Late Night: Summing Up Rev. Wright

The New York Times reports on Reverand Jeremiah Wright's monomania.

Now it turns out that Mr. Wright doesn’t hate America, he loves the sound of his own voice. He is not out of touch with the American culture, he is the avatar of the American celebrity principle: he grabbed his 30-second spots of infamy and turned them into 15 minutes of fame.

.... Chuck Todd, the NBC political director... summed up Mr. Wright’s apologia by paraphrasing a Carly Simon song: “You’re so vain, I bet you think this campaign is about you.”

David Axelrod: "“He is doing his own thing,” Mr. Axelrod said wearily by telephone. “There’s not a thing we can do about it.”

Another blast from the past: This February, 2007 Rolling Stone article about Obama and Rev. Wright.

This is an open thread.

< Obama's Age Problem: He's Not Connecting and There's More of Them | Dems Need A Unity Ticket >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    yay! open thread! (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:54:33 AM EST
    i hope i'm not nearing my comment limit.  time to send another donation! LOL!

    After watching the clips from the news services all I can say is "should woulda coulda"


    Shoulda never gone into his church

    Woulda been nice to know this before his campaign started

    Coulda walked out after he KNEW JW was too militant of an association since BHO had aspirations for higher office.

    This from the NYT article (none / 0) (#133)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:11:37 AM EST
    that is linked in one of the posts...can't remember which one..explains a lot about why Obama was made so welcome in Trinity and why Wright is so hurt by Obama's denial of him.
    The church's Afrocentric focus makes Mr. Obama a figure of particular authenticity there, because he has the African connections so many members have searched for.

    So the "authentic figure" turned out to have feet of clay and no loyalty. No wonder Wright is all over the media. He must be overcome with feelings of rage and betrayal. I know I would be in his shoes.

    My question: (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:56:33 AM EST
    If Obama cannot stop Wright going off, if his supporters could not stop him from causing this damage, what does that say about him as a leader?  


    If he can't control his radical pastor, how.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:34:08 AM EST
    Cable news and KOS (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:05:10 AM EST
    Two things I don't usually do, but today, I ventured.  CNN and MSNBC were non stop on the issue.  It seemed that all the pundits except for Ryan Lisa (sp) were on a death watch.  Then I ventured in Kos and it was a mad house.  The end of the world, the sky is falling.  

    For me, it's not over till the voters vote, FL and MI are seated and the SDs vote.  You never know what happens from one day to the next.  Just when you think it's over and it goes both ways.  Ever vigilant.  

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:23:07 AM EST
    If SDs did step in right now in favor of Clinton because of Wright, I wouldn't want that either.  Wow.  That would be awful.  That would crush Clinton's chances in the GE, totally, and there'd be nothing I could say about that.

    A lot of people might say "No!  He'll lose the GE, make it stop now!"  But I disagree.  I have my own reasons for thinking Obama should not be the nominee and I've been very vocal about communicating them in the most extreme terms, but none of that should supercede this process.

    I know SDs were invented literally to supercede the process, but I think that's wrong.  If SDs stepped in now, the Obama contingent and AAs would have a legitimate reason to feel betrayed.

    If the votes keep coming in and then the SDs respond to those voting results (as opposed to responding to this controversy) then the Obama contingent and AAs will still feel the sting, and they can say they were betrayed, but in that case, they are then betrayed by voters.  

    And coming to terms with that is different than coming to terms with a set of SDs interceding.

    People who think everything I say is motivated by sheer partisanship should read closely what I'm saying here.


    FWIW Edgar (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Rainsong on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:05:27 AM EST
    I agree, Clinton should just focus on her own campaign, and the SDs should just let it play out as they had planned. Long shot perhaps, but it may even garner more support for Obama, in gaining the sympathy vote.

    Also, it's good for the Democratic party (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:11:52 AM EST
    We need this primary to continue because it allows voters to see and hear Clinton in person, something that will help her negate the inevitable GOP/media onslaught in the GE.  Once people know of the real Clinton, rather than the demonized caricature portrayed, people tend to like her or, at least, not hate her.

    Plus, it must be a real hoot for people in KY, WV, and elsewhere to see a presidential candidate and Bill Clinton.  Usually, those states are dismissed by the Democratic party.  This will be great for us long-term to build up the party.

    I hope they go straight through Puerto Rico.  Again, what a boost it'll be for Latinos to see the Democratic party committed to their vote that they'll even have primaries in a territory that won't have a say in the GE.


    could be (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by moll on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:41:38 AM EST
    This will be great for us long-term to build up the party.

    IF it's played right...change that to a cautious "this could be great for us..." and I will agree wholeheartedly.


    Guam is giddy (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:37:13 AM EST
    I read a story from Guam about Bill Clinton calling a radio station there, going live on the air.  The locals were going crazy.  The story said no candidate ever had even called Guam before -- and Bill said maybe he'd try to get someone from the campaign there, maybe try to get there himself.  The station, the callers, etc., went over the edge at the very thought of being noticed by their country.

    I think every candidate ought to be required to go to Puerto Rico any election year and then pass a quiz about what territorial status means in terms of Patrick Henry -- no taxation without representation.

    Btw, why Obama went to the Virgin Islands for vacation instead of Puerto Rico, that surprised me.  Of course, so did the concept of him going on vacation at all in the run-up to Pennsylvania.


    It seems obvious (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:59:15 AM EST
    that Obama didn't have a Plan B message. His empty "hope and change" meme was supposed to render him the nominee early in the primary. When that didn't happen and those dang Dems kept voting for Hillary who adopted much of Edwards message and rhetoric after he suspended- Obama's appetizers couldn't compete with her beef in states Dems need to win.
    There have been a few stories of customers ordering fast food, only to get home and find there's no beef between the buns. This is one of those times.

    Yep, it all was a Super Tuesday strategy (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:38:37 AM EST
    without a thought to a Wednesday.

    Women know there's always a morning after. . . .


    I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Wright (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:05:20 AM EST
    It is a little sad that first he gets dismissed as a crazy old uncle, then he gets dismissed as a mediawh**e. But then I remember what he said about Bill & Hillary from the pulpit, and I get over it.

    yes - Anglachel's post is very good (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:33:07 AM EST
    Obama's words of "unity" conflict with his actions of playing the Race Card.
    But he's never been a big supporter of the Democratic Party nor "bringing people together" in the party. In fact, he rarely mentions the party.
    He's all about the Obama Party.

    thanks! n/t (none / 0) (#39)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:57:26 AM EST
    I like Anglachel (none / 0) (#42)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:14:12 AM EST
    However, I think she should give herself a word limit.  She gets a little longish.

    grrrr (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:10:13 AM EST
    Go LONG anglachel.  

    There's not a whole lot of people out there who write as well as you do, and consistently come up with new and decidedly insightful observations -- ang is one of them.  Its a pleasure to read her prose on a aesthetic level, and a pleasure to read her ideas on an intellectual level!


    Couldn't agree more! (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:29:35 AM EST
    There is never too much of a good thing in anglachel's journal for me. I await each new one eagerly. Never too long or even long enough to feed my need for her scary-smart insight.  

    anglachel (none / 0) (#144)
    by noholib on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    I agree that her analysis is very sound and valuable, but a good edit could eliminate the wordiness and make the points more clearly and forcefully.

