Rasmussen: 58% Say Obama Tossed Wright For Political Reasons

A new Rasmussen poll is out:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 30% of the nation’s Likely Voters believe Barack Obama denounced his former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, because he was outraged. Most—58%--say he denounced the Pastor for political convenience. The survey was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday night. Obama made his statements about Wright on Tuesday.

Comments now closed.

< Why Dems Need A Unity Ticket | Drudge Rules Their World: Kantor Video Doctored >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama image tarnished ( Previously Posted) (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Saul on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    Have you seen todays polls?  Plus latest Ram. poll that shows 58 percent believe that Obama threw Wright under the bus for political expediency. That is major blow and contradiction to his campaign image of running a pristine campaign.  The poll also indicates that  many find it hard to believe that  Obama did not agree with some of Wright's controversial beliefs otherwise he would have dumped him even if he was not running for president. The connotation of the poll is  if you are truly against a person teachings then it should not take running for a political office to rid yourself of him.   Obama by dis inviting Wright from his presidential announcement indicates he knew more of Wrights controversial beliefs than he is letting on he knew. This whole incident  contradicts that his judgment is flawed and his  argument against Hilary that his judgment is better is also flawed.   People are seeing through this as they go to the polls on Tuesday.

    And there it is. (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by madamab on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:33:19 AM EST
    The connotation of the poll is  if you are truly against a person teachings then it should not take running for a political office to rid yourself of him.

    Bingo. This is exactly what so many liberal-type commentators are missing.

    After how many months of campaigning, I know absolutely nothing about Senator Obama's beliefs. He is a mass of contradictions. Yet he is telling us to vote for him based on superior beliefs, character and judgment!

    My head is exploding on a regular basis these days. It used to only do that when Republicans spoke.

    Ah, the good old days.  


    And that is why (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by ruffian on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:50:25 AM EST
    Hillary hit the bullseye with her 'well, I would not have been in that church' response to the whole thing.  

    You can't denounce now what you have tacitly endorsed for 20 years. Well, you can, but people see right through you.


    Also why Hillary pushed Obama in the debate (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    where this first came up to clearly separate himself from Wright's views.  She was looking down the road to a possible Obama nomination and was trying to help him get ready for Repub attacks.

    She was attacked as harping on the matter, but she even gave an example form her own life, iirc. Can't recall state, date, or her example. Help, anyone?

    He doesn't always see a few steps beyond, as in his wish to vote for Roberts bcz he admired his intellect and wouldn't want his nominees to be subject to ideological opposition. That is so, well, naive..on so may levels! Took a savvy staffer to remind him that votes have repercussions and voting for Roberts would not be good for his ambition to be able to nominate Supreme Court justices.


    Obama vs. hillary (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:57:18 AM EST
    This is another example of why he is a checkers kind of guy to her being a chess kind of woman.

    Same with the CIC question; She did NOT (none / 0) (#163)
    by MarkL on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:14:18 PM EST
    say Obama was unqualified; she left it up to Obama to make his case. Could she have said Obama was qualified? On what grounds? There are no obvious ones. She realized he had to deal with that issue and gave him an opportunity.

    yer funny....It Is Guaranteed That Obamaphiles (none / 0) (#189)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:08:30 PM EST
    will start with their rants about Sen. Clinton's ties to the secret "The Family" b.s. and McCain and his ties to Hagee...no fan of McCain, but he is not a member of Hagee's church, as for the "super secret bible study group" get real.

    Once again (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:27:06 AM EST
    After the Press Conference, like after "the Speech" the pundits were quick to say this is done.  Not an issue.  Gee, I guess people prefer to use their own judgement.  I guess judgement is still an issue.  

    My memory of the MCM attitudes after Wright (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    appeared on Bill Moyers' Journal (and came off quite well, iirc) was that the most controversial thing he said was that Obama had spoken as a politician and did what he had to do.

    The weekend talk shows actually seemed to be working to rehabilitate Rev. Wright as a colorful speaker who spoke truth to power but went overboard occasionally. Someone who shouldn't be allowed to be a problem for Obama.

    That continued until his National Press Club appearance with the talking heads, but I recall the local news had clips of his NAACP appearance which were pretty "out there" and were treated as very negative.

    Then, after Obama's renunciation in toto in NC, the MCMers again had Obama's back.  Except for Buchanan, essentially.  And Tony Blankley.

    I may be fuzzy on the tick-tock.


    People (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    aren't stupid.

    Of course, he did.

    He put Wright under his microscope back with his great race speech.  blech

    Right then I knew that speech was poisen.

    You simply cannot run around classifying people or explaining away and have it really be a great speech.

    The pundits got that one dead-wrong.  That was a horrible speech, not a great one.

    The pundits all swooned (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by daryl herbert on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:43:15 AM EST
    The talking heads thought it was wonderful.

    But the voters?  They didn't care for it.  The reaction after the Philadelphia Speech, by actual voters, was negative--Sen. Obama lost ground.

    But the talking heads were too enraptured with his purty words to notice.

    It's a pattern that's played itself out again with the more recent race speech: once again, pundits swooned, but voters rejected it.


    I completely agree (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by otherlisa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    about that speech. Yet another time I felt I was watching a different channel from the majority. I could not see what was so inspirational and brilliant about it. I thought it was supremely manipulative, and yeah, I thought he threw his grandmother under the bus by making a completely false equivalence between her and Wright.

    But then I don't find Obama particularly charismatic either.


    People aren't stupid (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by stillife on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:52:14 AM EST
    except for pundits and the Dem leadership.  Wright is the elephant in the living room and he's not leaving anytime soon, IMO.

    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:00:27 PM EST
    Not when Rev. Wright has his book coming out in October - right before the election....

    I wonder if Obama is still shilling... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:31:45 AM EST
    his "Greatest Speech" audio on his web site...you know, the one that you get if you donate a zillion dollars?

    Not such a great speech, afterall.  Maybe they'll discount it and give it to all of those little donations he's been getting...as a consolation prize!


    Great Off-Topic Speech (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    The issue of Wright has never been about racism, I never could understand how the media thought they could sell the idea that his great off-topic speech put anything about Wright to rest.

    Obama was only "angry" (an emotion I saw no evidence of) during his latest denouncement because he was going to have to address Wright on a personal level. No more getting away with distractions and shifting the blame to our countries attitudes on race.

    Obama has lost his momentum, and his interest. I'm predicting the obvious diminishing enthusiasm will cause him to find a way to end his campaign that makes him look like a victim.


    They Should Be At The 99 Cents Store Soon (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM EST
    Nice to see almost 60% of us... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    recognize the truth when we see it.

    I'm shocked it's not 100%...well, not really.

    reminds me of a story (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by ghost2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:32:43 AM EST
    It went like this:

    When Bill Clinton was first elected in 1992, he would site a poll saying that 2/3 of Americans thought Hillary is smarter than he is.

    Then he'd say, "I wonder how the other 1/3 has missed it."


    Yes, I wasgoing to say (none / 0) (#13)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:36:07 AM EST
    that 58% seemed low.

    Unless those 58% support Hillary, that is. ;)


    On the Radio Today (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Athena on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:06:27 AM EST
    Glenn Beck (I know, I know) played the full Wright sermon from Palm Sunday (about 40 min.) on the radio today.

    What's clear is that the full sermon in that church is properly viewed as a tirade against the white government - but it's also a tirade that becomes a collective experience for the whole congregation.  There seems to be no middle ground - the whole congregation is shouting and chiming in throughout the sermon.  There's no detachment possible.  

    Wright is way more of a political commentator than a religious one.  Clearly his role for Obama was as a political sounding board - remember that Wright was in the basement the day that Obama announced for Pres.  He just couldn't be on camera.

    I simply can't see Obama sitting in any sermon and not being part of the enthusiastic Amen chorus that Wright expects and receives.  Particularly as his joining the church was a calculated political move. It's just not credible.


    But (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    I heard that the Wright issue was over, and Mcain has promised not to bring it up in the general.



    That's code (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:43:34 AM EST
    for..."okay, 527's this one's for you."

    On the other hand.... (5.00 / 8) (#83)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:16:09 AM EST
    One problem I have with Obama is that you can't really identify specific things that he's stood out for.  

    For example: it's possible that he was a fully committed parishioner of Wright's church - but did he serve on any committees?  Did he teach "Sunday School"?  Is there a record of volunteer service to that community?  Other than donating $22,500 in 2006, what else did he do? (When I used to go to church, we volunteered to do things on behalf of the church.  Did Obama?)

