Wright Not Put to Bed Yet for Obama

The first view of Barack Obama's handling of the Jeremiah Wright issue was rosy....he had survived.

Not so quick, reports the Wall. St. Journal:

It has not been defused," says David Parker, a North Carolina Democratic Party official and unpledged superdelegate. He says his worries about Republicans questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism prompted him to raise the issue of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s remarks in conversations with both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

I'm concerned about seeing Willie Horton ads during the general election," Mr. Parker says, referring to campaign ads that Republicans widely credited for helping defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988. Mr. Parker said the Wright controversy didn't hurt his opinion of Mr. Obama.


Which Democratic voters do Wright make nervous?

Among older, white voters, with whom Sen. Obama has struggled, the Wright controversy could make his climb steeper. Al Neyman, a 76-year-old from Indianapolis, said that he had been on the fence between the two Democrats until learning about Sen. Obama's pastor. "To me, he's un-American sitting in that church hearing those kinds of things and not leaving," he says.

Then there's the voters hooked on the electability argument:

Even for Democrats turned off by the episode, their desire to win may trump all else. Carol Wunsch, 61 of New Albany, Ind., had hoped for a Clinton-Obama ticket until she learned of the Wright relationship, which she says, "scares me to death." But if he's the Democratic nominee, she sighs, "I would vote for him, I guess. But I still don't like him."

Update: Comments at 200, thread now closed.

< Question the Media: Lichtblau Live Blog | Hillary, Obama and McCain Will Be in the Senate for Iraq Hearings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Kos: Obama's handling of Wright was Just Right (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:11:14 AM EST
    I guess WSJ didn't get Markos' memo.

    In the Newsweek opinion column linked above, Kos claims that he and the (not fully counted) superdelegates were all wowed by Obama's able handling of the Wright controversy.

    This impressive feat is enough to make Kos mentally, and firmly, place these superdelegates in Obama's Win column.

    [W]ith nary a serious general-election battle against a Republican on his résumé, he needed to prove his mettle in hand-to-hand political combat. His able handling of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright revelations didn't just prove his deft political skills to worried supporters like me and superdelegates. It allowed him to address a potentially explosive issue well before November (though it's a relationship the GOP is sure to exploit).

    No matter how you define victory, Barack Obama holds an insurmountable lead in the race to earn the Democratic nomination. [...]

    One has to wonder if Obama has already won, why he hasn't, you know, WON-won. Funny story, true story ... it turns out Obama actually hasn't actually won yet.

    Apparently there's mischief afoot to "steal" these superdelegates that Kos has officially decreed as belonging to Obama!

    Still, Obama's advantages aren't large enough to allow him an outright victory. He needs the 20 percent of party delegates who aren't bound to a candidate. It's with these superdelegates that Clinton has staked her ephemeral chances.

    Clinton's near-lone chance of victory rests with a coup by superdelegate, persuading enough of them to overcome the primary voters' preference. Yet a coup by elite Democrats would be ill-received, to put it mildly. Obama's base spans the party's most loyal and engaged constituencies: African-Americans, professionals who generate hundreds of millions in small-dollar donations and a conventional-wisdom-defying outpouring of youth support.

    So if these superdelegates that "belong" to Obama actually do vote for Obama -- outside of Kos's head, that is -- it's democracy allied to the power of charisma in action.

    But if those same superdelegates vote for Sen. Clinton even after a force so powerful as a Kos opinion column virtually guarantee them as insurmountably Obama's, it'sbecause she fiendishly persuaded them.

    This is apparently deeply unfair as compared to whatever it is that Obama did, clean and honest, in front of God and everything.

    It's a coup. Okay, just trying to keep this damn scorecard tidy and legible.

    More Obama fanfic here:
    A Silver Lining In the Blue Battle
    By Markos Moulitsas | NEWSWEEK
    Apr 14, 2008 Issue

    Obama will tell you. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:26:13 AM EST
    He's good at poker. Even great.

    But he should have learned chess. There are no trups -- only checkmate.

    So, I agree, totally, with Jeralyn.


    Obama will tell you... (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by workingclass artist on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:03:17 AM EST
    I agree but then chess takes a longer attention span. McCain has admitted Condi is on the short list for VP. Finally some SD's are actually remembering that 2/3 of the base ( those pesky lunchbuckets ) are bothered by Wright ? I wasn't impressed by Obamessiah's handling of the issue, but then again he can't very well throw the Good Rev. or the whole church under the bus... They got him where he is and it's getting crowded underneath ha careening bus...

    First Rule of Poker (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Virginian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:58:13 AM EST
    Anyone who tells you they are good at poker, isn't good at poker...

    First rule of poker: (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:52:52 AM EST
    Never talk about poker.

    Wait, that was Fight Club, wasn't it?



    The Mask of Obama, 2 (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    There was a fascinating read in The New Yorker earlier this year focused on the Mayor of Newark -- a man insiders originally courted to be the first African-American candidate for president.

    When he turned down the offer, Obama stepped in. Part of the article spoke of Obama's prowess for poker. How Obama became popular quickly in Illinois politics by arranging poker parties, and how it was his poker face that earned him pro status at the game.


    poker faces are overrated (none / 0) (#157)
    by Virginian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:48:19 AM EST
    A person with a good poker face (none / 0) (#163)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:02:53 PM EST
    is a good liar too. Funny how no one else sees that. Oh, wait.. I forgot..Obama doesn't lie..except about his record, Hillary, and his church attendance. Oh well, as long as he plays poker well, that is what counts. Of course, being President is more like playing world-class chess, but hey, he is a quick study, right?

    You mean Cory Booker? (none / 0) (#176)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:24:38 PM EST
    Really? Huh. I went to college with Cory but I thought his tenure as mayor of Newark has been rocky. Plus Cory is way too young still. Inexperienced as bright as he is.

    Compared to bowling, maybe? (none / 0) (#175)
    by cymro on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:24:20 PM EST
    It's all relative, I guess!

    Riiiiight (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by goldberry on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:25:35 AM EST
    He's better than sliced bread.  He's got more money than God.  He makes the sun to shine and little children happy to gamble in the meadows with the lambs.  All is right with the world when he deigns to cast his gaze upon our unworthy existences.  Everything he does is better than we think it is.
    And we all just select him NOW, he will be insurmountable and it will be too late for Hillary to do anything about it.    

    On the flip side of their arguement (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Virginian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:02:30 AM EST
    If Obama actually has to earn this nomination it will be better for Obama and the party...so far he has never had to win a true "contest" so if he does, he'll come out stronger. And if he does, it will legitimize him as the nominee, which he can use to united the party...He needs to earn it...

    Kos and others are terrified that if it comes down to the "judges" Obama won't have enough substance to hold up to scrutiny...which is probably true...but if that is their underlying fear (which I think they make clear that it is) then they are advocating the poorer candidate.


    Dems uphill regardless... (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by tsteels2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:41:02 AM EST
    I think both Obama and Clinton respective minority status will be used against them.  The flat out truth is that if we went through the House and Senate looking for questionable associations, we would be throwing people out left and right.  But this is a GE where the magnifying glass is big as Mars and as powerful as the Sun.

    As a Green Party guy that supports Senator Obama run because of its historic ramifications (I'm black), I wish Obama would back off and become Clinton's running mate.  Because I feel that the Right's attacks on questioning Obama's patriotism will ultimately question black people as a whole.  Obama's greatest friend against the Right would be Clinton.  She's not going to let her "VP" get blasted.  It's not her way.


    I fear that he could go down in (none / 0) (#118)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:32:36 AM EST
    flames and all of the signs were there but the "rescue us please" Democrats are not looking. In a Clinton/Obama ticket he would not be the main focus and between the two of them they could take many of the states that are purple and win.  The 4 or 8 years that Clinton runs the country would be good for him as he would get all of the necessary Washington experience, be a known commodity and ONLY be 52.  Just the right age for a president.

    I fear that many in the party establishment (none / 0) (#167)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:09:27 PM EST
    who pushed him to run -- the elderly bulls of the NE liberal establishment and the milquetoast midwestern moderates -- don't care as much about winning or losing in November as they care about NOT having a woman at the top of the ticket. They are embarrassed at being labeled "the mommy party" and fear that a woman nominee cements that image.

    I'm afraid (none / 0) (#192)
    by magisterludi on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    the democratic Senate is afraid of a dem prez. Then they would actually have to DO something.

    The Senate, overall, has been such a HUGE disappointment.


    No, I belive he could pull her down (none / 0) (#187)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:49:20 PM EST
    she has enough to carry without adding Obama Wright, Rezko  and the Mrs. Obama baggage it gives the Right everything they need for attack.  Senator Clinton needs someone who can bring a State with them.  Im thinking Rendell or Strickland more manly Dem types seems for some reason this appears to be a requirement for some fringe sects within the Party certainly Progressives and I would name them now and not wait.   Add Obama's resume, his Associates and the questionable undemocratic nature of how the DNC Party has conducted its business of the Primary and you have spooked Independents not interested in 4 or 8 more years of governance by any fringe political sect, no matter the Party name.
    So slippage in support is greater than the current thinking in my view and divided governance is looking like a must with Pelosi out intimidating for the more extreme candidate and the money strange excesses along with the current failure of the Dem lead Congress.

    Progressives= fringe sect (none / 0) (#193)
    by indy33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:02:37 PM EST
    Wow. This seems like a strange place to call progressives a fringe sect! Some people here say Obama is not progressive enough. How about the election of Donna Edwards over Al Wynn. Progressive blogs helped get Edwards elected over a supposed "manly man". This post is insulting and a joke! If it wasnt for progressives in this party that opposed the Iraq war, stand up for civil liberties and economic equality there wouldnt be a Democratic party. I know that "progress" scares some people but calling us a fringe sect is why most Dems like you are a dying breed. Out of touch!

    I supported Wes Clark in '04 (none / 0) (#208)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    and think if it is not Obama as VP Wes would bring the new liberal military establishment with him.  There are something like 30 retired high ranking officers supporting Hillary and it is an impressive bunch. General Paul Easton is one of them.  This would counterpunch John McCain on his military credentials.

    Did you check out Daily Kos this weekend (none / 0) (#123)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:38:45 AM EST
    I dropped in, briefly, but I had to leave because of my blood pressure. There was a very long front page diary compaing Obama to Martin Luther King. With quotes. I would like to convey how I felt when I read (about half) of it, but I can't find the right words.

    The only way you can compare the two (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    is to point out what Martin Luther King DID, and then contrast what Obama DIDN'T. Dr. King marched for miles, often through a gauntlet of angry white people throwing stuff and attacking him and the marchers. He went to jail for his work, and he persisted even through death threats, physical attacks, because he believed in what he was doing.

    Obama has NO record of civil rights work. Obama couldn't even bother to walk a mile from his house to see how his constituents were being treated in the housing put up by his friend, Tony Rezko. He didn't care enough to walk that far. He has avoided it probably because it would categorize him, in his mind, as a "black politician" who is concerned about black issues. Never occurs to people that civil rights are citizen issues, not black issues. Obama has avoided being involved in civil rights work, but is oh so happy to co-opt the Rev. King's work to his advantage. In my book, that is cheating, just like putting your name on bills you had nothing to do with is cheating.

    Of course, none of those viewpoints will ever be seen on DKos. That would be sacrilege. Can't point out the clay feet of the new Messiah, it's un-American...or something.


    Nope did not read Coulter or Rush either (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:51:33 PM EST
    Markos has about as much credibility now (none / 0) (#152)
    by doyenne49 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:40:42 AM EST
    as Blll Kristol. They are both shills.

