home

Obama: Can He Move Past Wright and Reclaim the Conversation?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:38:21 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

More than enough has been written, here and everywhere else, about Barack Obama and his relationship with Jeremiah Wright.

What I'm wondering now, is how does his campaign get past this in time for North Carolina and Indiana? How does it affect the superdelegates? From tomorrow's New York Times:

Bob Mulholland, a superdelegate from California, said that the difficulty Mr. Obama has experienced had put a premium on what happens in the remaining contests.

“We’ve got nine elections to go through June 9,” he said in an interview. “I’ve never been involved in a successful presidential race where the candidate had no trouble in the primary. It’s challenging to him. He is a young man and this is the first time he’s run for president. I see this as a learning experience.”

Asked how he though Mr. Obama was doing, Mr. Mulholland paused before responding. “Getting better,” he finally said.

Other questions: Did Obama alienate some of his African American base with his repudiation of Rev. Wright today? Will it cost him votes in North Carolina?

Assuming the public believes Obama was sincere in renouncing Wright and sorry about his misjudgment of him, will they conclude Obama just isn't ready to be entrusted with the serious judgment calls a President must make?

More....

If Obama loses Indiana, only scores a 5 to 10 point win in North Carolina, loses Kentucky and West Virginia, where are we then?

Feel free to add your own questions, or answer some of these.

On a lighter note, from the comments in a thread below discussing Obama today saying Wright was not his spriritual advisor or mentor: Shorter version: "I did not have pastoral relations with that man."

[Comments now closed.]

< Elizabeth Edwards on Endorsements | Hillary's Interview With the Indianapolis Star >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama: Can He Move Past Wright and Reclaim the Conversation? | 202 comments (202 topical)
    It it was anybody else but Obama (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:41:03 PM EST
    his career would be over now, regardless of how NC & IN go -- I'm beginning to think there is nothing this man can do short of being caught in bed with a dead woman or a live boy that will cause him to lose the nomination. I hope I'm wrong.

    You are wrong! (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:44:28 PM EST
    My spidey sense (same one that told me he would lose PA by 10 points) is telling me he has lost the nomination, we just haven't seen it yet. Let's see what happens the rest of the week into next Tuesday.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh..I remember that spidey sense... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:46:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hey Stella (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:49:43 PM EST
    you should have copyrighted your witty line... now similar versions are spreading like wildfire! ;)

    [ Parent ]
    From your lips to God's ears, (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:46:43 PM EST
    from your lips to God's ears -- believe me, I've got my candle lit.

    [ Parent ]
    Was Watching Race For The WH And All Four (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:52:57 PM EST
    panelists kept referring to some big thing that will come about around the middle of June...Terry
    McAuliffe referred to it too.

    And I hope your spidey sense is in high gear!  

    [ Parent ]

    Of course, none of them knew what it was, but (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:53:40 PM EST
    it is out there.

    [ Parent ]
    I heard that, too (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:42:50 PM EST
    There is, I'm convinced, something floating around out there that the Clinton people are 100 percent confident will put an end to Obama's nomination prospects when it comes out.  I've seen other mentions by reporters, hints about something the Clinton camp knows.  This is the first time I've heard they've put a date on it.

    The only thing I can think of is that there's some explosive book to be published that's being kept tightly under wraps.

    [ Parent ]

    And they have waited until now to spring it (1.00 / 1) (#149)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:49:31 PM EST
    so they could spend tens of millions more dollars, alienate millions of Dem voters, and delay going after McCain?  And I thought they got rid of the guy who was screwing up her campaign

    [ Parent ]
    well it could be something they just found out (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:54:00 PM EST
    it's wild speculation but assuming there's anything out there it doesn't mean they've known all along.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think it is some piece (4.00 / 1) (#183)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:04:04 PM EST
    of information.  I heard what they said on Race08, it sounded to me like they agreed the nominee should be settled on by June 15th because we need to shift to the GE.  They just believe it will be Clinton.  That is what I took from it.  I don't think there is anything out there in the shadows waiting to crush Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I would imagine the Clinton camp (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by ineedalife on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:13:28 PM EST
    knows how to count superD's as well as anyone. Maybe they have the numbers.

    Also they may have the numbers on the Rules committee to allow FL and MI.

    [ Parent ]

    Probably just parroting (4.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Shainzona on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:02:07 PM EST
    Dean's Demand that Hillary quit by mid-June.  If that's it, a pox on McCauliffe.

