USA Today/Gallup Poll: Obama "Significantly Hurt" by Wright

USA Today reports on its new poll conducted with Gallup:

Barack Obama's national standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, raising questions for some voters about the Illinois senator's values, credibility and electability.

The erosion of support among Democrats and independents raises the stakes in Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries, which represent a chance for Obama to reassert his claim to a Democratic nomination that seems nearly in his grasp.

The numbers:

In the USA TODAY survey, taken Thursday through Saturday, Clinton leads Obama among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents by 7 percentage points, the first time in three months she has been ahead. Two weeks ago, before the controversy over comments by Jeremiah Wright reignited, Obama led by 10 points.

Then there's this:

Eight of 10 Americans have been following [the Rev. Wright controversy] most of them closely...Just 1% of likely voters say Obama's links to Wright make them more likely to support him.

< Obama Tells Workers, When They Lose Their Job, They Lose Their Dignity | A Serious Charge >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Where is Rev. Wright? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:03:03 AM EST
    That is the question. Haven't heard from him in a while

    Maybe some sensible people took him aside (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by dianem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:40:10 AM EST
    ... and pointed out to him that he was sabotaging the campaign of the man who might be the first black President. This would not increase his prestige among the black community. He had his fun, and he will have more. The real question is whether his ego will allow him to sit quietly for the next 6 months.

    well but then again (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:21:39 AM EST
    he could pave the way for the first woman President.

    He AND Al Sharpton (none / 0) (#95)
    by BarnBabe on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:41:02 AM EST
    Did anything happen last Wednesday In NY? The day he was shutting the city down?

    NYC shut down in THIS Wednesday (none / 0) (#152)
    by stefystef on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:36:33 AM EST
    May 7th.  And Obama hasn't said anything else about Sean Bell since the initial unsolicited statement.  

    If Obama is so concerned with the inner city crime problem, he needs to go back to Chicago and address the killing spree going on there over the last couple of weeks.

    One wonders what issue will Obama use to pander next?


    Thanks (none / 0) (#175)
    by BarnBabe on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    I was assuming that it was right after the trial. 10 days later? Interesting.

    He's on TV all day, that's where (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cymro on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:51:00 AM EST
    Every time I scanned through the cable news channels today, a Rev. Wright clip or discussion was playing on at least one of them. So it does not seem to matter where he is, his influence is everywhere now.

    even today he was? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:22:50 AM EST
    Was that on local or national tv?  And was this just on FOX?  I must say, once again I am surprised at the legs.  Swift boats part deux.

    I read that FOX (none / 0) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    is exposing the Million Man March with Farrakhan, Wright and Obama in the organization group. And, of course, Obama in attendance.

    That, alone, doesn't bother me.  But, Obama had a good opportunity to stand up and explain his connection to these people and his church the first time Wright came out in the news. Instead, he distracted the media and his followers with a speech on racism.

    Many more things are bound to surface after 20 years in that church. Obama was clearly a "favored son" of the pastor and there has to be plenty for him to tell.  It's the secrecy and the attempt to hide who he is that I find so problematic.


    Under the bus? (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by lambert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:38:04 AM EST
    Your voice gets pretty muffled from under the bus.

    Payback (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by mmc9431 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:31:52 AM EST
    IMO Obama used Wright to gain influence in the AA church community and undercut the Clinton's popularity there. Once he did this for him, Obama cut him out. I can understand Wright calling him a "politician". He is one. I can also understand the bitterness in Wright at having been used by someone you had considered a long time friend. After all, it wasn't Wright who changed, it was Obama. Wright served no useful purpose anymore.

    Right on! (none / 0) (#151)
    by stefystef on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    I agree with your post.  You hit the Obama/Wright relationship right on the head.

    Wright has been using black community leaders and churches to move quickly into politics.  Barry is a user.  Barak is a uniter.  So who is who?

    The mask is slipping...


    Obermann took (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Lahdee on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:45:27 AM EST
    him into a room. They drank koolaide with bitters.

    He's busy working. . . (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:57:45 AM EST
    on his book, due for fall '08 publication.

    I want to respond to your post (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:12:00 AM EST
    but after Tuesday.  Let's revisit it.  I think what you said is interesting and I am going to argue that if that was done on purpose, Obama is more naive than any of us could ever imagine.

    In A Bunker With Dick Cheney Perhaps? (none / 0) (#138)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    We know... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:07:46 AM EST
    Obama didn't fund a cruise for him this time.

    I actually don't know if he did that. Timing was curious, though.

    Timing, owing to his impending retirement (4.50 / 2) (#15)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:32:26 AM EST
    didn't surprise me at all.  Typical for a departing pastor to get well away for a while to get out of the way for the new pastor, to make congregants turn to the new one.  May have been a parting retirement gift.  I've seen it before and often, if from such a prosperous church.  (See its website -- a sizeable staff, and I read that it's the largest of all UCC congregations in the country.)

    Retirement gift... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:57:08 AM EST
    of a cruise is common, but where do you suppose a pastor gets enough money to build a brand new 10,000 sq ft monster mansion as his retirement home?  Where did that money come from? Who needs that much sq footage to maintain in retirement?

    I'm sorry he's disappeared right now. It appeared that with him on the loose we might actually start getting to the bottom of the relationship. That Newsweek article said Oprah's initial draw to that church was the network connections to the right people in Chicago. Obama certainly took a fast track up the ladder in Chicago without having to actually do anything for it.


    Don't worry. Wright has a Fall book (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:01:48 AM EST

    Timing . . .   lol!~


    The Manuscript (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by daryl herbert on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:44:13 AM EST
    is under heavy security.  The DNC/Obama camp doesn't want it leaked ahead of schedule.

    Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton is probably hiring a team from Blackwater to hunt it down.


    The Ironic Thing Is That Rev. Wright's (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:05:33 AM EST
    retirement home is in a gated community. I have far left friends who can do hours on the purpose of gated communities.

    I have a gate to my home (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:26:20 AM EST
    It's to keep out Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptist ladies in big hats.

    We'll find out Tuesday (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:08:24 AM EST
    what it all really means if anything.

    Clinton wins in Indiana and NC should be enough to scare the SDs into seriously considering Hillary.

    A strong Obama showing and it is going to be hard to argue for Hillary.  

    Of course, it will likely be another of those right down the middle results where nothing is made more clear.  Unfortunately for Hillary, you don't want to be behind as the clock is running out.  

    That's true. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:11:27 AM EST
    I feel a good surprise in the air for Clinton, but who knows? Maybe I am just being overly optimistic.

    A NYT/CBS poll, published (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:33:03 AM EST
    under the headline of "Obama Survives Furor But Fall Is The Test," has a somewhat different take:

    A majority of American voters say that the furor over the relationship between Senator Barack Obama and his former pastor has not affected their opinion of Mr. Obama, but a substantial number say that it could influence voters this fall should he be the Democratic presidential nominee, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

    In other words, poll respondents seemed to be saying that their opinions of Obama had not been changed, but believed that the Wright controversy might affect other voters in the fall:

    But nearly half of the voters surveyed, and a substantial part of the Democrats, said Mr. Obama had acted [to break with Rev. Wright] mainly because he thought it would help him politically, rather than because he had serious disagreements with his former pastor. The broader effect of the controversy on Mr. Obama's candidacy among Democratic primary voters was less clear in the poll, but enough of them expressed qualms about Mr. Obama's relationship with Mr. Wright to suggest it could sway a relatively small but potentially important group of voters in the remaining primaries.