    I concur. Totally. (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:19:11 AM EST
    As an elephant in the room for way too long, I had the audacity to campaign for Mayor on a Republican ticket once, giving me privy to the Republican handbook for winning elective office.

    Now there's a scary read.

    What I learned was is to get the hell out of the Republican Party.

    The reality is, I'd be foolish to think the Democrats didn't have a play book of their own.

    Nevertheless, this I think is for certain: Jeremiah Wright will be the elephant in the Democrats room.

    But so will Obama's speech on race which, heretofore, has been praised as brilliant.

    Republicans will find a way to make it not so.

    Because Obama said, in effect -- and Republicans will capitalize on this for certain -- black Americans wear a "mask" when mixing with whites, and remove that mask when in their barbershops, church pews, and among their own.

    This is the weak spot in Obama's speech that will prove devastating if Obama is the nominee.

    THE MASK OF OBAMA will be the Republican battle cry, with "he says one thing to win your vote, but...." as their tag line, and "God damn America" mixed in.

    Even if John McCain doesn't use it, some independent strongarmer will.

    Obama's loyalty to Wright will be marketed as proof that he'll put his loyalty to "extremists" before he'll put the good of his own country and campaign.

    And then there's Rezko.They won't let sleeping dogs lie. Especially when the sleeping dogs are lying. This is a ticking bomb waiting to explode at just the right moment.

    To Republicans? Obama is toast.

    Wishful thinkers confuse Dormant with Put to Bed (5.00 / 14) (#5)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:52:46 AM EST
    I agree with your assessment that these issues, perceived as "handled" by Obama's wishful supporters, aren't over but ticking to go off more spectacularly down the road.

    They mistakenly perceive HRC as the enemy and gloss over how the Obama campaign's weaponry they used to thward his Dem rival will only weaken him in the upcoming battle against Repugs in the GE.

    I watched Obama's speech in Montana over the weekend. The standing ovation was 6-9 people of those held in the frame. The crowd was dozy while he spoke against the current admin policies in place but a squeal of approval went up when Obama took a shot at HRC.

    That tells me that his current support might not survive his winning the spot on the Dem prez. ticket.

    The other tactical error from Team Obama is in counting prO'bama support in the primaries as Dem enthusiasm where it could just as easily been Repub "support" that shouldn't be relied upon in November.

    In this case, the "divisiveness" and "negatives" attributed passively to HRC that Team Obama hammered to discount and discredit her mere presence in the race, and hold him up as the candidate of destiny, will either vanish mysteriously or be turned back on him.

    Since I'm in that neighborhood, TeamO's persistent refrain vilifying me as racist despite my sterling record aa a voter, Dem supporter and activist because I'm a white, female and until recently, equally supportive of Sens Clinton and Obama was not a good move by TeamO.

    I keep hearing from Predictors and Discussers how my vote and support will automatically go Obama's way because that's the only choice left to me.

    Er, no.

    It's the equivalent of being spoken of in the third person while I'm in the room and for some odd reason, it's always a bunch of men deciding what they'll do with my proxy.


    Wishful thinkers... (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by workingclass artist on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:20:06 AM EST
    on page 135.a subcategory II . of that RNC playbook you describe is probably a standard formula developed and tested sometime in th 1970's... The application of said formula to this case would be Wright + Black Panthers + Rezko + TEDDY KENNEDY ( a constant ) + JESSE JACKSON ( another constant ) +
    ( insert past statements that even appear to be left leaning on any issue, or since Clinton's famous I didn't inhale comment from 92' insert college age behavior about drinking or drug experimentation ) + anything a spouse might say or do = SCARY
    LEFT LEANING ALMOST COMMUNIST LIBERAL RADICAL. All they have to do is repeat his political associations Weathermen? and just repeat the mantra Radical... Radical...Radical....

    Personally.... (none / 0) (#125)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:39:21 AM EST
    I've been waiting all my life for a candidate who experimented with drugs and refuses to apologize.

    All my life for a candidate who associates with former Weathermen, former Black Panthers, and former Nixon supporters too for that matter....a candidate that will hear anyone out and learn from anyone.

    All my life for a candidate who will look down the barrel of the politics of hate and distraction and say "no mas, we've got work to do".

    I guess I'll be waiting a long, long time...


    Identity Politics (none / 0) (#19)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:33:18 AM EST
    Not all that helpful, I'd suggest.  Particularly when it involves offering support, passively or otherwise, to the "repugs" in the Fall.

    Er, why?


    yes, I think theres far more votes for him to lose (none / 0) (#86)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:38:58 AM EST
    amongst us the Democratic base than among bigoted Republicans and Independants.

    While he is my second choice, I do NOT want to lose in the GE.


    "The Mask of Obama" (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by magisterludi on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:24:31 AM EST
    wow. You are good. And right.

    IMO, of course.


    I have a line for the to use "He'll say (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:50:14 AM EST
    anything to win".

    I'm not sure its Wright as much as anti American (none / 0) (#191)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:55:32 PM EST
    extermeist narritive they have begun to weave the Wright stuff is gravy.

    harley, what drugs (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:15:42 AM EST
    are you on, and where can i get some? and i ask that in the nicest possible way.

    markos is proving himself to not be the brightest bulb in the box daily.

    anyone who truly thinks that all this is going to "go away" in nov. has just got to be on some really powerful hallucinagens. not only are all these issues not leaving (should sen. obama be the eventual dem. nominee), they'll be back with a blast. can you say "527" boys & girls? i knew that you could!

    by the time the republican/right-wingnut smear machine gets done with sen. obama, his grandmother (remember her, the one he tossed under a bus in that "brilliant" race speech?) won't vote for him. he'll be lucky to not get arrested for treason.

    i just can't believe anyone with even a half functioning brain would seriously entertain these thoughts.

    The grandmother slams are the worst, (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:00:30 AM EST
    in terms of public perception, IMO.
    That was really vile.

    anyone who uses the word "typical" (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:20:20 PM EST
    when applying negative characterizations to  members of a huge and diverse group -- in the context of discussing prejudice no less -- is unlikely to have had much experience dealing with the painful consequences of prejudice and, in fact, is likely to have quite a few unexamined prejudices of his own.

    Obama will likely (none / 0) (#198)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    be on the ticket as the nominee for President or Vice President, and you have just slammed him as "vile."

    That's really helpful.  Obama is up by 10 over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll (which has benn Hillary's best poll), and the ARG poll out today shows Obama tied with Hillary in Penn.   Wright has not hurt him there.

    And Rasmussen shows Obama polling better against McCain than Hillary, and only one point behind.

    Hillary has tried to use Wright against Obama, while Obama has not used Tuzla agaisnt Hillary.....

    It is comments such this, calling Obama vile, that lead to others, including Superdelegates to become very uneasy with a prolonged compaign.


    Well, that;s it, MarkL (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:40:59 PM EST
    You have been officially designated the scapegoat for any future Obama loss. If only you did call his statement "vile", the Unity Pony could have been ours!

     A list will be forwarded to you shortly outlining the approved adjectives you will henceforth be allowed to use to describe any speech or action of Obama. All words that you might be tempted to use but are not on the approved list should be directed at Hillary Clinton.

    After having watched the collection of really VILE comments made by broadcaster against Clinton,I think its the height of absurdity to complain about a poster here who was upset about Obama dissing his grandmother. If Obama can't survive a  negative comment on a small blog(no offense Jeralyn) then he'll never survive the general.

    I really don't think we have to become the Glorious Cultural Revolution here. Personally, I'm not playing that game. I will continue to criticize what I think is worthy of criticism, and will continue t push for what I believe are the important issues. I'm not going to just lay back and enjoy it, thank you very much.


    harley is one of those chatterers (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    Jeralyn was talking about...suffers from over-commentitis...can't make one persuasive argument so instead offers many less than persuasive arguments.

    Both Harley and Deadalus wowed me all day yesterday.  Their condescension towards us dumb non-Obama supporters is obvious and ticks me off.  

    I left dKos because I could cite references, offer links and STILL get shouted down as a Hillary-hack...

    Now they come here, speak parentally with soft platitudes, and expect to be taken seriously when they reference a dKos diary or a Kos quote as proof of their righteousness.  I love when they say, "I'm not going to bother digging up a link..."...er, 'take my word for it'.  

    Well, that is what my problem with Obama and his supporters has always been.  No proof, no facts, no nothing...just a lot of "trust me".

    They all know poll numbers, they all THINK they understand the primary process and the role of the SD's.  Other than that they have little relevant firepower with which to argue.  Thus Kos is groovy, KO is the bomb, and Obama is the light that shines down upon us dim folk and brightens our sad pathetic lives.

    I especially liked MB stopping by to defend his one-sided opinion piece.  More chatter to fill my Low Information mind with the truth according to dKos.

    Memo:  I don't need Obama supporters telling me what to think.  I left Obamaland precisely for the fact that I don't want to be treated with derisive condescension by people I don't agree with and don't respect.  Were I to feel a masochistic need to visit such insufferable misinformation upon myself I would return to dKos and say "may I have another."  Strangely I have no such compunction.

    But if Harley does have hallucinogens...Harley could be a friend...course trippin to Widespread isn't the same as trippin to the Dead...not that I have done that sort of thing.  


    I left DKos for the same reason (none / 0) (#174)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:21:17 PM EST
    it was just too rude and one-sided. I did go back for one day, though, had lost my TU status while away, but I got it back in one day defending Hillary. I thought that was funny.

    Thanks for the Ad Hom! (none / 0) (#15)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:24:09 AM EST
    I look forwared to the deletion of your unsportsmanlike comment.  Heh.

    Look.  I know this is a problem for the Obama campaign.  It was successfully dealt with in March.  I suspect it will be handled with similar success in the fall.

    I'm basing this opinion on available data.  I've pointed out elsewhere how thinly sourced the WSJ article is.  

    I understand you want this to be true.  But wishing doesn't make it so.

    Mushrooms were always my hallucinogen of choice.  Thanks for asking.

    And last, when it comes to 527s, it's basically pick your poison.  I'm sure they have a nice Tuzla video ready to roll.  In other words, the smears are going to come no matter which candidate runs in the general.


    Tuzla (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by magisterludi on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:39:47 AM EST
    I really don't get the brouhaha. I'm sure the GOP would like to make hay, as the Obama crowd does, but it is just small potatoes.

    AFAIC, The fake Kennedy and Selma narrative of BHO amounts to the same thing. Two pols trying to embellish their resumes. I'm shocked, I tell you! Simply shocked!


    Tulza easy to counter (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:32:02 AM EST
    With McCain's little sojourn to a "perfectly safe" market in Baghdad - which was protected by snipers and helicopters while he was there.

    Does McCain have a similar weakness that would counter Wright?  


    Yes and No (none / 0) (#30)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:48:49 AM EST
    The problem is greatest when a scandal seems to confirm already existing negatives.  The Wright scandal was damaging, but it seems a stretch to suggest a significant number of people believe Obama shares his views.  There's no confirmation.  However, fair or unfair, Senator Clinton has a problem with 'truthiness' that goes all the way back to an infamous William Safire op-ed in the NY Times.  I'm not agreeing with it, btw, just pointing out that Tuzla tends to confirm the latter.  That's why it had the impact it did.

    YMMV.  The only question that matters is whether or not the Wright scandal makes Obama a less effective candidate than Senator Clinton in a general election.  I do not believe that it does.


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:34:19 AM EST
    You don't think the idea that Obama is not "patriotic" hasn't been floating around for awhile?  Heck that picture with him not putting his hand over his heart for the national anthem was circulating on the net last august.  And there's Michelle's comments ... pretty sure the Wright stuff just played into an already in place narrative.  Snopes.com has been debunking some of these emails for awhile.  Good for them, but it doesn't mean that people don't believe them or haven't been getting them.  They have.

