Obama and Rev. Wright: Thread 4

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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?


    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.

    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?


    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.


    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:

    1. Toxic to a politician or a political party.

    2. 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.


    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.

    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.  

    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!


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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....


    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".


    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).


    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"


    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.


    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.


    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.  


    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!

    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.

    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.  


    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


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

    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?


    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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!


    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.

    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.


    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.



    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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!


    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.

    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
    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...

    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...


    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.


    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!"


    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!)

    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."


    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
    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.  ;)

    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?

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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?

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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
      Gas Prices
      Weak Dollar
      Mortgage crisis
    Health care crisis
      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.  

    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....


    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.  


    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...


    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.

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

    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.


    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).


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

    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.  

    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.


    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.  


    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.

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

    2. 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....

    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?

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

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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 the blue collar voter gets screwed...:-(

    It does seem unstoppable, doesn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:54:19 PM EST
    I just have no idea anymore. The conventional wisdom is the complete opposite of what I believe. I'm sure a lot of people are feeling this way.

    I just hope we get at least to march at the (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:05:40 PM EST
    convention if the party does this to Hillary supporters....Cause me and my walker will be there BIG TIME!!!!

    I'm a member of the Democratic party, too (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by TedL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:41:10 PM EST
    And as you probably know, a lot of us also voted for, donated to, and worked for Obama.

    I believe him to be a good man, and a man with good judgment who would do the party proud if elected.  

    And I don't understand how you can say that the delegates would be defying the wishes of the party by nominating him as our candidate for President.  


    For starters (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:32:33 PM EST
    Since more DEMOCRATS voted for Hillary, an argument could be made that elevating Obama to the nomination would be in defiance of the party.

    Warren Ballantine (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:29:22 PM EST
    on CNN and now Fox.  CNN, this is all cleared up, it's about race, it's about race, Clinton is a liar and untrustworthy, it's about race, voting for her because she is a white woman.  Obama was always too busy for church, hardly ever there.  Here he is on Fox, Wright not hurting Obama, was surprised he came out and denounced Wright today, blacks will not turn out if Clinton steals this.  Mildred Gaddis also on CNN: this ends today, it's the media's fault, Clinton, Clinton, the Wright issue is race baiting, Clinton.

    CNN...Roland Martin is livid.  Wright crossed th eline by having a press conf.  Wright was disrespectful to Obama.  Obama had to do this.  Borger trying to spin: he needs to get back on message, campaign members she has talked to are worried about the polls (superdeez).  Martin: his audience likes what Wright has to say, versus half say he's hurting campaign.  Wright had phone calls to not go on and will get a backlash from Black radio if he tries to come back on stage again. Unknown woman: political expediency but did not expect Wright to throw him under bus and cause all of this divisiveness.

    MSNBC...KO offended by Easley using the word pansy.  Mrs. Edwards: if we thought an endorsement would stop horrible blood letting, we would do it.  I have endorsed Clinton's health plan.  If anyone wants to ask me about any policy, I would be glad to do it.  Both plans have universal health coverage?  Did I hear that right on KO?

    roland (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by DJ on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:59:46 PM EST
    was on the night of one speech and was swooning!  What changed?

    Best pivot EVAH (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    He said that Wright crossed the line by doing the NPC speech.  Others told Wright not to go.  He went.  Wright was disrespectful of Obama and if Wright comes out again, he will have backlash from the Black radio audience.  

    Ta!Da!  Does your neck hurt from that one?


    So now Obama "hardly went to church"? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:40:46 PM EST
    That sure doesn't fit with Obama's flyers about being a committed Christian and devout churchgoer and blah blah blah.  But will the media call him on the contradictions?  Uh, no -- they won't do so.

    Oh but Obama was busy (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:52:20 PM EST
    you need to watch the CNN replays... Obama has been busy with the senate etc.  Ballantine gave his work history as why he was too busy to be in church every Sunday.  It was uncomfortable to watch.  Sometimes you just wonder how stupid they think people are.

    What a laff -- Obama busy in the Senate? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:37:25 AM EST
    He missed 40% of the votes, he couldn't call a single meeting of the committee he chaired, but now . . . he was too busy in the Senate to go to church.  

