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

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?


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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

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

    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.

    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!  


    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.

    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.


    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

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

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


    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.

    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).


    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.



    Were their Martian spottings in that edition? (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:04 PM EST
    Great, another thing to worry about. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Lil on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:15:14 PM EST
    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....:-)

    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!

    You were only one point off (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:50:25 PM EST
    and Obama about 9 off (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:16:45 PM EST
    Yup, took a 12 delegate hit (1.00 / 1) (#201)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    inevitable! (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:24:21 PM EST
    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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...


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


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

    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
    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!

    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.


    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.

    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
    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.

    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?  


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

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

    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.

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

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

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

    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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?

    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.

    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!


    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.  

    Oh, barf! (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Shainzona on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:37:30 PM EST
    exactly... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:42:22 PM EST
    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.


    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.


    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.

    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

    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

    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.

    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.


    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

    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?

    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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.


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


    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!


    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.

    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.


    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.

    A small minority of us were not impressed (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:33:17 PM EST
    a month ago.

    There isn't much of a conversation to (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by tigercourse on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:09:55 PM EST
    reclaim. The entire campaign revolves around media pushed "gotcha" moments against both our candidates. The gas tax issue is the first legitimate one in awhile.

    That Lincoln/Douglas style debate sounds better and better to me.

    Isn't Wright publishing a book in the fall? (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:12:27 PM EST
    He will never be over.  He'll just go dormant until the GE.  If the SD's can't see that then the Dems deserve to lose.  What I am just baffled by is why are the Dems going to the mat on behalf of an unaccomplished neophyte like Obama?  I mean this guy has a thinner resume even than GWB did in 2000.  I just don't get it.  Actually, I do get it and it's depressing.

    at teh risk of spamming (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:47:49 PM EST
    He's the only face that could pull off the aims of further American war and conquest in the Middle East?

    The Foreign Policy expert types are certainly making an extraordinary fuss over him---something that should pique everyone's interest and raise a few eyebrows.


    I think... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:12:49 PM EST
    Keith Olbermann needs to take Jeremiah Wright into a room from which only Keith emerges

    Oh boy, (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:16:36 PM EST
    don't make me choose which one I want to come out!!!

    No! (none / 0) (#106)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:29:45 PM EST
    I want to hear more from Wright.  KO... his voice has become grating and shrill.

    What is he REALLY on?


    Or maybe (none / 0) (#139)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:45:16 PM EST
    Father Michael Pfleger should hunt him down like a rat and snuff him out.

    Problem with Obama is that he has is undefined (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:14:41 PM EST
    He can't withstand this type of negative attention because he is not a "known brand." When McCain or Clinton hit rough spots, they can recover because the public knows them and, for better or worse, has already made up there mind about them.

    NYT says John McCain cheating on his wife?  Would have sunk Obama, but most people felt they knew John McCain to reject this as just defamatory rumor.

    This is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many, many, many more negative issues that will easily stick to Obama, simply because he has no public record to refute it.

    lack of experience? (none / 0) (#174)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:00:23 PM EST
    Are you saying that Obama should have waited, should have had more experience, should have been vetted, before the MSM jumped on his bandwagon for President?  

    Yeh, you're right.


    of course obama has (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by english teacher on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:18:12 PM EST
    sufficiently distanced himself from wright to win the presidency... in 2016.

    I was talking to my aunt today (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:21:41 PM EST
    who's AA and a HUGE Obama supporter.  She actually totally agrees with Wright about how Obama's a politician and his race speech was more of a political statement than anything.  She said she actually likes Wright and has a better understanding of him but she's still upset with him because he could have kept quiet in order to keep Obama's path to the white house a bit easier on him.

    She basically thinks Obama and Wright are trying to throw one another under the bus.  She gets where Wright is coming from, but because she wants a black president, she wants Obama to win and get the last word on this.