    She is not wordy. Wordy is the horror writer King (none / 0) (#146)
    by alexei on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    Over @ Daily Kos (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:08:02 AM EST
    the cheerleading and rah-rah'ing is going on.  Icebergslim has a diary telling the Obama supporters to basically buck up:  that politics is constantly in motion, to quit complaining and DO something (volunteer/donate/make calls).

    He made one really good observation: "many of you must be new to politics"

    You got that Wright.

    Icebergslim (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:11:24 AM EST
    is a woman.

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:16:25 AM EST
    since I don't know who's who over there, I apologize.  She made some good points to the Obama people who are truly discouraged.

    And hopefully we as HRC supporters don't start to gloat.  Karma's a bummer!


    Karma...she is scary (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:20:16 AM EST
    I agree.  

    No Apology Necessary (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:23:17 AM EST
    Just a bit of background info. She comes off as very angry, especially with those who disagree with her or her choice of candidate.

    indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:29:00 AM EST
    she used to ignore my responses outright if they didn't agree with her POV.

    She ignored me too (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:32:35 AM EST
    especially if I asked for a link or a source for her  comments. Amazing what happens when you hold their feet to the fire.

    she's almost certainly a professional (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:01:21 AM EST
    And one of the most clearly anti-Clintonite posters on Dkos.

    according to one of those (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:29:19 AM EST
    "going to volunteer" diaries of hers, she pointed out that she was a gov't worker who was taking some time off to be an "on the ground" volunteer in one of the early primary state.

    I can get (none / 0) (#18)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:30:44 AM EST
    pretty animated myself but I can certainly make my case in measured terms and not sinking to levels of name-calling, vitriol...the usual junk sadly seen in the blogosphere.

    I thought that what seperates us from the GOP side of things?  Raising your voice or name-calling doesn't make your world view correct.


    Don't confuse form and substance (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:13:35 AM EST
    No, what separates you from the GOP is that you are a liberal.

    Which is not to say that form is not closely related to the substance.  The form a message takes is unavoidably part of that message.

    There are plenty of liberal blogs that have deliberately affected a rude tone in order to boost cohesion within the readership, discourage thoughtful debate (so only the rudest trolls infest their sites, providing a foil for the site operators to bash as proof that the opposition are all a bunch of stupid trolls), and show that they are irreverent, iconoclastic, and resist authority.

    Blogs of that type on the right include Ace of Spades and Protein Wisdom; on the left, some of the feminist bloggers especially seem to like the in-your-face style.  It's part of their message of "f--- the patriarchy."  You can't push a message of "f--- the patriarchy" if you are demure and thoughtful all the time.


    If you had ... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:11:04 AM EST
    ...been able to find the Jeremiah tapes and had posted them during teh summer of 07--IBC would have ensured you were chased off Dkos.  And exKossacks will will know this phrase "For Real!". She was practising her own brand of Real Politik.  She's probably a hired gun or appointed Obama staffer. Too willing to trash Clinton on certain issues that dovetailed to closely with Obama Talking Points.  

    As it turns out Hannity (for all his sins) was doing us all a favour by howling about Wright; the self appointed censors on Dkos were stifling an honest debate about Obama's background.  For instance, pointing out that Michelle was a PR flak for a hospital got you TRs back at that time.  Discussing Wright's insanity would have got you autobanned--I didn't even have the guy on my radar until the tapes were broadcast on ABC and I don't know if anyone did try to raise the issue at that time.  If any one did they were effectively censored enough for me to miss it.


    I am not a liberal (none / 0) (#152)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    I am an independent who leans a little more left.  There are a few platforms that liberals espouse that I have big problems with.

    But I don't ever see myself voting republican.


    The one and only Iceberg Slim... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:59:06 AM EST
    is a famous writer, author of "Pimp: The Story of My Life".  And definitely a dude.

    The Icebergslim (none / 0) (#145)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:37:17 AM EST
    of orange satan infamy has said the she took her blog name from the author. She has openly stated that she is a black woman who works for the Guvmint.

    Earlier today I actually saw some (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:25:00 AM EST
    rational comments about the possibility that it may be downhill for him now. I was surprised, but pleased that some seemed to be able start pulling back from wherever they were and be a bit more reality based.

    Never a good idea (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:35:44 AM EST
    to write someone or something off.  Yes we know that more than a few blogs have gone off the deep end with their candidate of choice.  One thing I can appreciate is their passions.  It's made people become involved and care.

    If you've ever seen the movie "Frida" where Diego's character is being vilified because of his communist mural, Selma Hayak made a great observation:  that his painting aroused something in people to talk about their beliefs...to some Diego was a hero, to others an enemy.

    Same could be said of both campaigns right now.  I am glad that HRC has acknowledged this dynamic and calls for party unity in the end.

    She's so amazing.  Everything she's gone through and she's still the standard-bearer.


    Wright is a pretext... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:26:42 AM EST
    I think that wright is just a pretext here --- lots of party pros who jumped on the Obama bandwagon are having buyers remorse -- they believed him when ne said he could transcend the right-wing smear machine.  But Obama showed that he couldn't even transcend his own self-inflicted wounds.

    Bitter/cling -- and Obama's response to it -- was really the beginning of the end.  Then there was his horrible debate performance -- and his petulant blaming the media and isolating himself from the press for at least 10 days.  

    Party pros (and I suspect some people in the media) realized that he'd be destroyed in the general election, and went looking for ways to take Obama out of our misery.  Even before Wright-o-palooza, every story about Obama was discussing how he couldn't connect with this or that demographic group, etc.  

    People were letting the air out of the tires of Obama's magical unity bus since Pennsylvania -- Wright is just an opportunity to slice off the entire valve stem.


    The Republicans do not (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by BeBe on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:21:46 AM EST
    want to run against him. A connected one told me this weekend they want him gone. I asked if they don't think McCain can beat him. He said "Probably but it would be a spectacle." He went on to explain that they do not want an "elderly" war hero on debate with someone who makes obscene gestures during speeches, has crazy minister problems, and primarily the worry is threats of mobs, violence and "there will be blood" if he doesn't get his way. They want him out of the way now so McCain isn't anywhere near him in a general election.  

    puhlease... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:42:54 AM EST
    polling already shows Obama's weakness against McCain.

    honestly (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:04:24 AM EST
    I think the "there will be blood" crap was the last straw for lots of people.
    that is about as offensive as it gets in politics as far as I am concerned.

    There will be a pink slip (none / 0) (#135)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:27:42 AM EST
    for Donna Brazille.

    Something that has been (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by k on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:30:48 AM EST
    nagging at me. Hasn't Obama said in the past that Wright was both his pastor and his mentor?

    Everyone, or most everyone, keeps talking about Obama's relationship with Wright as his pastor. Obama says that he hasn't heard Wright's controversial views, but always, from what I remember, in that context.

    But what about as a mentor.  Doesn't that suggest a more personal relationship? I actually looked up the word mentor and the first defination says a wise and trusted counselor or teacher.

    How would it be possible, under that defination and if Wright was in fact his mentor, for Obama not to have heard Wright's rants. It seems to me that in this context Obama would be quite familar with Wright's positions.

    For me, the mentor relationship, if it was as defined above, bothers me more than the pastor relationship.

    Still thinking it thru.


    I am convinced Wright (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Serene1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:40:05 AM EST
    is out to get Obama for some perecived slight or something. I remember his response to the spiritual mentor thing.