    My point is that Obama talks a good game, but what has he actually done/tried to accomplish that was designed to further the goals for which he supposedly stands?  As we know, he made a speech in 2001...but he has done nothing since then (when he had a chance!) to end the war.

    He always seems to take the middle road - hiding, but never leading.  Being "there, but always a shadow.


    Obama Is A Political Lurker (5.00 / 7) (#88)
    by Athena on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:19:19 AM EST
    He doesn't get his hands dirty - that's why he has no record of leadership on the war he opposed.

    I describe him as political lurker - watching, analyzing, then reporting back to us who WE are - but what's missing is the action.  The involvement.  The willingness to stand up and stand out.  Not.


    Great description, Athena (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:33:24 AM EST
    Do you mind if I borrow some of it - as it is much more succinct than what I wrote/was trying to say?

    Political Lurker!  Perfect description.


    Reply (none / 0) (#201)
    by Athena on Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:58:47 PM EST

    Plus (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:46:59 AM EST
    he morphs his policy into what the public responds to from the other candidates/politicians.  If Hillary's getting better reception from her policy, he slowly morph's it into his.

    Had the same thought (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by rghojai on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:45:05 PM EST
    To believe otherwise is to believe that Obama did not know Wright held the views he expressed. I could be wrong, but hadn't Wright already said everything or darn near everything he related in DC?

    Wright added one new thing, that (none / 0) (#209)
    by TomLincoln on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:39:47 AM EST
    Obama was just doing and saying what politicians do and and say. In other words, Rev. Wright said the only reason Obama distanced himself from the broadcast Wright soundbites had nothing to do with disagreeing with them, but had everything to do with the fact that Obama was a politician. He basically called Obama a phony and a liar. Ouch!

    Then again, if Wright actually felt that Obama agreed with him during those some 20 years, I can understand his being angry at Obama for throwing him under the bus for political expediency, so Wright chose to really draw a line in the sand, call Obama out, and have him publicly have to really pick whether he stood for blacks or for whites.


    This damages the prospect of a unity ticket (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by herb the verb on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:31:01 AM EST
    more than anything either candidate's campaign has done or said to date.

    It makes it extremely difficult for Clinton to be Obama's running mate either on top or bottom of ticket.

    I will wind up voting for a the Democrat in fall but I also believe Obama has rendered himself unelectable by the constant drip of these problems and gaffes and how he has (mainly not) dealt with them.

    Keep in mind... (5.00 / 12) (#21)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:44:48 AM EST
    that the Right wing noise machine has done very little to exploit the Wright controversy so far.  

    And that after some initial skepticism regarding Obama's denunciation of Wright, the media-gasbags all lined up to say what a "courageous" and "forthright" thing Obama had done.

    Over at Balloon Juice, I pointed out that the first person at the office water-cooler who said "What did Wright say that he hadn't said before" would be greeted with nods of affirmation -- in other words, what Obama did does not bear up to the slightest scrutiny.

    The fact that 58% of Americans already realize that, without having the right-wing noise machine hammering into them, is a sign of how completely screwed the Democratic party is if Obama is the nominee.


    I think there is still salvation (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Saul on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    on the Unity ticket.  Most will be forgotten if both of them are on the ticket.  It will be a slam dunk against Mc Cain. The amount of inspired democrats that have voted in the primaries is over whelming as compared to the republicans.  A wave of democrats will vote without hesitation in the unity ticket.  I say you will satisfy about 85 percent of voters on both camps.  

    Hilary when she started the campaign was telling you I am going to run your typical campaign.  I am not going to be a holier than thou politician on the way to the nomination.  Just get me there and I will do good things for the American people.  Obama on the other hand said no I will not be your typical politician and I am going to be very careful on how I get there and then I will do good things for Americans.  The problem, as is now evident, is that when you hold yourself to such a high standard so will the public and Obama on more than one occasion has betrayed his pristine campaign strategy and so now they say you aren't any better than Hilary on how you are getting this nomination.  So now he is shown to be on an even playing field as a regular politician with Hilary.  I would have had more respect for Obama if he had not held himself up to such a high standard knowing that the possibilities of betraying that standard was also very high.  He took a chance that he would never look like a regular politician.  This is part on how he got his elitist title.


    Maybe not (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:12:38 AM EST
    I'm not sure about the unity ticket right now.  Another part of that poll was the question.. do you think Obama shares Wright's values.  Yes? Dems 50%, Indies 50%, Repubs 70%.  I thought that was high.

    He's running on personality.  I don't know if he could survive the Repubs.


    I'm leery as well. The Repub ads clumsy so far, (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:15:01 PM EST
    but they'll likely get their wording sharper.

    If he's on the ticket as VP, they will find a way to tie Clinton to Wright.  

    Problably that photo morphing thing they loved to with Osama bin Laden and numerous Dem candidates.

    Right up there with Willie Horton, and the Repubs were criticized much less vigor for the OBL morhps than for the Willie Horton travesty.


    Clinton to Wright difficult (none / 0) (#171)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:36:22 PM EST
    Clinton will have no problem distancing herself from Wright.  After the things Wright said about both Clinton's the Repubs would look a little off trying to do that.  Clinton denouncing Wright may give Obama another opportunity to distance from Wright... in fact, he will have to and quickly.  Wright made comments about the Clinton's, Natalie Halloway, etc.  If the Obama camp is paying attention, they are going through those tapes and finding every objectionable thing Wright has said and get in front of it.  I was not aware... is no longer a legitimate excuse.

    The Repubs don't necessarily use same logic others (none / 0) (#196)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:33:32 PM EST
    do.  With enough spin, they can tie Clinton to the man in the moon.

    yeah, right . . . (1.33 / 3) (#19)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:42:26 AM EST
    Given the chance, I'm sure Hillary will find a way to force herself to be his running mate.  It's not like Hillary is a pillar of virtue without a host of baggage herself.  if she's the nominee, everything old will be new again.

    No worries about Clinton baggage (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by nell on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:54:28 AM EST
    I have no worries abuot Clinton baggage. Will it be brought out and rehashed by the right wingers? OF COURSE. I have no illusions about the fact that they will go after her. But I don't think it will matter a bit. People have heard this crap over and over again and I think nearly everyone has made up their minds about who she is. Even the people that think she is cunning think she is smart. This is not the case with Obama, people are only now forming strong opinions about him.

    After seeing her take on O'Reilly and stay true to her DEMOCRATIC values, I have NO DOUBT that she will bring it on in a general election. She knows who she is, what she is about, and she doesn't give a crap what the right wingers say about her. She knows how to throw it right back in their faces. When people like Ingrahm, Imus, and Scaife admit that as much as they hate her political beliefs, they really respect her walking into the lion's den and being as tough as she was and admit that she is the tougher GE candidate, that says something. I don't listen to wingnut radio, but all the reports I am reading on the web is that Repub callers kept calling in to say how surprised they were. She will change more than a few hearts and minds in the general, just like she did in New York.

    Obama has shown he has a glass jaw and the attacks have not even started yet with the media protecting him and coddling him every step of the way. He is looking weary and exhausted. Novemeber is a long way off. He will fold. I will eat my words if I am wrong, but I do not believe he is electable.


    Oh, Po....er, I mean, pooh! (none / 0) (#38)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    If Obama Is The Nominee, I Surely Hope That (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:13:11 AM EST
    he chooses someone other than Hillary as his VP. There is little or no personal advantage to her.

    Second chair (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
    is the wrong place for Hillary, anyway. I recently heard pundits say they thought he should try to get Wesley Clark in that spot...a Hillary supporter.

    honestly (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:31:12 AM EST
    could it have been much more obvious?
    he said nothing NOTHING he had not said for weeks.
    Obama can not say this stuff was a surprise.  he can not.  his biggest problem seemed to be that he was disloyal and causing problems for him.
    NOT what he said.
    if this was any other candidate it would be over.
    his teflon has my respect.

    I fear (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    you are right.

    His Reagan speech haunts me.

    OMIGOD, another president with zip accountability.


    Hillary has to be accountable for everything.

    Even the activist AA blog gave her kudos for having a statement prepared about the recent judicial decision that was pro-police.

    As they said, "At least Hillary bothered.  Obama did not."