    I think Michelle's (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    comments are a 527 all on their own. She seems easy to portray as disliking America.  It would be a negative ad to have her statements match up to anything Wright has said.  Still, she's got her own statements out there... finally proud, America is downright mean, American's are cynics, sloths, and complacents, a land of ignorance. I have watched her on C-span, even with the volume off and her body language is negative, she's scowling and pointing her finger.  

    Senior Thesis (none / 0) (#146)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:27:29 AM EST
    And (not that I think it's fair, since she's not running and it was written 20 years ago), but they will use her senior thesis, which concluded that attending Princeton as an undergraduate decreased the extent to which black alumni identified with the black community as a whole. She wrote in the introduction:

    "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before," she wrote in her introduction. "I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong."

    Watch the R 527's use this, plus her "proud" statements, as well as her comment that black voters would come home to Barack.


    That's An Assumption Based On...? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:52:32 AM EST
    Again, I've yet to see any polling data that supports this.  Doesn't mean the Wright Issue isn't something that will have to be dealt with.  The email stuff is no more dispositive than the old crap about Clinton being a drug dealer in Arkansas.  It's wildly beside the point, and appeals to a self-selected audience who won't be voting for Obama (or Clinton) anyway.

    Based on what you wrote (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:19:20 AM EST
    Here is what you wrote:

    The problem is greatest when a scandal seems to confirm already existing negatives.  

    I would argue that's exactly what the Wright scandal does.  The fact that polling hasn't confirmed this means little at this point.  Soon enough (after his is the official nom) the GOP will build a narrative through ads and columns and whispers.  The Wright stuff would be an outlier if it wasn't for those other things I mentioned - the seeds of which have been around for months.  

    Remember, it wasn't that Al Gore "invented the internet" (which he never said, but whatever) that caused problems; it was that you put that together with other bogus lies and suddenly you have a character issue.

    Now, the problem for Obama is that the Wright stuff is real.  He really did sit there, Wright really was a mentor, etc.  Then you put that with bogus flag pin stuff, bogus national anthem stuff, etc, what do you have?  A confirmation of already existing negatives.  

    and keep in mind, too, that most Americans had never heard of Obama until last year.  Their views of him are soft and still subject to change with new info....  The "old crap" about Clinton is exactly that - old.  She's been accused of everything up to and including murder over the last 16 years.  Yet she still has tremendous support.  Obama was "subjected" to glowing press and he's basically tied with her.  What do you think will happen  when he's contrasted against St. McCain?


    Have there been any polls asking about... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM EST
    ...Obama's patriotism because I suspect that many white people will feel more comfortable rating him negatively on that than on a civil rights speech. Apart from the granny comment, what was there to not like about that speech? I don't think you'll get a poll that looks at this too honestly IMHO. But what you should be looking at is how Obama runs against McCain. That's where you will see if the patriotism stuff is having an effect or not.

    The Speech (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:38:41 AM EST
    All the speech do is bring the faithful back in.  Others who do not buy the Obama shtick were not convinced.   I would like to see people answer the following question:  One memorable idea from the speech.  Uhh, everyone is a pissed off racist.  Wow, that is uplifting.  

    do=did...huh (none / 0) (#124)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:39:08 AM EST
    The narrative is there already (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by wasabi on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:26:45 AM EST
    I learned that when I was phone banking for Clinton in the Tx primary.  I was talking to Democrats only.

    Sorry, Forgot the Obvious (2.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:53:53 AM EST
    Bear in mind, this whole controversy is about something someone else said.  If Obama had given that sermon?  Game over.  But he didn't, and that's a significant factor in this.

    Well, no, it's about what OBAMA said (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:05:27 AM EST
    and did. He stayed in this man's church and listened to that hate speech for 20 years, and now he says he had no idea... BS!

    He doesn't say he had no idea (2.00 / 1) (#105)
    by independent voter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:13:09 AM EST
    He says he did not hear the specific sound bites that run over and over again on cable news.
    This should be the GOP attempt at an argument, not yours.

    So you are comfortable with Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:23:48 AM EST
    excruciating parsing???

    The convoluted logic (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:32:44 AM EST
    The blogs and other Obama supporters went to great lengths to tell us about how Wright represents Black Liberation Theology and that is why what he says  is not hateful and or out of the norm.  How we were supposed to understand the context of what he said.  

    So, if the bits and pieces we saw are part of a theology or ideology that Obama signed up for when he joined the church, how does Obama get to pick the bits he does not like, since it's all part of a theology/philosophy.  If the ideology and theology is built upon such pieces, how can you trust it?  That will be and is the question.

    My issue with Obama is that he used the church to get elected in Chicago and get a legitimate footing in the Black community.  Now they are proving to be not very convenient.  Apparently, Obama according to the new playbook was a clean slate that the RNC could not attach the old stories, guess, what the slate not so clean and a bit more tarnished.  

    The RNC tactic against Obama will not only be he is un-patriotic, but un-American.  


    Clearly we disagree on so many (none / 0) (#153)
    by independent voter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:40:51 AM EST
    things. I do not see this as Obama picking the bits he doesn't like. I commend him for refusing to throw his pastor and his church under the bus in the name of politics. (I am quite sure you will not agree)

    I also believe that many people use their church connections to get things they want in the community, business, etc. Some of them probably do not realize they are doing this, and would not admit it if pointed out to them. After years spent listening to hypocricy from clergy and parishoners, that part doesn't bother me at all.


    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:21:00 PM EST
    I think he did throw them under the bus.  I believe he used the church.  But now they are not convenient.  When he diminishes him as a relic of the old fights, that is throwing him under the bus.  He bascially said: the preacher is irrelevant.  But, pray tell, if he was irrelevant, why did you go to the church and donate to the preacher other than for political purposes?  

    I did not take that speech as a defense, I took it as pandering to the white side.  


    To what logical extreme will you take... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    ...Obama defending his pastor and his church? What would his pastor and church have to do for Obama to simply go to another church? If its not enough that his church gave a lifetime achievement award and continue to promote a man that runs an organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League define as a "hate group" what else can they do?

    How can we take this seriously? (none / 0) (#179)
    by indy33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:29:11 PM EST
    When you said that Obamas surge in Pennsylvania is due to the 40th anniversary of MLKs assassination. Are you going to say that on April 14th McCains going to get a huge bumb from the 143rd anniversary of Lincolns assassination. These kind of statements are meant to marginalize Obama as simply an African-American phenomenon that shouldnt be taken seriously. Ferraros comments are of the same ilk. Constantly bringing up Farrakhan after Obama has done everything he can to distance himself from him is the same. You say nice things about Clinton alot but I dont hold that against her. Its not her fault!

    Positive Obama Media Coverage = (none / 0) (#188)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    slight surge in polls. It is a fact that he got a tremendous amount of positive press coverage around the anniversary of MLK, that is the point. Which, as you know, was part of a larger point that Obama and Clinton have lingered in the mid 40s for the last couple of months and traded places do to whomever got the best coverage in a three day period.

    To you larger point that I am somehow a racist for pointing out that are subsets of voters that are voting based on race and identity politics, is absurd.

    And to your other point that he has done everything he can possibly do distance himself from Farrakhan is absurd and simply not true. If Clinton's church gave David Duke a lifetime achievement award and said he "epitomized greatness," continued to collaborate and promote Duke, and Clinton continued to be a member of that church, it would be destroy her campaign. Yet, Obama has a similar association with Farrakhan and bringing that up is somehow racist.

    I think it is your patronizing view of Farrakhan that is, in fact, racist.


    Hypotheticals are not arguments (none / 0) (#200)
    by indy33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:16:51 PM EST
    You are now comparing David Duke to a christian, African-American pastor who gave up his college deferment to serve in Vietnam. I dont agree with lots of what Rev. Wright said but to compare him to a former KKK member whose group has lynched and promoted segregation is a joke. I dont have a patronizing view of Farrakhan. He is wrong on most if not everything he does exp. his anti-semitism. But to blame Obama because Farrakhan said some kind words about an African-American is absurd. He has not sought out his endorsement and has spoke out against his views several times. Farrakhan has done some positive things and Wrights church acknowledged that. They have never said they support anti-semitism at all. I am not calling you a racist at all but by dismissing the fact that in every state Obama has campaigned in he has cut into Clintons considerable lead to start out and saying its only because of MLK is marginalizing his work and his supporters.

    reading comprehension problem (none / 0) (#203)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    The comparison was of Farrakhan and David Duke. Wright's church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan.

    Guilt by association still (none / 0) (#209)
    by indy33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:40:35 PM EST
    The point of the post was to compare Rev. Wright and Farrakhan to David Duke period. What happens in these situations is if you want to defend Obama then you somehow have to defend Farrakhan which is one of the oldest Republican tricks in the book. Im not in the business of defending hate speech from anyone and all those that do it, including Duke, Wright, and Farrakhan should be admonished and refuted. When Barack Obama says anything like these guys then I will not support him and will quickly refute him but he has not and will not because HE DOESNT BELIEVE IN THAT. My guess is that he went to church to hear about Christ, not politics. Sometimes you get both in church and that is not right at all but this is hardly exclusive to the black church or Rev. Wright  

    There are only two offensive (none / 0) (#202)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:19:53 PM EST
    sermons:  the G-D American and AIDS sermon, and the "chickens coming home to roost" sermon.

    Two sermons in twenty years.....

    As to the Black Liberation Theology, so what?  African Americans had few churches that would allow them to attend and few ways of expressing social self-defense against a racist society. Even Huckabee gets that....


    Have you attended all the sermons (none / 0) (#205)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    there for 20 years? How do you know how many offensive sermons there were? Obama himself has said that he was in attendance when Wright said other "controversial" things. He just denies hearing the ones played on TV.

    There are only two (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    that have generated the outrage in FOX circles....

    If there were more, I would expect they would have surfaced by now....FOX is so desperate that they are now talking about one line in a book written by someone else that Wright has referred to.  So Wright didn't write it, but this is to reflect badly on Wright and then by extension on Obama?

    To assume there is more than two is wrong.... There are only two so far...

    Dems need to stand up to smears not fan the flames....

    Obama will be on the ticket either as President or VP....Hillary and her supporters need to recognize that.


    Standing in line in the supermarket (none / 0) (#127)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:43:48 AM EST
    has been an eye-opener. Obama featured on the covers with stories of "religion, infidelity, etc."  People actually buy and read that stuff.

    William Safire? (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by magisterludi on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:41:07 AM EST

    No one is denying HRC's negs, but Obama's are on an upward trajectory, too. I'm not going to take up space trying to point out some political realities to you because it would fall on deaf ears, I'm afraid. But it has to do with being an outspoken figure on the national scene for a number of years and the unscrupulous tactics of the GOP smear-machine, if you are curious.

    And I disagree with you vehemently on the diminution of the Wright issue. It well may not affect the dem nom, but in the GE it will be front and center. The GOP is salivating already.


    527 as definers (5.00 / 6) (#139)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:12:51 AM EST

    I agree that saying so doesn't make it so. But just as with Sen. Obama's "handling" of his issues with Rev. Wright, just because you say he handled it brilliantly doesn't make it so.

    And just because the chattering class says so doesn't make it so. We won't know the effect until the day after the general election.

    I say this because I think Rev. Wright's sermons are going to be the heart of the Republican 527 attack against Sen. Obama should he be the nominee.

