Obama and Rev. Wright: Thread 4

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:16:00 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Rev. Jeremiah Wright (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

(in happier times)

More than 700 comments and you all have more to say on Barack Obama's press conference renouncing Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Memeorandum has a wrap-up from around the blogosphere. So does the New York Times.

The transcript of the press conference is here.

Here's what Obama said about Wright in his Philadelphia race speech:[More...]

As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. I
can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.....These people [Wright and his grandmother]are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Obama today:

You know, I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I have known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.
They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought, either.

And during the q and a:

There's been great damage. You know, I -- it may have been unintentional on his part, but, you know, I do not see that relationship being the same after this. Now, to some degree, you know -- I know that one thing that he said was true, was that he wasn't -- you know, he was never my, quote-unquote, "spiritual adviser."
He was never my "spiritual mentor." He was -- he was my pastor. And so to some extent, how, you know, the -- the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, wasn't accurate.
But he was somebody who was my pastor, and married Michelle and I, and baptized my children, and prayed with us at -- when we announced this race. And so, you know -- so I'm disappointed.

Update: Obama supporters on tv are spinning madly. Roland Martin for one. And some young woman on LKL (with a divinity degree from Harvard)who tried to compare Obama's judgment in Wright to Hillary not reading the NIE on Iraq. A ridiculous disconnect. I clicked the channel as fast as I do when Carl Bernstein is on.

< More Inanity . . . | Elizabeth Edwards on Endorsements >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama and Rev. Wright: Thread 4 | 186 comments (186 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama denounces Wright.....now. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Fabian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:42:16 PM EST

If you push me, will I not fold?

The passing breeze bloweth.

Are folks serious? (4.00 / 2) (#90)
by TedL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:29:07 PM EST

Obama doesn't believe Wright's more ridiculous views, they clearly make him angry, and he calls them by their right name: outrageous nonsense.

If he had a history of making comments like Wright's I'd see the point, but he plainly doesn't.

What more is he supposed to do?

[ Parent ]

Quit the church after seeing Wright was nuts... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by Exeter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:34:54 PM EST

...like Oprah did.

[ Parent ]

Angry? (5.00 / 3) (#110)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:45:48 PM EST

They made him angry today (although his actual anger seems to be wrapped up in a sense the Wright is not respecting Obama's campaign). He wasn't angry yesterday, or last week, or last month when all the same nutty statements by Wright were out there.

I don't believe Obama believes the nutty things Wright's been saying, but he hasn't appeared particularly bothered by them until the Wright erupted into an issue eight days before some very critical primaries.

Other people left Trinity Church as a result of Wright's extreme views. Instead, Obama's been seeking moral guidance from him as recently as last month.

Furthermore, much of Obama's campaign, and a very great deal of the Obama fan base's Clinton hatred has centered around the supposed misdeeds of people tangentially related to Clinton -- guilt through association with various clients of Burston Marsteller, Geraldine Ferraro, some guy she knew in the sixth grade.

The Obama fan creed is that by the worst traits (sometimes invented traits) of the people associated with the people associated with Clinton shall you know her.

In this heated atmosphere do you really expect Barack "the Judgment Candidate" Obama to get a pass when it turns out he's been getting moral guidance from a lunatic?

[ Parent ]

Wait a second (4.66 / 3) (#122)
by TedL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:03:03 PM EST

Yes, Obama has talked to Wright. But do you see any evidence that he absorbed any of the worst Wright had to offer? I don't. And Wright is a very mixed bag - there's definitely good in there, too, and good works. What matters to me is what Obama took and what he didn't.

As for why he didn't dump Wright sooner - I'm obviously not sure, but I think part of it must be that he's more comfortable around black liberation theology, including some of its more paranoid aspects, so he tends to tune it out rather than getting upset about it. And that definitely turned out to hurt him. I do also believe him when he says he liked Wright - thought he was a little nutty, but also genuinely liked him and didn't want to throw him under the bus. Plus, heck, when do politicians willingly attack someone who's supported them for a long time?

When Wright took it public and refused to back down, Barack had to draw a line and I'm glad he did. I would think most folks on this site would be, too.

[ Parent ]

As I said. . . (5.00 / 4) (#129)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:16:29 PM EST

I don't believe that Obama believes the nuttier things that Wright espouses. But that doesn't matter. All that's necessary for bad people to win is for good people to do nothing.

An association with a spiritual leader who goes around calling down God's damnation on the United States is:

Toxic to a politician or a political party.
Indicative of insanely poor political judgment.

But I'm not too interested in the guilt by association game played by the Obama campaign and it's more ardent, less rational supporters. I don't believe Obama himself thinks that we developed AIDS to kill black people, or that Farrakhan is a great leader, or that the people in towers 1 and 2 deserved to die.

But my faith in Obama as an outstanding political mind is severely dented by this episode. Of course, I think the timing of this is being carefully and cynically staged managed by his campaign who've been monitoring polls and the media to decide when if and when Obama will go Soulja on Wright. That doesn't bother me. I admire, rather than disdain, the skillful practice of politics.

