he is also someone with questionable judgment and suspect work ethic, who has yet to prove to me that he is willing to work his a$$ off for the Democratic agenda - something we desperately need.

    Is that "swiftboating?"  Not in my book - what's happening now is nothing more than putting someone through a vetting process that got lost while the media was reveling in the leg tingles.

    Deal with it.


    It's called "doing something in the (none / 0) (#158)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:53:22 PM EST
    neighborhood", last I heard.

    His 7 "years" of being a state senator (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:09:43 PM EST
    actually turn out to be 28 months. See, the Ill. legislature only meets for four months a year. The rest of the time, Obama was doing legal work for Rezko and friends. That's the same Rezko that was not heating the housing that Obama's constituents were living in. Who was he serving when he turned his back on them? The housing in question was a mile from Obama's home. He couldn't drive down there to see what was going on in the housing his friend put up..with money gotten through Obama's recommendation? That isn't public service. It's self-service.

    What else does Obama have to offer? (4.87 / 8) (#123)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:06:51 PM EST
    That's all I want to know.  His choice of friends sucks.  He has a history of picking radicals for friends and mentors, which speaks to his judgment.  So if his judgment is questionable, then what else does he offer this nation?  What attributes or experience or record of accomplishments does he bring to to the table when asking for the most important and difficult job in the world?  Tell me.  What?  I await your pitch for President Obama.  

    He's a one trick pony - post-racial unity messiah.  We find out that one trick is a lie.  So does he have any other tricks?


    its all Wright and Obama (none / 0) (#195)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:37:32 PM EST
    If I had any power Edwards would be the nominee.

    You don' think obama is toxic as a vp choice? (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by leis on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:50:51 PM EST
    No way would I want Hillary going with him as vp if she gets the nom.  Bottom or top of ticket he is going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people.  

    Yes, (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:56:13 PM EST
    and toxic for the down ticket as well.

    Yes But (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:03:25 PM EST
    We have the antidote to the toxin:  McCain.

    No, there is no point in (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:27:28 PM EST
    taking the chance. And besides, the VP should be qualified to be President since he may have to one day. If there is some sort of disaster and Hillary gets killed in office, do you really want Obama stepping into the gap?? I don't. I would like to see Wesley Clark as her running mate. He would bring the military creds and offset a lot of the war hero appeal of McCain. The people who need a man in charge when the shooting starts, or ends, will be happy to imagine Clark is actually giving the military orders. Obama would be poison, and seriously call into question Hillary's judgment in choosing people for her administration. Frankly, I will be surprised if Obama makes it back to the Senate again. He will have to face an opponent who has the file on Rezko to use against him. And Rev. White may play well in Chicago, but not in the rest of Illinois. Obama may have just seen his political career go down the tubes.

    Today (4.66 / 3) (#98)
    by IzikLA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:50:40 PM EST
    was actually the first day where I thought a Clinton/Obama ticket would be a bad idea.  I don't think this is good for him at all, he seems to be bruising badly.  And strangely, I am a huge Clinton supporter, but the beating he's taking right now is kind of sad.  He has, or had, so much promise.  I wish he would have waited but I think he let ambition and his arrogance (prematurely inflated by those around him) get the best of him.

    I'm happy to see Clinton doing exactly what she needs to be doing right now, and truly hitting her stride, but I'm not really taking pleasure in the take down of Obama.


    He can't be V.P. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:58:11 PM EST
    if he continues to show he isn't ready to be  president, imo. And that is where this is heading . . .

    Why not? (none / 0) (#145)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:37:13 PM EST
    The Republicans nominate people for President who aren't ready to be President, and they seem to do pretty well with it.

    Oh good (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:56:53 PM EST
    Let's sink to the level of republicans. While we are at it let's run campaigns like them....oh never mind, I forgot about Obama's Rove campaign.

    I hope this is snark. (none / 0) (#186)
    by alexei on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:51:52 PM EST
    I don't care to have a Democratic GW.

    Of course it's snark. (none / 0) (#200)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:44:43 PM EST
    I don't know what's going on around here, but it's like every sense of humor on the left has suddenly been raptured.

    Larry, if you get raptured, (none / 0) (#206)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:06:12 PM EST
    I'm stealing your crap.