    More racial division (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:49:24 PM EST
    This just couldn't be worse.  We're going to lose, no matter what because of this crap.  If Obama wins the nomination, we'll lose in November, BIG TIME.  Our down ballot pols will suffer too.  If Obama doesn't win the nomination, the Blacks will react, lead by Rev. Wright.  It will be ugly.  When he doesn't win in November, it will be even uglier.  

    Like I said, Obama and Wright have set back race relations by 20 years, if not 40 years.  

    I am really sad about all of this.  


    I have a theory ... (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:04:11 PM EST
    I agree w/ your first part -- if Obama wins the nom. Dems lose in Nov. Heck -- I can't see myself voting for him.

    But.. consider ...

    Obama loses the nomination, and he and the MSM credit his loss to his race-baiting smear campaign. HRC forgives. The left sees the benefit of the center, and the Dems come together. By campaigning for HRC, BO delivers the black vote in Nov. and cements his position for a future leadership position in the party.

    If he's a true politician -- he will see that strategy and future generations of voters for the party are more important than one political battle. If he doesn't -- then God help the Dems, and God help us all.


    Jeralyn, it is not about judgement alone (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:25:10 PM EST
    This was about judgement before today.
    Now Obama has made it about TRUST as well!

    How can voters trust someone who walked away from a close personal mentor and friend of 20 years over politics? Every voter (not perhaps the brainwashed Obama supporter or the MSM who are already in the tank for him) must be asking "how long will this man hang with me"? How quickly did he turn on Wright of whom he said "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community, or my grandmother ... he is a part of my life".

    Remember the biggest loss because of all this. Remember the Philly speech that was supposed to "start" the conversation on race that The One was supposed to lead us through. Here was a prime opportunity to further that conversation -- by engaging Wright! Instead Obama just copped out, did the politically expedient thing. He can't be trusted.

    What is "this campaign" that Senator Obama keeps talking about now.. exactly?

    That is a really good point (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:35:53 PM EST
    What better chance to continue that conversation? He did cop out.

    It's not over. (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:26:36 PM EST
    Except for those fused to him.  He could do anything and they spin it.

    I tend to think that AA will not be too happy with Obama's condemnation of Wright. Believe it or not Wright is regarded highly by a lot of people.

    Then again, people have gone crazy this election.  The MSM was just praising his speech at the NAACP. Two hours later, he was crucified.

    I keep thinking that this entire thing is just pathetic and it has nothing to do with Hilary Clinton.

    people with common (none / 0) (#114)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:33:34 PM EST
    sense will notice MSNBCs gross stupidity.  

    You can't pull that sort of fast one and get away with it in the mid or long term.


    Obama and Wright (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Pat Johnson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    How badly do you want to be president that you are willing to sacrifice the friendship, mentoring, and the role of father figure for political expediency? I am not defending Rev. Wright but questioning either the naivety or the disengenuousness of a man wanting to be elected to the highest office of the land.  We would have to be pretty naive to believe that these two men involved in a 20 yr relationship, both working on behalf of the poor, never discussed issues or the principles displayed by the other!  Come on.  

    Don't Forget That Obama Threw His Grandma (none / 0) (#213)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:30:55 PM EST
    who raised under the bus first in an effort to rehabilitate Wright. Only after finding that wasn't going to work, did he sacrifice Wright.

    This particular episode (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jen on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:31:25 PM EST
    will hurt him in the short run with the upcoming primaries. His decision to use the race card against the Clintons is the bigger problem, and hurts him and more importantly and the Dem Party in the long run.

    His standing with the AA community will not be hurt by anything he has done or will do.

    I'm praying the Super Ds are smart enough to know he will not win the GE.

    Nothing he can do (none / 0) (#181)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:03:44 PM EST
    Will offend the Black community?  They will vote for him, based on race, no matter what he does or says?  That's just pathetic.  I just cannot believe that Blacks are sheep who vote based on race alone.  Sorry, but Blacks are too smart to do that.  

    Aren't they?  


    She was under the bus (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:34:04 PM EST
    the minute he spoke of her in the same sentence as Wright.  OK, I'm mad at him again now.