    I wonder if they photoshopped in that church window behind him in the "committed Christian" flyers? :-)


    Somebody please explain to me (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by rockinrocknroll on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:29:33 PM EST
    how a pastor is not a "spiritual adviser" or a "spiritual mentor". And how can both of them now claim that Wright never was those things to Obama? Did those words not come from Obama himself?

    I found this (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:43:26 PM EST
    "What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," Obama said. "He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics."

    Yikes (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by chrisvee on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:55:04 PM EST
    I did not have pastoral relations with that man.

    funniest comment of the day (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:03:26 PM EST

    Stella had a funny one also (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:44:44 PM EST
    Bwa! (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by chrisvee on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:06:25 PM EST
    That's great -- I must have either missed that or internalized it!  Very funny.

    oops next time I'll tinyurl that (none / 0) (#143)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:47:11 PM EST
    Stellaa (none / 0) (#162)
    by chrisvee on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:48:52 PM EST
    apparently had a version of this earlier today on one of the earlier Wright threads here so she beat me to the funny -- credit where credit is due. :-)  

    Standing ovation for comment 68 (none / 0) (#191)
    by jjsmoof on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:25:16 PM EST
    Send that along to the msm and see if anyone bites (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:39:08 PM EST
    I don't get it (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by TedL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:44:38 PM EST
    Where's the part where he says he agrees with Wright on every issue?

    Don't you ever take questions to people who you don't agree with on every issue?  Obama is, as I think is manifest, a person who likes to hear new ideas and to be challenged.  He also has worked with Tom Coburn in the U.S. Senate, and with the conservative law faculty at the U of Chicago.  Cass Sunstein, who's a DLC-type prof. there, says Obama called on him to discuss constitutional law issues.

    What's your point?  More gotcha politics?

    If Obama had a history of saying things that sounded like pastor Wright, I'd be right there with you.  But he plainly hasn't.


    The point being (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:55:46 PM EST
    Obama raised Wright to the pedestal. He was his mentor, friend, he married them, christened their children. This wan't exactly a casual acquaintance. A lot of people are going to have a really hard time believing that in their 20 yr friendship that none of this was known. Both are very political. These topics would have been discussed in length.

    I get it but I don't (3.00 / 1) (#125)
    by TedL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:09:33 PM EST
    I think you changed the subject.

    Isn't the point what Obama believes?  I'm sure he did have conversations with Wright, and that Wright was often a thought-provoking and interesting discussant.  And I'm also sure that he also disagreed with Wright a good deal of the time.  The way some people use the word "mentor", you'd think Obama said he was Obama's brain.  Yes, Obama learned from him - a lot of valuable things, by Obama's reckoning.  But he also plainly did not make himself a carbon copy of Wright.  

    I would say that he took the good works and the religious faith, and left behind nearly all of the vitriol.

    It's very important in this connection that we remember Wright wasn't just a talker, he was also a doer.  He, and his church, are well known for sponsoring good works and encouraging others to participate.  Why doesn't it make sense that Obama was claiming that as what inspired him and the sense in which Wright "mentored" him?


    I have never questioned (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:16:26 PM EST
    that Wright and his church have been a valuable asset the their community. I'm sure they have. What I do question is when Obama stands up in front of the American public and states that he never heard any thing like this from Wright before.They both seem to be very intelligent, opinionated and political men that were friends. I just don't believe Obama never heard any of this from him. Wright doesn't strike me as the type to hold his tongue.

    Saying is different from doing. (none / 0) (#165)
    by miriam on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:51:25 PM EST
    Obama says all sorts of things.  He is so knowledgeable, he says, about foreign relations that he doesn't apparently see the need for a single meeting of his committee overseeing Afghanistan.  He's against the Iraq War, he says, yet he's voted with Bush on every war issue that has come before the Senate.  He said Reverend Wright was his "spiritual advisor" and "moral compass"...until he felt Wright was insulting him and damaging his campaign.  Not a word, though, about Wright insulting white Americans.  Only when Obama personally was targeted by Wright's words did the good senator (finally) throw him under the bus.  