    (Before anyone jumps up to say Sen. Clinton has some crappy preachers in her camp as does Sen. McCain, neither of them have claimed a deep and abiding spiritual mentorship with them. Me? That Sen. Obama is so Jesus-y scares me more than Rev. Wright, though I hate the AIDS was invented to kill people of color crap and reject it as ignorant and irrational.)

    Because Sen. Obama still remains largely unknown to many regular folks, the 527 attacks will define him---easily---as unpatriotic, a flip-flopper, a coward, an effete, corrupt, a commie/pinko, sheesh there's a lot of big lies that can be created just from the stuff I can remember without having all my coffee yet.

    And then there all the things coming we don't know yet. Should he be the nominee, this guy is going to be eviscerated.

    I don't think he can withstand it. If you believe, as I do, that the primary process is about selecting (not electing) a nominee who can win, then Sen. Obama is not the guy.

    Sen. Clinton has a different set of problems with 527s. I agree---there's probably a Tuzla video already cut and ready. I thought I saw a mash on YouTube a while back that was, unfortunately, made by an Obama supporter. (I also saw a sample 527 using footage from the WTC on 9/11 and Rev. Wright's sermons that will be devastating to Democrats should Sen. Obama be the nominee. That mash was created by a Clinton supporter.)

    The 527 efforts against Sen. Clinton will be more difficult because what can they say to define her that we don't already know? Yawn.

    Her campaign sucked donkey ducks. But the last few weeks of her fighting has caused some to re-think what they thought they knew.She has already redefined herself. No, it's not immunization from 527 attacks, but it's a pretty good shield.

    I would also suggest, contrary to CW, that Sen. Obama's campaign has also sucked the aforementioned ducks. Alienating a core pillar of the electorate you need to win the White House by smearing them as racist and stupid is not a winning strategy.

    It is a strategy to beat somebody.

    You may believe that Sen. Obama's campaign did not set out to alienate voters from his opponent using the charge of racism. But I believe BTD posted and commented on Matt Yglesias's commentary stating the exact opposite: anti-Clinton Democrats used race and charges of racism to peel away the base of support Sen. Clinton had among African-American voters. It was intentional.

    It's a good strategy if your goal is to defeat Sen. Clinton. It is a bad strategy to win the White House.

    Then again, maybe the point isn't the White House, but to get larger majorities in the House and Senate. Locking in those majorities means some favored policies can be enacted, while giving political cover ("The White House fought us, boo hoo hoo!") to failed or nonexistent efforts.

    Just my opinion, of course.


    historic to you (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:13:12 AM EST
    and other Obama supporters...to me it was a laughably obvious speech of misdirection.  

    MLK spoke with fire and conviction about the problems facing America and DEMANDED solutions.  Obama outlined what we already know while offering no plan (which a Presidential hopeful might want to do...to show he is "on the case".) and demanding no solutions from a Congress to which he belongs nor an office to which he aspires.

    Maybe the race part of the speech isn't what you found historic.  Maybe it was the jabs at Ferraro and Clinton?  Or maybe it was his high-minded outing of his grandmother as being somewhat bigoted?  Maybe it was when he condemned the words of his preacher but not the man himself.  Maybe it was when he lumped blacks of Wright's generation as harboring a feeling that racism was endemic to whites?  Maybe it was when he threw Islam under the bus (like Bush lumping any Muslim who disagrees with US foreign policy as a radical) and gave carte blanche approval to Israel solely because they are a "reliable" ally?

    For me none of that is historic.  None of that is meaningful.  To me that whole speech was a self-serving deflection of responsibility made by an artist trying to pull off the ultimate con:  an ineffectual IL legislator to WH in four years.


    Hard to deal with something when there (none / 0) (#182)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    are ads featuring Wright's worst spews running 24/7. And there will be. And don't forget the Rezko problem. How is he going to make that go away? All the GOP has to do is run ads showing the delapidated, boarded-up, heatless low income housing Rezko put up and say that this is what Obama thinks public housing should look like. Or ad after ad pointing out that the 27 bills in Ill. are a phony claim, and why. Then there is his wife and her "proud of my country for the first time" gaffe. Add that in to all the other crap that is available for throwing and he is a goner in the GE.

    Remember, this is the same machine, GOP, that had no problem smearing McCain when he was running in their primary. Imagine what they can do with Obama and all his short-comings. If you think he can "deal with it" by making a couple of pretty speeches, you are dreaming. By then, people will be parsing his speeches like they did Reagan's, and finding out that it is all fluff and filler. Not much meat. Except what the GOP smear machine finds on Obama, then it will be feast time, and not in a good way for us.

    But go ahead, dream on. That seems to be what Obama supporters are best at.


    "Coup" is nice (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:16:19 AM EST
    I like coup.

    As if disenfranchising MI and FL weren't a coup.

    Even if that is true (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:35:57 AM EST
    the VOTERS didn't do that.  And that's who we'll lose in November, not the Florida Democratic party "leaders", but the pesky VOTERS

    'unsanctioned...' (none / 0) (#149)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:33:14 AM EST
    These primaries were saanctioned by the elected legislatures of Florida and Michigan.

    Two thirs of Florida's legislature and its governor are Republican.

    didn't a few other states, such as south Carolina, move up their primaries without consulting the DNC and get no penalties? I might be misremembering this...


    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:33:57 PM EST
    Why would they do the Dems a favor by putting the date where the votes would count?? Oh, they wouldn't and they didn't. Big surprise.

    I am constatnly amazed (5.00 / 15) (#13)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:21:37 AM EST
    at how easily the Obama supporters are convinced that the Wright troubles are hehind them.  It's the "one speech" thing all over again - in 2002 it was a speech on Iraq that Obama believes gives him the indelible stamp of good judgment, notwithstanding the actions or failures to act that followed, and now, it is one speech in Philadelphia which he - and supporters like Markos - believes has provided unparalleled leadership on matters of race.

    One speech.  I'm sorry, but I have read it and re-read it, and listened to it - and I don't think he really answered anything, don't think he provided leadership on the issue, and find it insulting and disingenuous that his approach in the days since has been one of having put a check mark next to "race speech" and now just wants to move on.

    Obama is still gearing his strategy toward just winning the nomination, and has failed, in my opinion, to look at what lies ahead in November.  Yes, I know he cannot get to the general unless he wins the nomination, but he's treating the nomination as the end of the race instead of the beginning of the hardest part of it.  Conquering Hillary will seem like getting over a speed bump only to be faced with a mountain - and if he thinks McCain is going to be easy to beat, he hasn't been paying attention to the way Republicans conduct campaigns.

    Most of the electoral map projections that I have seen do not have Obama winning, regardless of what daily national tracking polls are showing.  And given that we have been seeing in recent days some oversampling in some of these polls, I do not regard them as truly representative of the picture.

    and please lets not forget (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by angie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:12:24 AM EST
    that the Republicans don't care if Olbermann calls them "racist" when they start bringing up Wright every 5 seconds.  Because one of the main reasons that the Wright issue is on idle right now (and that is all it is, not put to bed as others here have said) is because Hillary has refused to engage it. Yes, that is right, Hillary has taken the high road on it (despite the Obama camp's view to the contrary). The Republicans will not do the same because they don't care about getting the AA vote -- they proved that when they didn't show up for the BET sponsored debate.  

    That is so true (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:44:33 AM EST
    and does not get said enough.  It was easy to intimidate the Clintons by smearing them as racists because they care about being called racist.  The Republicans could not care less. We have all known for years that Republicans have been winning elections exactly by playing on racial divisions.  Now Dems want to pretend that is not true, or that they can overcome it by calling them out on it. They'll just laugh.

    Oh, he still has (none / 0) (#25)
    by marcellus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:42:08 AM EST
    a few more tricks up his sleeve.  He didn't even come close to pulling out all the stops on the Wright issue...as you point out, it was only one speech.

    Here's another perspective (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:34:20 AM EST
    According to William Kristol (no, I'm not a fan, but he has his pulse on the R's), here's what he has to say today about it in the NY Times.

    "More fundamental will be the question of the discrepancy between the image of Obama the uniter and the reality of Obama the liberal. That hasn't been much of a problem for Obama in the Democratic contest, since Clinton hasn't attacked from the right or even the center.

    But Republicans will. Last week, over drinks, one Republican strategist not affiliated with the McCain campaign mused about how an independent advertising effort against Obama might work. "Barack Obama: He's not who you think he is" would be the theme. The supporting evidence would come from his left-wing voting record in Illinois and Washington, spiced up with fun video clips of Reverend Wright."

    i noted here the other day (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by magisterludi on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:47:46 AM EST
    Vin Weber was on MSNBC saying the GOP already had a loop of "The Best of Wright" ready to go if BHO is the candidate. He was downright gleeful. Wright is not over by a long shot.

    That's a More Reasonable View (none / 0) (#24)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:41:40 AM EST
    But it's worth noting that no matter who runs, the GOP will attack them as being too liberal.  That's SOP in every election.  So it comes as something less than a revelation.

    But (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:46:36 AM EST
    I think what struck me was that a Republican strategist is laying out the Wright thing specifically.

    Kristol also said this:

    "As a Congressional staffer put it, "Here's something to consider: Although Hillary will be out in May, she may determine the outcome in November. McCain's secret weapon -- among Clinton supporters -- may be Hillary's 3 a.m. national security ad."

    And an experienced Democratic operative e-mailed: "Finally, I think [McCain's] going to win. Obama isn't growing in stature. Once I thought he could be Jimmy Carter, but now he reminds me more of Michael Dukakis with the flag lapel thing and defending Wright. Plus he doesn't have a clue how to talk to the middle class. He's in the Stevenson reform mold out of Illinois, with a dash of Harvard disease thrown in."


    Obama's no Stevenson (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by reality based on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:08:05 AM EST
    What an insult to Adlai Stevenson!  With Rezco, Allison Davis and the rest of the Chicago machine connections, I don't think Obama qualifies as a "reform" candidate.  I really don't think the Republicans will have to dirty themselves much with their attacks.  Obama's weaknesses are just out in the open for everyone to see.  If the Republicans are smart they won't go overboard and drive the disaffected Democrats back into the fold.

    Of course they will (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:51:03 AM EST
    But Obama's problem is that he doesn't have much resume or track record to counter whatever the GOP does to define him. In terms of the public's perception of him, he is a blank slate with no known and trusted history.

    But - that would bring the D Base back !!!! (none / 0) (#92)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:46:10 AM EST
     "Barack Obama: He's not who you think he is" would be the theme. The supporting evidence would come from his left-wing voting record in Illinois and Washington

    If the RNC wants to run that, let them pay to bring us back together!


    by the time the republican (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by sancho on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:47:54 AM EST
    attack machine is through with obama, many american voters won't know the difference between obama and horton. a republican friend of mine mordantly jokes that horton might be a better candidate than obama b/c at least wright is presumably not his minister. with kerry and dukakis the republicans had to make stuff up. wright actually belongs to obama.

    By the time the republican.... (none / 0) (#213)
    by workingclass artist on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:38:27 PM EST
    I agree but then I'm over the age of 20 and have a clear memory of how much has changed with respect to the relationship of media coverage and politics. Since the MSM is mostly owned by large Corps. monopolies and op/ed pundits pass for objective journalists, What else can be expected. The GOP wants Obamessiah and he will lose. Sorry... See above formula.

    The Wright problem (5.00 / 10) (#42)
    by glennmcgahee on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:18:45 AM EST
    is just one of many. Clinton is a good democrat or she would too be using the negatives about Obama that are clearly available to her. But she doesn't. She knows that the issues are what we really care about. It doesn't matter to Obama's supporters that she hasn't gone nearly as far as we can expect from the right wing if Obama is the candidate. There's so much available, yet she doesn't use it and still gets pummeled by Obama supporters. Who is the true democrat? Who is putting the party first? Who is promoting the Democrat for a day theme? She's not getting the respect she deserves for holding back the negatives that could be used if she was truly the "monster" that they describe.