But how Obama got himself into this spot in the first place, his extreme ham-handedness in loading his denunciation of Wright with fairly blatant misstatements, and his transparent focus on himself rather than the real problems with Wright's statements all combine to make me question his political judgment.

[ Parent ]

Yes, I see evidence of Wright's influence (5.00 / 2) (#132)
by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:27:02 PM EST

on Obama. I see it in the charges that others who differ with him, who go against him, are racists. That seemed to be Wright's view of those who questioned him.

[ Parent ]

He's NEVER made that claim, ever (1.00 / 1) (#149)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:07:55 PM EST

to say that he has is not the same thing. Obama has shown zero influence from Wright in terms of his political thought and behavior.

[ Parent ]

That's not really true. (none / 0) (#161)
by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:47:01 PM EST

Hannity will probably produce a fairly well sourced dossier on the political and social overlap.

That Obama did his Greatest Speech about Wright indicates the close conection politically. He couldn't quite denounce the old fella. That would have killed him politically with black voters in Phillie.

Pew suggests that Wright's opinions are shared by about 10% of AAs. Wright was called a genius over at Dkos yesterday. GrannyDoc I think. She had a PhD!

[ Parent ]

Hannity, the new "progressive" hero? (none / 0) (#166)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:55:01 PM EST

Sean Hannity, close friend of white supremacist Hal Turner? Hannity, who gave Turner his private call in number so that he didn't have to sit in the qeue with other callers? Hannity who chatted with Turner about their shared views? Hannity who defended his 'mentor' when his mentor made openly racist claims? Turne wrote an interesting diary about his long term close friendship with Hannity, one Hannity FIRST tried to deny and then later claimed it didn't matter because HE wasn't running for President. Dear, dear, dear... Double check Hannity's sources, before rejoicing.

He hasn't produced anything SO FAR, and he's been frothing at the mouth over Obama for some time. I'm sure it doesn't mean anything, his link to Turner and his former mentor, and his hatred for Obama. ALL coincidences, I'll bet.

[ Parent ]

: lol (none / 0) (#169)
by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07:24 PM EST

not a hero.
But any mention of Wright in 2007 would have got you TRed off Dkos.
As it turns out Wright could sink teh Democratic ticket.
For real. It's a lethal political cocktail...Hannity was teling us exactly how it was going to go down. He was out front with the swifties too.
He's uttrly transparent.

[ Parent ]
: Here's a dose of reality (none / 0) (#171)
by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:19:24 PM EST

If you want to know with certainty the precise method and approach of Attack that the Right will use on our Presidential candidates--you don't need to look further than Hannity.
If he's talking about it I guarentee you that three months later it'll be the basis of the demise of the last Democratic Candidate standing.
He's like an Exocet. There are no good counter measures.
He did it to Gore and Kerry. He also sank Clinton toward the end. He's also figured out Obama's weakness.
btw I'm a social democrat. Not a progressive. Progressive seems like a nebulous fiction.

[ Parent ]

What's your point? (none / 0) (#188)
by TedL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:05:32 AM EST

Some African-American voters believe crazy things. So do some white voters. I don't get it.

Politicians don't normally go out of their way to offend core constituencies, and I think Barack was right in his first speech to say - look, I disagree with this stuff, but don't paint him as the devil. Older Af-Am men are formed by their experiences, and those experiences were pretty awful. Where they're wrong is in believing the country can't change.

Now that Wright stepped forward to insist on his version of America, Barack did what I think you'd want him to do: he said this was wrong and outrageous, and that for some of the statements there really was no excuse. It's wrong to say that the US govt is involved in AIDS. It's wrong to say that there's no difference between US military action and terrorism.

How, exactly, is that pandering? I think it's unusual candor for a politician.

[ Parent ]

You haven't read his book, then. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:28:36 PM EST

You need to read Dreams from My Father to understand how Obama could come to Wright. Until then, stop talking like you know Obama.

Most of these Obamabots need to stop talking like they know Obama, or like they "know" what's in his books.

[ Parent ]

I have the book... please share the part you're (1.00 / 1) (#150)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:10:17 PM EST

talking about. I'm curious about the huge influence Wright has had on Obama's political views or behavior.

[ Parent ]

From what I've read (5.00 / 1) (#164)
by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:49:50 PM EST

of Dreams, there's enough for 10 527 ads that uote Obama--and the quotes sound like Wright's Phrenology.

We don't need to source at this point. There's a great deal of overlap.

[ Parent ]

Shyeah, I'm so sure you have the book. (none / 0) (#156)
by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:27:08 PM EST

Please then, tell me, if you have the book: What were Hussein's views of Anne and Obama Sr.'s marriage?

This is a test of your local broadcast system....