    Then There Is This (none / 0) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:34:15 PM EST
      "I got to give a special shout-out to my pastor. The guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He's a friend and a great leader, not just in Chicago but all throughout the country. So please, everybody, give an extraordinary welcome to my pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright Jr." [Obama remarks, Hampton University, June 2007; video]

    And this:

       "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely..." [Sen. Obama speech, 3/18/08]

    The real issue with Obama on Wright (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Virginian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:43:26 PM EST
    is the fact that Obama just disavowed, denounced, rejected a man he just one month ago told the nation   he was too close too, to do so.

    Obama just practiced the politics of personal destruction...politics as usual...disunity...no change, no hope...

    By splitting ways with Wright, and specifically at this juncture, Obama showed that he will "say anything, do anything in order to get elected"

    But more importantly, Obama showed that the election really isn't about "we the people" and "yes we can" but completely, 100% about Obama (and Michelle apparently) and his ego; his belief that he deserves to be president. Wright became an obstancle to what Obama believes is his just deserts, so Obama severed a relationship he just recently said was like family, and like an uncle...this is more revealing about Obama than anything else...maybe it is Obama that isn't the man we thought he was.

    I'm heartbroken again (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by DJ on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:55:08 PM EST
    Obama flip-flopping and everyone badmouths Hillary.

    Never changes.

    Are you kidding? (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by TedL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:50:38 PM EST
    When was the last day that Hillary Clinton had negative media treatment?

    For the past three weeks it's been nothing but the media pounding on Obama.  You are getting exactly what you asked for.  And still you're going to complain?


    have you been watching cable AT ALL? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by DJ on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:03:05 PM EST
    Yep (2.00 / 1) (#127)
    by TedL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:12:12 PM EST
    And what I remember seeing the night of the Pennsylvania election was the media raving about Hillary and talking about how Obama was too latte to connect with ordinary folks.

    I also remember seeing the last PA debate, which was on cable.  Even the Clinton campaign put out a press release after that one saying - finally, the media is asking Obama tough questions.

    And I remember pretty much nonstop coverage of bittergate and Rev. Wright for a good long while now.

    Let's just say I don't think they're complaining about the last few weeks of press coverage in Arlington.


    You (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by DJ on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:46:27 PM EST
    obviously see a different reality than I do.

    Did we not say Rev Wright is not an issue ? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:01:11 PM EST
    remember Obama and his camp called ABC for asking question on Wright, since they do not think voters care for Wright... then WHY .. why did he hold a live press conference on Rev Wright.. I thought no one cared about what Rev Wright says.

    Obama did not denounce Wright (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ding7777 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:03:51 PM EST
    until Wright broadcast to the AA community that it was ok for Obama to denounce him (Obama's a politician; he says what pols have to say).


    That has crossed my mind (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:21:25 PM EST
    It was over the top and giving him the ok to throw him under the bus.  Now Sharpton defends him.  Could this have been an artificial crisis to show Obama being strong?  

    Yep! (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ding7777 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:39:59 PM EST
    There is nothing new in what Wright said except its ok for Obama to denounce him.

    point taken (none / 0) (#88)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:27:06 PM EST
    Hmmm (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:04:34 PM EST
    **Wright said "G*d D*mn America" and that wasn't enough to denounce.

    **Wright said (paraphrasing) that 9/11 was a payback for the "sins" of the US and that wasn't enough to denounce.

    **Wright made really disgusting references to Hillary and that wasn't enough to denounce.

    **But Wright hurt Obama's political campaign and THAT is enough to denounce.

    It shows what I've known all along.  Obama is about Obama.  The only battles worth fighting are those where his own personal needs are at stake. I will not play a part in having another self-centered petulant child in the White House.  We need an adult right now.

    I agree, and it's breaking my heart. (3.00 / 1) (#87)
    by WillBFair on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:26:20 PM EST
    But still, I think it's our duty to vote for him if he gets the nom, because the alternative is unspeakable.

    As I've held (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:40:23 PM EST
    IMHO a bad Democrat in the White House is worse for Democrats in the long term than is no Democrat at all.

    E.g. Jimmy Carter.


    Rev Wright, (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by ding7777 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:11:10 PM EST
    [Farrakhan] did not put me in chains. [Farrakhan] did not put me in slavery.  And [Farrakhan] didn't make me this color.

    for the record, neither did I.