    Ha! HRC is accountable for everything (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:18:16 AM EST
    - even everything BO does, too.  If (God forbid!) he's the Dem nominee, she will be to blame if he loses the GE.

    Which pro-police decision? The search for any (none / 0) (#104)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:28:24 AM EST
    auto stop?

    That one's really scary -- esp'ly as minorities know they tend to be stopped for DWB or DWD (Driving While Black or Driving While Different.)

    Back when I lived in Milwaukee, a black former Packer player became a sportscaster -- and he was stopped almost every time he drove through a certain wealthy, mostly white suburb north of the city.

    Some people were shocked that happened.  Others asked where those folks had been all their lives....


    They are talking about (none / 0) (#109)
    by madamab on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:30:52 AM EST
    the Sean Bell decision in NY.

    A real travesty of justice, at least from the outside.


    Ah! Sean Bell -- some local analysts said (none / 0) (#155)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:02:44 PM EST
    it was very difficult to find the police guilty due to the way the case was presented. In general, it is very difficult to find cops guilty of wrong doing, on the criminal level, if they can in any way claim fear for their lives.

    Some of the witnesses' stories had changed over time, which does happen with human memory.  Each retelling of a story tends to be stored in a difference group of cells, with modifications.

    It's up to the atty working with the witness to help that person recall their early testimony and square any changes, right? (I am not an atty.)

    Anyway, the case was difficult.  More can be accomplished if the NYPD actually takes these guys to task.

    What really seems to be needed on the policing level is a respect for individual life.  This sort of thing seems to happen less often in suburban settings and far less often when the suspects are white.  Most of the detectives in the Sean Bell case were minority, but seem to have developed a group attitude toward the people they investigated in their undercover jobs.  I don't know what to do about that kind of thing....


    There was a poll in the New York Times (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:34:16 AM EST
    yesterday. It had a bunch of findings, but the most important one was that Obama is believed to be a good deal less patriotic then Clinton. He'd better fix that, and fast. Becuase America will not elect an unpatriotic President.

    How can he fix it? (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by madamab on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    There is no way to counter the right-wing spin on him now. He is an unpatriotic, non-flag-saluting, funny-name-sporting, melanin-enhanced, member of the Church of God D**n America.

    It's too late.


    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    and COL (cry out loud) too.

    It is quite possibly too late. But a day is a (none / 0) (#18)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    lifetime in politics, and he should at least try. I haven't heard much out of the Obama camp recently other then talking about his "tough" upbrining (which is an absolute joke when you put it against McCain). He should be giving "Nothing wrong with American that can't be fixed by what's right with American" speeches.

    He seems to have no plans (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by madamab on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:57:36 AM EST
    to deal with any type of bump in the road.

    It's quite disheartening.


    Has never needed plans before. (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by andrys on Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:53:39 PM EST
    He just always happened to find situations in which his temporary opponents opponents were thrown out of the battle or withdrew to suddenly revealed personal marital problems, with often described helpful prompting by Axelrod and team.

    As I said up-post... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:26:33 AM EST
    ...there is a difference in saying "God d*mn America" versus saying that God d*mns some of the things we do.

    Wright was calling on God to d*amn us.  Subtle.  But still there!


    TUCC (none / 0) (#151)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:58:46 AM EST
    if the media would shift its attention from the pastor to the church, the entire premise of its existence being built on: A 10-point Vision:

    A congregation committed to ADORATION.
    A congregation preaching SALVATION.
    A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
    A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
    A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
    A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
    A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
    A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
    A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

    There are plenty of questions in that I know I'd like more information about.


    Obama Has Contradicted Himself So Many (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    times on Wright alone that the Republicans will have little trouble branding him as untruthful as well as unpatriotic.

    Loyalty (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Manuel on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    For me the Wright story is in line with one of my main concerns about Obama.  I had a very positive view of Obama until I heard about the Alice Palmer story.  That started a process which got worse with the unnecessary praise of republicans, the comments about his grandmother, and now the break with reverend Wright.  I am not sure that Obama can be loyal to either people or principles.  He seems ready to bargain anything away for political expediency.  Just once I would like to see him take a tough principled stance.  When you peal away all the position papers and speeches, I don't sense a core other than a wish for people to get along.

    Add granny (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:45:37 AM EST
    You are right, but for some reason he does not disconnect from Rezko, who clearly harmed his constituents in Chicago by having all that affordable housing fail.   This one was so obvious, yet he still has not stood up for the people in the housing.  To me that was the real sign of no core values of any kind that I share.  

    Obama never knows about "it" (none / 0) (#202)
    by andrys on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:07:07 PM EST
    ...whatever it is, whether slum housing that's talked about in his local newspapers writing about his biggest fundraiser who's in a heap of trouble at the time, or Wright's sermons in the church or Wright's regular writings in the church publication (Obama says he didn't read them ... not very devoted?) ... this is his line.  

      He'd never heard negative things said about or by Rezko or Wright or the negative words said by Ayers in 2001.  He sort of lives in a safety bubble which allows him to deny everything.  

      The Alice Palmer thing was rationalized by how people who couldn't get all their t's dotted for their ballot appilications probably wouldn't do a good job (even though she had done, by all accounts, a very good job in that position for decades).  
      And, besides, etc., he thinks they got a good deal with him, he said.  The wonderful ends justify the means.

      Has anyone else noticed that he does a full smile on cue, from 0 to 100%, not a gradual or naturally developing one as  others do?  And that the smile disappears completely in a flash when the picture or reason goes away?  How Real IS Obama?

      In an interview with Michelle the other day, he rationalized his losses in the big states by saying they were just too big for people to get to know him because when they do they're (miraculously) for him.  He proved that in Iowa and Wisconsin, way back then.  I think he sees himself in a bubble too.  When the bubble approacheth, the people are naturally mesmerized.  Other candidates don't matter.  If people get to know HIM, then they vote for him.  He believes all this.  His webpage motto is about "BELIEVE!"

      And, it works.


    Even Worse News Contained In Poll (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    Fifty-six percent (56%) say it's at least somewhat likely that Obama "shares some of Pastor Wright's controversial views about the United States." That figure includes 26% who say it's Very Likely Obama holds such views. At the other end of the spectrum 24% say it's Not Very Likely that Obama shares such views. Just 11% say it's Not at All Likely.

    Just 7% of the nation's voters agree with Wright's views of the United States. African-American voters, by a 64% to 12% margin, disagree with Wright. Eighty-one percent (81%) of all voters are following the story somewhat or very closely.

    Nine percent (9%) of voters have a favorable opinion of Wright. Eight-one percent (81%) have an unfavorable view. That includes 62% with a Very Unfavorable opinion.

    and what views (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:52:27 AM EST
    exactly are we talking about.  the few we've heard sound bites of?  or all the other views we haven't heard much about?  my bet, the former because not many of us care about the latter.  and who here does not believe that policies persued by the United States government are partially to blame for the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001.  Nothing happens in a vacuum and to think the elusive "they" simply hate us because of our "freedom" is stupid and naive.  Sometimes, I dare say most times, you reap what you sow and saying so DOES NOT make you un-American or un-patriotic, unless of course you're the preacher of someone challenging the former president of the united states' wife for the presidential nomination.  

    Obama no doubt feels as you do (none / 0) (#203)
    by andrys on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:12:42 PM EST
    ... If so, then he is dishonest and fraudulent when he denounces his pastor's statements.

        Something about Wright's theatrical presentations (which are couched in oppositional terms) resonated with Obama, which some will find quite questionable since his campaign feature is in bringing people together and being post-racial, post-sides, etc.  It speaks to deep conflict in Obama.

        The problem with Obama is that it becomes clear that things don't add up.  At least not to the Wright answer  :-)

        Po, I applaud you for your passion for Obama's cause.


    It just goes to show (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by standingup on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    that it is hard to sweep a 20 year relationship under the rug.  I think Wright will stick with him more than any of the other relationships or associations that the Republicans will try to use.  I wonder if Obama's reversal on Wright being his spiritual mentor and guide did anything to increase the skepticism?  I do not understand why he chose to do that when it has been so well documented otherwise.

    Just a little dusting, really (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    I didn't actually hear where Obama did anything to permanently distance himself from Wright in his big speech last week.  I did read where an interview with Wright exposed the Rev's hope that his relationship with Obama will be fine because of his deep love for him, though.  