    Wright said people ask me if I am Obama's spiritual mentor then he made some sounds and motions like a Ghost and said I assume mockingly Spiritual Mentor? What's that. I am Obama's pastor. (Not exact words but approx)

    Wright was on a trip. He was out to undermine Obama and he actually seemed to be enjoying himself.


    Maybe Reverend Wright (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:43:08 AM EST
    was a tad annoyed at being spoken of as a "crazy Uncle"? Obama seems to have a proclivity for throwing people under the bus and then being astounded when they are angry. Wright was handled wrong, IMHO.

    The more I think about it (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Serene1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:10:53 AM EST
    the more I can feel Wright's anger towards Obama. Obama has known Wright for 20 long years and like Obama said Wright has been literally like a family member of the Obamas present at all important ocassions to bless and guide them.

    And then when it became politically inconvenient  to be dismissed of as a crazy uncle by Obama and as one who makes contoversial statements unheard previously by Obama etc. etc. must not have been a pleasent experience for Wright.
    Wright didn't seek Obama, Obama sought wright and the least Obama could have done was stood up for Wright instead of dismissing him off as some crazy uncle.

    In the race speech, Obama did try to defend Wright and refused to disown him but later and previously, when the wright tapes had just broken out, Obama without a thought happily condemned and denounced all those comments and distanced himself from Wright like any true blue politician.


    That's just ridiculous. (none / 0) (#114)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:08:25 AM EST
    Had Obama said, yes I heard all those comments and I totally agree with each and every one, you would have been falling all over yourself to condemn him for it. But now, you say even though Obama did "try to defend Wright and refused to disown him..." he acted like any true blue politician. That is bull. He would have been better off politically to get rid of Wright when this first surfaced. He did not do the expedient thing. Some of the commenters here just kill me, you will find a way to slam him no matter what his reaction to any given situation is. Serene1's post here is a classic example. You actually contradict yourself within one comment.

    He did not do the expedient thing. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:11:45 AM EST
    He did not do the SMART thing.

    which is an indicator of just how inexperienced and raw he is.
    as in, not ready for prime time.


    For a candidate who is (none / 0) (#119)
    by Serene1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:22:16 AM EST
    preaching about the new way of doing politics as one of his major campaign themes, what was new about how he handled Wright?

    He conveniently used Wright to gain political connections and then when the going became tough he has been literally trying his level best to disassociate from everything Wright.

    In a nytimes article there was this statement that initially Obama wanted to disown Wright but after speaking with a couple of Ministers in a conference call hedecided against it because he realized politically he may loose an important constituent as a result.


    BINGO (none / 0) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:28:22 AM EST
    This sums it up nicely:

    Obama wanted to disown Wright but after speaking with a couple of Ministers in a conference call he decided against it because he realized politically he may loose an important constituent as a result.

    This all explains why Obama did not (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:49:41 AM EST
    cut loose from Wright.  The reverend just would have gone off sooner.  It was a lose-lose call, based on the hope that Obama would win on Super Tuesday and, as the campaign did, keep Wright out of the limelight at least that long.

    I think this is exactly Wright. (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:54:44 AM EST
    I don't think Wright wants (none / 0) (#120)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:24:59 AM EST
    him to win.  He thrives on the anger of racism.  Where will all that anger go if a Black man is in the Whitehouse.  

    I believe Wright himself said... (none / 0) (#148)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    if Obama was elected pres he would be coming after him, because as pres he represents the US govt., warts and all....and thats alotta warts in Wright's and many others opinion.

    Mentor, Advisor.... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:41:55 AM EST
    it bothers me, too.  Was he really a mentor, or was he grooming Obama for a position in government where he could effect some changes that the Rev had his sights on.  The Rev did say in his Q&A at the NAACP today that he would take the VP spot on Obama's ticket.

    You think Obama met all his shady friends (Ayers, Rezko, etc) at a neighborhood diner? I figure these were connections he acquired through his church leader.


    the VP spot on Obama's Ticket? (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by ccpup on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:34:47 AM EST
    that thud you heard was Obama and AxelRove hitting the ground in a faint.

    I haven't read Obama's books (none / 0) (#21)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:33:44 AM EST
    but I do remember some posters stating that in his books he refers to Wright at his mentor.  Maybe someone else with better search skilz than I can find a quote.

    Google is your friend (none / 0) (#24)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:37:02 AM EST

    Google does not always help. (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:00:09 AM EST

    A lot of the people who are quoting Dreams from My Father are twisting quotes and not quoting properly.

    I wish, I wish...I REALLY WISH...more people would read the book.  They will find some really messed up stuff in there;  like how Hussein Obama wrote to the Dunhams (Obama's grandparents who raised him) telling them that his disapproved of Barack Sr.'s marriage to Anne and that he did not want the Obama blood "sullied by a white woman" (pg. 126).  Obama makes no commentary to this, other than to keep trying to paint his mom as somewhat of a fetishist for black men and his grandparents as racist (even though you can clearly tell that his grandfather is a truly accepting and loving person).

    I mentioned in another thread about how Obama has his own "blue eyed devils" moment in the book too, when he chastises an AA "friend" of his just because she wore blue eye contacts when she came to see him once.  He goes off on a rambling vent about "black self esteem" for at least two pages...all because the poor woman decided she wanted to wear blue eye contacts!  (pp. 192-195)

    Anyway.  I'm a little over halfway done with the book (only because I'm always sick/in pain/have other things to read).  I reiterate my wish that people would read the book for themselves.  I read it from a somewhat similar position as Obama;  I'm biracial, however I grew up in a very white, very conservative town in the 70's.  I probably faced more racism that Obama did when he grew up in his racially diverse Hawaiian community.  While I understand some of what he says, I can still read that he was a very angry young "black" man, angry that his father didn't stick around to give him some sort of connection to his African roots AND also angry that he didn't "get" the black experience that African Americans descended from slaves get (he goes on and on about how he wished he'd had the experiences of one of this other black friends...I forget which page, I've got so many dogears in this thing).


    sexist moment (none / 0) (#74)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:24:23 AM EST
    but girls get to put on contacts and dye their hair and put on makeup and wear outrageous clothing.

    S'why men love.  We have to wear suits and be clean cut.


    My Black Friend (none / 0) (#77)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:27:36 AM EST
    A hick rural girl goes to college and meets a black PR-American girl from Manhattan and they become friends.

    I remember one thing that bugged her.  She hung out with white folk 'cause she liked us and we liked her and we were friends.  Some other blacks, mostly male, thought that she should hang with the rest of the blacks in solidarity or some such.  (On this campus, Asians easily outnumbered blacks.)  Her reaction was something like "They didn't even ask me what I wanted to do, it was just something I was supposed to do because my skin was dark and my hair was nappy.".  She cracked me up!  

    I learned so much from her.  I don't know what it means to be black to anyone else, but I know what it meant to her.  To her there was no more "black culture" than there was a "white culture".


    Great (none / 0) (#147)
    by miriam on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:34:49 PM EST
    Now he's offended us blue-eyed people.  So who's left to insult?  

    well, I'm lazy too ;-) n/t (none / 0) (#37)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:56:00 AM EST
    Wright denied mentorship today (none / 0) (#29)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:43:00 AM EST
    At the Press Club.

    Sure (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:53:36 AM EST
    But did Obama, in his books, or anywhere else make the claim that Wright was a mentor?

    he titled a book after the (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:16:24 AM EST
    man's sermon.

    That's a dedication.


    Well (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:26:38 AM EST
    To be fair, I could write a book called "Space Oddity" and dedicate it to Bowie without ever meeting Bowie.