    He is not my enemy (none / 0) (#176)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:51:14 PM EST
    I'm afraid he may have cost (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by WillBFair on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:23:34 PM EST
    us the presidency, even with the mountains of political capital we have this year from the horrific job the repubs have done. This Wright business is just too damaging. And Obama's supporters don't see it. It's a nightmare.
    And please, enough already about them being more educated. Maybe. But they are far less knowledgeable. They fell for Obama's shallow rhetoric like a ton of bricks, and even copied the media's childish insults. I haven't heard name calling like that since kindergarten.

    Unelectable... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:32:13 PM EST
    no reason to go into 1000 words...

    Unelectable - says it all

    BTD may be right (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:32:39 PM EST
    The media darling bit is making me sick.  

    No Doubt & Do You Think obama Tossed Wright (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:48:48 PM EST
    under the bus, but then called him later saying not to pay attention to what he said at the press conference; that's not the way it is...we'll talk?

    I think this Wright v. Obama spat (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:42:20 PM EST
    will be the end of Obama's chances to be the nominee.  I expect Wright to either make a magnanimous speech about stepping back from the limelight in order not to damage the first black president's chances (although I don't see that Wright really thinks about Obama's chances at this point) or to make a speech that tears Obama a new one.  I think some response is inevitable.  Wright is like 100 Bill Clintons rolled into one person.  I don't see how this is over considering Wright still has authority as someone who has known Barack Obama for 20 years.  And more importantly, Wright is able to draw attention to himself.  After a 20 year relationship, Wright is going to go away just like that?  Relationships simply don't work that way.  The "distance" between Obama and Wright will be measured by every new thing Wright says and how personal it is.  "We" thought Wright had blown over until he came out to speak this past weekend, remember?  "We" thought Obama had established enough distance in his original speech in Philadelphia.  Obama still has a ways to go with this thing, IMO.

    For Clinton, the best thing to do is not say anything and stay out of the line of fire.  She made a good statement earlier this week about getting past Wright.  If she keeps that line she'll be okay.  I am hoping she will.  

    It's ridiculous to expect the most easily satisfied segment of the blogging population to have any perspective on this whatsoever.  Especially in regards to electability or what the 'average' person will think...you know, that schmuck who shouldn't have a role in deciding who the nominee is.  

    And Don't You Think Some People Who Love (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:49:49 PM EST
    Wright are going to be offended by what obama did today?

    Further speculation: (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:59:17 PM EST
    regarding Wright, Obama's media darling status is actually a bad thing.  I think Wright is coming out and coming out strong in part because the media is part of the power structure (and who disagrees!).  If it supports Obama it makes Obama more prone to attack.  Aside from the fact that he does seem to enjoy the attention.  Principled guys don't mind a little destruction.

    Y'know... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:08:33 PM EST
    I think Obama handled this whole thing very sloppily and I agree with most of you guys, but at the same time, I don't feel that Obama agrees with Wright's controversial statements (who knows why he joined the church?  It could be to fit into Chicago culture or maybe he really did like Wright.  Wright is a goofball, but he seems likable, intelligent, funny... I can totally see Obama seeing him as a 'crazy uncle')... and I think he's just doing what's best for himself politically.  I don't think anything is wrong with that (Hillary does it too.  They all do it) and I hope he gets through this.  If something destroys his campaign, I don't want it to be that his church is too Afro-centric for the mainstream... I just wish this Wright stuff can end so we can get to the issues.

    I have a suspicion that (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by frankly0 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:10:35 PM EST
    this is not going to be the last shoe to drop on the Obama/Wright saga.

    One thing that's 100% obvious from Wright's recent speeches is that he wasn't exactly cool with how Obama had been treating him, and was only rather poorly hiding his resentment of it. The clear message of what he said was that he, Jeremiah Wright, had absolutely nothing to be apologetic for, even if Obama had said that there was something seriously wrong with some of his utterances.

    I just don't see the man taking Obama's current denouncing/rejecting of him lying down. I have the slightest feeling that Wright is going to push back hard. There's a major ego there to defend.

    I came into this late. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:21:13 PM EST
    But I have to say that Obama's a liar.  A flat out liar.

    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.

    Lies.  In his book, Dreams (the one I'm reading now), he relays part of Wright's sermon (which Obama sat in the pews for), "The Audacity of Hope":

    "It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs in a world of need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere...That's the world!  On which hope sits!"