    "Just a pastor" came out of both of their mouths last week.  As did, "never a mentor, or spiritual advisor".  Seems to me they are comparing notes and in this together.

    Michelle's refusal to denounce Wright is very suspicious to me.


    I missed all of the interviews (none / 0) (#186)
    by standingup on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    with Michelle.  I understood the relationship may not ever be the same but did not see the door entirely closed.

    Should still be able to catch them (none / 0) (#191)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:26:57 PM EST
    online.  The biggest one was with Michelle and Barack together on the TODAY show with Meredith V.

    Michelle just would not answer.


    Great Leftie Article on the topic (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:52:33 AM EST
    Glen Ford over at Black Agenda Report has been writing some great articles on the subject.  

    Obama's `Race Neutral' Strategy Unravels of its Own Contradictions

    The world views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Sen. Barack Obama were incompatible from the start, just as the mythical American Manifest Destiny world view is directly at odds with the facts as perceived by Blacks in the United States. Wright finally forced Obama to choose sides in the conflict ofRevWrightObamaWOrried racial/historical visions, and in doing so, performed a service on behalf of clarity. Obama lashed out in a startlingly personal manner, calling Wright a "caricature" of himself and linking the minister to forces that give "comfort to those who prey on hate." Rev. Wright exposed the flimsy tissues of so-called "race neutrality" in a nation founded on racial oppression.

    Comments Section Is Extremely Interesting n/t (4.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:55:37 AM EST
    Agree. I flagged it a couple of days ago (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:03:57 AM EST
    for everyone to see - Unfortunately I added a dead link.  I'm glad you you picked it up.  

    Political Expediency (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by santarita on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    He joined the church for political reasons (as well as for other reasons).  He quit the church for political reasons.  I think Rev. Wright realized that he and his church were being used  and decided to take away that part of the narrative in which he played a role.  

    I'd say that this episode doesn't bode well for the progressives that think that Obama is one of them.  Won't they be surprised at the actions of Pres. Obama?  He'll throw them under the bus at the first stop.  Old wine in new bottles.

    and in other news, the sky is blue (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by angie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    the 30% who believe he threw Wright under the bus due to "outrage" are either outright lying or sadly naive. I bet if asked, those same 30% will tell you that they believe that the Wright at the NPC Q&A was "not the same Wright" Obama met 20 years ago.  

    But, he was there (none / 0) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    through all the years in between and must have noticed the building anger and transition of the man and willingly stayed.

    I think one reason the people believe Obama (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by Anne on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:02:29 AM EST
    acted for political reasons is that Wright planted that seed when he said that Obama did what he had to do.

    And I think people are not stupid.  It simply is not believable that in all the years of knowing Wright - in a much closer relationship than most people know their pastors/ministers/rabbis, etc. - discussing issues of faith and religious history, listening to his sermons, knowing he is an adherent of black liberation theology, that somehow the Wright of the video clips and recent appearances is not the Wright Obama knew.  The 9/11 sermon was delivered almost 7 years ago - does anyone really think that at a time when we were all talking about that horrific event that Obama had no idea what Wright had said that day?

    Authenticity is not something you can manufacture, and I think Obama's problem is that it increasingly seems like much of his seems to have been, and now it is falling apart.

    I have found (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:12:48 AM EST
    that when the poll question is "did politician X do such-and-such for political reasons," people almost always answer yes.

    For some, it's probably an honest answer, but I'm sure there are plenty of others who have no idea, and are just giving the answer that doesn't make them look naive.

    But the poll question was not (none / 0) (#137)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:48:12 AM EST
    worded that way. If you follow the link:

    Did Barack Obama denounce Pastor Wright's comments because he was outraged or because it was politically convenient?
    30% Outraged
    58% Politically convenient
    13% Not sure

    Sorry (none / 0) (#172)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:41:15 PM EST
    I don't see the difference.

    56 believe it is likely Obama shares Wright's view (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Salt on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:15:01 AM EST
    Fifty-six percent (56%) say it's at least somewhat likely that Obama "shares some of Pastor Wright's controversial views about the United States." That figure includes 26% who say it's Very Likely Obama holds such views. At the other end of the spectrum 24% say it's Not Very Likely that Obama shares such views. Just 11% say it's Not at All Likely.

    Just 7% of the nation's voters agree with Wright's views of the United States.

    Hilliary says it best bysaying she would have left (none / 0) (#207)
    by ig on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:46:06 PM EST
    You only need to read his first book, to know that Barrack shares similar views to Wright. Thats going to be a bombshell when that comes out.

    And most of us would have been right behind her, (none / 0) (#210)
    by Salt on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:31:23 AM EST

    Obama has a problem evidently identifying the bad guys with his everybody just get along song it begs and answer to what are his ethical and moral boundaries, we see this with Wright he didn't know, Rezko he didn't know, and Ayers to him comparable to a fellow elected officials position of legislation, who amongst us would be silent against these extremes in our close associates?  

    Does Obama (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by DJ on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:02:57 PM EST
    always have flags behind him or is it the same shot they keep showing?

    What is it with you folks? (4.50 / 2) (#39)
    by kindness on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    Obama gave a great speech that very much backed Rev. Wright.  Wright goes on 3 national programs and essentially calls Barack an Uncle Tom sell out.  Barack then goes on TV and say's Wright doesn't speak for him.

    And many of you think that what Barack did was wrong....Frankly, I don't care that many of you would prefer Hillary to win.  I myself want a Democrat to win, I don't care which one it is.

    But it's responses like I see here in this post which seem to me at least, to suggest that some "Democrats" would prefer McCain's winning over Obama winning.  Now that, I don't get.

    I really do wonder about some folks some of the times.  Sorry if I'm not making any friends with this post but....it's my 2 cents.

    The elections importance is who names the next 2 Supreme Court Justices.  With that in mind, ANY Democrat is better than a 3rd bush43 term.

    What's your point? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:59:59 AM EST
    That Obama wasn't actually practicing politics?

    Or are you here to threaten us with "unity or else!"?


    If you've read comments like that (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    (from both sides), that's unfortunate.

    Many of us have said we want a dem in the White House and will work to see that it happens.

    Why don't you help spread that position in the future instead of pointing out the negative comments?


    puhleez.... (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:04:30 AM EST
    Few people here care one way or another who Obama's pastor is in terms of his being President.

    What we care about is how Obama has mishandled this issue from the start, and is now completely vulnerable to attacks from right-wing noise machine if he is the nominee.

    Like most Obama supporters, you can't make the distinction between the fact that Clinton supporters are capable of looking at the question of electability impartially -- every time a question is raised about Obama's electability, its immediately an attack on Obama.


    that is rich (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:14:11 AM EST
    and so not true.  "Clinton supporters are capable of looking at the question of electability impartially"

    Clinton supporters believe that because people have been trashing her for x number of years, they've run out of things to say.  trust me, the fun's only just begun for rove and his minions.  the blinders just won't let you see it.


    As far as I can tell. . . (none / 0) (#86)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    no one (except me) is able or even interested in considering any aspects of the primary impartially.  Anyone who thinks they have a solid idea of whether Clinton or Obama is more electable is talking out of their nether regions.

    Certainly the primary is not divided between starry-eyed Clinton supporters and reality-based Obama supporters.


    That is why (none / 0) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:23:16 AM EST
    I can only go on skills for campaigning.  I think no one can tell from this election.  But my gut and judgement, tell me that Hillary will not collapse like Obama has, and will.  

    If this is collapsing. . . (none / 0) (#99)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:25:27 AM EST
    I should only collapse so badly myself.

    Do you not think Obama (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:30:13 AM EST
    is falling apart?  I do.  

    No. n/t (none / 0) (#112)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:32:54 AM EST
    We'll know better (none / 0) (#116)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:35:53 AM EST
    after Tuesday.  No predictions now.

    That's true. (none / 0) (#126)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:43:02 AM EST
    There could be a big surprise on Tuesday.  Or rather, judging from the sounds coming from both sides in the blogosphere there will definitely be a big surprise on Tuesday -- I just don't know who's going to be surprised.

    Actually, that's not really true.  I sense that both Clinton and Obama supporters are holding their breath for a Clinton comeback on Tuesday.


    back when I was supporting edwards... (none / 0) (#107)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:29:14 AM EST
    I think I was capable of viewing the question of Clinton's and Obama's relative electability impartially.  If there was any bias, it was toward Obama, because I started out this campaign as "anyone-but-Hillary."