    I feel sad too. (none / 0) (#152)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:48:15 PM EST
    I don't think this will take him out totally, but it's a big bat the GOP and the media can use to beat him whenever they feel like it. What a horrible feeling that must be--we should leave a candidate's religion alone. I'm proud of Senator Clinton for coming out against those evil down-ticket ads and then staying out of it.

    Yeah, you have a point.. but (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:14:50 PM EST
    we should leave a candidate's religion alone

    The candidate's religion should leave us alone as well. This candidate's hasn't. To his enormous dismay, I am sure.


    Some good might come of this (5.00 / 10) (#74)
    by Sunshine on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:28:59 PM EST
    If nothing else this should reinstate "Separation of church and state.....   No politician will ever mention his religion again...

    drip, drip, drip (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:40:50 PM EST
    the MSM democratic blood-letting accelerates.

    The circle of friends... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:55:49 PM EST
    is a really sad circle

    Examples? (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:02:20 PM EST
    I don't see much if anything directed at African Americans.

    BTW, "winning is your only thought" is very close to a Republican talking points about our candidate.

    I was just thinking tonight that Obama keeps (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Lil on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:13:05 PM EST
    touting his community organizing. As a social worker in non profit, I'm familiar with community organizing. While noble, I don't get how this is considered adequate experience for the Presidency. I also don't get how this experience hasn't been questioned more like Hillary being questioned about her experience as First Lady. Also, if his community org was mostly through his church, I'm even more skeptical about Obama's preparation to be Presdient. He may ultimately win, but I really think he should have waited until 1. he had distance from Wright and 2. he had gained more real experience in the Senate. This has just become depressing.

    hogwash. (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:22:58 PM EST
    tepid try though. well, pathetic really. it's neither sen. clinton's or our fault that sen. obama chose to (closely) associate himself with rev. wright, for what now appear to be pretty much politically expedient reasons. that's fine, he's free to associate with anyone he wants. with that freedom comes risk, something that sen. obama is apparently just now learning.

    he decided to stay in this man's church for 20 years, no one forced him to. he decided it was politically expedient to ignore rev. wright's obvious issues, no one forced him to. he's now the one who has to take the fall out from his right to freely associate with this man for 20 years, no one else. his judgment is at issue, no one else's.

    to call legitimate criticism "sliming" is a pathetically desperate attempt to divert attention from the real issue, sen. obama's questionable political and personal associations in his adult life. associations which will come back to haunt him in the GE, should he be the dem. nominee. they aren't going away.

    it doesn't fly.

    "White Folks's Greed... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by OxyCon on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:10:46 PM EST
    ..Runs A World In Need"

    The very first "sermon" Obama heard Rev Wright speak. The one that "drove him to tears" and convinced him to join Trinity United right there on the spot.

    That's all I need to know about Obama.

    MSNBC protrays Obama as a victim (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Terry M on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:52:54 PM EST
    KO & comapny can't admit that Wright has been crazy all along b/c that would tarnish their guy.  So, the narrative is: poor Obama, his pastor's gone nuts (just in time for his retirement) and has turned on Obama.  That is probably the best defense the Obama media cheerleaders have.  But Dana Milbank's article in the WaPo was telling.  I think folks at the Nat'l Press Club Q & A were genuinely disturbed by what they saw today. Obama is really in trouble if the press corps turns on him (though Keith never would - there's just too much love for that).

    Of course, Chuck Todd saw this as a great opportunity for Obama.  I am really sick if that tool.

    Cant agree enough (1.00 / 8) (#114)
    by freethinker25 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:00:59 PM EST
    It is really disturbing how low some people will go in the pursuit of victory. Look in the mirror, you are using the same disgusting tactics that you have deplored when Republicans did it. If this is not the Swiftboating of the candidate I dont know what is. The worst part about it is that there a very good chance that Obama will still be the Democratic nominee. What you and other Democrats are doing is paving the way for a Mccain victory this fall. I know the plan is to scortch the earth quick enough that Clinton will become the nominee, but what if that doesn't work. How will you feel when Mccain is sworn in as the next President of the US. By all means attack Obamas lack of experience, his policy views, or HIS words or actions. However, this guilt by association game is really disgusting, its something I expect of Republicans, not fellow democrats.

    ah yes (none / 0) (#201)
    by Salo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:46:18 PM EST
    we're doing this. nothing to do with Obama's old pal.