    Mmm, yeah, Obama.  I don't believe you.  You threw your spiritual mentor (I believe he even SAID that Wright was his spiritual mentor, and that's where that phrase originated from...Obama himself!) under the bus bigtime, knowing exactly what this man's been about, because you too share the same ideals.  Anyone who's actually read your book would see that.

    Ack, I forgot the page number for that. (none / 0) (#131)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:22:05 PM EST

    Page 293 of Dreams from My Father is where that part of the Wright sermon is relayed.

    Why did Obama Stay in the congregation 20 years? (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by NotThatStupid on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:30:58 PM EST
    Some possible answers:

    1. He never heard Wright make any "divisive" statements.

    Believable? Absolutely not, so we'll skip that.

    2. He heard (or heard of) the "divisive" statements and disagreed with them, but stayed with the church because he needed it on his resume for political reasons.

    But, that's political expediency, aka politics as usual, and we all know that can't be the answer, not for Mr. "new politics" so we'll skip that.

    3. He heard (or heard of) the "divisive" statements and disagreed with them, but stayed with the church because he didn't have the backbone to confront Rev. Wright about them and walk out to find another church.

    Wait, that's bad, too, so let's see if we can find something else.

    4. He heard (or heard of) the "divisive" statements and was too stupid to see how bad they might be to his political aspirations.

    Uh, that's not so good either, come to think of it.

    4. He heard (or heard of) the "divisive" statements, and agreed with them.

    Ouch! that can't be right, can it? Let's hope not.

    But, frankly I can't think of any other reasons for him to stay there, and none of these reasons say anything good about his judgment, character, intelligence, or moral fiber.

    Did I miss anything here?

    That second item #4 should be #5 (none / 0) (#138)
    by NotThatStupid on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:34:04 PM EST



    It's a wonder anyone can untangle the (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:42:13 PM EST
    massive accumulation of stories on Wright and Obama enough to have a clue what the heck is going on.

    From what I heard on Moyers the other night, Wright is very much in the black liberation theology tradition, and while I heard aspects of that brand of theology discussed in a very calm and - can I say this? - articulate way, I also heard the underlying anger and the underlying blame that Wright feels deeply toward "the oppressors."  

    Now, it simply cannot be that Barack Obama, through his attendance at church, and in what he described as many conversations with Wright about religion and faith, never knew what Wright thought about the things that Wright said to the NAACP, and at the NPC.

    Obama claims that it was Wright who helped bring him to faith, and I simply do not know how that happens without advice, for one, and mentoring, for another.  Makes no sense.

    I am starting to see a parallel between Obama and Dukakis in kind of a reverse way.  Dukakis made a strategically bad decision to try to dispassionately answer a question about what he would do, how he would feel, if his wife, Kitty, had been raped and murdered.  Dukakis delivered a college-professor answer with no emotion.

    Obama started off with the college-professor answers, giving a speech on the larger issue of race in America, and including a paragraph or two about what Obama described as a relationship of mutual respect that had hit a bump in the road over these sermons Obama claimed to know nothing about.  It was a sober and serious speech, and in my opinion, wholly lacking in emotion.

    What ever made Barack Obama think that the Reverend Wright, who had been preaching for 40 years, who brought a promising man into the church, who watched as that man rose through the political ranks to stand on the precipice of historic possibilities, would understand being hidden away on the day of Obama's announcement for president?  Who would understand being described as the crazy uncle in the basement?  Who would be accept being chastised in a public arena for being divisive?

    What was he thinking?

    The moment - the instant - that Obama heard Wright say that "politicians say what they have to say," he should have been on the phone or on a plane to see Wright and find a way for Wright to save face.  Obama shamed Reverend Wright - and in a man with an ego the size of Wright's, that was never, ever going to go unchallenged.

    In my opinion, when Wright told the NPC that "you don't make fun of my momma and her religious tradition, you don't make fun of my daddy and his religious tradition," he was speaking to Obama as much as he was speaking to the media, and how Obama didn't know that, or didn't see it coming reflects a pretty significant problem with judgment.