    Thanks, I needed that!  I was going soft.

    you forgot... (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:41:45 PM EST
    she is just a 'typical white person' anyway...

    I am sort of sick of the 'toss XXX under the bus' verbiage.

    Reverend Wright he claimed was like a member of his family, his spiritual mentor, as dear to him as the grandmother who raised him.

    Where's the sincerity? Where's the lack of judgment? Now that Reverend Wright decided to use the national stage to further his own ambitions he decides to disown him?

    Sort of like giving his 'major speech on race' after the notoriety of Wright goes mainstream...Obama is entirely self-serving and dishonest.

    Obama came out today and denounced Reverend Wright because he finds out that he's losing super delegates faster than he can bail the water out of his sinking boat.

    If he had an ounce of spine, he would have kept the position he staked out the day of his 'major speech on race' which clearly was..."he can no more disown Reverend Wright than his own grandmother."

    Well, you now understand Obama's guiding principles...he only means what he says when it doesn't come with a price tag.

    He's a fraud.


    I don;t think, at the end of the day, (none / 0) (#146)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:48:09 PM EST
    they were ever really close in a real, genuine way.  A reporter asked Wright yesterday if Obama came to church often and he said"As often as you, when was the last time you went to church?"  It was obvious he was saying Obama wasn't there very much.  He joined the church for political reasons. And he is dumping Wright for political reasons.  I think every politician does stuff like this so I don't think he is any better or worse in that sense.  But I think Clinton is the one who can get us back on track.  If he wins I will pray for him, but I don't think he has demonstrated the ability to bring people together.

    please don't insult... (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:52:43 PM EST
    Obama takes the name of his book from a Wright sermon...

    He was the pastor that presided over Barack/Michelle's marriage.

    He baptized their kids.

    Barack termed him to be like family...like his uncle.

    Barack stated that he could no more disown Reverend Wright than the grandmother who raised him.

    OK, you don't think they were ever really close in a a real, genuine way...pull my finger and I'll blow you a kiss.


    No, this is beyond Obama now (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Universal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:35:29 PM EST
    Particularly b/c of the ads the GOP is running featuring Wright and Obama.

    The genie is not going back in the bottle this time, now matter how hard the MSM pushes. It's over.

    Will This hurt him with his AA base? (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by kenosharick on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:36:43 PM EST
    That is the first thing I thught of, he defends the man for months, and turns on him just to mollify moderate, white voters? Or is it "not his fault" like everything else?

    Yes, it will (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Universal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:40:03 PM EST
    At a minimum, you will see more attrition among African-Americans because of his depositing Wright under the bus.

    I was just listening to that guy Malik _ of the New Black Panther Party. He said this is a very risky move by Obama in terms of his AA base. This will hurt him with that group, even if it is just in turnout figures.


    I think AA vote is fine (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:59:59 PM EST
    but that the white vote will suffer.  People are just going to get annoyed that the drama just won't quit.  Wright offends, Obama makes a speech, Wright offends, Obama makes a speech.

    Can't wait for IN/NC.  Another nail biter.


    The reason he won't recover... (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:40:08 PM EST
    is partly the "death by a thousand cuts" when it comes to wooing the demographics with which he's been weak, and also that he's shown himself to be just another craven politician, willing to do or say anything to be elected.

    The clip I saw last night on ABC's evening news of his speaking to a group in Indiana showed him talking about his oh-so-humble beginnings: single mom on foodstamps, etc.--but rather than connecting with voters (or even just empathizing with their economic woes, as Hillary's does so well), he just seemed to rather desperately trying to distance himself from the "elitist" label.

    At the end of the clip, he said "This is why I love America," and I thought he was going to break out into an a capella version of the Star Spangled Banner to top things off.

    His feeble attempt to "get back to the issues that Americans are concerned about" sounds particularly hollow considering that Hillary's been doing that for months while his campaign gins up faux controversies, and that he refuses to hold an issues-focused debate with her.

    Wright went "bad" faster... (5.00 / 6) (#137)
    by OxyCon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:44:47 PM EST
    ...then the milk in my fridge.