    The relatively small number of Democrats surveyed limits the conclusions that can be drawn about the poll's findings regarding sentiment in the party. Moreover, as a national poll, it does not necessarily reflect the thoughts of voters in Indiana and North Carolina.


    Still, the survey suggested that Mr. Obama, of Illinois, had lost much or all of the once-commanding lead he had held over Mrs. Clinton, of New York, among Democratic voters on the question of which of them would be the strongest candidate against Mr. McCain, of Arizona.

    Pollsters are very aware (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by BeBe on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:02:08 AM EST
    that many respondents will answer questions that an issue will not change their opinion, but will others, is a way to state their own views without appearing politically incorrect or expressing an unpopular sentiment. This is one of the questions used to flesh out responses. It is a variation of "my friend would like to ask".

    This polling must be very disturbing to the Obama campaign. The electorate seems to be pivoting after several issues have begun to be absorbed.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by standingup on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:18:13 AM EST
    That is hardly the message that viewers of MSNBC were given today as they covered the NYT/CBS poll.  One would think that Obama has put Wright behind him and with hardly any damage to his campaign.  

    You were watching (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:38:55 AM EST
    Morning Joe, with the increasingly annoying Mika Brzezinski? I loved it when Joe told her that she was so elitist she couldn't even listen to him explain why Clinton's gas tax proposal might be popular. "No, no, no," she repeated, shaking her had and closing her eyes as soon as Joe started talking.

    Is Mika the daughter of Zbig? Other than that, what is her raison d'etre for being in TV journalism?  It's not like she brings any economic -- or other -- expertise to the party.


    Yes (none / 0) (#130)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:43:25 AM EST
    She is Zbig's daughter and she used to do the very early (4 or 5 am) news on CBS.

    Is Zbig supporting Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:54:31 AM EST
    If so, she really ought to make full disclosure on that whenever she whinges about how unfair anyone is being to Obama.

    That Would Be The Decent Thing To Do, But (none / 0) (#139)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    has KO done it yet or Maddow?

    No (none / 0) (#145)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:17:22 AM EST
    but then neither of them have "officially" endorsed Obama.

    If Zbig is one of Obama's advisors, then the non-disclosure is really unethical.


    Way back when (none / 0) (#169)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:34:03 PM EST
    When I watched "Morning Joe", she did mention it several times (plus the fact that her brother was working for the McCain campaign).

    Really? (none / 0) (#183)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    Because she doesn't dump much on McCain.

    She ought to repeat those disclaimers from time to time.


    In NC 17 year olds can vote (none / 0) (#6)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:13:35 AM EST
    So I don't know. That's not good news for Hillary. If they turn 18 prior to the November election they may vote. I just wonder if that is constitutionally sound because I don't know if any other states allow that.

    My daughter was very sad to discover (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:36:28 AM EST
    that NY does not permit primary voting by 17 year olds who will be 18 by the fall election date.  She turns 18 next month.

    I am not sure there is a constitutional problem with this.  The requirement that voters be 18 years old applies to elections to political office.  Primaries are a means of selecting a candidate -- a party nominee -- for office, rather than the officerholder him/herself.


    He does well with young voters... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:16:30 AM EST
    but she certainly doesn't do poorly as some make it seem, so I dunno.

    We'll see.


    Maryland allows it (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:16:47 AM EST
    How it happened (none / 0) (#87)
    by hlr on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:25:39 AM EST
    A 17-yr old Obama supporter,with the help of a freshman state senator and early Obama endorser (who, interestingly enough, had Jesse Jackson Jr campaigning on his behalf here)petitioned the attorney general (another early Obama endorser) who gave a favorable opinion. The state election board followed on Dec 20th.

    I think (none / 0) (#10)
    by dissenter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:17:10 AM EST
    It is that way in most states.

    I had never heard that before (none / 0) (#12)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:19:26 AM EST
    It seems wrong because you are supposed to be 18. But I guess that explains why Bill has been visiting local high schools

    ALL 17 year olds? (none / 0) (#18)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:50:34 AM EST
    Or just those who will be 18 in time to vote in the GE?  If PA is an indicator, that demographic was barely measurable in actual voters who showed up at the polls.

    Although, anyone from NC who has access to a college student...I heard college students were notified by post card they could TEXT in their votes...like American Idol voting!!  Is that true?


    it's always easy to argue for Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:20:28 AM EST
    Obama's flaws have been exposed and they are close to fatal for general election chances regardless of how the rest of the nomination process plays out.  The Republicans probably have the entire attack plan all set to go and they will enjoy it.

    Hmmm..... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Josey on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:50:25 AM EST
    >>>In the national survey, Clinton now leads the Democratic presidential contest, 51%-44%, a reversal from two weeks ago. Obama's standing among Democrats and Democratic leaners has dropped 6 points; Clinton's is up 11.

    However, those findings differ from a separate Gallup tracking poll of voters, which shows Obama with a narrow lead, 49%-45%. The daily tracking poll has a margin of error of +-3 points; the USA TODAY poll's margin of error is +-5 points.

    The two surveys were taken over the same days, but the tracking poll includes more interviews and a higher proportion of interviews taken on Saturday. It reflects the views of those seen as likely voters; the USA TODAY results include all Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who were called.


    the math (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:15:47 AM EST
    the USA TODAY results include all Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who were called.

    if "just Democrats" are slightly favoring Obama, but "Democrats and leaning Independents" are giving Clinton a big lead, what does this tell us about Obama's appeal to Independents?

    This consistent with what I found when comparing SUSA polls from 9 states from late February and Mid April.  During that period, Clinton had picked up indepedent support against McCain, but Obama had lost it.  Overall, Obama's advantage over Clinton (when both were matched against McCain) had dropped by 2/3...


    Last time this happened (none / 0) (#80)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:02:17 AM EST
    The tracking showed Hillary ahead, the poll showed Obama, in 2 days the tracking changed to reflect the poll completely.

    Your mileage may vary.


    wow. 8 out of (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:11:30 AM EST
    10 americans, not just dem-leaning voters?  that's incredible.

    It exceeds my expectations (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:19:17 AM EST
    Maybe because I already knew a bunch of stuff about Wright within a week of the tapes coming out... I never expected the story to get this big.  When he came back out again I was like, meh.. there he is again saying the same wacky stuff.  But I think the 2nd time the story caught fire (with his 2 speeches, interview, etc) that's when a lot of people actually learned about him for the first time.

    Thank CNN and their decision to air the NAACP speech 3 times in a row for a big part of this.  Rick, Roland, and Soldedad thought they were helping.  Soledad called it a "home run" for Wright and said he was funny.

    Clueless media strikes again.


    yeah, i had the same reaction to the (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:36:22 AM EST
    wright stuff.  i don't watch tv anymore so i'll take your word for it, but i'm kinda surprised about soledad going that far.  i mean i know she's actively involved in the aa community and all, but she's always seemed eminently reasonable to me--like she wouldn't just put her public credibility on the line like that.  then again, since the overwhelming majority of the media has been either clueless or conniving in its coverage this season, i guess i shouldn't be surprised at anything anymore.  (sigh.)

    Honestly, it was worse than I described (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:57:59 AM EST
    what Soledad did on that night was pretty disturbing.  There should be a Youtube of it somewhere, maybe.  Her and Roland Martin stood side by side giving post-analysis dressed for the ocassion and shilling breathlessly for many minutes.