    [ Parent ]
    He supports Hillary-not Dean. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:15:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I know. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Shainzona on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:34:31 PM EST
    But he said something the other day that Obamaphiles jumped all over about her quitting by the end of June or something like that.

    That's why I said a pox on him!!

    [ Parent ]

    Dean did not demand that (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:34:47 PM EST
    He said superdelegates can decide on who they think is most electable and didn't publicly take sides.  You may think that's what he meant but that's not what he said.

    [ Parent ]
    Have you seen the rag that broke... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by OxyCon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:49:29 PM EST
    ...the Rush Limbaugh OxyContin story?

    I was at the food store waiting in line and one of those gossip rags was mentioning an Obama affair. Take it for what it's worth (not much).

    [ Parent ]

    National Enquirer cover... (4.00 / 1) (#195)
    by OxyCon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:14:23 PM EST
    Here is the cover I saw at the food store.

    http://tinyurl.com/4s57r9

    [ Parent ]

    Were their Martian spottings in that edition? (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Great, another thing to worry about. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Lil on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:15:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    a friend of a friend that works rather high up in (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:35:16 PM EST
    Clinton's campaign is convinced beyond a doubt, that she will win the nomination....who knows but I keep praying and keep donating....:-)

    [ Parent ]
    With ya! (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by TN Dem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:46:41 PM EST
    I had the same Spidey sense re: PA...my Mom said she was worried and ask what I thought; I replied "Hillary by 10 or more". Right after I said it, I thought, I had jinxed us! Lately, even before PA, I can't shake this feeling that she is gonna win this thing! I hope you and I are right!

    [ Parent ]
    You were only one point off (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:50:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    and Obama about 9 off (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:16:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yup, took a 12 delegate hit (1.00 / 1) (#201)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    inevitable! (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:24:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Right. MSM still defending Obama (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by LCaution on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:33:54 PM EST
    I flipped briefly to CNN and MSNBC today and, although there is wall-to-wall on Wright, the talking heads appear to be defending Obama.  Tweety wonders why Monica and Bill's Impeachment are off limits (Huh? Did Hillary's campaign issue a press release I missed?).  Wolf segued into Cafferty who started with "avoiding sniper fire".  Nothing to do with Wolf's previous statement.  Just off-the-wall HDS.

    Even Bush never had this type of "support him no matter what" from the MSM (even the The Wall Street Journal has been printing positive articles on Obama! - although I suspect it's because they know that McCain would probably demolish Obama in the GE).

    It takes very little imagination to guess what the consensus would be if Wright had been Hillary's pastor.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes... (1.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:47:28 PM EST
    ...the history of the Democratic Party is littered with people who win the most pledged delegates in the primary, poll at near 50% nationally, and are then immediately shunned from the party, their career OVER even though they still have a net positive favorability rating and virtually no chance of losing their Congressional seat, ever.

    This, "if it were anyone but Obama they'd be DONE" stuff is nonsense. Easily proved as such. It makes you look foolish to pretend you believe it.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense? Gary hart anyone? (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:51:05 PM EST
    What's nonsense is thinking that the count of deledgates today will make one iota of difference if Obama does not get the nomination.
    People don't remember the exact count; they just remember who was the winner and who was the loser.
    If Obama loses the nomination NOW, after having such a big lead, it will be much more damaging than if he had never been in the race. It it happens, it's a collapse that he brought upon himself. The donors who gave him 10s of millions of dollars will not forgive him.

    [ Parent ]
    Gary Hart???? (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by stefystef on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:28:34 PM EST
    Man, you were reading my mind!!!!
    I was thinking about the whole Gary Hart debacle on the bus ride home.  

    Obama was really trying to challenge people to find something wrong, like Gary Hart.  Well, the MSM does not like to be toyed with.

    There's a whole lotta "Monkey Business" going on here.

    [ Parent ]

    So you think his career is over? (3.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:59:12 PM EST
    So you agree with that poster? So you think his career is over, huh? What was the Illinois primary like again? And wasn't Hillary even a hometown girl there (and in Arkansas, and New York, and apparently also Pennsylvania)?

    Hart's career ended not when he failed to be Mondale, when he didn't run for the Senate to concentrate on the 1988 campaign for president. That was mistake number one Obama won't make. Mistake number two, arguably more important, was named Donna Rice.