    At first the Obama campaign and his supporters were saying that Wright's words were being taken out of context; that all we heard were five minutes worth of snippets from a thirty year career; that what Wright said was true anyways, so deal with it; and lastly, that new instant classic (brought to you by the Obama campaign) "you're a racist" for not liking what Wright said.

    But now that Wright is acting crazy out in the wide open, it's finally time for Obama to throw him under the bus along with Granny.

    Obama finally comes around to seeing things the way those of us who immediately criticized Wright saw them, and where ostracized by Obama's supporters for doing so.

    I'm so glad that I support Hillary Clinton and I don't have to contort myself on a daily basis in order to continue to support her.

    And Jeralyn hit the nail right on the head...Obama didn't "get it" until it was too late. This is a major example of extremely poor judgment on Obama's part. It took him over twenty years to finally realize that Wright was an extremist and a bigot. How can anyone trust Obama's judgment on world affairs now? There's a lot worse people out in the world than Rev Wright, and if Wright fooled Obama for twenty years, just imagine what a crackpot like Iran's Ahmadinejad can do.

    BS... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:58:00 PM EST
    Obama and Axelrod KNEW that Wright was radioactive. That is why he didn't give the benediction at Obama's announcement that he was running for the presidency in Springfield in Jan 07.

    The topic of Wright's radioactivity was discussed well over a year ago...it was a known quantity.

    They just figured that they could duck when the explosion came...they almost got away with it.

    This wasn't just poor judgment...Obama clearly loved the guy and by watching him, it's easy to see why. Reverend Wright is great theater.

    The problem that Obama has is that his circle of friends is a pathetic mess of people that seriously calls his judgment into question and it is the question of judgment that he points to as the difference maker...the problem is, the narrative has lost its cover.


    I'm in your camp on this -- I think BO thought (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:07:57 PM EST
    they could get away with it. They would keep Wright away from the announcement, let him retire, lie low, then let him back into good graces once Obama was safely nominated and elected or defeated.

    Videos got in the way...?

    Looking at how the MCM is reacting (Sally Quinn just said Wright's behavior over the weekend allowed Obama to come out strongly against Wright, on Charlie Rose), it does have a look of a well-played bamboozle.

    Just so that Wright's views cannot be "attributed" to Obama.

    Very, very sophisticated con job...?

    I can't know for sure, but the more I'm seeing how this plays out the more my skepticism rises.


    Yeah, it is bs... (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by OxyCon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:12:17 PM EST
    ...but Obama is trying to sell it. And with his latest contortions over Wright, he just opened himself up to a broadside over his judgment. Obama now wants everyone to think it took him twenty years to finally figure out that Wright was bad news. That's why I sarcastically said that Wright went "bad" faster then the milk in my fridge.

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by nell on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:45:28 PM EST
    I have been pondering this all day, trying to think about what the fall out will be.

    Oddly enough, I do not feel bad for Senator Obama, I feel bad for Rev. Wright. Rev. Wright said some awful things, and I was particularly offended and upset with his comments about Bill and Hillary, as well as God D*** America, but Obama knew who he was and what Wright was about. He joined the church, possibly for political reasons, and I think he and Michelle really did become very close to Wright and then he threw Wright under the bus when it hurt his chances. So I can only imagine how much it pained Wright to see Obama all of a sudden acting like he had no idea what this man stood for and the things that he believed for political reasons. Wright himself said to the NYTimes that Obama may have to distance himself, so I don't think this was a surprise to him, but I still think he has to be the person that is most hurt.

    In terms of the fallout, I was not especially impressed with his race speech because he failed to take responsibility, and I have the same reaction today. Everything is Wright's fault, Wright is a different person, etc, but I think Wright is the same person that we saw in those clips. Obama never takes responsibility for his own choice to stay in the church and take his kids there. My guess is his answers will work for the same people that the race speech worked for - his base - the media, and other people who were already inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. For those of us that are already skeptical, 20 years is 20 years and nothing can change that.