[ Parent ]

OH GOOD MERCY! (1.00 / 1) (#163)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:49:47 PM EST

Are you telling me I have to prove to YOU I have the book so I can get proof from the person making the claim that there's some wacky political influence from Rev. Wright? Oh, let's continue the game:

The mayor comes to Roseland for a ribbon cutting ceremony. What does Rafiq do to prepare for the visit? He's hoping for something in particular to take place, what is it?

Geez... It's probably easier to say, "I can't offer proof, it's just a feeling I get".

[ Parent ]

P.S. (1.00 / 1) (#177)
by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:57:42 PM EST

Your Rafiq (aka Wally Thompson) question has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of race relations/racial sensitivities that either of us is trying to reveal about Obama himself. Your question is a distraction, trivia, minutiae that wouldn't concern a voter who'd never read the book.

MY question, which you've so far failed to answer (What're you, afraid to answer? You should be.) points to the root of race relations and Obama's blood/how he elevates his father (a drunken, polygamist Muslim) above the people who truly cared for him (the Dunhams).

[ Parent ]

: A "drunken polygamist muslim"? (none / 0) (#187)
by TedL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:50:01 AM EST

Are you sure you haven't navigated to the wrong site?
I think you're looking for "littlegreenfootballs.com"

[ Parent ]

Wow, telling. (none / 0) (#175)
by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:47:54 PM EST

I ask you a straight-forward question about the book and you do absolutely nothing at all to answer it.

This is not politics I'm playing here. It's a legitimate question. If you can't answer it, then you've got no right to twist this into some kind of deflective little "Oh me, too!" b.s. game.

[ Parent ]

The Times did a nice (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:45:28 PM EST

evening wrap up of the gift that refuses to stop giving. While not enjoying it much the race is also about this. It isn't like McCain isn't going to "bring it" into the GE.

: the NYT is a LOLacopter (none / 0) (#180)
by AlSmith on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:42:51 AM EST

What a very strange view of the world you would have if you were a credulous Times subscriber.
And I dont mean that from a fringe "d00d the MSM is not telling the sheeple the facts" standpoint.
I mean what is one of the things any middleschooler on knows about Wright? That he said "no no no God damn America" on YouTube, but this is never reported in the Times.
In today Times story Nagourney states "Mr. Wright has suggested that the United States was attacked because it engaged in terrorism on other people and that the government was capable of having used the AIDS virus to commit genocide against minorities". There was no "suggested" or "was capable of"... the guy screamed it. If you got all your news from the NYT you wouldnt know what was going on.

[ Parent ]

I'm watching Lou Dobbs (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by stillife on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:57:22 PM EST

3 radio hosts, 2 AA (one male, one female) and one white (male). The two AA radio hosts think that Obama is not responsible for what Wright says and the matter should now be closed. The woman said that Hillary should be questioned about Rev. Wright's visit to the White House when Bill was President.

Oy.

incredible. (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:11:12 PM EST

Utterly amazing. If Obama had come out defending him, they'd be calling Wright a genius!

[ Parent ]

You forgot to mention (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by 0 politico on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:16:39 PM EST

that at least one of them proffered that criticism of the whole Wright-Obama relationship is racially motivated and orchestrated by opponents. The non-AA from Chicago called them on it as he has asked about why BO has not cleared this up for some time, asking the others if they were going to call him the R-word for doing so.

[ Parent ]

That was outrageous (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by stillife on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:23:05 PM EST

Now one of the two AA radio talk-show hosts who were on Dobbs (Ballantine) is now on O'Reilly. He's seething with Hillary hatred and says that his listeners say that if Hillary "steals" the nomination, they'll make it "rain for McCain".

I hope he's the AA version of Rush Limbaugh and not representative of how most AA's are thinking. It makes me sick that the Clintons have been cast as racists.

[ Parent ]

Here's the hypocrisy (2.00 / 2) (#106)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:42:04 PM EST

Many have said that Clinton is not responsible for her husband's maltreatment of women and that she's not responsible for what he says. How can Obama be held to a higher standard than a wife how KNOWS her husband's history, and continues to support him?

[ Parent ]

Because some people actually (5.00 / 4) (#121)
by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:00:18 PM EST

keep their wedding vows. For better or for worse. Unfortunately for Hillary, her "worse" was played out on the front pages of the world's newspapers with a Republican Congress reveling in and salivating over each and every sordid little detail. She kept her vows, even if Bill didn't. And she did the Christian thing and forgave him. And she is vilified for it.

Most of the people slinging the mud don't have her one tenth of her loyalty or integrity. They take the easy way out. She never has.

People talk about family values and Christian commitment as being something one wants in public officials. Well, you won't find a better example of that than Hillary Clinton. Look at Chelsea if you want an example of the product of Hillary's values. Look at what Hillary has put up with without breaking down. It would have killed a lesser person. She is what my grandmother used to call "a great lady", not because she has money, fame, power, but because she has integrity and principles by which she lives her life. And she has never abandoned them for political convenience or personal comfort.

I doubt the same can be said of Barack Obama.

[ Parent ]

Eleanor Roosevelt is Clinton's role model (5.00 / 3) (#136)
by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:31:24 PM EST

for a reason. I always found, having read just about everything written about ER, to be very revealing about Hillary Clinton.