    I agree with Hillary. (none / 0) (#8)
    by lyzurgyk on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:45:25 PM EST
    Enough Reverend Wright.  

    Obama pandered to the black community in Chicago and it's biting him in the butt.    But I don't think his views align much with Wright's.

    I don't care about his views (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:54:58 PM EST
    I care about what Obama's association shows us about Obama. He seems quite willing to ignore people's character flaws, even major flaws, when it is politically expedient to do so. I can't believe that there are not less radical churches in Chicago with which Obama could have been associated. I can't believe that he did not choose to disassociate himself with Rezko when it became obvious that he was a political opportunist. Obama has played the system his entire political career. The current media spotlight is highlighting the fact that he has no underlying principles other than saying whatever is necessary to get elected.

    Yes (4.90 / 11) (#60)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:15:41 PM EST
    it's extremely troubling, especially since Obama is running on judgment as opposed to experience (of which he has precious little).  I don't buy the Fox line that Obama is a dangerous leftist - if he were, I might be more inclined to vote for him!  On the contrary, Obama's affiliations seem to be based in whatever's good for Obama.  

    I know that Hillary, for all her faults, is a good, solid Dem.  She's a consummate politician, but she stands for something.  I'm not sure what Obama really believes.  The prospect of Obama, as President, dealing with Republicans, negotiating with foreign leaders and making SCOTUS appointments is worrisome to me.  He seems like a shallow opportunist.


    Character Flaws (none / 0) (#89)
    by lyzurgyk on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:43:45 PM EST
    I don't think I agree that Wright has "character flaws".  But he only represents a very narrow slice of America and his rhetoric obviously goes too far on occasion.

    Still, Wright is more admirable than plenty of corporate lobbyists.


    lyzurgyk, you mean lobbyists like Tom Daschle? (none / 0) (#191)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:08:35 PM EST
    You maybe right.

    That's the great thing about Obama (none / 0) (#213)
    by ricosuave on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:57:09 AM EST
    He has the associations with Wright AND with the corporate lobbyists!  The best of both worlds!

    (Who do I refer to? Exelon, Monsanto, financial industry, healthcare, etc.)


    I saw the interview (none / 0) (#33)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:00:36 PM EST
    He wasn't very convincing.  He seemed detached and kept looking off to the side, particularly when he said "I can understand how [his words] would upset the American people."  I got the feeling that he really doesn't understand, that he was saying "just words" to make the problem go away.  Perhaps it's just his manner, or perhaps he was tired - or bored!

    I just saw that (none / 0) (#38)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:02:14 PM EST
    Like Obama on the tarmac, he kept looking away, and looked like he didn't know what to say.

    Or maybe he was bored.


    I was trying to figure out (none / 0) (#48)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:08:00 PM EST
    if he was looking down and to the left, which is supposed to be a sign of lying.  

    I was thinking something along (none / 0) (#88)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:43:32 PM EST
    the same lines. It seemed to me that Obama just couldn't look them in the eye while he was speaking about Wright today. Not a good way to give a convincing statement.

    He was very shifty (none / 0) (#108)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:56:31 PM EST
    No eye contact whatsoever.  

    Tired? (none / 0) (#56)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:12:39 PM EST
    the campaign seems to be taking a real toll on him.

    i think obama is starting to find the (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by english teacher on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:33:40 PM EST
    campaign boring in a bataan death march kind of way.

    "cross-race recognition deficit" (none / 0) (#35)
    by Daniel DiRito on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:00:54 PM EST
    Read an article that explains how the psychological theory of "cross-race recognition deficit" may be exacerbating the indelible linkage of Jeremiah Wright's views to Barack Obama...here:

    Major Disconnet (none / 0) (#36)
    by Saul on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:01:53 PM EST
    After I
    heard Wright's original controversial remarks, I got the image that he had a rough life, suffered because he was a black man, was discriminated against, and suffered financially as he went through life because of his race.  But then I see where he is building a 10000 sq foot mansion.  Somehow I see this as a disconnect with the image he portrayed to me.  