    But if I did that and then said "I never heard 'tin machine', I wasn't there when he did 'tin machine', I distance myself from 'tin machine'," all that would prove is that I was, from the very beginning just a very superficial author on the topic.

    (Apologies to anyone who liked 'tin machine', wasn't my thing.  Music is very subjective.)


    Ahhh . . . the Church of Bowie (none / 0) (#134)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:23:08 AM EST
    I did go and see Tin Machine. Very small up close and personal show. It was my way of reaching across the aisle and 'sitting down' with those who may have opposing views. We need to be open to views other than or own at times  ;)

    Do you plan on starting a "Movement"?


    I took a break (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:39:53 AM EST
    Not a long one but I guess I'm going to apologize for my contribution to the gas tax holiday issue earlier today.

    My perspective on the gas price supply/demand conservation issue is still something that I think isn't represented on leftist/progressive blogs.  What I feel is the bottom line is that all the people who overconsume gas won't be affected by even 5 or 6 dollar a gallon gas.  They're already part of the America that Edwards refers to that can very easily absorb another 50 bucks per week either way.  Yeah.  They'll be annoyed.  But it really won't change their behavior.  But it will hurt people with less money, who do have to a different set of decisions in their lives.

    So I should re-establish a different point, the gas tax holiday is not a solution, and it may even be bad policy (most especially so if it was implemented long term), but I don't think hurting poor people is the solution here either.

    I thought progressives were committed to finding solutions that make rich people pay their fair share and expand opportunity for the more economically disadvantaged out there.

    People can educate me more about why gas taxes are necessary for a long term solution, but you're never going to convince me that that sort of solution, while it might curtail gas consumption by sheer brute force of will, that that solution isn't regressive.

    It is regressive.

    I've digested all the other points, and have taken them at face value, if anyone wants to try to explain to me how higher tax prices isn't regressive, I'm still listening.

    Gas Tax (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:51:09 AM EST
    may seem to be a regressive tax but the revenue was supposed to go back to the states to build and maintain roads and bridges. In Europe, where the price of fuel has been the price we are now seeing here in the US, taxes are nearly 70% the price of the fuel. That money goes back into mass transit and infrastructure.

    A rule (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by nellre on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:54:26 AM EST
    There is a rule when brain storming that no proposed solution gets dissed.
    If this rule is not enforced people will not venture a creative solution.

    If you are about punishing rich folk for being rich, I'd hazard that you are not a liberal.
    However, the problem of people who cannot get to work because they cannot afford gas is not really about gas prices... it's about alternative transportation like mass transit.

    We always wait until it's a crisis to do something. And then shoe horn some quick fix in where a long term plan was required.  What a shame.


    That's not (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:58:52 AM EST
    What that's about.

    One of the things about progressive taxes (as opposed to regressive taxes like the gas tax) is that while it does APPEAR to punish people for being rich, I feel it only punishes people for being rich and unproductive.

    Follow me.  When more people, a middle class, have more money, productive, hard working, cutting edge rich people can still always find a way to make large sums of money, even if it is taxed more.

    Here's the thing.   Progressive taxes reward rich people who have something to offer society in terms of producing goods bought by the middle class.  It's the way of the world.  They do keep getting richer.

    A progressive tax will punish rich people who have stopped having anything to offer society and are only interested in hoarding their wealth, and passing as much of it as possible onto children who apparently seem to have the same set of values.

    Trust me.  I am not interested in taxing people simply for being rich.   I am interested in taxing people who take vast sums of money literally out of circulation cause they became too lazy and defunct to make it work for them (and the rest of society) anymore.

    I wanted to be clear.  Progressive taxation is not income redistribution.  Progressive taxation begets just exactly that.  Progress.  For the rich and the poor.

    Regressive taxes (ALL point of sale taxes on bread and butter goods) begets Regress.  For the rich and the poor.  Eventually, even the hoarders run out of money too!


    Higher gas prices are regressive... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:16:33 AM EST
    But there's not much the government can do about that, no matter how well intentioned or progressive our leaders may be. The problem is much, much larger than they are.

    The whole thing about gas taxes is just a sideshow, anyway. Even if you suspended the gas tax, you'd only lower prices for a week or so. The price would have to reset itself to a higher level very quickly, or else there would be shortages. Heck, you'd probably instigate a run on gas stations and manufacture shortages with a sudden suspension.

    Your larger point, I think, is that there are people in America for whom these price hikes (in gas, and in everything else) are genuinely painful. I understand that, I really do. And I'm all for trying to come up with a more progressive taxation scheme, although that will be a very uphill battle. But the sad fact is that gas is going to go nowhere but up for quite a while, and there's really nothing the government can do about that. There's simply more people around the world who need it, and are willing to pay higher prices for it. At the same time, supply is at best staying level. That equation only produces one result.

    If we really want to lower energy costs, then we need more energy, or lower demand. We're working on more energy. I won't lie...it's tough. Really, really tough. Cheap oil was such a fantastic energy source that it's going to be very hard to replace. But we have lots of bright people working on it as fast as they can...and humans have a history of figuring stuff out when their back is up against the wall. I certainly wouldn't bet against us.

    As for lower demand, well, we'll get that, one way or the other. Again, I won't lie...it's going to suck for a lot of people. We've invested huge amounts of time and effort into building a lifestyle that is absolutely dependent on cheap energy to sustain. If cheap energy really does go away, then we'll need to change our lifestyle, and change is never easy. On the plus side, maybe some of the changes will be for the best. You'll never convince me that humans were meant to spend a hour driving every day to and from work.

    There's a place for government in this effort. Helping people to transition to a lifestyle that allows for lower energy consumption (while hopefully preserving quality of life) is a laudable goal. Making an already unsustainable system worse by attempting to artificially lower prices is not. Hopefully, our politicians realize this before things get worse.


    An interesting proposal floating around.... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:55:51 PM EST
    is a new standard 4 day 10 hour per day work week.  Still putting in the standard 40 hrs., while eliminating one day of commuting.  This would theoretically reduce the demand for gasoline around 20%.

    Sounds like a great idea to me....3 day weekends baby:)


    well, according to my brother (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:20:40 AM EST
    the gas tax holiday Clinton is talking about will also help with the distribution industry (diesel), which is really struggling right now. I don't think it is supposed to be a "solution" or long term policy -- I think it is designed to be a temporary stop-gap measure until some more long-term policies can be implemented.  I am, I admit, a little cloudy on what those other things are.

    I don't know anything about it... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:34:57 AM EST
    but I figured that it was some sort of stop-gap effort to deal with the fact that there's a high travel period coming up next month.

    Was thinking that it might help out with the indy trucking industry...


    Indy truckers and also Indy workers (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:52:18 AM EST
    think of folks that have to go to multiple job sites, locations, clients. Many people live farther away from work because it is cheaper. A friend of mine has a new temporary situation with her job that has her driving a few days a week. 1 hour each way in perfect conditions. A new and not so cheap expense that will prob continue through part of the summer, when our electric bills jack up. As it is, many folks will be using those rebate checks for gas and higher food prices.

    The Real Solution (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:35:47 AM EST
    has nothing to do with the price of gas.

    The Real Solution has to do with retooling the entire national energy/transportation infrastructure to encourage conservation, mass transit and alternative energy sources while protecting essential industries like agriculture.