And it affirmed my admiration of Clinton's choices to stick with her husband, too, even more than before. Her reasons were, I suspect, quite similar to ER's reasons. And, of course, after FDR's presidency, ER went on to greatness in her own right.

[ Parent ]

: Political power? (1.00 / 1) (#155)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:23:09 PM EST

Is that what you mean or were you alluding to something else?
I see ER as VERY different from HRC. I'll leave it at that.

[ Parent ]

You've missed the point... (1.00 / 2) (#151)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:13:15 PM EST

it's not about her 'keeping her marriage vows'. There's a question about Clinton's own maltreatment of women - not quite as bad as her husband's, given her need to PROTECT him even when he lied to the American public, looking us in the eye when he did it.

Is she like him? What has she learned from him? What 'political views' do they share that might be more problematic than any of us realized?

He's taken money from China, Colombia, and many other sources. Should we trust her if she's so closely aligned with him? Get the point?

She has a MUCH stronger connection to her husband than Obama has to Wright. We're supposed to believe that Clinton is 'independent' but that Obama is not?

[ Parent ]

Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
by chrisvee on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:05:05 PM EST

Maltreatment of women????

[ Parent ]

Yup, maltreatment (1.00 / 2) (#152)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:18:41 PM EST

Go to YouTube and search Andrew Young and Obama. You'll hear Young, a Clinton supporter, talk about how 'tough' Hillary is and stupidly list as evidence of her 'preparedness' the 'defense committee' she created to protect Bill from any woman who would step forward and talk about her relationship with him... nice... Women who did was called liars (though they weren't lying) and isn't that just par for the course!?!? Protect the male by calling his critics and accusers liars!

Which shouldn't, then, surprise anyone that the Clinton camp refused to give money back from the firm, IPA! Why? Because though they had the worst record of sexual harassment in EEOC history, those were just 'allegations' according to Wolfson. You know, because when that many 'dames' get together to file charges, they're probably all lying.

So many other DOCUMENTED examples, but eh! She votes on a few pro-woman pieces of legislation so she gets a pass, right?

Speaking of gender issues, that 'pansy' comment was freakin' hilarious, wasn't it?

[ Parent ]

First (none / 0) (#160)
by chrisvee on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:42:03 PM EST

I'm not sure if the 'pansy' remark is directed specifically at me, but if you read my comment on it, I think you'll find that I think it was offensive.

Second, I don't find the alleged mistreatment of women by Bill Clinton argument(and now Hillary, apparently) to have much merit. Didn't we already hash all this out during the Clinton years?

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, I honestly don't get it... (none / 0) (#167)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:01:08 PM EST

Why would the comment be directed at you? It was a comment made by the NC gov. today, one that Hillary Clinton thought was HILARIOUS! You may not have found it offensive, but others did.

She found the word 'pimped' offensive, didn't she?
Words matter, don't they?
McCain got in trouble for his 'gay sweater' comment?

Is there a different standard for Clinton? Does anything go, where she's concerned?

Yes, once the Clinton years are over, their maltreatment of women means nothing? Sorry, but the point is that their views have been consistent. IPA happened this year, and is directly connected to their past behavior in my opinion.

SO if Obama has been 'influenced' by Wright, I'm concerned about HClinton's 'influences', as well.

[ Parent ]

: Would it be victims of CDS (none / 0) (#174)
by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:38:50 PM EST

that found it offensive? I can just imagine someone like KO going off the deep end on this one. He usually does whenever his leg tingling guy has a bad day. Many of us did not even know the old connotation of the word until it was pointed out to us. I doubt the comment bothered you, you just wallow in CDS and since the point was.. 'Clinton is tough' it makes you mad because your candidate has had a bad day and, to date, been unable to demonstrate toughness.

[ Parent ]

Now That One Is Really Reaching.... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:24:11 PM EST

Of course, a-hole Lawrence ODonnell is on Dan Abrams trying to say one of Hillary's supporters invited Wright to speak at the Press Club, knowing full well he would say offensive things about obama. What the hell is his problem? Still mad the west wing got cancelled I guess.
Anyway Lynn Sweet of The Chicago Sun Times did her best to dispel that myth.

[ Parent ]

If (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by chrisvee on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:01:32 PM EST

I were in the Obama campaign, I'd be pretty worried that Wright or someone close to Wright would leak something that would disprove the 'yesterday was the first time I heard these sentiments'. Because if that happens, Obama's credibility is shot. Right now we just think he's being a pol but to actually prove it...wow.

Hannity will that tape (5.00 / 4) (#22)
by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:12:40 PM EST

if it exists. He's prepared the ground for the scrap.

[ Parent ]

Obama is either incredibly stupid... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by Exeter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:38:36 PM EST

...or thinks the voters are incredibly stupid.

[ Parent ]

Third option (1.00 / 1) (#112)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:46:45 PM EST

None of the above... he's neither stupid, nor does he think the voters are stupid. He's honest. PERIOD.