    I've said for a long time that I thought one of Obama's biggest problems is that he has no idea who he is or what he believes; I found it painful to listen to him struggle to find a way to explain why he is having to do what he's doing, how to make it all go away, and how to come out of it without ever really being honest with himself or with the American people.

    The White House is the last place for someone who is still figuring out who he is and what he stands for.

    Great post (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by daria g on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:03:12 PM EST
    I never thought about it that way but, the implication was pretty clear when Obama described Wright as an uncle he doesn't always agree with.  That's a very particular way to designate someone - as family you just can't get away from even though you want to, and you humor them and feel a little sorry for them.  He must feel profoundly insulted by being portrayed not as the father figure, but the drunk uncle..

    Interesting 'word-by-word' reaction to Wright (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by voxdixit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:40:06 PM EST
    Slate has an interesting video of 600 people's reactions (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) to some of Wright's comments taken in "real time." I don't know if this sheds any new light on what this means for the primary, but I was fascinated nonetheless. Link

    Obama hated Wright (4.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:25:22 PM EST
    for saying that he denounced  Wright because he was just being a politician.  When he gave the race speech it was to quell a controversy not to give a race speech.  I said and many said that his race speech was him acting like a politician to quell a controversy.  But just because Wright said the same think that I did and others did then it was a big story and he couldn't take such language.  

    No doubt you're right (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Virginian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:46:37 PM EST
    it wasn't even a speach about how to move forward, it was like a book report about race issue, and more specifically it was a slight-of-hand to redirect from Wrights uncouth anti-patriotism/conspiracy theories

    It Took Obama 20 Years To Figure Out Wright? (3.66 / 3) (#5)
    by JoeCHI on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:00:57 PM EST
    Obama's press conference was a farce.

    Why did it take him 20 years to figure out that Wright is a nut.  We all figured it out in a day!

    please lets drop the facade (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:05:32 PM EST
    Obama knew exactly what was going on in that church. Which means either 1. He agreed with the theology (which I personally doubt) or 2. He used the church as a political stepping stone/launching pad (more likely). Either way, this means that Obama is flat out lying about his being "a different kind of politician." How anyone can buy his weak excuses now is beyond me -- they come way too late -- some say he should have given today's speech last month, I say he should have left that church 7 years ago (after the 9/11 speech).

    Now He Is Just Referring to Wright As His Pastor (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:28:33 PM EST
    obama is nothing more than an opportunistic snake oil salesman.  If he is so dense he could not figure out what Wright was about after 20 years, he does not deserve to even be a senator.  We need someone in the WH a little quicker on the uptake!

    At least no "checkers" speech again! (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:36:56 PM EST
    It didn't take 20 years (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Denni on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:44:40 PM EST
    Wright made those comments as he neared retirement, during a time when Obama wasn't in the Church (something Wright confirmed as he was angry at Obama for denouncing his sermon and he hadn't even heard the entire thing, he heard the same clips as everyone else).

    As I raised the point earlier... Sen. Clinton is not asked to denounce her husband's behavior or his statements.  She's considered someone who was tough and 'survived' his behavior.  There's no pretense since he's been a difficult person for a long time, now.

    WHY is the standard so different when it comes to Sen. Obama!?!??


    Rev. Wright (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by 18anapple2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:33:23 AM EST
    Because she is married to him for better or for worse and has a child with him!!
    Wright is Obama's pastor..he could have walked out and found another one!! for heaven's sake surely you can see the difference.

    comment with profanity (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:57:25 PM EST
    deleted. If you are new here, please read the comment rules.  If you must use an objectionable word, substitute some letters with asterisks. We'll get the point.

    Obama's press treatment has (none / 0) (#14)
    by magster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:05:42 PM EST
    been pretty favorable in response to his remarks today.

    If you can measure treatment (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:14:52 PM EST
    on a scale of 1 to 10, he was running at a 10 up until Wright, and then it tapered down to a 2, maybe even hit rock bottom at some point between 5pm and 8pm last night, and now it's back up to probably a 7.  They still want to believe.

    Still.  It's a net negative given pre-Wright treatment, but that may be more of an indictment of the treatment he received pre-Wright than it is of Obama's handling of any given situation.


    Great post here (none / 0) (#32)
    by smott on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:20:52 PM EST
    also linked to BTD post earlier (none / 0) (#34)
    by Oje on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:21:43 PM EST
    The media arm of the Obama campaign reads Aravosis.