    I was pretty stunned too (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:04:22 AM EST
    Glad I was not the only one, I turned to my wife and said "and I have no idea how you call this analysis anymore" when I saw Roland Martin talking about how great the speech was. Of course I had to wait until I could pick my jaw up off the floor, because with a gaping mouth its very hard to talk.

    obama will be offering carrots while Ahmmie is (none / 0) (#140)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    serving him poisoned tea.

    24 hour media coverage (none / 0) (#13)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:25:02 AM EST
    ...and Nelson from the Simpsons pointed and said (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by BrandingIron on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:32:17 AM EST


    Interesting News About Indiana Polls (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Dan the Man on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:57:37 AM EST
    From Insider Advantage

    "It is illegal to poll using automated calls in Indiana."

    "InsiderAdvantages Matt Towery: 'Many of the top firms are now utilizing advanced automated surveys, which have proved more reliable than traditional phone rooms this season. My guess is that the automated systems, which are used by many top firms, including ours, have provided better results because of the 'anonymity' the system provides when asking respondents to deal with an often racially charged race on the Democratic side.'"

    very interesting (none / 0) (#47)
    by Josey on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:57:52 AM EST
    perhaps BTD will weigh in.

    must be a first amendment exception.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:17:48 AM EST
    because I know that SUSA uses only automated polling, and they've done Indiana.

    Sounds like they are in trouble (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:24:17 AM EST
    That IA snip linked to above states the IN Attorney General is looking into taking action against robo-pollers that have polled this race. I assume that includes SUSA.

    Just 1% (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by facta non verba on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:01:03 AM EST
    Wow! There's more fat in skimmed milk. He is in trouble. No wonder they are all in North Carolina.

    Devastation (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:08:48 AM EST
    Even if Obama wins anything on Tuesday, it's devastation for his Presidential aspirations.  And we still have yet to hear Wright's response to the "disowning"

    He seemed to be a very proud man of deep (and flawed) convictions and it's only a matter of time before he appears in the spotlight again.

    I hear a book is coming out.

    Lastly let me note that here is a pollster who saw data so bad for Obama that even they couldn't spin it.  This particular poll really makes me question the validity of that other CBS/NYT time poll that showed Obama surging over 50%.

    Death by a Thousand Cuts (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by ig on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:52:09 AM EST
    Unless Barrack can answer why he stayed there for 20 years, it is going to be a slow death by a thousand cuts. Even now Oprah has come out implying she left because of Wright.

    In the GE, there will be a bombardment of the trifecta of Wright, Ayers and Resko the slumlord, making not only Obama unelectable, but also pulling down everyone else downticket.


    and the problem is the lack of experience (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:59:51 AM EST
    Mmybe a more formidable candidate with a bigger resume could deflect and counterbalance some of these huge flaws, but the problem for Obama is that once you get past the speeches and the potential of what could be... there is not much of a record.  If they could do what they did to Kerry and even to McCain in 2000, well you know Obama is really in trouble.

    He can't explain it (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:25:21 AM EST
    at this point, he can't explain it without contradicting himself once again.

    Had he been 'honest' from the get-go, and not exploited the Wright controversy by trying to turn it into a national race issue, he had a shot at sounding credible.

    He could have said that he affiliated himself with Wright when he was young and trying to figure out what it meant to be "black in America" -- that his understanding of that had matured and moved beyond's Wrights views, but that he'd remained with

    the church
    , despite serious disagreement with Wright on many issues of race and politics in general -- that the church, its people, and its mission are what kept him at Trinity.

    But he made it about himself and Wright and race, rather his own relationship with the religous community that he was a part of.


    I sort of thought... (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by white n az on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:53:39 AM EST
    that it was even worse...In his 'major speech on race' which the MSM applauded so, Obama tied the Reverend Wright to the white grandmother who raised him...you remember, 'the typical white person'

    So 5 weeks later, Jeremiah Wright points out the obvious...that Wright says what he says because he's a pastor, Obama says what he says because he's a politician and to prove Wright correct, Obama then does the politician pander in the most public way...he disowns Reverend Wright showing that winning this nomination is more important than the 'white grandmother who raised him.'

    Does Obama really expect Americans to believe that it was Wright, and not the prevailing political winds, that changed overnight? - Says the Denver Post in an editorial last week

    Obama pandered and blundered but most specifically blunted any and all honest discussions of race by forcing the media to paint all who dare to discuss the politics of race as racists.

    As Wright said (and Malcolm X before him)...the chickens have come home to roost.


    Yeah that was the problem. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:55:59 AM EST
    twenty years ago I was a searcher...now i've matured.  

    I agree - he can't explain it now (none / 0) (#184)
    by moll on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:12:19 PM EST
    The real problem (apart from the obvious: lack of experience) is that he does not know or understand most Americans and so he made poor choices about what to say, when, & how. His judgment has been wrong because he is too prone to assume that other people are essentially like him - that they think like him, share his values, etc. We are alien to him, so he just doesn't know what to say to us.

    If only nobody but Ivy League grads and his chosen demographic (the one he spent twenty years studying) were voting, he'd be just fine :)


    Death By A Thousand Cuts (5.00 / 7) (#96)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:44:40 AM EST
    The NYT's Alessandra Stanley does a "review" of the Obama's and Clinton's performances on Meet the Potatohead and This Week with George Staphylococcus, respectively:

    Clinton Steals One Show, While Obama Endures Another

    Senator Barack Obama sat hunched on Sunday across the desk from Tim Russert on "Meet The Press" on NBC and wearily endured question after question about his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

    Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton stood up from her armchair on Sunday to tower over George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" on ABC and merrily took on all critics, even the king of the Clinton-bashers, the talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh.

    "He's always had a crush on me," Mrs. Clinton said with a sly smile.

    Talk shows, even the more serious news programs, are never really about talk; they are about image and demeanor. Together, "Meet the Press" and its rival "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" provided an arresting tableau of the reversal of fortunes in the Democratic race. Mrs. Clinton was forceful, confident and at times even frisky as she easily deflected questions from Mr. Stephanopoulos and members of a town-hall-style meeting in Indianapolis. Mr. Obama, usually the one to see the humor in politics, instead looked grave and dispirited.

    That Was A Great Article (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:00:51 AM EST
    I loved the part about the interplay between Hillary and Stephanopoulos. If the article was correct, the final score was Hillary 10 Stephanopoulos 0.

    George Set Himself Up To Be Made The Fool (none / 0) (#141)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:11:10 AM EST
    And, he did a great job!!

    Obama pandered for Wright votes (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Josey on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:24:34 AM EST
    when he spoke to a religious conference last summer and praised Wright as his mentor and counselor.
    Obama pandered for any votes during his "race speech."
    Obama pandered for super delegate votes when he threw Wright under the bus.
    Obama panders for Obama.

    GOOD NEWS! (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by snucky on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:23:45 AM EST

    The polls (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Sunshine on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:33:01 AM EST
    Have you noticed on Real Clear Politics that there is always one poll that is way out of line in favor of Obama that keeps Hillary from taking the lead nationally on the rcp average , this week its cbs/nyt....

    Gallup just likes to play with emotions (none / 0) (#52)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:15:19 AM EST
    The horserace is sick, sick!

    Dead End Photo (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by karen for Clinton on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:59:30 AM EST
    Click on the USA link above. :-)

    Elkhart, Indiana photo says it all!

    Hah, nice catch (none / 0) (#50)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:08:04 AM EST
    I didn't even notice that earlier.  Hmm, is that my attempt at double meaning?

    Other headlines (5.00 / 8) (#49)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:03:48 AM EST
    Right below this story...