More than that, it's about time that the media (and others) stop treating ALL African Americans as being 'the same'.

We all have family members who say and do things we don't agree with... it has nothing to do with how WE function and nothing in Sen. Obama's past suggests that he shared Wright's recent views... NOTHING.

[ Parent ]

You haven't read his book, then. (none / 0) (#145)
by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:59:10 PM EST

Again, and I keep saying this, if you read his first book, then you'd know exactly how and why he came to embrace Wright. It wasn't about politics. Itw as about sharing the same "black anger".

Please, everyone who keeps saying "I HAVEN'T SEEN NUTHIN' IN OBAMA'S PAST TO SUGGEST..." shut. UP. And read his book!

[ Parent ]

: I have both books (none / 0) (#153)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:19:39 PM EST

give me the page where your 'evidence' lies and I'll re-read it for myself.

[ Parent ]

Don't think so (4.00 / 1) (#64)
by ineedalife on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:52:13 PM EST

If a video exists of Obama clapping and saying Amen as Wright preaches God Damn America you can bet your bottom dollar most of the media will immediately go back to explaining the black church to us rubes that are too bitter to get it.

If Obama still has credibility with the media after all the point blank lies he has told them he is never going to lose it.

[ Parent ]

: Not If It Is Played During The GE Against McCain (none / 0) (#170)
by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:15:36 PM EST

The media has different rules for the Democratic candidates they praise during the primaries then they do for the GE. The program will go something like this:
We all believed and defended Senator Obama back in April, but now that this new video (whatever) has come to light we feel betrayed and can no longer accept his version of the truth. Play video. Follow up with all the conflicting statements that Obama has made about his relationship to Rev. Wright. End by expressing their sadness and disappointment in a Senator who had such potential to do great things chose instead to follow this path.

[ Parent ]

The news reports... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by OrangeFur on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:02:06 PM EST

... indicate that Obama insisted on holding this press conference because he was angered by video clips from yesterday, including where Wright said that Obama was acting like a politician. Apparently his Christmas Day bashing of Hillary Clinton and his off-color attack on Bill Clinton didn't anger him enough.

I can't figure out what Obama's position is supposed to be. Wright didn't say anything new, only rehashed what he's already said before.

This issue is tiresome, both the media obsession with it and Obama's own contradictory attempts to get out in front of it. It doesn't reflect well of anyone who's involved.

He's a pol (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by stillife on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:04:48 PM EST

and he made the speech for political reasons. Wright was hurting him in the polls.

[ Parent ]

Well, yes. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by OrangeFur on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:09:56 PM EST

I'm wondering what Obama's official story is.

[ Parent ]

I guess (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by stillife on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:25:58 PM EST

his official story is that he never heard those remarks before. It apparently has pacified the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC but it doesn't pass the smell test with me, and, I suspect, a lot of voters.

Even my husband, who was leaning toward Obama (although he's English and can't vote) and very sympathetic to Wright after watching the Moyers interview, came home from work today and bowed down to my wisdom, acknowledging that I was right (Wright?) all along about Obama's lack of judgment.

[ Parent ]

It won't pass the test.... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:35:53 PM EST

...for ordinary voters in November. We a glimse saw that in Pennsylvannia. Ordinary people use a crude common sense.

In 2004 the dichotomy of Kerry's status as Warrior and Peace protestor made his biography look noble to lefties, confusing to moderates and hypocritical to conservatives. He lost.

Obama's church story will produce exactly the same results. No matter what you do the story about his core beliefs doesn't quite add up. Sadly (for his prospects in November) he picked a church that has a self consciously sophisticated view of nationality, race, terrorism, imperialism, partiotism.

It'll end up confusing moderates and alarm conservatives. Their base will be motivated and flush with cash. Moderates will be looking to bail out of the complexity and choose simple familiarity.

[ Parent ]

I agree (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by stillife on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:46:28 PM EST

he's unelectable in November. It doesn't help that he's inexperienced and is basically a political cipher, and it also doesn't help that he has presented himself as a "unity" candidate while belonging to this incredibly divisive church.

Kerry at least had experience in the Senate and a record as a war hero - yet the Repubs were able to torpedo his campaign. I said at the time that he has "Massachusetts liberal loser" written all over him - no offense to Mass. liberals, it's just the truth. I knew that was how it would play out in the GE, although I did get my hopes up with those messed up exit polls.

Add to that, Obama has the same detached, professorial manner that Kerry did, like he's not comfortable in his own skin.

As my husband said to me tonight, Obama is toast!

[ Parent ]

: he's FAR more electable than Clinton or McCain. (1.00 / 1) (#117)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:50:47 PM EST

EASILY! Clinton is FOR SURE unelectable because she'll NEVER recapture the AA vote, period. If the Republicans put 'the ghost of Reagan' on the ticket, Clinton wouldn't win.