    Peak Oil is coming and there's not a thing we can do to stop it.  Slow it down a bit, but not stop.  Rationing is one possibility - any time a government radically subsidizes a commodity, de facto rationing results.  

    Climate Change is here.  Peak Oil is coming.  Each nation will adapt or suffer.  It won't be easy.  It won't be cheap.  But the consequences of doing nothing are far, far worse.


    Hmmm The gas tax like all (none / 0) (#31)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:50:11 AM EST
    other sales taxes is regressive.  We'd be better off eliminating it and taxing the oil companies windfall profits.  The tax code could be used more agressively to encourage conservtion (e.g. carpooling, using public transit).

    But wouldn't the oil companies.... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    simply pass any new taxes on down the line till they got to the pump?  I mean that's what usually happens....

    Better to temporarily repeal all federal gas taxes, add no new taxes to oil companies, and have the govt. spend less of our and the oil companies money.  Abolish the DEA and end the occupation of Iraq for starters.    

    Sounds like a better solution to me...no?


    This needed to happen two months ago (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by nellre on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:40:27 AM EST
    Obama's meteoric rise was the result of a virtual religious fervor.
    It was going to end. I wish it had ended sooner. If it had, there'd be no doubt that HRC was our nom.

    I like Obama, and hope he runs for 2016.

    I think the likes of Kos killed his chances, not Wright. The Kos types made him bigger than life, god like... that's not support, that's worship, and so any weakness Obama might have was exaggerated. Kos types alienated HRC supporters in the process which was very divisive.

    I'm glad the electorate and polsters are sane again.
    I'm sad some of the blogisphere was exposed as just as biased and toxic as right wing nuts.

    Kos and their commenters (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:54:34 AM EST
    I was only 10 when the Guyana Tragedy occurred but I saw the mini-series on it.  Jeez WHIZ!  The comments over at Kos are WAY over the TOP!  Kool-aid ain't the only thing those poor voters are drinkin' over there.

    The comments are SO cult-like.  I get this visual of all these wounded people who are unable to take care of themselves and the other wounded are trying to help but are at a loss how to.

    Their answer to the wall-to-wall coverage of Rev Wright? TURN OFF THE TV.  See? It's not happening if you don't see it happening.

    Then you have supporters who want to basically crucify Wright for his actions while those who defend him because he could inflict MORE damage to BHO's campaign.

    The zaniest comment is:  "don't forget the Obama ju-jitsu...it's all going to be okay, okay?"



    V. similar to the comments (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Serene1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:23:58 AM EST
    I read on Obama's appearence in Fox. The article was about how Obama camp deceived MoveOn and other liberal bloggers by promising that Obama would take on fox and how the interview was anything but.

    For this the commenters made comments like, Obama is just playing a very intelligent game trying to make fox believe that Obama is for them while he would do exactly the opposite and how it was a strategic move, inteligent move and yes ju jitsu yada yada.

    Like riverdaughter said in one of her posts - The kids are not o.k.


    The only problem with your impression (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:55:18 AM EST
    is that while KOS is huge on the net, he's small in the overall scheme of things.

    But the hero worship and messiah treatment from people over there was the first thing that turned me completely off Obama.  If Obama likes that kind of thing, if he drives it, then he's not for me.


    Oh gosh I know (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:59:00 AM EST
    heck, so many people don't even know what a blog is.  I know that the blogs are a microcosm in the grand scheme of things.  I just don't write off their 'usefulness" to the MSM.  After all, the Huffington Post got little if any credit with their cub reporter who recorded the "bitter" comments and how it snowballed.

    as it turns out (none / 0) (#73)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:20:44 AM EST
    the % that bama got in his Iowa and NH results was similar to the numbers that supported him on Kos.

    Edwards was the outlier.  


    Don't be so quick (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:57:14 AM EST
    to think that a cease-fire is coming.  Obama's supporters are putting on their boxing gloves.  They see the fight more protracted.  I guess they get it that Hillary is not going away, and unfortunately, neither is Jeremiah Wright.

    MSM still supporting Obama (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by LCaution on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:27:50 AM EST
    I admit I only skimmed through some of the coverage since I find the toxic news outlets to be bad for my health - but, I'd swear I saw a couple of talking heads defending Obama.

    Now, it so happens that, even though I'm very pro-Hillary and becoming evermore anti-Obama, I think the whole Wright thing is a bum deal. It's guilt by association and nothing he's said (that I've heard) hasn't been said by leftists before going back at least to Vietnam.  So old lefties should examine their consciences.

    What impresses me is that there are even some talking heads defending Obama. If this had been Hillary's pastor, well, one can only imagine what would be coming her way.

    I guess the boyz are just so in love with Obama, they're actually being fair in this case.

    Is it really love, or is it (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:40:43 AM EST
    lost credibility? If they were smart, they would start working themselves back to a more neutral position.

    I've been on a cable break for a few weeks now (NICE!) and just getting the info on local network news is a bit saner. Still see some Obama leaners, but tolerable. they just showed a snippet of Obama saying how he thought NC voters were smarter than to relate his former pastor's words to him. Then the reference to it being "old politics". lol!~ Somebody really needs to tell Obama his new politics are lookin' the same as the old. And that this is not about Hillary or her campaign/politics.


    Obama's run Died and turned Zombie before PA (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:10:54 AM EST
    The hardest push to get Sen Clinton to fold before her big win there was (1) to get her out of the way and (2) to reanimate a wornout Obama campaign with the transfusion of her supporters.

    Sorry, Obama fans, but he still has to earn voters on his own and he's not nearly as Charismatic (tm) or Inspiring (tm) as is required.

    His magical speeches are mad-libs from better people who worked for their reputations and suffered for their causes. They don't deserve to have their work and their words chop shopped for slogans to draw traffic into Obama's concession tent at the fair.

    Obama and his fans are all about entitlement before work. Even his kingmakers in the blogs, Dems and media are more about trying to work the spigots of the tasty stuff rather than keeping an eye on why the "endless" flow got down to a trickle.

    Now the whine is going up that Clinton "ruined" Obama's chances by not giving over her hard-earned juice and the panicky people who have seen what's happening are trying Operation Transfusion one more time before it's apparent to everyone.

    Obama is over. Let him exit gracefully so he doesn't take better people -- and in the case of the weasels who propped him up, complete schmucks -- down with him.

    4/27-28: Obama Deliberately Throws Election! (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by jginnane on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:14:01 AM EST
    Here's my read.  The Obama brain trust has read PA exit polls and the upcoming elections.  They know precisely where the supers are at, and what surprises (Gore! Edwards!) are coming.  And they've decided it's time to spike the campaign -- but to do it in a way that won't make all the late donors feel cheated.

    So: they blow off the Kososphere with that Faux News thing. They resurrect a crucified Wright; "We can't control him!"  And, for good measure, they oppose the gas tax hiatus supported by McCain and Hillary.  (This last one has nothing to do with being right or wrong, just playing into the elitist meme -- "we don't feel your pain, see?")

    Suddenly, in a week Obama's 10 points down just in time for Indiana and NC.  A week later, a humble Obama announces that his campaign will be "suspended" until the convention.

    (And then the fat lady starts singing.)

    There is no other way to interpret the last 72 hours of political events.

    Remember -- you read it here first!

    As crazy as what ... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:29:45 AM EST
    you say sounds.

    I think you might be right.