    One talking head (none / 0) (#145)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:26:33 AM EST
    was blaming Clinton (CNN) about a week ago.  Saying she needed to take him out because of this stuff or it will be her fault when he loses in the GE.  Obama supporters say she's gone to far while some democratic strategists blame her for not going for enough.  So she gets hit by both sides, if she really cared about the party, she would drop out.  If she really cared about the party and the Dems winning in November, she would take him out.  It really is CDS.

    So, I'm required to address every single (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:04:08 AM EST
    item that a commenter posts?  I must have missed that requirement.

    However, addressing your point about Carter, I would suggest you go back and read what I wrote, which in no way made an assumption that Carter would not endorse Obama - just the opposite, in fact.  I clearly stated that Carter mentioned that his entire family is supporting him, and that while Carter made no official endorsement, he invited the media to guess who he would be endorsing.

    My objection was to Harley throwing in Carter's name as having endorsed Obama when, as far as I know, Carter has not made that official.

    Reading comprehension is a lost skill, apparently.

    Objection noted (none / 0) (#64)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:09:36 AM EST
    My point is that Carter is supporting Obama.  This is part of the larger picture regarding momentum, etc.  As is the excerpt I posted about the latest Super D he picked up.  

    How is Carter doing so? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:21:58 AM EST
    I don't see it, not from his comment -- I see, actually, reluctance to say he supports Obama.  I think that is because he is being the wise party elder, like Gore, but I wouldn't bet that's how the reluctance to endorse is read by others.

    This talk reminds me of the recent claims that Feingold endorsed Obama -- those only rebounded badly on Obama, because Feingold explicitly said he would not endorse.


    We can say it's this issue or ... (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:09:08 AM EST
    that or this negative or the other.

    But I think it's very clear that if Obama gets the nomination, he will lose the general.

    Media darling or not, his support is soft.  And he can't win where he needs to.

    And even clearer is the proggy blogosphere will blame his loss on Clinton, and be even more violently opposed to her if she runs again in 2012.

    The only good that can possibly come out of this scenario is sensible Dems will abandon the proggy blogs, and the bizarre wing of the party they represent.

    But that will be small comfort as we suffer through President McCain.

    You lost me with the first line (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:22:47 AM EST
    I would believe that Obama does this:

    It's past time Democrats started standing up to the right and meeting them on our own terms.

    If I hadn't seen him do the opposite on health care, gay rights, social security - and let's not forget the ever popular "both sides are bad" and "Washington is broken".  

    uh-huh (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    He "harry and louised" universal health care.  He "mcclurkined" gay rights.  He "crisised" social security.  And, I for one, do not believe there is a "pox on both our houses" - i believe there are many pox on the republican house and maybe one pox on the dem house.  To lump us in with them hurts the brand and lets people write off our entire party as a bunch of crooks.  Thanks but no thanks.  Broderism does nothing for me.

    (and I have no idea what the "corrosive effects of money" have do with my post.)


    There is more to being President than (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:24:07 AM EST
    dealing with things through speeches or shifting the debate.  Being President is a real job, with work and schedules and everything. And it's a full time job. Not four months out of the year like the Ill. legislature, not something you do between campaign stops like Obama's Senate seat seems to be, and not a job you can get without the real credentials that Obama doesn't have.

    Without even taking Wright into the equation, Obama is still toast. Wait until the GOP starts in on the "27 bills in Illinois" that Obama claims to have gotten through almost on his own. Wait until the country as a whole hears, over and over again, how his mentor stuck his name on them and he didn't do any of the work. Yes, Obama says, over and over, that they couldn't have been passed without him, but those are just words, not proof. His former colleagues can simply point out that the Dems have a majority and the bills would have passed without Obama.

    His former constituents in low income housing will be front and center, along with Tony Rezko and his shoddy housing projects that deprived Obama's constituents of a decent place to live. And the fact that the housing, and the constituents, were a mile from Obama's home and he never bothered to walk or drive down to see if his good buddy had provided decent housing, will also be front and center. And Obama's protestations that he "didn't know" about Rezko or the housing will be met by "Why didn't he know?? IT WAS HIS JOB TO KNOW!!" Obama's hyper-inflated record is what is going to bring him down, even if no one ever mentions Wright again.

    And as a final nail in the coffin, you can be sure that the GOP will also be quoting the letter that his Kenyan grandfather sent his white grandparents before his mother married his father. You remember hearing about that letter, right? The one where his Kenyan grandfather says he doesn't want the Obama blood "sullied by a white woman". That may be forgiven in Chicago, but not in the rest of the country. Obama may not agree with that statement, but he will have to defend it or explain it. That will be a speech to watch..LOL

    No, Obama cannot win the GE. He simply doesn't have the resume, and by the time the GOP smear machine gets finished with him he will be whimpering in a corner wondering if he still has a political career. And the answer to his question in that case would be NO.

    ok, sorry, it took me a while to (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:45:31 AM EST
    stop laughing long enough to post this.

    so, the "considered, thoughtful opinion" is that sen. obama, having virtually no resume', and no history of fending off the republican/right-wingnut smear machine, is now perfectly positioned to do so in nov?

    on the other hand, sen. clinton, having dealt successfully with this same republican/right-wingnut smear machine for 16 years, with a good 30-35 years experience under her belt in both public & private sectors, is deemed less able to fend off the repubs in the fall?

    the arrogance is................breathtaking in its magnitude. i sit in awe.

    as far as recent polls are concerned, i believe jeralyn posted one the other day, showing obama on a downward slide, vis a vis clinton & mccain. you might have to go back a few threads to find it.

    if sen. obama is the dem. nominee, his campaign shouldn't be too quick to book that ballroom for the "victory" party.

    The behavior you're speaking of (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:52:52 AM EST
    is what living in a vacuum does to a person.

    If  you don't get out and see what other folks see, you really do believe that Clinton supporters (~50% of primary voters) are screaching harpy holdouts, you think that what has been sent Obama's way is the worst he'll ever see, etc. etc.

    It's like the Iraqi Information Minister all over again, but it's happening on progressive blogs.


    Are you sure you weren't crying? (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:30:44 AM EST
    Because sometimes I think I am laughing about all of these assumptions people make and the convoluted logic they take to get there, but then the enormity of realizing that the media is  totally on board with it, along with people I would have sworn were pretty intelligent, too, hits me, and that's when I think my laughter morphs into crying.

    I listened to Bob Casey on MTP yesterday, and he was spouting all the Obama talking points about change and unity, and pretty much nothing else, and I felt like I was watching an episode of The Twilight Zone, where the pod people have successfully infiltrated the highest levels of society and government; I felt a little sick, actually.

    It's really not funny at all, but sometimes the laughing keeps me from losing it completely.


    This is so absurd a criticism (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by frankly0 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:56:10 AM EST
    The reason we keep loosing is because we refuse to stand on our principles. Because we'll jetison a friend at the first sign of controversy.

    You mean a "friend" who calls out "God Damn America", and from the pulpit, no less? A "friend" who takes satisfaction in the events of 9/11 only days after it takes place, mocking it as "chickens coming home to roost", replete with amusing hand gestures? A "friend" who claims that our "white government" has invented AIDS to infect the black population?

    By all means, let's not throw that wonderful friend under any bus, because, God knows, there's nothing in those beliefs that should offend us, or offend anyone -- by all means, let's have our own credibility and reputation depend on being our going to the barricades to defend such a "friend".

    You know, I keep observing that there was a time, not so many months ago, when liberals were deeply offended that anyone might think that there's anything about our cause that might suggest we love our country any less than anyone else, and that the notion that we in any way "hated America" was ridiculous and disgusting. Indeed I remember when it was a joke we told among ourselves about how "__ hates America" -- as in "the military hates America". How often have we heard that joke of late? Isn't it rather telling that we haven't? No -- instead we are defending people who pretty obviously detest America, if their own words are to be taken seriously.

    And now, if we don't come to the defense of a candidate with this nasty baggage, there's something wrong with us?

    You and other Obama supporters who defend Wright are the absolutely worst thing that has happened to the Democratic brand in decades. All the work that Democrats have done to try to undo the negative public perception of our party will be thrown down the garbage chute just to defend the indefensible because your candidate happens to have exposure on those issues.

    This is really what bothers me most about the Obama campaign -- not so much the damage he's going to do to our prospects to achieve the Presidency in 2008, but the nearly irreparable harm he and his followers will inflict on the Democratic brand in the process.

    A problem: this is also in part reality. (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Pacific John on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    Here's what happened at a heavily pro-Obama convention in Seattle Saturday.

    "There was some time to kill as multiple tallies of the delegates and alternates were done, and when the time-killer of taking audience questions had run its course and the idea of teling jokes had been nixed, someone suggested doing the Pledge of Allegiance to pass the time. (Are you listening, right-wing bloggers? This is going to get good.)

    At the mere mention of doing the pledge there were groans and boos. Then, when the district chair put the idea of doing the Pledge of Allegiance up to a vote, it was overwhelmingly voted down. One might more accurately say the idea of pledging allegiance to the flag (of which there was only one in the room, by the way, on some delegate's hat) was shouted down."

    The dirty little secret in this campaign is that Obama's allies and supporters are doing things that are not acceptable on any Dem campaign, and they are never reeled in or dealt with until it is too late.


    If it wasn't on tape (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    it won't be relevant.  Now, I have to ask... was it on tape?

    Do you think most Americans (none / 0) (#141)
    by Pacific John on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:15:08 AM EST
    agree with you?

    Do you think this makes Obama electable?


    What a waste of time (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:42:05 AM EST
    I agree that we need to change the conversation, but I'd rather start with issues that actually matter to people.  Like health care.  Or clean energy.  Or gay rights.  Rather than pick a fight over something purely symbolic and emotional that even if we win ... so what?

    SCHIP.  now there's a debate we were winning because people support health care for children.  Unfortunately, the Republican wingers blocked it and the Democrats stopped fighting.  I wonder how Obama will fight for this program?  Try to convince those die hard righties that they really, in their hearts, support socialized medicine?  Too bad he's already undermined that with Harry and Louise.


    I don't disagree with anything you say (none / 0) (#178)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:26:57 PM EST
    But I have two questions.

    Would you like to run for president on that platform?

    And two, you honestly think Obama's going to defend our point of view on the pledge, the flag, and all the other phony patriotism crap?


    Harley, that's just crap... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:41:58 AM EST
    ...Such as AIDS being created by the government. Even assuming it wasn't it would be hard to deny that the government particularly under Reagan effectively ignored the problem and let it become an epidemic mostly do to the fact that the innitial victims were people who they considered expendable or in some way undesirable (Gay's, minorities, drug users and the sexually promisculous)so even if they didn't develop it as a biological weapon they were most certianly willing to use it as one.
    (my emphasis)

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Where is your evidence that the U.S. government set out to develop and deploy AIDS to destroy people of color?

    Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Just because you assume so doesn't make it so.

    Equating the development and deployment of AIDS to kill people of color with the shameful lack of response to a public health hazard by the U.S. government is both wrong and irrational.

    To claim that AIDS was then used as a biological weapon is also false, and denies something much more evil: neglect. A rancid, cynical neglect. A weapon can kill some. Neglect can kill all.