[ Parent ]

from your mouth to God's ear, Salo (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:32:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]

IT'S NOT MY FAULT! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by Leisa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:16:33 PM EST

To me , that is Obama's official story...

[ Parent ]

David Gergen (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by oldpro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:24:24 PM EST

made a very big point last night on CNN of how Obama had not seemed angry...hadn't shown any anger...and needed to GET MAD in response to Wright's latest performance if he was to be believed as in disagreement with Wright...

Obama took that advice today to the television cameras.

Tonight we should hear Gergen's approval speech.

Let's see if it flies...

[ Parent ]

Obama's anger (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by stillife on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:29:09 PM EST

was (a) too little too late, (b) probably motivated by desperation rather than principle, and (c) all about the damage done to himself and his campaign.

Of course, I don't expect Gergen to bring up any of those points.

[ Parent ]

If real? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:41:38 PM EST

: I think it was real (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by stillife on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:49:39 PM EST

but it was all about Obama, as usual.
Somebody on one of the many news shows I've watched tonight suggested that Obama could put voters' fears to rest by keeping the dialogue open on the subject of Wright. I can just imagine how p*ssy he'll get if pressed further. "C'mon, guys! I gave two speeches and answered eight questions! Let me eat my waffle in peace!"

[ Parent ]

Right. Gergen (none / 0) (#179)
by oldpro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:34:07 AM EST

praised him tonight (for following his suggestion!)

[ Parent ]

Quote from MAUREEN DOWD on Obama's Anger (none / 0) (#183)
by ig on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:42:40 AM EST

Early on, he wrote in "Dreams From My Father," he discerned the benefits of playing against the '60s stereotype of black militancy.

"I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds," he said. "One of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

[ Parent ]

Hard to believe O was being sincere and not a polt (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Saul on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:02:19 PM EST

From his race speech

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that

: Is A Polt An Equine Politician? :) (none / 0) (#95)
by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:33:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Character issues (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:03:21 PM EST

Judgement: What Obama is telling us to believe is that after 20 years in a relationship with Wright he never saw this version of Wright he saw in the National Press Club speeches.

Post partisanship: He can not and did not deal with the partisanship with his minister before and during the implosion.

Who he is: He claimed: unity is in his DNA. Now excuse me, what does that mean?

It will be a tragedy if he gets the nomination out of some pathetic PC politics.

Unity in DNA = (5.00 / 2) (#83)
by Leisa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:18:51 PM EST

the chosen one. We all obviously do not have that gene. ;)

[ Parent ]

And obama Couldn't Pick Up Any of Rezko's (4.00 / 1) (#97)
by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:35:17 PM EST

character flaws either?

[ Parent ]

No more than (none / 0) (#154)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:21:46 PM EST

Hillary picked up any of Norman Hsu's or Peter Paul's or anything from the Tan family (YIKES).

[ Parent ]

: You might not have noticed (none / 0) (#159)
by miriam on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:40:15 PM EST

But this thread is not about Hillary Clinton. We know her flaws and they don't dissuade us from thinking she is a superior leader. All we know about Obama is what he tells us, endlessly tells us, because his record is as ephemeral as gauze. He admitted his books are at least part fiction (we don't of course know which parts) and this is characteristic since he seems to make himself up as he goes along. He should have waited to run for president until he figured out who he is. His abject confusion about that is unsettling in a presidential candidate.

[ Parent ]
: Norman Hsu Was An Obama Contributer As Well (none / 0) (#172)
by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:21:34 PM EST

So any dirt attached to Hsu also sticks to Obama.

[ Parent ]

I just don't understand why Obama didn't (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by tigercourse on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:04:02 PM EST

kick Wright to the curb the day after he decided to run for President. Even if he didn't understand the wider ramifications of Wright, one of the people on his staff (like the guy who told Obama not to vote to confirm Roberts) should have gotten it. Ayers as well for that matter. That it took this long to try to bury Wright is very odd.

Good politician (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:05:29 PM EST

would have managed Wright. This shows Obama is not a good politician.

[ Parent ]

No, I think he was being managed. . . (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:12:25 PM EST

the Obama campaign has been distancing itself from Wright since the very start of the campaign -- when he was disinvited from Obama's announcement. They didn't focus a spotlight on their actions because what would that be in aid of? It would only serve to focus attention on Wright and might lead to exactly the kind of blow-up that seems to have occurred.

Instead they cut Wright out, giving him some meaningless advisory role, and hoping that he wouldn't erupt as a public issue. And they got pretty far with that strategy. But unfortunately not quite far enough.

[ Parent ]

Took him for granted (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:18:01 PM EST

I think the campaign took Wright for granted and it backfired on them. I bet Obama did not do the "right" thing politically, you have to do damage control. This is exactly where I think Obama cannot deliver the unity and bipartisanship, he does not know what has to be done and he relies on the magic dust, which he thinks is "Obama". Will not work.

[ Parent ]

He has to rely... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:24:29 PM EST

...on the bubble that Matthews and Olberman provide.