    I think AAs will stick by him, even if they think his actions were wrong. The group to watch is latte liberals - if he keeps them and prevents HRC from making inroads like she did in PA, he will be in good shape. Reagen dems are lost to him.

    In terms of upcoming contests, he will win NC big (according to PPP, he has a 2:1 lead in early voting with 33 percent AA turnout, even if she picks up steam, this will preserve his margin), she will win IN narrowly.

    I agree mostly. Wright has a right to (none / 0) (#158)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:52:13 PM EST
    say outrageous things. Obama is the one who chose him as pastor and spiritual mentor. Obama is the one who has betrayed Wright, not vice versa.
    I don't care for Wright's views, but Obama has publicly humiliated a very proud man. What kind of character is he showing now?

    i did not... (none / 0) (#177)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:01:09 PM EST
    have pastoral relations with that man! ;-)

    (stolen shamelessly from Taylor Marsh's page)


    Yes, that is definitely a line (none / 0) (#186)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:06:21 PM EST
    that Hillary should use

    Granny and the Black community (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:53:07 PM EST
    both disowned by Barack.  

    Is there ANYONE, other than Keith Olberman who can still spin what Obama says?  

    Wright Plight (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:57:18 PM EST
    I believe 100% when Wright says that Obama is just a politician who does and says what he has to to get elected...just like he says what has to say as a preacher to keep the donations coming into his church to support his lavish lifestyle.

    Obama's selfishness has really become apparent with all the spectacles conducted by Wright.  Actually Wright did a lot of us a favor:   he exposed Obama for the hypocrite that he is.  Deep down I bet Wright is jealous of Obama's rise in the political world.  So what does Wright do?  He torpedoes him, and, gets bragging rights that he brought down the first black man that had more than a good chance at becoming president.

    Obama's own selfishness allowed ALL of this to happen.  He so badly wanted to be the nominee and president that he just did what he felt was the politically expedient thing to do.  He didn't give a damn about Wright or his church.  They were his tools to get into political offices in Chicago.

    I may not agree with a lot of the things that Wright speaks of, but at least he showed Obama that he wasn't going to be thrown under the bus without taking him down.  In Wright's mind, he helped Obama get where he is, and will bring his butt down, too.

    Pick your friends wisely.  The people you were around going up are the same people you will see going down.

    Obama's paster and mentor of 20 years... (none / 0) (#197)
    by ig on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:16:18 PM EST
    just gave everyone a character reference of Obama, that he is a typical politician and will say anything to get elected.

    Remember Nafta. Obama has basically copied all of Hillary's policies. I doubt he will keep even 1/2 of them, even if by a miracle he gets elected president.


    sure the public judges Obama unready (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by pluege on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:00:31 PM EST
    will they [the public] conclude Obama just isn't ready to be entrusted with the serious judgment calls a President must make?

    this is the same public in which 49% in 2000 and 51% in 2004 judged bush possessing of capabilities to make these heavy decisions...right?

    a few million of those (none / 0) (#182)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:03:45 PM EST
    voters have died already and some other millions of teens are going to vote for the first time.  So it's not quite the same voters.

    so ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:08:30 PM EST
    what is your point? that voters are stupid? sounds like a true obama supporter.

    you mean the priest... (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:02:14 PM EST
    that he publicly embraced just a month ago in his 'major speech on race?'

    Understand this...

    Obama embraced him a month ago and disowned him today...where's the integrity? Where's the commitment to stand and fight?

    How could anyone watch Obama's speech today and not immediately realize that he's a coward who won't stand his ground if it costs him?

    MSNBC didn't notice (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:13:54 PM EST
    But I did.

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Gabriele Droz on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:10:32 PM EST
    the phrase ""I did not have pastoral relations with that man." is making the rounds and changing along the way.

    I know it originated on this site, except I could not find the original post'poster via your search engine.

    But the original came from one of our posters here, worded "I never had spiritual relations with that man."

    Let's make sure we give that poster the original credits for that comment, and the spin-offs from there.