    This is the winning strategy in May!

    Ah, the LAT political blog! (none / 0) (#51)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:30:28 PM EST
    The same one that took one man's account of a mysterious pollster asking about Obama and either race of Islam as a sign that it was Sen. Clinton's doing.  I'm guessing it'll work with his believers.  I can only pray others actually think about it: no one forced Obama to seek out Wright and have him be his pastor, a "family" member, for 20 years; Wright simply repeated previous claims; and no one forced Wright to say anything.

    With Sen. Obama cutting ties with Rev. Wright (none / 0) (#44)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:27:39 PM EST
    Who still believes that Rev. Wright is a good guy, who has important things to say, and that we should listen to him?  How about assembling a list of famous people who will go on record saying that?

    How about a second list of people who, just a few days ago, said Wright was a good guy with good ideas, but now act like he was radioactive all along?  I wouldn't put Sen. Obama on that list, because Obama did denounce some of Wright's ideas in his Philadelphia Speech.

    I guess I'll start the list (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:07:00 PM EST
    Two names come to mind:

    1 - Prof. Cornell West, an Obama adviser who was at the National Press Club and was whistling and cheering Rev. Wright on.

    2 - Father Michael Pfleger, an Obama endorser, who like Rev. Wright is a big fan of Louis Farrakhan.

    Will the media pester them for comments?  How will they respond?  Will Sen. Obama cut ties with them, as well?


    Hooooo boy, you all, a list is a little too (none / 0) (#81)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:15:46 PM EST
    Nixon Enemies-esque sounding for me. Please, my friends, can we not do this?

    Crap, I think I'm having an allergic reaction to the idea of Nixon.


    Father Michael Pfleger (none / 0) (#119)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:58:12 PM EST
    I like this priest.
    (From Daryl's link)
    I'm concerned by issues of poverty and issues of justice and equal access and opportunity especially when dealing with children and education and healthcare. Also, the war in Iraq is non-negotiable: end it!

    Just watched it (none / 0) (#66)
    by Lil on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:52:45 PM EST
    and I don't think he sounds so great. I read Jeralyn that you thought he did good (I think; I read a lot today); I didn't think it was a great moment, but it seems the media seems to think he did. I thought it was ok but not always presidential looking and a lot of uhs. Perception is tricky, but it sounds like the media is falling back in line, we'll see.

    Just posted on the open thread (none / 0) (#93)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:32:35 PM EST
    from the LA Times, proof of IACF:

    t was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, a former editorial board member of USA Today who teaches at the Howard University School of Divinity. An ordained minister, as New York DailThe Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the head table of the National Press Club event Monday which Reynolds helped arrangey News writer Errol Louis points out in today's column, she was introduced at the press club event as the person "who organized" it.

    But guess what? She's also an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.

    Their supporter, Reynolds, helps arrange a speech by the outspoken and egocentric Wright which receives blanket national coverage to the disadvantage of Clinton's opponent. As Louis writes: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted."

    Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times also (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:47:22 PM EST
    belongs to the press club and said a committee decides who comes to speak, not one person.  Of course, you know the facts will be ignored.

    jeralyn, (none / 0) (#181)
    by kangeroo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:17:45 AM EST
    why bernstein?  can you explain a bit?

    j, never mind. i just looked into (none / 0) (#182)
    by kangeroo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:27:48 AM EST
    the archives.  it's odd but i haven't gotten the same impression about bernstein from his biography on hillary (that he's a terrible pundit and he's sexist, etc.), but then again maybe that's just because i'm used to hatchet jobs on hillary.  i've never seen him on tv, so i don't know how he does as a pundit.

    God damn Amerrica indeed (none / 0) (#190)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:49:19 AM EST
    Indignant hyperbole has it's place, and many of you prove Wright's indignation. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels, as it were.

    Hundreds of thousands dead and maimed on your dime; Dynacorp and Halliburton getting clean away with stealing billions that should be going for schools, parks, roads and bridges and all you can talk about is militant, black boogiemen who dare to disturb your entitled, complacent, slumber.

    All you need is Smiley Pantsuit to tuck you in and tell you a bedtime story and everything'll be all better in the morning.