    I may not be old enough and I could be wrong (none / 0) (#162)
    by MMW on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:01:53 PM EST
    But wasn't AIDs thoughts of as a homosexual disease when it first became mainstream? You know Rock Hudson, Liberace (?). And hasn't it only been in more recent years (decades) become very widespread within the black community?

    You are correct (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    And, in fact, I believe there is more of a stigma in the AA community about AIDS and AIDS testing because of its association with homosexuals.

    It was originaly called GRID, (none / 0) (#169)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    at least in the press,for gay related immune deficiency. This was 1980-1981, I believe. there was even thought it was some sort of 'toxic shock syndrome' from latex condoms early in its spread.

    Sorry Harley, it was a Skex quote (none / 0) (#177)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    Obama insists that Dems hitch their horses (none / 0) (#164)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM EST
    to Wright, just as you are doing.
    I think winning the White House is probably out of reach now, but I'd rather not see the Dems lose Congress too.

    It took me a couple weeks to realize (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:14:42 AM EST
    My reaction to Wright's sermons isn't patriotism/unpatriotism.  

    It's the same reaction I had watching the megachurch scenes in the Borat movie.

    Obama will get hit hard on Wright. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by lyzurgyk on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:30:17 AM EST

    Even if McCain doesn't do it, his surrogates and allies will.   And it won't be possible to brow-beat them into "playing fair" the way Hillary has been brow-beaten.   Also unlikely the MSM will portray McCain as playing the race card as they have done with Hillary.   He'll keep his hands clean.

    The Wright issue will be much more powerful and dangerous in the general election than in the Democratic primaries.  

    Just more anti Obama voters in the mix, (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Salt on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:54:09 AM EST
    its not over and the next set of primaries will show that, Obama, in my view, can't win with the Rezko, Wright, Jones, and Mrs Obama associations his closest inner circle, it provides an unflattering view of a supposed honorable candidate whose actual history dose not represent the his own manufactured persona even if their was not video or photos which there are a plenty.  I recall a photo on the front page here during the run up to the primary of Mrs Obama speaking with raised arm and out facing fist while lecturing, now lets all just guess why a Repug paper would frame that on the front page and that was before the outing of Wright.  Big problem is Obama has no fall back no record no history of accomplishment his team will try what they have done in the past and just slime others with grievances during the GE but the results will be different like the Geraldine Ferroro showed us go to the same well too many times no affect and the media will become board with their guy, KO already looks like a simpleton and the Dem Base that will break if Clinton is cheated will not rally.

    And please understand that when Dems continue quoting the KOS and Rhodes of the Progressive sect of the Dem Party they appear no different than the Rush or Coulter's extremist and as unworthy of thought.

    Spineless Dems (5.00 / 10) (#150)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:35:34 AM EST
    1.  Do not go to Memphis on the 40th anniversary of MLK assassination.
    2.  Do not go to New Orleans for the Black State of the Union.
    3.  Do not give interviews to gay papers or take pics with SF mayor.
    4.  Give speeches but when they go to Senate, do nothing.
    5.  Answer 8 questions and whine.
    6.  Are afraid of being compared to Jessie Jackson.
    7.  Praise Reagan and show disdain for the Dem Values.
    8.  Come out with a weak healthcare agenda.  
    9.  Characterize the struggles of the 60'and 70's as excesses.
    10.  Do not stand up for the community they represent when a slumlord who gives them money rips the community off.
    11.  Finally, spineless dems keep asking their opponent to drop out cause they are tired of a hard job.  

    Heh, if we were so spineless . . . . (none / 0) (#160)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:56:08 AM EST
    we would have given up on Hillary after Iowa  ;)

    Phony as in his resume (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:36:26 AM EST
    is padded beyond belief, phony as in saying he deplores his supporters nasty attacks on Sen. Clinton but doing NOTHING to stop them. Phony as in claiming to be against the war and still voting to fund it. Phony as in explaining his "present" votes as actual votes. Obama is a phony Democrat, he has used the Democratic party to advance himself without supporting any of their main agendas. Obama is a phony because he calls himself a Democrat and votes like a Republican. And he is way too ready to embrace Republican talking points in his campaign. And as for his supporters, well.. my sister supports him, why is a mystery to me, and she told me that if I couldn't see the TRUTH, her caps not mine, that I shouldn't vote at all. I have yet to hear any Clinton supporter tell someone not to vote. Obama is all about Obama, not about the needs of the American people.

    Hang on a sec... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM EST

    You decry a lack of guts among Democrats, but expect to browbeat us into supporting your candidate by calling us gutless?

    I'm sure you see the paradox there.

    Yes, I want a fighter and I found one in Sen. Clinton. Taking my cue from her, I will continue to fight on behalf of her candidacy regardles of the namecalling and attempts to smear my character.

    And BTW, I did stick up for Sen. Obama's support of Rev. Wright. I've also defended Rev. Wright where I thought he was being unfairly attacked.

    I do, however, deplore how quickly Sen. Obama abandoned his grandmother. I see you don't mention that.

    Dems don't use RNC talking points (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:14:03 PM EST

    Murdochs daughter doing fundraiser for Obama.

    Say one thing to the public then have their officials creating an alternate plan.  

    Axelrod?  Mr. Astro Turf, false grass roots campaign king.  

    Oh, yes, the real dem gave a speech but did not lead an anti war movement, but then took the speech down.  

    To feel good:  watch this video

    wow. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:47:42 PM EST
    That's a nice collection of some gross stuff.

    Thanks for the great video (none / 0) (#194)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    The next time some blind Obama supporter insists that Clinton hasn't been the recipient of ugly media treatment, or that the media hasn't been biased against her, all I have to do is direct them to the front half of that video. Pretty sickening.



    It's Finally Down to This, I Guess (none / 0) (#8)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:22:53 AM EST
    The last hope.  I'm just not sure it's going to work.  ARG has them tied in Pennsylvania.  Obama is leading in the daily tracking polls day after day.  He's polling better against McCain than Clinton is both nationally, and, just for fun, in California too.  In other words, this has not had the impact the Clinton team was hoping it would.

    That doesn't mean the GOP or some 527 won't Swift Boat this in the general.  They probably will.  The question is whether they are any more successful at reducing Obama's electibility.  If nothing else, it will  be old news.  And they will have to do more than simply rouse the usual GOP base.  They'll need to use this to cut into Obama's indie and Dem support.  I'm simply not convinced it will work.

    And remember, this will start a larger conversation about race, as it did in March.  We've already seen how Obama handles that conversation.  And whether you agree or not, the Media raced to anoint that response not just as successful, but as one of the Best Speeches On Race Ever Given.

    John McCain doesn't want to talk about this.  He wants to talk about his experience and his strength.  The Detour will seem fruitful to the Haters, and it will not doubt resonate with some, but I don't see the kind of impact that Ickes is no doubt trying to sell to Supers at the moment.

    And one more thing.  The bottom line is pretty simple.  Does the Wright scandal make Obama's negatives higher than Senator Clinton's?  Which candidate is more likely to turbo-charge opposition in the GOP base?

    Again, current data suggests the latter are losing questions for the Clinton campaign.

    It may be the last "hope" (although (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:59:54 AM EST
    not for me) but it is certainly not the only reason we prefer Hillary.
    The idea that an untested, inexperienced candidate with insufficient knowledge of policy can transform politics in DC is ludicrous, and will work no better than the last time it was tried.

    We'll see how PA votes... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:22:03 AM EST
    There hasn't been an election since the Wright stuff happened. Also, Obama has gotten a huge poling bump from the MLK 40th anniversary, before that things settled back down to where it has been almost the entire race: both sitting in the mid forties and trading statistically insignificant leads.  

    how much did he spend in Texas? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:27:18 AM EST
    and didn't smoke Hillary with the popular vote. By the ratio he outspent her, she should be 6ft under pushing daisies right now. He didn't, but he 'won' the caucuses . Now he's blanketing Penn with his 30 sec ads spending tons of cash and he has it. Says they're from small donations from little people. big HEH. I don't believe it, there are questions there too, bundling and shifting going on that I can't prove but the suspicion that he'd do ANYTHING to eek out a win is so there.

    And it makes Hillary the fighter, the Rocky, the underdog. And America LOVES the underdog. It follows her every time his money support surmounts hers. He might look good but its apparent he's reached a plateau, and she's found her footing believe it or not, late in the game, she's coming down to the stretch. Count her  to win by a nose.


    Just like Rags to Riches in (none / 0) (#85)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:37:03 AM EST
    the Belmont..that was a great race. The evil eye that filly was giving Curlin down the stretch was awesome. Daring him to stick his nose in front..he did and she ran him down and won. A great analogy for this nomination race..LOL

    Oh, and By The Way? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:26:43 AM EST
    The plural of one 76 year old voter is not data.

    'Best speech' punditry isn't data either (5.00 / 10) (#14)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:21:40 AM EST
    Unquantifiable, gossamer "support" like kudos for a speech doesn't equal actual votes.

    Predictions of turbo-charging doesn't equal actual support.

    Repeated (and simplistic) waving aside of hard realities doesn't equal actual support.

    What should be factoring into your calculations is this:

    Despite the most positive, self-buttressing pro-Obama rhetoric and every available assist from media, money spent and Dem leadership, Obama hasn't been able to secure his spot on the Dem ticket. Sen. Clinton does not even figure into this equation and reality.

    Despite the most negative anti-HRC forces of combined negative media, stealth Dem saboteurs and Team Obama supporters, Sen Clinton is still in the race. Her support is shoring up, while his is not only softening but waning.

    His youthful support in PA is soft: his campaign has neither signed enough new supporters, nor accurately gauged what's already there in the overestimated youth vote.

    For one thing, students in the state aren't all PA voters. They could have already voted elsewhere, or be voting where HRC is stronger. Among the support -- assumed all to be his -- the numbers aren't as great as wishfully assumed:

    According to Kolker, the Obama campaign netted "well over 5,000" new registrants. But that's not nearly enough new voters to make an impact, says Terry Madonna, director of the Franklin and Marshall poll.

    "I don't think that's an impressively large number," said Madonna. "There are more than 4 million Democrats in the state and let's say the turnout is 50 percent -- and that doesn't strike me as improbable. Two million people vote and Obama registered [at most] 10,000. You can do the math. That's not a huge percentage."

    The support promised by the likes of Sen. Casey isn't likely to materialize for him; he's no friend to women voters.

    The impact that this will have on superdelegates is open to interpretation.

    I suspect they won't use their support to plug holes in a leaky boat, and these are more visible and numerous now that Obama's momentum has slowed to a virtual halt.

    The forward motion the Obama campaign has enoyed riding a cresting wave of momentum experienced from a quick succession of small victories has slowed.

    Upstream, I mentioned the Montana speech. Another important factor is the enthusiasm generated by "free" media showing clips of him hollering out his inspiring soundbites. When it's done above cheering and shown to a national audience, it does generate new momentum.

    When it's Obama yelling to a snoozy quiet room golf-clapping his routine politician's laundry list, it's not going to draw new support but make existing support wonder if he's been over-hyped.


    Reallly? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:29:41 AM EST
    Despite the most negative anti-HRC forces of combined negative media, stealth Dem saboteurs and Team Obama supporters, Sen Clinton is still in the race. Her support is shoring up, while his is not only softening but waning.

    I've seen no actual evidence that the above is true.  If you have it, by all means, share.  And given the trends in every single poll out of Pennsylvania, you may be using different definitions of the words "momentum" and "halt" than I am familiar with.


    What win did Obama's last big speech garner? (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:44:43 AM EST
    Again, reviews for a speech aren't solid support.

    And what was Obama's last big win, exactly? What last big "get", among prominent, support-generating endorsements, did he move into his corner? What scores of new supporters did he sign up?