    USA Today/Gallup Poll: Obama "Significantly Hurt" by Wright

    I found this one

    Water Is Wet

    When I did a diary at DKos on the second story, I was trashed as a "paid Clinton operative" based on the argument that Ice and Steam are both water, and neither is wet.

    Steam is technically wet... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:06:16 AM EST
    Sorry, sorry, the geek in me couldn't resist! :)

    Newest polls from Insider Advantage (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:14:16 AM EST
    They just came out this morning indicating that Tuesday can go either way in a very real sense in BOTH states.

    In my opinion the polls are underestimating female support for Clinton, especially in Indiana. (where African American females are not as big a factor on the numbers and thus I do think they are underpolling there)

    wait, the new Indiana poll comes out later (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:21:39 AM EST
    I had looked at the old Indiana poll but the new North Carolina poll.  Scratch what I said about AA/female factor.

    Regarding wright I think (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:40:44 AM EST
    Kristol in his coloumn said it best:

    "What really seems to have shocked and surprised Obama is what Wright said about him: “What I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing.” Later on in his press conference, Obama returned to this, saying that Wright’s cavalier dismissal of Obama as just another politician was “a show of disrespect to me.”

    Some voters might think it would have been nice if Obama had been as angry in March at Wright’s disrespect to the United States of America as he was in April at Wright’s disrespect to Barack Obama."

    Also found this link in TM message board. An australian article on the Illusion that is Obama.


    yes, that was my initial reaction (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Josey on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:36:00 AM EST
    >>>Some voters might think it would have been nice if Obama had been as angry in March at Wright's disrespect to the United States of America as he was in April at Wright's disrespect to Barack Obama."

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:52 AM EST
    There was another line Obama used -- "He certainly didn't show much concern for me."  Well, why did Obama expect "much concern"? Once Obama disinvited Wright from saying benediction at his campaign announcement, once Obama denounced Wright's remarks on the Endless Loop, why did Obama expect "concern," or even silence?  Did they have some sort of deal, an armistice, that Wright violated?  "You don't say any more crazy stuff and I won't denounce YOU"? Because even if Obama never heard some of the Reverend's more controversial remarks while sitting in church, the disinvitation indicates that he knew that Wright is a loose cannon. So why was he so shocked that Wright kept on shooting cannonballs?

    obama Thinks Of Himself As E.F. Hutton, (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:14:41 AM EST
    people listen to him and it is so.  He has had a free pass fo so long, he has deluded himself and that chicken came home to roost.

    This line totally nailed Obama (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:02:27 AM EST
    Obama, far more than the others, is the "judge me by what I say and not what I do" candidate. He wants to be the conscience of the country without necessarily having one himself.
    I find it sad that the Australian media is much more clear-sighted about our candidates than our own.

    I don't get what you are saying (none / 0) (#188)
    by moll on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:39:31 PM EST
    Perhaps this explains how Hillary Clinton can denounce Barack Obama

    I know what I believe. And if it so happens that I agree with a right winger on some issue, then I am not going to change my mind on what I believe just because of that.

    That is what distresses me about Obama's core supporters: their love for him appears to be more important than any principle, any belief, any idea of what I would call integrity.

    They think we're moving around, but really it's the media moving around - changing positions, playing games. I don't know what it means or what the real agenda is. I do know that if I weren't solid in who I am and what I believe, I'd be like driftwood getting tossed around.


    Bill Clinton was the best Dem in decades (none / 0) (#191)
    by moll on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:03:51 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's triangulation dragged the Democratic party to the right and away from all of the principles that, from FDR through JFK, had made the Democratic party a great one.

    I disagree. Bill Clinton saved the party from its failures. And after we're through trying to salvage something that is already DOA, we will end up recognizing that Clinton-style reforms are really the only option. Because politics is not about making Utopia, it is about making things better.

    And if we weren't all full of Obama's opportunistic lies, we'd remember which President it was who did make life better - for poor people, for working people, for racial minorities, for women, and even the environment. That's what Democrat means to me.

    The liberal elites (who apparently don't come out of their exclusive neighborhoods very often???) still do not understand why all their policies of the 1970s were rejected: it is because they didn't work.

    The Clintons can get things done. The idealists can only talk about how the world "should" be - and they just don't pay attention to the fact that their policies sound so nice on paper but are so AWFUL in the real world. They don't live in the real world, so why should they care? They can just blame the world for refusing to cooperate (and blame the voters when they lose yet again).


    Oprah Rumor (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Saul on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:30:43 AM EST
    Heard on the radio that Oprah will be out today to see if she can get some support for Obama

    Are things (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:34:24 AM EST
    looking that bad for Obama? Pulling out Oprah at the last minute and going to places where there are lots of AA's in NC wouldn't inspire confidence if I was an Obama supporter.

    they don't have to look bad (none / 0) (#73)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:47:00 AM EST
    This is Obama's chance to close things out.  Attempt #4.

    Indiana is going to be a close race let's see who is the better closer.


    I don't think so (none / 0) (#83)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:09:01 AM EST
    If they are in NC today Indiana is no longer close. I wonder though how close NC really is, or is this just a game to reduce his numbers...

    Well according to polls it is close (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:54:58 AM EST
    One thing I know about the Clinton "machine" is that they do keep an eye out for any sort of movement and respond accordingly, like any good campaign operation.  I think both states will be squeakers but the impact of even a 1% in these is going to mean more than ever.

    How Many Times Has It Been Nearly In His Grasp? (none / 0) (#144)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:17:04 AM EST
    "The erosion of support among Democrats and independents raises the stakes in Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries, which represent a chance for Obama to reassert his claim to a Democratic nomination that seems nearly in his grasp"

    That's surprising (none / 0) (#150)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:32:48 AM EST
    There's been plenty of speculation on how quiet Oprah has been on the Obama support. Her own ratings went down so fast after she endorsed him, that it seemed unlikely she'd do that again. I was pretty sure she was still in his camp, though. Her good friend, and fellow XM host, Marianne Williamson was just here in Seattle, I went to her 3 hour lecture. It was fantastic until almost the end when she started stumping for Obama.

    Oprah is now a problem for Obama... (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:11:33 AM EST
    ...because if she shows up, all the media will want to know is why she left Wright's church...

    great point (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:14:46 AM EST
    She's risking (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:38:16 AM EST
    plenty by going out there again for him. They share a strong non-negotiable commitment to Africa. Oprah has been asked why she doesn't show more charity in the US. She claims she does but doesn't talk about it. Oprah does NOTHING she doesn't want recognition for, and her published annual charitable donation numbers aren't impressive.  

    My dream scenerio with Oprah (none / 0) (#122)
    by BarnBabe on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:24:11 AM EST
    She is on stage with BHO and Hillary surprises them and joins her on stage. Now what could Oprah do except be surprised and embrace her too. Ha. Talk about unity.  

    Not supporters.... (none / 0) (#166)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    You've listed a lot of people who don't trash her, but to call them her supporters is simply not even remotely accurate.

    It's spin like this that makes Obama supporters lose credibility.


    No no you don't understand (none / 0) (#170)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    This is unity. They are UNITING us. Don't you get it?

    I feel pretty united already. If I am any more united I may vote republican.


    ummm (none / 0) (#194)
    by moll on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:16:42 PM EST
    And, please don't come back with comments about Obama's smear machine.

    Ok, how bout Obama's own foul mouth, which every day has some new reason why his own political failures are all because of some flaw in Hillary Clinton's character?

    Can the man refrain even for ONE DAY from attacks on Clinton?