    It makes me Question (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Serene1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:01:57 AM EST
    Axelrod's strategy of winning the elections. Increasingly it looks like he his strategy comprised of only two notes.
    1. Capitalize on the general hatred towards Hillary and play it up by feeding it.
    2. Present Obama as this pretty post racial candidate sprouting hip stuff and razzle dazzle the masses with some pop rhetoric on we we we.

    That is why he seems so unprepared for Wright attack and other sundries.

    And "sundries" are ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:39:14 AM EST
    what being President is all about.

    Ummm... excuse me... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Rainsong on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:24:32 AM EST

    I suggested that line of thinking on 25 April, here on TL:

    (Reply) (none / 0) (#123)
    by jginnane on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:33:34 AM EST
    OK, I read your post ... and yup, you beat me by 3 days.  Congratulations!

    Although I see on the link you provided that you only got one reply, from someone who said "You're delusional".  Whereas I now have 2 people agreeing with me already. :)

    Just goes to show -- in politics and lovemaking, "Timing is Everything".

    (PP -- key to Obama's taking himself out now, and retaining future political viability, is to have an external event for the rubes (donors) to be able to blame it on.  Wright takes the cake as a Useful Fool here.)


    "delusional" I was crushed! LOL n/t (none / 0) (#154)
    by Rainsong on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:49:13 PM EST
    Hmmm!! I hope you are right, because ... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:38:50 AM EST
    ... if you are, then we might expect the next stage to be actions by Obama designed to unite his supporters behind the nominee. In that regard, he could be getting the VP spot in exchange for easing out of the race. That way he could end up getting credit for expanding and uniting the party, rather than wrecking it.

    BTW, I see that you don't post often here, but I read your first post and agree 100%. We need a President who knows how to assemble an effective administration, to avoid, and begin to dismantle, all the land mines that BushCo are going to leave behind (and I say "begin" deliberately, because it will take more than one term).


    Throws Election! (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:08:41 AM EST

    it did occur to me that something did not feel quite "Wright" about the last few days.
    I was wondering if he was openly attacking Obama so Obama could openly attack him. or at least distance himself in ways he has not so far done.
    I hope and pray you are correct but I dont buy it.
    I think Obama will have to be dragged off the stage along with his "there will be blood" bloggerboy buddies.
    so lets start draggin.


    I agree (none / 0) (#81)
    by ig on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:53:53 AM EST
    Obama is deliberately throwing it. If he wins the nomination, in the GE, his reputation will be forever damaged with constant Ayers, Rezko, Wright attacks. He wont even get re-elected Senator.

    If he bows out now, his reputation will only be slightly tarnished, he can change church, dump Ayers and Rezko, and get more experience and in 8 to 16 years time run again.


    Chronic pain. (5.00 / 8) (#57)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:20:29 AM EST

    Yeah, open thread.  But I can barely type.

    I hate being in chronic pain.  I hate not having a doctor who would be able to afford me the right consults in order to pinpoint the source of my chronic and my migratory pain, or being in a crappy system that allows the poor and without income to sit here and suffer because specialists cost too much.

    My migratory pain is the worst.  As in, it'll come on, hard, and let me suffer through a day's worth of not being able to get around and headaches.  It's always in my knees...I've had this stuff since I was a toddler.  No one's ever been able to give me a real diagnosis...they thought it was rheumatoid arthritis, but I tested negative for that.  It's just a really strong pain in the knees that can spread throughout the entire bottom part of my legs and make me stomach sick (when it's really bad).  Days like this require at least two or three showers...the sensation of running water on my body helps some.  I'm on daily morphine (low dose) and Vicodin when it gets insufferable.

    This is part of the reason why I hope to G-d Clinton wins.  I want to see what she can do for the healthcare system.  And I sure as Hell don't want anyone else to suffer this kind of b.s. if they don't have medical coverage (I'm lucky and I have Medicare and MediCal (here in California)).  She is my champion...and I'd be crushed if people are so dense as to force this very, very smart woman (I've read so much about her this election cycle...since I don't do anything else but read...I've read the "negative" books, but even THEY concede that Hillary is a brilliant woman) out of a chance for a position which I truly believe that she's earned.  For what...hope?  Change?  To echo Maxine Waters, I've had hope my whole life...I want to see someone DO something.

    My sympathies (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:09:19 AM EST
    I'm so sorry to hear about this. I suffered from frequent migraines when I was younger, but seem to have grown out of them finally. But I know how helpless one feels.

    As usual, I agree with your assessment of Hillary and share your desire (I won't say "hope" :-) for her to win.

    Hang in there; the polls (and other signs too) are looking better today.


    For you, and for so many, I hope Clinton wins--BUT (none / 0) (#143)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:02:34 AM EST
    we will need to ride herd on the Dems in Congress to actually work on a real universal healthcare bill.

    It's not going to be easy, with even Chuck Schumer saying maybe it's too difficult, etc.


    Have you tried reefer? (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:20:33 PM EST
    I've read that some people find it relieves arthitic-type pain.  

    And being in California should make it easy to get.

    Can't hurt...


    I spoke to one of ... (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:27:11 AM EST
    my Obama supporting friends last night.  He, as the Brits would say, has "gone mental."

    He's a friend so I patiently listened to his rantings and ravings.  But when he started screaming about Monica Lewinsky and how Hillary not leaving Bill was like Obama not leaving his church, I kind of zoned out.

    I said some months ago that Obama might be the Billy Conn of Presidential politics.

    (Billy Conn was a boxer who fought Joe Lewis.  He was winning for 12 rounds. In the thirteenth, he went for a knockout, and got knocked out himself.)

    Looks like I might have been right.

    blatant bias (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:53:01 AM EST
    For some reason I browsed over to kos and saw a  comment on the front page saying that obama beats clinton on electoral vote prediction.  

    It was oddly worded in how it talked about who had the most votes, so I followed the link to Electoral Vote and surprise surprise, kos was misleading readers by careful word choice.  Yes, Obama beats clinton--but only if you include states that they both lose to mccain.  In fact, a link from the front page shows clinton beating mccain 291 to 237 and Obama losing to mccain 243 to 269.


    tax rebate (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by snucky on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:20:39 AM EST
    hi guys. i cannot sleep so i am making my rounds to my favorite poltical blogs.  i am new to talk left also.  i get my tax rebate next week meaning i will pay some bills but also donating more to hillary. she is worth part of my rebate. i encourage many hillfans to give more when their rebates arrive.

    It is not just (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:03:09 AM EST
    vanity; this is what the media and the Obama camp want you to believe. They want the public dissentitized of Wright's awful and bigot comment.
    This is more than just "Wright doing his thing" as Axelrod wants you to believe. Not true at all.
    Wright has been meddling in politics for a long time. His publication of Hamas' manifesto on "The Pastor page" (his page!) is an example. And this was posted in the church's bulletin. Of course Obama knew about this as well as many of his comments; you have to be deaf; totally disenganged or remotely associated to the church not to have heard about the  comments at least. Of course if you think there is nothing wrong with them you wouldn't be "appalled" by them. But now that people have reacted, well now, maybe "they were appalling"...  20 years of such an intimate association is a very long time and this relationship was very tight.  

    You may want to read also; if you haven't the article at the NYTimes from March 2007 besides that
    in the Rolling Stone Magazine posted above:
    A Candidate, His miniter and the search for faith

    Corrections (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:04:42 AM EST
    that should have been  :  "desensitized"

    and "His Minister" in the title of the NYTimes article.