    Please stand up, poster, who came up with this.  The search engine is inferior.  Let us know who you are once again, so that we can credit you with it.  It's a winner, and it's spreading around.  There's no reason why your name shouldn't be attacked to it.


    Stellaaaa. . . (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:18:30 PM EST
    was the original contributor.

    An Opology (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:26:26 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by chrisvee on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:30:02 PM EST
    Stellaa has the first version of it earlier today, as far as I can tell. I wasn't aware of the comment when I made mine but someone pointed it out in a comment on another post, so all credit where it is correctly due.

    Probably not. (4.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:44:14 PM EST
    There's almost no way he gets back on track on this issue before Indiana and North Carolina.

    His best bet is to get two or three other things on the frontburners before then. Populist economic stuff bolstered with Kansan biographical stuff.

    Populist economic stuff ? (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:52:42 PM EST
    What populist economic stuff?

    I just watched Hillary with the Indiana newspaper people.

    Where's Obama's interview?  I want to compare them.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:06:24 PM EST
    What are you talking about? I was saying, so so clearly, what he should do to get past Wright, not what he's done. Read the comments before responding to them.

    Obama (none / 0) (#51)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:06:48 PM EST
    did his interview with the Indy star last week and trust me there was a huge difference. Hillary was much better today.

    I wonder if the newspaper has his videos on their site as well.


    Unfortunately. . . (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:53:15 PM EST
    the issue waiting for him is the gas tax holiday.  Although I think it's pretty universally poo pooed here as bad policy (and I, good elitist environmentalist that I am, agree) it's not, as some argue, a conservative idea.  It's a populist idea, at least as expounded by Clinton (make the oil companies pay the tax out of profits, rather than the working man).

    Obama's stance is principled, but in this case principle is in conflict with populism.


    Look, I'm an Environmental Planner and I agree... (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by alexei on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:13:07 PM EST
    with Hillary on this.  She has a comprehensive energy plan and this is a short term proposal to help those that need the help the most; lower income and those that depend on vehicles for their employment (e.g. truckers). It is a tax holiday (not permanent) that will be paid for by a oil company windfall tax.  This is in line with the Democrats in Congress. GW will probably veto because of the windfall tax proposal and if not, this helps the Democrats on this issue.  If this was her only energy proposal, I would be against it.  But she has a strong medium and long term agenda that makes this a non issue on the environmental front.  The Democrats have to show that they see the pain or they will be defeated.  McCain was all over this except of course Hillary came up with a mechanism to pay.

    I'll take a half a tank of gas. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:31:30 PM EST
    And free shoes for my kids possibly?

    Agreed (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:55:13 PM EST
    What Kansan biographical stuff? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Shainzona on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:06:17 PM EST
    Oh, I guess he missed a place to call home...Hawaii, Indonesia, Illinois,

    Well... (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:07:55 PM EST
    Hawaii, Indonesia, Illinois, and Kansas are more interesting than Illinois, Arkansas, New York, and (
    (surprise!) Pennsylvania anyway. You see how stupid, petty little remarks can go both ways when you don't think them through enough?

    But Hillary actually had roots (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Shainzona on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:12:44 PM EST
    in each of those places.  I lived in Chappaqua and they settled right in!!!

    No phony claims for HRC as to her roots.


    So does Obama. (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:22:35 PM EST
    ...And Obama's mother is a Kansan, he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, he's lived in California, New York, and Massachusetts while studying. He worked in Illinois for years and years.

    My point wasn't that Hillary's claimed home states were phony. I was responding the other poster who accused Obama's of being phony.


    His political destiny (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:40:10 PM EST
    is to make the act of bombing Arabs slightly less unseamly and erm...less racially motivated.
    Kerry has said something similar, and I think Kerrey also pointed at this role.  Richardson has made some noises in this direction too.

    I doubt the anti war people who vote for Obama understand this foreign policy  destiny.