    The above is MOMENTUM. If these tangible, visible signs of support aren't appearing on a daily basis, as they were when he was riding a crest of support, I'd comfortably repeat that the momentum has HALTED.


    We Can Start with Bill Richardson (none / 0) (#34)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:58:33 AM EST
    Then Jimmy Carter.  Or the 40 million bucks Obama raised in March.  While the scandal was erupting.  Or we can look at every poll out of Pennsylvania.  Every one.  Or we can look at which candidate has picked up the greater number of super delegates in the last month.  I'm not sure 'halted' is the appropriate verb.

    As for the speech, far more people viewed it on Youtube than the Wright excerpts, and that says something about its reach and potential.  It's not an end in and of itself.  But the media's swooning embrace of it was a big net plus for the campaign.  You can't both deride all that swooning and then pretend it isn't an advantage at the same time.


    Jimmy Carter has not officially (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:09:21 AM EST
    endorsed anyone, as far as I know, although he mentioned his family's support for Obama and coyly suggested the media could figure out what he was going to do.

    It's very hard to take you seriously when you keep playing with the facts.


    Okay, Here's a Fact (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    Montana legislator Margaret Campbell (D) "plans to declare her support for Senator Obama, of Illinois. She becomes the 69th superdelegate he has picked up since the Feb. 5 coast-to-coast string of primary elections and caucus votes," according to the New York Times.

    In the same period, Sen. Hillary Clinton "has seen a net loss of two superdelegates, according to figures from the Obama campaign that Clinton aides do not dispute."

    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by americanincanada on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:25:25 AM EST
    the Clinton campaign does dispute those numbers as does the superdelegate watch site.

    Clinton has gained 9 SDs.


    The Above is an Answer to Ann, obviously.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:02:27 AM EST
    I'm reading (none / 0) (#158)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:49:29 AM EST
    that article right now and she went on,

    "But Campbell said if Montanans approve Clinton in the June 3rd primary, she'll likely switch her vote.

    "Then my convention vote would go to Hillary," she said."

    So basically, she supports Obama but will vote as the state votes, which is what most MT superdelegates are saying. Except former Sen John Melcher, of course, whose talking cows apparently advised him differently.


    A Closer Look (none / 0) (#11)
    by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:16:10 AM EST
    Okay, my bad.  I took a look at the complete WSJ article, only to find that this is little more than the recent Quinnipiac poll dressed up in a dashiki and sunglasses.  In other words, that's a lotta invidious assumption based on a single poll -- and at a time when other more recent polls show Obama trending upward in, among other places, Pennsylvania.  Where in theory this should be hurting more than in almost any other state.

    I understand that Clinton supporters and the Clinton campaign want to keep this alive.  I also understand the WSU does too.  But the data offered in the article doesn't seem sufficient to support the wishful thinking inside.

    Good, glad to see (none / 0) (#23)
    by marcellus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:39:47 AM EST
    that the Wright damage for the primary is present and accounted for.  I was worried in case there was another shoe to drop, but this seems to be it.  Even the most concerned superdelegate WSJ could find "said the Wright controversy didn't hurt his opinion of Mr. Obama."  Plus, Obama still managed to save a few arrows in his quiver for the General Election.

    You expected an SD (none / 0) (#43)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:26:06 AM EST
    to say their opinion of Obama was negative??
    It appears the SD was focusing on electability not his own opinion of Obama.

    WSJ is anti-Obama (none / 0) (#82)
    by marcellus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:34:10 AM EST
    If that's the worst comment they could find, then I'm not worried.

    Doubtless the Republicans will raise Obama's (none / 0) (#32)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:54:50 AM EST
    negatives in an election. But they will raise every negative they have against Hillary Clinton if she wins too, going back to Arkansas. Things the Clinton supporters think are dead would be revived. Things that haven't been explored, like Bill's investments, will become fodder for constant talk radio screeds. I think Obama is better at parrying attacks, and he has less to be attacked about.

    Clinton supporters always forget the glass houses factor.

    clinton hatred cannot be any (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by sancho on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:11:41 AM EST
    higher than it is. but many of us are committed to learning about obama's electability difficulties the hard way. i'd be a lot happier about obama were he to win pennsylvania. or had he won ohio. i doubt he'll win either place in the GE.

    False (none / 0) (#111)
    by BlacknBlue on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:24:57 AM EST
    Clinton's negatives have been going up higher than Obama's have the past few months.

    The complete opposite is true. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:17:38 AM EST
    Negative attacks will have less of an impact on Hillary than Obama, similary to the way that negative attacks have less impact on a longtime incumbent: she is already well defined.

    Obama on the other hand, has almost universally been portrayed in a positive light. Few of his negatives have been defined and when they do, they will have more of a devastating impact.


    The typical Hillary supporter has learned (none / 0) (#102)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:07:44 AM EST
    to distrust the media, to read between the lines, to develop a healthy scepticism, from years understanding the Right Wing noise Machine.

    Obama supporters unfortunately seem more inclined to buy anything spun without seeing the spin. When 60 minutes asks Obama the same question about Wright 4 times, then turns on the camera and asks again


    But you don't think he's a terrorist infiltrator do you?

    Of course not, thats absurd on the face of it.

    But do you think he's hiding that truth about his..?

    Well, look, as far as I know...


    So we will need to help out with clarifying how spin works for them in order to not lose them in the GE if Obama is the nominee.

    I worry that they are the ones that internalised the RWNM attacks on the Clintons through the 90's because they have no internal defense, ironicly it will be we more critical thinkers who'll need to shore up his support once our fine independant media gets told its the GE so now he is not The One.


    Of course the Rethug GE version would go (none / 0) (#104)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:12:59 AM EST

    But you don't think he gave up secrets to the enemy in captivity do you?

    Of course not, thats absurd on the face of it.

    But do you think he's hiding that truth about his..?

    Well, look, as far as I know...


    and the Rethugs will be screaming  "as far as I know..." about his unpatriotic smear of a war hero...

    rouse that base!


    I bet it will go something like... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    Barack Obama, snip, association with terrorist Ayers, snip, Pastor said America responsible for 9/11, snip, Church said Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan "epitomized greatness" and gave him a lifetime achievement award to a man that has repeated called whites and Jews "satanic" and "devils", snip, Godda#mn America!, snip, and on and on.

    It will be like Kerry, where they will attack his biggest asset. With Kerry it was that he was a war hero.  With Obama it will be to attack his image as a racial uniter.


    This comment is spot on (none / 0) (#48)
    by rdandrea on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:39:05 AM EST
    I don't think Dems can run in fear of every Republican attack.  Does the delegate interviewed in the WSJ story think that some 527 or c(4) won't be sending out Vince Foster direct mail to loyal Rs?

    Keep repeating this, and post it everywhere (none / 0) (#51)
    by independent voter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:44:17 AM EST
    you can! You are so accurate, it is a constant refrain from the Repubs I work with. They do not think Dems in general stand up for anything. It's not so much they disagree with Dems (believe me, most cannot answer why they are Repubs.
    Standing up to bullies is the only way to stop them!

    Most of us will.. (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:27:39 AM EST
    but it is hard to stand with Obama on principle, though, given he doesn't seem to have any. We will vote Dem because we are Dems, and even a phony Dem like Obama is preferable to McCain. But that doesn't mean he is the best choice for President.

    just because Kos says so doesn't make it (none / 0) (#52)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:50:28 AM EST

    speaking of 527s Kos is head of Obama's therefore I can't put much into his  'ópinions'. And he's w often wrong.

    Margaruite Q.:

    [THE MASK OF OBAMA will be the Republican battle cry, with "he says one thing to win your vote, but...." as their tag line, and "God damn America" mixed in ]


    this reminds me of his web ads," be democrat for a day", to get people to vote for him in the primary where anyone was allowed to register as a democrat --just to vote for him of course. Like a jingle in a commericial. Seems insincere. Seems artificial,like Obama is.

    what? (none / 0) (#80)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:30:54 AM EST
    Since when is Markos the head of Obama's 527?

    GOP is Sitting on Farrakhan + Obama Attack... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:55:09 AM EST
    In hopes of using it in the general election. Guaranteed.

    It is the pink elephant in the room, but Clinton supporters fearful of being called racists and Obama supporters that are simply delusional, continue to act as if Obama's largest liability simply does not exist: Obama is associated with Louis Farrakhan and his organization, which has been defined by the Southern Povertly Law Center, Anti-Defamation League and other organizations as a hate group.

    To futher complicate the matter, Obama has not dealt adequately dealt with his association with Farrakhan like he did with Wright. Yes, he "denounced and rejected" Farrakhan's statements, but he's never condemned the man or the organization that he leads. Like Wright, he is always careful to condemn individual statements or categorically condemn offensive statements regarding specific topics, but never the overall man.

    In addition, he has a double standard. He told the "The View" that he would have left his church if Rev. Wright had not changed. But why doesn't he leave the church over their continued collaboration and promotion of Farrakhan? Has he given them the same hypothetical ultimatum that he would have given Wright? Why not?

    What will these attacks look like?  Something like this: "Obama says he wants to unite the country, but the truth is that he has been a member of a church for 20 years that promotes and collaborates with Louis Farrakhan, a man that his church said "epitomized greatness" and awarded their Lifetime Achievement Award.  Epitomized greatness?  Is saying that "Hitler was a great man," great? Does saying that Jews and Whites are "devils," "satanic," and "less evolved" epitomize greatness?  Does teaching that the White race was created by an evil scientist 6000 years ago, great? Obama says that he would have left his church if he had heard his pastor say "Goddamn America," but why hasn't he left his church over their continued promotion of a hate-monger like Farrakhan?"

    What are you so afraid of? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Traven on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:09:55 AM EST
    A consistent theme here is "Oh, those nasty Republicans will make an issue of Wright."  Of course they will.  And Tuzla, and Rezko, and Bill's $15 million for schmoozing dictators on behalf of businessmen, and Hillary's innumerable half-truths, lies and evasions, and Travelgate, etc., etc., etc.  So freaking what?  Why are Democrats so scared of them?  Every time this party tries to match the GOP on "national security" it loses (cf, John Kerry).  When we put forward a candidate of hope with our own agenda (cf, Clinton in 92), we win.  The whole Wright deal will cost Obama the votes of people who weren't going to vote for him anyway.  

    By the way, I don' tthink the Willie Horton (none / 0) (#69)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:13:59 AM EST
    comparison is apt. For me, it's more like Gary Hart.
    Obama would have us believe he never heard Wright's hate speech in church---he is DARING reporters to prove him wrong. It's just plain stupid.
    If it can be proved that Obama was present when Wright spewed racism, Obama will be finished.

    Obama says he didn't hear (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    Randi Rhodes at the rally in SF either.

    He "wasn't in the room."

    It seems like all the bad things get said when he's not there.  He's always the only one who didn't hear it.


    I don't believe he heard (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    Donnie McClurkin either.  (I feel like the Church Lady-- "How conveeeeeenient!")

    You will see Dohrn and Ayers video (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:19:02 AM EST
    from decades ago, too, I fear -- this is another one that the Clinton campaign has not used but the GOP will, Obama's (slim but it's there) link to the unrepentant ones of the Weather Underground.  

    It's also a reason why the threats of unhappy Obamans ripping up Denver at the convention are such unwise words, reminding many voters of the 1968 convention in Chicago.  

    (Btw, coming from Dohrn's hometown, I did a bit of a test to see if the name still had power here by asking several Obama voters I know if the name conjured up any memories for them.  Wow.  She and Ayers are not forgotten, not by a long shot. . . .)