    Oh wait ... no: because Hillary deserves it, and that makes it not only okay, but noble. After all, it's not like he wants to talk trash about that dirt on his shoulder. Obama is forced - just forced! - to admit that she lacks integrity, she lies, she will do anything to win, her claws come out and she is (insinuation 'that time of the month') and she can't even keep her husband ("house in order" - that one courtesy Michelle) and she uses gimmicks and she panders and she sounds like a Republican and it's her fault he can't talk about issues like he wants to and it's her fault the tone of the discourse is so low and if he flubs a debate that means she must be (insinuation 'corrupt') and she says she's tough because it's a subliminal attack suggesting that somehow he isn't!

    And yet somehow...issues only seem to come up when Clinton is the one to bring them up.

    Or was I the only one who has noticed that?


    no, she's smarter than that, (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by cpinva on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:51:12 AM EST
    Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton is probably hiring a team from Blackwater to hunt it down.

    she'd hire someone competent, like the mossad.

    caught interviews this morning with both clinton and obama. meredith viera asked sen. clinton about her gas tax "holiday" proposal, how she thought that would be helpful to consumers, etc.? sen. clinton gave a very good, clear response. whether or not you agree with her, she does an excellent job off the cuff.

    matt lauer raised the ongoing issue of rev. wright with sen. obama (not sen. obama's fault, he didn't bring it up.), and what was it that he (rev. wright) finally said/did that caused him (sen. obama) to very clearly sever that tie?

    obviously, this is a difficult area for sen. obama, given his long-standing relationship with rev. wright. i can appreciate how hard it must be to break with a man who's been close to he and his family for 20 years. he actually gave a pretty decent response, i thought.

    that said, it clearly highlighted the glaring difference between the two candidates at this point: sen. clinton is asked questions on policy, sen. obama is asked about rev. wright.

    this will, without a doubt, dog him in the GE, should he be the dem. nominee.

    What it reflects (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Danbury on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:55:43 AM EST
    at least in part is that Clinton is known and Obama is not, hence the personal, "character" stuff directed at Obama  and the policy stuff directed at Clinton, although both are meant to trip each candidate up, which is what the media do now.

    The gas tax idea is not a good one, but it's benign compared to other issues the candidates should be being asked.  The issue involving Wright isn't about anything he said but rather about Obama's untruths and obfuscation on the topic.

    Point is, though, with Obama, we're still trying to even get to know him, I think.


    It could also reflect (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:51:24 AM EST
    what each candidate has made their campaign about: she is more about policy, he is more about his story.

    Clinton has neutralized the gas tax issue if she is the nominee, in fact she has turned it in her favor by tacking on the windfall profits tax. It may not make policy sense but it will never pass anyway.  I think it's rather smart politics to take the issue off the table rather than having our millionaire nominee (either one of them) having to explain over and over in the fall that paying high prices is good for people.

    So, her stance is good politics but not good policy, and she gets grilled on it as she should. Obama's character issues go against the persona he has crafted, and so he gets grilled on that. It all seems pretty reasonable.


    Yes, it's pandering and a political move (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by lookoverthere on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:37:18 AM EST
    A good political move. This is not a long-term energy solution as Sen. Clinton has pointed out herself. Instead, Sen. Clinton stole her Republican opponents political thunder by raising the stakes: "A gas tax holiday plus paying for lost revenue by taxing the oil companies on their gynormous profits."

    It is good politics to head off what will surely be a Republican attack in the fall---"See! Democrats hate you and wouldn't even give you a helping hand on your gas!"

    Sen. McCain and the GOP sense that working class folks may yet again vote against their interests because the Democrats show themselves to be out of touch with the economic realities of their lives. It is astonishing that yet again we have to learn this lesson as a political party.

    Sen. Clinton shows that while she knows this isn't the answer to our energy problems, she understands that some people are hurting and need some help. And if it wins her some votes, great. And if it smacks down a GOP attack in the fall, even better.


    Blue Sun, you are wrong. (none / 0) (#180)
    by lookoverthere on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    The belief that a "gas tax holiday," which has been universally denounced as counterproductive, even damaging, by every single expert, is anything but a "BAD IDEA" (no matter how many votes it gets you) is an example of the non-informed voter's mind (such as it is) at work.  

    Paul Krugman called it harmless. But maybe you don't think of him as any kind of expert.

    Add: Just to be clear: I don't regard this as a major issue. It's a one-time thing, not a matter of principle, especially because everyone knows the gas-tax holiday isn't actually going to happen. Health care reform, on the other hand, could happen, and is very much a long-term issue -- so poisoning the well by in effect running against universality, as Obama has, is a much more serious breach.

    Please do continue with your insults. I can smell the unity from here. Oh, wait---my neighbor is bulldozing the horse manure pile in front of her barn. Funny, smells like the same thing.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#192)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:07:10 PM EST
    I am having a hard time understanding the difference between all of Obama's "unity" talk crediting Republicans with all the big ideas in the past twenty years, describing Reagan as if he were a benign transformer instead of a guy who played on racial, religious and socio-economic tensions, and faulting Democrats and Republicans equally for the last eight years of misery.

    That there's big time pandering, if you ask me.


    regarding the gas tax (none / 0) (#134)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:52:21 AM EST
    I think it's a win/win for Clinton.  You say to the average person that they aren't going to have to pay the gas tax this summer, and they see that this will give them immediate relief.  Trying to then explain that it won't help them long-term is a losing proposition.

    We're Americans.  We want it all now.  We don't worry about paying for it later.  (Though, Clinton's plan to make the oil companies pay, too, is brilliant hedging)


    Inciteful (none / 0) (#179)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:53:00 PM EST
    inciteful indeed (none / 0) (#200)
    by sleepingdogs on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:27:29 PM EST
    makes me wonder if Blue Sun is paid by the word

    and Ayers (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by bigbay on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:19:44 AM EST
    isn't even on the radar yet

    Axelrod saying they were 'friendly' was the stupidest move a campaign advisor could make


    I thought this (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by pie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:08:21 AM EST
    exact thing as I watched the two of them last night.  She was all about policy, and he talked about his father and grandfather.

    Um, I don't want an autobiography.  Maybe he's still in book-writing mode.


    I'm not on the Obama train (none / 0) (#193)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:10:01 PM EST
    as is pretty obvious, but is Ayers really a big issue? Isn't he so thirty years ago? Have I missed something that he's done or said lately?  And does Obama's "relationship" with him go beyond being on a few of the same public interest boards?

    Ayers doesn't do much for me as an issue, at least based on what I know, and I think it is not going to be very significant for most voters. YMMV.


    'hope' ain't an issue and what else is there? (none / 0) (#195)
    by moll on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:21:01 PM EST
    that said, it clearly highlighted the glaring difference between the two candidates at this point: sen. clinton is asked questions on policy, sen. obama is asked about rev. wright.

    well how do you ask about "hope"?


    More information that SDs cannot hide behind (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Salt on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:52:58 AM EST
    and pretend winning Colorado is a rational for total victory in Nov..  After tomorrow some of those goodie two shoe Dems that are so sensitive to negative campaigning need to start focusing on the vitriol nasty hate coming from the Obama campaign, Obama and his surrogates McCaskill, Pelosi, Richardson et all with their personal attacks on Hillary are way out of line liar liar pants on fire stuff, IMO, before even Clinton can't survive their nastiness and still be elected or they can suffer the fall out from what will emerge and be judged as an Obama or no one scenario for Nov from folks like Pelosi.