    You think there are parallels between Obama and Hart's careers, apparently, but even if they are they aren't the parallels that caused Hart's career to end.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know if his career is over. What (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:01:52 PM EST
    I'm saying is that for him to crash at this point in the campaign will leave a far worse impression than if he had dropped out earlier.
    We'll see soon enough whether he's still viable.


    [ Parent ]
    his viability is calculated by (3.00 / 1) (#142)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:46:22 PM EST
    delegates.  post indiana and north carolina, he will need approximately 210 delegates to achieve the nomination.clinton will need somewhere around 335.

    post puerto rico, he will need dozens, not hundreds.

    drop out?

    i do not think so.

    [ Parent ]

    You pretend it's all numbers, but it is not. (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:49:49 PM EST
    If Obama appears to be clearly unelectable, he will not get the nomination. SD's, in particular, have no obligation to stay with the candidate they have previously endorsed.
    I'm not saying that Obama is cooked, but the path to the nomination is not just a matter of getting more delegates. What Obama must do is convince the delegates that are already nominally committed that he is still a winner.
    He is already losing support.

    [ Parent ]
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:01:59 PM EST
    That is if they are interested in winning the Presidency.

    They may be more interested in Obama's cash and having Mccain cop the blame for losing Iraq.

    [ Parent ]

    he has not lost a single declared delegate. (1.00 / 1) (#171)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:58:58 PM EST
    the house of clinton is the one losing delegates.

    the math is not popular.  reverend wright is so much more fun, but the reverend is not a super delegate and he will not be on the ballot in any remaining contest.

    when the house of clinton let wisconsin go, the race was lost.  from then till now, the only hope is an obama collapse.  what you have seen today is the pr equivalent of exxon gone green.

    how does obama move past the wright scenario?  let wright be wright and let's stay out of the way.  done deal.

    moving on...

    [ Parent ]

    and if Wright keeps talking?? (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:03:35 PM EST
    You think he won't? The path to the nomination is not an exercise in wish-fulfillment fantasy.
    Obama's viability is seriously in question now.

    [ Parent ]
    Watch your tone little girl (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:08:17 PM EST
    and try to read what I wrote -- I don't think his career is over -- but I think it should be.  I cannot fathom why his supporters continue to defend him when he has lied to you repeatedly -- first, Wright is like "family" and he can't disown him -- and you defended him -- how noble that he didn't throw Wright under the bus! Now he never knew anything about anything that was going on in his church of 20 years and was shocked! shocked! that Wright said the government invented AIDS to kill black people (although that was also in the tapes out two months ago) -- and you all defend him -- thank god he threw Wright under the bus -- everyone needs to move on, nothing to see here -- don't worry about the GE because Obama said he didn't know anything about Wright's "antics" -- the GOP can't use it against him. Maybe you like playing Russian roulette with the GOP, but I don't.  And I don't trust a politician who is hell bent on getting the nomination no matter what the cost to the party.

    [ Parent ]
    Tone. (3.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:17:43 PM EST
    You said if it was anyone but Obama his career would be over. Anyone can go up and read that. Who are you trying to fool?

    Other people, who aren't Obama, have suffered far worse defeats and far worse scandals, and their careers have not been over.

    I'm not a girl. I had no objectionable tone.

    Ranting about the effect of Wright, and how stupid Obama supporters are for still supporting him, for a full paragraph doesn't make your statement about his career, or your strange Obama exceptionalism theory, any more cogent or sound.

    [ Parent ]

    anybody can read what I wrote (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:26:01 PM EST
    and anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands that I said his career should be over, but it isn't. Now, this is the second time you have gone out of your way to insult me personally, and you need to step away from the keyboard.
    I'm done responding to your inane musings because I find you rude, incapable of understanding plain simple English and employ circular logic that makes my ears bleed.

    [ Parent ]
    And back at you (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:25:16 PM EST
    "And I don't trust a politician who is hell bent on getting the nomination no matter what the cost to the party. "

    A lot of Obama supporters have been saying the same thing for a while now.  And when they do so, they are often skewered by many of this site.  Of course, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

    I do agree with this statement from Hillary, as I am sure everyone on this site does, right?

    "Anyone, anyone, who voted for either of us should be absolutely committed to voting for the other because it would be the height of political foolishness to have voted for one of us and what we stand for and then either to stay home or not vote for a Democrat and instead vote for Sen. McCain."