    When you say Wow (none / 0) (#76)
    by katiebird on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:23:21 AM EST
    What did they say?  Did they know that Obama has a connection to them?

    No, the Dohrn/Ayers connection (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:43:49 AM EST
    was not known yet, and I didn't note it the first time, either.  It began with a conversation with some friends that got into the "do you remember" mode, so I raised several names and then Dohrn's, and it turns out that just about everyone also still could see in their minds her high-school graduation photo that was printed over and over and on tv here then and for years.  

    But our very right-wing media have not latched on to it yet here to bring back that file photo (just as, it turns out, some in our local media knew well of the Wright connection for months, as after all, we are not far from Chicago -- but our media here still have not mentioned it much . . . although it is so ubiquitous on other media, they need not do so.)

    So then, with others, I got the conversation into the "do you remember" mode and saw the same thing.  With one group, I did note that Dohrn and Ayers were in Chicago and knew Obama, and others didn't know that, either.  I left it at that for now, as all were more interested in Dohrn's doings.


    100% right... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:35:53 AM EST
    If Obama people think that the innuendo of the 3AM ad wasn't fair, then there will be a completly suprised by the true unfairness of the general election campaign.  Most people will not understand the nuances of Obama's connection to Farrakhan and Nation of Islam. It will all be muddled together in a 30 second ad.  

    Older Obama supporters I know (none / 0) (#81)
    by catfish on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:33:44 AM EST
    (OK my parents) only know about Wright's "God damn America" sermon.

    They knew nothing of the "Bill Clinton did us like he did Monica" or "Hillary doesn't know what it's like to live in a world controlled by rich, white people."

    They only knew about the god damn one, and were saying Wright is probably like Cecil Williams of Glide Memorial (non-denominational) in San Francisco. Wright may have fed the poor, but he's a little different from Cecil Williams.

    There's more there (none / 0) (#87)
    by Sunshine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:39:52 AM EST
    The Rev Wright has more connections that would not be good for the election than Louis Farakan...  He also has connections to James Cone.. There has been written about this by foreign press and The Dallas Morning News..  I think the Democrats should investigate this before we turn over the keys to the Democratic Party to Obama... Try Google..  Obama has to know about this, he didn't wear blinders and ear plugs to church....

    My MIL (none / 0) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:43:12 AM EST
    a true long-time Democrat, and a very, very consistent voter, who spends zero time on the internet, won't vote for Obama, no matter what.


    The Wright affair.

    She's voting down ticket, but not for president.

    This is the first time I talked about anything political with her, and she opened the conversation and offered the statement.  I was actually pretty surprised to hear it.

    Ditto with my ex-mother-in-law (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:50:51 AM EST
    who, at 96, and after often voting Republican, did vote for Obama in the Wisconsin primary.  It was a tough decision for her, as she and her sisters -- endured decades of sexism in the workforce beyond the imagining even of my generation, and then they watched us going through a lot again.  And she now is seeing her granddaughter dealing with it, so she admires Clinton on a lot of grounds for fighting the good fights.  

    I think the ex-MIL was swayed to Obama by some relatives -- but now, no way.  She is a lifelong churchgoer, very involved in her church.  Plus, Obama's comment about the woman who raised him did not sit well with a  grandma.  And she also now is attuned more to the media and Obama supporters' sexism, and it's just making her, as she said, "damn mad."  For her to swear, btw, is saying something immeasurable about Obama's campaign!


    Yes, my MIL (none / 0) (#98)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:57:14 AM EST
    is also a life-long church-goer and doesn't find Wright very "Christian".

    However, my MIL is also a 50's housewife and about as sexist as a person can be toward women  because of her upbringing and her Christian background.  Needless to say, the sexism doesn't bother her.

    Oh, and MIL is 72.


    oh, dear! (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:06:58 PM EST
    I am also a 50's housewife, and I am mad as hell at Obama.  I married in '54, intended to keep working, had a Down's baby and had to quit....

    A Christian church has no business subordinating women (from Galatians: "There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus."  I'd prefer for that to end "one being in Christ" but I don't waste my time about the petty stuff.)  IMO, a Christian church has a mission to preach love, not retribution, and to take care of humanity.  

    From my elderly, feminist viewpoint people who hate  wind up hating themselves most.  Black liberation theology is hardest on those who preach it.  (I admit I can bring up a few grudges against the 'men in charge'--like the one who would not accept my salary as evidence of ability to pay a small mortgage.  Or the ones who said be a society page writer or a secretary, but don't ask for a real newspaper job until you can safely work the police beat at night.  But if I let the grudges take over, then I have let the bad guys defeat me.)

    Don't discount anger from my age group and sex.  We put up with stupidity in government long enough.  We put up with being put down long enough.  Good grief, we, white women with children, integrated the schools and marched and cried for King.  And some of us are doubly mad because of falling for the 'happy family propaganda' after WWII--until divorce stopped being a dirty word.

    It's not about racism; many white women in the south supported desegregation and were a hell of a lot more willing than men were to have blacks as friends.  Men used 'white women's purity' as a rod to beat down us AND the blacks.  It's about breaking that stupid ceiling, about having decent government, about WINNING WITH A WOMAN.


    You make a great point (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:53:59 AM EST
    It is my desire to beat down this kind of politics once and for all that makes me lean towards Obama sometimes.  

    Take a look at Zuckerman's piece (none / 0) (#103)
    by kenosharick on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:11:24 AM EST
    on this very issue in the April 7 US News& World Report.  He says that wright was "endorsed by Obama with his continued presence" and the repbs will play it as Obama's "two-decade involvement with a radical anti-American"  They will portray Barack using this, the flag pin thing, and his wife's comments as un-American. May not have to use race directly- not that they won't.

    I wonder why Wright is not put to bed (none / 0) (#112)
    by indy33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:26:17 AM EST
    Maybe because people on the supposed left keep bringing it up. All i keep hearing is how the scary repubs. are going to dwell on this with 527's and what not. John McCain and Obama have both set a precedent where this seems to be unlikely. Both have already fired or repudiated commenters who have in any way remotley crossed the line(Cunningham for McCain, Schultz for Obama) against each other. So if a nasty 527 comes out about all this pointless stuff then McCain will probably be forced to repudiate it like he has everything else. Im not trying to fluff up McCain but it does take a candidate that will go along with these attacks for them to work. Was Bush ever on record denouncing the swift-boaters in 2004? No. Would him coming out publicly against them have mattered? I think so. Maybe I am wrong about McCain but I dont think that this is the fight he wants to make considering all the questionable religous endorsements he has. Also, some of the commenting seems a little over the line to me and I wonder if these same things were being said about Clinton, would they stay up? "The Mask of Obama", "Obamessiah", these kind of statements are offensive to me. How about the same person claiming that Obama " got a polling bumb from MLKs 40 anniversary" and that he is "associated w/ Farrakhan" in the same posts. Save your untrue and unproven "dog whistle" comments for a Republican at least if thats how you think politics should be.

    I read a comment somewhere (none / 0) (#114)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:29:19 AM EST
    that pointed out that the GOP had been saving the Rev. Wright issue for the general election but his retirement forced them to play that card early.

    If they waited it would lose it's effect, because it would have been "Obama's former pastor."  But now that they have set the foundation, they are holding back some videos for the fall campaign.

    It ain't over.

    MLK's planned sermon for 4/7/68 (none / 0) (#137)
    by mike in dc on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    "Why America May Go to H*ll".

    If Rev. King had been Obama's pastor, he'd have been forced to distance himself from him, too, I guess.

    King's speeches (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:29:12 PM EST
    "I have a dream--that ALL God's children...."  Maybe this country will go down the drain someday--that is the way empires end.  But King did not tell the US to go to hell.  He was predicting the continued struggle against poverty and violence, according to the Newsweek article quoted on the web.  If King had been Obama's pastor, Obama would have become a different person--to my mind, maybe a worthier candidate.

    Commeter Harley (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:16:35 AM EST
    is suspended for chattering. If he returns tomorrow, he is limited to 10 comments in a 24 hour period.

    The "assassination" bumb (none / 0) (#147)
    by indy33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:29:15 AM EST
    Someone had the guts to say that Obamas recent surge in the polling  is because of the 40th anniversary of Kings assassination. Maybe Clinton is thinking that if she wins the primary, she will get a huge bumb on Nov.22 because thats the 45th anniversary of JFKs assasination and she will then be unbeatable! McCain is about to get a huge bump in the polls because April 14th is the 143rd anniversary of Lincoln being assassinated. I realize that some Obama supporters get over zealous in their support of Obama but this is the funniest thing I have ever heard!

    tell ya what. (none / 0) (#154)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:41:48 AM EST
    should sen. obama win the dem. nomination fairly (that would include FL & MI), i will vote for him in nov. not because i think he's the best person for the job, that would be sen. clinton, but because even a pseudo-democrat in the oval office is better than sen. mccain.

    that said, i will not be shocked should sen. obama be defeated in a landslide. i don't expect  sen. clinton or sen. obama to be either's VP on a dem. ticket, it wouldn't work.

    those of you who are hard core obama supporters should give serious thought to procuring a bottle of good whiskey, in the event that he's the dem. nominee, you'll need a stiff drink to help recover from the fall.

    to those of you who contend that we clinton supporters aren't "standing up" to the republican/right-wingnut smear machine: you miss the point, it's a waste of scarce allocable resources. sen. clinton's been there, done that for 16 years. she can do so with an efficiency that sen. obama can't match.

    while i certainly appreciate your enthusiasm, do me the courtesy of not entirely discounting reality. take a deep breath, then go back and review everything.

    If you think meeting with Murdoch (none / 0) (#199)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:11:43 PM EST
    or talking to Scaife is spineless, then, to quote "The Princess Bride", I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      It was gutsy of her to politely face down two of her worst enemies. And if you were paying any attention, you'd have noticed that she didn't blink and back down, they did.  

    Very disappointing article (none / 0) (#204)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:23:04 PM EST
    Of course, the WSJ will try to use Wright....To have a liberal blog follow suit is very disappointing....

    This is why many have asserted it is more than past time to have the superdelegates end the nomination contest....More friendly fire like this will only alienate the superdelegates.

    Companion Questions for HRC (none / 0) (#211)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:47:25 PM EST
    We here on the left all know that Whitewater was a bunch of BS, but you can certainly guess how the Republicans will use that against Hillary come October.  Stained blue dress and all.  Has Hillary "put Whitewater and Lewinsky to bed" yet?  If the metric is killing the story so that Republicans won't run ads about it for the general election, I think not.

    And then there's Hillary's enthusiasm for Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones.  The lyrics for their great song, Stray Cat Blues:

    I hear the click-clack of your feet on the stairs
    I know you're no scare-eyed honey.
    There'll be a feast if you just come upstairs
    But it's no hanging matter
    It's no capital crime

    I can see that you're fifteen years old
    No I don't want your I.D.
    I can see you're so far from home
    But it's no hanging matter
    It's no capital crime

    Oh yeah, you're a strange stray cat
    Oh yeah, don'tcha scratch like that
    Oh yeah, you're a strange stray cat
    Bet your mama don't know you scream like that
    I bet your mother don't know you can spit like that.

    Can you just imagine what the Republicans will do with something like that:  Hillary loves pedophile crooner.  It's a time bomb just waiting to blow on her.

    And how will the conservative Reagan Democrats in Ohio feel about her when they realize she's a fan of someone who wrote a song called, Sympathy for the Devil?

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#212)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:51:49 PM EST

    I dont understand (none / 0) (#215)
    by Raheem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:32:25 PM EST
    How in a few thread you say dont trust the media... yet still trust them on this faux controversy over Rev. Wright...