It's disturbing to see it all transpire. They actually think that the baggage can just go away if they ignore it. Also they are starting to talk about Edwards being oportunistic again!

THE GOP are going to run millions of ads on Wright. He'll be buried by the accusations.

[ Parent ]

Axelrod feeds the media (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:40:12 PM EST

one more day..but I don't think it will pass the smell test. Voters will trounce Obama and I bet you, older black voters who "cling" to the old cultural fights will see this as a betrayal.

[ Parent ]

: me? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:47:29 PM EST

what cultural fights?
I was originally hoping to avoid all cultural fights. Obama is the archetypal cultural warrior. He'll provoke gun owners and orthodox denominations of christianity. And that's just for starters.
I thought Edwards would have allowed us to dodge the really rough stuff, he had a contract to disappear into Appalachia and win us back West Virginia, Tennessee and Missouri. Penn and Ohio would have been low hanging fruit.
Now we will fight for New England.

[ Parent ]

So Why Distance Yourself From Wright, And (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:36:44 PM EST

then give him an advisory position. Doesn't that show you think there is nothing wrong with him?

[ Parent ]

He Kept Wright because: (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:46:43 PM EST

Obama needed Wright particularly leading into SC. Wright had all the connections for Obama to use on his church tour of the state. His only chance at the nomination was to destroy the relationship that the Clinton's had in the AA community and Wright was a key to that.

[ Parent ]

Ayers for that matter? (1.00 / 2) (#100)
by TedL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:38:33 PM EST

What is Barack's current relationship with William Ayers?

As far as I know, it's zero. He served on a charity board with Ayers a few years ago - along with several reps of several major corporations based in Chicago. And in the 1990s, Ayers, who is now an English professor in a Chicago university, hosted a fundraiser for Obama and gave him 200 dollars. That's it.

What is your view of Bill Clinton's decision to pardon two members of the Weather Underground for their crimes? Do you believe Hillary when she says she never heard of the pardons until now?

Please reconsider.

[ Parent ]

: No one's heard of the "pardons" (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:30:58 PM EST

Because they weren't pardons - they were sentence commutations, AFTER they had served time and had expressed remorse and sorrow.
Big difference. But that doesn't fit the Obama talking point narrative.

[ Parent ]

Thanksalot Obama. (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by oldpro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:09:02 PM EST

Church. State. Mix. Stir pot. Add venom. Season with righteousness and ego. Let rise.

This recipe is from the new Dem cookbook of regrets.

Ugh... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Key on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:10:00 PM EST

Enough already with Wright. Anyone else concerned about:

Iraq & Afghanistan
Bringing troops home
The lives lost
The billions of $$ wasted
Economy
Gas Prices
Weak Dollar
Mortgage crisis
Health care crisis
Non-insured
Under-insured
High cost of prescription drugs
Defending Democracy
The next set of Supreme Court justices
Electronic Voting paper audit trail
Protecting the future
Global warming
Exporting Jobs
High cost of Education

THESE are the issues that separate our Democratic nominee from John McCain, whether our nominee is Clinton or Obama.

Enough already!

We are exactly (5.00 / 9) (#18)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:10:55 PM EST

that is why we cannot have Obama be the nominee.

[ Parent ]

Except... (1.00 / 2) (#30)
by Key on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:20:11 PM EST

I have to agree with Obama on not doing away with the Gas tax. Doing away with a $.184/gallon gas tax will only increase oil companies profits by that amount. Prices are high because:

Dollar is weak
Oil companies continue to reduce refinery output keeping supplies low

I don't like Clinton's proposal to have a moratorium on the tax while imposing a windfall tax on the oil companies - the oil companies would end up charging more for gas to cover the added cost. Only way something like this would work is to tax oil companies at a rate of 100% for all profits earned above a certain amount. But that essentially puts in place a price cap, something that I don't see ever happening.

A better solution is to INCREASE the gas tax and simultaneously INCREASE spending on public transportation and big tax credits to individuals for conservation efforts.

But I digress....

[ Parent ]

: You miss how she will offset the tax (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:22:46 PM EST

loss by taking it from increased taxes on oil companies. I do not like the tax holiday.
And we had I think two threads that discussed this issue yesterday.

[ Parent ]
: Increased spending on public transportation (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by Virginian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:57:11 PM EST

is a farce...that is just as much a gimmick as the gas tax suspension...
What we need is investigations into strategic supply mismanagement...that is what is causing the gas price increases and profit increases...
the oil companies are strategically mismanaging their supply in order to artificially raise prices...gas prices will only come down in the current cycle when the "pain threshold" of gas prices is met...

[ Parent ]

O'Reilly says he (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by bjorn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:20:09 PM EST

wants to have a policy discussion with Clinton. Wouldn't it be funny if he really did! I mean we would have to go watch O'Reilly for substance...I can't wait to see what kind of questions he asks tomorrow.

[ Parent ]

: Wright (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:48:06 PM EST

Wright, Wright, Wright.......