    -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, quoted by The Swamp.

    [ Parent ]

    When did she say that? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Just another person on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:05:25 PM EST
    I'm not doubting she said it - but I just want to know how recent that is.

    [ Parent ]
    Today (none / 0) (#204)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:19:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Prove it then, please (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:54:08 PM EST
    prove it -- you show me someone in elected office who has survived a pastor of 20 years who says "G** D*** America" & that the government invited AIDS to kill black people -- show me that person.  And don't tell me about politicians who survived sex scandals -- that is not at all the same thing -- and if you believe it is, then you are the one who looks foolish.  I can think of only one other politician with a similar scandal -- David Duke -- and guess where his political career is? yeah, no where.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmm, I'm thinking about Eagleton (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:06:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:13:15 PM EST
    Eagleton had shock therapy at a mental hospital for psychiatric problems, was kicked off (or "withdrew," whatever) a botched presidential ticket, and even THEN his career didn't end and he remained in the Senate until the mid-80's, I think. And he was from a swing state, Missouri!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's chickens ... (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:23:06 PM EST
    ... have come home to roost.

    To mix religious metaphors and paraphrase the late John Lennon, instant karma got him.

    Obama's campaign orchestrated a vicious and racially-tinged smear campaign against Bill and Hillary Clinton, two of the best friends the African-American community had in the White House this side of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. That this smear campaign was conducted on behalf of an African-American candidate who did very little if anything while serving eight years in the Illinois State Senate to alleviate the plight of his own constituents on Chicago's South Side, is all the more infuriating.

    So please excuse me if I feel a delightful sense of schadenfreude regarding the man's political travails with the good Rev. Wright.

    [ Parent ]

    Haha... (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:03:48 PM EST
    ...his favorability ratings in Illinois -- where he's going to have a Senate seat as long as he likes no matter what happens -- negate any need for me to comply with your ridiculous history-mining request. The actual facts NOW trump any imperfect analogy we could find in the past.

    I'll stick with my assertion that y'all look foolish now that you've compared David Duke and Barack Obama's careers.

    [ Parent ]

    of course you will not, because you can't (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:10:08 PM EST
    like Obama, just pretend the bad things don't exist -- maybe they will just go away.

    [ Parent ]
    That's a calorie- free ad hominem argument. (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:24:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    campaign? yes. career? no. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:09:45 PM EST
    He would be out of the race, were it anyone else.

    [ Parent ]
    Because? (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:38:19 PM EST
    He would be out of the race if he weren't what?  Black?  

    True.  That does give him immunity from much criticism.  The LAST thing the MSM wants to be accused of is racism.  

    Are we not allowed to mention his race, because we're democrats?  

    Obama has set back race relations by at least 20 years.  Am I not allowed to say that?  

    [ Parent ]

    imho (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:47:35 PM EST
    his race is only part of it. Hillary's gender certainly isn't shielding her from criticism, so I think it's more than his demographics. He is, as BTD repeatedly points out, the media darling. That explains another aspect of how his campaign is treated.

    [ Parent ]
    I t hink his race is part of it (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by Just another person on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:16:49 PM EST
    No one wants to be called a racist. The media and everyone will bend backwards to avoid that label. However, being sexist is acceptable, and even lauded.

    It's a pretty sad state of affairs, really.

    [ Parent ]

    Only... (1.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:44:50 PM EST
    Only if other are allowed to comment here about how Hillary has set back women 20 years. I mean, if one is allowed to mindlessly bellow, falsely about one candidate because you like the sound of it, it's only fair that other can mindlessly bellow, falsely about the other candidate.

    Barack is good for minorities, and good for America.
    Hillary is good for women, and good for America.

    A deranged mob mentality is definitely on display when terrible, stupid things are said about Hillary at Dailykos and, as a parallel, here at Talkleft Obama's career is compared with David Duke's, and he's accused of setting back his race (AND he's lucky to be black because it immunizes him from negative media coverage! Hahaha! Bizarre!) for an arbitrary 20 years (20 sound good, sounds impressive, so why not 20?).

    And they both get uprated. It's deranged.

    [ Parent ]

    agree to a point (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:53:23 PM EST
    But only to a point. Surely you must acknowledge that there is a difference of degree here at TL, and much more attentive and scrupulous moderation. That said, there are clearly some loony conspiracy theories on both sides, and they help no one.