    I agree with you! (5.00 / 9) (#79)
    by Danbury on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:00:19 AM EST
    Try going to the Huffington Post or Firedoglake as a Clinton supporter, not even as an Obama "basher."  You are treated like garbage.  I can't even repeat some of the stuff that was said to me at HuffPo (firedoglake is a bit more civil, but angry and nasty just the same when it comes to any criticism of Obama being made in their midst).

    These are the "inspired" ones! The ones who want change and to end negative politics.  I guess they mean when THEY'RE ready, maybe after this primary, we swear...well, okay, after the General...

    I can't tell the difference between them and Republicans in their vitriol.

    When I've called them on it, their answer is that they're not Obama!  So they don't seem to even grasp that making change involves everyone, esp. those who are preaching it.

    Bottom line, though, is it is Obama's own supporters who've proven to me that his platform of change, hope and inspiration is a failure before it's even gotten out of the gate.  All he seems to have done is brought out the worst in his own supporters. What? Do they think that, while they can be as nasty as can be even to fellow Democrats, Repubs are going to come around once sprinkled with Obama dust???

    Give me a break.


    Bingo (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:28:05 AM EST
    "Bottom line, though, is it is Obama's own supporters who've proven to me that his platform of change, hope and inspiration is a failure before it's even gotten out of the gate.  All he seems to have done is brought out the worst in his own supporters."

    You said it exactly.  And Obama and his campaign have done nothing -- NOTHING -- to rein this in.

    So much for "different is not deficient."


    I Call It "The Audacity Of Hate" (none / 0) (#146)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:22:13 AM EST
    They are a vile bunch....can't tell if they are kids or just ill-informed, hardheaded ninnies.  

    Obama hasn't been focused on issues at ALL (none / 0) (#196)
    by moll on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:32:37 PM EST
    One problem of this Clinton campaign against Obama is that none of it addresses some of his extraordinarily detailed, nuanced, and intelligent position papers that never manage to squeeze Reverend Wright out of the headlines and get exposure in the media.  

    Maybe Obama should use his time in the spotlight to introduce an issue he cares passionately about.  (Something that isn't about what is wrong with Hillary).

    I am particularly amused when I see him giving a speech on why he wishes the election could be about 'issues'. Of course, it's all her fault it isn't. And meanwhile - she's talking about foreign policy or the need to restore jobs or universal health care or her gas tax (which is btw being taken as a symbolic gesture around my neighborhood - a token of a promise, if you will).


    I was listening to Morning Briefing on POTUS 08 (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Anne on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:54:02 AM EST
    as I was driving to work, and they dipped into both Obama's and Clinton's appearances on Fox this morning.  Obama was asked about the Gallup/USA Today poll that showed Wright had hurt him, and he countered with the CBS/NYT poll that showed the exact opposite - so, I think Obama subscribes to the "Kathy" philosophy on polls: the only good poll is the one that says what you want it to say.

    As for Reverend Wright, I think the damage is done, even if we don't see or hear from him anytime soon.  Stories will be crawling out of the woodwork like cockroaches, and the Obama campaign is going to end up spending a lot more time trying to "kill" them than they would like.

    Look no further than the NY Post, which is running a story that Wright "stole" his current wife from her former husband while the two were receiving marital counseling from Wright.  Seems the good reverend broke the cardinal rule of marriage counseling by seeing the wife separately - something he was not happy to be challenged on, and apparently delivered one of his signature angry sermons over.  

    Message?  You disrespect Jeremiah Wright at your own peril; he'll be back.

    Dagnabbit! (none / 0) (#126)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:35:26 AM EST
    First, he copies Clinton, and now he's copying ME?!

    I think Obama subscribes to the "Kathy" philosophy on polls

    obama didn't know about the wife stealing (none / 0) (#148)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:23:44 AM EST
    either?  I am with you.  I wouldn't be surprised if Rev. Wright jumps up today.

    He's already out there on FOX (none / 0) (#177)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:42:16 PM EST
    re: Organizers of Million Man March - Farrakhan, Wright, Obama. Planned and attended.

    Not a big deal, really. Except that Obama would have done himself a great big favor if he had spoken to these associations and events in his "I never heard those sermons" speech.

    Telling the truth after the information goes public is not the best policy. He was given a really great opportunity to ask us to understand these things were done during his personal discovery years (a bit later than most people), and it's best we hear about them from him.  But, nope, he pulls the blankets up over his head and calls us racists.

    I think he has shown the judgment of a confused teenager for most of his life. Where's the judgment in forcing the media to get him vetted tabloid style?

    His visit to the Chicago Tribune to give them "everything" on his money dealings with Rezko was another act of cover-up IMHO. I'm giving you all there is, really...no need for you to dig any deeper.


    its about trust (none / 0) (#197)
    by moll on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:39:49 PM EST
    I guess you have conveniently buried the memory of Bill Clinton praising and endorsing the Million Man March when he was in the White House and even praising Farrakhan after he had left office.

    Or perhaps you have also forgotten that Hillary's biggest supporter in Pennsylvania, Democratic Governor Ed Rendell met with Farrakhan

    I think you're missing why this is a problem.

    It isn't about the million man march. It's about whether Obama has the qualities we need to see in our President.

    If Obama had been straight about what he believes, none of this would be happening.

    But you know - I still don't know what he believes.  


    Inciteful, Blue Sun, Inciteful - ALL DAY (none / 0) (#178)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    No, I spelled it that way on purpose.

    Correction: Obama significantly hurt by Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by Exeter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:10:24 AM EST
    ...if Hillary would have just quit, Wright, Ayers, and Obama's bitter remarks never would have never happened; )

    True. (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Danbury on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:39:47 AM EST
    If Obama could just run unopposed throughout his entire political career, he'd have smooth sailing all along.

    The nerve of others wanting the same job he wants!


    At least until after Labor Day. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Lil on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:48:26 AM EST
    the media was crossing their fingers (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:59:23 AM EST
    It's really funny how transparent they are about trying to protect Obama.  The republicans were right about the mainstream media in some ways.  Collectively they lie and manipulate just as much as FOX.  So I guess that's what they meant by fair and "balanced"  One FOX News = 3+ media shill networks put together.

    yes and no... (none / 0) (#198)
    by moll on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:49:23 PM EST
    Its interesting how ideological perceptions alter reality.  

    You know, that only goes so far.

    There is also such a thing as fact. Reality is not just a matter of what you believe.

    I was all set to vote for whichever candidate the Dems picked.

    My initial reaction to sexism against Hillary after that infamous debate was, "if she wants to run with the big boys, she'd better be able to take whatever they toss at her".

    But ever since I learned more about Obama's actions and statements and associations and so on - the more I have become absolutely convinced that I will not participate in helping this man become elected.

    So you can argue that my perception is biased - but I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton when I had the chance. I sure would NOW though!


    The "bitter" remarks might not (none / 0) (#135)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:53:15 AM EST
    have happened, but what makes anyone think that Rev. Wright would have remained unknown? It's not like the Clinton campaign found those video clips, and it's not like McCain would have refrained from using them, either now, or in the GE (most likely the latter).  The Cranky Old Senator's staffers know how to use The Google and The You Toobz, and they certainly know how to do The Negative Ad.  

    (I think Ayers is a non-issue, btw.)


    I wasn't saying it is okay (none / 0) (#189)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:49:16 PM EST
    for Clinton to do anything.  My post was in response to the suggestion somewhere in the blogosphere that if not for Clinton, the Rev. Wright issue would never have come up, and I said that she wasn't responsible for the issue coming up, and that  she was restrained in commenting about it.  