    Presser Timing (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dave B on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    That presser was likely quickly thrown together in time for Axelrod's appearance on the Obama News Network.

    Jimmy Carter says it will blow over. It is (none / 0) (#124)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:08:04 PM EST
    typical for AA churches and it will be ok. (I think he's wrong.) He also says he won't endorse and this has not really been a nasty campaign at all by normal standards. That, I agree with.

    In other words (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:20:02 PM EST
    Jimmy Carter is yet another Obama supporter who isn't thinking past the primary.

    Yikes (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:20:30 PM EST
    Did Carter really say it was typical of AA churches?  I've seen quite a few AA preachers on TV today disavowing Wright's comments.  

    That's the way I took it. You might want to (none / 0) (#139)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:29:00 PM EST
    watch the replay tonight...it's the first question. I was reading here and listening at the same time so maybe I heard wrong. But I don't think so. He mentioned going to the AA church in Plains many times and that it's just different but not wrong. I'm paraphrasing though.

    Sooo (none / 0) (#137)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:28:18 PM EST
    Anybody know what Keith "Tony Soprano" Olbermann said about the Wright Affair today?  Did he say...anything?  Or did he just scream Hillary hate to drown it out.

    I'll bet that...
    Dana "if you write Obama's political obituary, today at 9:00am will be the time of death" Milbank
    ....won't be on the show.

    I only saw a few minutes but he said Wright (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:30:17 PM EST
    threw Obama under the bus.

    I'd say (5.00 / 6) (#150)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:47:01 PM EST
    Obama threw Wright under the bus, then Wright reached up from under the bus.  Using a "death grip," he grabbed Obama to join him.

    Wow, lots of folks under the bus, me, health care, women's rights Wright, and now Obama.  The more the merrier, I'd say.  Pretty cozy.

    But can you tell I haven't had dinner yet, and it's already almost 7:00pm?


    Wright is driving the bus. . . (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:50:05 PM EST
    back and forth, back and forth over Obama and going "mwa-ha-ha-ha".  It's really amazing the degree to which the guy seems intent on doing Obama in.  I can only assume that he actually does believe it's all in the hands of God and whatever will happen will happen.

    He's jealous (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:54:01 PM EST
    and he feels betrayed.

    And he doesn't think far enough to think, hey, maybe when he's president, I'll get "stuff".

    Instead, the jealousy permeated his being, and he recognized this as an opportunity to make a name for himself, and he's going for it.

    Some friend, that reverend.

    a psychic friend.


    I watched the beginning and both he and Richard (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by leis on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:40:43 PM EST
    Wolfe now seem to be spinning the yarn that there have been rumblings for quite some time that there was tension between Obama and Wright.

    It seems according to the Hardy Boys that Wright was ALWAYS secretly jealous of the adulation that Obama was getting. So now you see it wasn't Hillary that was plotting Obama's downfall but the Reverend.



    So (none / 0) (#148)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:44:18 PM EST
    now long with Keith "Soprano" Olbermann, we have

    Richard "Kreskin" Wolffe?  Who knew he was a mindreader?  I say the man deserves a raise!


    Those two dudes are seriously p*ssed off. (none / 0) (#155)
    by leis on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:50:33 PM EST
    Keith was breathing thru his nose and Richard's lips were virtually non existent. I quit watching after the first segment because I found my remote control.

    Um (none / 0) (#156)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:51:03 PM EST
    "along," not "long".

    KO asked Jonathan Alter (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:27:58 PM EST
    with great agitation, "So what is he [Obama] supposed to do?"  Hoping, apparently, that Alter would have better ideas on that score than David Axelrod appears to have.

    I think it's understandable (none / 0) (#177)
    by ChrisO on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:35:46 PM EST
    that Wright would speak out. We may not like the guy, but he's been a respected member of his community for many years, and is just heading into retirement. Suddenly, he finds himself one of the most divisive and hated men in America. I don't think he necessarily wants to do Obama harm. But even if he's loyal to Obama, it's understandable that he would try to dig himself out of the hole he's in. I'm glad the Wright thing came out when it did, because it showed us some valuable things about Obama. But I don't hate Wright so much that I take any delight in his situation. He comes across as a tough guy, but this whole thing has to be killing him.