    You've lost your mind. (1.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:50:26 PM EST
    How is this sort of dreck even thought of, let alone agreed with, and (probably, just wait...) even uprated? So, a popular Democratic candidate's political destiny is simply to make it easier for the whites of the United States to kill brown Arabs. What? Where are you even coming up with this stuff? Democratic Underground? Where? What mindset could produce such nonsense? Where are BTD and Jeralyn for this sort of thing? The bacchanalia of today's Wright news has some of you punchdrunk.

    I put it crude irreverent terms (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:38:35 PM EST
    Kerry has said something to the effect that Obama puts a new face on American Foreign policy.  What might that entail in concrete terms?

    It means that America can change the explanations for military activity around the  globe.

    I don't know if you are familiar with recent American history, but every President since Nixon, and certainly since the OPEC embargo--has mounted military operations in either the Middle East or North Africa.  Nixon himself, LBJ,  Kennedy Ike and Truman were involved in bloody protracted East Asian wars.

    Why do you view that documented track record and the likely course of the near term in the Middle East to be a conspiratorial rant?

    If McCain is elected it's 60/40 war with Iran or Syria or someplace.  If Obama is elected it's 60/40 we are deploying troops in Pakistan.

    This isn't particularly controvercial.

    Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. I highly doubt that Obama will break that track record of foreign policy.  


    Sorta from Kansas (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by ineedalife on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:23:00 PM EST
    His mom moved from Kansas when she was 13. Went to high school in Washington State then on to Hawaii.

    As opposed to (none / 0) (#100)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:27:31 PM EST
    Illinois, Arkansas and NY?

    your advice (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:11:24 PM EST
    is for him to gin up new issues that he has not mentioned before? populist themes at this point would be laughable coming from him.

    How can anybody not want Obama for President (3.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:23:04 PM EST
    No other politician has done more for Israel, LGBT, Choice, Race, etc.  You have to believe this, he said it himself.  You know Obama would not lie he is beyond those kinds of human weaknesses.

    Hahaha, at least we can still have (none / 0) (#156)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:50:42 PM EST
    Our sense of humor.  Thanks!  

    No word from Wright yet?! (none / 0) (#8)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:47:23 PM EST
    Surely someone has tried to get a response from him.

    Or (none / 0) (#38)
    by Coldblue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:01:58 PM EST
    were the recent Wright appearances set up for Obama's final distancing speech?

    I'm just curious why the campaign went all 'loose cannon' now and not before.


    Because he had to (none / 0) (#206)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:22:24 PM EST
    Obama had to separate from Wright.  It was ALL about politics.  He's thrown his friend under the bus, then backed over him.  If he thinks this will make Wright stop telling the truth about his beliefs, Barack is a fool.  Wright is furious that Obama is pretending not to believe what Wright knows he believes.  The truth will out.  It always does.  

    Will Fox call Wright to Appear on TV to Defend (none / 0) (#40)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:02:17 PM EST
    They got Obama and Hilary to show up why not Wright again.

    Everybody (none / 0) (#153)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:50:23 PM EST
    is calling Rev. Wright for an interview.  From Fox to CNN to Al Jazeera.

    Except maybe MSNBC.


    This morning I agreed with most of you (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:12:06 PM EST
    and thought (dare I say hoped?) he was toast. After just reading about his presser this afternoon, without seeing it, I was convinced he could not even be Hillary's VP.    I have to say though, that I finally got a chance to see the video, and I found it very moving, believable, and impressive.  It was the first time I have liked him in a long time, and believe me I have disliked him intensely.  That arrogance was gone today. I think it is going to help him in Indiana, and not hurt him in NC.  

    I predict he bounces back from this, and uses today's events to his advantage in the future.  As I think it was Jeffrey Toobin said, now that he has given up trying to have it both ways over Wright, he has the words he needs to defend himself in the future. (He should have heeded Hillary's advice a long time ago, and rejected, renounced, disowned, whatever he needed to do.)

    Before you take my prediction too seriously, I'll warn you I am nearly always wrong.

    Impressive except for all the "umming" (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:22:14 PM EST
    and "uhhing". Drives me crazy to listen for very long.