    My only point was that if it hadn't come out now, it surely would still be a part of the campaign in the fall. The fact that the Democratic nomination is still being contested is irrelevant. And I don't know why you think that McCain is above negative ads. In case you haven't noticed, he's flip-flopped on quite a few of his "principles," including tax cuts and torture. A few choice ads about "God d*** America" and "pigeons coming home to roost" on 9/11 are a dead certainty no matter how and when the Wright stuff first came up.


    What smears? (none / 0) (#190)
    by litigatormom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:53:07 PM EST
    I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to "these smears."

    Please be specific.  I don't view suggesting that Obama is less experienced than she is, or that her healthcare plan is superior to his, or that there ought to be a gas tax holiday, to be "smears," even if you disagree with her assertions.


    Sunday on c-span (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:29:20 AM EST
    there was a reporter for the CSM (who seemed to favor Obama, but was not in idolatrous fashion, at least) talking about Wright, but then saying Ayers would be the next round of "discussion" for Obama to deal with.

    She (the reporter, whose name I never caught) also mentioned a "Hillary-The Movie" smear the GOP has lined up.

    My gut says Hillary can weather the coming storms better by the fact that she's still going strong and serene after all the years of politically motivated investigations (at tax payers expense) and character assassination attempts. The malevolent way the GOP Congress went after the Clintons was not lost on the American electorate. Who can forget the priceless antics performed by Dan the Watermelon Man Burton and Tom "I AM the federal government!" Delay? I still get steamed when I think of the whole sordid mess.

    As another anecdotal aside- My self-described redneck brother-in-law saw Hillary on Fox. Hell hath frozen over. He supports her now.

    Newsweek: Oprah left church because of Wright (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Exeter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:58:23 AM EST
    I think this will be the big story this week.

    According to two sources, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright's more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America's favorite daytime talk-show host.

    It's also interesting that since the Wright stuff came out, Oprah has been noticably absent.

    It will not be a story if Obama wins NC and IN (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:10:34 AM EST
    The story will be how he put his problems behind him and how he can now get back on the unity pony.

    If he doesn't do too well then yes they will say "Oprah knew what to do and why didn't anyone tell Obama to do the same earlier?"


    The Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by pie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:15:27 AM EST
    was have really been betting that Wright wouldn't hurt him, or hurt him enough to damage his chances.  In politics, that was a silly bet.

    If Hillary had lost New Hampshire, the primary would most likely be over. Obama would be the presumptive nominee, we'd be dealing with it all now, except the attacks would be orchestrated by the republicans.  Obama wouldn't have stood a chance in November.  Loyal dems would probably vote for him, but I don't know about independents.


    If MI and FL had counted (none / 0) (#128)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:38:29 AM EST
    We would be watching Clinton debate McCain every week.

    I have to admit, from a strategic standpoint, taking Obama's name off the MI ballot was smart.


    Oprah's been noticeably (4.50 / 2) (#110)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:09:13 AM EST
    absent since they found that she, Maria Shriver, some Kennedys and Kerry couldn't do much to move Obama's numbers.

    Aw, the actual problem (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by BarnBabe on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:04:49 AM EST
    People heard the preacher and had to wonder if Obama was hiding his 'real' feelings. Yep, you do not stay with a church and it's pastor for 20 years if you disagree with the teachings. And having previously stated spiritual advisor and mentor, it is like, is this how a new administration would look like? This is not the hope and change people were looking for. Also, something to note, people have to wonder why he is quiet now and assume he either was told to shut up by BHO(or friends or other preachers) or he did not want to hurt BHO's chances to win. I think both.

    Obama hurt by not being "present" (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:08:30 AM EST
    Obama should have chosen to go to that ABC Townhall yesterday because Hillary just took over that stage and laid down the law.  It was masterful.

    I'd love to see a poll on just the people who watched that show.  I'd also like to see a poll of people who watched her on O'Reilly.

    It could be very interesting tommorrow.  I'm especially going to be looking at how independents turn out.

    Um (none / 0) (#127)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:36:46 AM EST
    Because if Clinton would get elected, it's better business for them?

    blue sun- this argument was shot down again (none / 0) (#159)
    by kenosharick on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:07:37 AM EST
    yesterday. The wing-nuts have seen Obama as the likely nominee and have advocated for Clinton in order (in their minds)to prolong the campaign and injure the eventual nominee. Pay attention!

    Wow! (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by pie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:22:02 AM EST
    I applaud your effort, grasshopper.  You even managed to work Hitler into that post.

    Well done!

    So (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:28:53 AM EST
    I guess you must have been as surprised as the rest of us when the Obama campaign managed to make out the Clintons as racists with their sleazy race-baiting tactics.

    I bet you were also surprised when the Obama campaign turned itself into the Republicans of 2000 by blocking any chance of the record-setting 2.3 million voters of Michigan and Florida having their votes counted.

    You're right and have strengthened my resolve never to vote for Obama - it's like voting for Bush/Cheney all over again.

    Blue Sun shows an example of an attempt (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by lookoverthere on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:59:15 AM EST
    at a Big Lie:

    While you are gloating over the success of Hillary's Willy Hort...er, Jeremiah Wright smear campaign's effect on Obama's poll numbers...
    (emphasis added)

    Sen. Clinton had nothing to do with Rev. Wright. Nothing. Zero. This is completely, totally, and utterly Sen. Obama's deal.

    Your smear fits neatly into the Clinton is Eeeevvviiilll Big Lie. But see, everyone ahs already been told about Senator Cruella Darth Voldemart. She's so horrible, every time she smiles, an angel explodes.


    lol (none / 0) (#199)
    by moll on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:17:36 PM EST
    Your smear fits neatly into the Clinton is Eeeevvviiilll Big Lie. But see, everyone ahs already been told about Senator Cruella Darth Voldemart. She's so horrible, every time she smiles, an angel explodes.

    Ever wonder what Obama will do in the GE, with her not there?


    I do like how (4.00 / 1) (#7)
    by angie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:14:42 AM EST
    they are characterizing Obama as having the nomination "nearly in his grasp" instead of as  "inevitable." The worm is turning.

    They're trying to... (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Marco21 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:18:02 AM EST
    keep themselves from looking foolish as Hillary has done time and time again to them.

    Especially MSNBC.


    is that possible (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:25:23 AM EST
    I don't think it is.  Just when I think the media would find some self-respect and balance they just go on to outdo themselves in even splashier fashion.  I am starting to think it goes deeper than that.  CDS alone can't even explain it.

    That they feel the constant need... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:16:14 AM EST
    the constant need to remind everyone in the world just how "certain" and "inevitable" and so far ahea he is... It all seems a bit bizarre and insecure, don't you think?

    Especially when you consider just how close both candidates really area, albeit on different matrixes.  Yes Obama has the pledged delegates, but they sure do love to ignore the popular vote possibilites and electability quotients.  Ah, the media.


    Now they want to ignore Puerto Rico (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by lily15 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    I read an analysis that postulated Clinton could win the popular vote...but the analysis failed to count Puerto Rico because they wouldn't be able to vote in the general.  Who cares about the nomination process where they do count.  So, under their formulation, being merely ahead in pledged delegates entitles you to the win...but a win including Florida and Puerto Rico doesn't count towards the nomination.
    Therefore, the article set the bar very high for Clinton in the other states...and of course, Michigan and Florida weren't counted either.  But the latest rule changer for Obama supporters is not to count Puerto Rico.  These people are cheats...and the more I hear Obama, the less I like him.  The desire to punish the stupid and mendacious left is just so overpowering

    Cheating Hispanic and other minority voters (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by stefystef on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:57:33 AM EST
    I have notice that all the attention is on AA voters, but Hispanics, Asian and other minority groups have been ignored, which is unfair.  Hispanics are the largest groups group in the United States.  This is a group that the Democrats should NOT take for granted.