    Also, you must acknowledge that, for some reason, Obama has been the recipient of extremely favorable treatment by the press (until very recently). It is fair to ask why this is so; it is not unreasonable to make the argument that some gentleness of manner might be due to his race, and the media's reluctance to appear hostile to a serious AA candidate. I don't actually think that's it (it didn't protect Jackson, after all, when he ran) -- I actually think that the media's soft touch on Obama is more of a reflection of a) their hatred of Hillary and b) his "flavor of the month/new face" appeal (which explains why they treated Edwards as "old news").

    Just my opinion, though.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree that the moderation is better here... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:00:59 PM EST
    ...and that is the cause of any difference.

    Obama has had far more fawning press coverage than Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    Untrue... (3.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:13:58 PM EST
    ...no one who was ahead in pledged delegates would get out. That is ridiculous. It is transparently just wishful thinking to say so.

    [ Parent ]
    we disagree (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:21:05 PM EST
    and not just about the meaning of "transparent." It is "wishful thinking" on your part every bit as much as mine to make assertions about hypotheticals like this as if they were factual. My personal belief is that if it were anyone but Obama, there would be so much pressure placed on him to bow out -- "for the good of the party" -- that they would do so. Obama does not get that kind of treatment.

    I believe this is, in part, due to his campaign's transparent use of "riot in Denver" blackmail in the discussion about super-delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    He doesn't want to be a senator- (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:19:01 PM EST
    been there-done that. He wants to be prez. If that doesn't happen, no telling what he wants to do. Michelle says no more campaigns for them, though maybe just an idle threat.

    [ Parent ]
    If it had (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:28:43 PM EST
    been anyone else the press would have ridiculed them before Iowa and fed all the dirt into the public  square very quickly.

    The whole truth about Obama is yet to be revealed.

    He's got a lot of very powerful people looking out for him.  My own theory is that he represents a chance to give the American Empire a benign face.

    "we are not bombing you because we are racists. See look a Son of Africa is aour head of state."

    Kerry and Kerrey and Matthews have said as much. Of course they say the same thing with elegance.

    [ Parent ]

    If the question is (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by DaytonDem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:43:38 PM EST
    If Obama loses Indiana, only scores a 5 to 10 point win in North Carolina, loses Kentucky and West Virginia, where are we then?
    then the answer from the MSM will be the math and the roolz, forget Fla. and Michigan, and why won't she quit. For gods sake they asked that when she won Pa. by 215,000 votes. Mores the pity

    sad, but true (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Kensdad on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:25:57 PM EST
    the media are pigs...  pigs with little brains...  they stubbornly refuse to process facts that they don't like (or that don't fit whatever b.s. they are pushing at the moment.)  make her stop, make her quit...  how many times can they say it?  just think jonathan alter...  first, he said that it was her opportunity to exit in a very classy way.  when she didn't take him up on it, he said that she should quit because the math didn't allow for anything else.  poor hillary just keeps on winning and winning, but despite that jonathan alter is now describing hillary as "desperate" and running a "fear campaign"...  i think the only one who is desperate is alter himself.  he's desperate to see obama get the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    And netted a dozen delegates (none / 0) (#96)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:26:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    from the same paper: (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:47:21 PM EST
    Mr. Wright has not let that happen. In the last few days, in a series of shocking appearances, he embraced the Rev. Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. He said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks. He suggested that America was guilty of "terrorism" and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself.

    So we, like Obama, have never heard before about the award to L.F., or the pastor's page, or the Aids craziness, or the 9/11 rant.  This all just happened in the past few days.  Boy, that was one busy pastor!

    I am praying for Hillary and trusting that (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:50:09 PM EST
    they have enough of the old pol in them to wind their way thru this mess....because it is obvious that most of blue collar America, and most women in America, and the seniors in America love her...It is just the media and the DNC plus the extreme liberal elitists that want to shove someone else down our throats by not counting two states and various other tricks like horrid press, etc etc etc....This nation desperately needs Hillary for our economy etc and I can only pray and donate.....

    also remember this is the same media (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:51:40 PM EST
    that sold us all Bush as well as the Iraq war...