    Oh what a spin I'm in! (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:26:36 AM EST
    The Obama camp is now trying to spin this as hom being the victim. He was the innocent dupe. It the same tactic used when they framed Hilary and Bill as racists to cut off the AA support. They succeeded with that but I don't believe it will work again with Wright. The Republican's are masters at spin. I doubt Obama will be able to beat them at their own game. If the ad in Tennessee with the Playboy bunny did in(I can't think of his name!) Wright is prime red meat for them now.

    Harold Ford Ran For Senate In TN n/t (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:33:55 AM EST
    Thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:40:30 AM EST
    Only on first cup of coffee

    If Obama really (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:40:24 AM EST
    wants to take the spotlight back from Wright and demonstrate clearly that he is ready for the presidency, the best way to do it is simple.

    Get an F150, park it in Indiana and accept Hills request for an unmoderated debate.

    Either he is the candidate of hope and ideas or he is the candidate of duck and cover.

    If you have not already read the (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:03:55 AM EST
    Rolling Stone article Jeralyn linked to, it is an interesting read in light of recent events.  

    A few parts that stood out for me:

    "I'm not surprised you're having trouble categorizing him," one of his aides says. "I don't think he's wedded to any ideological frame." With Obama, there is only the man himself -- his youth, his ease, his race, his claim on the new century. His candidacy is essentially a plea for voters to put their trust in his innate capacity for clarity and judgment. There is no Obama-ism, only Obama.


    Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."


    When you read his autobiography, the surprising thing -- for such a measured politician -- is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in there.


    What he has to offer, at the most fundamental level, is not ideology or even inspiration -- it is the Story, the feeling that he embodies, in his own, uniquely American history, a longed-for break from the past. "With Obama, it's all about his difference," says Joe Trippi, the Democratic consultant who masterminded Howard Dean's candidacy. "We see in him this hope that the country might be different, too."

    Also, Nightline covered the Wright appearance at the NPC, showing some of the most controversial clips, and was less than positive about what this means for Obama and his campaign.  The dismissive, quietly angry and condescending tone I heard in his voice earlier in the day was reinforced by his expression and body language.  Really disturbing.

    I've decided that one reason Hillary has called for the campaigns to move on - aside from not wanting the flames of controversy to further singe relations with the black community - is that I think she fears the point at which people begin to feel sorry for Obama, and the possibility that that will erode the significant progress she has made in the last week.

    Or Hillary is aware of the danger of bringing this (none / 0) (#139)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    kind of thing to the forefront. And the risk of  having the Dem Party once again labeled the Far Left party, the Radical party, the Hate American party.

    That's probably what has R's salivating.


    Up coming primaries will tell the tale, (none / 0) (#1)
    by kaffied on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:49:45 AM EST
    but this is not good.

    Was shooting 9 ball earlier (none / 0) (#7)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:00:37 AM EST
    (and I want to say that I hate 9 ball...loathe it...for the moment ::sigh::)

    Anyhow, the quote blip that popped up on the TV from some unnamed Obama spokesperson was that "Wright is out for Wright."

    That kerlunk sound you heard was Wright being tossed under the bus.

    Due out in the Fall, right? n/t (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:01:06 AM EST

    Wright----the gift that keeps on giving........... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:25:36 AM EST
    Yes.  Won't his book tour be fun, right in the middle of the campaign?   The gift that keeps on giving for Hillary and McCain.  

    Hopefully... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:40:26 AM EST
    as a democrat, or I assume you are, youre not happy that this gives McSleepy more ammunition.

    I'm not happy (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:39:25 AM EST
    that the Dem establishment and elites gave McSleepy more ammunition by promoting an unvetted empty suit rockstar - more interested in the Obama Party than the Democratic Party.

    thank you (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:00:27 AM EST
    dont accept the guilt.
    THEY did it.

    Who did what? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:48:21 PM EST
    And Im not saying people cant be angry about primary politics.  Im saying that in the end it boils down to just that, politics.  Behind the stage the Obamas do not hate the Clintons and vice versa, and neither should we.

    Post-convention (none / 0) (#23)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:36:20 AM EST
    Rev Wright's book will have no impact on anything. Hillary will be the nominee and Obama can help the Rev with his book tour.

    I sorta agree (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by moll on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:35:17 AM EST
    this shows me that Wright has more courage than Obama. Are Wright's ideals wrong? Yes. But at least he fights for what he believes in. That is something Obama will never do.

    If Wright is serious about his beliefs, he might be doing the right thing now by using his 15 minutes of fame the way he is. He is getting his message out - he knows that his window of opportunity will be gone soon.

    I think he wants to make sure his criticisms get heard and discussed. I have to agree that some of the topics he raises are topics that we have not been discussing - and probably should be discussing.

    But what bugs me is...I know what Wright believes...but just what DOES Obama believe?


    Nobama08... (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:42:36 AM EST
    I hope youre this angry at the republican nominee once the GE starts, regardless of who our side has representing it.

    wright (none / 0) (#41)
    by snucky on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:06:40 AM EST
    wright is supposed to be such a friend to obama but he is doing everything he can to derail his white house hopes. sad. oh well. GO HILLARY!

    Wright story doesn't add up (none / 0) (#43)
    by dwmorris on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:14:32 AM EST
    Is there any tangible evidence that Wright has really gone off the reservation besides the fact that the MSM keeps repeating the story line?  I'm having a hard time buying it.  How does an individual as toxic as Wright get access to venues that are controlled, at least in part, by Obama partisans?  It just doesn't add up.

    because Obama agrees with Wright (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:13:44 AM EST
    and some deluded liberals and left wingers like Wright.

    Most liberals and lefties will be horrified by Wright.

    But enough luv him and are as mental as him.


    Politico article last night (none / 0) (#117)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:16:13 AM EST
    about Hillary surrogates inviting Wright to speak to the National Press Club.
    As usual - it's all Hillary's fault!
    And she probably wrote his speech too.

    Reinvention (none / 0) (#87)
    by chrisvee on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:17:01 AM EST
    If the media reinvents Wright as a mediahog and someone with a grudge against Obama, I would think that would actually help Obama weather the storm.

    All the editorials are dissing Wright (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:30:36 AM EST
    as a newshogger. Most want Obama to renounce and reject Wright in a far stronger fashion. I don't see how he can do this and not lose a lot of cred with some very powerful players in his seemingly meteoric rise.

    He can't just keep throwing people under the bus and expecting their loved ones not to notice.


    Blah (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:52:23 AM EST
    One of the reasons I started commenting here was to refute Obama's insistance that Wright's church is a typical African American church and he is representative of all African American's of a certain age.  Even Donna Brazille said that the Reverend's church was moderate.  Now that Wright has become a big big problem for Obama, the media has turned on him and Obama's previous statements, to protect Obama.  Now, all of a sudden, "Wright doesn't represent the black church!"  Well, duh... Obama was wrong when he said it in his race speech and in subsequent interviews, and Wright is wrong now.  I'm so sick of people, especially those in the black community, covering for Obama even if it means letting Obama getting away with lies about the black community.  It's stupid.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#94)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:20:57 AM EST
    I should have been clearer. The "powerful players" I referred to were more in the political-religious circles, not the average AA churchgoer. I don't believe that a majority of any persuasion agrees with the delivery of his message, regardless of the truth he sometimes hits upon.

    And, again, to clarify...sheesh (none / 0) (#96)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:22:54 AM EST
    I am referring to Rev Wright, not Obama.