    I agree with your post. : )


    There are polls that say otherwise (3.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:38:55 AM EST
    There are even polls that say he's been helped by the Wright flap. I suppose we can find a poll for every occasion.

    Do you actually believe (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:53:12 AM EST
    that there is a politician, anywhere, who would be helped by the revelation that his pastor of 20 years believes and preaches that (1) the government created AIDS to kill black people, (2) that 9/11 was just "chickens coming home to roost", and (3) that God should damn America?  Seriously?

    Even if all of the above were true, how could it be anything but damaging?  You sound like the Republicans who insist that every bit of bad news was somehow good for Bush.


    There are such polls (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:05:40 AM EST
    And that's all Seth is saying.  You're talking about something else, about how you would respond if asked what you think of Wright, what Obama thought of Wright.

    Seth is talking about what some polls have said that respondents said.  And yes, shocking as it may be, some fans will find good in anything.  That's why fan is short for fanatic.  

    Seriously, some polls are asking not about Obama for 20 years but Obama for a week -- the last two weeks and whether he has handled it well, rejecting Wright, and some respondents think that Obama has.

    Your issue is with those respondents.  I bet that you could find more than a few on blogs that shall go unnamed.


    Wasn't there a poll about his handling of it? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:15:22 AM EST
    56% said he disowned Wright due to political expediency.  But that included all voters, not just Democrats.  The Republican reponders skewed those numbers, in other words.

    Exactly. The vast majority of people (4.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:16:17 AM EST
    are not that tuned in and are not as invested as some of us here. They see Obama getting free airtime on every major network, rejecting this nutty pastor and standing up for American values, and viola, they fall in love. They don't know and don't care about 20 years. They're not into that much detail.

    Or they just see a man (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:03:12 AM EST
    Rejecting and disowning his pastor and wonder "what kind of man disowns his own pastor?", or maybe they're so tuned out they don't even know Rev. Wright was Obama's pastor, despite the fact that every story on the news begins with these words:

    "Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright.."


    Seth90212, respectfully disagree (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by lookoverthere on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:22:24 AM EST
    Rev. Wright's 9/11 comments? His comments about Natalee Holloway? Some things are not forgotten. Doesn't matter how much time has passed.

    And I'm sure there's even more in Rev. Wright's DVDs. If Sen. Obama is the nominee (he11, I'm thinking even if he isn't), this material will be used to smear him, Democrats who have supported him, and the party.

    I'm not saying we should pick our nominee based on what Republicans will do. I am saying, though, that acting as if people will just fall in love with Sen. Obama despite his LTR with Rev. Wright is naive.


    people lie (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:31:22 AM EST
    there are a couple of reasons why these "Wright did not damage" to Obama exist.

    1. people lie.  They think they aren't supposed to be influenced by such things, so they say they aren't.  (I mean, among African Americans who said that race played no part in their decision in Pennsylvania, 92% voted for Obama.)

    2. the wrong question is asked -- questions like "Will the Wright controversy influence how you vote?"  People who have already made up their minds to support someone other than Obama will say "no", and that is reported as having "no impact."

    Obama didn't seem to think Wright helped (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:01:35 AM EST
    But if those polls you want to cite are correct, go right ahead and send them to the Obama campaign.  Maybe they will be convinced to ask Wright to come back out and give more speeches and spread the "helping"

    60% approve of Obama's handling of Wright. (1.00 / 0) (#156)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:57:29 AM EST
    An "overwhelming majority" see gas tax holiday as political pandering.

    Link for Jeralyn (none / 0) (#17)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:45:40 AM EST
    Video of Obama's speech with the "loss of dignity" comment.  Not really newsworthy.

    There's a transcript of this stump speech on the CNN web site.

    It's the one you asked for a link to earlier today (Sunday).

    No open threads going on, so delete this message once you've captured the link, if you still want it.

    it shows more tone-deafness (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:12:18 AM EST
    but we all know what he meant.  Do the Republicans care in a general election? Nah.  WORM is not going to save Obama from these Kerry-esque tendencies.

    It's not a big story, but it's another little piece of a pattern, imo.


    Speaking of deafness, did anyone notice (none / 0) (#94)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:40:33 AM EST
    the sign language interpreter translating his speech?? In the lower left hand corner of the screen, you can see a woman doing the speech in sign language. Does anyone know if this is a usual thing with the campaign, or is it a local person interpreting for local deaf people? I am just curious to know.

    good question (none / 0) (#113)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:13:20 AM EST
    Some of the people in the crowd didn't seem to be looking at Obama or overall not "paying attention" but now that you mention it... a possibility.

    I've seen people signing (none / 0) (#117)
    by pie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:18:03 AM EST
    during lots of speeches.  I think it's the morm, frankly, as it should be.

    My typing sucks. (none / 0) (#119)
    by pie on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:18:40 AM EST

    yes, it's the norm (none / 0) (#131)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:17 AM EST
    to have a sign language interpreter at these things.  When I was working for the Dem party of GA, we had a list of folks to call and we paid to send them out.  Ha, now that I think about it, the Clinton campaign was adamant that this be done for all of his events, and that's why it became standard procedure.

    This morning on the local CBS (none / 0) (#61)
    by Andre on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:53:14 AM EST
    they had a snippet on, that 60 % of those polled were NOT bothered by the Wright controversy.  This is the Boston local CBS.  It's why I don't watch the new on the tube anymore - I was trying to get the weather and in my sleep stupor I heard that news - exactly the opposite.  I wish I had gotten who it was they were quoting.  

    In Massachusetts... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Danbury on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:35:52 AM EST
    it may well be that the Wright controversy hasn't hurt Obama (even though Hillary won here), but Democrats are doing what they do best: ignoring the mine field.

    Superdelegates really need to heed this problem because it'll cost Democrats the election in November.  Obama's supporters, instead of repeating that it isn't anything and expressing anger over the media repeating it, need to come up with the real plan to counter it if he's the nominee because you can bet it'll be Wright 24/7 if he is.

    This episode also did reveal a lot about Obama (that some of us have seen all along), and it might be good to stop seeing him as a deity and start looking at him critically.


    Time for that unity ticket (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:00:02 AM EST

    The Rev Wright did a lot of good in Chgo. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Sunshine on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:38:02 AM EST
    The one he seems to have helped the most was the Jeremiah Wright Retirement fund...

    The polls are loopy!!! (none / 0) (#149)
    by stefystef on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:32:14 AM EST
    This poll says Obama has been serious hurt by Rev. Wright, but other polls floating in the blog-osphere is saying that is didn't hurt him.


    So which is it???

    And if Obama as rebounded, why are the SUSA polls showing this?


    So which is it???

    We'll know tomorrow.

    Eventually, more depth on the relationship (none / 0) (#163)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    between Wright and Obama was going to have to come out.  Twenty years is a long time, and he certainly appeared to be a "favored son" of the pastor.

    Was out looking around on other sites this morning, and apparently Fox News is reporting today that Obama helped organize, and participated in the Million Man March in 1995 with Wright and Farrakhan.

    That, in and of itself, doesn't disturb me. What bothers me is that Barack leaves these facts out of his books and doesn't volunteer the information himself. He should have been talking about these events in his big post-Wright speech the first time instead of changing the subject and talking racism.

    It's of his own doing that the information on Wright hurts him when it comes out.