    [ Parent ]
    Speaking of donating.... (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    All contributions to HillaryClinton.com by midnight Wednesday will be matched.  I just gave $100.  (second time this month, first time this month was after PA, when she raised $10M).  $100.00 means $200.00 to her campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    I just gave $50 - But $300 last week. (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Shainzona on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:07:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Good for you! (none / 0) (#61)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:11:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    just gave ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by coolit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:53:09 PM EST
    25 which magically turned in to 50.  who is matching it?  Her own pocketbook?

    [ Parent ]
    it must be... (none / 0) (#167)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:56:14 PM EST
    the Soros monster!!!! (/snark)

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the heads up! (none / 0) (#196)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:15:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I pray for this country (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:05:42 PM EST
    to be guided in choosing its leaders.  I think that W. was not exactly a blessing except as a lesson for the entire country in how it chooses its leaders.  I hope that the American Idol style of voting does not infect the political system much longer.

    [ Parent ]
    Artificial drama (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:50:41 PM EST
    Could this have been an artificial as was suggested by ding7777 in the other thread to make Obama look competent and strong?  

    A little bit of bamboozlement? (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:54:15 PM EST
    I'll consider that possibility if Wright doesn't say anything.

    [ Parent ]
    He Only Looked Like Someone Trying To Pull (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:57:39 PM EST
    the wool over the voter's eyes.  If a person is halfway intelligent, they will be able to see through this ruse peppered with untruths, pushed by obama's campaign and the msm.

    [ Parent ]
    and the (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by miguelito on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:59:52 PM EST
    blatant contradictions between this Wright speech and the last one, the inaccuracies on video for all to see.  This latest one just shows he was useless in diffusing the situation the first time.  

    [ Parent ]
    Like maybe (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:54:52 PM EST
    He and wright are right now behind the curtain smiling back and forth at each other?

    [ Parent ]
    had that (none / 0) (#24)
    by miguelito on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:55:08 PM EST
    same embarrassing thought myself...  free press, another speech for ticklish legs.  Their MO is within two days somehow roping the Clintons into the Wright mess again, we'll wait and see.

    [ Parent ]
    Could be - even MoDo was calling (none / 0) (#73)
    by Shainzona on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:15:27 PM EST
    him wimpy recently.  So today he got A N G R Y AND LOOKED TOUGH.

    Well, not really.   But he probably thought he did!

    [ Parent ]

    CNN (none / 0) (#101)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:28:24 PM EST
    Candy even apologized for how he looked:  she said after watching the video she realized the tv audience was not getting his facial expressions because he was looking down at the questioners--he looked so pained and tough.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, barf! (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Shainzona on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:37:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    exactly... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:42:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wow (none / 0) (#95)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:26:14 PM EST
    that is a great theory.  I am not sure that in the day and age of blogging that the media is as controllable as it used to be.

    Free speech is back to early printing press levels.  If we spend time looking at political advertisements back in the the early days of politics, we would swear that the KOS was reincarnated today.

    [ Parent ]

    A little bit of all of that but mostly it locks (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:52:44 PM EST
    in the divisions of an already polarized Base, Independents are probably gone, hell I'm an Independent and for Clinton but I've about had it with this Obama Drama grievance, race, racist agenda.  Hillary Clinton is correct its time to move on we have big problems in this country and a myopic focus on a 60s platform of social justice is just not the need of many in this country and it wont carry the Party to Nov. in any case.

    Obama Drama -- wow, do I agree (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:02:42 PM EST
    I'm a political junkie, through many election years now, usually love the excitement -- but really, the roller coaster with Obama's campaign in this one just has me weary of always wondering what next? who else is a racist? when is your next lecture to the uneducated nation?

    And then I realized how much of this is not about us at all, we-the-people who are supposed to be getting a president out of this.  Instead, it's more like endless workshops with human resources folks facilitating us to find and face our inner selves -- which always ends up being hours about themselves, not us.  And what we really need to do is just get back to our desks and get our jobs done, not theirs.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't see how Obama can recover. (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:53:15 PM EST
    NC will be very telling.

    sinking like a rock... (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:53:32 PM EST
    and clearly unelectable

    I suppose that the only thing left is whether the Democrats are willing to lose the general election in order to not lose some AA's because of the wedge that Obama has driven to separate Clinton from the black vote.