    I mean, this whole Kantor thing has to be handled by Clinton properly, or its going to hurt her.  The fact that its 'objectively' meaningless (that Kantor was just blowing off steam about a state that was likely to go GOP) doesn't matter.  What matters is that the media is going to jump all over this.  


    Does he have any connection to her campaign? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:32:40 AM EST
    I hope not. Agree she has to handle it and not ignore it because the media will not ignore it.

    Kantor story a fraud? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:57:16 AM EST
    Well, you currently HAVE A CHOICE (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:05:10 AM EST
    of Dems.  The question confronting Dems right now is which one is strong enough to win in November.

    Don't the issues surrounding Obama give you pause?

    If yes, then you have a clear and powerful alternative to fall in line with...join us in supporting Hillary Clinton rather than trying to rehabilitate Obama - who cannot win the GE...no matter how much hope you have.


    no you don't (1.00 / 0) (#74)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:11:53 AM EST
    people here act like hillary (and bill) has no past to exploit in a general election.  no one's hitting her until necessary because from the get go she will have almost 50% negative approval.  

    issues surrounding obama -- those are issues which to purported progressives are issues people raise in order to make America better, not tear it down.  Only conservative republicans who refuse to believe america could do anything "wrong" believe otherwise.  

    and then there's the argument that "well, she won the big democratic states" as if if obama is the nominee all those big democratic states will go for mccain -- bush III.  if that happens, america deserves what it gets and the chickens will, once again, be coming home to roost.  if you enable it, you'll be to blame.


    Actually the Obama campaign has made (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by MarkL on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:19:35 AM EST
    numerous references to Bill's "scandal", and even begged reporters to write stories on Bill's current sex life.

    Too bad (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:23:24 AM EST
    Bill isn't running for prez, isn't it?

    well, he better be (1.00 / 3) (#101)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:25:57 AM EST
    his experience is needed to buttress hillary's claims.  i thought the real benefit to her winning was the 2fer we'd be getting.  and if you think if she's the nominee he won't be running in the eyes of the "right wing attack machine", you haven't been paying very much attention.

    Well,,, (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:34:20 AM EST
    i thought the real benefit to her winning was the 2fer we'd be getting.

    Only the diplomatic missions he may be asked to undertake to begin to heal the damage done by the Bush administration.  Actually, Chelsea can do good things, too.

    But I'm voting for Hillary.  Just Hillary.


    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by thomphool on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:38:17 AM EST
    i thought the real benefit to her winning was the 2fer we'd be getting.

    Some of us actually voted for Senator Clinton, the Junior Senator from New York because we thought the way in which she presented herself, her past, her views, and her governing philosophy was the best of any candidate in the field.  

    Would Bill and some of his problems be in play in the general?  Of course.  In fact, it's almost certainly fair that they be addressed.  Many of us are very uncomfortable with some of the things he has done, and are not willing to accept "The Clintons" for everything they are.  They are flawed people, we recognize that, but we also recognize, that on balance, even given these flaws, we prefer what they present.  The Clinton campaign, in my mind, made a huge strategic error in the initial positioning of Senator Clinton as a candidate and her relation to "The Clinton Years."  That's neither here, nor there, but to imply that "the real benefit" to electing Hillary is getting Bill back in the West Wing is, in my own mind, a highly offensive slight at a sitting Senator.


    it hasn't just been obama's campaign (none / 0) (#93)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    and it won't be come october either

    So are you saying that Obama is trying to (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by MarkL on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:11:55 PM EST
    ruin Hillary's chances?!

    huh? (none / 0) (#164)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:14:39 PM EST
    no, my point is that hillary doesn't need any help ruining her chances and the democratic party apparently needs help figuring that out if they think obama is the only obstacle to her being president.  the inevitability shtick is what got her in this problem in the first place.  let's not make the same mistake twice.

    people have heard it all before... (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:23:56 AM EST
    Obama supporters miss the key distinction --- nobody knows who Obama really is, and everytime his public persona is exposed as a fraud, it carries a great deal of weight.  First impressions are the most lasting; they form the foundation of people's opinions.  

    Nobody but Obama supporters and the media cared that Clinton exaggerated the danger she was in at Tuzla.  Politicians are expected to exaggerate and embroider their experiences, so they just tune out that nonsense when it comes to Clinton because they already know she's a poltician.

    But Obama's whole campaign is based on the idea that he is "different" -- and each time he is exposed as "just another politician" the negative impression it leaves has far more impact because nobody knows who he really is.


    exaggerated the danger (1.00 / 0) (#115)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:34:37 AM EST
    she flat out lied, repeatedly, for no reason or advantage.  

    your argument appears to be that because hillary lies like any "typical" politician, it's better to back her than obama, someone who claims not to be a typical politician but who sometimes must act like one.  my head hurts on that one.  i'd prefer that the next 4 years be filled with infinitely less exaggeration and more fact based presentations.


    Fortunately for her, (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    she's said plenty of other substantive things that people are listening to.  I'm looking forward to the townhall meeting on Sunday morning to hear the questions and concerns voiced by Indiana and NC voters.

    What lies are you referring to? Looked above (none / 0) (#132)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:44:52 AM EST
    and didn't see what you're talking about.



    one person's exaggeration (none / 0) (#154)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    is another's lie

    "Clinton exaggerated the danger she was in at Tuzla."


    Interesting how her exaggeration singular becomes (none / 0) (#197)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    lies plural.

    And Obama's shading of the truth or rewriting of reality in Dreams From My Father?

    Literary license.


    Thank you for proving my point *n/c (none / 0) (#157)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:07:42 PM EST

    Right. Like All the statements (none / 0) (#158)
    by hookfan on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:08:04 PM EST
    from Obama about "Nobody has done more for. . .(whichever group he's pretending too at the time)"?

    big difference (1.00 / 0) (#167)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:17:32 PM EST
    nobody has done more X is a far cry from we landed under sniper fire and i ran for cover which shows you how much experience i have and just how far i'll go for you.  

    They are both untruths (none / 0) (#169)
    by hookfan on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:26:59 PM EST
    based on exaggerations even perhaps distortions. Your pseudo distinctions sound like saying being fat and overweight aren't the same because they are spelled different.

    no (1.00 / 0) (#176)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:55:21 PM EST
    one is a lie and the other puffery.  i'll give you that both are intended to have a favorable response from the listener.  

    and fat and overweight do actually have different meanings.  just because they are used interchangeably doesn't mean the usage is correct.

    Fat:  having too much flabby tissue; corpulent; obese: a fat person.

    Overweight:  weighing too much or more than is considered normal, proper, etc.; weight in excess of that considered normal, proper, healthful, etc.

    one can be overweight and not fat, but likely cannot be fat without being overweight.  


    po, so Sen. Obama was engaging in puffery (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by lookoverthere on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:47:40 PM EST
    when he claimed to have passed nuclear safety regulation that never passed?

    IACF (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:26:44 AM EST
     including the poll.

    Stop with the SCOTUS (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    nominations.  Obama thought Roberts was a good choice.  That's a talking point for those of us who prefer Clinton to use against Obama. Dwight Eisenhower gave us the Warren court for pete's sake. You do your candidate no good by doing a Chicken Little.

    I claimed to support a Democrat. (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by kindness on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:08:20 PM EST
    I never claimed I was for Obama or Clinton.  I only said I'd vote for whichever Democrat....and I will.

    As far as chicken little being an analogy for 2 more Scalias, Roberts, Aliotos or Thomas'....you do realize the two who are most likely to go are the liberal members don't you?  Stevens is what, 86?  And Ginsburg has said she doesn't want to be there that much longer.

    Go gripe to someone else.  I don't really care to listen to you.


    Just tired (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:30:19 PM EST
    of being told that I should be voting for any Democrat because the balance of the court is at stake.  I don't believe that Senator Obama's choices for the Supreme Court would be good replacements for the liberal judges who would be leaving.  It's a scare tactic, and it's old.

    sane and rational (none / 0) (#53)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:00:32 AM EST
    how refreshing . . . but they won't believe you just like they don't believe him.

    Then you beieve this? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:03:02 AM EST
    The elections importance is who names the next 2 Supreme Court Justices.  With that in mind, ANY Democrat is better than a 3rd bush43 term.