    Yes, I tried to tune that out. (none / 0) (#110)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:31:36 PM EST
    To  be fair, Clinton's "you know"s bug me too.  She seems to have worked on it though - when she was first in the Senate it was a lot worse.

    Agree (none / 0) (#161)
    by nell on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:53:00 PM EST
    but she has gotten better. They each have their own phrases...

    Obama...umm...uuhhh...the notion that somehow
    Clinton...you know
    McCain...my friends


    I never noticed that. (none / 0) (#209)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:24:17 PM EST
    Well, at least they are words and not just noises. But I'm obviously biased.

    I thought the (none / 0) (#75)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:15:56 PM EST
    opposite.  I thought he was very angry.  Richard Wolff, an Obama adorer, said no one had seen him this angry about anyone or anything (not even the Clinton's).  Obama was disrespected and hitting back.  I think he spoke out because Wright had the nerve to go after him.  Obama threw Wright under the bus, Wright threw Obama under the bus, Obama backed over Wright,  next?.....

    But he is angry at Wright (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:18:54 PM EST
    Which is the mood of much of the populace today. I think it was the closest he has come to connecting with the common man!!!

    (That is except for those of his supporters yesterday bending over backwards to defend Wright - under the bus for them!)


    Because Wright called him out as a politician (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:39:57 PM EST
    I could not disagree more with your original post (Did you see the same video I did?  Perhaps the commentators glowing about him affected you).  I saw the entire clip and he looked bored and frustrated (as in a temper tantrum).  He wasn't at all convincing in terms of his body language or words (i.e. I didn't believe a word he said).

    He was livid with Wright not because of what the man said, which was just a repetition of his previous controversial sermons, but because he called Obama out for being a typical politician who didn't really denounce him the first time, but was only saying so to get elected.  Obama made sure to stress that point.

    But I am all but certain most people won't see the video clip and will just hear how Obama was so forceful in his denunciation, which is nonsense anyways since had a close relationship with Wright for over 20 years!

    The Democrats may remain politically suicidal, but this man will lose in a landslide in the GE.  Guaranteed.


    That's what I saw (none / 0) (#187)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:07:53 PM EST
    and one of the talking heads, Richard Wolffe who really likes Obama

    Frakking having another frakking earthquake, hold on while I put a hand on my fish tank....

    anyways, Wolff said you couldn't see it, but he was angry, they had never seen him angry about anything or anyone even the Clinton's.

    He was p!ssed that Wright dared, dared get in his way.  I saw Wright as arrogant and think Obama is the same.  It was just a bunch of thudding each other in the chest with a finger.

    If Wright doesn't speak out, it was a set-up, he can come out and be contrite and say Obama has really changed him.


    I didn't read "anger" at Wright from (none / 0) (#172)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:59:45 PM EST
    Obama today -- I saw depression or someone really upset. I thought he looked shaken, not really in control.

    And he did keep his eyes down most of the time, which struck me as someone feeling down.

    Where was the anger?

    The MCMers began to describe as angrier than they'd ever seen him, but it just didn't look that way to me.  Then, this evening, someone said that was how he appeared when angry...weird.


    Wright is an independant figure (none / 0) (#157)
    by DaleA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:51:04 PM EST
    He has stature and an academic reputation. And he is well known in religious circles. So that he is out doing these events is not surprising. What surprizes me is that the press is paying attention. The events he spoke at are usually ignored. Left to the religion reporter to write about in her Saturday column. But the press covered the events. Curious.

    What I would like to see is Wright and Ron Paul discussing issues. Expect to see a lot of agreement there about 'chickens coming home to roost'.

    Author of article on Wright, Obama & Trinity (none / 0) (#214)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:32:15 PM EST
    is on Charlie Rose tonight. Doesn't know why Wright did what he did this weekend. Perhaps bcz he was a man who lived by speaking and was suddenly taken away from his milieu. Maybe not.

    Kalefa Sanneh in the April New Yorker.

    I haven't laugh (none / 0) (#217)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:22:12 PM EST
    s much with a comment in a while. This


    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."

    was really funny.