[ Parent ]

My suggestion to a TOS today (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:21:06 PM EST

Was, now that he's done everything he can do to put this behind him, he still needs to change the narrative, and one of the ways Obama can do this is by doing exactly as you suggest.

He can introduce a new set of policies.

He can accept Clinton's challenge for another debate only he can set some ground rules himself. They talk about nothing but the things you list above.

I think that would be a good way for him to change what this election has become about.

Problem is I think he knows also full well that a strict policy driven narrative does him damage too. That's why his campaign drove a character driven campaign so hard.

Up until now at least.

Anyway, coming up slightly less knowledgable and less experienced than Clinton on a policy driven campaign is probably preferrable to where he's at right now.

[ Parent ]

He tried that last time (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Davidson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:27:36 PM EST

The day after the great "race" speech, he focused on Iraq. No one really cared. And I don't see the Obama campaign changing their entire narrative towards one of policy because his base wants the empty rhetoric, which allows everyone to feel good, and he'll get trounced by Clinton.

He's counting on the media to spin it for him and for Democratic elders to commit political suicide (see: Carter's statement on MSNBC that blacks and young people would be oh so hurt if Obama was not given the nomination).

[ Parent ]

Put this quote up on the fridge (5.00 / 4) (#70)
by lambert on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:56:01 PM EST

Davidson:

his base wants the empty rhetoric, which allows everyone to feel good,

Obama's got to "dance with the one what brung ya," and can't pivot.

[ Parent ]

: Are you part of the Obama base (none / 0) (#168)
by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:05:30 PM EST

or just guessing about what we want? He's spoken substantively. To suggest that he hasn't is a point I don't understand, because I've heard the substantive speeches and read the position "papers". Just today he spoke about why the Clinton-McCain gas tax holiday was a BUST (something reputable economists agree about) and talked about the limited savings the GTH would create (roughly the equivalent of one tank of gas).
I think there's more rhetoric about his rhetoric than there is actual rhetoric... ;-) Oh well.

[ Parent ]

Wonk is not Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:28:16 PM EST

strong suit.

Letting Biden answer first and shutting up or following on from Edwards or Clinton is more his style. Add in the odd zinger too.

[ Parent ]

: Well it's pretty sad (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:39:16 PM EST

If he'd rather be giving the press conference he gave today.

[ Parent ]

Can't do it (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Virginian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:52:21 PM EST

Clinton would destroy him in a Lincoln-Douglas styled debate...he can't talk policy, and stump speach/rhetoric falls very flat in a debate...especially one when the opponent is asking the questions...
The policies and positions (the ones on his website) really are more "boiler plate" topic overviews...he doesn't want to go beyond that because then he becomes susceptible to policy attacks...no pol wants to release proposals unless they absolutely have too, because there will be something that someone disagrees with and it will put the pol on defense.

adding... (4.00 / 1) (#21)
by Key on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:12:30 PM EST

I support Clinton, but am growing increasingly weary of all of this....

[ Parent ]

Meaning? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by oldpro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:15:29 PM EST

What does any of this have to do with Clinton?

[ Parent ]

Yes. maybe this campaign IS (none / 0) (#25)
by MarkL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:16:37 PM EST

like Bataan.

[ Parent ]

: Oh god! save me (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:20:47 PM EST

from the jarring eloquence of a con man.

[ Parent ]

It's not like there's (none / 0) (#27)
by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:17:18 PM EST

much we disagree about right now.

All we have to do is thrash out who our best figurehead is.

The same press that deep sixed this story is still trying to patch togesther an ultimately losing candidacy.

Unless it is all in the bag and the deals been done.

[ Parent ]

there are more than 15 posts here (none / 0) (#52)
by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:32:29 PM EST

today. This one is about Wright and Obama.

[ Parent ]

Why is the press (5.00 / 3) (#39)
by Foxx on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:24:46 PM EST

letting him get away with this. They should be all over him. They are a disgrace.

The tapes of the AID remarks, Hillary and Bill remarks, Goddam etc etc have been out for weeks. The Farrakhan praise has been out longer than that and Obama has already commented on it. How can they let him get away with saying he just got offended yesterday?

No wonder politicians think they can get away with outlandish lies.

The Veracity of Obama's Hope (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by Cate on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:27:43 PM EST

One of the reasons he joined this church was to advance his standings in the community. He remained a member for almost 20 years and developed - by his own admission - a close relationship with Rev. Wright. It is impossible to believe that he did not understand completely the views of Rev. Wright or that Rev. Wright did not 'perform' his antics regularly during church services. His words today were lies - and the 'sadness' he displayed was sadness over his campaign hitting such a major wall. Although, denouncing Rev. Wright and by extension the Nation of Islam is going to cost him dearly...there's a real cause for sadness.

I am becoming more and more convinced (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:27:56 PM EST

that no matter how the majority of the democratic party voters feel, they will ignore it and nominate Obama..It seems inevitable...I am so depressed....because even if he won the general election, I think his administration would be horrid and filled with blunders and NO HEALTH CARE...Once again t