    If so, good for you.


    and i suppose you don't (1.00 / 0) (#124)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    which says all that needs to be said.  enjoy the new supreme court, it'll be with you until you die.  under the mccain regime, corporate power will reign supreme because, my friends, that is really all the republican revolution is about.  abortion, guns, gays and god are just the means to end.  but, then, I'm sure all the serious clinton supporters who will never vote for obama know that.  

    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:45:58 AM EST
    You must have failed reading comprehension.

    I'll vote for the dem candidate, whoever it is.


    The "Live" Version Went Too Far? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Athena on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:12:56 AM EST
    Obama used his "race speech" to distract America from the Wright controversy.  Add in a certain dash of moral equivalence with Grandma and the "understanding" of racist whites - the speech had so many distractions that it just postponed the Wright reckoning.  And he knows how to play the fawning MSM like a violin - and they fawned on cue.

    But Wright got his reckoning - and America correctly knows that Obama was only offended by the "live version" of what Wright had done on tape, on FOX, and on YouTube.

    It wasn't the comments - it was the size of the audience that finally heard Wright in full - that's what outraged Obama.


    Obama was only offended (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by stillife on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:55:23 AM EST
    that his poll numbers were going down.  That was the real outrage!

    And, again (none / 0) (#192)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:35:35 PM EST
    the speech on racism was not an answer to what it is about Obama's close association with this man, this church, and the ideals taught and practiced by the congregation.  That great speech was a distraction, not an answer.

    Wright says it was political posturing, the Canadians have already said the same thing on a different subject, so do we get to know the truth, or not?

    Obama hates it when he is asked to answer a question he hasn't already crafted a well-worded response to. He resents us asking him to respond to questions about who he is. He refers us to his web site and his books...why? because he can't remember what he said for sure when he wrote them? The facts of his life don't match up well to the words he wrote in those books.

    Go to Savage Politics' web site and look at yesterday's post of the Obama list of lies.  I can't agree to vote for Obama should he get the ticket until I am comfortable with him. He lies about things that have no logical reason to be lied about.


    Tell it to DailyKos, HuffPost, AmericaBlog,TPM (none / 0) (#208)
    by andrys on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:18:46 PM EST
    You'll reach a lot more who are adamant than you see here.

    Uh oh!! The Indy Star might want to... (1.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Saul Goode on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:51:19 AM EST
    ...rethink its endorsement of Hillary.
     She is going to have to distance herself from this


    ....disgusting....simply disgusting

    Wow...digging much (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:56:11 AM EST
    Ok, so Hillary does not credit for her husbands achievements but gets credit for something someone  said in 92?

    Anderson Cooper just said it's doctored (none / 0) (#206)
    by andrys on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:29:36 PM EST
    CNN's Anderson Cooper just went with a story that showed that the tape was doctored, showing how it sounded before and what was added in later but they don't know (yet) who did it.

      They felt it was important to go with the story because it's so easy to fake these things now and spread it quickly via Youtube and everyone tends to believe what they hear right away and this was done to hit just before the voting in Indiana.



    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    Note that Carville and Steph are ignoring his comments.

    Note that he doesn't serve on the Hillary Clinton campaign, except in a minor advisory role, and I'm sure he'll be ditched soon, not compared with Hillary's white grandmother or something.

    And I sincerely hope the Clinton campaign matches this ugliness.  If Obama wants to do this, I'm sure Clinton can come back with something just as disgusting.  If Obama wants the campaign to get really ugly, I'm sure Hillary can too.


    I'll take disgusting things (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    like this any day. She rocks.

    LOL. (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by madamab on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:25:51 AM EST
    From the link:

    This isn't quite as bad as Obama's comments in San Francisco in a couple of respects. Hillary isn't saying this, and it was 16 years ago, not six weeks ago.

    Ya think?

    Is this all they've got? Some frat boys getting jerky in a private conversation 16 years ago?



    Dude, (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:45:16 AM EST
    did you doctor this tape?  are you the Saul Goode video production?  

    If you scroll down (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:48:16 AM EST
    you'll learn that the remark was taken out of context.  (It was also featured at Drudge.)

    I'm shocked!  Shocked, I tells ya.


    yes it was doctored (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:49:27 AM EST
    so, looked up Saul Goode, it's a video company.

    Actually, (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM EST
    it's not eve that it was out of context, as it's impossible to hear what's being said.

    But some still want to cling to the original story, it seems.

    Wonder why.


    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by wasabi on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:47:34 AM EST
    Watch the video.  I don't think Cantor's supposed comments match up with his lips moving.  

    Don't take the bait (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:09:59 PM EST
    Not even going to look.  Come up with something that has merit and is relevant.

    Why Are You Promoting A Doctored Video? (none / 0) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:43:56 PM EST
    Are you a Republican trying to damage a Democratic candidate or an Obama supporter spreading lies for the benefit of your candidate?

    Either way, you are beneath contempt IMO.


    At least the link has all the updates -- (none / 0) (#180)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    in one place.

    Someone doctored a copyrighted documentary. Probably not a good thing, right? Like illegal?


    Hey, were you the one with "A Broad Way" (none / 0) (#205)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:04:00 PM EST
    -- the documentary done in a day in NYC?  Rob Liano?

    I think that survey got it mostly right.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    ...although I think that if Wright hadn't been such an a$$, Obama might not have said anything.

    oh, you mean... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST
    oh, you mean if Jeremiah Wright had put on his "white-friendly" mask before talking to the NAACP and the National Press Club that everything would be okay?  Or should Wright have just stayed invisible?  

    I gotta say that I think its pretty damned racist to insist that someone like Wright censor himself just because Obama wants to be President.  Wright said nothing particularly "outrageous" aat the NAACP and NPC -- and certainly nothing that was "shocking" to anyone familiar with Wright's overall political/social perspective.  All that Wright did was embody his own philosophy that "different does not mean deficient" -- Wright showed up and was himself, i.e. he said the same things to a white audience that he would say to his African-American congregation.

    That's "different" in the eyes of the white media, and thus open to condemnation.  But its not because what Wright said was any more stupid or ignorant that what the average White Republican -- or White pundit -- says in public all the time without condemnation.  Wright was "deficient" because he committed the sin of "Talking while Black."



    It's not racist. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by madamab on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:39:25 AM EST
    It's reality.

    If Obama wanted to be President, he shouldn't have belonged to that church. It's far, far too controversial for the majority of Americans, and that's who he's trying to get to vote for him.

    How is this hard to understand?


    I was responding to the claim that... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    this is all Wright's fault for being an "ass".

    As for not belonging to the church, why should Obama be forced to abandon the Church?  To prove to America that he's "not really all THAT black?"  

    You can't go around calling for an honest dialogue about race, then run away the moment some black person you are associated with is honest about his own opinions on racial issues.

    You deal with the ISSUE of race head on -- instead Obama decided to ignore the issue, and attack the messenger.


    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by madamab on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:56:39 AM EST
    I have been very unimpressed by his lack of honesty on racial issues. An AA man running for President should have known he'd have to address them, especially when he has been with TUCC for so long.

    Obama has yet to take responsibility for one single thing he has done. He has always pretended that he could run a "post-racial" campaign. Na ga hapin.


    In his "Greatest Speech evah!", he (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    called for a dialogue on race. And the MSM went droopy at the thought.

    Now he and his campaign (especially Michelle) are telling us we have to move on (pun intended!) and put this behind us.

    What's it to be, Mr. Obama?


    Yup! (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    "You can't go around calling for an honest dialogue about race, then run away the moment some black person you are associated with is honest about his own opinions on racial issues.

    You deal with the ISSUE of race head on -- instead Obama decided to ignore the issue, and attack the messenger."

    Exactly correct.


    Boy did you misunderstand me..... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:08:29 PM EST
    ...I'm just saying that Obama would have kept his yap shut and not said a word if Wright had been all sweetness and light because he only does things when he has to. I never said it was all Wright's fault and I'm not letting Obama off the hook for anything. And I think Wright is an arrogant jerk. Are these mutually exclusive?

    Wow (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    "he shouldn't have belonged to that church"

    so what church would you rather he have attended?  last i checked there wasn't a religious test for president.  please let me know if i'm misinformed on that one.  i know bush has been doing a lot to the constitution, but i think he's left out an explicit religious test.  

    i hear that ol' Wright did a fair amount of good during his lifetime.  so much, that when the last clinton in the white house had problems, he invited him over for some face time.  wright said things that are unpleasant to think about and he likely believes a lot of them.  but he's a preacher and that's what a preacher is suppose to do.  just because you go to a church doesn't mean you support everything the pastor says.  I mean, just look at catholics and the pope.  

    and what church does hillary religiously attend?  or does she just break out that bible like she does the gas nozzle?