    There is no doubt that he will lose in November if he is the nominee now.

    agree completely (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by miguelito on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:56:29 PM EST
    he has already lost the GE, I just hope he has lost the nom as well.. If I was religious I would be praying for Hillary to win out.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe We Can Get Rev. Wright To Help Turn (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:59:33 PM EST
    you around....lol

    [ Parent ]
    My question is... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by barryluda on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:56:25 PM EST
    Assuming Obama wins the nomination (sorry gang, not saying it's inevitable, just for context), it seems to me much better that this whole Wright thing came out now rather than then.  Here's the question:

    If there are any more Wright things, how can we be sure we get them all out right now?

    more than Wright (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by miguelito on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:57:51 PM EST
    I have a feeling there are a lot more skeletons in Obama's closet

    [ Parent ]
    With those four suits (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by DJ on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:01:46 PM EST
    and five pair of shoes.

    [ Parent ]
    Wright isn't the worst of Obama (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:45:29 PM EST
    by far.

    Exelon was horrific.

    Rezko should blow Wright off the front page.

    I've been saying he should drop out since January after I did some vetting of my own since the press wasn't doing their job nationally.

    His regional papers had all the news I needed and then some.  Gary Hart mentioned above is how I've seen Obama all along.

    Not happy about his blogger army spinning this thing all over the place as a positive to him.
    How many did he say he had in that interview? If it was 3000 bloggers back then, he must have hired some more because they are like vermin.

    They can only fool people for so long.


    [ Parent ]

    Yeah as to Rezko (3.66 / 3) (#160)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:52:53 PM EST
    we cant afford candidates with shady land deals in their past

    [ Parent ]
    how many... (none / 0) (#67)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:13:08 PM EST
    more Wright things do the GOP need?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, if Hillary is the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09:50 PM EST
    they will definitely confine themselves to substantive issues

    [ Parent ]
    no, they won't. (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:23:36 PM EST
    but much like your tired dirge of 1990s scandals, we've heard them all before, and they're not news.

    [ Parent ]
    In order to reclaim the conversation (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:56:59 PM EST
    He has to change the conversation.

    Because Wright is a character driven narrative, the only way to change the conversation is to start pushing an Issue driven narrative.

    In my mind (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by lisadawn82 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:58:55 PM EST
    it is a toss up as to whether this Reverend Wright tour was set up or not.  On one hand the Reverend does seem to have a huge ego.  He might genuinely want the limelight.  On the other hand Senator Obama must have known that the Reverend Wright issue was going to be played by the Repubs in the GE so he needed to be able to repudiate him in such a way as to not alienate his AA base.  So here you have the Reverend going out and really over exposing himself and cause such an uproar that the Senator can now put some major distance between the two of them without penalty to the Obama campaign.  We've got a whole week left to go until the next primaries and like Senator Clinton has said, a week is a lifetime in a Presidential campaign.  It's going to be REALLY interesting to see the results in IN and NC next week.

    And getting all the headlines (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:04:16 PM EST
    for Obama instead of Clinton at this crucial point, with a week to go.

    [ Parent ]
    NAACP (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:20:56 PM EST
    Obama set himself up for this, by making Wright a symbolic martyr in the battle against racism in "the greatest speech on race EVAH!"  His full on embrace of Wright through the "grandmother" comparison (while distancing himself from certain comments) turned Wright into a black folk hero -- and someone worthy of an award from the NAACP.

    [ Parent ]
    What do you think about these last few days? (none / 0) (#124)
    by lisadawn82 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:37:37 PM EST
    Was this planned or not?  How do you think this will effect Senator Obama's campaign?  And do you think that a week is enough time for the press to find something else to faint over?

    [ Parent ]
    I think... (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:35:20 PM EST
    he lost the nomination today.

    the media is falling all over itself doing damage control for Obama, but your "average american" isn't going to buy into it... the first person who asks "He wouldn't disown Wright when he said 'God Damn America', but he's doing it now?" at the water cooler will be met with a bunch of nodding heads, and someone else will say "and are we really expected to believe he didn't know that Wright was like that?", and more heads will nod, and it will be over.

    Obama's relationship with Wright is a festering sore -- not because of the relationship itself, but because the way Obama has handled the whole thing is defining his character.  He hasn't been honest with the American people -- if he'd just said that felt a personal loyalty to Wright because Wright had helped him when he was a  confused, and much younger man, and stayed in the church despite figuring out that Wright had a destructive view of the country, he might have gotten away with it.

    But pretending that he didn't know isn't going to cut it.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't buy the conspiracy theory of set up (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by magster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:39:22 PM EST
    but I think it's playing out like you described.