    And I too am troubled by the way some commenters seem to be reacting to this. To me, the problem is that Obama was dishonest about his association with Wright, and caused incredible damage to his campaign, and the Dems, as a result. But I really don't find Wright so despicable that I think it's unthinkable that Obama would belong to his church.

    I see some of the same stuff with Ayers. I'm concerned that Obama seems so incapable of dealing with these issues. But in the course of Democratic politics, especially big city Democratic politics, one will rub elbows with people holding a wide variety of views. To me, that's part of the fun of being in the party. I'm a member of my Democratic Town Committee, and there's Dems of all stripes involved. If I were running fore office, I would potentially be liable for the views of everyone on the committee, with people questioning why I didn't quit, etc. It would be my challenge to deal with it, but it wouldn't mean I was guilty of anything. I think there's a big difference between evaluating a candidate based on his ability to deal with those guilt by association charges, and actually leveling those charges ourselves.

    I don't belive Wright is done just yet. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Radix on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:36:03 PM EST
    Personally I think Wright was quite hurt and angry by Obama's apologia. He, Wright, is going to force a choice on Obama, take one side or the other.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    I agree. It's about Obama's judgement. (none / 0) (#180)
    by WillBFair on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:46:46 PM EST
    Starting in my 20s, in looked at churches. And it wasn't too difficult to find smart, kind, and fairminded congregations. Either Obama wasn't smart enough, or the Rev. Wright was his kind of guy. Either way, yuck.

    Kudos to Josh Marshall (none / 0) (#182)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:47:43 PM EST
    Well at least he is not living in a vacuum, TPM is actually covering the Wright weekend. Go to the Huffington Post and there's no coverage, only a few blogs with opinion not actually reporting. Two positive and one negative. Crooks and Liars, not a word. Daily Kos, I could not find an article. It's all over the news and the papers, and these blogs barely a word.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#194)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:24:06 PM EST
    Wright's actions are just inexplicable.  I may have to watch the videos myself, as only reading the Milibank article makes it sound like the end for Obama.  Wright seems to be taking the direction "this is who I've always been!" and Obama's attempt to make him into a complicated person is really suffering for it.  I have to wonder why Obama didn't think this might come up, and why Wright is latching himself to Obama so strongly.  Obama's politics really don't seem to mesh with Wright's, aside from a belief in social change.  Why does Wright want to be involved in this campaign when it seems that he doesn't have any respect for it?  Why emphasize being there from the start?  
    I just don't get it.  I feel bad for Obama.

    I don't feel bad (none / 0) (#199)
    by jen on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:43:41 PM EST
    for Obama. This is all of his own making. How could he not have realized everything in his past would be looked at under a microscope if he were to run for the highest office in the land?

    Through his own arrogance and over-confidence he allowed himself to be propped up by the Clinton hating establishment Dems; used his gift of giving inspiring speeches (as long as he has a teleprompter); spouted words that were designed to bring hope and unity, but were just words after all; and now that he's finally finally finally being vetted, it's all being exposed for all to see.

    We are finally seeing the man behind the curtain, and he ain't no different from all the others back there except he's younger and has darker skin.

    No. Sorry. I don't feel one ounce of pity for the man, and am only grateful that he is being exposed for the charlatan he is now, before it was too late for all of us.


    Obama could have left any time in the last 20 yrs (none / 0) (#210)
    by ig on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:48:37 PM EST
    Oprah did. Wright wouldnt be an issue now, if he did.

    Staying for as long as he did, even taking his children there, shows that he believes in the non-traditional Christianity that Wright preaches.


    obama is struck by Lawyers disease! (none / 0) (#218)
    by ayesha1976 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:08:27 PM EST
    I wish Obama had not said that Rev Wright was just his pastor at the end of the denunciation. By doing so he has just exposed himself to be hit by one and all.He said the same thing about Rezko( just worked for his law firm for 8 hours),william ayers (just lives in my neighbourhood) and now Rev Wright is just a pastor who has married him to michelle. There's a video on youtube by ABC's Kieth Olberman where Obama is telling the audience to give a warm welcome to Rev wright who is his pastor,friend and worse!

    Why Barack why not stop at just denunciation instead of  doing a Hillary!
    He seems to be struck by Lawyers disease of telling half-truths and misleading the jury about obvious things!