    What?!! (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:49:52 AM EST
    last i checked there wasn't a religious test for president.



    Oprah left the church (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    years ago for those reasons.  

    You are misinformed. There is absolutely (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    a religious test in running for President. Why do you think an atheist can't rise above the level of Representative in very blue districts?

    But really, this isn't about religion. It's about extremely unpopular social and political views that happened to be delivered from the pulpit.


    and what views are those (none / 0) (#44)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:55:50 AM EST
    "extremely unpopular social and political views"?  everyone talks around what was said, but no one ever expressly states what they find so unpopular about what Wright has said.  Besides his AIDS diatribe, what views are so "extremely unpopular'?

    The three issues. . . (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:04:07 AM EST
    that I think are most harmful for Obama to be associated with are:

    1. The idea that white people created the AIDS virus to kill black people.

    2. The idea that the people in the World Trade Center deserved what they got because of American actions overseas.

    3. The calling for God to damn America because of our history racial inequality.

    Regardless of what good he may have done (and regardless of the fact that discussing the second two might lead to some grains of truth) no candidate can afford to be associated in any way with these ideas.  They are hate speech.

    Obama did what he had to do, just as he did with his foreign policy adviser (Foster?), and just as Hillary Clinton did with Bill Shaheen and Bill Clinton did with Lani Guanier (sp?) all those years ago.


    There's a difference in saying... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    God D*mn America (that's calling on God to do it!) versus a sermon that says God d*mns some of the things that people and institutions (represenatives of the people) including governments, do...don't you think?

    I doubt you really want an answer (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by madamab on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:05:39 AM EST
    but here are a few:

    How about the belief that African-Americans are right-brained and white Europeans are left-brained?

    There's video of him saying that from his Wrightapalooza.

    How about his endorsement of Louis Farrakhan?

    Have you even been to the TUCC website? Black Liberation Theology is not mainstream. Not at all.

    And according to the poll cited above, 64% of AA's don't believe what Wright believes. You seem to imply that AA's don't know what he believes. Well, maybe they know a little better than you seem to.


    IACF! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by madamab on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:52:50 AM EST



    no, not but clinton (none / 0) (#51)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:57:49 AM EST
    just saying that if you don't have a preacher (only the politically expedient desire to talk about religion in front of certain audiences), then you don't have to worry about such stuff.  

    Listening to her, (none / 0) (#105)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:28:30 AM EST
    I have come to the opinion that it matters not whether Hillary religiously attends a church.

    This is a quote from Wright:
    "Faith...is not . . . litmus test, mouth-spouting, quoting Scripture. It's what you do with your life, how you live your life."

    Sounds to me like she absorbed her beliefs so that they are a part of her and help determine her actions.  When she mentions God or faith, it seems to be because they are integral to her thinking.  (As when she said on O'R that 'God blessed us,' meaning the wealthy.)


    then (1.00 / 1) (#178)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:58:23 PM EST
    she should stop using the bible as a prop and live on those ideas that she's absorbed.  but she can't do that, she wants to get elected.  so, out comes the faith.  

    I have not seen (none / 0) (#198)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 02, 2008 at 06:32:12 PM EST
    her Bible prop so far.

    po, hope you didn't sprain anything (none / 0) (#195)
    by lookoverthere on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    Interesting twist. You say there wasn't a relgious test for president, then demand to know where Sen. Clinton goes to church religiously (funny, that).

    So if there isn't a religious test, then what does it matter where she goes to church?

    The issue is Sen. Obama's being caught waffling about his pastor (and friend and mentor, as he called him in a letter he wrote in February of 2007, I believe). He waffled. This has nothing to do with Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain.

    Sen. Obama has made a huge deal of his religiosity and his connection with Trinity. His conversion to Christianity is a key part of the biography he references on the campaign trail. I would go so far as to say it is a key part of his pitch to independents, especially evengelical independents, and social conservatives. There is a political advantage to be gained from expressing one's Christianity---something Sen. Obama knew and exploited.

    Nothing new there.

    The sad part of this is that Rev. Wright was an important part of Sen. Obama's life. Because Sen. Obama did not handle the political aspect of his membership at Trinity well, he hurt his pastor and friend, and has damaged a very important relationship. Jesse Jackson is right about this---this is sad for both of them.

    But the political fallout remains. Sen. Obama's poor judgment about this is a political issue, since Sen. Obama made his judgment part of his pitch as commander-in-chief.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:10:19 AM EST
    You're kind of off the deep end here.  It is not "racist" to wish that Wright would refrain from stirring up controversy that hurts Obama, and more than it would be racist for Clinton supporters to wish Geraldine Ferraro would shut up.

    Sometimes people refrain from speaking out in a controversial way because they don't want the candidates they support to be tarred by association.  Jane Fonda has talked about muzzling herself during election season for exactly that reason.  Wright gets to make his own decisions, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that he would stay out of the spotlight in order to help Obama get elected.


    used and discarded (none / 0) (#187)
    by horseloverfat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    Obama used Wright, then discarded him like a soiled Kleenex.

    How does Wright owe Obama help getting elected?  Wright already helped Obama plenty in Chicago politics, the thanks Wright gets is being dissed.  Wright owes Obama bupkis.


    Yes and no (none / 0) (#33)
    by herb the verb on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    I agree Obama could have been more loyal on one hand and Wright had every right to defend himself on the other. But Wright's original statements (regarding 9/11, aids, etc.)were not only obnoxious but untrue and there is no reason anyone should expect Obama to endorse them.

    He (Obama) handled it very poorly (both initially and subsequently) is the point and Wright didn't really do himself any favors either, he was clearly challenging Obama to dump him.


    dump him? (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:55:22 AM EST
    Wright wasn't challenging Obama to dump him, he was challenging Obama to get real.  

    One intriguing statement that has been... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Shainzona on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:00:40 AM EST
    ignored is that Wright told Obama that if he becomes POTUS, "he's coming after him" as the president of a government that oppresses people (sorry, I may be wrong about the word oppress...but it was something like that).

    I took that statement to mean that he will look to a President Obama to help makes things wright (or, right, depending on your viewpoint!).

    I think Wright wants Obama to be POTUS - but Wright won't compromise HIS beliefs and passion to make it happen.

    The guy's honest, you gotta give him that!


    At the National Press Club speech (none / 0) (#56)
    by Coral on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    in the q&a, Wright went over the top.He was, shall we say, less than diplomatic in his responses to the question about Farrakhan. I don't question his right to say any of this. However, if he truly cared about Obama winning the nomination (and the presidency), he might have been less confrontational in the way he expressed his views. He seemed openly hostile to the woman who was reading the questions, and hostile, too, to Obama.

    His performance seemed at times to be intentionally (or at the very least sub-consciously) damaging to Obama.

    And because it is absorbing psycho-drama, it had the added quality of attracting a lot of attention (especially as it was performed before the national press).


    Why shouldn't he be hostile... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:14:24 AM EST
    ... when the intent of questioning him about Farrakhan was to discredit him?

    White preachers have said ridiculous things all the time, and the media doesn't go after them -- or question any Republicans for associating with them.   A large part of what I think Wright was trying to do was expose the double standard -- he gave Obama the opportunity to make that double standard an issue, and Obama chose to embrace the double standard instead.


    Obama not good at politics (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:19:31 AM EST
    Look, Obama is being handled.  He had to do this personally with Wright and he did not.  He had a 20 year relationship. talking to Wright they could have worked out a political accommodation.   This is why I think all his talk of new politics is just talk.  You have to be able to talk to people to get unity--and he could not get it with one of his people.  What does that tell me about his ability to deliver healthcare, etc.  

    I agree to an extent (none / 0) (#59)
    by nell on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    While I STRONGLY disagree with many of the statements he made and was particularly offended by his comments about Bill and Hillary, he has the right to say whatever he wants. None of us have the right to tell him to shut up, the same way none of us have the right to tell Robertson or Hagee to shut up.

    For me, this has nothing to do with race and it has to do with religious extremism. One of my (many) problems with George W. Bush was his association with people I considered to be religious right wing extremists. I consider Wright to be a religious left wing extremist. I didn't like it when Bush was so closely associated with such figures, and I do not like it when Obama has sat in the church under the guidance of such an extremist figure for 20 years.