    If Obama hangs on, today may be the best thing for his GE campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Anecdotally (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Lil on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:04:27 PM EST
    my mother said he may get the nomination, but will lose the GE (She loves Hillary). I work with all Social workers who are all dems, the ones for Obama are still with him. One worker said, well I hope he finds even more black folks to come out and vote for him (she's white). I think most of my staff is surprised that I'm for Hillary and frankly I'm surprised that I can't win them over, since in the past I believe I held a lot of sway with them, because they know I pay a lot of attention to politics.

    The only republican guy came in to gloat with me about Obama's misfortunes, which I was having none of. He thought because I support Hillary; I'd bond with him or something. I told him he should get used to saluting a woman or a black guy because that is how this will end after we have our nominee.

    Even though I said that, I have this real fear that Obama will lose to McCain. I fear there are thousands, if not millions who are just like this guy and will not vote for Obama no way, no how, ever. they don't "trust him".

    On the other hand (I'm a Libra), I have heard many Hillary bashers who absolutely hate her. This often surprises me to the degree they dislike her (CDS). I think Hillary's supporters that I know will vote for Obama but winning over those that hate Hillary is another story. I happen to think we are more reasonable at this point.

    Can't someone just tell me that this will end up all right? Exhausted.

    Trust (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:13:35 PM EST
    Even though I said that, I have this real fear that Obama will lose to McCain. I fear there are thousands, if not millions who are just like this guy and will not vote for Obama no way, no how, ever. they don't "trust him".

    Well, would you trust a guy who said he could no more disown Wright than disown his own grandmother after he saw the "God Damn America" video, but disowns him over far less "outrageous" and shocking things that Wright said this weekend?

    And would you trust a guy who claimed he was "shocked" at what Wright had to say over the weekend?

    I mean, I don't believe it.  And if someone who would vote for Clinton if she is the nominee tells me they don't trust Obama based on the Wright episode, and they're gonna vote for McCain, all I'm gonna be able to do is crawl into a fetal position and start chanting "Supreme Court...Supreme Court...Supreme Court...."

    I don't think that Obama can be defended on this mess in an intellectually honest fashion.  You can try and change the subject, or say that Wright is unimportant, but there's no way to defend Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    My reaction exactly ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:39:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What's a voter to do? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Shainzona on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:43:02 PM EST
    I am an staunch HRC supporter.  I haven't bought a word of what BO has said from the very start.

    But I am really really angry at the campaign BO has run.  IMHO he has set race relations back 50 years.  And the way they have destroy the Clintons' history of good works on behalf of race relations is scandalous.

    SO I DON'T WANT TO SEE HIM THE NOMINEE AND I DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR HIM.

    Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place...I marched in DC for the first pro-choice efforts but I really really really really do not like Obama.

    Please, Hillary.  Pull this one out!

    [ Parent ]

    Can't know for sure, but have same suspicion-- (none / 0) (#152)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:50:12 PM EST
    Pretty complex series of banked shots, but, hey, not impossible.

    [ Parent ]
    No. (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:10:56 PM EST
    No one can tell you that this will end "all right."

    Why? Because it is apt not to. McCain should be lunch meat right now, but some polls show him leading.

    [ Parent ]

    debate (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:06:14 PM EST
    This isn't going away for at least a couple of days... and if Obama were smart, he'd change his mind about Clinton's "lincoln douglas" debate proposal, and arrange it for Friday at the latest.

    He could get away with it too -- He can say that Democrats want the focus to be on the real issues in the campaign, and the media's obsession with Wright is preventing a discussion of those issues.

    Of course, he'd get slaughtered in the debate, but the media will score it as a win for him as long as he doesn't droll at this point.

    nothing but lies (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:07:50 PM EST
    AP has this in their timeline.  So his Rolling Stone excuse is a myth. He's told so many lies, nobody knows who he is, but that he isn't honest about anything is very apparent. Not an option.

    Feb. 10, 2007 -- Obama decides not to have Wright deliver the invocation at the launch of his presidential campaign.

    Feb. 22, 2007 -- Rolling Stone magazine publishes a profile of Obama that includes Wright using profanity to condemn American racism.

    The National Review... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:23:24 PM EST
    ...is pointing out how ridiculous Obama's race speech last month seems now after the latest Wright debacle. They cite this quote, among others:

       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 it distorts reality.



    [