    This is part of what the Obama (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:16:59 AM EST
    camps wishes; that people end up being sorry for Obama by labeling Wright's thing as  "vanity" "a crazy uncle". All of this is not casual; why all this campaign suddenly ? Why Wright keynote speaker at the NAACP?  The problem they cannot fully control Wright but still....

    The association with the "crazy uncle" would be far less dangeorous for Obama than Wright's actual comments.
    The media wants to "rehabilitate" the relationship Obama-Wright and the Obama camp wants the public to dismiss Wright as a looney or someone full of vanity and wish his comments will have a far weaker effect then.  Will it work? Maybe for some; not for most in the GE, no matter how much they try to wear the issue out to make voters desensitized to it.

    Do not forget; even after the RS and NYTimes articles, even after the time Obama knew about the comments (by his accounts a year ago) Obama still gave Wright a political post in his campaign. A post Wright held until the story finally percolated to the public in March.

    The best political commentator I have heard on the Wright and Obama issue has been Juan Williams at NPR.  


    what isn't being discussed (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ccpup on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:48:09 AM EST
    is that when Don Imus had his "racist foot-in-mouth" moment (with the Rutgers Woman's Basketball team) in April 2007, Obama was the first candidate to come out and insist on Imus' firing and then went on to insist that if anyone on his campaign ever said anything racist about any ethnic group, they'd no longer be with his campaign.

    Needless to say, Reverend Wright was with his campaign at the time and had a 20 year history of saying incendiary, racist things about all kinds of groups.  He didn't leave until a year later when his own scandal hit the news.

    I suspect that factoid will no end up in some postmortem news coverage.


    Obama to move sincere schtick to smaller townhalls (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:18:54 AM EST
    Obama is dialing back his megawatt inspiration for Indiana and NC so as not to overwhelm potential fanatics in smaller venues.

    He's still tweaking the output, as shown in the most recent footage just in. Obama's plan to woo the HELL out of new audiences might pay off for him if they can survive his Honestly Sincere message.

    Cld you please explain what you mean here? T/U (none / 0) (#138)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:47:26 AM EST
    What's he doing? Why going to smaller venues? Etc.

    I COULD explain but then you'd miss out on (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:02:30 AM EST
    ... the opportunity to visit wall to wall news of his campaign by all the wire services covering his stumping in Indiana. Google should have several hundred stories covering it.

    its Hillarys fault. again. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:57:10 AM EST
    all the blogger boys are linking to this republico story:

    Clinton supporter invited Wright

    the piece says this:

    I don't mean to suggest some kind of plot. Her agenda here seems to have been the same as Wright's: To protect the minister's reputation from, among others, Obama.

    but none of the blogger boys have put that in the headline on their blogs.

    Confused (none / 0) (#129)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:05:05 AM EST
    Can I ask a question?

    Why is it that liberals have consistently called themselves reality-based, truth-based, fact-based, tolerant, and non-racist, and used these values to hold ignorant, white, religious demagogues like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee in contempt, yet cannot bring themselves to do so with Wright? All over the lefty blogs (with this being the exception), all I see is excuses for Wright or outright agreement with him.

    To my eyes and ears, there is no difference in the level of ignorance of Wright (bell curve, medical miseducation on HIV, racist theories about black kids' brains vs. white kids' brains, etc.) and that of the Falwells of the world.

    Why does Wright get this treatment from progressives?

    It's a double standard (none / 0) (#131)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:23:37 AM EST
    actually, under the guise of tolerance.  Remember the uproar over McCain's big crazy fundamentalist supporter?

    Nobody treated him with kid gloves, either.

    I honestly think that this is a continuation of treating African Americans as child-like.  Everyone else gets the business.  He is not.

    He's using it to his advantage, but I would think that this attitude makes him twist up like a pretzel.  On the one hand, it's politically smart to allow the kid gloves.  On the other hand, he's losing precisely because of the kid gloves.  Nobody now believes he's capable of dealing with problems, not even those of his own making.


    I believe Obama (none / 0) (#130)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:19:48 AM EST
    when his campaign says that they had no idea that Wright was going to pull this.  Obviously, Wright is mad about Obama's speech.  Payback time.

    I'm struck by a principle that is in play here that obviously was raised initially.  One principle about people that I've learned is that if someone is vicious and angry towards someone or something, even if we agree to a certain extent, then I can be sure one day that same intense negative attitude will be directed at me.  It appears that Wright has distanced HIMSELF from Obama!

    I loved Hillary's line.  Perfect pitch.  "I wouldn't have personally attended that church, but I think it's wrong for the Republicans to politicize this."

    One editorial today suggested Hillary should tell people that she hoped they are not voting for her becaue she's white.  As an afterthought, the author added that the revers MIGHT be true.  No kidding?  Well, the primary season made it clear that no discussion about the ramifications of winning 90% AA voter bloc could be discussed column without heated charges of racism.  Here's the downside of winning that much of the population:  It's obviously a race issue.  Equally obvious that means that here comes the Clyburns (who essentially accused everyone who didn't understand Wright of being racist yesterday) and Wrights to make SURE we all know.  This is a racial issue.

    What a mess.  Good editorial today on this in the LA TIMES.


    Sorry, but I don't give Lucianne's spawn clicks-- (none / 0) (#137)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    Please warn in future if link is to Jonah G. He tells too many lies and slimes too many Dems for me to read.

    Just a word of warning, puh-leeeeze! Thank you!

    He actually may have said something worth while, but he will turn on a dime and attack any Dem in any way imaginable.  I cannot believe the LATimes hired him. Shudder.


    Serious ?--Wld damaged Obama be bad for ticket (none / 0) (#136)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:41:14 AM EST
    in general election? Even as VP?

    Say Clinton wins the nom and is pressured or chooses to put Obama in the VP slot -- and he accepts -- could he be so badly damaged by what we've learned thus far, with more possibly coming out, that he could bring down the whole ticket?

    I have no special knowledge of new problems which might emerge; I only envision the ReThugs going bonkers against him, whether as P or VP candidate.

    I may be too nervous about this -- but what do rest of you think?

    Clinton has not been "racist" or "racially insensitive," but the R's unofficial groups and even the R Party will no trouble playing the race card for all it's worth against Obama and the Dems.

    Rev. Wrigth speaks out to whom? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Oje on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:00:04 AM EST
    It seems to me that the MSM has concluded that Rev. Wright is another case of 15 minutes of fame, "monomania," mixed with a bit of tragedy, say Brutus stabbing Caesar in the back. That presumes, though, that Wright spoke out to the media and also that Wright was/is loyal to Obama, first and foremost.

    However, just because Wright speaks with the press, does not mean that he speaks to the media. Perhaps Wright had a different audience in mind, one he could only reach with the megaphone that the media can provide him. Second, political and blogger analysts, the blight on this primary season, interpret Wright's actions entirely through the prism of who he supports for President--but is that a large enough frame? Why question Wright's loyalty to that which he holds most dear: the black church?

    From reading upthread, when I put these two together, I am beginning to think that Rev. Wright is actually speaking out to African-Americans and signaling to them that Obama has effectively left the black church. His pointed statement to Moyer that "Obama is a politician" - in the context of his distancing from Wright - essentially cued his audience that Obama "will say and do anything to get elected." In this case, as Wright speaks it, the betrayal is Obama's.

    So, I guess, I am asking: Is Wright trying to tell the African-American community that Obama is not the one "we have been waiting for?"