    That being said, this is NOT Wright's fault. He is who he is, and he has never lied about that or about his views. You can disagree with him, but he is not running for Prez. Obama is and he should have considered how 20 years in that church would be viewed by voters. I actually feel very badly for Wright. He is taking the blame for this, the media is demonizing him as derailing Obama's campaign. But the way I see it Wright is who he is and he has had these views for a long time. It is unfair for Obama to all of a sudden blame him for changing and causing him problems.


    Yes! The MSM were especially quick (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:17:11 AM EST
    to demonize Wright so that they could save their favourite. I was never particularly fond of Wright, but after this episode my sympathies are with him. He was and is the same man. It is Obama who has changed. Obama needed him once to build his AA cred. Now that he has got other powerful mentors and Godfathers, wright becomes dispensable just like Alice Palmer previously. So much for the new way of doing poilitics.

    Who (none / 0) (#165)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:14:43 PM EST
    was harder on Wright than Obama?  I wasn't nearly as disturbed by what Wright said over those few days as Obama appeared to be.

    You can fool 42% of the people. . . (none / 0) (#24)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:46:51 AM EST
    some of the time. . .

    You can fool all of the OFB all of the time. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by MarkL on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:50:55 AM EST
    Personally, I'm willing to consider. . . (none / 0) (#81)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:14:53 AM EST
    that Obama was so outraged at the disrespect shown to him by Wright that it was outrage that finally convinced him to listen to Axelrod and do the politically expedient thing.

    Exactly (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:19:06 AM EST
    but that's not as much fun as well he's just another politician so let's go with the lifetime politician over the newbie.

    But he _is_ . . . (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:21:57 AM EST
    "just" another politician albeit, if you like, a "newbie".  As such, if he wants to succeed, he'll always take the politically expedient path even if his relative inexperience means he's occasionally late to the party.

    Poof! (none / 0) (#92)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    You're a pretzel.  

    Huh? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:28:37 AM EST
    Why would it be any less "fun" to say that Sen. Obama's outrage is because he felt disrespected by Rev. Wright, rather than that he was outraged at the things Rev. Wright actually said?

    Sen. Obama is just another politician. And thank heavens for that. He's learning, and the presidency is not a job for amateurs.


    Tossing Wright for (none / 0) (#60)
    by DCDemocrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:03:00 AM EST
    political reasons would be so cynical.  Barry, say it isn't so!

    Of course he did (none / 0) (#62)
    by Salt on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:03:28 AM EST

    Unity something (none / 0) (#68)
    by koshembos on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:05:38 AM EST
    First, there must be a reconciliation. That's is simple and there is little enthusiasm for it. The simply unity is not likely to happen, therefore we must look for constructive unity ticket options.

    A ticket with Obama first is not going to work (blue collar and women resentment is too high), but we can have Clinton/Jackson. This will leave out the fake blog progressives, all 12 of them.

    those inconvenient females and lunch-bucket Dems (none / 0) (#98)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:25:12 AM EST

    A ticket with Obama first is not going to work (blue collar and women resentment is too high),

    Oh, wait.  Wasn't there something about the backbone of the Democratic party? /snark


    They want to turn it into a new party (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:32:34 AM EST
    sans those silly women and lunch bucket dems.

    I'm voting 3rd! (none / 0) (#118)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:38:15 AM EST
    Silly women & lunchbucket Dem party. We'll have fun, living wages, healthcare and retirement plans. Oh, and childcare included.

    ah, that kool-aid (1.00 / 0) (#131)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    because if hillary can't do it no one can

    She's the only one planning for it now (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:52:00 AM EST
    and not just talking about it. And she has exactly those qualities of stamina and forcefulness (WWTSBQ) that give her the best chance of success.

    really (none / 0) (#152)
    by po on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:00:16 PM EST
    because in the 2 big issues facing us, healthcare and Iraq, her forcefulness hasn't quite shown through nor has her ability to get results.

    Yes and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by hookfan on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:12:15 PM EST
    has shown so much ability in the national senate to get things done-- like holding oversight hearings perhaps? Or cutting funding for the war to back up his pretty speech? No? Sad isn't it?

    On Iraq, Obama Has Nothing To Get Results. (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:55:32 PM EST
    In fact, he was on TV saying that he would not play "chicken with the lives of the troops" before the negotiations on the supplement had even begun. Great tactic for negotiation.

    He was one of the biggest proponents of the "magical September" when all the Republicans would suddenly fall in line behind setting a time table for getting out of Iraq. Who can forget his great sound bite of "Only 16 More Votes To End The War." A sound bite that I might add was a complete distortion of the truth. Without getting 68 additional votes in the House to override a presidential veto, the vote would not even make it to the Senate floor.


    Re: Kantor YouTube hit piece: Atrios explains he (none / 0) (#121)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:39:02 AM EST
    was bamboozled, hoodwinked, rope-a-doped (I think the last one fits).

    Anyway, Atios posted it at 11:18am, then posted at 12:01 that he had been had by, of all sites to trust!!!, Drudge.

    Kantor was not calling people in Indiana "white n*ggers" -- he was asking how Poppy Bush must feel to be beaten by a "white n*gger," meaning Bubba himself, Bill Clinton.

    So, not great language, but not an attack on any state's citizens.

    I was going to post about it but there were no open threads. Just as well as I was pretty upset; Atrios, fortunately, did figure out he was mislead and posted a timely recantation.  

    Still, it's a reminder we need to double check even the A-Listers nowadays.

    I'm sure this is all over Indiana by now -- so whoever came up with it has scored points. Rove? Axelrod? Freelancer?

    Ya know, (none / 0) (#125)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:42:49 AM EST
    he's done this a few times lately.

    Oh well.  I love him anyway.  He always admits it when he's wrong about something he's posted, and over the years, that has been very rare.


    Atrios front page: 11:18am; retraction, 12:01pm (none / 0) (#128)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:43:23 AM EST
    Atrios implies there is an actual transcript of the documentary which shows what he says is the actualy dialogue of the scene.

    I'd give Atrios Kudos (none / 0) (#141)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    if he'd checked the piece out BEFORE posting it.

    I once thought Drudge was pure evil, but now he's a news source for the "librul" blogs.


    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#150)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:58:32 AM EST
    Atrios saw it at other liberal blogs before seeing it at Drudge.  As he explains, stuff from Drudge's site seems to go right to the MSM, so that's when he posted it.

    Adding links: Shainzana's to MyDD and Politico (none / 0) (#170)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:27:36 PM EST
    Shainzana posted MyDD link above, but think it might help to have things consolidated.  Looks like we need Rumor Buster!


    Director Pennebaker denouces YouTube as doctored, in Politico report.


    Atrios has second more detailed (and correct) (none / 0) (#175)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    correction post.  

    Plus, he's bumped the first correction up--which I have never seen him do before! He must feel really burned--or as he puts it later, the stupid, it burns.


    The Producer Disputes Even That Version. (none / 0) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    The second expletive, he said, appeared to have been entirely fabricated, with new audio dubbed onto the original movie.

    This was a movie that aired in theaters across the country. Where was the outrage in the the use of the word "n****r then?

    This whole thing is a complete fabrication.  


    It's what Colbert called (none / 0) (#145)
    by stillife on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    the 30% backwash in his White House Correspondents Dinner speech in 2006.

    So what? (none / 0) (#174)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:44:59 PM EST
    These people would have said the same if Obama had tossed Wright two months ago. I see it as a lose / lose situation. And, frankly, anyone who is so bothered by Wright that they would not vote for Obama would probably not vote for Obama in the first place. Seriously, there are so many real issues in America today that this is just a side show circus.

    McCain opens a 6% point lead over Obama (none / 0) (#181)
    by Salt on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:06:55 PM EST
     John McCain has moved to a six percentage point, 48% to 42%, lead over Barack Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking of the general election, while he edges out Hillary Clinton by only one point, 46% to 45%.

    I wonder when and if this moves to a point where even Hillary can not win, I keep reading hints that mores coming about Obama in mid June what's that about can it also tear Clinton down further?

    So (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:00:26 PM EST
    Hillary and McCain are in a statistical tie and Obama is outside the margin of error in losing.

    Why can't the SD's wake up and see this?


    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#211)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:36:01 PM EST